PC 2005 12 06
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 6, 2005
Acting Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mark Undestad, Jerry McDonald, Kurt Papke, Deborah Zorn, and
Dan Keefe
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Debbie Larson and Uli Sacchet
STAFF PRESENT:
Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Josh
Metzer, Planner I, and Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Public Works Director
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Annette Ellson Chanhassen
Max Ingram Excelsior
Colton Peshek Chanhassen
Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
PUBLIC HEARING:
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 18 OF THE CITY CODE; SUBDIVISIONS.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: Any questions?
Papke: I’ll start. First of all the minimum cul-de-sac of 800 feet, minimum street length. Or
maximum cul-de-sac length. Are there any that exceed this right now? Would any be
grandfathered in as a result of this?
Generous: Yes. There’s many cul-de-sacs that are longer than 800 feet, but this is just for new
subdivisions that have to comply with this standard so.
Papke: Next question. The temporary cul-de-sacs for the street stub, do we need a section in
here stipulating the minimum length of the street stub, and what if you’ve got a 20 foot street
stub? Does it make sense to put in a 90 foot diameter cul-de-sac?
Generous: I don’t know. That may be Paul.
Oehme: I think where this item comes into play is where one development’s being built and
potentially another development will be built down the road and tie into that street stub.
Typically we would see that, you know the street would be a lot longer than say 20 feet or 50
feet or what have you. It’d be a couple hundred feet, maybe even 1,000 feet but I mean they
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
need to show us where that’s going to be tied in and you know how that next development could
tie into the existing or the proposed development so. I don’t see a problem with the language as
it’s written currently.
McDonald: Excuse me, would you identify yourself?
Oehme: I’m sorry, I’m Paul Oehme. The City Engineer.
Papke: We do have some examples fairly recently where they were fairly short. They were only
perhaps 4 houses on them. The one up, right off of 41. There was a fairly short street stub there
where we just, Yoberry Heights. Just south of Yoberry Heights. The stub that tied in was very
short because that’s where I parked when I went out to take a look you know when it came up for
approval. And it just seemed like boy, a cul-de-sac would be real incongruous in a situation like
that, especially if it’s going to be there for 20-30 years. Some of these can last for quite a while.
Oehme: Sure. It’s again a more or less a life safety issue and also a maintenance issue as well.
To get our fire trucks in and out of there. You know our plow trucks as well, to maintain those
streets.
Papke: So you’re pretty adamant you want a cul-de-sac regardless of the length of the stub?
Oehme: Well it doesn’t have to be, I guess we could look at different types of cul-de-sacs. It
could be a hammer head or some other variations of such that accommodate maybe the
topography or how that street stub is put in there.
Papke: Okay. And the last one, the 60 by 60 foot building pad on 30 foot access driveway. Are
you assuming that it’s 30 feet wide for the total length of the driveway and this is regardless of
lot size? I mean some of these, some lots.
Generous: That would be the assumption. If they don’t know what’s going in there, this would
be like a worst case scenario on the lot. So if it doesn’t meet those criteria, then maybe they need
a bigger lot.
Papke: So that would be a pretty compelling case for a developer to want to, to know what
they’re putting in.
Generous: Exactly.
Papke: I mean to suffer the penalty of a 30 foot, is this going to be onerous? I mean we have
some cases here where we’re correcting, like with the tree diameter. It was too onerous. Is this
going to be viewed 2 or 3 years from now as being too onerous for developers to follow?
Generous: I’m not sure it’d be too onerous. We’re seeing the opposite happening. Developers
are coming in and their buildings are getting bigger and 3 car garages and next it will be 4 car
garages and they’ll want to have this width so, it’s just the way to calculate what the potential
impact of that.
2
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
Papke: Okay. That’s all I have.
Keefe: You actually hit on all pretty much. I’ve got just a follow-up note. The 800 feet, where
does 800 feet come from?
Generous: I’ll defer to Paul.
Oehme: We also looked at other city standards as well and they vary, but we kind of hit on the
800 foot. Typically you get I think about 14 units on that type of street. Try to limit, especially
on cul-de-sacs, try to limit dead end of watermains. Approximately 14 houses as well. If there is
a watermain break on that cul-de-sac, you don’t want more than say 14 people to be out without
service. We try to limit it to that. That kind of plays into the factor as well too, and then try to
limit, you know if there’d be a natural disaster, how many people can’t get to the end of a cul-de-
sac or dead end street. How many people should you be limiting on that cul-de-sac? Try to
come up with some way of looking at, you know how do you want that, or how should I say?
How many people do you want it limited on the cul-de-sac in the event of a natural disaster?
Those type of things we looked at as well.
McDonald: I only had one question for you, when you bring up the issue about the, if you don’t
know what’s going to go on a particular pad and we’re going to use some assumptions. Is this
going to get us to the point of a worst case scenario of the 25% impervious surface area that we
will block out what that is so at least you know what you have to operate with?
Generous: Yes, that’s part of the reason we’re putting it in there.
McDonald: Okay. That’s all I had. No further questions or comments, then do I have a motion
to adopt?
Keefe: Public hearing?
McDonald: I’m sorry. I’m getting a little ahead of myself. This is a public hearing so if anyone
wishes to come forward and speak on this issue, please come up.
Janet Paulsen: My name is Janet Paulsen and I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. I just have two
questions about the issue of the school district demographics. How does this affect parkland
being set aside for single family and multiple housing? Does it affect it at all?
Generous: It would have potential effect. Currently we use 3 persons per household for single
family homes to determine, for every 75 people the city requires 1 acre of parkland and so based
on the size of the development, that’s how we know how much they need to provide, either
through dedication or through fees.
Janet Paulsen: So then parkland would increase for single family?
3
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
Generous: Well the requirement would be the same. How we get to it would be changed. The
number of persons per household is actually higher for single family homes than any other type
of housing unit and so it’s more accurately reflecting that information.
Janet Paulsen: And how about the two family homes? Would that make less parkland for them?
Generous: No, it would be, the current standard is 3 so that would remain the same.
Janet Paulsen: Okay. Then I had a question also on the 60 by 60. What is the access driveway
because I don’t recall that term being used before?
Generous: Well it’s just the driveway from the street to the house.
Janet Paulsen: Okay. It’s not a driveway easement?
Generous: No. This is, it could be just called the driveway too I suppose.
Janet Paulsen: Okay. And so that would have a 10 foot side setback too?
Generous: Yeah, that’s what we’re proposing, yes.
Janet Paulsen: Okay, thank you.
McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to comment on this ordinance? Well, seeing no
one come forward, I will close the public meeting and turn it back to the commission.
Comments, discussions? Do I have a motion then that we adopt?
Papke: Mr. Chair, I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
attached ordinance amending Chapter 18, Subdivisions of the Chanhassen City Code.
McDonald: Could I have a second?
Zorn: Second.
Papke moved, Zorn seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
attached ordinance amending Chapter 18, Subdivisions of the Chanhassen City Code. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 20 OF THE CITY CODE; ZONING.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: Kurt, want to start?
4
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
Papke: I just have one trivial one. At the bottom of page 3 you have this table of 3 columns.
Maximum percentage of wall areas, square footage and then total square footage. Very
confusing to have the columns in the order you have them. When I first read that I couldn’t
figure out, you know if I’m a builder and I have to look up the maximum percentage, can you
flip the first two columns or something like that? I mean because if I read this correctly what
you’re saying is, if I have a wall area that’s 1,500 square feet then I got to go to row 3 and I can
do at most 11% which is 198.
Generous: Right.
Papke: Can you just flip those?
Generous: Yes we could, definitely.
Papke: Okay.
Keefe: I also have a small one. 4 over here you’re recommending elimination of the setback
along the curve. Should we be adding in what the setback needs to be on the bubble? Because it
doesn’t really say. It just says eliminate the setback along the curve but it doesn’t necessarily
say.
Generous: Well no, this is just for frontage.
Keefe: Oh, okay.
Generous: The setback would still be 30 feet.
Keefe: Okay.
Generous: Before we didn’t…90 foot lot width and…30 feet back. Now we’re saying count it
right at the street or front property line.
Keefe: Yep, I understand that. Never mind.
McDonald: The only question I have for you concerns the new permit. Do you think that this
will solve the problem we’re having with people adding things? Do you get calls most the time
at least asking if there’s a permit required?
Generous: Yes.
McDonald: Okay.
Generous: Truthfully they said no, there’s no permit required but there’s a zoning compliance
review. Oh, okay, then they go.
5
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
McDonald: Okay. At this time we will now move to the public comment. If anyone wants to
come forward and comment on the changes to this ordinance. Please come up to the podium.
State your name and address your comments to the commission.
Janet Paulsen: Janet Paulsen again. I just have one comment about the amendment to Section
20-615 about the cul-de-sacs. The picture that was shown in the actual code that will be placed
in the code book shows a double cul-de-sac and I was wondering what would be the purpose of
showing a double cul-de-sac.
Generous: That was just a graphic that I had and the one that’s in the ordinance. We could
eliminate one for all practical purposes.
Janet Paulsen: I just didn’t think it was a very good way to develop. Have like 7 cars meeting at
one spot. And then how about the driveways? I just feel like driveways are structures and they
should be set back 10 feet all along the property line for protection of neighbors and also for
drainage. Protection for trees and shrubs. Just 5 feet I don’t think is enough for a tree. I also
feel like a 50 foot setback from a high pressure power line would be advisable especially since
the municipal research and servicing center recommended that. And also I would like to know
how wide is the easement itself.
Generous: The ones I looked at varied. Standard I believe is the 60 is the one I saw most. Some
were at 75. Some were even smaller than that.
Janet Paulsen: I just think safety’s a paramount. That’s all I have.
McDonald: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? Okay, seeing no one come forward, I will close the
public meeting on revision of Chapter 20 and bring it back to the commission for deliberations.
Who would like to start?
Keefe: I’ll just the one follow-up. Just in regards to the side setback. Currently the code is
what? Currently on the side setback.
Generous: It says driveway shall be setback at least 5 feet from the side property lines beginning
at 20 feet from the front yard setback unless an encroachment agreement is received from the
city. Now I’m not sure what that means. Actually means is it a 5 foot setback? Is it at 0 until
you get 50 feet back and that’s been one of my problems with that section of the ordinance all
along.
Keefe: So is your interpretation similar to what’s here?
Generous: What we’re proposing, my interpretation is more restrictive.
Keefe: Because it was ambiguous before so…
Generous: Right.
6
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
Keefe: …people to be in closer or within the 10 foot area closer to the street, right?
Generous: Right.
Keefe: Where in this case you’re clarifying that they have to be 10 feet back. At least 20 feet
back from.
Generous: Correct, for the first 20 feet.
Keefe: Yeah, okay.
McDonald: Any other comments? Then based upon that, if someone would want to propose
that we adopt staff’s recommendations.
Zorn: I’ll make that proposal. That the Planning Commission recommends approval for the
attached ordinance amending Chapter 20, Zoning of the Chanhassen City Code.
McDonald: Do I have a second?
Keefe: Second.
Zorn moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
attached ordinance amending Chapter 20, Zoning of the Chanhassen City Code. All voted
in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
TH
RENT AUTOMOBILES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 227 WEST 79 STREET
(INSIDE MASTER COLLISION). APPLICANT ENTERPRISE LEASING COMPANY,
PLANNING CASE NO. 05-41.
Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: Does anyone have any questions? Mark, you want to start?
Undestad: Just the parking Josh. Where they’re going to be parking the rental cars out there. I
mean it’s tough backing up in there anyway, right?
Metzer: Right. From what I understand, at least in the beginning right now they’re going to be
using the back portion of that lot.
Keefe: And they can have a total of 15, is that what it says in the ordinance? Or that they can’t
exceed 15 rental cars. They’re going to have 3-4 employees.
Metzer: Correct.
7
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
Keefe: Is there any requirement for shared parking agreement or anything on that property?
Metzer: What we’ve gotten is the property owner’s approved signature. Letter approving the
Enterprise’s parking plan.
Keefe: Okay. Because they’re not currently anywhere near utilizing all the spaces there.
Metzer: No.
Keefe: Yeah, okay. That’s all I have.
McDonald: Deborah?
Zorn: No questions.
McDonald: Okay. Do we have an applicant here? Why don’t you come on up. State your name
please and we’ll be glad to listen.
Rick Mendlik: Hi, my name’s Rick Mendlik from the city of Coon Rapids. If you have any
questions I’m here to answer them for you. We’re just looking to come into the community. We
are currently servicing you guys from Eden Prairie so we’re looking to have something so it’s
not quite a haul. Be more efficient for our operation and for your customers as well. For our
customers here, residents as well. And I think we would make a good addition to the
community.
McDonald: Does anyone have any questions? Kurt?
Papke: What’s your relationship to the applicant or your position?
Rick Mendlik: I’m with Enterprise Rent-a-Car. I’m the Operations Manager. I deal with this
sort of stuff and with facilities themselves.
McDonald: I guess we have no questions for you. At this point we’ll turn it over to any public
comment. Anyone wishing to make a comment on this motion, please come forward and state
your name and we’ll listen to you. Seeing no one come forward, we will close the public
meeting and I will bring it back to the commission for deliberations. Why don’t you start Kurt.
