The URL can be used to link to this page

7 Lake Lucy Ridge-690 From:; ~Sh~n ;, ~:: · ::~ 0n januarY: ~5,~ 2002;the Planning Commissmn:revmWed:I~s:appiication and: Todd Gerhardt January 24, 2002 Page 2 community highly regards its natural environment including trees, slopes, vistas, and uncluttered open spaces. The development, as proposed, significantly impacts these features. Lake Lucy Highlands was developed as a Large Lot development and has maintained that character. The 7.07 acre outlot is regarded as a buffer or an undevelopable site unless it was demonstrated that a future structure would be able to meet wetland setback requirements. This language clearly demonstrates that at best, this site would accommodate two home sites, based upon lot area only. The proposed Lake Lucy Ridge maximizes the number of home sites within this area. Therefore, the Planning Commission may find that conversion of the easterly 7.07 acre outlot from Large Lot Residential to Low Density Residential is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan." "The Planning Commission denied the rezoning from RR, Rural Residential District to RSF, Single Family Residential for Outlot A, Lake Lucy Highlands, and the westerly 11.5 acre parcel due to the following: 1. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be inconsistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed use does not conform to all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The proposed development incorporated the two parcels, therefore, the proposal cannot proceed." "The Planning Commission denied the preliminary plat Subdivision 01-10 creating twenty one lots for the Lake Lucy Ridge subject to not complying with the land use designation and zoning requirements." "The Planning Commission denied the wetland alteration permit 2001-3 for Lake Lucy Ridge based on the Wetland Alteration Permit being a part of the Subdivision proposal for Lake Lucy Ridge and the SubdiVision has been denied due to an inconsistency with the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance requirements." Since the January 15, 2002, Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has indicated that he may be willing to make changes. The 120-day review deadline is February 22, 2002. The following are options, the City Council may consider: If the applicant requests an extension and the City Council grants one, clear direction should be given for any revisions. The revised plans will need to appear before the Planning Commission. 2. Deny the application with direction to staff and City Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact for denial. CITY OF PC DATE: 1/15/02 CC DATE: 1/28/02 Review Deadline: 2/22/02 CASE #: 01-10 su~' 01-4 LUPA REZ 014 WET 01-3 By: A1-Jaff:v PROP LOCA APPL PRES: 2020 1 ACR~ DENS SUM two Ot RSF, Land [ this pul STAFF REPORT ~$AL: Lake l.ucv Ridee ~.ezoning of approximately 18.57 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential, to RSF, Residential Single Family Preliminary Plat to replat a 7.07 acre Outlot and an 11.5 acre lot (18.57 acres) into 21 single family lots and two outlots, Lake Lucy Ridge Wetland Alteration Permit to fill 4,580 square feet of wetland Land Use Plan Amendment from Residential Large Lot to Residential Low Density FION: East of Ashling Meadows, Northwest of Lake Lucy, and South of Lake Lucy Road CANT: Noecker Development, LLC 8315 Pleasant View Drive Moundsview, MN 55112 Randy Noecker (763) 786-6387 NT ZONING: RR, Rural Residential District ~,ND USE PLAN: kGE: Residential-Low Density (Net Density 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre) Residential Large Lot (1 unit per 2.5 Acre Minimum) Approximately 18.57 acres TY: 2.4 Units per Acre-Net 1.1 Units per Acre-Gross ARY OF REQUEST: Subdivision of 18.57 acres into 21 single-family lots and :lots. Rezoning of approximately 18.57 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to esidential Single Family. Wetland Alteration Permit to fill 4,580 square feet of wetland. 'se Plan Amendment from Residential Large Lot to Residential Low Density. Notice of 4ic hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEl OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The Ci ,'s discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the J plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning ce. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi-jl al decision. ve Lak~ EL/ Road C' Lake Januav Page The Ci acting Compi The Cii not the: city's ¥ alteratil The Cii City is consisti PROP, The apl propert Single is requ is also 1 The ave net den Lucy, ai Lucy Ri All of ti Ordinar howev, on the icy Ridge 28, 2002 has a relatively high level of discretion in approving a rezoning because the City is its legislative or policymaking capacity. A rezoning must be consistent with the City's :hensive Plan. "s discretion in approving or denying a wetland alteration permit is limited to whether or .roposed alteration meets the standards outlined in the wetland conservation act and the etland ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the wetland .n. This is a quasi-judicial decision. has a relatively high level of discretion in approving a land use amendment because the tcting in its legislative or policymaking capacity. A land use amendment must be nt with the City's goals and policies. ~SAL/SUMMARY licant is proposing to subdivide 18.57 acres into 21 single-family lots and two outlots. The is zoned RR, Rural Residential, and the proposal calls for rezoning it to RSF, Residential amily. The easterly 7.07 acres of the site is guided Residential Large Lot and the applicant ;ting a Land Use Plan amendment to re-guide it to Residential Low Density. The applicant roposing to fill 4,580 square feet of wetland. :age lot size is 18,114 square feet with a resulting gross density of 1.1 units per acre and a ity of 2.4 units per acre. The site is located south of Lake Lucy Road, northwest of Lake ,d east of Ashling Meadows. Access to the subdivision will be primarily provided via Lake ,ad. All lots are proposed to be served via internal residential streets. e proposed lots meet the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning :e pertaining to the Residential Single Family District, with the exception of one lot; , the lot lines can be adjusted to meet ordinance requirements. There are two outlots shown at. Outlots A and B contain wetlands, a proposed trail and storm water pond. The im served mainly natural the wet approv~ future s the consists of two parcels being assembled into one tract of land, and then subdivided. Two als own these parcels. Outlot A is part of Lake Lucy Highlands (a large lot subdivision y an individual septic system and well with a minimum area of 2.5 acres). This outlot is The buildable area on the site is physically separated from Lake Lucy Road by a In the past, the owner of the outlot had attempted to replat it and fill a portion of to create a connection between the outlot and Lake Lucy Road. As a condition of of the Lake Lucy Highland subdivision, the applicant was required to demonstrate that a would be able to meet wetland setback requirements. The applicant did not submit red surveys to replat the outlot and the plans never materialized. The current plan assemb ',s the outlot with the parcel to the west and the wetland portion of Outlot A has been replatte, into Outlot B of Lake Lucy Ridge. The westerly parcel contains a single family home that Lake Lucy Ridge January 28, 2002 Page 3 is proposed to be demolished. Two wetlands occupy the site. The site has bluffs and a meandering topography. The site has some mature trees, which the applicant is making an effort to preserve. There is a retaining wall that extends into required bluff setbacks. Based on staff's measurements, this wall encroaches two feet into the required setback. This wall must be setback a minimum of 30 feet from the bluff. In reviewing this plat, staff also had to look at access to the properties to the west and south. Ashling Meadows, located west of the site, is currently under construction. Emerald Lane will connect the two subdivisions. Staff has ensured that the surrounding parcels are not landlocked. During Phase [[ of Ashling Meadows, Emerald Lane will be stubbed to the eastern property line. When Lake Lucy Ridge develops, the street will extend to the north and eventually hook up with Lake Lucy Road. Lucy Ridge Lane will be stubbed to the south to provide access to the property along the south side of the site. Staff is unaware of any interest in developing that property at this time. Staff has been working with the applicant for the past year. The plan has gone through several changes. The critical issues that staff has been working to resolve are: The amount of grading, and retaining walls in the bluff setback. Revisions are required which may result in the loss of additional lots. Staff recommended moving Lucy Ridge Lane to the east, approximately 80-feet, at the intersection of Emerald Lane; moving the Block 1 house pads to the east with the road; deleting Lot 1, Block 1 and Lots 7 & 8, Block 2. Staff believes the major effect of moving Lucy Ridge Lane and the Block 1 house pads to the east is that it will minimize the severity of the slope grades along the western property line of the site. This would have allowed the proposed grading in this area to better match the existing topography, provide additional area for drainage · swales along the western side of Block 1, and'eliminate future problems associated with the lack of a usable backyard. The applicant is unwilling to make these changes. We are recommending the application be denied. LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT The applicant is requesting a land use plan amendment to re-guide the easterly 7.07 acres (outlot A) from Large Lot Residential to Residential Low Density. The outlot is part of the Lake Lucy Highland subdivision which has a minimum area of 2.5 acres per lot. All homes within that subdivision are served with individual septic systems and wells. Outlot A is physically separated from Lake Lucy Highlands by a wetland to the east and Lake Lucy Road to the north. Both these elements can be considered natural barriers, allowing Outlot A to fit better with uses proposed west of the subject site (in this case, Residential Low Density). It is a compatible use and allows transitioh to be maintained. On the other hand, the existing land use designation of the 7.07 acre outlot is for Residential Large Lot. This area has been developed with single homes on larger lots. Chanhassen is a high amenity Lake L Januar' Page 4' CO1TIIIII. high d~ regardsl develo[ develo[ tcy Ridge 28, 2002 fity. One of the amenities is that we have a range of residential land uses from large lot to tsity. Maintaining this mixture is one of the city's goals. In addition, the community highly its natural environment including trees, slopes, vistas, and uncluttered open spaces. The ment, as proposed, significantly impacts these features. Lake Lucy Highlands was ;d as a Large Lot development and has maintained that character. The 7.07 acre outlot is regardelt as a buffer or an undevelopable site unless it was demonstrated that a future structure would [e able to meet wetland setback requirements. This language clearly demonstrates that at best, this site would accommodate two home sites, based upon lot area only. While staff believes that the[conversion of this lot might not have significantly impacted the character of the area, the propose[l Lake Lucy Ridge maximizes the number of home sites within this area. Therefore, the Commission may find that conversion of the easterly 7.07 acre outlot from Large Lot [al to Low Density Residential is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. REZOZ The apl iicant is proposing to rezone the property from RR, Rural Residential, to RSF, Residential Single t. The area to the north, east, and south is zoned Rural Residential. The area to the west is oned Residential Single Family. All the surrounding property, with the exception of the area to ~e north and east of the subject site, is guided for Residential Low Density. The area to the north east is guided Residential Large Lot. If the C :y approves re-guiding the easterly 7.07 acres to Residential Low Density, the 2020 Land Use will show this area designated for development as Low Density Residential, 1.2 4.0 units per Appropriate zoning for this land use is RSF, R4 or PUD-R. The applicant's proposal has a gross of 1.1 units per acre and 2.4 units per acre net after the streets and wetlands are taken o~ t. Rezoni~ the 11.5 acre parcel, located east of Ashling Meadows, to Residential Single Family, RSF, is :onsistent with the 2020 Land Use Plan which shows the area designated for development as Low Residential. This that the guide is in the MUSA area. Staff is recommending that this area be rezoned to RSF and finds is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan if' the Land Use Plan is amended to re- outlot to low density residential. If the Ci denies re-guiding the easterly 7.07 acres to Residential Low Density, the 2020 Land Use Plan wil continue to show this area designated for development as Large LOt Density Residential, (2.5 minimum). Appropriate zoning for this land use is RR. The applicant's proposal has lots with an of less than half an acre. The rezoning of the property will be inconsistent with the Corn tensive Plan and as such, should not be approved. Lake Lucy Ridge January 28, 2002 Page 5 PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide an 18.57-acre site into 21 single-family lots. The density of the proposed subdivision is 1.1 units per acre gross, and 2.4 units per acre net after removing the roads and wetlands. All the lots exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of area, with an average lot size of 18,114 square feet. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for the Residential Single Family District with the exception of Lot 9, Block 3. This lot has a width of 67.93 feet. The applicant is treating this lot as "a lot on a curve," however; the curve is very slight and would not qualify the lot as one. The ordinance requires a minimum width of 90 feet. The lot lines can be adjusted to meet ordinance requirements. There are two outlots shown on the plat. Outlots A and B will contain wetlands, trail, and a storm water pond. The ordinance requires all structures to maintain a 40-foot setback from the outside edge of a wetland buffer strip. The ordinance also requires a buffer zone (0-20 feet wide) with an average.of 10 feet for the wetland located northwest of the site and (10-30 feet wide) with an average of 20 feet from the wetland located east of the site. The plans show the wetland buffer. The trail located to the east of the property parallels the wetland buffer. As mentioned earlier in the report, there are bluffs on the site. One of these bluffs is located along the northwesterly comer of the site. The plans reflect a retaining wall within 28 feet of the bluff. The ordinance requires all structures to maintain a 30-foot-setback from the edge of a bluff. This wall must be moved to meet ordinance requirements. The second bluff is located along the southeast comer of the site. Staff notes that the proposal is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan if the amendment is approved. If the City denies the Land Use amendment, the rezoning of the easterly portion of the site must then be denied as well. This will make this plat inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan and therefore, should be denied. WETLANDS Existing Wetlands Two wetlands exist on-site: one natural wetland and one ag/urban wetland. Aquatic EcoSolutions delineated the wetlands in May 1996 and reexamined the site on April 26, 2001. Wetland 1 is a Type 3 wetland located in the northwest comer of the property, just south of Lake Lucy Road. The wetland is dominated by reed canary grass and common cattail. The applicant is proposing to fill a portion of this wetland in conjunction with the widening of the access road (Lucy Ridge Lane). The total proposed impact to Wetland 1 is 2,297 square feet (0.05 acres). The applicant is also proposing the construction of new wetland along the south side of this basin for replacement purposes. Lake Ridge 28, 2002 Page Wetl~ ~d 2 is a Type 4 wetland located east of the upland on the parcel. It extends to the south from .ake Lucy Road to Lake Lucy (OHW=956.1 MSL). It is dominated by reed canary grass and c mmon cattail with some lake sedge and a few black willow trees. The applicant is ;ing to fill a portion of this wetland in conjunction with the widening of the access road (Luc Lane). The total proposed impact to Wetland 2 is 2,283 square feet (0.05 acres). On 7, 2001, city staff conducted an on-site review of a portion of the wetland delineation. The t-site review raised questions about the accuracy of the delineation of Wetland 1. The City met delineator on-site on May 8,2001. The conclusion of that site visit was that a portion of the w~ tland boundary established by the delineator was inaccurate. Staff recommended the wt d boundary be changed to be consistent with the findings of the delineator and city staff from 8. The wetland boundary shown on the plans is consistent with the staff Replacement The is proposing the construction of 4,910 square feet of new wetland credit (NWC) adjac, to Wetland 1. It appears that the applicant is proposing to use wetland buffers of at least 16.5 :et in width and/or 75% of the surface area of stormwater ponds to achieve the necessary 4,250: square feet of public value credit (PVC). The applicant should supply a narrative that ex how this PVC will be provided. (All wetland buffers to be used as PVC must be located on land adjacent and contiguous to replacement wetlands and adjacent existing wetlands" (Mira Rule 8420.0540, Subp. 2 (D) (5).) Wetl~ id replacement must occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Cons~ rvation Act (MR 8420). The plans should show a fixed photo monitoring point for the :ment wetland. A five-year wetland replacement monitoring plan should be submitted. The plicant should provide proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for R, Wetland. The City must approve a wetland replacement plan prior to wetland im s occurring. A. and buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 10 feet) must be maintained arouni Wetland 1 and the wetland mitigation area. A wetland buffer 10 to 30 feet in width (with a min ~m average of 20 feet) must be maintained around Wetland 2. (Those buffers considered for P' C must maintain a minimum width of 16.5 feet.) Wetland buffer areas should be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant must wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and pay the City $20 per sign. All retaining walls must be located outside of required buffer areas. Proposed trails must also be located outside of required buffer areas. All other structures must a 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. LAK LUCY The project is within 1,000 feet of the ordinary high water level (OHW) of Lake Lucy and i! therefore within the lake's shoreland district; however, none of the lots proposed are Lake Lucy Ridge January 28, 2002 Page 7 riparian lots. Lake Lucy is classified as a recreational development 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. BLUFFS Two areas on the property have been identified as bluff (i.e., slope greater than or equal to 30% and a rise in slope of at least 25 feet above the toe). These areas must be preserved. In addition, all structures must maintain a 30-foot setback from the bluff and no grading may occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top or toe of a bluff). GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL Storm Water Management The proposed development is required to maintain existing runoff rates. Stormwater calculations should be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond is sized adequately for the proposed development. Easel~letlts Drainage and utility easements should be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds. Erosion Control Type 1I[ silt fence should be provided adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areas to be preserved as buffer or, if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. Erosion control blanket should be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. Any disturbed wetland areas should be reseeded with MnDOT seed mix 25 A, or a similar seed mix that is approved for wetland soil conditions. 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 for this proposed development are based on single-family residential development rates of $800/acre. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 12.94 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $10,352. 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- Lake Ridge 28, 2002 Page famil' residential developments have a connection charge of $1,980 per developable acre. This in a water quantity fee of approximately $25,621 for the proposed development. This water Credits proposes the construction of one NURP pond. The applicant will be credited for uality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from the site. This will be tined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. Credits may also be applk to the applicant's SWMP fees for oversizing in accordance with the SWMP or the provi: ion of outlet structures. The applicant will not be assessed for areas that are dedicated outlol ;. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. At thi time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat ~ng, is $35,973. The .plicant shall apply for and obtain perm/ts from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Rile, Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota ',nt of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of appro' 'al. GRA Folio' ,ing the 11/20/01 Planning Commission (PC) meeting, staff took a hard look at the previ, us layout of the plat. Staff attempted to come up with a revised plat layout that would take into the issues and concerns raised at the PC meeting, i.e. lot size, road alignment, tt of grading. As such, staff proposed the following to the applicant: mOving Lucy Ridge Lane the east, approx. 80-feet, at the intersection of Emerald Lane; moving the Block 1 house pads the east with the road; deleting Lot 1, Block 1 and Lots 7 & 8, Block 2. Staff ~lieves the major effect of moving Lucy Ridge Lane and the Block 1 house pads to the east is it will minimize the severity of the slope grades along the western property line of the site. This luld allow the proposed grading in this area to better match the existing topography. It wouh also provide additional area for drainage swales along the western side of Block 1. In ad~ ition, staff recommends that Lot 1, Block 1 be deleted. The severe rear yard slope and its close >roximity to a wetland make this a questionable lot at best. In the past, staff has seen problems with lots such as this that have severe rear yard slopes. Inevitably the ,uyer or builder will want to grade in more of a flat backyard area and then issues arise with ~e filling of the nearby wetland, setback problems due to a retaining wall, or both. The the si wouh ,plicant has decided against implementing staff's revisions to the plat. The applicant that the grading necessary for the revised street alignment would be more detrimental to than what is shown on the current plan. Moving Lucy Ridge Lane farther to the east decrease the amount of canopy coverage that is proposed to be saved. However, it is Lake Lucy Ridge January 28, 2002 Page 9 staff's opinion that the trade off for better lots in Block 1 and the possible saving of more significant trees would make for a better development and offset the additional canopy loss. The existing parcel has a wide variety of grade changes within its limits. The site elevations range from a high of 1026+ to a low of 960+. These severe elevation differences combined with a relatively small area (<15 buildable acres) make this site a challenging one to both develop and minimize grading. As such, the developer is proposing to grade the majority of the site. The area for the lots in the western portion of the site is proposed to be cut from 5 to 10 feet while the eastern portion of the site will be filled from 10 to 15 feet for the house pads along the wetland. Steep slopes are proposed along the southwest and west property lines of the site to match with the existing topography. Small retaining walls (maximum of 4 feet) could be employed along the western side of the lots in Block 1 to increase the area provided for drainage swales. Also, staff recommends that Lots 1-5, Block 3 be designed with more of a usable backyard area. This could be accomplished by revising the grading plan to provide a 10:1 slope for the first 20-feet off the back of the house pads in this area. The applicant is proposing to grade offsite to the west for the construction of Emerald Lane, which will connect this proposed development with the Ashling Meadows development. Staff has previously met with the applicant and the Ashling Meadows developer to try and come to some agreement on both the location and elevation of Emerald Lane. Following the meeting, a mutual compromise was agreed upon for Emerald Lane and the current plan shows this. In addition, the Ashling Meadows developer agreed to sign a temporary easement allowing the applicant to grade on Ashling Meadows prOperty. The prOpoSed and existing contours along the common property line within the Ashling Meadows site have been shown on the grading plan to ensure that the grading and drainage work. The site contains two existing bluffs; one in the northwest corner and one in the southeast corner of the site. The structure setback from each bluff is 30 feet. This will require that the retaining wall shown on Lot 2, Block 1 be eliminated or moved The applicant is proposing to grade the entire site at once. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic control plans. DRAINAGE The majority of the existing site drains from a high point in the southwest comer of the property toward wetlands in the northwesterly and easterly portion of the site. On the drainage plan, the applicant is proposing to collect all of the street and front yard stormwater and transport it to a pond in the north central portion of the site. The pond will treat the stormwater before discharging into the existing wetland. The pond has been designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards with 3:1 side slopes and a 10:1 slope bench below the normal water level. Lake Janua Page Pre- a reviex with design 10-yel ,ucy Ridge 28, 2002 ~d post-development ponding calculations have been submitted for the site. Staff has :d the calculations and found that only minor modifications are necessary. Staff will work applicant's engineer to correct the calculations. Prior to final platting, storm sewer calculations will need to be submitted. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a r, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utilities easements will need to be dedicated on the final ~ [at over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to ~e 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. EROI ION CONTROL Erosi~ control measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's Best 1~ [anagement Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City's Type m erosi.ol~ control fence, which is a heavy-duty silt fence, be used for the areas adjacent to the existing wetlands. Erosion control matting or wood fiber blankets will be required for the steep, rear y~rd slopes of those lots in the west and southwesterly portions of the site. In addition, a 75- foot ck construction entrance is required at the site access off of Lake Lucy Road. iTIES tly, there is no public sanitary sewer available to the site. The nearest sewer line is appro imately 600 feet west of the site within the Ashling Meadows development. This sanitary be extended to the Emerald Lane property line with the second phase of the Ashling Mead ,ws development. Staff expects this to happen in the summer of 2002. Additionally, the applk has previously petitioned the City to extend the sewer as part of a public improvement :. Staff believes that the sewer extension should be a developer driven project, especially . when project is planned within a year. In the absence of the sewer, the applicant has requei to install the sanitary sewer through the Lake Lucy Ridge site and leave a stub pipe for the A Meadows 2nd Addition development to connect to. Staff has no objections t° this io as long as the applicant is aware that no building permits will be allowed until the sewer is functional. The .ty's Comprehensive Sewer Plan shows the proposed development and neighboring ties to the east as being serviced within the same sanitary sewer subdistrict. As such, the .ed sanitary sewer lift station shall be designed to serve this development and the neigh] ,oring properties to the east. Any oversizing of the sewer forcemain or lift station pumps, be' what is needed to serve this development, will be a City cost. Muni ipal water is available to the site from Lake Lucy Road. The applicant is proposing to :t to the existing water stub and extend watermain throughout the site. In the future, the from this development will be connected to the watermain from Ashling Meadows 2nd Addit Staff will perform a more detailed review of the utility layout at the time of final plattil Additional hydrants and/or water valves may be required at that time. Lake Lucy Ridge January 28, 2002 Page 11 The two underlying parcels of this development have each been previously assessed for one water hookup and connection charge. The assessments, however, have not been paid. Staff is recommending that the two previously assessed connection charges, which total $8,670 (2002 rates), be respread over the 21 newly created lots. In addition, each newly created lot will be required to pay a sewer and water hookup charge of $1,383 and $1,802 (2002 rates), respectively. Since the property is within the Lake Ann sewer district, a sewer interceptor charge of $1,057 and a sub-trunk charge of $866 will also be due on each lot. The sewer and water lateral connection charges for the new lots will be waived contingent on the developer installing the internal lateral utility lines. All of the above fees are due at the time of building permit issuance. Utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition 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 to 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. STREETS There is one current access available for the site off of Lake Lucy Road. In the near future, the proposed stub street to the west, Emerald Lane, will be extended when Ashling Meadows 2nd Addition develops. This will provide a secondary access to/from the site. In addition, a street access has been provided for future development to the south. Except for the previously mentioned revision to Lucy Ridge Lane, the proposed street layout appears to work well. The entire street system is shown within a 60-foot wide public right-of- way with 31-foot wide streets. As stated earlier, the site has some major grade changes. Staff has worked with the applicant to meet the City's maximum allowable street grade of 7%. The horizontal curves at the south end of Lucy Ridge Lane do not meet a 30 m.p.h, design. As such, the curves will have to be posted at a slower speed. In addition, a temporary cul-de-sac turnaround for emergency vehicles will be required at the south end of Lucy Ridge Lane and the west end of Emerald Lane along with a sign stating that the road will be extended in the future. PARK DEDICATION PARKS Neighborhood Park needs for the proposed 21-lot subdivision would be served by the existing Pheasant Hill Park. The park is located just north of the site on Lake Lucy Road. In the future, residents will have access to Greenwood Shores and Lake Ann Parks. TRAILS A trail segment identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan has'been included on this plat. The following conditions describe the trail alignment which is acceptable. Lake Janua~ Page 1 The a materi built o time o An inl access TRE} Staff the pr¢ follow The d. differe the rec ucy Ridge 28, 2002 o o A 20-foot trail easement is identified. The trail alignment is not within the wetland buffer. The trail easement abuts lot lines, but the trail alignment maintains a minimum 6-foot separation from lot lines. The pond berm, which the trail crosses, maintains a minimum top width of 12 feet to allow for a 2 foot "clear" on either side of the trail. dicant shall be responsible for the construction of the trail with reimbursement for costs being made from the City's Park and Trail Fund. The trail shall be 8 feet wide and bituminous material to city specifications. Full park fees, with one-third being paid at the platting and two-thirds at the time of the individual building permits, shall also be paid. mal sidewalk will be located on Lucy Ridge Lane and Emerald Lane to provide residents to the trail system. PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING ~s reviewed aerial photographs of the site and based on a visual assessment believes that Dosed percentage of canopy cover and removal are underestimated. Staff is proposing the ~g calculations: Total upland area (excluding wetlands) Baseline canopy coverage Minimum canopy coverage allowed Proposed tree preservation 13.11 ac. 50 % or 6.56 ac. 35 % or 4.6 ac. 11% or 1.38 ac. veloper does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed by ordinance, therefore the ~ce between the baseline and proposed tree preservation is multiplied by 1.2 to calculate uired replacement plantings. Difference in canopy coverage Multiplier Total replacement Total number of trees to be planted 3.22 ac. 1.2 3.73 ac. 155 trees The a ]plicant has submitted a landscape plan showing 157 trees to be planted. The plan includes a plar I schedule, shows the number of trees to be planted on each lot and includes the buffer yard plantil gs. Buffe~ yard requirements are as shown in the table: Lake Lucy Ridge January 28, 2002 Page 13 The revised landscape plan shows the required buffer yard plantings. The Compliance table assumes that the site will be rezoned to RSF. COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT Lot Lot Lot Area Width Depth Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' BLOCK 1 Lot 1 16,250 119.2' Lot 2 16,229 99.46' Lot 3 16,215 103.64' LOt 4 16,213 104.60' 155 Lot 5 16,213 95' corner lot 160 Block 2 Lot 1 16,610 97' LOt 2 16,608 92.92' 170' 164' 156.5' 30'/30' 157' Lot 3 16,608 109.56' 175' 184' 171' LOt 4 18,040 112' comer lot 135 Block 3 Lot 1 16,792 162.04 142' 168' Lot 2 16,541 118.64 139' Lot 3 16,561 92.32' 136' Home Setback 30' front/rear 10' sides 30'/50'*/30** 10' 30'/50'*/30* 10' 30'/30' 10' 10' 30'/30' 10' 30'/30' 10' 30730' 10' 30730' 10' 30'/30' 10' 30730760** 10' 30'/30'/60** 10' 30'/30'/60** Lake Page Ridge 28, 2002 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Lot 7 16,877 20,855 16,513 20,399 65.29 on curve 150' 96.38'on curve 208' 201.2' 178' 197.5' comer lot 143' 207.41 10' 30730760** 10' 30730760** 10730'*** 30730' iff 30'/30' 10' Lot 8 Lot 9 Lot 11 LOt 1 Lot 1 A Outlo B 17,016 16,215 17,698 33,381 22,561 20,716 279,328 94.3' 156' 154.16' comer lot 67.93'*** 150' 79.04'on Curve 172' 69.13' on curve 239' 90.01' 240' 30'/30' 10' 30'/30' 10' 30'/30' 10' 30'/30'*** 10'/60'* 30'/30'*** The 50-foot setback includes a 10-foot average wetland buffer in addition to a 40-foot structure setback. The 60-foot setback includes a 20-foot average wetland buffer in addition to a 40-foot structure setback. The 30-foot bluff setback includes a 20-foot bluff impact zone. The width of Lot 9, Block 3, must be adjusted to maintain 90 feet. IVISION - FINDINGS (All these findings assume that the City will approve the Land Use amendment and RezoJ of the 7.07 acre Outlot, located along the easterly portion of the site.) 