PC Verbatim Minutes 10-02-18CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 2, 2018
Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Steve Weick, Nancy Madsen, John Tietz, and Mark
Randall
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad, and Michael McGonagill
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; George
Bender, Assistant City Engineer and Vanessa Strong, Water Resources Coordinator
PUBLIC HEARING:
GLENDALE DRIVE SUBDIVISION REQUEST WITH VARIANCE.
Aller: For the record this item had been before us before on a prior occasion. The public hearing
was held. If my memory serves me correct at that time, and it should be reflected in the Minutes
we reserve the right to hear from the public again as we would expect different plans tonight so it
is our intention to hold a public hearing on this item. Items before the Planning Commission will
be reviewed in the following order. First the staff report will be presented. Then the applicant
can make it’s presentation and then again tonight we will be hearing I think in a public hearing
on the item. That means that an individual present can come forward, speak either for or against
the item before us. After that the public hearing will be closed. Commissioners will discuss the
item and take appropriate action at that time on the matter. Tonight we have one item before us
and that’s the Glendale Drive Subdivision. It’s a subdivision request with a variance.
Al-Jaff: Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. As mentioned by Chairman
Aller this item did appear before you on August 7th and at that time this application was
recommended for tabling. There were certain issues that we requested that the applicant address
before we move forward with this application and send it to the City Council. So briefly the
applicant is requesting a subdivision for 5 lots. However staff is recommending that a street be
stubbed through this development and the variance is associated with the width of the street
which is recommended by staff. Typical city code requires a 60 foot right-of-way. Due to the
width of all of the streets within that area the right-of-way is at 50. We are recommending a 50
foot right-of-way for consistency within the surrounding area. Again the variance was not
requested by the applicant. This is something that was completely recommended by staff. The
application before you is for a site that has an area of 2.4 acres. It is located south of Glendale
Drive, west of Minnewashta Parkway. There is a small sliver that is currently owned by the City
and the applicant is requesting that it be deeded to them. The site falls within the shoreland
overlay district of Lake Minnewashta. Grades on this property generally slope from the
northwest to the east. The parks in this area are located within half a mile as required by city
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018
2
code. The City’s Comprehensive Plan calls for neighborhood parks to be within half a mile so
again this is consistent. Roundhouse Park is located south of the subject site. One of the issues
that has to do with trails within the vicinity is a bit unclear to us. The applicant has enclosed a
survey that shows the location of the city trail completely within the right-of-way of
Minnewashta Parkway. However based on aerials that we have seen with the county it appears
that a portion of this trail is actually located on the applicant’s property. This is one of the
conditions of approval. We just wanted to point out that should clarification and further research
determine that the trail is actually on the subject site, on this property we are going to require
additional right-of-way. At this point I would like to turn it over to our engineering staff to
address right-of-way issues as well as stormwater.
Bender: Thank you Sharmeen. One thing that I wanted to point out on this slide was that on the
left is a picture from the Carver County property website and on the right is the certified survey
that was submitted as part of the developer’s, or the applicant’s plan set. Some of these are
similar slides that you saw last time. The point of them is just to make sure that we’re reviewing
the same information because the plans aren’t that different than last time. So if you remember
the discussion, there was discussion of a through street. There was discussion of Stratford Ridge
originally being planned to continue up and connect to Leslee Curve at Glendale. There was
discussion of the street you know being an analysis done there could be various options that
could go in order to connect it and the emergency management services and fire department were
you know in favor of the additional access. Staff was in favor of it because primarily you get
two additional accesses off of Minnewashta Parkway that are currently in existence and it would
provide better, it wouldn’t add that much average daily traffic. There wouldn’t be many cars
going through this section and it would be another connection through the area so that it
wouldn’t be primarily just the cul-de-sac. And this kind of showed just generally where the
connection was originally planned to go. This was documents, there were two options that BRW
at the time was the engineer that worked with Stratford Ridge that they prepared. It was different
through routes with two routes of access or egress through the area. This also shows the
temporary cul-de-sac that was at the end of Stratford Ridge in the dashed area here. Option A
was more consistent with what was built out there. With this, or Option B I mean. This is not in.
Here’s the temporary cul-de-sac. Here’s the connection at Minnewashta Parkway. One thing we
wanted to talk about with respect to grading, to allow for the roadway to go through the existing
lot that the applicant is proposing to develop we want to make sure that it leaves options
available to connect Stratford Ridge and Glendale and so there would have to be, make sure that
the right-of-way and the grading is consistent to allow for a consistent grade. So the road has to
be the primary development item, factor rather than the adjacent lot design. There are other
options as far as you know I mean coming in from the south is something that was discussed
with a cul-de-sac. Whether that’s completely fair was part of that discussion. There could be a
cul-de-sac that comes in from the north as well. This would be in lieu of the through street
alternative. This was a ghost plat that was prepared by, originally by the developer to show how
there are, there is another option that the cul-de-sac could be chosen to be extended to the north
from Stratford Ridge. Please keep in mind that, and there will be additional slides that will show
it. This would require a variance because the length of the cul-de-sac would extend beyond 800
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018
3
feet. It’s currently just under 800 feet right now. This is a couple items that we discussed related
to the city code. There’s nothing surprising here. The main point is highlighted in we want to
consider the existing and planned streets as well. The street was planned even though it was a
long time ago. And also the geography and topographic conditions. The second part of this is
also important in that there can’t be any undue hardship on adjoining property owners when it
comes time for them or the right time for them to subdivide their property. This is an item that
the, is a concept. It was prepared by Alliant Engineering. It was done for the property, the
middle property immediately adjacent to the south and provided to the City and it shows that
alternate or another concept of the instead of the cul-de-sac coming from the south it coming in
from the north. One thing that there was multiple concepts that were submitted. This is an
example of one of them. This resident was intending to be at the meeting today and was
planning on speaking so I’ll allow her the opportunity to kind of present some of the other
concepts. These concepts kind of show what could be done. It also shows some of the, some of
the problems of, if there’s 5 lots across the existing proposed, proposal and it essentially seals the
access off to the north so the middle lot would only have access from the south. Staff has looked
at any possibility of that lot connecting to Country Oaks and there’s not enough frontage for that
to happen. And you know one of the goals is still along a collector roadway such as
Minnewashta Parkway as designated in the code is to remove accesses as much as possible. At
this time I’m going to let Vanessa talk about, more about the stormwater items.
Strong: Thank you George. Thank you commissioners. As George mentioned there were many
similarities to the previous submission. The applicant chose to follow their original plan design
but they did provide more information which allowed us to respond with our own conditions and
comments at this time. While one of the primary areas of concern is again the City is still
focused on…to see overflow issue. Where is the water going when it leaves the site at major
rainfall events? We’re not talking about overall is water still flowing to the south. Yes, of
course water is still flowing to the south. We’re talking about focused high volumes of water
during large rainfall events and one of the items that the applicant brought up was a similar
development. I wasn’t here at the time in Fawn Hill. How there’s another EOF that comes in
higher and crosses a lot but honestly it’s a very different development. That one has a very clear
emergency overflow route all the way through the property he was comparing to and out the
other side. This one has all the emergency overflow routes going directly onto that adjacent
property with no outlet so staff doesn’t feel that this meets the city code requirements or the
City’s intent for stormwater management. The City feels that their interpretation of the city code
is appropriate. So if the applicant would still like to follow the 5 rain garden basin plan, city
staff would then recommend instead of discharging those emergency outflows, all of them
directly to the south, that instead they could either do a treatment train which is one basin into
the next, into the next, to the approved far eastern basin where that would have an EOF that
would meet city code. But they also work with the property owner to the south and the City to
make sure that final emergency overflow route does not create undue hardship onto them as well.
That was part of one of our conditions. Alternatively they could simply perhaps swale the back
and just have it all run into a large basin on the far east. Those are two options the City
recommended as alternatives and we would prefer to see at this time. Placement of easements.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018
4
They did show this time around the drainage and utility easements for city drainage and utilities.
It’s 10 feet in back and 5 feet on the sides to show that these private stormwater treatment
devices are outside of the public easements and that’s very important because these are private.
These aren’t city owned. They’re not city maintained. One concern that I would have is that
because they also have to have now a separate easement on top of these, and our attorney has
drafted up a draft example for this that we’ve used before, is that once you have the City’s
drainage and utility easement in the far back of the corner of the property, you then place a
private stormwater easement on top of that and the easement has to also allow for maintenance
and access of these devices. It really limits really the usable yard of these homeowners and
that’s not necessarily a requirement for stormwater management but it’s certainly something that
I want to point out that once you have all these multiple easements over the rear of their
properties long term enjoyment of it seems very questionable I guess from my perspective.
Additionally the other issue is that, actually can you go back one. The other issue like I said too
is that we also need to see easements for maintenance and access. Not just like that’s where
they’re going to be located but how are they getting to them? I mean if you’re going to have to
run equipment through those to care for them and maintain them how will that occur? Where is
the space designated for that? Because right now it’s true they’re out of the public but once you
put private easements over it you have to designate how that use will work as well. What if they
want to plant trees and shrubs, now how are you getting to these devices in the back corner? So
that will have to be worked out a little bit more as well but it is a concern that staff has definitely
voiced. Soils. We would like the developer to provide an updated hydrocad model and
stormwater management plan that’s a little bit more consistent with and supports their
engineered plans and geotechnical report. They did commit to doing that. Item 10 of their email
to us. We haven’t seen it yet but they are committing to being able to do that as long as it can
meet the design that they have. So right now the site plan design shows where they could be
located and that they’ll fit on the property. The hydrocad model and the stormwater report show
the math and the science to support that that can actually happen there so it’s a multi-phase
requirement so you need both parts to show that it can be done. There are a few concerns how
we did just finally receive the, we did finally receive the full geotechnical report. It did identify
the presence of ground water at 972 elevation on Lot 5. That’s the far eastern lot. At that soil
boring. Now you are required to have 3 feet of separation between the bottom elevation of those
rain garden basins that infiltrate and ground water or seasonally high ground water tables and
that’s to prevent contamination of ground water supplies. If you cannot provide 3 feet of
separation you actually have to then provide a lined basin and then you’re options are filtration
or detention so you end up with a wet pond instead of a rain garden so that is a requirement as
well from staff that we make sure that the soils match the site. They did do soil borings. They
will be required to do soil borings and infiltration tests at the site of the actual pond themselves
or basins themselves or rain gardens. Again a few different areas that staff is really focusing on
is again just a very slow permeability of soils. They are required to show that they are
attempting to achieve infiltration but the soils here aren’t necessarily supporting it at the moment
so we want to make sure that what they design meets what the site conditions are. We don’t
want them to just sit there and pond. This would be the other larger issue that you know staff is
very concerned about. Again they decided to come back again with 5 individual rain gardens
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018
5
recorded individually against each lot. Honestly it’s just simply not acceptable to the City. It
does not meet our code requirements for maintenance access. It doesn’t adequately provide the
operation maintenance and funding mechanism to ensure these devices are going to function in
perpetuity. We’ve had several issues with this happening in the city previously. We don’t allow
it anymore because of that. When individual rain gardens have been recorded against properties
it’s been nothing but trouble and problems for both the property owner and the city so staff feels
very strongly that an HOA is necessary to ensure that there is a mechanism in place long term to
take care of these devices as well as a funding mechanism in that HOA as well. And that would
be the larger key items of staff concerns and staff conditions in the report. There are additional
items in the report so if you have questions I can certainly answer those as well.
Aller: Can we talk about stormwater management with regard to the new regulations that are in
place when they build these locations are not supposed to, well first of all they’re supposed to
meet that 1 inch requirement for the first inch and then what happens to the water thereafter.
Strong: So that for the City at the moment defers a little bit more to Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District. So actually if you click the last. At this time this proposed development
does require Minnehaha Creek Watershed District development review and permitting so they
must go through Minnehaha Creek for the full stormwater management process. In this case
they have the authority and they will be performing that level of review. We’ll be keeping an
eye on it as well but their standards will have to be met for that.
Aller: And then the staff report indicates that the overstory trees, we would need about 41
overstory trees. Is that one of the issues with regard to maintenance and whether or not you can
actually get to those trees to maintain the property?
Strong: That is exactly what staff’s concern is. You have you know multiple requirements that
have to be met and once you meet these multiple requirements in the way that it’s currently
proposed it raises significant concerns for long term maintenance. How do you access? I
consistently run into issues with trees being in drainage and utility easements. They were
planted. People didn’t realize it and it’s a significant issue for the City. Especially when it
becomes rainy like this and we need to get to them quickly to prevent flooding.
Aller: Any additional questions at this point?
Bender: I had more points.
Aller: Mr. Strong please.
