PC 2018 08 07CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 7, 2018
Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Steve Weick, Nancy Madsen, Mark
Randall, and Michael McGonagill
MEMBERS ABSENT: John Tietz
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; George
Bender, Assistant City Engineer, and Vanessa Strong, Water Resources Coordinator
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Russ & Diana Jones 3961 Country Oaks Drive
Lynn & Nancy Simpson 3980 Country Oaks Drive
Court MacFarlane 3800 Leslee Curve
Jane Bender 4001 Stratford Ridge
Steve Arndt 2960 Stratford Ridge
David Robertson 2900 Stratford Ridge
Jason Watt 3961 Stratford Ridge
Trent Birkholz 3851 Stratford Ridge
David & Diane Lieser 3881 Stratford Ridge
Linda Brand 3981 Country Oaks
Garit Solheim-Witt 3850 Leslee Curve
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONTROL CONCEPTS: REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCE.
Generous: Thank you Chairman, commissioners. Control Concepts, this is part two Planning
Case 2018-11. We saw the site plan at the July 17th meeting. As part of that there was concern
about the size of the retaining walls adjacent to the pedestrian trail that’s being put in. So we
worked with the applicant to come up with an alternative design that would reduce the size of
those walls. However to do that they need a variance to encroach the retaining walls into the
Bluff Creek primary zone setback. Not into the primary zone itself but into the 40 foot setback
from that one. The property is located at 8077 Century Boulevard. This is in the Arboretum
Business Park planned unit development. The request is in conjunction with the site plan so this
is only a recommendation that we’ll make tonight. You won’t make a final decision as a Board
of Appeals and Adjustments to permit the retaining wall to encroach into the primary zone
setback as shown on their plans. The property is guided for office industrial uses. It’s zoned
planned unit development as part of the Arboretum Business Park. It’s also within the Bluff
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
2
Creek corridor which has additional protection requirements. This was the site plan that was
approved on, or recommended for approval on the 17th. Unfortunately it’s only two dimensional
so it looks really great and easy on the screen. It’s a 54,600 square foot building. The western
portion is, has a two story office component and then it has warehouse and manufacturing or
manufacturing space on the eastern side. There is a tenant space on the extreme eastern end of
the building. As submitted with the site plan review they were proposing one, a single retaining
wall adjacent to the trail system. This raised, had high points of over 18 feet at the corner of the
property. At the turning points in the trail and then also down on the east end of it. That was a
concern of the Planning Commission and staff and the Parks Director and what type of
environment would that create for the trail users. The applicant was able to provide us with a
cross section to give you an idea of what the experience would be and you can see that wall
would really dominant the walking in that area so, and this is I believe at the point 7 on the trail.
So as part of the alternative design we came up with the tiered wall system. It reduced, basically
split the height of the retaining wall so half was on top and half was below. It reduced the
highest point in the retaining wall to 12 feet on the eastern end of the building but at that corner
point down in here it had an upper elevation of almost 9 feet. Just under 9 feet for the retaining
wall and then another 9 foot retaining wall below it so they created like an overview or shelf area
in the corner that would allow people to look over the wetland complex to the northeast of that.
This is, however having this wall encroach into the 40 foot setback requires a variance and so
that’s what we’re here for tonight. Again they provided a cross section to show how the
experience for people using the trail would be much more human scale and so we would think it
will provide an enhanced environment for people to go forward. Staff is recommending that the
Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance to permit the retaining walls within
the Bluff Creek primary zone setback. We have Findings of Fact that it is in harmony with our
ordinance and it does not change the character of the area but we believe will enhance the
pedestrian experience as they use this trail system. Additionally there’s adoption of Findings of
Fact and Recommendation. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Aller: Any questions at this time of staff? Commissioner Weick.
Weick: First time this came up I just did a bad job of getting clarification for myself so I just,
I’m looking for clarification on the necessity for the trail. So is there currently like a dead end
trail in the Preserve that’s waiting to be connected?
Generous: There is a fork that was established with the 7th Addition which was built in 2007 to
come towards the north.
Weick: Okay.
Generous: And so that was the plan and this would actually connect to the heart of the
Arboretum Business Park area and provide really easy access for people to get onto the system.
Right now you can get into it off of 82nd Street. There’s a connection that goes around, there’s a
big stormwater pond in that corner.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
3
Weick: Yeah.
Generous: And then into it so it was felt at the time of the subdivision and approval that this was
an important connection so we’re trying to implement that. As part of the approval for the 7th
Addition the developer was required to do that but we allowed them to wait until this site
developed before putting in the trail. We could have had them put in the trail back in 2007 and
then the development would have to come in and either fit into, their design into where the trail
was or.
Weick: Yeah, okay. That’s all I had.
Aller: Great. Any additional questions? Commissioner McGonagill.
McGonagill: Bob on the down slope wall, what would the fencing be along that wall to keep
people from falling off of it? Do you recall?
Generous: Yeah it’s a dual pipe system so two rails of pipe. Black pipe that would go along
there. About 42 inches high.
McGonagill: Okay, thank you.
Generous: And it’s the open design so when we push snow it can go through that in the winter
so that people would be able to use that year round.
McGonagill: Okay thank you. Keeps bikes from going off it.
Generous: Yes.
Aller: Commissioner Madsen. Is that fence similar to the one that goes along 101? It’s on the
right side, or on the west side of 101.
Generous: Yes that’s what the design that they were talking, the Parks Director was talking
about. That it’d be similar to that.
Madsen: Yep south of Lyman, north of Pioneer Trail.
Generous: Correct.
Madsen: Okay thank you.
Aller: Okay I have a question for Ms. Strong. As always I’m always concerned about the Bluff
Creek so obviously they made an effort to alter their plans based upon the comments from the
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
4
last hearing. The question I have basically is going towards when we stagger this we’re going to
reduce the speed of the runoff. How will that impact, based upon the grade and the elevations or
would it impact the flow as compared to, are we getting a better deal with the two as opposed to
one?
Strong: I thought about that too. It’s really tough to say. I think they’re attempting the best they
can to meet the needs for the trail so I think when it comes to runoff, the ground level versus the
two tiered, the difference is not considerable compared to the fact that they actually need to meet
the trail in the first place. Obviously ideal would be to have a wider buffer. That’s really what
we need. But with a balance to meet many needs so.
Aller: Any additional questions based, hearing none we’ll have the applicant come forward and
make a presentation. Answer questions. If you could state your name and address and
representational capacity for the record that would be great.
Cory Watkins: Hi. Cory Watkins. I’m with Control Concepts. We’re at 18760 Lake Drive East
in Chanhassen.
Aller: Welcome back.
Cory Watkins: Thank you. You know I don’t have a lot to present. Your staff did a good job of
presenting what we’re doing. I would say that the original proposal that we put forward did not
require a variance and so the variance is really specifically because of requests to have it be a
different user experience so it’s more of a trail causing the variance versus us as an entity
looking for the variance so that’s really our position on it so.
Aller: Additional questions, comments. Alright, thank you sir.
Cory Watkins: Alright thank you.
Aller: At this time I’ll open up the public hearing portion of the item. This is an opportunity for
those present to come forward and speak either for or against the item. Seeing no one come
forward I’m going to close the public hearing portion of the item and open it up for
commissioner discussion or action.
Weick: Yeah the only comment I would make, I’m not opposed to this in any way. It seems like
we’re putting an awful lot of work into making this connection. I’m, I don’t know that we really
need to make this connection. I use that area and you can get around. I think sufficiently
without that connection. It’s really not that far from the 82nd Street that kind of brings you
around in on the other side so I, personally I don’t even think we need to make the connection. It
doesn’t, you know if that’s what we want to do that’s fine. It seems like a good solution. I’m
just not convinced that it’s needed.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
5
Aller: Additional comments? Questions? I’d entertain a motion for or against.
