1987 06 24
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 24, 1987
e
Chairman Conrad called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m..
MEMBERS PRESENT: Tim Erhart, Steven Emmings, Ladd Conrad and David Headla
MEMBERS ABSENT: Robert Siegel, Howard Noziska and James Wildermuth
STAFF PRESENT: Barbara Dacy, City planner and Jo Ann Olsen, Asst. City
Planner
SUBDIVISION REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 105 ACRES INTO 37 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON
PROPERTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL ES'TATE AND~ATED AT THE-SO~W~AND
SOUTHEAST CORNE'RSOF HWY 101 AND CO. RD. 14, DONALD HALLA:"
Jo Ann Olsen presented the Staff Report on this subdivision request.
Conrad: This is not a public hearing but I think we'll ask for some
comments. Mr. Halla if you would like to talk or have a representative
talk.
Bob Bruno: I'm an attorney for Mr. Halla. I was here at the last meeting.
We have a better picture of this northerly alignment. This is all Halla
Nursery property right now. This portion has quite a few growing trees on
~t. Quite a large number of large trees. Anywhere from 7 inches in
~iameter. The Halla Nursery buildings are located over in this area in
Block 1, Lots 8, 9 and 10. After the last meeting when the Planning
Commission requested that we provide some dedicated streets instead of
private drives, we did meet with some of the land owners down to the south
of Block 2 to see if there was some agreement that could be reached about
this easement. At the present time there is an easement which abuts the
southerly line of Block 2. It's 30 feet wide. The road going on that
easement. All of this property was deeded at one time or another to Roy and
MarIas Teich and they provided a number of easements to people. They
provided an easement over that 30 feet to Halla Nursery. It was to David
and Donald Halla which has been assigned and is now owned by Halla Nursery
which provided access through that easement to each one of these landowners
in this area so all of these people here had access to this road which is
the next 30 feet south of the line there. What we propose to do, since
these landowners to the south are not interested in paying for any
assessments. Were not interested in turning land whatsoever to the building
of a road over that 30 feet and improving that 30 foot road which is now a
road, is going to be a road forever. It's on the deeds. It's in perpetuity
for roadway and drainage purposes. Instead of burden them, they didn't want
to be burdened with paying for assessments, we decided to put the road
entirely on the proposed subdivision and we did that by moving it 6 inches
to the north. Now that would put two abutting roads together but I think we
have come up with a picture here now with the northerly route that I think
is going to resolve all the issues. All of the lots have got access to a
~ublic street. There is a through situation. Something Staff wanted for
..,ire and safety purposes to allow emergency vehicles access from either the
I~
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - Page 2
4Itorth or the west. I think this plan is very workable. The entrance onto
TH 101 is staggered from here. We don't have a situation where you've got
two abutting streets. You can have 90 feet of roadway here or 90 foot
double entrance onto TH 101 that really amounts to. MnDot has technically
approved the outlet here next to another outlet and I frankly don't
understand why they would do that. To me, as a driver coming down the road
around this curve to be suddenly confronted with a double entrance onto TH
101, I just think would be pretty dangerous. There's a very poor sight
situation here because of all the brush growing up in this ravine. That
brush is not owned by the applicant so there isn't any control over who is
going to cut that brush down to improve the sight lines there. Moving it up
to the north I think we're going to solve the safety issue of having a
double outlet right here. Moving it to the north, all of the lots will be
renumbered. Accordingly there will be a Block 4 and then Lots 1, 2, 3, 4
and 5. The lots up to the north here are Block 2, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6
and we've simply revised the phasing schedule which renumbered these
particular lots. I guess I have some problem with what Staff has suggested
about this being done as a municipal improvement project and the reason they
wanted to do that I think is so they could assess the owners the south. We
don't need to do that anymore when the applicant is going to be furnishing
the road himself. We had a phasing plan, if you followed the phasing plan
it called for the lots down in this area to be developed first and then
these lots, these lots. There was a pattern to it because the applicant did
not want to disrupt his nursery business all that much. There are trees
~ere. If this road is to be put in as a municipal improvement, it's going
~o be completely ruin all the phasing. It's going to immediately turn all
of this property into residential. It's going to remove some very mature
trees along this right-of-way and that would be a tremendous expense to the
Halla's so this plan I think makes a lot of sense. It will be paved as the
owner originally proposed to be done. I don't see any objection to the
phasing in as we had proposed earlier. We would like to keep that phasing.
It's pretty crucial to my client's business here to be able to remove these
trees as time goes on so he can plant and put these roads in at his own
expense and obviously assess them to each one of his own lots as he sees
fit without the city or another contractor becoming involved in building
this whole thing and then the problem of the assessment of all the owners I
think is cumbersome. putting a road abutting a 30 foot easement on here
doesn't solve any of the problems. That easement has been existing in
perpetuity and we might as well put the road fully on the applicant's
property and let him pay for the entire thing and let him phase in as he
sees fit. That's just what this plan does. It allows for him to continue
on with his nursery business and not put all of these lots into immediate
residential status which they would be if the city needed to build this
public street the way the Staff is proposing. He would be forced to sell
these lots immediately. He doesn't want to do that. He wants to keep the
nursery business. He wants to remove the trees in this area gradually and
in a logical manner so I think we would recommend that this alternate be
approved. I think it answers as many questions as anything. You're always
going to have this easement problem to the south. It's not going to be
cured by abutting the street onto it because that road is going to be there.
_11 these landowners and Halla Nursery all have the right to use that 30
L
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - Page 3
~eet and that's going to be there. The only way that could be resolved is
if the City or some other government condemmed it and took it because right
now, all of these property owners have private rights to that road and even
the years isn't going to take that away so I think this is a very logical
way. MnDot has approved this entrance over here on TH 101. It's quite a
ways away from this very sharp, dangerous curve down here with a maximum of
sight distance. Much better sight distance than there would be at what the
Staff is proposing. What used to be Outlot A is not Lot I, Block 4 and we
don't mind the restriction on what was Outlot A provided it's got a
reasonable time put on it. To says it's going to be unbuildable forever I
think is unreasonable and we suggest one year for the City or MnDot or
whoever is going to take TH 101 and straighten it out there. They make some
decision about what they're going to do within a year. To say that it will
never be built upon I think is unreasonable. Somebody has to be able to use
it at some point in time. We would agree that Outlot A could be restricted
for one year. Number 2 on the recommendations here require a dedication, of
course, we are talking about a right-of-way easement along here. We don't
like it. We're giving an additional 27 and 17, an additional 44 feet there
when there is no one who has any plan to approve highway 101. No one wants
the road and to give 120 feet of right-of-way which is what this would
amount to is a bit unreasonable. Again, these are fairly narrow lots. No
one would be building in that portion anyway. We would allow that portion
of it if that's necessary. I don't think anyone would want to build that
close to TH 101 so I don't that's a concern as long as it's an easement and
~ot the street. Again, number 5, I guess here we have an alternative to
-'umber 5 which is to have the applicant build the road and not have the City
or County become involved in a municipal project. Any questions about this
alternative? I know it's kind of a last minute situation but when Staff
came up with moving this down to next to the this one, we felt that this
would just serve us much better as a street.
Conrad: I think we'll have questions later on. Are there any comments?
It's not a public hearing but does anybody have any other relevant
information that they would like to share with us on this subject? Okay,
quick question Jo Ann, how do you see the public improvement road, south of
that, how do you see that land developing?
Olsen: We had an application in for one of the sites but it's presently on
hold until this one has been resolved. Other than that, it's under that one
unit per 10 rule. There are no intentions from what I've heard from the
property owners to develop it but there is one site that does want to
develop 5 acres into two buildable lots. The only other large property
owner is Teich and exactly how much he has I don't know.
Conrad: with the applicant's new plan which totally puts the burden on
themselves and makes a lot of sense for phasing and for not forcing
premature development of the property, why should we not consider that real
seriously?
Olsen: We're not saying to not consider it seriously but Staff still
~refers having the road, just to provide street frontage to those existing
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - Page 4
4Ilnd any future homes there to the south. With the street being located on
the southern property line or even if they wanted to do it half and half,
that provides those properties with public street frontage so they will
always be maintained to provide better emergency and safety access.
Conrad: But they don't want it apparently.
Paul Graffunder: That is incorrect what he said. All of the property
owners that were at the meeting said they will give the 30 feet that is
their property already as an easement towards the roadway. They said they
would give that up with no problem whatsoever. I just wanted to make that
clear.
Bob Bruno: I guess I have to dispute that. I've been in contact with Dave
Teich who owns the 10 acres in this area right here. He would not give any
additional land unless he was guaranteed that he would not pay any
assessments for it and that totally killed any idea without total
cooperation. It would have to take total cooperation for this to be
possible. I wrote him a letter requesting the same thing. I had an
agreement drawn up even so far as to have an agreement drawn up which would
hold him harmless from any assessments but he wouldn't sign that so we don't
have 100% cooperation.
Conrad: So the negative, if we follow the plan that's just been submitted,
~otentiallY we'll be creating another road sometime.
Headla: Has Teich gone on record with the votes, he isn't here is he? Is
he going to notice the village that he does not want to participate? So we
really don't know from any other source what his position is? What bothers
me is I tend to like the one discussed this afternoon because apparently
from what we know, and I'm not sure that what we know is accurate but from
we think we know, he does not want to be involved with assessments. That's
his decision. Have you had a chance to look at this plan that came in this
afternoon?
Olsen: Yes.
Headla: Do they meet the minimum acreage on all lots?
Olsen: I haven't gotten the calculations on it.
acceptable.
It would have to to be
Headla: If that meets the minimum acreage requirements, is there any reason
to consider it unacceptable?
Olsen: No, again they are both acceptable it's just Staff had preference
over the other.
Headla:
because
e=hem in
I guess I kind of like that plan that came in this afternoon
apparently not all parties want to pay for assessments. Why involve
something they have no control over? I guess all the other
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - page 5
4Ilecommendations were good.
I don't have any further questions.
Emmings: Would the driveway for Lot 9 be on the new road that you proposed
there rather than out to TH l0l?
Bob Bruno: Access would be along this area. It's now Lot 4, Block 2.
Emmings: I guess what I was wondering is if Lot 5, if you could get 5 onto
that road as well to prevent another access onto TH 101 if we were to go
with this plan.
Bob Bruno:
I think you might run into problems with Lot 3 here.
Headla:
Is there a turning problem? Is that what you're saying?
Bob Bruno: No, I don't think there's a turning problem. I think it's a
problem of taking acreage on these three lots here.
Emmings: Let's go up one lot further. 6 will access where?
Don Halla: The County has approved that onto CR 14 and MnDot approved Lots
9 and 10 to be together on that. The old 9, I'm looking at the old numbers.
4 in the new numbers, 4 would be on the public road, not off of TH 101. The
only one would be 10 or 5 in the new numbering system that would have access
~o TH 101. That access point is approved by MnDot. And 6 has an access
~oint to the north which was approved by the County. There is a possibility
that 5, except you're not going to meet your requirements for road frontage
is the problem. You could go to that Lot 5 and try to bring it in on that
side street.
Emmings: I'm not sure about that because we approved another one here.
We've gone around on this issue where you've got the road frontage on one
side and bring the driveway out the other.
Bob Bruno: Perhaps an easement could be over this small area.
Emmings: I like this second plan that has come in because it gets the
entrance of that road away from that corner. I guess I like that and I like
the fact that we can bring another internal lot onto that roadway in the new
4. I guess all I would like to say is it seems to me it would be nice to
eliminate that other access onto TH 101 and bring Lot 5 down there as well
or even consider, if you're not going to do that, consider putting the new 5
and 6 together on a neutral driveway. It would be nice to have the road
down on the southern edge but if there is anyone property owner that
doesn't agree than it doesn't make any sense at all then I go for this plan.
Otherwise, like they say, that road will be there forever and for the person
who disagrees or who doesn't want to use it or anything else. Outlot A, if
that were to be buildable, how would it have access? Where would his
driveway be?
4i'Ob Bruno: His would right at this point here onto the public road.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - Page 6
_mmings:
That's real small. Can they do that realistically?
Don Halla: We tied Outlot A into Lot 1 and made a 3.7 acre lot so really it
has been eliminated as an outlot. I think it becomes a moot point for the
future. All you would do is restrict a person didn't build within x number
of feet of that corner or something and solve the problem simply.
Emmings: So there is no more Outlot A? It now has become part of Lot l?
Don Halla: Correct.
Emmings: So we probably don't need condition number 3 then with that
understanding. Then what we've got down as condition 11 isn't meaningful
anymore either. I don't have anything else.
