PC Minutes 8-18-20Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020
33
compromise whether it be with neighbors or with the City. Do I understand you correctly
Commissioner McGonagill?
McGonagill: Well I think cooperation with the neighbors, the City and I do believe it will take
some revision to the grading on the property.
Weick: Understood.
McGonagill: …move the water away. You know if this was a variance to come up I would just
say I would be looking for that. What has been changed to make that water move away from the
neighbor to the east.
Weick: Okay, thank you.
McGonagill: But that’s just clarifying adding little comments because that’s not what’s in front
of now. This motion is the one in front of us and go ahead Mr. Chairman.
Weick: Okay thank you. We will do a roll call vote on the motion.
McGonagill moved, Von Oven seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and
Adjustments affirms the City Engineer Howley’s partial denial of the Encroachment
Agreement and denies that the variance request to allow the retaining walls to be located
within the drainage and utility easement and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and
Decision. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Weick: The motion passes 6 to 0. MacKenzie any final words?
Walters: This either the neighbors or the applicant do have four days to submit an appeal. If we
do not receive an appeal by 4:30 Monday this decision would be final. If we do receive a written
appeal then it would go before the City Council.
Weick: Thank you for the clarification MacKenzie and thank you again to everybody who
presented and who has put so much into this. We appreciate, we appreciate the depth of this
issue and hope that everyone appreciates the consideration that the commission has given this
evening. We do have one more item this evening. Let’s give it. Yeah we need to take a 3
minute break and then we will restate so give you guys a chance to take a break.
The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT COUNDARY
DETERMINATION MADE BY A CITY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER FOR
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020
34
PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 212 AND
POWERS BOULEVARD.
Weick: Mr. Generous is presenting this evening.
Generous: Thank you Mr. Chairman.
McGonagill: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman before we begin this, I just want to make it, I’m
going to recuse myself from this discussion.
Weick: Okay.
McGonagill: I do not have a financial interest in this property however I just do know the
applicant quite personally and some of the other people and I think it’d be proper for me to just
to sit on the sidelines and watch this one. I don’t want any questions about it.
Weick: Well we will miss your expertise for sure but thank you for letting us know and for the
record we do still have a quorum in order to vote without Mr. McGonagill this evening. So
thank you again Commissioner McGonagill and appreciate your candor.
Generous: Okay thank you Mr. Chairman. Planning Case 2020-13 as you stated is an appeal of
an administrative decision for the determination of the Bluff Creek primary zone boundary. This
property is located at the southeast corner of Highway 212 and Powers Boulevard. It’s part of an
outlot for the development, actually the lot that was platted was here and the rest of this property
is one big outlot. The property is guided for office use in the future when urban services become
available. It’s currently zoned agricultural estate district. In developing the Bluff Creek Overlay
District the City first in 1994 began looking at the Bluff Creek corridor. They established a
steering committee and a technical committee to review the natural environment of the corridor
from basically Minnewashta, Lake Minnewashta down to the Minnesota River valley. To look
at identifying and preserving a continuous greenway that would connect natural resources,
wildlife habitat throughout the, the Bluff Creek watershed district encompasses approximately
40 percent of the city’s land area and this runs approximately 6.6 miles through the city so it was
a significant corridor that the City wanted to preserve. At the end of 1996 the study was
completed. It was presented to City Council. As part of the study the group looked at
topography as one of the primary considerations in the corridor. They also looked at soil types,
vegetative communities, wetlands. There were 5 districts that came out of the study. The
uplands area which is the land north of Highway 5 to Lake Minnewashta. The Meadowlands
area which is from Highway 5 down to Lyman Boulevard. The Lowlands area which is from
Lyman to Pioneer Trail. The Gorge area which is the significant drop. It’s a 70 foot elevation
change south of Pioneer Trail that takes Bluff Creek down to the Minnesota River valley. And
then finally there an East Gorge area that’s east of Highway 101 near the Mustard Seed. It’s that
ravine system that’s over there. Unfortunately as part of our ordinance we only did the western
part. The East Gorge was left out of it. From that study the City did in 1998 adopted the Bluff
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020
35
Creek Overlay District. This district was established by Ordinance 286 to protect the Bluff
Creek corridor, the wetlands, bluff and significant stands of mature trees in the area. The
property is located in what’s the Lowlands area. It’s significant because there is a, I’ve got to
find which page I wrote this on. A natural area extended from Great Plains and Lyman
Boulevard southwest to Pioneer Trail, a forested ridge containing an oak woodland. It linked
several better quality wetlands within the corridor and areas that the City really wanted to
preserve. So after the study the ordinance was adopted. It required that any development within
the Bluff Creek corridor, and especially those that had the primary zone in it needed to receive a
conditional use as part of their development approval. Additionally there was a 40 foot structure
setback from the primary zone boundary with the first 20 feet being a buffer zone. The Bluff
Creek corridor consists of the primary zone which is the area that’s to be preserved as permanent
open space and the secondary zone which is where the City should look at low impact
development types to reduce any impacts to the Bluff Creek corridor or primary zone in this
case. Again the primary zone runs from Highway 41 north of Highway 5 all the way down to the
Minnesota River valley. And it has two tributaries. One that comes from Arboretum Business
Park and comes into the main branch and then one that comes from 101 and Lyman Boulevard
down through this property. Crosses Pioneer and comes and meets the trail again. And then the
third one on Pioneer Trail that runs from Audubon over to the main branch of Bluff Creek and
again down to the Minnesota River valley. The specific areas within the low land, the portion
that we’re looking at is a small 3 acre segment right here adjacent to the Highway 212
interchange. And I should as part of the City’s development review process we look at not only
lines that are immediately adjacent to the Bluff Creek corridor but those that are adjacent to some
of the tributary areas. There’s two instances of development to the east of Mr. Erhart’s property
that are, have portions located in the primary zone. Fox Wood development has part of the
wetland complex in the upland area adjacent to that. All of this Outlot A is all part of the Bluff
Creek primary zone and it connects into the Fox Wood preservation area which then connects
into Mr. Erhart’s property in his northwest corner. To the north of this development across that
wetland is the Arbor Glen development. It includes the wetland and buffer area and as part of
this development review the watershed district took an additional buffer area north of our Bluff
Creek primary zone and this area ultimately remained permanent open space. Now you look at a
tributary to the west and we have the Arboretum Business Park. As part of the Control Concepts
site plan review the eastern quarter of the property was in the primary zone. This area is being
preserved as part of the Overlay District and it will be permanent open space. As part of the
development we did get a trail connection into a trail system that we have there. And finally I’m
showing the Avienda development which is west of Powers Boulevard, north of Highway 212.
Approximately 15 acres in the southwest corner of this site is part of the Bluff Creek primary
zone. This is a wooded hill that’s an example of Big Woods. It’s not directly adjacent to the
Bluff Creek itself but it does contribute to the watershed so. In looking at the drainage patterns
for the Bluff Creek watershed district we see that Bluff Creek watershed drains from actually
east of Highway 101 at Lyman Boulevard through that wetland complex through Mr. Erhart’s
property and across Powers Boulevard to Bluff Creek which runs approximately here. So it’s
now pipe. At one time this whole area was overland flow of drainage for the Bluff Creek
corridor until Powers Boulevard was extended and Highway 212 was put in place. The applicant
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020
36
has requested that this approximately 3 acres of his site be removed from the Bluff Creek
primary zone and so the boundary would be revised to take out this area. As part of his request
at the time the City didn’t have a Water Resources Coordinator so we hired WSB to do a review
of the watershed district boundaries and whether or not it would be appropriate to make any
changes to it. The applicant, to make an appeal the ordinance allows the property owners to
provide scientific data, topography, vegetation, flora, fauna, to show why the land should be
excluded from the primary zone boundary. He did provide, this is a survey that Mr. Erhart
provided. It’s part of the existing conditions survey that he provided. It shows areas of steep
slope. Areas where water drains through the property. Areas of Woodlands. This is that ridge
line that was talked about as part of the Bluff Creek Overlay. The study that said the oak
savannah type. I should note that this line is actually follows the wood tree line on this side.
This is an area in the future where the City is actually looking at a potential lift station for
development. We did as part of the review we submitted the study to the WSB and they
reviewed it based on all the criteria that we have in our ordinance. Soils, wetland, topography,
vegetation, significant stands of trees and they found that with some modifications the Bluff
Creek primary zone designation that the City has is appropriate. At the time, they did show that
the primary zone should not include land that drains to the east because that doesn’t impact Bluff
Creek corridor and so the top of the ridge line they recommended that we take that out of the
Bluff Creek primary zone. However they also showed that our line should be moved a little bit
east on the south end of this property to the top of the ridge line to take in all the land that drains
to the west. And so that’s based, based on that recommendation we sent Mr. Erhart our
determination that the Bluff Creek primary zone boundary should not be revised pursuant to
what he said. He had requested. And now we’re back to, again we have an appeal that he
believes there was an error in our determination of the Bluff Creek primary zone and that Section
20-28 of city code allows the Planning Commission as a Board of Appeals and Adjustment to
determine if we made an error in our determination of the city code. With that we’re
recommending that the Planning Commission affirm our decision for the Bluff Creek primary
zone and I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Weick: Great. I will open it up to the commission. Anyone please speak up if you have
questions at this time for Mr. Generous.
Von Oven: I have a quick question. If we could bring the slides back up and go to the last slide
before the proposed motion. I got a little confused on this. This assessment. This picture is
from whom? Who created this?
Generous: WSB put it together from topography and an aerial view of the site. They added the
coloring for the primary zone which is red here. These bright red areas are areas of steep slopes.
They were 25 percent or more.
Von Oven: Got it. And sorry I didn’t get to step back. The, the applicant had the ability to have
scientific data put together and that was, that’s this is what I’m looking at here?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020
37
Generous: Yes.
Von Oven: Okay. And the aerial shot from WSB, this is the City hired WSB to do that in the
absence of an existing water manager or something, right?
Generous: That’s correct.
Von Oven: Got it, okay. Thank you.
Weick: Thank you Commissioner Von Oven. And roughly we’re on the next slide, roughly
where does the property in question. Not this slide but the one, where is the property in question
on this?
Generous: Well it’s all this.
Weick: It is?
Generous: Yeah. Because this is just a primary zone boundary which would be this area. The
primary zone boundary of the east edge of it runs along this top of this ridge line.
Weick: Okay.
Generous: And continues up to the northeast. And then it runs over to, actually it used to
encompass Highway 212. That interchange but with the development of the road that portion
would disappeared.
Weick: Okay.
Generous: And so it runs basically the west edge of that is the bottom on that ridge line and the
wooded area that went across and it’s the existing canopy coverage.
Aanenson: Bob could you go to the second slide? Or with all the blue on it. There. Can you
just maybe illustratively show where you are based on this?
Generous: Yeah the 3 acres is right in this corner.
Aanenson: Does that help?
Weick: Yeah, thank you. Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Generous from commissioners?
Okay, hearing none at this time thank you Mr. Generous. Hearing none at this time I would
invite the applicant to come forward and make a presentation. And welcome. It’s nice to see
you.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020
38
Tim Erhart: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you commissioners. Appreciate the time and
effort everybody makes on this. I had my turn on the wheel many years ago for 6 years. It was
one of the greatest experiences, are you hearing me okay? Greatest experiences I really had.
Learned how our city works. Met a lot of great people including when Kate came on board so a
lot of fun so appreciate the opportunity to have this side. I’ve got a few slides. Maybe it will
help some of the questions about where this, where exactly this 3 acres exists. There we go. So
we can go right into the next one Bob. Okay so here’s a Google view of the area. You can see
212 on, swinging across at an angle across the top. Powers Boulevard north and south on the left
and winding 101, still winding 101 kind of down the middle and our property kind of runs, I’d
say the bottom, kind of the bottom half of that area. It’s 120 acres we’ve owned since 1980.
You can see the area from this photo. You can see that area is nothing but trees, wetlands,
swamps. It’s to be honest with you we were very fortunate to somehow buy this piece of
property when we got married and moved onto it. It’s in our view the most beautiful piece of
property in all of Chanhassen. It’s, at one point before Gonyea developed that with the
permission of Jim Wilson and Frank Fox, the prior owner of Fox Woods had 4 ½ miles of trails
through this whole area and there’s still substantial trails and I encourage and allow everybody to
walk on the still 3 miles of trails that are on my property so you can kind of see. The area in
question, I don’t know if I got, if I can do. Yeah Bob’s got the idea there. It’s kind of in this
area down here where it’s not fully wooded. There’s a hay field right there where he’s got his
dot. It’s about 2 acres and then there’s open area to, well yeah the 2 acres is in the middle but 3
areas to the left of that is 9 acres that’s guided, guided office. So maybe the next slide we can,
maybe shows a little better. So here’s a sketch of kind of what things look like today and
inclusive of what a 40 year person living there has kind of laid out a sketch of how I think I’d
like to see this developed and I think it’s pretty consistent with city staff and Hoffman. Todd
Hoffman and Jerry Ruegemer and I love walking those trails and making those trails and we
want to see them continue to be used. The 3 acres on the left where Bob has his dot and 9 to the
left of that and then if you go up in Fox Woods and on our property there you can see what trails
exist today.
Aanenson: If I may Tim, I might just interject. I don’t know if everybody knows but the City
did purchase the Fox Woods property a number of years ago so that’s a preserve area.
Tim Erhart: That’s Fox Woods preserve today yeah. And then I’ve kind of laid out if you look
at the whole area there kind of what potentially the street layout could be. Some of them that
exist. It’s kind of the intent of there. You can see within this whole 400 acres there it’s a
tremendous natural area where there will be some enclaves of beautiful houses and great settings.
Great natural opportunities so. And then there’s the one last thing I want to mention is that there
will be a connecting trail from Bandimere Park through this whole thing. I’ve shown it on the
top along the top of those ponds there and I don’t know if that one will be a nature trail or a
paved bike trail. I’m not sure what the plan of that is but it will, everything will be connected so
okay we can go to the next one Bob. I don’t think this one, oh yeah this one is I just want to
summarize the site features here. Just what I’m talking about and why I’m kind of, I’m very
passionate about getting this development done correctly. This 9 acre, if we add the 3 it’s 12 to
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020
39
13. It’s right at the intersection. Has great access to transportation to the rest of the Twin Cities.
The access is right through Powers Boulevard. The cut is there available to use. There’s a
preliminary base of a street already installed. It will be close to a bus stop. The site has great
views. Great views of the site from eastbound traffic coming on 212. If someone’s looking for a
high level office you would be able to have signage and a great view. It’s right next to the Fox
Woods Preserve. People who use that either office or live there would basically walk out their
door and be in the preserve on the trail system. You can go to Bandimere Park but another trail.
Another nice amenity of the system and because of the hills that Bob’s referring to it’s isolated
from what’s planned, single family to the east across the large, let’s see it would be yeah. What
Bob is showing there is single family to the east of that planned and then to the south of that
there’s some existing single family and as we found out when Fairview came in, we kind of want
to be isolated from them too. There’s concerns from that and in summary it’s just a stunning
setting so thanks, I think we can move on then Bob. I think what we, I’m trying to get to with
this site. Because of all those, those list of things, I think it’s a perfect site for office which it’s
guided. I think the size of that office should be 150,000 to 200,000 square feet. My experience
in having people inquiring about this space for a corporate headquarters or in the case of
Fairview Medical which proceeded to quite far along. Through Planning Commission and did it
go to council? Yeah the whole thing was approved yeah so I mean that was 160,000 square feet
they wanted to invest in. I think that’s the kind of thing we can attract to this site. It doesn’t
come along every day. I get, I do get inquiring from time to time on it. I think it has potential if
we do the proper planning for that. The other option is the high density residential. In that case
the same amount of square feet that could equivalent to about 150 to 200 units so, and/or senior
housing so either way. Next Bob. Let’s see, yeah let’s back up. Let’s back up to the two slides.
One more. Yeah okay. So Bob introduced the idea here of how do we establish the real position
of these Bluff Creek overlay boundaries. You know the ordinance states the boundaries shall be
determined by using topographical survey, a flora fauna survey and soil data but nowhere in the
ordinance does it actually tell you how to apply this information to determine the exact location
of the line. The real setting of that line is really, left up to the planner. City planner specifically
or the planning department and I’m not suggesting that the City doesn’t apply a consistent
process for putting on that line but it is not, it is not laid out in the ordinance itself. The initial
line for my corner up there was because there, when the ordinance was put in place there really
wasn’t any of this data readily available so we used aerial photography and some on site survey
work to set up where the original boundaries were with the idea that when someone comes in for
development we would relocate the line depending on more information coming in but it still
was a process that was basically established by the planning department. The first line on that
particular project or property through aerial photographs was put on a fence that separated a
cultivated field from a pasture line that had some trees in it. When Fairview came in we did a
more detailed survey of the area. Tried to accommodate what they wanted to do and the line was
moved further to the east approximately where it is today. Is that clear from the map there?
Because of our, what we learned from the Fairview process, one is that there is a market for a
high grade office or medical building in the area but typically as I mentioned they’re looking for,
they’re really looking for 20 acres is usually the starting point. I’m not suggesting at all that we
want to try to eek out 20 acres on this site but I think it’s reasonable to come up with 12 or 13
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020
40
based on our experience. My view is to accommodate that as we take the 2 acre hayfield and we
add a 1 ½ acre hill with the trees on it and try to move that line east to encompass that yields the
acreage I think we need to attract a high, a big, a major investment. I think in my view of, I think
it’s a beautiful ordinance that we have, the Bluff Creek ordinance or overlay district and that it
gives us, it’s designed to give us the flexibility to develop property, protect the natural areas and
to preserve the corridor as a whole with what remains of the Bluff Creek watershed. As Bob
stated the primary goal is to create the greenway from Lake Minnewashta to the Minnesota River
and it’s not intended to obstruct development. And I think in this case we’re asking to have the
flexibility to put this line where I think it reasonably can use this area in a way it should. So in
our proposed line, if you go, look to the east it’s at the bottom of a very steep rise up to that hill
that separates that pond from and there from the west. It’s all natural vegetation and it has very
large high value trees on it. This area to the west of our proposed line is identical to what you
see up in Fox Woods Preserve today and the 60 or so acres that ultimately we would envision
from our property to be added to Fox Woods Preserve. Assuming we call it, if we call the whole
area Fox Woods Preserve so. I’m not asking it to be called Erhart Preserve. Yeah Tim’s Woods
but it really is consistent with that whole thing and we would, I would never suggest that we
move that line any further into that. That’s a beautiful area. It’s very steep and we want that to
remain and the trails that are in it. In contrast the areas on the west of our proposed line it’s more
like the 9 acres that’s already guided for office. As I mentioned it consists of 2 acres of a hay
field and, with a 1 ½ acre hill and on that hill there’s 18 oak trees. Large oak trees. That was
formerly pasture and now I mow that tree and it’s become known as Tim’s park so it’s pretty
impressive when you walk out there because these oak trees stand alone without brush around
them so it’s like going to a really nice city park. I think one of the issues what’s happened here
is that now the City kind of deems these 18 trees as kind of unique and a lot of attention to not,
not losing these 18 trees which I don’t want to lose these 18 trees either but I think in putting this
in context in Fox Woods Preserve there are over 1,000 trees that are 12 inches in diameter and
larger and I’m guessing that there’s 250 of those are over 24 inches trees. There’s a lot of, as
you saw from the previous picture there’s a lot of trees here. We just completed a tree survey on
that area. See that little loop in there Bob? Can you throw that? Yeah right in there. There’s a
20 acre piece there that we just completed a tree survey. There’s 500 trees in that little area that
are over 12 inches diameter. My point being that you know I love the 18 oak trees but these are
not unique. In fact I would venture to say that within a mile radius there’s tens of thousands of
trees similar to those trees. Particularly as you get down in what you’re calling what, the lower
lower area of Bluff Creek?
Generous: The lowlands.
Tim Erhart: The really lowland and it just goes on forever so. Secondly is there’s no reason to
think that these 18 trees would be removed during development of this site. The trees are really
an asset and to flatten the hill on there would be quite an undertaking. One that’s really not
necessary to develop it. Can you jump ahead a couple slides Bob? We have some, put together
a couple ideas on how you would develop the, let’s say 13 acre site and preserve the trees.
Here’s one that’s office and you can see it involves, in this case two buildings and a third which
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020
41
could be retail or office. We would use the hayfield as a parking lot and the buildings would butt
up against the hill so if the trees are there and we would not attempt to disturb the hill. The next
one is an apartment complex idea where you come in and we have apartments here with
underground parking and the hay field becomes one of the apartment buildings with an
entranceway and then two other buildings closer to the intersection of the freeway. Here this
concept includes an additional trail that might, would have a bridge over the entranceway to the
upper apartment building. That’s a very narrow pass there and it would join up with the trail that
already exists that comes from the northwest there. Kind of a fun idea. They call it the Bridges I
guess so. Anyway you know my wife and I have owned this property for 40 years and during
that time we’ve restored 4 wetlands. We’ve planted thousands of trees on this property and our
vision for this is to have people, have a lot of people work or live there and I agree with the staff
that this is a unique piece of property. But I think it’s a little bit different. My view is I think it’s
unique in what it contributes to our community at large in it’s use. It’s maximum use as a high
end office. Corporate office or an apartment building that would allow some people on this Fox
Woods Preserve. I was just in there Sunday. I hike that area quite often. You hardly see
anybody in that park today. It’s just, it’s a really under used asset for us. I did for the second
time this summer ran into a mom and a kid, his son so I stopped and I asked I said you must be
from Fox Woods. Oh no, we’re from Eden Prairie. I said why do you come out here? Why do
you drive out here to use this trail? Well he said there’s nobody ever on it so. So you know it’s
just begging for some people to come in and use it so the request we’re asking for is to provide
that opportunity to maximize it’s use. To provide today clear, a clear, a clear way to describe the
property to a potential investor as opposed to well it’s 9 acres and yeah maybe you could get
another 3 if you’re nice you know. It’s really hard to sell a concept that way. The last, okay
with that I just summarize what we’re asking for. Adjust the Bluff Creek Overlay District
boundary to align with the property’s existing characteristics and the land use which two-thirds
of it is agricultural today. All the best use. Potential for tax generation. I didn’t mention that
but that’s something we all have to think about and attract a really superior investment and lastly
to allow us to offer it both as a, there’s one more slide Bob. One as office or apartment or high
density residential. So those are the two things that we’re requesting so that’s it.
Weick: Great. Thank you very much. In.
Tim Erhart: Oh I’m sorry, I’m sorry. I’m sorry. Dan has something that he’d like to add, is
that?
Weick: Is that part of the? Okay then yeah. Come on up.
Tim Erhart: Dan Blake.
Dan Blake: Mr. Chairman and commission, my name is Dan Blake. I’m with the Pemtom Land
Company and been doing various development type things for a long time and I just told Tim I
would talk a little bit about you know kind of the planning concept but I’m going to back up a
little bit of history of things that Tim won’t say. He did mention that he bought a farm 4 years
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020
42
ago. It was a dairy farm. He did not expand the dairy operation. Instead he’s been planting
trees as he mentioned for 40 years. He did not cut down those oak trees that are considered kind
of prime but could have. Why because he cares more about that site than probably the City does
and in that regard he’s not the big bad developer. Maybe I am but I’m not his developer. I’m
just a friend. He, I’ve been working with him to put a vision for this plan, the entire site so that
even if he doesn’t develop it, it gets developed the way his vision has been evolving over 40
years and he cares about some of the things. Some of the things you just heard he cares about a
lot which is you know I want people to use this. I want people to see this. I don’t want 7 houses
backing up to this wetland. I want people to drive by the wetland and see it. I want people to see
the trees. I want my apartment buildings to be next to the big trees so that people can walk out
their door, through the little park and be into it so you know from that regard Tim as a landowner
is not typical. I understand there’s a challenge in getting a firm commitment from him and the
future landowners and how this all met but his goal in this corner is to create something with
high value. You know Tim didn’t ask for 212 to be built. He didn’t probably even ask for
Powers to be built but the result of that is a corner that makes sense for some type of a higher
intensity use and the City has recognized that in guiding it office. There is though a parcel size
that tends to drive the type of, the value and type of use and even though it’s proximity is
fabulous if it’s too small you get a daycare. I don’t know what will end up there. You know it
needs to be big enough to attract a high value use and that’s what I think that Tim is trying to
accomplish in this discussion about where is that boundary. You know there’s, I mean if we
build it they will come doesn’t really work in land planning. Somebody some day wants a high
value use in the southwest metro, whether it’s housing or office and they’re going to look for the
size property they need and if they can’t fit it here it will go somewhere further out which is
contrary to good planning in that we have an interchange with access. We have, you know
because of the uses, the road uses are probably not going to be single family kind of uses.
There’s probably going to be you know it makes sense for a higher intensity use. Not even sure
if it’s, you know you’ve got to preserve the real natural features that are there but it’s not even
ideal to preserve those next to the freeway but that’s part of this but my point being is if someone
wants their 13 or 15 acre site they’re going to, they’re going to find it. Maybe it will be in Chan
or maybe it will you know somehow it’s going to be further away from the freeway or further
down the road and it’s going to cause more people to be driving further and not using the
transportation system as efficiently as we can to use that and so the, looking at this boundary
which as Tim mentioned, you know it’s not arbitrary but it’s, there’s an element of arbitrariness
to that boundary so I listened to the last presentation and the question was did staff make a, an
error. That’s going to be hard to define error because it’s pretty fuzzy as far as how that
boundary can exist. I think we’re trying to show that it’s somewhat arbitrary. The logic of
moving it is just as sensible and there’s a great purpose in why that would be there so that we’re
not chasing that high value use to a different location you know out, further away from the
transportation system. Thank you.
Weick: Alright thank you very much. I appreciate it. I was scribbling notes so I apologize but
are there questions at this time for the applicant? For Mr. Erhart from the commission. And as
maybe we’re waiting I’m trying to figure out in my head how to ask kind of a similar question
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020
43
that was asked in the previous item we heard. Which is I guess why, why move the line? Like
what if you could summarize, I mean you’ve given a really good background on sort of why it
makes sense but more specific to that boundary line, could you kind of summarize kind of some
of the key points as to why it would make sense to move it up or down?
Tim Erhart: Okay yeah.
Weick: If you yeah.
Tim Erhart: Well one is I think the line that we propose has more technical support than where
the line is today. Okay as I mentioned it starts at a very steep hill and natural vegetation with a
lot of big trees. Okay where the line today is kind of drawn down the middle of a hill and
through a hay field, okay. Secondly is our experience is that in order, as Dan mentioned in order
to attract a really big investment in that area 9 acres is tight. We found with Fairview we were,
well I mean it was, we were cutting into hills. We were putting in 15 foot retaining walls and we
found out we should have moved the whole building site farther north to get it further away
from, to get a wider area if you include that 3 areas. It’s wider and bigger and further away from
the existing homes in the south. And I just it’s a great opportunity I think for Chanhassen to
maximize it’s taxes from that area. The community’s use for it and I, the reason we need that
today is I need to be able to communicate to someone when they call in or contact me is that this
is the area we’ve got to work with. It’s not 20. It’s not 9. It’s 12 to 13. Otherwise it’s real
difficult to kind of keep it kind of, make that conversation.
Weick: Okay. Thank you. I mean that’s a good answer. Anyone else with questions for the
applicant at this time?
Von Oven: Commissioner Von Oven with a question.
Weick: Go ahead.
Von Oven: So Mr. Erhart first of all you are a wonderful story teller. I just met you and I feel
like I’ve known you forever so thank you for that presentation. That was great. You’re also, I
also love the fact that you’re an alumni of what we’re trying to do here today so that allows me
to make statements like you know how this works. So as part of what I read in the staff report
you have the ability or the you shall provide appropriate technical information and you just
mentioned that you feel as though that the boundary lines as you’ve drawn them are more
technically accurate I think you said. I’m not sure I’m quoting you correctly and it says in here
that you provided a topographic survey and a tree survey, both of which I think were shown
earlier. The picture that I saw from, is it WSB or let’s say the City provided, while I’m not an
expert at reading that it seems like pretty hard evidence of moving certain lines both you know in
your favor and another against your favor so I think my question for you is, after seeing what the
City had provided and knowing that if you could provide appropriate technical information the
staff would have just approved this. Is it that technical information does not exist to move the
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020
44
lines where you want to move them and or was there just not the resources to be able to provide
it?
Tim Erhart: Excellent question. The thing is that almost all the surveys that they asked for is not
measurable data. I mean it’s flora and fauna. Okay so we’ve got the trees. That’s measurable.
But the flora and you know the soils, erosion, I mean these are all kind of subjective and you
have to put this together all collectively which is what WSB did in their view when you collect
the information in their view the line should be where it’s at and one of the points there is that,
you know I’m as the applicant kind of have to approve, kind of show why it should be moved
whereas the City kind of is in a position to say well this is where the line is and so I’m trying to
show why it should be moved and why it’s a benefit to the City. But there is no clear. There is
no clear actual data. Even the reference to the 25 percent slopes. There’s nothing in the
ordinance that says 25, other than in the secondary zone there’s some minor reference to it.
There’s nothing that says 25 percent slopes should automatically make this in the primary zone.
It’s not in the ordinance. Again that’s a process and it’s kind of a subjective view that the City
has taken. I’m not saying it’s wrong. I’m just saying this is the problem with this whole thing.
It’s not, there’s no magic formula to put in a calculator and a line draws out okay. It’s a view.
Does that answer the question?
Von Oven: Yes, thank you very much.
Weick: Good question. Others anyone might have. Give you a chance to think. Hearing none
at this time, thank you Mr. Erhart. I appreciate your presentation. And I will open the public
hearing portion on this item. Anyone present wishing to make a comment on this item may
come forward at this time. We are also accepting calls. The number is 952-227-1100 and is on
the screen. I’ve heard some beeps from over there but I don’t think it’s an actual phone call.
This is always my favorite part when I try and figure out a way to stall long enough to have
someone come forward. No one is present in the chambers to come forward and speak on this
item and I do not believe we had emails submitted either on this.
Generous: None that we’re aware.
Weick: Okay.
Generous: I had well one email but it wasn’t directly related to this. It was related to all
development.
Weick: Okay.
Aanenson: A call?
Generous: Yeah that was a call. Well it was the email.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020
45
Weick: Okay perfect. Well hearing no phone calls as well I will close the public hearing portion
of this item and open for commissioner comment. And I will, I’ll kind of open the comment as
people maybe collect their thoughts. You know for me I’ll just be very open about how, my
thoughts on this item and they might not be exactly correct or appropriate but I guess I would say
if this came to us in a form of like there was a development and they asked for a variance on 3
acres to put in you know a health care or an apartment or something like that, to me it is, it
makes sense. Like I don’t think there’s enough to, it’s hard to decide where that line is I think
especially through that property and I think if there was someone sitting in front of us here that
said we can’t develop unless we have this 3 acres I would personally be inclined to say yeah.
Let’s do it. That’s not the question in front of us today. I get that but to me the question’s less
about really right or wrong and you know error or anything that’s been made. You know the
question is, is there enough doubt in how that line could be drawn in order to support you know
moving it one way or the other. Because I think honestly we could put that line, I feel like it
could be placed in several different places that would make perfect sense to me through that
property. So just kind of throwing out some ideas and some thoughts about where my head’s at.
You know this is such important property I think for the City based on where it’s located off of
212 there. It requires our real you know sincere consideration at this time. Commissioner
Reeder, it looks like you might be wanting to say something. Please jump in.
Reeder: If I can figure out how to talk in here.
Weick: Yep.
Reeder: My request is to hear staff talk about their concerns in moving this line. I understand
the original engineering study suggested it should be where it is but I’d like to hear staff
comment about the, their concerns about moving this line.
Generous: I’ll take a shot at it. The concern is establishing precedence in not following the city
ordinance. This boundary came about from a study that was years in the making. It was then
implemented through a public hearing process where we established these lines and the criteria
for us to revise a line. We want to have, give people the idea that if you can provide sufficient
data or information to say that well it should be shifted then that would be one thing but in this
case as our current water resources person said there wasn’t sufficient information provided to
create support for changing the boundary.
Aanenson: I’d just like to add one other thing if I may. So the question came up you know
regarding I think the Chairman brought it up regarding when a project comes forward. It’s
always easier when a project’s going forward so let’s step back and look at the overlay district
and how it was put in place. When we adopted the overlay district it was contemplated that we
would buy all the right-of-way in the overlay district. Some of it was inside the urban service
area. Some was out so there’s a price difference so at that time when the ordinance was put in
place it was determined that as each project came through we would verify that if someone
wanted to do earlier like Mr. Erhart wanted to he has the right to pursue that action to say I don’t
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020
46
think the boundary is correct. So as we’ve applied it as each project comes in. We get more
refined data so there’s a definition of flora and fauna. It’s the different types of vegetation that
have unique characteristics whether in a wooded area, a wet areas so all the scientific things. It’s
not just the planners. We have a lot of technical people that would look at that. We walked Mr.
Erhart’s property a number of times and he has been a good steward of that property. I don’t
want to dismiss that at all but what we’ve always done is apply typically with a project going
forward so when you look at Avienda on this project. Maybe we didn’t preserve but what we
have done and preserved that is there’s value to when something is in the overlay district so I
don’t want to take Mr. Erhart’s ability to have value to that property but as were shown in the
slides earlier there’s other residential projects, some of those were given different lot size
configurations so but given the property for the overlay district they were able to have RLM
zoning district which is a zoning district that says if you contribute a significant amount of
upland area then you get credit for that. So in this circumstance let’s say they came in with an
apartment building or this project came in as an office building and they could use that green
space in the upland area for that preserve area for the green space so it would still have some
value. Just like Avienda where we preserved the 15-17 acres of green space or wooded area,
they get credit for that through their green space which allows them to intensify the area that’s
not in there. If that makes sense. So the value is that there again. Now not always can you
recapture that value. Sometimes it’s more difficult if you’re looking at an industrial zone.
Typically those buildings have a certain footprint. They all go taller and an office building could
go taller. Apartment building could go taller so that’s kind of how we’ve worked it out. So I’m
not saying it’s not appropriate to have discussion now but it’s just a little easier when you have a
project in front of you just to kind of you know to say well who’s giving and taking and that sort
of thing so yes, this is a prime piece of property and with the visibility. Would it be more value
to the owner with additional property in there? Not disagreeing with that.
Reeder: So Mr. Chairman maybe a question goes to Mr. Erhart, what’s the concern about what
I’m hearing from staff is that when you come in with a project this is something, switching some
of the land could be considered. Why can’t we go that way?
Tim Erhart: That means deferring the question until development. And again I think it’s
important to be able to convey to potential investors exactly the amount of land area that they
have to work with. Otherwise it’s a guessing game and as Mr. Blake stated you know if it
doesn’t meet their criteria of 13, 14 acres they’re going to move onto the next spot. There just
isn’t enough time in today’s world to play the games. Well maybe it’s 9. Maybe it’s 13. In our
view this 3 acres is, is readily developable. Generally flat except for the hill in the middle and
moving this line, I didn’t mention it but really have zero negative impact on what we’re trying to
accomplish with that whole nature area and that 360 acre block. Did that answer your question?
Skistad: Yeah I have a comment.
Weick: Commissioner Reeder, did that answer your question? I think it was his question wasn’t
it?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020
47
Generous: Yeah.
Weick: Yeah okay. Well let’s assume it did. I think it did. I think we’re clear. Commissioner
Skistad. Wait. Yes Commissioner Reeder.
Reeder: As soon as I learn how to work this thing I’ll answer your questions.
Weick: You’re fine. You’re fine.
Reeder: I think it does. I’m still thinking that while discussion I think needs to take place
sometime that we’re without a proposal I think it’s difficult to determine at this time that we
should change the boundary so it seems to me that it’s premature.
Weick: Understood, thank you. Commissioner Skistad.
Skistad: I think what was interesting to me when I was looking at the presentation was which
direction the water flowed and it looks like it flows from that little parcel to Powers, is that right?
So I think what, so to me when I was looking at his presentation he’s looking here’s the part that
flows into Powers versus the part that flows the other direction which would be the watershed
area so that to me that was, you know when I looked it how I would differentiate that and how I
would say well it’s already flowing into the road then I have a hard time seeing that the impact
because it’s already going that direction.
Weick: So you think that line makes sense?
Skistad: It makes sense to me when I look at, once I finally orientated it correctly which I had to
do using my phone and an aerial view so, I mean that really helped me see the direction and how
it made sense where the preserve is. I think it’s north of there basically northeast or northwest.
Or is it northeast? Northeast yeah, northeast of that location so I mean I think that he made a
case for it for me as far as the way the direction of the water flow.
Weick: Okay. That is helpful as well. Yes Commissioner Randall.
Randall: I think we’re really kind of splitting hairs here on this. I agree though too. I thought he
made a good case for where that line should be. I get it. It’s kind of a fluid line a little bit but I
almost feel like we’re almost not the committee to decide this almost you know. I feel like it’s
more technical than what was presented to us almost. I’d kind of like to hear a third party on it
that’s more neutral I guess. That would just be kind of my thought on it but I kind, I feel like he
made a very good presentation on where the line should be. Also after looking at it.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020
48
Weick: I would say though I think the third party is WSB who suggested the line basically not
move. I mean right there, they’re a third party consultant that. I mean I’m not trying to sway
you any way. I’m just stating what happened.
Von Oven: On that note could we, could we get another look at the WSB chart? I was going to
ask a question about that. Yeah and it’s there. Man I don’t know how to do this. You’re opening
my eyes a little bit earlier when you in some sense reminded me or brought up the fact that we’re
talking about 3 acres here. So can you point out for me on this chart which 3 acres? Maybe just,
maybe in a circle. If you can outline the 3 acres.
Generous: It includes this open area which Tim refers to as the hay field.
Von Oven: The hay field which is in the middle of all the red tornado.
Generous: Yes that’s the steep slopes.
Von Oven: Yes the steep slopes going down towards the southeast which is, that’s a lake there
and then, and then north.
Generous: It splits about here. This blue line would be the top of that ridge and so this goes into
that wetland complex that Tim created and this one goes to Bluff Creek.
Von Oven: Got it. Okay. And so the WSB recommendation, the green part was A, this is
currently part of Bluff Creek primary zone and shouldn’t be because this water is running off
into a different body of water. And then the blue one down there was hay but if we’re going to
giveth and taketh away right, that kind of thing right?
Generous: That’s correct.
Von Oven: Okay. Can, I know I’m asking weird questions here but if I’m in the middle of that
green section there on the line as they’ve drawn it, yeah so from where your pointer is down to
that line about how far would you say that is?
Generous: Tim?
Von Oven: I know it’s a weird question.
Generous: Yeah from the field to the top of the ridge.
Tim Erhart: From the edge of the field or the middle of the field? Middle of the field?
Generous: Yeah.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020
49
Tim Erhart: Yeah I was just going to say 300 feet. Dan says 100 yards.
Generous: They estimate about 300 feet.
Von Oven: 300 feet, okay. And with the data that we have would you say that 300 feet is within
the margin of error? You don’t have to answer it because I think you’d be speculating but since
we’re just sort of giving positions here. I on one hand I look at this and I say alright, there’s the
applicant did not provide sufficient data as to why and so therefore it is denied. On the other
hand I look at and go well, you know I was reminded that we’re really talking about 3 acres here.
Now on one hand 3 acres is a big deal when you’re trying to attract developers. I get that and I
appreciate that. On the other hand if we’re talking about moving a line 300 feet here, and again
I’m not an expert here but I could vote consciously in favor of moving this line given the fact
that it probably is within the margin of error given the data that is available and so you know I’m
also on the side of Mark that I’m not so sure we’re the right committee but I think it’s, we have
to. Here we are.
Tim Erhart: Can I comment Bob?
Weick: Please. I would say yes.
Tim Erhart: I just want to point out the line only moves to the beginning of that red steep area
there. It doesn’t move to the top of the ridge. It moves to the bottom of the ridge so it’s not
really, I would estimate that to be half that, half of that 300 feet so maybe the whole width of
that. Well if it’s 2 acres the whole width of that’s probably, probably 300 feet so then half of it.
From the center to where the proposed line would be would be 150 feet. Does that seem right?
Yeah.
Von Oven: Thank you.
Weick: Okay great dialogue. We are and again I’m as I said before I’m not trying to cut
anybody off. I just will remind you that we are at a point where we would, or can consider a
motion. And you may word that motion as you wish. This is a version that would confirm that
the current line as determined by staff is correct. You’re certainly welcomed to word a motion as
you wish. You also I do not want to cut off the conversation at all if there is more comment or
question. Now is a great time to talk through that with your fellow commissioners.
Von Oven: What is the logical next step if this commission does not affirm this boundary
determination?
Generous: If you come to a majority decision, 75 percent decision that the line should be
adjusted then it gets adjusted.
Aanenson: Or if you deny it they could, the applicant could appeal it.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020
50
Generous: Right. Or if it doesn’t, if it’s not a super majority then it automatically goes to City
Council.
Von Oven: Got it. So by not affirming it gets adjusted as the applicant has requested. By
affirming with a majority vote but not a super majority it goes to City Council and by affirming
with a super majority it’s done to move the line.
Generous: But the applicant could appeal that.
Von Oven: Got it. I see.
Weick: And either, this is a question. Either motion if we vote that the line should be moved
that has to be approved by 75 percent or more. Or else it would also go to the City Council so
it’s not, either way we vote it has to be a 75 percent or greater majority for it not to go to City
Council. Does that make sense?
Von Oven: Got it. Yeah.
Weick: Okay. Where or where should the line be drawn?
Randall: I’ll make a motion.
Weick: Here we go.
Randall: The Chanhassen Planning Commission acting as a Board of Appeals and Adjustments
affirms the staff delineation of the Bluff Creek primary zone boundary and adopts the Findings
of Fact and Decision.
Weick: Thank you Commissioner Randall. We have a valid motion. Do we have a second?
Reeder: I will second that.
Weick: We have a second from Commissioner Reeder. At this time I give opportunity for
comment on the item. And hearing none we will vote on the motion as presented. Again it will
be a roll call vote.
Randall moved, Reeder seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission acting as a
Board of Appeals and Adjustments affirms the staff delineation of the Bluff Creek primary
zone boundary and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision. Commissioners Weick and
Reeder voted in favor; Commissioners Von Oven, Skistad and Randall voted in opposition.
The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3. Commissioner McGonagill was recused from the
vote.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020
51
Weick: The motion does not pass at a 3 to 2 which is not a 75 percent. Well it didn’t pass
anyway so.
Aanenson: It will go to City Council.
Weick: Okay, the motion was to affirm the current delineation. It did not pass.
Generous: It failed.
Aanenson: It fails, yep. So that will go to the City Council that recommendation.
Weick: And no appeal is required?
Aanenson: Well yeah because it didn’t make the super majority.
Generous: Yeah it’s not a 75 percent…
Weick: So it automatically will go to City Council.
Aanenson: Yeah and we have it scheduled for the 14th of September.
Generous: September 14th is the date it would be at City Council.
Weick: Okay. I’m sorry I have trouble.
Aanenson: That’s alright.
Weick: Even when I say it so clearly at the beginning it’s, when it actually happens I get very
confused. So okay thank you. I’ll just reiterate it was 3 opposed, 2 passing that motion.
Aanenson: So let’s be clear. The motion kind of failed because the motion was to affirm it so 3
people didn’t affirm it and 2 did so that’s how it will be presented to the City Council.
Weick: Correct.
Tim Erhart: Do we want to get a survey on whether we want to dual guide this or?
Aanenson: That wasn’t on the, that wasn’t on the agenda so that’s a land use zoning so.
Weick: Sorry folks, we’re just having a couple side conversations. Some clarifications. But it
stands as we voted and will go to City Council on September 14th. Thank you again to
everybody. City as well as Mr. Erhart. Appreciate it.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2020
52
Commissioner McGonagill rejoined the meeting at this point in the discussion.
McGonagill: Mr. Chairman this is Commissioner McGonagill, I’m back with.
Weick: Welcome back. Did you listen?
McGonagill: Yes absolutely.
Weick: Alright, I don’t want to hear. I just wondered if you listened.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Skistad noted the verbatim and summary
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 7, 2020 as presented.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS.
Weick: And Kate?
Aanenson: Yes I have a couple administrative presentations.
Weick: Thank you.
Aanenson: First I’ll give you the council update. So let’s see your last meeting was on July 7th
so I’ve got a few things here. The revised preliminary plat for Avienda was approved. They
approved the request for variance for construction of the water orientated structure. I think that
was one that, was that appealed?
Generous: Yes that was appealed.
Aanenson: Yeah that was appealed. The water orientated structure on the outlot on White Oak
Lane. That was the one that I think there was some ambiguity on the motion there. Then on the
27th they approved the development contract for Boylan Shores. That was a metes and bounds.
Again metes and bounds subdivisions go strictly to the, straight to the City Council. If there’s
just the two lot and they meet the frontage requirements so that was approved. And then they
approved the amendment to the Chaparral PUD and then they also approved the Hemp Acres and
I hope people have gotten the opportunity to read in the Chan Villager the nice article. It was a
good article so pretty excited about that. Working on getting their building permit so that’s the
update from the council. And I just want to share with you a couple things that are coming up on
our agenda. We only have 4 more meetings before the end of the year because we do not meet
on election day so we do have items. Your next meeting will then be September 1st and the 15th
so there’s a couple variances on for the September 1st meeting. And then excuse me.
Generous: Code amendments.