Papke: I think this would be a nice asset to the community down there. There’s lots of service
centers, gas stations, you know car repair centers. Perfect location for this kind of thing. I think
this is super.
Zorn: I would agree.
McDonald: I have no comments either. At this point can I get a motion that we adopt the
recommendation.
8
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
Keefe: Sure, I’ll make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
Conditional Use Permit #05-41 for the establishment of an automobile rental facility in the
Highway and Business District (BH), based on the findings of fact with the following conditions,
1 through 12.
McDonald: Okay, do I have a second?
Undestad: Second.
Keefe moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the Conditional Use Permit #05-41 for the establishment of an automobile rental facility in
the Highway and Business District (BH), based on the findings of fact with the following
conditions:
1. No unlicensed and inoperative vehicles shall be stored on the premises.
2. All maintenance of vehicles shall occur within an enclosed building.
3. No outside storage or display is allowed, except vehicles for rent.
4. No outdoor speaker system or outdoor telephones shall be allowed without approval from
the City Council.
5. Parking setbacks shall be applicable for parking/storage areas.
6. Required customer and employee parking spaces shall not be used for rental vehicle
storage.
7. Vehicle sales are not permitted.
8. The number of rental vehicles shall not exceed 15.
9. Only automobiles owned by the rental agency shall be stored on the property.
10. Parking spaces allocated for rental vehicle storage shall be designated. One and two-
tenths parking space shall be provided per rental vehicle.
11. No signs shall be attached to vehicles.
12. Three additional parking spaces shall be allocated for the use of employees and
customers.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
9
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
PUBLIC HEARING:
ORCHARD GREEN: REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW FOR FOUR SINGLE
FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGEL FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF),
LOCATED AT 2611 & 2621 ORCHARD LANE. APPLICANT PETER KNAEBLE,
PLANNING CASE NO. 05-42.
Public Present:
Name Address
Steve Lynch Minneapolis
John Dragseth Chanhassen
Matt Pavek Golden Valley
Peter Knaeble Golden Valley
Ralph & Edith Livingston 2631 Orchard Lane, Excelsior
Ken Lang 2631 Forest Circle
Dan Rathman Orchard Lane
Linda Conner Orchard Lane
Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: Kurt.
Papke: I’ll start. The disputed area looks pretty small. Am I to assume that this would not
materially affect any of the hard surface coverage calculations, setbacks, etc, etc.?
Metzer: Right. From this survey that I have, I determined it’s anywhere from 1,400 to 20
hundred square feet difference may on Lot 4. This would reduce it from 26,600 to 23,000
something. So still well over the minimum lot area. We’re talking a width of, at most 14 feet
wide along the length of the property, which would still allow Lot 4 to meet lot width
requirements.
Papke: Okay. Last question. We received an e-mail, I think it was on this case this afternoon
where one of the neighbors had some concerns about these lots being smaller than the
neighboring lots. Do you have any statistics or numbers or any metrics we can look at on that
regard?
Metzer: Not significantly. Maybe a couple of the lots surrounding, immediately surrounding but
a majority of, especially a majority of lots surrounding the entire Lake Minnewashta, these lots
are considerably larger.
Papke: Okay.
Zorn: Just had one question. I wasn’t able to drive the site. Is there a sidewalk in this area at
all?
10
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
Metzer: No.
Zorn: No sidewalk?
Metzer: No.
Zorn: Okay. And the proximity to the playground.
Metzer: That is 300 feet south along Forest Avenue.
Zorn: Okay.
Metzer: Approximately. Rough guess.
Zorn: Okay, thanks.
Undestad: Just one. On the grading plan on there, it has a note about all lots will be custom
graded by the builder. Is it, grading these one at a time and, or will they come in here and ask for
any of these lots out here, I’m just wondering what that means.
Metzer: That perhaps is a better question for the applicant.
McDonald: And I guess with that if the applicant wants to come forward. Please state your
name and address.
Peter Knaeble: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Peter
Knaeble with Terra Engineering. We’re also the developers of the property. My address is 6001
Glenwood Avenue in Golden Valley is where our office is. I’ve got a rendering and plat I’d like
to pass out to the Planning Commission. We’ve read through the staff report. Been working
with the staff for a number of weeks on this project and we concur with recommendations in the
staff report. Again the only issue that we see is the, on the south part of the property it’s
possible, a 10 to 12 foot overlap of the properties and our surveyor is working on that to try to
come up with a resolution. We’re also talking to the County to try to establish what exactly what
the resolution with the issues are for that. That overlap issue and again our interpretation would
match Josh’s that even with the approximate overlap, that Lot 4 would still exceed the city’s
standards, both for lot width and for lot area. The question on the custom grading for the lots,
based on the wooded nature of the property we are proposed to do the two building removals, for
the two small existing homes that are on the property. We would do that but we would leave it
up to the builders to custom grading each pad. Not all 4 pads at once. Other than that we’re just
here to answer any questions that the Planning Commission may have.
Keefe: What type of houses are you looking at having built on here?
Peter Knaeble: Well we’re not the builders. …builders and I would expect typical two story,
upright kind of houses.
11
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
Keefe: Three stall garage?
Peter Knaeble: Correct.
McDonald: Mark? Nothing? Deborah? No? Okay. Thank you. Okay, this is a public meeting
and with this I will now throw it open to the floor, if anyone wishes to come up and make
comments on this proposal, please do so. State your name and address please.
John Dragseth: John Dragseth, 2600 Forest Avenue, which you see as the orange property. I
think Josh stated for you the resolution and the problem properly for that. I’m not going to waste
the public’s time hearing about that. You do have my letter. I’ve been, and you can take a look
at that. As far as resolving issues with the County, I think that’s addressed in the letter too so
we’ll just leave that with you on that. I’ll address somewhat on a more general issue for my
neighbors who are here and hopefully will come up later and talk. And that’s the job that you
guys are tasked to do as a board here. It is an important job. It may seem like a disconnected job
at times. You’re dealing with plats. You’re dealing with black and white plans. But you talk
about driving the site. You’re actually dealing with things in the real world and neighbors, and I
get to see what kind of work you did. I looked at some of the transcripts and just this last
September I think it was you had a vote where you had to vote on whether someone’s going to
be able to tear down the second oldest house in town. And that’s an important decision. That’s a
real world decision and you have a very similar issue tonight. I’d refer you to the plat. The front
plan on the plat and you’ll see a little square in the middle of that property. That probably is now
the second oldest house in the County. I encourage you to go out there and take a look at that
house. It’s the original farm house as I understand things. I hope one of my neighbors will come
up and explain to you somewhat the history of that house. There’s also a number of dots on that
plat. Those aren’t dots. They’re trees. They’re big trees. The dots aren’t to scale. You see 32
inches next to them. These are big oaks. They’re all coming down. If you guys vote that way.
They will all come down. And they’ll be replaced with 2 ½ inch trees because that’s all that the
statute requires. Take a look at the grading plan. I encourage you to look closely. Not one of
those trees will stay. Now the plan doesn’t do a couple of other things justice either. It doesn’t
show the wetland that’s south of the 2600 Forest Avenue property. I encourage you to come out
and drive down my driveway and take a look. You’re welcome to come in and take a look at the
wetland and see where all of this water is going to be draining when these houses go up. When
these driveways go up, and where the runoff will be for it. I encourage you to come and take a
look at that. It’s an important job that you have and I encourage you to do that. It also doesn’t
show, and I understand you’ve received an e-mail from someone on this, that this plan doesn’t
fit. You’ve got sitting on the table here a view of the entire property in yellow. That’s before
subdivision. Next to the lot next door, which will now be well over 4 times as large as the
subdivided property. I think, is Mr. Lang here? I think he’s, Ken what do you have next door?
Ken Lang: 2.6 acres.
John Dragseth: 2.6 acres. That’s across the street to the southwest. Dan, over an acre?
Dan Rathman: 1.25.
12
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
John Dragseth: 1.25. This does not fit. I don’t know what you’ve heard but this doesn’t fit.
Who else here? They’re big lots around here. Stacking these things in with 15 foot setbacks on
the side doesn’t fit. I encourage you to consider these points because when you come in to these
meetings you often get one sided views. The preparation for these meetings is one sided. The
developers who work with the city planners. You send out a notice 10 days before the meeting
and you have people that try to rush to hurry up and come in and get their plans together and
counter that point. Also I think you don’t get the full other side of it because there’s a sense of
fatalism. I talked to one of the neighbors. Asked if they were coming. They said no, you know
this never works out anyway. And so you’re not getting the entire other side of each of these
fences. There’s this fatalism and from reading some of the transcripts I sense a similar fatalism
from the board that your charter is limited. That there’s only so much you can do, and I disagree.
I don’t think that’s true. If you look, the setback requirements. The lot size requirements. All of
those are minimums. Those are things best determined by the city staff. If that’s all that you had
to do is figure out is if these people meet the minimums, we wouldn’t need the board. City staff
could do that. We could send it right up to City Council. It’d be a waste to have this level of
review. You do have discretion. There’s a separate requirement that these plans have to meet
the larger goals for the city and I suggest that this one does not. Given that what I’ve told you.
Given hopefully what some of the other neighbors will tell you. Now you’re basically here to
provide reasonable limits. That’s what you have to do. You do have power here. You’re not
powerless to come out and take a look at this plan and see what it’s going to do. Take a look at
those trees. Take a look at Ken Lang’s property where the trees are staying up. You’re not
powerless to come out to look at the surrounding homes and see that these aren’t going to fit.
That the spacing doesn’t match. That these things are stacked in here. That we’re trying to turn
an older neighborhood into a cookie cutter neighborhood. You’re not powerless to come out and
see that these aren’t just dots on a plan. That they’re trees that are going to be cut down. You’re
not powerless to come out and see how these additional houses are going to cause added runoff
into the wetland. That doesn’t show up on the plat that you’ve been provided. And you’re not
powerless to push this project back so that you have time to do that. There’s an overlap problem
here. It’s been recognized. You can use that to give yourself a chance to figure out what this
project is and what it will do and whether it makes sense. And I hope that you truly do
understand that you do have this power. I know that you know that approval of the current plan
is not the right thing to do, and I hope that some of my neighbors will come up and help explain
further why it’s not the right thing to do. Thank you.
McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to make comment? Okay, seeing no one else
come forward, we’ll close the public meeting on this issue and we will bring it back to the
council for deliberation. Kurt?
Papke: No.
McDonald: Mark?
Undestad: Well…I think one of the comments was made about everything is at minimums on
there. It looks like lot sizes are above minimums. …above minimums. My question on the trees
out there, I think the applicant answered on the grading issue. If they custom grade each lot, they
don’t have to go in there and mow all these trees down right away until they get a custom builder
13
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
to design something on that site. Which I believe is the plan for there. Yeah, it’s another one of
the new developments in the middle of the neighborhood again, which we’ve been seeing more
and more of. It’s all that’s left out there. You know staff does spend a lot of time with the
applicant directly, and you don’t have a lot of time to bring it up here to argue your points on
here. The comment about how much can we do up here? It is our job to see does this fit? Is it in
the guidelines? And this seems, in my opinion it seems to be in the guidelines of meeting all the
setbacks… That’s it for me.
McDonald: Okay. Dan.
Keefe: Yeah, just in regards to the grading and what they’re calling tree preservation plan. It
isn’t clear to me which trees are being saved. I mean there are, as the audience members aid,
there are a number of dots on here but it does look like they are saving a number, or attempting
to save a number of the trees. Is that a fair statement? Particularly it looks like you know 30
inch oak, 26 inch oak, 24 inch oak, 22 inch oak. On the south end of, you know Josh maybe you
can sort of point out what’s there. There will definitely be some that come out but.
Undestad: …if they custom grade the lots…
Keefe: Right.
Metzer: I believe anything outside of the dashed lines here will be saved. The City Forester is
also requiring that 19 trees be planted in replacement of the trees that are being removed. City
ordinance requires a minimum canopy coverage per lot on residential properties and determined
on the amount of trees that are being removed, City Forester determined that 19 trees planted
over the development is sufficient.
Undestad: Josh real quick on the canopy coverage on there. We’re losing 1,089 square feet of
canopy coverage on this?
Generous: If I may, that’s just a way to calculate based on the area of canopy. You have to
remember the trees. It was developed in the early to mid 90’s. It’s just a way to enumerate it.
Undestad: You’re taking out one big tree that has 3,000 square feet.
Generous: Yeah, well we use that 3,000 square feet of area and then you divide that by 1,089 to
tell you how many trees to replace that one tree there. That’s right now. Now in the future when
they come in to custom grade the lots, they take out trees that they’re supposed to preserve, then
there’s a 2 to 1 replacement and that can be based on caliper inches so. And that could get, if
they exceed what they’re supposed to, you could get quite a few trees.
Keefe: The way I look at this, it looks like a 26 inch maple would come down…probably a 36
inch white pine. It looks like it would come down. And it looks like, and a 26 inch maple. So
you’ve got the 3 that are kind of towards the middle there, but what would be saved is a 30 inch
oak, 24 inch oak, 22 inch oak. 26 inch oak. 20 inch spruce. Is that what that is? 20 inch spruce.
So at least from what I can tell in terms of the really large significant trees, yes. You are going
14
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
to lose 2-3. But actually there’s going to be an effort to save the both of them, at least from what
I can tell on the plan. In terms of the lot size there, and they do exceed the minimum and yes
they’ll definitely be somewhat different if all of the lots adjacent to it are 1 plus acre lots. We’re
going to be going to smaller lot sizes. It does meet the ordinance so…
McDonald: Deborah.
Zorn: Bob and Josh, to what extent is the neighborhood sized lots, how were they considered
against the ordinance? In this neighborhood it seems that the average seems to be around at least
an acre and often times people move to a community, a neighborhood because of the lot size.
And I can see why their neighbors that were quite concerned that this is really just changing the
feel of the neighborhood.
Metzer: Technically the reason they’re permitted to subdivide to lower lots than surrounding
properties happen to be, you know it’s zoned single family residential. Minimum lot size 15,000
square feet. It’s land use designation is residential low density. 1.2 to 4 units per acre. It’s,
they’re permitted the right to subdivide down to, so if they meet the minimum requirements as
said, you know staff recommends approval.
Zorn: So as you’re working with the developer, do you ask them to take into consideration
characteristics of the neighborhood? Or do you simply advise them to seek the minimum?
Generous: We do work with them. Actually they came in with 5 lots and so we did talk them
down into the 4 lots. Unfortunately the zoning ordinance doesn’t permit that per se. It gives you
the standards. You try to build it in. We look more from health safety standards. Is the drainage
going to work? Are they going to create, over shadowing, over dominance on the neighboring
properties with this development. If you look just to the west across Forest, you have same lot
size. Probably smaller lots in there within this proposed development so. Over time yes, people
who bought a long time ago, that’s the way their land was split up. It has, they retire or they
have the same rights to come in through the process and if they comply with the ordinance, you
can’t stop them. Unless you purchase the property.
Zorn: Okay, thanks. No other comments.
McDonald: Kurt.
Papke: I think the developer has actually done a pretty good job. I don’t think we’ve seen one in
a while that’s had these dotted lines showing the saved tree area. This is actually a pretty nicely
drawn up plan, although it is somewhat ambiguous as to which ones will be saved and which
ones will be cut down. Some of them are obvious that they’re going to go but would have been
nice to have a table or something in here so we know exactly which ones stay and which ones go.
It’s unfortunate that we’re going to lose another old house in the community. Unfortunately
unless it’s registered historical landmark, there’s nothing much the Planning Commission can do
about it so, it’s a pity but that’s the way it goes so I think this one seems to meet all the
conditions. It really doesn’t border on the, any of the setbacks or anything like that. I think it’s a
reasonable plan.
15
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
McDonald: I guess the only comments I have is, I want to address the e-mail that was sent to us
and also your comments about what powers we actually have and what we can actually do. You
brought up the example of the home within this neighborhood that we went over about a month
and a half ago. It really comes down to individual property rights. We can only look at certain
limits and say that you can’t go below these minimums. That is the only thing that we can really
do as far as controlling how you use your land. Ordinance for nuisances and those types of
things. Other than that, everyone within this neighborhood has the right, if they can meet the
zoning requirements, to subdivide their land and you will probably see more of this. This is not
the first one of these that we have seen. We’re seeing them in most of the older sections of
Chanhassen because when it was first put together the lot sizes were quite large and now what’s
happening is, as people retire, that becomes their more or less savings account and they want to
cash in. They have the right to do that as long as they meet certain requirements. We cannot just
arbitrarily as a Planning Commission stop a project such as this unless it does not meet the
requirements that we have within the city ordinances. So we cannot just stop things in order for
us to look at it and determine how does it fit within a neighborhood. The ordinances are not built
around that. The ordinances are built lots and lot sizes and setbacks and those types of issues
that at least within a community it stops someone from coming in and chopping these things up
into say triple the size you have here. There are minimums you have to meet. That is all we can
oversee in this. Our role is not exactly a rubber stamp as you would maybe think because we end
up voting for this. Part of this is the public meeting. This is the public’s opportunity to come
forward and also question the judgment of staff. Staff comes to us and what the report tells us is,
based upon city ordinances, this is what’s met. These are the problems we’re having or you
know these are the concessions that are being made in this particular project. It was not an easy
decision for this commission to agree to tear down the house that I think goes back to like 1820
or something, but as Kurt said, it’s not our property. It is not on any kind of a register or rolls or
anything such as that. It belonged to an individual and he had the right to do with his property as
he wished as long as he met the conditions of city ordinances. It’s the same situation here. What
a developer has brought to us is a plan that is compliant with city ordinances. It meets the
requirements. And I’m afraid we do not have a lot of discretion to stop that plan. If you feel
strongly that this is wrong, then the next step is to go to City Council which at that point they
have the wherewithal to change or to recommend and make changes to these plans. All we can
do is go by what the ordinance says. And I think with that, then we’ll bring it back. Anyone
want to give me a recommendation on this?
Papke: Mr. Chair, I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
preliminary plat for Planning Case 05-42, Orchard Green for 4 single family lots as shown on the
plans prepared by Terra Engineering and stamped Received November 4, 2005, subject to
conditions 1 through 22.
McDonald: Do I have a second?
Undestad: Second.
Papke moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the preliminary plat for Planning Case 05-42, Orchard Green for 4 single family lots as
16
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
shown on the plans prepared by Terra Engineering and stamped “Received November 4,
2005”, subject to the following conditions:
1.Applicant shall submit a landscaping plan showing 19 trees as replacement plantings. Plan
shall specify size, species, and locations.
2.All areas outside of grading limits shall be protected by tree preservation fencing. Fencing
shall be installed prior to grading and excavation for homes on each lot. Any trees shown as
preserved that are removed or damaged shall be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches.
3.The water and sanitary hook-ups for lot 2 must be moved to the driveway in order to preserve
the 12” maple.
4.The developer must obtain all permits necessary to remove the existing homes.
5.The grading plan must be revised as follows:
a.All proposed contours must tie in to existing contours, particularly the 992’, 990’ and
988’ contours on the west side of Lot 1; and the 996’, 994’ and 992’ contours on the east
side of Lot 3.
b.Staff recommends that the low floor elevations for Lots 1 and 2 be lowered one foot to
achieve an 8 foot walkout. Staff recommends that steps be installed in the garage on Lots
3 and 4 to achieve an 8 foot walkout.
c.A drainage breakpoint elevation must be shown northeast of the building pad corner on
Lot 3.
6.Hydrology calculations must be submitted and shall include pre- and post-development
volume and peak discharge rates for the 2, 10 and 100 year rainfall events.
7.Any proposed retaining wall over four feet high requires a building permit and must be
designed by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
8.If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will
be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan.
9.The developer must acquire a Work in Right of Way Permit from the Engineering
Department before commencing work in the right of way and shall submit a financial
security to ensure that Orchard Lane and Forest Avenue are properly restored after the
services have been installed.
10.The developer shall pay the $29,298.00 trunk and lateral water and sewer fees in cash with
the final plat or assess them to the lots within the proposed development. The lateral
connection charges can be assessed at 8% for 8 years. The trunk hookup charges can be
assessed at 8% for 4 years.
11.Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans must be submitted with
the building permit for each lot.
17
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
12.Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited
to the MPCA and the Watershed District.
13.Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All
exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round,
according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Time
(maximum time an area can remain unvegetated
Type of Slope
when area is not actively being worked)
Steeper than 3:1 7 Days
10:1 to 3:1 14 Days
Flatter than 10:1 21 Days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed
soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter
system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man
made systems that discharge to a surface water.
14.Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street
sweeping as-needed.
15.The plans shall be revised to show the location(s) of the rock construction entrance(s).
16.The plans shall be revised to expand the drainage and utility easement in a straight line from
the point where the 978 elevation intersects the east lot line of Lot 4, Block 1, to where the
978 elevation intersects the 20’ sanitary sewer easement at the southern edge of Lot 4, Block
1. Standard drainage & utility easements shall be dedicated in all other locations.
17.Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 2.02 acres, the water quality fees
associated with this project are $2,208; the water quantity fees are approximately $5,464. At
this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording, is $7,672.
18.In the absence of parkland dedication, it is recommended that Orchard Green pay full park
dedication fees at the rate in force upon final platting. At today’s rate, these fees would total
$16,000 (4 lots x $4,000).
19.Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any existing structures.
20.Provide a cleanout on the sewer service for Lot 3.
21.Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
building permits will be issued.
18
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
22.The applicant shall resolve all property line disputes through legal verification with
Carver County prior to Final Plat submittal.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
BLUFF CREEK TWIN HOMES: REQUEST FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT,
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
CONSTRUCTION IN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT; AND
SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND HIGHWAY 101.
APPLICANT MARTIN SCHUTROP, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-36.
Public Present:
Name Address
Patty & Craig Mullen Chanhassen
Heather & Derek Benson Chanhassen
Martin Schutrop Chanhassen
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: Who wants to start?
Papke: I’ll start. First I’ll start with an easy one. Middle of page 4, right above the development
design standards. Additionally the development provides an integrated, and integrated what?
Okay, I’ll let you think on that one a little bit. Next one. The construction entrance, if I
understand things correctly, and maybe you can point out on a drawing exactly where it is, looks
to be pretty close to the current 3 way stop with 101 and Lyman. Is that correct?
Generous: Yes.
Papke: So, are you anticipating any traffic problems with that? I mean it just, people have been
driving through there for a long time and they’re not used to seeing people turn in at that spot.
You know I understand from one perspective that’s where you want them, it will kind of turn
into a 4 way stop. Is that the intent there?
Oehme: I’m sorry, on Lyman?
Papke: Yeah, the construction entrance where it intersects Lyman, that will basically take the
current 101 and Lyman intersection from a 3 way to, it will kind of make it into a 4 way stop. Is
it directly in line with the existing 101 or slightly off set or?
Oehme: Yeah, actually in conjunction with the 212 project, that whole intersection’s going to be
shifted over approximately I think 60 feet from it’s current center line alignment. There will be
19
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
turn lanes, both the left and right turn lanes associated with this development put in. There will
not be a stop condition there at all.
Papke: Okay, so you’re suggesting that by the time construction starts on this, 101 will already
be moved?
Oehme: Well next year 101, well Lyman Boulevard will be upgraded next year already. Under
construction. They’re building the bridge at Lyman currently right now and Lyman Boulevard
will be.
Papke: And that project is behind schedule from the last thing we saw in the newspapers. I’m
just concerned there’s going to be some confusion with that entrance there that’s all. It just, you
know depending upon when they start.
Oehme: That’s fine. We could maybe entertain a condition that access from Lyman be put in by
MnDot prior to any you know development building permits or something like that.
Papke: Last, these buildings are pretty tightly packed, particularly along the southern border
here and they’re pretty much in a dead line. The units seem to be, especially on the southern side
are kind of packed in and they’re pretty much along a line here. There doesn’t seem to be much
visual variation with the fronts of these things. I’m just concerned you’re going to be driving up
on 101. You’re going to look out to the left and you’re just going to see this solid row of these
twin homes with zero space inbetween them with no variation. And maybe the developer can
address some of the architectural variety here but just from a preliminary plat or conceptual plat
perspective, this just looks like a solid wall of townhomes.
Generous: Yeah, well it will look like.
Papke: A solid wall of townhomes.
Generous: Well you could have a solid wall of houses in there. The same set-up. These twin
homes give the appearance of single family homes. That’s part of the nice transition that they
provide. They’re not 6 units in a row or.
Papke: Right. Right.
Generous: Some of the architectural detailing they’re providing is really internally. You see
where they have the garages facing each other rather than the street. That’s one of the
architectural detail and that’s part of their integrated development design.
Papke: Ah, that’s the, okay. Okay.
Generous: Started to talk about it and didn’t continue that thought on it but they’re looking at,
instead of welcome to my garage where every house having the garage facing forward, we have
these units that have their garages to the side or the entrances to the garages to the side so they
share the common driveway, and again that’s part of the reason why there’s a variance requested.
20
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
Actually there’s two of them. One was because they’re sharing that driveway and technically it
becomes a private street and so we have to give them a variance to do that, but we believe it’s
integral to the design of the entire project to give this alternation and roofs. Visual character.
Papke: Okay. Okay, well I think I’ll let the developer.
Generous: And this, it does sort of stagger up so there is variation.
Papke: Okay.
Zorn: Two quick questions Bob. On the color scheme, is that literally color scheme or is that
related to architectural design? I’m just thinking of some townhomes that are in my
neighborhood that they are all the same color but they have different stone on the front.
Generous: No, these will have different colors and we’re looking at probably a green and maybe
a yellow and I can’t remember the third one. A tan or gray. Again maybe the applicant would
be better, because he’s also the builder which is unique for a lot of developments we see where
you have a developer and then you have the builders come in separately.
Zorn: And can you give me an example, you mentioned the Outlot B may be dedicated to the
city and it would be permanent open space. …an example of an identical permanent space be in
our city right now?
th
Generous: You know 41 and West 78 Street on the north side there’s those townhouse projects.
Highlands on Bluff Creek is the name. The wooded land on the north side of the project was
provided in an outlot and dedicated to the city. Another example is the, there’s two outlots north
th
of the Kwik Trip on the north side of West 78 Street. With the Kwik Trip property we got all
th
the land adjacent on the north side of West 78 up to the creek, and then with the development of
the four houses to the north of that, we got the north side of the creek there, so that became city
property and we’ll maintain it as permanent open space and that wildlife corridor as part of the
Bluff Creek overlay district.
Zorn: Okay, thanks.
McDonald: Dan?
Keefe: Yeah, I’ve got some. The entrance to the cul-de-sac is, did I hear turn off lanes into the
street or are there going to be turn lanes for this?
Oehme: Correct.
Keefe: Okay. What is the speed limit on Lyman? It’s 50 isn’t it along there or is it slowed up?
Oehme: It’s 45 or 50.
21
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
Keefe: Yeah. Okay, and what is the distance from the entrance there to the corner of 101 and
where 101 is, you’re saying that 101’s going to move a little bit east from there, correct.
Oehme: Correct.
Keefe: The distance of the entrance on this road to, I mean I recall looking at something on
Lyman a while back that we didn’t want to have the entrance onto Lyman.
Oehme: MnDot and the County have looked at this access point and they have.
Keefe: Okay…approval in terms of that access.
Oehme: Well I mean MnDot will be putting the turn lanes under the 212 project. It will be
providing that access point in this project, or under the 212 project.
Keefe: Okay, and will this be across from, is this going to be a 4 way at?
Oehme: Yeah. It will be 4 way into the new development to the north.
Keefe: Okay. Into the new development, alright. The retaining wall to the west side, do we
know what the height on that one is? It looks like they’ve got an 8 foot one on the south side. If
it’s out there, I didn’t see any markings on. Do you see one?
Zorn: Yeah.
Keefe: I didn’t see it on the plans at all. And then the depth of the flat part in the back of these
town homes, I mean you’ve got a pretty steep grade on the south end which you know goes into
Bluff Creek. You’re looking at 10 feet off the back of these town homes til you start going up.
Generous: Basically you’re looking at a 20 foot area.
Keefe: Okay.
Generous: Actually the individual, while the development will put in some retaining walls, if a
unit owner would come in later and decide that they want a little more area, it’s possible they
could add additional short retaining walls to make, give them a little more room in their rear
yard. There is.
Keefe: So we could go down the hill and…
Generous: Yeah, go down the hill.
Keefe: Terrace it or something.
Generous: Exactly.
22
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
Keefe: Because it’s pretty, I mean you’re looking at a drop off from what, 910 down to.
Generous: You may want to ask the developer about…
Keefe: It’s probably 15, yeah.
Generous: …I’m not sure that they’re the type of people that want all that.
Keefe: Yeah, okay. How does this, I didn’t see sidewalks. Well I guess there was a request for
a sidewalk on one side of the street.
Generous: Yeah, we require one on the south side of the street.
Keefe: Where does that tie into in terms of, you know where’s the future.
Generous: There’s a trail on Lyman on the north side.
Keefe: On the north side, so they would need to cross the.
Generous: Yeah, at that intersection that’s going to be created.
Keefe: Okay, and is that going to be a signalized intersection do you know at this intersection or
is it only at 101?
Oehme: It’s just at 101.
Keefe: So how are they going get across at 50 miles an hour speed limit?
Generous: Carefully.
Keefe: Okay. And the park that services this is Bandimere, is that correct?
Generous: That’s correct.
Keefe: And is there any cross now to, in that area? How would they get from here to
Bandimere?
Generous: They would go up to 101 and then there’s a trail.
Keefe: On the east side of 101, is that what the proposal is on the…trail on the east side?
Oehme: Yeah, the trail will remain on the east side.
Keefe: Okay. Alright. The private street, private streets, I presume that’s an association
maintained?
23
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
Generous: It would just be for the 2 units…
Keefe: Okay.
Generous: It’s the way that we have the garages that are facing each other rather than off of the
street. That will be a private street to access into them and it’s on the 3, well the 6 units but 3
driveways.
Keefe: The ones on the north side?
Generous: Well they’re all on the south side, but it’d be Lots 8 and 9, 12 and 13, and 16 and 17.
Keefe: Okay.
Generous: So then if you look at the elevations, then you don’t have every garage pointing out
towards the front.
Keefe: So how do they do that? Do they tie those units together with a maintenance plan or is it
an association would show that?
Generous: No, we have for each of those lots we have a cross access and maintenance
agreement that’s recorded as part of the subdivision.
Keefe: Alright, that’s it.
Papke: Mr. Chair, can I follow up? I’d just like to follow up on one question that Commissioner
Keefe brought up. So just to make sure I understand for a child riding his or her bike to
Bandimere Park, they have to cross Lyman Boulevard to get to the north side here without a stop
sign. Then they have to go down to 101 and cross Lyman a second time and then pick up the
trail on the east side. So there’s two crosses of Lyman that have to happen.
Keefe: Three. It’s Lyman twice and 101.
Papke: Yeah, three street crossings but Lyman twice with no forward progress if you will.
Generous: Yeah, you know as part of this looking should we make them come out to 101 there
but then they’re at mid block and there’s no crossing there either.
Papke: Which is what the kids will do.
Keefe: Well eventually I wonder if there should be a sidewalk or something along the east side
of this up to the corner of 101 and Lyman.
Papke: This just seems, it seems problematic. You know exactly what the kids are going to do
with that cul-de-sac backing right up to 101 there. They’re just going to ride their bike right
across that little strip. They’re going to be right on 101.
24
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
Generous: The only good thing is they will have a median that they can stop in.
McDonald: Mark.
Undestad: There’s nothing farther down 101 to stop at.
McDonald: Is that it? This thing about the path. I remember having this discussion before
about this area, especially about the path being on the east side of 101 and I’m having a problem
remembering how this is all going to be realigned because we’ve talked about this once before
because now with the new 212 coming down, that cuts this neighborhood off from the one that
currently exists, and I remember we had discussions about how these trails were all going to inter
connect and there was some discussion about one of the overpasses down at this end. I thought
we were looking at a trail there, and some kind of a system within here. Can you help me? I
mean is this just a void as far as the trails and everything or was this something that wasn’t
considered at the time when we were looking at this area before?
Generous: If I can remember correctly. They have to get to the north side of Lyman to get into
my trail system and that will take them east and west and if you go west there will be a trail that
they can connect onto. Once they go over one, or I think it’s over 212 they’ll be able to connect
into the trail system and that Chanhassen Hills neighborhood, which they can go back or they
can go up 101 where there will be a trail on the east side of the road.
McDonald: And is this the correct alignment for the new 101 to the east of this? Is that where
the new 101’s also going to be?
Generous: Yes.
McDonald: Okay. Because you’re looking at significant upgrades for 101. That’s no longer
going to be a back road’s street anymore. There’s going to be a lot of traffic on that.
Undestad: Is there any way of getting a sidewalk or a trail on the north side of this project to go
over that intersection? At least it keeps you from crossing Lyman two times.
Generous: I don’t know what the widths on, if they’re anticipating a crosswalk on the south side
of Lyman at 101. I’m not sure what MnDot’s intentions are for there.
McDonald: And who’s controlling all of that? Is that MnDot is the one who will control trails
or the whole road system through there?
Oehme: Well I think the City requested that the trails be installed in these areas. The city
wouldn’t be paying for them. They wouldn’t be put in at this time. So I think the parks
department you know recommended the locations and how all the access points would be taken
care of. At the intersection of 101 and Lyman I do believe there will be pedestrian crosswalks at
all 4 legs of that intersection there. So if a sidewalk or a trail could potentially be installed, I
would believe that the south side of Lyman or maybe the west side of 101. We really just need
25
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
to take a look at the topography and the setbacks and how that can fit into the existing right-of-
way to see if it works.
McDonald: Is there any possibility of using… Bandimere Park probably easier.
Keefe: They’d be coming off the cul-de-sac…because that’s going to be a signalized
intersection right? So that’s the place on the east side of Unit 6.
McDonald: I think that that’d be a good suggestion to follow up on. Now the next question I’ve
got, and this is a little bit of an education on my part but for twin homes, the lot size area can be
less than for a single family?
Generous: Yes.
McDonald: Okay. And then as part of this compromise you’re looking at getting 25% coverage
throughout the development. I think for most lots that sounds fair and reasonable but what are
we going to do if Lot 18 or Lot 7 or you know any of these others with, you know in excess of
roughly 10,000 come back and want to have more things on their lots. They’re probably still
going to be within the compliance. What are we going to do to enforce the coverage? I mean
you’ve got maximum site coverage per lot that on those lots you could easily exceed the 3,400
square feet.
Generous: Well then they would need to come in for a variance.
McDonald: But they shouldn’t need a variance is my point because of the size of the lot. I mean
what these are based upon is roughly a 7,000 square foot area and you’ve got 4 lots there.
21,000, 18,000. I mean they could come back and exceed the 3,400 and still be within the 25%.
Generous: Theoretically yes. We could do that. I was trying to figure out a mechanism that was
easily administrative.
McDonald: Okay. I just see that as being a potential problem because you know we’re going to
get a homeowner that’s going to come back with that size walk and they’re going to want to put
something, a swimming pool, a sport court, you know something such as that and they would
still meet our variances but they would go beyond what it is that you’ve negotiated here. Okay,
that’s the only comments I’ve really got for staff. Do we have an applicant to come forward and
present to us?
Martin Schutrop: Good evening Planning Commission. My name is Martin Schutrop. I live at
540 Lakota Lane in Chanhassen and I’m here to answer your questions about the proposed
development. If you have any questions. I think you addressed the line and I, you know we
have, we worked very closely with the staff trying to come up with a plan for this site because
there were so many restrictions with the overlay district and the wetland and then we had to deal
with the pipeline you know which took up a big chunk of this land so there’s so little useable
land on this acreage. But we had to try to maximize the amount of units that we could get in
there to make it affordable, and being a Chanhassen resident I mean there is no affordable
26
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
housing in Chanhassen anymore. I mean it’s, everything that’s single family, $600,000,
$800,000 single family so there’s no way to do that unless you find some of these and we’ve
tried different street configurations and none of them fit within the restrictions that we had to
deal with. So that’s why we came up with the plan of alternating the garages and coming up
with different color schemes that were just variate them and like you I drive by that site 5 times a
day. You know I don’t want to drive by it and have an eyesore either so that’s, our intention is to
make it very aesthetically pleasing when you drive by it and also to conform with what’s going
to be there in the future. I mean if you look at what’s proposed for the north side of Lyman, it’s
going to be a lot of commercial properties over there so, I think this will actually fit better than
single family homes on this site of course, but so that’s what we’re proposing and if you have
any questions I can answer those.
Papke: Back to that issue of kind of a linear appearance. Are your, your twin home plans, do
you have any gables or any kind of variation on the south side of those, of Units 7 through 18
there that would prevent this from looking like a wall.
Martin Schutrop: Well I don’t think it will look like a wall unless you stand in one spot and look
down at it. As you drive by and they’re all going to be different heights because the road’s
actually going to come down slightly I think towards the east, and the roof lines are going to be
varied. They’re going to vary between the garages. We’re going to switch them around and
have one garage like Bob was saying. You know one end load, one end load. Try to vary those
to make them look more single family residential. So our intention is we’re not going to build
something that’s going to look lousy so we can’t sell the units. Our market is to try to keep these
under $500,000, which is hard in this market. So that’s what we’re trying to do with a lot of nice
amenities and a lot of nice exteriors and that’s why we’re using different materials on the outside
of the units. We’re not going to have them all the same unit. All the same color. All the same
stone. They’re going to, we’re going to try to vary it a little so as you look down there’s going to
be some variation just because of that.
Papke: Okay. You heard the discussion about the trail access. What are your feelings about
providing some kind of trail, foot path, whatever access to that southwest corner of Lyman and
101? However you could solve it.
Martin Schutrop: Yeah, I think the end of the cul-de-sac is a natural way to come up to Lyman
and have them cross there. Anything else that brings you farther south on 101 is going to be
problematic anyway. And as far as having people cross right at the cul-de-sac, I think we’re
planning on putting quite a bit of tree barrier in there so that won’t be an issue, and there’s going
to be a berm there too so.
Papke: A kid on a mountain bike, that’s just a challenge.
Martin Schutrop: Well, and I think a lot of these units are probably going to be occupied by
more empty nester type people. There won’t be a lot of, I don’t see this as a development where
there will be a lot of children. I see it more as an empty nester type development.
27
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
Papke: And they’ll certainly want to access that walking trail down to Bandimere Park. I mean
that trail is very heavily used along that so.
Martin Schutrop: Yeah, I see this, I agree totally.
Papke: So you’d be receptive to an amendment to a condition here to provide that kind of trail?
Martin Schutrop: Yeah, just a walking path to that corner.
Papke: Okay.
Keefe: You mentioned berming and I kind of, I didn’t see any on the grading plan. Give me a
sense on where you’re going to berm and what your screening is.
Martin Schutrop: Yeah, the screening will be basically on the north side where the parkland is in
line, there’ll be a small berm. Kind of an overlay, as long as we don’t cover the berm line, or the
pipe line. Yeah, we can actually go into that easement and berm it as long as we don’t cover it.
Keefe: So what type of elevation can you get?
Martin Schutrop: I think it’s going to be probably 4 feet. You know 3 or 4, and then larger trees.
We tried to get Magellan to move the pipeline to the north side but they don’t want to spend the
money so.
Keefe: Yeah, how about on the east side?
Martin Schutrop: There’ll be a tree berm and some smaller berms on that side. I mean we can’t
go too high because of the drainage issues. We don’t want that to drain into the units so.
Keefe: On the south side you’ve got a fairly significant drop off onto the wetland area. What is
the distance you’re looking at from the back of these units? Are they going to have patios off the
back?
Martin Schutrop: Well they probably won’t have patios. I mean we propose more of a retaining
walls for bigger back yards. I mean the city came back and said they wanted less. They would
rather have the grade just go down to the wetland naturally rather than have retaining walls. So
we’re proposing at least 20 to 25 feet behind each unit being fairly level and then gradually
tapering down.
Keefe: And then the retaining walls you’re proposing are what, with some sort of boulder.
Martin Schutrop: They’ll be a boulder. They’ll be natural boulder retaining walls. We don’t put
Keystones or timbers or anything.
28
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
Keefe: Yeah, okay. The tie in, from your perspective where this ties in to Lyman and, you know
in terms of sidewalk going in. I mean it’s nice to have a sidewalk go in there but are people
going to go across there? …given what your market is. Any thoughts on that?
Martin Schutrop: In the cul-de-sac you mean?
Keefe: No, the other part.
Martin Schutrop: Have a sidewalk go out to that.
Keefe: Yeah, because I mean 50 miles an hour.
Martin Schutrop: Well they’re going to be slowed down a bit coming to that intersection.
Keefe: Right.
Martin Schutrop: Because there’s going to be turn lanes, and I’m assuming that they’re not
going to have 45 miles per hour speed limit all the way to that stop sign. They’re going to have
to slow down at some point and transition to the other side of Lyman. So I don’t think they’re
going to be driving that quickly.
Keefe: That’s it. Thanks.
McDonald: Mark.
Undestad: Just to follow up on Jerry’s question. You have an association or if somebody
decided they wanted to need larger lots to put something in there.
Martin Schutrop: Well that’s not going to be, I mean all the units are going to be fairly the same,
all going to be the same size and the same units. There won’t be any kind of part of the
association. You won’t be able to put a pool in or sport court and things like that. That’s going
to be a restrictive covenants.
Undestad: …problems.
Martin Schutrop: Oh yeah, because I don’t think, most associations don’t want sport courts and
pools, so as a part of that, we’re not proposing any, anything additional. If they’d like to add on
a porch or a deck or something of that sort, they could do that.
McDonald: Just to follow up on that then. What you’re saying is there will be an association
covenants for all this and within that you’re going to maintain this 3,400 square feet maximum
coverage. That that will be part of the covenant that anyone moves in with.
Martin Schutrop: Yeah, I guess that’s part of the PUD, right?
Generous: It’s part of the zoning for that.
29
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
Martin Schutrop: Yeah, the zoning. We really don’t have any say in that. Staff has dictated that
to us.
McDonald: I have no further questions.
Martin Schutrop: And then the other thing too, the spacing between the units. We’re more than
the minimum because we didn’t want, the minimum was 5 feet?
Generous: 5 feet yeah.
Martin Schutrop: 5 feet. I think we’re 9 feet.
McDonald: Okay, so it’s 18 total from one side of the house to the other. What you’re talking
about is from the house to the property line.
Martin Schutrop: Yes.
McDonald: Okay, so it’d be a total of 18 feet.
Generous: No, the drawing it shows 4 ½ foot to the property line.
Martin Schutrop: 9 foot total.
Generous: And I was recommending a 5 foot setback, side property line so it’d be a 10 foot
total.
Martin Schutrop: But what I understand is that we could have went closer.
Generous: Yeah we, well the design standards are part of the process. This is my attempt at
drawing something. You could have proposed, the building code permits you to go to within 3
feet. And then the fire code kicks in and opening, protection and all that. So this is, right now
what we’re proposing is a 5 foot side setback. If that doesn’t…get that revised. If you want to
go to 4 ½ feet, that would be a change that would need to be done.
McDonald: If no further questions then thank you.
Martin Schutrop: At this point I will open up the meeting to the public. If anyone has comments
or wish to ask questions, please come forward.
Deb Lloyd: Good evening. Deb Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. You were asking some questions
about the landscaping and I heard, there was a, it doesn’t sound like there’s a solid landscape
plan. I don’t know if you have one in front of you. But, you do? Just tree placement?
Keefe: Retaining walls. There’s a total landscape.
30
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
Deb Lloyd: Okay. I just want to remind you that PUD’s should have high quality design
standards reflective of the architecture and the landscaping. In fact the code says they should
reflect higher quality designs than found elsewhere in the community. And affordable housing is
a component of this as well. I’m probably not really current with housing rates but $500,000 is
like far from what I considerable affordable. I’d like to point out a deficiency in the staff report
as well. Under setbacks on page 5, under interior public right-of-way. The 30 feet except Lots 1
and 2 which shall be 20 feet. There’s no variance findings in the report for that setback
deviation. The variance finding would be a requirement in the report. So that was I don’t know,
an oversight or over looked. There’s another error in the report as well. If you look on page 3
on the findings of fact, start with street width. Point 6. a, b, c, d then you have point 7, a, b, c
and then you start variance findings, private street. 7 again, a, b, etc.. Something is not reading
correctly and definitely the findings of fact and/or any documentation in the report supporting
why you should have a different setback requirement for Lots 1 and 2 have not been discussed or
written about. Thank you.
McDonald: Thank you.
Keefe: Want to address it sometime?
Generous: Yes, as part of a PUD you establish the standards as part of the design standards so
there are no variance findings for that. It would be the proposed design standards. The
proposed, this is, the PUD is the zoning for the property so.
Papke: To clarify…this is a preliminary plat so we see this one again, yes or no?
Generous: You won’t see it again, no.
Papke: Okay, so this is our last chance.
Generous: Right.
Papke: They’re doing both concept and preliminary at the same stage. Usually you get concept
where they don’t have this much detail and then the preliminary comes in.
McDonald: Does anyone else wish to come forward and make a comment? Okay, seeing no one
come forward, I’ll close the public meeting on this application and I’ll bring it back up to the
commissioners. Why don’t we start with Mark.
Undestad: Well I think overall it’s a nice fit up there in that corner. It is a tough site to work
with. You’ve got a couple of main roads on both sides of you and wetlands on the other end
there so. You know I like the idea the applicant’s willing to look at putting that sidewalk in and I
know that will be an issue whether the people that live there use it or those who come to visit.
They may want to find their way over to that park, so.
McDonald: Okay. Dan.
31
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
Keefe: How do I deal with the variance? I mean in terms of no variance findings in the report. I
don’t think I’ve ever encountered that before.
Generous: My contention is because it’s a PUD it’s not a variance. You’re establishing these
standards. The setback as part of the design standards.
Keefe: Okay, I see what you’re saying.
Generous: Now I agree with the, you have to have the findings for the private street and the
street width.
Keefe: Right. So what are we doing right now?
Generous: She is correct. 6 should be, Variance Findings (Private Street) and 7 is Variance
Findings, Street Width.
McDonald: Okay, just clarify where are you at?
Generous: It’s in the attachment. It’s for private streets you have, there’s two criteria that you
have for plan one that it meets these standards and also that it meets the variance standards. So
it’s just labeling them. It’s page 3 of the findings of fact.
Keefe: 6 Variance Findings street width is correct?
Generous: The sixth variance finding should be private street.
Keefe: And then the other one should be street width?
Generous: Right.
Keefe: And the numbering should be what?
Generous: Well the numbering is fine.
Keefe: Well it goes 6, 7 and then 7, 8. Should be 8, 9?
Generous: Or you could make it d, e, f, g you know. Instead of saying 7 say e and then sub that
a, b, c, d.
Keefe: Okay.
Generous: I can correct the numerations.
Keefe: Yeah, if you will correct those. You know, just to revisit my comments. I generally
support this plan. I think it’s, I think it’s a difficult corner and I think it certainly is the
appropriate use for that corner. So I’ll leave it at that.
32
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
Zorn: I guess I just had two discussion points, and I too think it’s a good plan. I have a concern
with the closeness of the units and right now, just to clarify, that the units are going to be too
close at 9 feet?
Generous: Yes.
Zorn: To the wetland.
Generous: They had it at 4 ½ foot setback. That would not comply with the design standards
that I drafted.
Zorn: So would we need to add that as an amendment?
Generous: Well you could change the design standards if you go to 4 ½ feet or change to 5 or
you could go to 3. This is one step where your input is you know what you want to see there.
Zorn: Okay, well I would say I’d want the minimum at least and I can make an amendment for it
to be at 4 ½. So that would be my first comment. And second.
Papke: It’s currently at 5 right?
Generous: Yes. The drawing is at 4 ½.
McDonald: Do you want to leave it at 4 ½?
Zorn: No, no. I would not be in favor of leaving it as is. Yeah, correct. So making a
recommendation that that needs to be addressed. And then in addition to the side lots discussion,
making sure that there is access from the cul-de-sac to the sidewalk along the west side of 101.
To put one in. The developer was open to.
Papke: No, hook it in up here. That’s where the crossing is. There’s no crossing right there.
There’s no sidewalk.
Zorn: The discussion was to add sidewalk along.
Papke: Or something up to that.
Zorn: Okay, so that would complete my in favor of adding then.
McDonald: Okay. Kurt.
Papke: Nothing to add.
McDonald: I guess at that point, the only comments I have is that, I think this is a difficult
corner. You come up with a fairly good use for it. My concerns again are the task. I think
33
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
people need access to points along through here but we’ve had this discussion before about this
particular area. I understand some of the restrictions but if we’re going to do developments such
as this, I think we have to solve that problem. The issues about the intersection, I have to say
I’m confused. I agree that’s going to be a 4 way stop. I don’t see where that can be a pedestrian
crossing but I think you’ve got to come up with something there. You’ve got a problem there.
I’m not sure it’s the developer’s problem. It’s probably city’s more than his but I appreciate the
fact that you’re willing to add a path over to the east side because that will help to alleviate some
of the problems we’re coming up with. Other than that, that’s all the comments I really have.
And at this point I guess I would ask for a motion.
Papke: Alright, I make a motion that the, A, the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the comprehensive plan amendment incorporating the property into the current MUSA. B, the
Planning Commission recommends approval of the concept and preliminary PUD rezoning the
property from A2 to PUD-R, Residential, incorporating the development design standards
contained in this staff report. And C, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
preliminary plat creating 18 lots, 2 outlots and right-of-way for public streets with variances for
the public street right-of-way width and the use of private streets to access Lots 8, 9, 12, 13, 16
and 17. Plans prepared by Ryan Engineering dated October 28, 2005, subject to conditions 1
through 46 as stated in the staff report. I’d like to add two additional conditions. I’d like to add
condition number 47. That the developer provides trail access to the southwest corner of 101
and Lyman. Condition number 48. That the developer revises drawings to adhere to the 5 foot
setback requirements. And then motion D, the Planning Commission recommends approval of a
conditional use permit to develop within the Bluff Creek Overlay District subject to conditions 1
and 2 as listed in the staff report.
McDonald: Okay, do I have a second?
Keefe: Just a brief amendment to your first additional amendment which would be trail access
from the bubble of the cul-de-sac to the southwest corner.
Papke: …go to the bubble or just say provide an access to the southwest corner.
McDonald: Well first of all we have to vote on what you proposed and if you want to propose a
friendly amendment or an adversarial amendment, then you have to bring that forward.
Keefe: Yeah, right.
McDonald: I believe that’s the way it has to go. We have to vote on it.
Generous: I think the Robert’s Rules of Order you actually have to move the amendment first
and then you move the rest.
Papke: If you remove it, you don’t go.
Keefe: I’m willing to drop that. Understand your argument.
34
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
McDonald: Then do I have a second?
Undestad: Second.
Papke moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment incorporating the property in the current
Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA). All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Papke moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the Concept and Preliminary Planned Unit Development rezoning the property from A2,
Agricultural Estate District to PUD-R, Planned Unit Development-Residential
incorporating the development design standards contained in the staff report. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Papke moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
the preliminary plat creating 18 lots, two outlots and right-of-way for public streets with a
variances for the public street right-of-way width and the use of private streets to access
lots 8, 9, 12, 13, 16 and 17, plans prepared by Ryan Engineering, dated October 28, 2005,
subject to the following conditions:
1.A sidewalk connection on the south side of the street from the internal street cul-de-sac to the
intersection of Lyman Boulevard shall be provided.
2.The development shall pay full park fees in effect at the time of final plat approval.
3.Applicant shall resubmit for city approval a landscaping plan that includes 84 trees. At least
one tree is required in each front yard. Common areas must be sodded and provided with
irrigation. Native plantings will be required along the southern edge of the development
parallel to the wetland. These plantings shall be species selected from the Bluff Creek
Management Plan planting list.
4.Applicant shall meet the minimum number and types of plantings required for the
bufferyards.
5.A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that
fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
6.Temporary street signs shall be installed on street intersections once construction of the new
roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4.
7.Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed.
Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of
construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided.
35
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
8.Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of
fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities.
Pursuant to Minnesota Fire Code Section 503.2.3.
9.No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be
removed from site or chipped.
10.Submit street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for
review and approval.
11.Two additional fire hydrants will be required; one at the intersection of Lyman Boulevard
and the new proposed road, and one in the area of Lot 13/14.
12.A minimum 16.5 foot buffer strip shall be maintained from the delineated edge of the
wetland. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the
City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the
direction of City staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign.
13.A drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated over all of Outlot B. The developer may
dedicate Outlot B to the City.
14.All structures shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer.
15.All structures shall meet a 40 foot structural setback from the Primary Corridor boundary of
theBluff Creek Overlay Districtas required by Chanhassen City Code. In addition, no
grading shall occur within the first 20 feet of the Primary Corridor. The plans shall be
revised to eliminate grading within 20 feet of the Primary Corridor.
16.The plans shall be revised to include the City of Chanhassen’s standard detail 5300 for silt
fence. Type 2 silt fence shall be used along the southern grading limits and at the normal
water level of the pond. Type 1 silt fence shall be used elsewhere. Silt fence shall be
installed around the storm water pond at the pond’s normal water level until surrounding
areas have adequate vegetative erosion control established.
17.The plans shall be revised to include City of Chanhassen standard detail 5302A for Wimco or
similar catch basin inlet protection.
18.All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year
round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can
Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area
10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.)
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
36
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed
soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter
system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man
made systems that discharge to a surface water.
19.All erosion and sediment control measures shall be installed and maintained in accordance with
City, Carver County Water Resource Management Area and MPCA permit requirements.
20.A SWPPP should be developed by Ryan Engineering for the site which would encompass an
erosion and sediment control plan. The SWPPP is needed prior to applying for the NPDES
permit.
21.Erosion control blanket is needed for the slopes NE of lot 18 and the southern slopes from about
the 912 / 910 proposed contours to the bottom of the slope within 14 days of final grade.
22.Energy dissipation at the FES inlet to the permanent storm water pond is needed. A detail is
needed.
23.The proposed storm water basin must be used as a temporary sediment trap during construction
and must be excavated in the initial construction phases of the development. A temporary
diversion berm should be constructed to divert runoff from lots 18 to 11 into the pond. This
should be included in the SWPPP.
24.A temporary outlet and / or a temporary stabilized EOF for the temporary basin is needed.
25.Inlet controls are needed for the CB’s within 24 hours of installation. A detail is needed;
Chanhassen city specifications are Wimco type inlet control or equal.
26.The silt fence as proposed is running up and down the slope along the west and east boundaries
of the site. The silt fence must be installed with J-hooks to effectively provide sediment control
and not concentrate runoff to the south.
27.A concrete washout area is needed in the SWPPP; silt fence, sump area and rock driveway
should be used and could be located in Outlot A.
28.A permanent outlet structure is needed for the permanent storm water basin in the southwest
corner of the pond. Detail is needed.
29.A stable emergency over flow (EOF) is needed for the permanent storm water basin. Riprap or
a turf reinforcement mate (TRM) could be used and specifications and detail area needed.
30.The contractor shall inspect daily all erosion control measures and perform maintenance on
BMPs as needed or required.
37
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
31.At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat
recording, is $21,857.
32.The final plans must include the following revisions:
a.Existing contours within 100 feet of the proposed development must be shown on the
plan.
b.Note the top and bottom of wall elevations for all retaining walls.
c.Note the location and elevation of the emergency overflow on the east end of the cul de
sac.
d.A full-size drainage area map must be submitted.
e.A five-foot wide concrete sidewalk must be constructed on one side of the street.
f.Show the proposed street light layout.
g.A stop sign must be installed at the intersection at Lyman Boulevard.
h.All plan sheets must be signed by an Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
33.If import or export of material is required for the development of this property, the applicant
must submit a detailed haul route to the City.
34.The existing well and septic system must be properly removed/abandoned.
35.The developer must field verify the sewer and watermain stub locations and elevations. If
the stubs have not been installed the developer shall directional bore the utilities under
Lyman Boulevard. All costs and permits associated with this work would be the developer’s
responsibility.
36.Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's
latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and
specifications must be submitted at time of final plat and shall include all required
information.
37.The applicant is required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the
necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee
installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval.
38.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g.,
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES
Phase II Construction Site Permit), Department of Health, MCES, Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources (for dewatering), Army Corps of Engineers, Minnesota Department of
Transportation, Minnesota Department of Health) and comply with their conditions of approval.
39.Access and maintenance agreements shall be recorded against the benefiting properties for
the private streets.
40.Buildings over 8,500 sq. ft. in size must be protected with an automatic fire protection
system. The State of Minnesota is in the process of revising Chapter 1306 of the Minnesota
State Building Code regarding fire protection systems. It is not yet entirely clear how these
changes will affect residential construction. It is important that the developer meet with the
38
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
Inspections Division prior to final design to determine what ramifications, if any, the new
requirements will have on the project.
41.Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures on the site. Existing
utilities and on-site sewage treatment systems must be abandoned in accordance applicable
regulations.
42.A final grading plan and soils report must be to the Inspections Division before permits can
be issued.
43.Retaining walls over four high must be designed by a professional engineer and cannot be
constructed until a building permit is obtained.
44.The applicant shall create a Homeowners Association to take responsibility of the retaining
walls and maintain them.
45.Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire-
resistive construction.
46. The buildings will be required to be designed by an architect and engineer as determined by
the Building Official.”
47. That the developer provides trail access to the southwest corner of 101 and Lyman.
48. That the developer revises drawings to adhere to the 5 foot setback requirements.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Papke moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Conditional Use Permit to develop within the Bluff Creek Overlay District subject to the
following conditions:
1. No grading is allowed within the first 20 feet of the Primary Corridor boundary.
2. All structures must meet a 40 foot structural setback from the Primary Corridor boundary.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
39
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
PUBLIC HEARING:
STONEFIELD: REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE
DISTRICT, A2 TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, RSF, SUBDIVISION REVIEW
FOR 30 LOTS, 1 OUTLOT AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH VARIANCES ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1601 LYMAN BOULEVARD, APPLICANT PLOWSHARES
DEVELOPMENT, LLC, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-37.
Public Present:
Name Address
Dave Hess 8682 Flamingo Drive
Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard
Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Papke: I’ll start. Between the amendments to the city code we changed tonight and the huge
number of conditions in here, I don’t think I followed how we’re handling the minimum 90 foot.
We just amended the city, the ordinances tonight to go from a 90 foot lot width at frontage,
correct?
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Papke: And there are lots in the proposal here that do not meet that, correct?
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Papke: And point me to the condition that makes these lots satisfy that or is there no such
condition right now?
Al-Jaff: There’s no such condition right now. At the time when final plat appears before the
city, if they meet current ordinance requirements.
Papke: Then there’s no issue.
Al-Jaff: Then there is no issue. If the ordinances that you adopted were approved by the City
Council and published, then that becomes the new ordinance that they need to meet, and the final
plat would have to be adjusted accordingly.
Papke: Just to minimize confusion, would there be any legal issues if we just added a condition
to stipulate 90 foot lot widths tonight so that we don’t have to re-visit this or what are.
Al-Jaff: Your, the ordinance today.
Papke: Yes, we have to. We have to follow the ordinance.
40
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Papke: Dang. That makes it very confusing.
Al-Jaff: The setback from the pipeline is a zoning setback. That is something that they would
need to comply with, whether everything gets approved today or a month from now. They
would have to comply with that.
Papke: I just have one other, it’s probably pretty trivial question. On page 6 there was a mention
of use of shredded wood should be considered. Okay. For what and again I didn’t see anything
in the conditions to stipulate that. I mean it’s a nice wishful thinking statement but what do we
do with that? What are you really proposing there? But then it starts talking about site exit pads
so are we talking, what are we actually considering the shredded wood for use on? You know
over what areas? You know I understand it’s erosion control but where are you proposing to put
it and where is it enforced within the conditions? Or is it not? Are you just suggesting that that’s
something we should chat about?
Al-Jaff: Just a suggestion. And it’s over…and I will make sure that I work with Lori Haak, our
Water Resource Coordinator to clarify this further before it get to City Council.
Papke: Okay.
Zorn: Sharmeen, I’ve got a question in regards to the wetland. There are 6 that are identified.
Can you just remind me and everyone here this evening what incidental refers to. 5 of the 6 are
considered incidental and are exempt.
Al-Jaff: Those are man made ponds. For instance there is an existing pond right now in this
area. That’s a storm pond. It’s man made. Therefore it does not, it’s exempt.
Zorn: Okay, so if someone thinks that it’s not a true wetland, even though it likely looks like a
nice prairie wetland right now that…protected.
Al-Jaff: Often when you look at ditches along highways you’ll see cattails in them.
Zorn: Okay.
McDonald: Dan.
Keefe: Keeping on the water theme. Can you just sort of describe, I mean we’ve got a lot of
steep grades on this property. You even indicate in your report historical problems with erosion
on this property. Can you just kind of give us an overview of how the water flows and what the
water management plan is. Before I get into specifics I’d like to kind of.
Al-Jaff: Sure. One of the problems that we have encountered deals with water and erosion
problems in this area. One of the projects that are currently being undertaken by the city and
going back to our Water Resource Coordinator, Lori Haak, she is working to try and expand this
41
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
pond. Stabilize grades. Minimize erosion. Currently, if you…there is a valley in this area.
With the grading of this site, all of these grades will be changed and water redirected to flow
into, this will become a regional pond.
Keefe: Even the southern end?
Al-Jaff: The southern end.
Keefe: Where we’ve got real steep grades.
Al-Jaff: The southern end will be maintained to the west. There is a swale that’s being created
along the southern portion of the site. And it should maintain the natural drainage pattern.
Keefe: Currently the properties to the east, are they large lot or are they commercial or what is
it?
Al-Jaff: Property to the west?
Keefe: East…and then to the west is, is it ag to the west side?
Al-Jaff: We have city park out here. And then, well you have large lot in this area.
Keefe: Okay, so in terms of where we’re directing the water to get out, to drain off this property,
it’s going to be going into the large pond that is going to be expanded potentially to the
northeast?
Al-Jaff: Majority of the water will be draining in that direction.
Keefe: Then on the southern end it drains into, will drain into the adjacent property or where
does that go?
Al-Jaff: It will be, there is a ditch that is being created, a swale that’s being created.
Keefe: In terms of the runoff.
Undestad: Does that take it down to that storm drain down here? That private storm?
Al-Jaff: Can the engineer answer the question regarding the drainage pattern?
Kurt: …how well it comes through. What we’re looking at here is the drainage map. There is 6
½ acres of drainage that will sheet flow into this existing swale that is the discharge for this, the
pond up here. This water coming from the west and a majority of the hard surface will be
redirected to the pond. Just a, give you something to compare that to, what is happening now
and to get a feel for some of the issues and some of the drainage problems they’ve been
experiencing. Currently this is a farm field and there is 26, 23 acres approximately that just sheet
42
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
flows into this same swale that we are now taking down 6 ½ acres. Greatly reducing the rate of
erosion through that ravine and giving a mechanism for controlling that discharge rate.
Keefe: So you’re saying the water flows from the west property through this property to the
pond. So how does your grading work?
Undestad: How does the water get to the pond? Back to that creek.
Keefe: Yeah.
Kurt: This area is higher than our development and there are rear yard catch basins going along
these lots to collect the drainage. Take it into the street storm sewer. And there’s a low point in
the road over here. This is coming up to match back into the existing grades. This starting to
shed some light on it a little.
Undestad: Then the lots on the other side.
Keefe: Do they all slope, the lots on the east side.
Kurt: The lots on this side, you know we are putting the rear yard drainage and some of the
house drainage along the swale and it’s going to be private storm sewer and simply discharge at
the base of the slope so that it doesn’t pick up a lot of momentum and pick up sediment.
Keefe: And then the lots north of that.
Kurt: These are just going to be sheet flowing, almost exactly as they are now. …it will be
maintained lawn versus a crop which is sometimes better.
Keefe: Okay.
Undestad: Is that pond then, does that get piped?
Kurt: This pond apparently discharges.
Undestad: Into that field at the bottom of the plat there.
Kurt: And it flows over, through here and makes a new ravine and eventually gets to a culvert
underlying.
McDonald: Where are these private pipes that you were talking about that were not going to be
maintained?
Kurt: Right here in these rear yards. There’s just one catch basin here. That’s our man
hole…here.
43
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
Keefe: I guess in terms of comfort level the city has with, you know I mean just given the issues
we’ve had with water this summer and the steep grades associated with this particular piece of
property and how comfortable are we with the solution. That we aren’t going to create issues
when the property to the west develops. It doesn’t look like, it looks like the west is even higher.
It looks like the west flows into this property more than, because from my understanding is the
property to the west is going to develop at some point single family more than likely.
Al-Jaff: The storm pond would have to be sized to accommodate all of the water. And there is
an expansion of the storm pond proposed. Engineering department were working with 100 year
calc’s. Drainage calc’s.
Keefe: So, we just have to meet the standards associated, alright. Thank you.
Undestad: Wait a minute while we’ve got the engineer up there. One more question on the
retaining walls that you show on there. The by others. Is that something that again, I mean I
know that you have a comment in here that the custom grading doesn’t make sense. The walls
that you’re going to propose on there, these have been lowered I understand from where they
used to be and those may be kind of exhausted all options on even trying to get those down even
smaller or.
Kurt: Maximum wall height was originally 20 feet. Typically be graded in for a lot and we were
able to lower that to a maximum height of 10 or 11 feet. We shifted this road connection point
over 20 feet. Because of this hill here we had to come up and tie into existing grades and make
sure that this connection would work in the future to extend this. By moving this over 20 feet,
we were able to lower that 4 feet and make it, it will be a little more of a similar transition to
extend this road over to Audubon. And because we’re working with some custom builders of
homes, we have some privileges to do a garage low which means the garage is going to low side
and they just have to kind of do it, it just needs a little more attention. It’s not going to be any
sort of big drainage issue. And then staff brought down another 3 feet or so and then we pulled
the wall in slightly and end up with our results going from 20 feet max height down to 11.
Undestad: So when you moved that road that way, is that what moved the line? Or was it
keeping 5 acres to the south?
Kurt: Well our grades are being pinned by where we had to tie because we were, this is the
maximum allowed grade. Slightly under, 6.9. I believe you guys allow 7 is your typical
maximum so by moving that down it just shifted the whole road down and then by moving the
garage to the lower side of the lot, shifting the house down with that. We also extended the
basement from a 9 foot to a 10 foot and taken some liberties with a custom builder again that we
can try to reduce some of those walls.
Undestad: And the walls are boulder walls out there that they’re proposing?
Kurt: Yes.
Undestad: Okay.
44
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
McDonald: I have a couple questions for you. The pond and Lot 3, I’m not quite sure I
understand that. Are you saying that, at that point if the pond is extended, does that put
restrictions on Lot 3 that it’s not usable anymore?
Al-Jaff: If I said Lot 3, then I mis-spoke. It should be Block 3.
McDonald: Block 3.
Al-Jaff: And this is Block 3. This entire area. The back of these lots can accommodate
ponding.
McDonald: Okay. So it’s Block 3.
Al-Jaff: Yes.
McDonald: All the lots in Block 3 will get ponding. Okay, then the other question I’ve got, we
planned for a connection to the west property. What about a connection to the south property?
What’s going to happen with that? Is that developable?
Al-Jaff: It really isn’t developable. It has extremely steep grades, bluffs. It’s in the Bluff Creek
Overlay District. There are too many issues…
McDonald: Okay, so we don’t have to worry about somebody coming in at some point and
wanting an access into that.
Generous: They could come from Audubon or Lyman.
McDonald: But it’s highly unlikely because of the land.
Al-Jaff: That’s what we believe. That it is highly unlikely.
McDonald: Okay. That’s all the questions I had. Anyone else? Would the applicant like to
come forward and add anything else that we haven’t already discussed?
Nathan Franzen: Sure. Good evening Commissioners. My name is Nathan Franzen with
Plowshares Development. We got into a few of the comments already but this is our fourth
project since 2000 in Chanhassen and we’re very pleased to be back servicing a new
neighborhood. I just want to tell you a few of the general comments about the neighborhood that
we find very attractive and appealing is just the good balance of the different types of lots. We
have 17 walkouts, 2 lookouts and 11 full basements. We also have a nice variety of larger lots
that can accommodate a pool or large play structures. We also have some that are wooded for
people to have less lawn if they choose to. So overall for us it’s a great project. We’re talking to
3 custom builders. We’re about 95% there getting our contracts done. I’d let you know who
those are as soon as I’m able to. They are approximating their home prices, the lot and home
prices to be starting in approximately the 550 range and going up to somewhere in the 900 range.
45
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
Their typical home will be a 4 to 5 bedroom, 3 car, 2,500 square feet. You’re pretty standard
Chanhassen home that you see lately. And just, I want to go over a couple things that we’ve
been working on with staff. This is our second submission. Our first submission we pulled, due
to two staff concerns and that was primarily the retaining walls that we talked about, and the
other one’s the livability of the lots themselves. Staff had concerns that we didn’t have enough
rear, flat rear yard and we, and in conjunction with the, looking at the retaining wall issue we
made sure that every lot had 20 feet of useable rear yard space. We also, I hope you all
understand what happened with the retaining wall. It was a very teeter tottering effect between
saving trees and reducing the height of the walls. If you have more questions about that, we can
certainly get into that. We also did hold a neighborhood meeting. We had about 30 people
attend. My opinion of what the neighborhood concerns primarily consisted upon some, there are
some existing trees along this edge and along this edge. Between the proposed lots and existing
lots. The neighbors had concern about those. Unfortunately most of those are going to be
removed because of drainage creating some swales along property lines. We did commit to
planting as many trees as possible. I think if you look at our landscape plan you’ll see that we’ve
taken as much liberty with the trees along the existing development so that we can buffer our
proposed lots with the existing lots. And lastly on the ponding issue, I’ve been working directly
with Lori on the pond and the city’s consultant has been working directly with Kurt and we don’t
anticipate any problems incorporating a larger regional solution into the design of our project.
And if you have any questions about that, any more specific we can get into it but that is the gist
of my comments. If you have any questions.
Keefe: I’ve got a couple questions. You know just looking at the tree inventory, I mean you
guys are taking out a lot of trees. Even in the report it talks about that you exceed the
recommended number. Can you speak to what you guy’s strategy was in regards to that?
Nathan Franzen: Sure. The existing property as proposed actually doesn’t even meet your
ordinance because it is mostly a farm field. So even if we came in with 0 removal we’d still be
below ordinance and we’d be penalized in planting above and beyond. So I just want to start out
there so that’s where we started from. And the majority of the tree loss does happen on the
southern end of the site where we’re trying to make that road connection and it has always been
our desire to save as many trees as possible and that’s why we came in with such large retaining
walls at first, with the 20 foot walls which are very expensive for us to construct. But we feel it’s
worth building because it allows people to be closer to the trees and we saved more trees doing it
that way. Working with staff we were able to come to a compromise which, you know there’s
always the age old question between engineers and trees and which is more important. The steep
grades, the higher retaining walls, so this really went back and forth but I’m actually pretty
happy with how it turned out because our tree line loss from our first proposal, which had a 20
foot wall, is almost in the same location and we were able to achieve that through what Kurt
described in shifting the road slightly to the south. I guess the long and short of the question is, I
think we’ve done it as best as we can on this site and that, I guess that’s my comment.
Keefe: The other question is in, I think it was mentioned a trail connector I think through Outlot
A. Can you kind of direct me?
Nathan Franzen: It’s the blue line.
46
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
Keefe: Okay, to take you over to the park. And is there a sidewalk along the road or is there
just?
Nathan Franzen: There’s a sidewalk on one side, yeah.
Keefe: That’s all I have.
McDonald: Okay. Kurt, you have anything? Deborah? Mark?
Undestad: I just had a couple quick ones here. Kind of goes back to that drainage and that pond
and stuff. It’s all at the bottom of that Power Hill Park over there. There’s an outlet that doesn’t
really show on my utility plan here but there’s an outlet out of that pond that comes out by.
Nathan Franzen: You’re talking about this outlet?
Undestad: Yes. And that just surface drains along the back field there?
Nathan Franzen: Correct, it currently does. As this is proposed, that’s what happened, but in
working with Lori, the city has already hired the consultant to accommodate some additional
plans and some of the ideas the consultant is looking at is adding a second pond in this location
and then actually doing a wetland bank for that water to even slow the water down. The big
problem is that there’s too much water going too fast through that ravine and when it gets down
to the bottom it’s totally washing out.
Undestad: So if you leave it at the bottom of that field where it’s washing out it’s.
Nathan Franzen: Correct.
Undestad: Right now you can slide down there and it disappears.
Nathan Franzen: It’s somewhat of a safety hazard I know for people sliding. And the solution.
Undestad: Is that going to change then when you do this?
Nathan Franzen: Yes. When the city project that’s being, basically what’s happening is the
city’s coming in to fix the greater issue. It just so happens that we are developing at the same
time so we’re going to piggy back and work together when we have our SAD equipment out
there, we’ll be fixing it but the answer is, yes. We’ll be addressing that, the start of that ravine,
the water that flows into that ravine. Slowing it all down. Providing more storage. It’s a big
regional fix.
Undestad: The other thing looking on your tree preservation plan back there, I noticed that about
half of the trees that you’re saving back there are the box elder and the elm trees, which all those
big maples disappeared and the elm trees are hanging around which pretty much you can count
those every year on how fast they die out and tip over back there.
47
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
Nathan Franzen: Yeah and unfortunately since the tree survey was taken we even lost a few of
the big maples to the wind storm but it’s, again I think we’ve done is the best we can to
accommodate saving as many trees as possible.
Undestad: And that, Sharmeen you made a comment that all this was taken into the entire site.
If no trees were cut down they still wouldn’t.
Al-Jaff: They would still need to do a replacement. A reforestation and that’s what the
reforestation ordinance looks for is to take farm fields and.
Undestad: Put trees in them.
Al-Jaff: Put trees in them.
Undestad: Right. But the farm field part wouldn’t have changed anyway. It’s the wooded area
on the other side that’s kind of getting tore up in there. Okay.
McDonald: Okay, is that it? Okay, at this point we have no further questions and this is a public
meeting. I will throw it open to the floor. Anyone wishing to come forward to make comments,
please do so. Just state your name and address and address the commission.
Dave Hess: My name is Dave Hess. I live at 8682 Flamingo Drive. My property is against
Power Hill Park. Four lots down a hill from the entrance to the park so I get a first hand view of
the overland flooding that occurs when we have intense rainfall out there. It’s a river and it goes
into that gully and it erodes and it’s a problem right now that needs to be fixed. I have to trust
that the engineers will figure out a way to fix the drainage there. But I don’t know that I’d want
to own one of those lots down in that valley either once it gets developed but that’s an
engineering situation that I don’t want to get into but just a couple of things that I wanted to talk
about is Power Hill Park as you know is a sledding hill and the sledders go onto this private
property now I believe and they sled all the way up to where that washed out area is. Now it
sounds as though they’re proposing a drainage pond right where these sledders will be going and
has there been talk about safety issues with sledders going onto this pond or is there a berm
proposed that will stop the sledders or a wall that they can smash into or what, it hasn’t been
addressed yet tonight. I assume it’s been addressed but…
Al-Jaff: There will be, actually one of Commissioner Undestad asked the same question a few
days ago and there will be a combination of plantings as well as a berm.
Undestad: They want to try to slow you down with short grass, tall grass and tallest grass but
again I mean that kind of came before potential pond down at the bottom of the hill too so I’m
not sure where that was laid out in there.
Dave Hess: Okay. My primary concern I guess is the steep grade. I think Dan has addressed
that in his comments so. It’s a difficult site with some hydraulic issues and some erosion
problems. I have to trust that it’s being looked into. Thank you.
48
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
McDonald: Thank you. Anyone else?
Rick Dorsey: My name is Rick Dorsey. Property at 1551 Lyman Boulevard. I want to ask a
question related to that drainage. The engineer suggested that the water flow eventually goes to
underneath Lyman. Where is that? Can you tell me that.
Nathan Franzen: It goes under Audubon.
Rick Dorsey: So how does it get, can you show me on here, on the bigger map, the flow of the
water.
Undestad: Degler’s. Goes down Degler’s driveway.
Kurt: It snakes down through the woods. Under the driveway back along this and then
dissipates into this…
Rick Dorsey: Then just another quick question in the subdivision where the southern part is
being separated off. Are there any issues in doing that now with future plans to redevelop
Lyman Boulevard as far as access points? That kind of thing. I’m aware they’re trying to get rid
of access points because they want to take mine so I just want to find out you know what, how
that parcel fits into the whole thing too. Thank you.
McDonald: I think that was the question that I asked where you assured no development.
Al-Jaff: No development down in that area.
Rick Dorsey: There’s a house there now.
Al-Jaff: Correct, but there is no additional proposed homes in that area and everything should
stay status quo.
McDonald: Anyone else? Okay, seeing no one else, we’ll close the public meeting and I’ll
bring it back up to the commissioners for comments. Start with Mark this time.
Undestad: Well, I think I got most of my questions answered in there. I guess you know still the
draining issues around there are still, they finally answered it enough. Both on the bottom of the
sliding hill and what washes into that creek down there. It all leads down to Lyman. Again I did
talk with parks about, you know the bottom of the hill with how to control the sledders down
there. There is a chunk of that creek, that ravine right now that just drops straight down in a hole
and it’s a fun place to hide for those… If we dump all this water into there and again surface
drain it right across there, is there going to be a real problem down there once that starts going in.
If we put another pond in down there, now we’ve got everybody sliding down a hill into a pond,
which isn’t bad in January when it’s froze up but if it was a November snowfall, they’re going to
be sending them right down into a thin layer of ice in there. I think that’s something that still
needs to be looked at down there as far as drainage does. The overall plan, the design of the plan
49
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
I think is, they did a good job. He came back and changed retaining walls, explained all that and,
yeah I think just still a little bit of an engineering to work on there. That’s it.
McDonald: Dan.
Keefe: Yeah, this is what, the fourth, I think the fourth development Plowshares has come in and
I think they really work well with the city and I commend them for really putting some effort in
and working with the city to try to address the issues. I too am very concerned about the water
and anything they can do to minimize the runoff, particularly in light of what we’ve experienced
this past summer. Over design is probably the operative word now just because we’re finding
out that water, especially if we are getting heavier rain, more rains and you know 100 year events
on a frequent basis. We need to start anticipating that. In addition to that I would like them to
take another look at the, the trees that they’re cutting to see if they might save you know a few
extra, especially the more significant trees. I know you guys have really gone through and done
a nice job of inventory but take another look at it and see if you might be able to save a couple
more if at all possible so. Otherwise I think it’s generally a good plan.
McDonald: Deborah.
Zorn: I think it is a, it looks to be a good plan this far as well and it’s nice to see some variety in
the home plans that you also included. On the tree note that Dan just mentioned, staff, you
recommend on the bottom of page 10 for alternatives to be researched by the applicant and I
didn’t see that as part of the recommendations listed as one of the additional items so I guess I
would be open to moving that perhaps to an amendment. And I guess I share some of the same
drainage concerns as well. Those are my two comments.
Papke: Nothing to add.
McDonald: Nothing to add. I guess the only comment I’ve got is that, as I understand the way
all this is now draining, it looks as though we’re fixing a problem here but what about
downstream and the whole southern half of all this property? I guess I would feel better with a
total comprehensive plan but what are we going to do with this water? The sledding hill is a big
issue. A potential liability that we really don’t want to get into. I mean as you point out a
November snow, there’s a pond down there, that, you’ve got to stop people from getting on the
ice and I know that that’s a continual problem. It’s probably just as much of a hazard down there
now but with the ravine and everything but I think that’s got to be tied in as part of the solution
to all of this. I’m a little hesitant, I realize we can’t hold it up because of lack of a
comprehensive plan and I guess I will trust staff and the developer to work together in that area
but I think you’ve got a problem with the water and I don’t see a solution. I really don’t. I see it
for this property but there’s property downstream. There’s other impact of a city park. There’s
more than just this development and I think you can’t just look at fixing things here and
everything else takes care of itself. So I think that needs to be looked at a little bit better so that
we do solve the problems but other than that, with what’s going on and you know we get this
thing developed, yeah. You’ve done a good job. You’ve come forward with some good housing
plans and some good I think marketable inventory for the city so I’m pleased with all of that.
50
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
The custom homes and those things will probably add a lot to those lots to the south. I guess
that’s all I’ve got to say on this. I’m done so can I get a motion.
Keefe: I’ll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning
Case number 05-37 for rezoning from Agricultural Estate District, A2 to Single Family
Residential for the Stonefield Subdivision as shown on plans stamped “Received November 18,
2005”, and the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for
Subdivision Case number 05-37 for Stonefield for 30 lots and 1 outlot with a right-of-way width
variance as shown on the plans stamped “Received November 18, 2005”, subject to conditions 1
through 27.
McDonald: Do I have a second?
Papke: Second.
Keefe moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Planning Case #05-37 for Rezoning from Agricultural Estate District, A2 to Single Family
Residential for the Stonefield Subdivision as shown on the plans stamped “Received
November 18, 2005”. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of
5 to 0.
Keefe moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
preliminary plat for Subdivision Case #05-37 for Stonefield for 30 lots and 1 outlot with a
right-of-way width variance, as shown on the plans stamped ‘Received November 18, 2005’,
subject to the following conditions:
1.The applicant will be required to meet the existing site runoff rates for 10-year and 100-year,
24-hour storm events. The proposed enlargement of the existing stormwater pond must be
designed to meet the City’s minimum standards and coordinated and approved by the City
Water Resources Coordinator.
2.The storm sewer must be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Storm sewer sizing
calculations and a full-size drainage map must be submitted with the final plat for staff
review and approval.
3.Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm
drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood
level.
4.Staff recommends that Type II silt fence, which is a heavy duty fence, be used adjacent to the
existing wetland, existing creek area, and around the proposed pond. In addition, tree
preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. Erosion control blankets
are recommended for all of the steep 3:1 slopes with an elevation change of eight feet or
more.
5.All plans must be signed by a registered Civil Engineer in the State of Minnesota.
51
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
6.Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not
limited to the MPCA, NPDES, Watershed District, MN Department of Health, Carver
County and the Williams Pipe Line Company.
7.The developer must obtain written permission from the Williams Pipe Line Company to
perform the proposed grading within the easement. The developer is responsible for
complying with all conditions of the Williams Pipe Line Company and assumes full
responsibility for work performed within this easement.
8.On the utility plan:
a.Show all the proposed storm sewer pipe type, size and class.
b.Show the sanitary sewer pipe slope and class.
c.Show watermain pipe class (C900).
d.Add a storm sewer schedule.
e.Show the existing storm sewer between Lots 1 & 2, Block 1 within the center of the 20-
foot utility easement.
f.Show the stormwater manholes rim and invert elevations.
g.Add a note to remove the temporary pond outlet control structure.
h.The last street-accessible storm manhole discharging to the stormwater pond must be
manhole with sump.
i.Add a note: any connection to an existing structure must be core drilled.
j.Extend the storm sewer farther to the south along the proposed street.
k.Remove Lots 7 and 8 backyard storm sewer and add a storm sewer along the property
line between Lots 4 and 5 and between Lots 8 and 9 block 4.
9.On the grading plan:
a.Show Type II silt fence adjacent to wetland, pond, creeks, etc.
b.Show the benchmark used for the site survey.
c.Use class 5 storm sewer in the roadway; revise the note under general grading and
drainage notes accordingly.
d.Extend the swale between Lots 1 and 2, Block 4 farther to the east.
10. Any retaining wall over four feet in height must be designed by a registered civil engineer
and a permit from the City's Building Department must be obtained. In addition,
encroachment agreements will be required for any retaining wall within a public easement.
11. The underlying property has not been assessed for sewer or water improvements. The 2005
trunk hookup charge is $1,458.00 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,955.00 per unit for
watermain and the SAC fee is $1,525.00 per unit. All of these charges are based on the
number of SAC units assigned by the Metropolitan Council. Sanitary sewer and watermain
will
hookup fees be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit
issuance.
52
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
12. All disturbed areas must be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to
minimize erosion.
13. Any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner.
14. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will
be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes.
15. The developer is responsible for 100% of the cost and construction of the lift station and
forcemain and any associated costs.
16. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City’s
latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to
enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in
the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and
the conditions of final plat approval.
17. Add a “dead-end road” sign at the cul-de-sac.
18. On the plat, show all existing and proposed street names.
19. Add City Detail Plate Nos. 1001, 1002, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1009, 2001, 2101, 2109, 2110,
2201, 2204, 3101, 3102, 3104, 3106, 3107, 3108, 3109, 5200, 5203, 5204, 5206, 5214, 5215,
5216, 5217, 5221, 5232, 5234, 5240, 5241, 5300, 5301, 5302, 5302A and 5313.
20. Show the street lights and a stop sign on the plans.
21. Submit public utility plans and profile for staff review.
22.City Forester’s Conditions:
a.A minimum of two overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of each lot.
b.The developer shall be responsible for installing all landscape materials proposed in rear
and side yard areas.
c.Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any
construction.
d.Tree preservation on site shall be according to tree preservation plans dated 10/14/05.
Any trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans will be replaced at a
ratio of 2:1 diameter inches.
23. In the absence of parkland dedication, it is recommended that Stonefield pay full park
dedication fees at the rate in force upon final platting. At today’s rate, these fees would total
$120,000 (30 lots x $4,000). Additionally, the applicant is required to construct the
53
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
neighborhood asphalt trail connector to the property line as depicted on their preliminary
plan submittals.
24.Water Resource Coordinator’s Conditions:
a.A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be
maintained around Wetland D. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and
staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland
buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and shall pay
the City $20 per sign.
b.All structures shall maintain a setback of at least 40 feet from the wetland buffer edge.
c.The applicant shall work with the City’s consultant to accommodate regional and site-
specific storm water needs.
d.The approximate location and extent of drain tile shall be shown on the plans. The
applicant shall provide details as to whether the tile line will be removed, abandoned in
place or remain. If the tile is to remain, the flow from the tile shall be accommodated in
the design of the storm water management plan.
e.The applicant shall provide rate control and storm water treatment to reduce off-site
impacts. To provide a low-gradient means for controlling rate and volume, the applicant
shall consider cooperating with the City to construct a wetland in the rear portions of any
number of Lots 1-8, Block 3. In the event that the applicant is interested in pursuing
wetland construction for banking purposes, this planning shall be integrated with the
City’s consultant’s storm water infrastructure planning.
f.Drainage and utility easements (minimum 20 feet in width) shall be provided over all
existing wetlands, storm water infrastructure and storm water ponds.
g.The developer asserts that, due to the steep grade in the southern portion of the property,
custom grading would not save any additional trees. In addition, the developer maintains
that the slope of the road and the location of the retaining wall make custom grading lots
impractical. If the developer demonstrates to the satisfaction of staff that custom grading
for their typical house pad would not result in additional significant tree preservation,
mass grading of this area may be approved.
h.The existing outlet structure of Pond A shall be removed and replaced in accordance with
the City’s standard detail. A stable emergency overflow (EOF) shall be provided for the
pond.
i.The portion of the silt fence that runs from the pipeline easement through Lot 7, Block 3
shall be moved upslope to the west by 30 to 60 feet to more clearly define the grading
limits. The area of property between the silt fence and the gully and property line shall
54
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
be seeded and mulched to control weeds and get a desirable cover crop in areas that were
recently farmed.
j.A temporary basin shall be constructed in the vicinity of Lots 6 and 7, Block 3. The
temporary sediment basin shall be installed prior to disturbing upslope area. A
temporary perforated riser and stable emergency overflow (EOF) for the basin shall be
installed; details shall be included in the plan. The basin shall be properly sized for the
watershed area, according to NPDES requirements (i.e. The basins must provide storage
below the outlet pipe for a calculated volume of runoff from a 2-year, 24-hour storm
from each acre drained to the basin, except that in no case shall the basin provide less
than 1,800 cubic feet of storage below the outlet pipe from each acre drained to the
basin).
k.Chanhassen Type 2 silt fence shall be provided for the perimeter of the site up to Lot 10,
Block 3. From there, Type 1 may be used. Silt fence shall be shown on the plans around
Lots 1 and 2, Block 1.
l.Curbside inlet controls are needed; Wimco type or ESS type (or approved similar
protection) inlet controls shall be used. Curbside inlet protection shall be provided for
existing inlets adjacent to the site exit on Osprey Lane. City standard inlet protection
details 5302 and 5302A shall be included in the plans. The proposed rear yard catch
basin protection shall be revised; Wimco type, ESS type or equal must be used. The
proposed silt fence shall be installed with additional rock around Chanhassen type 1 silt
fence.
m.The plans shall be revised to show energy dissipation for the flared end section on Lot 7,
Block 3.
n.Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All
exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year
round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Type of Slope Time (Maximum time an area can
Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area
10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.)
Flatter than 10:1 21 days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any
exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a
curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or
other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water.
o.Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and
street sweeping as-needed.
55
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
p.In order to fund the maintenance and expansion of the BC-P4.10 storm water pond and
construction of additional capacity, the costs will be allocated among the benefiting
properties. The total cost of materials and construction will be divided by the number of
acres in the resulting subwatershed. The City will be responsible for the acres
contributing from land already developed, park land and land to be developed in the
future (e.g., the Bongard parcel). The developer will be responsible for the acres
contributing from their development. If, for any reason, the regional storm water facility
is not constructed, the developer will be responsible for providing storm water quality
and quantity management on the subject property and paying Surface Water
Management connection charges in accordance with City Code. At this time, the
estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is
$65,364.
q.In conjunction with the BC-P4.10 storm water ponding project, land in addition to the
land shown in Outlot A may be required. At this time, the estimated amount of land is
approximately 0.5 acres. The developer and the City will seek to agree upon the terms of
the use of land for ponding should additional land be required. The developer, if required,
shall provide additional land for ponding.
25.Fire Marshall Conditions:
a.No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must be
either removed from site or chipped.
b.Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be
installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the
time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided.
A fire apparatus access road shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed
load of fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all weather driving
capabilities. Pursuant to Minnesota Fire Code Section 503.2.3.
c.Temporary street signs shall be installed on street intersections once construction of the
new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section
501.4.
d.A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
e.Fire hydrant spacing is acceptable.
f.Submit proposed street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for review and approval.
56
Planning Commission Meeting – December 6, 2005
26.Building Official Conditions:
a.A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
building permits will be issued.
b.Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site.
c.The developer must submit a list of proposed street names for review and approval prior
to final plat of the property.
d.Retaining walls more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and
a building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
e.Separate sewer and water services must be provided each lot.
f.Existing wells and on-site sewage treatment systems on the site must be abandoned in
accordance with State Law and City Code.
27.The retaining walls shall be maintained by a Homeowners Association.
28.The City shall not be responsible for maintenance of storm water infrastructure on Lots 7, 8,
and 9, Block 3.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Al-Jaff: Mr. Chairman?
McDonald: Yes.
Al-Jaff: There are 28 conditions.
Keefe: Oh, you added one didn’t you. 1 through 28.
McDonald: The handout sheet you gave us. Could I get a correction then.
Keefe: Yes. Conditions 1 through 28.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:Commissioner Papke noted the verbatim and summary
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 15, 2005 as presented.
Acting Chair McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:45 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
57