Erhart: I generally agree that the last proposed plan for the streets
probably makes sense considering the issues. Mostly I think it's pretty
much up to the developer to propose streets and then try to get them
approved. I'm getting a little concerned here that we made a last minute
change and we're not covering all the issues prior to the Planning
Commission taking a vote on it. I guess I question this one whether we
should have it come back and have it go through Staff to look at it again.
One of the issues I think is Lots 9 and 10. with the new street layout it
would seem to me that lot division where it's an east/west lot division now
~ould be changed to the north/south. It might require a little bit of
_huffling around of a couple of other lots but therefore you would have both
9 and 10 accessed by your new east/west road.
Bob Bruno:
It's possible that we could put an easement to service this lot.
Erhart: I'm talking about changing your new lots 4 and 5 completely so they
are split.
Bob Bruno:
I think that's a possibility.
Erhart: That would solve the problem with easements and everything else.
Don Halla: The square footage is there. You might get some odd lot lines
in there as I see it looking at it from here you might end up with a real
narrow point.
Erhart: We're looking at another subdivision, in fact Wally's, where the
County wants 150 feet off of the boulevard for an easement. You have 120 on
TH 101 which to me is 50 times the traffic on a state road and then 150 feet
on County Road 14. What's the sense of all that?
Dacy: There's some background on that. The Galpin Blvd., the reason why
they require such a large right-of-way section on Galpin Blvd. is that the
County in their 2000 Transportation Plan has planned for the realignment of
TH 41 down to the new TH 212 and potentially across the river. That's
~eallY not the year 2000. That's post the year 2000. Mr. Otto's
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - Page 7
4Ilubdivision is within that concept alignment. In that case there was no
official map adopted. If I could make one more comment. The applicant
mentioned that there are no plans to improve TH 101, that mayor may not be
the case. Everybody can sit there and argue when TH 101 is going to be
improved but nonetheless it's going to function as a minor arterial. Given
the growth of the southwest area and especially it's direct route to
Shakopee area and the major recreational facilities that are located down
there. That's why both the State and the City feel it's necessary that we
at least reserve additional area.
Erhart: Regarding going ahead and voting on this thing tonight, what's
Staff's opinion? Are you satisfied that if we go ahead and vote on this
that you can clean up the details and bring the thing up to Council?
Olsen: We just want to make sure that some of that Outlot, which is now part
of Lot 1, is reserved.
Conrad: I like the plan that came in today and my question is just the same
as Tim's. I don't want to vote on something that you have not reviewed
thoroughly but if you're comfortable that you can administratively handle
the issues between now and when they get to City Council, I guess I'm
com fortable mov i ng it ou t of here. The only thi ng I would like to do is
have old Lots 9 and 10, I would really like to have those serviced on an
internal street and would like to see that in a plat that would get to City
.ouncil.
Headla: Did they have to do any soil borings here? Did we change the
location where the drainage fields would be?
Dacy: Good point.
Olsen: If you readjust Lots 9 and 10, it looks like whatever lot would
become to the east will not have two soil sites.
Headla: Did you have any trouble in the area with borings?
Olsen: No.
Conrad: In terms of the realignment, I'm not sure that we're going to have
a decision in a year like the applicant wanted on TH 101 but on the other
hand the terminology says until TH 101 alignment is determined which is sort
of never, never time.
Dacy: We just wanted to reserve the ability to conduct a feasibility study
in that particular location. Not to resolve any issues but just to see if
it could be realigned in that area.
Conrad: Which it probably should be if the cost is reasonable but the
timing of something like that would be when?
~lsen: As soon as the City initiates that.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - Page 8
_acy:
We could conduct it within a year.
Conrad: So the statement of that third point in the motion, are we talking
about feasibility study or are we talking about the actual determination of
the realignment?
Dacy: Just conducting the feasibility study. Other issues have to be
resolved down the line like if it's designated as a trunk highway. Is the
State going to turn that back to the County or the City? We're just looking
from a pure engineering standpoint to see if we can build a road in that
area.
Conrad: So Barbara, is the third point on the motion, is that worded
properly?
Olsen:
It should be changed to Lot 1 shall reserve...
Emmings: I've got a suggestion, maybe what we could do is say that what was
previously designated as Outlot A shall be deemed unbuildable even though it
has now become part of Lot 1.
Conrad:
So you're not too concerned as to when?
Emm ings:
fihey can
Headla:
If we do it that way it doesn't matter. They can build on Lot 1.
build on what is now Lot 1.
They could put it right on the old property line of Outlot A.
Emmings: Yes, they wouldn't have to worry about a setback but that area,
they just can't build in that area what was previously Outlot A.
Dacy: That's right. They couldn't anyway because it's only 1.3 acres.
Headla: Sometime in the future they're going to come in with a proposal to
put a house there.
Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Subdivision *86-31 as shown on the plat dated June 1, 1987
with the revised plat for Block 2 distributed June 24, 1987 subject to the
following conditions:
1. The applicant receive access permits from MnDot and Carver County.
2. The final plat shall provide for the dedication of an easement for
roadway purposes of 27 feet on either side of TH 1131 and 17 feet on
the south side of CR 14, east of TH 1131.
3.
What was designated as Outlot A, which is now a part of Lot 1, shall
be deemed unbuildlabe until the TH 1131 realignment is determined.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - Page 9
e
4.
provision of a 20 foot trail easement for off-street trails along
TH 101 and CR 14.
5. The east/west roadway along the southern line of Lots 5, 6, 7 and
8, Block 2 and Outlot A should be moved to the north according to
the alternate plans submitted by the applicant.
6. All street improvements shall conform with City standards for rural
construction.
7. Acquisition of a drainage easement through Lots 4, 5, 6 and 7,
Block 2, coincident with the ravine and ponding area.
8. All slope areas in excess of 25% shall be restricted from any and
all building and grading activities.
9. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated as necessary for
placement of all utility improvements.
10. Approval of final Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan by the
City, Watershed District, and DNR and compliance with all
conditions.
11.
Lots 9 and 10, Block 2 shall share a common drive access off of an
internal street.
e
12.
Approval of plat is conditioned upon approval by our consultant of
drainfield site and soil boring locations on any lots where the
drainfield sites have been changed due to lot realignment.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
Headla: Do you keep this June 1, 1987 plat on file? In two years when you
two are promoted to better positions, we won't be here to look at the
documentation, will there be any documentation available?
Olsen: We will revise the preliminary plat.
Headla: So this particular one will be on file?
Olsen: It will get on file.
SUBDIVISION REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 8.5 ACRES INTO FIFTEEN SINGLE FAMILY LOTS
ON PROPERTY ZONED RsF; SINGLE FAMILY RESIDE~L AND LOCATED AT 6239 CHASKA
ROAD, ROBERT SOMME~ -- ----
Public Present:
e
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - Page 10
e
Name
Address
6200 Murray Hill Road
6261 Murray Hill Road
6340 Hummingbird Road
6340 Hummingbird Road
6270 Murray Hill Road
6341 Murray Hill Road
6330 Murray Hill Road
6330 Murray Hill Road
6398 Murray Hill Road
6231 Murray Hill Road
2280 Melody Hill Road
Barbara Fransdal
Robert Lee
Eleanor Johnson
Harlan R. Johnson
Grant C. Johnson
Joyce McFarland
Mrs. Arlene Graupmann
Ed Graupmann
Clifford Woida
Carroll Skiba
Richard G. Nicoli
Jo Ann Olsen presented the Staff Report on this Subdivision Request.
Conrad: The Park and Rec Commission did not get to this because of what?
Olsen: It was delayed and tabled for further action on the item.
Conrad: They've only met once since the last time we've reviewed this? Did
they have a big agenda?
~lsen: They are reviewing all the plans that you're reviewing and I believe
~hat they stop at 10:30.
Conrad: It looks like you've got a slide presentation. Mr. Sommers do you
have a presentation you would like to make?
Eric Canton: Ladies and gentlemen I would just take your time this evening
to recap some of the points perhaps more graphically that we made in our
original proposal for the Eight Acre Woods. The location as you have seen
on the original drawings is at Chaska Road and Murray Hill Road and Melody
Road. To pinpoint for those who have not seen it before, this gives you
site location adjacent to the corner of Shorewood and Hennepin County. This
is the diagram that we proposed for the development originally when we came
here and we have examined the recommendations of the Staff and it is our
preference to create an arrangement with the neighbors regarding Outlots A
and B whereby the Outlots would become part of the adjoining area. We
believe the area is too small to be a homeowners association and we agree
that it may be cumbersome to make the parcels part of the two adjoining lots
so if it meets with your approval it is our proposal to make them part of
the people next to them. The legal description is a matter of record. The
concept for the Eight Acre Woods was one that we tried to visualize by
virtue of taking advantage of the unusual terrain and the very wooded site.
To try to show you more of what that really means I've taken some
photographs of the area to give you a sense of the size of some of the
vegetation. The density of the vegetation that we would like to maintain.
Some of it is very young. Some of it is more mature but it is all in a
~elativelY healthy condition. We enlisted the assistance of pioneer
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - Page 11
.ngineering and have with us tonight Joel Cooper who can speak to the
various engineering considerations that we have had to address. You may
recall in our original presentation that this data was presented. The total
site, 8.5 acres. The number of lots, 15. The smallest lot being a little
over 15,000, the largest being 37,500 and an average of 20,735. A density
of 1.76 lots per acre. utilities as you've been told are available. The
existing zoning and the proposed zoning are the same, Single Family
Residential. We have also addressed the question regarding the lot that is
part in Hennepin County and we would abide by your recommendation to build
on the Chanhassen side. I wanted to give you some of the sense of the
surrounding area if I could. I don't know if you had an opportunity to
visit the site. Some of you indicated that you might have that opportunity
in the last occasion that we met but perhaps I can review with you what
we're looking at. This is the home that is immediately adjacent on the
south side of the roadway that we proposed. It is a site located at 6330
Murray Hill Road and presently contains 71,000 square feet. It presumably
would be available for subdivision at some future time. This residence is
also on Murray Hill Road. The square footage of the land area is 30,056.
The residence shown here is 16,871. This, another residence on Murray Hill
Road is 36,500. This residence on Chaska Road is 15,000 square feet and in
some respects shows the way in which part of this project can be treated
along Chaska Road. You see the vegetation that is maintained and the way
the house is cut back in off the road. This particular slide shows two
sites. The one of the left is 26,383 and the one on the right is 22,120
.ccording to the records that we have. Another site on Melody Hill has
0,043. Another on Melody Hill is one of substantial size, 61,855. Another
site on Melody Hill is 20,000. We do not have statistics on this particular
residence. This on Melody Hill we do. There is 36,590. This one we do
not. This, of course, those of you who know the area well know as the what
was the Jr. High School and I understand now is the Minnetonka Middle
School. This last residence is one also that is rather more large at 51,000
square feet. We don't have the numbers on this one. This one shows you the
driveway that goes to the property of Robert Somer leading up off of Chaska
Road. Another residence in the area. This is property adjacent to Chaska
Road to give you some more sense of the foliage in the area. This property
is in a cul-de-sac at the end of Murray Hill Road and shows the kind of
properties that have begun to develop nearby. They are larger in size as
far as the buildings themselves are concerned. They are in the higher price
range as many of the existing properties as well. We wanted to show you
some examples of what we felt would be the kinds of architecture that could
fit on sites that we have in mind. Here again the intent was in this
particular development the preservation of the landscape as was the case
here and here. This particular home shows how one builder addressed the
concern that we had of the great variness of elevations on this site. You
can see here how this lot slopes away. We believe that as this area, the
Eight Acre Wood is developed, you will see the kind of construction as you
see here. Addressing the slope of land. At the same time addressing the
needs to keep as many of the trees as possible. Another example of that
kind of architecture set comfortably within existing landscape. This Lot 2
is the focus of this particular slide is the lot that is presently lived on
~y Robert Sommer. Clearly he has enjoyed years of this intimacy of this
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - Page 12
4Ilnvironment and he plans to stay here. I think it is his own interest that
we maintain the character that we've tried to describe. You saw this
drawing earlier and I would like to defer at this time to Joel Cooper who is
our engineer from pioneer Engineering to describe to you perhaps a little
more clearly what happens in the elevations from the bottom of the screen up
until the road that is proposed here hits Chaska Road.