Undestad: I’ll make a motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval
of a variance to permit retaining walls within the Bluff Creek primary zone setbacks subject to
the conditions of approval and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation.
Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
McGonagill: Second.
Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion? Okay. Comments. Otherwise
we’ll entertain a vote.
Undestad moved, McGonagill seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of a variance to permit construction of retaining walls within the Bluff Creek
primary zone setback as shown in the plans prepared by Loucks, dated 06-15-2018, revised
7-12-18, subject to the following conditions and adoption of the Findings of Fact and
Recommendation:
Building
1. Retaining walls over 4 feet in heights require an engineered design.
Environmental Resources
1. The applicant shall coordinate a trail inspection with the city arborist to review tree
removals prior to any trail construction activities.
2. Tree protection fencing must be installed at the edge of grading limits along the trail.
Parks
1. The developer shall be responsible for planning, engineering, and constructing the
“wetland trail.” Connection points for this new trail shall be the terminus of the Trotters
Ridge trail and the intersection of Century Boulevard and Water Tower Place. Bid
documents, including plans and specifications, shall be approved by the Park &
Recreation Director and City Engineer prior to soliciting bids. Project bidding shall
occur in a competitive environment with a minimum of three bids being received. The
results of the bidding process shall be reviewed with the Park & Recreation Director and
City Engineer prior to award. Cash payment for trail construction shall be made from the
City of Chanhassen to the developer upon completion, inspection, and acceptance of the
trail.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
6
2. Trail easements within Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 7th shall be dedicated to
the city to accommodate the “wetland trail”.
Water Resources and Engineering
1. The limits of the Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD) shall be identified throughout the
plan set.
2. Add detailed design for the retaining walls including a profile, proposed construction
materials, and railings/fences.
3. Add cut sections through the retaining walls and the trail to provide for easier
visualization and enhance constructability.
4. Create a parapet design along the upper wall when it is above the trail.
5. Extend the silt fence installation as appropriate to protect from construction.
6. Identify snow storage locations on the plans.
7. Provide a restoration plan for grading in the wetland buffer and in the Bluff Creek
Overlay District (BCOD) buffer.
8. The proposed redevelopment will need Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District
(RPBCWD) permits.
9. 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, RPBCWD, Board of Water and Soil Resources, PCA,
etc.).
10. The grade through the ADA areas of the parking lot shall be a maximum of 2% slope in
any direction. The point elevations should be re-checked. Add this code requirement in a
note on the plans.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
GLENDALE DRIVE SUBDIVISION REQUEST.
Al-Jaff: Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. The application before you is
for a 5 lot subdivision and a variance that is being recommended by city staff for narrowed width
of a right-of-way from 60 feet to 50 feet. Briefly the subject site is located southeast of the
intersection of Glendale Drive and Minnewashta Parkway. It is zoned single family residential.
It is guided low density. It does lie within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnewashta which makes it
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
7
within the shoreland overlay district. Any regulations pertaining to shoreland will apply to this
site. The grades overall slope southeast on this property. There is Roundhouse Park located
within the service area of the site. There are trails along Minnewashta Parkway which this site
will have access to. Just a brief background. The reason we’re going to provide this information
is because staff has received a large number of phone calls and inquiries. Whenever a
subdivision appears before staff and when we meet with a property owner or a developer, staff
does not look at a property in a vacuum. We always have to look at the big picture. How is the,
yes we do look at lot areas such as in the single family residential district we look at lot area that
has to be 15,000 square feet. Lot frontage on a street that is 90 feet. Depth that is 125. Those
are the simple things. The way we provide connection to other properties located in the
surrounding area. How do we extend sewer, water. If we do add development to an area can
emergency vehicles approach these sites. Can they, if we build homes where is the water going?
Overall what direction is it going? When you have property that is next to shoreland where is the
water being treated before it goes into the lake because ultimately that’s where it’s going to end
up so again overall when we look at a subdivision there is more to it than just meeting the simple
requirements of lot area, lot width and lot depth. We have to look at circulation. We have to
look at emergency management. With that said that will allow me to talk about the surrounding
area. One of the issues that we need to point out or one of the facts that we need to point out at
this point, the property that is immediately west of the subject site which is the Country Oaks
development left a very small sliver that was always intended to be part of the development that
is before you today. It was going to be combined with it and subdivided. That piece went tax
forfeit and the City ended up owning it. It is our intent to turn over that piece of property. The
other thing I want to point out is this bubble of a cul-de-sac right here which is temporary in
nature, back in 1987 there was a development proposed for this site which is the Stratford Ridge
development. As I mentioned earlier whenever city staff looks at a development we cannot, we
may not look at it in a vacuum. We have to look at the big picture. The developer for Stratford
Ridge came back with two options for developing these sites and at that time the only existing
development that was a platted development was northwest of where we are right now. Of the
site we’re looking at. Throughout this area the roads were extended specifically through to the
north between Stratford Ridge and Glendale. Option B, which is closer to what actually got
developed cul-de-sacked this section rather than putting it through on both sides. But this
connection still was maintained through these parcels to the north. At this point I want to turn it
over to our engineering staff that will address both, will address the stormwater as well as the
street connections and basically elaborate on that portion of the background and why we’re
recommending some of the issues be resolved.
Bender: Okay I’ll take it from there Sharmeen. Thank you very much. To speak about the
access one thing that I want to explain is Minnewashta Parkway is a, known as a, has collector
status designation by the city code. It means that it’s a primary street with higher average daily
traffic volumes. It’s meant to be a faster circulation road rather than residential, just a regular
residential street. And as such along Minnewashta Parkway it is a goal of the City and as
expressed in the city code to limit the access to it so similar to more of a highway type design
where it’s controlled access. So the goal essentially that we apply when engineering projects
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
8
touch these type of things, these roadways, is to not allow additional accesses to the collector
street and to eliminate accesses where possible. So when areas redevelop that is a consideration.
In addition to the area that Sharmeen was explaining is this bubble down here is actually platted
with a stub to go to the northeast towards Leslee Circle. Or Curve. And that’s the, one of the
primary indications that led us to go looking through our records to find the information from
1987 that Sharmeen presented. In addition there’s narrative within the development files that
discusses it as she was trying to summarize for it to go through. One of the things that the 5 lot
development would do is cut off access to Leslee Curve from Stratford Ridge. In speaking with
the Fire Marshal about that on behalf of the fire department and emergency management services
they would be against doing that so if the two parcels to the south developed, that cul-de-sac
would essentially have to propagate to the north and become permanent and the fire department,
Fire Marshal’s review would prefer more access, quicker access and more convenient access as
in a through street through the area. And in addition this cul-de-sac is already at a maximum
length per our city code. It’s at 782 feet. Our city code is currently maximizes that length at 800
feet. As a technicality the fire code actually limits that to 750 feet that is currently applied so
there’s a little bit of a discrepancy between our code and the fire code by 50 feet. What it says is
you know we’re basically at the maximum length. So extending that further would have to be
you know a special consideration that would be recommended by City Engineer and then
approved by many other parties along the way that believed it would be the right thing to do.
One last consideration is that bubble is 90 feet in diameter. That would place an awful lot of
extra area coming off of these two lots that instead of having the through street that would go
here. So in order to allow 5 lots here there’s a little bit of a future undue burden upon the two
lots to the south. So you know there’s access so the lots that would be considered with a through
street along here would have access off, taken off of Minnewashta Parkway which we feel is a
benefit and they would have a through street in order to allow however the development
configuration takes place and these lots up here of course would have access to Glendale so.