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District with the exception of Lot 9, Block 3, which can be corrected. The retaining walls must meet bluff and wetland setback requirements. However, if the Land Use Amendment was denied, the lots are then substandard in Lake Lucy Ridge January 28, 2002 Page 15 area, width and depth, resulting in a subdivision that is inconsistent with the zoning ordinance. . 5~ o o . 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 the subdivision ordinance with recommended changes which the applicant is unwilling to make. 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 proposed site is suitable for development subject to the recommendations 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 nearest sewer line is approximately 600 feet west of the site within the Ashling Meadows development. This sanitary sewer will be extended to the - Emerald Lane property line with the second phase of the Ashling Meadows development. Staff expects this to happen in the summer of 2002. Additionally, the applicant has previously petitioned the City to extend the sewer as part of a public improvement project. Staff believes that the sewer extension should be a developer driven prOject, especially when the project is planned within a year. In the absence of the sewer, the applicant has requested to install the sanitary Sewer through the Lake Lucy Ridge site and leave a stub pipe for the Ashling Meadows 2nd Addition development to connect to. Staff has no objections to this scenario as long as the applicant is aware that no building pe~Tnits will be allowed until the sanitary sewer is functional. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will cause some environmental damage, however, staff is recommending some modification to the plans to minimize impacts. The proposed subdivision contains open areas to accommodate house pads. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. Lake Page Ridge 28, 2002 6 , The them le e e On The issues and a The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: ao Lack of adequate storm water drainage. Lack of adequate roads. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision will have access to public utilities and streets subject to finding in #4. FINDINGS Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible e affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use is compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. The proposed use will not conform to all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance if the Land Use amendment is denied. The easterly portion of the site will be in conflict with the 2020 Land Use Plan. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities' of streets serving the property. COMMISSION UPDATE 20, 2001, the Planning Commission reviewed and tabled action on this application. was directed to revise the plans by implementing the conditions of approval. The nd concerns raised at the Planning Commission meeting, included lot size, road alignment, ount of grading. The applicant was directed to examine and comply with the conditions of in the staff report. Lake Lucy Ridge January 28, 2002 Page 17 On January 15, 2002, the Planning Commission reviewed this application and unanimously recommended denial. The applicant was not willing to make changes recommended in the staff report. One of the issues discussed by the Planning Commission centered around the lot sizes in Ashling Meadows as compared to this development. The average lot size in Phase I of the development is 23,728 square feet. The average Lot size in the entire development is 21,384 square feet. Lots that abut Lake Lucy Ridge development have an area of 41,138 - 24,859 - 21,985 - 19,712 - and 18,522 square feet. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motions: LAND USE PLAN A1VIF~MF~NT Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motions: "The City Council denies the Land Use Map Amendment from Residential - Large Lot to Residential Low Density for Outlot A, Lake Lucy Highlands based on the following: The existing land use designation of the 7.07 acre outlot is for Residential Large Lot. This area has been developed with single homes on larger lots. Chanhassen is a high amenity community. One of the amenities is that we have a range of residential land uses from large lot to high density. Maintaining this mixture is one of the city's goals. In addition, the community highly regards its natural environment including trees, slopes, vistas, and uncluttered open spaces. The development, as proposed, significantly impacts these features. Lake Lucy Highlands was developed as a Large Lot development and has maintained that character. The 7.07 acre outlot is regarded as a buffer or an undevelopable site unless it was demonstrated that a future structure would be able to meet wetland setback requirements. This language clearly demonstrates that at best, this site would accommodate two home sites, based upon lot area only. The proposed Lake Lucy Ridge maximizes the number of home sites within this area. Therefore, the Planning Commission may find that conversion of the easterly 7.07 acre outlot from Large Lot Residential to Low Density Residential is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan." Lake Page ucy Ridge 28, 2002 "The City Council denies the rezoning from RR, Rural Residential District to RSF, Single Family Residential for Outlot A, Lake Lucy Highlands, and the westerly 11.5 acre parcel due to the following: 1. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be inconsistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed use does not conform to all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The proposed development incorporated the two parcels, therefore, the proposal can not proceed." "The City Council denies the preliminary plat of Subdivision 01-10 creating twenty-one lots for the Lake Lucy Ridge subject to not complying with the land use designation and zoning requirements." "The City Council denies the wetland alteration permit 2001-3 for Lake Lucy Ridge based on the Wetland Alteration Permit being a part of the Subdivision proposal for Lake Lucy Ridge and the Subdivision has been denied due to an inconsistency with the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance requirements." ATT, CHMENTS , 2. 3 4. Memo from DNR dated October 31,2001. Memo from Matt Saam, Project Engineer dated November 14, 2001. Memo From Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal dated October 31, 2001. Memo From Todd Hoffman, Director of Parks and Recreation, dated November 5, 2001. Lake Lucy Ridge January 28, 2002 Page 19 5, 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Letter to Mr. Noecker extending the 60-day review process. Application and Notice of Public Heating. Petition from neighboring properties dated December 18, 2001. Memo from Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer, dated January 8, 2002. Planning Commission minutes dated November 20, 2001. Planning Commission minutes dated January 15, 2002. Preliminary plat dated received December 19, 2001. g:\planksa\lk lucy ridge\lk lucy ridge.cc2 saved.doc Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Metro Waters- 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106-6793 Telephone: (651) 772-7910 Fax: (651) 772-7977 31, 2001 Ms. Sl. armin A1-Jaff City 'Chahassen 690 Center Drive P.O. ~x 147 .ssen, MN 55317 NOV 0 g 2001 CiTY OF CHANHASSEN RE: Preliminary Plat, Lake Lucy Ridge, City of Chanhassen, Carver County Dear A1-Jaff: Th: you for sending the preliminary plat, received October 29, 2001, for the Lake Lucy Ridge D~ ~pment to the DNR for review. The Lake LucY Ridge development is located in the SE ¼ of 3, Township 116N, Range 23 West, Carver County. After reviewing the preliminary plat ol Lake Lucy Ridge, we have the following comments to offer: . 3~ . . It appears that a portion of Lake Lucy may extend north along Outlot A, based on the existing elevations (indicated as a wetland). The Ordinary High Water (OHW) for Lucy lake is actually 956.1' and not 957.0 as stated on the plan. However, that juridical elevation is not topographical shown on the plat. Additional ground elevations are needed to clearly define the northerly extent of the OHW boundary and wetland juridical matters. The extent of vegetation clearing identified on the grading plan is unclear. The southeast section of the project area contains bluffs. These areas should not be disturbed and all structures should be set back at least 30' from the top of the bluff. Other portions of the site appear to be steep slopes and therefore, major topographic alterations should be avoided to prevent erosion and to preserve existing vegetation screening of structures. The Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan is very busy and difficult to review. The drainage plan shows a detention pond adjacent to Lake Lucy Road. It is unclear where the remaining runoff will be routed to. The 100 year flood elevation of Lake Lucy is 957.0'. All work that is done for this development must comply with applicable floodplain regulation of both the city and the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District. It appears that a retaining wall will be placed around the entire development. It is unclear as to the need. for such a structure. Information: 651-296-6157 · 1-888-646-6367 · TrY: 651-296-5484 · 1-800-657-3929 An Equal Opportunity Employer Wh,, V.,,I .... D; .....;t,, ~ .P?ted on .R _e .c_y.c l ? d Paper Containing a Page 2 Ms. Sharmin A1-Jaff October 31,2001 The following comments are general and apply to all proposed developments; Se Ti o If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, a DNR appropriation permit is needed. If the application is for less than 50 million gallons, than it typically takes five days to process the permit. If construction activities disturb five acres of land, or more, the contractor must apply for a stormwater permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Keith Cherryhomes @ 651-296-6945). The comments in this letter address DNR Waters,jurisdictional maters and concerns. These comments should not be construed as DNR suPport or lack thereof for a particular project. Thank you for submitting the preliminary plat of Lake Lucy Ridge to the DNR for review. Please contact me at (651) 772-7914 should you have any questions about these comments. Sincerely, Travis Germundson Area Hydrologist Tim Gieseke, Carver County SWCD Bob Obermeyer, Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District Keith Cherryhomes, MPCA Lucy Lake (10-7P) File City of Chanhassen Shoreland File C]TYOF ~90 Chf C~nter PO Box 147 Cha,bassen, Minnesota ti7 P/Iolle 952.93Z 1900 Ge, eral ?ax 952.937.5739 Engineering t Fax 952.937.9152 Building Department 952. 934. 2524 Web Site MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner Saam, Project Engineer ]fO[F"~ FROM: Matt DATE: November 14, 2001 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat Review of Lake Lucy Ridge Project No. 01-03 Upon review of the plans prepared by Mattke Surveying & Engineering dated October 9, 2001, I offer the following comments and recommendations: GRADING The existing parcel has a wide variety of grade changes within its limits. The site elevations range from a high of 1026+ to a low of 960+. These severe elevation differences combined with a relatively small area (<15 buildable acres) make this site a challenging one to both develop and minimize grading. As such, the developer is proposing to grade the majority of the site. The area for the lots in the western portion of the site is proposed to be cut from 5 to 10 feet while the eastern portion of the site will be filled from 10 to 15 feet for the housepads along the wetland. Steep slopes are proposed along the south and west property lines of the site to match with the existing topography. Small retaining walls (maximum of 4 feet) could be employed along the western side of the lots in Block 1 to increase the area provided for drainage swales. The applicant is proposing to grade offsite to the west for the construction of Emerald Lane, which will connect this proposed development with the Ashling Meadows development. Staff has previously met with the applicant and the Ashling Meadows developer to try and come to some agreement on both the location and elevation of Emerald Lane. Following the meeting, a mutual compromise was agreed upon for Emerald Lane and the current plan shows this. In addition, the Ashling Meadows developer agreed to sign a temporary easement allowing the applicant to grade on Ashling Meadows property. The proposed and existing contours along the common property line within the Ashling Meadows site must be shown on the grading plan to ensure that the grading and drainage will work. The site contains two existing bluffs; one in the northwest comer and one in the southeast comer of the site. The structure setback from each bluff is 30 feet. This will require that the retaining wall shown on Lot 2, Block 1 be eliminated or moved. There is also a grove of various trees in the east central portion of the Sharmin A1-Jaff November 14, 2001 Page 2 site. All trees that are proposed to be saved must have tree preservation fencing around their perimeters. The applicant is proposing to grade the entire site at once. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic control plans. Staff would also recommend that the applicant revise Lot 1, Block 2 from a walkout structure to a lookout. This would help alleviate the extent of the steep slope in the rearyard and promote better drainage. DRAINAGE The majority of the existing site drains from a high point in the southwest corner of the property toward wetlands in the northwesterly and easterly portion of the site. On the drainage plan, the applicant is proposing to collect all of the street and front yard stormwater and transport it to a pond in the north central portion of the site. The pond will treat the stormwater before discharging into the existing wetland. The pond must be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards with 3:1 side slopes and a 10:1 slope bench below the normal water level. Staff recommends that the proposed outlet structure of the pond be moved to the easterly end of the pond to prevent short circuiting and to outlet the water to the eastern wetland. This would better follow the proposed drainage pattern shown in the City's Surface Water Management Plan. Pre- and post-development ponding calculations have been submitted for the site. Staff has reviewed the calculations and found that additional information and revisions are necessary. Staff will work with the applicant's engineer to correct the calculations. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design calculations will need to be submitted. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 1 O-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utilities easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. EROSION CONTROL Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City's Type HI erosion control fence, which is a heavy-duty silt fence, be used for the areas adjacent to the existing wetlands. Erosion control matting or wood fiber blankets will be required for the steep, rearyard slopes of those lots in the west and southwesterly portions of the site. In addition, a 75-foot rock construction entrance is required at the site access off of Lake Lucy Road. Sharmin A1-Jaff November 14, 2001 Page 3 UTILITIES Currently, there is no public sanitary sewer available to the site. The nearest sewer line is approximately 600 feet west of the site within the Ashling Meadows development. This sanitary sewer will be extended to the Emerald Lane property line with the second phase of the Ashling Meadows development. Staff expects this to happen in the summer of 2002. Additionally, the applicant has previously petitioned the City to extend the sewer as part of a public improvement project. Staff believes that the sewer extension should be a developer driven project, especially when the project is planned within a year. In the absence of'the sewer, the applicant has requested to install the sanitary sewer through the Lake Lucy Ridge site and leave a stub pipe for the Ashling Meadows 2nd Addition development to connect to. Staff has no objections to this scenario as long as the applicant is aware that no building permits will be allowed until the sanitary sewer is functional. The City's Comprehensive Sewer Plan shows the proposed development and neighboring properties to the east as being serviced within the same sanitary sewer subdistrict. As such, staff is recommending that a sanitary sewer manhole be extended to Lake Lucy Road to service future development from the east. In addition, the proposed sanitary sewer lift station shall be designed to serve this development and the neighboring properties to the east. Any oversizing of the sewer forcemain or lift station pumps, beyond what is needed to serve this development, will be a City cost. Municipal water is available to the site from Lake Lucy Road. The applicant is proposing to connect to the existing water stub and extend watermain throughout the site. In the future, the watermain from this development will be connected to the watermain from Ashling Meadows 2nd Addition. Staff will perform a more detailed review of the utility layout at the time of final platting. Additional hydrants and/or water valves may be required at that time. The two underlying parcels of this development have each been previously assessed for one water hookup and connection charge. The assessments, however, have not been paid. Staff is recommending that the two previously assessed connection charges, which total $8,288 (2001 rates), be respread over the 22 newly created lots. In addition, each newly created lot will be required to pay a sewer and water hookup charge of $1,322 and $1,723 (2001 rates), respectively. Since the property is within the Lake Ann sewer district, a sewer interceptor charge of$1,011 and a sub-trunk charge of $828 will also be due on each lot. The sewer and water lateral connection charges for the new lots will be waived contingent on the developer installing the internal lateral utility lines. All of the above fees are due at the time of building permit issuance. Sharmin A1-Jaff November 14, 2001 Page 4 Utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition 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 to 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. STREETS There is one current access available for the site off of Lake Lucy Road. In the near future, the proposed stub street to the west, Emerald Lane, will be extended when Ashling Meadows 2nd Addition develops. This will provide a secondary access to/from the site. In addition, a street access has been provided for future development to the south. Overall, the proposed street layout appears to work well. The entire street system is shown within a 60-foot wide public fight-of-way with 31-foot wide streets. As stated earlier, the site has some major grade changes. Staff has worked with the applicant to meet the City's maximum allowable street grade of 7%. The horizontal curves at the south end of Lucy Ridge Lane do not meet a 30 m.p.h. design. As such, the curves will have to be posted at a slower speed. In addition, a temporary cul-de-sac turnaround for emergency vehicles will be required at the south end of Lucy Ridge Lane along with a sign stating that the road will be extended in the future. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL , If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic control plans. . The proposed pond must be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards with 3:1 side slopes and a 10:1 slope bench below the normal water level. Staff recommends that the proposed outlet structure of the pond be moved to the easterly end of the pond to prevent short- circuiting and to outlet the treated water to the eastern wetland. This would better follow the proposed drainage pattern shown in the City's Surface Water Management Plan. o Staff has reviewed the ponding calculations and found that additional information and revisions are necessary. Staff will work with the applicant's engineer to correct the calculations. Sharmin A1-Jaff November 14, 2001 Page 5 . , o . o , Prior to final platting, storm sewer design calculations will need to be submitted. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 1 O-year, 24- hour storm event. Drainage and utilities easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City's Type 1II erosion control fence, which is a heavy-duty silt fence, be used for the areas adjacent to the existing wetlands. In addition, tree preservation fencing should be denoted on the grading and drainage plan as well. Erosion control matting or wood fiber blankets will be required for the steep, rearyard slopes of those lots in the north and southwesterly portions of the site. A 75-foot rock construction entrance is required at the site access off of Lake Lucy Road. The two underlying parcels of this development have each been previously assessed for one water hookup and connection charge. The assessments, however, have not been paid. Staff is recommending that the two previously assessed connection charges, which total $8,288 (2001 rates), be respread over the 22 newly created lots. In addition, each newly created lot will be required to pay a sewer and water hookup charge of · $1,322 and $1,723 (2001 rates), respectively. Since the property is within the Lake Ann sewer district, a sewer interceptor charge of $1,011 and a sub-trunk charge of $828 will also be due on each lot..The sewer and water lateral connection charges for the new lots will be waived contingent on the developer installing the internal lateral utility lines. All of the above fees are due at the time of building permit issuance. Utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition 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 to 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. Increase the amount of platted fight-of-way along Lake Lucy Road from 74-feet to 80-feet in width. This is the minimum required fight-of-way width for collector streets, such as Lake Lucy Road, in Chanhassen. Submit a separate preliminary utility plan that shows the proposed rim elevations, invert elevations, and pipe sizes for all proposed and existing Sharmin A1-Jaff November 14, 2001 Page 6 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. utility lines. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e., Watershed District, Metropolitan Environmental Service Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Army Corp. of Engineers, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and comply with their conditions of approval. The applicant shall include a draintile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge from homes not adjacent to ponds or wetlands. Match the existing ground elevation (approximately 1011.0) at the south property line of Lucy Ridge Lane. The horizontal curves at the south end of Lucy Ridge Lane do not meet a 30 m.p.h, design. As such, the curves will have to be posted at a slower speed. A temporary cul-de-sac turnaround for emergency vehicles will be required at the south end of Lucy Ridge Lane along with a sign stating that the road will be extended in the future. · Submit a temporary easement for the proPosed offsite grading on Ashling Meadows property. The proposed and existing contours for the Ashling Meadows site must be shown on the grading plan to ensure that the grading and drainage will work. The structure setback from each of the existing bluffs is 3 O-feet. This will require that the retaining wall shown on Lot 2, Block I be eliminated or moved. Revise Lot 1, Block 2 from a walkout structure to a lookout. Extend a sanitary sewer manhole to Lake Lucy Road to service future development from the east. In addition, the proposed sanitary sewer lift station shall be designed to serve this development and the neighboring properties to the east. Any oversizing of the sewer forcemain or lift station pumps, beyond what is needed to serve this development, will be a City cost. Revise the grading plan as follows: a) Show all existing utilities including the storm sewer and watermain in Lake Lucy Road and the existing driveway culvert. b) Show the proposed NWL & HWL of the pond. Sharmin A1-Jaff November 14, 2001 Page 7 jms c~ c) Add silt fence along the south property line of Lot 13, BI. 3. d) Revise the contours in the rear yards of Lots 1-3, BI. 2 to meet the maximum allowable side slope of 3:1. e) Add a legend, survey benchmark, and all proposed and existing easements to the plan. Teresa Burgess, Director of Public Works/City Engineer g:\eng\projects\lake lucy ridge\preliminary plat review.doc CITYOF 690 Cig Center Drive ?0 Box I47 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 P/)one 952,937.I900 General?ax 952.937. 5739 Engineering Depm~nent Fax 952.937.9152 Buildi,g Department Fax 952.934.2524 Web Site www. ci. chanhassen, mn. us MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin AI-Jaff, Senior Planner FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: October 31,2001 SUBJECT: Preliminary plat to re-plat 7.05 acre outlot and 11.5 acre lot (18.57 acres) into 22 single-family lots and one outlet, land use amendment from residential large lot to residential low density, rezoning from rural residential to residential single-family dwelling and a wetland alteration permit for property located south of Lake Lucy Road, west of Lake Lucy and east of Ashling Meadows Subdivision, Lake Lucy Ridge, Noecker Development. Planning Case: 2001 - 10 SUB. I have reviewed the plat redevelopment. In order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention DMsion, I have the following fire code or city ordinance/policy requirements. The plan review is done based on the available information supplied at this time. If additional plans or changes are submitted, the appropriate code or policy items will be addressed. 1. Submit a plan to the Fire Marshal indicating roads and location of proposed fire hydrants only for review. The submitted plans: grading, drainage, erosion control plan and preliminary utility plan are too congested at this time. 2. A 1 O-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants i.e., street lamps, trees, bushes, shrubs, Qwest, Xcel Energy, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safelY operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. 3. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and brush must be either removed from site or chipped. 4. An aPproved turn around shall be designed and installed at the soutll end of LuCy Ridge Lane to allow the turning around of fire apparatus. Submit cul-de-sac design and di~nenSions to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. Pursuant to I997 Uniform Fire Code Section 902.2.2.4. 5. When fire protection, including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection is required to be i~lstalled, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during time of construction. Pursuant to 1997 Uni£orm Fire Code Section 901.3. 6. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all weather drMng capabilities. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 902.2.2.2. Shannin Al-jaff October 31,2001 Page 2 . Street names Lucy Ridge Lane, Lake Lucy Court are confusing. The city already has a number of Lake Lucy Roads, Lake Lucy Lane with similar street names. Please submit new street names for review and approval. g:\safetyXml\plrev2001-10 CITYOF CHAN SEN 690 CiO, Ce,ret Drive PO £ox I47 Cha,hasse,, Mi,nesom 55317 J~holle 952.93Z I900 O,eral Fax 952.93Z5739 E,g/,eeri,g Deparo,eut Fax 952.93Z9152 B, ildi,g Depa;'tme, t Fztx 952.934.2524 lt:Fb Site MEMORANDUM TO' FROM: Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner ~//// Todd Hoffman. Director of Parks and Recreatio DATE: November 5, 2001 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat, Lake Lucy Ridge, Noecker Development; Park and Recreation Department Review I have received a copy of the preliminary plat for Lake Lucy Ridge. Upon reviewing the application, I have the following comments: PARKS Neighborhood Park needs for the proposed 22-1ot subdivision would be served by the existing Pheasant Hill Park. The park is located just north of the site on Lake Lucy Road. In the future, residents will have access to Greenwood Shores and Lake Ann Parks. TRAILS A trail segment identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan has been included on this plat. However, the alignment as currently depicted, is not acceptable. The following conditions need to be met for the trail alignment to be acceptable. 1. A 20-foot trail easement must be identified. 2. The trail alignment cannot be within the wetland buffer. 3. The trail easement may abut lot lines, but the trail alignment must maintain a minimum 6 foot separation from lot lines. 4. The pond berm, which the trail crosses, must maintain a minimum top width of 12 feet to allow for a 2 foot "clear" on either side of the trail. The applicant shall be responsible for the construction of the trail with reimbursement for material costs being made from the City's Park and Trail Fund. The trail shall be 8 feet wide and built of bituminous material to city specifications. Full park fees, with one-third being paid at the time of platting and two-thirds at the time of the individual building permits, shall also be paid. G :\park\th~relimPlatLakeLucyRidge CITYOF CmHASS 690 City Center D~ve ]~0 aox I47 Chanhassen, Minnesott ~5317 P]lolle 952.937.1900' General Fax 952.937.5739 Engineeri,g Departml 952.937.9152 B.ildi.g Departme~I Fax P52.934.2524 I~b Site wwu:ri, dJ~,/msse,. ~ ,~. us October 26, 2001 Mr. Randy Noecker 8315 Pleasant View Drive Moundsview, MN 55112 Dear Mr. Noecker: This letter is to inform you that I am in receipt of your application. The wetland alteration application materials appear complete at this time; however, six additional copies are needed to complete review by other agencies (we do not need additional copies of the wetland delineation report). The 60-day review process began on October 24, 2001 (date of receipt of complete application). The deadline for the November 20, 2001 Planning Commission meeting was October 19, 2001; nevertheless,, it is our intent to schedule your application for the November 20, 2001 meeting. Since there is only one City Council meeting in December, the city may not be able to process your application within 60 days; therefore, we are hereby . notifying you that the City is taking the additional 60 day extension to process this request as permitted under MN STAT] 15.99. If you have. any questions, please contact me at (952) 937-1900 ext. 120. Sincerely, Sharmin A1-Jaff Senior Planner CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION 'TELEPHONE (Daytime)_7(~ ~- ~ ~., ~___.. Comprehensive Plan Amendment OWNER:. ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: _ Temporary Sales Permit ___ Conditional Use Permit ___ Vacation of ROW/Easements ~nterim Use Permit 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* Notification Sign Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CUP/SPPJVACNARANAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTAL FEE $ ¢, list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. ]~u~ding material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. '*Twenty-six full size f~olded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy of :l:ransparency for each plan- sheet. ~* Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract ]qDTE -When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NA~ 'lOCATiON I I=GALDESCF -J'DTAL ACREA 't~ETLANDS Pi ~RESENT ZON ~PRESENT LA~ REQUESTED ~_.ASON FOR PTION ~E ESENT NG ? /-~YES )NING ~(-, ~' USE DESIGNATION ~ NO ND USE DESIGNATION ~-d-~J 'This application ~ nust be completed in full and be t~ewri~en or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans [equir~ d by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Dep~e~ to dl ~ermine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A dete~in~ion ~ completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submi~al. A wri~en ~ice of ap21icaI n deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. ~s is 1o ce~ ~at I am making application for the described action by the Oity and that I am responsible for complying with -all Oi~ requirem nts with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the pa~y whom :~he Oi~ should c ntact regarding any ma~er pe~aining to this ~pplication. I have a~ached a copy of proof of ownership (either ~py of O~er's ~uplicate Ce~ificate of Title, Abstract of ~tle or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make ~ appli~ion a d lhe fee owner has also signed this application. ! 