Joel Cooper: The last time there was some concern as to whether or not the
roadway up from Murray Hill Road was the best use for the property so we've
gone through the design of trying to implement a road coming off of Chaska
Road. As we discus sed 1 astti me, the site has somewhere in the range of 60
to 70 feet of relief across it and from design considerations for a safe
intersection, we're coming off a 3% grade and then coming up with a maximum
of 7% to the top of the cul-de-sac. Under current design criteria, this is
as quickly that we can climb up this hill with those considerations as
possible. As you can see here, at the top of the cul-de-sac we've got a
cut, somewhere in the range of 40 feet which has a devastating affect on the
site. You're looking at an area in here that's going to be totally removed
of vegetation. There won't be any trees left. In addition to that you've
got lots now that are virtually unbuildable unless you can back way into the
site to get a driveway plot because you've got 10 to 20 feet of slope to
contend with. I just doubt that is not even a feasible plan and would again
like you to know that in the interest of the property that this is the best
location for the road.
~ric Canton: The roadway that we are proposing would take this house out.
It is my understanding that it may be the oldest house in the area. It is
of modest size and it would be well to have it removed from the property.
If that is not accomplished, that will leave the Lot 5 that is shown here on
the right as a totally separate entity requiring that it be addressed
totally separately and not a part of the proposal that we originally brought
you. This just gives you a little closer idea of how much area is taken out
of edge to edge in order to accomodate a road as this terrain drops more
than 60 feet. That is the location of the white house that we saw a moment
ago. To reiterate, our intent is to preserve this kind of character that
you see here to the deg ree tha t we can. We bel i eve it can be done with our
original proposal and we respectfully request that you allow us to proceed
as we have requested with the proviso that we attend the recommendations the
Staff has made a list brought to you this evening. If we do that, we think
the Eight Acre Wood could be a development that the homeowners would be
proud of this kind of building and would be a great place to live.
Conrad: This is not a public hearirg but I will open it up for any comments
that are relevant. Anything that's changed since the last time we've met.
Any information such as the developer had presented it. If you have any
comments I would entertain them right now.
Ed Graupman: I like the pictures. They're beautiful but why didn't he take
pictures of coming up the road from Chaska Road all the way up Murray Hill
Road to show where this traffic is going to be. He didn't do that. He just
~howed the good points. He didn't show the bad points. They should have a
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - Page 13
.oP map of that place to show the traffic along that place and Murray Hill
Road. I don't blame him, he can do with his property but that many houses,
no.
Rich Nicoli: I was at the first public hearing. Just a couple things I
didn't see addressed tonight. One was the concern about the precedence
being set of tearing a house down in a residential area and putting a road
there. I'm concerned because I live on Melody Hill and I wouldn't want to
see the house at the end of the street torn down and that road extended.
I'm afraid that kind of precedent could be set. I appreciate the pictures
of the lots around him and my calculator wasn't with me but it seemed like
the average of the lots was larger than the average of what they want to put
in there for those 15 lots. A lot of them were in the 30 some, 40's and
60's. A few in the 20's but it seemed like most of the lots were larger
than the average lots on those sites. I'm concerned about the number of
homes in that area and again, the traffic on the road. I see school bus and
cars going off those roads and I still think you're going to have to do some
improvement on those roads.
Eleanore Johnson: I live over on Hummingbird Road. I think coming in from
Chaska Road, they are going to have a terrible time. Coming up TH 41 to
Chaska Road, they're going to go up that hill and it's just a sharp point to
get up that hill. That hill in the winter time is treacherous. I don't
know how they can get 15 houses in there. I can see a few houses but not
~5. He's talking Eight Acre Woods but he's putting in 15 houses. Now those
'IIren't going to be acre lots are they? Everyone around there has at least
an acre of more and I can't see putting that many houses in that small an
area. That road is not that wide.
Conrad: Let's talk a little bit about the traffic. The City Engineer went
out there and reviewed the traffic and basically his report came back. I'm
summarizing a fairly indepth report but his report said that there weren't
that many traffic conditions to be concerned with.
Eleanore Johnson: He hasn't driven it in the winter time.
Conrad: I'm sure he wasn't out there, when he took a look he was not there
for that. Jo Ann or Barbara, could you shed any additional information?
I'm summarizing a couple pages of Gary's comments.
Olsen: We went out to the site to look at the features to just make sure
that there is adequate sight to be able to see another car coming even in
winter conditions and we felt that there was. As far as some of the snow
conditions, some of the property owners had mentioned that it's hard to see
into the street because of the snowbanks and the Engineer recommended that
they be kept clear but with the addition of the 8 lots onto Murray Hill is
not enough to warrant improving the street. It is narrow. I've talked to
people who live on that wish it would maintain narrow but we felt that it
was adequate to service the additional homes.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - Page 14
.onrad: This is not
something additional
new, I think we have
a public hearing and unless it's brand new, if you have
we would take your comments right now but if it's not
all the information. Do you have something?
Carroll Skiba:
public hearing,
public hearing.
I'm holding a piece of paper here that says notice of
today at 7:30. Chanhassen City Planning Council. This is a
This notice from you.
Olsen: What we did was give out notifications again.
Carroll Skiba:
I'm here.
That's what this says. This date, this time. That's why
Conrad:
I am entertaining comments.
Carroll Skiba: I understand. You sent out notices of public hearing and
you say it's not.
Conrad: Theoretically we did close the public hearing the last meeting. If
we sent out that notice, as I am doing right now, we'll let you comment on
it. I just want to make sure that you all know that we were here, this
Commission was here the last time and we heard most of those comments and I
think again, if we have new information, like we allowed the developer if he
had new information, we want to hear that.
_arroll Skiba: I didn't make it to the last one. This was the one I
thought we could speak at. I live at 6231 Murray Hill Road and your average
sized lot is less than half an acre running down to almost one-third of an
acre. I think the density is too high. I'm not against the development but
I think you've got too many homes going in. That's my comment.
Arlene Graupmann: I live at 6330 Murray Hill Road, right next to the
proposed new road and I fought this plan because I think that it would be a
terrific traffic hazard. Now maybe the people who went up that road didn't
think but I took some pictures. I have the pictures numbered and it's going
up the hill. Going south uphill part of the hill is serviced by Shorewood
and sometimes one part of the road is serviced and the other part isn't.
Shorewood and Chanhassen. Going up the hill it is very steep. Number one,
going south up the hill, part of the hill is serviced by Shorewood and to
the left of it is Summit dividing the line between Shorewood and Chanhassen.
In Shorewood it becomes Hummingbird. Number two, the approximate site of
the access road looking south uphill, driving uphill. Three, taking from
access site to blind spot. To the parking place where you're going to go
out onto the road, looking up is a blind spot and if a car is coming over
the hill and this car goes out, it's really a traffic hazard. There is many
curves. There are curves going around and the blind spots. Especially in
the wintertime. If you have snow piled there, it's hard to see from our
driveway if a car is coming. We have to inch out and try to look out. If
you have that many homes serviced by that access road, it would be hazardous
situation. It would be dangerous. They said that there is only about 7
_eet from our driveway and the lot up the hill evens out on our driveway.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - Page 15
_therwise it's a hill and it's a steep hill. If you're coming up that hill
in the wintertime and you have to stop at that access road, you aren't going
to make the rest of the hill. There have been many times when we have had
to back down the hill and if you're not going at least 30 mph in the
wintertime, if it's a snowy day, you're not going to make it to the top of
the hill. When I used to be working in the city and it started to snow, I
stayed in the city because I was worried about getting up and down that
hill. I think servicing that many houses is ridiculous. Mr. Sommers lives
on Chaska Road but Murray Hill Road would be the scapegoat for this whole
thing and we don't think Murray Hill Road is equipped to take care of that
many houses. We have had, over the last couple years, 12 new homes sites
and the traffic is pretty bad as it is but you have that much more traffic
making this ridiculous, dangerous and we don't like being a scapegoat of
somebody elses planning. We think Mr. Sommer has a right to want from the
inheritance of the land that he inherited but we feel that his plan of that
many homes and to be serviced by Murray Hill is out of line. I don't know
if you're interested in this or would be interested in this but this is the
original plan of Murray Hill that was made up in 1884. It was from three
Murrays and Mr. Galpin's name is on here. The proposal then was they wanted
to have a college on Murray Hill so Murray Hill Road was then called College
Road. At that time Summit Avenue was there. This is the original thing and
I thought it was interesting the way it was originally planned. The
proposed area is right here on Chaska Road. Chaska Road is here and
originally Chaska Road is the same place it is now. Galpin Road was
~hakopee Road then. Otherwise it is pretty much the way the hill was first
~lanned. If anybody tried to drive it in the wintertime and had to stop
there because someone coming down that road, Murray Hill Road is not able to
handle all of that extra traffic. I don't care what the people said just
driving up there. Then, you have to consider that it is being serviced by
both Shorewood and Chanhassen and I don't think there is very much
communicaton between the two cities. When we had sewer and water put in,
they blocked both ends of the road at the same time and we couldn't get out
because Chanhassen decided to dig their part up and Shore wood decided to dig
their part up. We had to park in another driveway and the only way we could
get out to Galpin Road at all was one of the neighbors on Galpin allowed us
to drive over his property. My husband is on oxygen and when he needed
oxygen delivered there was no way to get in there. Finally, one of the
bulldozers had to deliver. If we had had an emergency we would have been
out of luck. Another question that's never been answered, we still think
it's a spring fed hill because of the winter and the spring when it starts
to thaw there is always water running down that hill. We don't think that
hill can take that much tearing up and building.
Rich Nicoli: One other question from the last meeting. I think there was a
question about Chaska Road and whatever is being developed there and the
safety factor of how many driveways can be included on that. That hasn't
been addressed on there.
Conrad: Did Gary have a comment on Chaska Road Jo Ann?
e
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - Page 16
.lsen: There are no plans for it's improvement.
it's improvement either.
Shorewood has no plans for
Conrad: Bill Swearengin was concerned with the property across from Chaska
Road going commercial. I don't know how we consider that. The zoning is
not commercial now.
Dacy: He's going to have to come through the process. The Commission
really shouldn't even deal with that.
Grant Johnson: I live at 6270 Murray Hill Road. The lot just to the north
of the proposed access lot. We just bought this house and I was not
notified of anything previously. I don't know about traffic levels on
Murray Hill, whether they are above or below what would be considered
acceptable. I do know when you come out of that bend, when I'm working in
the yard, whether the traffic levels are too high or too low I don't know
but the speeds seem to be too high and there are people who go up and down
the hill at an exceptional rate. Possibly because of the grade. I don't
know if the levels or the speeds that causes the trouble in the winter.
Because I haven't been through an exceptional winter, I don't know how the
City maintains that road in the winter. How well salted. I came from a
neighborhood that was salted very well. I lived on a road that was as steep
as th i s road and there was no problem with go i ng up or do wn in the
wintertime because it was salted and maintained well. I don't know if this
~ne is. I don't know if Mr. Sommers plans have any provisions for any stop
.igns on Murray Hill or if he even has any right to do so at his access
point but from my observation of what takes place on Murray Hill is
excessive speed and it's not necessarily an appearance because of the angle
because of poor visibility around corners. The speeds are excessive to me.
I don't know anything about the access. Perhaps it is a little dense but
the condition of the road seems substandard to the speed more so than it
does the limits.
Barbara Fransdal: I have a question. I wanted to ask about the drainage
and also address the slide presentation that he presented. The drainage
easement that he is proposing on this side of the property down to here is
not in as much detail as was sent to Shorewood. This said wetland. This is
not typically a wetland and this property over here is owned by a elderly
lady who wants to sell it. What does he plan to do with the water? That
and if you would entertain units of 13 in his other proposal, would he
entertain this of 13 again? Cutting this down from 8 to 6. The property
that was shown in the slide presentation to be the houses that would be nice
as these lots, were these houses put on 15,000 square foot lots?
Eric Canton: They varied. Our lot sizes vary.
Barbara Fransdal: Could I get an answer to the drainage easement?
Joel Cooper: The water presently is draining down to this low area here.
As I understand there is no outlet for it at this time. There would be a
~light increase in the amount of run-off due to the house tops and driveways
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - Page 17
4Ilnd such and in so doing we'll do an analysis and if there is a need for
storm sewer to be outletted from that ponding area we'll work that out with
the City of Shorewood because it's in the City of Shorewood and it's going
to have to drain through Shorewood's drainage system. I guess at this time
that's the best answer I've got.
Barbara Fransdal: They do not have storm sewers there.
Joel Cooper: There is no outlet. If it results that there is a substantial
increase in water that justifies that outlet, I would imagine that one would
be constructed.
Barbara Fransdal: This drainage from here to there, who is going to pay for
that?
Joel Cooper: The developer will bear that cost.
Barbara Fransdal: Okay, the owners will not pay that cost. Would he
entertain going to 13?
Eric Canton: At this time we are operating on the basis that we have
complied with the regulations of the City of Chanhassen. We have looked at
the economics of a fewer number of lots based on the cost of development. A
road to service lots regardless of the number of lots and it is our judgment
~hat it is the most competitive situation as against other developments in
~he area and fewer lots would simply make them less affordable for
perspective home buyers. I have that statistical analysis. I don't have it
with me at this time though.
Erhart: Did I hear you say that you were in favor of simply turning over
Outlots A and B to the north and south adjacent properties?
Eric Canton:
association.
3 and 15.
We believe that it is a better solution than a homeowners
We believe it is a better solution than attaching them to Lots
Erhart: I agree and I think in the proposal that we make should include
simply turning over that property to adjacent existing homeowners.
Carroll Skiba:
to be? Mine?
If they put that road in there, who's expense is that going
They will say it will benefit my property.
Conrad: No.
Erhart: I'm not sure it's really understood by the public here that in
writing these zoning ordinances, approving it and having the public hearings
that we just had over the last year and a half, essentially we set a code
that developers meet these particular set of specifications and we are
required to approve it. The only exception to that would be if for some
reason there was some real clear, safety issues involved which I realize
~ou've tried to express. Other than the fact that the density and some of
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - Page 18
~the other things, it's pretty clear that the developer has met everything
related to lot sizes and so forth so it gets down to the issue of safety. I
don't think there is enough there to warrant us asking the developer to
decrease the density. I've been out to the site. There are two accesses to
the area. It isn't only a hill to get there. You can get there on a street
that goes east to Galpin Blvd. and quite frankly I live on a street with
about 213 horn es with hi gher dens i ty than tha t area and I wish I had a street,
in fact I wish I had two streets and I wish I had the streets that were as
nice as these.
Clifford Woida: This is the first meeting I've come to. I live at 6398
Murray and the City went and put up three way stop at my driveway and you
think that's really good because we permitted.
Erhart:
I'm only suggesting that we don't have enough sufficient...
Clifford Woida: So what are we going to do now that they come onto Murray
Hill? Is there going to be another stop sign? People aren't stopping at my
stop sign.
Erhart: That's the City's responsibility to deal with the traffic issues.
Clifford Woida: If I pullout and somebody hits me, you're going to deal
with stop signs. That's all I can say because they're not stopping for
4Ifhese stop signs. Cops never come up and check it.
Emmings: I agree with Tim's comments. Particularly the fact that the
developer seems to have basically met our ordinance. There are some things
about this that I don't particularly like but I don't think any of them
really form a sound basis for rejecting the proposal. I'm not crazy about
the fact that a house comes down and a street gets put in there. That
bothers me but I don't think it's a basis for rejecting this proposal. The
drainage issue that was brought up here tonight, the amount of drainage
running into that low area and affecting another property owner to the east
of this is of concern to me but I don't know quite what to do with it.
Sometimes I've read things in our report that says they've done calculations
and they know exactly what's going to be running off and how it's going to
add to it and whether or not it's going to be a problem. Has that been
done?
Olsen: We haven't received that yet but I believe applicant is working with
the City of Shorewood on those calculations but again it is a condition that
they do provide those to our city also.
Emmings: Okay, so by the time this is finally approved, we'll have that in
hand?
Olsen: Yes, that's a condition of approval.
Emmings: And as far as the lot size or the density goes, this meets our
~ode?
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - Page 19
alsen:
Yes.
Emmings: As far as the grade of Murray Hill Road and the sight distances,
our City Engineer feels like it's adequate to service this project and the
existing neighborhood.
01 sen: Yes.
Emmings: I don't have any more questions.
Headla: When you get the calculations on run-off, what are you going to do
with those calculations?
Olsen: What they are going to determine is whether or not that storm sewer
is even necessary. The drainage going from the lots along the cul-de-sac.
It's just sheet flow run-off.
Headla: Aren't these people required to put in a holding pond the way the
others are?
Olsen: That's what they're trying to determine if it's necessary.
Headla: Okay, so if it's necessary, why don't we require a holding pond as
opposed to a storm sewer?
~lsen: The storm sewer is leading into a holding pond. The engineer was
explaining if the overflow from that, than they would have to have another
storm sewer.
Headla:
pond.
I thought we were just using the wetland down there for a holding
Olsen: It's not a wetland.
Headla: Is the builder going to construct anything as a holding pond? Is
he going to possibly create a problem for Shorewood?
Olsen: No.
Headla: If the calculations that it has fast run-off with all the roads and
houses in there.
Olsen: Then they would have to install storm sewer and a holding pond at
the bottom.
Headla: The builder would have to install that?
Olsen: Right.
Headla: I hear what you're saying but I don't see it discussed in anything
eritten.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - Page 20
.onrad:
It's number 5 on the Staff Report in terms of the recommendation.
Headla: That's what I mean. When we get calculations, what do we do with
them?
Conrad: It really impacts Shorewood and they're the ones that have to hold
the developer accountable or responsible for that.
Headla:
Okay.
That will be put to rest before we give any building permits?
Barbara Fransdal: You say it's Shorewood but it's this lot that is being
affected. Not only Shorewood.
Conrad: Right but it's still Shorewood that has to be responsible for
monitoring.
Headla: Sir, you have property on the north?
Grant Johnson: Yes.
Headla: If this thing passed and we deeded the outlots to the adjacent land
owners, would you accept that outlot known as Outlot A.
~rant Johnson: At this point I think I would. I don't know the ultimate
"'ecommendations or the use of the road once it's completed but that would
increase the outlot even larger.
Headla: Going to a homeowner, they have no vested interest and I don't see
where it could be kept up. What about the Graupmanns? Would you be
interested in taking Outlot B so you could protect yourself someway from
that road?
Arlene Graupmann: I don't understand what you mean.
Conrad: They would deed the land to you. They would give you the land on
your side of the proposed road.
Arlene Graupmann: And we would take care of it?
Conrad: I assume they would give you the land and it would be yours for
whatever you would wanted to do.
Arlene Graupmann:
It would be ours to upkeep.
Conrad:
It would be your land.
Arlene Graupmann: No way. No way.
Grant Johnson: If you take that lot in and of itself and ignore the rest of
~he development, that house being gone, that old house that looks awful.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - Page 21
~lifford Woida:
It could be remodeled.
Grant Johnson: That's possible but just having the house gone to my value
is an improvement for my home to not have that house there. Now whether the
road goes back in place or another home or it's improved but there doesn't
seem to be any liklihood right now that Mr. Sommers is going to improve that
house. Again, my thinking the value as the house stands now is more of a
detriment to my house than it would be if it's gone.
Headla: I was thinking of the 313 feet that would go to you and you could
put some plantings behind the road so it could be improved. If one party
doesn't take it, I don't know what we do.
Conrad: Well, it can still be attached to one of the other properties on
the interior.
Headla: The other one I had was on number 4. I really think something
should be put in place where they don't cut any trees and we do not have any
plat approval for this whole thing until they submit some type of
under stand i ng on how they are go i ng to cu t down trees. By the time we come
to building permit that's too late. Do you have any suggestions? What's
the way?
Olsen: Typically we require them to provide a clear cutting plan as part of
4lihe final plat and development contract.
Headla: Upon plat approval? That's not quite what that said but that's
what you're really doing?
Olsen: Right and what number 4 is also saying that we also want to see on
each detail lot how the clear cutting and how the trees are going to be
removed.
Headla: I think they comply with the rest of the ordinance that we set up
as a city.
Conrad: Park and Rec has not met and therefore we don't know what they want
to do in terms of trail easements. We do know what we heard the last
meeting is we're not sure we want to move, at least some residents are not
sure they want to move kids up and down through their, moving away from the
school. Does the Park and Rec take that into consideration? I guess we
have a chance here for public comments yet we haven't seen what the Park and
Rec is recommending and therefore we can't say whether we agree with it or
not and I find that a little bit of an awkward situation so if we don't want
trail through there, we should say so in our recommendation. Is there
anything in this plat that we believe, that Staff believes would diminish
property values in the neighborhood?
Olsen: No.
surroudning
e
There is no question that the lot sizes are smaller from the
area.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - Page 22
-conrad:
road, is
Do you believe that any property located north or south of the new
that road going to diminish property values?
Dacy: It's very hard for us at this point. The Carver County Assessor is
responsible for doing the assessments in Chanhassen. Minimum lot sizes are
being met. The City Engineer has determined that there is 200 to 300 feet
of sight distance from the street intersection. Basically the Commission is
down to two choices. The original proposal and revised one that was
presented here tonight. Eight lots would be served by the road from Murray
Hill Road and seven lots directly on Chaska Road versus the one cul-de-sac
that was presented tonight.
Conrad: If we feel that a development is detrimental to the neighborhood
and will diminish property values then we would be concerned. That has
nothing to do with safety. I'm just talking about one issue right now.
Dacy: We can address safety issues and the zoning issues. The property
values we can't address.
Conrad:
Is that a factor in approving a particular subdivision?
Dacy: The rules that you're basing your decision on tonight are the Zoning
Ordinance and the Subdivision Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance requires
a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet and requires a minimum lot width.
4Ifhe Subdivision Ordinance requires proper installation of streets.
Conrad: The Ordinance speaks not to diminishing property values as a reason
for rejecting a subdivision?
Dacy: There's no specific statement in those ordinances. The Planning
Commission also has to make a recommendation based on ordinances that are
adopted by City Council. They make a recommendation to the City Council as
a planning issue.
Grant Johnson: If you're going to try and value the impact on surrounding
properties, because of the properties in the neighborhood, you've got to take
them almost one by one. I paid less than $100,000.00 for my property. A
property two doors away is for sale for almost $200,000.00. This
development, if it goes through with homes typical of the development down
at the end of Murray Hill on the cul-de-sac, will do nothing but benefit me
and it will benefit the people on my side of the road for a few doors up or
down because these homes are significantly more in value but there are
others in the neighborhood who may have homes at higher rates so you've got
to almost take it on an individual basis.
Mr. Fransdal: Excuse me but that's not the case. The cul-de-sac that he's
speaking of is much higher in price than the lots that are proposed. I
don't understand when he's talking about saving trees and everything but it
seems to me with the average size of just over half an acre, he would
practically have to clear cut just to get the houses in there. Particularly
~n a hill so I'm not sure that we're going to have the same aesthetic value
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - Page 23
_s
at
we
proposed. That would be a concern of mine especially if you're looking
eight units in there. We're not against him developing the property but
do believe that it should be more consistent with the surrounding area.
Conrad: I guess after reading the Engineer's Report and after reviewing
some subdivisions last week that called for 900 units coming into
Chanhassen, it doesn't appear from a traffic standpoint that this is a
problem. I know there will be occasions when that is and I think it will be
based on the engineer's comments. I think we can take care of those
wintertime situations from a visibility standpoint and the city could be
prepared to do that and make sure that the safety issues are addressed. I'm
not real pleased with the Zoning Ordinance and I guess as a result of this
I'm going to want to look at it and give us a little bit more flexibility in
terms of how we can interpret that ordinance because it doesn't appear that
we have the liberty to deal with situations but we simply interpret the raw
data in the ordinance and I'm not comfortable with that. I am comfortable
that Staff went out and looked for alternative access and the developer did
too and I think this is the access that is most sensitive to the area. It
may not be most sensitive to the neighborhood. I believe there are two too
many lots in the subdivision. I think in a motion, whoever makes the motion
tonight should pay attention to the number 6 in terms of what you want to do
with the Park and Rec's comments. If you want to just let it open that
their recommendation flies through you could then just approve it. We could
make the motion and incorporate number 6 as is stated by Staff. As opposed
~o potentially making a recommendation that no trail easement should exist
~ased on concerns from the school. Concern from neighborhood. Maybe that
doesn't need to be that direct. Maybe a review is more important but I
think being close to a school and providing escape routes, I'm not sure
is what our trail system is for.
Headla: But wouldn't the Park and Rec be looking at that?
Conrad: I don't know that.
would understand that.
If I did, I would read their Minutes and I
Headla: I guess I would be more comfortable with them being involved with
the trails since they are going to be putting them in.
Conrad: But they're not listening to the people talking about the school
district. We hold the public hearing.
Dacy: Mr. Chairman, we can have the Park and Rec Director notify the public
this item when it comes to the Park and Rec issue.
Headla: And that would include the school?
Dacy: Sure. They could invite the applicants and any interested property
owners.
Erhart: I agree that we need input. I lived on a trail that was next to a
_choOl.
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - Page 24
_acy: We will not take the item to Council until the Park and Rec
Commission has acted.
Emmings: Couldn't there also be Minutes that would show comments of the
people who were here. Would they ordinarily get those from the public
hearing?
Dacy:
We can provide them verbatim Minutes.
Conrad: Those comments were real brief if you recall but they do make a
whole lot of sense. I think the Park and Rec has got to consider where that
trail is and what it can be used for negatively.
Olsen: The Park and Rec Coordinator is aware of that. I did tell her
about those comments.
Headla moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Subdivision Request #87-24 as shown on the plat dated May 22,
1987 with the following conditions:
1. The proposed right-of-way shall be reduced to 50 feet, removing 10
feet from the northern portion of the right-of-way and the street
shall be constructed to city standards.
e
2.
Outlots A and B shall be deeded to the adjacent property owners to
the north and south if they accept it. If not, the outlots will
become a part of Lot 3 and/or Lot 15.
3. A utility easement shall be granted over Lots 5, 8, 9, and 11 and a
drainage easement shall be granted along the easterly boundary of
Lots 1-3 (if storm sewer is required) and over the drainage basin.
Also, easements shall be provided along the internal lot lines as
required by the subdivision ordinance.
4. A detailed grading, tree removal, and erosion control plan for each
lot shall be submitted at the time of building permit application.
5. A detailed drainage plan and drainage calculations shall be
submitted for City Staff and Shorewood's approval.
6. The applicant shall provide trail easements as determined by the
Park and Recreation Commission.
7. Any structure on Lot 1 shall be within Chanhassen city limits.
8. Watermain on Chaska Road shall be extended from the existing 6 inch
main to the Shoewood city limits and a hydrant placed at the city
limit terminous. The internal watermain shall be connected to this
extended connection.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - Page 25
e
9.
A drainage easement shall be provided along Chaska Road and the
drainage ditch shall be preserved.
10. Erosion control and/or sod should be installed on the 2:1 slopes on
Lots 12, 13 and 14.
11. Hay bale check dams shall be utilized at 50 ft. intervals along the
utility easement from the proposed cul-de-sac to Chaska Road and
likewise along the storm sewer alignment.
12. Lot 2 shall connect to the existing sanitary sewer and proposed
watermain along Chaska Road and the required connection charges
shall be paid.
All voted in favor except Conrad who opposed and motion carried.
Conrad: I'm opposed because I think it's too dense.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED
PUD-R, PLANN~UNIT DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED ON~OT 2L BLOCK 1,
CHANHASSEN HILLs;-NORTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHON~ -- ---
4IJ0 Ann Olsen presented the Staff Report on the Conditional Use Permit.
R.W. Dokken (Representing Northwestern Bell): As far as the access is
concerned, we have made application to MnDot and we assume it will be
granted. The location was satisfactory to MnDot so we anticipate no
problem.
Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor
and motion carried.
Erhart moved, Emmings seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Conditional Use Permit #87-11 for the telephone equipment
building subject to the following condition:
1. The applicant shall receive a temporary access permit from MnDot.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
SUBDIVISION OF 100 ACRES INTO THREE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT ON
PROPERTY ZONED RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED ON HWY 41 JUST 1/4 MILE
NORTH OF HWY. 2L TIMOTHY FOSTER.
Public Present:
e
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - page 26
_
Name
Address
Linda Oberman
Marjorie Getsch
Barbara Freeman
Donna Jones
Craig Freeman
Linda Geslin
Ron Geslin
Martin Jones
7450 Hazeltine Blvd., Excelsior
7530 Dogwood Road
7431 Dogwood Road
7321 Dogwood Road
7431 Dogwood Road
7311 Dogwood Road
7311 Dogwood Road
7321 Dogwood Road
Barbara Dacy presented the Staff Report on this Subdivision request.
Tim Foster: I currently live in Chanhassen in Pleasant View Cove. From
what Barb had mentioned, I didn't really have a whole lot to add. It
appears that the road is one of the main concerns. This park issue that
Barb just mentioned 10 minutes ago would potentially be a concern of mine
seeing that the finger being pointed would be possibly 200 to 300 feet from
my house so I'm not real excited about a trail going by my particular lot.
If it was back of the lot or back of the farm, I would entertain working
with someone on that. Seeing that it has been a 57 year old problem I don't
think, as Barb mentioned, that the road is necessarily my problem. Although I
would like to join with the balance of the residents to work on a plan that
would be feasible and safe for the city as well as gives them service for
_the tax dollars they are paying. I don't have a lot more to add than that.
Ron Geslin: I'm kind of speaking for the Sunset Hills Homeowners
Association. Our concerns mainly stern from finding out that the City in as
short a time ago as January, that the City owns the road. We've lived there
10 years and we thought the road was owned by the homeowners. We have been
maintained the road. Our number one issue was, since we found that out,
getting the maintenance from the city that we've provided ourselves. We
were not necessarily looking for the improved road. We have had people in
there maintaining the road adequately for our use. With all due respect to
Mr. Foster who's a very nice gentleman, we do not necessarily feel that
because of a subdivision of whatever size going in there that we should be
taking on any cost at least without further discussion and talking about
these improvements that would improve that subdivision situation.
Tim Foster: I don't disagree with that. I wouldn't want to do that either
if I lived there. If at some point in time the road is going to be
improved, they are going to need some additional land to improve that and
the original parcel was purchased was a little over 100 acres and what was
left over after the dedication was 76 acres so I've already thrown into the
pot approximately 34 acres of land for the future building of the road. I
am bearing a fair share of the cost initially.
Dacy: Mr. Geslin is right. Through the subdivision of the old farmstead
there and when survey work was done, it indeed confirmed that this was
dedicated as a public right-of-way. The issue of Mr. Foster's correct in
~hat it's been a 57 year old problem. Even despite the subdivision and if
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - Page 27
4Ilhe City is going to be responsible for maintaining this roadway, we are
also responsible for safety issues and liable for safety issues. Say this
subdivision didn't exist, we do have some real concerns about emergency
vehicles and some of our big fire trucks being able to get in and out of
there especially during inclemant weather. We felt that Mr. Foster would be
responsible for putting his share of the roadway in. However, from a safety
standpoint we have to at least evaluate the alternatives. If there are none
there then at least we've gone through the study process to determine that
but there are some areas that we could try and look at an area for two way
traffic. One area would be this area in here there is an existing tree line
there. However, it does afford some area to line out to match the existing
section as you approach off of TH 41. Granted, this approach is difficult.
As some of the placements of existing homes and the drainfield system there.
However, our position was we're going to be responsible for this area. To
develop that it's imparitive that the Council and the citizens involved meet
and look at some alternatives to improve safety accessing in this area.
Yes, it may cause some assessments but again, we're trying to look at ways
we can bring those down to a reasonable length and one such way is trying to
handle some of these costs through a maintenance process through the city.
Again the recommendation is to look at it and see what we can come up with.
Martin Jones: She just mentioned assessments. That's well and good.
However, I'm paying $4,31313.1313 a year in taxes. I don't get anything for
services out there. No sewer. No city water. I have no plowing. No
.rading. No gravel. I do get a fireman down there when they come down for
_ beer. I get an occasional police down there coming down for a cup of
coffee. I don't feel that we should pay one nickel for assessments on that
road. We pay a tremendous tax for absolutely nothing. We had great fire
protection when I was a fireman. I'm no longer on the fire department.
Linda Oberman: I own the land bordering on the south of that and I'm more
concerned with that road and what you're going to do with it. We bought
another acre and you'll live on a 113 acre and two five acres are just
protection for that 113 acres?
Tim Foster:
I would sell them.
Linda Oberman: What is an outlot?
Dacy: All that is saying on the plat is that is reserved for future
subdivision. Because there are 713 acres in that outlot, under that 1 per 113
rule he could create an additional 7 lots within that area.
Linda Oberman: And they would have to what kind?
Dacy: The minimum lot size would be 2 1/2 acres.
Linda Oberman: When do you plan to start construction?
Tim Foster: As soon as I get a firm offer on my house. I don't know.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - Page 28
~arjOrie Getsch: We own property down there right on the lake presently.
would like to ask, what is the trail that you mentioned? Is it just a
primitive hiking trail?
I
Dacy: The Park and Rec commission has established priorities for trail
connections and their type of construction. The requirement is that there
be a trail easement reserved for potential improvement. There has not been
any detail plans as to whether or not it's going to be woodchip trail or
it's going to be along the street or any other type of construction. It's
the recommendation from the Park and Rec commission reserving pedestrian
access from one point to another.
Martin Jones:
dedicated road?
Why does the City not maintain that road now?
Why doesn't it maintain it?
It's a
Dacy: That's the issue we're trying to resolve right now.
Martin Jones: Why hasn't it been resolved before this?
Dacy: As I said earlier, to be honest we didn't realize that it was
actually a dedicated public right-of-way until the survey work was
completed.
Martin Jones: I beg to differ with you. I had told them 15 years ago that
that is a road that belongs to the City of Chanhassen. The only time we
~ver got help was number one, I couldn't out to a fire call and I called Don
Ashworth and I said Don, I need gravel so I can get out to a fire call. I
got gravel so I could get out. We got gravel one other time coming in and
the rest of the time they would dump a pile of gravel at the top of the
road. I said this is a public road and they never, ever believed me.
Dacy: Did the group of you then or did you have a request prior to this?
Martin Jones: Why do we have to have a request when it's a deeded road?
Dacy:
I'm just asking for informational purposes, that's all.
Martin Jones: There was no proposal to the city of Chanhassen. It was
deeded to them and it's their property. Maintain the thing.
Dacy: I'm just asking for some information sir. Was it the preference of
the property owners to maintain it up to this point or historically...
Martin Jones: No. We didn't want it maintained forever but talking to the
City of Chanhassen is like talking to a bar of soap in a stump.
Conrad: That's not true. I think if I knew that that was dedicated to the
City I would not be maintaing it myself. I think the city is now
acknowledging that it is their road and they have a responsibility to do it.
Obviously they didn't know that before. Obviously the communication did not
esink in. I think the point is right now that they recognize that. We're
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - Page 29
~ealing with a different issue tonight. I don't think we can go back
historically and solve your problem. We certainly can take a look at it now
and that's what we want to do. My feeling, I've worked with the City for
quite a while, they do listen. Staff does listen. Any other comments?
Emmings moved, Erhart seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor
and motion carried.
Headla: What's the feasibility study going to cost?
Dacy: Typically it ranges anywhere from $1,000.00 to $5,000.00 depending on
the extent of the project.
Headla: Do you think it's going to come close to $5,000.00 to do it?
Dacy: No.
Headla: Did Mr. Foster dedicate some land to the road?
Dacy: Yes, his proposed plat is reserving a 40 feet of right-of-way to
match our current right-of-way standards.
Erhart: Is that along the whole street?
~acy: No. As part of the property here and along this stretch.
~ piece of private ownership between this lot line and TH 41.
There is
Headla: There wouldn't be a feasibility study if he didn't come in but at
the same time now, if he's dedicated that land.
Dacy: I think there would be a feasibility study even without this
subdivision.
Headla: If there wasn't a subdivision and we did a feasibility study, who
would pay for it?
Dacy: If it's going to be a public improvement project, the City would
issue those costs initially and that would be thrown into the overall cost
of the improvement. That's typical policy. Again, different projects can
mean different ways of doing things.
Headla: Has the Fire Department looked at this plan yet?
Dacy: The subdivision was reviewed by our Public Safety Director and their
recommendation was that there be a 45 foot radius turn around at the end of
Dogwood which would be located adjacent to the 10 acre lot which would be
responsible by Mr. Foster to construct.
Headla: To me that type of thing is unacceptable. I really think there
should be a means, you could have a cul-de-sac there, but I think you have
4t:o have a way to break through for emergency vehicles so they can pass a
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - Page 30
4Itroperty that's coming along. If there's an accident up there or if we had
a drowning or fire along those places, they wouldn't stand a chance. I
think you have to be able to get to all those homes from two different
directions. I see by coming through to TH 5, through pemtom, I think that's
way to get two different accesses.
Dacy: To address that maybe Mr. Headla, it's kind of hard to see on the
topo here on the overhead, but it is extremely steep in this area. It's in
excess of a 25% slope.
Headla: But isn't that where Pemtom was going to go through?
Dacy: Right. Pemtom is located down here. It would be extremely difficult
to make this connection. I agree from an overall transportation planning
standpoint that yes, you would want a second way in. We looked with the
applicant at looking at an access over in this area also. However, again
the topography in those areas, especially this is going to be extremely
difficult.
Headla: It just isn't a realistic situation right?
Dacy: And if you would connect that through then you are talking about
making some major improvements which you're hearing tonight is not
desirable.
~eadla: The trail that possibly would go through there, that's not a
problem with the trail?
Dacy: No. I think we can work with the property owner on locating a good
alignment through his subdivision.
Headla: What are we talking about bringing through Mr. Foster's 10 acres
there with a trail?
Dacy: I think the Park and Rec's intent was to exactly do that and go along
Dogwood Road. However, again with the location of the vegetation and so on,
I think we have to take another look and look at other areas of the site to
make that judgment.
Emmings: I've got three things. First of all, I certainly agree that
obviously the feasibility should be done right away but I don't think it
should be done at Mr. Foster's expense. I also have a point down here about
coordinating with the developer to the south and apparently that just can't
be done and that's too bad. It looked like a real opportunity but I guess
it can't be done. The next thing is, do we need some kind of condition
Barbara or maybe I just missed something here, do we need something in here
about trails?
Dacy: Yes, I would recommend that if you recommend approval that you put in
a condition to require location of the trail easement.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - Page 31
4Itmmings: Then the only other thing I've got, I'm concerned from my own
selfish point of view as a homeowner on Lake Minnewashta about beachlots. I
know Mr. Foster announced intention to build his own home on the 10 acre
spot. Does that necessarily preclude him from changing his mind and turning
this into a beachlot for this whole subdivision either nor or later?
Dacy: Yes. He would have to file a conditional use permit application to
receive a beachlot status and create an outlot, etc..
Emmings: So it wouldn't be necessary or even reasonable to include that in
the condition of approval upon not using that.
Dacy: No, he has the ability to install one dock just as every other
riparian lot owner does.
Erhart: You are attempting to combine the issue of maintenance of this
street with the subdivision.
Dacy: I don't know if it's an intent to combine but everything came
together all at once.
Erhart: In trying to decide whether we want to require the developer to
not only provide the easement along the whole thing which is a benefit to
him but then to go beyond that and ask him to do improve the road along that
~,500 feet there, is that what it is? Let me ask the developer, would you
~refer to give the right-of-way just to wait until the feasibility study is
through and then see if the whole thing can be done. Is that your
preference?
Tim Foster: I prefer that it stays as close to as it is as possible but it
appears that by the request for the services and things like that, that it's
an issue whether I move there or not so I prefer that the setting stays as
close to possible as it is so I would like to go in there with a road that's
similar to what's there and then depending on what should be done, I would
join in with that group with whatever improvements they make.
Erhart: I was there today and the end of it does need some private
turnaround. Even in today's climate it's wet. The idea to have the
developer, you're asking to improve it to rural standards which is 60 foot
like West 96th Street with gravel and the base and the whole shot so we'll
have a 600 foot stretch at the end of almost a mile of rural standards.
Dacy: We felt it was important to be consistent with past rural subdivision
approvals. However, if the Commission wants to consider Mr. Foster's
request, that's fine. The only thing that Staff would recommend is that on
a temporary basis then that just the extension for the driveway down to his
lot with an adequate turn around area be provided. However, building on the
other two lots be withheld until the issue is resolved and we've got an
adequate standard road.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - Page 32
.rhart:
at all.
all, can
That might be a good thought. Let's say the road wasn't even there
If somebody wants to subdivide a piece of land with no access at
you do that? Say that road wasn't there at all.
Dacy: The thing is that it's a dedicated platted right-of-way.
Erhart: Just so I understand the process. Let's say there's no road and
somebody wants to split out 5 acres where there's no access to that, can you
do that?
Dacy: And no right-of-way. You would be creating a landlocked parcel and
that would not be permitted unless a variance was granted and an easement
provided.
Erhart: So in doing this you're assuming that there is a public right-of-
way so that is part of the issue. I don't know if we can apply any of our
standards to this particular situation. It would seem odd to me to ask this
fellow to improve that 600 feet to our rural standards. I think it is
essential that some improvement be made to at least bring it up to the point
where there is a turn around. I'm not sure exactly how you're going to
define that. The other thing is, I don't think it should be so easy to just
write off the idea of bringing that right-of-way down to the south edge of
his property. I guess I would like to understand what you say. Sometimes
there are alternative ways of thinking. I think it's really important for
~he future planning of this whole area that somehow we could get an access
~hrough and I'm concerned that we're subdividing another five lots to the
north here. Even if the Outlot area would ever get subdivided, we're making
it difficult to make a southerly access there without providing one at this
time. I guess I would almost rather see us require an easement even though
it may be impossible to build. The fact that we've got an easement allows
us to trade in the future would make more sense than to actually put in an
extension so I guess I would like to see it in anyway. A question on this
one, did this application come in before the ordinance change?
Dacy: Originally an application was filed to subdivide the entire site to 2
1/2 acre lots. Then Mr. Foster reached an agreement on the property and
proposed this one. As proposed, the lots are meeting our new standards.
Technically it's under the old ordinance but it's meeting the new ordinance.
Conrad: Tim, you want an easement where?
Erhart: I think to ask for an easement running through to the south. What
is happening in the south property?
Olsen: They have come in with a revised plan but they are providing an
easement all the way up and it's right along the eastern edge of the
property.
Dacy: What we can do is look at that situation. There may be more or an
opportunity to go through the Outlot like you mentioned but it's steep.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - Page 33
4Iteadla: I think Tim was right. That there should be an easement there.
wish I would have thought of that.
I
Erhart: Even if it would be between the 10 and the 5 acre lots.
Headla: Somewhere to get through. As that whole area gets developed, I
think you got to be able to get down to TH 5.
Conrad: You either get down to TH 5 or you need another access back to TH
41.
Headla: And you really can't get onto TH 41 again.
Dacy: The revised Pemtom application came in late last week so again, yes
we can evaluate that connection.
Headla: Can we approve something tonight and still negotiate that with
Foster and Pemtom?
Dacy: Yes. I think they wil be on the 4th of July agenda so we can look at
those plans and connection.
Conrad: Are we pretty confident that we don't need any, I don't know how
Mr. Foster's going to divide that property up and theoretically you're
.-t:elling us that the MUSA line needs to be extended for urban services
~otentially soon that could be divided into small lots.
Dacy: It's not that soon. Staff really doesn't show it. The Lake Ann
Interceptor area is significantly over the northeast. Yes, this is within
what would be our new MUSA but there would have to be a major trunk
extension down TH 41 before this proprty could be served so I think we're
talking at least 20 to 30 years in the future. This is in the extreme
southwest corner of the new MUSA area that we looked at being served by the
Lake Ann Interceptor.
Conrad: But how do you feel we're dividing. Here we have all those houses
that have one access. We don't know that we can connect to the south. We
don't know that yet it looks like we're blocking a loop possibility with a
couple of the smaller lots there. Are we fenced in? The way this
subdivision is working, have we cut out the opportunity of a major loop
going back?
Dacy: If you approve this subdivision subject to looking at an easement
connection, no, that opportunity is not lost. I think what you're getting at
is where is the cut-off point? How many more units do you add onto a mile
long dead end road and that's the issue that you're looking at. You can
expect under a 1 per 10 regulations that this outlot could develop into no
more than 7 lots.
Conrad:
e
In the next 30 years?
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - Page 34
~acy: That's correct. So in total that would be to have potentially 10
more lots on this stretch. We were very concerned with the original
proposal of creating 2 1/2 acre lots which I can't remember now the number
of units but I think it was 30 or 40 at least so in comparison, 3 or 10.
Conrad:
Is the best alternative for a second access to the south?
Dacy: The other one that we did take a look at but again there were some
topo considerations, was working with the adjacent property owner over to
the Hazeltine Blvd.. That would another way out.
Emmings: How would that work?
Dacy: If this would resubdivide you could for example create a cul-de-sac
in here and potentially swing that around and arrange the seven lots around
that. That would be one alternative. Over in here, it's heavily vegetated
over in here so I think the best plan would be to take advantage of the good
section coming off of TH 41 and create another street.
Head1a: Where is the developer planning to put his house?
Dacy: Right at the tip.
Headla:
_that one
Conrad:
Should we table this until July 8th when Pemtom so we could look at
too. Maybe they need some encouragement to get together on this?
I think we need to get the feasibility study going.
Headla:
We could make a motion for that.
Conrad: I'm still kind of nervous that we haven't covered the possibility,
if we can't connect to the south.
Erhart: As far as the maintenance is concerned, I don't think we have to
think of going straight to the south. If you look at your contour lines, we
can allow the developer to build his house and bring that road over to the
southeast and down. Somewhere it brings it down.
Headla: We don't know if that agrees with Pemtom. Maybe they don't go far
enough east.
Dacy: The additional 3 units is not going to cause an adverse impact on the
existing function of the road. I think that's an excellent recommendation
to reserve the corridor in there and we can look at that. That leaves your
option open for a potential connection but we wanted the Commission to
realize that there are problems with this because of the topography and it
might end up that in the future that we'll have to go over in this
direction. At least you are reserving an easement. That's an advantage.
Conrad: And you feel that the three lots that we're sUbdividing now will
~ot impair, if we have an easement coming south or southeast, the other two
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - Page 35
4ItnortherlY lots are not going to impair potential access? In other words,
for the current property owners there would be no reason to run a road
halfway down and loop it back to the east. Is there any reason we would
ever consider taking a road straight to the east there? I want you to rule
that option out for me that that's just not anything we would ever entertain
as a secondary or third alternative.
Dacy: What you have to remember is to be creating a street connection and
so on, you have 7 units to assume the street costs. Going this way would be
very lengthy and very expensive that it may not be economically feasible.
At least with this option you have a shorter distance. Probably more
constraints in topography.
Conrad: I don't know who should pay for the feasibility study and I would
almost like to throw that one up to City Council so they can deal with it.
Steve, like you, I'm not sure that the applicant should pay for the
feasibility study. I think it's a benefit to the entire neighborhood but I
honestly don't understand the mechanics of doing that. I also believe and
therefore, point 2 in the Staff Report, I'm not sure that I would vote for
the applicant footing the entire bill. I also believe that the applicant
temporarily could extend the driveway to his house and not be permitted to
build on the other two lots until the feasibility study comes in and we
determine what kind of road standards should be supplied. I do think there
should be a cul-de-sac though or turn around down there because if we still
..pave a safety problem and we still have to turn around down there so I think
... would agree that the standards, maybe we don't impose the current rural
standards right now until the feasibility study comes in but that we do have
a cul-de-sac down there and that we don't allow building on the other two
lots until we have the feasibility study in our hands. I would like to have
an easement south through the bottom of Lot 3. I think that's smart. I
think we just have to look at that. There's got to be another access to
that road. I think there's got to be some way of bringing a park trail
through there. I think it's real important to the link to the Arboretum and
the park to the north. Those are my comments.
Emmings moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Subdivision Request #87-11 based on the preliminary plat stamped
"Received May 19, 1987" and subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall be required to install a proper cul-de-sac turn
around at the end of Dogwood Road. However, the applicant may be
allowed to put in a driveway as approved by City Staff.
2. No development shall be permitted in either of the 5 acre lots
un t i 1 a feas i b i 1 i ty study for the road is completed and the plans
for that road are determined.
3.
A feasibility study will be initiated to evaluate the alternatives
to improving Dogwood Road and Tanadoona Drive.
4It
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - Page 36
e
4.
The developer be required to enter into a development agreement
guaranteeing the installation of the improvements and provide
financial sureties as required.
5. That the applicant would have to provide an easement to connect
Dogwood Road to the development to the south, presently the Pemtom
proposal, and ultimately to TH 5. The size and location shall be
determined by City staff.
6. The plat shall reserve a trail easement. The size and location of
the trail easement shall be determined by City Staff.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
SUBDIVISION REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 104 ACRES INTO 40 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON
PROPERTY ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATES ANo-EOCATED 1/4 ~ILE SOU~F ~~~
~ ON GALPIN BOULEVARD, WALLACE OTTO.
Public Present:
Name
Address
.at Jordan
ick Hartung
Bill Engelhardt
Dennis Soari
Gayleen Schmidt
Lois Gustafson
Melbourne, Florida
Minneapolis
Chaska
Bloomington
8301 Galpin Blvd.
8341 Galpin Blvd.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the Staff Report on this Subdivision Request.
Bill Engelhardt made a presentation on behalf of the applicant.
*At this point a taping error occurred and the discussion was not recorded.
Emmings moved, Erhart seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Subdivision Request #86-27 as shown on the plat dated May 22,
1987 and subject to the following conditions:
1. All lots must have the two soil treatment sites staked and flagged.
2. Lots 10 and 11, Block 2 should share a driveway to preserve the
septic sites.
3.
Lot 21, Block 2, and Lots 14, Block 3 shall be combined with
adjacent lots unless and until Staff is satisfied they are
buildable.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - Page 37
e
7.
8.
9.
10.
ll.
e
12.
4.
Lots 6 and 7, Block 2 shall be deemed as an outlot and unbuildable
or shall be combined with adjacent lots unless and until City Staff
is satisfied they are buildable.
5. The applicant shall provide a roadway easement for 150 feet right-
of-way centered on CR 117 (Galpin Blvd.) consistent with the Carver
County Engineer's request.
6. The applicant shall provide a 60 foot roadway easement to connect
to the east off of the end of one of the existing cul-de-sacs,
either Oak Ridge or Renaissance Court.
The City shall work with the applicant in acquiring additional land
for the city cemetary.
Outlots A and B shall be deemed unbuildable.
The applicant shall add erosion control fencing on the north side
of Renaissance Court along the drainageway.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the
Watershed District.
The applicant shall provide a phasing plan for incorporation into
the development agreement.
The applicant shall enter into a development agreement and provide
the City with necessary financial sureties to insure the proper
installation of the improvements.
13. The applicant shall incorporate a final Grading and Erosion Control
plan into the construction documents.
14. The variances are being granted for frontage for seven lots on
cul-de-sacs only because the developer is providing a Covenant
restricting future subdivision of those lots and we feel that meets
the intent of the ordinance as it's written.
15. The applicant provide a trail easement along CR 117 and Timberwood
Drive pursuant to the recommendations of the Park and Rec
Commission.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
Bill Engelhardt: If that connection is made at the end of those cul-de-sacs
we won't need that driveway easement.
Emmings: That's fine because I don't like that driveway easement in there.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - Page 38
~mmingS moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Wetland Alternation Permit #87-9 for development within 200 feet
of a Class A wetland with the following condition:
1. All septic systems shall meet the 150 foot wetland setback.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
Erhart: What wetland are we approving to be altered?
Olsen: It's not an alteration. It's just that the development is within
200 feet and the Ordinance requires that any development within 200 feet to
receive a Wetland Alteration Permit.
Erhart: So the fact that septic systems can go up to 150 feet, we need a
permit?
Olsen: We would look to see if the development is impacting the wetland.
SUBDIVISION REQUEST TO
ONE OUTLOT ON PROPERTY
41 JUST 1/4 MILE NORTH
~Ublic Present:
SUBDIVIDE 100 ACRES INTO THREE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND
- - ----
ZONED A-2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATES AND LOCATED ON HWY.
OF HWY. 5, DAVID STOCKDALE. - ---
Mike K1ingelhutz
8601 Great Plains Blvd.
Jo Ann Olsen presented the Staff Report on this Subdivision Request.
David Stockdale: I'm the developer and you pointed out that the southeast
lot would be Lot 1.
Olsen: Have I got that wrong?
David Stockdale: I just need clarification.
Olsen: Of Block 1, I'm sorry.
David Stockdale:
comments I have.
Lot 1 should be the northwest corner. That's the only
Emmings moved, Erhart seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor
and motion carried.
Erhart: What again, you're requiring the private drive to meet rural
standards?
e
Ch~nhassen Planning Commission
June 24, 1987 - Page 39
4Itlsen: We have a private drive standard.
doesn't have the 60 foot right-of-way.
It will be bituminous. It
Erhart: Okay, so it's a different standard?
Olsen: Yes, it's a different standard. We do have a City standard for a
private drive.
David Stockdale: Jo Ann, just clarification, it is gravel now.
Olsen: Yes.
Erhart: Well, you throw this term rural standard around.
Olsen: I thought I had private standard. The right-of-way being provided is
the rural standard.
Emmings: We've got this memo here from Park and Rec. Should we be putting
another condition on here? I don't understand exactly what they're telling
us.
Olsen: Do you want me to explain?
Emmings: I don't want so much an explanation if you could just clarify for
4IJe what they're asking him to do.
Olsen: What they need to be" dedicated is a 20 foot easement along Galpin
Bl vd. ..
Emmings: Is he aware of that?
Olsen: I just received this memo.
my presentation.
I'm sorry I forgot to bring it up during
Emmings: Maybe we can make him aware of it now and see if he's agreeable.
Olsen: The Park and Rec Commission, they have a trail plan and they are
requiring trail easements along the major roads. What they're asking for
is a 20 foot trail easement along CR 117. It will not take anything off
your lot area at all.
Emmings: My question then is, are they requiring it along the whole road
here because this subdivision is subdividing this, right and not this? Can
they have them do that too? It's part of the property but not part of the
subdivision.
Dacy:
You are platting the lot where your existing home is?
David Stockdale: No. That's a separate issue.
4IPacy: You're leaving that out as an exception?
Planning Commission Meeting
June 241 1987 - Page 40
~avid Stockdale:
It's not part of this discussion at all.
Dacy: I understand that but when you file a plat though you should
eliminate that meets and bounds description and just call it Lot 1.
David Stockdale: For what reason?
Dacy: Number one it will clarify a description problem. Eliminate your
long meets and bounds description. It may just say the Mackendale
description will just apply to your existing home. It won't be any more
cost because they've already got the surveying done and the control flags
down. It's just calling it Lot 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Emmings: Let me ask, do you have any objection to a 20 foot easement for
trails across there?
David Stockdale: I was at the meeting. I was aware of it on the top part
and that was a question I should have asked about the frontage on my
existing residence. I guess I really don't have any objection to it. I
guess a'question I should have asked then in terms of assessments for that
frontage for the trails. How does that get paid for?
Olsen: You pay for them by $118.00 per lot I belive and there is also the
park dedication.
~avid Stockdale: Which I waived.
Olsen: They waived that?
David Stockdale: I believe they did.
Emmings: On condition 5 it says that we will grant a 20 foot trail easement
across his entire frontage on CR 117. That's including both Lot 3 and his
lot on which his present road is. Is there anything that should say?
Olsen: That's what they wanted.
Erhart moved, Headla seconded that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of Subdivision Request #87-8 as shown on the plat dated January 15,
1987 and subject to the following conditions:
1. The private drive shall be named and constructed to city standards.
2. The roadway design shall address drainage considerations, in
particular the low area near Galpin Boulevard.
3. The applicant shall submit new soil borings for improved soil
treatment sites on Lot 1.
4.
The applicant shall receive an access permit from Carver County.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - Page 41
e
5.
The applicant shall provide a 20 foot trail easement along Galpin
Blvd. through Lot 3 and through the property containing the
applicant's existing home.
All voted in favor and motion carried.
PUBLIC HEARING:
WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO ALTER TWO CLASS A WETLANDS TO CREATE STORMWATER
RETENTION FACILITIES IN CONJUNCTIONW1TH THE DOWNTOWN STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
PLAN ON PROPERTY ZONEClBG, GENERAL BUSIN~DISTRICT AND LOC~ AT THE END
OF WEST 79TH STREET ADJACENT TO THE RAILROAD TRACKS, CITY OF CHANHASSEN.---
Public Present:
Jim Burdick
Clayton Johnson (Representing Bloomberg Companies)
Conrad: Before I ask for the Staff Report, Mr. Burdick has asked us to
review the two wetlands that are being altered separately. I think what I
would like to do is have Staff give us a report as they have prepared and
the applicant can talk to us about the two separate wetlands that'are going
to be impacted. We can choose to react to both wetlands individually in our
motion if we would like.
~arbara Dacy presented the Staff Report on the Wetland Alternation Permit.
Gary Ehret: Maybe I could just mention one thing. I have not appeared
before this Commission as of yet. I think probably a couple months ago at
least Mr. Lasher of our firm, who was our landscape architect on the
downtown project, I think did appear briefly before you. Specifically
regarding bike trails and that kind of thing. I am the project engineer and
have been involved on this project for over a year now, from the very
beginning so just by way of introduction as to who I am. I think Barb
pretty well covered the essence of this. Barr Engineering's recommendation
was that these ponds be created. We have throughout the feasibility stage
and the final plan documentation stage, incorporated those recommendations
into all of the documents. The plans and specifications that were issued
for construction at this time do include ponding in this area as they
recommended. I think probably the only other critical factor is that the
volume of run-off projected for future downtown improvements is such that it
literally uses up this entire parcel for holding storm water retention and
does cause us, at this time at least, in all the calculations, to also need
an area on the north side of the tracks. One other thing, to elaborate a
little bit, we have been working with the current owner of this parcel.
They have some real concerns about the ability to use this area for future
parking, etc.. I think in general we could say that that doesn't conflict
with our intended use of storm water ponding in this area. It may conflict
with the current wetland ordinance.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - Page 42
_im Burdick: If there are no comments, I would like to have your decision
on the north side of the tracks and then after you've done that then I would
like to comment pertaining to the property on the south side of the tracks.
In other words, my property.
Conrad: I think it would be helpful if you would talk to us now.
Dacy: Did all of you receive his letter by the way?
Jim Burdick: Yes, I'll ask that too. Did you receive my letter of June 22nd?
Conrad: Yes.
Jim Burdick: I'm the owner of the 5.8 acres south of the railroad tracks.
I would like to bring up first two questions. Several items here on the
question of fairness. I don't feel it's fair to have a Dr. Rockwell give a
report on the same day as the meeting so I can not see it. I can not rebut.
She's had plenty of time to do it. For several weeks. Instead of this,
it's done on the day of the meeting. I surely would expect to get this a
week ahead of time so I could get someone with comparable title of doctor
for a rebuttal. I don't think it's fair to give that consideration without
giving me an opportunity to review it before the meeting. Some days before
and secure competant rebuttal to, quite proudly, another person with the
title of doctor, whatever that means. Secondly, this ponding thing has been
~rought up tonight. This ponding area really doesn't have anything to do
~ith this at this time. The Carver County Court has ruled and I have it
with me if you wish to have it distributed, that Lot 8 can not be taken.
Lot 9 can not be taken by the quick method. Perhaps I could just pass this
out.
Erhart: Ladd, could I ask some background on this?
Conrad: Go ahead.
Erhart: I completely do not understand what we're talking about here. You
are the owner of those properties?
Jim Burdick: Yes.
Erhart: And yet, on the report the applicant is the City of Chanhassen for
a wetland alteration permit. I don't understand that.
Dacy: What Mr. Burdick is referring to is that the City is in the process
of a condemnation process and what he's reporting is that the initial
process is to do it in what they call a quick take. What he is referring to
is that the Judge did not determine that to be appropriate. I have not been
directly involved in the condemnation process. That's been the
responsibility of our Attorney. The City Council has approved the final
plans and specifications. They have awarded the bids and so on. What we're
trying to do, just like we need permits from MnDot and permits from the
~ea1th Agency and so on, they're trying to conform to all of our
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - Page 43
-'equ i remen ts
period.
to be ready to go by this summer.
within the next 3 to 4 week
Erhart: So the reason the Planning Commission is looking at this is, you're
trying to get some work done in advance?
Dacy: We are the applicant. Mr. Burdick is not proposing to alter the lot.
Erhart: I'm trying to get an idea of what we're doing here and whether or
not this is even a forum for your rebuttal.
Conrad: I'm not sure where he's going yet. In terms of the legal
proceedings, we have nothing to do with legal proceedings and how the city
administers any kind condemnation. We don't know. We are here simply to
review if this wetland is to be altered, what we are here to do is to decide
whether we should grant a permit for it. That's the only thing we're
looking at tonight. Not the if's in my mind and it's not the legal aspect
either. We just don't have the responsibility for that but I'll let you
continue talking and I'll cut you off if I think you're telling us stuff
that we just absolutely can't deal with.
Jim Burdick: Yes, I'll appreciate that. I don't mind though at the present
time if you gentlemen wish to rule if you're not the proper forum for this.
If you want to make that decision before I go on. That this should not be
.eard before you tonight, that would be very acceptable to me. This is one
eason why I showed you this item here. It might quite likely be two or
three years before this property the condemnation is completed on it.
Dacy: It's obvious that we won't be able to start work until we have
completed condemnation proceedings. The Planning Commission is the proper
forum to discuss wetland alteration permits. Your action tonight could be
subject to consummation of all the necessary legal proceedings. Your here
to talk about the wetland alteration permit.
Conrad:
And we will talk about that. Do you have anything...
Jim Burdick: Much more.
I just wanted your decision.
Conrad: What I would like to do, because it is a public hearing, if you've
got something to tell us, not legally speaking. If you've got something to
tell us about the wetland themselves, then we'll entertain those comments.
Jim Burdick: I understand only about the legal aspect here because of the
time element. Okay, first of all, this is quite high ground. It's not
wetland. Using a cul-de-sac here, that's 950 feet. Only a very small part
of it is lowland. The lowest spot is 946 feet, it's only 4 feet below the
pavement. This west end here is 928 feet, 28 feet above the 79th Street
cul-de-sac pavement. Here is the 950 foot line so this is basically above
the cul-de-sac.
~onrad: Are you concerned, whether it's a wetland or not, are you concerned
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - Page 44
4Ilhat this is a ponding area? What the engineers are saying, this is a
ponding area. Whether it's a wetland, our concern right now is how we deal
with it in terms of should it be restored to a wetland. Should a wetland be
tampered with. I think your preference would be that a wetland shouldn't be
tampered with. Isn't that what you're saying?
Jim Burdick: No, this is not a wetland.
Conrad: If you thought it was a wetland and we felt that you're right, we
potentially could say that the wetland should not be tampered with and
nothing should go into it but what I guess I'm looking for your issue.
Jim Burdick: My issue is that it's good high ground and it's not a wetland.
Conrad: And therefore?
Jim Burdick: No action should be taken.
Conrad: There should be no pond there?
Jim Burdick: No, I'm not saying there should not be a pond there but there
should only be movements toward creating a pond there after the City has
received title from me either through negotiations and negotiate with Mayor
Tom Hamilton and Don Ashworth so there should not be any action taken until
_he City acquires this either to purchase or condemnation and this could be
s long as two or three years before the City has title. Now, perhaps there
isn't need for me to go through this letter completely, you can see this
layout here is the place for an automobile dealership which I understand
passed the City Planning Commission and the City Council. As far as the
elevations here go, after grading, which is necessary to do building, there
is actually excess of soil in this spot. At this time I would like to
request that my letter of June 22, 1987 be made a part of the Minutes of
this meeting. I would like to emphasize that this is an extremely important
matter because it involves a great deal of money here. In excess of a
million dollars which is a lot to me and probably quite a bit of money to
the City of Chanhassen. I would now like to refer you to page 2 of the
report. North of the tracks it shows a water area but the drawing, the map,
does not show a water area to the south of the tracks so what is correct? I
was over there yesterday and could not see any water. I believe page 2 of
the report here is the correct one. I invite you to the top of about the
fourth to the last page called Identify and Discuss Other Alternatives to
Wetland Alteration. It reads in part, existing wetland and a route for
proposed storm sewer resulting in flooding and erosion. There has not been
any flooding and erosion on my property. There is not any erosion there
now. There wasn't any last year. There isn't any this year. Under (c),
under Disadvantages, it says the wetlands reduces existing meadow
conditions. Well, that is a disadvantage. The disadvantage for making this
a wetlands is it deprives me from my property rights. That's a
disadvantage. Then the second to last page, under Wetland Evaluation
Worksheet, it states in part about the sixth line down, the wetland
~equested is upland position in the watershed. It is currently a wet meadow
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - Page 45
~ype of area. It's not a wet meadow. 90% of it is high and dry in a wet
year. I've driven out on it many times. It has amazing drainage. It has
28 feet of drainage from the west end of it to the 79th street cul-de-sac.
28 feet of slope. I guess I've taken enough of your time. I had a few more
points here. I have the plans here for the Crysler dealership but I'm not
sure how material that is as long as I state that I have the plans and I
thank you for your time.
Clayton Johnson: I'm representing the Bloomberg Companies. We would speak
in support of the resolution for the wetland alteration permit and we would
recommend that it be approved and forwarded to City Council for approval.
Obviously this is part of the downtown redevelopment project that we've
worked many years, hard and long on. We do have a concern. It's a concern
that there has been some miscommunication between the Staff and ourselves.
Barbara pointed out when she made her presentation that we felt that the
resolution tonight was going to address two other issues. One is that we
will be coming back as part of future development and asking for permission
to park on a portion of that land that is currently designated as a wetland.
I would have to say that I've been working on this project now for about
seven months. I have been asking the Staff to present to me a definition of
what portion of our land is a wetland according to the Wetlands Ordinance
and it's only this week that Gary and Barb have put together a map that
really shows us that area. So if in fact the area is the one that is
defined, we will be coming back at a future meeting and asking for
~ermission to park on what is currently designated as wetland. I though~
~hat was going to be a part of the resolution tonight. The second thing is
that we will also be coming back and asking for permission to relocate or
potentially relocate the ponding that will be created on the north side of
the railroad tracks. The design that BRW has currently calls for that
ponding to hold very, Gary can probably be specific in terms of how much
water it will hold, but it's very important to us that we be able to come
back with a plan that relocate that ponding. I guess this is a part of
negotiations that have been going on with the City Attorney and ourselves
for quite a period of time. We had hoped to have it resolved before the
meeting tonight but it hasn't but that is very, very important to the future
of the downtown development issue. As you may be aware that's the site of
the grocery store and national retail account so we would recommend the
approval of the resolution in the Staff Report but we want to make the
Planning Commission aware that those two future developments, that we will
be coming back with those two future requests.
Gary Ehret: I do not know the exact situation relative to the quick take
matter. I don't think that's an issue. The City has applied to the quick
take process for Mr. Burdick's property. That may take longer than
expected. At this time we are bringing this matter before the Planning
Commission because our intent is to do what we show here and if you came out
with recommendations that would change our intent, that's something that we
would have to address as a part of the construction contract. Whether we
eliminate it at this time or seek other alternatives or just add conditions
such as though that may be recommended by Elizabeth Rockwell or the Soil
4Ifonservation Service. My second comment is simply that, I don't want to
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - page 46
4Itpeak for Mr. Burdick, but he seemed to be indicating that he didn't feel
that this was in fact a wetland. I don't want to dispute that issue. I
would just simply point out that under the adopted City Plan, it is
designated currently as a wetland. That is why we have applied for a
wetland alteration permit. I think in general his remarks about the
topography, I would agree that it's not that much lower than West 79th,
etc.. It is currently designated a wetland. Again, to the north side of
the tracks, currently the intent is that a majority of the ponding be on the
south side. The ponding is to serve the downtown area. We're trying to
minimize the amount of ponding that would occur on the north side. We're
trying to also minimize under what we're asking for alterations to the north
side. Only altering as much as necessary accommodate the storm sewer
improvements. The south side would be a substantial modificatin. We would
be creating a very large storm water pond.
Conrad: What's the importance in timing here? Why are you in right now
versus 3 weeks or a month from now?
Gary Ehret: Currently the contract for the downtown improvements has been
let to Schafer Contracting subject to several conditions which are primarily
permit conditions. We still have to review this with the Watershed
District. We are still waiting for a PC permit etc. but the contract has
been awarded. We are pushing very hard to get these improvements underway
as soon as possible. The date tentatively was July 1st. I think that will
.e moved back slightly but we are hoping that we will be breaking ground
pproximately July 13th. If in fact the quick take the cities have given us
possession of this land and again, I don't want to argue if they have or did
not, that's between the City Attorney, but if they have, construction of
this pond area would be one of the very first things that would occur under
our current contract. So the push on our end is simply we're ready to go
for construction. This is included in the construction in whatever form you
and Council decide and we're ready to go.
Conrad: Okay, any other comments?
Jim Burdick: Only two comments. This business of my property, part of it
being wetlands, is a complete shock to me. I haven't known of any such a
thing. I've never been notified to that effect and page 2 of the Staff
report shows it as not being wetland. I'm surely entitled to rely on that.
Conrad: You're aware there are ponds going in. You're aware that this is
part of the improvement for all of downtown Chanhassen so that's not a
surprise to you. That this is part of the storm water management of downtown
Chanhassen, is that a surprise?
Jim Burdick: No, it's a surprise about 100 days ago when I received a
registered letter telling me. That was a great surprise. I couldn't conceive
of any city having a ponding area on one of the very business two lane
highways in the state. They put ponding areas out back someplace. You can
only find it at 7-Hi, Knollwood, what have you. Just go down the line.
~Onding areas are placed on porous, low ground, which can be purchased quite
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - Page 47
~heaPlY.
Not on the State highway.
Conrad: The only reasson we're looking at this tonight is because somebody
is putting a pond there. That's the only reason. We are looking at it
because by chance it also happens to be a wetland as designated. Somebody
is putting a holding pond and that's your concern that you have to follow up
on but that really doesn't relate to what we're talking about tonight.
We're looking at should a wetland be tampered wi tho That's what we're
looking at. You're saying there shouldn't be water put there which is
something a little bit different. I just to make sure that you know what
we're doing here because you're not saying things that are relevant to our
situation.
Jim Burdick: And I'm saying that this should not be a wetlands. This 5.8
acres should not be a wetlands.
Conrad: What should it be? Should not be a pond? You want to make it land.
You don't want to use it for anything in terms of storm water from the
central business district I assume.
Jim Burdick: No, I do not feel I'm responsible for the storm water from the
central business district but I'm willing to enter in negotiations to sell
this property to the City of Chanhassen and then they can do whatever they
want to with it.
~rhart: We're assuming the City has the property and we're trying to
decide, given what we know today which is this is considered a wetlands
area, is this a reasonable proposal and I don't see how this meeting has
anything to do with that.
Emmings: The flip side of this is, can we absolutey assure him, we have no
intentions of doing anything on that land until it belongs to the City of
Chanhassen.
Jim Burdick: Then I have no interest in the matter. You can decide to make
it into a park after the City of Chanhassen purchases it from me.
Emmings: They can't dig a hole on your land until they own it. They can't
do that so you can just read assured of that.
Jim Burdick: And I do not think we should assume, in view of that court
decision I showed you, that the city is about to have this land.
Emmings: They can certainly condemn it or they can negotiate with you.
Jim Burdick: Negotiate but they can take it by the lengthy method.
Erhart moved, Emmings seconded to close public hearing. All voted in favor
and motion carried.
e
Planning Commission Meeting
June 24, 1987 - Page 48
4Itonrad: Let me make a quick comment. We've got some recommendations in
here that I haven't really read from Dr. Rockwell. I don't have the
foggiest idea what she is saying. Barbara, you told me that the City
Counc i 1 would 1 i ke to hear us express an opi non as to wha t thi s place looks
like. Is it a pond? Is it a wetland? What is it? I'm not sure I'm ready
to render any opinion on that. I've also heard some comments saying that
we may want to change the pond a little bit because we've got some parking
situations that are occurring which in my mind, that is fine. In a wetland
alteratin permit, I would like to see if somebody is recommending, and I
understand who is requesting this permit, but if somebody is recommending
that we change that wetland a little bit, I think we're going to listen to
them and there may be some good sense for moving the wetland one way so we
can use different area there. I don't see that in front of me tonight. I
guess I'm not really ready to react to the alteration permit at all and I
would like to table it until I get the informatin. I would like to table it
until we have other issues that were brought up tonight resolved. Not
necessarily Mr. Burdick's. I think Mr. Burdick's, you shouldn't be here on
this one but I think there are other issues that we should hear about and I
would like to review Dr. Rockwell's comments. Maybe the next meeting we can
review our thoughts on whether that wetland should be restored. Whether it
should look like a pond. Whatever it is and where it should be located and
if it should be shifted so I would like it tabled.
Emmings: I agree with that but it should be tabled, another thing that
_omes to mind is, when we got this we were not informed of the fact that
~his property belonged to Mr. Burdick. That really threw me into kind of a
tizzy when we got the letter from him but on the north side of the tracks,
who owns that property?
Dacy: That's Mr. Bloomberg's. I think the motion to table is fine. That
will give us time to work with the Bloomberg Companies to come in with a
specific plan on that area.
Emmings moved, Erhart seconded to table the Wetland Alteration Permit to
alter two Class A wetlands at the end of West 79th Street. All voted in
favor of tabling the item and motion carried.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Emmings moved, Conrad seconded to approve the Minutes
of the PlannTng Commission meeting dated June 3, 1987. All voted in favor
and motion carried.
Emmings moved, Conrad seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor
and motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 12:50 a.m..
Submitted by Barbara Dacy
City Planner
Prepared by Nann Opheim
e