PC Minutes 12-3-19CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 3, 2019
Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Weick, Mark Randall, John Tietz, Michael McGonagill, and
Laura Skistad
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad and Doug Reeder
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmeen Al-Jaff,
Senior Planner; and Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A RFQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES AT 6760
MINNEWASHTA PARKAY (BOYLAN SHORES).
Al-Jaff: Thank you Chairman Weick, members of the Planning Commission. The application
before you is for a 3 lot subdivision. The site is located at 6760 Minnewashta Parkway, east of C
Country Oaks Drive. West of Lake Minnewashta. The site is bisected by Minnewashta
Parkway. Current zoning of the site is residential single family and is intended to remain single
family. There was a single family home on the site. However this home has been demolished.
The demolition took place during the month of October of this year in order to prepare the site
for development. There is a driveway access off of Minnewashta Parkway and one of the things
that needs to be pointed out is Minnewashta Parkway is a collector street and the Comprehensive
Plan, Transportation Comprehensive Plan advocates that we remove access points off of
collector streets. In order to abandon the access off of Minnewashta Parkway we needed access
off of Country Oaks Drive. The applicant needs to procure what is shown in green right here,
this parcel is owned by the City and what’s shown in yellow that parcel is owned by 3931
Country Oaks Drive. There is an agreement between the property owner at 3931 and the
applicant. This is Outlot A on the proposed plat. In lieu of access to Country Oaks Drive the
applicant will swap land and give them the parcel that is shown in red. With that the applicant is
proposing to subdivide 2.71 acres into 3 parcels. Three lots and four outlots. Outlot A as I
mentioned will be deeded to the property owner at 3631 Country Oaks Drive. Outlot B is
intended to house a private street. Outlot C and D are intended to serve Lots 3 and 2. And just
for the record it was pointed out to staff by Chairman Weick that there is an error in the way the
staff had put the numbers. The lot numbers. That has been corrected so what staff is presenting
right now is accurate and we will make sure that when the staff report goes before City Council
that is taken care of. One of the concerns that staff has and this is based on a number of phone
calls that we have received over the past 2-3 years, there are people that are, residents of our
community that are only interested in the portion that abuts the lake. They want to have lake
access. In order to ensure that this does not happen in the future after the subdivision of the lake
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 3, 2019
2
staff spoke to the City Attorney as to how we can keep Lot 3 without Outlot C. Lot 2 with
Outlot D and she said, suggested that we go the variance route. That Outlot C be combined with
Lot 3 and it won’t be an outlot. It will become Lot 3 and the same is true for Lot 2 and Outlot D.
That will require a variance because the city code defines lot as a parcel that is undivided by
right-of-way and in this case we have Minnewashta Parkway bisecting this parcel. One other
point of clarification that we need to point out. What staff has highlighted in red on the, on this
slide. It seems that the applicant has put an area that has become a no man’s land and this will
need to be corrected as part of the final plat application. As far as the variances go this
application, having this site accessed via a private street is going to eliminate access off of
Minnewashta Parkway and staff is recommending approval of this variance. At this point I
would like to turn it over to Erik to address storm water and utilities.
Henricksen: Right, thank you Sharmeen. Chairman, commissioners, my name is Erik
Henricksen, I’m the project engineer with the city. Part of the engineering department. I and
the engineering staff conducted a review of the overall feasibility of the preliminary designs for
sanitary sewer, water, storm water, grading and public utilities. Overall staff’s review finds that
the proposed plans are feasible and over the next few slides I’ll briefly discuss some of the
conditions associated with our review. Here is kind of an overall look at the water and sanitary
system proposed. The applicant is proposing extension, 300 foot extension of a 6 inch C-900
watermain where at the end will be a fire hydrant in order to provide necessary fire suppression
and to facilitate maintenance activities such as flushing the main for water quality. This isn’t
necessarily the clearest slide so I’m just going to walk you through it real quick. This dark blue
line is the watermain that’s proposed to be extended. These light blue lines are the service
laterals for water that are proposed and the green, smaller green lines are the sanitary sewer
service laterals. While Lots 1 and 3 are being proposed to have water service from the extension
of the watermain, Lot 2 has been proposed to utilize the existing utilities from the pre-existing
home that was located on the lot prior to the subdivision. Staff recommends a condition that Lot
2 actually has their service, or their water service had from the watermain. With the addition of
the third home drawing from the watermain it would increase the water turnover by about 30
percent with fresh water being delivered approximately every day and a half which is acceptable
for maintaining preferred water quality. With just two homes there might be a need to flush the
main more frequently which would correlate to water loss and kind of a waste of water so that
would be a proposed condition engineering would recommend. No sanitary sewer main is
required to be extended because there’s adequate services from County Oaks and Minnewashta
Parkway. It would be acceptable for Lot 2 to utilize the existing utility for the sanitary sewer
lateral provided that they CCTV the line to ensure that it is adequate and is, there’s serviceability
to it and if there’s any repairs that need to be had. Also Lot 1 sanitary sewer lateral that comes
off of Country Oaks we propose a condition to have that reoriented so it does not cross
underneath, or underneath the watermain which would minimize the conflict for maintenance on
future maintenance activities. So Lot 3 they are proposing service off of Minnewashta Parkway.
Yes correct. Regarding stormwater as with any subdivision Chapter 19 of the city ordinance or
the surface water management portion of the code requires treatment of stormwater for newly
created impervious surfaces. The applicant is proposing treatment through a biofiltration basin
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 3, 2019
3
which is indicated as 1P which is located here on the southeast portion of Lot 1. Based on the
information the analysis provided in the preliminary stormwater management plan this is an
acceptable approach that will provide a sufficient level of retention to meet the city requirements
with the impervious area as is proposed the required pond for volume retention would be
required to have 32, approximately 3,200 cubic feet of storage. As proposed the pond actually
provides 4,600 cubic feet of retention. Furthermore the filtration media within the pond would
provide sufficient levels of treatment to meet the stormwater requirements. The stormwater
management plan justifies that it is not feasible to convey all runoff from the entire property to
the basin. This is a drainage, a proposed condition drainage pattern exhibit provided in the
stormwater management plan. Sub-catchment 2 drains directly onto Minnewashta Parkway and
sub-catchment 3 located here would drain towards the south property. Directing drainage onto
an adjacent properties is prohibited and an updated grading plan and stormwater management
plan would have to be submitted or shall be submitted to address this condition that we’re
proposing. Furthermore an updated model accounting for the added volume into the
Minnewashta Parkway’s storm system shall be provided and it shall analyze the impact that it
would have on the downstream public system. Overall staff’s review that the general approach
and stormwater plan will be feasible. These are fairly minor concerns when we’re looking at the
overall subdivision. At this time you can take it over Sharmeen.
Al-Jaff: Okay. Briefly the City’s Comprehensive Park Plan requires that there is a park within
one mile radius of each residence in the city of Chanhassen and in this case this site is going to
be served by Round Park. The services available at this park include a swimming beach,
playground, swings, picnic shelter, fishing pier, tennis courts, 4 pickleball courts, basketball
courts, skating rink, open play field, trails and parking area. There is also a continuous trail
system that along Minnewashta Parkway that will connect the subject site to Roundhouse Park.
Staff has been working with the applicant for over 6 months on this site. They have gone
through numerous revisions to bring this application to what you see before you today and they
have cooperated throughout the process. It is a straight forward development. Subdivision but it
is an infill development and it does require a few variances. In this case it makes perfect sense to
recommend approval of them and staff is recommending approval with conditions and we’ll be
happy to answer any questions.
Weick: Thank you Sharmeen and Erik. Any questions? For the City at this time.
McGonagill: I did.
Weick: Yeah, fire away.
McGonagill: So Sharmeen go to your staff report. I think I know the answer to this but I just
want to be sure. When I go to page 2 of 17 it’s a drawing that was in the proposal summary staff
report.
Al-Jaff: Page 17?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 3, 2019
4
McGonagill: 2 of 17.
Al-Jaff: 2 of 17, yes.
McGonagill: Yeah it’s the plot. Can you tell me what’s going on? If you go back up on what’s
on the screen to the park diagram on this screen. Back up to the park diagram. Yeah that one.
What’s going on with, to the north of that? That subdivision I forget the name of it.
Aanenson: Glendale.
Al-Jaff: Glendale Shores.
McGonagill: What’s going on there?
Al-Jaff: Glendale Homes.
McGonagill: What’s going on there? Did those go away? Did they divide it? What’s
happening there?
Al-Jaff: They have been divided. We have recorded the plat and there are a few things that they
need to provide us. We have given them temporary.
Henricksen: They have a conditional notice to proceed to start development and grading. Right
now they’re just going through the erosion control inspections and flagging any trees that need to
be saved so they’re going through their process to start construction.
McGonagill: Okay. So what’s going to happen, this private drive is actually going to be in the
back yards of those homes right?
Henricksen: It would be adjacent to or abutting.
McGonagill: Yeah basically the back yard as it comes through.
Henricksen: Correct.
McGonagill: And what’s going on with the property to the south of this? Really I’m going back
to the whole issue we had about a year ago. Stratford Ridge cul-de-sac, that whole thing, you
know that frankly which I was against you know doing what we did because I think that cul-de-
sac should just drive straight through and go all the way up to Country Oaks Drive. So that was.
Aanenson: That was the original intent. That was what the staff supported. Unfortunately there
wasn’t support all the way through the process so.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 3, 2019
5
McGonagill: Correct.
Aanenson: Yeah.
McGonagill: So what’s going on with the land?
Aanenson: So now instead of doing it holistically we’re doing it incrementally on each parcel.
McGonagill: Right.
Aanenson: And it doesn’t lead for the best utility. It doesn’t lead for the best layout and it forces
some variances and.
McGonagill: So what’s happened to the land itself? Is it going to be developed? Are we going
to see this again?
Al-Jaff: So we did receive a phone call from the property owner to the south asking if it is going
to be a possibility for him to subdivide his property and we said it will require a few variances.
Because they don’t have adequate frontage. There’s going to be some grading but hypothetically
it is doable and I stress the word hypothetically.
Aanenson: Again it depends on the number of lots and how much variances, you know what the
tolerance is on that and so.
McGonagill: So what I’m trying to figure out is okay, put a private drive on the north side of
this. The land to the south how, they can’t access off of Minnewashta. They can’t access to the
west.
Aanenson: They have to come off of Stratford.
McGonagill: They’re going to have to come off Stratford and that’s the only way they’re going
to get in there.
Aanenson: Correct.
McGonagill: And you’re going to have that, I realize it’s not our development. I understand
that’s the issue but what’s going to end up happening, they’re probably going to have the lot to
the west where it comes off of Stratford that’s going to be, I’m trying to think of the right word.
It will be unusable because it wouldn’t even be big enough to the left right?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 3, 2019
6
Aanenson: Well that depends on again the layout. It will obviously be more than likely served
by a private drive which would require a variance to private drive if you do more than one house.
Private street so yeah.
Skistad: Do you know how wide that lot is?
Al-Jaff: It’s 100 feet wide.
Aanenson: Yeah so we’d need 90.
Skistad: By what 125?
McGonagill: I wish there was a way, I realize there’s not. I’m just sitting here going where the
private drive you’re proposing it comes down and does that, what I’ll call a T at the end. You
know where it comes in it goes to one lot. It goes to the other one. Where the houses are laid
out if you could, that line could be extended on down and ultimately connect up with Stratford
it’d make a lot better sense. Unfortunately it’d make a very long road and cul-de-sac again for
the fire equipment issue.
Aanenson: Correct and that was.
McGonagill: That we had the first go around.
Aanenson: That was the first go around issue too so again you know the first attempt was to try
to get the 3 property owners to work together. I’m not sure that they all had aligned goals.
That’s always a challenge too and so.
McGonagill: Sure, and better economically for all of them right now.
Aanenson: Yeah so now we just have to take them incrementally yeah.
McGonagill: So you’re going to have the private drive come in and then they’ll have to come off
of Stratford some way and so basically they’ll get maybe one lot because the one to the left is
probably not going to be, won’t be big enough. It might be.
Aanenson: Yeah.
McGonagill: It’s just cut up, that’s just my problem. I just don’t, I don’t like it. That doesn’t
make engineering sense to me but I realize it’s what you’re faced with. It’s what the applicant’s
come in with. It is not though conducive to what I see the other development around through
here that we’re going to have for a better plan. And I don’t know any way around it. I’m sure
you talked about this a lot.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 3, 2019
7
Aanenson: Oh yeah. The die was cast. There’s a lot of similar areas to this in the city where
you have infill development and if you don’t work together then everybody has to kind of solve
their own problems and to the detriment. Our job is to make sure somebody’s not land locked
and that they have access. I think the main goal here when looking at this is not to get another
access point on Minnewashta Parkway so that was the first driver.
McGonagill: Correct that’s not going to happen.
Aanenson: So it was very creative to try to figure out how to get that road to go through. The
fire department’s very worried about you know the private drive and the length of that. That was
a challenge.
McGonagill: Yeah was my next question.
Aanenson: That’s why the fire hydrant’s there now so we had to just kind of knock off all those
issues as we went and Sharmeen worked really hard with the developer to try to figure this out.
McGonagill: …go down the drive. They’ll just have to lug their equipment in I guess if it
happened right? Run the lines from.
Aanenson: They could turn around if they need to yes.
McGonagill: They have to run the lines from Country Oaks and go in or they can be able to just,
and then tie into the fire hydrant I guess.
Aanenson: Correct.
McGonagill: And you couldn’t get that in there if they were in a problem.
Skistad: Are there houses on that north, is there a house on the north and the south lot?
Aanenson: Not yet.
Skistad: Around that property.
Aanenson: Not yet.
McGonagill: But they’re coming.
Skistad: Yeah.
McGonagill: There’s like if you.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 3, 2019
8
Skistad: Well the north, how many houses are going to go on that north lot?
McGonagill: If you look on page 3 of 17 you can see the lots.
Skistad: I don’t see that, okay. Oh yeah, yeah, yeah.
McGonagill: So basically 3 homes, 1, 2, 3, 3 homes. 2 ½, those lots will be impacted. Maybe 3
if I’m not approximating it right by the private drive. Is this private drive going to force those
folks on Glendale to come back with variances to move towards Country Oaks?
Aanenson: We have houses, I mean the setback is 30 feet in the rear. We have houses all over
the city that are 60 feet apart and that’s what, you know so this is what these are going to be.
McGonagill: Okay just wondering if this is going to cause a rebound effect from those
homeowners.
Aanenson: No it’s not atypical so.
McGonagill: Have you heard from those homeowners to the north, or the lot owners that this is
going to be drive behind them?
Al-Jaff: No but also keep in mind that there is landscaping on the subdivision to the north.
McGonagill: The Glendale subdivision.
Al-Jaff: Correct, Glendale subdivision so there will be some buffering in place.
McGonagill: Okay. The other thing we had with all this and then it will be my last question
Chairman. Whenever we went through the Glendale subdivision we had an awful lot of
discussion about water movement because the lots to the south were wet.
Al-Jaff: Correct.
McGonagill: And that was part of the reason was on storm drainage and getting the water out of
there and how it was going to run and that’s one of the reasons we talk about running the line up
from Stratford Ridge but allowed us to do the drainage correctly. This has made the problem in
my opinion worst so how we doing, how’s storm drainage going to work off of this with these
homes and where we don’t, where we get the water out of there. Can you show me that?
Henricksen: Sure.
McGonagill: Thank you.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 3, 2019
9
Henricksen: As proposed right now there will be minor tweaks but as of right now from the
proposed private drive this would, this drainage would be captured and that’s one of the
comments that was addressed in the staff report is it’s unclear exactly how they’re going to be
capturing this. Typically you have a catch basin at a low point and then it’s you know conveyed
over to the storm pond so that would be a minor tweak to the plans that we’d want to see and
review. Or some justification on just sheet flowing it over with appropriate BMP’s. Another
comment that we did have on the stormwater plan is to show the drainage arrows but from a
general, just looking at it you can generally see that most of the drainage from Lot 1, this is let
me just back up a quick second. This is a proposed drainage pattern map from the stormwater
management plan so each of these boxes is a drainage basin essentially or a sub-catchment and
this entire sub-catchment would be allocated into 1P or the pond, the biofiltration pond which
then would have drain tile underneath so it’s going to infiltrate, clean the water. Drain it into a
stormwater conveyance system which is indicated by this line here.
McGonagill: Okay that’s the way you’re taking it out?
Henricksen: Yeah.
McGonagill: Okay because I was one, worried about it going to the south with the issues down
there.
Henricksen: And that’s one of the, yeah and one of the things about sub-catchment 3 is that, and
from the conditions that staff is proposing would be to not allow or prohibit storm water runoff
onto an adjacent property so that was, so that’s going to require some design from their engineers
and for us to review that proposal. And it will cause minor tweaks to their stormwater model.
It’s a smaller sub-catchment but there’s means and methods to capture that. In regards to the
sub-catchment 2 this is going towards Minnewashta Parkway. The pre-existing conditions, that’s
kind of generally how the site flowed in the sub-catchment 2. It wasn’t as large however this
entire site will, should be captured and then pushed onto the Minnewashta system. They’re
proposing to tie into a pre-existing catch basin in our system under Minnewashta. We’re
requiring that they model that flow and that volume going into our public system. We have the
Minnewashta Parkway project coming up for 2020 and 2021. That of which we’re accounting to
provide stormwater improvements so we’d like to compare their model with our consultant’s
model to ensure everything’s sized adequately and to condition it such once we receive those
updated plans.
McGonagill: Looking at this, thank you for putting the stormwater drainage pattern up. When I
look at that I look at the contours. I’m going well does that mean that 1P is also going to get
loaded with water from the lot to the south when it’s developed? Do you think just the way the
flow is out there geotechnically? And if it is are we going to have it sized right for that?
Because there’s the low point, I know there’s a low point down in there, I’ve driven down in
there. It’s inbetween there.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 3, 2019
10
Henricksen: Right, yep.
McGonagill: And so when they push, they’re going to have to push that, the cul-de-sac north to
provide access.
Henricksen: I would, no I think that’s a good question and a valuable insight. From what’s
proposed this should be the entire sub-catchment that goes into 1P. There shouldn’t be anything
coming off from the adjacent property. I would defer.
McGonagill: Are you going to have another 1P-2 down on the next one then? To the south.
Henricksen: For how the, that shouldn’t lot is going to propose dealing with their stormwater I
would, it would be unclear at this point. That’s something they would have to design. I know
for this subdivision regarding where the drainage patter is going I would refer to their engineers
for how they’re designing it but from what’s submitted and what’s proposed on this drainage
pattern map it’s showing that no.
McGonagill: So conceivably we’ll have two private roads. Two catch basins basically is
probably what will end up happening.
Henricksen: Correct I mean Glendale Drive home subdivision had to create their own kind of
private stormwater facility.
McGonagill: Correct.
Henricksen: And because of the lack of that extension the public system that could have gone
through to capture some of this it is, it is piecemealed from a stormwater management
perspective.
McGonagill: And those will all be owned and maintained by the individual homeowners or is
the City going to pick up all those catch basins?
Henricksen: As addressed and as conditioned we’d want to see an HOA formed and the
operation and maintenance of the stormwater facilities would be of the HOA’s purview. They
would be responsible for that maintenance.
McGonagill: Okay.
Weick: Any to follow up with the…
McGonagill: Yeah that’s fine. Thank you Mr. Chair.
Weick: Okay.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 3, 2019
11
McGonagill: Just a few questions.
Weick: That’s alright. At this time I think I would invite the applicant or developer to come
forward and make a presentation. Welcome. Thank you for coming.
Harold Worrell: Thank you. My name’s Harold Worrell. I live at 3835 Meadowview Terrace in
St. Bonifacius. Previous resident of Chanhassen. Hoping to get back because I’m not the
developer, I’m the applicant and part of the reason for this is so I can have a waterfront home.
As Sharmeen said it’s a basic 3 lot split. We’ve named it Boylan Shores. By Boylan Shores
because it was owned by the same property owner for apparently over 100 years. It seems like
we’re just kind of borrowing the property so we asked them after we purchased the property if
we could name it after the parents and they were pretty happy about that so we proceeded. This
property, I’ve been looking for shoreline property for a very long time. My wife and I and we
came up on the property and saw it as a really good opportunity. We saw it as something that
probably would not be one lot due to the 5 lots proposed to the north. It would seem like it
would be kind of a fish bowl in our opinion so we thought well one, I don’t have the finances to
build or buy such a large property and I happen to be a builder so I contacted the owner of the
company that I work for and proposed it as an opportunity with a handshake deal for the first lot
sold. That’s kind of how we ended at this point today. The property was, the home that was one
it we did, as Sharmeen mentioned demo’d the home in October. We saw it as potentially, there
was significant damage to it. Some of the block, the cinder block was starting to deteriorate and
fall and it seemed like a place where teenagers might find themselves exploring and getting hurt
so we went ahead and took care of that. Since we purchased the property my we, I guess the first
thing we did was take the paddle boards and down to the shoreline and the kids have been doing
that and having S’mores in the bonfire while I poke and prod and pry and cut at buckthorn that’s
all over the place. Probable have some permanent scars. We’ve had a family history on
Minnewashta for a really long time. My aunt and uncle lived there for probably 40 years when I
moved here 20 years ago. My wife and I. We can only think of one year in 17 that we missed
Independence Day on Minnewashta so. I’ve spent a lot of time meeting the neighbors. A few of
them are here today and just trying to work with them and figure out what their ideas are and you
know what the history of the property was and what the best way to tackle this is and I need
some help from them and they’ve been very gracious and helpful and we’re trying to work
through it now. In regards to, and Marty Campion is here for technical questions. He’s our
engineer. In regards to any thought of that become a through road would kill the project. The
Dorsey’s to the west would not be interested in a street going through there. That’s the neighbor
that we need help from to get our driveway. I’ve never done this before so you got to tell, get the
shepherd’s hook out or something.
Weick: Well thank you.
Harold Worrell: My pleasure.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 3, 2019
12
Weick: Yeah that’s good background on the property. I think what we’ll do is we’ll see if
there’s questions specifically for you on the property and then if there’s things that maybe would
fit better for the engineer we’ll invite the engineer up and ask those questions so I guess at first I
would say, I think you know just looking at your, at your land you know I like the number of,
you know the number of homes you’re putting in there. I like the idea that you’re going to have
lakefront. I think that’s neat. I think when you see developments that tend to be you know rows
of similar looking homes, I think this is going to be unique and I think it’s going to be beautiful.
I think it’s going to be a neat area for people to live and for yourself to live.
Harold Worrell: Thank you.
Weick: And so I think from if you’re purely looking at this plot of land I think it’s nice to see it
being developed and to carry it out making the most of what you have. Questions? For the
landowner.
Tietz: Yeah Mr. Chairman. I don’t know you know Erik you probably looked at this along with
Sharmeen and Kate too but you know this issue of the drainage, I’m looking at, on my screen I
pulled up the grading plan and then I’m looking at the other one on the screen. Is it possible,
well now I guess we changed the screen but is it, the one with 3 zones. Yeah. Would it be
possible through your grading process to collapse 3 and raise the pad for the home on site 2?
Towards the south boundary and then take part of 3 drainage up into the 2 area? Just through
some manipulation of the grading. It looks like there’s a possibility but you know I haven’t, you
know I haven’t been able to walk the site with the snow on it to look at things but the grading
plan it looks like it might be possible and that might solve some of the concerns that my
colleague had with his questions.
Marty Campion: Good evening my name is Marty Campion, project engineer. First of all right
now the three-quarters of the site in addition to the property to the north all drain south through
this site into a low area that’s just a little bit south of the south property line and there is an
existing tile inlet that takes that water and directs it, we’re not sure where. When we surveyed
we found the tile inlet. We found a storm sewer pipe on the east side of Minnewashta Parkway.
The alignments, if they’re connected they’re connected with an angle inbetween that’s not in a
manhole but we think that’s what drains the area. Instead of continuing that drainage pattern,
everything draining to the south and letting it drain into that what we thought would be a better
solution would be capture the water before it goes to the south. Run it into the public system in
Minnewashta Parkway so that’s what we’re proposing. And with that it’s difficult to, I don’t
think we want to take any less water into the basin. If I understood your question correctly it was
trying to direct more water from drainage area 1 into 2. Two’s a, well I shouldn’t.
Tietz: No, no, I was just thinking that if 3 collapsed and a majority of that went into 2 just for
some re-grading out on the Minnewashta Parkway side and raised the pad for the home on that
southerly site which is now I’m confused which number that is. Is that 2 for the building pad or?
Then you could almost, and it appears, you know it better than I do but it looks like the grading
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 3, 2019
13
plan by raising the pad for the site and then collapsing a portion, that northeast portion of
segment 3. Pushing it more towards 2 you could eliminate, almost eliminate 3.
Marty Campion: Well and you can see there’s an existing drainage divide and inbetween 2 and 3
there’s a spot elevation there. That’s in EOF that allows the runoff to escape that way but we
need, when I put the grading plan together we needed that elevation to be able to push the water
both ways so we can’t, from the south line of 3 we can’t move that water to the north. Just the
elevations don’t work. If it’s going to work it we’ll have to look and see if we can even get it
into the pond from there.
Tietz: Yeah well that’s why I was kind of looking at it because it looks like from Erik’s
comments it’s going to be hard to get any of that water from 3 along the south property line with
a retaining wall in there to get that water to go to 1P.
Marty Campion: Yeah and it will.
Tietz: But if that portion that’s kind of the break point is actually raised in elevation then you
have a very limited amount that’s going to go to 1P and the rest could be potentially directed
around to 2. That’s my thought is the building site has to be raised.
Marty Campion: Well it’s not so much the building site. It’s the existing elevations near that
south property line in order to try and drain it to the north. So that’s what we have to look at and
right now we’ve probably reduced the runoff to that south property by 70 or 80 percent by
capturing it in the pond.
Tietz: But we still don’t want to push any onto the south property so.
Marty Campion: Right and we’ll just have to see how we can do that with the grades that we
have there. And just one other comment. We did provide our plans to the developer to the north.
We talked to him about maybe incorporating some of our landscaping and tried to work things
out with him so he’s aware of the plans. He knows what we’re proposing. I don’t, I didn’t get
any negative comments. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t have any but he didn’t voice any of those
to me.
Weick: Well thank you for doing that. For trying to work with him. That’s, I think that helps at
least a little. Other questions? Are you satisfied with at least receiving answers.
McGonagill: Yeah we’re getting data. Getting the data.
Weick: Okay. Anyone else? No, okay. At this time then I will open up the public hearing
portion. Anyone wishing to come forward and offer an opinion on this project may do so now.
Just come to the podium and state your name and address so we can get that for the record.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 3, 2019
14
Seeing nobody come forward I’m going to close the public hearing portion and open the item for
commission discussion. We can certainly consider a motions. Thoughts.
McGonagill: Well it’s, I think it’s a situation where you’re ending up with something that’s not
ideal because the die was cast before. Before tonight.
Weick: I would say as we, I’ll just sort of kick things in to see if it triggers any thoughts for you
but when you do look at, on page 11 of 17 but sort of the findings of the subdivision. I like to go
through those and make sure that we check everything because that’s really the crux of what
we’re here for and I think it really comes down to subdivision finding number 1. It hinges on the
variance for the private street so I think that’s an important piece. I would be, you know I’m in
favor of that variance because I just don’t see, unfortunately I don’t see another workable
solution. You know not that it hasn’t been tried in the past but that seems to be, it seems to be
the best solution in order to serve, serve these 3 homes.
McGonagill: Well it’s certainly the only solution.
Weick: Yeah.
McGonagill: And we’re going to see this again when that lot to the south goes because they’re
going to, I don’t know what we’ll see through there but.
Weick: It gets progressively more creative I think.
McGonagill: Yes.
Weick: As we travel to the south. The other point, the other variance and actually I find more
important for long term is combining the lots, and I’m assuming. I didn’t ask but I’m assuming
that’s okay to set it up that way. Instead of having outlots to have the lot be extended across the
street.
Marty Campion: That actually is our preference to do that. We’re not aware that, of how that
can be done with the bifurcated lots like that but if it’s allowable we certainly will do that.
Weick: And that’s what our variance would allow for.
Aanenson: Correct.
Weick: And I would be pretty adamant that we do approve that to sort of help future proof of
this property a little bit.
Skistad: How big are those, what are the dimensions of those lower outlots? I just couldn’t see
them in there. Like broken out, I mean just out of curiosity.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 3, 2019
15
Tietz: The lot’s over 20,000.
Al-Jaff: Outlot C has an area of 10,448 square feet and Outlot D is 9,044. 9,442.
Skistad: And I saw that on the chart but I didn’t see the dimensions.
Al-Jaff: So they are both 90 feet wide.
Skistad: Okay 90 and then about.
Al-Jaff: About 100.
Skistad: So someone would really want to build on there.
Aanenson: Well someone would go onto but they’re substandard. Oh yea it would go. They
would go and that’s why we want to tie it together with the other lots. They’re substandard so
they would need variances because they don’t meet the requirements of a shoreland lot and so
that’s why we felt strongly of tying the two together and based on the City Attorney’s opinion
the best way would be to do the variance process.
Tietz: Kate would they need a variance to put a shore structure for paddleboat paraphernalia.
Aanenson: A water orientated structure? That’s what we would call those.
Al-Jaff: That’s what we.
Tietz: So that still could be done within, that combined.
Aanenson: If they’re combined.
Tietz: But it would not have to come back for another variance.
Al-Jaff: No.
Aanenson: If they’re combined that’s a process yeah so if they want to do water and follow
those regulations yeah.
Tietz: I want to simplify this if we can.
Aanenson: Yes.
McGonagill: Oh yeah.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 3, 2019
16
Tietz: One more. I just want to follow up with that grading question. Not too detailed but does
the site, does the site balance?
Marty Campion: No. The site is short because we’re filling in that low area that’s in the middle.
Tietz: Right so my thought of actually raising the building area there for that would actually
increase the amount of material you have to bring in.
Marty Campion: Well and it’s not so much that. I was just looking at the existing topography
out there and we’re really at, in the southeast corner of Lot, what’s labeled as Lot 2 we’re almost
the same elevation as we are in the northeast corner of Lot 3 because of how the street drains
there so it’s going to be difficult to drain that, that direction. We’ll have to figure out a way to
get that to the basin rather than to the north.
Tietz: Okay.
McGonagill: Erik when you, when lot, I’m still hung up on the one to the south. When that
develops do you think what will happen, sewer and water would come off of Minnewashta
Parkway and how would you get it to the lot to the left? If Stratford Ridge comes up when we
divide, you know you may have a lot to the west of Stratford of the new extension. How are you
going to get sewer and water into that?
Tietz: Wouldn’t it come off of Stratford?
McGonagill: That’s probably where it would come from I would think is probably where it
would come from.
Henricksen: Right for sanitary sewer…
McGonagill: It would come that way and then the water would come the same way?
Henricksen: Correct and the applicant or however they propose to subdivide that southern lot
there is a possibility just as with this subdivision that some services could be had off of
Minnewashta. Something that we wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to but depending again on
the orientation and the elevations for sanitary sewer it would either come from Stratford or it
could potentially go to Minnewashta so there are adequate services on both.
McGonagill: And there’s nothing to keep it, setting a precedent here like we’re doing Kate with
the outlot approach and dividing the Lots 2 and 3 with Outlot C and D to make it one big lot. If
that happens to the south we’re setting in a way a precedent that’s what our expectations are
because they’ll have the same issue. They have a lot to the east of the road.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 3, 2019
17
Aanenson: Yeah I’m not sure if that lot is 20,000 plus but yeah.
McGonagill: But driven by size.
Aanenson: Correct.
McGonagill: Yes I understand.
Aanenson: Yes it has to meet the shoreland requirements.
McGonagill: Okay thank you. If it doesn’t then.
Aanenson: Correct we would take the same approach.
McGonagill: Yes. Some consistency somewhere.
Aanenson: Yes.
McGonagill: Okay.
Weick: Can you put up the motion? And the water and sewage that Erik went through are
written into the conditions? So those would have to be, those changes that he talked about have
been written into the Findings of Fact as well. If there aren’t further comments we could
certainly entertain a motion. Or further discussion.
Skistad: I had my questions answered so I’m good. With moving forward. I think it’s the best
we can do so.
Randall: I’ll make a motion.
Weick: Halleluiah.
Randall: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat to
subdivide 2.71 acres into 3 lots with 4 outlots with the variances as shown in plans stamped
Received November 1, 2019 subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the Findings of
Fact and discussion recommendation.
Weick: We have a valid motion. Do we have a second?
Tietz: Second.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 3, 2019
18
Weick: We have a valid motion from Commissioner Randall and a second from Commissioner
Tietz. Any comments before we go to vote? Thank you all on the commission for your
questions and diligence on this item.
Randall moved, Tietz seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve the preliminary plat to subdivide 2.71 acres into three lots and four
outlots and a variance to allow a private street and lots to be bisected by a public street as
shown in plans stamped “Received November 1, 2019”, subject to the following conditions
and adoption of the findings of fact and decision recommendation:
SUBDIVISION
Engineering:
1. The installation of a contiguous curb consistent with the Minnewashta Parkway corridor
shall be constructed where the existing driveway access is located (see City Detail Plate
#5203) immediately after the construction entrance at the location has been permanently
removed.
2. The applicant shall provide adequate right-of-way (ROW) over the entirety of the trail
along the west side of Minnewashta Parkway. This ROW shall align with the newly
subdivided property to the north to ensure continuity and will be reviewed and approved
by the city prior to recording of final plat.
3. No additional accesses shall be had off Minnewashta Parkway to serve the newly created
lots.
4. Covenants addressing the maintenance and snow plowing operations of the private street
shall be filed against all benefiting properties and submitted to the city for review and
approval prior to recording of final plat.
5. Grading plans shall be updated to illustrate drainage arrows.
6. Appendix B of the Stormwater Management Plan shall be updated to include drainage
arrows illustrating the direction of discharge from each sub-catchment.
7. Updated stormwater modeling verifying adequate capacity of downstream public
stormwater facilities and conveyance systems shall be provided for review and approval
prior to recording of final plat.
8. Plans shall be updated to address Sec. 18-57.p.4 regarding the design of adequate
drainage facilities for the private street.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 3, 2019
19
9. An updated SWPPP shall be submitted as plans are finalized, when the contractor and
their sub-contractors are identified, and as other conditions change. Review and approval
of the standalone document is required prior to any grading.
10. The newly extended 6” C900 water main shall be privately owned and maintained.
11. Coordination with all small utility companies for the excavation and underground utility
installations shall be maintained by the applicant and their contractor.
12. Lot 2’s water service shall be had from the newly extended water main; plans shall be
updated accordingly.
13. Updated plans shall be submitted as to not create a potential conflict or any crossing of
the sanitary service lateral to Lot 1 with the newly extended water main.
14. The applicant’s contractor shall field verify the serviceability of the existing sanitary
sewer service for Lot 2. This shall be accomplished via CCTV which will be provided to
the city prior to connection of the existing sanitary sewer lateral.
15. A Homeowners Association (HOA) encompassing all lots is required, in perpetuity, to
ensure the technical expertise and funding mechanisms for the operation and maintenance
of the private street and stormwater treatment devices.
16. Operation and maintenance of private stormwater BMPs is required in perpetuity. An
operation and maintenance plan must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator,
or their designee, and recorded against the properties that details the HOA’s permanent
inspection, maintenance, and funding mechanism that ensures stormwater BMPs will
function as designed.
Construction Plan Review:
1. On sheet 2 of 10: for clarity, remove call-outs associated with curb & gutter removal or
bituminous removal as those are related to the installation of utilities and are addressed
on subsequent sheets; add to notes associated with removal of structures (e.g. house,
deck, sheds, etc.) that any removal requires a building permit; add to notes that any found
wells, septic, tanks, etc. shall be abandon in accordance with the appropriate state and
local regulations.
2. On sheet 3 of 10: illustrate existing public trail on the preliminary plat to ensure
appropriate ROW dedication; clarify shoreline area illustrated adjacent to “Outlot C” and
“Outlot D” on preliminary plat, it is unclear if this area is designated as D&U.
3. On sheet 4 of 10: update call-outs for sanitary sewer taps to incorporate “WYE” and not
“SADDLE”, update call-outs for removal and replacement of curb & gutter and
bituminous to identify the appropriate city detail plate numbers; Note 5 shall be updated
read “…shall be PE/PEX” and not copper, (the city specifications and plates are being
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 3, 2019
20
updated to incorporate no use of copper for water service laterals; detail plates and
specifications can be provided upon request); Note 6 should updated to address the need
for a city Underground Utility Permit (ROW permit); Note 8 correctly addresses City
Code regarding the location of the curb stop at the property line, however the plans
illustrate the curb stop at the D&U line, update plans accordingly; Note 9 should be
updated to incorporate the same requirement for water services (painted blue); Note 10
should be updated to incorporate language that tracer while shall meet city specifications,
also the notes are overlaid with another label and are illegible, update accordingly; add a
note to the effect that testing requirements for water main installation shall meet city
requirements and specifications, and that the coordination of testing (bacteria, pressure,
etc.) are to be coordinated with the Public Works Utility Department (952-227-1130).
4. On sheet 5 of 10: the call-out for the construction of the private drive entrance at Country
Oaks Drive shall include detail plate #5206 which will require the detail sheet to be
updated accordingly; construction of the private street and other utilities may encroach
into abutting properties, update the plans to incorporate notes for protection of private
property and private structures/landscaping or if a temporary construction easement is
required; provide a typical street detail that adequately addresses the 7-ton design
requirement; EOF should be shown, profile details for the EOF and storm pond shall be
provided with elevations, include the OCS within the storm pond detail; either update
Note 1 so that Class 5 RCP is utilized, or eliminate entirely as no RCP is proposed; add
note that an Underground Utility Permit (ROW permit) is required for the connection to
the existing catch basin.
5. On sheet 6 of 10: illustrate the locations of all borings referenced in the geotechnical
report; illustrate drainage arrows for proposed elevations and grades; include in the
legend a detail for the house pad call-outs (G, TF, LL, WO) for clarity; show benchmark
location and elevation; include first floor elevations of buildings on adjacent lots (i.e. the
lot and building to the south); include existing and proposed elevations at the following
locations – each lot corner, top of curb or centerline of roadway at each lot line extension,
center of proposed driveway at curb, grade at corners of proposed structure.
6. On Sheet 7 of 10: identify proposed stockpile locations; under the call-out for the silt
fence around pond, direct contractor to sheet 10 for additional notes on installation and
stabilization of pond; provide detail number for construction entrance call-out; all
construction access will be had through one approved construction entrance, thus the silt
fence on the northwest corner of the site should be contiguous (no gap), provide a second
phase of the erosion control plan for when the construction access off Minnewashta
Parkways is closed and stabilized per Engineering Condition (1.) and the construction
entrance at the northwest corner is active.
7. On sheet 10 of 10: Update General Grading Note 9 that haul routes shall be supplied to
the city for review prior to grading and that there will be no hauling during road
restrictions unless reviewed and approved by the city; update General Grading Note 20
that the city’s Water Resources Coordinator, or their designee, shall be notified 24-hours
prior to commencement of dewatering activities; update Erosion/Siltation Control Note
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 3, 2019
21
11 to eliminate “Contractor shall place Mirafi fabric and gravel over all catch basins…”,
if inlet protection is required it should meet the city specifications and detail plates (catch
basin sediment trap #5302A).
Parks:
1. Full park fees in lieu of additional parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be
collected as a condition of approval for two of the three lots. The park fees will be collected
in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. Based upon the current
single-family park fee rate of $5,800 per dwelling, the total park fees would be $ 11,600.
Environmental Resources Coordinator:
1. No required landscape plantings shown on the approved landscape plan may be planted
in any of the outlots.
2. Tree planting requirements on each lot are as follows: Lot 1 – 10 overstory deciduous, 8
evergreens; Lot 2 – 3 deciduous overstory, 5 evergreens; Lot 3 – 5 deciduous overstory, 3
evergreens.
3. Any tree removal on Outlot C or D shall be replaced 2:1 diameter inches on the same
outlot.
4. Tree preservation fencing must be installed around trees proposed to be saved prior to
any construction activities.
Planning:
1. Approval of the subdivision is contingent upon the applicant securing the segment of
property, to allow the applicant to achieve a 30-foot frontage on a public ROW off of
Country Oaks Drive and the City Council approving the transfer of Outlot B of Glendale
Homes Drive Subdivision from the city to the applicant.
2. The applicant shall combine Outlot C with Lot 3 and Outlot D with Lot 2.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Weick: This motion passes unanimously 5 to 0. Thank you. Okay give me just one second.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Skistad noted the verbatim and summary
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 19, 2019 as presented.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS.
Aanenson: Actually we had no Planning Commission items go forward so we do have the code
amendments. Those are going on the next meeting so the last two meetings we haven’t had,
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 3, 2019
22
there’s a little bit of blow so because of the election and the like we hadn’t met so. I also just to
give you an update on what, this is our last meeting of the year and right now the deadline for the
first meeting in January, which would be the deadline would be this Friday. We’re not sure if
we’re going to have anything in or not so I’ll let you know so you can extend your holiday plans
so as soon as we know on Friday I’ll send out an email so everybody knows whether or not that
meeting but we do have some items that would be coming forward on the second meeting in
January so, but I’ll let you know on that. Keep you posted on that. I know it’s kind of nice to
anticipate the schedule so we’ll let you know on that.
Skistad: Do we have a new schedule for next year?
Aanenson: I’ll put that out, I’ll send that out to you on Friday too. What the meeting are yes.
That just got approved. Again we don’t meet on election nights or we try not to meet on
National Night Out too so I’ll put that out so. And then keep us informed on that. I’m trying to
think what other, upcoming projects we are talking about. Oh the one that we think will be
coming in the second meeting in January, there’s another small kind of boutique senior housing
and that would be over, next to Lake Ann Park. A piece of property that was owned by
Southwest Transit right in front of, right off Audubon there. About 40 units. One story. Kind of
like Beehive. Something like that so that one is in the works so that’s the one I think is probably
the most likely to go forward. We do anticipate some changes maybe to the Perkins site. We’ve
asked them to do a traffic study. We thought maybe that traffic study might come in this Friday.
Not sure where that sits on that but so those would be the ones, kind of the smaller ones.
Sharmeen’s got another small subdivision too. These infill ones. You can see the challenges
that we as planners. They see our job is trying to make all the pieces of the puzzle fit and not
everybody always wants to work together at the same time and people that are already there are
kind of entrenched about how the change happens and sometimes it makes for less desirable and
so that’s always our challenge that we try to work through so you’ve kind of seen that as we go
on this project what happens when you make one decision and it forces other decisions that may,
may or may not be good but fortunately I think we were able to make some things work. There
was some, a little bit of relief. The good news on that over sized lots. All those lots were well in
excess of so that was the win on that so. That’s all I had. I think I’ve got a couple items for
work session when you’re ready to adjourn and then we’ll just kind of go into more relaxed work
session.
Weick: Okay. Any questions for Kate?
McGonagill: Thank you and all your staff for the job they all did this year. We really appreciate
it.
Aanenson: Thank you.
McGonagill: You did a lot of work. A lot came through here.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 3, 2019
23
Weick: I would entertain a motion to adjourn.
Commissioner McGonagill 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 8:00 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim