The URL can be used to link to this page

6 Lundgren Bros. Carlson proper CITYOF CHAN SEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration -,PPP~r~e: 952.227.1100 ~-~J Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www. ci.chanhassen.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: DATE: Kate Aanenson, AICP, Community Development Director July 22, 2003 SUB J: Preliminary Plat for Carlson Property (2003-7 SUB), Lundgren Bros. Executive Summary Lundgren Bros. is requesting preliminary plat approval of a subdivision for 10 single family lots and one outlot. The site is currently zoned RSF, Residential Single Family. The subdivision is contingent upon the dedication of 30 feet of fight-of-way to the north of the subject side. The construction of Kings Road will allow the outlot in the Oaks of Minnewashta to be final platted. The subdivision meets the standards of the RSF district and staff is recommending approval of the subdivision with the conditions in the report. Planning Commission Update On July 1, 2003, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. There were several issues raised during the public hearing. The commission asked staff to address these concerns. Following are staff responses to these issues: 1) Lot 11 Sewer Connections The planning commission has questioned how Lot 11 will connect to the proposed sanitary sewer. At this stage, the proposed basement elevation of Lot 11 is too low to connect with the proposed sanitary sewer. The applicant will be platting Lot 11 into an outlot until the parcel to the south develops and sewer is extended from the west. 2) Street Right-of-Way The planning commission questioned whether the City has right-of-way on the north half of Kings Road. Staff researched the Oaks of Minnewashta plat and confirmed that the City does have the necessary 30 feet of right-of-way on the north half of Kings Road. The applicant is dedicating the other 30 feet of fight-of-way on the south half of the road. This will provide the full 60 feet of public right-of-way. The City of Chanhassen ,, A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A g~eat place to live, work, and play. Todd Gerhardt July 22, 2003 Page 2 3) Street Turning Radius This issue is directly related to the extension of Kings Road along the northwest comer of the site. The original plan shows a 60-foot fight-of-way with part of the fight-of-way within the City of Victoria and a turning radius less than the required 180 feet. Since the last Planning Commission meeting, staff met with the applicant and reviewed many options. Staff is now recommending that an "L" intersection be utilized in this area. This intersection will be totally within the City of Chanhassen and will require a stop sign, dead-end sign and a barricade. 4) Easterly Neighbors Concerns The neighbors to the east of Lots 8 and 9 had some concerns on the grading and existing trees on Lots 8 and 9. The applicant and staff met with the neighbors to the east at their property on July 9, 2003. The applicant explained and assured the neighbors that the swale will minimize the surface drainage and will decrease the drainage flow toward their house. Also, tree removal is necessary for grading on the lots and the applicant will be transplanting mature trees to create a buffer between Lots 8 and 9 and the neighbors. Also, staff made the neighbors aware that water and sanitary service stubs will be provided for their property, by the developer, to connect within one year for sanitary sewer. Connection to City water is not required by ordinance; however, the existing well cannot be replaced if City water is available. Staff supplied the neighbors a copy of the trunk hook-up charges. 5) Preservation of Trees #71 (38" Silver Maple) and Tree #140 (36" Silver Maple) The City Forester's response to saving the trees is: There are numerous variables that affect a tree's chance of survival after construction. In the case of these trees, the two most important factors are: Proximity to the construction: Both trees are within 10 feet from the proposed buildable area. Ideally, all construction activities should remain outside the dfipline of a tree. Construction activities occurring within 10 feet of the trunk are well within the dripline and will have a significant and negative impact on the trees. Age of the trees: The size of each of these trees clearly suggests their maturity. Older trees do not recover easily or well after major impacts from construction, pests or diseases. Just as older adults typically do not regain pre-stress health, so with large trees and stress incurred from construction. While silver maple is generally tolerant of root compaction and severance, their age reduces this tolerance greatly. Todd Gerhardt July 22, 2003 Page 3 Therefore staff is not recommending that significant measures be used to try to save these trees. Staff has learned from past experiences that ill will is created when a tree is required to be saved and later dies; the homeowner is then required to remove it at their expense. 6) Extension of Kings Road A resident on Kings Road inquired about the future extension of this road into the City of Victoria. While the developer has expressed a desire to extend the road, staff does not support this and has ensured such be positioning the road entirely within the City of Chanhassen so that any future expansion into Victoria would be only at the consent of the Chanhassen City Council. Recommendation Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat for the Carlson subdivision as found on page 8 of the staff report. CITY OF P.C. DATE: 7-1-03 C.C. DATE: 7-14-03 Review deadline 7-14-03 CASE: 2003-7 SUB STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Subdivision - 5.93 acres into 10 residential lots and 1 outlot Z _J n. LOCATION: APPLICANT: West of Minnewashta Parkway and west of Kings Road Lundgren Bros. Construction 935 East Wayzata Boulevard Wayzata, MN 55391 PRESENT ZONING: ACREAGE: 5.93 - Gross RSF, Residential Single Family 4.75 acres - net Ixl DENSITY: 1.85 units/acre gross 2.32 units/acre net SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Lundgren Brothers is requesting a subdivision of 5.93 acres of property. This site is on the western edge of the city and abuts the city of Victoria on the west. The subdivision requires the construction and extension of Kings Road. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi judicial decision. -- Glendale Dr. I Prop. o.se. d '~ Subdivision ~ ~ad ° Lake St. Joe Carlson Property June 17, 2003 Page 2 PROPOSAL SUMMARY Lundgren Brothers are requesting preliminary plat approval of an 11 lot subdivision. The underlying property owner is Janet and Lowell Carlson. The property is located within 1000 feet of the shore land of Lake St. Joe a DNR classified Natural Lake. The subdivision consists of 10 lots and one outlot on 5.93 acres. Minor changes need to be made to some of the lots to meet city standards. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. BACKGROUND In 1985 the Carlson's were notified by the city that it had enacted an ordinance which required property owners having a valid non-conforming use of their property as a contractors yard were to apply for a conditional use permit. Because of the use of this property as a contractors yard, staff requested that a phase I environmental assessment be conducted. Following is a summary of the Report. '°The site consists of a 6-acre lot developed with a house with a basement and 3 sheds. The eastern half of the site was used for the storage of old machinery, old vehicles, scrap metal, and various other implements and debris. The house and 3 sheds were located on the north-central portion of the site. The site is currently occupied by Carlson Excavating and has been located there since the late~1960's. The house currently located on the site was constructed in 1967. Based on aerial photographs, a farmstead was located on the north central portion of the site showing on the 1951 aerial photographs. The site was used for agricultural purposes up until 1951. This assessment has revealed no indications of recognized environmental condition in connection with the site, except for the following: · The site has been used as an excavation company for approximately 35 years · Old vehicles, scrap metal, and other debris were located on the eastern half of the site · Used vehicle fluids were observed in unapproved containers that were located throughout the northern portion of the site. · A 1,000-gallon fuel oil underground storage tank is currently in use at the site. · Illegal burning has been conducted at the site. A well and a septic system are currently in use and located at the site. Braun Interact recommends the well be properly abandoned in accordance with Minnesota Department of Health regulations, and the septic system be properly abandoned. Due to the unknown nature of the soil associated with the suspect elevation changes, areas of disturbed soil, and construction debris associated with the small building that was located on the east-central portion of the site whether it was buried on the properly or hauled away, the potential exists that material are present in the soil that require management as solid or hazardous waste and may impact future development at the parcel. Examples of possible fill containments Carlson Property June 17, 2003 Page 3 included solid or hazardous wastes, petroleum products, and including demolition debris such as asbestos-containing material (ACM). Soil borings and or test pits may be warranted to assess potential for contaminants in the area of the site for future development were noted. A phase li Assessment was conducted. Five standard penetration borings were conducted. No indication of contamination was detected in the soil samples collected for the site as part of the limited Phase Ii. ANALYSIS The proposed subdivision will have access via Kings Road. The road will have a 60 foot right of way and will be constructed along the entire subject site frontage. Six of the lots will have access via Kings Road and the remaining 4 lots will have access via an internal street. This street will be built as a temporary cul-de-sac. This cul-de- sac will extend in the future to serve the Kortgard property. Based on the configuration of the subject property another lot will access the extension of the temporary cul-de-sac. The extension of Kings Road will enable the six lots in the Oaks on Minnewashta (Outlot B) to be final platted. This project will have to provide utility service extension to the Oaks of Minnewashta. A sidewalk around the perimeter of the site (Kings Road) will provide access to the city park. Part of the sidewalk is in the right of way of the City of Victoria The existing home and building will be removed and the well and septic will be abandoned. The site drops in elevation towards Lake St. Joe. The elevation changes are approximately 70 feet. COMPLIANCE TABLE Block Square Feet Front Width Side Length/Width 15,000 sq. ft. 90 feet 125 feet Provided Provided Provided 1 18,278 92' 195' + 2 15,009 92' 162' 3 15,302 coruer 143' 4 16,495 90' 200' 5 16,757 108'/152' 111' 6 '13,879 92' 150' 7 17,809 95' 195' 8 18,378 112' 160' 9 15,104 92' 162' 10 16,403 92' 140' 11 **Outlot 90' 144' Carlson Property June 17, 2003 Page 4 * Insufficient lot area ** Outlot until future extension of road While this subdivision is in the shoreland district no lots are riparian. The plat needs to be revised to ensure all lots meet the requirements. Lot 6 does not meet the minimum square footage of 15,000 square feet and Lot 9 shows a 70 foot frontage but scales to 92 foot. WETLANDS Existing Wetlands Two wetlands exist on-site: one natural wetland and one agricultural/urban wetland. Svoboda Ecological Resources delineated the wetlands in April 2003. On May 15, 2003, City staff conducted an on-site review of the wetland delineation. Wetland 1 is a Type 5 natural wetland located in the southeastern most comer of the property. This wetland is adjacent to Lake St. Joe. The portion of the wetland on the subject property is wetland fringe and is dominated by reed canary grass. The applicant is not proposing impact to Wetland 1. Wetland 2 is a Type 2 ag/urban wetland located in the western portion of the property. The wetland was created as a result fill that occurred on the property. The fill impounded water on a slope, which led to the presence of wetland hydrology, development of hydric soils and migration of hydrophytic vegetation into the area. Because this wetland was created solely as a result of actions by private entities that were taken for a purpose other than creating the wetland, wetland impacts are eligible for exemption under the Wetland Conservation Act (Minnesota Rule 8420.0122 subp. 5). The applicant should apply for an exemption from the Wetland Conservation Act for impacts to Wetland 2. In lieu of an approved replacement plan, an exemption must be obtained prior to wetland impacts occurring. A wetland buffer 10 to 30 feet in width (with a minimum average of 20 feet) must be maintained around Wetland 1. Wetland buffer areas should be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant must install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign. All structures must maintain a 40-foot setback from the wetland buffer edge. The proposed buffer widths and 40-foot setback should be shown on the grading plan. LAKES The proposed project is within 1,000 feet of the ordinary high water level (OHW) of Lake St. Joe and is therefore within the lake's shoreland district. Lake St. Joe is classified as a natural environment lake by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR). The minimum lot size is 15,000 square feet and the minimum lot width is 90 feet. The plans for the proposed Carlson Property June 17, 2003 Page 5 development should show the location of the OHW of Lake St. Joe and the required 150' setback from the OHW. GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL Storm Water Management The proposed development is required to maintain existing runoff rates. Storm water calculations should be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond is sized adequately for the proposed development. Easements Drainage and utility easements should be provided over all existing wetlands, storm water infrastructure (including swales) and storm water ponds. The swale on Lots 8 and 9 should be moved toward the rear property line as far as possible and a drainage and utility easement should be dedicated over the entire swale. A 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be provided from the cul-de-sac to the storm water pond along the storm sewer alignment. This easement may be vacated upon the future extension of the street and construction of a new connection to provide drainage from the street to STMH #1. Erosion Control Type m silt fence should be provided adjacent to all areas to be preserved as buffer. Erosion control blanket should be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc- mulched, covered with a wood-fiber blanket or sodded within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Surface Water Management Fees Water Quality Fees Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees are based on single-family residential development rates of $949/acre. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 5.93 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $5,628. Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average citywide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single- family residential developments have a connection charge of $2,348 per developable acre. This results in a water quantity fee of approximately $13,924 for the proposed development. Carlson Property June 17, 2003 Page 6 SWMP Credits This project proposes the construction of one NURP pond. The applicant will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from the site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. Credits may also be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees for oversizing in accordance with the SWMP or the provision of outlet structures. The applicant will not be assessed for areas that are dedicated outlots. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $19,552. Other Agencies The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) and comply with their conditions of approval. LANDSCAPING The developer for the Carlson property development has submitted tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations. They are as follows: Total upland area (excluding wetlands) Baseline canopy coverage Minimum canopy coverage allowed Proposed tree preservation 5.77 ac. or 251,283 SF 21.75% or 56,159 SF 25 % or 62,821 SF 2% or 4,865 SF The developer does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed, therefore the difference between the baseline and proposed tree preservation is multiplied by 1.2 to calculate the required replacement plantings. Difference in canopy coverage Multiplier Total replacement Total number of trees to be planted 51,294 SF 1.2 61,553 SF 57 trees In addition, the developer must increase canopy coverage to meet the minimum twenty-five percent required. The calculations are follows: Total reforestation area (62,821 - 56,159) 6,662 SF Required canopy coverage 6 trees (one tree provides 1,089 SF of canopy) The total number of trees required for the development is 63. The developer has proposed a total of 58 trees. An additional 5 trees must be added to the landscape plan. All replacements must meet minimum size requirements. Carlson Property June 17, 2003 Page 7 PARK AND TRAILS The Park and Recreation Commission had the following comments. "The site is located near Roundhouse Park, which is a large neighborhood park serving the west Lake Minnewashta area. These eleven new homes will be afforded convenient access to the park by the new sidewalk depicted on the development plan. The park acquisition and/or trail development is required as a part of this subdivision. The applicant will be required to pay a one time park dedication fee of $26,400 at the time of plat submittal. PRELIMINARY PLAT FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets the intent of the city code subject to the conditions of the staff report. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable plans, subject to the conditions of the staff report. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The physical characteristics of the site are suitable for the proposed development subject to the conditions specified in this report. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision will be served by adequate urban infrastructure contingent upon conditions specified in this report. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to conditions in this report. Carlson Property June 17, 2003 Page 8 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of records. Finding: The proposed subdivision will be served by adequate urban infrastructure contingent upon conditions specified in this report. Additional easements will be required as part of the subdivision. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: a. Lake of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of dedicated and improved public streets. c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems and not ISTS (individual sewer treatment system). d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision is provided with adequate urban infrastructure. PRELIMINARY PLAT RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council approves the preliminary plat (Subdivision 2003-7) for Carlson Property including 10 residential lots, 1 outlot as shown on plans dated May 16, 2003, subject to the findings in the staff report and the following conditions: 1. The developer shall revise landscape plan to show a minimum of 63 trees to be planted. 2. A minimum of two deciduous, overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of each lot. 3. The developer shall be responsible for installing all landscape materials proposed in rear yard areas. 4. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits on Lots 1, 7, 9, 10, Block 1 prior to any construction. The developer shall apply for an exemption from the Wetland Conservation Act for impacts to Wetland 2. In lieu of an approved replacement plan an exemption shall be obtained prior to wetland impacts oCcurring. A wetland buffer 10 to 30 feet in width (with a minimum average of 20 feet) shall be maintained around Wetland 1. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The developer shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of city staff, before construction begins and must pay the city Carlson Property June 17, 2003 Page 9 $20 per sign. All structures shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the wetland buffer edge. The proposed buffer widths and 40 foot setback shall be shown on the grading plan. 7. The plans for the proposed development shall show the location of the OHW of Lake St. Joe and the required 150 foot setback from the OHW. 8. Storm water calculations shall be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond is sized adequately for the proposed development. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, storm water infrastructure (including swales) and storm water ponds. The swale on Lots 8 and 9 shall be moved toward the rear property line as far as possible and a 20' drainage and utility easement must be dedicated over the entire swale. 10. A 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be provided from the cul-de-sac to the storm water pond along the storm sewer alignment. This easement may be vacated upon the future extension of the street and construction of a new connection to provide drainage from the streets to STMH #1. A minimum 20 foot easement is required for the storm sewer pipe between STMH #2 and STMH #1. 11. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood fiber blanket or sodded within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Type Ill silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all areas to be preserved as buffer and removed upon completion of construction. 12. Based on preliminary estimates, the water quality fees for the development are $5,628 and the water quantity fees are approximately $13,924. At this time the estimated SWMP fee, due payable to the city at the time of final plat recording is $19,552. 13. Approval of the sidewalk and utility easements must be received from the city of Victoria. 14. The demolition of structures on the site must be done in accordance with MPCA guidelines and permits must be obtained from the city prior to demolition. 15. The on-site sewage treatment system and well must be abandoned in accordance with Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080 and a permit must be obtained from the city. 16. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. 17. All lots must be provided with separate sewer and water services. Carlson Property June 17, 2003 Page 10 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. The applicant will be required to pay a one time park dedication charge of $26,400 at the time of plat submittal. Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. A temporary easement is required for the paved portion of the temporary cul-de-sac which is outside of the right-of-way. Revise the street right-of-way to 60 feet along the westerly side of Lots 1, 2, and 3 and add a temporary cul-de-sac at the south end of the development. Type III silt fence shall be used adjacent to the edge of the wetland and removed upon completion of construction. Also, add an erosion control blanket on the north slope of the pond. The applicant should be aware that any off site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. All disturbed areas are required to be restored with seed and mulch within two weeks of grading completion. The existing roadway will be removed and the property on the east where the road needs to be removed will be established with turf. 23. 25. 26. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. Each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges at the time of building permit issuance. The 2003 trunk utility hook-up charges are $1,440 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,876 per unit for water. Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest editions of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be 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. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, Carver County, etc. Addthefollowing City of Chanhassenlmest Detail Plate Numbem: 1002,1004,1005,1006, 1009,2001,2002,2101,2109,2109A, 2110,2201,2202,2204,3101,3102,3104,3106, 3107,3108,3109, 5200,5203,5205,5206,5214,5215,5240,5241,5244, and 5300. Carlson Property June 17, 2003 Page 11 27. The retaining wall along the east side of Lots 10 and 11 shall be moved out of the drainage and utility easement. Any retaining walls over 4 feet in height need to be designed by a registered engineer. 28. On the utility plan: a. Show sanitary sewer flow direction. b. Show the watermain and sanitary services stubs including eight services for the north side of Kings Road (Outlot B). c. Show sanitary sewer pipe class, length, slope and type. d. Show watermain pipe class and type and call out the fittings. 29. On the grading plan: a. Add a storm sewer schedule. b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. c. Show the storm sewer invert and manhole rim elevations. d. Show the storm sewer pipe slope, length, class and flow direction. e. Show a minimum of 75 foot rock construction entrance. 30. Revise CBMH #1 with a 2 foot sump. 31. Add street lights to the plans. 32. Add a pedestrian curb ramp and sidewalk along the east side of Lots 5, 6 and 7. 33. Supply the city with a detailed haul route for review and approved by staff. 34. Revise plans: Lot 6 shall have a minimum square footage of 15,000 square feet and Lot 9 shall have a minimum 90 foot frontage. 35. The plat will be contingent upon agreement with the property owner to the north of the development regarding the dedicated road right-of-way. 36. The applicant will work with staff and neighbors to consider the possible extension of the drainage swale along the east side of the development to ensure drainage goes not just from 8 and 9 through the swale but also 10 and 11 to the drainage pond 37. Applicant will work with staff and neighbors to establish buffer planting along the eastern edge of the development, specifically on Lot 8 and 9. 38. The turning radius of the road on the northeast corner shall meet current city design standards and current city code. Carlson Property June 17, 2003 Page 12 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. Tree//71 shall be preserved and adequate tree preservation fencing shall be placed around it according to city forester's directions. The applicant agrees to perform ongoing monitoring for soil contaminants during excavation. On the utility plan show the water and sanitary service stubs for the neighbor to the east of Lots 8 and 9. Also, revise the invert of sanitary manhole No. 5 from 982 to 980. On the plans, show the existing house and/or any existing buildings on the property to the east. Revise the area of Kings Road along the northwest corner of the site to include an "L" intersection within the City of Chanhassen along with a stop sign, dead-end sign and a barricade. 44. Change Lot 11 to an outlot. A~ACHME~S 1. Application 2. Hearing notice and property owner list 3. Letter from Carver Soil and Water dated June 2, 2003 4. Memo from Mak Sweidan, Engineer dated June 4, 2003 5. Preliminary plat and landscaping plans dated May 16, 2003 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Lundgren Bros, Comstruction APPLICANT: ADDRESS: 935 E. Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata, MN 55391 TELEPHONE (Day time) (952) 473 - 1231 OWNER: Lowell & .~:~ Carlson ADDRESS:4141 Kings Road Chanhassen, MN 5533 , TELEPHONE: (952) 474 - 7211 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit X Vacation of ROW/Easement~ Variance Non-conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development* Rezoning ~ Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review* )Subdivision* $600 + Final ~' X ~ I~scrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost ($50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) Plat $250.00 A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. *Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/='. X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet. ** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. **** NEW MEETING DATE - JULY 1,2003, 7:00 P.M. ***** NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 2003 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7700 MARKET BLVD. PROPOSAL: Subdivision Request APPLICANT: LOCATION: Lundgren Bros. Construction 4141 Kings Road NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Lundgren Bros. Construction, is requesting preliminary plat approval to subdivide 5.93 acres into 11 single family lots on property zoned Residential Single Family, and located at 4141 Kings Road, Lundgren Bros. Construction. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Kate at 227-1139 or e-mail kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on June 5, 2003. Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® ~OBERT A & DEANNA M BUNKELMAN ~,191 RED OAK LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 EDWARD J & LORI J KLING 4169 RED OAK LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 BRUCE A & PATRICIA S BONG 4137 RED OAK LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOHN L & LEANNE D ZELLER 4119 RED OAK LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PATRICK J & DARLENE M LANGEN 4107 RED OAK LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 STEVEN J & KARIN D MAAS 4151 RED OAK LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DANIEL R CARROLL & DEBBRA A CARROLL 4089 RED OAK LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RICHARD A HIRSTEIN & MARY C GABRIEL-HIRSTEIN 4182 RED OAK LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 SHELDON N & RUTH N TANG 6951 COUNTRY OAKS RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 KEVIN D & ANN M HATLESTAD 4166 RED OAK LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 HOWARD D & ANN M ANDERSON 4150 RED OAK LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JON M & ELIZABETH A HAUSAM 4134 RED OAK LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 NATHANIEL R JOSEPHS & STEPHANIE J JOSEPHS 4118 RED OAK LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 FRANK V & JULIE M ORR 4102 RED OAK LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 STEVEN W & BRENDA B HACHTMAN 6984 COUNTRY OAKS RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 THOMAS R & JANEEN K LANO 6991 COUNTRY OAKS RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LOWELL E & J CARLSON 4141 KINGS RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 DAVID J & MARGARET L BORRIS 4071 KINGS RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 LINDA A SCOTT & SUSAN E MORGAN 4031 KINGS RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JERRY L & KRISTIN L KORTGARD 3901 GLENDALE DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JERRY L & KRISTIN L KORTGARD 3901 GLENDALE DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CIO BRUCE DEJONG 7700 MARKET BLVD PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ALAN D HARRIS & JACQUELINE L HARRIS 4086 RED OAK LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 MICHAEL P HANNAFIN & MICHELLE M HANNAFIN 4198 RED OAK LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 RAYMOND K & TERESA B NICHOLSON 6971 COUNTRY OAKS RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ALEKSANDR & ELLA GORSHTEYN 6931 COUNTRY OAKS RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ~WILLIAMS DEVELOPMENT INC 102 5TH ST W SUITE 1 CHASKA MN 55318 AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® CARVER ¢OlISEI ATIHI H$11 KT 219 East Frontage Road Waconia, MN 55387 Phone: 952-442-5101 Fax: 952-442-5497 httu://www.co, carver, mn. us/SWCD/SWCD main. html Mission ~tatement: To provide leadership in conservation and teach stewardship of the soil, water, and related resources throu£h a balanced, coot~erative pro~,ram that protects, restores, and improves those resources. June 2, 2003 Kathryn R. Aanenson, AICP City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 RECEIVED JUN 0 5 2O03 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Re: Storm Water Drainage from Proposed Carlson Property Development Dear Ms, Aanenson: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Carlson Property development. The following comments and recommendations relate to storm water runoff during and after construction of the 5.93-acre development. Please review the following suggestions. Soils There are two primary soil types within the footprint of the proposed development. The dominant soil type is Kilkenny with an inclusion of Angus (KB); the subdominant soil type on site is Lester with an inclusion ofKilkenny (KE2). For locations of soil types please refer to the attached soil map. Building Site Development soil descriptions are rated on the following scales. A slight limitation rating regards soil limitations that are easy to overcome; a moderate limitation is possible to overcome if good management and careful design are implemented; a severe limitation regards soil limitations that are questionable as to the use proposed. A severe limitation regards the soil properties or site features that are so unfavorable or so difficult to overcome that special design, significant increases in construction costs, and possibly increased maintenance are required. Special feasibility studies may be required where the soil limitations are severe. Additional soil descriptions relate to erosion and storm water. KB soil Kilkenny Angus Soil Descriptions and Limitations: · Building Site Development - Shallow excavations has a moderate limitation rating due to too clayey, wetness - Dwellings without basements has a moderate limitation rating due to shrink-swell - Dwellings with basements has a moderate limitation rating due to wetness, shrink- swell - Local roads and streets has a severe limitation due to low strength - Lawns and landscaping has a slight limitation rating AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER KB soil also appears to be dominate in the proposed stormwater location. Moderate limitations for the stormwater pond could include seepage and slope restrictions. KB soils are well drained and do not have a seasonally high water table and are not subject to flooding. Average slopes of KB soils range from 2% to 6%. KB soils are subject to severe erosion if vegetation is removed. KE2 Soil Lester Kilkenny Soil Descriptions and Limitations: Building Site Development Shallow excavations has a severe limitation rating due to slope Dwellings without basements has a severe limitation rating due to slope Dwellings with baSements has a severe limitation rating due to slope Local roads and streets has a severe limitation due to low strength, slope Lawns and landscaping has a severe limitation rating due to slope KE2 soil has very severe erosive potential. Slopes of KE2 soils average approximately 18%. The water table depth is greater than l0 feet and stormwater runoff from KE2 soils is rapid. Erosion Control Due to the high to severe erosive potential of the soils within the foot print of the development phasing of the development and stabilization is needed. Restoration and Construction Sequencing Notes on Sheet GP-1 should be implemented in the field to protect the wetland fringe of Lake St. Joe from sediment-laden stormwater runoff during construction. Sediment Control - "J-hooks" should be installed with the silt fence along the east and west boundaries of Outlot A, Lot 11 and Lot 10. J-hooks should be installed at increments of S0 feet. The J-hooks should extend out approximately 25 feet and hook back up-slope. - Catch basin protection is needed for curbside inlets and drop inlets following installation. Mulch socks could be used for curbside inlet protection; 1-inch clean rock and fine wire mesh could be used for drop inlet protection. - An emergency overflow should be installed in the temporary sedimentation basin. The EOF could be lined with geotextile fabric and 3-inch riprap should be applied over the fabric for energy dissipation. If there are any questions regarding the above comments or suggestions please call the SWCD office. Sincerely, Aaron Mlynek, CPESC-IT Urban Conservation Technician CITYOF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www. ci.chanhassen.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director FROM: Mak Sweidan, Engineer ~A~ DATE: June 4, 2003 SUB J: Preliminary Plat Review for Carlson Property Land Use Review File No. 03-11 Upon review of the preliminary grading, drainage, erosion and utility plans dated May 16, 2003, prepared by Sathre-Bergquist, Inc., I recommend the following conditions of approval: 1. Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. 2. A temporary easement is required for the paved portion' j~..!the temporary cul-de-sac which is outside of the fight-of-way. ~ . o Revise the Street fight-Of-way to 60 feet along 1, 2 and 3 and add a temporary cul,de-sac at'th6, south . ',~,;'.:( - · ,"': Staff recommend~ that Type.... m,'si'It'.fe, ce.be.'~a~J'~fit'to.tll~:,¢dge Of.the wetland ..... : ' . ' · ' ,... :. '..,:.' ~...'. ~. '." ' ,.' ,. ' ~ 2.,; ;~i?. '*'~..,?J~i,. 5 ?.~;,.,?..:','.~ :. '" .,' .'~ ;i:" '~' ' · ,' Also, add an etbs~on, conti'~i bl~t: ~. t~e::~::~!et~.the ~on8.'. :~he aPphcant · ";,'~' ."., ' .-i.: ""':q~';~'.- ":~:'".'.:~'~'.:~: '" ~"?'~:,~,:~':~(;; i:'.";'*'5.?.'~?''. ~'" :.'. ' '" ' ':.'. ':' - '. appropmte pro~.~ ow-er..~?'~'~d.~.~.;~.~:U~a:.'to.b~:~es~O:e~ v~it~ s~'~ ann muir. ".', ?' . · ... "':..:' i' .' :' 5%" -.. '..'* ??:..':~;'.'¥":';~?~%.::-:.'~* .' ::.~.'. · "' .. , '.'". .: ~ ? '~,.,.' ~' "iL.'~ .'."' '~ .',..". ";':~. t~o.~h ~ City'~ s.,i]a~g~~"i."~C?'.~';:.'.?.?~.;::.::.'??.".: - '.; )'.. ?.'.':' :'.':, '~ The applicant. Wfl'!; and supply the..h~e~.:~'~!al/~!!!~i~ escrow to guarante~-inS~a~fiti6h?Of.~,i~i approval. Pe~ts from'i~ including but not li~ted to ~'~}'~~ C~er County, etc. "'." g~'tedlh~.aceordance with the ~.l"iPiat~'ii:..Detailed [!~;:',~.,o:'fifnP.~f final platting. p. '~:praent contract with the City ~d~'a. ietter of credit or cash. ~'~e conditions of final plat ~s must ~ obtained, ~al~, Watershed Dis~ct, The City of Chanhassen. ,, A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A gmat place to live, work, and play. Kate Aanenson June 4, 2003 Page 2 Add the following City of Chanhassen Latest Detail Plates Numbers: 1002, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1009, 2001, 2002, 2101, 2109, 2109A, 2110, 2201, 2202, 2204, 3101, 3102, 3104, 3106, 3107, 3108, 3109, 5200, 5203, 5205, 5206, 5214, 5215, 5240, 5241, 5244 and 5300. 9. The retaining wall along the east side of Lots 10 and 11 shall be moved out of the drainage and utility easement. 10. Any retaining walls over 4 feet in height need to be designed by a registered engineer. 11. On the utility plan: a. Show sanitary sewer flow direction. b. Show the watermain and sanitary services stubs including eight services for the north side of Kings Road (Outlot B). c. Show sanitary sewer pipe class, length, slope and type. d. Show watermain pipe class and type and call out the fittings. 12. On the grading plan: a. Add a storm sewer schedule. b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. c. Show the storm sewer invert and manhole rim elevations. d. Show the storm sewer pipe slope, length, class and flow direction. e. Show a minimum of 75-foot rock construction entrance.' 13. Revise CBMH #1 with a 2-foot sump. 14. Add street lights to the plans. 15. A minimum 20-foot easement is required for the storm sewer pipe between STMH #2 and STMH #1. 16. Add a 20-foot drainage easement for the swale along the east side of Lots 8, 9 and 10. 17. Add a pedestrian curb ramp and sidewalk along the east side of Lots 5, 6, and 7. 18. Supply the City with a detailed haul route for review and approval by staff. c: Teresa J. Burgess, Public Works Director/City Engineer Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer g:~engyrojects~carlson propetty'~l~relininary plat review.doc C OF CHAN EN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www. ci.chanhassen.mn.us TO: FROM: DATE: SUB J: MEMORANDUM Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director mak Sweidan, Engineer ~A~ June 4, 2003 Preliminary Plat Review for Carlson Property Land Use Review File No. 03-11 Upon review of the preliminary grading, drainage, erosion and utility plans dated May 16, 2003, prepared by Sathre~Bergquist, Inc., I recommend the following conditions of approval: 1. Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. 2. A temporary easement is required for the paved portion of the temporary cul-de-sac which is outside of the right-of-way. 3. Revise the street right-of-way to 60 feet along the westerly side of Lots 1, 2 and 3 and add a temporary cul-de-sac at the south end of the development. Staff recommends that Type III silt fence be used adjacent to the edge of the wetland. Also, add an erosion control blanket on the north slope of the pond. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. All disturbed areas are reguired to be restored with seed and mulch within two weeks of grading completion. 5. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. Each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hookup charges at the time of building permit issuance. The 2003 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,440 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,876 per unit for water. Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City' s latest editions of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary f'mancial 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. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, Carver County, etc. The City of Chanhassen · A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A g~eat place to live, work, and play. Kate Aanenson June 4, 2003 Page 2 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. C: Add the following City of Chanhassen Latest Detail Plates Numbers: 1002, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1009, 2001, 2002, 2101, 2109, 2109A, 2110, 2201, 2202, 2204, 3101, 3102, 3104, 3106, 3107, 3108, 3109, 5200, 5203, 5205, 5206, 5214, 5215, 5240, 5241, 5244 and 5300. The retaining wall along the east side of Lots 10 and 11 shall be moved out of the drainage and utility easement. Any retaining walls over 4 feet in height need to be designed by a registered engineer. On the utility plan: a. Show sanitary sewer flow direction. b. Show the watermain and sanitary services stubs including eight services for the north side of Kings Road (Outlot B). c. Show sanitary sewer pipe class, length, slope and type. d. Show watermain pipe class and type and call out the fittings. On the grading plan: a. Add a storm sewer schedule. b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. c. Show the storm sewer invert and manhole rim elevations. d. Show the storm sewer pipe slope, length, class and flow direction. e. Show a minimum of 75-foot rock construction entrance. Revise CBMH #1 with a 2-foot sump. Add street lights to the plans. A minimum 20-foot easement is required for the storm sewer pipe between STMH #2 and STMH #1. Add a 20-foot drainage easement for the swale along the east side of Lots 8, 9 and 10. Add a pedestrian curb ramp and sidewalk along the east side of Lots 5, 6, and 7. Supply the City with a detailed haul route for review and approval by staff. Teresa J. Burgess, Public Works Director/City Engineer Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer gAengXprojects~carlson property',prelininary plat review.doc CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 1, 2003 Summary Minutes PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 5.93 ACRES INTO 11 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 4141 KINGS ROAD, LUNDGREN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION. Public Present: Name Address Janet Carlson Margie Borris Jerry & Kristin Kortgard Linda Scott & Sue Morgan 4141 Kings Road 4071 Kings Road 3901 Glendale Drive 4031 Kings Road Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Slagle was asking what was planned to happen south of this property, which is in Victoria and the need for Lot 4. Commissioner Claybaugh had questions regarding the tree survey and if the city forester had reviewed the plan. Commissioner Papke asked if staff had any concerns with the utility pond. Commissioner Tjornhom asked about the filling of the secondary wetland. Commissioner Feik had concerns with the driveway access for Lot 3 on the curve of the road, and the size and placement of trees to be planted. Commissioner Lillehaug had numerous questions regarding the environmental assessment, cul-de-sac radius, status of Outlot B, road right-of-way, the pond elevation, setback from the lake, and services down to Lot 11. Chairman Sacchet asked about the retaining wall shown on the plan, and if there were any trees that could be saved, specifically trees marked 140 and 71. Commissioner Slagle asked about the entrance monument sign and questions regarding the plat if Lot 4 was removed. Lundgren Brothers, the applicant, was represented by Mike Burton. He stated the name for this development will be Countryside, they have been having discussions with David and Steven Williams regarding Kings Road, and provided their proposed time line for development of this parcel. Commissioner Lillehaug asked for clarification on the Phase I and II reports, the turning radius of the cul-de-sac and if the overhead power lines were to be buried. Commissioner Slagle asked about sidewalks. Commissioner Claybaugh asked about Braun Engineering monitoring the site during grading and the positioning of the driveway on Lot 3. Chairman Sacchet asked for clarification on the grading plan and the possibility of saving trees. Commissioner Claybaugh asked to check on the sight lines and the turning radius of the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Slagle asked about Lot 4. Chairman Sacchet then opened the public heating. Sue Morgan, 4031 Kings Road had questions regarding Kings Road development, storm water runoff, access to Lake St. Joe, utility work, and the quality of life along Kings Road and if more security will be provided with the increase in people. Margie Borris, 4071 Kings Road stated that Lundgren Brothers had not contacted the neighbors about their concerns before this meeting, and that this was the first they had heard of this development taking place. She expressed the same concerns as the previous speakers, storm water runoff, safety, cost of hooking up to sewer, and quality of life. Staff clarified some of her questions and concerns. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive had concerns about the plat being incomplete and resembled more a PUD than subdivision, building pad size and impervious surface next to shoreland. Linda Scott, 4031 Kings Road had a concern about being assessed for the improvements being done with this development. Jerry Kortgard, 3901 Glendale Drive, who owns the property just to the south of this development, asked for clarification about the elevation between the two properties and the expansion of the pond. The commissioners provided comments and then made the following motion. Feik moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Carlson Property including 10 residential lots, 1 outlot as shown on plans dated May 16, 2003, subject to the findings in the staff report and the following conditions: 1. The developer shall revise landscape plan to show a minimum of 63 trees to be planted. A minimum of two deciduous, overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of each lot. The developer shall be responsible for installing all landscape materials proposed in rear yard areas. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits on Lots 1, 7, 9, 10, Block 1 prior to any construction. The developer shall apply for an exemption from the Wetland Conservation Act for impacts to Wetland 2. In lieu of an approved replacement plan an exemption shall be obtained prior to wetland impacts occurring. A wetland buffer 10 to 30 feet in width (with a minimum average of 20 feet) shall be maintained around Wetland 1. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The developer shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of city staff, before construction begins and must pay the city $20 per sign. All structures shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the wetland buffer edge. The proposed buffer widths and 40 foot setback shall be shown on the grading plan. 2 o 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. The plans for the proposed development shall show the location of the OHW of Lake St. Joe and the required 150 foot setback from the OHW. Storm water calculations shall be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond is sized adequately for the proposed development. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, storm water infrastructure (including swales) and storm water ponds. The swale on Lots 8 and 9 shall be moved toward the rear property line as far as possible and a 20' drainage and utility easement must be dedicated over the entire swale. A 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be provided from the cul-de- sac to the storm water pond along the storm sewer alignment. This easement may be vacated upon the future extension of the street and construction of a new connection to provide drainage from the streets to STMH #1. A minimum 20 foot easement is required for the storm sewer pipe between STMH #2 and STMH #1. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood fiber blanket or sodded within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Type III silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all areas to be preserved as buffer and removed upon completion of construction. Based on preliminary estimates, the water quality fees for the development are $5,628 and the water quantity fees are approximately $13,924. At this time the estimated SWMP fee, due payable to the city at the time of final plat recording is $19,552. Approval of the sidewalk and utility easements must be received from the city of Victoria. The demolition of structures on the site must be done in accordance with MPCA guidelines and permits must be obtained from the city prior to demolition. The on-site sewage treatment system and well must be abandoned in accordance with Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080 and a permit must be obtained from the city. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. All lots must be provided with separate sewer and water services. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. The applicant will be required to pay a one time park dedication charge of $26,400 at the time of plat submittal. Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. A temporary easement is required for the paved portion of the temporary cul-de- sac which is outside of the right-of-way. Revise the street right-of-way to 60 feet along the westerly side of Lots 1, 2, and 3 and add a temporary cul-de-sac at the south end of the development. Type III silt fence shall be used adjacent to the edge of the wetland and removed upon completion of construction. Also, add an erosion control blanket on the north slope of the pond. The applicant should be aware that any off site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. All disturbed areas are required to be restored with seed and mulch within two weeks of grading completion. The existing roadway will be removed and the property on the east where the road needs to be removed will be established with turf. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. Each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges at the time of building permit issuance. The 2003 trunk utility hook-up charges are $1,440 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,876 per unit for water. Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest editions of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be 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. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, Carver County, etc. Add thefollowing City of Chanhassen latest Detail Plate Numbers: 1002, 1004, 1005,1006,1009,2001,2002,2101,2109,2109A, 2110,2201,2202,2204,3101, 3102,3104,3106,3107,3108,3109, 5200,5203,5205,5206,5214,5215,5240, 5241,5244, and 5300. The retaining wall along the east side of Lots 10 and 11 shall be moved out of the drainage and utility easement. Any retaining walls over 4 feet in height need to be designed by a registered engineer. 4 28. On the utility plan: 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. Co Show sanitary sewer flow direction. Show the watermain and sanitary services stubs including eight services for the north side of Kings Road (Outlot B). Show sanitary sewer pipe class, length, slope and type. Show watermain pipe class and type and call out the fittings. On the grading plan: ao Add a storm sewer schedule. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. Show the storm sewer invert and manhole rim elevations. Show the storm sewer pipe slope, length, class and flow direction. Show a minimum of 75 foot rock construction entrance. Revise CBMH gl with a 2 foot sump. Add street lights to the plans. Add a pedestrian curb ramp and sidewalk along the east side of Lots 5, 6 and 7. Supply the city with a detailed haul route for review and approved by staff. Revise plans: Lot 6 shall have a minimum square footage of 15,000 square feet and Lot 9 shall have a minimum 90 foot frontage. The plat will be contingent upon agreement with the property owner to the north of the development regarding the dedicated road right-of-way. The applicant will work with staff and neighbors to consider the possible extension of the drainage swale along the east side of the development to ensure drainage goes not just from 8 and 9 through the swale but also 10 and 11 to the drainage pond Applicant will work with staff and neighbors to establish buffer planting along the eastern edge of the development, specifically on Lot 8 and 9. The turning radius of the road on the northeast corner shall meet current city design standards and current city code. Tree 971 shall be preserved and adequate tree preservation fencing shall be placed around it according to city forester's directions. The applicant agrees to perform ongoing monitoring for soil contaminants during excavation. All voted in favor, except Slagle who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 6tol. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS The Planning Commission's concerns with this item are highlighted in the additional conditions added, highlighted in bold print. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 1, 2003 VERBA TIM MINUTES PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 5.93 ACRES INTO 11 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 4141 KINGS ROAD, LUNDGREN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION. Public Present: Name Address Janet Carlson Margie Borris Jerry & Kristin Kortgard Linda Scott & Sue Morgan 4141 Kings Road 4071 Kings Road 3901 Glendale Drive 4031 Kings Road Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Kate. Questions from staff. Rich, do you want to start? Slagle: Yeah I've got a few. see here yeah. There we go. to the immediate south. Kate if you could put up the map of the overall area. Let's The property you had mentioned in the report, the owners Aanenson: This. Slagle: Yeah. Who's the owner to the immediate south of the big area? Aanenson: This is Victoria. Slagle: That is in Victoria? 6 Aanenson: Yep. This is the city limits would be... Slagle: Okay, I see what you're saying now. Aanenson: Yeah. And then there's also Victoria on this side. Slagle: Over to the west? Aanenson: Yeah. Actually yeah, this is higher ground but the wetland comes up and kind of drops down through here and then it's also wetland as you go through there. And Lake St. Joe is a natural environment lake. There's a large wetland complex. Slagle: My question is going to center around future plans for that big area but obviously, do you have any feel what Victoria... Aanenson: Certainly Kings Road can be extended down. I'm not sure if the lot utility on that road, but certainly we wanted our utilities to loop through Kings Road street for maintenance of our services. Slagle: Okay. My question was also going to center around to fellow commissioners was the idea, because you have this beautiful lake and I believe to the north of the Lundgren development to the south is wetlands and what not. You could have had a beautiful trail, walkway, but obviously that's not under our. Aanenson: Well it was a natural wetland and actually Lundgren did this subdivision on the backs of those. Those are larger lots. At that time the lot requirement was larger. There's also, they are not allowed to have docks. So we didn't want to get in there. That wetland I believe is in that area, some of the neighbors probably, in excess of maybe 200 feet. It's pretty large before you get to the ordinary high water mark. Yeah, so we didn't want the integrity, because it's a natural environment lake, of just preserving that. It's beautiful. And you get a nice view and there is the access on this side. Slagle: Okay. Next question regarding the plot. We're talking about one of these called sort of minor tweaking, but just from an observation standpoint. In your planning background, I mean is lot number 4 really needed? I mean couldn't you just extend 3 and 5 and 2 and 6 and make it all work. Aanenson: You can always have less lots. It meets the requirements. This is the one lot that I believe it's Lot 6 that's undersized. Slagle: I mean it just seems like if you're 5 and 6 and 3 and 2, you've got a house right smack behind your house. Aanenson: Yeah well I think if you look at the orientation, 5 could come off of the cul- de-sac. 4 could come off of Kings Road. This is going to have orientation off of Kings Road, and the rest of them will come off the cul-de-sac. 7 Slagle: And then the outlot on the southeast. Aanenson: Right. Now for this until to get maintenance to this point there will be a requirement for a large utility access, 20 foot wide. We should put a condition in there to get to maintain this point. At such time, whenever that is. Slagle: Do you have any feel? Aanenson: No, it's up to them. We don't want to force them to do anything until such time when they choose to go forward, kind of...the spot down but this lot could be platted but they'd have to come back and just change it from an outlot to final platting and that would just go to City Council to meet those requirements. Slagle: I think right now that's all I have Mr. Chair. Sacchet: Thanks Rich. Craig. Claybaugh: Yeah my question pertaining to the tree survey plan. Did the city forester concur that all these trees that were marked for removal, none of those were salvageable? Aanenson: Yes, Jill reviewed this and gave her comments. Claybaugh: That's all the questions I have. Sacchet: Thanks Craig. Kurt, any questions from staff?. Papke: Yeah. On the area just to the north of the pond, if I'm reading the topographical map correctly, it looks like there's a lot of grading going on in that area. It's major changes. Major amounts of dirt being moved. Any concerns with that and with the pond just below it? Aanenson: We did look at this is one of the reasons we actually, it got tabled because we asked them to redesign. The pond was originally up in this area and ultimately we want to put the pond, this pond will probably be increased in size when this project develops and it's closest to the lake to give us the best treatment before it goes in so ultimately we thought that was the best location long term for that pond. And we do have a 20 foot wide easement to get down there again. This wouldn't be built, and then when we have access here, we'll get an additional easement and increase the size of that pond to get to that. Saam: Commissioner Papke if I could add too. As far as the grading goes, as you mentioned, there is some significant grading going on there. Papke: It changes like 10 feet. Saam: Yeah. We do like the location though as Kate mentioned. The pond is near to the lake. It's in the low spot. It makes sense to put it there. As far as the grading and the slopes, we'll have them put erosion control matting on the slope. Address it that way. Papke: That's all I have, thanks. Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Bethany. Tjomhom: In reading this they were talking about the wetland and there was a secondary wetland. That's going to be totally wiped out, is that correct? Aanenson: Yeah. Well part of the process, and that's in this area right here. And part of the process is our wetland specialist walks the sites and determines whether or not it's existing and the determination when that was a hole dug, it took on wetland characteristics so it meets the, it's called the diminimus role so it could be filled under a certain square footage. And this won't be touched, this wetland down here. Tjomhom: But then they don't have to replace the one that they're. Aanenson: Correct, because it wasn't determined to be that quality. Tjomhom: Okay. Sacchet: Is that it? Tjomhom: Yes. Sacchet: Okay, Bruce. Feik: Just a couple. Kate regarding Lot 3. On the curve. Do you have any concerns regarding driveway access on that curve to Kings Road? Aanenson: Maybe Matt wants to comment on that. I'm assuming they would probably try to get it on this area. Feik: On one side or the other right. Saam: Yeah, get it off of that curve so. Aanenson: Off the comer. Saam: Farthest to the east or as Kate showed, farthest to the south, southwest there. Feik: Assuming this moves forward, do we need to address that now? 9 Saam: I don't believe so. I think, unless you want to but in my opinion staff can deal with the builder at time of building permit. Deal with the engineer. Feik: Next question is regarding in the conditions where we're talking about the 63 plus trees that need to be planted. Item 1 and the two deciduous per lot in the front yard. I might have missed it but do we need, or did we specify size with those trees? Aanenson: That's per city ordinance so we didn't list it but. Feik: Okay, so but in per the ordinance. Aanenson: Yes. And then we review those plans to make sure that they're specified on the plans to meet our city specs. The landscaping plan. Feik: So you actually prefer to have those landscaping plans revised and have those shown on the plan? Aanenson: They will be. They call off the specs...stays on the plan. Feik: And size? Aanenson: Correct. And we'll review those before they begin. Feik: Okay. That's it for now, thanks. Aanenson: I just wanted to point out, they are working on an entry monument too...Lot 5. Saam: A what? Aanenson: Entry monument on Lot 5. An entry feature. Excuse me, on Lot 8. Sacchet: Steve, any questions from staff please. Lillehaug: Boy I've got a bunch here and no one's hitting on my questions so. Sacchet: Go for it. Lillehaug: Staff requested a Phase I EA. Phase II was completed. Which is more investigative? Phase I? Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. 10 Lillehaug: The temporary cul-de-sac is a 35 foot radius. I'm going to direct this to Matt here. There's a 35 foot radius proposed there. That's a temporary cul-de-sac. A permanent cul-de-sac, I don't know what city standard is. Maybe 45 for radius, 50 foot radius. Saam: 45. Lillehaug: Okay. And that's really driven I think specifically or more importantly for a fire tmck turning radius. Saam: Yeah, fire tmck and snow plow. Lillehaug: Can we get around this with a fire track? 35 foot radius. Saam: I believe so, yeah. I've sat down with the fire marshal before. This is typical radius like on a private street so. Lillehaug: Okay, good. What is the future of Outlot B to the north of Kings Road? Aanenson: That will be platted with this extension. With this project the road will be built. That was holding this up. The improvements need to be made to the road and also utilities will be stubbed and so more than likely with the two parties agree to financial, then it would probably just go to the City Council for final plat. Those lots. Lillehaug: So is this a city outlot? Aanenson: No, it's a development of Minnewashta Oaks. Slagle: And who's the owner of that? Aanenson: I believe it's Williams Brothers now. It's changed hands a couple times, but that was part of the original development on the other side, but because they didn't have access via a public street they weren't able to final plat those lots. Sacchet: Okay. Any other questions Steve? Lillehaug: Yes I do. The south portion of that outlot, is that already dedicated right-of- way? Do I need to know that? Saam: For the sidewalk? Lillehaug: Aanenson: Lillehaug: Well the roadway's in part of it also. No. That's going through the property to the south, the Kortgard's property. You know that same outlot. 11 Sacchet: Outlot B? Lillehaug: Outlot B. Portion of. Aanenson: Yes. Lillehaug: Is that dashed line. Saam: I guess that's the question that staff's been trying to research and we're having a surveyor research. It's shown that way in county half section books. County plat books as roadway. However, in doing some research we found that it's never been recorded or deeded or property owners haven't been paid for it so yeah, that issue still has to be resolved. Lillehaug: We're talking a 30 foot swipe there, right? Aanenson: Yes. The two property owners need to resolve that to get the street to go through it. Saam: And I think the applicant might add to that. I know they've been talking with the property owner to the north so. Lillehaug: Alright, we'll revisit that there then. I'm still on right-of-way here. On the west there looks to be like there's 33 foot right-of-way dedicated in the city of Victoria. Aanenson: Correct. Lillehaug: Is that correct? Saam: Yes. Lillehaug: We don't want to utilize that for a portion of the road or is it just a jurisdictional nightmare to have a road running down the city divide? Saam: Yeah I guess, and they don't own. Aanenson: Go ahead. Saam: Oh, they don't own anything in Victoria. They're not proposing to plat anything there. Lillehaug: It's already dedicated right-of-way though. Saam: Well, yes and no. It might fall under the same situation as the piece to the north. I guess I haven't researched that one Commissioner Lillehaug so I can't give you a 12 straight answer, whether it's dedicated or not. It's shown on the county record books that way but. Lillehaug: I guess if the applicant's willing to put the road on his property. Saam: And dedicate the 60 up, we don't have a problem with it. Lillehaug: Okay. I'm not done yet. The pond. Normal water level 950. High water level, 952 and that's governed by the grading plan. It shows a berm I think at about 952. That only provides 2 foot of bounce. Are we comfortable with the design on that pond to ensure that we have enough bounce in that pond to adequately store the increase in the runoff rate? Saam: Staff has received drainage calculations for the pond. We are reviewing that so I guess at this point we're fine with it. If it would need to be tweaked, that's something we commonly do between now and the final plat so I'm confident that we'll attain the necessary treatment. Lillehaug: And then with that pond on a high event, the outlet structure may not be able to accommodate a large event rainfall. So does the city typically have, to prevent overflowing across that entire berm and eroding that berm on an extreme high event, does the city typically want like in an emergency spillway? Saam: Yes. Yep, we'll have an emergency spillway. Just for the record our outlet structures, they are designed for 100 year events so if you're talking something larger than that, sure that could over top the berm. Lillehaug: That's fine then. Hold up here. That's a question to the applicant. Oh, the OHW for the lake, it requires 150 foot setback. Do we have any idea where this is and if it will impact Lot 11 and Lot 107 Aanenson: Yeah, we scaled those. They meet that, yep. Lillehaug: So we're out of that 150 area? Aanenson: Yes. Lillehaug: Okay. Services down to Lot 11. Or for the most part even to that undeveloped portion to the south there. Do we anticipate watermain and sanitary services coming down the unnamed cul-de-sac to continue to come down there, or off of Kings Road on the west? Saam: I would anticipate, I'm just checking this quick. Lillehaug: And what I'm getting to is, if it is coming off the cul-de-sac portion, the watermain appears to make a jog there and I don't know if that'd be, then we'd have a 13 conflict with sanitary if the sanitary's going to be extended down there so, take a look at that I guess. And then utility services to Lot 11. They're anticipated to be included under this project? Aanenson: No. Lillehaug: No. Aanenson: No, not until the road gets extended. Right now it'd be an outlot because they have to have access via public street. Right now they don't own that. There's no public street frontage in front of that lot, so kind of like we did on the north side. Those outlots on the north side, because they didn't have a public street they weren't allowed to develop. This would be the same circumstance. So whenever they get access, or bring the street down in front of them they have to have...via a public street. Lillehaug: That's it for staff, thanks. Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Two quick questions before we get to the hearing. Trying to get to the hearing here. We have obviously a number of people for this item but, I guess this is a question for you Matt. On the east property line, or in the middle there, between Lot 10 and 11, is that a retaining wall on the lot line? Those bubbles, that line of bubbles? Saam: Yes. Yes. Sacchet: That's a retaining wall? Saam: Yes. Sacchet: What makes that necessary? Saam: The slope would be greater than 3 to 1 if the wall wasn't there. Perhaps in the neighborhood of 2 to 1 or 1 to 1 and our maximum is 3 to 1. Sacchet: Okay. And then I believe Kate you already touched on this but I want to hear this again. City forester didn't find any trees that were savable? Except those few little remnants on the south edge. Aanenson: That was her recommendation that based on the quality of the trees. But again, looking at how the house placements are and if you look at the tree survey. The back side of Lot 5 and 4, kind of closer to the existing home. Sacchet: That's what I'm talking about. Aanenson: I'm pretty confident those can probably be saved, yes. 14 Sacchet: Well the trouble is that on Lot 4, bordering on 2, 5, we have a grade change that is in the neighborhood of 10 feet or it's very significant. Or 6 feet or what have you. I do have a specific, talking about significant trees. I mean there's basically two significant trees. Two very significant trees. There's two maples. It's the tree number 140. It's a 36 inch maple and tree number 71 is a 38 inch maple. They're both on, 140 is between Lot 4 and 5, pretty close to Kings Road. And number 71 is kind of just out of the building pad on Lot 5, kind of on the southerly side. And that one seems to be only about, actually it seems to be pretty much up on grade where it's grading so I don't see why it couldn't be saved. Aanenson: Try to work those into conditions. Sacchet: Okay, that's my questions. Slagle: Uli? Sacchet: Yes go ahead Rich. Slagle: Just a couple more for staff. You touched Kate I believe or Bob on the monument that I think is going to be on Lot 8. Have we seen anything on that? Aanenson: Just some preliminary drawings. Slagle: Okay, the reason I ask, and all due respect to the applicant, but because there's residential homes, it's not out in a major throughway, I believe that the quality of this applicant's entrance ways has decreased, if we use Longacres, the one at Minnewashta Landings, or the one with the waterfall. Aanenson: Highlands at Lake St. Joe. Slagle: Yeah, I mean I think Vasserman Ridge is a real step down from an entrance way from what I've seen before so I just ask that really work with the applicant to make that a beautiful entrance way. So my question is if you've seen something like that. The other question I have is on the wetland. The second wetland. Called a wetland on Lot 2. If hypothetically Lot 4 was not included, would there be the ability to have the wetland in Lot 2 as part of that person's lot? I mean would there be the need to fill it in? Because I'm guessing part of the reason to fill it in was because they needed to put a house. Aanenson: Well yes and no. I mean if it's not functioning as a wetland, first you make a determination of how you want it to be. Is it going to be something that a homeowner's going to, how's it going to function. If it's not draining, if it's not part of a system so to speak, so the determination was, it was man made. So it's not pan of our wetland system that's bouncing, ebbing and flowing. If someone wanted to have a wetland back there, a pond, I'd rather call it a pond, could they do that? Sure. 15 Slagle: Last question on Lot 4 again hypothetically. If Lot 4 was not there, would it be safe to say that all the driveways for this development would either come off this unnamed cul-de-sac or Kings Road on the west? You wouldn't have a need for a driveway on the north then? Aanenson: You're going to have driveways on the opposite side of the street are all going to have driveways. All the homes on the north side and the Oaks all have access via Kings Road. Slagle: Do they? Aanenson: Yeah. Slagle: Okay. Aanenson: And then, so I guess depending on how you want to lay out Lot 3, it could have access as Matt indicated on the north side, or it could go to the west side, the further west or north, depending on the house choice I guess. Slagle: Okay. That's it. Sacchet: Alright, this is a public heating. Oh applicant, sorry. Almost forgot you. Let's listen to the applicant, if you want to come forward. State your name and address for the record please and tell us your story. Mike Burton: Good evening Chairman. Commissioners. My name is Mike Burton representing Lundgren Brothers. Don't have a lot to add tonight. Just that we have chosen the name Countryside for this new development so that will be on future plans. And just to explain, we have been talking to the Williams brothers, Williams Development, David and Steven for a little over a year now about actually what our intentions here are to split the cost of the east/west portion of Kings Road with them, and then we will pay for the point where it tums to the south. Regarding these 20 boulevard trees, the two trees per lot. In talking to Jill just to clarify, those 20 are of the 63 total. Just so we clear that up. Just wanted to point out that based on our critical path time here we would expect City Council approval of the final plat we think September 8th, and so in wanting to try to build the subdivision and to have asphalt down by Thanksgiving, which is usually the end, we need to get started and the Carlson's are trying to move things off the site now and they may even move their home off the site and as of August 16th we can have the demolition process so that's our goal. Is to start demolition and then right at final plat start construction so with that, if you have any other questions. Sacchet: Questions from the applicant. You've got a question, sure. Go ahead Steve. Lillehaug: Do you have any knowledge of buried debris, petroleum products, etc on that property? 16 Mike Burton: No. Lillehaug: No knowledge? Mike Burton: None other than our Phase I and II. Lillehaug: What do you mean not just Phase I and II. Mike Burton: Well Phase I and II that Braun Engineering did for us. You know that report. Lillehaug: So you're saying a Phase I was completed? Aanenson: Yes, a Phase I and II. That's what I summarized. Lillehaug: Oh, Phase I was completed. Aanenson: Yep, it was completed and then the Phase I did recommend that they do a Phase II. I can show you, hopefully in here the test bores that were done. Slagle: If I can ask you, Steve, so we're satisfied that Phase I and Phase II have covered everything we need to know? . Aanenson: Yeah. Lillehaug: I want to, my goal here is to ensure that we're comfortable that there's no contaminants on that property because my site visit would tell me otherwise. There's batteries sitting out there. There's petroleum all over out there. Aanenson: Yeah, it was summarized in Phase I. It identified those issues because it had been used as a contractors yard and that's what they indicated that you should do the soil, so these were the test spots that were picked to do the soil borings and they were scattered throughout the site. Lillehaug: Total of 5? Aanenson: Yes. It looks like there's more than that, yeah that were done. And the conclusion of that, and I put that in the staff report, that they didn't find contamination. We had the same issue and we asked the applicant. Lillehaug: So there are no contaminants out there? Aanenson: None found... Lillehaug: Okay. 17 Sacchet: Any other questions for the applicant Steve? Lillehaug: Do you have a road name for the cul-de-sac there? Mike Burton: Not yet. Lillehaug: Overhead power lines, are you going to contact the overhead power lines... Mike Burton: Met with Xcel Energy as a matter of fact this morning and so they're confident they can move those. Lillehaug: Underground? Mike Burton: Underground. Like 8 poles to take down. Lillehaug: So at who's cost then? Mike Burton: Our's. Lillehaug: Okay. Mike Burton: What is the radius on Kings. Road there? On the northwest corner. Do you know that off the top of your head? Lillehaug: And can I ask this to staff too, ! mean are we comfortable with that radius there and the sight distance and are we going to have a warrant speed on there? Saam: You're talking about the turn on the northwest corner of the site? Lillehaug: Yep. I don't think I'd be comfortable, I don't know what the radius is there. I think it's an important design element that should be shown. Saam: That's for sure something we'll look at at the time of final plat. You could add it as a condition now if you want that submitted to staff. Lillehaug: Sure. That is, that's it. Thanks. Sacchet: Questions from the applicant? Yes Rich. Slagle: I have one. Was it at all raised, the question of having a sidewalk down the unnamed? Mike Burton: That really hasn't come up. Slagle: Okay. How would you feel about that? 18 Mike Burton: I supposed we'd have to talk. Talk it over at Lundgren. Since there was a sidewalk, what across the street from Kings Road coming all the way down, just felt that was adequate for the region. Slagle: Here's what I'm getting at. You've got a park on the northeast. Northeast of this development. If you're, assume you purchase the property to the south, if you're anywhere in there and let's just say more to the southeast, you're going to walk up the street, no sidewalk, to cross Kings Road to get to the sidewalk. You know if you're over here on the far west side, yeah. Then I think it's pretty easy. I'm just you know, because what is our code, you know we're working on our codes and from my conversations with Mr. Hoffman, something to the effect of anything but a cul-de-sac will require a sidewalk. Aanenson: I'm not sure that it's been determined but Todd certainly we did comment on the fact that it's... Saam: Number 32 to add a pedestrian curb ramp and sidewalk along the east side of Lots 5, 6 and 7, which is that street. So I think that's what you're getting at. Lillehaug: Say that again, so I understand. Saam: There's a condition to include a sidewalk along that unnamed street along the west side of it. Slagle: I'm with you. I just want to make sure the applicant's okay with that. Mike Burton: Yeah, that's fine. Slagle: Great. And would that then, if we can, would that then continue? Answers my question. That's all. Great. Sacchet: Questions Craig? Claybaugh: Yes. As a follow-up question to Phase I and Phase II environmental. Once you start out there and start moving dirt and doing your cuts, will Braun be out there doing site monitoring and additional testing? Mike Burton: Yes, they will be. Claybaugh: So that's incorporated in the process at this time. The second to last question I had is, the point was made regarding the position of the driveway on Lot number 3 and at that time it was discussed that it could go either to possibly further to the northeast or the southwest, and I see the building pad is justified more towards the southwest. And that is a concern so when the house comes in, the garage is now justified to that building pad. It's going to bring you out on that comer. Mike Burton: We could stipulate that. Right on the south end. 19 Claybaugh: Alright. That's the extent of my questions. Sacchet: Any questions Kurt? My tree question. I guess you know me for trees by now. From looking at these trees, these maples certainly look in pretty good health, those big maples. Those two big maples. Now according to your grading plan it'd be very hard to save the one that is currently on the northwest of the building, but the one on the southeast of the building seems to be, there's just one grading line that could be pulled over around the tree. The 992 line that's currently going straight north/south. If that would be carded around that tree on the west. Mike Burton: I'm sorry, which number? Which tree number? Sacchet: Tree number 71. Slagle: Could we put that up? Sacchet: Yeah, could you point that out where tree number 71 is? It's, I would say the most significant tree on the property. It's a 38 inch maple. Aanenson: There's one right here and... Sacchet: First of all, I mean I'm not a tree specialist but it appears to me these trees are in pretty good shape. Bob Payette: I'm not a tree specialist either, I'm an engineer so. The one in the back of Lot 5...the building pads, you can't, you could possibly stand on that site and trees...the building pad is going to depend on the configuration of the house, and I know with their tree ordinance, they wouldn't count it as a saved tree being in that location. We might be able to save it but we'd still have to compensate for it because of the proximity to the house. Sacchet: Okay. The way the grading plan currently is, the tree number 140 is a pretty hopeless case. I mean there you have like a 6 foot grade change. However, the tree number 71 is currently at about 992. Bob Payette: That's the one I was talking about. Tree 71 could be saved with the grading. Sacchet: Yep. Bob Payette: The city with their tree preservation plan, they wouldn't count that as being saved because of the proximity to the building pad. Sacchet: Yeah I understand that but that wouldn't be a reason not to save it. 20 Bob Payette: Well we could try to save it and then depending on the configuration of the house, because it's right at the back of the building pad. Sacchet: It's at the edge of the building pad, that's correct. Now the building pad is what size? Aanenson: 60 by 60. Sacchet: 60 by 60. Aanenson: but again that's just the pad. That's not how the building's going to look, so I think if you want to add a condition that we work to save it, again we wouldn't count it as a tree that's been saved. They'd still have to do otherwise but we can work with them. Sacchet: So it would not affect in other words the number of trees that need to be planted. Aanenson: Right. Sacchet: But it is, it could be savable and depending on the house plan. Aanenson: ...the house placement, correct. Sacchet: Okay, okay. Would you be willing to do that? I have a little mixed feeling asking that because I don't know what happened with some of the trees in Ashling Meadows that disappeared after you assured me they would stay there. Mike Burton: How far back is that from the building pad? Bob Payette: That's about 10 feet. The canopy's going to be, 36 inch tree. Depending on what house you put there. Mike Burton: Well our deepest home of the Linden Hills Series is 56 V2 feet. So I can't imagine the comer... Bob Payette: Grade wise it can be saved with the grading. I mean that's. Sacchet: Grading wise it could be saved. The question is. Mike Burton: I think we could work with that. Sacchet: It appears to me like it would be doable with some good will basically. Mike Burton: Yeah, I think we can work it out. Sacchet: Okay, appreciate that answer. 