1 ~ keep m~[~ info,ed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I fu~her ~derstand 1ha: ~dditional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility ~tudies, etc. with an estimate prior to any a~hori~tion ~o ~oceed with the study. The documents and information I have submi~ed are true and correct to the best of ~e ~ hereby ~otifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing · equimmen~ an~ agency review. Therefore, the ci~ is notifying the appliCant that the ci~ requires an automatic 60 day ~ension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review ~~io~ are by the applicant, Signature :ant Date ~r,.ature of Fee iwner Date Recei on Fee Paid Receipt No. applicant sh ,uld contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. contacted copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2001 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE PROPOSAL: Subdivision, Land Use Amendment APPLICANT: Noecker Development Rezoning and Wetland Alteration Permit LOCATION: Lake Lucy Road NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Noecker Development, is requesting Preliminary Plat to replat a 7.07 acre Outlot and 11.5 acre lot (18.57 acres) into 22 single family lots and one outlot, land use amendment from Residential Large Lot to Residential Low Density, Rezoning from Rural Residential to Residential Single Family District, and a Wetland alteration permit for property located south of Lake Lucy Road, west of Lake Lucy and east of Ashling Meadow Subdivision, Lake Lucy Ridge, Noecker Development. 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 Sharmin 937-1900 ext. 120. 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 November 8, 2001. - l J STATE C/O AUDITOR 600 4TH ST E CHASKA IN TRUST WITHHELD MN 55318 WILLIAM D LAMBRECHT & JOANNE M LAMBRECHT 6990 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROGER M & E ELAINE SAMPSON 6710 POINTE LAKE LUCY CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JACK J & K RANDALL 1571 LAKE LUC RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 HEIDI J CARISCH 7000 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BONNIE S MCCOSKEY 6720 POINTE LAKE LUCY CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOSEPH J & D MORIN 1441 LAKE RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ALICE L FOWLER 7050 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT H MASON INC 14201 EXCELSIOR BLVD HOPKINS MN 55345 JAMES & 6800 UTICA CHANHASSEN G SCHLUCK MN 55317 SCOTT E & TAMARA G SATHER 7090 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT H MASON IN~C~ 14201 EXCELSIOR B--LVD HOPKINSj MN 55345 GERALD F 6830 UTICA CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROCKFORD R WALDIN JUDY M CHRISTENSEN 7100 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PRINCE R NELSON '7801 AUDUB ~------~---- CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RONALD C & Ma 6850 UTICA CHANHASSEN ELLEN KNUDTEi' MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CIO SCOTT BOTC~ 690 CITY. ENTER D1O BOX 147 ~ASSEN MN 55317 DENNIS E & SUSAN J SCHEPPMANN 16637 NORTH MANOR RD EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 PATRICK A MAUREEN D 6890 UTICA CHA_NHASSEN & MOHR MN 55317 ALLAN ROBERT & MARY E WEINGAR 1685 STELLER CT EXCELSIOR ._- MN- '"'55331 ~._.....~ ' MATTHEW L & SUZANNE C WOODS 6745 LAKEWAY DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DALE E & 6900 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN A J CARLSON MN 55317 ERIC MICHAEL RIVKIN.__~~ 1695 STELLER~T--- ..... EXCELSIOR' MN 55331 LOSCHEIDER CUSTOM HOMES INC 1607 FLORIDA AVE N GOLDEN VALLEY MN 55427 EDWIN & 6930 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN G NEWlNSKI MN 55317 JUDITH A DIRKS 6 PHEASANT LAWN . . OLIVIA. - MN 56277 ALAN ROBERT WEINGART & MARY E WEINGAlgI~ / 1685 STELLER EXCELSIOR MN 55331 WILLIAM B & 6960 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN C WARD MN 55317 ROGER M & E ELAINE SAMPSON 67 I0 POINTE LAKE LUCY CHANHASSEN MN 55317 REINHOLD & LORRAINE GUTHMILLER 8290 UNION HILL BLVD BELLE PLAINE MN 56011 ALLAN ROBERT & MARY E WEINGAR~I 1685 STELLER CT EXCELSIOR MN 55331 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHER~~ 690 CIT~I~PO BOX 147 C~ASSEN MN 55317 ERIC MICHAEL RIVKIN 1695 STELLER CT EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOHN F & MARIELLEN WALDRON 1900 LAKE LUCY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ALLEN L & BARBARA J FINSTAD 1701 STELLER CT EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JOHN W & MELANIE L GORCZYCA 1850 LAKE LUCY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JUDITH A DIRKS 6 PHEASANT LAWN OLIVIA MN 56277 ALAN K PETERSON 1831 LAKE LUCY LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PRINCE R NELSON 7801 AUDUBON RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MERLE W & DIANE M STEINKRAUS 1800 LAKE LUCY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JERRY REUEL GILL & CYNTHIA MILLER GILL 1760 LAKE LUCY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PATRICK V JOHNSON & MARY C CORDELL 1730 LAKE LUCY LN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 WILLIAM R & PAMELA G ASPLIN 1665 STELLER CT EXCELSIOR MN 55331 PHILIP R THIESSE & KIM B TERNING THIESSE 1675 STELLER CT EXCELSIOR MN 55331 AI-Jaff, Shin ' From: Sent: To: Subject: Tamara Sather [TSather@ edenpr, k12.mn.us] Tuesday, November 20, 2001 10:23 AM saljaff @ ci.ch an h assen, m n. us Proposal Sharmin, Thank you. you please distribute this to the planning commission. The followil residents of Greenwood Shores are strongly opposed to the type of dew proposed west of Lake Lucy and east of Ashling Meadows, request the re-guiding amendment plan for outlot A from residential arge lot to residential low density, be denied for these reasons: 1) The int( 'rity of the land is in jeopardy and the landscape does not lend itself development in an environmentally sound way. 2) The pollution. of trees that would be lost increases light and noise 3) The already ed road encroaches on the delicate wetlands which are lly sensitive. Wetland replacement is not suitable. 4) The out] is a natural buffer for the wetlands and Lake Lucy. 5) The the of homes proposed is too high for this topography, and [on to vegetation is great. 6) It a the objective is to get as many homes in as possible. We are looking [ora development that respects the natural habitat and the integrity the land. If the land ~mendment is granted, then we request: 1) Reducti 1o in the number of homes allowed be considerable! 2) the number of trees to be preserved. 3) Enlarge :he retention pond to ensure proper drainage from runoff. 4) the integrity of the site by keeping grading to a minimum. 5) The ~nd buffer should remain undisturbed. We strongly ?ecommend you table action and allow the developer to meet these ~ndations. Sincerely, Tamara Scott Judy Christi nson Rocky Alice Dick Fowler Heidi Carisc Vernon Hall Gloria Carls n Dale Carlson Bill Lambreci.t JoAnn Lambre, ht PETITION Subject: Lake L~.dy Ridge Proposal by Noecker Develo~.,)aent LLC 12/18/2001 Whereas Outlot A is a legally designated Outlot platted with Lake Lucy Highlands, and is zoned Large Lot Residential in accordance with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan of 2020, Whereas the Comprehensive Plan Policy requires a majority of area residents tO approve rezoning in their area, and this petition represents 100% of Lake Lucy Highlands residents and a 95% majority of Lake Lucy area residents within 100 ft. of the lake, Whereas 40 Lake Lucy area residents with newly built homes and septic systems petitioned the City in July 1990 dudng the Comp Plan Review to leave large sections of land including Lake Lucy Highlands zoned LLR to protect natural amenities around Lake Lucy, Whereas intentions by Merdll Steller and his real estate agent, Klingelhutz Realty, were made known to all 19 buyers of Lake Lucy Highlands that Outlot A was a valuable, attractive natural amenity and so designated on plat maps shown or given to buyers, Whereas area residents feel it is necessary to have a transition area between Ashling Meadows and Lake Lucy Highlands, and to have a preserved forest canopy along the slopes as an important amenity for the area's natural scenery, abundant wildlife, wetland health, and for appreciation and enjoyment for all, Whereas it is practical for the developer and city ordinances can be enforced to protect natural amenities, Sec. 18-60 (d) 'Lots shall be placed to preserve and protect natural amenities such as vegetation, wetlands, steep slopes, water courses, and historic areas," Sec. 18.56 "Proposed subdivisions shall conform to the Comprehensive plan, and zoning ordinances.. · Sec. 18.61 (b) "city policy to preserve natural woodlands and substantial tree stands. "' Sec. 18.61 (d)(1)further Polcy to protect natural amenities where it is practical, Whereas figures exist from secchi disk readings given to the DNR that may show evidence of water quality degradation over the last 10 years from encroaching developments in Lake Lucy's watershed, and additional nutrient loading from this development as proposed may accelerate poorer water quality of Lake Lucy and lakes downstream, Whereas lots under 3/4 of an acre is not consistent with the Lake Lucy area lot sizes within 100 ft of the lake, including those within Lake Lucy Highlands, Pointe Lake Lucy, Whitetail Cove and Greenwood Shores, Whereas it is the developer's stated intention on record to build homes with a value of about 1 million dollars, Therefore, we, We undersigned members of the Lake Lucy Highlands, Lake Lucy Homeowners Assodation, and other Lake Lucy area residents petition the City of Chanhassen the following: 1. Keep Outlot A part of Lake Lucy Highlands, and do not rezone it. 2. Design the City's walking trail primarily along the existing path to minimize tree destruction, with a minimum 20 ft. trail easement outside the wetland, with additional buffer to the wetlands, and a minimum of 6 ft. separation to any lot lines, . 3. Drastically reduce the lot density to 14 as proposed in the attached drawing and increase the size of lots to a minimum of 3/4 acre. 4. Preserve the trees all the way to the top of the ridge line, creating enough clearing in existing open fields for houses, and assure a replanting plan along the ridge to include restoration of any lost trees there. 5. The developer be held responsible, by his design and a regular water quality monitoring and sediment removal plan by City Engineering, to prevent additional nutrient and sediment loading beyond what exists today into natural wetlands. This means measuring what'there is as a basis. 6. Retaining wall materials be natural boulder, not keystone. 7. Vegetation surrounding new ponds and wetlands be wild and native species, not mowed sod. 8. Eliminate fences visible from Lake Lucy Road and locate the trail so it doesnt need a fence, 9. Do not disturb wetland buffers except where new retention ponds are created. 10. Rather than cutting out wetlands on the east side of the entrance to Lake Lucy Rd, create an deeper and bigger open water retention pond at least 6' deep to the west of the road, adjacent to the existing wetland. 11 .Move the road going to PRNelson's property so mature hardwood treestands and natural erosion protection can be preserved if development should ever happen there. 12. Provide covenants which would prevent chainlink fences and removal of mature trees at least along the slopes facing Lake Lucy and Lake Lucy Road 13. The City should not pay for installation of utilities to, and inside, this development. Petitioners Name Address Phone /Z iW~ ~ 151,11 E/Zo qTd ~'Ty-oip -7 Petitionere Name Address , Phone .. · ~'~'7 /' ,. ~ ( ~'-.: ~ /.,, ?7,:.....:,I ~":.-.~ :'. ,t'/ /~' 4 t. / t // Petitioners Name Address Phone q7 cf - _z3~ 3 X I.U (u o (D (D <*6o 0 ~ L"q .~ 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 cI o: / Ctt H SEI 690 Cio' Ce, to' PO Box 147 Cha,hassen. Mi,,esota 52 ~17 Pholl~ 952.93Z 1900 General far 952.93Z5739 Engi, eaqng De~aronen~r 952.~5~9152 Bui[diug De~m'~ne.t~ 952.PM.2524 ~Sb Site MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner FROM: Matt Saam, Asst. City Engineer DATE: January 8, 2002 SUB J: Revised Preliminary Plat Review of Lake Lucy Ridge Project No. 01-03 Upon review of the plans prepared by Mattke Surveying & Engineering dated December 18, 2001, I offer the following comments and recommendations: GRADING Following the 11/20/01 Planning Commission (PC) meeting, staff took a hard look at the previous layout of the plat. Staff attempted to come up with a revised plat layout that would take into account the issues and concerns raised at the PC meeting, i.e. lot size, road alignment, amount of grading. As such, staff proposed the following to the applicant: moving Lucy Ridge Lane to the east, approx. 80-feet, at the intersection of Emerald Lane; moving the Block 1 housepads to the east with the road; deleting Lot-1, Block 1 and Lots 7 & 8, Block 2. Staff believes the major effect of moving Lucy Ridge Lane and the Block 1 housepads to the east is that it will minimize the ~severity of the slope grades along the western property line of the site. This would allow the proposed grading in this area to better match the existing topography. It would also provide additional area for drainage swales along the western side of Block 1. In addition, staff recommends that Lot 1, Block 1 be deleted. The severe rearyard slope and its close proximity to a wetland make this a questionable lot at best. In the past, staff has seen numerous problems with lots such as ' this that have severe rearyard slopes. Inevitably the homebuyer or builder will want to grade in more of a flat backyard area and then issues arise with the filling of the nearby wetland, setback problems due to a retaining wall, or both. The applicant has decided against implementing staff's revisions to the plat. The applicant believes that the grading necessary for the revised street alignment would be more detrimental to the site than what is shown on the current plan. While it is true that moving Lucy Ridge Lane farther to the east would decrease the amount of canopy coverage that is proposed to be - saved. It is staff's opinion that the trade off for better lots in Block 1 and the Sharmin Al-Jarl January 8, 2002 Page 2 possible saving of more significant trees would make for a better development and offset the additional canopy loss. The existing parcel has a wide variety of grade changes within its limits. The site elevations range from a high of 1026+ to a low of 960+. These severe elevation differences combined with a relatively small area (<15-buildable acres) make this site a challenging one to both develop and minimize grading. As such, the developer is proposing to grade the majority of the site. The area for the lots in the western portion of the site is proposed to be cut from 5 to 10 feet while the eastern portion of the site will be filled from 10 to 15 feet for the housepads along the wetland. Steep slopes are proposed along the south and west property lines of the site to match with the existing topography. Small retaining walls (maximum of 4 feet) could be employed along the western side of the lots in Block 1 to increase the area provided for drainage swales. Also, staff recommends that Lots 1-5, Block 3 be designed with more of a usable backyard area. This could be accomplished by revising the grading plan to provide a 10:1 slope for the first 20-feet off the back of the housepads in this area. The applicant is proposing to grade offsite to the west for the construction of Emerald Lane, which will COlmect this proposed development with the Ashling Meadows development. Staff has previously met with the applicant and the Ashling Meadows developer to try and come to some agreement on both the location and elevation of Emerald Lane. Following the lneeting, a mutual compromise was agreed upon for Emerald Lane and the current plan shows this. h~ addition, the Ashling Meadows developer agreed to sign a temporary easement allowing the applicant to grade on Ashling Meadows property. The proposed and existing contours along the common property line within the Ashling Meadows site must be have been shown on the grading plan to ensure that the grading and drainage will xvork. The site contains two existing bluffs; one in the northwest corner and one in the southeast corner of the site. The structure setback from each bluff is 30 feet. This will require that the retaining wall shown on Lot 2, Block 1 be eliminated or moved ~ .... ~° ~" of ' ' of .................. ~ .... e .................... p ............ nc ng The applicant is proposing to grade the entire site at once. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic control plans. Sharmin A1-Jaff January 8, 2002 Page 3 DRAINAGE The majority of the existing site drains from a high point in the southwest comer of the property toward wetlands in the northwesterly and easterly portion of the site. On the drainage plan, the applicant is proposing to collect all of the street and front yard stormwater and transport it to a pond in the north central portion of the site. The pond will treat the stormwater before discharging into the existing wetland. The pond must be has been designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards with 3' 1 side slopes and a 10:1 slope bench below the Pre- and post-development ponding calculations have been submitted for the site. Staff has reviewed the calculations and found that additional infcrmaticn ant revis:~cns only minor modifications are necessary. Staff will work with the applicant's engineer to correct the calculations. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design calculations will need to be submitted. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 1 O-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utilities easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage systeTM including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. EROSION CONTROL Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City's Type 1II erosion control fence, which is a heavy-duty silt fence, be used for the areas adjacent to the existing wetlands. Erosion control matting or wood fiber blankets will be required for the steep, rearyard slopes of those lots in the west and southwesterly portions of the site. In addition, a 75-foot rock construction entrance is required at the site access off of Lake Lucy Road. UTILITIES Currently, there is no public sanitary sewer available to the site. The nearest sewer line is approximately 600 feet west of the site within the Ashling Meadows development. This sanitary sewer will be extended to the Emerald Lane property line with the second phase of the Ashling Meadows development. Staff expects this to happen in the summer of 2002. Additionally, the applicant has previously petitioned the City to extend the sewer as part of a public improvement project. Staff believes that the sewer extension should be a developer driven project, especially when the project is planned within a year. In the absence of the sewer, Sharmin A1-Jaff January 8, 2002 Page 4 the applicant has requested to install the sanitary sewer through the Lake Lucy Ridge site and leave a stub pipe for the Ashling Meadows 2nd Addition development to connect to. Staffhas no objections to this scenario as long as the applicant is aware that no building permits will be allowed until the sanitary sewer is functional. The City's Comprehensive Sewer Plan shows the proposed development and neighboring properties to the east as being serviced within the same sanitary sewer subdistrict. As such, o,~,~°C;~o ............ ,,,,,,_,~,~,,~l,~,'~' ~ ~*,l,,, a .... ;~ ............. ~ o~;,:~, the proposed sanita~ sewer lift station shall be desired to se~e this development and the neighboring prope~ies to the east. ~y oversizing of the sewer forcemain or lift station pumps, beyond what is needed to se~e this development, will be a City cost. Municipal water is available to the site from Lake Lucy Road. The applicant is proposing to connect to the existing water stub and extend watermain ttn'oughout the site. In the future, the watermain from this development will be connected to the watennain from Ashling Meadows 2nd Addition. Staff will perform a more detailed review of the utility layout at the time of final platting. Additional hydrants and/or water valves may be required at that time. The two underlying parcels of this development have each been previously assessed for one water hookup and connection charge. The assessments, however, have not been paid. Staff is recommending that the two previously assessed connection charges, which total ~ ~q~' $8,670 r~aa~ ~,,,,,-,~,-, ~ ....2002 rates), be respread over the -2--2 21 newly created lots. In addition, each newly created lot will be required to pay a sewer and xvater hookup charge of $!,322 $1,383 and ,,,.3 $1,802 ronn~ ~ ....2002 rates), respectively. Since the property is within the Lake Ann sewer district, a sewer interceptor charge of$~,,,~n~ 1 $1,057 and a sub- tru~k charge of $828 $866 will also be due on each lot. The sewer and water lateral connection charges for the new lots will be waived contingent on the developer installing the internal lateral utility lines. All of the above fees are due at the time of building pern~it issuance. Utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition 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 to 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. Sharmin A1-Jaff January 8, 2002 Page 5 STREETS There is one current access available for the site off of Lake Lucy Road. In the near future, the proposed stub street to the west, Emerald Lane, will be extended when Ashling Meadows 2nd Addition develops. This will provide a secondary access to/from the site. In addition, a street access has been provided for future development to the south. OvemP~ Except for the previously mentioned revision to Lucy Ridge Lane, the proposed street layout appears to work well. The entire street system is shown within a 60-foot wide public fight-of-way with 31-foot wide streets. As stated earlier, the site has some major grade changes. Staff has Worked with the applicant to meet the City's maximum allowable street grade of 7%. The horizontal curves at the south end of Lucy Ridge Lane do not meet a 30 m.p.h. design. As such, the curves will have to be posted at a slower speed. In addition, a temporary cul-de-sac turnaround for emergency vehicles will be required at the south end of Lucy Ridge Lane along with a sign stating that the road will be extended in the future. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL . If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic control plans. . . Staff has reviewed the ponding calculations and found that additional ;,,r~,,-,,~,,;...,~.**,.,,~. .... ,.,~ .... ~,~, ~o~,.,,~^*'o only minor modifications are necessary. Staff will work with the applicant's engineer to correct the calculations. . Prior to final platting, storm sewer design calculations will need to be submitted. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 1 O-year, 24- hour storm event. Drainage and utilities easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Sharmin A1-Jaff January 8, 2002 Page 6 o , , , , 10. Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City's Type HI erosion control fence, which is a heavy-duty silt fence, be used for the areas adjacent to the existing wetlands. In addition, tree preservation fencing should be denoted on the grading and drainage plan as well. Erosion control matting or wood fiber blankets will be required for the steep, rearyard slopes of those lots in the north and southwesterly portions of the site. A 75-foot rock construction entrance is required at the site access off of Lake Lucy Road. The two underlying parcels of this development have each been previously assessed for one water hookup and connection charge. The assessments, however, have not been paid. Staff is recommending that the two previously assessed connection charges, which total ~.,,~,..,,,, Q '~ Q~ $8,670 ~,_,_,vr'~ I 2002 rates), be respread over the 24 21 newly created lots. In addition, each newly created lot will be required to pay a sewer and water hookup charge of $!,222 $1,383 and $!,723 $1,802~,,,,,,ronal 2002 rates), respectively. Since the property is within the Lake Ann sewer district, a sewer interceptor charge of$!,,,,r~ 1 $1,057 and a sub-trunk charge of $&24 $866 will also be due on each lot. The sewer and water lateral connection charges for the new lots will be waived contingent on the developer installing the internal lateral utility lines. All of the above fees are due at the time of building permit issuance. Utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition 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 to 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. Increase the amount of platted right-of-way along Lake Lucy Road from 74-feet to 80-feet in width. This is the minimum required right-of-way width for collector streets, such as Lake Lucy Road, in Chanhassen. Submit a separate preliminary utility plan that shows the proposed rim elevations, invert elevations, and pipe sizes for all proposed and existing utility lines. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e., Watershed District, Metropolitan Environmental Service Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Army Corp. of Engineers, Minnesota Department of Natural Sharmin A1-Jaff January 8, 2002 Page 7 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Resources, and comply with their conditions of approval. The applicant shall include a draintile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge from homes not adjacent to ponds or wetlands. The horizontal curves at the south end of Lucy Ridge Lane do not meet a 30 m.p.h, design. As such, the curves will have to be posted at a slower speed. A temporary cul-de-sac turnaround for emergency vehicles will be required at the south end of Lucy Ridge Lane along with a sign stating that the road will be extended in the future. Submit a temporary easement for the proposed offsite grading on Ashling Meadows property. The proposed and existing contours for the Ashling Meadows site must be shown on the grading plan to ensure that the grading and drainage will work. The structure setback from each of the existing bluffs is 30-feet. This will require that the retaining wall shown on Lot 2, Block 1 be eliminated or moved. ~ .... ~ ....., c.~ ,u .... ~ w ~:~:~ The proposed sanita~ sewer lift station shall be desired to se~e this development and the neighboring prope~ies to the east. ~y oversizing of the sewer forcemain or li~ station pumps, beyond what is needed to se~e this development, will be a City cost. Move Lucy Ridge Lane to the east by approximately 80-feet at the intersection of Emerald Lane. 20. 21. Eliminate Lot 1, Block 1. Revise the grading plan as follows: C'l-,,-,,,, ,-.11 ,:,.~;,-+;,-,,~ 1,4--;1;.I-;t~o ;., T .-,.1~ T -,,,-,xr D^o,q ~-,-,~t C) ,A AA o;1, te,~ .... 1,-,,.,,-, ~-h ..... Sharmin A1-Jaff January 8, 2002 Page 8 j IllS d) Revise the contours in the rear yards of Lots 1-3, B1.2 to meet the maximum allowable side slope of 3' 1. 0 Provide a 10:1 slope for 20-feet off the back of the housepads for Lots 1-5, Block 3. Teresa Burgess, Director of Public Works/City Engineer g:\eng\projects\lake lucy ridge\revised ppr.doc ;EN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 20, 2001 ,man Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and gave an introduction to the on how the meeting would proceed. Kind PRESENT: Rich Slagle, LuAnn Sidney, Uli Sacchet, Alison Blackowiak, Bruce Feik, Deb Craig Claybaugh CITY INCIL LIAISON PRESENT: Mayor Linda Jansen PUBLI ;ENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Matt Saam, Project Engineer PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet ilsen 7305 Laredo Drive PUBLI HEARING: ~ER THE REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT A 7.07 ACRE OUTLOT AND 1 .5 ACRE LOT (18.57 ACRES) INTO 22 FAMILY LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT~ LAND USE A1 [ENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL LARGE LOT TO RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY~ ING FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT~ ALTERATION PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF LAKE WEST OF LAKE LUCY AND EAST OF ASHLING MEADOW SUBDIVISION~ AND A LUCY LAKE Public RIDGE~ NOECKER DEVELOPMENT. Address Bill & Lambrecht Gloria Dale Carlson Scott ,nertson Jim Sch Dennis cheppmann Jack & Gorczyca Tamara ;atl~er Eric John & Waldron Tedd ttke Randall 6990 Utica Lane 6900 Utica Lane 6801 Utica Terrace 6800 Utica Terrace 6740 Lakeway Drive 1850 Lake Lucy Road 7090 Utica Lane 1695 Steller Court 1900 Lake Lucy Road Mattke Surveying and Engineering 8315 Pleasant View Drive, Moundsview Sharmi Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. ak: Okay commissioners, do you have any questions of staff? Rich, any? Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Slagle: Sharmin if I may. There's more than just the first two I'm going to mention but as I read through this, what came across to me was a number of things that were not in the plan. And understanding that there were then clarification that this could be worked on, it could be da, da, da, da, da. My simple question is, is there a reason that we can't sit with the applicant and get all of these done and presented to the commission as a, either a complete or an almost complete proposal? As one commissioner I just want to say I don't feel comfortable with as many of these numbers of, and I've only mentioned two, or I could talk about two. I know there's 4 or 5 that we could just have that worked on and then present it again. And Kate you're going to address that it looks like. Aanenson: Sure. We've worked with the applicant. Sharmin has extensively over the last several months to make the changes. Eventually get to the point where it needs to come to a different arena to get those changes made. Slagle: Understand. So maybe it's a question to the applicant. Aanenson: Correct. So I guess that's why we're saying, if you feel like those changes are significant enough that you want to see it again, then it may make sense to table it to see what the changes are but at this point the direction needs to come from the Planning Commission because the staff's taken it to the level they can to get the changes made. Slagle: Fair enough. That's all I have. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. LuAnn? Sidney: Questions for staff. I see that the applicant xvill need to apply for other permits from regulatory agencies such as Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Army Corps of Engineers. What type of permits would those entail? Can you give us any idea of, will they be a show stopper or are these just routine permits? A1-Jaff: These are permits that are required of every project that goes through the city. The wetland alteration will require DNR approval. Watershed, any subdivision that comes through the city would need to receive a watershed permit. Aanenson: Just to add onto that. The Watershed District generally doesn't give approval until the city's given a preliminary approval so this is the first step. Obviously if the other permits are not granted, then that project stops. Sidney: Okay. Do you see any problem with that or any red flags at this point? Aanenson: It has been sent around for comments as part of the original application it has been sent out and those con-wnents that we've received to date are included in your packet. Sidney: Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, Uli. Any questions? Sacchet: Yeah, I have a few questions. I mostly have comments but I would like to clarify a few points at this point. In the staff report it mentions that some mature trees might be saved. That the applicant's making an effort to save those trees. Do we ~ow where they are? Which trees it is? P/anni~ g Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Al-Jarl there ai this is course saved. main al Sacche revisiol to som~ what tl~ What you see highlighted in green is area proposed to be saved. This is a bluff right here and -~ a few trees surrounding it within the 20 foot no touch zone that's being saved. The majority of luff and again you' ve got the 20 foot impact zone that cannot be graded or touched. And of his area. There are a few scattered trees here and there that we questioned whether they can be 3ur experience when you have trees within a front yard, they don't always survive but this is the ~a that is proposed to be saved. Okay. Thanks Sharmin. Then we're talking, you mentioned that too in your summary, that that are required based on the conditions may lead to the loss of some lives or a reconfiguration extent of the plat. Do we have some sort of an understanding how many lots would be less or reconfiguration is? That's totally open at this point? Okay. Then staff report also points out that we[ and mitigation is only about half as much as it should be. Do we have any discussion or idea where ~e other half of the mitigation could be accommodated? Al-Jarl There are different options. Different alternatives that the applicant could pursue. The first, wetland, are required to be replaced at a ratio of 2 to 1. The first one of the two has to be a wetland. The second! ne of the two will have, can be, let me point to that one. And this is based upon the Wetland Conser 'ation Act. For instance, this storm pond, 75% of the storm pond could be calculated as wetland replace nent. Another option would be to provide a 16 ½ foot wetland buffer around the replacement section: so again there are different options that the applicant could pursue. Sacchei But they haven't been clarified at this point? Al-Jarl No. We haven't, and again. Looking at it we think it's doable but we don't know how it will be done y. Sacche And then with the trees, I was a little confused about the numbers in the staff report. In one place il ;ays the minimum coverage, canopy coverage allowed is 30% and then on the next page it says it's 35~. Is there, like if you look on page 11 it says minimum canopy coverage allowed is 30% and then on pagal~ 12, in the second block of their information it says minimum canopy coverage allowed is 35. Okay. In our opinion we looked at some aerial photos and we believe that there may be more trees ~n is shown on the plans. Based upon your existing canopy, that percentage changes. Then that also changes the number of trees to be planted from 117 to 1557 Correct. Sacche So we still have, would have to determine which one is actually accurate then? Correct. That So that's an open ended thing too still. And then my final question is actually 2 questions. is considered environmentally sensitive, correct? Yes. Sacche Reasonably so. Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 A1-Jaff: You've got the wetlands, the natural wetland and bluffs. Sacchet: Is the alignment of the road, does it follow somewhat the natural contours or is just plowed in there? AI-Jaff: If you follow contours, there's potential that you may lose some lots. Sacchet: Okay, that answers the question. Thank you. That's all my questions. Blackowiak: Thanks. Bruce, any questions? Feik: Yeah, I had one. If all the regulations regarding the retaining walls and the walking paths, and then all the necessary setbacks and the buffer zones were imposed, how many lots specifically if you know that, are in jeopardy? If you were to take the map that we just saw and overlay exact, and forced the retaining walls and the walkways to conform to the codes, how many lots would be in jeopardy? .A1-Jaff: You can reconfigure things. Feik: I'm just, as configured. Aanenson: I don't think, we've worked this so many different ways and I guess we're uncomfortable saying that. Feik: I guess where I'm leading to is if those were to be enforced, does the plan in it's entirety materially change? In which case we would be looking at a very different project. I don't know. I'm trying to, I look at the one sidewalk which goes along the entire east side and the retaining wall on the second lot coming from the north side, and I'm trying to understand how much of this project. .Aanenson: This one? Feik: Yes. How much of this project is in jeopardy if those buffers and codes are enforced? Aanenson: Well if you look at the one I just pointed to, that may be one lot that needs to be combined. Feik: And that's the only one that. Aanenson: Well I'm not sure. We're not sure what the implications of moving the trail out would be and how much things shift so, it could be another 1 or 2 possibly. Feik: Okay. I was just wondering if the plan would materially change. In which case we would want to see it again. The public may want to see it again. Aanenson: The applicant may be able to answer that more specifically too, yeah. Feik: That's my big question for now, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay. Deb, any questions from you? P~annk, Kind: landlocl A14aff: Kind: Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 iadam Chair. The Lake Lucy Highlands, the large lot portion of this parcel is currently ed, is that correct? That's a fair statement. the only access to it really is this access point up here, and if that was to be developed in the future Okay. this cm this mu Aanens project.~ Kind: l the trad no trade A1-Jaff: of the tr~ landsca Kind: Aanens( A14aff: Kind: lu would need to get some sort of cross access agreement or something like that. An easement. et me see what else I have. Oh! The grading is quite extensive on here. I was wondering how pares to other subdivisions that we've approved recently. Does any come to mind that has had h grading? n: Yes, this has some other encumbrances with it, wetlands and trees but yes. We've got other that do to make it work. he only one I could think of would be maybe the Pulte project which has extensive grading but off there was that we were preserving a lot of open space and that sort of thing but there's really off here for this grading. Ashling Meadow to tile west of this site had some grading on it as well. The vegetation, many es were moved from one area to the other. That site, the Ashling Meadows site was initially a business. But again a lot of the trees were moved from one area to the other. 'hat was tile net density of Ashling Meadows? Do you remember? a: I think the average lot size was a little bigger. Yeah. The average lot size in that subdivision was around 18. 'ell that's what it is here too though. Al-Jeff: II don't recall, I'm sorry. I · . Kind: (l(ay. On Lot 1, Block 3, this is the lot right next to the one that's too narrow. That one also appears o me to be too narrow and I'm wondering if the calculations are based on it being on a curve. Alqaff: Yes. Kind: to me that curve seems pretty much of a joke. To be calling that a curve. I mean isn't it reasonal [e to require the frontage to be 90 feet on something like that? Aanenst l: ...by sliding different lot lines. Al-Jeff: Kind: the new on the t~ assume e already talked about the wetlands. Where would they go? Oh, the retaining wall by the pond, created retention pond, what is the height of that? I tried to, I think my calculations, just based ~ographical map here, plat, shows the trail at 968 and then the wetland is at 960 so am I to 's about an 8 foot wall? Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Saam: Yeah, 8 to 9 feet. Kind: Okay. And that is higher than our 4 foot requirement so that they would need to be engineered. Saam: Exactly. Kind: Yeah. And we've got a condition about that. I was just curious what the height was because the chain link fence that is being proposed to be at the top of it, is that a city requirement or is that? Saam: Yes, I believe where pedestrians could potentially harm themselves so where it's shown along a trail, I believe that is a building department requirement. Kind: So if the trail moves then that chain link fence at the top of that retaining wall would not be necessary. Saam: Exactly, yep. Kind: And do we 'know what the material for the retaining wall is proposed to be? Saam: No. I'd suggest that you ask the applicant. Kind: I will. The utilities on page 9 of the staff report it talks about, there's no public sanitary sewer available to the site so could a case be made that this development is premature? Saam: It could be. As I stated in the staff report, we have received an application, or a petition I should say from the applicant to extend sewer to his site as a public improvement project. It has received council approval for the feasibility stage so we've been approved to go out and have a feasibility study done on doing that. One of the conditions of that approval was that this preliminary plat be brought before the Planning Commission. Have a public hearing heard on it so we're still wor 'king with the applicant on the sewer issue as I refer to in the staff report. Kind: Thank you. One piece I could not find in my packet was a lighting plan. Is that proposed? AI-Jaff: We've added a condition. Aanenson: Three conditions. A1-Jaff: Three conditions actually. I put them in front of you and I'm sorry I did not mention them earlier. We've added 3 conditions. First one, remove retaining wall from the right-of-way. Kind: On the back of that? Sorry, sorry. Here we go. AI-Jaff: Located north of Lot 8, Block 3. I'll point to it. There's a retaining wall proposed within the right-of-way. Staff is reconm~ending it be removed. There's an existing house on the site as well as accessory structures, they need to be shown on the plan. And then street lights shall be located at all intersections and at the end of the cul-de-sac. Kind: Okay. And I'm assuming it shall comply with our rules as far as 90 degree cut off? Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Correct. If I may, an earlier question was the average lot size for Ashling Meadow. I said 18,000 It's actually 28,000. Kind: id the reason for the bigger lots in Ashling Meadows is to accommodate 3 car garages or? Most developments have, what we see is typically a 3 car garage and the type of home that they design [uires the additional width, additional depth on the lots. Kind: ;o is it safe to assume that the developers for this project is envisioning a different type of home than at would be in Ashling Meadows? Aanen in: Well the ordinance requires a 60 x 60 pad. That's what they have to show and if it meets that then it demonstrated to be a lot. It meets the 15,000. Kind: iotch ya. The horizontal curves on the south end of Lake, let's see. Of Lucy Ridge Lane, with the sh~ curve that would need to be posted at a lower speed. I've never seen that in a staff report before .hat we allow having a slower speed area. Saam: If you remember Marsh Glen, that development just north of Mission Hills. As you come into it, there' a sharp curve there. I believe we had a sign posted there. That's the only one that comes to mind. We w post it 25 probably. Kind: we do allow it? Saam: Yes. Kind: 11, they're talking about trails. The trail that goes along the wetland. There's really no good way access that trail on the south side of this development. I'm assuming that there will be in the future f the parcel to the south develops. If you look at this area, you truly have some steep slopes. So there isn't a logical place to connection, but as it extends in the future, most probably. Yes there will be. Kind: the comp plan it shows further south that there would be a future trail. Okay. And then I'm that based on the land cost that none of these lots would meet affordable criteria for owner occup] ~,d homes, which our comp plan calls for I believe it' s 30% of owner occupied, yeah. Aane~ ;on: No. Kind: So that would need to be made up in a multi-family development somewhere else. And there's one ol ~er quick question. Condition number 20 on page 18 talks about discharge and having a drain tile behind the curbs. That's the first time I've seen that in a staff report. Saam: 'hat's standard, yep. In all the low points within streets under the curbs we require. Kind: Is it normally on the builder's plans and that's why I've never seen it as a condition before? Saam:I Yeah, it may not have been shown on a preliminary plat before but we require it on the final plat. We lsider it a minor detail so. Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Kind: I think it's great, I just never saw it before on any others. And that's all. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Craig, do you have any questions at this time? Claybaugh: Yes I do. I'd like to come back and revisit the statement that you've been working with the developer for probably a little better than a year. It seems like there's quite a number of outstanding issues after 12 months of negotiation and dialogue to be coming in front of us right now. That's a substantial concern. Question for engineering. The storm water calc's, any concern that those aren't forth coming yet? Saam: We've received some pond calculations. However they do not meet the NURP criteria which we require in town. That's why I said we'll require additional storm water calc's. I have no reason to believe that we won't obtain those. Claybaugh. It seems like there's a lot of smaller items or things being portrayed as smaller issues that by the sheer quantity of then have the ability to greatly affect the overall layout of the subdivision. You've got substantial calc's for the NURP pond. I don't know how that affects in terms of the size of the retention pond. Saam: That could potentially be a major issue. Claybaugh- You've got a number of buffer areas that potentially are going to encroach on the lots. The fact that they've been in negotiation for over a year, I'm assuming, tell me if I'm assuming incorrectly that this has been revised and tile number of lots have come down since the original plans have come into the city or is this pretty sim/lar to what came in the door the first go around? A1-Jaff: Initially. when we met with the applicant, and I have to go through some paperwork to find when we started this process...not part of this development. And then at a later point the applicant acquired this Outlot A. But it's always been 22. Claybaugh: It has always been 22? I was just wondering from the development cost standpoint divided by the number of lots how they're being affected there. Has the forester been out to take a look at the property? Aanenson: (Yes). Claybaugh: Okay. Most the questions have been asked. I'd just like to reiterate the concern that this amount of time has passed and there's still quite a few issues outstanding yet that should be incorporated at this point in my opinion in the preliminary. Blackowiak: Okay. And I don't think I have too many additional questions. Wetland replacement sheets. We don't have sheets yet. I still haven't seen anything tonight, okay. And you said the forester had been out to the site so the numbers that are in here, the staff numbers are her numbers? She's comfortable with them? · Aanenson: That's her recommendation. Planni~ Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 any s ak: Her recommendation, okay. And how bout the Water Resources Coordinator? I didn't see :ific I guess conditions from her. That had her name on them I guess. They're under the wetland alteration. Blackc Okay. Are those all. Page 22 and they came out a, b, c, d through i. Okay, so those are all from her? From Lori? Yes. Blacko ~iak: Okay. Okay, that's it. Those are the questions I have at this point. Uli. May I add one more question? Blacko /iak: Sure. We've got a couple more here. Uli, go ahead. Sacche trees ai Real quick. The grading is relatively extensive. Now you pointed out those areas where the to be preserved as part of this color green on the drawing up on the table. There is no in those areas that are colored green? Not according to the grading plan. Okay, because I had a little hard time with the grading plan has so much on it. It was really hard fo me to decipher where the grading takes place. So as far as your understanding there's no in those areas? Not according to the plans that were submitted. Okay, that's my question. Thank you. Blacko ,iak: Okay Rich, do you have another question? Slagle: ...question Chairman. Since the applicant made their original intent known to staff, how many plans h ve you seen? I mean is a lot or are we looking at just a few? 4 or 5. I would have to go through the file. Slagle: the reason I'm asking is, per Craig's question you stated that it stayed at 22 basically from the ons t. Number of sites. Slagle: When we first met with the applicant Outlot A was not part of it. understand. I got that part. At that point I believe the number of lots were 17. Planning Commission Meeting -November 20, 2001 Slagle: Okay, so Outlot, that addition of land in addition to Outlot A is that it's added 5? A14aff: Yeah. Slagle: Okay. Since that point, what I'm trying to gauge is what kind of conversations and communications and let' s just call it partnering has happened since that point, and I need your viewpoint as well because we're going to ask the applicant that, and I think it's fair to hear both sides. Aanenson: Okay. I think our staff report speaks to what we believe is to make it work. Okay, and we've laid those out in conditions that we say the retaining walls have to come out. We need better storm water calc's. Looking at if those things can be addressed then we believe we have a site plan that meets city ordinance. What the implications of those, we're not all sure yet. I think if we listen to the applicant's presentation they may be able to address those but if we can, if these changes were incorporated into the plan, the subdivision, then we would have a project that meets city ordinance. Slagle: Okay. Blackowiak: Thank you. Now would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? If so, please come up to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Randy Noecker: My name is Randy Noecker. Blackowiak: Excuse me, do you want to just grab the microphone and so we can all hear. Thank you. Randy Noecker: My name is Randy Noecker and I live at 8315 Pleasant View Drive in Moundsview, Minnesota and I am the applicant. I'm going to be highlighting a number of things about the plan and then for more detail I'm going to introduce my engineer, Tedd Mattke...in this process. To begin with let me make a few general comments. One of them being that this is a, has been a very' complex site and because of it's nature, basically rising about, I think it's 59 or 60 feet above Lake Lucy Road, it makes it extremely difficult to develop. And we've brought revisions to the staff on numerous occasions, like Sharmin indicates, and I' ve had several conversations with Teresa and other staff members concerning this site. Some of the main issues that we ran into were road alignment because initially before we even brought a concept plan to the city we had looked at 'a different road alignment but it just caused such a' hug amount of tree loss that we basically stuck with the plan that we' ve had, and although there is a significant amount of tree loss on this site, we've tried to minimize it as much as possible given the conditions that we' ve been working with on the huge topography changes. Also we' ve had one of the things that I approached, I live on a street that has teenagers and I'm the ninth house in on the street and it's nothing for teenagers in my community to be hitting 50 miles an hour before they get to the stop sign. And with a, we basically are maxed out at a 7% grade on this site to make things work and we even then couldn't achieve the desired flatness of the close to stop signs that we would like to have achieved. And so I approached Matt one day and I said hey, would it be possible that we minimize these curves somewhat because it will help slow down traffic. And if you've got a 700 foot run at the top of that hill down to the stop sign, dime to donuts somebody's going to go sliding through that stop sign in the wintertime so that's one of the, I know one of the comments were made about those curves and that was why we had done that. The other thing also is we had looked at, in one of the, in some of the previous plans we had looked at bringing the trail up through the cul-de-sac and trying to minimize the impact on the wetlands. So the trail and the associated home ownership of the people that were living there by having that trail come up through the cul-de-sac. Todd Hoffman indicated that that just was something flint they would prefer not to see. They'd like to keep the trail along the wetlands. And in so doing it's, I0 Plannit maybe] develol~ about ff you will Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 :an summarize this a little bit by saying, if you check my track history you'll find that my nents are a little bit above neighboring developments if you will, and I'm somewhat particular land that I purchase and in so doing, try to achieve and create developments that are upscale if And I've already met with several builders for this development. Charles Cudd and just a number ,f them without naming a whole bunch of names, but they are very interested in acquiring this propert21, or acquiring the lots in the property and would be building homes probably in the 700 plus range. [tnd there has been discussions about havin, g a model at 1.1 with one of the builders. So it's a very hitla caliber neighborhood if you will and we re very, we tried to save as many trees as we possibly could. ]ge originally identified that we had about 98 trees to replace and I made a proposal that we put in 114 anclthen calculations that Sharmin has come up with is different than what we had. One of the, and I'm not ;aying that it's even my engineer or Sharmin is off but I will say this. One of the problems in looking it aerial topography is that when you do that you pick up shadows of trees instead of the trees themsel 'es and sometimes you calculate different amounts than you would really if you did not look at the of the trees. So this may or may not be a problem at this point, I don't know but whatever the ca: we're in agreement to conform to what we need to to achieve this development. I've literally iy got it all sold out before it's even built. There's a high demand for this area. There will be many b~ lots overlooking the lake and be able to have that many beautiful homes associated therewi ~. I' m going to let Tedd go into a little bit more detail here on the plan. And feel free if you have an questions now or later if you'd like to ask me and glad to answer. Blackox iak: I think we'll hear the entire presentation and then maybe we'll call you back up if that's alright. Randy oecker: Alright. Tedd Mi ttke: My name is Tedd Mattke. Mattke Surveying and Engineering. There are I think 3 parts that we robably should talk about. The reason why we don't have the buffer that we're supposed to have along wetland is that we didn't understand what we were required to do. What we have shown is an 8 foot bituminous trail that's right along the side of the property lines of the lots that would be created nd then between the bituminous trail and the wetland we're showing something in the ranges betw~ 10 feet and about 50 feet that we thought was considered buffer. We now understand that the is that there be a 20 foot trail easement that does not count as the buffer and that the trail is su to go down the middle of'that and apparently the city is going to be mowing it or something like both sides and then the buffer is outside of that. So in order to create the trail according to the requ we will have to lose a lot, 1 lot from those 6 lots that are facing towards the wetland on the east.We looked at that earlier and that's the number that we come up with in order to have the area that s the city requirements there. As far as the wetland mitigation, we're showing wetland mitigatk in the northwest corner of the site. We can also provide the public value credits with the pond and the uffer area. So as far as how you want to designate that, which part goes to achieve the wetland mitigati,public value credits, we're going to have more than what we need with this project as it is right no'and with the trail we'll have even more beyond what is required. As far as the pond sizing goes, meet, in my opinion, meet the NURP size requirements but we don't have the 10 foot bench in there ight now and that's a requirement but that would increase the size of the pond in the, also be using some of that area of that lot that we're going to lose so we're going to end up with a project here that's lots, not 22 and we can accommodate the requirements for the NURP requirements and also the trail setl tck requirements for the buffer along side the wetland as we now understand it to be. Discuss ~n about the trees is I guess the other issue. The shading that you see on there that shows trees, a lot of th~ se trees are buckthorn and box elder and small 3 inch, 2 inch diameter trees that provide canopy right no~ but they're not significant trees and there's a lot of open space on that site too. And a majority 11 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 of our grading is in that open space and taking out those small trees and then we have to replace them. Randy pointed out that in looking at the aerial photos you may over judge the area that is canopy based on shadows and so forth. We had discussions at the time of what we were supposed to include as canopy and some of the discussion included, well do you want the little brushy trees? The willows that are down next to the wetland and so forth, are they supposed to count? And our understanding was that they weren't supposed to count but if the forester wants to count them, Randy's willing to accept that too. It's not a deal breaker I guess. Nothing in this project is a deal breaker. We'd been working with staffas Sharmin has said, and Randy has noted also and we're willing to continue to do that to meet these latest things that staff has come up with. I point out that this is the first real full scale review we've had because in the past we've been dealing with issues such as will you allow a steeper grade than 7% to save some more trees? And it was decided by staff, no we want to stick to 7%. The question came up about those retaining walls. The retaining walls are far enough away from the pads right now that we can move them so that, and meet the 30 foot setback. We didn't understand that the retaining walls were considered structures when it came to the setback from the wetland buffer. So it's another misunderstanding on our part and we'll just move them. The reason we have a retaining wall shown right now, I believe it's shown on the edge of the right-of-way rather than in the right-of-way. If it's shown in the right-of-way, then it has to be moved or eliminated and the reason for that retaining wall is to save a large white pine. As far as grades go, this site is, I don't think it's that difficult a site other than you've got a lot of topography going across it and so you have to make fiat areas for the pads and staff takes a conservative view in calculating what we're losing in terms of trees by saying that anything that's within, I think she said I0 feet Sharmin, of the pad area we considered as a lost tree? A1-Jaff: What we've done in the past is looked at 20 feet. Based upon our experience those are the trees that typically get removed. Tedd Mattke: Okay, so we accept that calculation. It's our intent when we go out on the site and begin grading to try to save more than that. We don't get credit for those that we save but it's our intent to save them and let the homeowners take them out if they have to. After they see how their house sits on a lot, so this is a worst case scenario that you're looking at in terms of the trees that will be lost. One final thing I guess is that the Lake Lucy has riparian rights and the initial intent was to try to get a couple lots that could have lake frontage and docks and so forth and the city wants to have a trail that goes along the wetlands. They didn't want the trail to go up to the cul-de-sac. They wanted the trail down along the lake and so the city acquires those riparian rights which are significantly valuable, let's put it that way. And so the public gets to use that trail and if there's a dock or something put in there, down there on that southeast comer, it's a public dock. It's not a dock that is owned by the person on the last lot down there. I think there's been, and one final thing I guess. In crossing the wetland on the north end where, we're filling above the area of a house, about 4,000 square feet, and it's a requirement that we go out to Lake Lucy Road by the city. We have to go out there and that's the only place we can cross without filling more than 4,000 square feet so we're doing the minimum, or holding it to a minimum that we can and we're trying to do it in a way that the city wants us to do it. And now I guess, unless Randy has something more to add, I'm done. Blackowiak: Okay. Mr. Noecker, do you have anything else you'd like to add right now? Randy Noecker: Not right now unless you have any questions. Blackowiak: No. Well why don't xve start with Mr. Mattke then. Any questions, engineering type I'm assuming. If anybody has any. 12 Plannin Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Slagle: questim Slagle: ust a couple questions. Randy mentioned that there was an alternative route you looked at. iak: Say Rick, can we just leave him up there. We'll do, for Mr. Mattke the engineering first. think he can answer it but Randy's the one that mentioned it. ak: Okay. Slagle: 'here was an alternative route that you guys discussed that you looked at first. My question is where that have gone? Tedd tttke: The city indicated they wanted a road that went around the wetland and Randy indicated that he ,ould like it to come up to the cul-de-sac and follow. Slagle: road. Tedd ttke: The road? Slagle: Tedd We had, one of our originally...a road coming like straight across. Slagle: that road that goes into Ashling Meadows? The road. Tedd ttke: Correct. And staff didn't like that. Staff decided that it would be better to have a T intersecl ion here. Make this one come through with the curves. We also considered having a cul-de-sac here. It desired that this road continue on through. We didn't want to get into the bluffs so there's been sh back and forth here in this way to avoid the trees and to hold the houses back away from the signific, trees. There's been shifting of the road in through here and curving of the road to avoid the significi trees that are in here and that make the grades work and still avoid the bluff and have buildabl lots in there. This road here has had some shifting in through here. In the end it's been pulled back as result of comments and to avoid the bluff and a number of things. To basically fine tuning this thing as as we could go so. We've been, there's only one way really to develop this property in the manner hat is being proposed and that's like it's shown right here. If you want to achieve the things that the wants to achieve and Randy wants to achieve. Slagle: ,. Feik: iak: Sorry Rich. I just want us to keep one up at a time. Any other questions for him? No? engineering. ak: No engineering. Deb? Kind: Madam Chair. Is Sharmin's recollection that before Outlot A was included that there were about 1 lots and that the addition of Outlot A allowed the addition of 5? 13 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Tedd Mattke: I wasn't involved in it at that time so I couldn't comment on what happened back before Outlot A was added. Kind: I'll ask when Randy's back up there. Blackowiak: Okay. Kind: Yeah, that's it. Blackowiak: Okay, any engineering questions? Claybaugh: Yeah I had one question. The alignment for the proposed road off Lake Lucy, how consistent is that with the existing drive that's there now serving the property? Tedd Mattke: It's pretty much laying right over the top of it. Claybaugh: . Okay. So there's no, that's already substantially degraded in that area so, okay. That was my only question. Blackowiak: Okay. Thank you. And I don't have any questions of you right now, thanks. Your turn. Alright, questions of the applicant. Rich, go ahead. Slagle: Randy you had mentioned that you had developments that you've done before. Just a couple examples of those just for my own frame of mind. Randy Noecker: Eden Prairie, Mitchell Bay Townhomes. Foxbriar Ridge in Maple Grove. Wildwood Village in Blaine. Goodview Ridge in Wyoming, which is a couple miles north of Forest Lake. Slagle: Okay. Randy Noecker: And I've got some preliminary stuff on 80 acres in Shakopee and I have another 20 house, 20 townhome house development unnamed in Blaine that's going on, and another 10 acre parcel in Blaine. Slagle: Okay. That's all for right now. Blackowiak: Okay. Questions Uli, questions? Sacchet: Yes, one question from the applicant. I'm very perplexed about this, I have to admit. How can you fit a million dollar house on a 15,000 square foot lot please? Randy Noecker: I should probably have Charles Cudd here. From a square footage perspective it's very easy. The ones, some of the requirements inside my development are 3 car garages. I am debating between requiring a 10:12 pitch on all roof lines, but I think I'm going to go back to 8:12. In previous developments I required ramblers to be at 6:12 and 2 stories, especially gables that face the street to be 8:12 or higher. In a development like this you're going to see a lot of 10:12's and 12:12 pitch roofs. Then you'll have, it will almost, I have about 25 residents from Chanhassen that are waiting for this approval because I have one advantage that other developers may or may not have. I can sell a lot to a private party and they can use their own builder and there's a fair number of people that don't want to 14 Planni~ Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 build don't I have less th: th the national builders if you will because they force you to build with them on their land so I tild with sticks. I create developments and put in the infrastructure and sell the lots and it's not a, with almost 2 handfuls of builders and not one of them has talked about putting a model up 700. On the 15,000 square feet roughly? Randy to abm how imperv 'oecker: Yeah. Most of the time, you're basically not going to have any problem when you get 16,000 square feet. You may have a little problem depending on the width of the sidewalk and blacktop they want to put in, and maybe the size of the patio in the back, but you're, the area does create a factor because you've got that 25% rule here in Chanhassen. Okay. I'll have comments. ,iak: Okay. Any questions Bruce? Feik: Have you read the staff report yourself? Randy I've glanced through it. I did not have a chance to read it in detail. Feik: ret you read each and every one of the staff recommendations for approval that would be for approval? Randy No. Feik: uess I'm wondering from your perspective then, based upon staff's recommendations, how doable hose recommendations are and to what degree it would change the project. But if you haven't d them. Randy :ker: I kind of handed the football off to Tedd and when I delivered the comments to him and I said over this and let me know where we are in detail and he's basically indicated to me that we are, becaus of the increase in the pond and the trail issues that we would likely lose 1 lot. It's based on what the otb r comments are in the staff report that I saw and that he commented on, it doesn't appear that we're to lose more than 1 lot. I may be wrong on that but. Aanen Can staff comment on that? Feik: lease. Aanen Just to make sure something's not being misrepresented, because we've been trying to articul~ te this over the last couple of months. The trail impact issue. I'm not sure the engineer still has the set ack correct. We're not sure that only 1 lot is going to solve that problem. Feik: ikay. Aanen throug this poi ,n: And he's still not interpreting it correctly, although we've been trying over several months written correspondence documented to explain to him what the setback is. That's why we're at tonight. 