Bender: To get back to. Kind of I wanted to note, it’s included in the staff report and you
mentioned with changes to the plans between the original set and this set. I wanted to note that
this set there was no change regarding the street. You know there is still the 5 lots proposed.
There is no provision or right-of-way shown. Another thing I wanted to talk about a little bit,
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018
6
when these lots develop individually it can be a little challenging for the mass grading over the
area to kind of fit the roadway because the adjoining lot lines have to match in when the
development is approved. Now we look at 100 feet to the south but you know unless there’s
going to be a requirement for a significant retaining wall to drop the grade as we’re going
downhill from north to south, you know let’s say the middle lot developed next. They would
have to grade their site internally and then match into that property line to the south again so like
when some of the concepts are kind of shown they may include more than just the original lot.
They may include 2 lots of the 3. They may include all 3 of the 3 but you know if the
development isn’t going to occur as such where it’s going to be more of an individual process
some of that can be very challenging. And the concern is you know making sure that the grade
on the street is the first priority so. And then the only other thing that I was going to mention
that Vanessa was talking about is the geotech report did indicate that that ground water table was
seasonal. It may vary. This is a very typical geotechnical reports. They tend to leave room for
flexibility or variation. So that’s about all.
Aller: Well that brings up another question that I had so thank you for bringing that up.
Bender: Yep.
Aller: I would like an explanation as to the requirement for the one foot differential in the lowest
and highest point of adjacent properties and what impact that would have on water flow.
Strong: Can you rephrase your question?
Aller: So you have, we have a requirement that when you’re developing property the next to the
adjacent property and you have water that’s on that grade that’s going to flow to the neighboring
property, that it has to be a foot or more below that and so I want to know how that works with
this particular development. Or doesn’t work.
Strong: Well that was one of staff’s initial and kind of ongoing issues which is why staff made
the recommendation to outlet the emergency overflow to the far east. As far as the grading and
proposed grading and drainage of this parcel is concerned, all points along that south border are
higher than the lowest floor elevation of the adjacent property to the south and again the water is
being discharged as an emergency overflow to that property and it’s staying on that property. It
has nowhere else to go so yes, they are discharging off of their property but it’s going to
somebody else’s and again it has no place else to go. Now again always done that to some extent
but they’re creating a lot more impervious and we’re talking about now large storm events, we’re
talking about point flows. Focused. High volume. High rate. Large rain event. And so the one
location that does meet city code requirement, just based upon grading is the southeastern corner
of the property or the eastern portion of the property. Although of course that parcel also had
high ground water elevations as well so you know that’s something else the City had to make
note of that they have to meet that as well. But that was also why we said you need to work with
the property owner to the south in this case and city staff to make sure that that route is fully
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018
7
planned out because right now they did comply and do you know showing us the directional
arrows this time which was nice but it doesn’t fully show elevations of all points and it’s not
really showing us exactly where the water is ending up. They’re doing a good job of heading
what direction but what does that mean for that property owner to the south? At this point it’s a
concern that we feel is important to address.
Aller: So we know that there’s a certain level of water that is there at the time of the boring. Do
we know what the water table, the standard water table would be at that location? Or is that yet
to be determined?
Strong: Based upon their geotechnical report it will be consistent with what staff has
experienced. The utility department has experienced at other locations in this area. It is a
seasonally high water table at about you know 972. Again as I pointed out too they have to take
soil borings and infiltration tests at the site of the actual BMP’s because soils and water tables
can vary across a single parcel so you know they’ll need to be able to show that they can
infiltrate.
Aller: Great, thank you. Anything else that you’d like to bring up?
Bender: The only thing that I could add, Minnewashta Parkway is scheduled for a
redevelopment in 2020. As part of that we’ve already done some soil borings along the parkway
in preparation for the plan design to begin and we currently have areas along Minnewashta
Parkway where ground water is oozing up through the street. There is going to be a considerable
amount of drain tile that is going to be needed along Minnewashta Parkway to help control this
so generally the closer that you get to the lake and the eastern part of this site the wetter it’s
expected to be so Glendale does climb and as you get to the western half of the site you know it
should be drier and that was kind of indicated in their soil borings.
Strong: The effect of stormwater of course is the less you can infiltrate the more you are
required to hold on site so you’re basins, whatever type of basins they end up being. Whether
they infiltrate or filter or they’re wet holding pond still grow in size to compensate for the fact
that they now have to hold a larger volume because they’re not able to soak anything in. So it
could affect, certainly impact their overall design if they can’t provide the…
Aller: Great thank you. Does that conclude the staff report or, Commissioner Madsen.
Madsen: With all the questions that you have with regard to where the water will flow. How it
will infiltrate. Is it easy to get the additional information that you need to make a determination
that water will not flow onto that lot to the south or what is required?
Strong: Water is going to flow onto the property to the south. At this point the best mechanism
we have is to follow the code and make sure that the emergency overflow route is lower than the
floor opening of that property. Write conditions to ensure that as that route is fully determined
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018
8
that it doesn’t impact that building or their ability to develop the property but at the most part just
the building itself. They’re going to have to meet Minnehaha Creek watershed district’s
development review because we haven’t seen that. They could come in with additional
requirements and so we need to see some of these other pieces. You know they did say that they
would submit also additional information for dry wells and cross sections for basins which we
haven’t seen yet but you know as long as those are conditions and they provide them and they
meet the requirements then that would be what we would need to issue them their permit at that
point in time.
Madsen: Thank you. And earlier you had made a comment about how easements affect the
enjoyment of a property and I know, could you just expand upon that? How does that affect it?
Does it limit what trees and shrubs you can plant? Can you put a fence there? Does it actually
make it so that the usable part of your property is smaller?
Strong: It depends on how you want to use it. So for a city drainage and utility easement for
stormwater you are basically allowed to grow grass. We then if you need to put in a fence you
can do an encroachment agreement but that also means if the City needs to come in and do work
we will take your fence down. We’ll have to take your trees down but we won’t replace them as
part of the encroachment agreement. The same is similar for that private easement to allow
maintenance access. It’s basically you’re allowed grass because you need to be able to get in
there with equipment to do the work necessary and if you’re blocked by landscaping and shrubs
and playground equipment, patios, fire pits, you can’t get in there to do the work to make these
things function long term. More importantly, especially like this time of year we see a lot of
inlets and outlets get clogged and we see flooding a lot and so usually we need to have
immediate maintenance access. You don’t want to have to remove large trees. That’s very
expensive. You might not be able to get there in time so yeah I think it really does limit what a
lot of people call about in the city. You know a lot of people are also just happy with grass so
mayb e for them it’d be fine.
Madsen: Okay, thank you.
Strong: But yeah.
Aller: And then before we get into any additional topics, could someone please refresh my
memory and give me a little history lesson on the road construction and tentative road
construction because I know that’s going to be a topic of concern for people and certainly is for
me. So where was it? And where are we now? And where would we like to be?
Bender: If you kind of look at the background picture there’s no road that goes through these,
this applicant’s lot but as part of previous planning, which has not changed, the Stratford Ridge
development was to connect through here. These lots were owned and it was part of a, you know
the future with an undetermined time table. There was you know where do we want to go with
it? That’s kind of why we asked for that intersection analysis from the applicant to be able to
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018
9
kind of work with them. We give them the direction of what is in place and you know if
something different had been submitted or a report prepared about it we could have had
communications that would have you know had discussions about it. What we really want to do
with it is make sure that the, each of the properties has a fair way of developing so that’s the kind
of the primary thing. We also want to have more timely access to the properties for emergency
management services. Another priority is to eliminate more accesses off of our collector roads
so. Where would we like to go with it generally is to find the right way for all 3 of these
properties to eventually develop so.
Aller: Thank you. Are we good?
Al-Jaff: Just that staff is recommending approval of this application with conditions outlined in
the staff report. And if you have additional questions we’ll be happy to answer them.
Aller: So with regard to that roadway what conditions would apply? As requested in the staff
report.
Al-Jaff: Staff is recommending a 50 foot right-of-way.
Aller: ROW.
Al-Jaff: And that it would basically be, provide right-of-way over, oh I’m sorry. Incorporate
provisions for a through street into the site design with a 50 foot right-of-way versus the required
60.
Bender: So the design that include the utility design as well which incorporates conditions 1 and
2. Sorry to interrupt.
Weick: That’s okay. The subdivision lot proposal as shown in the report then would not be
possible correct? So it’s kind of right? They’d have to redraw the lots.
Al-Jaff: That’s correct. They would need to redraw the lots to accommodate a street stub to the
south.
Weick: So you, okay. I mean although it says approving 5 lots for all intensive purposes we
wouldn’t be right?
Al-Jaff: It depends.
Bender: It would be up to 5 lots.
Weick: Okay.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018
10
Bender: And that would be primarily you know a result of what the developer can come up with
and fit in there.
Weick: Okay I just wanted a clarification of what it would look like.
Bender: Yep.
Weick: Thank you.
Aller: Okay at this point in time I’ll let the applicant come forward and make a presentation.
Curt Fretham: Good evening. My name is Curt Fretham, Lakewest Development, 14525
Highway 7, Minnetonka, Minnesota.
Aller: Welcome.
Curt Fretham: I thank you all for hearing our application again tonight. I appreciate the staff’s
efforts that have been put into it and also the neighbors that are here. I’m not sure where to start
on this. There seems to be a lot of confusion. I mean I look at, if the overhead is working
tonight. I look at the staff report as was just pointed out.
Aller: There we go.
Curt Fretham: I look at the staff report and it was just pointed out that staff is recommending a 5
lot development approval and yet I see more confusion when they’re asking for a through street
to be put in and we take a look and not to reiterate what we went through a couple weeks ago but
this is right out of your comprehensive guide plan and it discourages through streets. I mean it
says residential street systems should be designed to discourage through traffic and be
compatible with other transportation modes, etcetera so why are we trying to put in a through
street. And then we talked about this last time too but let’s take a look at the make up of the
neighborhood. Here’s the neighborhood, and I don’t know if that can be zoomed in so it can be
seen a little better but there’s 11 cul-de-sacs in that neighborhood and one through street that I
can see. Why would we put another through street? It’s inconsistent with your comprehensive
guide plan. It’s inconsistent with the make up of the neighborhood. And then I look at there’s
talk about that the property was previously planned for a through street. There was a bunch of
plans. I say baloney. This property’s had 6 sewer and water services paid for, stubbed in. Why
would you put 6 services in and plan for a through street? Give me that answer. Who planned
that? And then there’s talk about the length of the cul-de-sac if they were to expand in the future
on the south that would require a variance. You’re measuring it wrong. We talked about this
last week. You’re measuring down this street. Down this street. Down this street to here to get
to 800 some feet. That is not how the city code calls to measure a cul-de-sac. I mean come on
play by your own rules. Why are we even having this discussion? I look back at the front page
of the staff report from last time, it says right here that the City’s discretion of approving or
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018
11
denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plan meets the standards
outlined in the subdivision regulations zoning ordinance. If it meets the standards must approve,
I repeat must approve. Why are we talking about this? We’ve got a 5 lot subdivision that meets
the ordinance. Why are we having this discussion? A second time. You asked us to go back,
meet with staff. Address the concerns and we did. So why are you coming back with this pitch
again about a through street? We’re not doing it. I brought our engineer along. He’s going to
address the sewer and stormwater concerns. We believe we can address those. We’ve reached
out. We’re not getting correspondence from the staff. I mean why would we get this dropped on
us tonight? We gave you all this information back on the 30th of August and tonight is the first
we’ve heard that you’re not satisfied. We can address that but let’s get some conversation back
and forth. That’s what I have to say.
Aller: Thank you.
Perry Ryan: Good evening, Perry Ryan, Lakewest Development, 14525 Highway 7,
Minnetonka.
Aller: Welcome Mr. Ryan.
Perry Ryan: Thank you. I just wanted to address a couple of statements that staff brought up.
We did, I believe, I wasn’t here at the August 7th meeting but I did go back and listen to the
whole tape and read the Minutes and I believe, I could be wrong but I believe the direction was
for us to go back, work with staff in general on the stormwater management issues and I can go
back and look at the tape again but I think that was in general what was talked about because we
do in fact have a conforming plat and so I think even many members of the commission agreed
with that so we looked at that. This is the first time, actually yesterday was the first time. We
submitted plans on August 29th and we then submitted subsequent plans. It was a short window
to try to get it done. We were trying to meet that August 31st deadline to stay on the October 2nd
meeting which is tonight and so we did meet with staff approximately, or no I think it was
exactly October 22nd. I’m very sorry, August 22nd. Sorry about that. I was out of town during
the 7th meeting. We met with staff. We talked about resolutions for the stormwater management
and Sharmeen asked me, Ms. Al-Jaff asked me when can you get this back into us and I said I’ll
get it back into you next Wednesday which I did and I sent it back in, and I knew it was a short
fuse and I knew you know we showed what we said we were going to show on there. We
weren’t, we weren’t honestly we, I met with staff for over an hour and as I got up and left Ms.