From an access standpoint that’s the discussion that I wanted to convey. So this is kind of a
ghost plat. Kind of shows the size of the bubble. I don’t even believe the size of that bubble is
actually the true 90 feet in diameter. It would actually look bigger. And you know it also is
going to have to work from a stormwater perspective as well and that’s where access kind of
turns it over to you know water resources to you know holistically look at this development. So
lastly that’s kind of what this statement is saying. It’s kind of our guidance from developing
street design. You know we consider traffic circulation. We consider the topography. We
certainly consider the runoff of storm water where it’s headed. We look at the public
convenience and public safety. You know how the land is being proposed to be developed in
serving the community. So you know and this is another statement in the city code where street
arrangement and configurations are not allowed to cause undue hardship upon owners of
adjoining property when a subdivision is going, taking place. At this point I’ll turn it over to
Vanessa.
Strong: So there were many, many comments from a water resources perspective when we
reviewed this. I’m just going to highlight kind of maybe the major four that made it very, very
difficult and in fact not possible to, for the staff to give a decision at this time. Because
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
9
addressing these big questions could significantly change the overall design of the development
to the point where conditions of approval may not apply or it may not even be able to make the
appropriate conditions of approval. So the first thing I’m going to start out with is, this diagram
here, now this is something that I made. I overlaid the applicant’s submission over the City’s
GIS system and then I highlighted his ponds and I drew the arrows and I identified where he put
information. Emergency overflows are where your stormwater during a significant rain event
goes so we’re talking in this case anything over an inch and we all know we have a lot of storms
over an inch and these are big storms so this is very focused. Very heavy water that’s moving
through which is why city code has a couple of really important rules when it comes to
emergency overflows. One of them that it be identified. Well first and foremost he didn’t
identify any, the applicant did not identify any. It were just the overflow routes. My biggest
concern is that many of these ponds are all right along the property line. Well I mean I’m just
guessing. I’m guessing but you know based upon the contours those emergency routes are going
directly onto the neighbor. Well that’s not really a route. That’s just discharging directly onto
your neighbor. So city code says emergency overflow routes, if it’s adjacent to a property the
lowest building opening must be a minimum of one foot above the emergency overflow. Well
this lowest based upon the property records from the building file of this home, the lowest floor
opening is 976 feet. The emergency overflows for 4 of these ponds is at 978. To meet code they
would have to be a minimum of at 975. As proposed there’s no grading contour at 975 for this
entire parcel so they’re very high. The lowest building opening is very low. How are they going
to meet that elevation difference? The second piece is that again these emergency overflow
routes are discharging directly onto this property. We do have responsibility to look out for all
surrounding properties and city code again says they must not create a nuisance condition onto
adjacent property and at this point the applicant hasn’t provided information to at all address
whether or not that can be done. This is also a bit of a land locked parcel so there’s not really a
good outlet for all the water that comes here. So yes while you are allowed to send storm water
in it’s natural direction, when it comes to high volume, high rate emergency out falls and
overflows, there are requirements that must be met and there are many questions based upon how
this was addressed. Can you go to the next slide please? The second piece is placements and
easements. Now I just took two different pages from the applicant’s documents. Unfortunately
they did not place all of the stormwater information that would be relevant on one page so I kind
of had to flip and line out the best I could. Private storm water best management practices, that’s
what these rain gardens are that they proposed, they’re not actually permitted in public drainage
and utility easements. These are private structures so to the best of my ability it looks a bit like
these are the drainage utility easements for the City and when the applicant proposed them
they’re right against the property line in several cases. So between that and the fact that
infiltration/filtration basins must be located a minimum of 10 feet from the building envelope of
any primary structure because again this is a typical proposed pad. We don’t know where in here
that they’re actually going to put the house per se and that’s plumbing code and storm that, they
must be a minimum of 10 feet away from the structure to prevent any issues with water
infiltration into basements. That leaves a very small, little gap here. In fact you take the full 30
feet that’s given here, you subtract 10 feet from the rear property line. 10 feet from that building
setback and you’ve got now a tiny 10 foot strip. So it was very difficult to see how the applicant
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
10
was proposing these would actually be placed. It was just very unclear. So next slide please.
Additionally, I won’t go to great depths but the lot area, pervious and impervious calculations
were inconsistent between the plan set and stormwater report and the soil borings. You have to
use all 3 together to build their case and unfortunately if they’re not consistent data I’m not, you
know it’s never quite clear which data is the accurate data and what are we reviewing here at this
point. For example it appeared the draft soils report identified moderately slow permeability of
soils. Yet it would appear that the basins were designed for high draining soils. So these are
different inconsistencies that made it very difficult to make a recommendation because you
weren’t sure exactly what was the accurate data you were reviewing. Finally this is also rather
significant. Operation and maintenance of private storm water best management practices is
required in perpetuity. Both through the watershed district stormwater rule and the City’s MS4
Permit, Part 3D5, Section sub 5. That means private stormwater treatment devices, which these
are 5 little rain gardens, they most, first of all they’ve got to be placed in stormwater easements
that are recorded against the property. They must have an operation and maintenance plan
approved and recorded against the properties that provide for the permanent inspection,
maintenance and funding mechanism to ensure that they will function as designed permanently.
They need to provide, in order for us to make a decision, an operation and maintenance plan that
meets those requirements. And some explanation as to how they can ensure whichever resident
lives here and from now until forever basically has that capacity and to me that seems like a very
complex hurdle to overcome. I don’t know how you can anticipate any resident would have that
technical skill or funding mechanism and how you can ensure that in perpetuity. So you know
staff tries very hard to provide recommendations. Unfortunately there are times when it is just
too difficult. The applicant is responsible for submitting the proof necessary for staff to make a
decision and we’re not there right now so.
Al-Jaff: As far as the plat goes, and as I mentioned at the beginning that we look at lot area,
depth, width. All of that information has been provided by the applicant and yeah, we do have
parcels that exceed 15,000 square feet, 90 foot frontage, 125 foot depth for lots. One of the, we
really don’t know how this happened but the parcel extends across the public right-of-way and
into adjacent to neighboring properties that the applicant is proposing to outlot the right-of-way
over Country Oaks Drive will be dedicated to the City. The outlot, it is our recommendation that
the applicant contact the adjacent property owner and see if they would be interested in this
parcel because otherwise it will be a parcel that will not benefit anyone. With that said it is
staff’s intent to recommend approval. We want to recommend approval of a subdivision and
historically and with every subdivision that appears before the Planning Commission, City
Council we recommend conditions attached to an application. The approval always has some
adjustments that need to be made. In this case staff found it very difficult to make a
recommendation that we knew what the outcome would be that we would feel comfortable with
presenting it to you and to the City Council that we can stand behind. We do recommend that
you direct the developer to look at staff’s recommendation that they, you table action on this
application. Allow the developer to address these concerns and bring it before you at a future
date and I’ll be happy to answer any questions that you might have for us.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
11
Aller: Questions at this time of staff? Commissioner McGonagill.
McGonagill: Pretty simple. George, can we go to your map that you had where it showed, it had
that yellow arrow one. That one. How, you know I just want to be sure I understand on the
Minnewashta Parkway side it looks like there’s two driveways that you’re trying to eliminate or
is there 3 and you’re going to...at some point that you’re trying, would like to see.
Bender: Yeah there is two and you know the lot that’s currently being developed does not have
an access off of Minnewashta Parkway. There’s not a home on the property.
