PC 2006 04 04
PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 4, 2006
Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Uli Sacchet, Kurt Papke, Jerry McDonald, Debbie Larson, Mark
Undestad, and Deborah Zorn
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Dan Keefe
STAFF PRESENT:
Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Josh Metzer, Planner I; Alyson Fauske,
Assistant City Engineer; and Lori Haak, Water Resource Coordinator
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Thomas Schwartz 7376 Bent Bow Trail
PUBLIC HEARING:
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: PUBLIC HEARING ON UPDATED
PLAN.
Public Present:
Name Address
Frank Mendez 7361 Kurvers Point Road
Steve Donen 7341 Frontier Trail
Greg Fletcher 7616 South Shore Drive
Erin Krueger SEH
Ron Leaf SEH
Sacchet: Lori, you giving us the staff report for that please.
Haak: I will be introducing yes. Chairman Sacchet and Planning Commissioners, as you’re
aware the city staff has been working with SEH to develop a draft surface water management
plan. This plan is intended to update our inventory of all of our infrastructure as well as really
guide surface water management in Chanhassen through the next 10 years or so. A draft plan is
available on the city’s web site at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us. It’s under the what’s new heading
and if members of the public would like copies of this, it’s available either on CD Rom or copies
are available during business hours at Chanhassen City Hall and the Chanhassen Library. City
staff is going to, tonight the purpose of tonight’s public hearing is to receive comment on the
draft plan and following the receipt of that comment, we will be developing responses to those
comments. Staff is asking that the Planning Commission open the public hearing and then
nd
continue that public hearing to your May 2 meeting so that we can receive any additional
public comment that comes in in that time. So that’s the recommendation from staff. At this
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
time I’d like to introduce and invite Ron Leaf from SEH to come up. Ron is going to share a
little bit about the background of the plan and following that we’d be happy to take questions
from the Planning Commission and we ask you at that time to open public hearing and then
nd
continue it to the May 2 meeting.
Sacchet: Thank you Lori. Ron, do you want to jump in?
Ron Leaf: Thank you Lori. Mr. Chairman, commissioners. I’m pleased to be here tonight to
give you an overview of the draft surface water plan. I want to emphasize that this is a draft
plan, as Lori did, and Lori mentioned we’ve been working with city staff to develop this draft but
ultimately it becomes your plan and I think that’s a key point in this public hearing process is
that the public has a chance to comment. Staff then provides some comments and continue to do
that. It really becomes a plan that the city will use in the years to come and it becomes your
plan. Having said that, I am going to use the overhead camera here, if I’m on the right spot.
We’re going to talk about the surface water management plan and give you some background.
Some insight into some of the information that’s in the plan, and then what the plan intends to do
as the city moves forward. Lori mentioned the plans and update to a plan that was first
established in 1994. Really two main things that the plan has attempted to do. Achieve
compliance with some regulatory programs. There’s a state program. The Metropolitan Surface
Water Management program, and a federal program which is the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System program. The plan really addresses the first item but because the items are
so related, it incorporates many of the requirements of the NPDES program as well. Tries to
achieve some efficiencies in that process. The second main item is really just to coordinate an
overall surface water management plan by updating the goals and policies. These things change,
surface water management programs have changed over time, and since 1994 really the state of
the art and storm water management and some of the things that are being done and required are
changing literally on the fly these days, so need to continually update these goals and policies.
As part of that then, the next step is to update the goals. The development standards to support
those goals and policies and in part to develop and create some new management tools, as Lori
mentioned. An inventory of some of the infrastructure and the wetlands throughout the city.
We’ll touch on those briefly. Some of the new and refined tools that the plan, the planning
process has developed include an inventory of the storm system, including ponds, storm sewer
structures, and a number of treatment systems throughout the city. A hydrologic model update
that will be used by city staff to review developments and evaluate the system response to
proposed developments in the future. A wetland inventory and assessment which really covers a
lot of ground. Field work that looked at nearly 400 wetlands throughout the city and evaluated
the functions, the values, the type of wetland it was so that staff then can use that in the decision
making process for projects again that come before the city. And finally, an update on the status
of the city’s lakes and surface water bodies was completed. I’m going to take just a minute to
highlight some of the data that was collected to develop these tools. This is just a screen shot of
the tool that city staff will have available. It’s hard to see the specific storm points but what’s
important here is staff will have at their fingertips the ability to click on a storm structure for
example and pull up some information that was collected. The type of structure and be able to
use that in development reviews. This also was a key component in addressing the NPDES
permit program because the city was required to inspect each of these structures on an annual
basis and on a 5 year basis as required in different parts of the permit. Another one of the tools,
2
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
that’s just the data behind the inventory. Another one of the tools, I mentioned the hydrologic
model update. I don’t intend to get into detail here but really breaking the city down into
drainage areas and detention areas, treatment areas throughout the city in a comprehensive city
wide hydrologic model. Also conducted a MnRAM assessment. Minnesota Routine Assessment
Method for wetlands throughout the city and identified the type and locations and approximate
boundaries of each of those nearly 400 wetlands. And again that will be available to the city in a
data format that can be taken into account as developments come before the city. Another one of
the tools is really just a process by which city staff can help make decisions on the priority basis
of given projects. I won’t go through this table in detail but it’s both ES-2 in the Executive
Summary of the plan. What it intends to do is identify some of the priority resources from a
preserve level, which includes the crown jewels as the task force members identified. Seminary
Fen and Assumption Creek. To improve one, improve two and improve three categories related
to the status of those water bodies and the need to improve those and sets the bar for future
treatment needs, both for city projects in order to set the example, and for development projects
that come before the city. We also looked at the status of the surface waters throughout the city.
I mentioned briefly that Assumption Creek and Seminary Fen, the crown jewels that as part of
the evaluation, looking at the water quality trends, in general the trends are that the water bodies
are improving, or at least steady. There are some impaired waters, and as more waters are
assessed by the MPCA, it’s very possible that additional waters would be classified as impaired.
But a couple of those key water bodies are Riley and Lotus Lakes. There is some work to be
done in those watersheds and the plan addresses many projects that are potential improvements
in water quality for those watersheds. And then at the bottom here, Bluff and Riley Creeks are
also listed for turbidity which is another indicator of sediment loading to a stream section. I
think with that, I just wanted to give you an idea of what the lake trend analysis and just a snap
shot looks like. What this looks at here is the water clarity of the given lake. In this case we’re
looking at Lotus Lake, and you can see that the data generally shows that the clarity, the secchi
disk reading is increasing. It’s going from roughly 2 feet in 1979-1980 to somewhere in the
neighborhood of 5 feet. 4 to 5 feet in current years, so that trend is good. Is it there yet? Not
quite. It still needs some improvement but this is the type of trend that we looked at to identify
where a given lake fit within that priority system in the previous table. So with that analysis that
was completed, look at what are the outcomes and program implementation activities of the plan.
We mentioned NPDES permit compliance. Some of that’s done. Some of that will be done on
an ongoing basis. The staff continues to inspect the system. Maintain the system. Make
improvements into the storm system. It also identifies a prioritization of work plan items.
Within the appendix is a detailed list of potential storm water ponding, treatment area projects
that fit within each of the priority water bodies, and so staff can use that to develop a plan of
attack. For a given project or for the city’s own projects. There’s a couple of ordinance updates
that are required by the NPDES permit, but also that would be needed to fully implement the
plan, including recommendations for wetland management and for storm water development
standards. And finally one of the final items of the plan is really to establish some budgeting
expectation. What is the capital improvements program look like to support the needs of the
plan? In order to get there, there’s some public input and technical review, which is continuing
today and through the next couple of months. Task force meetings. There were 7 meetings that
took place with a number of task force members. A technical committee meetings which made
up of the watershed district staff that have responsibility and authority over portions of
nd
Chanhassen. And then this public hearing which is opening today and ending on May 2.
3
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
Again just to highlight the plan as drafted is available on the city’s web site under what’s new. I
also want to recognize the task force members. I won’t mention them all by name but you see
one of your very own here on the Planning Commission was a member of this task force and
provided great input into the process, and look forward to additional comments from that group
as we move into the final stages of this plan. Quickly look at the expected time line for
completion of the plan. There was initial draft that was sent internally to staff and the task force
members in January. That resulted in some fairly substantial revisions and production of this
agency review draft. What is this agency review draft mean? It means now it has also been
submitted to the watershed districts, Riley-Purgatory Watershed District, Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District, the Carver and Hennepin County Watershed Agencies and the Metropolitan
Council. Did I miss one? Lower Minnesota River Watershed District, thank you Lori. Since
submitted to them they have 60 days to review the plan and provide comments to the city. That
th
process then would officially close for those comments on May 30. Staff and SEH would then
respond to those comments and gain approvals from the watershed districts ideally in June and
then come back to Planning Commission public meeting in June for recommendation from this
group to the council to adopt the plan and again the plan at this point is to have that occur in
June. Production and delivery of a final draft late June, possibly early July. So let’s take a look
at some of the, you know the meat and potatoes here of the work plan and what does the plan
recommend. I’ve broken this down into the goals and policies section if you will, and just
highlighted a few of the key recommendations. From a water quantity, of flooding, you know
perspective, there’s two key things and the first would be to continue to look at options for
addressing the high water levels that occurred on Lotus Lake. Understand there is some
information that was reviewed many years ago and we intend to take a closer look at that and see
what’s already been reviewed but something that still needs to be addressed. Also to review
easements and emergency overflows on city ponds and drainage systems. You go back to
October of last year, we had some storms in early October and again in mid October that were
fairly substantial in many areas of the metropolitan area experienced some localized flooding as
a result of these storms that were anywhere from 4 inches to 6 inches in some cases. Really
highlighted the needs to review these easement coverages that is city drainage and utility
easements and the need for emergency overflows so that properties surrounding these detention
areas aren’t inundated if an outlet pipe gets plugged or debris gets in the pipe and it’s not
functioning properly. So that’s a key thing for city staff to look at as well. Water quality issues.
Really to continue to protect those crown jewels, Seminary Fen and Assumption Creek and strive
to improve Lotus, Riley Lakes, Bluff and Riley Creeks and I mentioned the table in the back of
the appendix that identifies the priority basis and lists the number of pond projects that are
available for staff to pick and choose from as opportunities arise. And then to maintain the other
water bodies as, to continue those steady trends. Obviously you’d like to address everything
now but funding is limited. You can’t take everything off at once so, looked to further prioritize
the plan as we move forward in the next couple of months. Additional items in the work plan.
Wetlands. We talked about the MnRAM data system. That will be used on an ongoing basis to
guide future decisions and I mentioned an update to the wetland ordinance. Erosion and
sediment control had a fair amount of discussion with task force on this item. Really just to try
and get our hands more on the need to really put a much more focused effort on this. The city
now works with some county staff to do this but really to understand where some other
improvements could be made as some of these larger projects, Trunk Highway 12 come through,
in addition to city led projects throughout the area. And then to identify some opportunities to
4
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
restore and stabilize scours at system outlets. Again as part of the drainage system inspection
process, we didn’t identify a lot of those but there are a few throughout the city that could use
some attention. And again, the final thing here is the finance and regulatory responsibilities.
The city wants to maintain adequate funding and you need to both to comply with your goals and
achieve your goals but also to comply with the NPDES permit program. To continue to inspect
and maintain your system. One thing that’s not listed here, it was a late but very good addition
to the plan, goals and policies was the public involvement and participation process. It really
relates to all of these goal areas. That has to be a key part of everything and the city has some
good activities and will continue to move ahead with educating the public, educating developers
and educating internal staff and commission members like yourselves, so we all are on the same
page with what needs to happen and what’s feasible to happen in the field. As far as the
implementation plan summary, I’m not sure if you can see that. Yeah, if you zoom in a little bit
here. This is really just a summary of a larger table that’s in the plans. Break it down into some
groupings to give an order of magnitude as far as an annual need to maintain, to program and to
achieve some of the goals for water quality. It’s broken down into 3 categories, planning costs,
capital construction costs and then ongoing operation and maintenance. It’s not a full list. City
staff has other costs that are putting other funding programs but what this is really intended to do
is kind of identify on an annual basis what’s needed to support the ongoing construction, capital
costs and planning costs as far as studies, reviewing easements, system upgrades for data
management systems, that type of thing. In the final analysis that we came up with, it’s
somewhere in the neighborhood of $400,000 a year in total. About $350 of that would be for
capital construction costs for pond projects. So the city could pick ponds off the list and on a
prioritized basis and do about $350,000 of pond projects per year and complete the list in the
plan within, the timeframe that we looked at was about 15 years so, that’s the time horizon. So
that’s a quick snapshot at what’s in the plan and kind of the details of the implementation plan,
and that’s really all I want to do is just a quick 15 minute overview of the plan and from there I’ll
leave it back to Lori or to the commission.