15 Planning Commission Meeting- November 20, 2001 Feik: Thank you. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay. Deb, any questions? Kind: Yes. The retaining wall near the entrance, what's the proposed material for that and did I calculate the height right at about 8 feet? Randy Noecker: I thought it was about 6 but maybe it is higher than that. And the material would be Keystone more than likely. Kind: And if the trail is moved to be not along that retaining wall, I'm assuming the chainlink fence would go away? That's on top of that retaining wall. Randy Noecker: I don't know about that for certain. I would, depending on the situation. I assume the premise that the city doesn't want kids playing in the wetlands so I kind of assume that nobody should be there but there is a safety issue involved that we'd have to look at you know and if in fact the wall is 8 or 9 feet high, I think just for sheer safety issues I would have some kind offence up there. Kind: Even if there is no trail? Randy Noecker: Yeah. You'd have to think of public safety. Kind: Okay. I guess that's it. Blackowiak: Okay. Craig do you have any questions for the applicant? Claybaugh: Yeah I did. You commented on some of the previous subdivisions you've done. Do you typically do infill type subdivisions? Is that what you'd considered your hitch or? Randy Noecker: I guess I don't sense it that way. I'm real sensitive about the parcel that I acquire. I look at it in detail. This one here I happened to pick up in 1996 under an option agreement and I currently am the fee owner on Outlot A. Claybaugh: I guess I'd like you to try and comment if you can, I understand it may be difficult about some of the miscommunications that seem to have taken place between the correspondence and yourself and your representative over the course of the last year, and if you can, go ahead. Randy Noecker: I don't know if it's, let me say that every community does things a little bit differently. Tedd has been with me for a number of projects and we are used to, and that's our fault. Don't misunderstand what I'm saying but we're used' to putting a plan into the city and then in a short time thereafter we get comments and we revise those plans and then it goes onto a first planning commission so we have an opportunity to get, I say clean up the plan, but the city of Chanhassen chooses to do it without that step in it. And so when I sensed that I ended up having 1 or 2 more plans submissions trying to get comments from the staff as much as possible. But seeing that they preferred to do the methodology in this fashion we ended up submitting as best we could based on the conditions that we understand and from there we're basically getting our first full blown report back. We haven't had that opportunity to get that back before. Aanenson: May I comment on that? 16 Plann Black Aanei Engin~ will n~ the de have numer of inte explaii Black( Aanen factors When: Black: Clayb~ Kind: ~g Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 wiak: Certainly, go ahead Kate. ;on: I think we've given them written comments. We've met with them numerous times. ering, the forester, the wetland to try to give them direction. It wasn't a complete application. We bring a project to you until it's a complete application. And whether it does or doesn't meet all gn things, often the applicant's looking for a recommendation of approval to go forward so we have at least a subdivision that's close to meeting it. Again, even looking at this, with the lus numbers of modifications that we're recommending, you can see that there's some differences >retation of the city ordinances. And how they impact. Although we have tried diligently to that. I'm not sure it's been communicated what those standards are. wiak: Okay, thank you. on: And again it's complex because of the slopes, the trees, the wetlands. Those are limiting that affect the layout and that's what we're trying to work on. What the city ordinances are. the Park and Rec wants the trail, which they direct and those sort of things. ~viak: Yeah, thank you. Craig, any other questions? ~gh: No. vIadam Chair, I forgot to ask my question about the before Outlot A and after Outlot A, how many more li ts were you able to work into your plan? Randy Xloecker: In my original plan that I, my concept plan that I put together prior to acquiring Outlot A, and might add without even contacting the city other than the only 2 factors that I knew were that you ne ted to have a 90 foot frontage and you needed to have 15,000 square feet and I just went offofa blow-t~p on a half section map and I acquired I think 21 or 22 lots there. Then I acquired the 6 or 7 acre parcel Iff Outlot A, which only has about an acre, acre and a half buildable, but by acquiring that Outlot A I wa~ then able to basically put in a cul-de-sac, which I really wanted to do from the beginning, and I had ne otiated for several years on Outlot A but was unsuccessful until recently. Kind: ;o in your opinion Outlot A did not allow you to add any more lots? Randy No. Aanen! he went We would concur with that. I think his objective has always been to try to get 22 lots. But as when he came in he ignored the topography, the wetland issues and that sort of thing. He just th the minimum lot requirements. Kind: thank you. Thanks. Okay, and at this point I don't have any questions of the applicant so what I will do, un ss anybody has more questions, I will open the public hearing. This is a time when public can get up and comments on this project, so step up to the microphone. State your name and address for the rec rd please and like I said, we may ask a question or two so we fully understand your concerns but feel to come up to the microphone. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Tamara Sather: My name is Tamara Sather. I live at 7090 Utica Lane, and I'm representing for the members of Greenwood Shores and I have read this report several times myself since getting it last Friday and I guess a red flag came up to me immediately with the amount of recommendations that are still not met after months and months since this proposal has been made. And I think that we feel the main goal here, if you read my e-mail that I sent out today, is that it appears the objective is to get as many homes in as is possible and the topography of this land, as the applicant stated himself, this land is laid out in such a way that it is difficult to develop and I think that screams in itself to keep it's integrity as it is. And the amount of trees that are on the lots aren't as numerous. I' walked back there last weekend. It's a beautiful site and I think that the amount of trees that will be lost is significant and will increase light and noise pollution and the amount of lots is just too great. The amount of vegetation loss is too great, so I think we would like the request for large lot residential to low density be denied to preserve the integrity of that land and perhaps limit the amount of lots that we could be developed. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. And Sharrnin, can I just ask that a copy of this go to the council in the packet when this does move forward. Okay, thank you. John Waldron: Hi. My name is John Waldron. I live at 1900 Lake Lucy Road, just to the west and on the north side of Lake Lucy. When I went through the report from staff I thought it'd be awful hard to...whole lot of public comment because if you make all these changes or recommendations that it calls for in here, I don't think this is all going to look the same way. And so it's kind of hard to say and give a comment on what the end result's going to end up looking like so I would hope that you...table it this evening and have it re-worked and brought back. And the other thing is when I look at the plat I have a visual of coming down Lake Lucy Road going to the west and right now you see lots of trees and some big white pine and a lot of more wooded areas...coming down Lake Lucy Road and now if you come around that curve, right where you see this property, you could end up seeing this 8-9 foot retaining wall right in the middle of the wetlands. Then you're going to have a 6 foot chainlink fence right on top of it, and with the amount of grading that you've got from one side of this parcel to the other, I think we've got about 66 feet and so it's getting scraped off one side'and pushed over on the other side and I think it's in, I guess this is Block 1, Lot 1 over here. If I look right it's about 18 feet. Probably mitigated wetland up to the pad and so that's awful darn steep in my book for having a house sitting right out there. So you're going to have not only this retaining wall and a chainlink fence sitting right there as you drive down Lake Lucy Road. You're going to have a couple of these houses sitting right out there that's going to be right on tile edge of a steep bluff and the amount of grading that's going to happen in there, you'll have a hard time seeing how you're going to save a whole lot of trees so. So I would ask that the city end up having tile plat, something at least all tile different buffers for the slopes and wetlands. And I'm not against somebody developing the site but I think ...development this drastic that having any trees saved is such a hard thing to do. Plus the fact, on small lots like that, homeowners have lots of choices and the house they buy and I heard the number for some of the lots of $300,000 for a lot. Well you can usually figure that the lot's 25% of the price of the house. That's a million 2 house and there's a lot of people, there are a lot of places somebody can go to get a million 2 house rather than on this size lot with possibly only a 2 car garage so my request would be that, you have...and have it fit into the area it is and save as many trees as you can. And table it for now, bring it back so we can give public comment on what something's really going to look like. The way it's actually going to be built. Thanks. Blackowiak: Thank you. Dale Carlson: Hi. I'm Dale Carlson, 6900 Utica Lane. Certainly there's a lot of things that disturb me about this, having lived on Lake Lucy for 30 years. But I guess a couple of questions I have and I don't know if you can answer them necessarily for me but they're questions. When we moved there, all that 18 Planni~ Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 around Lake Lucy was in fact zoned as residential large lot. Why do we bother doing this someti~ if all we're going to do is turn it into residential low density? When we bought out there we 'thoughI our lots were going to be good sized and now somebody comes along and says I can't develop this and make 10 million dollars off of it so you've got to make it low density so I can develop. I don't tnderstand. I'm confused about that. Secondly is that, if I'm understanding this right, there is no sewer through there so I assume it's septic. Is that true? Blacko /iak: No. Well Kate, go ahead. Aanen., Let me answer both questions. That property is guided for low density residential. The sewer j! .st came through, or will be coming through as Lundgren also which was zoned similarly large lot becaus, there was no sewer in that area. Those in the Steller Addition because they're larger lots will remain ;eptic and well, but this area was guided for low density. It was left rural or large lot because there is sewer and water. This project anticipates bringing sewer and water to it. Dale C~ At what time will that happen? ~n: With the subdivision. When it's approved. They have to wait for it to come. It's on the eastern ;ide, adjacent to Galpin as it's coming across with the second phase of the Lundgren subdivision. Dale Cf dson: Okay that answers my question because I know that when the sewer went through in '75 on the ~st side, we had no choice. We had just put in a new septic system 2 years earlier. We had no choice but to hook up to sewer. Why? Lake Lucy so that's going to happen I guess, thank you. Blacko' ,iak: Okay, thank you. Eric Ri kin: I'm Eric Riv 'kin and I live at 1695 Steller Court. My property on the plan, if it's possible to show tere my lot is here. This gray shaded area is this outlot and this here is the lot that's up for review My lot is this one. Right here this 10 acre parcel. So I'm quite affected by the outcome of this. In past life, when I first moved here 13 years ago, when I built my house there, I got together with th, lake homeowners and helped form the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association. With Dale Carlson being al :o-chair person. I can't speak for the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association tonight because we didn't tve a meeting but I do want to historically say that in all the years we have been having issues come al go, that we've all concur one sure thing and that is we would like to see the outlot there remain a amenity for the lake. There was a proposal 9 years ago by the Hennepin County Lakes Board to try and :lean up the chain of lakes and this issue came up in public meetings. What to do with this outlot, city was going to toy around buying it but they didn't have any money at the time the debate was goi ~g on whether they should put on a dock. And the trail seemed to be a sure thing and nobody seemed object to that. I don't object to it personally now. The lot itself, it's my understanding, is this dotted where is the edge of the outlot on the western edge? Can you explain that to me on this plan? It's right here. Eric Ri' So there are some houses. A1-Jaff: There are 2 houses proposed within this area. There is a corner of a house in this area and another :orner in that area. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Eric Rivkin: Okay, thank you. As Mr. Waldron has indicated, and I also know from historical history that when we first were buying these lots 14-15 years ago the Lake Lucy Highlands had 19 homeowners there. That we were all sold on the basis that this outlot would remain an outlot. That's, you know it's designated legally as an outlot and here we are looking at a zoning variance and I oppose any change in doing anything to this as an outlot. There are trees that grew up and Yes there are 2 inch trees. There was nothing there before but now nature's taken over, as it gloriously does and provided lots of buffer visually and naturally to help build up grasses, savannah and natural woods that allow you know prevention of your erosion and sedimentation and nutrient loading into the lake coming down from, washed out from the slope. There's already considerable amount of, I did a lot of research with the homeowners association regarding lake water quality and always come to these meetings whenever there's a development going around the lake to try and preserve what I can of the lake water quality. Lake Lucy, as you know, is a headwaters and the water clarity is cleaner than Lake Ann from time to time. Most of the time actually, according to the records. We have a lot of springs that are around the lake that feed into there naturally and this wetland here is fed by at least 2 natural springs year round. And it's clean water coming out of the ground. By adding nutrients from runoff, storms, rooftops, whatever, streets, we're stressing it already. There's already rakish water that is on a sedimentation pond located right here that the city has not cleaned out according to an agreement by the Merle Steller, the land developer when it was developed and that should be taken care of. As a result, the vegetation around here in this area as large just 'kind of goes down. It's kind of a filter. Kind of like the Everglades. Just kind of filters right through. And we're going to add to that and there's a lot of weed growth right here right now that hasn't come up in past years. It used to be fairly clean here and now it's becoming stressed because of the nutrient loading coming off these developments all the way to Galpin. Galpin Boulevard to the west. So anyway, I think that because the number of houses here really severely stresses the landform and stresses the amount of trees and natural amenities, this kind of thing to me belongs on a fiat lot. It doesn't belong on something that's very hilly, difficult to grade and to try to keep natural amenities. It seems to be very forced. I agree with Mr. Waldron about the million dollar houses on small lots. I don't think it's going to, it just is incongruous there. I think in my opinion that these houses along here should be eliminated. This road should be eliminated and the remaining 17 houses be spread out and relaxed in such a way that fits the land. Fits the natural amenity of the area. There's already high density going on to the west. We've got 2 ½ acre to 10 acre large lot going on over here. I think it would be best to compromise and do something inbetween the density so that things are relaxed here. It's just too tense, so I think that it should be tabled and I think that the plan come back and have less density. I also want to thank the lady here for mustering up a petition. That's the kind of thing I used to do all the time on things like this, Ms. Sather, and Mr. Waldron for coming to speak up. And I concur. I signed Ms. Sather's petition which she circulated this evening. Thank you very much and I concur with everything on it and so I wanted to add some, a little bit of historical perspective as to why in my own personal opinion why it should be tabled. ' Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Aanenson: Madam Chair, can I just bring up a point of clarification on the outlot. Blackowiak: Certainly. Aanenson: The outlot that we're talking about as a part of the Steller Addition, was given outlot status until such time that the infill sites could be determined. I've been with the city 10 years: The first few years I was here we, Mr. Herbst did try to develop this property working out a wetland alteration permit. Whether you choose not to rezone this, we would still make this develop, provide access. There is buildable area on this site. Whether it's a septic, I guess our preference would be that if it can be 2O Planni Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 provid but 011 this that sewer and water, that would be our first choice. Whether it' s one lot, or if it' s included in this, :his to get access, and that's part of our job is to make sure that instead of having 2 access points Lucy, the better planning way would be again, regardless if this was included in the plat, that ect provide access, I hate to use the word, possibly a driveway. Private drive to provide access to So when we added to it, the mix, that's some of the discussion that we had with the applicant. How dl we make th.at work because there is development of an area up there. It was just a matter of tccess and that was part of the issue to come across this. Now we'd have 2 close driveways on Lake Icy which would not be our preference. Okay, thank you. VI I'm he. and al,, fact th~ what unders Hall: Hi. My name is Vernon Hall and I would just like to speak from an integrity standpoint. the applicant come in here with a lot of conflict it sounds like with the city and hearing that I mean I'm here and I agree with what's being addressed. I'm on the petition here. But from the if I from a business perspective was an issue, he's coming here and not even knowing clearly city has made amendments and those who don't, even aren't on this today that I don't nd how that it could even be any more than tabled and looked at further down the road. How can we pro tess with any plan in progress when there's not even anything complete or near accurate to look at my understanding without even looking at the complete report. So that concerns me as being a neighb~ r, and a neighbor but the builders building there with what I perceive as a lack of strong integrity and es ~cially again in a wetlands area with concerns of the lake and the issues that surround that. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, is there anyone who would like to speak? Okay seeing no one, I am going t~, close the public hearing. Now's the time for the commissioners to make comments. Craig, do you ~t to start? Clayba gh: Why don't you go ahead and start with Rich. Slagle: I can start. Blacko ,,iak: Okay. Slagle: I have a quick question if I may to staff. The comment was brought up that we had to go through or the :commendation by staff was to go through Lake Lucy Road. Aanem )n: Yes. Slagle: If I can have a little clarification as to why that is. And let me preface that question by saying this. Ive in a development, Forest Meadows that we have to go through Longacres to get to our 18-19- 20 :s. My question is, why wouldn't we have just gone through Ashling Meadows to get to here. m: It's vice versa. Ashling Meadows does not have the access point. You remember they wanted, :he one lot that had the wetland in front that we said no. That they wanted that lot adjacent to. This is access point also for Ashling Meadows to come out this way. Slagle: but I guess I'm asking why couldn't everything come out Galpin. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 A1-Jaff: You will have an extremely long cul-de-sac. There are 50 plus home sites on the Ashling Meadows site. Add another potentially 20, 22, whatever that number. That's a large number and a fairly long cul-de-sac. You need a second access. Slagle: I might concur. The intent though when we're stopping the road down at the south end of this property, is your intent to take Lucy Ridge Lane further south and to the land that's going to be at some point developed maybe? Aanenson: Yes. Slagle: So you're going to have sort of a curvy road. Aanenson: Yes. Slagle: Okay. I just wanted to have that answered since that came up. Here's my thoughts. First of all I think this is premature. I don't think it's complete, and I would just ask as best you can as a staff to try and do everything you can to prevent this, these situations from coming up where there's just numerous questions. I just wouldn't feel, as this gentleman alluded to earlier, I wouldn't feel comfortable voting yes or no on this proposal given what's come before us. And I'll mention a few things. Septic system. My gosh, if we have a situation next to this lake and we are advocating some homes having a septic system, and I understand the logistics behind it, my recommendation would be that this needs to wait for sewer. Next, the assessments have not been paid, at least from what I read. I don't need to get into that, the assessments based upon what's been happening so far and I don't need an answer for that but I just have concerns about that when I first see that assessments have not been paid. Tree preservation plan is sort of, we heard some thoughts but I don't see anything definitive in that. The areas retaining wall, bluff setback, absence of wetland buffer. The question about Outlot A, and there's a lot. I mean this is a mouthful or handful, however you want to describe it, of things that come up in front of this group that I think in some respects I don't think it should come before us to be quite honest. I think it should haVe been addressed and if the need was to come to us to ask the applicant to modify some of these things, then great. I mean you're hearing us. We hope you build and I hope this is a desirable development but there's just a lot of questions I don't think as a commissioner or a citizen that I could vote on so with that, that's my thoughts. Blackowiak: Thank you. LuAnn. Saam: Madam Chair, could I add just a point of clarification? Blackowiak: Yeah, on the septic. Saam: Yeah. Blackowiak: Go ahead. Saam: Every lot is intended to be on city sewer and water so there will be no septic out there. The only question is whether it's a city project that brings the sewer to his lot line or whether he waits for Lundgren to extend it through Ashling Meadows. That's the only issue right now. Slagle: But is, if I can ask Matt, is the concept though that there would be homes built with septic until sewer came? 22 Planni~ Saam: Al-Jarl Slagle: A14aff Saam: Aanem was th~ that th, provid, rather enviro Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 )n: No. No. Okay, so there's no septic's planned to be built at all. No. In: Let me, the point of clarification was the one lot that was originally owned by Mr. Dirks, that outlot. When they acquired the rights to include that in the plat, Mr. Rivkin brought up the point ge were left to be large lot. Our recommendation is if we would provide, ask that this developer access to it, and because he's doing that, we'd also recommend that sewer be extended to that lot Jan, if it being left in it's current large lot and given septic and well, we think it's better mentally to put it on municipal services. Slagle:i Absolutely, so basically you're agreeing with me. Aanen Right. Right. I just want to make sure it's clear because there is the one large lot that we had include in the rezoning. Slagle:. ?air enough. Thanks. LuAnn. Sidne~ assigm it does most makes, retaini that and Okay, I agree it's a complex site. It's environmentally sensitive so it does need special I do concur with the comments that I heard that we have a large number of conditions to this application and it seems like a very large number for the type and size of development so tint to the fact that we have a lot of outstanding issues. And I think looking at the number of dations we're supposed to make, the preliminary plat stands out as the one which needs the irk obviously and needs to be addressed. And I would hope that if we table this that whoever motion that we really call out all of the conditions which we would like addressed. And I off a number of these, you know starting from retaining wall, number one to remove the wall to also have a canopy coverage calculations completed and on and on and on. And I think to be delineated specifically for the applicant to address. And if those things can be shown into a form which resembles an application that we could review again, I guess I'd entertain that but I d n't feel it should move forward at this point. Blackt .ak: Okay, thank you. Uli. Sacch~ As far as I'm concerned, this doesn't work. It doesn't work at all. It has no credibility. It's full of ~les. It says the applicant makes an effort to preserve mature tr.ees, but then on the other hand we have tssive grading going on. We're cutting to 15 feet on the one side. We are in 15 feet on the other. We haie retaining walls that are 6, 9 feet tall. We have several retaining walls. We don't have enough buffer. We don't have enough wetland mitigation. And in terms of the credibility Mr. Noecker, I really 23 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 appreciate your intent to be real sensitive about your parcel, but I don't see any evidence in here of that. I'm sorry. I don't see any credibility for that. I consider this an extremely insensitive, environmentally insensitive proposal. Besides the fact that it's totally incomplete. I agree with Commissioner Slagle that this shouldn't even come in front of us. This is not even nearly cooked and I find it very disturbing hearing from the presentation that you seem not to really pay attention to what staff is asking from you. You say well they're misunderstandings and, given. I mean everybody has misunderstandings and wants to clear those up, but it looks like these misunderstandings have been going on for something in the neighborhood of a year and there's just way too many in there. Staff finding on page 15 to the subdivision, staff finding number 5. The proposed subdivision will cause environmental damage. However, staff is recommending some modification to help to minimize impacts. I don't think that mitigation that's proposed comes even close to make this anything near environmentally sensitive as far as I'm concerned. There is way too much damage being done to that environment and the main thing that xvhy I say this is not credible, in all due respect, I cannot envision how you can put a house that's more than a n'fillion dollars or even a million dollar or in the neighborhood of a million dollar on a 15,000 square foot lot, or 16,000 for that matter. It doesn't make a difference. I just recently built a house in a neighborhood where the average lot size is around 30-40,000 square feet and the price range around 4 to maybe $600,000 of those houses. It does incredible impact on the nature of place. It's, the forest, nature is extremely reduced. If you want to have houses twice as expensive on lots that are half the size, there's no space for anything natural. Based on how I see this. You want to do a neighborhood that is above standards of neighboring neighborhoods. Ashling Meadows, with 28,000 square foot average per lot, I cannot believe how you want to be in a higher standard if you make your lots that much smaller and at the same time expect to put an expensive structure on it. The road alignment, I don't know how sensitive it is to the contour of the environment. I don't think it is. On that basis, I would want to deny this. The land use amendment for the outlot, I think that outlot is a wonderful buffer towards the large lot on the other side. The naturally sensitive area of the wetlands. I do think it makes sense to include it to have sewer but I don't think it makes sense to include it to ram in 22 minimally sized lots to put huge structures on. The land use therefore I would recormnend to deny. The rezoning I would deny because of the environmental damage. I think it's way too much and that's a finding that could be positive to move that forward. The preliminary plat I would want to deny because there's just way too many loose ends. There are at least 20 items that are blatantly unresolved. That have not been paid attention to and therefore I don't think it should be even tabled. It should be denied. The wetland alteration permit, I think that needs to be worked out in more detail that it shows the sensitivity and where all these things are. It's wide open loose ends so also there I would want to deny. That's my comment. Blackowiak: Okay. Alrighty Craig, your turn. Claybaugh: I concur with the other fellow commissioners that it is premature. I don't feel as strongly as Commissioner Sacchet does that it's as environmentally insensitive as he does but I do feel that it's premature at this time and as such would move to table the issue. I think it's imperative that the developer get together with the city staff and really communicate and listen to one another and try and incorporate those things in a timely fashion and bring a completed package in front of the commission so we can take action on it in the future. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Deb. Kind: Yes Madam Chair. I agree that this should be tabled for many of the outstanding issues. I'd like to see a plan that incorporates all of these conditions because I think they're going to really impact what we're looking at and have another opportunity for the public to comment on what the new plan looks like. And those, my favorites that I would like to see addressed are the bluff setbacks, the wetland 24 Planni~; Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 setbact ;, the retention pond. Where would it be and what size would it be. A lighting plan. Lot widths need tc_zomply. Tree canopy calculations per the city forester's calculations. I think that's what we need tc~go by. And retaining walls and I would also like to see the existing house and driveway shown on thes~ plans so we can get our bearings a little bit more Clearly. And I would like knowing that this technic~lly meets ordinance and all of our rules for square footage and such, I would like the applicant to consider larger lot sizes that are more fitting with neighboring Ashling Meadows and really take into consideration the topography of the land and see if it can be improved and less grading. And my hot button,~hich I'm sure you could tell is that, entry feature. Consider maybe using a natural material, boulders versus a Keystone and see if there s a way to avoid having a chainlink fence at that entry area. I think ~need to table it and I think we need to table all 3. I think we need to keep this bundled together. ! Blacko~viak: Okay, Bruce. Feik: be brief. I agree with much of what was said tonight. It is a beautiful site, I'll give you that. It will ot ever be able to be developed without significant alterations to the site, and I agree. You cannot develc that in any way, shape or form. I've walked it at length without knocking down a significant of trees and moving a lot of dirt. Be that said though, I am very uncomfortable with approving a plan th! n having the staff have to work out this many details after the fact. I don't think that's fair to staff the process and based on that I would also agree that we should table this tonight. Okay. Well I really have nothing new to add. I agree with my commissioners who were kind towards tabling it. I believe that we've got a lot of direction for you and some of the key issues ~at we feel the need to be addressed before we see it again. One thing Mr. Noecker you said that you w~ ~ted an opportunity to clean up the plan and I think you're going to get it so I hope you've gotten adet direction. Please take the time to review staff's report, and I'm assuming Kate you will supply, or Shat will supply minutes with specific directions and comments. Aanen,.. Just for point of clarification. I think Commissioner Sidney alluded to it. We would like specifi~ direction given to the applicant and I think that's where she was going and that's part of why we're tonight. To make sure that you've all given comments but we want to make sure that that's articul exactly what your expectations are so we're not back at this same juncture in a future meeting. So ify~ u can summarize that in a motion, that would be helpful for us. a look wrote W~ those, .k: I think we can but also if we can just refer to the minutes and in our comments I think take what everybody has said because I think among us all we have hit most of the issues, and I ~u know mine were specifically, let me go back. Grading, trail, buffers, fence, retaining walls, issues, canopy coverage, storm water calculations, no wetland replacement documentation. So a couple... Aanen ,n: ...for the record and make sure it's clear on the record because it's still not being understood. That it ;as where the location of the trail should be. Can we read that for the record? Just to make sure they ind. The trail location outside the wetland buffer language. Okay now, is that in a condition? It is as a condition. Aanen But I'm not sure they understand the implications of that. Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 A14aff: There will be a wetland buffer that is an average of 20 feet so it can be 10 feet, it could be 30 feet. The average is 20 feet. The trail will be outside the buffer. The other thing that I wanted to point out is, and it depends on what method of replacement, wetland replacement they follow. One of the options that are available to them is creating a 16 ½ foot natural buffer and then from that point, so 16' ½ feet and then from that point you'd take the setback. So the setback, the wetland setback will be in addition to the buffer. I just wanted to clarify. Aanenson: We wanted that on the record, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Slagle: Madam Chair. If I can ask a question to the applicant. Is there anything that we're saying that needs more specificity? I mean I'm hoping that based upon what we've talked about, the opportunity to work with staff in a real partnership is here. Is that, may I ask that? I mean I just want to make sure, staff is asking that. I just want to make sure I hear it from the applicant. One way or the other. Randy Noecker: One of the things that I'm, I guess I'm not grasping is they're talking about the trail being outside the buffer. We've recognized that and by, keep in mind we just found out about all these issues on Friday. We weren't aware that we had to move the retaining wall out. We weren't aware of any of this stuff until last Friday, okay. Aanenson: You know what, I have to say something on that. Blackowiak: I understand but, okay Kate. Aanenson: It was given to you in writing on a letter dated September lOth and that's why we're at this juncture. Randy Noecker: Okay well, if we had a retaining wall in the right-of-way marked it was unintended, alright. We thought we had on the edge of the right-of-way. Apparently we had it inside according to your calculations. But as it be, if you have a trail between the pond and the wetland, is not the pond defined as wetland? So then does the trail go on the south side of the pond or is it okay to leave the trail there? Slagle: I don't 'know the answer to that question. I'I1 defer to these folks but here's my just question to all of you. Is could we take this plan, along with Matt and the planning group and just provide them where it could go, and then you can sort of say yeah/nay. I mean because if there's still some questions as to where it has to go, I think staff could show you where it could go and hopefully that would be the beginning, if not the end of sort of the placement of that path. Or at least a start. I mean there shouldn't be after the folks, all you meet, there shouldn't be a lot of ambiguities after that meeting, is that safe to say? Randy Noecker: Yeah, if we have caused confusion or in any way caused a problem, we were unaware of it on our side. I mean I had made calls after I submitted this plat to see if there were any changes you'd like to see made but we received no response along those lines so I just thought that was the methodology that Chanhassen chose to work their plan through. Blackowiak: Well I think at this point you've got lots of responses and some direction and. 26 Planni] g Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Randy Blackc good get all assumi Sidne5 Blacko Aanen Blackc Aanen Blackc these il Sidney Comm staff re staff re table th ~loecker: I would like to say, we're going to try to accommodate all of them. viak: Good, okay. We'd like to see that. So at this point we'd like to have a motion please. And :k to whoever makes it because we're going to have to muddle through this but I want to try to Ne hot buttons and all the direction for the applicant that we possibly can in this motion. I'm tg it will be a motion to table and LuAnn, are you? I thought you were volunteering. I will. I have a question about whether or not we need 4 motions or not? viak: Kate what's the? 3n: You can make it all in one. viak: Motion to table. )n: ...all requests. /iak: All requests and then direction to the applicant specifically, you know but not limited to Well help me out. I'll take a shot at it here. Okay I'll make the motion that Planning sion recommends tabling the request for rezoning of the 18.57 acres of property as shown in the ort. Also to table the request for preliminary plat to replat a 7.07 acre outlot, as shown on the ~ort. Also to table the wetland alteration permit to fill 4,580 square feet of wetland. And also to land use plan amendment from residential large lot to residential low density. In terms of the prelimi ary plat, I'd like to give direction to the applicant to work on several points and as I said, I think it's iml[, ~rtant to be very specific about this in terms of the conditions that are outlined in the staff report. I woul~[ welcome friendly amendments as we go along here. I m going to go down the list because this is very inlJportant so that we have a clean proposal next time around. Recommendation 1. One of the conditiii)ns is to remove the retaining wall. I d like to see that done. As Deb pointed out, we need to show tl e existing house and accessory structures on the plans. A condition 4. We need the applicant to resubrt .t canopy coverage calculations. As shown in condition 5, the applicant shall submit a landscape plan fo the city for approval. And I'm going to move to condition 11. We have a recommendation from staff, a d I concur I should say, that the proposed outlot structure of the pond be moved to the easterly end of he pond to prevent short circuiting and etc as shown in that condition. Also condition 12. We do need s, me ponding calculations and we need storm sewer design calculations as shown on condition 13. Okay, nd condition 18. We'd like to see a preliminary utility plan. And also let's see, condition 25. The st~ ~cture setback from each of the existing bluffs is 30 feet. We'll need to have the retaining wall elimin ted or moved as indicated in that condition. 28. A big one in my book. We'd like to see revised gradin, plans as shown. We've got several points here. Show all existing utilities. Show the proposed NWL ~d HWL of the pond and silt fence. Revise the contours. Add a legend, etc. Also condition 30. We ha a wetland buffer issue here that needs to be worked on and that impacts the trail alignment. And I lluess the big one that rsally is going to affect the plat itself is that the retaining walls be located outsiddithe buffer areas. That s condition 31. And we have storm water calculations that need to be Condition 34. And also following the park and rec conditions to make sure that the trail ali meets the requirements suggested in that condition. So I'I1 leave it at that I guess. Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? 27 Planning Commission Meeting- November 20, 2001 Kind: I'll second that motion. Blackowiak: Okay, moved and seconded and do we have any amendments to the motion? Kind: I might have a friendly amendment or two. I'm not sure. Did you touch on the wetland replacement documentation? Was that one of those? Sidney: No, you can add that. Kind: I would add that we'd like that documentation provided. And condition number, where'd it go? Let's see, 44. I'd like that one added to make sure that all of the lots maintain that 90 foot width. I question, especially I would add Lot number 1 on Block 3 to that condition. So it'd be lots 1 and 2 on Block 3. I think just a minor curve in the road does not put a lot on the curve. That's it. Blackowiak: Okay. Amendment accepted? Sidney: Accepted. Blackowiak: Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Sidney moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission table the Land Use Plan Amendment 4/01-4; Rezoning//01-4 to rezone 18.57 acres; Wetland Alteration Permit g01-3; and the Preliminary Plat for Subdivision g01-10 for Lake Lucy Ridge as shown on the plans received October 24, 2001, with the following direction to the applicant before the item is brought back before the Planning Commission: 1. Tile retaining wall be removed. 2~ .3. . . o Show the existing house and accessory structures on the plans. The applicant shall resubmit the tree canopy coverage calculations. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan to the City for approval. The proposed pond must be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards with a 3:1 side slopes and a 10:1 slope bench below the normal water level. The proposed outlet structure of the pond shall be moved to the easterly end of the pond to prevent short-circuiting and to outlet the treated water to the eastern wetland. This would better follow the proposed drainage pattern shown in the City's Surface Water Management Plan. Tile applicant shall provide additional information and revision for the ponding calculations. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design calculations need to be submitted. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100 year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. 28 o . 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 applicant shall submit a separate preliminary utility plan that shows the proposed rim invert elevations, and pipe sizes for all proposed and existing utility lines. structure setback from each of the existing bluffs is 30 feet. This will require that the · ' wall shown on Lot 2, Block 1 be eliminated or moved. Revise the grading plan as follows: a. Show all existing utilities including the storm sewer and watermain in Lake Lucy Road and the existing driveway culvert. b. Show the proposed NWL & HWL of the pond. c. Add silt fence along the south property line of Lot 13, Block 3. d. Revise the contours in the rear Yards of Lots 1-3, Block 2 to meet the maximum allowable side slope of 3:1. e. Add a legend, survey benchmark, and all proposed and existing easements to the plan. A wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 10 feet) shall be maintained around Wetland 1 and the wetland mitigation area. A wetland buffer 10 to 30 feet in width (with a minimum average of 20 feet) shall be maintained around Wetland 2. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of city staff, before construction begins and shall pay the city $20 per sign. All retaining walls shall be located outside of required buffer areas. Proposed trails shall also be located outside of required buffer areas. All other structures shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. Stormwater calculations shall be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond is sized adequately for the proposed development. Park and Recreation conditions: The following conditions need to be met for the trail alignment to be acceptable. a. A 20 foot trail easement must be identified. b. The trail alignment cannot be within the wetland buffer. c. The trail easement may abut lot lines, but the trail alignment must maintain a minimum 6 foot separation from lot lines. d. The pond berm, which the trail crosses, must maintain a minimum top width of 12 feet to allow for a 2 foot "clear" on either side of the trail. Wetland replacement must occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The plans shall show a fixed photo monitoring point for the 29 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 replacement wetland. A five year wetland replacement monitoring plan shall be submitted. The applicant shall provide proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland. 16. The lot width for Lots 1 and 2, Block 3 shall be adjusted to maintain 90 feet. All voted in favor, except Uli Sacchet who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. Blackowiak: I would like to add to the applicant that I would like you to please take a look at all the conditions, not just the ones that we outlined. The ones that we outlined I think are very special, but they all have merit so please don't ignore the other conditions. This item will be placed on the next available Planning Commission agenda, which will be? Aanenson: Whenever they get the changes made. Blackowiak: Whenever they, okay. So probably not in December. Aanenson: Probably January. Blackowiak: Probably January, okay. I just want to say thank you to the neighbors and residents for coming and I urge you to follow this item. We will be getting another mailing out to you when the next meeting will occur. It will be similar to the one that you received. And also I'd like to recommend that for those of you who are members of the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association, have a meeting before the next, before our next meeting so you can kind of get a feet for what the majority of the residents in that area, what their wishes are and that would help us too. So thanks again for coming. The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK TO REVISE THE PERMITTED USES WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT SIMILAR TO THE PERMITTED USES IN THE INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT~ STEINER DEVELOPMENT. Public Present: Name Address J. Polster 681 August Drive, Chaska Joe Smith 3610 County Road 101, Minnetonka Fred Richter 3601 County Road 101, Minnetonka Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Commissioners, any questions of staff? Sacchet: Yeah, I have a question and a half. One is specific to the vocational school. Why would we want to make that an exclusion? Could we specify that. 30 [ASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGUi .AR MEETING 15, 2002 ~man Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Kind, al CITY PRESENT: Rich Slagle, LuAnn Sidney, Uli Sacchet, Alison Blackowiak, Bruce Feik, Deb Craig Claybaugh OUNCIL LIAISON PRESENT: Mayor Linda Jansen ',ENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmin AI-Jaff, Senior Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Matt Saam, Project Engineer PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: David inners Deb Lh Janet flsen CONS] 935 East Wayzata Boulevard, Wayzata 7302 Laredo Drive 7305 Laredo Drive THE REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT A 7.07 ACRE OUTLOT AND 1 ACRE LOT (18.57 ACRES) INTO 22 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT~ LAND ;E AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL LARGE LOT TO RESIDENTIAL LOW REZONING FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTR AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF LA SUBDIi LUCY ROAD~ WEST OF LAKE LUCY AND EAST OF ASHLING MEADOWS LAKE LUCY RIDGE~ NOECKER DEVELOPMENT. P1 PRESENT: Name Address Patrick lohr Jack & tnie Gorczyca Merle einkraus Scott inertson 6890 Utica Terrace 1850 Lake Lucy Road 1800 Lake Lucy Road 6801 Utica Terrace Sharmi AI-Jaff and Matt Saam presented the staff report on this item. Aanensi ~: Let me just clarify something. The plat that we are recommending approval of is not the plat that 're seeing here. The plat that Matt went through with the changes is what we're recommending so it ~ld have a different look to it. Our concern as a staff is we usually like to get it as clean as possible so you can see the implications. Matt tried to go through and explain to you what we believe is a better by reducing the grading. While we impacted some of the tree canopy, we believe we're also saving other significant trees and even the backs of the lots that would be adjacent to Ashling Meado s because of the minimizing of grading. So I just want to clarify what Sharmin's telling you is that the that we're recommending approval, doesn't look like this plat. We're recommending a with changes. Now if you're uncomfortable with doing that, you have a choice as to ask for an because we're at the end of the, our review period. If you're uncomfortable with the plat then Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 your choice is either to recommend approval with the changes as it goes towards commission or recommend that you feel it's premature and recommend denial of the land use change. So everybody's clear on that. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. A1-Jaff: The conditions of approval. If you would kindly turn to page 24. Condition number 32. The second paragraph of the sentence. A wetland buffer 10 to 30 feet in width. It's struck through in the staff report. We need to put that back in. With a minimum average of 20 feet shall be maintained around wetland 2. And we're adding to it a 4 foot retaining wall shall be utilized to protect the buffer. No fences shall be used. And then on page 26. Condition number 49. Under the compliance table. Lot 1. The setbacks read, 30-50-30 and the second 30 has 2 asterisks next to it. It should be 3. And the same is true for Lot 2. Those are bluff setbacks. And we'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Blackowiak: Sharmin, I think I'm just going to start since one of my questions had to do with this compliance table. It shows 21 lots in the compliance table. If there would be changes to any potential plan, how do we know how this compliance table fits in? We don't? A1-Jaff: It changes. Blackowiak: Okay. So but you're still comfortable putting this in as is even though we know it would change? A1-Jaff: Assuming that changes do take place. Aanenson: In order to get tile plat approved for final plat, and you recommend approval of this, depending on what the City Council would do, that's what the plat has to reflect. So it would have to be in compliance and you would make that a condition that all lots meet the city zoning ordinance so if you were to recormnend this plat with the changes that we're recommending, that compliance table before it gets to final plat would have to reflect that. That's what I was saying before. The difficulty is you don't... Blackowiak: Right, exactly. Okay, thank you. Well then I'll just ask fellow commissioners any questions of staff? Rich? Slagle: None right now. Sacchet: I have a question or two. Real quick. So with those changes you're recommending do we 'know what the average lot size is going to be? Do we know what tile density's going to be? We don't at this point. Aanenson: We know what tile density would be. We wouldn't know what the average lot size. Sacchet: What would the density be? Al-Jarl: Density would be .8 and that's gross density. Plannir Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Sacche' would where Aanens Gross, thank you. So at this point if we would want to see the changes before we approve it we her have to get an extension of the time frame or otherwise we would have to deny it. Is that e're at? ~n: Well you have 3 options. I'm asking you whatever you're comfortable with. Your option is to ask Sacchel Aanens Sacchel here pri to be a would how th Aanens f ,r an extension to see the changes. Okay. in: To recommend approval and let the council see the changes. Or recommend denial. Got it. Now this is really the main questio, n ultimately I think from everybody, including us up narily but in terms of the comprehensive plan, it' s my understanding that this outlot is intended ransition element between the large lot area and the low density residential. At this point it ?pear to me that this doesn't really fit into a transition concept. Can you say something about fits the comprehensive plan please? n: Sure. I'd be happy to address that. How we looked at this. If you compare this to one that you loe :ed at previously. I'm trying to get one that's got a wetland on it. If you look at this property in relatior~hip to this subdivision, there's a large wetland complex here. This is one lot. Kind of an anomallt. The other lots are all. coming off of the subdivision. The other lots in this neighborhood are comin this cul-de-sac. While this is a lot that's associated with that, it orientates itself a different way. cess to this lot is very difficult because of the wetland adjacent to Lake Lucy. It's the staff's · ' hat the best way to service this lot, whether it's left as a large lot or if it's, the guiding is chan is to provide a stub to this property somewhere through a subdivision here. That's the.best way to servi it. So we're not saying that it has to be changed but we're saying in our opinion it makes, the transiti~ n is the wetland. And the orientation really to service it should come off a street the other way for the degradation to the site. And if you compare that, let me just go a little further. Compare that to the ;avik one that we looked at last time, those two pieces. The utility and efficiencies of those were ti~ d together. There was no topographic break or natural feature separating the two. They were tied to ~.ther so we looked at this a little bit differently. See you're not totally addressing what I'm actually shooting for because what you're address ng the individual lots here and I'm trying to see how this fits in the context of the, more interes! '.d in particular lots. Actually of the whole area. And it seems like we have large lot to the north and to east pretty much. We have residential single family to the west. So in terms of looking at this from tt comprehensive plan, it appears to me a reasonable viewpoint that this is a transition between the large area and the single family. Aanen~ in: Well it's either going to be on this lot. It's either going to be on this lot, or it's going to be on those 11 :s. What I'm saying is here there's a wetland and that provides a transition... That helps right. Okay. Aanen: ~n: That's how we looked at it and again we compared it to other ones where there's not that perspective. Again what we looked at too is what's the best way to provide access to that and that through the subdivision. And again whether it's large lot or lower density, how they access could be best. Whatever happens on this piece of stub street. Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Sacchet: Thank you. I'll get back to that in comments. Blackowiak: Okay. No other questions? Deb anything? Kind: I'm sure I do. On the staff report Outlot A is actually labeled Outlot B 6n the plans we're looking at. It's Outlot A from Lake Lucy Highlands and we're referring to it as Outlot B for this Lake Lucy Ridge. A1-Jaff: The applicant is replatting a portion of Outlot A into an Outlot B. Yes. Kind: I think ! was able to keep it straight when I was reading the staff report. The wetlands that are Outlot B and Outlot A on this new proposed plan, who would be responsible for maintaining those? A1-Jaff: There will be a drainage and utility easement over them. Aanenson: There's a letter of credit put in place until we accept the subdivision and everything's completed. They have to maintain those during construction and we'd put up the escrow for the silt fence. Saam: In recent times we've gone toward owning them. I know on Ashling Meadows we assumed ownership of the outlots. That's one that comes to mind right away. Aanenson: Yeah. We don't have to... Saam: No we don't have to. We'll get an easement though at a minimum. Kind: Okay. And if we approve the revisions revising the land use, which is a big if, technically all of these lots do meet our rules for size, shape, setbacks, frontage with exception of that one lot. What is staff's rationale for some of these conditions that suggest moving the road and deleting certain lots? Aanenson: Do you want to go through that again Matt? Saam: Yeah, I can speak a little to that. You had a plat before you last time with 2-2 lots. Your level of discretion with the land use, and correct me if I'm wrong Kate is, if you don't like it, even if it meets minimums, you can require a little bit more because you're giving them a change in the land use. 'So you directed us to go back with the applicant and look at revising it. Basically making the plat better. That's what we did here. We believed by moving the road over, it's going to make those lots, those Block I lots along the west side better lots. More usable yards. Perhaps help to minimize the grading along that slope. That's our major rationale for suggesting the moving of the road. Kind: That makes sense. On the neighbor petition at the back of our packet talked about, had one point in there that I thought was interesting and that is, well all the points were quite interesting but there was one that caught my attention and that is that the comp plan policy requires a majority of area residents to approve rezoning in their area. Aanenson: I can address that. We put that in there as a policy issue. That's a legislative issue. The City Council can't do rezoning. That was a court case recently in the Best Buy. You can usurp that and residents vote xvhat their land use designation. That's a policy decision. But what the intent of that policy decision was for neighborhoods, people that buy the large lots, we've had this example in for Plannii Commission Meeting- January 15, 2002 exampl Timberwood where they were adjacent to Stone Creek. Some of those neighbors wanted to have ~al services and subdivide and what we said at that point, until the neighborhood decides to come tc the city and say we no longer want to be large lot, that we want to change the character of our neighb~ then the city should consider petitioning. If it's one person, then that might be enough to say let' hold a neighborhood meeting and decide but really our intent was there, that we want to have more just one person decide and we would hold a hearing and let the council hear that debate and discuss but you can't usurp that legislative authority. Kind: they neighbr ;ut the question here would be is that one property owner of that Outlot A, B on this plan, are asking for subdivision of just their lot without getting the agreement of their other it' s the: )n: Again as I'm saying, that's a legislative act with a recommendation. Do they have to get agreement? You know we like to see. Again the staff' s interpretation on that was, because )ography and the wetlands separated the two, it's a little bit different circumstances as far as ttion of that neighborhood. Kind: }kay. Aanen., )n: So that's a discretion that you'll have to make and the council's going to make. I'm just telling ou what our recommendation was. Kind: this is would total, a that }kay. I'm sure I have other questions. Just let me quick look through here. Oh, the other one, page 11 of the staff report. The second to bottom paragraph it talks about the new fee that assessed and specifically that there were two previously assessed connection charges which then there's a number that struck out and a new larger number on there. And I just thought that interesting, how could it have been previously assessed. How can that number change if it was ;ly assessed? Saam: up and but we us until xve hav~ ;ure. First sentence there. Each of the underlying parcels has been previously assessed for hook- connection charge. However they haven't been paid so in essence we went in, put in the water aid to the property owner, well we're going to assess you these 2 units but you don't have to pay you develop. That's somewhat typical in town. The reason these numbers changed is because an ordinance in town where every January 1st our connection and hook-up fees go up. An factor. Construction cost factor. It went up on January 1, 2002. So that's why there is a differe~ :e. Kind: .o our tabling this made their rates go up? Saam: You shouldn't think that because these aren't applied until the building permits come in so even if 'ou would have approved it in November. Say it went to council in December, they've got final plat. preliminary approval and final even. Until they pull building permits, so until the site is develo rd and constructed, it would have been into this summer. Kind: ;ood, I was feeling a little bad there. Oh the condition being struck through that requires the street tmes to be changed. What happened there? acce The fire marshal spoke to Carver County Sheriff's Office and they decided that those names are ~le. Planning Con'u-nission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Kind: So they won't be confused? A1-Jaff: No. Kind: And one of the other requests that was made at the last meeting was around the entry feature to the development. Was anything discussed about that with the developer? That was a silent no for you Nann. I think that's all. Oh, condition number 35 on page 24. This was a minor thing but I noticed it was emphasized in the staff report is that locating the bluff within 20 feet from the top. I'm assuming you want to add or the toe of the bluff. And then condition number 42 appears to me to be the same as 19. So that can be struck through. That's it. Blackowiak: Craig, do you have any questions of staff right now? Claybaugh: I'll leave my questions until the public hearing's been done. Blackowiak: Okay great. At this point will the applicant or the developer like to come up and make a presentation. If so, please step to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Randy Noecker: Madam Chair and council members, staff. My name is Randy Noecker and I live at 8315 Pleasant View Drive in Moundsview, Minnesota and I'm the developer. This evening I plan to explain more of the details of this project than I did previously, and some have commented about the insensitivity and, to the use of this land and to the trees and the wetlands and it's my hope this evening that I can accomplish 3 things and kind of dispel that ideal that seems to be prevalent. I want to identify the desired goals that we've tried to achieve. I want to effectively explain the issues...as it relates to several imposed conditions. The goals, or I should say possibly the most important goal for me has been to maintain the site integrity of the land. And at the same time striving to create an executive neighborhood in this project. Additional and important issues to me have been to avoid wetland impact and minimize the tree destruction. Some cities have a preference to trees, and I can remember at our first staff meeting when Lori and Jill were present, I remember telling or remember Jill telling me that there was no difference between oaks and box elders in the city's eyes and when I asked if the city had any tree preference like that. It was after that meeting that I remember thinking that the City of Chanhassen had a very strong tree preservation policy, or attitude, and it was one of the strongest that I had come across in the metro area. And the code book later verified my suspicions if you will. And please do not misunderstand me. I think this is a good thing. It's good from an economic point of view. It's good from aesthetic point of view and it has just a number of benefits by minimizing the tree loss. The primary goal in maintaining the site integrity began initially from the start. I remember at the previous meeting one of the members had asked about my original concept plan, and I'm going to set that on the table here. This is originally what I had come across, or designed as a plan when I had bought the first parcel, and this was prior to hiring any surveyors, anybody at all whatsoever. It was just a rough concept of how I envisioned the site might look eventually. If I can, I'm going to lay out another plan here. One of the things that, when I had started out it was my desire to really maintain a cul-de-sac inside of this development. I thought that was the best way to handle it and I put aside suggestions from both Matt and Sharmin in creating some kind of, rather than a cul-de-sac, having that road as it's drawn today. This one right here, going to the south. My preference was to come straight through and then long story short, I'm not sure if it ,,vas Sharmin or Matt that first suggested it to me but they said you should really use, you should really follow the ridge as you, or with the road. And so the idea of the ridge road came into effect and I thought, and about that same time Matt had indicated that we really need an access to the south. We were obviously pinpointed in our Emerald Lane position and the city was also requiring access from Planni~ g Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Lake I those 1, make t much a look at some, with ir very ch from Ei tcy Road because again there's many lots in the future that would be developed to the south and ts would be serviced by this sub-collector. So in the end that "ridge road" was an ideal way to e site, what do I want to say? Specific to the use of the land if you will, and this thing, I was later ~preciative of Matt and Sharmin bringing, or basically saying hey you should really take a second his because it wasn't until after I did that and sat down with Ted and on the computer and made few changes that had began to appear as a very feasible idea. One of the things that we're stuck ide of this development is a 7percent grade and it' s been a very, as Matt has indicated earlier, a tllenging site. And we've got about a, I think a 59 or 60 foot drop from Lake Lucy Road over ~erald Lane and in so doing we've got a 7percent grade that, with the exception of a little flat spot right he :e next to Lake Lucy Ridge Lane, and a little flat spot down at the bottom, we've got a 7percent grade cl~ that thifig all the way, to the top. ,And so we don't have the flexibility t,o, move that elevation wise toimove that road. I d, on t think th,ere s a foot elevation in there possibly. I d have to ask my engineelr for sure but I don t think there s much more than that. With the elevation fixed, we also know that yol] basically control your pad site elevations, or your house pads approximately 2 feet above your street because your house pad, some say 18 inches but your house pad is basically 2 feet above your sn ',et so that you have a gentle drive into your garage floor. With the street being controlled from an perspective and the pads therein being controlled by the street, you find elevations that may or, you or may not want. I mean if I may let me give you an example. Oh one other thing that I'd like to oint out in the, if you look at the top, or aerial photos of this land you'll find a farm road that runs right m Lucy Ridge Lane right now. It was basically the farm road that went back from the house to this bi that was back in here. And so again it was real logical from my perspective when I · looked at the site to identify with the road right in that location. One of the things, for example here in his grading plan. It may be a little bit hard to see but I'm going to point out a few things because it's bee . suggested that I possibly look at eliminating some-lots. And right at this point right here, this is the cen ~.r line center line. That would be the center line of Emerald Lane and the center line of the Lucy Ridge You have an elevation of 1009. 