Al-Jaff said well you know we’re still, we’re still wanting a through street and I said well we’re
not going to show as a through street. We’ll deal with these stormwater issues. So submitted it
on August 29th and I hate to bore you with these logistics but didn’t hear back and so I was
concerned that we weren’t going to meet the 31st deadline. I then submitted the full package on
the 31st. Ms. Strong was kind enough on September 7th to send me an email acknowledging
receipt of my plans on the 29th and the 31st and I apologize that you aren’t seeing our plans from
August 31st but staff did get them and it does have a landscape plan in it and I’m going to show it
to you but anyway they acknowledged receipt of those. Two of the items that Ms. Strong
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018
12
brought up today as potential solutions, additional solutions in looking at the rain gardens were
this treatment train or putting a swale in back with a pond entirely on what we’re showing as Lot
5. Those are possibly good solutions. First I’ve ever heard of them. When we submitted these
on the August 29th and August 31st, happy to show you my email. I said I’m happy to come in
anytime with staff to talk about these and any other solutions and I didn’t hear any word at all.
Usually we would hear from staff that your report is done. Or you know we could get together
and change something before the report and heard nothing. I didn’t see the report until I went
online and saw the report so we’ll certainly look at those, at those possible solutions. So to hear,
to hear staff say things like, tonight like the hydrocad report modifications we haven’t seen yet or
a quote was we finally received the geotech report. Well they received the geotech report on
August 31st and we asked to get together and they did not respond so we’re trying to. I think that
the direction from Planning Commission was for us to get together and work out a solution. We
did get together. We gave them our solution based on that meeting and heard nothing from staff
so that’s a little disappointing. I do want to, I guess a couple things. One of the items that, I’m
going to walk through if you can zoom in on Fawn Hill. I know some people think it’s different.
Can you zoom in on that? There you go Sharmeen, thank you. Stop right there. Thank you.
I’m going to go like this. Don’t mind me moving it. Water. Everybody knows what Sir Isaac
Newton came up with on gravity. Water runs downhill. It does not run side hill. It does not run
uphill. It runs downhill and so the way to look at contours is water runs perpendicular across
contours. I want to show you what Fawn Hill did. I’m going to first read I think the quote from
the… Ms. Strong actually mentioned this at the Planning Commission on August 7th. She said
properties are allowed to send stormwater in the natural direction, and I’m going to show the
existing conditions of our property and the proposed conditions on what direction that runs but
the other thing is, I’m going to discuss in light of this Fawn Hill and show exactly what we’re
doing. Very common practice as you talk about emergency overflows. She mentioned Section
19-144 of the code which states if an emergency overflow route is adjacent to the property the
lowest building opening must be a minimum of one foot above the emergency overflow. Very
common sense right? We don’t want this to flood out your basements so the basement’s a foot
above right or your lowest opening. What that means each, what the word property means is the
property’s referring to the property on which the emergency overflow and the building share.
Okay which is very important. Otherwise if it was the definition that they’re choosing, meaning
our downstream property owners, then we could put no ponds anywhere on our property except
the one they like on Lot 5 and I’ll show you on the Fawn Hill one. So Fawn Hill which was
approved. I’ll speak a little louder without the mic, sorry about that. It’s showing a low opening
on Lot 6, and if you guys don’t have this I apologize. This was sent to the city staff back on
August 29th and 31st. The low opening of this lot is at a 974.4. Emergency overflow on this lot
is a 973. Right, it’s over a foot above. Well if you go downstream there’s an emergency
overflow, or sorry a low opening on an adjacent lot about the same distance actually of a 971.8
and one could say well jeepers, your emergency overflow on your lot upstream is 1.2 feet above
that. You can’t do that. That would be using the same rules as staff is imposing on our project.
However the emergency overflow on this lot, or actually it’s neighbor is 970 so it doesn’t flood
out. You could never have subsequent homes and drainage ways and emergency overflows
unless each lot had it’s own emergency overflow. So what we’re trying to show, let me show
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018
13
you our project. Want to zoom out just a little bit please. That’s good, thank you. So we’ve got
our 5 proposed ponds here, here, here, here and here. And they’ve got a low opening on this
house at a 976. Well we placed these ponds very strategically. I’m going to go up here so you
can see it. We placed them at the exact low point of each lot. These ones have an emergency
overflow of a 978.5, 78.5, 78 and a 70. When the water comes out of these, just like it is
currently it is going downstream. Water coming out of this pond cannot go across this hill.
Cannot go sideways. It has to go downhill. Water coming out of this pond comes out this way.
It cannot go sideways. Same thing with this pond. It can only go perpendicular to the contour
lines. It cannot go sideways and come over here. This house also has an emergency overflow at
a 968 and it’s also got a 968 here. Our understanding is there’s a pipe on this low area because
this is landlocked. So we are not affecting that low opening of the adjacent house. There is
absolutely no way unless you can defy the law of gravity that we are going to affect that. The
other thing is, they talk about it negatively affecting the property to the south. This is the
existing drainage pattern. Want to zoom out just a touch again please. This one’s a little bit
different scale, sorry. Little more. Thank you. Good. That’s fine. Doesn’t matter. This is just
the existing contours and again I’m showing drainage lines perpendicular to the contours which
is what drainage does. We put this exactly at the low point of each lot and this is exactly where
the water currently is coming from onto the adjacent property. Common law states you can put
the drainage onto your adjacent property owner as long as it does not exceed it. We are showing
in our hydrocad models we will not exceed the quantity of flow going to our neighbors. There’s
just no question about it. So Ms. Strong also talked about, want to zoom in on this one please.
This is our landscape plan that we gave to staff on August 31st which they acknowledged receipt
of in an email. Can you zoom in on that please? We should put the zoom over here Sharmeen.
Good right there. Right there. Right there. So this plan shows the 41 required trees that they’re
suggesting. It’s not that it’s that many trees. It’s 8 overstory trees per lot I think it is. As you
can see, you know I know there’s a lot of concern on staff’s part that gosh, how are we going to
access this pond. Are we going to have enough? I mean you can look. We’re keeping it out of
the drainage and utility easements. All the plantings. There is a lot of yard area here. There’s a
lot of access even if you had to bring a skid steer in to do something with that pond. There’s
access all over the place for these. It’s not, I just get very concerned that the tone of staff is how
are we going to do this? How are people going to enjoy their lots? Well jeepers how did we get
as many people as we have in Chanhassen right now? People are doing it everywhere where
they’re having to access even ponds and so it’s not, it’s not rocket science. It’s not like it’s never
been done before. Ms. Madsen you asked a question is it easy to get the additional information.
Staff saying we need additional information. We need additional information but when pressed
on that I think Ms. Strong at the end said well, it is going to run downstream. It is going to run to
the neighbor. We just have to make sure that the emergency overflows are correct and I’d even
be happy to, I saw something up there from Alliant Engineering that I’ve never seen before. I’m
not sure why we’re looking at concept plans for the south but I’d be willing to go to, pick another
hydrologic engineer if you’d like. I’m a registered engineer and any engineer that will look at
emergency overflows in the context of saying we cannot have those emergency overflows
dumping onto this property because it’s going to affect this one window over here. That it
absolutely has no way physically getting to unless you pump it there. The water’s going to run
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018
14
downhill so, so additional information. Again Ms. Madsen we tried. We submitted this
information August 31st and we said we would be happy to come, I’m 10 minutes away from this
building. My office is. I said I’d be happy to meet with you guys anytime and we received no
reaction to it other than Ms. Strong was kind enough on September 7th, a week later to
acknowledge receipt of our emails on the 29th and the 31st of August. So we’re always happy to
meet. We want to work the details out. We’ll give the additional detail. The reason we didn’t
give the updated hydrocad models, I really wanted input you know closer to the August 31st date
to say you know here’s what we’ve got. I can certainly provide you with additional information.
Can you give me some reaction on this? So history of the road, again. Again Curt talked about
this project. You know it was just like brought up again about the old plans showing the stub on
Stratford. You know was that good planning? We don’t know. We do know this that there’s 6
utility stubs put along here certainly didn’t contemplate that a road was coming through here.
We have a conforming plat before you. We will meet the water, stormwater requirements. We
will meet the MCWD requirements. We have a conforming plat and we’d, I guess we’re asking
for the commission to decide on that tonight. Stand for any questions that you might have. And
if you’d like I can pass around a copy of the August 31st plans with the landscape plan if you’d
like to see that too.
Aller: So what are the sizes of the rain gardens? The proposed rain gardens.
Perry Ryan: Well they are approximately, good question. I’ve never been asked that question.
Aller: And are they?
Perry Ryan: They’re about oh maybe 30 feet and let me put up, let me put up this if you don’t
mind. These are approximately 30 feet in length and probably 15 feet across. They’re all pretty
close to the same. I actually appreciate some of the comments from Ms. Strong about, about
maybe tying those together. Happy to explore that. You know if that makes sense and they’re
happier about that we’re happy to explore that. I’m not against that. I would have loved to have
that conversation in early September. And made myself available for them.
Tietz: Sir I have a question regarding the drainage.
Perry Ryan: Yes.
Aller: Commissioner Tietz.
Tietz: You said that water runs perpendicular to the topographic lines.
Perry Ryan: Yes.
Tietz: So I’m looking at Lots 2, 3, and 4. Or 3 and 4.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018
15
Perry Ryan: Yes.
Tietz: Looks like 75 percent of 3 does not drain to your holding pond.
Perry Ryan: Yeah what we generally do on these cases is we’ll try to pick up all of the hard
surface. All the new hard surface. Most watershed districts and stormwater management
designers would want to at least pick up the hard surface so that means that anything that’s
hitting the roof of that house would be picked up in gutters and so then that would be directed to
those rain gardens.
Tietz: So it will all be piped to those areas?
Perry Ryan: No I didn’t, no I’m sorry. I said those would be directed to the rain gardens.
Tietz: But hard directed or just surface directed?
Perry Ryan: We usually surface direct it but I guess.
Tietz: So will this be, will a grading plan that’s down to a half foot intervals be given to the
contractor so that everything does drain to these proposed rain gardens? And do the rain
gardens, can they satisfy the requirements for holding?
Perry Ryan: They will satisfy the requirements I guarantee that and to half of them.
Tietz: They all look about the same size right now.
Perry Ryan: I’m sorry?
Tietz: They all look to be about the same size right now…
Perry Ryan: That’s because they’re, because of the 25 percent mandate of hard surface
coverage, even if you look at the staff’s report, they’re not that different. You know the lots are
a little bit different but the hard surface ranges from 3,700 square feet to 4,600 square feet so it’s,
they’re very similar.
Tietz: Well that’s proposed.
Perry Ryan: No and that’s, that’s the maximum we could put on these at the 25 percent max.
That’s why the ponds end up being similar in size. So I don’t think, I’ve yet to see a half foot
contour drawing demanded on residential development.
Tietz: I’d like to see a contractor that can grade it to that.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018
16
Perry Ryan: I’m sorry?
Tietz: I’d like to see a contractor that could grade it to that.
Perry Ryan: Yeah right, that’s probably why we don’t do them. You know actually to be honest
we rarely, we rarely do them to one foot contours. We usually, I bet 95 percent of your
engineering documents in your staff’s office are two footers. But I agree there certainly could be
a reason on those to ensure all the hard surface does get into those. I think that’s a great idea.
Aller: When you drew the plans did you consider the properties to the south? Other than with
regard to the water. As far as land locking them and a statute that says we should be looking to
see…
Perry Ryan: Yeah that’s why.
Aller: Surrounding properties.
Perry Ryan: Yeah.
Aller: So you developed the ghost plat?
Perry Ryan: Yes I did.
Aller: Indicating what they should develop based on your plans.
Perry Ryan: I developed at the request of staff. I didn’t, first of all they aren’t landlocked. They
both have access to public right-of-way. And so I would respectfully I disagree that they’d be
landlocked so staff asked us to do a conforming plat for that property and that’s what we did.
And quite honestly, okay I’ve only seen one of the concepts. I saw some reading that there were
more concepts that, that Alliant did. That concept right there, first of all doesn’t do what staff
says they want to do and have a through street and it still gives our immediate adjacent property
to the south only two lots. And then the furthest one to the south three lots which is the same as
our ghost plat so I don’t, I don’t see the benefit of it. There’s a disbenefit. I mean they talk
heavily about that you can’t be doing things that cause a hindrance to your neighbor. The
disbenefit is it makes a road go through our property and it takes a lot out. Whereas we have a
conforming 5 lot subdivision so there’s a disbenefit. I don’t know how you could say that would
be preferable to our ghost plat. Our ghost plat has a huge benefit that we, I haven’t had a chance
to talk to this board about and we submitted this to the City a long time ago that in putting that
through street I think our hard surface just from that roadway is between 2 and 2 ½ times more
hard surface than our ghost plat shows on putting that road through there. And you end up doing
double and triple frontage lots as well which is really a disbenefit to every future homeowner.
So we just didn’t see the positive in it.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018
17
Aller: Did you consider doing a cul-de-sac entrance connecting from the north through your
properties at all?
Perry Ryan: No we didn’t. Again we looked at, we didn’t consider it but when I look at the plan
that was just up before us about a half hour ago showing just what you described there is no
benefit to either of those two south properties. They get the same kind of access at a cul-de-sac.
They get the same number of lots. The only real difference is there’s a disbenefit to our property
and to removing a conforming lot and not utilizing the utilities that are already stubbed there you
know so I, we try to look at things that are beneficial. Not disbeneficial.
Aller: Well I don’t have any further questions at this point. Commissioner Weick.
Weick: On page 10 of the staff report where it’s listing I think water resource either
recommendations or requirements, items number 3, 4 and 5 reference I think a requirement for
an HOA. Is that a consideration in your plan? Is that something you were considering as part of
the development?
Perry Ryan: It was not. We had submitted a draft of a stormwater management agreement in
which we as the developer take the ownership and responsibility of that and then there is TRAM.
The responsibility of each individual pond is transferred to that homeowner. What I had
suggested to staff, I have not heard any response is, I know that staff has said in her, in her
experience that that doesn’t work to ensure that a homeowner does that. That they actually have
financial responsibility for it. Our experience is quite opposite of that around the metro and so
my suggestion to staff was we are happy to have our attorney and the City’s attorney work out
that detail. Whether or not we can do it without an HOA or there has to be an HOA. I would let
the attorneys do that. I’m going by an individual response to that and so is Ms. Strong and so
I’m happy to have, I’m happy to have the City’s attorney and our attorney come to an agreement
on that. I’m fine with that.
Weick: Okay.
Perry Ryan: Either way I understand the reason for the…
Aller: Are you talking about indemnification agreements?
Perry Ryan: No I’m talking about an HOA agreement or a stormwater management agreement
on how to manage and ensure that those infiltration basins are managed properly.
Aller: Right in other words if the homeowner from the south is damaged that you’re going to
indemnified that homeowner.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018
18
Perry Ryan: I don’t know if that has, if that language is in there or not but if that’s what the City
Attorney is recommending then, then I’m happy to have our attorney and the City Attorney look
at that. They’re a lot smarter than I would claim to be on those issues.
Aller: Great thanks. Additional comments, questions. Thank you.
Perry Ryan: Let me know if you have anything else, thanks.
Aller: We will. Okay so at this point in time I’m going to open up the public hearing portion of
this item. Unlike CNN and anything else anybody has seen this past week we’re going to try to
be civil and nobody’s going to be yelling at anybody and we’re going to get everybody’s opinion
on the record. We’re going to build a good record for the City Council to make any decisions it
has to make. And I double checked and for the record I believe this is going to be before the
City Council on Monday, October 22nd at this point in time so with that I’ll open up the public
hearing portion of this item.
Jason Watt: Can you start with an Eagle Scout?
Aller: Any person wishing to come forward to speak either for or against the item.
Audience: That’s why he volunteered.
Aller: Please state your name and address for the record.
Jason Watt: My name is Jason Watt. I work at, I live at 3961 Stratford Ridge here in
Chanhassen.
Aller: Welcome.
Jason Watt: Thank you. And thank you for listening to us. We have worked together as a
neighborhood to come up with some comments that we’d like to share with you. We have a
printed version and our plan is to read that aloud to you if that’s helpful.
Aller: Great.
Jason Watt: I’m happy to put it on the screen so, we don’t have enough handouts for everyone
but we can all kind of walk along as we move through.
Aller: Perfect.
Jason Watt: So if you could maybe just pass those along to everyone on the committee. I’ll keep
my copy. I will give one to the proposed developer. And then our neighborhood’s pretty
familiar with our arguments. I’m going to give some to folks that maybe are not quite as familiar
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018
19
with our arguments. Anyone else need a copy? Does staff want a copy over on the other end
there? It looks like 3 more copies. Does anyone else want a copy before we move through this.
We’ve been talking a lot about water so I am getting a little thirsty so I might need to stop for a
moment to step out and get a glass of water if that’s alright with you guys. Again my name is
Jason Watt. I work or live in the neighborhood. I was blessed with stunning good looks and a
brilliant mind and a deep sense of humility but not with a preachers voice so we’re going to
actually tag team this. I’m going to speak for a while and one of the other neighbors in our
development is going to speak so with that I will begin. In terms of questions, I’m happy to field
questions as we move along. If you want to just wait til we’re done that works too. So many of
us were here at the meeting earlier this summer. In addition to our previous objections,
comments presented verbally at the last Planning Commission meeting, which was August 7th,
on the subject of the Glendale Drive Subdivision application we respectfully submit the
following prepared statement in opposition on behalf of the 15 families residing in the
subdivision dedicated as Stratford Ridge on October 11, 1988. As we had previously stated we
are dedicated and determined that our well established neighborhood comprised of Stratford
Lane, Stratford Boulevard, and Stratford Ridge which has existing since the late 1980’s remain
intact as a no outlet double cul-de-sac in it’s present configuration. The GDS project as
presently requested by the developer and/or the current alternatives laid out by the Chanhassen
Planning Commission staff would destroy the safe surroundings enjoyed by our children, upset
the very limited internal traffic that we enjoy and wind the convenient and comfortable access to
our beach outlot as well as disturbing the positive surrounding environment of our neighborhood
and beach outlot. The GDS will also impose substantial financial burden on our 15 homeowner
families by way of reduced valuation and if the roadway options as proposed are carried out the
cost of construction and ongoing maintenance will be an unnecessary burden for the City of
Chanhassen and it’s taxpayers. Therefore we respectfully request that this prepared statement be
made part of the printed record. And first before we move on we structured this, the first topic
that we’re going to talk about is standard of review. I think from our last meeting there was
some confusion about what the review should be in terms of how you make your decision. I’ve
heard comments this evening that I think are a little bit contrary to what the ordinance actually
requires and what Minnesota State Law requires as well so that’s where we’re going to start
with. So prior to reviewing our arguments and perspective as to why this proposal should not be
approved it is essential that the committee, the City Council, the constituents, and the city staff
have a clear understanding of the standard of review and related law that the committee and it’s
counsel should apply in making this important decision. Following is the guidance the City staff
provided to the committee in it’s report dated as of August 7th of 2018. We argue that that
guidance was provided, we argue that the guidance that was provided did not properly inform the
committee or it’s constituents pursuant to city ordinances, Minnesota statutes and case law. We
first will share the original guidance provided by the city staff followed by what is required by
city ordinance and Minnesota statute. So first we want to start with the staff report on page 1 it
was quoted to say the City’s discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to
whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the subdivision regulations and
zoning ordinance. If it meets those standards the City must, that was a term that they used, must
approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi judicial decision and we bolded for emphasis.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018
20
When you actually look at the ordinance per Chanhassen City Ordinance Division 2, Platting
Procedures under Section 18-39(d) it reads as follows: The Planning Commission shall make a
recommendation on the preliminary plat to the City Council within 45 days from the dates of the
opening of the public hearing unless the applicant consents on record to a continuance. The
Planning Commission may, the term is may, not must. The commission may recommend
approval. Approval subject to conditions or that the preliminary plat be declined. Or denied. If
denial is recommended the reasons for that recommendation shall be stated in the record. So our
first argument is pursuant to city code the standard of review allows the commission to deny the
preliminary plat. There is not language in the ordinance that specifically states that it must
approve a proposal if it complies with city ordinances. Moreover pursuant to the section I’ve
just quoted the City Council may choose to approve or reject such proposals. The ordinance lists
specific elements that must be met prior to approval but it does not articulate situations in which
it may deny a proposal. Minnesota case law reinforces this concept that local government is
provided by discretion in deciding to approve or deny a proposal. And I have quoted a court
case here and I’ll read it aloud. Regardless of whether the zoning matter was legislative or quasi
judicial we determined whether or not the municipality action in a particular case was
reasonable. We examined the action to determine whether it was arbitrary or capricious or
whether the reasons articulated by the municipality did not have the slightest validity or bearing
on the general welfare or whether the reasons were legally sufficient and had a factual basis. The
next thing that we saw in the report that we take issue with is on the same page, page 1 it said
quote, the City’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the
proposed project meets the standards in the subdivision ordinances for variances. The City has a
relatively high level of discretion with variances because the applicant is seeking a deviation
from established standards. This is a quasi judicial decision. The staff’s summary correctly
states that the City has a relatively high level of discretion with regard to variances. However it
would have been much more helpful for the commission and their constituents if the statute that
provides this guidance was cited in the report and the report provided a quote of the entire
ordinance. We have provided the language of the entire ordinance below for your review. So
pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance Division 2, Platting Procedures, Section 18-37(b) it is
read, is written as follows. The City Council may, again the word is may, grant a variance from
the regulations contained in it’s chapter as part of the plat approval process following a finding
that all of the following conditions exist. One, hardship is not a mere inconvenience. Two the
hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographic conditions of
the land. Three, the condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not
generally applicable to other property and four, the granting of a variance will not be
substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accordance with the purpose and intent of
this chapter, the zoning ordinance and Comprehensive Plan. So our next argument to the City is
that city staff reports should properly explain law and provide citations and quotes of the citation
to properly inform the committee and it’s constituents. The staff report did not adequately
explain the broad discretion that the City has to approve or deny a variance pursuant to the city
code and Minnesota law. Moving on. Again in the staff report on page 3 it was written as
follows. Engineering staff recommends that the layout be revised to accommodate the future
development of the two lots to the south as quote, required by city code Section 18-57-A and
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018
21
Section 18-60(f). The code actually reads as follows. Streets shall be dedicated on the plat to the
public. The location and design of the street shall consider existing and planned streets,
reasonable traffic circulation, topographical conditions, runoff of stormwater, public convenience
and safety and the proposed land uses of property to be served. Our next argument is the city
staff report incorrectly stated that the layout must accommodate for the future development of
the two lots south of the Glendale development pursuant to city code. Nowhere in that city code
that was cited does it specifically state that this should be considered. It does state the proposed
land use should be considered when roads are designed but not that roads should be planned
based on hypothetical land use in the future. When streets are planned the planning process
should take into consideration how the surrounding land is to be used. For example the
committee would want to consider it’s review of neighboring land. Review of neighboring land
will involve whether or not it will involve heavy equipment such as a manufacturing
development or if it has substantial traffic that will result such as a nearby hospital or school.
These known factors should affect how streets are planned and designed. However in this
specific case there is not a proposed development planned for the two lots south of Glendale,
south of the Glendale development. During the committee’s meeting there is much confusion on
this point of whether or not the committee should speculate on the future use of these two
properties. The potential development of these two lots consumed much of the discussion that
evening rather than the clearly identified elements laid out in the city code such as traffic,
topographical issues, stormwater, etcetera. The statute does not require the committee to
consider any and all potential future uses of surrounding land. Next, they quoted two sections
there so the next section is read as follows and it’s Section 18-60 paragraph F. Street
arrangements for the proposed subdivision shall not cause undue hardship to owners of adjoining
property in subdividing their own land. Our next argument. Per the city code of Section 18-60
paragraph F the City should only consider owners of adjoining property. We did not find a
definition of adjoining in the city ordinances, state statutes or case law. However the commonly
accepted definition of adjoining per Webster’s Dictionary would be having a common border.
Thus we question why the City would factor into it’s analysis the effects of this development
proposal on the person’s property since it does not adjoin the Glendale development. Argument
5. We’ve asked the staff and commission at the August 7th meeting what the definition of undue
hardship meant pursuant to the Section of 18-60 paragraph F. We did not receive a citation of a
city ordinance or any case law at that meeting to provide clarity on this term. We have
researched on our own and have not found a city ordinance that defines this term. Nor have we
found a Minnesota statute or case law directly on point with regard to installation of streets.