Sacchet: Thank you. So our role tonight, to clarify with staff is to hold the public hearing. Not
so much to give comments ourselves because the public hearing is going to stay open and then at
the end we make comment, is that more the idea?
Haak: That’s right. At this time staff would just like to get that first flush of public comment.
Then we can take some time to review those comments and respond to those in writing. Those
will be included in your next packet and then at that next Planning Commission meeting, if the
commission has questions, we’d like to answer those at that time.
Sacchet: With that I’d like to open the public hearing on this topic. Is there anybody here who’d
like to comment on the watershed plan for the city of Chanhassen? Yes. If you would state your
name and address for the record please. You may want to pull the microphone towards you
please.
nd
Gary Carlson: Thank you very much. Gary Carlson, 3891 West 62 Street. We’re here on
another matter but you’re mentioning your jewels. Our end of the city really appreciates Lake
Minnewashta and you didn’t mention that, and you didn’t mention Minnewashta Creek that
controls the level of Lake Minnewashta. It’s the only outflow of Lake Minnewashta. All of the
5
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
Arboretum, University of Minnesota Arboretum, great part of the city, drains into Lake
Minnewashta and it’s outflow right now is just, it’s outflow is determined only by whatever that
beached level sand was left at last fall. And the river, whatever that, there could be some study
there and I just wanted that to be as part of the emphasis because we’re at the corner of the city.
We don’t get much attention and I know everyone up in our area would be really, really
concerned about that. Thank you very much.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Do you want to say something to that Lori?
Haak: Yeah, I can actually speak to that real briefly. The city has looked at that outlet in the
past and that is something that we’ve considered doing. Really it’s true, right now the outlet is
controlled by a sandy area so we were looking, we actually had the DNR permit for it but
weren’t able to get that going, but we do intend to continue to look at that outlet.
Sacchet: Excellent. Anybody else would like to address this item? Please come forward. State
your name and address for the record please and let us know what you have to say.
Steve Donen: Yes, my name is Steve Donen and I live at 7341 Frontier Trail and I live basically
on Lotus Lake and I guess first of all I was glad to see that you mentioned the outflow on Lotus
Lake. I actually walked over it to it today and was disappointed in seeing how much flow was
going out. The lake is, it’s relatively high. I don’t know the numbers. Obviously the ice is just
starting to come off but it is high. It is not flowing well. I don’t know whether it’s plugged in
there or what’s going on, but it isn’t flowing well. I didn’t have a chance to call Lori today and
let her know. She usually gets a call from me a couple times a year anyways but just doesn’t
look like, it doesn’t look like any of the fish things are plugged up or, you know it looks like it’s
purely the hole that leaves isn’t big enough to manage the water flow. It does cause high waters
and it does, and we haven’t had a real wet season and the water is high this year again, as last
year was, so I’m glad to see that and if there’s anything we can do. I do represent a few of us as
Lotus Lake Clean Water Organization that we’re just starting so we would like to be as much as
we can involved in this whole process. We are glad to see you working on the process. I think
as a community the 11 lakes in Chanhassen and all the wetlands and everything else are our
crown jewels for everybody. For me especially Lotus Lake. I guess I have a couple things to
mention in this whole plan. I’ve only been able to see the plan since what Monday or Tuesday of
last week and I’ve been traveling so I haven’t had a chance to read it in great detail, but I will.
Okay. I had a few comments. First of all on the secchi disk reading, I’m not sure when they take
those readings. I like, you know I’ve been on lakes where I can see my feet most the time and in
Lotus Lake I, unless you are there right before the lake turns over in early spring, I can’t see my
belly button. So it’s not very good. I’m not sure where we get 5 feet secchi disk from. It’s just
timing on the data but I think the data is a little bit suspect personally. I spend about 250 hours a
year on that lake. So I just think that we make sure our data’s good because something seems to
be not matching what I see. Secondly I guess as a big thing for me with working in the public.
Not in public but in the private sector as an engineer, I get goals in my life. Every year I have
goals. Every 3 to 5 years objectives and goals and all that kind of stuff and I see goals and what
are kind of goals but I’ve been taught over the years that goals need to be smart goals so they’re
measurable. How are we doing against the goals? Since ’92, as I read some of the introductions
in this package, it’s been flat. Slight increases. I don’t know what the goal was. Did we do
6
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
good against the goals that we set back then? Did we not? So I guess I’d like to see as a part of
your plan, kind of set yourselves some goals. How we doing? Okay, and maybe have some kind
of reporting mechanism that we report it every year how we’re doing against the goals. So
measurable things that we can try to hit. The other thing is, there are some action plans. They
tend to be, I thought they were pretty general and left a lot open for discussion and again I’m
going to volunteer myself and members of my group to, organization to maybe help with some
of that work. On how to turn these things into actual plans that we go do, and if we need the help
with funding or something else that we can help with, we’d obviously be willing to help. So I
guess that’s kind of the comments. We would just like to be involved and set goals and let’s
measure against them. Okay? And you guys are the Planning Commission. You have a real
challenge in trying to match the plans and the ordinances and make sure we stick with those
things as they go forward and as developers come in and try to do things. We need to make sure
we stick with our standards and maintain those so, up to you guys and all of us to make sure it
happens so thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Excellent comments. Anybody else who would like to address
our surface water management plan and update? This is your chance. If there’s nobody getting
up, I’ll bring it back here. We are leaving this hearing open, and as a matter of fact I’d like to
ask if somebody would want to make a motion formally leave this hearing open so that we
anchor that in.
Larson: I can do that. You want to do it?
Zorn: Go ahead.
Larson: The Planning Commission continues the public hearing for surface water management
plan update to the May 2, 2006 Planning Commission meeting.
Sacchet: So that’s the motion that Debbie makes. Do we have a second?
Zorn: Second.
Larson moved, Zorn seconded that the Planning Commission table the public hearing for
the Surface Water Management Plan Update to the May 2, 2006 Planning Commission
meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Sacchet: So this hearing stays open and I would expect that commissioners will have a chance to
nd
make comment on the May 2 when this is addressed again as well.
PUBLIC HEARING:
LOT 2, BLOCK 2, CHANHASSEN WEST BUSINESS PARK: REQUEST FOR
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT FOR REDUCED PARKING
SETBACK AT SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR
OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING, APPLICANT, EDEN TRACE CORPORATION,
PLANNING CASE NO. 06-11.
7
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
Commissioner Mark Undestad removed himself from the commission for this item due to a
conflict of interest. Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thank you. Do we have questions for staff here? Kurt, go ahead.
Papke: I’ll start out. On page 5 of the staff report it delineates that we can reduce the public
right-of-way to a minimum 10 feet if the applicant can demonstrate that we get 100% screening
at least 5 feet above the adjacent parking lot. It wasn’t quite clear to me from staff report that we
demonstrate where that’s been achieved. Could you clarify that?
Metzer: That’s what the code says in the industrial office park district.
Papke: Right.
Metzer: Allows for setbacks as little as 10 feet with.
Papke: Correct, so what I’m getting to is, if the code says we can reduce it to as little as 10 feet,
and it’s on the, kind of a trade off here is that we get 100% screening up to a height of 5 feet, so
how did we achieve that in this plan? I didn’t see where.
Metzer: It was given an example that this request for a 20 foot parking setback is less than what
you know, sometimes permitted by public…as an example.
Papke: Correct, but that permit stipulates that you, it’s a give and take. Okay you give them a
little bit less setback and in return we get 100% screening at a 5 foot level. So how did we
achieve the 100% screening at 5 feet?
Metzer: We have, the code lays out a specific buffer yard plantings for in setbacks and one of
the conditions is that additional landscaping be planted because the proposal doesn’t meet the
requirements.
Papke: So in the table we have here, is the required planting that we have on page 8 of staff
report, which the proposal does not achieve by the way, is the required planting column, will that
achieve the 100% screening at the 5 foot level? Without any berming, because unless I, you
know I didn’t, the grading plans weren’t real detailed. Do I take it there is no berm?
Metzer: There’s on the south property line there is no berming.
Papke: Okay, so therefore it’s strictly through the landscaping that we’re going to achieve that,
and does this required amount here achieve the 100%? Is there additional plantings in here
above the normal for a 50 foot setback that achieves that 100%?
Metzer: No. This is.
Papke: This is the minimum.
8
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
Metzer: …requirement for the setback that we have proposed for the 20 foot.
Papke: So, am I the only one that’s confused here?
Sacchet: I follow you.
Papke: I’m not getting it. If the whole idea is we achieve 100% screening at 5 feet by additional
plantings, where’s the additional plantings?
Generous: The required plantings would almost double the amount of plantings required in that
buffer yard.
Papke: Okay, so that’s what I was getting to. What I was trying to find out was.
Generous: If you look at it you go from 20 shrubs to 52 and if you, initially…
Papke: So that’s what I’m saying. So on page 8, the required plantings columns in the two
tables does achieve the 100%?
Generous: The only place that’s open is with the rain gardens are proposed to go in.
Papke: Okay.
Generous: It’s that column requirement. So then the rest of the stuff gets…
Papke: Okay so, just to finalize this, just to make sure I’m not confused. On page 8, the middle
column under required, that is double the typical. Double the amount typically required by code
and achieves 100%.
Generous: What they have is.
Papke: It’s double what they have.
Generous: What they proposed but…believe that meets the intent. What meets the requirements
of the screening.
Papke: Okay.
Generous: If you look at the third column they have 28 shrubs. They’re going up to 52 shrubs…
23 understory that can be evergreens or ornamentals. You put those in, you’ll get your
screening.
Papke: Okay. Alright, it just wasn’t clear from reading the staff report how we had achieved the
thing that we said we would on, in the, on page 5. Okay. Next comment. Page 7, the hard
surface. The PUD standards is 70% average between the 8 developable lots and this one is
almost 80% which we make up for how?
9
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
Generous: Through Outlot C, which is the common open space within the development. This
lot will be allocated a portion of that green area.
Papke: Okay. Okay, so that’s, it’s the outlot.
Generous: Most the time what we do is.
Papke: It’s the outlot that compensates for it?
Generous: Exactly, and that’s how we got that in the first place.
Papke: Okay, good. Good, good. Last question. Page 9, the rain garden. To my recollection I
think this is the first time since I’ve been on the Planning Commission that I’ve seen a rain
garden, so this is a bit new for me. It’s great. I think it’s great that we’re doing rain gardens. I
mean that’s certainly goodness. But some of these stipulations are a little bit new. Could you
explain about this site plan agreement with the city to ensure the rain garden continues to
function, keeping it, you know how, is this more work for the city? What, can you color
inbetween the lines a little bit on this?
Generous: Basically it requires that the developer have some type of maintenance agreement in
place to maintain the function of that garden. We could take security to do it. That’s something
we’ll have to work out as we go. It’s actually Carver County was the one that put that, asked us
to put that condition in. So it will be through both jurisdictions that we will enforce that. But the
agreement goes with the property so they’ll have to keep, comply with that. It’s like the security
for other landscaping.
Papke: Okay, thanks.
Sacchet: Okay, any other questions?
Larson: Yeah I have a question. On page 8, what says vehicular use landscape area, and the
required is 5,311 square feet. Proposed is 28,935. Can you explain to me what that means?
What the huge difference is? Does that mean hard surface area? I’m a little confused on that.
Generous: What it means that yeah, basically you’re looking at all the driveways and parking
areas. We take that total area and there’s a formula that we use to determine how many islands
they need to have and how much, it’s 8% in your vehicular use area has to be in landscaping. So
they have, if you look all around their parking lot, they may have more green area but it’s not
broken up. And that’s why the commission is to add additional islands because our ordinance
doesn’t want all the landscaping in one spot. It wants it scattered so that we get canopy coverage
over the parking area and eventually you have cooling. Shade on the parking lot cools it.
Larson: Sure. Okay, thank you for clarifying that.
Sacchet: Thank you. Any other questions? Deborah.
10
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
Zorn: Just had a quick question. Could you clarify what a rain garden is exactly, for those
maybe listening and don’t really know and educate myself.
Metzer: Basically it’s a way to treat storm water runoff immediately on site I believe.
Generous: The closest thing I know is it’s like a swale with vegetation that’s conducive to being
in more wet soils and it will take out some of the pollutants, but it’s an infiltration area that
allows the water to percolate into the ground rather than run off into your storm water pond.
Provides some holding. But it’s not as big as duration holding as a storm water pond.
Larson: It’s like a filter.