1,009 if you will. Where my pen is in front of Lot 2, we have elevation of 10, an existing elevation of 1020. Coming down one line you have an elevation of 1018. hat 1018, if you follow across over here to the comer, you basically would have, if for example I totally liminated Lot 5 and just left it just like it was. You're going to have a 7 to 8 foot retaining wall right a~he comer, or you would if engineering wouldn't force you to eliminate as a result of sight visibilit issues. And it gets bigger as you would go up the street in this situation. Also you have the same across the street. You've got down where the stop sign is, you have a proposed building of 1010. You've got an existing, the first line going up Emerald Lane is your 1018 line, so again yi ~'ve got a 7 to 8 foot retaining wall that you would have if you never touched those lots. You basicall in essence, again to match the road so that you can build your pads, have to scoop out that dirt on thee 4 lots in Block 2, and on these lots going through here on the west side. You don't have any altemm upon it. You could skip building houses on it and you're still going to have an issue of high ' ' walls if you did not deal with some kind of cut in there. Premise being there's a lot of tree remova that has to take place on this site. Not necessarily so much in this meadow area, but there are situatio s throughout the site that you can identify with that show, or that basically require cuts. And those ct ts, be they desired by the developer or required by engineering, are basically in the majority of the cas{ going to take place. Reducing for example these 5 lots down to 4 lots isn't going to gain us an, . Alright. Now, the other thing I'd like, the other thing I'd like to comment on. I've got the wrong ~e. This is the, I was given a transparency on top of the map like this, and it shows where this 80 foot 1, or this road would be moved a distance of approximately 80 feet. Again, one of the things that I nt. If you move this road here 80 feet, this lot right here would basically have, if I've got 10 or 15 feet .r whatever kind of number you want to use to the retaining. Or there is no retaining wall but to the slo' in there, you would then have a level space 80 feet long in the back yard. And I really doubt if the mail -ity of developers. I mean obviously a homeowner would love to see an 80 foot deep back yard. Planning Cormnission Meeting - January 15, 2002 I mean who wouldn't? Okay. But it's something that's, it's over reaction to an issue is what's transpired here. And I can remember on several occasions going to Ted's office and saying, Ted I need to change this and here's what I want to do. And he would say yeah but Randy if you do that, then this happens and that happens and you end up with a chain reaction on this site like none I've ever seen on any property I've ever developed. And I want to give you an example of that. Just right here because right now I've got some pencil marks on this thing. I'm not sure how far we can blow this thing up, if it can be done. But right here you've got an existing elevation on this road at about 1003 and I took the liberty of assuming that we could drop this down to at least 1000 feet. If that road elevation were, or if that road were placed where it was and that road was dropped down to 1000 feet, you then have a 3:1 slope with those markings that would go down to this house pad. You've got a 984 at approximately 6 feet away from that house pad which would be 1 foot under the walkout, or i foot under the back door level if you will. Because it's a full basement. There's no lookout or walkout on it. Aanenson: Excuse me Madam Chair, can I just interrupt for one second? Just to, there's some confusion going on. Certainly it's out intent that those house pads all have to be moved to reflect the new road location. Okay so. Blackowiak: Yeah, that's in the conditions. Aanenson: Correct. Yes, so what you're talking about now is kind of not relevant because all the house pads would move to reflect the new road location. And that's what we haven't seen. It's not our intent to leave that lot like that nor the other lot. Randy Noecker: Well, where would you suggest moving it to? Aanenson: I think we've gone over that with you. Randy Noecker: [ guess I never heard. I mean you can't move that house pad unless you're going to run into that cul-de-sac. Or if you want to move it this way then we would destroy those 3 trees that we talked about saving back in here and if you recall last tirne, I had a retaining wall in here to save one of those trees and I was told to eliminate it. And basically like the message I got from staff was, eliminate as much retaining walls as you possibly can because the council and the planning commission don't like them. Okay. So we took the premise of trying to eliminate as many of these walls as we possibly could. I think this is extremely relevant. Tile other issue that I'd like to point out here too is in, this is a 60 to 1 scale. Right now there is no place to move that pad. You're going to be, I mean you might move it 15-20 feet one way or the other. You're definitely not going to move it any closer to that cul-de-sac because it's up against that cul-de-sac right now. So if you move it that way you're probably going to eliminate those 3 trees that we talked about. But here's tile real crux of the situation. If you look at the right-of- way line, this area right in here, I think Matt said was about 9,000 square feet. Maybe 100 x 90 or something like that. I've got my scale which is a 60 to 1. This is the 1002. There's the 1000. This thing is dropping down in 2 foot increments. It's taking 60 feet to drop 6 feet. It's a i0 to 1 slope in there. You've got a forested area. All of these trees run along this ridge that I've been trying to save. That was as per direction of Jill in the beginning. That's what I'm doing, and so now we've got a nice gentle slope, heavily wooded. I'm guessing there's 150 to 175 trees in there. And the premise now is, well it's okay to knock them all down. We're just going to put up '7 or 8 trees and replace the 1'75 that he knocked out of there. Then you would have this 3:1 slope coming down and there's no way, as a builder, that you're going to have water of that magnitude sliding down that hill into that pad. And want to be liable for it. There's no way as the developer I would want to be liable for it. This is a wrong plan. This is not the way to go with this plan. And don't misunderstand me, it's easy not to see things when you redraw Plannir Commission Meeting-January 15, 2002 on this and the and tha reactio~ half wc Now th Saturda attentio: a letter Mason in this 1, Blocl the first lot. Th in this plan tha foot wk as in foi mark. definit~ 10:1 pla Ted had number said on :cause I've done it several times. Ted will attest to that. It just, the whole site is problematic dew, the view that many have had, or appear to have is that I'm insensitive to what's going on, s not the case. You've got a very complex site here that has real issues that cause chain iSkwhen you try to move something. We've really spent, I mean I've spent probably a year and a ing hard o~q looking at the details of this site, and there's been dozens and dozens of revisions. [~, we made, Matt and Sharmin made a few comments to us, and we did get the staff report on and we attempted or we had been working on making changes. I do want to bring to your this is the plan that we have dated January 8th. It's one that we were looking at redoing. I have tere from Steve Schweider. He's a builder of Woodale and he and Charles Cudd and Robert )r excuse me. Tom Mason, and I met many weeks ago. They obviously as perspective builders · ,velopment and I selling lots. The staff had made me aware that they were concerned about Lot 1 and so I talked to Steve about it and hence he wrote this letter. And he basically references in paragraph, Lot 1, Block 1 of Lake Lucy Ridge development. I think this lot is a very buildable re are pluses and minuses to this lot as with lots anywhere but the pluses outweigh the minuses tse. It has a 70 foot wide building pad and is 60 feet deep. This was changed from the previous we're quote unquote, technically discussing because that was only 60 feet. We've made a 70 ~ pad here basically per suggestion from these guys because they indicated that we should give, width wide or with perspective on frontage of lots we should be somewhere around that 75 foot 3 it's likely that we are, it's likely that this thing might move a couple feet more but it's y going to stay at least 70 feet. And one of the suggestions that Matt had was give us a 20 foot :form going out the side of that lot. When I handed him this plan at that point a week or so ago, that drawn in. Okay. The recommendation, I mean I see a recommendation, I think it was ~_9. You know it says eliminate Lot I of Block 1. There's a lot of things that could have been hat line other than eliminate it. It could be widen the pad. Make, do this. Make that. It's strange hat you would just say eliminate it. But that's the way the staff report came out. We have, as I indicatd]t before, we've virtually eliminated every retaining wall on the Site. These lots over here could easily, ~[nd here agai~ I just talked with a lady, it must have been Thursday or Friday. She had called me back. S~e's called, Ive talked to her several times on this development. They want to buy a lot in the develo and I was relating to her that we eliminated as many retaining walls as we could, and she pops says, well I would like to have retaining walls in my back yard. And so I think there's going to be pl~ nty of opportunities for people to have retaining walls in this project, even though we'd like to them. And if they do that on, like for example on Lots 3, 4 and 5, you're definitely going to have a wider back yard depending on how many walls and whatever they might want to do. From my per >ective it's kind of been recommended that I avoid walls because council and planning co~mnh .ion is not really in favor of them. I don't know if that's true or not but that's kind of the messa a get a bh if you clarific~ exactly and a st~ 47.05 a 23.2p come u that I got, and sometimes that's over the years and thinking about that issue, I think that's an response. One of the other issues that we have is Lot 9, Block 3. IfI may again I'd like to w-up on that thing. That lot currently here is, it has a part curve and part straight line road on it ill. And that curve is 47.05 feet and the straight line portion is 20.88 feet. Now there's no :ion in the code book that defines what's a cul-de-sac lot and what's another lot and so I'm not .ute how you differentiate between them, but in the, if you just broke this lot out on a curve basis ht line basis, this 40, the minimum lot, the minimum curve is 60 feet in Chanhassen. I've got ht now, and that's a 78.4percent of the requirement. If you take the 20.88 on a 90 foot lot, that's amount of a standard regulation. If you take that 23.2percent and the 78.4percent you with 101percent. Okay. Blacko iak: Excuse me Mr. Noecker. Randy oecker: Let me get to this. Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Blackowiak: We're getting into a lot of detail here. Aanenson: Can I just make a clarification too on that. You have the authority to make an interpretation in the code so whatever you decide, if it's straight or not. Our interpretation was it was a straight line. Blackowiak: Right. Okay, and I guess that's even not where I'm going right now. I'd be kind of interested in hearing what you think about staff' s recommendations and how you feel that your plan is able to work with or not work with what staff's recommendations are. I'm hearing right now you're not in favor of moving the road. The idea of losing lots is not appropriate, or not one of your possibilities I'm thinking. Just kind of what's your gut reaction to this. I mean they made a lot of recommendations should this move forward and how are you feeling about that? Randy Noecker: Let me get to that but let me finish one thing here before I. Blackowiak: Sure. Randy Noecker: Alright. We can comply if in this, if I can get a blow-up here again on this. We can comply with this lot as to the city standards. We have 28.88 feet on the straight line and we have 61.4, which actually exceeds the curve line so we have a distance of 90 feet in there, alright. However, the problem with doing that is we have 15,000 feet in this lot, and then when you start working with your impervious calculation requirements here at the city, you run into real problems with this lot in association to the other lots on this ridge because obviously these ridge lots that overlook the lake are going to be more expensive than others. And so you end up with, if you use the plan that we've put together, which is 67 feet across, even though it's part straight and part curved, it's a much better plan in the end because you get more square footage in that lot. Okay. Those are things that have cultivated through the process that if asked we could have explained right from the beginning, okay. But the report comes across hey, this lot is no good. It's only whatever and that's maybe in reality the case but it's not the case when you have 47 feet out of 60 to do that. To get back to your questions now 'about what, how _ I feel about the staff recommendations. I guess I'm not in favor of the road because I've got enough support from builders that have verified the city's concern about problems with these lots. This lot on the end for example can be turned to the other street and probably solve 99percent of any problems that any staff member might be able to come up with. But there's many different ways to, not on all lots but on several lots in this development. For example like on 3, which is a full basement, you can make ttiat a lookout you know. Blackowiak: Right, you could custom grade every lot. I mean basically. Randy Noecker: But in any case, I'm not in favor of losing Lot 1, Block 1. I've showed from a letter from Steve Schweider and I know I could get others if needed. That's a very beautiful lot. It's going to overlook the wetlands. I'm not in favor of moving the road. I think these, to talk about these trees down here, I think one of those trees may have been in the pad, but I think the other one could be saved with a retaining wall, and we would gladly do that. I know that you're not going to be able to move that pad like it was... If you moved that road, you've got, instead of a nice, heavily wooded thing, heavily wooded situation xvith some knee high plans and rain coming through that into a leaf bed that's 100 plus years old, if you're going to tell me that the soaking value of the rain falling on there is the same as a 3 to 1 slope coming into the back of that house, no way. And then for the staff, you know it's 20percent rules and it's 80percent politics sometimes, okay. But for staff to, in the initial meetings to tell me that a box elder and an oak have the same value and then to tell me this plan is okay if they wipe out 150 to 175 10 Plannin trees an just not' that we was not refer to that~we favor of septic s There i~ you knc Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 replant with 7 trees or 8 trees, we've gone into the political end of this thing. You know. I'm n favor of it, no. I' ve got several, we' ve given additional information to the staff about changes flanned on making. It was too late in the process to apparently present them to you, although I. in agreement with that issue either but none of these issues are beyond the scope of what I would ts minor housekeeping changes. Yesterday at the counter staff and Sharmin both agreed with me :ould make minor lot changes and things like this as the plan went onto City Council. So I'm in the plan that I've submitted with these suggestions that I've made. I'm obviously not in favor of stems. I don't need that close to the lake. I don't think that issue needs further discussion. a couple of items inside of here that I want to clarify for the record and I think it's just possibly, ¥ they intended to write it this way but it may not have gotten, may not have been written that way, bu I'm assuming that over sizing costs for all aspects of the needs that the city has for utilities, like for ston[, water manholes, the lift station itself, the size of it. The larger pumps. The force mains. All of that stu! would be included in the city cost that over sizing... iak: Let me clarify. Matt, is that something the city generally does? Assumes all cost of over sizing? Saam: this case we did ask the applicant to do some additional sanitary sewer work. The lift station, for it's :velopment is planned to serve existing houses in that neighborhood to the east, in the future. We know when. So we did say we would compensate him for the additional cost, but only for the sanitary ewer. At least that's all I've looked at so far. And that's in the staff report too. Randy shouldn premise. oecker: Yeah see in my comments I' ve included storm water, water and sanitary, and all aspects d thereof. I got no problem with building my own but if you Want to make it twice as big then I have to pay that cost because the city needs to service a different area. That's a logical Saam: [so in the memo I think there's some storm water fees that Lori Haak, the Water Resources ttor went through and I think I-saw some credits in there that she lists out so I believe those have been tat '.n care of also. iak: Okay, thank you. Randy oecker: One other, and likewise with one other area and that's the park trails. I can remember a letter across that they were going to pay for the blacktop material. Well, you have to haul the material in. You have to spread the material out. You have to compact the material. Test the material and the~ lay a blacktop down on it and haul it all in and then roll it so there's a little bit more expense to making trail than just the blacktop material. Aanens~ Just to be clear, we don't pay for that so if he has an issue with that he'd have to speak to the Park am Rec Director. Black( iak: Right, because I see that they pay for materials and then installation is the developer's. Aanens( Correct. [ak: Okay. It is their, it's their deal. Randy So do credits then come back from a subtraction of park fees on that or? 11 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Saam: Trail fees. There are no trail fees... Blackowiak: There are no trail fees. Saam: And I think that's why because Todd's asking him to put in the trail. That's the way I understand it. Blackowiak: Right, because it's already served by different parks. Randy Noecker: My mistake. I missed that. Blackowiak: Okay. Okay, Mr. Noecker. Would you want to stay up there? I think we may have just a couple questions for you. Rich, anything you want to? Slagle: Sure. Just a couple questions. I didn't hear a lot about your thoughts on what you term Outlot B, and what I think is termed as Outlot A. In the sense of the change. The proposed change. Meaning if we were to not approve the change from the rural large lot to the, help me out. Aanenson: Low density. Slagle: Yes, low density. I mean what happens if that stays the same? We do not approve, and I realize that the rest of the program starts to, I don't want to say unravel but I mean would you be open to at some point having that Outlot A, or B as you call it, having 2 homes, 2 sites and then working out a new plan for the other parcel? Randy Noecker: I would say no to that because I look at, I'm a real, or at least I think I'm a down to earth person. I'm a real logical based individual. I believe in fairness in paying my share of costs and I don't believe in paying the costs for the city or Other people,.alright. I'll pay my own but that's it. Under that premise, it's logical, especially considering the wetland separation from the other large acreage lots. It's very logical to develop this, I think I've got about an acre and a half of usable ground from that 7 acre lot that I acquired. It's very logical to attach that to a sewered and watered project. If you guys said no for some reason, I would probably create an outlot on the entire cul-de-sac and the lots associated therewith and come back again at a later point in time because it's logical to develop it this way. It's a nice looking neighborhood when you get done. You obviously have people across the bay that don't want to look at house tops. They want to look at trees, and nobody wants, from a resident's perspective, nobody wants their own personal little park destroyed. We run into that all the time. And so I would not be in favor, if I'm understanding what you're saying, I would not be in favor of that because it's just logical to do this development, in/ny mind, the way it's proposed. Slagle: Sure. And if you were to then, what you just mentioned, take it to a different idea to come back to us with, extending the yards or the lots, you would then thus have less lots, is that correct? Randy Noecker: No. Slagle: Okay. Randy Noecker: No, I would, I think what you're referring to, I mean under that plan yes you would, okay. But I thought you were referring in this Outlot A, Outlot B scenario. With these lots here along 12 Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 the the if I'm again, if I'm understanding what you're telling me, I would just put all of those, including into an outlot and come back when there's more sense to what I'm doing. Slagle: Randy 'oecker: Because it's logical to do this. If you can show me, I mean you've got politics involved but is ii ogical not to do this? And if so, please share that with me. Slagle: /. One last question, and it's more to Matt but I'd like you up there to answer it. Matt, was the reas ~n we did not take Lucy Ridge Lane straight due south was because of the grading and the speed ;? That's why we made the curve. Is that correct? Saam: res. Yep. Slagle: .nd there's really no other thought as to how to, because I mean I'm thinking. Saam: ts to why it isn't just straight? Slagle: yeah. I mean could it be straight if the speed concern was not an issue? Saam: there. we guess the existing topography too came into play somewhat but for sure to put a slight curve in talks with Mr. Noecker, he thought teenagers would be speeding down there and so did we so ',d to not make it a runway for them so to speak. Slagle: /. Randy 'oecker: One other issue that I forgot to mention that Ted just reminded me about was the retaini~ wall on the back of the pond. We've gOt a comment on the sheet that says the Planning Cornmi ;ion can either do a 4 foot retaining wall or we could plant wild flower mix on there. One of the, I think so then we'd the that mi retaini~ mean was Mrs. Kind that had commented, it would be better without a retaining wall in that area and found out from Sharmin that if you did a retaining wall you had to get council approval so :fer not to do it but if we do a retaining, if we don't do a retaining wall we have to grade inside- ,,r area and we would gladly replant the buffer area with the wild flower seed mix. Or any mix be recommended. Aesthetically it's going to look better in the end rather than have the wall because I think Mrs. Kind is right on that issue. But we'll do it either way. Whatever, I s our preference. Blacko' 'iak: LuAnn. Sidney: I guess you mentioned a number of letters that you received supporting your position. Have these be ~,n shared with staff? Would you like those included in the application? Because I'm thinking you want to include that as supporting documentation. Randy 'oecker: I'm not sure about, I'm not sure if the letters I was referring to was letters that I could get frol other builders or was it at this meeting? Sidney: Yeah, you mentioned Steve... 13 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Randy Noecker: Yeah, I think that was in reference to other builders that I could go to and get letters from them that would basically substantiate the same thing but I, Steve is a real good builder. He builds a lot of houses over 700-800 and I'm real comfortable in his knowledge about situations. In fact that's why I approached him and Cudd and Mason came along. Sidney: I guess if you feel comfortable including that, if it would support your position. Randy Noecker: Oh yes. I would definitely, in fact I made 3 or 4 copies of that letter to give to staff so yeah, that letter is definitely a part of the whole process here. Blackowiak: Uli, did you have any questions? Sacchet: Well we talk about a lot of things and yes I do have a lot of questions but I'm not sure they would add much value at this point. Blackowiak: Okay. Well, if you reconsider. Craig. Claybaugh: Yeah. A couple specific questions. Your opening statement you stated you'd like to identify or focus on 3 different areas. Goals, issues and complexity. We spent substantial amount of time on complexity. The rest on issues. We really didn't touch on goals. One of the things you identify as your goals was to develop executive sites, and I guess looking at the plan and listening to the different discussions and the rest of it, if you would I'd like you to maybe give a brief narrative of what you think defines, in your mind, an executive home site. Randy Noecker: Well one of the things that I would gladly, I may have a copy in my briefcase but I'm not certain. One of the things that I would gladly share are the conditions of the architectural cormnittee approval and the proposed covenants that we plan to utilize on the site. Claybaugh: Maybe I could re-address that question. As it relates to maintaining the land integrity. Randy Noecker: Those 2, primarily those 2 issues were the avoidance of wetland, mitigate. Or not mitigation but wetland impact and the saving the trees. You know minimizing the tree destruction. Those were the 2 goals that I have identified, or I guess that we, as developers try to minimize as much as we can. We made, we looked at possibly impacting the wetlands on the 6 or 7 acre site and deemed it was inappropriate because it was a naturally based wetland whereas the other one was not. And that's why we put our additional wetland on the other wetland on the west side of Lucy Ridge Lane rather than on the lake side, again to minimize impacts as much as possible. Claybaugh: Okay. I'm presuming you don't assign a lot of weight to the square footage as it relates to an executive home site. The square footage of the lot. Randy Noecker: Oh yes we do. We're, that's why we're basic, we basically made the determination in our marketing efforts, and I'll use them as a comparison. I usually try to maintain about 96 to 97 foot frontage on my lots. It's not always possible. If for example when you have a curve you, at the 30 foot setback line, it's real easy to keep that at 90 because if you go 5 feet back, you're then at 92 or 94 and you know usually your garages are set back 6 to 12 feet anyway so by the time you're back at the house level, you're way over what the desired width of the lot would be. But Lundgren Brothers basically, I haven't seen their basic premise is very similar to that. They're in that 95-96 range. In their desired width of a lot. 14 Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 :h: Right, with respect to the square footage though I think the adjacent subdivision Ashling Meadoi ,s, correct me if I'm wrong, is averaging around 22,000 square feet so. Randy loecker: Okay. Let me give you a little breakdown. If you've got a 2,000 square foot 2 story. Okay y u'd have roughly 4,000 feet on the top 2 levels. You've got a driveway that is approximately, let' s ca Avera you've square ant 1,000 feet for it 30 feet. Let's call it 20 foot wide at the right-of-way line and 30 feet wide at the garage. 25. You're at 25 times 30 is 750. Let's call it 800. Okay, you've got 2000 feet on the house, 800 feet on the driveway. Your garage is typically a 24x34 will run you right around 850 Maybe 800. Well that 850. Add another 150 for your stoop and your sidewalks, you're at 1,000 so you're 28, or excuse. You're 2,800 from the blacktop and the house plus your other your garage and your sidewalk. You're then at 3,800. Add 2, just for easy figuring, add 200 Claybm :h: 4,000 square feet. Randy [oecker: So you've got 4,000 square feet. You need a 16,000 square foot lot. Clayba the firs! foot' lots? I' gh: Okay. Now you've used a 2,000 square foot footprint on a two storY. When you were up time you spoke in terms of possibility of 3 car garages. What would you consider the average that the 3 builders that you entertained would be placing on some of these 16,000 square foot assuming there' s. Randy [oecker: They're all between 18 and I supposed they'd go up to 22. Clayba h: The footprint? Randy [oecker: The footprint. Clayba r,h: Okay, for. Randy oecker: For the house. Claybal h: Now you also spoke in terms of million dollar range on some of these properties. Randy [oecker: Yep, and those lots that are priced in that category have adequate square footage to substm iate where we're at. Claybal r,h: Okay, then I'm still struggling with the 2,200 square foot and the cost impact to the buyer. I can't fathom the cost per square foot, what that property would be. I'm thinking in terms of 4,000- 5,000 s~ uare foot for the price tag that you're talking about and I'm assuming everything in there isn't going t( be a two story. Randy [oecker: I would venture to say that you might have 1 rambler or 2 ramblers in there. The rest are to be two stories. That's what the market's doing right now. Claybal Okay. Just to come back to, this would involve Matt there with respect to the fairness issue for upsi :ing the utilities. Are you satisfied that that is being addressed? Are they just. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Saam: You mean will the applicant be fully compensated or? Claybaugh: Or just the city's position I'm assuming is to pay solely for the upsizing. Saam: Correct, yep. Yep. That's what we're looking out for. That's what's meant to be addressed in the staff report. Claybaugh: Okay. And that will be followed up I assume. Saam: Correct. Claybaugh: Say have you made any allowances for what I would consider fairly strong community resistance to the project? Randy Noecker: Allowances? Claybaugh: Well just looking around, usually we don't get this kind of crowd so that's a fairly good turnout and I believe they're here for this petitioner so yeah. Do you feel in your mind you've made any allowances? Or that you should make any allowances? Randy Noecker: Well, there's always a, I mean I just got a plat approved in Blaine a couple months ago and there were 7 people adjacent to the plat, and they were the only ones that showed up. The people, the 26 or 8 letters of, or 26 or 8 names and phone numbers of individuals that I have that wanted me to notify them of when this development is ready so that they can buy a lot, and all but one live in Chanhassen. I bet their ain't one of them here tonight. I mean they're not here because I mean. Claybaugh: No disrespect but that wasn't the question. Randy Noecker: Well, and I appreciate that. The. Claybaugh' ...feel that you should make allowances, I'm just asking the question. Number one, do you feel that you should? And if you do, do you feel you have? Randy Noecker: I'm not sure that I've made allowances. The concern that, or excuse me. Most of the comments that I related, or that I identified with in the last time we were here, they gave different comments but they, in the end they related to tree loss. I remelnber one guy or a couple people standing up and saying we should have less houses there. And his reason was that he wanted to save the trees, and I've tried to go through that process here this evening and show that we aren't going to save many trees if we have 21 versus 20 or 19. The tree loss is going to be there simply because of the impact of the topography and how it relates to our ability to raise that road as fast as we can. Claybaugh: Which I guess leads into my next question and that is, do you feel the situation is aggravated by the degree of lot density that you're counting? I understand there's a lot of elevation problems, that it's a complex site. I understand the nature of that but I also believe from my personal standpoint that the situation's being aggravated by trying to develop it as fully and completely as the plan in front of us. Randy Noecker: It obviously could be aggravated. The only people that I would suspect are here are from the north and from the east. The ones that are doing single family developments in Ashling 16 Plannin Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 to be s aren't here I suspect and obviously the property to the south is not developed, but that's going 'eloped the same as this. So when you have two neighborhoods that come together, you have opposition. h: You're in a transition. Randy I'm not develo would li )ecker: Yeah. And it's you know, but I feel, I didn't think there would be that much of a because of the natural divide. I mean there's hundreds of feet across that wetland to the properties and from that perspective yeah. The other thing I'd like to mention too is, I guess, ~ng this proposal based on the parameters that the, that is what I see available with the city. I'm )roposing a large lot development. I'm proposing the one that I'm doing. If I wanted a large lot proposal, that's what I would have come in with. I'm sure those that are here this evening to see a large lot proposal, but that's not what I'm doing. I'm doing the one I'm proposing. 16,000 the city's the impl h: No I was just curious if you thought there was any middle ground there. Even for myself, uare feet on an executive's homesite is on the short end. I understand there's people that are on side that are looking for large lot but that leaves a huge divide and a lot of suggestions that the tking and some of the things that the neighborhood is saying, I'm just curious, I haven't gotten that you're ready to entertain any of those. Randy we're al could b~ area is people large in toda' oecker: No I'm not because the number one reason is, just like, I mean you see in the paper that lng 60 or 70percent townhomes. Well if you understand the market out there right now, you doing 90percent townhomes and not satisfy the demand. The townhome demand in the metro so fast it is unbelievable. Now I make that comparison to this because this site is one that 'ant because of it' s location. It' s near work, or nearer to work than it would be if they bought a out in the country. They're choosing to buy this lot and put these houseson them. Most of them s market do not want a big yard. All I'm doing is being in tune with the marketplace. Cla~ commul market represe~ area exceptk new to across h: And I think from, at least-my perspective, we're trying to be in tune with what the ty's about. I think that's part of what we're trying to convey to you is that that may be what the in other cities, but we're also here to try and represent what Chanhassen is supposed to and that's, it's mixed. We have large lot. We have small lot and you're caug-ht in a transition I can appreciate some of the problems it's causing foryou. I guess last thing is, I guess I take to the 20percent policy and 80percent politics. We've worked with the staff. A lot of us are ~e planning commission but we've seen nothing but first rate service to people that have come eir desks so that's all I have. iak: Okay thank you Craig. Deb, questions. Kind: all the would two plm one es I have one quick question and that is on the second page of the blueprints. The one that has )ntours on it. Could you point out to me where this retaining wall and/or buffer sloped area >. Is that the entire length of Outlot B or is it just near the entrance area? I see arrows going to and it makes me think it goes the whole north/south distance. Use Outlot B, yes. And it's the looking at is, what is it called? Grading, drainage and erosion control plan. Slagle: [2-18-01 on the bottom left. Aanens n: Could you give me the page again, I'm sorry. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Kind: This one? Randy Noecker: Oh yeah we got it. This one. Basically if you look at the legend...to differentiate between the two is the darkness of the line. If I can I'II point out the tree preservation fence which basically is over here on the bluff. And the tree preservation that encompasses all of this green area that Jill asked that I save as a part of that ridge. The rest of this stuff, like along the trail, that's silt fence. Kind: That's that boulder shaped wall that I thought was a retaining wall at first and that's really an erosion fence. There's a little note here that says Planning Commission/Council choice. Randy Noecker: Okay. The Planning Commission/Council choice basically has to do with a possible retaining wall along the pond. Between the pond and wetland. Maybe a couple hundred feet long. But it's not marked on here. We just made the notation. The only thing that's marked on here is the silt fence, okay. But we made the notation that we would do a 4 foot wall with no buffer disturbance or that the buffer would be sloped 3'1 with wild flower seed mix. Kind: Which is what you touched upon earlier. And then that's got two arrows kind of going ooooh. So is that the whole distance of it? Randy Noecker: Right. That's the distance of the r~taining wall. Kind: Okay. So it's not, you're proposing that it goes the entire length of the wetland? Randy Noecker: The wall? Kind: Right. Randy Noecker: No. Kind: Thank you. And then staff, that was Sharmin's latest condition that she added tonight was staff's perspective is, they're recommending that the Planning Commission and Council choose the retaining xvall option and I guess I'd like to hear staff's rationale for why you prefer that over the wild flower 3:1 slope option. AI-Jaff: Whenever we have the chance to save a buffer and keep it in it's natural state, then that's what we attempt to do. In this case, if we went with a retaining wail, we would be able to save the buffer. And it's a natural wetland so minimize impact on the wetland. Kind: Thank you. That's all. Blackowiak: Bruce, questions. Feik: I have no questions for this applicant. Blackowiak: Uli, have you? Sacchet: Yeah. I have a few quick questions. There's one thing that really perplex me. You're stating your goal. you want to make executive home sites .... what I don't understand is, if that's your goal, why 18 Plannin Commission Meeting- January 15, 2002 are you more se Randy topogr~ you knc this isst The unt into 3 s~ eliminal Sacchel of perp misund you're and hov and wh slope. moved Randy you ha' area goi You wE up to tl~ back ya back don't kJ o adamantly opposed to having less lots and a little larger lots and therefore be able to be a little ~sitive to the nature there. 'oecker: It doesn't save any trees by making larger lots. The impact of the cuts involved with the ,hy basically wipe out your trees anyway. I mean if there's an area that you can save trees it's, given there might be some trees there, I can sure look at it but we've spent a lot of time with on trying to identify a possible area that we could deal, or do that with the elimination of a lot. 'tunate or not unfortunate, however you want to look at it, the development is really broken up gments. You've got these 5 lots and Lot 1, and these 4 in Lot 2 and the rest of it. And by ing 1 lot in one of those areas, it does not help any of the other areas. Yeah, I would agree with that. One lot wouldn't do it. Now I have two other things that kind '.x me. I mean you touched on a lot of things but two things I just want to make sure I didn't rstand. When you were talking about moving the road and making those lots in Block 1 deeper, oing into quite a lot of detail how the elevation is relatively severe and how it has to be graded the lots have to be plowed in for Lot 4-5. I guess that's the one in Block 1 you're addressing, I don't understand is, it seems to me that if the lot would be deeper, you would have a gentler >u would have more room for that grading so you actually made a case that the road should be lan. [oecker: Well no, not exactly because you, imagine, here's the side of my house. Okay. And the hill coming down. You xvant to get that hill down as quickly as you can so you've got a flat ~g into the house. You don't want to do it at a 5:1 so it slams right into the back of the house. ~t to hit that bottom on a 3:1, put a swale in there so the water runs away, and then comes back ., hous,e. But in this plan right here, moving it 80 feet, you've got an 80 foot difference plus my d that s currently drawn in there on Lot 5, which let's say is 20 feet. You now have 100 foot behind the pad under that plan, and that was just an overkill. It's not necessary. There's a, I )w what there is. Well it's 150 feet deep. It's a 60 foot back yard right now. Sacchel and mo' it out wider, surface And then the other little detail I briefly want to touch on, when you were talking about Lot 9 ng those lines around. I was kind of perplexed. I didn't know that before you actually pointed that by straightening out these lines a little bit, if I understood you correctly, to make the front would lose enough square footage in the back that you get in trouble with the impervious lecause the lot is so small already, is that pretty much what you pointed out? Randy )ecker: What I was trying to make, or identify with is to, you want to, when you have a section, in deve ~ments you can have sections that are higher priced than other sections, okay. The cul-de-sac is a classi, example. Those homes are going to be much higher priced than others. Or let me say, have a higher e value than this same development, okay. Likewise, these 4 or 5 lots, and possibly the one across Je street is going to have the same situation involved with it. These over here are the less priced lots, 1 trough 5 over here, okay. Well, if you've got a neighborhood that you're trying to protect, you want tt those values of the, you want to refrain from restricting any kind of value or anticipated value you have so you want to keep your square footages up at the point that you feel necessary. I've made a tetermination that I like to keep my lots at around 16,200 minimum. Not all are going to achieve that inside of the formula that you use, you also want to have about a 75 or 77 foot lot width. 10 foot on ~.ach side makes it 97 feet wide. You can't always get 97 feet and you can't always get 16,200 but the~ ~,'s not, not everybody's going to need 16.2 because remember, there's going to be a lot of these houses hat are only 45 feet deep. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Sacchet: Yeah, my question however was, you made a comment about getting in trouble with impervious if you move some of these lines around. Randy Noecker: Yes, that's true. That's the general idea. If I move those lines under this plan that I showed, it certainly can be done, okay. But it's not the right way to do the development because then by moving the lines I'm down to somewhere around 15,000 and I've made a determination in my decision making process that I want to be at around 16.2 or above. And in so doing I can accomplish the goals that I want for this neighborhood. But to knock it down to 15,000 makes the lot a question mark because you may either have trouble selling it or it may not be the type of house that you really want to get for that particular location, and it's just a basic premise of establishing and protecting your investment that you have inside of an entire project. Sacchet: Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. And I don't have any questions at this time. So we'll move along. I am, at the request of some of the neighbors I will open the public hearing briefly to hear their presentation. 5 minutes or so. When I say or so, please take that with a grain of salt. I guess Tamara is not here tonight. She's, you are Tamara? Okay. How come I didn't think you were going to be here tonight? Tamara Sather: I don't know. Blackoxviak: I don't know either. Tamara Sather: I was the first one here. Blackowiak: Good for you. Well why don't you state your name and address for the record and then just go ahead. Tamara Sather: Okay. Madam Chair and Planning Commission. Thank you. My name is Tamara Sather. I live at 7090 Utica Lane and I'm representing the petitioners and the local residents around the development. I will be brief and concise. My husband says I might get too sassy if I go off the way a little bit. The neighbors really want to stress that, the surrounding neighborhood residents are not against land development. In fact we all live in a development so we really want to get that point across that we're not against a new development coming in here. However we are opposed to the proposed development for the following reasons. Development is not consistent with the surrounding developments which range from 3A to 10 acre lots. Lake Lucy Highlands, Greenwood Shores and Ashling Meadows. As you can see the map to the east of Lake Lucy, those homes in Greenwood Shores on the lake are a minimum of ZA acres and in the Lake Lucy Highlands they range from 1 acre to 10 acre lots. In the development of Ashling Meadows, just to the west of the development, the 3 lots in the northeast comer are abutting 5 lots in the proposed development. According to the comprehensive plan of 2020, Outlot A is part of Lake Lucy Highlands. Lake Lucy Highlands was developed as a large lot development and has maintained that character. Outlot A which on the new plat is Outlot B, needs to remain part of Lake Lucy Highlands. And if we look at the comprehensive plan it does show that that naturally fits in with those, with the Lake Lucy Highlands. Therefore, you can see the lots a 7.7 and a majority of it is wetlands. I think they mentioned about an acre and a half that would be buildable so with the majority of Outlot A being wetland, xve would just feel that that whole lot goes with the Highlands. Residents urge the Planning Co~runission to deny the land use amendment of Outlot A. If the land use amendment is denied, the rezoning of Outlot A would be inconsistent with the zoning ordinances. And then as you mentioned before, the policy. If we believe that that outlot is part of Lake 2O Plannin Commission Meeting-January 15, 2002 Lucy H residentl neighbo! apprecia proposel that prot topogra[ concern,, lots as pi :hlands, policy states that the large lot subdivision is to remain as is until a majority of the request to have it changed. The petition reflects 80 residents from the surrounding hoods that wish to leave Outlot A as it is. Chanhassen is a high amenity community. Residents e it's natural environment which include trees, slopes, vistas, uncluttered open spaces. The development will result in extensive grading, a high loss of canopy and loss of value wetlands ',ct Lake Lucy. Here's a photo of the area. You can see the amount of trees. It doesn't show the :~y... You can see that this development is obviously very close to the lake so there are many for the lake. Now it is obvious the applicant is trying to fill the development in with as many ,ssible. The 21 lots proposed is too dense and does not fit with the surrounding neighborhoods. We feel he topography of the land does not lend itself to 21 homes and the grading needed to squeeze these holnes in would be environmentally detrimental to the land and Lake Lucy. It's been addressed by the appltl:ant himself that this is, there' s a lot of challenges with this land and I think that it is increased with the ~mount of lots that he is trying to put on it and I think it's a beautiful piece of land. We think it's abel utiful piece of land that could have some nice homes on it. Larger lot homes that would match the surr¢ anding area and fit in with the community around the development. After a year and one Plannin~ Commission meeting the applicant still has not met some recommendations of staff or direction given by the Planning Commission. We are concerned about the development that is negligent in meeting 'ecommendations. Residents would like to see a development that reflects integrity with full regard fc the environment and consistency with nearby neighborhoods. We are not opposed to a new developr =nt. We would like to see development that Would be more consistent with the surrounding neighbm ~oods. We want Outlot A to remain as it is shown in the comprehensive plan. Thank you. Blackow to add ar and addr Scott Sa to work thing th~ ak: Thank you. Okay in fairness, if there's anyone else from the neighborhood who would like 5,thing that wasn't covered inthe presentation, please come up and briefly state. Okay, name ',ss for the record. ~er: Hi. I'm Scott Sather, 7090 Utica Lane. I guess my big question. I've had the opportunity /ith the developer the last couple years and he's always stressing environmental impact and one he's mentioned to me is that you cannot change the rate of which a piece of property sheds it's water, bt]t you can change the volume and according to what I see, there are no holding areas to deter the rate at wlfich that water will shed. And the lake, from what I understand from talking to the neighbors, has reall deteriorated over the years because of what we think, a lot of phosphates and what not and a lot of extra ~noff so I guess my only point is, is there a plan to change the rate at which the water will shed off this development? Saam: :an address that if you want. ak: Yeah, if you want to briefly. Saam: sure. I've worked with the applicant's engineer. They are proposing a pond to control the rate that will discharge into the wetland and Lake Lucy so they are meeting our requirements. tk: Okay, thank you. Pat John on: My name is Pat Johnson. I'm a resident of Lake Lucy Highlands. I live at 1730 Lake Lucy Lane. ;t a brief comment. Of course I also signed the petition. Most of us in the Lake Lucy Highlands area are till there. We were the original purchasers and homeowners and one of the things that attracted me, and think most people, was the fact that we had restrictions and covenants which included an architect ral committee. Now a lot of our homes are probably not as valuable as the homes that are being 21 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 proposed to be built, but because of the large lot residential, which was attractive to many of us. The fact that our area contains a lot of wetlands. We have a number of natural separation in our neighborhood. And a lot of wildlife. These are big lawns, etc. These are pretty much natural looking lots, and so we're concerned as to having a lot of buildings being built. We're concerned about having buildings being built on these lots, even storage sheds, that were out of character for that particular area. And so we had, the developers drew up, I think the Steller's drew up a number of restrictive covenants which are still in effect for our development. And I don't think anyone's brought up the fact'that these restrictive covenants now are effectively being devalued or taken away from us by taking the Outlot A, which is part of our development, and putting it into the proposed development without consideration of these covenants, which include our approval of anything built on Outlot A. I mention that. It may be a legal question. Blackowiak: Well I do kind of know the answer to this one. Pat Johnson: I believe you do. Blackowiak: Yeah, and I think Kate needs to just back me, or just sort of make sure I'm stating it correctly. The restrictive covenants are not something the city can enforce and it's between the residents and Kate, I don't know exactly what the legal basis is. Maybe you could clarify that a little bit for us. Aanenson: Well that's correct. It's between the owners of the subdivision to enfOrce that. Certainly if this lot was replatted, that would have to be looked at. Blackowiak: But it's not something that we really can give a lot of weigh to I think in our decision. Pat Johnson: Okay. My second point, without reiterating, this development appears to be a fairly high class development. It would fit in well I think in Minneapolis or in Edina or an inner ring suburb but it's going to be out of character, at least the way it now stands with these large lots. I mean our development's 2 V2 to 5 acres. Many cases i0 acre developments and with that density and then all of a sudden taking a density where it would have houses on 16,000 square feet is just simply going to be out of character for that area. So we're hoping that the commission will deny the application and that we would have some compromise from the developer. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Alright I am going to close the public hearing right now. I wonder if I should start. No, I think we'll just, I'll let the other commissioners make comments. I guess the over riding question that I'm going to have, and maybe we could all discuss this, is the rezoning question. And that's something that I'd like you all to address. Whether or not the land use amendment should or should not go forward because that's going to determine how far we go with the rest of the motion so with that, Craig why don't you start us out. Claybaugh: Given the current circumstances as they're laid in front of us tonight, I would not be in favor of voting in the affirmative for the land use amendment .... with the surrounding area encompassing some of the things that were discussed here tonight and in the plans. Blackowiak: Thank you. Deb. Kind: I agree. I think that Matt summed it up well. I think we can expect some sort of trade-off in exchange for changing the land use designation from large lot to single family residential. A plan that 22 Plannin Commission Meeting- January 15, 2002 would r keeping Blackoxa Feik: I amount tuire less lots with less grading I think would be more environmentally friendly and more in vith our comprehensive plan and I do not support changing the land use. ak: Okay, Bruce. )ncur. I am not comfortable agreeing to change the land use based upon the current plan and the f staff considerations that we've seen since the last time this has been here just a month ago. Month Blackou Sacchet: certainl, one is th opinions atd a half ago. So I would not be in favor of changing the land use at this time. iak: Okay, thank you. Uli. Well, I made my position pretty clear last time. I don't believe we're over reacting. We agree on one thing that this is a problematic site to build. Unfortunately we don't agree which wrong plan. You made a statement that this is the wrong plan. Well, I think we have divided a, hich one is the wrong plan. I'm not sure there is a right plan at this point. It seems obvious, and the.~taff report states it and I think ultimately your deliberation Mr. Noecker made that plenty clear too, is t~t proposed Lake Lucy Ridge maximizes the number of home sites in this development. Your goal is tl maximize and as such I still disagree with the staff finding that the proposed subdivision will cause environmental damage. I believe it causes much. Much environmental damage. And that's obviousl very significant finding and there's so many conditions here to try to mitigate and I want to staff for the effort you've made to try and put this in a framework to mitigate all the negative impacts find something viable but obviously the developer chose not to consider hardly any of the It suggestions so I cannot possibly envision how we could let this go forward without seeing what, wi ere it's actually going. I mean it's just way too many things that were pointed out during the ion of the applicant again as well. We would need to know specifics. What is the average lot size? A~ d then that leads me to the key point here. This development is a transition. According to the corn msive plan, the way I understand the comprehensive plan, it is a transition. There has to be a flow. Meadows we have an average lot size of what is it? 22 or 25,000 or what? iak: I believe it's 28,000. Sacchet: Or even 28. 28,000. I've heard 28,000. Across from your development that you're proposing there is thing, a~ your And on the lot current trge lot which means a minimum of 2 V2 acres. So if you look at this in a context that the logical you mentioned your appeal to logic here too. The logical thing would be that the lot sizes in lopment, the average lot size should be between 28,000 and 2 V2 acres. That's logical to me. basis there's no way I could support changing that outlot designation in order to maximize which doesn't mean I'm in support of having septic systems there in the end, but the al does not warrant a concession like that. Blacko~ iak: Thank you. LuAnn. Sidney: agree with my fellow commissioners' comments and I'd like to make a few here just to make a few add .onal points. I agree it's a very complex site to develop which merits special consideration. And I everyone here recognizes it will be developed at some point. The question before us tonight, is this tl~ plan that we want to see go forward. One thing that really struck me is that we have huge changesin the'grade from west to east and it seems like the current plan is much more appropriate for a flatter like something that would be in Blaine rather than the current situation in Chanhassen. And I view th~ a less dense development would be a better transition zone, like Uli stated, and would be more appropr te for an executive neighborhood. I don't think that what we have before us is compatible as a 23 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 transition between the two developments nearest to the proposed development. So I cannot support the change in the land use and cause this to promote a development which, like I said, I believe is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. I also want to state for the record that I feel that I have, well I do have some concerns about the process this application has followed. I strongly believe staff has diligently worked with the applicant and it seems like the applicant, from what we have heard 'tonight, has reached little agreement with staff. And also little agreement with the neighbors to this development and I support all of staffs recommendations and highly value their opinion and I think all developers that we have seen here have made some concessions and have worked effectively with staff on most all occasions. And I feel that the applicant needs to work more closely with the neighbors and staff to bring forward an application which everyone is going to have a good feeling about. I just cannot feel good about what we have before us tonight and that's feeling but back to the fact that I can't support the land use amendment because it is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan in my view. Blackowiak: Rich. Slagle: As far as the rezoning, I just could not support the rezoning application. And to be quite honest with you the applicant as well as others who might think of this lot, I really have a struggle as to how you could develop this any other way than the current situation that it's in today. I don't think it would be appropriate to have numerous homes as a result of a proposed zoning change. And I think as other commissioners have discussed, the density and the transition are just I think absolutely critical to this situation. And I know the applicant mentioned the development to the west, Ashling Meadows. Well there's no homes there. I would bet a dollar that if there were homes there, you would have this side of the room taken up by citizens, and again not that they don't want a development, but it is a transition from large lots to very nice lots and then it continues to Highover and up to Longacres and this just seems to be a situation where there are a number of homes that are being proposed and I think it's just too much and I don't think as Uli sort of suggested in a quiet way, it's not just 1 or 2 home sites. And obviously that's my viewpoint but I couldn't approve a rezoning. Blackowiak: Okay. Thank you. I agree with my fellow commissioners as well and I thought LuAnn would say my favorite phrase and she didn't. Is there a compelling reason? We go back to this so often in rezoning questions and land use amendments. You know what is the compelling reason for us to change and if we don't hear that reason. If we're not convinced that it's for the good of the community, the good of the property, then there's really no way that we can go ahead and say just because we want to do it we can do it. We need to hear good reasons and logic behind it. It's shown as part of the Lake Lucy Highlands right now. The Outlot A/B, whatever we're calling it, and it makes sense to leave it as such in the absence of any reason to the contrary to change it. Second thing. There's some strong neighborhood opposition to the plan and I think that we have to weigh that as well, and thank you all for coming. You did a great job tonight making your presentation and kept it very factual, which is often hard because it can be very emotional to hear changes that are proposed that you're not in agreement with. But tonight I didn't hear reasons for changing the land use so I would not be able to support any land use amendment or rezoning. With that I'll need a motion and I would refer, whoever wants to make it to page 19. Top of page 19. Sacchet: Yeah, Madam Chair. I'd like to make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the Land Use Map Amendment from Residential-Large Lot to Residential Low Density for Outlot A, Lake Lucy Highlands based on the following as stated with one correction. The last sentence should read, therefore the Planning Commission finds that the conversion of the easterly 7.07 acre outlot from Large Lot Residential to Low Density Residential is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Not may find but we do find that that's the case. And then further I'd like to move that the Planning 24 Commission Meeting- January 15, 2002 Commi ;ion denies the rezoning from RR, Rural Residential District to RSF, Single Family Residential for Out A, Lake Lucy Highlands and the westerly 11.5 acre parcel due to the following 1 through 3. And like to move that the Planning Commission denies the preliminary plat of Subdivision 01-10 creatin twenty one lots for the Lake Lucy Ridge subject to not complying with the land use designation and zo~ ng requirements. And that the Planning Commission denies the Wetland Alteration Permit )01-3 Lake Lucy Ridge based on the Wetland Alteration Permit being a part of the Subdivision for Lake Lucy Ridge and the Subdivision has been denied due to inconsistency with the ensive plan and zoning ordinance requirements. Blacko, iak: Okay, well unless there's any objections I'm going to, yes Rich. Slagle: lust a housekeeping. Do you want to add 2020 comprehensive plan? Sac Yes, that's acceptable. Blac iak: With the 2020, and that's in motion 4.9 Or in. Sacchet That's in the first. Slagle: the first. Sacchet In the first, the last sentence. Slagle: think it's somewhat obvious but we'd better put it. Sacchet To be specific correct. Black{ iak: Okay. So unless anyone objects, I'm going tO take all four of these motions. Aanem You can have them all as one. iak: Yeah, we'll vote on them all at once. Yes we'll need a second. Feik: I' second all four. Blm first. I are in ak: Thank you. You're going too fast here for me, I'm sorry. I was looking for objections at dn't see any so it's been moved and seconded that, as Uli stated, motions 1 through 4 for denial of us. I don't know how I'm going to get out of this one. Sacchet Map Hi Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the Land Use endment from Residential-Large Lot to Residential Low Density for Outlot A, Lake Lucy Is based on the following: The ing land use designation of the 7.07 acre outlot is for Residential Large Lot. This area has been de' with single homes on larger lots. Chanhassen is a high amenity community. One of the m tenities is that we have a range of residential land uses from large lot to high density. Maintai ~ing this mixture is one of the city's goals. In addition, the community highly regards it's natural nvironment including trees~ slopes, vistas, and uncluttered open spaces. The development, as prop( ;ed, significantly impacts these features. Lake Lucy Highlands was developed as a Large 25 Planning Commission Meeting- January 15, 2002 Lot development and has maintained that character. The 7.07 acre outlot is regarded as a buffer or an undevelopable site unless it was demonstrated that a future structure would be able to meet wetland setback requirements. This language clearly demonstrates that at best, this site would accommodate two home sites, based upon lot area only. The proposed Lake Lucy Ridge maximizes the number of home sites within this area. Therefore, the Planning Commission finds that the conversion of the easterly 7.07 acre outlot from Large Lot Residential to Low Density Residential is inconsistent with the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. Also, that the Planning Commission denies the rezoning from RR, Rural Residential District to RSF, Single Family Residential for Outlot A, Lake Lucy Highlands and the westerly 11.5 acre parcel due to the following: The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be inconsistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. . The proposed use does not conform to all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The proposed development incorporated the two parcels, therefore, the proposal can not proceed. Also, that the Planning Commission denies the preliminary plat of Subdivision 01-10 creating twenty one lots for the Lake Lucy Ridge subject to not complying with the land use designation and zoning requirements. Also, that the Planning Commission denies the Wetland Alteration Permit 2001-3 for Lake Lucy Ridge based on the Wetland Alteration Permit being a part of the Subdivision proposal for Lake Lucy Ridge and the Subdivision has been denied due to inconsistency with the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance requirements. _ All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 7 to 0. Blackowiak: This item goes to City Council on January 28th, so members of the audience, please make sure you follow this item through to that City Council meeting and see what happens there. 'Thank you everyone for coming. We'll take a 3 minute break and we'll move onto the second item as soon as we get back. PUBLIC HEARING: REOUEST FOR VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF_F_~_RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 6890 NAVAJO DRIVE~ MARK NELSON. Public Present: Name Address Don Peterson 6896 Navajo Drive Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. 26