1986 06 25
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
June 25, 1986
e
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Steven Emmings, Robert Siegel, Ladd Conrad, Michael Thompson
MEMBERS ABSENT
Tim Erhart, Howard Noziska
STAFF PRESENT
Bill Monk, City Engineer; Barbara Dacy, City Planner; Todd Gerhardt,
Intern.
Chanhassen vista Planned Residential Development, Enterprise
Properties:
a.
Preliminary and Final Development plan to subdivide 70 acres
into 124 singIe family lots on property-Zoned P-l, Planned
ReSIdential Development and R=lA, Agricultural~idence,
located east of Kerber BollIevard, 1/2 mile north of West 78th
Street.
e
b. Wetland Alteration Permit Review.
PUBLIC PRESENT
Tom Henderson
Al Kubitz
Bill Boyt
Sue Boyt
Bill Loebel
Helen Loebel
John Guttman
Jay Johnson
Tom Brebiger
Don Ki ng
Rick Friedlander
7488 Saratoga Drive
7492 Saratoga Drive
7204 Kiowa Circle
7204 Kiowa Circle
7197 Frontier Trail
7197 Frontier Trail
7202 Kiowa Circle
7496 Saratoga Drive
7494 Saratoga Drive
7200 Kiowa Circle
7301 Frontier Trail
Barbara Dacy: I would like to start out our presentation and then
Lori Sietsema will update the Commission on the Park and Recreation
Commission action on Monday night, then Bill Monk will address the
drainage and traffic issues. Then I would like to follow-up and read
our proposed conditions, if the Commission is going to consider the
plan for approval, so the public is aware of our concerns as well. As
everybody knows it was tabled from the May 28, 1986 meeting. I would
like to highlight the differences between that plan and the proposed
a
-
~
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1986 - Page 2
--
e
plan here before you tonight. First, the northerly part of the
property contains 91 lots and there are 33 lots now in the southerly
portion of the site as an overall reduction of five lots in the plan,
from 129 to 124 lots. The grading and drainage plan has been revised
to preserve the one acre wetland in the northeast corner of the site
and the street and lot pattern rearranged around that. Third, the
street alignment of Santa Vera has been altered slightly in this
location and two lots in this corner have also been changed from a
north-south to an east-west orientation. Cascade Trail has also been
extended slightly to the north. Big Horn Drive on the northern part
of the plat has been shifted slightly to the north to accommodate the
rearrangement of the lot and street pattern in that area. However,
that realignment does not effect availability to those lots. The
minimum lot size remains at 12,000 square feet. The average lot size
for the entire proposal is 16,179 square feet. The average lot size
for the southern portion is 15,349 and the average lot size for the
northern portion is 18,466 square feet. The median lot size for the
entire development and the north side and the south side is 14,000
square feet. All lots are at least 80 feet at the setback line. The
density of the proposal, the gross density is 1.8 units per acre and
the net density is 2.69. As you know the density is calculated without
the appropriation for the outlots and park areas. The net density of
just the northern part is 2.36 units per acre and the net density of
the southerly 33 lots is 2.84 units per acre. In the revision of the
plan, the lot layout pattern is attempting to create lot sizes similar
to those that are existing along the eastern boundary of the plat.
For example, at the end of Frontier Trail, lot sizes in these areas
total anywhere from 16,800 square feet to 32,200 square feet. At the
last meeting there was a presentation by one of the members of the
public who lives up in this area displaying the existing lot sizes and
those were 17,600 to 26,250. The point being that there is an attempt
to provide a transition of lot size between the existing development
and the proposed development. Also, because of the wetlands
ordinance, lot sizes adjacent to the pond have to total a minimum of
15,000 square feet and that is being done on the north side and south
side. On the south side of the pond, lot sizes in this area do range
in the same lot area as now exists. There are eight lots proposed
along the east lot line, there are eight lots existing in that area.
The phasing plan was discussed at the last meeting. Applicant is
proposing an overall buildup period of two to three years. The
southerly portion being first. The second phase would incorporate
this area north of the pond and the third phase would be the remaining
portion of the property. There was a comment at the last meeting
regarding landscaping. Typically, in all of our subdivision PUD's
and straight subdivisions, one tree per lot is required by the
development contract. The applicant has submitted a planting plan
which will be displayed later showing each of those trees per lot as
well as the berming and plantings required along the double frontage
lots along Kerber Blvd.. Detailed berming plans will be required
during preparation of the final plans and specifications. Setbacks,
the applicant is proposing a reduced front yard setback from 30 feet
e
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1986 - Page 3
e
e
to 25 feet. The purpose of this request is to minimize the amount of
intrusion onto the steep slope areas as well as the existing
vegetation on the property. The 25 foot setback has been approved in
other subdivisions, Near Mountain, Fox Hollow, Hidden Valley, a number
of the previous PUD's. 25 feet still allows enough space for parking
of a car on the individual lot. Finally, the applicant in regards to
the Environmental Assessment Worksheet, comment period on the revised
EAW has expired. All those comments have been included in your packet
as well as the comments from the previous EAW. EQB Staff contacted me
regarding the revision for 124 lots. They feel that another EAW is
not necessary because the applicant is reducing the number of lots and
attempting to address some of the drainage concerns that have been
expressed. However, the three issues that are still identified in the
EAW are pertinent. The traffic issue, the construction impact issue,
and storm wetwater runoff issue. The City Engineer, later in the
presentation, will address the traffic issue. The issue of the street
connections from Frontier Trail, Santa Vera to Kerber Blvd. As far as
the construction impacts, it was requested during sketch plan review
that construction access be limited from Kerber Blvd. and that is
included as a condition of approval. Storm water runoff, as you
recall the previous proposal, the one acre wetland was proposed to be
filled. However, that has been resolved obviously by the
rearrangement of the streets and lots around that. As you recall,
even earlier than that, Staff had concerns regarding the extent of the
cul-de-sac down in this area as well as along the creek along the
north property line. The revised plan does address those issues and
the City Engineer will discuss those in more detail. The applicant
still needs wetland alteration permit approval. Staff is
recommending approval of that application based on the revision of the
plan and subject to the compliance to the requirements by the City,
Watershed District and DNR. At this point I would like Lori Sietsema
to update you on the Commission action.
Lori Sietsema: The Park and Recreation Commission held a special
meeting on Monday night to review this plan. What had happened two
meetings before that was that the Commission had requested that an
appraisal be done on the sloped area around the pond. That appraisal
did come back and after reviewing the appraisal, the Park and
Recreation Commission recommended as follows:
1. That the City acquire the land around the pond from the
waterline to the 952 contour line.
2. The City prepare a park plan in conjunction with the DNR and
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service that will preserve the slopes
and promote wildlife in the park.
3.
The City establish a conservation easement from the 952
contour line to the top of the slopes that will allow
planting and trails outlined in that park plan.
e
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1986 - Page 4
e
4. The City allow no reduction in park dedication fees.
Dacy: Just one follow-up comment also, it pertains to Lot 4 of Block
4. with the proposed easement area, it appears that the buildable
portion of Lot 4 will be tight. With the 25 foot setback, there will
remain 45 feet of buildable area. We wanted to point that out to the
Commission that it still can be built on but it will be very tight at
that particular location.
Conrad: Lori, the 952 foot line. Where is that? On top of the hill,
where are we?
Sietsema: The area shown in the green here will be the area that will
be dedicated land. The area shown in the red would be the
conservation easement area. So it would be from the high water mark
and all this area.
e
Bill Monk: To move quickly, I know everybody is very familar with this.
Sewer and water issues have not changed at all. Unless questions come
up, I guess I will move right into grading, drainage and streets. As
far as grading, I will give just a very few comments. Several of the
grading influences have been worked out of the plan, several remain.
One that is noted in the report shows that the creation of Lots 1 and
2 of Block 10, will necessitate grading in the existing channel area.
Grading is consistent with the work that is being done by Triple Crown
Estates currently with the installation of a pipe to the north.
Details on that grading will have to worked out as final plans are
prepared but other than that grading in that area will be required.
Also noted in the report is an extreme slope condition that exists
across the rear of Lots 11 through 14 of Block 4. House pads can be
located in there. A lot has been deleted in that area from the
pevious plan to allow a little more flexibility in the placement of
house pads. Santa Vera has been slightly moved also to the south to
give a little bit better room and light out in that area. with the
problems that have been experienced, and I'm sure some of you are
familar with the South Lotus Lake access project recently. Review
of final grading and drainage plans will be much more extensive and
get more than just a little bit of blip service as we work through the
process on the final plans. We've had a fair amount of erosion down
steep slopes and open cuts all around causing extensive problems over
there. We've got that situation under control but on this plan, it
will have to be looked at for the same considerations to try to avoid
those problems at the outset because the entire project is premised on
preservation of this area for wildlife. So, when we stated the
condition concerning approval of final grading and drainage plan, that
will be extensive and include slope stablization and erosion control
to a much tighter standard than has been done in the past. As far as
the drainage goes, there have been several minor changes on the plan.
From the south side of the project, the developer has extended a line
from Cascade Trail down to the east side of the plat. A berm will
e
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1986 - Page 5
e
also be graded in, shown on the final grading plan. We have done
quite a bit of work and the neighborhood has let the City and the
developer know of existing problems in here and I believe we will be
able to relieve those situations, catch up the water as it comes
presently off the site towards those houses and direct it up to the
sedimentation basin to be created on the southwest corner of the site.
Most of the water that falls on the south side of the project moving
right on up into a basin which can be created fully on-site. If the
City gets involved and gets an easement at this point or in the
future, that basin can easily be expanded. But, as shown on this
site, that basin can handle sedimentation from this portion of the
subdivision. A very small portion of the drainage will go down
existing Santa Vera to existing catch basins along the gutter line.
There are problems in that area so every attempt has been made to
expand the drainage area or drainage seen in this plat to catch up
that water. There is also a drainage problem on the very corner of
the site in conjunction with the school and I believe that can
rectified. The City will probably get involved as this project goes
on and regrading the Kerber Drive ditch to alleviate that problem
which has existed on that corner for some time. As far as the
drainage on the north, the reason for running a red line in here,
everything south of the line between the red line and the existing
pond is the area that is proposed to have the direct runoff to the
existing pond. As you can see, the area is minimal and quite a
decrease over the existing area that drains there presently. The rest
of the drainage will be directed, a small portion of it through the
wetlands, I think to keep the wetlands a little bit healthier so the
wetlands can basically be flushed. This area will swing through there
before it comes onto the creek and down to the water sedimentation
basin that is currently b~ing graded in right now by Triple Crown
Estates. All of the drainage north of this red line will be directed
in that directin and I think this drainage plan is the best we have
seen to date. It will protect not only the existing pond from a lot
of direct runoff, but also protect Lotus Lake because we are being
able to put a lot of interim basins in here which will be easier to
maintain because of the type of basins they are.
-
On the street issue, again I will be brief but I know this is still a
controversial item. I am still recommending the extension of the
streets and the connection of Frontier Trail out to Kerber and Santa
Vera out to Kerber. The two reasons that I use to support that
argument, one is public safety. The increase in the number of
accesses increases the ways public safety vehicles and operations can
get into various areas. The second one, and perhaps even more
critical to me, is that I guess I firmly believe in the free flow of
traffic. Allowing traffic to find the easiest route to the collector,
be it West 78th Street or Kerber. I think that can be accomplished in
both of these streets and that Frontier can basically be kept through
these curved alignments and jogs and keep the street from becoming a
through street. It would be proposed that Frontier Trail, Big Horn
Drive be a full stop intersection as this plat would go in with
e
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1986 - Page 6
e
conjunction with the existing stop signs that do exist along Frontier
and just the curves in the street. I believe that will stop this from
becoming a through movement street and instead a lot of traffic will
head to Kerber to get to either part of town. I just can not support
the idea of the existing houses in here having to travel approximatey
two miles out of their way to get up to the same point where if we
extend the street, can do it in about less than one-quarter mile. I
still do support extending both streets through. There will be a lot
of questions in discussion so I guess I will leave it at that. I
think Barbara wanted to read over the conditions so everyone is sure
what Staff is recommending.
e
Dacy: Also, I wanted to note that the applicant did meet with the
Homeowners Associations on both the north and south side last week and
members of the public were kind enough to invite Staff over to their
home one night, so there have been a number of meeting:; between the
applicant, the Homeowners Association and Staff. A major issue at the
last meeting was the PUD concept issue. I would just like to make a
couple of comments regarding that. What you see before you tonight,
what is being proposed is the dedication of approximately 10 acres
which will be used in part for storm water management purposes. The
ponds that are existing and proposed to be created. However, within
that 10 acres are proposed trail easements and compliance with the
comprehensive plan in the park section as well as the creation of a
conservation easement with what the Park and Recreation Commission has
recommended to create a specific plan to address the wildlife. That
has not been created in the past and is a unique approach to the
conservation easement idea. Secondly, the plan that is being proposed
represents a significant improvement in the previous plans as it
addresses grading and drainage issues in the steep slope areas. The
applicant has also revised the plan to conform it to the wetlands
ordinance to preserve the one acre wetland in the northeast corner of
the site. Third, the lot size is a controversial issue and has been
discussed a number of times by the Planning Commission and members of
the public. I think it is the intent of the proposed plan, again to
provide a transition from the existing development to the smaller lots
on the western side of the property. The net density in the northerly
part of the property is lower than previous net densities of
Chanhassen Hills and Hidden Valley Estates. The smallest lot size
in the subdivision is 12,000 square feet. Previous subdivisions have
gone down to below 10,000 square feet however, the most recent Triple
Crown Estates, the smallest in that subdivision was 11,700. As
proposed, Staff finds that because of the rearrangement around the
existing wetland area, the transition in lot size from the existing
development and because it provides adequate traffic circulation and
provides for street continuity, we are recommending approval of the
proposed preliminary and final development plan subject to 12
conditions.
e
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1986 - Page 7
e
1.
Construction traffic shall access the site via Kerber Blvd.
2. Detailed berming and landscaping plans shall be submitted in
conjunction with the submission of plans and specifications
during the final plat review process.
3. Regrading of the existing creekbed in Lots 1 and 2, Block 8;
otherwise, Lots 1 and 2 shall be combined. That is in the
northwest corner of the plat.
4. Acquisition of a utility easement across the rear of Lot 1,
Block 1 of the Saratoga First Addition.
5. Extension of all watermains to the west side of Kerber Drive.
6. Approval of a final grading and drainage plan by the City,
Watershed District and DNR and compliance with all
conditions. Said plan to specifically address erosion
control and slope stabilization as well as the existing
drainage problems adjacent to Blocks 3 and 6.
7. All street and utility construction shall be consistent with
City standards for urban development.
e
8.
Street construction for Santa Vera from Kerber to Cascade and
Bighorn Drive and Frontier Trail shall be oversized by 4 feet
in width (to 32 feet) to accommodate pedestrian use.
9. Submittal of an erosion control plan as part of each building
permit applicaton for all lots abutting the pond and
sedimentation basin.
10. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated as
necessary for placement of all utility lines.
11. All duplicated street names should be revised before final
plat submission. That is in reference to Cascade Trail.
12. Compliance with the Park and Recreation Commission action.
Conrad: This is not a public hearing but I think we will be
interested in opening it up for several comments. Does the developer
want to make any comments to the Staff Report?
Greg Frank: We also have with us tonight from Enterprise Properties
Mr. Saul Siegel and Mr. David Siegel. The project over the past
months has seen several design revisions and the design you see before
you tonight reflects a culmination of a lot of effort by ourselves,
homeowners and the City and produces a product that we are proud of
and I think we can get a very high dent here for the City of
e
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1986 - Page 8
e
Chanhassen. The site itself, I would like to touch on some of the
conditions that as we originally entered this project have been
considered and as we have gone through this project we have refined
and I think now I will address with this plan, what happened in terms
of design. Again, we have substantial slopes along here and all the
way through the design in the beginning there was always the intention
to preserve those slopes. The most recent design we have pulled this
street here, Vera Street back as well as Cascade Trail. Staff
indicated that it would move to the north. The engineering staff
indicated it would move to the south. In fact it was moved roughly 20
feet to the south again, to help the slopes of this area in here.
Over on the north area we have again, some wooded areas through here
continuing down to the south property line as well as along here and
those have always been intended to preserve those woods. Basically,
those woods as well as the slopes along this area here and again over
here, was impetous for us to request for 25 foot setback. It allows
us the possibility again to preserve those slopes and also preserve
the vegetation that is on the site. Recent meetings with the Planning
Commission, we were advised to look at preserving the wetland on the
northern portion of the property which is located here. With that
design emphasis and with the design emphasis again given to us, we
looked at finding compatible lot sizes up against adjacent single
family areas we have designed for you tonight. We think we have
accomplished those objectives. Further objective that was presented
at the Planning Commission, was resolve the area of park. It is our
concern that we are aware that we should have preservation of slopes
where the actual acquisition should be. The Park Commission again met
eariler this week and had come with recommendations. The
recommendations are fairly consistent with what we had proposed and
are very consistent in fact, with the proposal that you have before
you. I would like now to touch on lot sizes. As you go through here,
lot sizes typically, our average lot size is a little bit larger than
lot sizes to the adjoining properties to the east of us so we have
provided compatibility in this area for those lot sizes. As you move
over to here, the lot sizes in one or two cases are not as large as
some lots across from us but we do basically match lot lines. In
other words, there are four lots in that area, I think there are four
lots, we do also provide four lots backing up to that area so the
sense, as you go through there is that it is compatible. Those lots,
even setting back those conditions, are still larger than the City's
minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. In order to preserve the
wetland and preserve the transition from existing development into
this development. Early on in the design we all recognized and I
think homeowners also did, that this area in here is basically an area
with not as many amenities. It is an open field, it is relatively
large without having any amenities. The direction from not only the
Planning Commission but also the City Council, was that recognize that
we have a normal lot size of 15,000 but in the areas where you have
the amenities, give us larger lot sizes and areas where we don't have
the amenities, recognize that we will be a little more lenient and
allow some reductions. That is basically where the smallest lot sizes
e
e
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1986 - Page 9
e
are generally located, in the central portion of the site where the
amenities are not existing at this time. As we go around the
perimeter of the project though, the lot sizes themselves are
generally consistent with the 15,000 lot size minimum criteria and
overall this project has an average lot width at the setback line in
excess of 90 feet on an average. Average lot size again, as Staff
indicated, is 16,300 square feet. The minimum lot size is 12,000.
This again is above and beyond the standards of other projects that
have been approved by the City in recent months. The lot widths
again, as I indicated, are in excess of 90 feet on an average for the
entire project. The minimum in any case at the setback line would be
80. Drainage again, was discussed. We met with the homeowners on
several occasions, again as indicated, we have met with them since the
last meeting, and I think a favorable exchange. I think we listened
and we had a lot of input from them and I think the project before you
tonight reflects a lot of the input we had from them over the past
several months and I think generally the consensus that this is a good
project. Obviously the homeowners will speak to that more
specifically but we are comfortable that we are coming very close to a
plan that the City would be proud to have. The drainage issues,
particularly along the lot lines of existing homes, have been
addressed in design. We have taken very careful consideration to
solve existing drainage problems. Drainage problems that have existed
for many years and as a result of prior developments, we are trying to
mitigate those problems by providing berms in this area, storm ponding
areas here to catch the water from this project before it runs off to
where it naturally does right now. The same situation exists over
here where the natural drainage does come to the east. We are trying
to protect that, collect it in basins and preserve it through the
project before it gets to the property to the east in order to protect
those properties as well as protect the amenities on the site, which
would be the pond in this case. The streets, as earlier indicated by
us at several meetings with respect to the access of Frontier Trail,
was that we are willing to work with the City as to their wishes. If
they want that to continue through or not to continue through. We
have, in the most recent design, tried to design that street so that
Frontier Trail would not provide a fast, quick, get in-get out to the
neighborhood to the east of us. The intention of the design was to
make it difficult enough with turns so that most of the traffic that
would try to go from east to west, would not use Frontier Trail as a
route. In the case of the homeowners that we met, I think there are
some pos i t i ve commen ts tha t they 1 i ke the road as is the case now and
I think we have accomplished the goal of the homeowners and also the
goals of the city staff that there should be a continuation to the
project to the east of our project. The trails going through the
project, park also, in your early reviews have requested trails
systems. We are incorporating a trail system that basically starts at
the northern project on this pond, continues through here and with the
widen streets, it would be along the public streets trail system and
that trail system would come out to the public trail that is being
constructed by the City around the pond. There is a trail access also
e
e
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1986 - Page 10
e
at this point and a trail access going, again to the park here at this
point. So basically we are preserving the trail system north and
south through the site. We also have located lot lines along here so
that as a minimum, there is a 952 contour preserved here, owned by the
City for purposes of the trail. We have also heard considerable
comment about preserving slopes on the site. I would like to give
this to you but I would like to read it though. The developer does
propose to provide conservation easements over to the slopes of the
site with the conditions on it that would be filed with the plat at
the County and be conditioned upon each of the lots that would
prohibit any structure, including but not limited to fences, buildings
and playground equipment on any slopes, prohibit clearing any trees or
bushes unless directed by the City Forester, prohibit any grading of
the slopes unless directed by the City Engineer, in an attempt that
these slopes would be preserved for wildlife habitat and kept in their
natural state. I would like to hand that to the Commission for the
records so that they may include that with their approval. We
understand that the City will be working with the DNR, with Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency as well as the Park Commission to formulate
a landscaping plan along the pond itself. It is our intention to have
some input into that and certainly to reflect that as part of our
development with individual home buyers as they buy individual lots in
this project. with that, we close our comments and if there are any
questions that someone should want to address from the public, we
would be happy to entertain those at this time.
e
Conrad: I think before we have comments from the Planning Commission,
are there any comments from those of you who are here, obviously
neighbors, would anyone like to make a comment about the plan you see in
front of you for our information?
Jay Johnson: 7496 Saratoga. We have come a long way with this
project. I think the last meeting I had three pages of notes, this
meeting I only have one so we have come a long way in the past two
weeks. I want to start out by saying the new plans are missing the
erosion control that was shown on the previous plans. I think that is
just an oversight and is no big deal. I think they showed where they
were going to put up the erosion fences before and that is one little
thing I just wanted to mention. It would be real easy to throw into
the drawings, no big deal. Two on my list is grading. There are some
problems that I foresee on the south end of Cascade Trail. The south
end of Cascade Trail there, the grade that they show on their housing
and street elevation plans, is six feet higher than the existing
elevation. The house right next to that on Lot 5 I believe it is,
they show the front of the house at 13 feet above existing elevation,
then Block 2, Lot 1 we got another 13 feet above elevation, next to it
is 10 feet above existing elevation. A lot of grading is going on
here. We are curious where they are going to get the soil from to do
the grading. There are some houses in this area that are slightly
lower than existing, and one of the circles is slightly lower. You
have two circles that are 6 feet higher or one circle 6 feet higher and
e
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1986 - Page 11
e
one circle 4 feet higher and one circle is going to be 6 feet lower.
You end up, they are going to have to bring a lot of soil onto site in
order to fill this hole up 13 feet deep. As the Saratoga residents,
there is one thing we do suggest, is maybe we can put this street a
little lower and they can get their soil right there and put the
houses a little lower. The worse house for elevation wise, I guess is
Lot 1, Block 4 righ here where that house is 15 feet above existing
grades so they need some dirt there too.
Bill Monk: There is an excessive amount of cutting and filling on
this project or any project, where the grades shown are basically an
attempt to show that the project is feasible. The final grading plan
which is yet to be done will show contours which will more easily show
what is going on, still need to be prepared. The information that we
get, that the City gets as part of this packet is by no means
finalized but whether dirt has to be imported or not, the plans are
basically showing the project can indeed be done. I can't really take
it too much further that that at this point.
e
Jay Johnson: I agree the project is feasible. What we have been
hearing at some of the meetings is that these elevations, these houses
are now fixed and we are going to have these houses and because of the
type of elevations we are going to have a certain style house and the
house is going to be higher than the existing grade which we are
already looking over the hill and now we are getting the houses
higher. Every little bit of lowering of the houses along Cascade
Trail will help and I have the feeling if they get their engineer to
look this over, he will find that he is way short on fill material and
that these house elevations might drop. I am just asking you to take
a look at that.
Greg Frank: Our intent would be to balance the grading on this site
for material. We have done a balance on the southern area of the site
and grades that are set on the plans as you see it now, they do have
them on-site.
Jay Johnson: I would like to see those plans that shows the balance.
Conrad: That will be with the final. That will come in a little bit
later and you can look at those.
Jay Johnson: Drainage. We have come a long way on drainage and they
have done more for us then I even hoped they would to tell you the truth.
What they are talking about, their berm and swale situation and the
lots behind Saratoga Drive, will not increase our water flow which is
what we were afraid of in the first place, but will actually control
the water flow through some of our backyards and is now an excellent
design. There is one that Bill almost eluded to, this lot here where
they show a drainage swale to the top of the hill and the water drains
up that hill. That may be taken care of by the new grade but as a
civil engineer myself I never like to see water flowing up a hill.
e
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1986 - Page 12
e
There are two other drainage things I see. In this Block 7 here, we
have nine backyards draining down next to the house here, Lot 11,
by his house within a very close proximity to his house and then
through Lot 12. That is by my quick calculations this afternoon,
about 1.3 acres of land that will be draining through there. That
will be a considerable amount of water draining through there. I
think you need to take another look at how much water we have draining
through those peoples backyards because I wouldn't want that much
water coming through my backyard. Jane and Cec, who are the people who
had the water problem over here, currently are draining through farm
fields and currently have a drainage problem there. It is a Saratoga
Street swimming pool in their backyard in the spring or wading pool I
should say. They are only draining about one acre of area right now.
This will be about 1.3 acres going through somebody's backyard here.
Conrad: Bill, would you make a note of that for the final.
Monk: Yes.
e
Jay Johnson: There is a possibility that siltation of the pond from
the one storm sewer is still going in there. I have seen recently in
some recent developments a lot of problems with construction of homes
and dirt washing down the streets where you almost cover up the
gutters. Buckingwood Court right now is almost under dirt. Fox
Chase, I got my car stuck in the mud in the middle of the street and
this is going into the storm sewer system so that is going to be a lot
of load to the pond. We need to make sure that those storm sewers are
protected during construction of homes. Hay bales around the storm
sewers or something so the water can get through but the sediment will
be restricted out and then the developer, I hear there will only be
one builder so this will be a fairly easy thing. When you have 26
builders on a site, it gets to be more difficult. With one builder we
may be able to control the sediment going into the pond and that is
Bill's job again I guess. I was talking to him about Buckingwood the
other day and he jumped right on it and got those folks fixing the
place up. The other thing is this wetlands. Has there been any
calculations to the current flow into the wetlands, the proposed flow
into the wetlands and is that going to be a balanced wetlands?
Obviously the engineering calculations aren't given to the public.
This wetlands currently is draining a very large area. It looks to be
pretty balanced. It will be draining pretty much the same type of
area. I don't know, it may be an increase, it may be a decrease.
Again, the City needs to look closely at this to make sure we aren't
having a problem there. As far as trees are concerned and the
conservation of trees, I don't think they are doing a heck of a good
job on conservation of trees. On my drawing I have drawn in in green
the trees that are going to be removed. Since they don't show what
the existing trees are down here on the south side of Lot 10, we don't
know what trees are going to be removed. I have walked through these
trees and the trees are not that terribly thick. Homes can be built
within the trees which would make a much better homesite in my opinion
e
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1986 - Page 13
e
to have a home nestled within the trees rather than clearing the trees
out into the peoples backyards and having the house all by itself and
add a tree to the front yard. It makes more sense to me to leave the
existing trees and make a more expensive lot.
Greg Frank: Whenever you save a tree, it means also economic benefit
to the developer so there is every intent to preserve as many trees as
possible.
e
Jay Johnson: In that case, a lot of these trees here can be saved.
Some of these trees, this place is really nice, there is a stand of
real tall, older trees on this side with a lot of space between them.
Take 1 or 2 trees and you've got a house in there. One of the
problems in reviewing this is that the existing tree line is not
clearly shown so we don't, and I believe one of our City Councilman is
a big tree advocate and has made comments on trees before and he
wanted to see which trees were planned to be removed. In the
parklands, most of the people I have talked with are for the
conservation easement and this is a very strict conservation easement.
Basically these people that are going to buy these properties will not
own, well, they will own the property but they will have no use to the
property. It will be the park's property. They are asking for trail
access through the property, the Park Commission requested that they
be given permission to corne on and do plantings on that property and
things like this. I have a fear that there will be a court challenge
to thi s by the home owners in the future and the Ci ty Attorney should
look into the enforcability and the legal implications of this
conservation easement which in some cases takes almost 50% of some
people's property. A small drainage easement and stuff through a
property is one thing, but taking 50% of a lot is a different thing.
Also, and they have pointed this out, this shows the conservation
easement in green and the five red houses are homes with very minimal
backyards, in my opinion. These are like 20-25 feet backyards and
some are even less than that. This is using the Park and Recreation
Commission's original proposal for the 990 line here which gives this
guy less than 10 feet and the fence line on this side. I think we
have to look at those five lots which are Block 4, Lot 12; Block 4,
Lot 4 which has been addressed already; Block 4, Lots 4, 5 and 6.
Those are the five most infringed upon lots. The developer has talked
about taking the area which has the least amenities and putting the
smallest lots into it which makes it have less amenities yet. In
other places I have heard of taking the area with the least amenities
and giving it some amenities. Related to park, the existing park path
comes in on the north, you follow the streets down, streets up,
streets over, and streets up. There are a lot of streets in here.
With a very little bit of work, we may be able to cut a path through
Block 8 and cut a lot of people walking on streets. We've got people
walking on, I didn't measure the distance, but there is a lot of
distance. Public safety wise, it would be better to have the park
path cut through here somewhere. This may cost a lot if you are going
to give a 10 foot wide stretch this side of some houses. The reason
e
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1986 - Page 14
e
it may cost a lot is that the houses are already pretty small. This
map is one you might be familiar with. It is my same red, yellow and
green system I used last time. Red is the 12,000 square foot lots,
yellow are the 13,000 and greens are the 14,000. I put in quite a few
of those in. I think the only places they seem to have lots that
aren't under this size are sloped areas as the three contained here,
the park area where the wetlands are and the wetlands require them to
have 15,000, the smoked areas here, Bernie's then these two on the
circle. In general, the thrust has been to make small lots. I don't
think this is really the creativity wanted to be seen in a PUD. If we
could take one lot out, put the trail through, spread that one lot out
across some other of these, we could cut this number of reds down
considerably to a bunch of yellows. with one lot we've got a better
development with better trail system through there. People are going
to be cutting across these lots anyway because the kids really take
the path of least resistance in cleaning up their room or going to the
park. I'm really for another park path straight through from Big Horn
to Consetoga which would cut a lot off, may be dropping a lot. Also
on lot size, the developer says that we now have equivalent lot sizes
next to our lots. Taking the six lots that abut the five lots here
excluding the one that he just increased the size up to 36,000, these
six lots that directly abut our six lots, average 12,400. Our five
lots there that these six lots abut, average 14,600 so to say that he
has larger lots abutting our neighborhood on our lots is off by
2,000 square foot per lot to corne up equal. Actually 2,200 so that is
kind of a fictious claim. I do agree with the realignment of the
first two lots. The other way was poor. I like them aligned this
way. The widths are pretty good. I don't have a lot of problem here
especially if the main reason for it is giving the Kerber's better
property on their property if they plan on continuing to live there.
I don't think we have a whole lot. To claim that you are bigger than
we are is not true.
e
Greg Frank: Just to point out where we are corning from with that. I
do have a plat of that area and maybe I can point out this lot 4 is
12,300, 10,500, 10,000, 12,000, 12,500, 13,100 and down here is 19,000
so generally along here except for this one lot, we are larger. This
one lot here is a little bit larger.
Jay Johnson: This one here is not 13,100. That has been calculated
at around 16,000, this one is 14,400, I may have miscalculated too. I
don't know. I took it off the plans. It's close. That point on the
south side, I think that just lot size, they are asking for a lot and
giving a little. They are really shooting for the l2's. 39 of the
lots are in the 12,000 size range. I think one or two lots out in the
whole project and everybody is going to be pretty happy. The other
thing is setbacks. I don't understand why we need 25 foot setbacks
everywhere versus setbacks in the sloped areas and tree areas. I can
see those in those areas in Block 10, Block 5, Block 4 but the other
setbacks have no purpose. Bill is there a purpose for the setbacks?
e
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1986 - Page 15
e
Monk: Administratively, it is almost impossible for the City to
select specific lots and Staff does recommend either you do it or you
don't. We tried that over in Fox Hollow and it was a nightmare and
building inspectors were always looking around and trying to find out
what lots were what.
Jay Johnson: Can you do it by the block? Say all of Block 10 is 25
foot. The impression of the neighborhood, the closer the houses are
to the street the more crowded the neighborhood looks. It is just a
neighborhood impression. The value of the neighborhood I think for
the developer would be better if he used 30 foot. He may even do it
but I don't know. If I had to put five more feet of driveway in for
410 houses that is 21010 feet of driveway and that is money in my pocket
that is going someplace else, as the builder. As the developer it is
nothing. I don't think Saul and David could care whether it is a 25
or 310 foot setback in Block 8 and Block 7 and that is basically what I
am saying. Maybe we can do it by a whole block at a time versus
individual. I see how administratively it can be a real problem
saying this lot, the lot next is different. That isn't going to help.
I think that pretty well concludes my comments.
Saul Siegel: I just have a few comments regarding Jay's comments.
One, if Jay had his red pencil and would go over to this site that is
right adjacent to ours, he would have all red lots partically because
they are all less than 13,101010. I'm just saying, we are trying to
match on all directions what exists or is platted.
e
Jay Johnson: What you would also see in that area is that the lots
are wide and not as deep. Yours are narrow, 810 feet.
Saul Siegel: Ours average 910 and their's average 91 so on an average
we are the same. As far as lot size, we are much higher and as far as
lot size being less than 13,101010, the bulk of theirs are less than
13,101010 so I am just saying we are matching. That was the only thing I
wanted to say. The other thing was the 25 foot setback. That is from
the lot line but actually as far as green area to the curb, it will
either be 36 feet or 34 feet depending on whether you have a trailway
in the street or you have the normal street.
Don King: 721010 Kiowa Circle. I guess it is to my bad judgment that I
did not attend the neighborhood meeting that was held in our area that
night because I had confidence in what Saul had told me relative to
the lots behind me that would certainly be bigger on frontage and I
see the plan here now that number 13 has 910 feet of frontage. That
almost puts it in my backyard. I can see it abutting, the attempt you
have made to abut matching lot sizes and I think you have certainly
done a good job on tha t and it goes back to the same commen t tha t has
been made earlier as far as the frontage. You certainly have the
depth but not the frontage and if I look at all the rest of these
homes here, all along here you certainly increase the frontage, my
neighbors you have certainly done a great job there, Mr. MacAlpine
e
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1986 - Page 16
e
across the street from me and my house and I think you have one or two
more here. I think what you've got is the homes right next to the
property to it. I'm just sorry that I have a big home, I moved out
there, a big lot, but now you have a house that is going to be right
in my backyard and it certainly has an effect on my property value and
that is my basic concern. I guess it kind of destroys my confidence
that I had in you Saul and these meetings and that is why I didn't
attend. I was pretty well satisfied with a lot of the things that
have been done here, all of a sudden now I see you have certainly made
them change. Bill I'm a little bit concerned. I did hear or maybe I
missed it, but what was really happening with drainage of this marsh
area. Right now we have water with some of the rainfalls that we have
and over the years, that water can be 6-8 feet wide and over 2 feet
deep coming down through there. There much 10-20 acres of land that
drains through there currently.
Monk: Where does it drain through?
Don King: It drains right down between my property here and the
Guttman property here.
Public: As I recall, there used to be a creek there but they built it
up when they built your houses.
e
Don King: Well they also had a drain tile down there and somebody
said when you were moving or whatever they were doing, they broke the
pipe out and never replaced it and haven't done anything since then,
this point of the creek is lower than the drain in the street so it
can't even get to the street. The water level in the marsh has to
rise substantially before it can even drain between our two
properties. Consequently, the Guttmans and our house are flooded in
the basements, at least in my case.
Conrad: Bill, do you have any comments?
Monk: I do but if you want to keep going, I'll wait.
Don King: I just missed what you were doing. Earlier you said there
was going to be a berm and drainage path from that marsh out of there
so it wouldn't be draining down between the two homes and I guess I
didn't hear it at the time.
Monk: I can specifically address that one. A part of the grading
plan were two major problems that were looking to be solved by the
development. One, the relation to the homes on Saratoga and
installation of pipe and the other one is the existing outlet to this
wetland that does go between two existing homes over to Kiowa and in a
very old storm sewer system. I don't doubt that it was basically a
creek through there at one point in time. In essence what we are
doing is decreasing the area but through an increase in hard surface,
we will be keeping the water that goes through this wetlands
e
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1986 - Page 17
e
approximatley the same and piping water through here. That is being
done specifically to cleanse the wetlands and keep water going through
here to keep the wetlands functioning. At the same time grading will
take place across the back side of the wetlands in this location and
the outlet will be put in here that will take the water to the north
to the new basin that is being created that is part of the Triple
Crown Estates. As part of that outlet, we definitely will be able to
eleviate the situation as it comes down here and the existing
drainage way could probably be filled and in no instance would operate
as anything other than emergency spillway should this become
overloaded. Water would in essence be rerouted from going to the east
and would be brought directly to the north.
e
Don King: The issue, of course, the statement was made that you are
concerned about the growth of Chanhassen, I am too. I've been here
for 12 years and I would like to see you make a positive move in that
direction and I guess that is why we are all here. To reduce five
lots, I think that is a move in the right direction toward trying to
resolve some of these issues but obviously nothing was taken care of
as I was promised here and I'm still very concerned about that. I
stayed neutral on Frontier Trail as far as whether or not to extend it
through. Right now it is Lover's Lane, Passion pit, Dope, Tin Cans,
the City, no one cleans it. I don't know who is responsible but it is
a disgusting trash dump. Personally, I certainly would be happy to
see the development clean up that mess but I want to see what is
there, really does it right. Right now Frontier is a racetrack. From
the bottom of the hill to the top and down, see how fast you can make
it. The kids do it at night. The street now is extended about
another, guessing here maybe another 200-300 feet gradual turn that
adds to that racetrack up and down there. That would be my only
concern at this point in time is that we are just extending that
amount of area, with the number of kids that are in that area, I have
no problems with setting up originally as part of putting what you
call a berm or a safety area at least for emergency vehicles to get
across and I guess I still support that particular issue there. That
would certainly resolve that portion of it.
Bill Loebel: Frontier Trail. I wish to emphasis what Jay described
very graphicly with his red, yellow and green. Points that we think
the density has not been addressed properly. All of us moved out here
because we wanted to get away from density. We wanted greenery around
us and if you now put next to us or within 300 feet of us, a dense
development, we are right back in the city where we all came from and
wanted to get away from. The Mayor himself mentioned this in a recent
meeting in connection with another development and the fact that Mr.
Siegel is trying to emmulate what is across Kerber Drive is not the
right way to develop Chanhassen because the developments across Kerber
were made in open fields with no neighbors and anybody could design
what they wanted to. This particular property is very pretty because
it has a pond on the south and a creek on the north and that should
make it more valuable than the property that was developed and is
e
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1986 - Page 18
e
called Chaparral. Furthermore, it is close to the city, within
walking distance which means that the lots themselves should be more
valuable to people who buy them and build houses and we feel that the
density is still too high and we would like to see it corne down. 101
lots would give you a PUD and would see the increase in lots in
addition to that. If you have many small lots, the next thing that is
going to happen is a house gets built and the guy hangs one foot over
his minimum and comes to the City Hall for a variance. You are going
to be inundated with those things if these small minimum lot sizes are
allowed to be approved by you.
Bill Boyt: I would like to give you a little history. In March we
had 95 lots on the north part of this development, in May we had 90 and
now we have 91. I really don't consider that reflexive of the north
side neighborhood saying the density is too high. They have made
improvements, I agree with you but they basically haven't changed
the density. They are asking for 12,000 square feet lots adjoining a
neighborhood that doesn't have anything smaller than 15,000 square
feet. They can talk about across Kerber Blvd., let's talk about what
you are immediately adjoining on the north side. It is still a
concern. I think it is still a concern of a lot of that neighborhood.
e
Rick Friedlander: One last thing. I just wanted to reiterate the
issue about Frontier Trail not going through. We really don't think
it is that good an idea to run it through. You have heard all the
reasons and it is not unanimous, there is an issue here along Frontier
Trail, however we think it is in the public's best interest,
especially those with the little kids playing along the road, to
minimize the traffic.
Public: About the conservation easement. There are a few holes I see
in it. I agree with the approach you are taking there, I think it is a
pretty good compromise. I would like to see something stated as far
as the actual dimensions or actual elevation line at the eastern
corner of the hill in the proposal by the Park and Recreation Board
based on the top of the bridge. I would like to have that nailed down
to whatever the elevation lines are. Another thing that would be good
to do is somehow to have a master plan of the park area be started
before the houses are built so that it will be a deterent for people
to go down there and start modifying it because it is open grasslands,
fields, like it is right now it would be a lot easier for somebody to
go through there and start terracing it. You have natural grasses,
brush or trees are planted there before the houses are there, it would
be more of a deterent from people doing that. That is one of my
concerns about that proposal. I would also like to work with the DNR,
Bill Monk and the developer in developing that land for the master
plan for the park if that is possible. I'm not sure if other people
are involved in that.
e
Monk:
I'm sure there will be considerable public input on that plan.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1986 - Page 19
e
Public: One more item is that the conservation the builder has put
through is different than what the Park and Recreation Board was
approving on Monday night and there should be some agreement as far as
what should be in that conservation easement. There should be
something as far as pesticides, weed killers, possible breeding,
storage of things like that which hasn't been addressed about the
conservation easement that the developer has proposed. So there are
some differences between conservation easements, as you are dealing
down, what is in that because it is very vague and it is very
flexible.
Sue Boyt: I just have a quick comment as a Park and Recreation
Commissioner, Jay mentioned that if the conservation easement takes up
50% of the property they can sue us? The property can sue us?
Jay Johnson: No, I didn't say that. I'm not a lawyer, I did not say
anything like that. I would like the City Attorney to look at that
potential issue. I think the City ought to know what they are getting
into.
Sue Boyt: Have we had conservation easements before that take up this
much property?
e
Bill Monk: Yes, the City has used conservation easements before and
they would have to be recorded on all the lots that would be effected.
The comment that we have to tie down the exact space is correct but
the problem is the Park and Recreation Commission made their final
recommendation Monday, we have not had a chance to work through with
the developer all the details of the conservation easement. With the
statement that was handed to the Commission tonight, I feel confident
that we can work out the items and issues involved in the Park and
Recreation's recommendations for the conservation easement as far as
mowing, how high it should be, what activities would be allowed and
not allowed in there. That does need to be tied down as a part of the
development process but at this point I believe they can be legal
also.
Public: I just have a question for Bill. Could the public of us that
are real concerned about the pond, could we get a copy of the
agreement between the developer and yourself. Would that be made
available to the public?
Monk: Yes, any development agreement that is reached on any
development is a public document. Also I'm sure the City will be
soliciting input as the park plan is done but all documents are public
and would be made available no matter.
Conrad: I think the Planning Commission should start entering this
conversation. Steve, I am going to start at your end and ask what
your questions are, your comments, opinions.
e
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1986 - Page 20
e
Emmings: With respect to the sedimentation basin that is on the west
edge of the south half is now completely within the project. Is there
any problem with having access to that basin? It seems to me that you
can't get at it from any direction over their property and you need to
have access to that to maintain it.
Monk: Yes, we will have to probably get a backhoe in but I believe
that even we will be able to bring a backhoe in. It is a little bit
wider than a standard truck and we will have to get that along the
trailway system. I believe we can get to the site. Getting down
those slopes will be almost impossible, with an easement we would have
to follow the trail somewhere.
Emmings: Then the wetland that is on the north part, I guess I wonder
wha t mechan i sm there is to be sure tha t the people own the lots tha t
run out into that, don't start filling in and so forth. Is there
something recorded on their deeds, the deeds they get that gives them
notice that the area is a wetland or something like that.
Dacy: Yes, as part of the final plat, what has been done in the past
is that a drainage easement is placed on the properties and you cannot
build on an easement.
e
Emmings: Those are the only questions I've got, this has been around
for a long time. My overall reaction is I think the developer has
done an impressive job of accomodating the comments that have been
made by the public here over and over again. All along I said I
don't have problems with the smaller lots that are in there and I
th i nk they have done a good job with the placement of those lots and
putting larger lots alongside the existing neighborhoods. I think the
streets ought to go through. A lot of the things I hear as complaints
tonight strick me as being things that are existing problems that they
are asking this developer to remedy and I think he has done a lot to
remedy those problems, particularly the drainage problems. I think
the adjoining neighborhoods are going to be, some of these neighboring
property owners are going to be substantially better off than they are
now with regards to those problems. That's all I have.
Siegel: The only question I had on this was probably answered by Bill
and he was sort of reassuring us about the conservation easement. I
had the same question in my mind that Mr. Johnson came up with about
the large tract of some lots being taken by a conservation easement
and a potential problem versus those other lots that exist around the
pond prior to this development not having that requirement and having
that easement. I just see a possible future legal problems that I
would like to have reassured by our City Attorney.
Dacy: The development contract is normally reviewed by the City
Attorney. In regards to this particular issue, Staff will direct the
issue to the Attorney's office to address it.
e
e
e
e
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1986 - Page 21
Emming: I think as a general principal, I don't know anything about
it but I'm going to say it anyway~ You get a problem when you take
something away from somebody when they already have it~ If they come
to it and it is already there; they take notice of that~ I'm not
concerned about that~
Thompson: Have the people that had a chance to speak tonight; did
they all have the opportunity to attend the neighborhood meeting?
Bill Boyt: That meeting is fairly hard to schedule, I'm sure as in
any neighborhood. A lot of people in our neighborhood travel.
Thompson: The fact of the matter is a number of you did not attend
the meeting.
Sue Boyt: There were six people there.
Thompson: But you could have attended the meeting if you had been
available?
publ ic: Yes.
Thompson: Have any of you had the opportunity to attend any other
neighborhood meetings with the developer?
Jay Johnson: The developer has gone out of his way to have
neighborhood meetings with us.
Thompson: Another question on this appraisal. Who commissioned Bud
Andrus to make this appraisal?
Dacy: The City Manager contacted Mr. Andrus to do the appraisal.
Thompson: So he valued what he came up with saying these lots were
worth $26,000.00 a piece and that reduces it by 10 lots?
Dacy: Yes, exactly what the report says.
Thompson: Maybe I lost something, where did we ever get the idea that
the City could afford to buy that land?
Dacy: The Park and Recreation Commission addressed that issue on
Monday night and their recommendation was to create an easement rather
than acquisition but it was originally, two meetings ago, correct me
Lori if I'm wrong, but the Park and Recreation Commission was very
serious about the City pursuing acquisition of that land and therefore
the appraisal was done so that we could get a better handle on how
much an acquisition would be.
Thompson: Obviously the Park and Recreation commission doesn't have a
budget to buy that land does it?
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1986 - Page 22
e
Sue Boyt: Can I add something here about Park and Recreation?
Dacy: As far as matters about the Park and Recreation Commission, I
believe Lori should answer that as far as the budget.
Lori Sietsema: We have an acquisition budget but it was determined
that we couldn't afford that.
Thompson: Is it the reason that they didn't consider going ahead with
this was because of the dollar amount?
Lori Sietsema: Yes.
Sue Boyt: Mike, there is over $300,000.00 in Park and Recreation
Commission acquisition funds available so it is not way out of line.
Thompson: What was the reason they decided not to go ahead with this?
Sue Boyt: If we could get the same sort of property with a
conservation easement.
Thompson: Is the conservation easement as proposed, and I didn't
follow that very closely, appropriate compared to other type of
developments that we have looked at?
e
Dacy: We have implemented a conservation easement before. The one
being proposed now, I believe is going to be more restrictive. Again,
we will be working on the details in the upcoming weeks before it gets
to Council for sure, obviously.
Conrad: A few thoughts on my part. Bill, in going over the drainage
that goes into the north, a lot of water is going to the north right,
and do we know what that system is that is going to take care of that
water?
Monk: Yes, it has been fully engineered as part of the Triple Crown
Estates. An extensive berm is going to be built on the east side of
that existing lowlands over in there and the area lowered somewhat to
create a sizable basin that will easily handle not only the 25 acres
from Triple Crown Estates but also the overflow from Chaparral and the
20-25 acres from this subdivision that goes that way. It has been
carefully engineered, pipe size and so on.
Conrad: Barbara, somebody brought up the sequence of lot changes over
the last three months. Right now we are at 124 lots. The last time a
couple weeks ago...
Dacy: It was 129.
e
Conrad:
So we've dropped by 5.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1986 - Page 23
e
Dacy: That is correct.
Conrad: And the 124 was what went to City Council when they said
there was too much. When we calculate, and this gets real hard to
educate me on this point, when we calculate densities, getting gross
and net, the pond is included in what?
Dacy: In the gross.
Conrad: In the gross, so the pond is in the gross.
Dacy: That is correct but in the past the Commission has always
looked at the net density as the primary indicator.
Conrad: So we are at 2.81.
Dacy: It is 2.69 total, on the north side it is 2.3, on the south
side it is 2.8.
Conrad: In your mind Barbara, we really started a standard of 15,000
if you look at a subdivision. When we take a PUD we think we get some
things and if we get some things in that PUD, we might change the lot
sizes and let them go down to 12,000. Can you detail real briefly
what you think the developer has done to make us want to go along with
this proposal.
e
Dacy: In my beginning remarks I addressed some points about the PUD
concept and based on those, Staff is in the position of recommending
approval of the plan that you see before you. Obviously the
Commission may agree or disagree with those particular remarks. What
I stated earlier was that outlot B containing the existing pond, what
is going to happen is the developer is dedicating approximately 10
acres. Some of that in existing pond and proposed pond will be used
for storm water management purposes. Another portion of that outlot
will be used for trail areas consistent with Park and Recreation
Commission recommendation. The wildlife conservation easement
approach is unique as far as creating a specific plan. That has not
been done in the past although we have had conservation easements,
this is much more specific. As I pointed out earlier, the lot sizes
are attempting to be sensitive to the existing environmental
conditions such as the creek on the north, the pond and the existing
wetland in the northeast corner of the site. The ranges of the lot
sizes adjacent to the existing development are within the same range.
I understand that there are concerns from specific property owners
about the dimensions of those lots. The proposed median lot size, the
net density, the overall gross density is consistent and in some cases
less than what has been previously approved in the past by the City.
The proposed development plan meets the minimum standards and
requirements of the revised grading and drainage plan is adequate as
well, subject to several conditions that we have outlined. So based on
that, that is our recommendation.
e
Plannin9 Commission Minutes
June 25, 1986 - Page 24
e
Conrad: I think the developer has done a good job to meet some of our
concerns. I think the only concern I have is that there are too many
lots resulting in problems such as with Block 4, Lot 12. There are a
few of those in this plan like that that bother me to a degree. I
believe that we probably have more smaller lots than I would like to
see. I think that generally the overall plan looks very good to me.
I like the looks of it. It looks like a PUD. It has done some things
with trees that I like and I'm comfortable with it. I'm not
comfortable with the number of small lots and my opinion is that when
in the beginning we came in with a number and we went up 5 and came
down 5 or whatever, and I still think it probably has 5 more lots than
what should be in there and I don't like to compromise, make a lot of
exceptions of front yard setbacks and what have you when I think we
can do that through making our lots a little bit bigger. So my only
comment other than very specific comments I heard from the public
tonight, I think are valid and should be taken care of through some
fine tuning that the developer will do. My only concern right now
would be I think there are probably 5 more lots in this PUD than I
would like to see and that would solve a lot of minor problems in the
development. With that I will entertain a motion which mayor may not
contain the Staff comments, the Park and Recreation Commission letter
that we have as well as the developer's letter that was read to us
about conservation easements, so if anybody would like to make a
motion, I would entertain that.
e
Steven Emmings moved, Robert Siegel seconded that the Planning
Commission recommend approval of the Preliminary and Final Development
Plan #86-1 subject to the plans stamped "Received June 18, 1986" and
subject to the following conditions:
1. Construction traffic shall access the site via Kerber Blvd..
2. Detailed berming and landscaping plans shall be submitted in
conjunction with the submission of plans and specifications
during the final plat review process.
3. Regrading of the existing creekbed in Lots 1 and 2, Block 8;
otherwise, Lots 1 and 2 shall be combined.
4. Acquisition of a utility easement across the rear of Lot 1,
Block 1 of the Saratoga First Addition.
5. Extensin of all watermains to the west side of Kerber Drive.
6. Approval of a final grading and drainage plan by the City,
Watershed District and DNR and compliance with all
conditions. Said plan to specifically address erosion
control and slope stabilization as well as the existing
drainage problems adjacent to Blocks 3 and 6.
e
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1986 - Page 25
-
7. All street and utility construction shall be consistent with
City standards for urban development.
8. Street construction for Santa Vera from Kerber to Cascade and
Bighorn Drive and Frontier Trail shall be oversized by 4 feet
in width (to 32 feet) to accommodate pedestrian use.
9. Submittal of an erosion control plan as part of each building
permit application for all lots abutting the pond and
sedimentation basin.
10. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated as
necessary for placement of all utility lines.
11. All duplicated street names should be revised before final
plat submission.
12. That there is compliance with the Park and Recreation
Commission's recommendations as set forth and also as to
whatever they feel is appropriate as a definition of a
conservation easement:
A. The City acquire the land around the pond from the high
watermark to the 952 contour line.
-
B.
The City prepare a park plan in conjunction with the DNR
and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service that will preserve the
slopes and promote wildlife in the park.
C. The City establish a conservation easement from the 952
contour line to the top of the slopes that will allow
plantings and trails outlined in the park plan.
D. The City allow no reduction in park dedication fees.
All voted in favor except Conrad who opposed. Motion carried.
Conrad: My reason is the number of lots. I would like to see the
number of lots reduced by five.
Dacy: I also need a motion on the wetlands alteration permit. The
proposed condition of approval is subject to compliance with the
requirements of the City, Watershed District and DNR.
Emmings moved, Siegel seconded that the Planning Commission approve
the Wetland Alteration Permit subject to compliance with the
requirments by the City, Watershed District and DNR. All voted in
favor and motion carried.
e
Conrad:
When will this go to City Council?
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1986 - Page 26
e
Dacy:
It is scheduled for July 21, 1986.
Conrad: I thank you all for being here. I think it is important that
you go to that meeting and talk to the City Council as you have
continued questions as we did tonight. Again, thank you for being
here and see you then.
e
Proposed Subdivision request to plat five commercial lots on 17 acres
of land zoned C-3, Service CommercIal and located at the northeast
corner-of the T.H. 5/Powers Blvd. intersection, B.C. BUrdick.
Monk: I did get a chance to read the Planning Commission discussion
at the last meeting and also have had a chance to meet with Mr.
Burdick and his engineer Jim Orr to discuss my position in a little
bit more detail. We still seem to be at odds. Tonight I received the
Traffic Engineer's recommendation. I've had a chance to glance at it
but I would like to go over two main topics that were covered at the
last meeting. I will do so briefly but I feel I need to go over those
items to at least make the Commissioner's aware of my concern. There
are two separate issues I would like to describe tonight. Our map,
this is the proposal as it was laid out at the last meeting. The
lines in red are the approved preliminary plat that is still fairly
recent. It was replatted into three lots, approximate allowments are
shown on the map. My ma j or concern with th i s proposal is the
proximity of the access required to service Lot 1 to the free right on
Powers Blvd.. I have been out to the site a number of times. My
concerns with the spacing have nothing to do with the size of lot to
be created which was the topic of discussion at the last meeting and
likewise has nothing to do, at least at this point in time, with the
potential realignment of the street. My issue at this time is that
there exists right now a free right from north bound Powers off of TH
5 through 17 that comes across very close to the corner of the
property. I'm not sure exactly where it is in relation to the corner
but when it comes around and even as I have been out there to look at
the site and have tried to stop at the existing access which would
have to be used to service Lot 1, I have trouble even pulling over to
check on the access. I truly believe that the distance between the
corner or the intersection to the lot line is deficient and will
create access problems for Lot 1 if and when Lot 1 is platted and
allowed a separate access. In talking with MnDot they recommend on
their free rights granted off of TH 5, other access points between
31010-6010 feet. There is no way the City would recommend that we go to
the extreme of requiring 61010 feet. The reason for that is after you
make a turn, a free right be it from a freeway or from Powers Blvd. or
whatever, once you are through the intersection or around the curve,
certain amount of maneuverability is needed to be able to get off to
the side to make a turn, to even signal for a turn. I truly believe
that spacing is deficient. I believe Staff has been consistent in
this item because when we first wrote up the three lot split, Staff
originally had conditioned that upon a joint access. We did recommend
e
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1986 - Page 27
e
at the meeting that be withdrawn because at that point in time the
first line in red was seen as adequate to accomodate several different
access arrangements. I am aware of the legalities involved with
existing access and so on, but I can not in good conscience recommend
to the Commission or the City Council that they approve this knowing
that Lot 1 could full well be sold with a separate access being
requested at that point in time. I do believe it creates a dangerous
situation and I believe one of the first major city charges with any
subdivision, be it commercial or residential, is to create lots that
not only have utilities but also have safe access and good drainage
and so on. I believe that in this particular case, in Lot 1 we are
not doing that because I do not believe we can allow safe access. As
far as the second item goes, that regarding realignment, I don't want
to discuss that too much at this point in time but as Mr. Burdick was
going through his original three lot subdivision, the City did receive
a preliminary request from the James Company regarding the potential
resubdivision of what has been referred to in the past as the
Brose site. Worked on several different alignments. We did have
Benshoo and Associates who was working on a traffic study for the
entire downtown area. We approached the consultant and said if TH 5
is widen, what will result at the intersection with County Road 16 and
West 78th Street. His firm did a review and did get back to Staff and
told us that if TH 5 is widen, it will be widen to the north because
the slopes on the south side adjacent to Wickes and Webb will not
allow one lane on each side. with that being the case, his
recommendation was that between say a line of new TH 5 and West 78th
Street, be no less than 600 feet. That started Staff working with the
James Company on possible realignments. Staff is fully aware that any
realignment of that road through the James Property will have to
include and incorporate into it, continued access to the Burdick site.
We are not recommending any portion of our report, none of it is
predicated on the realignment. It is a separate issue but I think
Commissioners should be aware of how it came about and how Staff is
pursuing it. At this point the James Company is looking to plat an
outlot to their property for the future realignment of that road that
could very well by done by MnDot as part of any widening but it is all
very vague at this point in time. We are working on that realignment.
I know it impacts the Burdick site but it does not enter into our
review of this site. Again, talking with MnDot, they did recommend a
minimum of 300 feet. I brought several examples to them for
discussion purposes. A couple were the Burger King and the
SuperAmerica down on County Road 4, just down the street. The access
into the gas station is approximately 150 feet from the tangent point
on the free right. They said that in that instance, that lot existed
and basically an access had to be given but they continued to
recommend that a minimum of 300 feet be maintained. Their reasoning
is that once you get through a curve, that approximately 250 feet be
left for a minimum movement to move over and turn into any
establishment. In all the State Aid Manuals and so on, that dimension
is listed. The City has used that in the past on four specific
instances. In this case it has to do primarily or almost totally with
e
e
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1986 - Page 28
e
the situation with the free right and I truly believe that I would
be remiss in not making that known to the Commssioners and the Council
and I am recommending at the very least that if the lots are not
combined so the developer, if he came in with a site plan could
rearrange and even have crossings, that lot line be moved over at
least 100 feet to the east to accommodate minimum distances that I
consider safe for turning. It is highly debatable but that is the
reason for my recommendation just to make it clear. I do have
numbers, I know that Mr. Thompson brought up traffic numbers, he asked
for those. I do have those available. I was going to include them
and I forgot but I do have them to answer any questions, I can make
them available.
Thompson: What about the Burger King? You mentioned the Burger King,
you said the SuperAmerica was 150 feet, I didn't hear about the Burger
King.
Monk: He said it approached 300 in talking with the State personnel.
I questioned that. It didn't seem like it was that far but he did say
that he thought it met minimum requirements.
Thompson:
feet.
I would say the Burger King access is probably within 200
e Monk: It does come close to meeting the minimum.
Jim Orr: I'm with Schoell and Madsen and we are the firm that is
doing the planning work for Mr. Burdick on this matter. I wasn't
aware of the problem until after the last Planning Commission meeting
and Mr. Burdick got in touch and we did meet with Mr. Monk, I think it
was a week ago yesterday concerning this matter and had a discussion
and visited the site and so forth and Mr. Burdick feels very strongly
that he would like to maintain the proposed lot split basically to
establish a more marketable size parcel. That is the reason for
standing firm on this matter. Because it appeared that there wasn't
going to be an agreement, we were hoping a compromise could be perhaps
reached on the issue but it didn't appear that way so he did contact
Barton & Ashman firm. You have a report in front of you here.
Essentially, what they are suggesting is that, from their point of
view based on present conditions anyway, it isn't a problem. They, of
course, are a recognized traffic firm. We are sorry we didn't get
this to you a little earlier than now but Mr. Burdick just received it
about 4:30 this afternoon. There obviously is a disagreement here as
to what is safe and what isn't. As we viewed the site, there are a
couple of things we should probably point out. I'm sure you are
probably aware of a some of them. One is the existing access location
which is basically on the east side of that lot we are talking about.
That is there right now. The legal significance, of course is a
question but it is an existing access into the site. In terms of the
concern over the future traffic volumes, it is our feeling and I don't
know as though there is anything definite on this either as Bill said,
e
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1986 - Page 29
e
at such time as higher volume should occur, it is very likely that the
realignment would occur on West 78th Street as well and that, of
course, puts a different set of facts into the whole case. There is
good sight distance on the site. Very good sight distance so that
isn't really the major issue. The other item that I think is really
not represented too well on this drawing, it appears as though the
actual bituminous surface crosses the corner of the lot so in other
words, the curve begins earlier. This is an old topography
essentially and from my understanding the County was notified of this
encroachment and they did move this out so essentially the curve is a
little further to the west than really represented by the drawing.
That has a minor amount of significance but it is a point to bring up.
That really summarizes our feelings. All those things considered that
it is a reasonable thing. As I mentioned, there is a difference in
opinion here, of course that is the safety issue. That is the reason
for the Barton-Ashman opinion and they are essentially suggesting that
they don't consider it a problem based on the distances here. In
looking at it, I don't really think it is a major problem. One of the
things we would hope perhaps could have been done was a compromise and
maybe that still can be. In any case, you do have a right for site
plan approval on individual parcels and we think there is a
possibility depending on the use of the two parcels, that there could
be combined access in any case and that is certainly something to be
considered, but that is premature as far as Mr. Burdick is concerned
because he really doesn't have the parcels sold and the real issue
here is to try and provide a more marketable size on the westerly
parcel so what I'm saying is that it is very possible that when the
access would be proposed that is something that will be provided. It
won't really be a controversy at that time but he simply is requesting
that the division be made and you have the right to site plan approval
at that point anyway.
e
Thompson: You used to be the City Engineer, right? So you are
somewhat familiar with this. When they take a parcel like that, with
present traffic that is on it, I guess Bill said maybe there was a
little vagueness as to how some of those things will develop. Is it
the obligation for us to anticipate what might be there in the future
bas ed 0 n t r a f f i c not k no win g i fit i s go i n g to be and the ref 0 res tar t
moving lot lines around. I have a little problem with that.
Jim Orr: It is our opinion here, again we are dealing with a lot of
opinions, that as long as the parcel meets the lot size requirements,
in this case I don't think that is the issue at all, it certainly
does. The traffic safety issue here is obviously a matter of opinion
and it does relate, as pointed out in the Barton-Ashman report here
very much to volume. Essentially what I am saying is that at such
point, and we're not really that far apart in our concerns about the
thing, and Bill is essentially suggesting that based on the higher
volumes in the future, that it could be a problem. That is assuming
the alignment is the same. What I am suggesting is that at such time
as these volumes occur, you are definitely going to see some
e
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1986 - Page 30
e
detachment there of the service, or in other words the realignment to
the north there. That will be required and very well could be funded
by MnDot. I've seen projects like this that have been funded in part
by them. Detachment, because that is really what this amounts to,
detachment of a service road from the other intersection from the
Powers Blvd. and TH 5 intersection. So it is a matter of what
conditions do you assume at the time. I'm suggesting is that when the
higher volumes are achieved and problems could occur, that there will
be some change that has happened.
Thompson: Now how far down the line does it look like. If we knew it
was next year.
Jim Orr: One of the reasons Mr. Burdick does feel strongly as he
does about it is the existing access. There again, the significance
of that, I don't know. That is a legal thing but I don't know. The
County certainly has to issue permits being a county road and the site
plan approval thing is something the City has control over.
Thompson: When we approve the subdivision there, are we guaranteeing
access at this time?
e
Monk: I believe we are. I believe that if the City, and this is one
incentive points of my opinion in that unless the Planning Commission
and City Council would put a condition on there requiring that Lots 1
and 2 share an access at least a certain distance away that would be
recorded on the property, Mr. Burdick would be in a position to sell
Lots 1 and 2 separately and the City would definitely be implying that
Lot 1 would be allowed a separate access. That is the problem I have
with the plan the way it is being proposed. I have stated my opinion
as far as the access goes but approving the plat, is like approving a
single family residential development. Basically as you approve that
plat, you are approving each of those homes an access onto whatever
street they front on and may condition joint accesses or whatever but
in this instance and if approved as submitted, I believe the City
would be basically approving an access. That is the jist of my
comments.
Thompson:
100 feet?
Do you think the present traffic warrants moving the access
Monk: The existing traffic count for that, I can't project the
Barton-Ashman to it. With the daily traffic on that road according to
the 1985 counts, 3900 cars per day. I expect by the time TH 5 gets
widen, there is a good chance that may well double especially if the
James property and the Burdick property were developed. When TH 5
will be widen is anybody's guess and if and when this road is moved,
is pretentious to make and I have a big problem predicating approval on
the realignment of the road. I believe they are two separate but very
important issues but I am trying to look at it in terms of if this
site were developed over the next three years, what could potentially
e
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1986 - Page 31
e
happen at that intersection and I truly believe that a dangerous
situation would result.
Thompson: I would say this though, all those things. Assume some of
those assumptions are a little vague, you are probaby right but I have
a hard time telling a man that has an access there already on a piece
of property that meets my definition and conditions of a sUbdivision,
that he has to move his access over 100 feet over and therefore extend
his size by 100 feet by so many thousands and thousands, based on
current conditions which don't warrant it. That is the only problem I
have with it.
Monk: I believe they do because I believe even with the minimal
traffic counts that you have now, that there would be many occassions
when the east bound traffic on TH 5, when that green arrow comes on
and all those cars queue over and start to make that turn, it has
happened to me a couple of times in looking at that situation, that
there will be numerous occassions when there will be a line of cars
and one or two may wan t to get over and it i sn' t go i ng to ta ke a
tremendous amount volume. It is only going to take a few. I believe
we are being remiss.
e
Thompson: I can go down to the other intersection that we talked
about, that station where SuperAmerica is. I used to own that piece
of property and the one across the street, and I take a look at that
intersection. I buy gas there every day or every other and there is a
lot of traffic there, there is tons of traffic and that is only 150
off that intersection. Even with that kind of volume it works. It's
not ideal but it seems to me if Howie were here, sometimes we are
trying to make something that isn't there. All we are asked to do is
subdivide this thing and provide an access. Let the future work out
the problems as they come up such as if they change the road alignment
and some of these other plans and this thing might get taken care of.
In the meantime seems to me we are penalizing somebody with a piece of
property that has an access already.
Siegel: Was there any discussion between Staff and petitioner for
sharing an access for Lots 1 and 2 as a compromise? Did you discuss
this with Bill?
Jim Orr: We did definitely discuss that. I don't think Mr. Burdick
is opposed to that. Here again it is something that would be
preferable to defer until site plan approval process occurs and is
very possible that might be the best solution just from his point of
view or from the point of view of the possible two entities who would
be occupying the site. That is something would be deferred until a
time when there is a specific site plan submitted. That is what I am
saying is that it seems as though no matter what, you have that right
of site plan approval. You have some element of control.
e
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1986 - Page 32
e
Siegel: But as our City Engineer, what Bill is saying is if we
approve the subdivision and change and we are automatically approving
access to each one of those lots.
Jim Orr: There is another question there. It is Mr. Burdick's
contention that he has access right at that one point. I think
that has some bearing on the issue. That is why we are hoping to get
some kind of compromise that could work and make him happy as well as
the concerns. Nobody is in favor of doing things that create traffic
hazards. This is one of the reasons for the Barton-Ashman report and
you would have to accept their suggestions as being a valid opinion too
because they are a definitely recognized firm. I think they all have
degrees. I think the difference here though is the set of
assumptions. They aim this more at the shorter term situation and
Bill is obviously concerned about the long term situation. What I am
suggesting is that will precipitate the kinds of volumes that will
occur in the future, assuming that TH 5 is widen and so forth, will
require some kind of detachment so something is going to have to be
done and that of course gives you a different set of facts. All we
are saying is that you can deal with that at that time because it will
be a whole different thing. I think if the existing access hadn't
been there, it adds a whole different flavor.
e
Emmings: This Barton-Ashman report seems to indicate the traffic
volume on one day for one hour. Is that what I understand? Is that
valid? Is that enough of a sample to make, that you want to rely on
this for your opinion that you give. Is one hour on one day a good
indicator for traffic flow?
Jim Orr: I would think that it is a pretty good indication for the
present conditions. They are the experts and I think they would be
uncomfortble in giving us a recommendation on a matter unless they
feel comfortable with it.
Emmings: How about you?
Jim Orr: Yes, I am inclined to agree.
Emmings: How about you Bill? Do you think that is adequate?
Monk: I've only had a chance to glance at it while talking. I don't
think there is any questions that for a collector that West 78th
Street right now has what would be considered a low volume. Again, I
haven't been able to project their hourly into a daily but I can't
argue with it at this point.
Emmings: You mentioned during your presentation that there are some
standards, State Aid Manuals, that suggest that there should be at
least 2513 feet?
e Monk: For a 35 mph speed limit, yes. It is 2513 feet.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1986 - Page 33
e
Emmings: Then I guess I would ask you, are there reasons that that
standard should or should not be applied here?
Jim Orr: I guess the feeling is the question of 35 mph.
Emmings: What is the speed limit out there?
Monk: 45 mph.
Emmings: Would that make you want to have more or less?
Monk: Even if you use 30 mph the minimum turn lane length for a 30
mph road is 230 feet so the difference.
Jim Orr: You see that is very close to what we are talking about what
is there.
Emmings: So I understand from the corner to that first proposed lot
line, the west edge of Lot 1, what is that distance?
Monk: It is approximately 230 feet if you measured straight across.
Emmings: And what is the minimum that would satisfy you?
e
Monk: Again, the 230, I believe has to measured from the point when
the car comes out of the turn and that is my contention. Until the
car is around the corner, it can't signal and properly move to get off
to the side. I truly believe that lot needs to be lengthened 100 feet
to meet that minimum standard. The turn is sharp but the cars come
around there very quickly. They are completely unrestricted and sight
distance does not slow them down. Again, it is a very arguable point.
William F. Kelly: I spoke before this committee at the last meeting.
I represent Mr. Burdick. I have great respect for Mr. Monk's opinions
and the last time we met we were talking about the need for some
standards that you could look to for application whether it be
standards, guidelines or what criteria for developing those standards
and guidelines. That was the reason for the postponment as I recall.
Mr. Orr, Mr. Burdick and Mr. Monk for the purpose of attempting to
develop and determine whether or not those standards and guidelines
existed. We just didn't find any. Now, one of the problems that we
have here tonight, Mr. Monk said yes, the state has a standard, 250
feet at 35 but he interprets that in a different way from maybe
another engineer might interpret that. There must be some kind of
standard set down so that Mr. Burdick and other people who want to
come before you for the purpose of platting can look to those standards
and guidelines and say, this is what I have got to meet. This is
where I begin to measure my 250 feet. It can not be in the mind of
staff because staff changes. We can't have well, it should be a
little higher because maybe 10 years from now it will be a mall. If
we are going to do that then we have to develop a set of standards
e
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1986 - Page 34
e
which would take into consideration each rule. That is exactly the
way you develop your planning, subdividing for the city and for the
future. You do it now. It isn't done on the basis of opinion of
where you measure or whether it is going to be based upon todays traffic
patterns or whether it is going to be based on traffic patterns which
may be developed in 25 years. I ask that you consider the fact that
we have met the standards of the state, we have met the minimum
standards for lots and we are only asking for access to the private
road and if we can't part the property here and have access to it,
then your property on the other side can't do the same thing and it
will restrict the potential growth of the city in this area. Not only
here but remember if you develop this type of theory at this corner,
what happens throughout the entire city without standards, without
criteria.
Emmings: I would like to follow up on that a little bit to make the
point as far as standards. So far I have heard about one standard and
that is the State Aid Manual standard of 250 feet which Lot 1 doesn't
in fact meet because it is 230 feet from the corner. Our City
Engineer seems to think it should be measured from a different point
but are there any other standards that you are aware of that are
published for this kind of a thing?
e
Monk: The only standards I have seen is in the State Aid Manual which
is published by MnDot. It goes through the recommended lights and
turn lights. I don't think we have ever built one to their full
standards which are extremely lengthy. We usually rely more on the
minimum standards for different miles per hour, start at 30 mph at 30
feet in length and go from there. Even if the turn lane is not
constructed in that way, that distance seems minimal to allow certain
movements to occur. I take exception to what was just stated in that
I believe we have been very reasonable because in the manuals, it
basically states the turn lanes lengths will be measured from the
point of tangent. If that is done in this case, it pushes the lot
even further out.
Emmings: What is the point of tangent?
Monk: The point of tangent, as you come around the curve in this
instance, the curve of the street comes around and it is not until you
actually become tangent with the straight road that we would start to
measure that turn line distance. If that were done, the tangent point
is approximately half way across the lot, perhaps pulled back slightly
because the road might not be shown properly on this sketch. If that
is the case, the 250 feet puts you even further to the east and that
was the reason for the original recommendation. I believe that Staff has
given somewhat in that we are measuring 250 feet from within the curve
because there is good sight distance. The curve is slightly
restricted in that you have to slow down as you come around the corner
and we have come up with what I consider a more minimum length in that
the lot when you are within 100 feet to accommodate that safe
e
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1986 - Page 35
e
movement. Again, I'm just not sure that we will ever all a.gree but I
felt it was imperative that I at least explain my position.
Conrad: Just my comments. I think I am hearing a standard that is
being thrown out~ I don't know that Chanhassen needs it own
standards. I assume that the state of Minnesota has some standards
that we are trying to adapt to. I guess my thought is that we are the
planning commission and we are planning years out. We are not really
planning for today. If the City Council wants to plan for today, that
is their perogative and they can consider some of these other issues
that are there. I guess I would feel badly knowing that we are doing
a comprehensive plan and planning for the year ,2000 and doing all the
long range things then we don't consider highways and streets traffic
as a long range issue. I think it is. I do have to agree that we
should keep on the minimum side of whatever standard we use because I
think based on the property and based on the traffic of today, I think
I would like to be on the minimum side of the standard. Therefore, I'm
not sure I heard a number that I'm comfortable with but I do believe I
have to take the City Engineer's comments, I have to be very sensitive
to his comments and I would feel very badly if we had some problems at
that intersection, traffic wise or accident wise. Right now I think
the first lot line is 230 and Bill you are saying a whole 100 feet you
would like to move that lot line. Is that what you said?
e
Monk: Yes.
Conrad: So that takes us up to 330. I'm not sure I know how to
arbitrarily go and put a number there. I heard somebody say 300 feet.
Jim Orr: I think it would be helpful to clarify this one point that
this drawing is really based on old topography on what has occurred
and this has a bearing on this matter we are talking about. The 230
of course is measured from here to here. This actually shows the
blacktop as cutting the corner. It is my understanding and from
visiting the site there was evidence of some change is the last year,
but the County at Mr. Burdick's request, did take this rounding out
out because it was encroachment so basically the thing is moved this
way and there is a sharper curve there. I guess it is my feeling that
the tangent really is not as represented in this drawing because it
has been modified since then so it is our feeling that in stepping on
location there, that in fact the curve moves out to the property
corner and that of course tends to move the lot line a bit if in fact
the 230 is a standard, it brings it right about over to the lot line
is what I am saying. Of course, the speed limit thing, I recognize
that there is a higher speed limit but as you come around this curve
in this area, typical speeds in there is much closer to 30 mph, but
there is some room for interpretation is what we are suggesting and
basically Barton-Ashman are suggesting that they don't see that.
e
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1986 - Page 36
e
Conrad: I tried to read this over five times and I tell you, I can't
do it. I can't do it while I'm up here and concentrating adequately
to fully understand it. I need a quiet room behind this wall to read
it and pay attention. It is really hard to do that the night that we
discuss the thing.
Jim Orr: We apologize for that, Mr. Burdick only received it this
afternoon so we got it to you...
Conrad: I'm sure by the time this gets to City Council, the City
Engineer will have reviewed it, the planning staff and City Council so
that they will have paid more attention to it than I could possibly do
tonight in two minutes. Is there a motion.
Emmings moved, Siegel seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
that the City Council approve the Subdivision Request #86-6 as shown
on the preliminary plat stamped "Received May 14, 1986" with the
following conditions:
1. That the developer either combine Lots 1 and 2 or that he
provide access through Lot 2 for Lot 1. In either case, no
access onto West 78th Street will be allowed closer than 300
feet to the corner on Powers Blvd. and West 78th Street.
e
2.
Sanitary sewer plans must be submitted and approved prior to
final plat approval.
All voted in favor except Thompson who opposed. Motion carried.
Thompson: Your motion is that he can combine Lots 1 and 2?
Emmings: Basically he can do what he wants to. If he decides he
wants to combine Lots 1 and 2 and make them one lot, I don't care. If
he wants to leave it two lots, he can do that but in either case he is
not going to be able to have a separate access out along West 78th
Street. He is going to have to provide an easement across Lot 2 or
design Lots 1 and 2 together so that he gets his entrance or his
access in Lot 2.
Thompson: And that has to be 300 feet? From what point?
Emmings: Yes, from the corner of Powers Blvd. and West 78th Street.
Conrad: Michael, your reason for opposing.
Thompson: First of all, those standards if we accept that, would
impose curve condition certainly without warranted consideration. I
think we are being completely unrealistic. I think somebody that had
the amount of square footage of that lot, we should provide that
access particularly since he already has an access.
e
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1986 - Page 37
e
Conrad: This item will go to City Council Barbara:
Dacy: July 21, 1986.
Emmings: Could I ask a question here: This access we keep talking
about that he already has; where is this: How far from the corner is
that.
Jim Orr: It is right here if you can see it. Right on the very east
edge of Lot 1.
Emmings: And is that access to the entire piece. Is that the only
access off of 78th?
Jim Orr: Yes.
Emmings: Now you're asking us to make it into five chunks and asking
to put in five accesses? Well; the fact that he already has an
access; it isn't an access to Lot 1; it is an access to the whole
piece and they are changing the whole thing:
Conrad: As I said before, with the Barton-Ashman study here, I think
Council will have a chance to read that, Bill will have more time to
read that and they will pay attention to the issues and incorporate
~ome of our prespective to other things. So that will be July 21,
~986 and thank you for attending.
PUBLIC HEARING
Subdivision Request to divide 2.15 acres into two single family lots
of 1.15 acres and 1.0 acres on property zoned R-l, Single Family
Residence and located at 6240 Hummingbird Road (Lot 14, except the
north 100 feet there of and Lot 15, Murray Hill), Evelyn Lohr.
Todd Gerhardt: First of all I would like to introduce myself to the
public and to the Planning Commission again, my name is Todd Gerhardt.
I'm the Planning Intern for the City of Chanhassen. The proposed
subdivision is located at 6240 Hummingbird Road. It is now zoned R-l,
Residential Single Family and the proposed subdivision does meet all
the minimum lot area and lot width requirements which are set out in
the zoning ordinance. If you will note, I have outlined that Lot 1
does have an existing dwelling located on it. Staff recommends
approval of the proposed subdivision.
Charles McKain: I'm a real estate agent for Merrill-Lynch-Burnett
representing the applicant if there are any questions.
Siegel moved, Emmings seconded to close public hearing. All voted in
,4liavor and motion carried.
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1986 - Page 38
e
Siegel moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commissin recommends
the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat Request #86-14 as shown
on the plat stamped "Received June 6, 1986". All voted in favor and
motion carr ied.
PUBLIC HEARING
Subdivision Request to divide 7.5 acres into four single family lots
on property zoned R-l, Single Family Residence and located south of
and adjacent to 63rd Street, one-half mile north of Lake Lucy Road,
Leonard Koehnen.
PUBLIC PRESENT
Emma St. John
1621 West 63rd Street
e
Gerhardt: This being my second staff report, of course there is a
mistake in it. I would like to apologize for that. I'll hand out a
new map, the location of the proposed subdivision sort of slipped down
from where it was suppose to be. The proposed subdivision is located
on the south side of West 63rd Street about one-half mile north of
Lake Lucy Road. The proposed subdivision is presently zoned R-l,
Single Family Residence. The proposal meets all the minimum lot
requirements and width requirements cited in the zoning ordinance.
Again, note there is an existing dwelling on Lot 3 which also meets
all the requirements set forth in the zoning ordinance. Staff
recommends approval of the proposed subdivision.
Arlan Koehnen: I'm representing my parents on this and I'm with my
mother here tonight and we're just ready to answer any questions.
Siegel moved, Emmings seconded to close public hearing. All voted in
favor and motion carried.
Siegel: I'm just curious on what is that exception down there on the
corner.
Dacy: There is an existing house on that piece. In describing the
property, you have to accept that portion. Is that what you are
referring to on the northeast corner?
Siegel: Yes, I was just wondering what is in that area.
Dacy: A single family home.
Conrad: Barbara or Todd specifically, are you comfortable that access
for the current home on Lot 3 for the future as the applicant will
probably continue to subdivide, have we met all that area between his
house and 63rd, would that be a potential future lot and does that
meet all the standards that we would impose on it in the future or is
e
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1986 - Page 39
-
there no other possible access for that house?
Gerhardt: If they did subdivide that into a lot, it would see
probably moving their existing dwelling out of there and getting some
type of easement or access to the lot for the existing lot.
Dacy: Are you talking about creating a lot around the existing house
or which area are you...
Conrad: I just have to assume there is going to be more development
here and just wondering if there is another access to that house?
Dacy: To the south, maybe you should put up that Pheasant Hill plan,
to the south is the Pheasant Hill subdivision and in the southeast
corner of the property, it has not been decided whether or not the
extension of that street should continue over to Yosemite.
potentially if that is, there could be additional lots in this area.
However, as far as existing house is concerned, lot lines would have
to be created around it so for resubdivision it could possibly come
from the south. As you know, over here it is just a lowland, wet area
that is accepting a lot of the drainage in the area so that is the
only potential for a subdivision.
-
Siegel moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat Request #86-10 as shown
on the plat stamped "Received June 4, 1986". All voted in favor and
motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Siegel moved, Thompson seconded to accept the Minutes of May 28, 1986
as presented by Staff. All voted in favor and motion carried.
Siegel moved, Thompson seconded to accept the Minutes of June 11, 1986
as presented by Staff. All voted in favor and motion carried.
OPEN DISCUSSION
Dacy: In your packets was a memo regarding the Development Framework
position statement and just to keep you up to date on our progress
with the Met Council. Tonight there was the public hearing in front
of the Committee regarding the population forecast and the Development
Framework Document and the Mayor is at that meeting tonight
representing Chanhassen. Our consultant, John Bolin, is making a
presentation on behalf of the southwest communities so the statement
that is attached in your packet is what Chanhassen is supporting as
well as submitting our own population projections and so on. It
appears that exchange between Mr. Bolin and the Met Council Staff so
far has been very good so there may be a light at the end of the
tunnel so to speak for looking at some changes in the proposed draft
e
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1986 - Page 40
e
so we are encouraged by that.
The other thing is, the first week in JUly, the first meeting we have,
only one item, a sign variance request than also I am hoping to have
the Planning Commission interviews that night also. The second
meeting in July, as you will recall I think I sent to you a memo, it
was probably two months now, regarding because of the development
framework that has been going on, process updating and because of the
Lake Ann Agreement and so on, and because of the proposed zoning
ordinance, we have to update our comp plan and Mr. Koegler is going to
be here July 23, 1986 to go through an orientation again regarding the
comp plan. I know some of you have been involved in that originally
but now we are getting turnover on the Commission and there are
inconsistencies between the proposed zoning map and the comp plan that
we have to get ironed out so Mark will be discussing the schedule. We
would like to have everything adopted by the end of the year and the
same with the zoning ordinance so that is our goal.
-
The last thing is I wrote a memo on TH 7 corridor study. If you want
us to go through what I attached in a little more detail, I am
prepared to do so. There is a public hearing scheduled July 16, 1986
on the various options that BRW is coming up with. We will in the
comp plan be referring to the ultimate corridor study document because
it will serve as some type of tool for planning in TH 7 area for future
development proposals. If you looked at the aerials to see TH 41 and
TH 7 intersection issue and saw one of the alternatives they had
proposed, so we are continuing to advise the consultant on the recent
status of the recent Tomac application and so on.
Thompson: He is going to get it next to Shorewood I see.
Dacy: That is the most recent. That should be very controversial.
You can see proposed in the Excelsior area, Alternative 1 the closing
of Galpin Lake Road in exchange for realigning Mayflower Road and
creating a frontage road in that area. Bill and I have reviewed these
alternatives and are proposing some other alternatives as well instead
of the ones being proposed by BRW so this is just to let you know we
are working with the consultant and we will be at the public hearing
and if you have any comments on what you see here, feel free to say so
because we will convey those to them.
Conrad: Some administrative things, because we are down to just a
few us left Barbara, Howie becomes a very important cog. I would like
Staff to make sure that, those of us here this is Michael's last
meeting and I will speak to that in a moment, but please call if you
can't make it as we are down to five commissioners. Quorums become a
problem and if you can't make it let them know. For SUre I would like
Staff to call Howie. He has had a good attendance record, I'm not
picking on him, he's just not here tonight. I want to know how many
folks are going to make it. We've got to know because we can't trust
that we are going to have a quorum anymore. How many applicants for
e
Planning Commission Minutes
June 25, 1986 - Page 41
e
the two vacancies do we have so far?
Dacy: Just one so far. Maybe two.
Conrad: That is a real problem. We've got to get more. Potentially,
we don't have to take anybody. I am comfortable running with five
planning commissioners until we find people that are willing and
capable to do a good job.
Dacy: If we still have one or two, do you still want to hold the
interviews the first meeting in July?
Conrad: Yes, I think we should. I get uncomfortable if there is only
one because two we might have a chance at finding somebody. At one,
if we turn that person down, that is a pretty negative statement and I
really don't want to go out there and do that, so if we don't have
two, I don't want to interview any but two, bring them in. And
Barbara if there is anything you can do to get the word out, I think
we have to do that. I'm really not comfortable. There should be five
people applying and I'm not a person of numbers. I think you need
numbers before you can get good folks so whatever we've got to do, you
tell me what we have to do.
e
Siegel: Did you notify everyone that applied before?
Dacy stated that the one applicant was one who had applied before and
had interviewed with Mr. Emmings and Mr. Siegel and another person had
shown interest but hadn't submitted an application yet.
Emmings moved, Siegel seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in
favor and motion carried. Meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
e