McGonagill: Okay, thank you.
Bender: Yep.
Aller: Additional questions? If this matter was tabled are we up against the timeline for the City
to make a decision where the applicant would have to sign a request?
Al-Jaff: We have 120 days with subdivisions. We contacted legal counsel, city attorney and he
concurred that we are fine.
Aller: So there’s sufficient time for this to be tabled to a reasonable date?
Al-Jaff: Correct. And it should give the applicant adequate time to make the revisions should
the Planning Commission recommend tabling action on the application.
Aller: Additional questions of staff based on any of the questions asked already? Hearing none,
if the applicant would like to come forward. If you could state your name and address and
representational capacity for the record that would be great.
Curt Fretham: Good evening Planning Commission and city staff. My name is Curt Fretham
from Lake West Development. Our address is 14525 Highway 7, Minnetonka. My phone
number is 952-930-3000. I appreciate you taking the time to review our application. There are
certainly some additional work that needs to take place on it. We have acknowledged that and
we’ll work with you and staff and the neighbors to, with hopes to come up with a plan that
everybody can feel good about and be a win/win. I prepared an exhibit that I want to share with
you but I’d like to go through the staff report a little bit and if I could take you to page 1 of the
staff report. Towards the bottom of the page, the first paragraph it says the City’s discretion in
approving or denying preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the
standards outlined in subdivision regulations and zoning ordinance. If the standards are met the
City must approve, I repeat must approve the preliminary plat. So my thoughts were we felt we
were submitting a preliminary plat that was conforming and met all the requirements and I know
there’s some uncertainty with that but I want to go through that tonight to hopefully bring some
clarity to myself and understand it better but also for the other parties that have concerns over it.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
12
I also look to the next paragraph and I’m not intending to go through every paragraph on this
page but, or the pamphlet but, or the City’s report but it talks about a variance and we did not ask
for a variance. I understand why city staff is recommending a variance but we also feel like we
could make a minor modification to allow for that additional right-of-way that you’re asking for
by, because we have the square footage and the lot right-of-way that we could make those
adjustments to remove that variance requirement and we’re willing to do that so just wanted to
make that point known. If I go to, and I also want to turn you to Exhibit A on this pamphlet that
was handed out it just shows the site and then if I go to the bottom of the staff report page 2, not
that I mean to skip over things but a lot of this was covered so I’m trying to hit the highlights but
the bottom of page 2 in the staff report talks about the streets and it’s the first sentence the
development does not incorporate a through street stubbed to facilitate the extension of Stratford
Ridge to Glendale Drive. I understand the rationale as to why it’s being asked for but when I go
to Exhibit B, the second page of the pamphlet that I hand out to you, this is an excerpt from the
comprehensive guide plan.
Generous: Yeah just put it on there.
Curt Fretham: Oh right here?
Generous: Yes. Then you can…
Curt Fretham: Excellent, I’ll do that. Under roadways on the comprehensive guide plan it says
residential street systems should be designed to discourage through traffic and to be compatible
with other transportation modes including transit, bicycle, walking, et cetera. But my point is
here’s your rules. Here’s what the City’s asking for. It’s written. It’s a goal. It’s in your
comprehensive guide plan. I’m getting conflicting direction to do exactly the opposite, put in a
through street. It says the property also was planned for a through street by, back in 1988 when
some of the other properties were platted. However there’s a contradictory plan in that our site
has 7 sewer and water stub in’s that were paid for so there must have been an alternative plan
that called for 7 lots on Glendale and if there was going to be 7 lots that conflicts with any kind
of a stub in for a through street connection so what plan over rules which plan? I’m not sure. I
want to talk about, so it just adds to some additional confusion. I could go to the top of the page
on the next page 3 but I’m going to skip and go to the second paragraph first. Second paragraph
talks about, we had proposed to, showing that the properties to the south could be developed by
extending the cul-de-sac on the south and I’ve got an exhibit that I want to put up to help show
that. Right here. It shows that you’re ghost platting this or showing how this, these two parcels
could be developed in the future with extension of this cul-de-sac. Showing 5 homes on here. It
allows these homes to stay. There was another concern about removing driveways onto
Minnewashta Parkway. This plan accomplishes that because it gives them alternative access
through a cul-de-sac so there’s not an advantage for the through street for that purpose.
Alternatively if you look at the through street scenario what it does is it provides for 1, 2, 3, 4
lots for this property owner loses one of their lots. Less efficient layout. Less, and it causes
removal of the home whether they choose to or not. It also is a disservice to this lot right here
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
13
because it creates a double frontage lot which if I go to city code it talks about double frontage
lots on C-2. No, let’s see it’s on, is it C-2? C-2(f) talks about street arrangements proposed shall
not cause undue hardship. Lot 4 has undue hardship by the through street from the fact that it’s
not going to meet the additional lot depth requirements by a double frontage lot. Double
frontage lots require, can you share with me where that section’s at? I think I missed it but. I’ll
come back to that in a moment but, but regardless it is a much less desirable. On the cul-de-sac
version that’s an A lot. If it’s a through street that lot becomes a D lot. I think that’s an undue
hardship to that property in and of itself. What does it do to Lot 5? My lot. It takes my best lot
in the group. A nice corner lot that fronts Minnewashta Parkway and turns it into a lot that has
street frontage on 3 sides. Three sides. It’s not a double frontage. It’s a triple frontage lot. It
creates an undue hardship onto my development. But none of that can happen according to the
staff report unless you issue a variance. Maybe that’s why the variance talk is on the front page
of the staff report but I would suggest that another level of confusion I have is I read the second
paragraph about where it starts out that it says the current length of the cul-de-sac is
approximately 700, put it right here. 782 feet. Measured from the center line of Minnewashta
Parkway. Then along Stratford Lane. Then along Bradford Boulevard. Then along Stratford
Ridge to the center of the cul-de-sac. I’m going wow. If I look at city code and that is on D-1.
Excuse me D-3. How do you define the depth of a cul-de-sac? D-3. This is out of city code.
It’s out of 518457, Section K. It says the length of a cul-de-sac shall be measured from the
intersection of the cul-de-sac to the street’s center line. To the center point of the cul-de-sac turn
around. It doesn’t say go down this street and that street and this street and that street. Here’s a
diagram right here. And so if I put the dimensions about how this is measured here it is right
here. It’s taking it down this street, then down this street, then down here. According to city
code it’s measured at the intersection right here. If that’s 782 feet so be it. This is only less than
half that so we’ll call it 350 plus a slight extension I’m up around 400 plus or minus. An
extension of a cul-de-sac meets city code requirements. And then furthermore you can say no,
that’s not how we measure it. Alright if that’s not, if we measure it from the other streets, which
is not how city code reads, take a look at Exhibit D-2. Alright here’s Minnewashta Parkway.
Let’s measure it the way that the staff report calls it out. Starting at Minnewashta Parkway.
Down Kings Point Road. Go north on this street. West on that street. It’s 2,100 feet. That’s
two blocks south. Is that how you measure it? I’m confused because that’s not what city code
says how you measure it. Let’s take a look at another one. They’re all over. Mine’s one of the
shortest ones after extended. So I don’t believe, unless I’m mistaken but it appears to me this is
a big error in this entire staff report. With that said go back to the paragraph above and it’s
referring me to section of city code of 18.57 and 18.60. They’re moot points. I’ll take you back
to this first exhibit. Look at the make-up of this neighborhood right here. What do you see?
Cul-de-sac, cul-de-sac, cul-de-sac, cul-de-sac, cul-de-sac, cul-de-sac, cul-de-sac, cul-de-sac, cul-
de-sac. All dead ends and then we’re going to put a through street in right there. The only
through street in the whole neighborhood. It’s against historically against the make up of the
neighborhood so you wonder why we’re not interested in putting a through street in. There’s a
lot of reasons behind it. I have a lot more but I think I’ve given you enough already to be
respectful of your time. We’re willing to work with staff. We know there’s some water resource
issues that we can work through and they can be happy with. We know we can accomplish the
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
14
city goals. We think we can do the best we can to satisfy the neighbors on their concerns. I’m
available for additional questions if you have any. Thank you so much for hearing us.
Aller: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant before he steps down? No questions? Okay
we’ll open up the public hearing portion of this item. Any individual wishing to come forward
and speak either for or against the item before us can do so. The matter is open. As you come
forward please state your name and address for the record and tell us what your concerns or your
proposals are.
Jason Watt: Sure. Good evening. My name is Jason Watt. I live at 3961 Stratford Ridge.
Lived there for about 4 years. Thank you very much for your service. I was once…employee as
well and appreciate your service. I’ve had to do a lot of education in the past 8 hours and that’s
what I maybe want to start with is just maybe to share with you my perspective of some
frustration in just terms of notice. Probably about 2-3 weeks ago there was a sign posted at the
corner of Stratford Ridge and Minnewashta Parkway stating that there was a proposed
development or a variance so I called the City or the County. City and asked what is this all
about and that employee, which I can give you the name at another date. I don’t have the name
with me, had informed me that all that has really nothing to do with your neighborhood. It’s
north of you so no concerns. So I shared that with the rest of our neighborhood that really
there’s no concern at all. And then as of late last night it was discovered that actually this does
affect our neighborhood. There’s an affidavit in the handout tonight that I, it says that there was
something mailed out just today and I just want to note for the record that my address doesn’t
have a name assigned to it for some reason so if it’s helpful again my name is Jason Watt. My
wife’s name is Katie. We live at 3961 Stratford Ridge. So just I’ll start with that just some
frustration in terms of process and notice. You mentioned that the decision cannot be made in a
vacuum but I feel like from what I’ve seen so far in the report that although it may be accurate
it’s not complete and that’s kind of why we’re here this evening is to share our perspective on
this proposal. You’ve mentioned that Stratford Ridge is a collector. I’m not familiar with that
term. Just learned that term today but it’s a collector road and I would just ask for some
consistency I guess in terms of how we apply that rule. I just counted north of where our turn in
for our neighborhood is and there’s 12 homes already that exist right on the parkway so
removing these 2 homes, I’m not sure what the logic of that is. It’s not really going to
accomplish that much in terms of what the intent of that ordinance is. In addition to that when
you look north from where we turn into our neighborhood I know that there was a new
development just north of us on the parkway within the past year or two. Just south of us there
was another new development that was split that this also attaches directly to the parkway so to
me it seems a little bit inconsistent in the analysis or the application of that rule. I’ll just leave it
at that. Also with the idea of the collector road, without knowing much about real estate
development I would think that you’d want those lots to be used for best use so the 2 existing
homes that have access straight to Stratford Ridge, if you drive along that parkway you’ll notice
that most of the homes that are placed right on the parkway they’re very large homes. They have
lake access so I don’t really think they would be best used for those homes to not have a direct
driveway from Stratford Ridge, or from Minnewashta Parkway to their homes. It just doesn’t
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
15
seem logical to me to reverse that into a cul-de-sac versus having direct access to the parkway. I
think they’d probably get a better dollar for those lots if they’re directly, they have direct access
from the parkway. There was a comment about the Fire Marshal and his desire to have a direct
route through our neighborhood. This is National Night Out. You can see that most of our
neighborhood is here rather than celebrating at home with our neighbors. We’ve had the fire
department there many years. They’ve never had a problem getting in and out of our
neighborhood so I don’t know that that’s necessarily a requirement for us to install a road simply
for fire access. We’d prefer that this not be installed period. Whether it’s an entire road or if it’s
a cul-de-sac we just, it’s not our preference to have this done. I would be curious to learn a little
bit more about how you define undue hardship. I think maybe there’s one other option of how
this, these properties could be developed that’s not been discussed so far. I don’t have a diagram
with me but you have the 5 lots have been proposed. Then you have 2 lots south of that there as
well and is it Leslee Curve I think that is to the west of there. If you’re talking about undue
hardship we don’t necessarily have to have the easiest way to develop it but just a way in which
it could be developed so I’m curious how we define undue hardship. If you look at the middle
lot it technically could have access through the road to the west of there. Then the farther south
lot that’s partially developed above our development, it could just have access through our little
cul-de-sac there so maybe one additional home rather than blowing us all up and installing a
whole new cul-de-sac or putting a road through. There are different ways to have access for
development for those 2 lots for the future. Just one other note that maybe there’s a lack of
creativity or we’ve not discussed all options on the table. That we’re just talking about access.
We’ve not talked about runoff or all the dimensions but just wanted to note that there are
different ways to have access to those 2 lots. We have about 15 kids in our neighborhood so
we’re talking about safety. Again back to the Fire Marshal’s comment. We really would prefer
not to have more cars coming through there. We’re already worried with other cars coming
through with you know high school kids getting a little bit lost so we’re always watching our
little kids. I used to live in Minneapolis. We wanted to put some speed bumps on our street
because they had redirected traffic onto our street. We were willing to pay for them. Same
number of kids. The City had declined our offer to pay for those speed bumps. That was one of
the primary reasons why we left the city so I feel like 4 years later I’m in the same spot here
dealing with something that we never anticipated and I know that maybe justice or the idea of
this being unfair is not really something that’s considered in this process but there was never,
when we looked at this, you know the possibility of buying a home in this neighborhood we did
our title check. We did all, I’m an attorney. We did all the responsible things that you should
do. I guess we never looked at the plots or about you know potential development in the future.
There’s a term that I’m not familiar with but what is that road called where it’s called a partial
road? You just kind of put in the curbs there. A stub road so there was never a stub road
installed in that northern cul-de-sac. I think that would have been a nice way to maybe give
people notice that that was the plan of the city to install a road in the future. With that any
questions?
Aller: If we were to take action tonight what action would you like to see?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
16
Jason Watt: Well I think the motion is that we delay the decision so we would be in favor of
delaying the decision but bottom line I think we’re going to fight the best we can against having
that road installed. Or a cul-de-sac.
Aller: Thank you.
Jason Watt: Thank you.
Weick: I’m sorry, can you just restate your address so I can…
Jason Watt: You can update it. 3961 Stratford Ridge.
Weick: So you’re on that, okay. Thank you.
Jason Watt: Yeah, thank you.
David Lieser: Good evening. My name is David Lieser. My wife and I own the property at
3881 Stratford Ridge.
Aller: Welcome.
David Lieser: In addition to the things that Jason has brought up I’d like to point out that it
seems to me, and I think to many other people that considerations on future hardship which may
be incurred possibly by people subdividing 2 other properties between our properties and the
Glendale Road project. Measuring that against the actual hardship to 15 families on Stratford
Ridge is kind of a no brainer. I don’t know how far the rest of the project is going to get
considering the fact that there were so many objections by the planning people involved here as
to the water problems. It looked like there was an issue about density with the 5 lots versus
perhaps strict adherence to the city code. But I do know that when I bought my house 21 years
ago that there was no, no document was pointed out to us in any way, whether it was title
document or whether it was reviewing the plat which I believe that the attorneys did. That would
indicate to us that the cul-de-sac at our end of the street had what you’re calling a stub and that
any Comprehensive Plan of the city was to make this into a super highway running parallel to
Minnewashta Parkway. We have the same concerns that the neighbors do about their children.