21 Mike Burton: Commissioner Slagle, I saw him roll his eyes back on the driveway. Bob Payette: Well the driveway on Lot 3. About the condition of making it from the south side. Slagle: And this would be my twin. Claybaugh: The evil twin according to Rich but. Aanenson: I was going to point' that out too .... driveway right here on this lot too so it may make some sense to bring those... I mean this is a lot right here. Feik: But Kate from the north side you have better visibility around that curve. Claybaugh: Exactly. You're on the outside of that curve at that point on Lot 3 you're at the inside. What, from the applicant's perspective, what would be the objection just in terms of not knowing what house is going to be placed on the lot or? Bob Payette: Well just knowing how they build their houses, I believe there's a good chance they'd like to build an end load garage off of that coming off the north side, and that leads itself to having a lookout type house. Claybaugh: I guess I would be willing to subordinate that to the point that Commissioner Lillehaug made in that the city engineer agree to investigate and that is the sight lines, and if that's sufficient for the radius so provided that that radius is actively reviewed, and is adequate from city staff's perspective, that's adequate to me. Slagle: I've got one more question if I may. And sorry to keep bringing up Lot 4, but I do have questions about that. And as I see the tree, the number of trees, I mean in your opinion if Lot 4 was not there, would a fair amount of these trees that you're talking about taking down, would they be preserved? Bob Payette: We didn't really analyze that. I'd have to look at the grading plan to look at that but I, my understanding from the tree and the forester is that a majority of those trees aren't very quality trees. Slagle: They might differ if you ask them but. Bob Payette: Well yeah, everybody's got their own opinion. Slagle: Okay, just wondering what you thought of that. Okay. Sacchet: Just to clarify, you're? Bob Payette: I'm Bob Payette with Sathre-Berquist, engineering. '22 Sacchet: Okay. You're doing the engineering for Lundgren Brothers? Bob Payette: Yes. Sacchet: Just to clarify, thank you. That's the questions from the applicant. Okay, anything you would care to add at this point? Thank you. Mike Burton: Thank you. Sacchet: Now we get to the public hearing part. This is a public hearing so if anybody wants to come forward, address this item please do so at this time. State your name and address for the record and tell us what you have to say. Any takers? Sue Morgan: Good evening. Sacchet: Good evening Sue. Do you want to state your name and address for the record please. Sue Morgan: Yes. My name is Sue Morgan. I live at 4031 Kings Road and I have a few questions regarding the development. One would be, is there any discussion about the current residence on Kings Road paying for the development of the rest of Kings Road? Aanenson: No. There shouldn't be any assessment fees or anything with it. Audience: I can't hear you. Aanenson: There shouldn't be any additional assessment fees for any existing homes. This development would work with Williams Brothers independently to resolve those issues. Sue Morgan: Okay. Also I was wondering about storm water runoff for the development. I know there's a holding pond down in the comer. Kings Road has had some history with storm water runoff going east on Kings Road, down to the comer of Minnewashta Parkway and Darrell Kirt's property. Water kind of ponding up across the road from the park area to south of Kings Road. The holding ponds that have been developed on the comer of Minnewashta Parkway over spill every spring, so I was wondering if any of the storm water runoff from this development will be running into that same conduit. Saam: Most, well let me point out. From approximately this point to the east, all of...will continue to go that way. Everything else here will go down to this pond, so that's probably less than 5 percent of the site I would guess. Aanenson: Answering the other part of your question, the city engineering office is working on the outlot that we own on the other side of Kings Road adjacent to Mr. Kirt's 23 property to increase the size of that pond to pre-treat that water better before it goes, and we hopefully have that done yet this summer. Saam: Correct. Sue Morgan: Great, thanks. A couple other questions. The outlot that, down in this area, will these lots have access to Lake St. Joe or will they be short of that? Aanenson: They will be short of that. I believe the OHW comes in such an angle that they don't have direct access. It's not out intent to give anyone that doesn't have that right now with the docks or anything like that, for that natural environment with the wetland. Sue Morgan: And let's see, as far as construction on Kings Road, do you know, maybe it's too early to tell, if there will be construction along the whole Kings Road and putting in utilities. For example those of us that live east of the area that you're developing, you know will the shoulders be torn up? Will the utilities be extended? Any idea? Bob Payette: The utilities would go from the existing road they go north off of there where the pavement ends. Work would start there and go to the west. Sue Morgan: Great, thanks. And then I have one other question in regards to access to Kings Road. The first group of houses that are going to be built, the only access to Kings Road will be this area here. There will not be any access to Kings Road. Aanenson: Correct. Until somebody else, the Kortgard's would choose to develop their property. They would just remain as it is. Sue Morgan: And then I guess one other concern that I have and maybe this is premature and maybe it should be addressed at a different city meeting but the quality of life has changed in that area since the Country Oaks development has been in place about 6 years and now we're putting in another development and yet another. I know personally we've experienced and have called the police on several occasions for theft of planters, for peeping tom's, for smashed mailboxes and that with every development that comes along there's more and more people that are added to the community and I don't know what the city of Chanhassen's plans are for added security. We do have more and more people that will be using the beach. Whether or not there will be lifeguards in that area. We do have a public park there that's unguarded, unprotected so you know it's just my concern as we increase the population that some of those instances will increase. So will you just keep that in mind as a Planning Commission and City Council that we provide additional services to cover that area, along with just supporting another development, we support the people that live there. I think I've been able to count 5 or 6 times since Country Oaks has been in place that I've seen a police officer that hasn't been called so, thanks very much. Sacchet: Thanks Sue. It's good to see you again. 24 Sue Morgan: Good to see you too. Sacchet: Anybody else wants to come forward, please do so. State your name and address for the record please. Margie Borris: I'm Margie Borris. I live at 4071 Kings Road. You'll have to excuse my voice. I live directly east of the development. Until we got the notice in the mail about what was going to happen tonight, Janet told me that they had sold their property, that is the most we have heard prior to the meeting. They made, Lundgren Brothers made no attempt to contact us of any concerns that we might have. Our elevation is quite drastic. We are at one point, where the current house is, what you're looking at plots 8 and 9, we're quite high and then it does drop dramatically but there's also been some grading where part of their property, which they can use just to park vehicles, hasn't been an issue but that's higher than we are. So we're looking at stuff falling into our yard. We've left our place pretty much natural for the last half acre of our property. We have a little over 2 acres. We own part of the road. Nobody's told us what direction is this road going. Is it going on the existing road plan where it comes, this looks really nice here. It looks nice and straight but that's not the way it is. It comes straight across, up to our property line on an angle. Not straight. At an angle. Where we own the property, and nobody has talked to us about it. But where is it going? Are you going to take our property? Aanenson: No. It's going off... Margie Borris: So it's going to follow the line that it's currently in. Aanenson: It's going to... Margie Borris: Right, what I'm saying is, it's going on the straight line that is the original part to the east of us. Aanenson: Correct. Margie Borris: Okay. And we are, as I understand it not paying for any of this road development, sewers or anything? Aanenson: That's correct. Margie Borris: What about the hook-up's? I have to change all of my appliances from LP. I have a well, which works just fine, and a drain field. I've left our place pretty natural because I deal with inner city kids that like to come out there. They go out and back and yeah, there are kids that are coming in now without this development and coming into our property. They're doing stuff. You know so far it's not major. We also have an electric fence for our dog. Are all these other people, how are they going to keep their children and animals out of our yard? There's many, many issues. This pond that's down here, Sue was right. The ponds that you have there so far have been flooding. Not 25 only extended over to Kings Road. They even extend the flooding out to Minnewashta Parkway. So you're getting it from two ends over there, and there was a concern about the berm not being high enough. You've got it. Because it is so low down there and then of course you have to get these people that want those manicured lawns with fertilizer. Where's that going to drain? It's not all going to go to that pond. There's going to be runoff coming over to our place again. I didn't see anything about a wall or a fence or anything, and like I say, they never talked to us about it. There are many issues. And as far as, somebody brought up about walking across the street to go to the park. They know. Right now I have 3 grandchildren ages 3 to 8. We have to watch even now on that dirt road because they come around the comer, not from Carlson's property but from back here where there's a younger group of people that like to mn their cars, run their motorcycles higher than the speed limit. They don't look. The people that come down the road from Minnewashta Oaks or whatever that's called, they don't stop at the stop sign. They don't feel they have to. There are a lot of issues. Lundgren Brothers came to the City Council not quite a year ago or somewhere about that timeframe, they want to build 125 homes west of this in Victoria and connect it up to Kings Road. Do you know what kind of traffic that is? Are the sewers that we're building now going to handle the extra runoff all over the place? Is Victoria going to pay for any of this? There are a lot of issues that I'd like to hear about and I haven't heard anything. Sacchet: Well if I may add, I mean we have to consider what's in front of us and it's certainly what's beyond, I mean yeah there will be more. Margie Borris: Yeah, they can develop I understand they're going to develop it. There's nothing I can do about it. What I'm looking at from my point of view is our property. We built there. We had to get a variance for 2 ½ acres because we were zoned semi rural. To my knowledge we have never been rezoned so now they're building them over, and they're looking at what, approximately half acre lots, correct? Something close to that. Okay. And they're going to follow the criteria of the building across the road, most of those are building homes that are so large, they're right to the 16 feet around. That's all they have for yard. They've got 16 feet all the way around. There is no privacy anymore. There are so many issues. Sue's thing about the quality of life is dead on. What happens to the flood plain that we used to have? That went halfway up the property line. Way up here. Where's that study? You said the 100 year mark. Take a look at your history. Somebody's not going back far enough. I want to know how we're going to be protected. I think the sidewalk is a good issue. I think the pond is a big issue. I think that the elevations and how we're going to handle this. How's it going to runoff from their's to our's? There's part of our property that might be higher than their's. I already know that we have a berm on the northeast comer that is higher than anything they have right now. Are we going to be required to carve that down? Sacchet: No, you shouldn't be impacted by this. Margie Borris: Okay, but in the same respect should we then push our yard back out where it belongs? I mean there's a whole bunch of things. And like I say, they never called us. They never talked to us. He said this is what we have, do you have any 26 questions? No. They considered their needs, and I don't fault the Carlson's for selling. If I were in their place I would too. They got a good price. They're ready to retire. I mean why deal with the hassle. Eventually they've been dealing with issues with the City Council for years. Why should they hassle in their elderly years? While I may be older, I don't feel I'm ready to retire. We have telescopes for looking at the stars which is one of the reasons we came out there. There's going to be more lights. It's not going to be that available anymore. You're asking us to cut back. You're asking Sue and them to cut back. Sacchet: You wanted to ask something Steve? Lillehaug: Sure, could we ask staff to maybe pick some of these points, her concerns apart here to help reassure that things are. Aanenson: Just to clarify, we did speak to Linda Scott and we did speak to the Kortgard's and this was the only applicant that didn't call. It was tabled so we had spoke to most of the property owners that had called us when they got the first notice so. Feik: First notice was when? Aanenson: Two weeks ago. Margie Borris: Two weeks ago I had plans to take 70 inner city kids to Wisconsin Dells for a week. I have just got back into town a couple days ago. Aanenson: The notice went out 2 weeks prior to that so this was delayed quite a while SO. Margie Borris: There was a notice that came in and said there was going to be one in June and a notice that followed right behind it, changing as we were leaving. Sacchet: Let me just point out, I mean our whole effort here is to make sure we find a solution that is working for everybody. That's why we have a comprehensive plan for the city. That's why we have city ordinance. And I mean it almost a give and take. I mean when I went out there I thought wow. If I would live next to it as you do I would be thrilled about having houses other than bulldozers and trucks. Margie Borris: They haven't bothered us since 1986 when we built our home. We knew they were there. We have had no problems with them. As far as starting up their engines during the week, during business time, you were talking to that other gentleman about noise, there hasn't been maybe a couple mornings when, it's around 7:00. Okay, I'm on my way to work. It's not an issue on the noise. Sacchet: Let's hope that the experience with the neighborhood will be even better then the contractor's yard then. 27 Margie Borris: I'm not having a problem with that. I'm having a problem with the volume of people, our personal privacy, the way we set up our plans and what we already have going. And what it's going to cost us to fix up into this. I'm sorry, even if they stub in all this utilities of sewer and water and whatever, it's still going to cost us several thousand dollars to hook it up. The way our house was built and set back, we are pretty far back from the road. We've set up for our hook-up for the LP on the east side of the house, and there's no set-up for sewers to come in so we're going to have to break up somewhere along the line our basement floor. We're going to have to hook-up. Last I checked the price on that alone was over $25,000. That doesn't include the castle main. Sacchet: Could you just clarify Kate about the impact and the requirements of hooking up, the time line with that. Aanenson: Sure, Matt can answer that. Sacchet: Do you want to address that first? Saam: Sure. As far as the sewer goes, the city ordinances if you're within 150 feet of the sewer, and I see the nearest manhole to your property that they're proposing is just off the northeast comer, off of Kings Road. You just said your house is set back quite a ways from the road. Margie Borris: Well 50-60 feet. Saam: Okay. It's not shown on here so that's something that we'd have to verify but the city code says if you're within 150 feet then you're required. Margie Borris: I'm closer than a 150 feet. Saam: Okay. So then you would be required to hook up. Margie Borris: Yes I know that. Saam: Okay. Water you're not required to. If your well is functioning you can continue to have that. Aanenson: Same with propane. Saam: Excuse me. Aanenson: The propane wouldn't be an issue. You don't have to hook up. Sacchet: And what's the time line for the sewer hook-up? Saam: I believe it's one year. 28 Sacchet: Kurt you have. Papke: A question, the applicant has some concerns about their ability to enjoy kind of the solitude of the area. This area is zoned RSF right now. How long has it been zoned for this use? Do we recall or has it been long enough that no one can remember? Aanenson: I'm assuming it was probably done with the '81, or '91 excuse me, comprehensive plan. Papke: So it's been zoned for this density for at least a decade, is that a reasonable explanation? Margie Borris: We were not notified. Papke: But it hasn't changed so. Margie Borris: Well we had to get a variance for 2 V2 acres because it was semi rural in 1986. Someone should have told us. Aanenson: Right, I'm saying 1991, yeah. It was before Bob's and my time when that plan was done. Papke: Okay. Saam: Mr. Chair if I could just add one more thing. The resident stated a concern about runoff toward her property to the east. The grading plan shows a swale along the eastern property line. Her common property line. So there is an attempt to drain this site's drainage down to the pond and not onto her property. Sacchet: To the south. Saam: Yes. Margie Borris: I guess you know maps are good. I'd like to see a model where you can actually see where all these levels come from because you're going to have to somewhere level this because we are at the highest point on the road. Sacchet: Yeah, and it's good that you bring up that concern because it's the type of things that we can mitigate with conditions like, there is a swale. It's on Lot 8 and 9. Once it comes down to Lot 10, there's no swale left and then there's even a retaining wall SO. Margie Borris: Well 10 and 11 are quite a bit lower than 8 and 9. Sacchet: Your concern is closer up to the road, if I understand that correctly, right? 29 Margie Borris: The which? Sacchet: Your concern about the drainage. Margie Borris: I'm considering the drainage all along the property line. they going to do you know to keep, we've left our area wild for the deer. And what are If you look in that part that says Victoria, the other day there were 10 deer back there. They're not going to go away. They're still going to hang around a little bit. And onto the east of us, there's that big ravine that's owned by Sue and Scotty and that's left pretty much wild. They have an electric fence on their side. We have an electric fence on our side. That's good for animals but it isn't going to do much for kids. And unless you're going to make it an ordinance where everybody out there has to have one, how they going to keep their animals and their children where they belong? No property lines. I mean there isn't any room for fences or anything like that the way they've got it plotted across the road. Slagle: Mr. Chair. Sacchet: Yes Rich. Slagle: If I could ask a quick question of staff, if that's okay. There was a comment made about the applicant in front of Victoria for the land to the west. Is that correct to your knowledge? Aanenson: That was discussed at one time. We're not pursuing anything. We're not aware of anything that's going on right now. Slagle: Is that ongoing? Mike Burton: There's nothing approved. We've not really been in any discussions with them. Margie Borris: Did you purchase the property? Mike Burton: We own. Margie Burton: Okay, Victoria had a two year moratorium. Mike Burton: We had a conceptual plan of some possible 43 home sites. Not 100 and some but nothing has gone forward with that. Slagle: The reason I'm asking obviously is because if Kings Road was extended to the west, and I'm guessing and asking, is that the plan? Margie Borris: That was the plan. Slagle: Well bear with me. 30 Aanenson: It's not the city of Chanhassen's plan. That's not our plan to provide access to Victoria residents come through. Could a council make that decision? Yes. It wouldn't be the staff's recommendation or the planning director's recommendation at this point... Lillehaug: Can we even bring this further because you know it is important. Are there any other options? I mean is this where this traffic is going to go down Kings Road because that brings back the whole issue of sight line distances around that comer. I mean do we need to provide for a better road with more traffic. It is important to include as part of this site plan I think in my mind. Aanenson: But you've already locked in that the 60 foot on the other end so. Lillehaug: Say that again? Aanenson: That same width on Kings Road, 60 feet starts at Minnewashta Parkway so if we're going to make it a wider road, they'd have to take it the length of the Minnewashta Parkway. Lillehaug: And maybe not necessarily wider but at least adequate sight line distances, etc with the increased traffic. I mean that's a tight radius specifically, and just generally. Slagle: That comer will be interesting where this property is proposed, that would be an interesting intersection of Kings Road as it goes north and then veers east if there was an extension to X number of tens of homes to the west. I mean it'd be sort of an interesting weird you know intersection. Difficult perhaps. Sacchet: Question of staff. That area of Victoria, does it have access from a different place in Kings Road? Aanenson: No. Those homes that access Kings Road right now. Sacchet: Those to the southwest. Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: Yeah, and there is certainly enough room to do. Margie Borris: There is also some to the west. Sacchet: There's certainly enough room to do all kinds of wonderful stuff there. Margie Borris: I think there's a farm and a house directly west. You go back from the curve, is there 1 or 2 homes? Three back there and then you go, it curves again going this way into Victoria and there's I believe 5 homes back there. 31 Sacchet: Yeah I went back there. It's a beautiful area. Well, now from your comments, and we're going to have to try to move ahead a little bit but from your comments I heard that you have a drainage concern. You have a buffering concern. Now I'm trying to recall, I didn't really pay attention that much to your property when... Margie Bords: We're considered low income housing... Sacchet: Your area is pretty wooded there? Margie Borris: Very. Sacchet: Very wooded. So you do have a pretty decent buffer then to your west? Margie Borris: No. To the south. Sacchet: To the south you do but not to the west. Margie Borris: Yeah. Sacchet: Okay. Margie Borris: Right now to the west of us there was an old barbed wire fence with a couple scrub trees and some sumac. My favorite. Sacchet: So would it be possible to put more buffering in there to kind of preserve a little bit your quality of life as you call it, which I would agree there's good quality out there. Okay, anything else you would like to add? Margie Borris: Well we had the hook-up concerns. We had the flood issues on the area. Any kind of fence. And I guess assessment costs. And you said they were going to take all the assessment costs. Aanenson: Well, yeah. Margie Bords: Correct? Aanenson: Except for the sewer. Sacchet: Sewer hook-up. That's not an assessment. That's your hook-up charge. That's different right? Margie Borris: Okay, well we're already paying, when they redid Minnewashta Parkway they charged all of us on Kings Road an assessment even though we didn't live there. Even though I have well water, I'm paying a water bill. You know I mean that isn't all that much and all but then we had to pay assessments and they assigned it by the size of 32 your lot. They said we could build 2 homes on our lot. I challenged them to find where I could put that second one, so they only made us pay one but they're holding the second one in reserve. So we're going to be charged again for Kings Road. Saam: No. Sacchet: That's not my understanding. The only fee that you will incur, and correct me staff if I'm wrong is the sewer hook-up charge when you hook-up to the sewer and possibly the water. But I think it's been repeated by several staff members that the assessment for the road construction is not going to affect the existing residents. Margie Borris: But did I understand him that I have a year that I have to hook up to that or not? Saam: If your house is within 150 feet of the sewer, yes. You'll have a year upon us giving you notice in a letter form, you'll have one year. Margie Borris: Okay. And then here again. Saam: Unless you get relief from the council. That's the only option. Sacchet: There's always an option there, yes. Margie Borris: And that is done by a variance or what? Saam: I guess it would be called a variance but yeah. I mean you'd have to come to the City Council meeting and appeal to them. Sacchet: So basically to just clarify, if somebody gets a letter that they're within the distance of the sewer line, that they have to connect within a year, they can come to council and contest it basically, that's what you're saying? Saam: Yes, that's their only option I would think. Margie Borris: Okay, in response to that latest declaration of notification, Kings Road is in the zip code of Excelsior. Our mail goes everywhere. There's a Kings Road in Mound. There's a Kings Point Road in Shorewood. There's a Kings Avenue in Minnetonka. My mail goes absolutely everywhere. Sacchet: Yeah, I can see how things can get confusing but the zip code should clarify which one it is. Margie Borris: 55331. That's Excelsior. We pay for Minnetonka Schools. It was sort of a joke but even when, during Desert Storm, my husband's in the service. He got mail from the State Department that was returned because they said Chanhassen, 55331. 33 That's what happens to our mail. I'm just telling you, I had less than 10 days notice from today. Sacchet: Well we'll certainly encourage the developer to discuss things with the neighbors. Margie Borris: Well at the meeting that we had when they were going to do the Victoria thing, there was a big concern about the traffic at the intersection where that other development comes east of our property line, because already there was traffic issues. Sacchet: Well thank you very much for sharing your concerns with us. Margie Borris: I didn't give you my history and I didn't stroke you. Sacchet: Didn't read it from a sheet of paper either. Lillehaug: I'm quite sure we don't know what you're speaking about. Sacchet: Alright, we have another taken for the public heating. State your name and address for the record please. Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. You know I've sat at a lot of these meetings and read a lot of these reports and I guess I'm troubled by the fact that under proposal summary it says minor changes need to be made to some of the lots to meet city standards. And then the final condition is to revise the plans. Normally I would have seen this report come as a variance because it didn't meet code, and I want to make sure that the lots that are platted meet code in the final plat, and I know it's a condition but I just want to state that because this is not the way they normally come to us. It should come to you already by code. I believe. Sacchet: We sure would like that. Debbie Lloyd: So there's no discrepancy there at all. I just really believe in our RSF district, the opening of this sort of gives me the feel that the PUD because there's an outlot. It's not a PUD. It's not RSF and these lots should all have, meet the 90 foot width requirement of the front and of the depth of the lot. The other point I'd like to make is about building pad versus buildable area. The buildable area, 60 by 60 is what's shown. That's not the building pad. And one other thing, this is shoreland. Impervious surface has not been mentioned at all in this report that I can see. Perhaps it's on these plats but that's a real critical element to be covered. To boot to find out that there's a water issue with this plan, it's really vital. And her mention of the floodplain as well, I think if there's documentation in that and former applications, that should be surfaced. Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you. Could staff quickly address the concern about impervious? How does that play into this? 34 Aanenson: I think it's 25 percent. I did mention the height, that's 35 feet... It cuts diagonally through approximately these lots. Oh here it is. It shows on these lots. Sacchet: Yeah it shows them. Aanenson: Where you would hit the shomland district. Sacchet: And we're well within the impervious limitation? Aanenson: We would check that with... Claybaugh: Building permits. Sacchet: Okay. Anybody else want to address this item. Please come forward. This is your turn. State your name and address for the record please. Linda Scott: I am Linda Scott, 4031 Kings Road. I'm pretty much okay with all of this. When Margie brought up the 43 lot development in Victoria, I'd almost kind of put that out of my mind but I hope that you as a Planning Commission doesn't put that out of your minds because their premise at the last meeting we had, which they brought our neighborhood together to get our opinions, was that they would have us be assessed, or have us help pay for their road that would go into Victoria to their 43 lot development. And I have a hunch that that's in their plan even though they haven't been discussing it so I just want to make that clear. Sacchet: Thank you. Would you want to address that at all from, I mean it's a different city so. Saam: I can maybe add something to that. If this is the right one I'm thinking about, and Mike you let me know. About a year ago Lundgren petitioned the city to upgrade Kings Road as a public project and with that proposed assessments were, well assessments were proposed against the existing property owners like Ms. Scott mentioned. Now I don't know anything about the Victoria project but I'm assuming that they wanted this upgraded so they could route their traffic through onto Kings Road and onto Minnewashta, but that project died. Now they've acquired this property. They're going to be the ones upgrading the road at their nickel, not assessing anybody. Sacchet: And isn't that kind of common practice that with a development, the developer pays for the road improvements that only then become the public road. Saam: Correct. Sacchet: That's pretty much standard practice so it should not impact the residents that live further down that road. 35 Saam: Exactly. Aanenson: But let me just make one thing clear. Just, if there's an improvement project to, for example Minnewashta Parkway, curb and gutter was put on. There was an assessable project city wide. Again that wasn't through the planning department. That was an engineering project that was done a number of years, so there was benefiting properties and City Council held hearings on that. So just to say. Sacchet: It could go either way. Aanenson: Sometime in the future, we have assessment projects all the time that come to the City Council for reconstruction of roads. They're separate from just development issues. I just want to clarify that. Just to say that assessment would never happen in the future, for some reason the city decides to. Sacchet: Yeah, that's not what we're saying here. Aanenson: Right. Saam: In 20 years we could maybe come through and have to upgrade Kings Road and of course at that time, anybody who benefits I would think we'd propose to assess their property, but right now there is no proposed assessments. The developer will be upgrading. Sacchet: And the key is you said everybody that benefits. Saam: Yes... Sacchet: ...extension of roads for the benefit of this development so that's where the cost lies. Aanenson: Yes. Sacchet: Yes, we still have a public hearing. We're not done. Would you mind letting the other person who hasn't talked yet and then you want to come up. Jerry Kortgard: I just have a real quick question. Sacchet: Yeah, come forward. State your name and address and tell us what you have to say. Jerry Kortgard: My name is Jerry Kortgard. I live at 3901 Glendale Drive. I own the property to the south of the Carlson's, and I promise you I didn't come on the Mayflower like some of the other people. But I have a quick question about my property where it meets Carlson's at the part that goes down towards St. Joe where the holding pond's 36 going to be. Where the elevations will line up with my property in accordance with the Lundgren proposal. I'll sit down and listen to your answer. Sacchet: Is this something that maybe staff can address? Aanenson: This property here, I think staff would like to, and I would like Matt and the representative from Sathre-Berquist, that we go back and just re-evaluate the drainage to make sure, but this is Mr. Kortgard's property and his concern is how this lot, if they have to increase the pond, how does that blend into their site so I think that's something that we should probably walk with them, and similar with the Borris', walk the property with them so they have an understanding of the swales and exactly how the grades are going to match. Slagle: Would that be with the neighbors as well? Aanenson: That's what I'm saying, we'll walk it with them. We'll set up equipment and have their engineer, our engineers... Sacchet: Both sides, yep that would help. Thanks Kate. Now we have some other people, Sue you want to come back. That's alright. Sue Morgan: Just a comment I guess in regards to, my name is Sue Morgan, 4031 Kings Road. In regards to the comments about the assessment on the road, and just a point that with all the construction and all the development and this development, Kortgard's development, if it ever happens. If you decide to go ahead with the 43 houses at the end of Kings Road in Victoria, that all the construction and all the trucks going back and forth, what happens to the deterioration of Kings Road? It's not going to be you know, we're not going to be waiting 20 years to repair the damage done by all of the trucks going in and out, the heavy equipment. So eventually we are going to be assessed to support your development. One way or another so it's naYve to believe that we won't be assessed for the development along Kings Road because we will be at some point in time. Just a comment. Sacchet: Thank you Sue. Matt, do you want to address that in terms of what the road is designed for? The impact a little bit. If there can be respond to that maybe. Saam: Sure. Our roads are designed for 9 ton. That's our heaviest road. We do have a pavement management system in town where every year we try to update that and look out, do a 3 to 5 year projection at what streets are we looking at upgrading. So sure, like with any other street where heavy trucks go over it, there's a potential that the traffic will degrade the streets sooner than maybe if nobody drove on it obviously, so but that's a concern everywhere. And it's tough to say, will this deteriorate in 3 less years? In 5 less years? I mean we don't know that. It's kind of a wait and see type game. Sacchet: Right now we have pretty heavy equipment going from that contractor's yard too don't We? 37 Saam: Yes, that's a good point. Sacchet: Okay. Anybody else want to come forward to address the Planning Commission on this item. This is your chance. If there is nobody else, I will close the public hearing, and I want to thank you for all your comments. Bring it back to the commission for comments and discussion. We already have some discussion over there. Claybaugh: Nothing meaningful. Slagle: I can start. Sacchet: Do you want to start Rich? Go ahead. Slagle: First I'd like to say that obviously we're all aware of Lundgren. Compliments to all of you. You do a great job Mike. But I will say this on this particular application with respect to the idea that quote unquote, minor changes are needed to be made, and staff is in essence, and I can understand why, don't agree with it but wrapping this into conditions. Because obviously as I stated tonight I have concerns with one lot. I have concerns with respect to the trees, the grading, potentially if there are more development to the west. Kate you made the comment that from the north there will be driveways connected to Kings Road. Any idea on the number of lots 4 or 5? Aanenson: No, it's probably more like 8. 7 or 8. Slagle: 8. Okay. My point is this, another driveway on Kings Road, if indeed that extension goes through. I have concerns about that. I have concerns about contamination, and I have to tell you just from the common sense folk here. Boy, I almost want to see another study done. Braun's an excellent firm but boy, I'm surprised by the results, so I would say one of two things to my fellow commissioners. One, I would be in support of this application if Lot 4 was eliminated, and I realize that they're meeting conditions but it's sort of a give and take. I would be open to using that if the applicant would be so inclined. And I also would be inclined to support a motion to table this with these two things in mind. One is, that the lots aren't exact. And secondly, that I would actually like to see a little bit more information as to what's going on to the west. I realize that that's more of a subjective request but, and I'll just make this comment to staff. In the future, if I can ask a favor, if we have anything that's on the border of another city, if we can get any indication of graphically what's there, roads, neighborhoods, so forth, it'd give me a better understanding from an overall standpoint as to what's happening in that area. So I hope that made sense. Sacchet: It did. Slagle: Okay. Sacchet: Thank you Rich. Want to jump in Craig? 38 Claybaugh: Yeah. Thank you very much. Let's see here. I believe that the neighbors brought up some very good points. Certainly some of them apply within our grasp or jurisdiction. Others are not. I believe that the property's been zoned and established for a little better than decade. Zoned for this purpose. I believe that the applicant has a right to develop it as long as it meets the codes and the ordinances that apply to a subdivision and it has done that. With respect to where it hasn't met the requirements for one of the lots, that condition is set forth and mandates compliance before it goes for final platting. I agree with fellow commissioners that I would prefer to see that done in advance but it doesn't mitigate the fact that they are going to have to achieve that before final platting. So I don't want to assign too much weight to that. With respect to the road, typically intensification of development is never welcomed, but the people, the properties around it with the zoning, they have a right to develop the properties. I personally live on a large lot. I like it that way as the developments came in and closed in around it, it certainly reduces the quality of life. But my alternative is to go out and purchase those properties and I flat out can't afford it. So that's progress, that's reality. I don't own those properties. I don't direct how those properties are going to be developed or not developed. As much as I'd like to see Pat Jensen's homes still running down on Lake Lucy Road, they've been gone for 15 years. Was that quality of life? Absolutely. That was a thrill to turn the comer. But it's gone and there's nothing I can do about it because I personally can't afford it, and I'm assuming that most of the people here are in the same situation. It's sad but it is progress. They do have a right to develop it. With respect to the road, I'm not sure how we would address changes for the road. The road is currently a 9 ton road. How much larger would we make it, would be a question that I would have. You know what, there's engineering. Civil engineering calculations that go into the bounce on the ponds. The sizing of the roads. The storm water runoff. Provided that the city engineering and the developer's engineering are adhering to those standards and calculations, that's what we rely upon here. Rather than walking out subjectively, looking at it and going yes, there's a lot of runoff. So if there's something that hasn't been included in the calculation, I heard the term floodplain thrown around. I didn't necessarily hear anything responded to from the staff or from the developer with respect to that, and I don't know the history of that. I am going on the assumption that they are well aware of what that area is, if it is in fact on the floodplain, that that has been taken into the calculations. And if that isn't the case, I'd appreciate city staff making me aware of that. But the point being is that all the things that were brought up, there is a process to address them. The issue about the sidewalk is an excellent issue, and I would personally like to see it incorporated. The issue with a buffer between your yard. That is a sensitivity issue that the developer could address. Could come over and say we're going to be putting in 11 lots. We're going to move forward with it but we'd like to make it as palatable as possible. What can we do to put some buffers inbetween the development and your property. That would be a professional courtesy that I would like to see. With respect to the sizing of the pond, I leave that to the engineers. We ask the questions. Try to improve on the process but ultimately they're the professionals. The experts that have the calculations to make those judgments. With respect to the assessments, I think that the staff made it clear that the residents are not to be addressed in this particular situation for the improvements to the road. Their costs bom by the 39 developer. However, in the case of the lady that came up with the sewer hook-up. There is an ordinance in place that if your property is within 150 feet, within 12 months you will be required to address that and do that hook-up. If that's contrary to what you want to do, and I understand if it would be, you need to get in contact with city staff in the next week and find out the process to try to work around that and mitigate that on a personal level. With respect to the runoff, I believe in my observation of the civil drawings here, that they are keeping the majority of the runoff on site and on some level improving it. Bringing it down in and treating it before it goes into the wetlands. From that respect, at least from what I can tell for their property, that's an improvement. Again, the developments, they're typically never welcomed. It's always a change. People don't like change. I don't like change. I understand it, but the bottom line is they have a fight to do it and they're not asking for any exceptions and I don't feel that we have the platform to deny it. Sacchet: Thanks Craig, well said. Kurt comments. Papke: Okay, I'll be reasonably brief. I think it's a very good project. I only have one concern. We are the Chanhassen Planning Commission. We only have jurisdiction over what happens in Chanhassen. However I do have some of the same concerns about the development to the west here. When questioned about the intent of what's going to happen west of this development, Lundgren Brothers gave a very qualified response that there's nothing in the works fight now. But that's a very qualified response, and I'm a little concerned that we could find out 6 months, a year from now that oh now there's this 43 homes that they really want to put in there and the only way they can get to those homes is to extend Kings Road. I'm just a little concerned that we could get in a box here and I know there's probably no feasible way to completely prevent that but if we could just to echo some of Rich's comments, if we can garner any information about what the plans are in that area. What the alternatives are. What the ramifications might be on this development, even though they're not in Chanhassen. I think we do, if we possibly can, we need to try to take that into account in some way, and we have no information on that and what we're reviewing tonight. We have zero and that concerns me a little bit so that's my only concern. Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Bethany. Tjornhom: I like being fourth because everything I want to say has been said already. I guess I agree with so far what everybody has said about the concerns with Kings Road, and future development that may occur. The neighborhood's quality of life. Their concern with water issues, sewer hook-up's, everything. I don't know, I guess I just agree with everyone's concerns about that and so I guess I'll leave it at that. Sacchet: Thanks Bethany. Bruce, want to jump in? Feik: Thank you. I won't reiterate what's been said thus far. So I'll keep my comments fairly new. I still have concerns with the raise of the road. I still have concerns with the access to Lot 3. Rich, I don't have a concern with Lot 4. By the way I'd live there. 40 Sorry. I do have a concern that there were a couple of simple things that could have been resolved and not been part of the conditions. It could have been done beforehand. Specifically the lot size on 6 and a couple of other little things I wish had been done. Suffice it to say though I can support the application. Sacchet: Thank you. Steve. Lillehaug: I agree with Commissioner Slagle that boy, I don't like tabling items but this one I think we need to, and specifically I have a problem with approving the site plan based on the plan for Kings Road. We don't even know who's property that is to the north of the applicant's property line here, and we're approving a site plan for a road not within the applicant's property. We don't know who's property that is up there. That's what I have a problem with. Aanenson: I don't understand that. Lillehaug: You don't understand that? Aanenson: The gentleman to the north is the Williams Brothers. They own that property. They're trying to work on an agreement with them to build the road. It's just a cost, who's going to pay. They may end up paying most of it. It's just between, there's two parties that own it. Saam: If I could offer a condition too to maybe address your concern Commissioner Lillehaug. You could add a condition that this plat is contingent upon the right-of-way being granted for the property to the north. Lillehaug: See I didn't know that was in the workings. Aanenson: Yeah, so we'll just clarify that condition that they work together to get that resolved. Saam: In fact if you wouldn't recommend adding it now, I guess before it went to City Council I would probably do an update to City Council and recommend that we add that condition. I was unaware that it was in there so it's partly our fault but I would recommend that we do add something because that is a valid concern. Aanenson: ...they just haven't worked out the payment issue. Lillehaug: New information, thank you. Sacchet: Is that your comments Steve? Lillehaug: Nope, I've got one more here. Same road, same problem. Difference piece of property and it was, excuse me I don't remember your name but on your property. We've got 60 foot of right-of-way all the way up to your property and I think it's 41 necessary to continue and get 60 foot of property there. For one reason at least a temporary easement...so if we can't get the necessary fight-of-way at this time, we certainly need to get an easement. The applicant needs to get an easement to have this, the old roadway removed. I'd like to see 60 foot of fight-of-way. Lot number 3. And let me ask this question here. Is it, does the applicant have to put a 60 by 60 foot building pad on that lot? Is that what they're supposed to provide? Aanenson: They're supposed to demonstrate it, but that doesn't mean that that house is going to be 60 by 60. But that's what they need to demonstrate. Lillehaug: Okay, so they need to show the 60 by 60 can fit on there, which it doesn't. It's off a little bit. The square footage is still there but the 60 by 60 is not there. I really would like to see the plans cooked a little more, and some of these items were cooked more I guess I would approve it. That's my comments, thanks. Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Well I'm on my last cough drop for tonight. Feik: I have a quick question that Commissioner Lillehaug brought up. To the east of the subject property, where the road switches to the north from the existing road bed, where we have an existing 60 by 60, or 60 width easement without affecting the existing property owner to the east. Aanenson: I think Matt was going to address that. Feik: Does the whole road go north? Saam: Yeah. Feik: To my look, from my point it looked like she actually gained some land. Aanenson: Correct. Saam: Yes. I guess I would also recommend that we add a condition that any grading or removal of the old roadway, which is outside of the fight-of-way, that the applicant has to obtain permission from those property owners. Basically a temporary grading easement to grade outside of the public fight-of-way on somebody else's private property. I think that's what you were getting at. Lillehaug: She gains property but the fight-of-way, the proposed fight-of-way at that point is only going to be 50 foot wide. It's not 60 foot wide. That's my concern. Saam: Yeah. This developer doesn't own that property so, I mean that would take him negotiating with her to gain that. Lillehaug: And that's what I'm getting at here. 42 Saam: I guess typically what we require is that if they're going to work outside of the fight-of-way, they have to provide proof of that, i.e. a temporary easement. If you want to add a condition that they upgrade the right-of-way, I guess you could do that. It is 50 feet, if I could just point out all the way down to Minnewashta I believe so. Lillehaug: It's not 60 feet? Aanenson: Correct. Saam: Yeah. Lillehaug: Scratch that then. Sacchet: Okay, I'd better speak as long as I still have a cough drop in my mouth. My supply of cough drops has run out. First of all I'd like to point out that what the constraints are of what we're doing here tonight, or whenever we're here as Planning Commission. This is to approve or deny a preliminary plat. That's what's in front of us here, and if you look on the front page it says the city's discretion approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the subdivision regulations and zoning ordinance. If it meets these standards the city must approve the preliminary plat. Okay, so that's the space we're working with. Now within that framework I have to basically conclude that this application, even though it doesn't meet 100 percent of every aspect of the ordinance, the deviances are not meant to last. The deviances are relatively minor. They're meant to be aligned before it goes to City Council. That's not unusual for us to deal with with minor adjustments that have to be done, even though in an ideal world everything would be taken care of before we have to deal with it. But then what would we deal with so. There is certainly some value in this. I certainly regret that we don't know what's going to go happening on the west side in Victoria. That's a real hole in terms of making a judgment but the judgment is not the surrounding. The judgment of what's happening on this piece of property, does this apply, does this follow city ordinances and the code and it's awfully close. It's awfully close with that. Now there were some really pertinent aspects brought up by the neighbors. Security was brought up. I live in a new neighborhood and I have to say, there are actually squad cars driving through on a quite regular basis so I would hope that with that being coming a more an intense use you should also see more of the security measures and the protection that is the city's responsibility. In terms of the crowding, it's been zoned for single family for quite a long time. It's regrettable there has been no discussion with the neighborhood and I would certainly encourage the applicant and also city staff made an indication that that can be remedied in different ways. The concern about your property being on a lower elevation is something that needs to be looked at. I think that can be mitigated to some extent. The impervious aspect or runoff aspect I think would significantly improve with that drainage pond coming in and the whole system of storm water catching I think that should be proven. The impact on the road. I have a hard time balancing what has a bigger impact on the neighborhood, whether there's construction for a year or whether they're planning to have construction there and after that you have mostly say little cars versus currently there are, and I would assume 43 that these trucks and bulldozers and backhoes don't stay up on that hill all the time so they obviously have to come down that road, which must have a pretty significant impact in the end as well. In terms of the specifics here, I really would like to make an effort to save one of those two big maples. The one that can be saved grading wise. I think it'd be a stretch to ask for the other one, but the one that can be just with one little adjustment of the 992 grading line, small adjustment of that line you can save that tree and I think it's significant. If it's not healthy or our city forester decides it's not worth it, by all means but it looks awfully look to me. At least from the distance that I saw it. In terms of the finding though on page 7, and staff you may want to notice this one. Finding number 5. You've heard this from me before. It states the proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to the conditions of this report. I'd like to tone this down at least a notch and say, proposed subdivision will not cause excessive environmental damage. But there is definitely environmental damage. I mean we're cutting down just about all the trees here. I mean that's damage. We're doing very significant grading, in some cases up to 10 feet. In terms of the specifics to the conditions, I would like to see some additions that for one thing the aspect that the plat is contingent to this road, ownership and partnership to the north is being worked out. I think that's a very pertinent condition to add. I would also want to ask that that drainage swale on the east, northeast part of the development be extended down through Lot 10 and 11, as far as is reasonably, well does it make sense. Right now the swale is basically on 8 and 9. Feik: That was pointed out for me that that drainage is a catch basin. Sacchet: Basically bring it down to what's a catch basin, yes. Feik: It already does. Sacchet: Well sort of. Does it really do that? Aanenson: That's one I think we agreed... Sacchet: Work with staff. Work with neighbors to look at that. I would also think it would be reasonable to ask for some buffer plantings along the eastern side of Lot 8 and 9, since it's dropping off to the neighborhood there. I think that would be common sense courtesy to help mitigate that to some extent. A study of the northwest comer radius there of Kings Road I think is appropriate, especially since we are, heard some figures here. What was it, 40 something potential additional lots coming on that road. Now's the time to study that curve and make it as safe as we can. Work with neighbors, we already touched on that. Walk, like staff indicated, that they would want to walk the lot and see how it can be mitigated as much as possible. The removal of that piece of the road on the, that goes onto the property of the neighbor to the east, Ms. Borris. I think it would make sense possibly to have a condition in there that that gets looked at and clarified before it goes to council. That there is a clear situation and we can say how much is, are they going to be impacted as a neighbor? How is that going to mitigate it? Is there going to be an agreement that they can grade that and remove the road and basically put into a natural state, that would make sense. And of course I would like a condition to save that significant maple there. Work with staff to do so and hopefully, I want you to hear that Mike. Yoohoo, Mike. Want you to hear that. I'm pushing for a condition for that maple there and I was just going to say I want to make sure you hear that. That hopefully you will see the tree unlike some of the trees at Ashling Meadows that we don't see anymore. That I clearly remember you pointed out they would stay. Now I don't know what transpired that they're not there but they're definitely not... But that's a different story so, but I just want you to hear that. Rub it in a little bit. That's my comments. Slagle: Mr. Chair. Sacchet: Yes Rich. Slagle: Just a comment to the rest of the commission. After hearing you make the comments regarding Ashling Meadows, I go back to our discussions on Vasserman Ridge where I believe we tabled that and asked the applicant, along with staff to look at tree preservation. I don't remember if there lot changes. I believe there were. I know there... Sacchet: They were good ones. They were good ones. Slagle: So my only question is, and I don't need an answer but just to pause and think about this, when I bring up Lot 4, which to me appears to be just placing a lot to get another lot, they're certainly entitled to do that. I'm not saying it's not okay, but when you look at the concept of not allowing Lot 4, saving the trees, avoiding some serious grading, my question is why is that not the same as what we asked at Vasserman Ridge? Sacchet: Who are you asking this question from? Of. Slagle: I don't need an answer but I'm just asking why is that different than what we ask of the same application at Vasserman Ridge and Ashling Meadows of looking at tree preservation and even go back to Noecker where we asked him to re-work his lots because of trees. Sacchet: So basically your point is that it would be perfectly in line with our previous decisions to ask this to be a little further refined before we decide on it. Slagle: I guess I'm just asking is what is the. Sacchet: Yeah, please if you want to address them Mike. Mike Burton: Just so you know, we have worked with, I don't know if you know Tim Erhart's property. Well, we're in the works with buying a lot of trees from him for this site that we're going to spade in so they're going to be very large, big mature trees. So we'll put some along Lot 8 and 9. Build a nice buffer to your house. We'll move some 45 around. There's 64 trees that are going to be there and a lot of them are going to be better quality than what we're pulling out. I guess that's all I've got to say. Sacchet: I'd also like to ask staff about the time line, since we have some indication of some of the commissioners leaning towards tabling. How are we doing with the time line here? Aanenson: I've got down here, well that was the day it was going to go to City Council. That's not the review deadline. It's 60 days from the application. Sacchet: Do we know when the application started? Aanenson: Yep, it's in the application. Sacchet: Yeah, if Lot 4 wouldn't be there it would be much easier for our part but I'm not sure whether it would be easier for you guys. Slagle: You know the question is this. We talked about environmental concerns and we've obviously seen a situation where there's more of an environmental impact than this one, so I'm not trying to make this the last stand of the tree huggers but my point is this, that I think as you look at this development, Lot 4 doesn't have to be there. It's being added because it's another lot that you can sell. I understand that, but boy tell you what, this development would be just fine without Lot 4. Tjomhom: So then if you saved Lot 4 and the trees, would he still be required to put 61 trees in? Slagle: No. Sacchet: No, it would change. Feik: I'd like you to look at the trees though that are being proposed to be taken out there between Lot 4 and 5. Slagle: I saw them. Feik: They, re scrub cedar for the most part. They're. Sacchet: Well a couple of ashes and those two maples, but most of them are these cedars. Feik: You have box elder in there. I mean it's not. Claybaugh: It's not just that, in that line of thought. We don't need lots 1 through 10 either. They're designing it to meet the square footage, the width, the depth. They're obviously trying to you know, the depth goes to the bottom line, it offsets the costs. 46 Whether that's right or wrong or whatever, they're within their rights provided that they can achieve the ordinance requirements. Slagle: Absolutely, no one's saying they're not within their rights, but at some point when do we or staff ask for an applicant to take an extra step. Claybaugh: To address Lake Lucy Ridge, Noecker was asking for a variance. There was some horse trading going on. This particular applicant, as I'm aware, isn't asking for anything. That's why I stated earlier, I don't believe that personally we have a platform to. Slagle: Craig, one could say that minor changes need to be made to some of the lots could be a variance. Aanenson: Well there's really only one change. Let me clarify that. Sacchet: Please do Kate. Aanenson: This lot shows, right here. If you scale it, and it's written wrong, it scales over 90. So it just needs to be changed. Sacchet: So that's just a writing error? Aanenson: The only lot problem, and similarly here, this is the 10 foot, the setback that you would need. The 60 foot square fits on here. They just took a straight line off. It meets the 60 by 60 pad...so it meets that criteria. And so the only problem is this lot here and that can be accomplished by taking some, which you've over off right here and it meets that. That's the only... Feik: So just Lot 6. Aanenson: Correct. Lillehaug: Aanenson: Claybaugh: What about Lot 5? It's just a matter of tweaking. It scales to over 90. But if we want to be hyper technical and table it for that issue, that would be an issue at least, a tangible issue. Aanenson: Right, and this one does meet the 60 by 60. Lillehaug: What about Lot 5? Side length width needs to be 125 feet. It's only 111. Aanenson: Well, you've got 155, you've got 90 here and then this will be over the 125 so this would be the frontage at 90. So this could be the 90 and this could be the 125. 47 Sacchet: Just turn them around. Aanenson: Correct. There's nothing in the ordinance that says...they're both collector streets so. Sacchet: Yeah, well we're in discussion. Do we need more discussion or does somebody want to venture a motion? Want to try a table motion and then if that doesn't go through we go to the next. That's one strategy I would propose. Anybody want to make a motion? No? Feik: I'll make a motion. Sacchet: Make a motion Bruce, go ahead. Feik: I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Carlson Property including 10 residential lots, 1 outlot as shown on plans dated May 16, 2003, subject to the findings in the staff report and the following conditions 1 through 34 and then I will wait for the numerous changes which I expect to happen. Sacchet: We have a motion, is there a second? Claybaugh: I'll second. Sacchet: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Now we're going to have an avalanche of friendly amendments I suppose. Who wants to start? Claybaugh: It seems like your's were fairly well. Sacchet: Want me to go, alright. I'll jump in, alright. So we're at 34. So number 35. This plat will be contingent on agreement with the property owner to the north of the development regarding the shared road. Lillehaug: And dedicated right-of-way. Sacchet: And dedicated right-of-way, alright. That's 35. Feik: Accepted. We'll do them one at a time. I might not agree with all of them. Sacchet: Alright, 35. I don't expect you to. I can try. That'd be a first. 36. The drainage swale, well let's tone that down a bit. The applicant will work with staff and neighbors to consider the possible extension of the drainage swale along the east side of the development to ensure drainage goes not just from 8 and 9 through the swale but also 10 and 11 to the drainage pond. Is that understandable what I'm shooting for? That I'm trying to not to leave some wiggle way. It's work with staff. Have the neighbors input. 48 Consider what's reasonable because I'm not the expert. I can't say what's the right thing. Is that acceptable Brace? Feik: Acceptable. Sacchet: Wow, I'm impressed. Number 37. Applicant will work with staff and neighbors to establish some buffer planting along the eastern edge of the development, specifically on Lot 8 and 9. Feik: Accepted. Sacchet: Cool. evaluating the 38. How do we do that one? Applicant will work with staff on turning radius of Kings Road on the northwestern comer of the development to ensure safety sight distance and possible increase of traffic by further development to the west. Is that? Feik: My concern on that I think is, this is really an engineering question. It either it is or it doesn't and city staff is already saying it meets. Sacchet: Does it? Saam: No, I haven't gotten that information. If I could just recommend to say that the radius meet current city design standards or current city code, because that's what we'll check them against our minimum radius. Sacchet: So do we already know that? Saam: No, I don't. That information isn't provided yet. Sacchet: So we say, we can make it very crisp then. That's what you're asking for. Lillehaug: Can I ask a question first? What is a minimum radius? Saam: I believe it's 180 feet without. Lillehaug: It's not 180. Saam: Requiring you know a 20 miles per hour curve sign or something like that. Lillehaug: So maybe we can add work with staff. Sacchet: Well actually we could just say meet the city standard. Feik: Meet city ordinances. Sacchet: For that curve. 49 Feik: Period. Sacchet: Craig. Claybaugh: If we're looking to meet the minimum standard then I'm more interested in having that driveway justified to that southwest comer. Not specifically interested in the minimum. I'm interested in looking at it, that from the perspective of what the situation is, that it provides for that. If you feel that that's met, that a conservative perspective of the safety of that is met by the minimum code, that's one thing. But if you don't feel like that ultimately concerted safety threshold is met within the minimum standards, then I want that driveway justified to the southwest. So I'm not sure how we achieve that but I guess I'll let you finish and see what happens and come back to it. Sacchet: I would just propose the radius of Kings Road in the northwest of the development has to meet city standards. Lillehaug: That's going to delete Lot 3. Feik: Well then that's the applicant's decision. Sacchet: That will do something to Lot 4 too then. Lillehaug: What are we looking at? Slagle: Can I say something? Sacchet: Yes. Slagle: I mean we don't know what's happening in the west, and that could affect this northwest comer and if we look at this development through this, I mean folks seriously. Sacchet: I mean this could tilt the balance here. Are we saying, and you're the engineer Steve so I'll leave it to you, and you Matt. You're our technical brains here. Matt, you stated the requirement is 180 for the radius. Now Steve made the comment...want to see it again. Claybaugh: Why would this be in front of us if that radius didn't currently meet city code? Saam: Because we don't have that information in order to check it at this time. Again that's something that's provided on the final plat. We check it back before it went to council. If it had, if it didn't meet it at that time then we'd work with their engineer to make sure. 50 Sacchet: Let's hold this question. This question doesn't lead anywhere Craig. I want to come back to my question. Do you concur with what Steve just stated that if this radius becomes 180, which is what you're telling us is city code, that this would put in question the existence of Lot 3? Saam: Yeah, it would put it in question that they would have to go down by a lot. That's a good possibility. Sacchet: Now I would take this as a reason to... Lillehaug: ...out there is very substandard. Is this a place where we kind of grandfather that curve in and just allow it mitigated through signage like Matt is indicating? Saam: I think that's a good point. If I can just point out that we do have situations like this. In fact in the Noecker development he has a curve that I think is signed 25 miles per hour because he couldn't meet 180 foot I believe. So there are situations like this in town. Sacchet: Yeah, but that combined with the potential of dozens of more lots. Feik: You know, we don't know that though. Slagle: Come on, what do you think's going to happen out west? Sacchet: Craig, you wanted to add something? Claybaugh: Well yeah. I actually agree with my twin Rich here. He may be onto something. I think that there's probably going to be more homes out there. Depending on the amount of traffic on...that traffic on that road is limited to those households, okay. Sacchet: More or less. Claybaugh: Essentially. He had 17 lots in there. In terms of that curve, who else is going to come through there unless they come through the Lundgren. Saam: To the south is what I'm saying. Claybaugh: When it's expanded, okay. Then that's a valid point. Just a question of how much traffic we feel this curve is going to take on. Sacchet: Alright, you made the motion. Feik: I have a motion out there. Sacchet: Does the motion stand? 51 Feik: Motion stands. Sacchet: We continue with the motion, alright. Alright, so to come back to the, I don't think we got to accept that friendly amendment. That that curve to the northwest will meet city code in terms of the radius of that road. Claybaugh: And that's 180 foot radius. Sacchet: That's what we're asking. Claybaugh: Designed for 20 miles per hour curve, is that? Saam: No, 30 is 180 foot. I believe that's what... Sacchet: So that's my proposed amendments. Aanenson: Is that the posted speed... ? Saam: Yeah, unless we could, unless it doesn't meet 180 foot, then we could build a 25 miles per hour. Aanenson: They're saying...30 miles speed limit. Claybaugh: That's something tangible that I can see. Sacchet: Is that amendment accepted? Feik: That's accepted. Sacchet: That's accepted, good. That was 38. 39. Now we're getting on slippery grounds. Lillehaug: Can I add to 38 before we go on? Sacchet: Sure, you want to add to the amendment? Lillehaug: Yep. With that provide an alignment for Kings Road for the entire length because there's a kink right north of the, a kink in the alignment right north of the proposed cul-de-sac. So provide an alignment and get rid of that kink. Sacchet: Make it all straight basically. That would move it a little bit north, just a tad them. Lillehaug: Maybe not put a radius in them. There's no kink in the road. Sacchet: Not a kink basically. Okay. Is that an accepted, that would be 39. 52 Feik: It's not a kink. Sacchet: It's just not a straight line. Feik: It's just not straight. It's not exactly east and west. Sacchet: It's not a straight line. Feik: Lots of roads aren't straight lines. Why? I'll be willing to entertain if you tell me why? Seriously. It's off by 2 degrees. Lillehaug: Right here. Feik: Yes, exactly. Why is that a concern? I'm serious. Sacchet: So I take it you did not accept that one? Feik: I didn't accept that one. Sacchet: Okay, Bruce did not accept that one. Alright, let's see where we can get you to accept one or two more. Alright, 39. Another try to 39. Did we already cover applicant will and staff will work with neighbors like we said, looking at the swales. Feik: We've got the swale down and you've got the... Sacchet: So we don't need that, okay. Aanenson: You need your maple tree though. Saccbet: Oh thank you. That's 39. 39 is tree number 71, 30 inch maple tree shall be preserved and adequate tree preservation fencing shall be put around it according to city forester's directions. Feik: Accepted. Sacchet: Thank you. And obviously that would have an impact on the grading, but I think that's understood. It's a reasonable impact on grading. Very reasonable. And should we say that, can we go as far as asking what that house that goes on the lot. I mean if we say save that tree, that includes not... And do we need to say something about this road alignment where the road gets taken off the neighbor's property? Condition 40. Saam: Mr. Chair, I believe that is addressed in condition number 22. I did find it. It just says the applicant should be aware that any off site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner, which would address that. 53 Sacchet: That does address that, but let's add to 22 that, are we recommending or asking for silt fence? Because recommending doesn't do anything. Saam: Well we're basically telling them. Sacchet: Okay, so should we say applicant shall use Type III silt fence to be used adjacent to the edge of the wetland, which shall be removed upon completion of the construction. You've heard that from me before. Is that an acceptable? Feik: Except that you might as well add that removed to number 11 as well. Sacchet: Yes I do. There's another one there, yes exactly. That's where I actually marked it to add it. So yes, we want to remove in both places. Feik: Accepted in both places. Sacchet: Thank you. So I believe that's enough friendly amendments from me being out of cough drops. Lillehaug: Can I add to number 22 that the existing roadway will be removed and the property will be established with turf. Property being that property on the east there where that road needs to be removed. I just want to make sure that the applicant's clear that that should happen. Sacchet: That's part of the intent, yeah. Feik: It says all disturbed areas shall be restored. Lillehaug: If they don't disturb it then they don't have to restore it. I'm saying that make it a requirement to remove that road. Feik: Accepted. Claybaugh: I may but I need a clarification from staff here first. We talked to the applicant during their presentation about the ongoing monitoring for soil contaminants and they said that they were going to do that. It is a condition in here already? For the ongoing? Aanenson: No. I think you can... Claybaugh: I know they agreed to it, I just didn't find it anywhere in here so. Okay. Friendly amendment number, what are you up to? Sacchet: 41. 54 Claybaugh: You used 41 or 41's available? Sacchet: 41's available. 40 we did. Claybaugh: Number 41 would be. Aanenson: I think 40. Sacchet: Oh you're right. Claybaugh: 40? Alright. Friendly amendment number 40 would be that the applicant agrees to the ongoing monitoring of, for soil contaminants during excavation. Sacchet: What does that mean Craig? Claybaugh: That means right now they've done their preliminary Phase I, Phase II environmental tests through soil borings which are random, I'm assuming they're 2 foot borings or there about, if that. Down at 8 locations on the site that's 5.93 acres. When the excavator gets out there and you start moving cubic yards of dirt, they may uncover something. They may create a set of circumstances where it gives Braun better access to testing a suspect area. Sacchet: How would we deal with that? Aanenson: That would be done through the utilities. When the sewer and water is put in place. There can be testing done. Sacchet: And the applicant has agreed to do that. It just wasn't anywhere on the record so I wanted it included in the public record so. Feik: Accepted. Slagle: I've got one. Sacchet: Go ahead Rich. Slagle: With respect to the entryway monument, signage, what have you, I would ask that the applicant and staff work together to provide, for lack of a better term, first class. Feik: How about provide plans and specs prior to City Council? Papke: Wouldn't that have to be reviewed because of signage? Feik: How about plans and specs prior to City Council? Slagle: I'm just trying to get some emphasis in the upgrading of. 55 Claybaugh: Can I add something? Are they required to submit a prototype with the final plat? Is that something we can put in the form of. Aanenson: You have no, I'm not sure that you can deny for not being. I think...it's an elective thing. Slagle: I understand but. Aanenson: I know and I hear what you're saying. That you want it to be nice and we'll communicate that. Feik: That's why I'm saying, because it's a judgment call, what is nice and what isn't nice? Aanenson: Well if it's a PUD I think you have design standards but because this is a straight subdivision, I think they understand. Feik: So if you've got a concern. Slagle: I think they've got it. Feik: Sketches prior to City Council. Lillehaug: Is that a requirement? Aanenson: No, that's what I'm saying. It's not a requirement that they have to, right. Sacchet: If you're suggesting... Slagle: Withdraw. Sacchet: Withdraw it. Now I have one question to staff. If the number of lots would have to change based on radius or whatever of this road, would it come back to Planning Commission? Or where is, it's a gray area there. Aanenson: Typically that would be, we consider that a minor change. If you want to see it again, you certainly have that right. Just to clarify this, it is scheduled for July 14th. Just to let the applicant know, I don't believe that's enough time for us to meet with the neighbors. Because that report would have to be ready to go Monday or Tuesday so we're [oing to tell you right now that we're going to take the additional time and put it on the 28'". That gives us time to meet with Borris' and Kortgard's and get those issues resolved and walk it and the grading so. Claybaugh: Those are very important issues. 56 Aanenson: They are, and we just can't turn around and do due justice on that so that would move it to the, from the 14th to the July 28th council meeting. Sacchet: Alright, we had a motion and a second. We added a ton of friendly amendments. We did a lot of discussion. Are we done with amendments discussion? So we put this to the vote. Feik moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Carlson Property including 10 residential lots, 1 outlot as shown on plans dated May 16, 2003, subject to the findings in the staff report and the following conditions: 1. The developer shall revise landscape plan to show a minimum of 63 trees to be planted. A minimum of two deciduous, overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of each lot. The developer shall be responsible for installing all landscape materials proposed in rear yard areas. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits on Lots 1, 7, 9, 10, Block 1 prior to any construction. The developer shall apply for an exemption from the Wetland Conservation Act for impacts to Wetland 2. In lieu of an approved replacement plan an exemption shall be obtained prior to wetland impacts occurring. A wetland buffer 10 to 30 feet in width (with a minimum average of 20 feet) shall be maintained around Wetland 1. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The developer shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of city staff, before construction begins and must pay the city $20 per sign. All structures shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the wetland buffer edge. The proposed buffer widths and 40 foot setback shall be shown on the grading plan. The plans for the proposed development shall show the location of the OHW of Lake St. Joe and the required 150 foot setback from the OHW. Storm water calculations shall be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond is sized adequately for the proposed development. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, storm water infrastructure (including swales) and storm water ponds. The swale on Lots 8 and 9 shall be moved toward the rear property line as far as possible and a 20' drainage and utility easement must be dedicated over the entire swale. 57 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. A 20 foot wide drainage and utility easement shall be provided from the cul-de- sac to the storm water pond along the storm sewer alignment. This easement may be vacated upon the future extension of the street and construction of a new connection to provide drainage from the streets to STMH #1. A minimum 20 foot easement is required for the storm sewer pipe between STMH #2 and STMH #1. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood fiber blanket or sodded within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Type III silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all areas to be preserved as buffer and removed upon completion of construction. Based on preliminary estimates, the water quality fees for the development are $5,628 and the water quantity fees are approximately $13,924. At this time the estimated SWMP fee, due payable to the city at the time of final plat recording is $19,552. Approval of the sidewalk and utility easements must be received from the city of Victoria. The demolition of structures on the site must be done in accordance with MPCA guidelines and permits must be obtained from the city prior to demolition. The on-site sewage treatment system and well must be abandoned in accordance with Minnesota Rules Chapter 7080 and a permit must be obtained from the city. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. All lots must be provided with separate sewer and water services. The applicant will be required to pay a one time park dedication charge of $26,400 at the time of plat submittal. Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. A temporary easement is required for the paved portion of the temporary cul-de- sac which is outside of the right-of-way. Revise the street right-of-way to 60 feet along the westerly side of Lots 1, 2, and 3 and add a temporary cul-de-sac at the south end of the development. 58 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. Type III silt fence shall be used adjacent to the edge of the wetland and removed upon completion of construction. Also, add an erosion control blanket on the north slope of the pond. The applicant should be aware that any off site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. All disturbed areas are required to be restored with seed and mulch within two weeks of grading completion. The existing roadway will be removed and the property on the east where the road needs to be removed will be established with turf. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. Each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges at the time of building permit issuance. The 2003 trunk utility hook-up charges are $1,440 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,876 per unit for water. Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest editions of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be 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. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, Carver County, etc. Add the following City of Chanhassen latest Detail Plate Numbers: 1002, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1009, 2001, 2002, 2101, 2109, 2109A, 2110, 2201, 2202, 2204, 3101, 3102, 3104, 3106, 3107, 3108, 3109, 5200, 5203, 5205, 5206, 5214, 5215, 5240, 5241, 5244, and 5300. The retaining wall along the east side of Lots 10 and 11 shall be moved out of the drainage and utility easement. Any retaining walls over 4 feet in height need to be designed by a registered engineer. On the utility plan: Show sanitary sewer flow direction. Show the watermain and sanitary services stubs including eight services for the north side of Kings Road (Outlot B). Show sanitary sewer pipe class, length, slope and type. Show watermain pipe class and type and call out the fittings. On the grading plan: ao Add a storm sewer schedule. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. 59 c. Show the storm sewer invert and manhole rim elevations. d. Show the storm sewer pipe slope, length, class and flow direction. e. Show a minimum of 75 foot rock construction entrance. 30. Revise CBMH gl with a 2 foot sump. 31. Add street lights to the plans. 32. Add a pedestrian curb ramp and sidewalk along the east side of Lots 5, 6 and 7. 33. Supply the city with a detailed haul route for review and approved by staff. 34. Revise plans: Lot 6 shall have a minimum square footage of 15,000 square feet and Lot 9 shall have a minimum 90 foot frontage. 35. The plat will be contingent upon agreement with the property owner to the north of the development regarding the dedicated road right-of-way. 36. The applicant will work with staff and neighbors to consider the possible extension of the drainage swale along the east side of the development to ensure drainage goes not just from 8 and 9 through the swale but also 10 and 11 to the drainage pond 37. Applicant will work with staff and neighbors to establish buffer planting along the eastern edge of the development, specifically on Lot 8 and 9. 38. The turning radius of the road on the northeast corner shall meet current city design standards and current city code. 39. Tree gT1 shall be preserved and adequate tree preservation fencing shall be placed around it according to city forester's directions. 40. The applicant agrees to perform ongoing monitoring for soil contaminants during excavation. All voted in favor, except Slagle who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 6tol. Sacchet: So this carries 6 to 1 and goes to, as we just heard, to council not on the 14th as on the staff report, but two weeks later. 28th or whatever that was. We want to summarize this. Feik: The additional conditions probably summarize. Sacchet: The summary is special emphasis on the additional conditions. 60 Feik: Sacchet: Does that cover it? I would think so. I would think that covers it. 61