Generous: Exactly. A natural filter. It’s the buffer yard that we require all the time that you put
the natural grasses in. That will slow the water down and allow it to percolate in and evaporate
and, which will help us with the storm water.
Zorn: Thanks.
Sacchet: Jerry, did you have a question too?
McDonald: Yeah, I had a question on page 5 where you’re talking about the setback and you
talk about Lyman Boulevard and I guess the County may be looking at extending that to 4 lanes.
What wasn’t clear to me was that if they do that, does that encroach into any of this area or is
that already accounted for?
Fauske: Chair McDonald, the current right-of-way in 120 feet will allow for, typically for a 4
lane roadway of 12 foot lanes… Even with a center median, with constructing a trail, 120 feet is
sufficient to accommodate a 4 lane divided roadway. At the time that this was going through the
planning process, Carver County did not indicate…
McDonald: Okay, so it’s not going to encroach into this area where all of a sudden we’ve got a
problem with the parking lot being too close and the berm area or anything.
Fauske: We don’t anticipate…
McDonald: Okay, thank you.
Sacchet: Before I open the, there is a comment in here that Carver County registered some
concerns. Why would they be concerned if there’s no issue?
Fauske: At this point in time Carver County has no plans…for Lyman Boulevard. They
anticipate a 4 lane divided roadway at this location. It has, they haven’t identified the exact
roadway site, therefore we don’t know the exactly right-of-way needed at this point. And staff
again looking at the…it doesn’t say anything above and beyond the…120 feet of right-of-way.
That future right-of-way…
11
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
Sacchet: Do they since they have concerns?
Fauske: Pardon me?
Sacchet: Does Carver County think they need more? Why do they have concerns?
Fauske: I think they just put it out there, it’s not…just to put it out there that we know Lyman
Boulevard needs to be widened. We don’t what it’s time will be. We don’t know when the
right-of-way needs to be…staff went back and looked at that and come up with a
recommendation we looked at…
Sacchet: So it’s really more a trigger for staff to be more careful. It’s not that they have
concerns. They just want to make sure you look at it carefully, is that a fair interpretation?
Fauske: Correct. They want to make sure staff was cognizant…
Sacchet: Okay. Then I have one more question, which is kind of at the heart of this whole
matter. And you pointed that out Josh. This was always a 20 foot setback in the plan, however it
was a mistake that it was worded to be 50?
Metzer: Yeah, it was overlooked I believe during the subdivision process.
Sacchet: Because that’s significant because I wasn’t quite sure from reading the staff report
whether it was actually, the…was 50 and we overlooked that they drew 20. So it’s clearly the
other way around? That it was always 20 and it was a mistake at somewhere?
Generous: No one picked up that we wrote 50 in that because when the PUD was coming
forward, all the concern was on Galpin Boulevard with the residential across to the east and no
one really looked at that. We made the same for both arterial roadways but their concept plan
and the, all the plans were looking at a smaller parking setback for Lyman which is an arterial
road. To the south it would be additional industrial development.
Sacchet: Because that’s an important distinction. I mean it’s one thing if staff made a mistake,
what they were done versus the applicant agreeing to something and all of sudden deciding they
want it different.
Generous: Right, and it was never picked up on because the whole issue at the time was
installed on Galpin Boulevard.
Sacchet: Okay. Alright. That’s all the questions I have. Any other questions? No? With that
I’d like to invite the applicant to come forward, if we have an applicant here. Yep, we do. If you
want to add anything to what staff presented or.
Ben Merriman: No, I’m happy to answer any questions.
12
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
Sacchet: If you want to see whether we have any questions for you. Do we have any questions
for the applicant? Kurt?
Papke: Yeah, staff has suggested this additional condition for the architectural articulation to
break up, is it the 40 foot span over there? What’s your, what’s your plan to follow through on
that or is this news to you or?
Ben Merriman: For the 40 foot, excuse me? Which?
Papke: There’s a limitation of the 40 foot façade without any articulation.
Ben Merriman: Ah, yeah.
Sacchet: Also you may want to introduce yourself. Sorry, I didn’t let you introduce yourself.
Ben Merriman: Okay, I’m sorry. My name is Ben Merriman and I’m with Center Companies
and also Eden Trace and I’m the developer of the property. What we’ll probably end up doing
here is, is adding a bump out so it will be similar to what you see in the front of the building.
We’ll have to add a parapet and then drop. For instance we take this feature here and drop it into
this area here. I think that will probably do it. That will break the ridge. What we don’t want is
a long line because then it really starts to look well more industrial than our buildings generally
do look. We try to keep them in more of an office tech type of a building, and that’s what this is
designed for. It’s not designed for a heavy manufacturing use. It’s designed for more office tech
warehouse type of a use. And so I think that will work quite well.
Papke: And so you don’t have any issues with doing that?
Ben Merriman: None.
Papke: Okay. In regards to the increased landscape planting, particularly on the south side
there, do you have any issues with the increased requirements?
Ben Merriman: Not at all. We can add those shrubberies and we’ll be careful in selecting what
type of shrubberies will do the best there. We’ll have to take a hard look at that because of the
salt issues maybe from the roads and things but we’ll select some shrubberies that will offer the
blocking of the view on, and hopefully we’ll try to get some evergreens and those types of things
that block all seasons.
Papke: Could you add a little color to the rain garden design if possible.
Ben Merriman: I can although it’s very new to me, I must say. So this is going to be a bit of an
experiment to, I think for all of us. Again as staff pointed out, it came from Carver County and
the purpose of the rain garden so to speak is, I think it was fairly well articulated. Instead of all
the water running on a hard surface into a pipe and straight into a pond, which is typically how
we’ve done it, and then the pond acts as a sediment feature and takes out some of the pollutants
and allow some of the, well what a holding pond does, it allows some of the petrol products to
13
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
evaporate. In this system it will run into these rain gardens or ditches and it allows for one,
filtration and allows two, for some of the water, instead of to just go straight in the pond, it
allows it to seep into the soils. And supposedly it’s better for ground water, and it does make
some sense. So we’re interested in trying to see how this goes. We don’t know exactly. We’ve
never done it before but we’re anxious to try to see how it works out. As far as maintenance,
it’s going to be kind of a wait and see. We’ve never, I’ve never dealt with any of these types of
vegetations and it’s a different type of vegetation that you plant in there and so we’ll have to
maintain it and watch it and we may have to change some of the vegetation as years go on.
Papke: One last quick one. If I’m reading some of the drawings correctly, it looked like, since
some changes were made in the design of the parking for this building, that, am I correct in
assuming that more parking along the south side was added and there was at one point just a
drive along the south side? And if so, what was the rationale behind that?
Ben Merriman: Yeah, you’re exactly correct. We did not have any parking on that side of it,
and as I pointed out, these buildings are less of a warehouse component and more of an office
and tech component. So they’re more of a office building than they are a pure warehouse as
most people perceive warehouses to be. And we needed more parking. It’s just that simple.
We have to run a higher ratio of parking in other words, the number of square feet to the number
of people has to increase and so we had to add a substantial amount of parking in order to satisfy
the tenants that are going to be in here, and tenants or owners so the, of the building. So we
increased the parking on that side. Actually we increased it on all sides.
Sacchet: Alright. Any other questions for the applicant? No? Anything you’d like to add from
your end?
Ben Merriman: No thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you very much.
Ben Merriman: Thank you.
Sacchet: Appreciate it. Now this is a public hearing. I’d like to invite anybody who wants to
address this item to come forward. Seeing nobody get up, I’ll close the public hearing. Bring it
back to the commission for comments and discussion. Any comments? Discussion. If not I’ll
take a motion. Actually multiple motions. Double motions.
Larson: What page?
Sacchet: Page 11.
Papke: Okay, I recommend that we adopt, I recommend that we approve the Chanhassen West
Business Park PUD amendment for a 20 foot parking setback from Lyman Boulevard right-of-
way for Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Chanhassen West Business Park and B. I recommend approval of
Site Plan number 06-11 for a 49,105 square foot office/warehouse building, plans prepared by
14
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
Schoell and Madsen, Inc. dated February 17 ’06 subject to conditions 1 through 28 as distributed
by staff, with the addition in condition 6. Per SAC unit as determined by Met Council.
Sacchet: Alright, we have a motion. Is there a second?
Zorn: I second.
Papke moved, Zorn seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
Chanhassen West Business Park PUD Amendment for a 20 foot parking setback from
Lyman Boulevard right-of-way for Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Chanhassen West Business Park.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Papke moved, Zorn seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site
Plan #06-11 for a 49,105 square foot office/warehouse building, plans prepared by Schoell
and Madson, Inc., dated February 17, 2006, subject to the following conditions:
1.The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the
necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration, landscaping and rain
garden function on Lots 2 and 3, Block 2. Minimum maintenance and inspection shall
include maintaining rain garden vegetation with non-invasive species and ensuring that the
infiltration function of the rain garden does not fail. All rain gardens and associated
infrastructure on Lots 2 and 3, Block 2 shall be maintained by the property
owner/association or property management company.
2.A professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans.
3.Staff recommends that Type II silt fence be used adjacent to the storm water pond along
the west side of the lot. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will
require an easement from the appropriate property owner.
4.Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through
the City’s Building Department.
5.Add the latest revision of City Detail Plate Nos. 1002, 1004, 1006, 2204, 3101, 3102,
3104, 3106, 3107, 3108, 5201, 5203, 5207, 5214, 5215, 5217, 5300, 5301, 5302 and
5302A.
6.The site has been previously assessed and each newly created lot will be subject to City
sanitary sewer and water hookup charges at the time of building permit issuance. The
per
2006 trunk hookup charge is $1,575 for sanitary sewer and $4,078 for watermain
SAC unit, as determined by the Metropolitan Council
.
7.Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not
limited to the MPCA, NPDES, Minnesota Department of Health and Carver County
Water Management Area.
15
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
8.On the plans show the stop signs per city detail plate # 5217, the driveway aprons per
detail #5207 and pedestrian ramps must be constructed per detail plate #5215.
9.On the utility plan:
a.Show all the existing utilities sewer type, size and class.
b.Show all existing storm and sanitary structures rim and invert elevations.
c.Add a note to maintain 18-in minimum vertical separation between the watermain and
storm sewer intersection on the western car park.
d. Revise CB5 to CBMH5.
10.On the grading plan:
a.Show all the storm water structures rim elevations.
b.Show the EOF.
c.Show the actual existing elevation contours for the site.
d.Show minimum 75-ft rock construction entrance.
e.Extend the silt fence to close off the northwesterly entrance.
11.Cross-access easements for the shared driveway access must be obtained and recorded
against the Lots 1 and 2.
12.Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All
exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year
round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames:
Time
Type of Slope
(maximum time an area can remain unvegetated
when area is not actively being worked)
Steeper than 3:1 7 Days
10:1 to 3:1 14 Days
Flatter than 10:1 21 Days
13.Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and
street sweeping as-needed.
14.Construction site entrances and exits shall be indicated on plans and shall have maintained
rock construction entrances as specified on City of Chanhassen detail plate 5301.
15.The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system.
16.The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
17.The accessible parking space at the northwest side of the building must be on the shortest
route possible to the northwest entrance.
16
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
18.A PIV is required on the building water service.
19.Detailed occupancy related requirements will be addressed when complete plans are
submitted.
20.The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as
possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
21.A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
22.Yellow curbing and “No Parking Fire Lane” signs shall be required. Contact Chanhassen
Fire Marshal for exact location of yellow curbing and locations of signs to be installed.
23.Builder must comply with the following Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention
Division policies:
a.#4-1991 Regarding Notes To Be Included On All Site Plans
b.#7-1991 Regarding Pre-fire Drawings
c.#29-1991 Regarding Premise Identification
d.#34-1993 Regarding Water Service Installation
e.#36-1994 Regarding Proper Water Line Sizing
f.#40-1995 Regarding Fire Protection Systems
g.#06-1991 Regarding Fire Lane Signage
h.#52-2005 Regarding Commercial Plan Review Submittal Criteria
24.Lighting shall be high-pressure sodium.
25.The applicant shall revise landscape plan to show 11 landscaped islands or peninsulas
within the parking lot area.
26.The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show 15 overstory trees, 37 understory
trees, and 52 shrubs along the south property line.
27.Sidewalk connections to Galpin Court and Lyman Boulevard must be constructed. The
sidewalks shall include pedestrian ramps at all curbs.
28.An architectural articulation shall be incorporated on the northern and southern
façades.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
17
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
PUBLIC HEARING:
GARY CARLSON: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM 30 FOOT FRONT YARD
SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR AN EXISTING FOUR STALL GARAGE AND
RELIEF FROM THE 1,000 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
RESTRICTION FOR THE RSF DISTRICT. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE SINGLE
ND
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) DISTRICT AT 3991 WEST 62 STREET, PLANNING
CASE NO. 06-12.
Public Present:
Name Address
nd
Gary Carlson 3891 West 62 Street
nd
Maureen & Molly Carlson 3891 West 62 Street
nd
Megan J. Moore 3891 West 62 Street
nd
Mara Carlson 3891 West 62 Street
Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thank you. Do we have questions from staff? Jerry, any questions?
McDonald: Yeah, I have a couple. First of all, do we know when these structures were put in
place? When they were built.
Metzer: I believe the first one was built in ’96 or ’97 and I don’t know the exact dates of the
other two but within…
McDonald: Okay, and then on the drawing, it looks as though we did some trading for 5
structures to create the barn structure. Have the other structures been removed yet or are they in
the process of doing that?
Metzer: We’re going to, we have a date set in the signed agreement with the applicant that those
will be removed by a certain date. …off the top of my head but the agreement is signed that the
structures will be removed by a certain date. If not the city will use it’s…escrow to hook up.
McDonald: Okay. And then when we look at the amount of space that these other buildings
take place, and the 5 buildings are pretty much a wash with the barn. You just consolidated all
those into kind of one area. But aren’t we still over with structures A, B and C? Don’t they also
create a problem that’s there also as far as the amount of square footage detached that’s allowed?
Metzer: Well from what records we have, minus the three that were built without permits, those
are grandfathered structures basically because they’ve been in existence before current
ordinances.
McDonald: Right.
18
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
Metzer: So by adding the 3 without permits he intensified the non-conformance which the code
does not allow.
McDonald: Okay. So if we deny his permits for say Building C and B and A, what’s the
alternative? Does he have to tear them down in order to be in compliance?
Metzer: Correct.
McDonald: Okay. Thanks.
Sacchet: Any other questions? No questions at this point? Alright, with that I’d like to invite
the applicant to come forward and tell us if you have anything to add to what staff is presenting.
What’s in the staff report and so forth. If you want to start with your name and address for the
record please. Appreciate that. You might want to pull the microphone a little towards you, yes.
Thank you.
nd
Megan Moore: My name is Megan Moore. I resides at 3891 West 62 Street, Chanhassen,
Minnesota. I live there with my family. My husband and my 2 children. I would like to submit
a letter from our neighbors the Keel’s who live directly to the east of us. Just in support of the
variances.
Sacchet: Okay.
Megan Moore: The Keel’s house is.
Sacchet: Right there, okay.
Megan Moore: So this property represents a legacy which I look forward to passing on to my
children. That is to say that the agricultural nature of 3891 requires adequate housing for
livestock, feed, implement and machinery. Which one’s are A, B and C? I don’t really know
Josh.
Sacchet: It’s the green ones.
Metzer: Yeah, A, B, and C.
Megan Moore: So B and C are machinery and loafing sheds. The residential nature of 3891
requires that safety and aesthetics retain high priority. For me the safety of my children and my
sister, Molly Carlson, are paramount. These variances when granted provide the safe
environment that Chanhassen, I think Chanhassen has always striven for. At the same time
respecting the diversity that my family represents. As Executor I respectfully request that the
Board approve the variances as the storage facilities benefit our corner of Chanhassen. Thank
you for your time. Your hard work. Appreciate the time, I spend a lot of time on boards myself
and I’ll be available for any questions.
Sacchet: Thank you. Do we have questions from the applicant?
19
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
McDonald: Yeah, I’ve got some questions following up on all this. When were the structures
built?
Megan Moore: I think that my dad knows the answer to those questions so he’ll be speaking in a
second.
McDonald: Okay. The issue of safety on Building A. If that were to be moved the number of
feet that it’s talking about, how does that impact safety?
Megan Moore: On this corner of the building and sort of along the front by the building, that’s
where my kids play. This is my daughter’s playhouse. Their bikes and there’s a giant tree right
here. All that space isn’t, it’s not all driveway space. Do you know what I’m saying? And so
while I understand that my kids could play in the driveway, I prefer that they don’t. Especially
when I know that at any time virtually during the day a UPS truck needs to back in there or
whatever, but it’s just, knowing that my kids have that extra buffer of safety when there are big
vehicles and it’s difficult to see behind when I have a 5 and a 3 year old. I think those, to me
those are the vital safety points that I’m really protective of. So does that answer your question?
Jerry, right?
McDonald: Yes. Well I guess what I’m not sure of is, the number of feet you’ve got to move to
come into compliance is not all that much. You’re at, I think you’re at 22 feet and you need to
go to, is it 30 Josh?
Metzer: Right.
McDonald: So we’re talking about 8 feet and in order to come into compliance at least with
where that’s at, I don’t see where giving up 8 feet you’ve lost anything.
Megan Moore: I see your argument but between the sort of area between the front of the house
and the front corner of that garage, which is like this area right here. I don’t think, I think the 8
feet would be significant. I don’t think the vehicles can safety even pull out of the garage if that
were removed. Especially right where the tree is. So it’s hard for me to point it out on this
picture but the tree is sort of sticking out, you can see the shadow of it on this picture, but I think
8 feet would be fairly significant to be honest.
McDonald: Okay. And then the other question I had was, why wasn’t the city consulted as far
as building permits?
Megan Moore: I didn’t build it so again my dad can address that.
McDonald: Because yeah, I’d like an answer to that question and also when these were actually
built so I guess when your dad comes back, I do have some ongoing questions that I would like
some answers to there.
Megan Moore: Sure.
20
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
Sacchet: Any other questions for her?
Larson: Just a quick one.
Megan Moore: Sure.
Larson: Is the driveway from the main road leading to the house right there?
Megan Moore: The driveway leading from the, I’m sorry.
Larson: Yeah, look at this one. Where’s the driveway that leads to the front of the house?
Because it’s hard to tell from this.
Megan Moore: It comes along the trees here. Comes around.
Larson: Oh that way? Here I was thinking it was the other way.
Megan Moore: It’s like underneath the shadows of the trees.
Larson: Okay. So that’s where the driveway is. I know you’re saying that the kids, it would
impact the area where your kids play. I thought it was more behind the house so I’m confused.
Megan Moore: Well my kids.
Larson: I know kids play everywhere. I have 4, I know.
Megan Moore: Okay. Well they definitely don’t play right here where they first come in from
the, unless we’re like taking the bikes and going out onto the trail or something. The trail leads
right along our property right there. But they do, this is all their play area. This is more like
parking and drop off areas so I can’t really use that for play area. My concern is here, between
the house and the garage. They play there. Their bikes are stored in that area. Their tric’s.
Their little mini type car things. Oh my god, everything.
Larson: Okay now, so but what you’re saying is.
Megan Moore: Well but the cars do come through here. There’s this place to park extra vehicles
here if we have somebody visiting.
Larson: On a regular basis?
Megan Moore: And UPS guys, which are frequent visitors.
Larson: Now why would they go that way when there’s more room the other direction?
Obvious to me looking at this.
21
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
Megan Moore: Because they like to drop it off at this most northern door, which is my door. I
think because mainly they know that I’m home all the time and so they ring my bell because I’ll
come and answer the door.
Larson: So the one letter that was attached regarding having a van be able to turn around.
Where does that, show me the route that that van takes.
Megan Moore: The van pulls in and pulls right past this, pulls in the driveway. Pulls right here
and has to get up to the ramp which you can actually see the ramp on the picture. It comes out
right here. It has to be able to get in and face this way so that the, when the door comes out on
the.
Larson: Actually the photograph I have is more clear than what I’m seeing there but I can see
where you’re pointing now.
Megan Moore: But anyways like in blizzard weather like we had this March, Molly’s literally
coming down this ramp and able to get right from the ramp onto the, I mean it’s, and really it’s
better that way because her wheelchair for some reason doesn’t make it through snow all that
well.
Larson: Yeah I can imagine.
Megan Moore: So it’s handy and it’s handy for her to not be in the cold for too long or the rain.
I mean her machine is really sensitive to getting wet. Her power wheelchair.
Larson: Well that aside, because just looking at this, it appears that like Jerry McDonald said, if
you were to move the building this way, that’s not impacting where the van is coming and the
UPS guys, you can put a sign up or something, you can’t go this way. You know what I mean?
Megan Moore: Right.
Larson: So to me moving the garage, and I know it’s going to be a pain in the neck to do that but
the 8 feet, I don’t see how it’s going to really impact that big driveway area very much you
know, other than the fact that I know it’s a hassle to do that. But I kind of tend to agree with
Jerry on this.
Megan Moore: Okay. I just would like to reiterate that I think it’s not safe. That’s pretty much
my stance on that. Mainly because I’ve seen them try and pull it in and out.
Sacchet: So it’s not safe when there are vehicles going through there. But I think what, where
Jerry and Debbie are coming from is that, the vehicles don’t really have to go through there.
There’s no requirement. I mean the van pulls up on the other side of the house. There’s plenty
of space in the area. I mean there’s no need for the vehicles to go there, is there?
Megan Moore: But I think that they do. They do, my sister loads off of this end of the building
out of her van. Her van parks in this garage.
22
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
Sacchet: Okay. Do we have any other questions?
Papke: Could the requirement be met, since the infringement is really on the northwest corner at
about a 45 degree angle, has the city planners looked if they chopped off the fourth stall, would
they be in compliance?
Metzer: The diagonal, the 45 degree line is actually considered the side property line, so the
setback there is only 10 feet. It’s from the short, it’s the area up here. From this, the setback in
here is 22 feet.
Papke: Okay, so there’s no way by eliminating a stall that we could get within, the whole
building would have to physically be moved. Okay.
Sacchet: Okay? Is that it for questions? Thank you very much.
Megan Moore: Okay, thank you.
Sacchet: Now this is a public hearing and we know your dad is going to say something too so
I’d like to open the public hearing and anybody who wants to address this item, please come
forward at this time. And if you want to state your name and address for the record, appreciate
that.
Mara Carlson: Good evening. Pardon me. Good evening, my name is Mara Carlson. I also live
nd
at 3891 West 62 Street and there’s a couple things that I myself can clear up for you. Number
one, the driveway issue does not end here. This is not the end of our driveway. Cars move
continuously past this. This is our access area for all the rest of our agricultural needs, which I’ll
be addressing shortly. So there is a constant need for vehicles, and large vehicles that carry feed
and materials for our barn to get through here, so it’s not just a regular small driveway that a
compact car or family van passes through but it’s a large piece of machinery that needs to pass
through there. Second of all the, I believe it’s Building, this building here which is Building C
was built approximately 12 years ago. Okay, so as I stated my name is Mara Carlson and I am
the person responsible for the horse activities that have taken place on this hobby farm for the
last 24 years, and I would also like to address the issue of hardship concerning these two
buildings, the 23 by 24 loafing shed and the 21 by 22 machine storage shed. Our horses need
these two buildings for their safe and proper care. That’s the facts. Our horses need the loafing
shed for shelter when they are confined to that section of the pasture, either for nutritional
reasons or health reasons. And they need the, excuse me I need the machine shed for storage of
my tractor mower and for other horse related care equipment. Again for the safe and proper
management of their pasture environment. I need to be able to mow weeds. I need to be able to
keep pollutants from their environment so that they don’t contract issues and health issues that
can be related to non-proper management. It would be an extreme hardship and certainly a
safety risk for me to try and manage our horses without these buildings. I very much want to
continue having a safe and healthy horse operation and therefore I support the granting of the
variance and the relief. Finally I would like to just ask, request that you keep in mind that by
building these two pieces of shelter, that the intention was not to increase the value of the
23
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
property. Of course a new shed is going to be more valuable than an old shed. That’s just the
facts of life. But it was built with the intention of preserving a portion of the original intent and
use of this property, which was agriculture and was established, as was mentioned, back in 1913.
112 years ago. That’s all I have to say. Thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else would like to address this item. Please come forward at this
time. Looks like we meet the whole family this time.
nd
Molly Carlson: Hello. My name is Molly Carlson. I live at 3891 West 62 Street in the
handicap addition that you granted the variance for last year. I again I want to thank you for that.
It was…allow to keep my garages where my dad built them. By moving them from our front
door… The garages need to be where they are so that I can get easily from my… If the garage is
on the back side of that, I am not able to…so I’m requesting that you grant the variance. Thank
you.
Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else? Public hearing is still open. Now we get to dad. Alright.
Please state your name and address for the record.
Gary Carlson: You’ll have to please excuse me because we’re getting into a grandfathered frame
of mind here where we’ve all had to change occupations coming, we probably took care of our
families before we came down tonight to make sure the kids were all safe and supper was over.
And likewise I’ve been privileged to be in the city of Chanhassen for many, many, many years.
My name is Gary Carlson and I’m the third generation in this area and we’ve maintained this
hobby farm pretty much the way it was intended. Way we received it from the original
developers, I mean original owners. I just want to give a quick overview tonight and then talk
about a little bit on each of the variances and then I’ll sit down and be glad to answer any further
questions. It’s just going to take a little bit to get up to speed. To get up to where we can be on
the same page over this property has been there and pretty much it’s evolving state for 112 years.
I had to refer back to the county records. I thought it was 1896, but it was actually 1894 so we
got a couple years older. Now the first question I always get when I get on my farm outfit and
when I’m out in public is, what is that on your hat? And those in the ag business kind of know
what it is. Iwamec is a bull enhancer, similar to Viagra which I might need some of after tonight.
Now the property overview to begin with has been covered quite well by Josh from the City of
Chanhassen and so we know where it is. It’s up in the very corner of the city and it’s been
operating as a unique piece of agricultural property for many, many years. And what we have
tonight is we’re here to settle the zoning. To bring these 2 variances up to par. We were in here
last year and got a variance for Molly’s addition and this year we’re bringing some variances on
line to cover the I guess the accessory structures and also the setback variance. And they kind of
came about originally with Molly’s addition and then wanting to bring in a pole barn to replace
our old barn. I became aware that there was a couple sheds and one garage that had some
questions on, and so we’re here to clear those up. And why we are operating in this unique
fashion is in a grandfathered position on one side. We have nothing in the city that we can,
there’s no pile of rules and regulations on grandfathering. There’s not a lot of help given in the
city’s guidance. Let’s take a quick look at what Carver County, how they govern their initial
look at this. The mission statement from Carver County, it’s a very short paragraph. It’s on
their web page. We will plan the county’s growth to preserve it’s uniqueness and we will
24
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
encourage rural and urban compatibility. We will further endeavor to protect our historical past.
So Carver County is trying right at the onset to get urban and a rural working together and living
together. But as far as the laying, you come with to the City of Chanhassen and they have
mention of it. Let’s see how positively they mention it and whether rural and urban can
compatible with together. I guess our terms are that we referred to is non-conforming. That
doesn’t sound good right there. To be non-conforming. Pre-existing. I mean that sounds like
prehistorical so we have a little hill to climb there. The city staff has, which I have to commend
them. They’re very knowledgeable. They’re very helpful. They get back to you. I’ve got
properties in other states and in other counties and I find our city staff to be number one.
They’re very, very good. Very helpful, but they only have the zoning laws to work with. They
only have the zoning rules and regulations to work with, and when they go to work on something
they have to say well is it within that or is it without that? And so their recommendations show
that they have to stay within that zoning and they’ve made findings that our property is a little bit
unique. So where are we going to get relief and where are we going to get help because there’s
no set of rules and regulations for us. Being a non-conforming property. Well, our balance of
power comes from you folks. It’d be nice if you had hobby farms or if you lived in a business
that you had to run independent of what was maybe the norm in the area but you’re still
independent thinking people and you know what’s right and you know what’s the best thing to
do. And so you can interpret grandfathering. You can interpret non-conforming use. If it’s
unique. If it’s something that should be carried forward into the future, you can support that and
you can come up with whatever motion you wish. You don’t have to follow the city’s
permission. As I say, they must stay within their zoning and they’re going to recommend things
along the zoning line. I watched other Planning Commission meetings and I know that you do
support diversity. You very much tried to get the non-conforming, I mean some uniqueness and
different buildings that are going on in the city. And so we feel that maybe we’re possibly
climbing out of that hole a little bit and, with being before you tonight. Now Mr. Carlson, where
are you with city zoning? Do you support city zoning? Or are you this maverick way out here
on the edge and we want to just be sure that you don’t get expanded. You don’t change and if
you do anything to change anything, and it’s not occurring within a year, then you can’t do it
anymore. You’re phased out. Well, on the contrary, Megan I need, or Josh… Will that come up
on the overhead? Okay, Gary Carlson and Maureen Carlson, my wife is here tonight. We
developed Minnewashta Meadows, right here. A 16 lot development. We came on board. We
had no variances whatsoever in that development. We have, it’s developed into a very unique
and very neat neighborhood. Those folks sell their homes on a regular basis and they’re happy to
have that development. We developed that and my wife named the streets and it was completed
with all your zoning and laid out and a perfect neighborhood. I, myself built the home, a second
home that we still own. It adds to our acreage. I guess you can see on the survey, it’s this down
here. You see all our buildings that we’re talking about are up here. It’s this home right there
and that again was all built within the city’s zoning and setback no variances needed on that
home. So we support the zoning. And Mr. and Mrs. Carlson and the Carlson family have
always supported the new development following these plans but we’re pre-existing on this ag
site and we don’t mean to say that we’re above the zoning but we very much recognize what our
grandfathered property has done for us, and that we’re hoping to show you what’s it done
tonight. So you can see that I do support the variances and I can certainly work within them and
I have. The, what has Mr. Carlson done for the City of Chanhassen? Well I’ve done a couple…
that I won’t mention right now but the one thing I have done, there’s a new development going
25
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
into the south of us. That’s been going through the Planning Commission. I think it’s pretty
well all approved and running. Hidden Creek Addition. I’ve entered into an agreement with that
developer to completely come onto my property by 200 or 300 feet. Landscape my property
down to meet him in a proper fashion and the city’s approved all that. That grading but it’s
giving up my land to let them do it, and what’s better for the city is to have a proper grading
from me to the new road, and I’ve allowed that to come on board. What that’s going to allow for
those neighbors down there, which there’s some very expensive homes going in there…more
homes, you’ll be looking out into what will be a very positive thing for them. A nice horse
pasture with the property split rail fence and properly graded down to their development. Now
I’m asking the city to do some things for me, and that is to look at these variances very carefully
and see if they’re, you’re not opening the flood gates. You’re not saying well we’re going to
have every resident in here wanting 5,000 accessory structures. 5,000 feet of accessory roof and
we want to change our setbacks all along the front. We’re not going to do that if you grant these
variances. In fact you’ll be setting the standard quite high because there’s no other property like
our’s. To get a little understanding of the property, we have 4 residences within that home. Four
completely separate residences. Separate entrances. Separate washer. Clothes washing
facilities. Separate exits and entrances. Besides the ag operation, you know we operate the other
businesses. I’ve been fortunate to be my own, I haven’t worked for anyone since I was 41 years
old. You couldn’t say I’ve been retired but I’ve been self sufficient. This property has helped
with that. And so it’s, we’ve had one of the best realtors in the area try to find us another
property because the developer that did this property to the south did want our property to
develop, and we looked for 6 months. There’s nothing comparable to this property. It’s not just
the land. It’s what’s the investment in the structures. And we certainly don’t care about price.
Our intent is not to gain further value. I suppose in 112 years we could have sold it several
times. Now I just want to speak carefully or quickly to each of the variances. Thank you for
listening to my overview. I’m sure it might have generated a few more questions. The variance
nd
for setback on West 62 Street would be an additional 8 feet. Well the building is built, but we
can, if we moved it back 8 feet it would block the front of the house from having proper fire
equipment being able to get around it. I mean I have to really be responsible for the other people
that live in this property. We have other tenants that aren’t all family members. I have my
daughter who lives in the handicap addition, but the other 2 apartments are complete, I mean
they’re just folks that are looking for affordable housing and we provided it. We provided it for
years. When it was divided into, I mean I didn’t need 15 bedrooms when I bought the house so it
was divided and it’s been maintained. You wouldn’t know that it was built in 1896 if you
walked into it. It has 10 foot high ceilings. Has a saloon. It has 3 whirlpools. Has garage.
Heated garage. Attached. My garage. Has a sunroom. Has a couple porches. Now it’s a little
bit confusing whereas on the survey, which the city has to work off of. When we do a certified
survey, anything that isn’t enclosed they don’t show. So they don’t show on this, of the original
building, the space between it. They don’t know the entrance back here. It’s a covered entrance
but it’s not enclosed entrance. They don’t show Molly’s handicap ramp that comes down here
and out into the driveway. Her driveway comes out in the driveway. And I guess there’s a
carport actually on this end here. They don’t show it because it’s just a free standing carport. So
those aren’t ever shown on a registered survey because they’re not enclosed, but they actually
show my daughter, my grand daughter’s playhouse I built for her. It’s just a little playhouse
because it’s enclosed, so that’s on this survey. Let’s stay with the variances here Carlson. Okay,
I’m trying to. So the setback. Now we’re trying to work on the variance for the setback. As you
26
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
ndnd
go down West 62, the next property to us has a structure within 10 feet of West 62. You go
to the next property to the east of this and they have a structure that’s within 15 feet of West
ndnd
62. We’re 22 feet back from West 62. The additional safety feature of that is that these
people come screaming down Cathcart and they used to come zipping and they missed the curve
a lot of the times with the new kids that learn to drive, especially towards spring. We a lot of
times get them running right up into that curb. And since we built that garage, the full white,
because remember it’s white. When they’re coming down the street, you see something, your
headlights reflect off it and even in snowstorms, it looks something different. You’re not
looking like an open road. You’re seeing a white. Even it’s 22 feet back. We have not had one
accident on that curve since we built that garage, so by taking the garage down or moving it, it
would cause, will let some more kids, usually it’s kids, up into that. But when you see, roaming
around the Dakotas and you see a T intersection, you always see those big white barriers making
the T and that’s exactly what that garage does for that corner, so we actually added tremendously
to the safety of that corner. And as I said with the responsibility of having other folks living in
the property, I am concerned that we can get fire equipment around the front of the building. The
side of the building. All sides of the building if needed, so by moving that 8 feet it would just
squeeze this area and you’re going to see 8 feet. And remember these are structures come out
here. Trees and so forth. And then you have to have places to stack the snow. So the garage, I
don’t know if you’ve been out there and looked, it’s exactly in the right place. Yes, it’s not back
nd
30 feet but none of the other structures along West 62 are back 30 feet either so we’re hoping
you grant that variance. As far as the variance for the excessive structure, what is that called
Josh?
Metzer: Accessory structure.
Gary Carlson: Accessory structure, over 1,000 square feet. We have always been over the 1,000
square feet. Ever since that’s been there so granting a variance…always been added since day
one. We’ve been over the 1,000 square foot and you’re not going to, by granting it us you’re not
going to have other people coming up, well I want 1,000. You know I want 3,000 square foot. I
think the variance, in retro it was a complete surprise when we got the packet. Sorry that that
variance request was in there but I did tell the city staff, I said now if there’s any other things that
are going to need a variance, let’s do it this year. Again because I was just here last year. And I
guess it’s kind of resulting because we’re doing some things. The neighbors are doing some
things and it’s just a chance to look at our property and say let’s get the variances that we need in
place and Josh was very intelligent. Very smart now. If you approve that variance, he has a
condition there of no, do you want to read that Josh. You know what that is.
Metzer: Which one?
Gary Carlson: The condition that they approve the variance, you’re recommending a condition
of, it’s very intelligent. It does say to the Carlson’s, you know fine. You have these buildings.
Metzer: Building permits must be obtained?
Gary Carlson: No.
27
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
Metzer: No new accessory structure or additions to existing accessory structures shall be
permitted.
Gary Carlson: There you go. So it does say to the Carlson farm operation that, I don’t agree
with it. I really don’t want that in there. I mean I don’t know what’s going to happen in the
future. When I started in sweet corn, it was sold in Mike’s stand. In fact we got calls a year
after, when are you going to have some more. Well Mike Wanous quit selling sweet corn but we
used to grow it on our property. Then we went to hay and we did hay for some years. Then we
had cattle there for a while. Then we had back to hay and now into horses. We had an apple
orchard and we sold apples to Lund’s store at one time. So we don’t know in the ag, when
you’re ag and you have ag things going on there, you don’t know whether it’s going to be soy
beans next year or corn or maybe hogs. I mean I’m not going to be quite into those things but
you see what I’m saying is, I have to make sure of that land. I can just sit there and watch it.
And the other things if you grant the variances, going forward. …these buildings are going to sit
there forever. If I develop, all these buildings are gone and even if the city is contemplating a
road to connect into the new addition coming through this property and if that road goes in, this
house, it’s going to be facing east. So this becomes a side setback. In the beginning I told Josh,
well we face east anyway. Let’s consider this our front and this our side. He said no, I’m sorry.
We can’t consider that your front because your front is where your driveway comes in from, but
if we get developed and the road goes between you and the neighbor, that will become a
viewpoint because it will be our side setback. So I hope I’ve kind of explained on it. Being a
surprise and getting the variance for the number of buildings, square foot of accessory structures
just as a surprise to us. If the commission is not feeling positive about these two variances we’re
requesting, I mean I was just surprised Saturday with this last request. You know I would like to
have it tabled and maybe possible…maybe I can take down one of these other accessory
structures. Maybe this one will have migrant workers in it at one time. When we bought the
property it had a 10 inch casing on the well. I would have supplied water for that end of the city.
It’s gone through some changes and we’re certainly willing to listen to whatever comments and
questions you might have.
Sacchet: Thank you very much Mr. Carlson.
Gary Carlson: I hope that’s not taking too much time. It’s over 112 years of.
Sacchet: Putting 112 years in 20 minutes.
Gary Carlson: …need some help because, thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you sir.
Gary Carlson: Thank you.
Sacchet: Well public.
McDonald: Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Yeah, if you can tell me when these structures
were built. I think A was built in 1996. C was probably 1994. When was B built?
28
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
Gary Carlson: B is the garage? The four stall garage?
McDonald: No B is the loafing shed I believe.
Gary Carlson: The loafing shed. That was about, now through this process with building, let’s
cover that. I just a little bit give you an understanding on it. City of Chanhassen has a wonderful
lady, Carol Dunsmore. She also does the horse inspecting and works in the building department,
but she’s the horse inspector. She might do some other cities around the area. Very wonderful
lady. She said in one of her notes, because she makes a note each year. You know whether this
horse looks a little, needs something or hooves need, you know whatever she notices. And she
wanted more shelter for the horses so she came back the next year and there was a shelter. Well
Mr. Carlson, I see you have a nice shelter for the horses. That’s very good and that’s the last I
heard of it, so I mean, and that’s from the building. I mean she was very kind. I mean she could
have run back and said hey, Mr. Carlson built a horse shelter. Now when I say build a horse
shelter, it’s, these buildings are all fairly small. They’re 21 by 22. They’re set way back from
the property line. They look like they belong there. They look like they’ve been there. They
have been there for quite a while. I had a list of each size of all these buildings. There they are.
The loafing shed was 22 by 24. I mean that’s just, it looks, nice little building and it fits right
there. The machine shed is 21 by 22. And even a garage is only 20 feet deep. It’s not like it’s a
20, nobody wants a 20 foot garage. You won’t build them that way but I did to keep that strip
there for the safety of the building. Keep back from our home. Try to keep certain distance
back from the road. The garage was built in stages and all during that time, from Mr. Reed at the
time was our building inspector but I think I’m on my about my fifth or sixth building inspector
in the time I’ve been there but, he came out several times that year. Several times the next year.
Several times the next year. He never said where’s your building permit for that garage. I don’t
know whether he was, he felt sorry, felt that we were doing the right thing but at the wrong time.
Or the wrong time and the right thing. I’m not sure but first, that was always parking area
anyway. First I had a slab. The next year it had a carport. The roof trusses went on. The next
year we enclosed it. Then the next year put the side next to it. Put a carport over that the next
year and the third year we roughed in and closed that, so that garage took 3 to 4 years to build. I
didn’t just okay, let’s sneak that in there. No. We took our time. We said okay. If anybody has
any objection, you have not gotten one complaint from any of our neighbors in all the time that
we’ve been there in the 112 years. The neighbors recognize the uniqueness. They enjoy us
being there. They have a wonderful sight of horses. They all feed our horses carrots…enjoy the
area too. And that’s kind of the year the garage was built. The machinery shed has been there
for a long time. That’s tucked into the other buildings, and as you know, and as you’ve kind of
read through here, we’re tearing down 5 structures. Gone. We’re tearing out 5. We’re moving
in a new, well it’s only 8 years old. A pole barn from the neighbor when he developed. They
were going to tear that pole barn down and we’ve been working to move the pole barn in. But
even with the pole barn we still need when you have horses, you can’t have them all together a
lot of times. They have a pecking order and the last one will not get a thing to eat so we have to
have separate areas for them and separate shelters. We’re going to take down all these old
buildings that are kind of really, we knew that was coming. It was really dilapidated. It’s the
only building I never really maintained on the site is this barn, and all those are coming down.
Any other questions?
29
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
McDonald: Yeah, I have one more for you.
Gary Carlson: Sure.
McDonald: Why didn’t you seek a building permit?
Gary Carlson: That’s a very good question and I’ll be glad to answer that very carefully, but that
again might take some time. Being in the city and doing things not only within the city’s zoning
and I know the rigamaroll. I’m always up against some. I knew from the get go, because I’ve
seen these things through the years. I knew I was over the 1,000 square foot from the get go so
they wouldn’t approve one stick over what was there. And yet I’m an operating ag farm. You
go out and I’ve just driven by them. You count 13, 17, 6, 9 out buildings. And they’re coming
and going. They’re using them and not using them. You don’t see them setting them out on the
edge of the road for safety. They’re sitting around the person’s house and they need them for
their ag business, and I’m not different. As I need these buildings, I put them up. Okay, you’re
in the city. Wants you to get a building permits. The one 13 years ago. Another one 4-5 years
ago and one over a 6 year period while Molly’s handicap addition was going on. I did not want
to deal with the hassle factor. I’m not that, I haven’t been treated that fairly. You want me to go
into some of those? I can. When I did my development over there, Gary and Maureen Carlson,
we want a strip of land 40 feet wide by 120 feet long. What do you want that for? The City said
well we have to have access to the neighboring property in case they ever develop. So I did my
part of the bargain. I did everything I was supposed to do. I turned certain responsibilities over
to the City of Chanhassen and they were to check all plans as they were submitted by the
different builders, and somehow the city allowed one of the homes to sit on that easement. So
now…
Sacchet: Mr. Carlson, excuse me for interrupting. Let’s stick with the issue at hand please.
Gary Carlson: Well, I didn’t get a very fair shake there. I mean so, I have tried to do the right
thing when I have to go out and do a proper development. On my property, on the ag property,
you do what the farm needs to be done around the farm. Around the property to make it survive
and make it viable and that’s where these buildings come in and I guess you’ve heard the other
testimony of where and why they’re needed.
Sacchet: Thank you. I think you did answer the question.
Gary Carlson: I mean the City is being protected. In these permits, these building permits that
are raised, I’ve applied for them. A way to see if they will be inspected and looked at just as if
they haven’t been built yet. I mean they have to meet state building codes.
Sacchet: Thank you. Appreciate it.
Gary Carlson: You’re welcome.
30
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
Sacchet: Public hearing is still open. If anybody else wants to address this item, please come
forward at this time. Seeing nobody get up, I’ll close the public hearing and bring it back to the
commission for comments and discussion. And in this, since it’s kind of a unique case who’d
like to go first? And make a few comments specifically to some of the statements from Mr.
Carlson that I personally feel are important to make. To recognize the aspect of this being a
grandfathered use with the agriculture and that’s certainly very honorable. We want to help
preserve that. However, you made a statement of if we don’t feel positive. This has nothing to
do with how we feel. We’re not up here to be, we have guidance for what we do are the
ordinances and the code of the city. This is not supposed to have anything to do with how we
feel. And as such, you also made a statement we can do whatever we wish. Well we can’t.
That’s not our role to do whatever we wish. I make that very clear in my opening remarks when
we start this evening that our role is to review planning matters that are brought before the city in
view of our city ordinances. Our zoning. And determine how do they fly. Okay. We’re not at
liberty to do what we wish. And then I’ll have some other comments but I wanted just to take
that up front. Now I saw Jerry you wanted to jump in. Go ahead please.
McDonald: Well the one thing I wanted to jump in about was, Mr. Carlson brought up was the
possibility of tabling this. There is a number of issues within this that maybe there may be
another way to work this out, but you know as you said, based upon the statutes of where we’re
at now, I think it’s pretty clear what our choices are. But if we could gain something by tabling
this and coming to a resolution that would be beneficial to all, I would be more than happy to
propose that. Mr. Carlson’s already agreed that that would be okay with him so that waives the
time line.
Sacchet: So what would you expect from tabling between now and when it comes back Jerry?
McDonald: I would expect a work out because I’m looking for something to be given up here.
You know Mr. Carlson seems to hint that there may be some possibilities of looking at some
things. I would expect some give and take. This is not just an opportunity to give him more time
to continue. What it would actually be is a negotiation with the city to again meet the
requirements of a non-conforming structure because as the ordinance says, you can’t intensify it
and I think that’s what’s happened, so you know if he’s willing to consider some things, let the
city look at it and see if we can’t come back with something that would be a little bit more
agreeable to everyone.
Undestad: I agree with Jerry. I mean it looks like what they’ve worked out with Josh already,
they’ve made some, they can put the barn in. Tear some of these down. Maybe the issues of
these other buildings weren’t discussed at the time that the rest of this was going through but you
know if it makes sense now to jump back and look at that and see if there’s some alternatives for
you in there to bring it back.
Sacchet: There was one aspect that I thought would deserve some research and maybe staff has
the answer to that. Mr. Carlson made a statement that, actually said none of the other structures
nd
along 62 Street have as much setback as his garage, and another statement he made is that there
are others that are only 10 feet away from the road. What’s, do we know what the status is of
these other?
31
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
Metzer: Well due to the age of the subdivisions up in that neighborhood, there are structures that
have non-conforming setbacks and there are others that do meet setback. But many of these
don’t have surveys so it’s hard to determine exactly a specific linear number of feet that they’re
within the front property line. Or the front property line even lies, in fact that’s something we
could look into more definitely.
Sacchet: But then on the other hand, it’s my understanding that that doesn’t give somebody
rights to build something new that doesn’t conform.
Metzer: No, that it show that there’s a pre-existing condition in the neighborhood standards.
Sacchet: Debbie, want to add something?
Larson: No, I just.
nd
Metzer: And it’s also worth noting that directly north and opposite of West 62 is the City of
Shorewood so.
Undestad: There was also a comment made about the city looking at changing the street through
there. Was that?
Metzer: I believe the Pipewood Curve from Hidden Creek is going to be, it’s intended to be
nd
connected to West 62.
Larson: Can you show us?
Undestad: Is that going to change the setbacks on any of that?
Metzer: Well I think that the only way that it would be connected is if the subject property here
were sold and subdivided.
Gary Carlson: And houses were built.
Sacchet: Now I hear where you’re coming from Jerry and Mark. I kind of feel differently. I
think that this is really not the role of the Planning Commission to get into this give and take part
to the extent that Mr. Carlson’s asking for. To some extent yes. I mean we do have, we have
some…but I think to the extent that Mr. Carlson is asking for, this is a matter of City Council.
And on that basis I think actually in the interest of expediting this, moving this along, I would
think that from our role in terms of the ordinances, our role is really not that usually different
from staff, and the primary question for us is, does this conform or is staff applying the rules in a
way that is not right? Well, if you look at the rules by themselves, there it is. However, you
were pointing out that your circumstances are different, and I think you make a pretty strong
point that the rules don’t apply to you. I think that we’re out of our league to deal with that. I
think that’s a City Council thing and by us accepting the staff’s motion, that would give Mr.
Carlson a chance to go to council with it and I think that would be the right place for this to be
32
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
debated and decided upon. Because frankly if we look at the frameworks that are given to the
Planning Commission, we’re not supposed to grant variances if it is an intensification of non-
conformance. We are pretty strongly bound by that. Now aspect is it self created? Well it is self
created. I think that cannot be debated. I mean I can certainly sympathize with the idea that you
didn’t want more hassle and you just did it because you’re agriculture and you feel that’s right
like that. But on the other hand that just underlines that it’s self created. So with the criteria that
we’re given based on the code, city code, I think it’s hard to juggle it. I’m not sure what we
would gain by tabling it other than maybe get a little more context to what it is with enabling
structures that are closer to the road, but then you could argue that those are grandfathered in.
They haven’t been built in the last 10 years, so I have a little problem. By what would we gain
by tabling? We would just prolong the pain. I think we’re doing them a better favor by going at
it once here and then they can go up to City Council where the City Council has actually the
authority to do something about it to the extent that they see fit.
Undestad: Yeah I guess you know okay, when does it go to the council?
th
Metzer: That would be April 24.
th
Undestad: 24 so that would give them almost 3 weeks to do whatever they could do even if we
tabled it and come back to us, so you would have your 3 weeks to work with Josh before you get
to the council then so.
Sacchet: Kurt, do you want to add something?
Papke: Yeah, I have a question for staff. Mr. Carlson stated that in fact there are four
independent residences here, and this is zoned residential single family. Is there an issue here?
Metzer: No. These were grandfathered in and they also about exactly a year ago from now were
granted a variance for use of a single family home as a two family home.
Sacchet: Yeah, that was a discussion that we went through not too long ago. Well comments.
Discussion. Where do you want to go with this? Or we could venture a motion. I mean at this
point.
McDonald: I guess Mr. Chairman, if you don’t mind I’d like to make a motion to table it, since I
did bring it up. And I guess I do feel that there may be something productive to come out of this,
or at least to reduce the problem the City Council may have to look at. I probably don’t
completely feel that we’re going to get 100% compliance but I think anything to reduce the issue
would be beneficial so I would make a motion that we table this.
Sacchet: Alright. We have a motion to table it. Is there somebody second that?
Undestad: Second.
McDonald moved, Undestad seconded to table Variance Request #06-12 for a 22 foot front
yard setback for an existing four stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square foot detached
33
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
accessory structure restriction in a single family residential (RSF) district at 3891 West
nd
62 Street. McDonald and Undestad voted in favor. Sacchet, Papke, Larson and Zorn
voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 4.
Sacchet: We have 4 nays and 2 ayes so the motion fails. So do we keep going, right?
Generous: Yes.
Sacchet: We keep going, alright. Somebody else want to make a different motion?
Papke: I’ll just make some comments here. This is the best case I have ever seen for building
inspections. I mean this is why we have building permits so that we don’t get into this kind of a
pickle. If there were permits for this, this would be a completely different deal. And I guess I do
disagree with Mr. Carlson that we don’t deal with grandfathering. We deal with this all the time.
In particular, how many times have we had people grandfathered in with legal non-conforming
lots along Lake Riley with setbacks of various kinds? This is something we deal with routinely
and I think we’ve been pretty consistent about that and pretty consistent about not setting
precedence and to some extent Mr. Carlson contradicted himself. In one breath he said well, you
know if you grant me a variance here, you know no one else is going to ask for more. And then
a few sentences later he stated that there’s these other houses up the street that are closer to the
street than he is, so you know very inconsistent there so I, this one I agree with Commissioner
Sacchet. This is very clear cut.
Zorn: I would have to agree along the same lines. The applicant seems very familiar with the
development process and a lot of the hoops to jump through and checks and balances and for
reasons that he expressed this evening he didn’t feel as though he should go through those.
Checks and balances and that building permit would have brought all of those to light and we
likely wouldn’t be sitting here today having to make a difficult decision, or at least what has been
brought forth. The family has a difficult decision but it really seems like a black and white case
to myself. So I would not, I would be in support to deny the request.
Sacchet: Any other comments or points of discussion? Thank you Deborah and Kurt.
Undestad: I guess, I mean again, I mean it goes to the council. It gives them time to try to do
something in the next 3 weeks and.
Sacchet: Yeah, and the council has more maneuvering space than we have in terms of what our
charter is. It’s very simple. So do we want to venture another motion?
Papke: I’ll make a motion that the Planning Commission denies the variance for a 22 foot yard
setback from existing four stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square foot detached accessory
nd
structure restriction in the single family residential RSF district at 3891 West 62 Street based
on the findings of fact in the staff report and the following, 1 through 3. And I order the
applicant to demolish and permanently remove the 3 storage buildings and.
Sacchet: That’s it.
34
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
Papke: And that’s it.
Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Zorn: I second.
Papke moved, Zorn seconded that the Planning Commission denies the variance for a 22
foot front yard setback for an existing four stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square
foot detached accessory structure restriction in the Single Family Residential (RSF)
nd
District at 3891 West 62 Street, based upon the findings of fact in the staff report and the
following:
1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship.
2. The applicant has reasonable use of the property.
3. The applicant will be able to continue the non-conforming agricultural use without the
three storage buildings.
The Planning Commission orders the applicant to demolish and permanently remove the three
storage buildings.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Sacchet: We have 6 voting for this. Nobody voting against it so we are, that would move it
forward to City Council. I think that’s where it needs to go.
Metzer: We need to get a letter from the applicant stating that they would like to appeal the
decision to City Council.
Sacchet: Right. You want to express in writing is that Josh?
Metzer: Correct.
Sacchet: That you want to appeal this decision to City Council and I think that City Council are
actually the right people. I also want to point out that you will not need to repeat your whole
story. City Council does review our minutes and the public hearings that we have here are to a
large extent for City Council to get input so they will hear your story. Not just your’s but also
the other family members to understand what it is so that you will not have to repeat everything
there. Okay? So we wish you luck with this. Thank you.
35
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
PUBLIC HEARING:
PIONEER PASS: REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE
AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY AND OFFICE/
INDUSTRIAL TO RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY (APPROXIMATELY 43 ACRES);
REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT, A2 TO RESIDENTIAL
LOW AND MEDIUM DENSITY DISTRICT, RLM (APPROXIMATELY 43 ACRES);
PRELIMINARY PLAT (PIONEER PASS) CREATING 82 LOTS, 8 OUTLOTS AND
RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR PUBLIC STREETS (APPROXIMATELY 73 ACRES);
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK
OVERLAY DISTRICT WITH A VARIANCE FOR ENCROACHMENT INTO THE
PRIMARY ZONE; AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE GRADING
AND FILLING OF WETLANDS ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF PIONEER
TRAIL (1600 PIONEER TRAIL) AT FUTURE HIGHWAY 312, PLANNING CASE NO.
06-09, APPLICANT D.R. HORTON.
Public Present:
Name Address
Joel Cooper SEH
Paul Bilotta 1641 Chatham Avenue, St. Paul 55112
John Chadwick 11430 Zion Circle
John and Joe Knoblauch 1450 Knob Hill Lane, Excelsior
Sever Peterson Eden Prairie
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item noting that D.R. Horton has
withdrawn and assigned the application to the property owner, Sever Peterson.
Sacchet: Thank you Bob. Questions from staff. Mark, go ahead.
Undestad: One quick one Bob. Can you show on that plan again, you said that the road will cut
Outlot A, it will split Outlot A when that goes in. Where is that?
Generous: It’s approximately here. It comes down and then.
Undestad: And that’s Liberty at Creekside?
Generous: Liberty at Creekside here. So between their property and the Degler property there’s
a small piece of right-of-way that would need to be dedicated. The developer would only
provide the right-of-way and any necessary easements for it’s construction. Town and Country
Home would be responsible for it’s construction.
Undestad: Thank you.
Sacchet: Kurt.
36
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
Papke: The access to Pioneer Trail, so there’s an overpass that would have to be constructed to
get there? How do you get to Pioneer Trail? I’m a little bit confused.
Generous: It will be at grade that come down because the freeway will actually be south of
Pioneer here. …will go to the north.
Papke: Okay, it crosses over there.
Generous: The excess right-of-way is, none of that area is for potential river crossing also, so
there could be additional ramping. That has to be resolved with MnDot yet. They’re doing the
Environmental Impact Statement now and it’s going through that process. They have this six
corridors I believe and they’re trying to get that down to one and then adopt that so that the local
communities can do the official mapping.
Sacchet: In terms of the comprehensive plan…requiring a comprehensive plan amendment. So
are we actually deviating from the original idea of the comprehensive plan? Can you clarify that
please.
Generous: Well the comprehensive plan currently guides the property for medium density
residential or office industrial uses, neither of which would be consistent with single family
detached housing. So to do this development, and based on the original, the concept approval
that was given for the planned development a year ago, this is one, a way that we saw that they
could do it through this zoning with the land use amendment.
Sacchet: And then the other question with storm water pond. It seems like there were two
options given. One in the primary zone and one not.
Generous: Correct.
Sacchet: If you could elaborate a little more because I think it’s staff’s finding that they were not
in the primary zone would be more hazardous or less ideal than the one in the primary zone. Is
that something for you Alyson?
Fauske: Staff worked with the developer…preliminary plat submittal, we went around and
around on this issue. Basically what it came down to planning commissioners that when we
looked at…erosion, the erosion potential of that pond outletting within that primary zone… we
felt that it was a better place than that pond…
Sacchet: Overall a better solution. And then I have a detail question. Condition 8 of the
preliminary plat approval for recommendation. Talks about the 950 contour. Is that the border of
the primary zone or why is 950 essential?
Generous: It’s for, to provide screening from the road at the round about I believe.
Sacchet: I didn’t understand that one.
37
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
Generous: Yeah, so that they can get some berming.
Sacchet: It’s a berming situation?
Generous: Yeah.
Sacchet: Okay. And so we, I didn’t see much detail about the wetland replacement plan. That’s
something that still needs to be worked out?
Generous: Yes. They submitted the initial stuff in that and that has a dual tracking process. It’s
going through the technical committee reviews.
Sacchet: Okay. So that’s still being worked?
Generous: Yes.
Sacchet: Okay. Alright, if there’s no more questions for staff, I’d like to invite the applicant. If
you want to come forward and tell us who you are and what you want to add to what staff
presented to us. Maybe we’ll have some questions for you. We’ll see.
John Chadwick: Thank you. My name is John Chadwick. I reside at 11430 Zion Circle,
Consultant on behalf of the Peterson Family. Sever Peterson is here. Our planning consultant
Paul Bilotta is with us and also Joel Cooper from the Hill Engineering Firm. Here to answer
questions. Certainly thank you for all your consideration to date. Enjoy being here again. If you
didn’t remember me I was here in August so that’s who I am. Thank you. Good to be back.
Sacchet: So you don’t have any particular issues? Everything’s cool for you.
John Chadwick: No, and Joel’s been through all the engineering comments and, well all the
comments. We’ve been working on this for quite some time.
Sacchet: Okay. Do we have questions? Yes Jerry, you have a question for the applicant.
McDonald: For the applicant. I’m confused as to who’s doing the development. D.R. Horton
was part of this and they’re no longer in it. Who’s the, you know the general contractor doing all
the work and everything. Are you all doing that yourself or?
John Chadwick: Weird question. The Horton folks and our folks parted company today at about
5:30 and so I don’t have a specific answer for that. Certainly who the general contractor would
be, even in their case they wouldn’t be getting into who’s going to do the grading, etc until they
put it out for bid so, I’m sure with lot prices that will be there, we’ll have a number of quality
builders. As a matter of fact there’s one here in the audience now. So I’m sure there’s going to
be some wonderful people stepping forward.
McDonald: Okay.
38
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
Sacchet: Alright, thank you very much. Now this is a public hearing. If anybody wants to
address this item, please come forward and let us know if you have something to say. Seeing
nobody get up, I’ll close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission for discussion
and comments. Discussion. Comments. Anybody?
McDonald: Well I guess I’ve got a question. And maybe this is nothing but, we’ve got a very
detailed plan here that was put together based upon two applicants getting together. If it now
comes back to somebody else, can the plan change? If we do a PUD and they want to do
something different with the number of lots or how, you know once we do this, is this it?
Generous: Unless they come back with a whole new plan and start the process over. But it’s
like property owners all the time bringing a subdivision request. It’s reviewed and then they’ll
sell it off to builders or developers in the future. In this instance they had D.R. Horton that
started the process. They’re withdrawing as the applicant. However they’ve assigned their
rights if you will to this development plan to the property owner and he’s going, wants to take it
forward.
Sacchet: So it’s simple.
Generous: Nothing changes as far as the plans are concerned.
Sacchet: And if they would change it...
Generous: They would have to come back, yeah.
McDonald: Okay. I have no other comments or questions.
Sacchet: Alright. If there’s no questions, comments, we’ve just got to make some motions.
Motions with lots of conditions. Page 16 I think is where it starts.
Generous: 16 through 22.
Larson: A, B and C?
Generous: And D.
Sacchet: A, B, C, D and E.
Larson: Alright, I’ll make a motion. I’ll make an attempt anyway. The Planning Commission
recommends approval of the comprehensive plan land use amendment for residential medium
density and office/industrial to residential low density of the land within the plat of Pioneer Pass
except for Outlots A, B, C, D and G, contingent on the Metropolitan Council review. And B.
The Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning of the land within the plat for
Pioneer Pass except for Outlots A, B, C, D and G, Pioneer Pass from Agricultural Estate District
A2 to residential low and medium density district, RLM. And C. The Planning Commission
recommends approval of preliminary plat for Pioneer Pass creating 81 lots, 9 outlots and right-
39
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
of-way for public streets, plans prepared by James J. Hill Incorporated dated February 3, 2006
subject to the following conditions 1 through.
Sacchet: 61.
Larson: 61. And then is that it? D. The Planning Commission recommends approval of
wetland alteration permit for the grading and filling of wetlands on property subject to the
following conditions 1 through 3. And E. The Planning Commission recommends approval of
conditional use permit to permit development within Bluff Creek Overlay District with a
variance for encroachment into the primary zone to construct a storm water pond subject to the
following conditions, 1 through 3.
Sacchet: Got a motion. Is there a second?
Undestad: Second.
Papke: I have a friendly amendment.
Sacchet: First a second. We’ve got a second? Yeah, actually I may have a friendly amendment
too. Go ahead Kurt.
Papke: I’d like to make a friendly amendment that condition, or motion C. The plans are
prepared not by the robber baron of the north, but rather by James R. Hill.
Sacchet: Is that acceptable Debbie?
Larson: Yes.
Sacchet: I had a friendly amendment too. To the part E. I would like to specify encroachment
to the primary zone to construct a storm water pond, as shown in the plans and specified the date
whatever so we know it’s in the plan. I mean be specific what we’re actually giving the variance
for. Even though it’s implied, I want to spell it out so we’re clear, okay?
Generous: Plans prepared by James.
Sacchet: By whoever it was and when it was, okay? Is that acceptable?
Larson: Yes.
Sacchet: Alright. We have a motion. We have two friendly amendments.
Larson moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the
Planning Commission recommends approval of the comprehensive plan Land Use
Amendment from Residential – Medium Density and Office/Industrial to Residential - Low
Density of the land within the Plat of Pioneer Pass except for Outlots A, B, C, D and G
40
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
contingent on Metropolitan Council review. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Larson moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends thatthe
Planning Commission recommends approval of the Rezoning of the land within the Plat for
Pioneer Pass except for Outlots A, B, C, D and G, Pioneer Pass, from Agricultural Estate
District, A2, to Residential Low and Medium Density District, RLM. All voted in favor and
the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Larson moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the
Planning Commission recommends approval of Preliminary Plat for “Pioneer Pass” creating
81 lots, 9 outlots and right-of-way for public streets, plans prepared by James R. Hill, Inc.,
dated 2/3/06, subject to the following conditions:
1.The developer shall prepare a noise analysis for noise that will be generated by traffic on
Highway 312 and Pioneer Trail. The analysis shall identify appropriate noise mitigation
measures to meet noise standards for residential homes.
2.The developer shall pay $21,547.00 as their portion of the 2005 AUAR.
3.The applicant shall plant 369 trees within the development, 98 overstory and required buffer
yard plantings trees along Collector Road D and buffer yard plantings for lots along the
south property line.
4.Each lot shall have a minimum of two overstory deciduous trees planted in the front yard.
5.The applicant shall install the total required buffer yard along Collector Road D or show
proof of berm height of 3 feet or higher along the length of the street and adjust the
quantities of understory and shrubs accordingly.
6.The applicant shall development a restoration plan including native plants for the Bluff
Creek Overlay district north of Block 1. The plant species shall be selected from the Bluff
Creek Management Plan Appendix C. The final plan must be reviewed and approved by the
city before installation.
7.Signage for the Bluff Creek Overlay District must be posted on every other property corner
where residential yards meet the primary zone.
8.The 950 contour shall be extended over lots 5 and 6, block 3 to provide more coverage from
headlights for those homes.
9.Dedication of Outlots A and G shall be made to the city or a conservation easement shall be
established over said outlots.
10.The developer shall designate a 4.72 acre neighborhood park site, Outlot H. This
property shall be transferred to the city by warranty deed with 3.79 acres of the site being
41
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
dedicated/ donated by the applicant/owner and the remaining 0.93 acres being purchased
by the City of Chanhassen. The city shall compensate the owner/applicant $218,550 in
total compensation for said 0.93 acres.
11.The developer shall rough grade and cover seed the park site and construct a 20 stall parking
lot for an additional not to exceed payment of $50,000 from the city. The parking lot shall
include insurmountable curb. Construction plans for all improvements within the borders of
the park shall be submitted to the Park & Recreation Director for approval prior to initiating
construction of these improvements. All material and labor costs are reimbursable. Design,
engineering, and testing services associated with these improvements shall be provided by
the applicant.
12.The applicant shall submit a complete wetland replacement plan and must receive
approval of the replacement plan prior to alteration of wetlands. Wetland replacement
shall occur in a manner consistent with Chanhassen City Code and the Minnesota
Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420).
13.Wetland mitigation shall not be proposed for the northeast corner of the site in order to
ensure adequate area for a road connection to the property to the east of the site.
14.A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be
maintained around all Ag/Urban wetlands. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved,
surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall
install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction
begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. All structures shall be set back 40 feet from the
edge of the wetland buffer. The wetland buffer setback shall be shown on the plans.
15.Any areas on the property that meet the City’s criteria for bluffs (i.e., slope greater than
or equal to 30% and a rise in slope of at least 25 feet above the toe) shall be preserved. In
addition, all structures shall maintain a 30-foot setback from the bluff and no grading
may occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20 feet
from the top of a bluff). The plans shall be revised to show any areas meeting the City’s
bluff criteria.
16.No alterations shall be permitted within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of
the setback from the primary corridor without a variance. All structures must meet the
40-foot setback from the primary corridor.
17.The applicant shall demonstrate that storm water management along the southwest
property line of Lots 25-31, Block 2 is adequate to prevent drainage issues for future
homeowners.
18.The outlet for Pond 2 shall be moved westward to increase the flow distance between the
inlet and outlet structures.
42
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
19.Drainage and utility easements with a minimum width of 20 feet shall be provided over
all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as public value credit
and storm water infrastructure.
20.Energy dissipation shall be provided at the flared-end section inlet to Pond 2 within 24
hours of installation. Additional blanket shall be provided for storm sewer installation
area for inlet infrastructure to Pond 2. The access area shall be protected with erosion
control blanket upon the establishment of final grade. Erosion control blanket shall be
used on the slopes within Lots 31-24, Block 2. Mulch shall be substituted for the blanket
proposed for the berm area of Block 3 along Street D.
21.Temporary sediment basins shall be provided in existing watersheds 1 and 3 during mass
grading activities. Where 10 acres or more of exposed area come to a discernable point
of discharge to a wetland or waterway, a temporary basin shall be provided. The
proposed storm water basins in proposed drainage areas 2, 6 and 7 shall be temporary
sediment basins until the contributing areas are stabilized. The temporary outlets could
be installed in place of the permanent outlets.
22.Perimeter control (silt fence) shall be installed prior to grading along the south side of the
Street D and CSAH 14 (Pioneer Trail) intersection. All silt fences near flared-end
sections shall be installed up and around flared-end sections so water is not discharged
against the silt fence, causing it to fail.
23.An outlet area shall be defined for the two areas labeled as temporary sedimentation
basins during the rough grading/subcut street phase of development. Any shredded wood
material from tree removal shall be saved for temporary mulch berms/vehicle exit pads as
needed. Typical silt fence shall be installed prior to initial rough grading activities along
the west side of Outlot H to the proposed “street by others.”
24.The total SWMP fee shall be paid to the City at the time of final plat recording. The
estimated total SWMP fee at this time is $165,600.
25.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction Permit), Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (dewatering permit), Army Corps of Engineers) and
comply with their conditions of approval.
26.A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees,
shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that
fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
27.Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed.
Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of
construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided.
43
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
28.Temporary street signs shall be installed on street intersections once construction of the new
roadways allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4.
29.Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of
fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities.
Pursuant to Minnesota Fire Code Section 503.2.3.
30.Submit proposed street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire
Marshal for review and approval.
31.Fire hydrant spacing is unacceptable. Locate fire hydrants at intersections and in cul-de-sacs
and at 300 foot spacing. Most spacing is in excess of 400 to 500 feet at this time. Submit
revised fire plans to Fire Marshal for review and approval.
32.Before site grading commences, the existing building and driveway access off Pioneer Trail
onto the property must be removed.
33.On the grading plan, add a note to remove any existing house and driveway access.
34.The developer’s engineer must work with Liberty on Bluff Creek’s engineer to ensure that
the proposed grading on each property matches at the property line.
35.Ground slopes shall not exceed 3:1.
36.A minimum 75-foot long rock construction entrance must be shown on the plans.
37.Retaining walls must be designed by a structural engineer registered in the State of
Minnesota and require a building permit if greater than 4 feet in height.
38.The developer shall work with MnDOT to move the access at Pioneer Trail so that it aligns
with the MnDOT’s street on the south side. The access to Pioneer Trail shall be constructed
in conjunction with the first phase of the development.
39.The property is also subject to sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges for all of the lots.
The 2006 trunk utility hook-up charges are $1,575 per unit for sanitary sewer and $4,078 per
unit for water. The 2006 SAC charge is $1,625 per unit.
40.The Arterial Collector Roadway Fee of $2,400/developable acre will need to be paid at the
time of final plat recording.
41.All of the ponds are required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP)
standards with maximum 3:1 slopes and 10:1 benches at the NWL. Revise accordingly.
42.All of the proposed housepads must have a rear yard elevation of at least three feet above
the HWL of the adjacent ponds.
44
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
43.Storm sewer calculations and drainage map must be submitted with the final plat
application. The storm sewer must be designed to accommodate a 10-year, 24-hour storm
event.
44.The last public stormwater structure that is road-accessible prior to discharging to a water
body must have a 3-foot sump pump.
45.Future utility service and access to Outlot B needs to be determined prior to final plat.
46.The applicant shall include a draintile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump
discharge from homes.
47.Add catch basins in the back yards of Lots 1-15, Block 3 connecting to Street C storm
sewer. Also add a catch basin along Street A in front of Lots 25-28 and between Lots 15 &
16 and 4 & 5, Block 1.
48.All plans must be signed by a registered Civil Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota.
49.The catch basin between Lots 6 & 7 must be built with two inlet openings.
50.Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal.
51.An easement is required from the appropriate property owner for any off-site grading.
52.If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will
be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes.
53.Utility services for the buildings must be shown on the final utility plan. Sanitary services
must be 6-inch PVC and water service must be 1-inch copper, Type K and will require a
City Building Department inspection.
54.Extend the silt fence along the south to the back yard of Lot 25, Block 1.
55.No retaining wall is allowed within any drainage and utility easement. Revise the retaining
wall between Lots 22, 23 and 24, Block 2, accordingly.
56.All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's
latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to
enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security
in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements
and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility
improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance.
45
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
57.Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required prior to construction,
including but not limited to MPCA, NPDES, MnDOT, Department of Health, Carver
County and Watershed District.
58.Reroute the sanitary sewer from Street A and the north-south corridor intersection to
minimize the sewer depth. Relocate the southern sanitary sewer out of the stormwater pond
easement at Outlot E.
59.Add a pressure relief valve to the watermain along Street D between Outlots E and F. This
will be a City improvement cost but installed by at the time of development.
60.In-home pressure reducing water valves may be required on all lots with a lowest floor
elevation of 930 or less. Final determination for the need of in-home pressure reducing
valves will be made by the City at time of building permit.
61.The applicant shall coordinate with the developer of the adjacent properties in the northeast
corner of the site the dedication of public street right-of-way to provide access from the
parcel to the north to the parcel to the east and revise the plans accordingly.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Larson moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the
Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland Alteration Permit for the grading
and filling of wetlands on property subject to the following conditions:
1.The applicant shall submit a complete wetland replacement plan and must receive
approval of the replacement plan prior to alteration of wetlands. Wetland replacement
shall occur in a manner consistent with Chanhassen City Code and the Minnesota
Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420).
2.Wetland mitigation shall not be proposed for the northeast corner of the site in order to
ensure adequate area for a road connection to the property to the east of the site.
3.A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be
maintained around all Ag/Urban wetlands. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved,
surveyed and staked in accordance with the City’s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall
install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction
begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. All structures shall be set back 40 feet from the
edge of the wetland buffer. The wetland buffer setback shall be shown on the plans.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Larson moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the
Planning Commission recommends approval of Condition Use Permit to permit development
within the Bluff Creek Overlay District with a variance for encroachment in to the primary
46
Planning Commission Meeting – April 4, 2006
zone to construct a storm water pond as shown on the plans prepared by James R. Hill, Inc.,
dated 2/3/06, subject to the following conditions:
1.Dedication of Outlots A and G shall be made to the city or a conservation easement shall
be established over said outlots.
2.Any areas on the property that meet the City’s criteria for bluffs (i.e., slope greater than
or equal to 30% and a rise in slope of at least 25 feet above the toe) shall be preserved. In
addition, all structures shall maintain a 30-foot setback from the bluff and no grading
may occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20 feet
from the top of a bluff). The plans shall be revised to show any areas meeting the City’s
bluff criteria.
3.No alterations shall be permitted within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of
the setback from the primary corridor without a variance. All structures must meet the
40-foot setback from the primary corridor.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:McDonald noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the
Planning Commission meeting dated March 21, 2006 as presented.
Sacchet: Before I bang this hammer the last time I want to thank you all for having been part of
this motley crew. Thank you.
Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:25 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
47