Streets. However we have found Minnesota statutes and case law that defines that same term in
relation to denying or approving a variance. We should note that that term undue hardship in
relation to variances was changed to the term practical difficulties in May of 2011 but the rest of
that statute is generally the same as it was prior to the change in those terms so if you go to
Minnesota Statute Section 462.357 Subdivision 6, Paragraph 2 it reads as follows, variances may
be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in
complying with the zoning ordinance. Practical difficulties as used in connection with the
granting of a variance means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable
manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. The plight of the landowner is due to
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018
22
circumstances unique to the property, not created by the landowner and the variance if granted
will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations alone do not
constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties include but are not limited to inadequate
access to direct sunlight or solar energy systems. If the owners of the Boylan property wanted to
subdivide their property that could be considered a reasonable use. However the owners have
not submitted an application for subdivision. In fact the owners are actively trying to sell the
property. The commission should not base a decision on hypotheticals but on the facts that are
known at the time of the proposal. It should be noted pursuant to the statute that adverse
economic conditions alone should not constitute practical difficulties. Furthermore we would
like to highlight that the transcripts from the Planning Commission meeting for the development
of our neighborhood back in October 28th of 1987 on page 14 of those transcripts quoted a
member of this commission at that time, Mr. Conrad as saying quote, I’ve never found that
reduced value creates a hardship as long as you had some reasonable use of that property. So our
question is why would the commission apply an inconsistent standard years later if this is truly
about economic development. Furthermore the Boylan property is not subject to unique
circumstances. Again that was one of the elements within the statute unique circumstances. If
the owners desire to subdivide the property the existing driveway could be extended and
modified so that their needs for a second access road could be installed, let me start that over. If
the owners desire to subdivide the property the existing driveway could be extended and
modified for these needs or a second access road could be installed from the northwest corner of
the land that borders with Country Oaks Drive. It was mentioned this evening that it may not
necessarily comply with ordinance but we could probably talk about a variance for that to be
accomplished. There are many options available that would be better compared to a through
road when considering traffic, safety, green space, city maintenance, environmental concerns,
maximizing the entire neighborhood’s property tax values rather than a select few. Lastly this
proposed street installation would change the essential character of our locality. As was pointed
out at the August 7th meeting, and as was pointed out this evening, if you look at the map of our
neighborhood you will quickly see that the common layout of our neighborhood is a series of
multiple cul-de-sac. I believe you counted 11, is that correct?
Audience: Yes.
Jason Watts: There are many valuable elements to living in a cul-de-sac which are highlighted
later in this document but it should be noted that the installation of a through street would
eliminate many, if not all of those values. It would change the essential character of our
immediate neighborhood and our locality. So our question to you is why are you concerned
about the size of a road and getting a variance from 60 to 50 but you’re not concerned about the
overall character of our neighborhoods. I’d like to move on to our next topic. Fundamental and
fairness and a conflict of interest. Our next argument is due notice. There are multiple attorneys
located in our cul-de-sac and many others are highly educated professionals. Many of us
conducted very detailed due diligence prior to purchasing our homes and purchased our homes
based on public records. One of the biggest motivations for purchasing the homes was the
seclusion and safety a cul-de-sac provides. Assuming that we reviewed the plat recorded at the
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018
23
county how would we have possibly known that a street could potentially be installed in the
future. There is not a physical stub road in our cul-de-sac. We acknowledge that Option B
shows a stub road on the Martin Foy’s land but how would be the common constituent of this
city know that that was what that notation represents. Furthermore on the copy of the Option B
that we have there are no markings on the sketch showing a proposed road going through the
Martin Foy property, James Boylan property, or Mildred Kersten’s property. Furthermore when
you look at the western half of this sketch, and I don’t know if you can pull up a copy of Option
B. I’ll just pause if you can quickly pull that up. Otherwise I can pull out my cell phone and
show you on my cell phone. Should we have a race? Who’s going to win? I got it. You got it?
You got it, okay. It’s a tie. So when you look at this, when you look at this, if you can zoom in a
little bit and look at the southwest corner of Option B. You can’t zoom in on this?
Al-Jaff: No.
Jason Watt: What if I put this under your little contraption here? Can you look? Is this going to
work? I don’t know if that’s working much better. Yeah hopefully I don’t get a crude text from
one of my buddies from college. But when you look at this, when you look at this and think of
yourself as a person trying to buy in this neighborhood and doing your due diligence do any of
these layouts actually look like how this neighborhood looks like today? And if you’re not
familiar with the neighborhood, absolutely not. Nothing in that southwest corner looks like it
actually looks today. Nothing. So again our point is, if you’re trying to do diligence and trying
to figure out whether or not your neighborhood is going to stay the way that it’s going to stay
you can’t rely on this as a very probable piece of evidence to make that decision. Furthermore I
would argue that this is not a permanent plan. I got lost on my notes here. Let me get back to
that.
Audience: Three quarters of the way down. Furthermore.
Jason Watt: Furthermore. When you look at the western half of this sketch and compare that to
how the land was actually developed a reasonable person would not get an impression that this
reflects the future plans of the city. Moreover reading through the transcript of the city meeting
on January 6, 1988 city staff member Joanne Olson is quoted in answering questions by a
constituent that was concerned about the plans at that time as saying no. The only plan that
would be maintained would be this one. The only way that this altering the impact of the
surrounding properties is that it is designing or designating where future roads will be provided
to the north and then it will be providing this whole link. These plans are just going to be used
for general use to give us a better picture of what the street layouts could possibly have. There
are many possibilities. Many possibilities. So can we possibly argue that this is indeed the
City’s plan where you’ve got someone on staff saying no. These are possibilities. This is not
permanent. The transcript certainly does not give a reader a sense of permanence to this plan.
How can the City again justify picking and choosing what potions of Option B or Option A are
permanent and which are not? What authority is this based on and where is equity and justice in
this with regard to your 30 plus voting constituents in this development? Moreover and perhaps
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018
24
the most, and before I even get to this I just want to acknowledge it’s hard for me to say this. I
want to say this in a respectful manner. I did work for the federal government for years. I
worked for the State so I do recognize that we have honorable people in this room but I just want
to get to the point then. Moreover and perhaps most importantly of anything else that we share
with you tonight it appears that from the very beginning of the planning of our neighborhood and
the development and it’s surrounding neighborhood the process was tainted by allowing a
committee member with a clear conflict of interest play a role in how all of this neighborhood,
basically how the neighborhood was structured. Member David Headla acknowledged in the
transcript that I just referenced earlier that he owned the land adjoining to the southern border of
our development. This indisputable fact raises significant concerns among us regarding the
professionalism and integrity of how the City structured this plan. It raises current concerns
about the public trust. When you look at how this has transpired we have a staff report that has
incorrectly quoted Minnesota and City ordinances. We have a staff report that is recommending
that we move forward with this plan but listing 25 other things that actually need to be addressed
before we can move forward with the development. It raises some significant concerns within
our neighborhood in terms of independence. With that said we hope that through a professional
and respectful dialogue with you our voices will be heard and we can find an equitable solution.
With that I’m going to let you listen to a new voice but be happy if you have questions later I’d
be happy to address those. Dave.
David Lieser: Hello, my name’s David Lieser and I live at 3881 Stratford Ridge.
Aller: Welcome.
David Lieser: Thank you. I hope that this won’t duplicate too many things but we have the
benefit of being able to tell you the issues and problems that we have that aren’t necessarily
related to the same legal arguments that Jason has so well presented. One of our issues is a
potential benefit versus for a few versus the benefit to many. As we’ve mentioned with there are
15 established residents. Residents in the Stratford Ridge Association. All of whom enjoy the
sense of community that the two cul-de-sac street structure affords. In fact this was a major
contributing factor as to why many of the residents purchased their homes here. The burdens
that are outlined below for these residents are significant and I purchased my home there 21,
almost 22 years ago. The burden, oh in addition their precedence established for the alternatives
to gain access to these properties for future development. That is separate cul-de-sacs off
Glendale Drive from the north or short access roads such as the Rocky Island Lane. I don’t
know if you’re familiar with that area but that is right along Minnewashta Parkway. It has 3 or 4
homes on it I think and that’s one of the other alternatives. It could be afforded to the people that
may want to develop property in the future. If Stratford Ridge now or in the future is altered to
either extend the north cul-de-sac or provide a through street the home values will be severely
impacted. Residential real estate professionals quoted to us as much as a negative $50,000 per
home devaluation immediately and while the amount could be debated the significance of the
financial impact for resale value cannot be. In fact it can be argued where there’s already
negative impact due to the City really relaying any intent that it has an interest to put through a
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018
25
right-of-way all the way from Glendale to our property. In that case disclosure would be
warranted in the event of a sale from us at this point to, of all existing homes. Some bringing the
price down significantly. Even for the homes not for sale the City should expect property tax
appeals to account for this loss in valuation. There is a negative impact to road safety due to
increased traffic if this street would be extended from Glendale, which I assume would be the
street would be called Leslee Curve. Based on data from the Chanhassen engineering
department we can assume that there are 2.5 average trips per person each day with an average of
3.5 people per home. Therefore at the north cul-de-sac would have to be extended as shown in
the ghost plot, which was the other, one of the other alternatives mentioned. There will be
15,970 additional trips per year through Stratford Ridge. If there’s a through street new residents
may exit through Stratford Ridge or Glendale Drive to Minnewashta Parkway but significant
additional traffic beyond that would certainly be a factor. Stratford Ridge does not have any
sidewalks and the numerous children of the neighborhood, 15 plus walk and play in the street
and the cul-de-sacs. The cul-de-sac bubbles. We’ve already had numerous incidences in the last
few years of visitors to the neighborhood not heeding the stop sign at the intersection of Stratford
Lane and Stratford Ridge. Any change due to increased number of homes accessing through
Stratford Ridge would certainly contribute much more to that problem. None of the existing
residents previously made aware, that is previous to their buying the property were previously
made aware that the Stratford Ridge cul-de-sac bubble on the north was ever viewed as a likely
extension of Leslee Curve. Nothing exists that raises that idea to enforceable mandate against
Stratford Ridge. Jason already talked about the old Minutes and notes so I’ll skip on past that.
The fact that for the past 30 years the current street structure has existed should defacto render
permanent the structure that we have now, the double cul-de-sac. This includes the burden of
changing our family street addresses would inflict since imposing an extension of Leslee Curve
would likely change our street name. There’s also a broader cost implication to the City and it’s
residents to put a road through or extension. Not only for the building of it but in the ongoing
maintenance, snow removal and so forth. It’s our argument that the cost is not necessary to
support any existing ordinance or obligation by the City. We’re also obviously concerned about
the environmental impact on our properties. The potential negative environmental impact of the
GSD project is substantial. The Planning Commission staff report is replete with significant
objections to the development ranging from…to meet stormwater requirements, including the
need for the emergency overflow routes designed to avoid impacting the wetland areas south of
the project. And the need for the relevant drainage easements permits from the 7 or more
government, quasi government agencies that were enumerated in the water resources section of
the staff report. To the best of our knowledge none of the requirements set forth by the water
resources coordinator other than the provision of a bare bone stormwater maintenance agreement
have been accomplished as agreed or reported thereon. The loss of significant amount of green
space which has graced this area is also of great concern. While the overlay, the overall quality
of tree species on the parcel do not rival the Minnesota Arboretum, the degree to which the area
has been developed certainly needs as much green space as it can mustard. The PC staff has
many issues in that regard which do not appear to have been met or the response has not been
made public yet. The topography and the negative drainage issues or this and the two large
parcels to the south has led the neighbors of these parcels to believe that they would not be
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018
26
developed beyond their current state of development. All 3 of those lots I believe were at one
time classified in the past as equivalent of a residential large lot. The fact that no apparent steps
had been taken to develop those 3 parcels would also certainly reinforce that point of view. In
terms of trees I would mention that it was interesting that through the past week there have been
a lot of trees removed from the Foy parcel and we didn’t really notice any, I don’t know of any
markers or protection areas around the trees you want to save. Has that been done yet?
Audience: The only thing that was removed was buckthorn.
David Lieser: Okay. Well we love that, buckthorn removal. No doubt about that. We certainly
made it clear that we don’t agree with the view of the Planning Commission staff that an
extension of Leslee Curve should now be designed through the GDS project to connect with our
cul-de-sac at the north end of Stratford Ridge. Aside from the many, many significant negatives
impacts such requirement would visit upon our 15 families, the expense and difficulty of
building such an extension would be a serious burden on the city and it’s taxpayers without a
clear significant benefit. The grading in and of itself through the topography over the
intervening parcels would result in serious down and up roller coaster type grade. Certainly
lacking in safety for our children and providing unnecessary challenges to the city in the winter
plowing and ongoing road maintenance. We’re prepared to take further action as necessary to
demonstrate current or future road changes to Stratford Ridge unduly penalize our 15 families for
the speculative benefit of a few. These points are material and the evaluation of the Glendale
proposed project but we welcome any questions or comments on the above as well as discussing
any alternatives for the City to consider. And in the prepared paperwork you’ll find some
photographs of how we use our neighborhood and how we value it. Thank you.
Aller: Thank you. Having had that read into the record by two individuals and having it
formally received into the record it will be forwarded onto the council for it’s review as well as
the Minutes that have been recorded. Would anyone else like to come up and speak either for or
against this item? You can briefly touch on. There was a lot said but if you wouldn’t just
regurgitate the arguments that would be great. But if you have something to add I certainly
would love to hear it.
Carin Moore: Good evening. My name is Carin Moore and I am the personal representative of
the Estate of James and Ruth Boylan at 6760 Minnewashta Parkway.
Aller: Welcome.
Carin Moore: My parents are both deceased so I am the homeowner. I did actually submit a
letter to the city planning group but I’m not sure if everybody got a copy of that and I’m sorry I
did not come as prepared as you guys so I’m going to just repeat a few things. Yeah right, great
perfect. I’ll grab some more to frame at home but.
Aller: And for the record we did receive it.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018
27
Carin Moore: You did receive it.
Aller: And it has been read.
Carin Moore: Wonderful.
Aller: And it is part of the record.
Carin Moore: Great. I did want to address a few things off that letter and as well as show some
documentation. Just a little bit of history. I do want it known that personally myself I have been
meeting with the city planning group for over 7 years regarding my parents property and
potential development so I know that perception may have shown otherwise because my parents
had a choice and made a choice what they were doing with their property. Behind the scenes we
were working as a family to see what potential options there may be for future. I did want to
address the first comment in my letter. I am requesting that the strip of land that is adjacent to
Country Oaks Drive that is west of our property and also the current property currently owned by
Lakewest be split accordingly to line up to our property lines. So one of the pictures that I think
you have Sharmeen shows that strip that was addressed earlier and I just, I know that it was
commented by Lakewest would be taking that over but if you see there is about a 12 foot, 11 foot
give or take piece of property that goes behind our property that we would like to maintain as
our’s just because now we really are officially landlocked at that point without having access off
the back side of our property. With that being said I’m going to actually skip over to one of the
concept drawings. I was requested by city planning group to give options. To show things and I
sat through the August 7th meeting and heard a lot of what my neighbors to the south, Stratford
had made comments and how the options that were given aren’t really feasible for families.
Being a parent of 3 children, living on a cul-de-sac in Minnetrista I totally understand that and I
want to, I wanted to support them as well because as neighbors that’s what you do. You’re
concerned on the hardships that may be affecting them. Not intentionally but just because
something is happening and one of the comments that was made earlier is why are we even
addressing the Kersten’s? Well the Kersten’s are our dear friends and our neighbors and they’re
on our property line so if it affects our property and the future development or options that we
have to consider for our property, we also have to consider our neighbors to the south as well so.
The first one that I want to show actually is the fact that came to my head 7 plus years ago. This
is really fun. Okay. So it shows just our property. It shows what could be done with our
property to make it maybe 2 useable lots. Very large lots because this is over 2 acres worth of
land. However we wanted to kind of keep some of the green space for sure. There was a luxury
of growing up in a forest when you’re 5 years old and 10 years old and you feel that but also the
privacy and you want to keep kind of what, what could be offered. We have a little paradise. A
little slice of heaven with the lakeshore property to the west. East, excuse me is all our own
private property as well as another 2 plus acres. We wanted to maintain some of that so we
looked at okay what if we just made a change to our land, what would that require? It requires
access to Country Oaks. Currently even with that little sliver that is definitely not enough to, for
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018
28
any sort of driveway requirement. We have just been in discussion, please remember these are
full concepts. This is nothing set in stone. No development company has been hired out or
anything. These are just ideas because I want it to be known that we’ve had ideas but some just
don’t potentially work with the City. Some don’t work with the neighbors so we have to figure it
out. That’s what we’re here for. We want to work with everybody the best way possible but we
also have to think of ourselves first quite honestly just as I would expect my neighbors to think
of themselves first. We talked about giving land up so it allows for us to have more of an access
to Country Oaks and then giving them some extra side yard or back yard for them since they
only have about a 6 to 7 foot distance between their home and property line that was missed on
the development when it was previously, when the house was built but even so we tried to go for
the 90 feet that is required. This was not taken in consideration. The curve of the road which
I’ve already talked to city planning group and they have told me well because that wasn’t
considered that’s really not the right distance. It’s not fully the 90 feet so not only am I trying to
ask for a variance for myself if we went this route but I’d also, we’d also have to be asking for a
variance for this homeowner to allow them to now be short. To not, to basically be non-
conforming to the city code requirements. That may not be approved right, so that was our first
original plan in essence. That way we weren’t hurting anybody’s feelings. We weren’t trying to
incringe on anybody else. We were just focused on our property. Okay. Back at the concepts,
and I think you know really the focus is for us the drainage and I know that they brought up the
fact that the rain gardens, they’ll you know hold everything. They’ll take care of it and because
the current house has that certain level it doesn’t affect us but again it’s not just about current.
It’s about future. That’s what you guys are talking about. That’s what the City is talking about
is what could the future bring? We could as a family never develop our property. I understand
that but we also could develop and so we have to look at those options and it’s because of the
size of the property. If this was a half an acre, if it was even a quarter acre probably you
wouldn’t, we wouldn’t even be talking about our property. It would not be of an issue except if
all the water was coming into our land. The problem is, is that if you add hard cover there’s no
more soil there to take the rain so regardless of what’s happening today you throw a house on
there, you throw 5 houses on there, there has to be a proper way to drive this water not coming
into our property anymore than it currently does. I am not an engineer. I am not somebody who
studies weather but that’s common knowledge. If you put cement down that’s non-porous. It’s
not going to take the water the way the soil does so what are we doing to fix that? That’s all I
really care about. That’s my number one concern. Okay. Sorry for skipping around but I have a
lot to say so. Alright we commented on this one earlier that this is the first that this was seen.
Again these are concepts that were requested, hey if you want an option throw options. What
would happen? So I have been working with my neighbor to the south to go what would we be
open to? If we work together this is concept. This is not an ideal concept for Lakewest because
they lose a lot. Like you when you were addressing earlier. You can barely see it but their 5 lots
are still written in in the background but this is if the Kersten’s and the Boylan Estate only work
together and didn’t involve Lakewest, what would be a good concept? Now these are also done
with the 60 foot road where I think there’s a 50 foot variance discussion for roadways so that
would narrow that property. Again just an idea. Taking into consideration the drainage and
stormwater management, this is another concept showing all 5 lots. Keeping the road again at
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018
29
that 60 feet but then also saying okay, if you want 5 lots maybe there’s some shared, some land
that comes from the Boylan property to help make those 5 lots happen. I’m not giving any land
away. I’m not claiming that. It’s just an idea. Okay. And then another concept. Just another
cul-de-sac. Okay coming in. This one obviously combines all 3 properties. Saying let’s all
work together. What could we develop? What could come off of this? This one does however
include a property that would have access to the parkway and I know the City’s encouraging to
try to limit that access but this is again just an idea. One of the things that you won’t see from
me is a drawing like that. Okay. And the reason you see it right is because this is what we took
as the message from what the City thought was great. But I made a comment in here that, I’m
going to read this kind of verbatim for the folks that are sitting here. I’m requesting that the City
review multiple options for this development as well as the potential development of the two
adjoining properties. I know that the City has a plan to connect Stratford Ridge and the
neighborhood to the south. The neighborhood to the south and Leslee Curve with a street that
would run through all 3 properties. I’m also aware that Lakewest is suggesting that a cul-de-sac
be installed instead from the south out of Stratford Ridge current cul-de-sac. I don’t think that
would be the best option due to the land grading that is currently at the north point of the cul-de-
sac. So this area right here. It’s a severe drop. Can’t really see it very well here but it’s about a
solid 10 feet drop in a very short space so it’s definitely a lot of work to have some extra road
coming off of there for sure. As well as the current homeowners are not in support of this
opinion and this option, excuse me. Meaning Stratford Ridge families. While I know the City
developed Stratford’s cul-de-sac with the intention of continuing the road, that information
wasn’t made clear to the current homeowners. At no point was there signage stating that a future
road would be built in it’s place and most people wouldn’t know that the dimensions of the
current cul-de-sac aren’t of the normal size. I do think it’s in everyone’s best interest to maybe
consider alternate options. That’s all I’m doing is just trying to show that there are alternate
options. I think a really good comment again I stressed a little bit a few minutes ago is that it’s
about the neighbors. It really is and a comment was made to not do any hardships to the
neighbors. No offense you’re not our neighbors, okay. These are our neighbors. These are the
people that we care about. The people that I grew up with. I played in Stratford with friends
when I was growing up. My sister did. The Kersten’s have been a second family to us. This is
our family. This is our neighbors. This is our neighborhood. How will it benefit everybody?
That’s all we’re concerned about. That’s what I want to take in consideration. Did I miss
anything that was? And I just, I feel like I want to stress again that a comment was made at the
last meeting that properties should figure out how to develop their own properties you know and
it’s easier said than done. It really is. But here’s me who’s never done something like this
before and I’ve stepped out of the box and tried to give options because I feel that there are so
many options. If it means keeping all 3 properties the way they are, that’s an option. But is this
really the best option for you? Or is this the best option for you? Or is this the best, there’s so
many. Why don’t we take the time to actually figure out what works the best for everybody in
the community and the current homeowners. Thank you. You have any questions?
Aller: Thank you, no. Any additional individuals wishing to come forward to speak either for or
against this item? Seeing no one, oh there we go.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018
30
Jeff Kersten: My name is Jeff Kersten. I live at 6810 Minnewashta Parkway next door to the
Boylan’s. Without trying to regurgitate the stormwater drainage, in terms of when we look at the
elevations, I’m just going to use where we’ve got a topographical map here. That one will work
too. When we take a look at the elevations, in regards to the stormwater we’re not talking about
a one foot drop or a two foot drop. We’re talking about from the properties for the Glendale
subdivision a drop of almost 25 feet down into my property so that’s a significant drop and when
we’re talking about emergency water flow or heavy water, springtime when the snow and you’ve
got a lot of flooding and things, all of that water essentially ends up on my property. Okay. It is
not classified a wetland so, but it is a low area in that there is, we’ve actually got a way that it
does drain out from there but when you’re talking about 25 feet and a lot of rain, and recently
you know we had it. It starts to pool up. It does drain out but if you get heavy rains, 4, 6 inches
or sometimes when we get in the springtime my water, my yard starts to go under water so
you’re not talking about just 1 or 2 inch rains. We’re talking about heavy you know, heavy kinds
of rain that come down that can adversely affect it. So when you take a look at the development
and you take a look at the hard cover and the amount of rain that is probably, or the amount of
water that is going to be in excess of you know what is existing now, that will cause, that will
cause a problem in our property at this stage of the game. So when we take a look at the
stormwater I would like to see a more comprehensive plan in terms of what they want to do with
it. I do not think that the rain gardens are going to you know do that. Again when you’re talking
about those kinds of elevation changes that’s different than 1, 2 or 3 feet of drop. I mean that’s a
heavy drop so that’s, I guess that is my main concern with things going forward. Does anybody
got any questions?
Aller: Questions?
Jeff Kersten: No? Okay, thank you.
Aller: Thank you very much. If I wait long enough someone else will get up. Anyone? Alright,
here we go. We’re going to close the public hearing. Thank you all for coming and speaking
and providing your input. So with that comments. Concerns. Motions. Commissioner Tietz.
Tietz: I’ll comment Andrew. I think if we have, it sounds like we have 3 willing parties on
comprehensive development plan and it could be a win/win for everyone if we can get the parties
together. We do have a significant drainage issue, I agree with you sir. Looking at the site,
walking the site and looking at what’s on there, obviously the work that’s been done taking out
buckthorn but there’s an awful lot of you know, what am I looking for? What’s the tree? Why
am I, box elder. Looks like it’s dominantly and in the report too it’s dominantly box elder. A lot
of trees have been tagged already so at least they’re identified on the plan which is your arborist
has done a good job but there’s still a miscellaneous miss in there I think but it looks like there’s
a good solution. I’m always concerned about properties and they’re developed to the property
line and all of a sudden we have a 9 foot cut on one property line. We’ve looked at some in the
last couple years where it’s an interesting development but everything stops at the property line
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018
31
and we have significant cuts. Maybe not 9 feet but it doesn’t look, it’s not blended. I think
there’s a distinct opportunity to solve a lot of problems here on this site if 3 parties can get
together. There’s a lot of good planning that’s been done on that side and I compliment Ms.
Moore on working with independently and spending a considerable amount of money coming up
with some plans. I think that’s to be commended but if we can, if we can solve it I think the
neighborhood will be well served. It may have some alterations. There may be some variances
that we’re going to look at again. Not sure that any of those 3 plans or 4 plans are perfect but I
think there’s a germ of a start there I think. Something that could turn into something but it
needs willing parties on all 3 parties to be willing. Obviously I don’t know if why all the work
that was being done for the last 7 years hasn’t been on record or transferred onto the Lakewest
group but I think you know it’s, I’m pleased to see the work that’s coming forward tonight. I
agree that the cul-de-sacs are a great solution. You know some of the best new towns that were
planned, Reston and some of those way back in the 60’s and 70’s dealt almost exclusively with
cul-de-sacs with a lot of green space and walk throughs. There’s a lot of evidence in California
Andrew where that type of planning is conducive to neighborhood continuity and protection and
neighborly activity so I’ll stop talking but I think that there’s, there are some opportunities here
and we should, I’d like to hear from my fellow commissioners.
Weick: I’m not sure you do.
Aller: Commissioner Weick.
Weick: Were you here at the August 7th?
Tietz: No.
Weick: Yeah. I.
Aller: I can take it.
Weick: I guess I’ll reiterate my position from our August 7th meeting and I will go on record as
expressing my disappointment that we spent the better part of 2 hours having the same
conversation and I put a significant amount of, amount of the burden of that unfortunately this
time on the City. It doesn’t sound to me like we had a willing participant to discuss a variance
yet we put one in the motion and I don’t understand everything that went on behind the scenes
but I think it’s unconventional from my perspective and my years on this committee that we
would propose a variance that the applicant has not agreed to and so that point of the process
disappoints me. So that said, this is not to me about the street and it never has been about the
street and I’m pretty sure I expressed that in my words and my vote on August 7th as well. To
me this is all about the drainage and unfortunately we only spent about from 9:05 to 9:06 talking
about drainage. That’s the issue. It’s 100 percent about are we sure that we have a plan to
capture the rain water off of the new development so it doesn’t add any burden to the property to
the south. You know burden in the sense of significant runoff in my mind and that’s what I’m
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018
32
struggling with and I do need to, I want to be convinced that there is a path to resolution there in
order to allow the developer to develop the land that they have and that they’re requesting to
develop on October 2nd, 2018 which is what we have in front of us. So I guess that’s, to me
that’s what we have to struggle with and as a committee we should come to a consensus whether
we think that path forward is appropriate. The rest of it is very compelling. The arguments are
fantastic. I did have a little trouble, I’m not quite sure who David Headla is. If that’s a current
person or an old person.
Aller: Sins of the father I suppose.
Weick: That’s the only thing I didn’t follow exactly but I don’t think it matters because I’m in
complete agreement that this is, that we shouldn’t be having a discussion about a through street.
I said it at the last meeting and I, nothing that has been said has changed my mind. To me it’s
about whether this subdivision significantly will negatively impact the two properties to the
south really because they both you know are going to be at the base of that. I’d love to hear
conversation about that. From my fellow commissioners.
Aller: Commissioner Randall.
Randall: I agree with you on that. I really think the water runoff is a huge issue with it. I think
the through street is a non-issue. We’ve seen these different proposals and they spend a lot of
time on but I have concern about the runoff. It’s one of those areas it’s a hard grade to deal with,
especially with these 3 properties and you want to add value to all those properties and is one
going to impact the other so those are my concerns.
Aller: Commissioner Madsen.
Madsen: I would agree with the water drainage and the undue hardship on one for the
development of another. Ideally if the 3 owners could get together that might be the most ideal
solution to be able to work something out. That would be great. I respect all the concerns of the
traffic and the neighborhood. I, the one concern I would have is the current cul-de-sac is not
built large enough for the fire code. I didn’t see a concern if you had a fire in the neighborhood
would several trucks be able to get in there? Maneuver around and save homes in your
neighbors.
David Lieser: And we addressed that.
Jason Watt: We addressed that in the last meeting. It’s not a concern of our’s. They’ve come
to, in fact we were here on National Night Out and they were there probably at the same time
they were here and it’s not a concern of our’s. We’re more concerned about traffic. That’s the
big probability. We’re more concerned about traffic than any sort of fire issue.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018
33
Madsen: The Fire Marshal comment wasn’t updated here so if that has changed perhaps an
update could be provided so that that would be more clear. But it’s primarily the water issue and
the drainage and what, and these infill developments are the most difficult and challenging that
we see. We’ve seen several of them and we’re trying to you know make it the best that we can
for all the residents.
Tietz: But Nancy if we have infill development, let’s say the two properties to the south come
back in 6 months with a plan. Now we’re going to deal with flag lots.
Madsen: Right so that’s.
Tietz: How are we going to deal with the issues that we’ve been dealing with for the last 2 years
when you have a 2 plus acre property and probably another what, acre and three-quarters or
something. Almost 2 in the south. We’ve got 4, probably 4 acres that are now essentially
landlocked. Not landlocked but they’re going to create, they’re either going to have to continue
to come off of Minnewashta Drive, which the City wants to eliminate those exits and entrances
and if they try to develop the back side of the property we’re going to be dealing with a variance
for a flag lot which puts more property coming out onto Minnewashta. You know if we have the
opportunity, I don’t know where everyone is on this but, and we can’t dictate that but I think we
solve the water issues. We solve traffic issues and you create another nice neighborhood by
putting 3 properties together as opposed to developing a strip of houses.
Aller: It’s all been said. In looking at this I agree that, and I’ve always been a proponent of an
individual being to develop his or her property to the extent that they’re not intruding on the
rights of another. That water has been a big issue especially in this area which is a lake area and
in Chanhassen in general. And so I too think that water is the most critical issue. I also would
agree that we can’t just plan or develop in a vacuum. This neighborhood is, has expressed itself
as a neighborhood because they look out for each other and because they’re next door to each
other and I’ve heard the comment that they aren’t, they aren’t my neighbor. Well they might be
so when I look at the arguments that are made about statements that were done 20 years ago by
individuals that we may or may not have met and not hearing that at the time someone was
sitting here or purchasing a property because they heard those comments, I look at it and say life
goes on. Things change. Change is inevitable. Properties change. Neighborhoods change.
People change and when you buy a piece of property you don’t know where the next road is
coming through or the next house is coming from or the next restaurant is going to be French
Italian or whatever. We just kind of plan as best we can for the future. Give as much notice as
we can and then take care of ourselves as Chanhassen neighbors so I do agree that I’m looking at
this more in the sense of what is before us today. But I’m troubled by the fact that there are two
competing interests that have been expressed. One the City, their concern with and the
information that we have had that hasn’t changed as far as I know and that is that the fire
department officials say that it’s better to have a through street then the cul-de-sacs so we’re
looking at those competing interests between the health, safety and welfare of the children, just
as you are with the traffic coming through and so these decisions are going to be very difficult
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018
34
and I don’t know whether anyone is going to be happy but I would hope that we could fashion a
motion that could move the potential project forward for further discussion. Allow this applicant
to have his hearing before the City Council with the opportunity to have the additional
information that has now been provided by this well orchestrated community. Always looked at
their interest and have been very forthright in what they’re looking at in a protective fashion and
it sounds like that they’re really open to a development. The question is what kind of
development and so when we talk about them getting together, we all see that but we can’t as a
commission say hey I move that they all sit down and they don’t leave the table and nobody goes
to the bathroom until we’re done. I think we have to let the parties take their natural course and
before us we have an applicant who’s made a motion and there is a Findings of Fact that have to
be made. When we do look at the, the arguments that were made by Stratford Ridge residents
and we talk about what has been presented in the packets, I do agree that some of them are not
verbatim but if you go through the packet the Findings of Fact are listed and they are through the
statute an they go step by step with the proposal for those findings so staff might, and us as a
commission might be better to direct staff to try to be a little bit more verbatim but I think, I
think we’re as open as we can be by providing all that information on the website including the
proposed Findings of Fact so I applaud the City for doing that. I applaud you for pointing out the
discrepancies and I think it can be looked at and we can come up with a better product so it’s
more consistent. More accurate because that’s what we strive to do is get you as much
information as homeowners so I would do that but I would welcome a motion that might strip
out those things that you are not in favor of perhaps. Or would like to set aside but at the same
time be able to move the applicant forward rather than have a straight denial if that was your
intention. And if you feel that the project can’t move forward as is, you don’t have enough
information I’m not sure at this point in time that, not having enough information is the same as
would be required for a denial. We’ve received information. We’ve received reports and
information from the individuals and the applicants and the neighborhood and I think we owe it
to them to go ahead and move this forward one way or another. So does anybody have any
ideas?
Randall: Well I agree with you that it needs to move forward. I’m just trying to think of the best
way to do that. To incorporate that so it’s not as vague as it is now. Or does it need to be vague
like it is right now and go to the City with all these issues or the City Council.
Aller: Well you can make whatever motion you want. I don’t foresee tabling it again to have
people get together.
Randall: No.
Aller: There are conditions in there that could be either enhanced or stripped or the motion as is
with the Findings of Fact as is. And if we’re going to deny it then there should be rationale for
that denial which may include information not being provided or based upon the information and
testimony that’s been provided by the neighborhood and the applicant.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018
35
Weick: I can propose a motion.
Aller: Commissioner Weick.
Weick: I don’t know how to handle the, and the developer will have to maybe have a discussion
with the other homeowner about that little nub of land.
Aller: Sure.
Curt Fretham: Sure, we’d be willing to do that. Can I interrupt for just a second? You probably
are.
Aller: Sure.
Curt Fretham: Okay I’ll keep it short but we believe that, or what we would like to see is a
recommendation for approval of our plat that we’ve submitted. We believe that the water
concerns of your’s are very important and we feel confident that we can address those properly
and make changes to the plan that we can get staff to agree to so we’re hopeful that you could
put that in as a condition of approval that we meet your watershed stormwater management
requirements with both the watershed and city staff.
Aller: I think they’re already in correct?
Curt Fretham: Okay so just acknowledging that. And on the two provisions on the top 1 and 2
we’re talking about the through street, that hopefully you would strike that of course but I also
want to address your condition or disconcern and maybe it’s out of line but we have looked at a
number of other layouts with the properties to the south. We have tried to reach an agreement
with the property owners to the south to sell and there just hasn’t been an interest to do that or at
a price that was worked for us so I don’t want you to think that we didn’t look at that at all. We
certainly did so that’s all.
Aller: Thank you. What do you think?
Weick: You want to try or?
Randall: No you’ve got a train of thought so you go with that.
Weick: I do think there’s certainly, I think as I noted on you know page 10. Talk about the
HOA and other things about the drainage, I think it’s already written in those conditions if those
follow through in a strict, in my mind it’s written in a pretty strict manner that there’s still a lot to
prove and overcome in order to make sure that that works so I would propose that the
Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat to subdivide
2.14 acres into 5 lots and 1 outlot subject to the conditions of approval and adopting the Findings
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018
36
of Fact and Recommendation including for note the letter that we received prior to the meeting
and the packet of information that was presented during the meeting.
Aller: Which would be the Stratford Ridge subdivision residents packet.
Weick: Correct.
Aller: Okay. Is that your full motion?
Weick: Yes.
Aller: So that’s the full motion.
Madsen: Just clarification.
Aller: Clarification.
Madsen: So that would include the requirement for a through street?
Weick: No.
Randall: Where’s the, I was looking for that.
Madsen: Because I believe that’s a condition of that.
Weick: Okay. I thought by not including that in the proposal that it would, if that would then
strike the applicable conditions. That would be my intention.
Madsen: You’re striking the conditions for which?
Weick: So I’m striking the sentence that says, and a variance to allow a 50 foot public right-of-
way as shown in plans stamped received August 29, 2018. I’m striking that. That is not part of
my proposal.
Randall: But isn’t the right-of-way, isn’t that on the top up here?
Weick: No I think that’s for the through street I believe. That was the clarification.
Aller: That’s the stub for the through.
Randall: Okay.
Generous: It could be for a cul-de-sac.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018
37
Weick: Or anything. My proposal and you’re certainly welcomed to vote against it, my
proposal is not to include a stub and to.
Aller: Well let me ask the engineer. Do we need a stub for the?
Curt Fretham: As a quick point. On the top of page 9 of 12 even though it’s not labeled as
conditions of approval, these are the conditions because it follows it saying it on the bottom of
page 8. So if we are not talking about the through street we would say that you would need to
strike out, and I would look to the city engineer, strike out items 1 and 2 under engineering
which is incorporating provisions for a through street as well as providing utility design to
extend sanitary water as part of that through street. Those two are directly related to a through
street design.
Aller: Well let me ask Mr. Bender whether or not would we need that for a cul-de-sac?
Bender: If a cul-de-sac went in there we wouldn’t need it. It just wouldn’t be a through street.
It’d be a street design that supports providing access and utilities to all of the lots which has been
discussed tonight could be of multiple configurations.
Curt Fretham: Our proposed…does not need items 1 and 2.
Weick: Should I withdraw the motion and restate it?
Aller: Sure. It hasn’t been seconded.
Weick: Okay. I will withdraw my previous motion and I will make a new motion. I’ll give it
another shot. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary
plat to subdivide 2.14 acres into 5 lots and one outlot subject to the conditions of approval,
striking items number 1 and 2 as it relates to the engineering section but adopting the remaining
Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Including the letter provided before the meeting started
by the homeowner and the packet provided by the Stratford Ridge Subdivision residents.
Aller: Do you want those to be conditions or just to be considered?
Weick: No, just noted.
Aller: Okay. So they’ve already been noted so those.
Weick: Then I didn’t need to say that.
Aller: Okay having a motion as stated. Without the reference to the Stratford Ridge subdivision
or the letter, do I have a second?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018
38
Randall: I second.
Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion?
Tietz: Yeah Chairman. I’m going to vote no simply because I think there’s a better solution and
I think we, I don’t know how the parties, if they did get together, what the correspondence has
been. How much time was spent but I’m looking out for the whole neighborhood. I agree with
the through street is inappropriate given the conditions we have there but I think there’s a better
solution for a three party solution and based on that I will vote against.
Weick: As a point of clarification there’s nothing in the motion that prevents any homeowners in
this neighborhood from meeting and getting together and making other arrangements. I just
want to note that. But that is not what’s in front of us tonight.
Aller: Additional comments, concerns, questions amongst the commissioners?
Madsen: So it incorporates all the rest including the homeowners association.
Aller: Correct.
Madsen: All those other items. Okay.
Aller: Again this is a motion that would be a recommendation to the City Council and final
action would be taken on October 22nd.
Jason Watt: Sorry to trouble you. Could you just repeat the motion one more time so we can try
to catch up with you?
Aller: I don’t have a court reporter to read it back but it’s basically the motion to approve the
subdivision with the conditions in the report, adopting the Findings of Fact except for the two
conditions that are in the engineering which would apply to a through street.
Jason Watt: So that is under the variance findings? Paragraph 1?
Aller: There is no request for a variance. So I have a motion and a second. Any further
discussion?
Madsen: Just that I think ideally it would be wonderful if the 3 property owners get together but
we do have to vote on what’s in front of us so although ideally I think it would be better if the 3
can, we can’t make that happen and we have to make a decision on this so.
Aller: Okay.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018
39
Weick moved, Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
approval of the preliminary plat to subdivide 2.14 acres into five lots and one outlot as
shown in plans stamped Received August 29, 2018 subject to the following conditions of
approval and adopts the findings of fact and recommendation:
SUBDIVISION
Engineering:
1. Deleted.
2. Deleted.
3. Provide ROW over the entirety of the trail along the west side of Minnewashta Parkway.
(The site plan indicates the eastern property line will comply with Condition #3 but the
concern identified in Condition #4 in relation to the existing survey was not addressed.
Therefore, Condition #3 remains as previously indicated.)
4. The survey of existing conditions does not indicate ROW between Glendale Drive and to
the south for approximately 100 feet. (The survey does not correlate with Carver
County’s property information which indicates right-of-way for the road section is in
place but a portion of the bituminous trail on the west side of Minnewashta Parkway is
not within the ROW.)
5. No stationing is shown in the plan set.
6. The drainage and utility easements are shown only on the plat. They should also be
conveyed on the site plan. (D&U easements were added to the grading plan but not the
site and utility plan.)
7. Indicate surface water drainage flow arrows on the grading plan.
8. Provide existing and proposed elevations at the following locations: each lot corner, top
of curb or centerline of the street at each lot line extension, center of proposed driveway
at the curb or edge of the roadway.
9. Additional conditions will be identified after the developer has an opportunity to revise
the design based upon the current conditions that are considered to be major in nature as
they will require significant changes to the design.
Water Resources:
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018
40
1. Private stormwater best management practices (BMPs) are not permitted in public
drainage and utility easements. Private BMPs shall be located outside of public drainage
and utility easements.
2. Easements for private stormwater treatment devices must be recorded against the
properties using the city’s private stormwater easement template and approved by the
City Engineer.
3. A Homeowners Association (HOA) encompassing all lots is required to ensure the
technical expertise and a funding mechanism for the operation and maintenance of
stormwater treatment devices is ensured in perpetuity.
4. Operation and maintenance of private stormwater BMPs is required in perpetuity. An
operation and maintenance plan must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator
and recorded against the properties that details the HOA’s permanent inspection,
maintenance, and funding mechanism that ensures stormwater BMPs will function as
designed.
5. To ensure stormwater treatment devices function as designed, the developer is
responsible for the operation, maintenance, and performance of all stormwater
improvements including vegetation, structures, soils, inspections, and erosion/sediment
control for the first five years after project completion. After the first five years,
responsibility shall transfer to the HOA. The developer is responsible for ensuring all
stormwater improvements are functioning as designed at the end of the first five years. If
stormwater improvements are not functioning as designed at the end of the first five
years, as determined by the City Engineer, than the developer shall remain responsible
for all operation and maintenance until devices are functioning as designed.
6. Infiltration/filtration basins must be located a minimum of 10’ from the building envelope
of any primary structure.
7. If an emergency overflow route is adjacent to the property the lowest building opening
must be a minimum of one foot above the emergency overflow (City Code Sec. 19-144).
Proposed EOF for lots 1-4 = 978.5’-978’. EOF route proposed onto adjacent property
6760 Minnewashta Parkway with lowest building opening approx. 976’ (window well).
All EOFs routing onto this adjacent property must be 1’ below the lowest floor opening.
Developer may provide a treatment train or single stormwater treatment device on Lot 5
to meet this requirement.
8. EOF routes shall not create a hazard or nuisance condition onto adjacent property (City
Code Sec. 7-78).
9. SWPPP contact must be identified.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018
41
10. Developer must provide an erosion and sediment control plan, and dewatering plan
approved by the Water Resources Coordinator.
11. Maximum impervious per lot is 25%.
12. All pervious surfaces require six inches of topsoil and 18 inches of decompaction.
Topsoil shall be tested and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator.
13. The developer shall provide an updated Hydrocad model and stormwater management
plan that is consistent with and supports the engineered plans and geotechnical report.
14. The geotechnical report identifies the presence of groundwater at 972 elevation on Lot 5
(SB-1). There must be three feet of separation between the bottom elevation of
stormwater infiltration devices and the water table. Based on the geotechnical report, the
bottom elevation for an infiltration basin on Lot 5 can be no lower than elevation 975.
15. The geotechnical report identifies moderately slow permeability of soils. Basins are
proposed with 12” ponding depth suitable for well draining soils. Basins must be sized to
allow no more than 6” of ponding depth and drawdown within 24-48 hours.
16. Soil borings and infiltration tests must be performed within the perimeter of all basin
locations prior to final approval.
17. Design plans must be provided for all vegetated BMPs including contours, grading, inlet
and outlet structures, underdrains, filtration media/amended soils, location and quantities
of all species used. Ecotype must be native or approved native hybrid.
18. Details must be provided and approved for all stormwater treatment devices.
19. The proposed redevelopment requires Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD)
development review and permits.
20. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure and submit proof that permits are received
from all other agencies with jurisdiction over the project (i.e. Army Corps of Engineers,
DNR, MnDOT, Carver County, MCWD, Board of Water and Soil Resources, PCA, etc.)
prior to the City issuing permits.
21. Project must meet all stormwater requirements of the city and the MCWD.
22. Project will require stormwater management fees associated with city development
review and permitting process. Fees can be estimated but cannot be accurately calculated
until approvals have been received from the MCWD.
23. The site plan must identify the ability to install a future stormwater pipe that could
connect the development to a regional pond southeast of the development.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018
42
24. The development must use Chanhassen Standard Specifications and Detail Plates.
Parks:
1. In lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction, full park dedication fees shall be
collected at the rate in force at the time of final plat approval. At today’s rate, these fees
would total $29,000 (five lots x $5,800 per lot).
Environmental Resources Coordinator:
1. The minimum number of overstory trees required to be planted in the development is 41.
2. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed around existing trees to be saved prior to any
construction activities and remain installed until completion.
3. The applicant shall install the required buffer yard plantings on Lot 5 along Minnewashta
Parkway.
All voted in favor, except Commissioner Tietz who opposed, and the motion carried with a
vote of 4 to 1.
Aller: And the motion carries 4 to 1. Again thank you to all the residents for appearing for
presenting and taking the opportunity to get together as a community and choosing two
representatives. One two representatives but showing your support for them as they presented
your information and thank you to the applicant for presenting and listening patiently and I think
hopefully we’re on our way to some form of resolution so good luck to all.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Madsen noted the verbatim and summary
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 18, 2018 as presented.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS.
Aller: We’ll go to City Council action update and administrative.
Generous: Thank you Mr. Chairman. The only item, planning item that went to the City
Council was a variance request. Or the amendment to the Chanhassen Retail Center for
additional signage and that was denied.
Aller: And it was denied on procedure right? It failed for a second?
Generous: Yeah.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018
43
Aller: So there was a motion made. There was no second and therefore the.
Generous: They couldn’t approve it.
Aller: Oh no then there was a second motion too to deny.
Generous: So and that’s it for council action because we haven’t had any projects that came
through.
Aller: Right.
Generous: Future Planning Commission items. The October 16th meeting is now a work
session. We’ll be meeting in the Fountain Conference Room. I was supposed to poll you,
would you rather come in at 6:00 and get it done earlier or 7:00 for a meeting time?
Aller: The 16th.
Generous: October 16th. We’re going to review, there’s been changes to the flood plain
protection ordinance and we need to adopt it by the end of the year and so we’d like to present
the items to you so that you can.
Aller: Is there a work session coming up on that with the City Council before that date too?
Generous: Is there a work session? Not that I’m aware of. We will be presenting information to
them on that.
Aller: Okay.
Generous: And then the following, November 6th is an election night so we don’t have a hearing
that night and so November 20th we would actually bring the ordinance back for the public
hearing and we will notify the people who are affected by the ordinance directly because there
are some changes in flood classifications for certain properties and so we’ll go through there.
We need to make this amendment so that we can continue to get flood insurance in the
community.
Aller: Yeah that’s what I was going to comment on. So those of you at home that are watching
should keep and eye on that because it does impact your ability to obtain or the cost of insurance
and the necessity to have flood insurance.
Strong: Do just want to add one note Commissioner Aller. There was, it was an error to the
FEMA flood plain maps and it was an error by FEMA that they accidentally offset one of our
lines and it will create a couple of parcels to be in the flood plain that shouldn’t be in the flood
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018
44
plain. There is an appeals process that staff will help them through and that was FEMA’s
direction to correct their error so.
Aller: So hopefully after FEMA corrects their error they will not be in a flood plain.
Strong: They will not actually be correcting their error. They decided to develop the appeals
process for those property owners that are impacted by their error but part of this is also to ensure
that those property owners know that there is a process for that.
Aller: There’s a process out there.
Strong: It’s unique to Chanhassen so.
Aller: We are unique.
Generous: We’re just lucky.
Aller: Any additional comments?
Generous: So it was back to the polling. We won’t be having dinner that night but would we
rather do it at 6:00 or your normal 7:00?
Aller: Those that are challenged as far as time? I can go either way.
Weick: I have no preference so.
Madsen: I could go either way but how thick is it? I mean how many hours do you anticipate it
will take?
Generous: It won’t be, it should be less than an hour I would think would be total presentation.
It’s basically to give you the background and let you know where we’re going with the ordinance
and so that you’re not given all this when we have the public hearing and have these people that
we notified that you’re now in the flood plain and as Vanessa said some of them aren’t and we’ll
tell them about the process that we’ll help them get through.
Aller: Great.
Madsen: Whatever works.
Aller: 6:00.
Weick: 6:00 it is.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 2, 2018
45
Generous: Okay.
Aller: We’ll try to shoot for 6:00.
Tietz: But let Mark and Michael know so. I might not read everything that I get and I always go
at 7:00 so just let them know.
Generous: Okay. And we’ll put that information out to you and again we’ll highlight that it will
be in the Fountain Conference Room. We’ll keep, we won’t have Nann here so we’ll just keep
summary minutes.
Aller: Great. Okay I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn.
Commissioner Weick moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was
adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim