PC Minutes 12-1-20Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020
13
Aanenson: I would just like to make a reminder Chairman that this item does go to the City
Council so for anybody that’s following along, that will be scheduled for the December 14th City
Council meeting for final action.
Weick: Thank you and thank you for coming and speaking this evening as well. Appreciate that.
We do have a couple other items on the agenda this evening.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY AND SUBDIVISION OF A FOUR-LOT
SUBDIVISION (DEER HAVEN) WITH VARIANCES LOCATED AT 6480 YOSEMITE
AVENUE.
Weick: With that I will turn it over to Mr. Generous? Yes.
Generous: Thank you Chairman Weick. Commissioners…
Randall: Chairman? I’m going to recuse myself from this…
Weick: Okay. Just for the record Commissioner Randall has recuse himself from this item and
this item only which means he will not offer opinion or vote on the item. Thank you,
Commissioner Randall.
Generous: Thank you Chairman and Commissioners. Planning Case 2020-22, Deer Haven
Addition. Tonight’s the public hearing. This goes to City Council on January 11, 2021. The
applicant is Kenneth and Barbara Ashfeld. I just noticed that my title, it’s a rezoning as well as a
subdivision approval with variances for the 33-foot right-of-way, 24-foot street, and a private
street for a four-lot single-family residential development. The property is located at 6480
Yosemite Avenue. This is north of Lake Lucy Road about halfway between there and 63rd Street.
It’s on the easterly edge of the Pheasant Hills development. The right-of-way for Wood Duck
Lane runs to the north of this property but the road stops a little bit to the west of this property.
There is a small right-of-way access onto Yosemite that was dedicated with previous plats, 16.5
feet each time that they platted something. There’s only 33 feet of right-of-way. On page 5 I see
there is a typo in the report that says 31 feet but it should be 33 feet. The property is currently
zoned Rural Residential District. It’s guided for Residential-Low Density development which
permits densities of 1.2 to 4 units per acre. Part of my PowerPoint, I didn’t go into the rezoning a
lot but Rural Residential District is not consistent with the Land Use designation for the
property; however, our Comprehensive Plan allows that zoning to stay in place until a
development proposal comes forward. At that time the rezoning must be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. Under the Residential-Low Density land use designation there are four
consistent zoning categories: RSF which is single-family residential, R-4 which is mixed-low
density residential, RLM which is residential low and medium density, and PUD-R. The property
to the west is a Planned Unit Development-Residential. It has smaller lots and smaller setback
requirements. On the northeast and south sides of this development are properties that are zoned
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020
14
RSF which is single-family residential. They’re requesting rezoning to single-family residential
which would be consistent with the three sides of this property plus they are smaller than the
minimum criteria for PUD-R zoning, so the most appropriate zoning and what we are requesting
approval of is the RSF rezoning of the property. The existing site is approximately 2.8 acres with
access via a private driveway that uses city right-of-way to get out to Yosemite and then the
driveway down to the home. The site is partially wooded. There’s one single-family home on it.
It’s served with sewer and water service that runs to the northwest between two of the homes in
the Pheasant Hills development. The proposed subdivision request if for 4 single-family lots.
Access would be via our public street, that doesn’t show up here, out to Yosemite and then direct
access to the individual lots would be via a private street. Within the development public sewer
and water would be extended and they’re going to provide stormwater treatment. They’re
currently in for preliminary plat approval so we don’t have any of the final construction plans.
Erik will actually go into those a little bit later. As part of this development there is currently
approximately 59% tree cover. Ordinance allows 30% to remain after development. They
estimate currently under their preliminary plans that they would meet that 30% tree preservation.
The tree preservation shows up as these cross-hatched areas on this map. With the final plat we
want them to verify that they are in fact meeting those tree preservation requirements and that
they install appropriate tree preservation fencing. With this, Erik will actually take over.
Hendricksen: Thanks, Bob. Thank you Mr. Chair and Commissioners for the opportunity to
present Engineering staff’s review of the proposed preliminary plat for the Deer Haven
subdivision. It will be a little bit of what Bob kind of went into but try to get into some of the
minor minutia beginning with the grading for the subdivision. It has been proposed to be
accomplished over two phases which is common when the goal would be to have custom-graded
lots. The first phase of which the extents are highlighted in purple, would accommodate the
installation of public utilities such as water and sanitary sewer. It would also accommodate the
buildout of the stormwater BMPs along with public road and a private street The second phase
highlighted in yellow, would be the individual lots which will be custom graded and would
ultimately be reviewed during building permit submittal. The provided grading plan and
stormwater narrative appear to be feasible. While both illustrate how surface water requirements
and subdivision ordinances would be met such as erosion control measures or drainage being
routed away from buildings and routed to stormwater BMPs for treatment. Ultimately, the
applicant will be required to provide a geotechnical report and updated plans when the final plat
and final construction plans are submitted for review. Sanitary sewer and water main will be
extended from the existing public utilities adjacent to the proposed subdivision. Sanitary sewer
will be extended roughly 550 feet from an existing manhole located at the end of Wood Duck
Lane and water service will be extended from an existing main abutting the subdivision. Based
on the existing topography and the existing pipe invert elevations at the manhole within Wood
Duck Lane, a gravity sanitary sewer system is being proposed and while the water main will be
extended resulting in a dead-end main, the applicant is proposing to connect the existing home’s
water service to the newly extended main. Currently it’s had from a different water main to the
east. With that proposal it will promote a higher level of water quality for the future of the
property owners of the subdivision. Lastly, the applicant is proposing an 8-inch water main to be
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020
15
extended while the minimum diameter of water main that the city will allow per our standards is
6 inches. If feasible, based on fire flows and pressure, the city will require a 6-inch line be
installed instead. A 6-inch water main would promote lower maintenance costs in the future
along with the additional water quality benefits as the volume of the water in the dead-line would
be less. It would cycle out or refresh more often. Access to the subdivision is being proposed off
Yosemite Avenue via a newly extended public street with individual lot access being had from
the extensions of the private street as Bob indicated. The image shown illustrates this
combination of public and private street extensions with the green arrow being the portion of the
public street, and the yellow arrow being the portion of the private street. Because the current
right-of-way extending from Yosemite Avenue does not meet the 60-foot wide standard set forth
in Chapter 18, the applicant is requesting a variance for both right-of-way width and public street
width. After much review by City staff of the multiple options of providing access to the
proposed subdivision, staff finds this request to be the most reasonable and prudent approach. If
the applicant were to extend the existing Wood Duck Lane cul-de-sac, which is illustrated by the
red arrow, it would further exacerbate a non-conforming cul-de-sac, which is already 1,100 feet
long as illustrated in the orange. Additionally, the City cannot grant approval of a private street
through public right-of-way with the extension from Yosemite being a private street all the way
into the subdivision is not feasible. As such, staff believes that the proposed 24-foot wide public
street located within a 33-foot wide right-of-way will adequately serve the subdivision of the 4
lots. However, the applicant will be required to secure additional right-of-way from the property
to the north in order to construct the street which was highlighted in the staff report for this
agenda item. The applicant has already engaged that property owner and is working towards the
grant of easement which will be a condition to be recorded currently with the recording of the
final plat. With that, Bob, I turn it back over to you.
Generous: Thanks Erik. The provision of private streets and right-of-way and street width
variances are covered under the subdivision ordinance. Private streets may be permitted if they
meet the criteria in Section 18-22 of the Subdivision ordinance. The applicant is proposing to use
existing right-of-way to provide the public street connection; however, that right-of-way is only
33 feet wide. Our current standard is 60 feet. However, all of that is off site from this
development and their existing right-of-way so we are allowing them to use that. Additionally,
new street design requires a 31-foot street back to back and they’re proposing a 24-foot street
back to back which would fit within that 33 feet of right-of-way and give us enough space on
either side for snow storage and stormwater attenuation. As Erik said, we believe that it meets all
the criteria variance findings for Section 18-22. Use of the private street provides additional
potential benefit, reduces the amount of impervious surface that will be in that development as
well as potential for additional grading. Additionally, they’re going within existing right-of-way
that’s off the property and that’s the variance for the substandard street width and right-of-way
width. The hardship is due to the existing circumstances within this area. There’s only 33 feet of
right-of-way existing for a public street and there is not a need to access the other properties with
the service private street into the development going to the south off of Wood Duck Lane.
However, Wood Duck Lane would be public within the Stoddardt development if they wanted to
develop an additional lot off the south end which is north of Wood Duck Lane. There is a
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020
16
potential for doing that onto a public street. This site is very unique in the community. As Erik
pointed out they can’t go Wood Duck Lane to the west and extend that right-of-way because we
have an overly long cul-de-sac. This provides a cul-de-sac that is shorter and it won’t be
detrimental to the public welfare because the public access off of Yosemite would be a public
street and it’s just the four lots within this development that will have direct access onto the
private street. Staff believes they meet all the criteria and findings for a variance under the
subdivision ordinance. With that, staff is recommending approval of the rezoning from Rural
Residential to Single-Family Residential, approval of the four-lot subdivision and this is for
preliminary plat approval with a variance for the use of the private street as well as the 33-foot
right-of-way for the public street and a 24-foot wide street design, and adoption of the Findings
of Fact and Recommendation. With that, I would be happy to answer any questions.
Weick: Thank you. I appreciate it. Great report and great presentation. While our Commission
gathers their thoughts and questions, I did have couple. It relates to the grading and I was out
there and there’s like a road there. I was afraid to drive it because I thought it looked like a
private drive so I didn’t want to drive back there and look at it. I went up on that (63rd) and you
can kind of peer in between the house and you can see the property. It’s a pretty significant hill, I
call them hills, the grade is fairly significant and it sounds like that is going to be graded down. I
guess my question would be when that gets graded down does that create any type of like a bowl
situation with the homeowners that are on Yosemite and then maybe the homeowners to the
west. You know what I mean? When the purple area and yellow area get graded out to the east
and the west then does that create an area that’s significantly lower than the areas to the east and
the west? I call it a bowl, right? Like everything comes down into that development. I’m just
curious if it creates that situation.
Hendricksen: From the proposed grading plan the… on the west side, they’re going to have to tie
in to the existing grades at their property line. What the custom-graded lots and this preliminary
grading plan showed was essentially kind of backyard swales that would pick up any kind of
drainage and direct it north to right where your cursor is, Bob, is where the stormwater BMP is.
So that’s kind of a stormwater basin essentially. Conversely, on the west side it’s kind of more or
less sheet flowing with the private drive and the front yards directing all the drainage to that
stormwater. I don’t know if that adequately answers the question but I don’t anticipate.
Stormwater from what we saw in the preliminary grading plans was being accounted for and
routed appropriately. There will have to be some refined design with the public street section as
that was conditioned. It’s definitely feasible. We have stormwater infrastructure off Yosemite
that this can be tied into because this will be public stormwater and public drainage but I, that’s
kind of the general overall grading.
Weick: I think that answers it. I didn’t know if we were creating some kind of a weird sort of
backyard situation.
Henricksen: Right. With preliminary and final plat, especially with custom-graded lots we
definitely ensure that the original proposal is feasible. The purple section is what would be
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020
17
graded first to get all the infrastructure and everything teed up and then I don’t know the actual
ins and outs if the lots will be sold individually or how that will be done, but when a builder
comes in for custom-graded lots, we ensure that whatever lot is sold that the grading plan that
they’re proposing because they can alter a little bit where the house pad is, how they’re building
out the lot, we ensure that the drainage, that’s one of the main things to look for on these
building permits on the grading plan, is consistent with the overall plan of the subdivision. It’s
not lost along the way.
Weick: Cool. Okay. Then I have one other quick question I think I know the answer to but the
straight city street that comes into the private then joins at the bend to the private, we (the City)
maintains it. Plows it up to the bend? Okay
Henriksen: Currently with what’s being proposed there’s not really adequate space for a full cul-
de-sac so what we are anticipating seeing and what was kind of shown on the preliminary plan
would be kind of that modified hammerhead approach and that’s again for snow storage. That
kind of shows it. When get more refined plans we’ll probably condition that to maybe move.
We’ll talk to our Street Superintendent to see what the best kind of plowing operations would be
but that would be owned and maintained a city, a public street.
Weick: Okay. Thank you. That’s the only other question I had. I would open it up to other
commissioners.
Skistad: I have a follow-up question to Commissioner Weick’s question. When we did that
custom grading I’m just reminded of that other project that we looked at where they had a
serious problem with the drainage, which is I’m sure what the other Commissioner is speaking
about as well. How do they ensure that they are following that custom grading plan? Do they
have like a before and after review of some kind?
Henriksen: That’s a really good question. When the preliminary and final plat get approved by
that time we get the final construction plans which shows the overall intent of the grading plan.
When a builder comes in for a building permit they also have to provide a survey with proposed
grades in which we review to make sure that the drainage is adequately being accounted for and
relatively reflects what the overall drainage intent was with the subdivision. Once a building
permit is issued the builder will go out and grade, and by the time the lot is built out they have to
do what is called an as-built grading survey and that will go to our building permit specialist and
they’ll kind of take a look at it… They’ll look at what the proposed plan was from what the as-
built is showing, see if it jives. If it doesn’t, obviously they have to do follow up and then inquire
with the surveyor but then we’ll actually go out on site and do a visual inspection to make sure
it’s graded as, generally as the intent of the building permit. So throughout the process there is a
lot of checks that are involved. That the Engineering Department and Water Resources will even
be looking at erosion control and go through to ensure that the buildout is per the permit.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020
18
Skistad: Okay. That makes sense. So there’s a couple of different survey requirements that
happen through the process?
Henricksen: Correct.
Reeder: Two questions. One, I’m not a proponent of private roads. I would like to hear a little bit
more of why we’re not proposing a public road all the way down. And secondly, what happens
to the ownership of the outlot? Who will own and maintain the outlot?
Generous: The primary reason for not going with a full public street for the private street section
was the additional hard cover that would be created on site and the additional stormwater
improvements that would have to be put in place as well. There’s addition maintenance
requirements for the City. Public streets are generally intended to connect multiple properties.
This is going into one property so it doesn’t make a lot of sense to continue a public street down
there. We looked at the opportunity. They could put in a public street but then we would get an
additional 11 feet of pavement within the roadway section and additional grading to the side
property lines. That’s the primary impact between the public and private street. The maintenance
of the private street goes with the benefitting properties. It’s either through an access and
maintenance agreement or in the staff report we recommend that they establish a homeowners
association to address the maintenance and long-term care for that private street.
Reeder: What about the outlot?
Generous: The outlot could be association ownership or it could be an individual ownership but
they would. On top of that it’s the easement and access agreement that would cover the
maintenance of the street itself. It may also address the maintenance of any landscaping that is
installed within there and the mowing of the property. The applicant may be better able to
express his intent with the outlot itself.
Reeder: Okay. That’s a good question because it seems like somebody needs to be in charge of
that outlot for the future is somebody stores a junk car or something.
Weick: Fair enough. We’ll leave that for the applicant to answer when they present. Thank you,
Commissioner Reeder. Any follow up that you have on that or are you okay?
Reeder: I’m good.
Weick: Okay. Commissioner McGonagill?
McGonagill: Bob, I’ve got two areas of questions. The private street, looking on page 10 of the
staff report… My first question on a private street and this is something we’ve seen private
streets before by I don’t recall one that was this long with this many homes on it. This has got
four homes and I noticed that the fire hydrant is at the bottom of that street so you get a fire truck
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020
19
down in there what’s he going to do? He can’t get out. He can’t get around. I mean the hydrant’s
right about where cursor is. We try to be pretty rigorous about having conforming cul-de-sacs or
a way a fire truck can get in and out and we can still have access. There is four homes along her
now and that’s one area of concern that I have. How does the private road allow it to be that
way? Where the other way we’re always in there trying to be sure we have fire truck access and
turnaround access.
Henricksen: So the fire hydrant was something we noticed and Public Works kind of looked at it
through the lens of well someone’s going to have to plow that and they’re probably going to
push that snow all the way down that private road and it’s going to hit that hydrant and that’s
going to be a nuisance to maintain and the like. So we, on the construction plan review which we
provided to the applicant and their engineer commented on the possibility of relocating that
hydrant. When it comes to access for emergency services and fire, the Fire Department, the
Chief, they do review of placement of hydrants. At this time there wasn’t necessarily a comment
or condition because that’s something they will assess and review in greater detail on a final plat
and final construction submittal. At this point we’re kind of looking mainly for feasibility.
Function over the form of it right now but to your point, with private roads there are details
within the fire code that show placement of let’s say a hydrant where is says Outlot A on this
exhibit here which would require a little bump out and maybe a little more clearance for the Fire
Department. With this being a dead-end too they take a lot of that into consideration. Where the
hose runs. Access for vehicles going in and out during an emergency situation. I hope that
answers the question but essentially that is something that staff, both Public Works/Engineering
and the Fire Department do those types of reviews. That was also caught by fire comment here.
McGongaill: I understand but we’re now, I realize you’ll do that perhaps when they go through
and plat it but you’re going through the process now I believe of approving whether you have a
private road or not and that’s one of the concerns I have, particularly able to have access to turn
around. The second thing with that is those four houses that are in there, I know what’s going to
happen. The garbage trucks are going to go down there and he’s going to have to back all the
way back out again. He’s not going to be able to turn around. Same thing if it would snow or
winter. Again, it’s the whole issue of being able to access it. I understand your comments about
not wanting to widen the right-of-way to make the public road with the amount of time it would
take up, but that solution for this many houses down in there does concern me.
Generous: If I may, Commissioner? The ordinance does provide for the provision of a
hammerhead turnaround which is what this area would be and I believe it’s 70 feet but I’m not,
60 feet in length.
McGonagill: I never hear that one.
Henricksen: It’s a 20-foot radius which again was assessed for feasibility to meet the turnaround.
That’s again for a dead-end fire apparatus road. That would ensure something as large as a fire
truck would have the ability to turn around rather than backing up all the way.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020
20
Generous: Which would also accommodate a garbage truck.
McGonagill: Next question areas is tree cover, on the map on the tree cover, I think it was purple
almost, where all the trees were left. Yeah. That one. Basically, what’s happening, they’re having
to clear cut and grade the whole thing except for that bottom right-hand corner?
Generous: Any place that shows hatches preserve canopy area. As Jill has pointed out, we think
that they may be to provide additional preservation and we want them to verify that. Under the
preliminary plan they complied with ordinance. We always push them when we do the final
review to see if we can additional preservation.
McGonagill: When I was looking at the staff report, let me see if I can find it here. It talked
about the fact that it wasn’t going to be planned. There were going to try to maintain, get within
the plan, by working with them, but we were concerned trees being damaged by construction…
Here it is. It’s on page 14.
Generous: In the back of Lot 3?
McGonagill: Yes, we’re talking about the back of Lot 3 which is going to take out all those.
Then again it’s, we spend a lot of time trying to preserve tree cover here. I realize it’s one lot that
they’re going, one big area we’re going for 30% but I kind of go back to the fact of that it’s a
private drive/streets, would be wanting to look at almost the 30% per lot, but that’s just my
opinion. It is not a clarifying comment. I apologize.
Weick: So, in answer to your question is, yes, most of the trees will go out.
Generous: Unless they can revise the plan to show additional preservation.
McGonagill: Thank you. That’s all I had, Mr. Chairman.
Weick: Thank you.
Skistad: I have one more question. When you were talking about, I’m sorry I can’t remember
who, but the, actually I think Bob it was you, was they wanted an 8-inch PVC water main versus
the 6-inch. Why would they want an 8-inch versus a 6-inch? What would be the purpose of that?
Hendricksen: That was me who had addressed that. Typically it’s to provide more flow. My
assumption, and I won’t speak for them I guess, my assumption would be that in some cities that
may be the minimum so they were just, when they doing the design they were thinking that 8-
inch might be minimum size… In the City of Chanhassen we do 6-inch C900 PVC, the plastic
stuff, and I think we’ve checked the static pressures in the area here so it should have adequate,
the fire flows and pressure with the 6-inch main. What I was alluding to with the water quality is
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020
21
because you have a smaller pipe. On a dead-end main, you’re dependent on the people drawing
the water and kind of flushing the system for you. Granted, it is a public main and we would
flush it, that hydrant yearly. With a smaller volume of water and people drawing from it you’re
going to have some higher quality of water than the 8-inch. There are no commercial or
industrial facilities here that might require that higher fire suppressions or sprinkler systems or
anything like that. But I digress, I would I guess let their engineers let us know why they want
this.
Skistad: Okay. Thank you.
Weick: Thank you, Commissioner Skistad. Other questions? Those were great. Hearing no more,
thank you Bob, and I will invite the applicant to make a presentation. Thank you. I repeat, just be
sure you speak loudly into that plastic-covered microphone. Thank you.
Kenneth Ashfeld: Thank you Mr. Chair and the rest of the Commission. Thank you for allowing
me to approach you this evening with this application. Firstly, I would like to thank your staff
for doing a very thorough review and providing any guidance on what is truly a pretty property. I
have an opportunity to work with very great guidance from him. I say this tongue in cheek that I
may live there but I think your staff, as many years as Kate and Sharmeen and Bob have worked
on this project, they probably know it better than I do. I am here to answer any questions that you
may have. There was a few raised that I think I can address. Mr. Chair and the rest of the
Commissioners, feel free to dive in at any time.
Weick: Okay. Thank you.
Ashfeld: I invite you to do that. It’s a very unique piece of property but a very nice setting in
through there. I made note of at least three questions that came up. Commissioner Reeder asked
about the ownership of that outlot and it would be intent to create an HOA of the four of us. Not
a large HOA. And put covenants on the properties for the maintenance of the roadway and
maintenance of the stormwater BMPs as well the mowing. The entire property has been mowed
all these years. It’s been mowed like a park and at the end of the day, that’s what I would still
like it to be. I’m going to continue to live there. Related to the tree cover, I was very fortunate to
have the opportunity for the City Forester to come out and visit with me on some of the trees.
Actually, some of the trees that we were really thinking of saving, after she had a chance to look
at it and advise me, she felt that they should go. They’re damaged over the years. They’re sickly.
There’s a couple of pine trees that they’re dead all the way up to the very tops so there like a, I
can’t remember what a tree in Florida is, but. So she was advising that those trees go.
Weick: Okay.
Ashfeld: When we, our first step was to come through with a preliminary plan just to get your
opinion, your feedback on whether this is all going to work and then on the final plat bring all the
details back together. Like I say, Erik and Bob have been very thorough in providing us guidance
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020
22
on that. On the 8-inch water, I do work for a municipality, the City of Maple Grove, and 8-inch
is our minimum so that’s we were assuming, but to Erik’s point, and it’s a very good point, that
for water quality purposes it would be better to work with the 6-inch. We would make that
change. With that, that’s all I have really to say and I would stand for any questions that the
Commission may have of me.
Weick: Thank you, and I’ll open it, Commissioner Members can just jump in if you do have any
further questions for the applicant. We’ll give folks a chance to collect their notes. Hearing none,
thank you. Thanks for bringing this project forward and being able to answer our questions. We
have heard from staff and the applicant. At this time I will open the public hearing. The phone
number is on the screen. 952-227-1630 if anyone is present and would like to speak about this
item may come forward at this time. I don’t believe we received emails.
Generous: I haven’t…
Weick: I didn’t see anything in the packet either. I’m mumbling a little bit but there were no
emails submitted on this item. There is no on present coming forward, and unless the phone is
rattling off the hook over there, I will close the public hearing portion of this item. With that,
Commission Members may comment, offer some opinions, some concerns, and anecdotes?
Anything you would like. We certainly would consider a motion as well as appropriate. I guess
I’ll kick off if people are sort of gathering thoughts. I try and compartmentalize things and the
thing that kind of went unsaid in all of this I think, if I read this the correctly, the homes
themselves meet all of the RSF codes. There’s no variances on the lots themselves and the homes
which to me is nice. Now, there is significant consideration around how you access the homes so
I get that. But I don’t want to lose sight that the homes themselves meet all the lot setbacks and
lot coverage. Having looked at the property it’s a nice little carving of land in there. I think it
looks attractive. But again to your point, Commissioner McGonagill, I think access is the biggest
thing in making sure that it’s safe, first and foremost, for the folks that choose to live there.
McGonagill: Mr. Chairman, I agree with you. That’s my concerns. I realize too that people…the
property now…but after we do the grading and take out the trees. I know that those are over trees
and they will go…to recycle them but it change that whole look down through there. I do
appreciate the fact the homes meet the code. That’s all the same thing…they’re not doing
something crazy here. But I do question because…the density qualification for three homes. It
was two and worked something else out I would probably be, that way I would more room for a
road and cul-de-sac. I sit here long enough that I really come to try to be pretty rigorous about
being sure that we always really good access to places…school buses, cars, fire trucks, and
ambulances. All that. They’re on a narrow private drive even though it does have a hammerhead,
I think about in the wintertime. People plowing snow where we know…that access problems will
be a problem. I don’t have a solution for that, obviously. It’s an area of concern, I guess. Tree
cover loss, grading and the access for utility and commercial vehicles. Three areas I’m having
trouble getting over and not seeing a solution for. I thought of that…cut through, if you connect,
if it’s a cul-de-sac to the south, you can cut through it versus cutting through the owners’
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020
23
property for that, come straight through that way. There’s not an easy solution for this. There’s
right-of-way. There is owners to the south. Difficult…
Weick: Thank you.
Skistad: I have a comment. When I first looked at it I thought it looked, just looking on the plat,
it looked too small have all of these homes on it but then you calculate the acres out. There all
.35, .35 acres, .41 and 1.1 acres so they are not on the smaller sizes. They are actually on the
larger sizes, even with the road there. So there’s more space there than it appears when you are
looking at the drawings, for instance.
Weick: I would have been interested to hear from affected neighbors. Having not heard opinion
one way or another I can only assume these people are okay. I give folks the benefit of the doubt
so I like to think that they sense that this fits and is okay. Other thoughts out there? I know
Commissioner McGonagill raised some very good questions and concerns. Any other opinions
on that?
Von Oven: I think mine comes actually as a combination of those two. I’m not terribly crazy
about the combination of things that Commissioner McGonagill brought up. At the same time, if
I try to put on my prediction hat, those things are more likely to pose problems for the future
residents of that private street then they are of the existing residents who are in the vicinity of it
and did not offer comment or any kind of reason for this not to happen. I think, had we received
a bunch of comments from the surrounding property saying why this private road would be a bad
idea, I might be more inclined to push back, but given the fact that this seems to be the best
solution to a tough-to-solve problem, I actually do not see any reason to deny it. So, I am in favor
of what we are doing here.
Weick: You said that a lot better than I did. Thank you. Which isn’t hard to do. Believe me.
Reeder: Mr. Chairman, I think there is a practical solution to this piece of property and complete
the development in this area and I think the private road is fine. There is no sense in building
asphalt that is not needed which would be the public right. So I’m happy with the way this is
presented.
Weick: Great. Maybe you could put the motion up. I’m not pushing anyone in this direction but I
certainly invite other comments or a motion.
Skistad: Can I just ask one more question before we go? I look at the road. It’s 24 feet and I
know we heard all the presentation for this but there’s no. I prefer a little bit wider roads in
general also, but there isn’t anything in the City that allows you to move a little bit more into that
outlot and make it a little bit greater, at least along the trunk of that line? Could the owner decide
to do that if they chose to have it a little bit wider? I can see that there is no parking or anything
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020
24
along that, I mean there won’t be parking on the road because they can’t. Because they have to
have room for the emergency vehicles or the garbage or whatever.
Henricksen: Is it okay for me to speak up to the Commission? So, for private streets or private
roads, they are signed no parking. That’s a fire code or a fire requirement. There is no parking on
private roads. For the portion of the public right-of-way that would be installed at the proposed
24 feet, speaking with Fire, we would sign that for no parking on one side at a minimum.
Whenever a road is installed or has kind of that sub par or a little less wide than our 31-foot
back-to-back, that’s typically the case when we sign it for no parking and that would be a
potential condition on the final plat. That’s still, obviously, that has to be passed by Council, no
parking ordinances like that. It would be something that would be assessed once we get the
actual plans to look at what the cross-sections...
Skistad: Okay. So the answer is really no. That’s what this area allows based on what you’ve
looked at and 24 feet, and then you just have to deal with the 24 feet. Okay.
McGonagill: Mr. Chairman, I guess as I continue to go through this, someone said it and I think
they expressed my opinions pretty well. There are several issues I have with it that when I look
at them in total I can’t get over it. I must be honest. I’ll be voting against it. That’s not to say the
product shouldn’t be developed, but…I just don’t have a solution here where I can say it’s
palatable to me. I worry, I think about the houses to the east and houses to the west, but also just
the access in there and how traffic patterns are going to be and I just don’t like it. That’s the best
way to describe it. I just don’t. Sorry, but that’s where I’m at.
Weick: You do not have to apologize. I want to be respectful of your need to consider and that’s
why I’m sort of allowing some moments here to reflect and think on this item, but certainly
speak up if you have other questions or comments or if Commissioner McGonagill sparked
something in your mind.
Reeder: Mr. Chairman? I am prepared to make a motion.
Commissioner Reeder moved, Commissioner Von Oven seconded to recommend approval
of 1) Rezoning from Rural Residential District (RR) to Single Family Residential (RSF);
and 2) Subdivision approval to create four lots and one outlot with a variance for the use of
a private street to provide direct access to the four lots and a variance to use the 33-foot
right-of-way and 24-foot street section subject to the conditions of approval in the staff
report; and 3) Adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. The motion passed
with a vote of 5-1. Commissioner McGonagill voted against the motion and Commissioner
Randall recused himself and did not vote.
Weick: This item will go January 11 in front of City Council if you are following. Again, all
comments, all notes are in the record for City Council and they will consider certainly all of our
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020
25
questions and concerns. Thank you to everyone who prepared for this item. We have one more
item on tonight’s agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1601 LAKE LUCY ROAD FROM
RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL (LOW
DENSITY).
Weick: With that I will turn it over to Sharmeen. Thank you, Sharmeen.
Al-Jaff: Chairman and members of the Planning Commission, the application before you is a
request to rezone from rural residential to planned unit development. Briefly, the site is located
south of Lake Lucy Road. It is surrounded by Lake Lucy in its entirety. The site has an area of
approximately 9.03 acres. It is currently zoned rural residential. Access to the site is gained via
Lake Lucy Road. The 2040 Land Use Plan guides the subject site for low density residential.
Within a low density you can have 1.2 units per acre but no more than 4 units per acres. This
category can be either zoned into single-family residential, R-4 which is a mix of low density,
residential low and medium density, or planned unit development-residential. Rezoning this
property into any of those categories would allow the site to be consistent with the 2040 Land
Use Plan. Brief background. Back in 1993 the owners of the island at the time came in for a
wetland alteration permit for the purpose of constructing a bridge and a driveway to access the
driveway. There were multiple extensions granted to this. The work was completed on the bridge
as well as the driveway in 1999. Some of the things that have taken place that we also need to
point out is that since 2018 staff has been working with the applicant very closely. This site is
truly unique. It is the only island that has building rights within the City of Chanhassen. The
applicant’s goal is to build a single-family home for their family and an accessory dwelling unit
for his mother. The site contains bluffs and wetlands. It is located within the shoreland overlay
district of Lake Lucy and it has 100% tree canopy cover. The access driveway off of Lake Lucy
Road connects the island to Lake Lucy Road via a bridge. The length of this driveway is
approximately 1,600 feet and this is just the distance between Lake Lucy Road and the bridge
right here. Looking at the different options, we know that this is a lot of record, it is entitled to
the building of a single-family home. The applicant’s request was to have a principle structure
with an accessory dwelling unit. This can either be achieved via subdivision or rezoning the site
to planned unit development. We looked at the impact of subdividing the site versus rezoning it
to planned unit development. With a subdivision, you will be able to accomplish the additional
home; however, you will have to widen the driveway to 20 feet. There is additional grading, tree
removal, hard surface, potential for two additional home sites rather than the two that the
applicant is requesting. Also, there is more potential for grading with the extension of public
utilities. Through a planned unit development, the applicant would be able to use the existing
driveway. There is a septic system that is proposed on the site as well as a well. We are able
through the planned unit development regulations to cap the size of the accessory dwelling unit.
We can require the use of a single internal driveway and the planned unit development governing
the site would establish additional limitations on the site. The applicant selected to move forward