We have grandchildren that visit with us and our primary concern is their safety. Secondary
concern is that now that the City is bringing up the idea that oh there should be this grand
through way to Leslee Curve, it seems to me that our property values are already being impacted
by that because now that this is said to be a possibility because of all this adherence that we have
to have to the possible rights of subdivision to possible future owners of 2 lots between us and
Glendale that would deprive us of our cul-de-sac. That would have to be revealed to any
possible buyers of our properties in the future and I think just the fact that that’s now on this
collateral record to the property, we’re in a position to really be at a great disadvantage as a
result of this. We don’t, I personally and my wife don’t have information enough about the
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
17
impact of the water problems and so forth that would, whether there would be any impact on us
or the other requirements that the city staff has set forth on the report, and I got a copy of today
to read but our concern is strictly as to the extension of the road from our cul-de-sac to either
Glendale or any other space inbetween where it is now and the Glendale project. And that’s the
gist of what I have to say. If you have any questions.
Aller: Thank you sir.
David Lieser: Thank you.
David Robertson: This is a tag team from Stratford Ridge just so you know.
Aller: If you can spend National Night Out together.
David Robertson: You bet. My name is David Robertson. I live at 3900 Stratford Ridge which
puts me right on that cul-de-sac that’s outlined in blue. That means that if any road is extended it
will go through my property as well as Trent’s somewhat and will affect us probably most
dramatically. Jason summarized a lot of the main concerns from a neighborhood perspective.
David added a few. I would just like to elaborate a little bit more on one. When we bought our
property 4 years ago in there, there was nothing in my title, and I looked at it today, that
indicated that this was ever a temporary cul-de-sac which is what is reflected in the report. We
have not had the time to review all of the titles of every neighbor or any narrative or anything
else but obviously if we see nothing there that could be an actionable thing on our part if it ever
came to that and I just wanted, I should express that. The other thing about it as well is I don’t
understand, again a little bit dovetailing on what David’s point. We bought into this property
because we had 14 homes, a house, an association that owned 450 feet of lakeshore collectively
that we share. I renovated a good portion of our house 2 years ago by gutting the entire main
level under the auspices of the fact that I have lake access and if our neighborhood has changed
in any way I believe it will diminish our property values because I don’t know how we include
these additions in regard to our HOA. I don’t know, I do know that when my house was
appraised to pay for the renovations that we did, that they took that into consideration. The
HOA. The lake frontage. The partial ownership. That still continues but that creates a mess for
us down the road as a neighborhood and how do we deal with this depending on what happens so
you know I’m, I talked to the developer the other day. I don’t have a fundamental issue with his
idea of what he’s going to do but I do have some concerns on how it would affect the
neighborhood if any stub is required by him that would in my mind insure that there’s probably
going to be a road put in at some point. Right through our property. Thank you.
Aller: Thank you.
Court MacFarlane: Good evening. My name is Court MacFarlane. I live at 3800 Leslee Curve.
I’m on the north end of the property, or north side of the property.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
18
Aller: Welcome.
Court MacFarlane: At the corner of Glendale Drive and Leslee Curve. I didn’t realize that there
were the issues with the water as far as you know the stormwater that would run off of those 5
lots. I’m hoping that there’s some way to solve that. My wife and I have lived, my wife built
that house 50 years ago. I’ve been there for the last 40 years and we’re very much in favor of the
kind of development that’s proposed to go across the street from us. I think there’s some real
confusion as to the way the measurements are made as far as how far a cul-de-sac has to be from
a main artery. In other words Minnewashta Parkway. I think there have been an awful lot of
good examples of just how inconsistent that is. I was surprised to hear or to see your diagram as
to just how far they had to go back to come up with the footage. One more thing would be the
through street that’s proposed or you might want to see go through. I would be very opposed to
additional traffic going through there. We get an awful lot of traffic coming up Glendale Drive
off of Minnewashta Parkway. That gets to be a bit of a speedway. The only good thing I think is
as you turn off of Minnewashta Parkway onto Glendale Drive there’s a real dip in the road so
nobody goes through there fast but they accelerate up the hill quite a bit. It would just another
dimension. There’s a stop sign on Leslee Curve as you turn onto Glendale Drive and people
don’t always stop there either. My driveway’s on Glendale Drive but that’s basically all I
wanted to say. I’m in favor of what he’s proposing.
Aller: Thank you.
Carin Moore: My name is Carin Moore, C-a-r-i-n and actually I’m the owner of the property
directly to the south of the development. 6760 Minnewashta Parkway. I was actually born and
raised at this property so I’m not going to say how many years I lived there. I’m just kidding.
42 years. I actually do not currently live at the property. My parents have both passed. I am
now the owner of the property and looking at the for sale sign in my yard currently. I do have
major concerns for the drainage. Obviously. The Knetson’s who live to the south, I’m not going
to speak for them but you can see on the watershed, the maps, it not only drains into my property
but it goes right into their’s as well. They actually have the low point of all 3 properties. There
is the, if it’s called the actual water table or the actual draintile, there is actually an underground
path that goes underneath the parkway out to the lakeshore. About 17 to 20 years ago there was
a major washout and actually the access going down to both our property and the association’s
property, the road was washed away and a portion of it and we had to get it fixed and that came
right down on the south side. On the north side property line of our property and the south side
of Foy’s, that’s the direction it came down and washed out. The City I believe made some
improvements with the roadway at that point as well. 17 years ago I wasn’t quite as involved but
I do know that my parents you know played a part along with Pleasant Acres to make sure that
that was maintained and fixed. So definitely I would like to see some work done to understand
how this is not going to continue especially adding 5 new homes to that causing that potential
damage again. And also causing damage to our property. I have questions and comments but I
don’t want to take up too much time too. I’ve met for the last 6 years I think with Sharmeen on
this property. We’ve looked at other options. We’ve actually looked at access on the back side.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
19
Not possible currently with the way the property lines are marked and we’ve tried because we
were looking at trying to get a, split our property in half east to west and put an access between
the Dorsey’s who is to the west side of our property right on Country Oaks and our property and
create a driveway to allow for a split property and leave it at that. No additional roads. No
additional stuff. Driving into the sewage and electricity and drainage and everything for Country
Oaks and keeping the parkway, okay. So unless something changes there that’s not a possibility.
The Stratford including a new development, I wanted to comment on that. We actually own 187
feet of lakeshore private as well as our neighbor’s to the south owning another 133 feet of
lakeshore. Pretty sure that if any development came on those two properties we would not be
including Stratford. It would be just that lakeshore so I think that HOA concerns for Stratford in
my opinion, take it or leave it, would not be an issue because we actually have our own private
lakeshore property. The biggest thing for me, like I said is the drainage. I am not, I’m not
opposed or for either option quite, right at this moment because I don’t think there’s enough
detail. I think throwing a cul-de-sac into my neighbor’s backyard and into my backyard is
potentially damaging in essence because it’s taking up a lot more of my land. I’m also not fully
looking at the diagram that Curt you know showed me, which I appreciate as being really
verbatim. I don’t see how a house can come on one of these lots. I don’t, you know I would
love to see more information and be totally in support of that but I don’t have it today to be able
to be in support of that. As for a road I’ve, like I said I grew up there. I learned how to ride my
bike there. I learned how to swim there. I’ve walked to friends houses before Stratford was even
there. I walked through that field and I rode horses. I mean I’ve been there since it was
cornfields and hay. My parents could have said even longer than that but the traffic that I see
potentially coming in if a road was added, you’re adding 4 lots. I don’t see how anybody who’s
familiar with the area would think jumping onto Glendale and coming down that road is more
convenient to get into Stratford and vice versa, why would they skip the parkway and jump onto
Stratford to go through the windy road to get over to Glendale Drive? That’s not, doesn’t make
sense. Again I’m not an engineer. I’m not a traffic coordinator so that’d be good information to
know. I have noticed a lot more traffic going through there. I have been there quite a bit so I do
understand those concerns. I also have concerns. I have little children. We go to the lake. We
have to cross Minnewashta Parkway to get to our property so I understand that but at the same
time I think that some sort of actual facts would be really helpful in understanding that because I
think a lot of people are just really nervous of the what if’s without any details behind it. I think
I’ve kind of hit most of my concerns at this time. I know you asked the other people. I’d say
table it. I think more information is needed. Thank you.
Aller: Thank you. Yes sir.
Court MacFarlane: I have just one point and I think I can help clarify. The property that’s being
developed was part of the original land that was owned by Les and Lee Anderson that was
subdivided into Pleasant Acres and then later Country Oaks. But on their title any property that
was part of their original parcel of land, when it was eventually subdivided any owner of those
lots would become members of the Pleasant Acres Homeowners Association and have access to
the beachlot that we have which is down, well just immediately down from Glendale Drive so I
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
20
don’t think there should be any concern by the people in Stratford, is it Stratford? That there
would be any use of the shoreline by these 5 lots. They would then become members of Pleasant
Acres. That’s my understanding.
Aller: Just for the record you’re Mr. MacFarlane right?
Court MacFarlane: Pardon?
Aller: You’re Mr. MacFarlane?
Court MacFarlane: MacFarlane yes. Yes.
Aller: Thank you.
Jane Bender: Hi I’m Jane Bender. I’m at 4001 Stratford Ridge. I’m at the other end of the cul-
de-sac but I’ve been there for 20 years. I enjoyed raising my children in the area and I want to
thank you for your dedication to having parks so close to all the homes and being conscious of
green space as well as conserving our lake. I just kind of feel like a little bit of clarification in
terms of using the Pleasant Acres area. We’re concerned about if we extend our cul-de-sac, we
already have a homeowners association and so then that would add, and this is like preparing for
something that hasn’t even been, you know no one has asked for yet but should the cul-de-sac be
expanded then if the new homes were put in that cul-de-sac they wouldn’t really be part of our
homeowners association so that could run into some awkwardness. But along the lines too I just
wanted to mention that adding all of these roads and adding the cul-de-sac and being concerned
about drainage and water and things I feel that we’re just taking away more green space. I hate
to see more cement lay down and then you have to maintain it and our cul-de-sac, I don’t know
the last time it was actually kind of smoothed over, redone. It’s been several years and I know
it’s very, very expensive but just that whole maintenance part of it too is a concern for me. We,
you know we really do take pride in our curbside appeal and you know roads and access in and
out is part of that.
Aller: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forward at this point?
Audience: Can the City define undue hardship for us?
Aller: I think it’s.
Bender: I’ll try to and maybe Sharmeen will jump in and add something to that. It’s about an
uneven distribution of the land required in order to allow each of these 3 lots a fair course at
subdivision. So is that understood? I mean did I explain?
Audience: …or is that just your, I’m not trying to disrespectful. Is it somewhere with that
definition or?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
21
Bender: No I was just trying to explain it there so.
Generous: Mr. Chairman.
Aller: Yes.
Generous: There’s nothing specifically written. It says you look at it is there a reasonable
expectation that if they follow the requirements of the ordinance they won’t be unduly prohibited
from having a reasonable use of their property. But there’s nothing, you know there’s no
quantitative measure that you could really look at. It’s a little bit subjective because it’s not
quantifiable. But it’s when you put too much burden on someone else so that your, you can go
forward with what you do then that’s a hardship.
Aller: Thank you.
Al-Jaff: There is one other thing that we might want to point out. If you look at the grade at the
end of the cul-de-sac there is approximately a 10 foot drop. You need a distance, the grade of a
street has to be no more than 7 percent and to maintain that 7 percent you really need to grade
those, the area over a stretch and we don’t believe that they would be able to meet ordinance
requirements with just an extension of a cul-de-sac. If the cul-de-sac ended in this vicinity with
that type of drop they’re not going to be able to make the 7 percent. It would need to be
extended further so that’s one of the reasons also why we recommended the road extend out to
Glendale Drive.
Aller: Okay. Was anyone else going to come forward? So you just got back or you just
appeared. Would you like an opportunity to speak on the Glendale matter?
Audience: No.
Aller: Okay. Having no one come forward at this time I’m going to go ahead and close the
public hearing on this matter at this point in time and open it up for commission discussion,
action including the recommendation. Commissioner Randall.
Randall: This is pretty complicated here. I think there’s a lot of issues on the table with it. I
appreciate everyone coming in to talk tonight about it. Their concerns and their feedback on it.
There’s a lot of different moving parts to this. I mean obviously we have 2 other property
owners right there at the end of this stub or cul-de-sac, whatever you want to call it. At this time
I would feel better tabling it so we can get those water runoff issues going and after hearing their
concerns I think we got a lot of unanswered questions right now with it. That’s how I feel about
it.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
22
Aller: Any additional comments at this time? If someone was to make a motion to table it is
non-debatable so we would not have an opportunity to discuss any further so any additional
comments or concerns at this point? Commissioner Madsen.
Madsen: I would agree to table it. I would like to see more information about if the through
street was developed what sort of traffic would that be expected to generate just so that could be
quantified. I would also like to find out the reasoning why extending the road to the middle lot
was not an opportunity previously and so that it can’t be considered going forward and then more
information about why you’re proposing that it needs to be a through street and not a cul-de-sac
on Stratford Ridge. More information about geographical limitations.
Al-Jaff: Okay.
Aller: Additional, Commissioner Weick.
Weick: This might be difficult and I might be all over the place a little bit but bear with me if
you will. I do want to make a couple comments and then it might ultimately get to a point at the
end and it might not. But I share your heartbreak over losing green space. It’s something I
struggle with every time a development comes in front of us personally. I agree with you the
reality of large lots becoming small lots I just, it hurts. But it’s also a reality of kind of our city
and there’s a lot of large lots that have the opportunity to be profitable for the landowner and so I
think we need to respect that as well. The second thing is I’m concerned, I’ve heard a little bit
about not wanting the through street necessarily or at least the stubs for the through street. I’m
just concerned like, we can’t promise what those other 2 lots will develop into in the future so
I’m concerned, I am just, I think the reality is even if there weren’t stubs for a through street put
in it’s not to say that in the future something wouldn’t happen on those 2 southern lots that would
be you know potentially a cul-de-sac or an extension or something. I mean who knows and
that’s, so that needs to be considered as well. I’m opposed though to tabling this because I’m not
sure, and this is where it sort of comes around. I probably go 360 but, or 180. The burden to me
is on the landowners and so the conditions that exist around these 3 properties are the realities of
kind of how that land has been developed. I think in my opinion the, I don’t see anything in that,
in what’s been proposed today that we would oppose or could oppose as a preliminary plat and I
would welcome contrary opinion to that. So that land is developable, if that’s a word. The
impact that that has in the future on the 2 properties to the south unfortunately if people aren’t
working together with that land, I don’t know that we should be taking that into consideration
today so I don’t think we should suggest a through street or the stubs. I think that property can
be developed into 5 lots that make sense. I’m not sure we have a position contrary to that and so
if we do, maybe I’m misunderstanding but we’re considering things that are, we’re sort of
looking into the future and saying well if all of these properties would be developed together it
might look different but they’re not. Right? It’s one property that’s being developed and I think
we have to consider if the middle property wants to develop we have to consider that separately
and if the third southern property wants to try and develop at that time that needs to be
considered separately but, am I, and if I’m missing please correct me.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
23
Aller: I just look at it as, and that’s why I asked originally whether there was a timeline in
position that would be impacting and maybe prejudicial to either side and since we have the time
to do it and we have everyone basically coming in, or most people coming in, in my mind and
saying there’s a lot more information that they would like to have to perhaps to voice a different
opinion then I would be in favor, if somebody was going to table it to go ahead and table it. If
they were requesting a, if they want to go through with a plat I don’t think I have enough
information. You know how I am with my water issues to really determine whether or not the
water impacts would be protected and whether or not the, there’s enough information for me to
move forward and vote for the project at this point so I would be voting against so for me I think
it’s favorable to go ahead and table it and give the City and the neighborhood and the applicant
to get together on some of these issues and come back and maybe we’ll see something different.
I mean I’ve heard people say that wisdom, it’s not really smart to be in a position not to change
your mind. It’s being in a position of wisdom and shown by actually changing your mind when
you’re shown different facts and circumstances so I’m a great believer in the fact that, as in the
prior situation where people are, the City and the applicants are willing to get together and work
on things and we’ve had plenty of input from the neighborhood at this point in time, that they
can all use that to their benefit and come up with a plan that again may not be perfect but it’s
going to be better than this one.
McGonagill: If I may.
Aller: Commissioner McGonagill.
McGonagill: Commissioner Weick I agree with you it’s one property we’re talking about. I
look at it that way and it’s with the issue of that one property that I also will vote to table because
I have the concerns on the water and how it will accelerate, to use that word or increase the
amount of water runoff to the lots to the south and to me that’s a hardship on the, you know
we’ve just got to be sensitive to and be sure that there’s a good water management plan in place.
There’s already a bad, well I say there’s a bad situation there. You can look at the topo’s and see
it and ultimately I agree with what you said. Those lots will be developed and water issues, how
we manage those here are going to start setting precedent for how that water will be managed
down the road and the impact it has on Lake Minnewashta itself. As one of the public
commenters tonight is there’s a lot of water that moves through there in big storm events and so I
want to see a better plan for that or better understanding of that or what we’re going to do. I
realize we’re only doing the one and that’s what we have to consider but what I saw tonight
didn’t answer my questions to the point where I could vote in favor.
Weick: Can I ask a question?
Aller: Sure.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
24
Weick: Is preliminary plat, do you have to have your water plan complete at the time of
preliminary plat approval?
Al-Jaff: Yes.
Weick: You do, okay.
Al-Jaff: It’s required by ordinance.
Aller: And I think the staff report went through and said, these are things that we’re looking at
as being required and that we would require of all applicants and we don’t have enough
information to really make a decision or a recommendation to us. I don’t feel comfortable
making a decision with them not feeling comfortable. But I may decide I don’t agree with them
but I don’t even have that before me to make my decision.
Weick: Okay. And that’s good information I think because I certainly wouldn’t approve based
on the water alone the plat. I think that does need to be fixed. I just want to be clear that I’m not
in favor of tabling this in order to study the road situation anymore. I don’t, I’m concerned about
the canopy coverage which I think was probably just an omission because there was just all
zeroes. And then the water which is significant. I think if that can be fixed over this time that
we table it I think that would be a benefit to the developer.
Aller: Additional comments? Or action. I can’t make a motion so.
Weick: What did you think?
Undestad: No I agree. I know what you’re saying there but again it’s not tabling it just for the
street. It would be for, and the zeroes on the canopy coverage, there was no landscape plan
submitted.
Weick: That’s what I mean, yeah.
Undestad: So there is nothing, you know again that was more information that’s required to get
that covered too so I agree with it. I think tabling is the right thing to do.
Weick: Okay.
Aller: So I’ll entertain a motion of some sort.
McGonagill: Mr. Chairman I can do that.
Aller: Commissioner McGonagill.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
25
McGonagill: Recommend that the Chanhassen Planning Commission tables action on the
preliminary plat to subdivide 2.14 acres into 5 lots and one outlot and a variance to allow a 50
foot public right-of-way and directs the applicant to address the issues, address issues in the staff
report.
Aller: And with the, I would like to add that we preserve the right to have a continuation of a
public hearing on any information provided so we basically, because we’ve heard what the
public has said and what the community wants to do based on the information that they have in
front of them but that might change.
McGonagill: I would agree to that addition to the motion, is that what you’re requesting? Okay
so it would read like we said but add an addition for additional time for public comment.
Generous: Preserve the right.
McGonagill: Preserve the right for public comments. I would agree with that Mr. Chairman.
Aller: And I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Madsen: Second.
Aller: Having a motion and a second, it’s non-debatable so there’s no further comment.
McGonagill moved, Madsen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission tables
action on the preliminary plat to subdivide 2.14 acres into 5 lots and one outlot and a
variance to allow a 50 foot public right-of-way and directs the applicant to address the
issues, address issues in the staff report and preserves the right for public comment. All
voted in favor, except Commissioner Weick who opposed, and the motion carried with a
vote of 5 to 1.
Aller: So the motion carries with Commissioner Weick opposing. That’s fine. Before you leave
I’d like to thank everyone present for coming tonight and sharing your National Night Out with
us and making us a part of your neighborhood. We really appreciate you coming in and giving
us your viewpoint and since I had to miss mine and leave mine early I was just grateful to have
you all here and share it with you so thank you for being here. Let’s take a one minute recess
while the room clears.
(There was a short recess at this point in the meeting.)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Weick noted the verbatim and summary
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 17, 2018 as presented.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
26
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS.
Aller: We’ll have a City Council action update.
Generous: The subdivision on the Red Cedar Point was approved with a variance. It was
creating two lots and they used a cul-de-sac…with variance. And future Planning Commission,
there’s no meeting on the 21st unless this item can magically turn around by Friday.
Aller: I don’t think it will. There’s a lot of work to be done but I think that, they all realize that
and that it will get done.
Generous: And just to remind you that the joint commission tour is tomorrow night so be here at
6:00. If you can make it let me know, or let Kate know.
McGonagill: It starts at 6:00?
Generous: Yes. And you’ll just meet right out front here. And we have a bus.
Aller: How’s the weather report?
Generous: It’s going to be hot.
Aller: Hot and muggy right?
Generous: (Yes).
Al-Jaff: You will be done by 8:00 we promise.
Aller: Footwear?
Al-Jaff: Comfortable shoes. There will be a half mile walk.
Aller: Great.
Generous: On the trail. On the new trail. By the water treatment plant.
Aller: Wonderful.
Generous: We’ll start at the bottom and finish up on top.
Aller: That’s a water treatment plant? It doesn’t look like a water treatment plant.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
27
Generous: That’s my summer home. If you go on Manchester that looks great. We do have 2
items for the September 4th meeting. There’s a variance request on South Shore Drive and then a
PUD amendment for the Target Chanhassen Retail Center. It’s a minor amendment regarding
signage so. That’s it for now.
Aller: Great. So those of you at home want to see what’s coming up make sure you check the
website and take a look at the packets as they appear on the website and you can come on in and
make comments if you desire to do so as matters come before us. I’ll entertain a motion to
adjourn.
Randall moved, Madsen seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was
adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim