The URL can be used to link to this page

7 SUB Big Woods AdditionCITY OF PC DATE: 6/5/01 CC DATE: 6/25/01 Review Deadline: 7/3/01 CASE #: 01-3 SUB D,,. A 1 l,~gl:.,r 7 STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: / · Preliminary Plat ~o Subdivide 6.3 Acres into 9 single family lots with a 50 foot right-of-way and a 20 foot front yard setback variances, Creekwood East of Carver Beach Road, West of Lotus Lake, and north of Shadowmere, Creekwood, Coffman Development Coffman Development Services, Inc 600 W.78th St., Suite 250. Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)974-7877 Guy Swanson and Kari & Paul Romportl 610 & 620 Carver Beach Road- Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)470-2067 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family District 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential-Low Density (Net'Density 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre) ACREAGE: 6.3 acres DENSITY: !.8 1.7 Units per Acre Net 1.4 Units per Acre Gross SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Subdivision of 6.3 acres into 9 single-family lots, zoned RSF, Residential Single Family; Variances for the construction of a road within a 50-foot right-of- way and a 20-foot front yard setback on Lot 6, Block 1, Creekwood. There are two existing homes on the site. Both homes are proposed to be demolished. The site is heavily wooded and abuts Lotus Lake. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet and lakeshore properties on Lotus Lake. Creekwood June 25, 2001 Page 2 LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Subdivision Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. BACKGROUND This site has been the subject of staff's discussion for approximately a year. Several individuals have met with city staff to inquire about city requirements and the development of the site. Staff has always maintained that this is an environmentally sensitive site (adjacent to Lotus Lake, heavily wooded, meandering terrain, and has a creek running through it). There are several options to develop the site such as a beachlot along the lake with all parcels having access to it, a Planned Unit Development to allow flexibility in the design, straight subdivision, etc. The applicant initially submitted a plat that met all ordinance requirements with the exception of the width of the street right-of-way. The ordinance requires a 60-foot right-of-way and the applicant requested 50 feet. The applicant's reasoning was that all the existing streets leading to the subject site currently have a 40-foot right-of-way, it would increase the rear yard setback to save trees, and be compatible with the surrounding area. Staff agreed with the applicants reasoning for the variance, however, there was no demonstrated hardship. Staff is recommending a subdivision with no variances. The referrals that were sent out, requesting comments on the plat, stated that the applicant is requesting a 50-foot right-of-way variance. The request that was published in the Villager and the notices that went to the public did not include a variance. This should have no impact on the subdivision process. On June 5, 2001, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved this application with the recommendation that the City Council approve a 50-foot right-of-way variance for the same reasons listed by the applicant. This staff report has been edited. All new language appears in bold, and deletions struck through. Staff is recommending approval with conditions. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to subdivide 6.3 acres into 9 single family lots, and variances to allow a 50-foot right-of-way and a 20-foot front yard setback on Lot 6, Block 1. The property is zoned RSF, Residential Single Family. Creekwood June 25, 2001 Page 3 The average lot size is 2d,321 25,166 square feet with a resulting gross density of 1.4 units per acre and a net density of !.8 1.7 units per acre. The site is located east of Carver Beach Road, west of Lotus Lake, and north of Shadowmere. Access to the subdivision will be provided via an extension of a cul-de-sac off of Carver Beach Road. All lots are proposed to be served via an internal residential street. The site is encumbered by an existing utility easement along the west portion of the site and a lift station on proposed Lots 8 and 9. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Lot 7 has a peculiar shape. The ordinance defines Lot Width as the shortest distance between tot lines measured at the midpoint of the building line. Building line is defined as a line parallel to a lot line or the ordinary high water level at the required setback beyond which a structure may not extend. Based on this definition, the lot width for Lot 7 exceeds the required 90-foot lot width. The Planning Commission directed the applicant to straighten out the lot line between lots 7 and 8. If this line was shifted to the north, Lot 8 will not be able to accommodate a 60' x 60' house pad as required by ordinance. However, it will be able to accommodate a single family home. The site consists of two parcels being assembled into one tract of land, and then subdivided. There are two dwelling units and some accessory structures on the site. All these structures are Proposed to be removed. A creek runs along the south side of the site. The applicant is dedicating a 50-foot easement from the edge of the creek. The only exception is on a portion of Lot 7. The street right-of-Way maintains a 35-foot setback, however, the actual pavement maintains a 50-foot setback. There are steep grades along the creek; however, none meet the definition of bluff. The actual grades of the steep slope were raised as an issue. At the June 5, 2001, Planning Commission meeting, staff added a condition to the staff report that stated, "A registered land surveyor shall re-survey the slope on Lot 6 to determine if a bluff exists. The 60 x 60 house pad shall maintain a 30-foot setback from the top of the bluff. If the house cannot meet the standards, the lot shall be eliminated°" The developer and the developer's surveyor met City staff on-site on June 14, 2001. The purpose of the meeting was to establish the toe and the top of the slope so the surveyor could survey the area and determine whether or not bluff existed on-site. The top and the toe of the slope were established and it was concluded that most of the slope did not fit the conditions necessary to classify it as bluff. (The grade of the slope averaged 30 percent or greater, but the slope did not rise at least 25 feet from the toe of the bluff.) The area that can be classified as bluff is within the westernmost portion of Lot 6. The 60 by 60 buildable area on Lot 6 meets the required 30-foot setback from the top of the bluff. Staff discussed a preservation easement over the southern portion of Lot 6 to protect the steep slopes, which the applicant agreed to. Staff is also recommending the house pad on Lot 6 maintain a 20-foot front yard setback to increase the distance between the 60 by 60 house pad and the slopes in the rear of the property. Creekwood June 25, 2001 Page 4 The site is heavily wooded. The existing woods consist mainly of large, mature oaks with an understory of sugar maple, linden and ash. It' s a healthy forest with very few invasive species. Development of the area should pay special attention to protecting the root zones of the large oaks and preserving the maple understory. In reviewing this plat, staff also had to look at access to the properties to the north. The property owner to the north (Mr. Paul Eidsness) has met with staff and has been in contact with Coffman Development to ensure that should he decide to subdivide his property, sewer, water and street access is provided. Staff has ensured that the surrounding parcels are not landlocked. When Mr. Eidsness and the remaining property owners are ready to develop, the street will extend to the north and eventually hook up with Fox Hill Drive. Staff is unaware of any interest in developing that property at this time. Staff is recommending a street be stubbed to the Eidsness property for future access. In summary, the subdivision meets ordinance requirements. We are recommending that it be approved with variances to the right-of-way width and front yard setback of 20-feet for Lot 6, with conditions outlined in the staff report. PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 6.3-acre site into 9 single family lots. The density of the proposed subdivision is 1.4-units per acre gross, and 1.8 1.7 units per acre net after removing the roads. All the lots exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of area, with an average lot size of 24,123 25,166 square feet. All riparian lots exceed the 20,000 square feet area required by ordinance. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Each parcel is reflecting a 60'x 60' house pad. Lots 6 and 7 contain a creek. The applicant is proposing to dedicate an easement over the creek that extends 50 feet from the edge of the creek to protect it and ensure that no structures encroach into this area. Staff has also added a condition requiring a preservation easement over the steep slopes along the southern portion of Lot 6. The subdivision ordinance requires the proposed name of the subdivision not duplicate or be similar in pronunciation or spelling to the name of any other plat in the county. Currently, there · is a Creekwood plat located in Chanhassen. Therefore, the applicant is required to change the name of the proposed plat. Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. Creekwood June 25, 2001 Page 5 WETLANDS There do not appear to be any wetlands present on-site; however, staff recommends that a wetland delineator assess the site to verify the City's planning maps. A wetland does exist to the west of this site. The plans indicate that the storm sewer that drains south under the entrance to the subdivision will outlet into an existing pond. The applicant must show that storm water will not be discharged into any wetland basin prior to pretreatment. LOTUS LAKE Lotus Lake is a recreational development lake. The areas of riparian lots on recreational development lakes must be at least 20,000 square feet and the lot width at the shoreland setback line must be at least 90 feet. The proposed riparian lots meet these requirements. The ordinary high water elevation (OHW) of Lotus Lake is 896.3 feet MSL. A 75-foot shoreland setback is required from the OHW. The proposed house pads on Lots 7, 8 and 9 meet this setback requirement. The one issue that needs to be resolved is the lakeshore setback as it relates, to structures on lots' on either side. The City Code requires structures to maintain a setback equivalent to neighboring lakeshore properties. Currently, there is an approved variance for a structure located to the south of Lot 7, allowing it to maintain a 75-foot setback from the OHW of Lotus Lake. There is an' _existing structure to the north of Lot 9, which maintains 130 feet. If the structure on Lot 8 was built first and maintained a 75-foot setback, there would be no lakeshore setback issues. However, if Lot 7 developed first, then Lots 8 and 9 would become unbuildable without a variance. If Lot 9 were built first, then it would have to maintain a 130-foot setback, which would make it unbuildable. We conclude that Lot 9 could not be built first without a variance. The building order of the lakeshore lots must be Lot 8 first, and then Lots 7 and 9, in order to meet the letter of the city code. This is a real application of the current lakeshore setback ordinance, as well as testing ground for the recommended changes. The questions that need to be answered are "How should these situations be handled? Is this a reasonable approach? Do we dictate the order in which building must occur? Would this requirement place undue hardship upon the developer and potential buyer? What if LOt 8 was purchased and not immediately developed? Is this ordinance reasonable?" Them is no setback requirement from the creek; however, staff has requested the applicant maintain a 50-foot setback from the edge of the creek to maintain the integrity of the creek. In order to meet staff's request, the structure on lot 7 must be setback further than required by ordinance. Should the applicant be penalized for complying with staff's request? Creekwood June 25, 2001 Page 6 It is staff's recommendation that structures on lakeshore lots maintain a minimum 75-foot setback from the OHW of Lotus Lake; more specifically, in the approximate location of the building pad as shown. CREEK The creek that runs along the south side of this property (Carver Beach Creek) is not a DNR Public Water; therefore, there is no specified setback from the OHW of the creek. A majority of the homes in the subdivision directly south of the proposed project (Shadowmere) maintain a 50- foot setback from the creek. For purposes of water quality and erosion control, a 50-foot minimum setback is recommended. The placement of a dock on Lot 7 will require an encroachment agreement due to the combination of a 50-foot setback from the creek and the proposed drainage and utility easement over the east end of the lot. Staff also notes that no water-oriented accessory structure will be allowed within the setback and easement on Lot 7 without an encroachment agreement. BLUFFS There are steep slopes on the property adjacent to the creek (the eastern portion of LOt 6 and the western portion of LOt 7). The applicant and staff examined this area against the criteria for a bluff (the slope rises at least 25 feet above the toe of the bluff; the grade from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the toe of the bluff averages 30 percent or greater; and an area with an average slope of less than eighteen percent over a distance for fifty feet or more shall not be considered part of the-bluff. Nevertheless, the applicant is providing an easement over this area to protect the slope and the creek. The developer and the developer's surveyor met City staff on-site on June 14, 2001. The purpose of the meeting was to establish the toe and the top of the slope so the surveyor could survey the area and determine whether or not bluff existed on-site. The top and the toe of the slope were established and it was concluded that most of the slope did not fit the conditions necessary to classify it as bluff. (The grade of the slope averaged 30 percent or greater, but the slope did not rise at least 25 feet from the toe of the bluff.) The area that can be classified as bluff is within the westernmost portion of Lot 6. The 60 by 60 buildable area on Lot 6 meets the required 30-foot setback from the top of the bluff. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) Stor~n Water Management The applicant must provide storm water calculations. A detail of the skimmer proposed on the storm water pond should also be provided. Creekwood June 25, 2001 Page 7 Easements The preliminary plat shows a drainage and utility easement over the storm water pond on Lot 7, but not the storm water pipe that outlets into the pond. To facilitate maintenance of the pond and pipe, a drainage and utility easement should be provided over that portion of Lot 7 that is west of the sanitary sewer easement. If a drainage and utility easement is dedicated, an encroachment agreement will be required for the driveway to the proposed building pad on Lot 7. Drainage and utility easements should be provided over all existing creeks and storm water ponds. 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 6.3 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $5,040. Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average citywide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single- family residential developments have a connection charge of $1,980 per developable acre. This results in a water quantity fee of approximately $12,474 for the proposed development. SWMP Credits This project proposes the construction of one NURP pond. The applicant will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from the site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. Credits may also be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees for oversizing in accordance with the SWMP or the provision of outlet structures. The applicant will not be assessed for areas that are dedicated outlots. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $17,514. GRADING The existing 6.3-acre parcel is heavily wooded. The site elevations range from a high of 942+ to a low of 895+. As with any site that contains this much change in elevation, there are some naturally occurring steep slopes on the property. In addition, the site contains two houses that will have to be removed prior to any grading operations. Creekwood June 25, 2001 Page 8 Due to the large amount of trees on the site, the developer is proposing to custom grade all of the lots. Staff agrees that this is the most environmentally sensitive way to develop the site. Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans will be required for each lot at the time of building permit application for City review and approval. In addition, as-built surveys will be required on each lot prior to occupancy. 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 to the creek and Lotus Lake in the east and southeast. The remaining westerly portion of the property drains off-site to the southwest. The proposed grading plan has been designed to match the existing topography and drainage patterns fairly well. The majority of the eastern portion of the site drains to a proposed pond in the southeast corner of the site. The pond is required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program_ (NURP) standards. The pond will treat the water before discharging it to the adjacent creek. The applicant is proposing to drain the remaining western portion of the site to an existing pond on the west side of Carver Beach Road. This is a regional type pond that has sufficient capacity to handle the additional storm water. The proposed drainage plan is consistent with the City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). The applicant has submitted drainage calculations for water quality; however, water quantity calculations are still needed. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review. 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. Emergency overflows from all storm water ponds will also be required on the construction plans. 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 III erosion control fence, which is a heavy-duty silt fence, be used for the area adjacent to the existing creek. The final grading plan shall extend silt fence around the north and south sides of the proposed cul-de-sac. In addition, tree preservation fencing needs to be added around the construction limits. A rock construction entrance has been shown at the proposed street access off of Carver Beach Road. Creekwood June 25, 2001 Page 9 UTILITIES Currently, public sanitary sewer is available to the property from along the east side of the site. The plans propose on connecting to this sewer line and extending it, approximately 750 feet, to the west. This is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Sewer Plan. This site contains City Lift Station #10 which is located near Lotus Lake. In the past, lift station #10 has experienced capacity problems and with continued development, staff believes the lift station may have to be upgraded in the future. As such, staff is recommending that the permanent utility easement around the lift station be increased from a 50-foot square area to a 60- foot square area. In addition, a 20-foot easement for access is required off of the proposed cul- de-sac. At the June 5, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, concerns were raised about the City's existing Lift Station No. 10 (LS gl0). One of the major concerns was if LS gl0 would be able to handle the additional homes being proposed in this development. The problem with LS #10 is not the amount of sewage that drains to it; but the size of the station's wet well. (A wet well is where sewage is stored in a lift station until the pumps "lift" or pump it out.) Currently, if there is any type of mechanical failure or power outage where the pumps cannot work, City crews have approximately 20 minutes before LS gl0 overflows into Lotus Lake. This is because the wet well in LS gl0 does not provide sufficient detention time. Also, during heavy rain events, inflow and infiltration from groundwater can also cause the station's wet well to overflow. ' Staff realizes that there is a problem with LS glO. As such, staff intends to obtain a consultant to study and remedy the problem. Also, staff recommends that the sewer services for the proposed lake lots of Creekwood be installed with backflow preventers. Municipal water is available to the site from both Carver Beach Road and the east side of the site. The plans propose on looping the watermain through the site. The site was previously assessed for utilities and these assessments have been paid. Each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hook up charges at the time of building permit issuance. The 2001 trunk utility hook-up charges are $1,322 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,723 per unit for water. 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 time of final platting. The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Creekwood June 25, 2001 Page 10 The building official originally had a condition that stated, "The private utility system could not be reviewed, the plans did not contain enough details." The Planning Commission recommended, "The private utility system shall be reviewed by staff prior to going to City Council." Staff discussed this issue with the Building Official. Private utilities are reviewed at the time of building permit. Therefore, staff deleted the condition. STREETS There is one proposed access to the site off of Carver Beach Road. As a rule of thumb, staff would prefer a minimum of two access points to and from developments. Therefore, staff is recommending that a second street be stubbed to the north property line across from Lot 4. This street would be extended as properties to the north develop. Sanitary sewer and watermain should also be stubbed to the north to serve future lots. The current right-of-way for Carver Beach Road is 40-feet in width (20-feet on each side of the street). City Code requires a minimum of 60-feet for right-of-way on residential streets. As such, staff is recommending that the applicant dedicate an additional 10-feet of right-of-way on the west side of the site, along Carver Beach Road. This would increase the right-of-way to 30- feet in width on the east side of Carver Beach Road. The proposed cul-de-sac is shown as a 28-foot wide street with curb and gutter within a 60 50-. foot wide public right-of-way. Staff feels that the 28-foot wide street is a better fit to the Carver Beach area than the City standard of 31-foot wide streets. Many of the existing streets in the Carver Beach area are 20-feet wide. PARK DEDICATION COMPREHENSIVE PARK PLAN: The City's Comprehensive Park Plan identifies Carver Beach Park as the neighborhood park facility that will serve Creekwood. COMPRENHENSIVE TRAIL PLAN: Creekwood will be served by a trail connector between Carver Beach Road and Big Horn Drive that will connect pedestrians to the city's larger trail system. The Park and Recreation Commission will review this subdivision in June but the Director is recommending that full park and trail fees be collected in lieu of land dedication. Creekwood June 25,2001 Page 11 TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING Tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations for the Creekwood development are as follows: Total upland area (including outlots) Total canopy area (excluding wetlands) Baseline canopy coverage Minimum canopy coverage allowed Proposed tree preservation 6.3 ac or 274,428 SF 5.8 ac or 252,648 SF 92% 55 % or 3.5 ac. 48% or gd3-3.6 ac. The developer does m~t meet minimum canopy coverage allowed. This was accomplished by reducing the right-of-way width to 50 feet. At the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant stated that even though tree replacement is no longer required, they intend to plant the 24 trees required under the previous plan which included a 60 foot right-of-way. thcrcforc thc diffcrcncc is multiplied by 1.2 to calculatc thc required rcplaccmcnt plantings. Difference in canopy covcragc Multiplicr Total replacement Total number of trccs to bc planted 21,780 SF 1.2 26,136 SF 24' trees A replacement planting plan must be submitted to the city for approval. Included in the plan shall be location, species and size of replacements. All replacements must-meet minimum size requirements. The existing woods consist mainly of large, mature oaks with an understory of sugar maple, linden and ash. It's a healthy forest with very few invasive species. Development of the area should pay special attention to protecting the root zones of the large oaks and preserving the maple understory. In the past, city approval has been given for variances that provide increased tree preservation. In this development, two adaptations to the plans could save significant numbers of trees. Reducing the street width and decreasing the front yard setback would both help to ensure that many of the large trees in the rear of the lots remain. By allowing a 50' right-of-way and 20' front yard setbacks, over 10,000 s.f. of wooded area would be saved and would decrease the number of replacement plantings by ten (10) trees. Not only are there visual benefits of seeing large trees behind the houses, but the environmental benefits of reductions in CO, storm water runoff and energy costs are far greater from mature trees than from the small young replacement plantings. Creekwood June 25, 2001 Page 12 COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT Lot Lot Lot Area Width Depth Home Setback Ordinance BLOCK 1 Lot 1 Comer Lot Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Lot 7 Riparian Lot Lot 8 Riparian Lot Lot 9 Riparian Lot 15,000 non-riparian 90' 125' 20,000 riparian 30' front/rear 10' sides 75'Lake 50' Creek 16,503 17,570 !37' 150' -141- 147.5 30'/30' 10' 15,202 15,689 ! !2' 110 !38' 145.5 30¥30' 10' 15,102 15,061 404' 100 137' 141.5 30'/30' 10' 15,108 15,389 !19' 110 !37143.5 30'/30' 10' 15,042 16,230 127' 145 177'175 30'/30' 10' 29,928 28,980 -1-64' 165 367.5256.5 30'/50' -10' 51,883 53,878 !08'70On Curve 518.5'507.5 30775' 188' Lake Fron~ge 10' 31,480 34,653 I I 8' ~ On Cu~e 280' 283 30775' 187' Lake Fron~ge 10' 28,~4 29,0~ ~!2'~0 ~09'~9 30'/75' 188' Lake Fron~ge 10' The zoning ordinance defines Lot depth as the mean horizontal distance between the front lot line and the rear lot line of a lot. The greater frontage of a comer lot is its depth, and its lesser frontage is its width. In this case, staff is recommending the applicant dedicate a 10 foot right-of-way along Carver Beach Road. The property line along the north will be reduced to 137 140 feet, which will become the lot frontage. Also, it is more likely that the applicant will orient the house toward the north due to existing topography. SUBDIVISION - FINDINGS 1. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Creekwood June 25, 2001 Page 13 Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF~ Residential Single Family District. 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. 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 conditions specified in this report 4~ The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to conditions of approved. The proposed subdivision contains adequate open areas to accommodate house pads. 6. 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. 7~ The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: 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. Creekwood June 25, 2001 Page 14 VARIANCE-FINDINGS As part of this plat approval, a variance to allow a 20-foot front yard setback for lot 6, and a 50-foot wide right-of-way is requested. The City Council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in the subdivision chapter as part of a plat approval process following a f'mding that all of the following conditions exist: The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the land. The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property. The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. Finding: Staff recommends the variances be approved as shown in plans dated May 1, 2001, for the 50-foot wide right-of-way and the front yard setback for lot 6 to minimize environmental impact on the site and allow the street to blend in with the surrounding neighborhood. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE On June 5, 2001, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved this application with a vote of 5-0 with one commissioner abstaining. The plan approved by the commission reflected a 60-foot right-of-way. The commissioners recommended a 50-foot right-of-way be presented to the City Council for consideration and approval. Also, all the neighbors who live in the immediate area surrounding the subject site requested the city consider a 50-foot right-of-way. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission City Council adopt the following motions: PRELIMINARY PLAT "The Planning Commission rocommcnds approval of City Council approves the preliminary plat for Subdivision//2001-3 with a variance to allow a 50-foot right-of-way and a 20-foot front yard setback on Lot 6 of Creekwood for 9 lots as shown on the plans May gl- 1, 2001, subject to the following conditions: Creekwood June 25, 2001 Page 15 1. Thc applicant shall correct thc lot frontagc on Lot 5 to 127 fcct. 2. Storm water shall not be discharged into any wetland basin prior to pretreatment. 3. No dock shall be placed on Lot 7 without an encroachment agreement. o No water-oriented accessory structure shall be allowed on Lot 7 without an encroachment agreement. Se All structures shall maintain a 50-foot setback from the ordinary high water level of the creek. The slopes along the southern portion of Lot 6 shall be protected by a conservation easement. 6. The applicant shall provide storm water calculations. 7. A detail of the skimmer proposed on the storm water pond shall be provided. o A drainage and utility easement shall be provided over that portion of Lot 7 that is west of the sanitary sewer easement. o Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing creeks and existing and proposed storm water ponds. 10. Based on the proposed developed area of 6.3 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are estimated at $5,040 and the water quantity fees associated with this project are estimated at $12,474. The applicant will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from the site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. Credits may also be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees for oversizing in accordance with the SWMP or the provision of outlet structures. The applicant will not be assessed for areas that are dedicated outlots. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $17,514. 11. Environmental Resource Specialist conditions: a. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan showing 24 trees as replacement plantings. Plan shall specify size, species, and locations. b. All areas outside of grading limits shall be protected by tree preservation fencing. Fencing shall be installed prior to grading and excavation for homes on each lot. 12. Building Department conditions: Creekwood June 25, 2001 Page 16 13. a. Demolition permits must be obtained from the Inspections Division before demolishing any structures on the property. b. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. c. Thc privatc utility systcm shall bc rcvicwed by staff prior to going to City Council. Fire Marshal conditions: Submit proposed street name to Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. be A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that the fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. When fire protection including fire apparatus access rOads and water supplies for fire protection is required to be installed such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 901.3. do 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 driving capabilities. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 902.2.2.2. ee Because of close proximity to neighboring houses no burning permits will be issued. Trees or shrubs to be removed shall be either chipped on site or hauled off the property. With regards to Lots 7 and 8, houses must comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy Premise Identification referencing, if structure is not visible from the street additional numbers are required at the driveway entrance. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed 14. Park and trail fees shall be collected in lieu of land dedication pursuant to city ordinance. Creekwood June 25, 2001 Page 17 15. Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans will be required for each lot at the time of building permit application for City review and approval. In addition, as- built surveys will be required on each lot prior to occupancy. 16. 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. 17. Each of the ponds shall be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. 18. Staff needs to receive and review the water quantity ponding calculations prior to preliminary plat approval by the City Council. 19. The permanent utility easement around lift station #10 must be increased from a 50-foot square area to a 60~foot square area. In addition, a 20-foot easement for access is required off of the proposed cul-de-sac. ~ 20. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design calculations will 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 up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Emergency overflows from all storm water ponds will also be required on the construction plans. '~ 21. 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 Ill erosion control fence, which is a heavy-duty silt fence, be used for the area adjacent to the existing creek. The final grading plan shall extend silt fence around the north and south sides of the proposed cul-de-sac. In addition, tree preservation fencing needs to be added around the construction limits. 22. 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. 23. Each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hook up charges at the time of building permit issuance. Creekwood June 25, 2001 Page 18 24. Revise the preliminary utility plan to show all of the existing utilities around the site. 25. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show all proposed and existing easements along with the normal and high water elevations of the proposed pond. 26. A second street shall be stubbed to the north property line across from lot 4. This street would be extended as properties to the north develop. Sanitary sewer and watermain should also be stubbed to the north to serve future lots. A sign shall be installed stating that this street may be extended in the future. 27. The applicant shall include a draintile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge from homes not adjacent to ponds. 28. Dedicate an additional 10-feet of right-of-way on the west side of the site, along Carver Beach Road. 29. All plans must be signed by a registered engineer. 30. The applicant shall change the name of the proposed plat. 31. Since the applicant has shown a plat that meets ordinanCe for lot sizes and building pads, the applicant may revise the plat to straighten a propertY line between Lot 7 and 8. The lot sizes must meet the ordinance and the applicant shall show a suitable house plan that will meet all setbacks on Lot $. 32. A rcgistcred land survcyor shall re-survey thc slope on Lot 6 to determine if a bluff exists. The 60 x 60 house pad shall maintain a 30 foot setback from the top of the bluff. If thc house cannot meet the standards, thc lot shall be eliminated. 33. Prior to final plat the retaining wall shall be removed from the right-of-way. 34. Applicant shall identify thc significant trecs prior to prcscntation to council. 35. Prior to City Council presentation, the applicant shall work with staff to specify limitations regarding lake accessory structures in the encroachment agreement. 36. Thc applicant shall rcvisc thc plat to show 90 foot width at thc ordinary high water mark and building setback lincs. 37. The Planning Commission recommends the City Council consider allowing a 50-foot right-of-way and 20-foot front yard setback for this subdivision based on the fact Creekwood June 25, 2001 Page 19 that the City Council can grant a variance as part of a plat approval process and that this meets the hardship requirements because it's the city's desire to preserve as many trees as possible. 38. The City shall evaluate the capacity of the lift station and it's ability to serve the new development and the existing neighborhood. 39. The sewer services for the proposed lake lots of Creekwood shall be installed with backflow preventers." ATTACHMENTS o . 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Memo from Loft Haak, Water Resources Coordinator dated May 24, 2001. Memo from Matt Saam, Project Engineer and Mahmoud Sweidan, Engineer, dated May 31, 2001. Memo from Steve Torell, Building Official dated May 23, 2001. Memo From Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal dated May 18,2001. Memo from the DNR dated May 22, 2001. Application and Public Heating Notice. Planning Commission minutes dated May 5, 2001. Preliminary plat dated May 21,2001. g:.Xplan'xsaXcreekwood, doc -. CITYOF City Center Drive, ?0 aox 147 Minnesota 55317 Phone 612.937.1900 General Fax' 61293Z5739 Fax 612. 93Z 9152 tblic Safety £ax 612.934.2524 wwm cl. c/Janhassen, mn. us MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator~ May 24, 2001 SUBJ: Creekwood (Carver Beach Road) Upon review of the preliminary plat, preliminary utility plan, preliminary street and storm plan, and preliminary grading plan prepared by Otto Associates dated May 21,2001, I offer the following comments and recommendations: WETLANDS There do not appear to be any wetlands present on-site; however, staff recommends that a wetland delineator assess the site to verify the City's planning maps. A wetland does exist to the west of this site. The plans indicate that the storm sewer that drains south under the entrance to the subdivision will outlet into an existing pond. The applicant must show that storm water will not be discharged into any wetland basin prior to pretreatment. LOTUS LAKE Lotus Lake is a recreational development lake. The areas of riparian lots on recreational development lakes must be at least 20,000 square feet and the lot width at the shoreland setback line must be at least 90 feet. The proposed riparian lots meet these requirements. The ordinary high water elevation (OHW) of Lotus Lake is 896.3 feet MSL. A 75-foot shoreland setback is required from the OHW. The proposed house pads on Lots 7, 8 and 9 meet this setback requirement. CREEK The creek that runs along the south side of this property (Carver Beach Creek) is not a DNR Public Water; therefore, there is no specified setback from the OHW of the creek. A majority of the homes in the subdivision directly south of the proposed project (Shadowmere) maintain a 50-foot setback from the e Gty ofChanbassen. A growing community with dean lakes, qualio, schools, a charmingdowntown, thriving: businesses, and beautifulparks. A great/)lace to live, work, andolay. Sharmin A1-Jaff May 24, 2001 Page 2 creek. For purposes of water quality and erosion control, a 50-foot minimum setback is recommended. The placement of a dock on Lot 7 will require an encroachment agreement due to the combination of a 50-foot setback from the creek and the proposed drainage and utility easement over the east end of the lot. Staff also notes that no water-oriented accessory structure will be allowed within the setback and easement on Lot 7 without an encroachment agreement. BLUFFS It appears that a bluff may exist on the property adjacent to the creek (the eastern portion of Lot 6 and the western portion of Lot 7). The applicant must demonstrate that either: 1. The area does not meet the criteria for a bluff(the slope rises at least 25 feet above the toe of the bluff and the grade from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the toe of the bluff averages 30 percent or greater); or 2. All structures will be set back at least 30 feet from the top of the bluff and no vegetation will be removed or altered within the first 20 feet from the top of the bluff. SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (SWMP) Storm Water Management The applicant must provide storm water calculations. A detail of the skimmer proposed on the storm water pond should also be provided. Eflsentents The preliminary plat shows a drainage and utility easement over the storm water pond on Lot 7, but not the storm water pipe that outlets into the pond. To facilitate maintenance of the pond and pipe, a drainage and utility easement should be provided over that portion of Lot 7 that is west of the sanitary sewer easement. If a drainage and utility easement is dedicated, an encroachment agreement will be required for the driveway to the proposed building pad on Lot 7. Drainage and utility easements should be provided over all existing creeks and storm water ponds. 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 6.3 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $5,040. 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 Sharmin AI-Jaff May 24, 2001 Page 3 acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and storm water ponding areas for runoff storage. Single-family residential developments have a connection charge of $1,980 per developable acre. This results in a water quantity fee of approximately $12,474 for the proposed development. SWMP Credits This project proposes the construction of one NURP pond. The applicant will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from the site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. Credits may also be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees for oversizing in accordance with the SWMP or the provision of outlet structures. The applicant will not be assessed for areas that are dedicated outlots. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $17,514. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Storm water shall not be discharged into any wetland basin prior to pretreatment. 2. No dock shall be placed on Lot 7 without an encroachment agreement. 4 o No water-oriented accessory structure shall be allowed on Lot 7 without an encroachment agreement. All structures shall maintain a 50-foot setback from the ordinary high water level of the creek. The applicant shall demonstrate that either: 1. The area does not meet the criteria for a bluff(the slope rises at least 25 feet above the toe of the bluffand the grade from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the toe of the bluff averages 30 percent or greater); or 2. All structures will be set back at least 30 feet from the top of the bluff and no vegetation will be removed or altered within the first 20 feet from the top of the bluff. 6. The applicant shall provide storm water calculations. 7. A detail of the skimmer proposed on the storm water pond shall be provided. ge o A drainage and utility easement shall be provided over that portion of Lot 7 that is west of the sanitary sewer easement. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing creeks and existing and proposed storm water ponds. Sharmin A1-Jaff May 24, 2001 Page 4 10. Based on the proposed developed area of 6.3 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are estimated at $5,040 and the water quantity fees associated with this project are estimated at $12,474. The applicant will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from the site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. Credits may also be applied to the applicant's SWMP fees for oversizing in accordance with the SWMP or the provision of outlet structures. The applicant will not be assessed for areas that are dedicated outlots. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $17,514. G:,,ENG~.Lori'xADMIN\PLANNING\Creekwood Carver Beach Road.doc CITYOF CHAN EN 690 Gty Center Drive PO Box 147 Minnesota 55317 Pho~le 952.937. I900 GeneralFax 952.937.5739 952.937.9152 BuiMing Department F~r 952.934.2524 Web Site www. ci. cha,hasse,, m,. ,s MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUB J: Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner Matt Saam, Project Engineer June 20, 2001 Lift Station No. 10 at Proposed Creekwood Development Land Use Review File No. 01-11 At the June 5, 2001 Planning Commission meeting, concerns were raised about the City's existing Lift Station No. 10 (LS #10). One of the major concerns was if LS #10 would be able to handle the additional homes being proposed with this development. The problem with LS #10 is not the amount of sewage that drains to it; the problem lies in the size of the station's wet well. (A wet well is where sewage is stored in a lift station until the pumps "lift" or pump it out.) Currently, if there is any type of mechanical failure or power outage where the pumps cannot work, City crews have approximately 20 minutes before LS #10 overflows into Lotus Lake. This is because the wet well in LS #10 does not provide sufficient detention time. Also, during heavy rain events, inflow and infiltration from groundwater can also cause the station's wet well to overflow. Staff realizes that there is a problem with LS #10. As such, staff intends to obtain a consultant to study and remedy the problem. Also, staff recommends that the sewer services for the proposed lake lots of Creekwood be installed with backflow preventers. jms c: Teresa Burgess, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director g:\eng\projects\creekxvoodXlifi station no. 10.doc CITYOF CHANHASSEbl 6~0 CiO, Ce,ret Ddve ?0 Box !47 Cl~a,hasse,. 3'~i,,esota 55317 ~hone 952.93Z 1900 Gene~=l F~ 952.93Z5739 Engineering Depal~nent ~5~.~37.9152 Bulging Beparme,t 952.934.2524 ll~b Site ww,~ ci. ch,mhasse,. MEMORANDUM TO' FROM: Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner Mahmoud Sweidan, Engineer..~~ Matt Saam, Project Engineer DATE: May 31,2001 SUBJ' Preliminary Plat Review of Creekwood Land Use Review File No. 01-11 Upon review of the plans prepared by Otto Associates dated May 21, 2001, I offer the following comments and recommendations' GRADING The existing 5.32-acre parcel is heavily wooded. The site elevations range from a high of 942+ to a low of 895+. As with any site that contains this much change in .elevation, there are some naturally occurring steep slopes on the property. In addition, the site contains two houses that will have to be removed prior to any grading operations. Due to the large amount of trees on the site, the developer is proposing to custom grade all of the lots. Staff agrees that this is the most environmentally sensitive way to develop the site. Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans will be required for each lot at the time of building permit application for City review and approval. In addition, as-built surveys will be required on each lot prior to occupancy. 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 to the creek and Lotus Lake in the east and southeast. The remaining westerly portion of the property drains off-site to the southwest. The proposed grading plan has been designed to match the existing topography and drainage patterns fairly well. The majority of the eastern portion of the site drains to a proposed pond in the southeast corner of the site. The pond is required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. The pond will treat the water before discharging it to the adjacent creek. The applicant is proposing to drain the remaining western portion of the site to an existing pond on the west side of Carver Beach Road. This is a regional type Sharmin A1-Jaff Creekwood Preliminary Plat Review May 31, 2001 Page 2 pond that has sufficient capacity to handle the additional strormwater. The proposed drainage plan is consistent with the City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). The applicant has submitted drainage calculations for water quality; however, water quantity calculations are still needed. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 1 O-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. Emergency overflows from all stormwater ponds will also be required on the construction plans. 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 area adjacent to the existing creek. The final grading plan shall extend silt fence around the north and south sides of the proposed cul-de-sac. In addition, tree preservation fencing needs to be added around the construction limits. A rock construction entrance has been shown at the proposed street, access off of Carver Beach Road. UTILITIES Currently, public sanitary sewer is available to the property from along the east side of the site. The plans propose on connecting to this sewer line and extending it, approximately 750 feet, to the west. This is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Sewer Plan. This site contains City Lift Station #10 which is located near Lotus Lake. In the past, lift station #10 has experienced capacity problems and with continued development, staff believes the lift station may have to be upgraded in the future. As such, staff is recommending that the permanent utility easement around the lift station be increased from a 50-foot square area to a 60-foot square area. In addition, a 20-foot easement for access is required off of the proposed cul-de-sac. Municipal water is available to the site from both Carver Beach Road and the east side of the site. The plans propose on looping the watermain through the site. The site was previously assessed for utilities and these assessments have been paid. Each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water Sharmin A1-Jaff Creekwood Preliminary Plat Review May 31, 2001 Page 3 hook up charges at the time of building permit issuance. The 2001 trunk utility hook up charges are $1,322 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,723 per unit for water. 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 time of final platting. The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. STREETS There is one proposed access to the site off of Carver Beach Road. As a rule of thumb, staff would prefer a minimum of two access points to and from developments. Therefore, staff is recommending that a second street be stubbed to the north property line across from lot 4. This street would be extended as properties to the north develop. Sanitary sewer and watermain should also be stubbed to the north to serve future lots. The current right-of-way for Carver Beach Road is 40-feet in width (20~feet on each side of the street). City Code requires a minimum of 60-feet for right-of- way on residential streets. As such, staff is recommending that the applicant dedicate an additional 10-feet of right-of-way on the west side of the site, along Carver Beach Road. This would increase the right-of-way to 30-feet in width on the east side of Carver Beach Road. The proposed cul-de-sac is shown as a 28-foot wide street with curb and gutter within a 60-foot wide public right-of-way. Staff feels that the 28-foot wide street is a better fit to the Carver Beach area than the City standard of 31-foot wide streets. Many of the existing streets in the Carver Beach area are 20-feet wide. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL , Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans will be required for each lot at the time of building permit application for City review and approval. In addition, as-built surveys will be required on each lot prior to occupancy. 2. 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 Sharmin A1-Jaff Creekwood Preliminary Plat Review May 31, 2001 Page 4 o , . o o . , 10. and traffic control plans. Each of the ponds shall be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. Staff needs to receive and review the water quantity ponding calculations prior to preliminary plat approval by the City Council. The permanent utility easement around lift station #10 must be increased from a 50-foot square area to a 60-foot square area. In addition, a 20-foot easement for access is required off of the proposed cul-de-sac. 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 utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Emergency overflows from all stormwater ponds will also be required on the construction plans. 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 III erosion control fence, which is a heavy-duty silt fence, be used for the area adjacent to the existing creek. The final grading plan shall extend silt fence around the north and south sides of the proposed cul-de-sac. In addition, tree preservation fencing needs to be added around the construction limits. 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. Each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hook up charges at the time of building permit issuance. Revise the preliminary utility plan to show all of the existing utilities around the site. Sharmin A1-Jaff Creekwood Preliminary Plat Review May 31,2001 Page 5 11. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show all proposed and existing easements along with the normal and high water elevations of the proposed pond. 12. A second street shall be stubbed to the north property line across from lot 4. This street would be extended as properties to the north develop. Sanitary sewer and watermain should also be stubbed to the north to serve future lots. 13. The applicant shall include a draintile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge from homes not adjacent to ponds. 14. Dedicate an additional 1 O-feet of right-of-way on the west side of the site, along Carver Beach Road. 15. All plans must be signed by a registered engineer. c: Teresa Burgess, Director of Public Works/City Engineer. g:Xeng~projectsXcreelavoodXpreliminary plat review.doc CITYOF 690 City Center Drive PO Box' 147 Minnesota 55317 Phone 952.937.1900 General Fax' 952.937.5739 Fglx 952.937.9152 Building Deparo, ent Fax' 952.934.2524 Web Site www. cl. cha,hassen, m,. us MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUB J: Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner Steven Torell, Building Official May 23, 2000 Review of proposed subdivision: Creekwood Planning Case: 2001-3 Subdivision I have reviewed the plans for the above subdivision dated May 1,2001 and have the following conditions and comments: 1. Demolition permits must-be obtained from the Inspections Division before demolishing any structures on the property. 2. A final grading plan and'soils report must be. submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued.- 3. The private utility system could not be reviewed, the plans did not contain enough details. G/safety/st/memos/plaWCreekwood .e Gt~, of Cha,hasse,. A ~. wwi,¢ com,nmin, with dea, lakes, atta/in, schooh, a cham~i,~ dow,tow,, thrivi, v CITYOF 690 G~y Onter Drivv PO Box I47 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 ])/.lolle 952. 937. i900 Ge,era/Fax 952.937.5739 £,gi, eeri,g Departme, t Fax 952.93Z9152 Building Deparonent Fax 952.93(2524 wtwtt E. cha,hasse,, m,. us MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin AI-Jaff, Senior Planner FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: May 18, 2001 SUBJECT: Request for a preliminary plat to subdivide a 6.32 acre parcel into 9 single Family lots and a variance to allow a 50' right-of-way on property zoned Residential Single Family and located at 610 and 620 Carver Beach Road, Creekwood, Coffrnal~ Development Services Inc. Planning Case: 2001-3 Subdivision. I have reviewed the preliminary plat subdivision for the above project. In order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, I have the following fire code or city ordinance/p9olicy requiremednts. The site plan is based on the available information submitted at this time. If additional plans or changes are submitted the appropriate code or policy items will be addressed. 1. Submit proposed street name to Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. . A I O-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that the fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. . When fire protection including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection is required to be installed such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 901.3. Fire apt~aratus 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 driving capabilities. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 902.2.2.2. Because of close proximi~, to neighboring houses no burning permits will be issued. Trees or shrubs to be removed shall be either chipped on site or hauled off the property. . With regards to Lots 7 and 8, houses must comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy Premise Identification referencing, if structure is not visible from the street additional numbers are required at the driveway entrance. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Dep.artment/Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed ML/be g:\safeD,\mlX, plrev2001.3 CYFYOF C]gNHIS 0 City Center Dh'vt, PO Box 147 ".hanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612.93Z 1900 GeneraI Fax 612.93Z5739 ?ngineering Fax 612.93Z9152 ublic Safe~y Fax 612.934.2524 kb www. ci. chanhassen, rnr~ us CHANHAggEN FIRE DEPARTMENT POTJCV PREMISES IDENTIFICATION General Numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a pOsition as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Said numbers shall contrast w/th their background. Size and location of numbers shall be approved by one of the following - Fire Marshal, Fire Inspector, Building Official, Building Inspector. Requirements are for new construction and existing buildings where no address numbers are posted. Other Req.irement; - General 1. Numbers shall be a contrasting color from the backgroun'd. 2. Numbers shall not be in script :..: ? :.: 3. ff a structure is not ,~5sible from the street, additionfil numbers are required at the driveway entrance. Size and location must be approVed. ';i:,~: ~ ~-; ' 4. Numbers on mail box at driveway enwance may be a minimum 0f 4',.: H0w~ve~, requirement g3 must still 5. Adminis~afive aUthofiq, may require additional numbers if deemed neCessaD[.: 2. BUilding permi~ Will not be finaled units numbers are Posied andapPr0ved b}, the Buiuifig Depa~en[ 1. Minimum height shall be i2". 5 '"5 ': : 5:5. }5 :} 5' {? . 2. Multi-Tenant Buildings -:' ' . . ,: a. Building address rang~ minimum height of 12 inch,. ~ .' ' ::' b. Addr~s numbers required on nil tenant doon. Minimum height of 6 inches. . .'... 3.' ' 7: Ifaddr~s numbers are located on a direeto~ en~' sign, additional numbers will be req~red on the buildings main entranc~ . -: 4. ' Signage on overhea~ delive~ dqors will also be' reqmred. :):: rS. ~ :. :i'. }}¢ '~ Ap~ved- Build~g Official '::: ~;::' ~ ~ ~:~: ?~.::'.~ :~;~: .:.:~ ~:~ -./:--:: Fke Prevention "~'.;:~.~';.;.' ~.::~' ~)"¢; :~. ~)~. ~;~ :~:~:; ~ Policy ~29-1992 , ~:'~::';:;'~::~'::-E~-~:~: ~/"~'~):':" ?' Date: 06/15/92 ~~ :'~ : ~ ~::: ~:~'~";~:;:~'~:"':~'~ ~'? :~' .... Revised: 4/12/00 Ap e M~sh~ Page 1 of 1 - Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Metro Waters, 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106-6793 Telephone: (651) 772-7910 Fax: (651) 772-7977 May 22, 2001 City of Chanhassen c/o Ms. Sharmin A1-Jaff 690 City Center Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Creekwood Subdivision, Lotus Lake (10-6P), City of Chanhassen, Carver County Dear Ms. A1-Jaff: Thank you for sending the Creekwood Development preliminary plat, dated May 1,2001, for review. The site is located in the NW 1/4 of Section 12, Township 116 North, Range 23 West, Carver County. After reviewing the preliminary plat, I have the following comments to offer: l. . . I am pleased to see DNR Protected Water Lotus Lake (10-6P) and its Ordinary High Water (OHW) level shown on the preliminary plat. Please be aware that activities effecting Lotus Lake below the OHW of 896.3' may require a DNR permit. Individuals who purchase the new lots should be informed that the DNR has jurisdiction over Lotus Lake and may require permits for work that is done in the lake. The tributary that enters the lake along the south side of the plat is not under DNRjurisdiction. I am encouraged to see the development proposing a narrower street than traditionally required. We fully support the granting of a variance to allow for narrower streets. Reduced street width obviously reduces the amount of impervious surface, thereby reducing the amount of stormwater runoff and the size of stormwater treatment facilities. We have been encouraging methods such as these to reduce the negative impacts on water resources from the effects of stormwater runoff. I believe narrower streets also have the effect of slowing vehicles down and increasing the safety of pedestrians. Other than the street width issues, there is not much to the stormwater plan to comment on. Curb, gutter and stormsewers funnel stormwater and pollutants to a sediment pond prior to discharge to the creek. Sediment ponds normally remove only a fraction of the pollutants before the stormwater is discharged. Whenever possible streets should be constructed without curb, gutter and stormsewers. Wide, shallow swales should be used to convey stormwater due to their ability to remove some pollutants and infiltrate some water. Stormwater swales work best when they contain native vegetation that is mowed only once a year. In addition, the use of swales has been shown to be less expensive than constructing stormsewers, curbs and gutters. DNRInformation: 651-296-6157 o 1-888-646-6367 · TTY: 651-296-5484 · 1-800-657-3929 An Equal Opportunity Employer ,~ Printed on Recycled Paper Containing a Who Values Diversity ~m~' Minimum of 20% Post-Consumer Waste Ms. Shannin AI-Jaff City of Chanha,~sen May 22, 2001 Page (2) . It appears that all dimensional standards contained within the Shoreland Ordinance of the City of Chanhassen have been met with this plat. 5. The following comments are general and apply to all proposed developments: Ao If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, a DNR Appropriations Permit is needed. If the application is for less than 50 million gallons, then it typically takes five (5) days to process the permit. g. If construction activities disturb five acres of land or more, the contractor must apply for a stormwater permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency at 651-296-6300. Co The comments in this letter address DNR Waters jurisdictional matters and concerns. These comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack thereof for a particular project. Thank you for submitting the Creekwood preliminary plat to the DNR for review. Please contact me at 651- 772-7916 should you have questions about these comments. c: Carver County Soil and Water Conservation District Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Bob Obermeyer U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Joe Yanta Chanhassen Shoreland File Lotus Lake (10-6P) File CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION ~DR~S: ~ ~. >~ TM ~. ~/~ 2~ ADDRESS: ~ I TEl FPHONE (Day time) ~ ~ Z - ~ ~ y- ~2~ ~ Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit interim Use Permit TELEPHONE: Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of ROW /Easements variance __ ,Non-conforming Use Permit 'Wetland Alteration Permit __ PJarmed UnJ! Development* ~ Rezoning Sign Permits Zoning Appeal · . Zoning Ordinance Amendment . Sign Pla~ Review o , Site Plan Review' Subdivision* Notification Sign /,..~) L~ · X Escrow'"~r Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CUP/SP~ACNA~AP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTAL FEE $ /~ ~~ fist of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be Included with the application. Building material sampies must be submitted with site plan reviews. '*Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. - Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract :NDT~- When multiple applications ,~re processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. 3REJECT NAME _OCATION ~ ~O LEGAL DESCRIPTION TOTAL AC R EAG E WETLANDS PRESENT PRESENT zoNING , REQUESTED ZONING --. _ PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST "~ YES · This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City' and'that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and ! am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. ! have attached a copy Of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application, i further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. .. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearin~l requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extension~s/.are approved by the applicant. (1~,,',~,/,,/,,j _'~,J~_-Z.~,P,,v/ e. vo7'- .,~¢ v/¢--~ $/ ,./"~,,~¢. // >>>.---- .. "-' ' ate 6-'-"' ': .......... Signature of Fee Owner I I '~ :~"// Date Application Received on ~'~ct :y~ ! Fee Paid O~'~''' Receipt No. ~)~d ! copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. The applicant shou d cent taft for a If not contacted, a copy of the repo_rt will be mailed to the applicant's address, NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 5, 2001 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE PROPOSAL: Preliminary Plat APPLICANT: Coffman Development Services, Inc. LOCATION: 610 and 620 Carver Beach Road NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Coffman Development Services, Inc., is requesting preliminary plat to subdivide a 6.32 acre parcel into 9 single family lots on property zoned Residential Single Family and located at 610 and 620 Carver Beach Road, Creekwood. 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 heating 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 at 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 May 24, 2001. i_2 N ALAN LANG 3 CARVER BEACH RD tANHASSEN MN 55317 RAYMOND P & ALICIA L BROZOVIC 6609 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GEORGE J & DIANNE H PRIEDITIS 7401 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 }BERT IAN AMICK 1 FOX HILL DR tANHASSEN MN 55317 JOSEPH M & MARGERY M PFANKUC 661 ! HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 FRONTIER TRAIL ASSN C/O WILLIAM KIRKVOLD 201 FRONTIER CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 }NSTANCE M CERVILLA CARVER BEACH RD -ANHASSEN MN 55317 PETER J & KATHERINE S DAHL 220 FRONTIER CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT H & SALLY S HORSTMAN 7343 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ATE OF MINNESOTA-DNR X SPEC. - BUREAU OF R E MGMT ) LAFAYETTE RD PAUL MN 55155 JOHN R & KRISTI J SESTAK 7417 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL O'KELLY 685 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 HN C ARM1TAGE & ONDA K WARNER & MONA J KAH :} VINEWOOD LN N RD YMOUTH MN 55441 RICHARD J GILLESPIE & MICHELE M KOPFMANN 7415 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHER ~ 690 CITY CEN~ PO BOX 147 C~N MN 55317 ~NRY 8: GEORGEITE SOSIN BANK ST SE APT #503 NNEAPOLIS MN 55414 ROGER & MARJORIE L KARJALAHTI 7413 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PHILIP M HANSON 621 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 IY L SWANSON CARVER BEACH RD ANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS W HAROLD 7411 FRONTIER TRL SW CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JEFFREY L KLEINER 655 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ,AN R & DENISE T PRESTON 5 CARVER BEACH RD ANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT M & LILLIAN H SOMERS 7409 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN C & SHARON L ASH 671 BROKEN ARROW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 UL J & KARl J ROMPORTL & LLIAM G & VON CILE GARENS CARVER BEACH RD ANHASSEN MN 55317 BLAIR PETER ENTENMANN & NANCY ENTENMANN 7407 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES V & MARY L FRERICH 651 BROKEN ARROW DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 UL T EIDSNESS & -DREA S JOHNSON CARVER BEACH RD ANHASSEN MN 55317 LORNA G TARNOWSKI 7405 FRONTIER TRL PO BOX 382 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN B MEZZENGA 33316 MEZZENGA LN CROSSLAKE MN 56442 LOTUS LAKE BETTERMENT ASSN 105 SANDY HOOK RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TERRY D & DEBRA L VOGT 732 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DOUGLAS R & JEANNE E MACLEA 7280 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WILLIAM & IVY KIRKVOLD 201 FRONTIER CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 E T KELLY, TRUSTEE OF TRUST C/O STIRTZ BERNARDS BOYDEN 7200 METRO BLVD FINANCIAL PL EDINA MN 55439 MELVIN & JACQUELINE D KURVE 7240 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GREGORY DEAN CRAY 200 FRONTIER CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BARBARA L HEDLUND 748 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 FRANKLIN J & MYRNA A KURVER TRUSTEES OF TRUST 7220 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID B SANFORD 8,: MARIANNE M MCCORD 6440 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BARBARA L HEDLUND 748 LAKE PT .~~ CHANHASS~ MN 55317 STEVEN T MESTITZ & PEGGY L NAAS 7200 WILLOW VIEW CV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS M & SUSAN J HUBERTY 6450 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DANIEL J & JACQUELINE HAMMETT 7506 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHER 690 CITY CENTER DR~..~3'~X 147 CHANHASSEi~/MN 55317 MICHAEL & DEBRA HAYDOCK 6460 FOX PATH CHANHASSENI MN 55317 CATHERINE S HISCOX 7500 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KURVERS POINT HOMEOWNER C/O MELVIN KURVERS 7240 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KEITH M & MARY BETH HOFFMAN 6470 FOX PATH CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DENNIS C & JANIS I FISHER 7501 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ALFRED A & SUSAN K HENDERSOi 7330 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHARLES R & JUDY L PETERSON 708 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CARMELA V RICHARDS 7320 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RONALD C & SHAWN P HAINES 7340 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DENNIS ZHU & ZUO ZHI 716LAKEPT ' CHANHASSEN MN 55317 NElL & BARBARA GOODWIN 7801 96TH ST W BLOOMINGTON MN 55438 CHARLES ALLEN APPLEGATE & SUSAN R APPLEGATE 1484 GORMICAN LN NAPLES FL 34110 MICHAEL A & JANET A STANZAK 724 LAKE PT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DANNY J & BRENDA L VATLAND 7290 KURVERS POINT RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHARLES ALLEN APPLEGATE SUSAN R APPLEGATE 1484 GORMICAN~~ NAPLES / FL 34110 AROLD G & KATHRYN M DAHL 531 HORSESHOE CRV HANHASSEN MN 55317 MARK O & SUZANNE SENN 7160 WILLOW VIEW CV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN H & CYNTHIA K RIDLEY 590 BIGHORN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 qlLIP O & LUDMILLA J ISAACSON 533 HORSESHOE CRV HANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN E NICOLAY JR 608 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DALE & PAMELA I STAHL 580 BIGHORN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 OUGLAS J & ELIZABETH K BITNEY 545 HORSESHOE CRV HANHASSEN MN 55317 GARY J SCHNEIDER & CYNTHIA CALHOUN SCHNEIDER 640 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD J & JUDITH L WILLIAMS 570 BIGHORN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ~,ANK A 8: DONNA M KUZMA 551 HORSESHOE CRV HANHASSEN MN 55317 NEAR MOUNTAIN LAKE ASSN INC 610 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ARMIN C & NANCY E DREISSIGER 560 BIGHORN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ~JNRISE HILLS /O CHARLES ROBBINS ~;40 LONGVIEW CIR ~-IANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS M & NANCY S SEIFERT 600 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 FRANK P & BONNIE L FILKO 550 BIGHORN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 -lOMAS A & JUDY R MEIER }5 PLEASANT VIEW RD ,qANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN M & SANDRA L CUNNINGHAM 6669 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GEORGENE M SORENSEN 540 BIGHORN DR CHAN HASSEN MN 55317 -)HN P & JANE THIELEN ,5 PLEASANT VIEW RD qANHASSEN MN 55317 NICHOLAS J VASSALLO & CHRISTA M VASSALLO 6669 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD & SANDRA MONSETH 530 BIGHORN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 )I-IN P & JANE THIELEN RONALD E & LEANNE HARVIEUX 6605 HORSESHOE CRV CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHARLES & ANNETTE BUENGER 520 BIGHORN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 3DD L & PATRICIA A FROSTAD -28 LOTUS TRL tANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT & LINDA SATHRE 365 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DEAN T & SUSAN L STANTON 510 BIGHORN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 HN T & RUTH E SCHEVENIUS 0 PLEASANT VIEW RD tANHASSEN MN 55317 DOYLE R & LINDA N HONSTAD 600 BIGHORN DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DEAN T & SUSAN L STANTON 510 BIGHORN DR~ CHANHASSEN-"~ MN 55317 JEFFREY W & MARY L BORNS 7199 FRONTIER TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JEFFREY A & LIZA A HILDEN 20 HILL ST CHANHASSEN MN 55317 FREDERIC OELSCHLAGER ETAL 7410 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID E & CAROLYN M WETTERLIN 7420 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN F & DONNELLA R SEGNER TRUSTEES OF TRUST 30 HILL ST CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT FLYNN & VALERIE FLYNN 40 HILL ST CHANHASSEN MN 55317 IRVING RAYMOND 7440 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KENNETH W & COLLEEN J VERMEER 730 PREAKNESS LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TIMOTHY J & DIANE A MCHUGH 7450 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JAMES K & MELISSA J CARLSON 720 PREAKNESS LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LARRY P MON & FELIX MON PO BOX 390553 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55439 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCI IER 690 .~.I.TY CENTER DR PO BOX 147 CH,~NHASSEN MN 55317 HARVEY L JR & CAROL PARKER 7480 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHAD ALAN KOEHLER 7490 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LOUIS S TESLER 7500 CHANHASSEN RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GREGORY J LINDSLEY & MARIA J STOFFEL 10 HILL ST CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 29. Show the location of the existing street lights along Water Tower Place. Also, show the location of the existing catch basins in Water Tower Place, west of the sanitary sewer stub to the site. 30. Show a benchmark on the grading plan. 31. The site plan needs to be revised to show a proposed 5 foot concrete sidewalk following the main entrance out to the southeasterly comer of the site. 32. The existing water stub to the site is an 8 inch service. As such, an 8" x 6" reducer will be needed. 33. On the site plan, label the drive aisle and entrance widths. Also, show the proposed curb radius at the entrance drive. 34. The west elevation shall incorporate two of the primary materials along it's length. 35. Any future building expansion shah incorporate the three primary materials that are the same as used on the first phase. 36. The primary metal building material shah be prohibited per the PUD Agreement. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE A 6.32 ACRE PARCEL INTO 9 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 610 AND 620 CARVER BEACH ROAD, CREEKWOOD, COFFMAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC. Public Present: Name Address Guy Swanson Jon Lang Randy & Bobbie Schlueter Jeff Kleiner Phil Hanson Andrea & Paul Eidsness Kari Romportl Marty Campion Bill Coffman 610 Carver Beach Road 640 Carver Beach Road 580 Fox Hill Drive 655 Carver Beach Road 621 Carver Beach Road 630 Carver Beach Road 620 Carver Beach Road Otto Associates Coffman Development Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Are there questions of staff?. Feik: Madam Chair, I do. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Blackowiak: Go right ahead Bruce. Feik: I had a question regarding the 60 foot right-of-way versus the requested 50 right-of-way. It seems to me that 60 feet is significantly larger than what's currently in that neighborhood and I'm just wondering what the long range justification of that is for having a small road to this nature if it doesn't conform with the rest of the neighborhood feel. A1-Jaff: We wanted to show you a subdivision that meets ordinance standards. The fact that there isn't a hardship basically dictated that we recommend a 60 foot right-of-way appear before you. Aanenson: Maybe I can just add a little bit more to that. Staff wanted to bring you, we had a lot of consternation on a previous plat on Lotus Lake. We wanted to bring you a subdivision that met city ordinance. If you choose to do a 50 foot, I guess my position would be that the recommendation come from you and the City Council. So it certainly could save trees but we brought you a plat that meets ordinance. The only question was, there seems to be some ambiguity on the bluff interpretation and we've asked for additional survey on that. Feik: Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay. Deb. Kind: Yes, I'm sure I have some questions. I had that question too. I think that's a good point. Did staff encourage the applicant to pursue a PUD because this is such a beautiful wooded area. It seems like it would easily meet our requirements for a PUD. A1-Jaff: Yeah, we talked about a PUD at length. We presented them with the PUD ordinance and we thought this parcel fit the definition of a PUD. There are numerous ways to develop this parcel. Aanenson: Let me add to that again too. There's, we talked about a beachlot. Again based on some past experiences I think the cleanest way and the feeling that some of the developers are getting is just to bring a straight subdivision. It gets convoluted and complicated unfortunately in the negotiation process and we like to see that flexibility. Unfortunately it comes back to staff that we may be giving things away so we came, we asked the developer to bring a straight subdivision that met all the city ordinances. Kind: An option that might be kind of halfway between the PUD and a straight subdivision might be in our control would be to relax the rules on that right-of-way. That 50 foot right-of-way or perhaps front yard setback or both. That kind of a thing. I certainly think this site is worthy of saving more of those trees so, but that's getting into my discussion so I'll skip that. Let's see. Sharmin you mentioned in your presentation that you calculated, or you or the applicant, anyway there's 80 by 80 foot pad for tree removal. I thought our ordinance had 60 by 60 foot pad for tree removal. AI-Jaff: What, and again we just wanted to make sure everything was covered. Kind: So suddenly we're requiring the applicant to replace more trees than what really our ordinance says? A1-Jaff: What we did was, assuming that you have a 60 by 60 house pad, and assuming that you're going to get that 60 by 60 house, then you need to have equipment that can maneuver around the 60 by 60 house and we thought 10 feet on each side so that gives you an 80 by 80. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Kind: So that's even expanding our ordinance, because it clearly says in the tree preservation part of our ordinance it says 60 by 60 for calculating tree removal. Got it. Aanenson: Right. That is clearly for calculating tree removal. It doesn't mean that's where the house is going to exactly go. It gives us a formula to what percentage could possibly be removed. Kind: We all know about that 60 by 60 foot pad so I'll move on. Oh, at the 50 foot easement from the creek is something staff is requesting and the applicant is being amenable to that but there's no requirement for that. I just want to make sure I was understanding that clearly. Oh, lakeshore setback. I think this is an interesting test of our new recommendation which I wasn't there for in our last meeting but I did read the minutes and it was very interesting. Wow, I think this is a good example of why we should stay with that 75 foot setback that the DNR requires. Just my two cents there. I'm getting into discussion again. I hate that when I do that. Page number 5, for anybody that's trying to follow along. The structure on Lot 7 must be set back further than required by ordinance. Show me what you mean by that. Can you show me on the drawing for the plat? A1-Jaff: Okay, this is Lot 7. The structure far exceeds the 75 foot setback. If this structure went in first, am I following? Kind: No, no, no, no. I'm sorry. The question, let's see. Page, I should probably have read the whole paragraph. There is no Setback requirement from the creek. However staff has requested the applicant maintain a 50 foot setback from the edge of the creek to maintain the integrity of the creek. In order to meet staff's request the structure on Lot 7 must be set back further than required by ordinance. I couldn't figure that out there. Sidney: From the creek. Kind: From the creek? Sacchet: From the creek instead of. A14aff: What this is referring to is the 70 foot setback. Kind: Oh so it's further than 75 feet from the lake? AI-Jaff: Correct. Kind: Ah. Al4aff: To maintain the 50 foot setback from the edge of the creek. Kind: I get it. Yep. So that house is actually more than 75 feet back. Al-Jaff: Substantial, yes. Kind: Okay. I'll have to ponder that for a minute. Let's see if I have anything else? Oh, on page 8 under the street section. The second paragraph talks about the current right-of-way for Carver Beach 16 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Road is 40 feet in width. 20 feet on each side of the street. I'm assuming that you mean 20 feet on each side of the center of the street. Saam: Correct. Kind: And then, if my math is right, here we go. That most of the streets in Carver Beach are around 20 feet, and that's generous probably. So if you have a 40 foot right-of-way, 20 feet of pavement, that means there's 10 feet of grass that is city right-of-way on each side of the pavement. Saam: Correct. Kind: And is that about how much is needed for utility easement? Saam: 10 feet will work. Kind: Okay. Just checking. I think that's it. On page 11, number 5. This is in the findings. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage. I always, I have trouble with this as being part of our findings. Obviously if you're taking some trees out there' s environmental damage so wouldn't you say that the finding is more that this proposed subdivision will minimize the environmental damage subject to the conditions of approval? Aanenson: Correct. Kind: That sounds better. Aanenson: Okay. So maybe I'd like to amend those findings when we get there if that's cool with you. And I think that' s it for staff questions. Blackowiak: Okay, Rich. Slagle: Just one question Madam Chair to staff. If I can ask, what was the applicant's response to the PUD? Suggestion if you will, or should I wait to hear from them? Actually I'd like to hear your viewpoint as well. A1-Jaff: They felt it would be easier to go through a subdivision, straight subdivision than it would be through a PUD and having to justify. Aanenson: We would concur with that because the way we've been processing lately, it's become very burdensome for the staff too. Unfortunately and that's something I think we all need to work on but we struggle with trying to justify certain things. Slagle: So in your opinion the cons of a PUD outweigh the pros in this situation? Aanenson: No. No. I think it's the process that we go through. On how we look at things. There's a perception that they're getting more. They're getting something. And we've always perceived it, or the staff has tried to do it in the fashion that we're trying to save something but for some reason there's the perception on the other side. Slagle: Perception on the other side meaning the applicants or this? 17 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Aanenson: Planning Commission or the neighboring property owners or interested parties that maybe that the balance isn't there. That we' ve done too many PUD's and we haven't necessarily gotten anything out of, by letting them save a few trees or go closer, we maybe not have gotten enough on the other side so. So, and we've learned that by some of the single family subdivisions so on single family subdivisions we tried to move away from doing that. Certainly there was other applications in this project but we try to say that PUD's are really what they were intended, and that's more of a mixed use project. An industrial park, multi family, which is really the true intention of this. With this project, this is a good question because we struggled with this when they came in. There was other applications. Certainly could have done a beachlot. There's some other applications but I think for them they felt, the applicant felt like this, they've met the letter of the law. They have a right to proceed. Kind of take the path of least resistance. Slagle: Okay. Audience: Excuse me .... what's a PUD? Aanenson: Oh sure. A Planned Unit Development. It's, you develop a zone that allows for the standards to be put in place on that specific project. There is a minimum lot size. It allows some flexibility on lot size and street widths, those sort of things. Blackowiak: Okay, Uli. Questions. Sacchet: Yes. Definitely have questions. And I'm glad quite a few were already asked. My first question is quite fundamental. We have 3 shore lots, lakeshore lots. Nowhere in the report I see the width of the shore, lakeshore frontage. I think we have a minimum of 90 feet in the ordinance. Do we know how wide those shorelines are? Al-Jaff: If you look under the standards on page 10. The lot width on all parcels is spelled out. Sacchet: So the lot width is equivalent to how much shoreline there is? That doesn't totally add up, does it? Aanenson: You're asking if we have verified that the lakeshore lots meet the requirements? Sacchet: Actually since it's at an angle and the width is over 100 you would think that it's larger than 100 instead of less than 100. Aanenson: Yes. If you would like for edification for the council, we can clarify that so which ones are lakeshore lots. Sacchet: I think it's fundamental enough and an element that we need to spell it out, yes. I do ask for that. Then when I went out there this afternoon I got...I couldn't quite figure out where the driveway for 610 is. Because it's a gravel road so I guess it's not something that you draw lines on a blueprint, is that how it works? But if you can give us an idea, because I was wondering when I looked at that driveway, was that where the houses would be or about where? AI-Jaff: It should lead you to the city's lift station actually. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Sacchet: No, that's 620. I mean the one further north. I might be confused about the numbers. I mean the one that goes to the lift station is the one that is actually drawn. But the one to the north of the two buildings, there is no driveway drawn and I was kind of trying to figure out where that would be in relationship to the building pads. AI-Jaff: If you look at the registered land survey. Aanenson: It should be the last sheet. Sacchet: Yeah, it's still in there. A1-Jaff: Immediately to the north of it. Sacchet: So it would actually be, relative to the new street and the building pads, where would it drawn would it be? So if I do this correctly and superimpose this in my mind, it would be basically between building pad and the new road, is that a fair statement to make? Roughly. AI-Jaff: It would be within, well the 60 foot right-of-way wraps in this direction so yes. It would be approximately where the house pads are. Sacchet: Okay. Okay. Alright, that answers that question. Then you identified this as an environmentally sensitive site in the report. And I was just curious how did we do that justice in this proposal? I mean if we say yes, this is an environmentally sensitive area, but then on the other hand we come in with a straight forward subdivision that yes, meets all the requirements. But are we in any way doing anything to accommodate the fact as it's stated in here, that this is an environmentally sensitive area? Aanenson: It meets the ordinance. There's nothing. Sacchet: Okay. So there's nothing plus minus, it's vanilla? Aanenson: Right. Sacchet: Straight forward, meets the ordinance. Aanenson: Right. Sacchet: Well that's a safe place to be, right? Now this street, just to be really clear, this street's going to be a public street. Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet; That cul-de-sac. And you already addressed that maybe it could be less than the full width. Now this lot number 7. You know I got kind of dizzy looking at those lot lines. Are you okay? I mean there's nothing, I mean if somebody wants a zig zag lot line and meets the ordinance, then they have a zig zag lot line, is that how it works? A1-Jaff: It meets the letter of the ordinance. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Sacchet: Okay. A1-Jaff: The exact wording in the ordinance is substantially at straight angles. Right angles. So you decide whether this is substantially meeting the ordinance or not. Slagle: Well if I can ask. Sacchet: Go ahead. Slagle: Do you think it does? AI-Jaff: Yes it does. Sacchet: Okay. I want to jump into this interesting point about the lake front setback. Because I think you make a pretty strong statement in this report that you don't like what we proposed last time. I think there's actually a very simple remedy to the whole gyration thing that we have in front of us here. We're looking on page 4, for those who are following me. Sequence of which is built what is immaterial. Okay? I think where these got entangled and I believe that's contrary to the intent that we're trying to state what we proposed, is that what happens if the next building is a couple of lots away. It looks like you were interpreting it that if there is an unbuilt lot inbetween, then you just go to the next building. If that' s empty you go to the next one and if you eventually have a building, then that' s how you were trying to implement, so it makes a difference which one comes first. Is that how you? Aanenson: The ordinance says you go to the lot on either side of you. That' s how the ordinance reads.- Sacchet: Okay, because that doesn't work. I think you made that point pretty aptly in this report. However, I think what, at least my understanding was of going into this is that if there isn't something built like in a case here, you apply the 75. And that actually works I believe. And that's probably a separate discussion that we will have to fine tune this, but I think there is a better way to interpret this than you did. Is that enough on this topic? Blackowiak: Did you have more questions or? Sacchet: Yes I have more questions. That's just one point, because we're going after setbacks. We're not going after penalties here, and that is very important fundamental thing. I like to have the more narrow road. This thing about the dock and the water accessory structures. I got lost there. We have this creek coming in. Are we saying that they would have, where would they have a dock? I mean they have a creek, if they want a creek, they can't have a dock so what's the scoop? Can you explain that? A1-Jaff: Staff is requesting an easement over the creek. Actually a 50 foot easement that goes from the edge of the creek. Blackowiak: Sharmin can you move the map a little. We're not seeing, we're not picking it up. Thank you. Al-Jarl: Here's the creek so if you take a 50 foot easement, or if you take an easement over the creek and require the structures to maintain a setback from it, then this area. Sacchet: We still can't see it Sharmin. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 A1-Jaff: This area is technically protected. Our ordinance does not allow structures to encroach into easements. Sacchet: Correct. A1-Jaff: This is dry land. There is an existing bridge over the creek. Should the applicant decide to have a dock, then they could do that via an encroachment agreement should they decide that they want water oriented structure. Sacchet: And they could do that without violating the 50 foot, is that what we're saying here? If they go across the bridge, is there enough room for that? A1-Jaff: The bridge is existing. Sacchet: Yes, the bridge is there but I'm saying, if they would have, they would come in to say we want a dock on the other side of the creek and we want a house to store our jet ski or whatever. Could they do that without encroaching into the 50 foot setback from the creek? Okay. Okay, that answers my question. AI-Jaff: No. Briefly they might be able to get in this corner. Aanenson: Right, but you want a 10 foot dock setback. What we're saying is that as part of the easement we would put in a condition in the easement agreement of what limitations they would have to that. Whether it be a dock or boathouse or whatever we attach to that with that lot. Sacchet: Okay. Okay, that answers my question. Aanenson: We're asking for that easement. We're not requiring it so we want to give them the flexibility to say we want the easement. That that area is protected. They don't go down there and grade it or whatever. But in addition what would give them the right to cross the bridge and use it for a dock. Sacchet: That answers the question. We can get back to that when we get to discussion. The driveway to Lot 7. Be careful you don't fall into that drainage pond when you go there, right? The idea this goes along the lot line there between. Aanenson: It'd be real similar to the one we just saw at Big Horn. Similar situation as you come along there. Sacchet: So that's cool? That can be done? Aanenson: Yes. Sacchet: Okay. Trees. I really have a hard time with those trees. First of all, that's a very important question. When you did this measurement of the tree coverage and all that sort of stuff, did you include what would be custom graded? I mean did it include the building pads or did you just include the grading initially? 21 Planning Commission Meeting- June 5, 2001 A1-Jaff: This is where the 80 by 80 came in. We wanted worst case scenario on these lots and if you look at this plan, these are 80 by 80 boxes. We also requested that the applicant reproduce a driveway. Between the driveway and the 80 by 80 house pad, or tree removal limits you should have a realistic calculation as to how much canopy you will lose. Sacchet: So the figures that you put in the report are based on 80 by 80 on every lot being cleared? AI-Jaff: Correct, as well as where the road is going and there are certain areas that are a given. Sacchet: And while we have this picture up, I've got another question with this picture. That finger of grading that goes down between Lot, is it 5 and 6? I don't quite understand why that has to go that far in there. Al-Jaff: I believe there is an existing. Saam: Commissioner, maybe I can add something to that. They're proposing to grade, if you look on the grading plan, between Lots 5 and 6. They have one contour. I think it's the 934 elevation that they're tying in way down from the back yard of Lot 6. That's what I would guess it's for. Sacchet: Yeah, alright. Saam: Do you see it there? Sacchet: Yeah. Saam: That thicker line. Sacchet: Yeah, that is actually the grading line. Okay. Okay, that makes sense. Okay,~ that answers that one. Alright. Sorry to keep you so long. Streets. You were proposing to have the stub street to the north and you're proposing that, as Lot 4 in that. Why Lot 4? What's the rationale? A1-Jaff.' I believe it's opposite of. Sacchet: Opposite, yeah I mean opposite of Lot 4 on the street there. I was just trying to understand how we arrived at that particular spot. Al4aff: Sure. The neighboring property to the north has an existing house and two accessory structures. Assuming that the applicant or the northerly property owner decides they would like to maintain their existing structures, then you take a 30 foot setback from the edge of the westerly most coruer of the garage. This way you meet the ordinance requirements. You're not creating an unconforming situation. This will be a 60 foot right-of-way. Also there is a retaining wall in this area. We're trying to avoid the retaining wall. This will leave you substantial depth on this parcel to create at least 2 lots. Sacchet: So it acconunodates the existing situation as well as the new development and the possible future development? You try to kind of find a balance between all 3. That's a good answer. Appreciate that. Coming back to the trees once more, there is a drawing that has trees sort of inventoried semi legibly. Or less. Is there somewhere in an actual analysis in terms of what stays, what goes? I mean did somebody tabulate it? 22 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 A1-Jaff: The city forester tabulated all of the numbers. Sacchet: That would be interesting to see frankly. And I certainly agree that half the trees going down is environmental damage but I think that's pretty much, that's it for right now. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, LuAnn. Sidney: Well most of the questions were answered. Actually all the questions were answered. I have none left to ask but I guess one comment about the tree inventory. I guess I'd really like to see the significant trees called out. The diameters of the significant trees and I think that will help council decide on how front yard setbacks up in there modify those or the street widths. And really call out, especially those 100-200 year old oaks if there are any. A1-Jaff: Okay. Slagle: Madam Chair, if I may just one additional question. On the stub street, which would be just west of the retaining wall, number one. Have we talked to the occupant of the northern piece, or she is okay with that location? And then secondly, is that retaining wall an issue for safety with respect to a stop sign or people using that as an entry and exit into the neighborhood? If there's a retaining wall, I don't know how high it is. AI-Jaff: It's approximately 2 to 3 feet high. Saam: Yeah, I was just going to mention on the retaining wall. That's something I missed honestly until after the report went out. Typically we don't allow those in city right-of-way so prior to final plat I would recommend that that be removed, and I think we could work with the applicant to accomplish that. Blackowiak: Well actually I don't have any questions of staff at this time so I'll ask that the applicants or their designee come up and make your presentation. Please, state your name and address for the record. Bill Coffman: Madam Chairman, members of the commission. My name is Bill Coffman. I'm the president of Coffman Development° With me tonight I have one of the land owners, Kari Romportl and Marty Campion with Otto and Associates, our consulting engineers. I would first like to thank staff for their hard work on this project as I feel that we have looked at this in almost every way possible. Yet we are ending up with a variance free application that is fairly straight forward and by design I guess. We concur with the staff report and agree to their recommendations as to the conditions of approval for this variance free plat, yet as indicated in the report we do feel that a 50 foot right-of-way would be more appropriate, and I guess we should at least consider that at the council level if that's the appropriate time. First we feel that this 50 foot right-of-way would be in fact more compatible to the surrounding neighborhood, as mentioned earlier. Second, we would in fact be able to save an additional 10 feet of trees in the rear between our homes and the homes to the south. Third, the required number of trees in the replacement program worked out with the city forester would in fact decline. Yet we would be willing to plant the entire 24 replaced trees in order to not imply any sort of a financial benefit to this potential variance if that' s what, if that is in fact the direction that the Planning Commission or the Council decides to go. And the last reason that the 50 foot variance may be an option would be that would also give the Romportl's an opportunity to potentially live in their home while their new home on the lake is being built. In summary we concur with staff s recommendations on this design. It's a very good design, yet we feel we could do a little bit of tweaking to make it a little better. Save more trees. Be a little bit more environmentally sensitive by grading a little bit less if we could in fact adjust some of 23 Planning Commission Meeting- June 5, 2001 the house pads forward, but quite honestly we're looking to this commission for your guidance, your input and your suggestions and myself and Marty Campion would be available for any of your questions. Thank you. Blackowiak: Commissioners, do you have any questions of the applicant? Slagle: Not right now. Sacchet: Yes, I do believe I have some questions of the applicant. One question is relating to the area with the retaining pond, which is currently part of Lot 6 1 believe. Bill Coffman: Or 7. Sacchet: Or 7. 7, excuse me. Is there particular reason why you wouldn't consider making that an outlot? What's your thinking that you include it with, I mean were there advantages or reasons to go one way or the other from your end? Bill Coffman: You know I'm not really sure. I'll defer to Marty to that question. He's the engineer on the project. Marty Campion: Good evening. Marty Campion. Civil engineer with Otto and Associates. Question relative to a retaining wall on Lot 7? Sacchet: No, my question is relative to the NURP pond on the west side of Lot 7. Just south of the cul- de-sac. You have that area is very unbuildable because there's steep slopes. There's going to be a storm water pond there and so forth and my question is, would it make more sense to make that an outlot to where this is tacking it to what this one is tacked onto Lot 7. Because I think one of the reasons is the driveway's going to go through there. Not the edge. Marty Campion: I'm not sure what purpose an outlot would serve. Blackowiak: Staff do you want to, do you have an answer? Saam: I could jump in here. I think what Uli might be getting to, in other plats we require over ponds. I know in Ashling Meadows outlots being dedicated to the city. In this case we would require an easement over the pond so I don't know, I kind of leave that up to planning if they want to grab it as an outlot. Either way we're going to have rights over it. Sacchet: So the easement would basically fulfill all the needs that you have... Marty Campion: The easement gives the city the rights to enter and clean or do whatever. The outlot would eliminate or decrease significantly the amount of frontage that that lot would have so. Sacchet: Well that's a reason. Marty Campion: Giving the outlot is a benefit in one case but it goes back to the variance free submittal. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Sacchet: Okay. It kind of ties into the new issue that came up from staff with the possibility of a bluff situation on Lot 6. And then I guess we have to wait to see the outcome of that question. That may further influence how that goes. Marry Campion: And that may. We agree with staff's earlier assessment that we don't believe there's a bluff there but we will work with staff and go out and investigate on site. Sacchet: Still I don't know whether it's a question for you or him. The thing I brought up about the dock and water accessory structure on Lot 7. What' s your vision with that? I mean to me it' s a little bit of a tricky situation, but it's basically that lakeshore front there is mostly creek. Bill Coffman: Right. Well we I guess, we're giving you the 50 foot setback or easement area just because it was a request but we do want to make sure that we're able to have in place those encroachment agreements ahead of time that we can in fact use our lakeshore. That we're not giving away the use of the lake to one of our important lake lots. Sacchet: So your vision is that Lot number 7 would have a dock on the other side of the creek basically? Bill Coffman: That's true. Sacchet: Possibly some sort of a shed or something. Bill Coffman: Correct. That is correct. And then that would be available through an encroachment agreement that was specified in the staff' s report. Sacchet: Okay. That clarifies that one. I believe that's all the questions I have for the applicant. Thank- you. Blackowiak: Okay. LuAnn? Sidney: Not at this time. Blackowiak: None? Bruce? Feik: Not at this time, thank you. Blackowiak: Deb? Kind: Yes I have a question. Blackowiak: Oh okay. Kind: On page 2 of the staff report, staff notes that Lot 7 has a peculiar shape. Could you explain what's driving that? Is that the lift station? Is that the 60 by 60 foot pad requirement? A combination of both? Bill Coffman: I' 11 let Marry talk to that issue. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Marty Campion: Actually it's a combination of all the above. It's the lift station. It's the easement that's in place for the force main, sanitary sewer and water main and it's the topographic configuration of the property. Kind: If the 60 by 60 foot requirement for Lot 8 was taken away. Would that line be able to be straighten out? Marty Campion: It would be more straight but on the north side of the 60 by 60 pad is also the lift station. So that's dictating somewhat where that pad location is going to lie. Kind: I'll attack it a different way here. If that line was straighten out, would there be a reasonable building pad left for a home on Lot 89. Marty Campion: With the homes that they would expect out there and the lift station I don't think, the lift station and the easements, the in place easements eat up a pretty good chunk of that. Aanenson: And we do want additional easements, just so you're aware. That's also driving it too. The city's asked for additional easement to expand that and solve some problems. Kind: I couldn't quite get my finger on what was driving that funky shape. Bill Coffman: I've got something to add to that. It is somewhat dictated by the 60 by 60 square on Lot 8, but realistically when a home is designed, the garage probably will tuck up into this area to a certain extent. So the home realistically won't look like a 60 by 60 square. The garage will probably be a little bit pushed to the north and that type of thing. So we probably could not straighten that line, yet we could make it a little more straight. Kind: And would that be desirable from your point of view? Bill Coffman: Yes it would be desirable, but yet we would not be able to get the 60 by 60 square on Lot 8. Again variance free. Kind: Got it. Aanenson: Let me just comment again, with the lift station there more than likely, and we talked about this as a staff, the garage is going to want to be on that side. Kind: Of course. Aanenson: And we do need to solve a problem there so. Kind: Cool, thank you. Blackowiak: Any more questions? Okay. Well I don't have any questions right at this point. This item is open for a public hearing so if there are any people here who would like to speak about this item, please come up to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Dean Preston: My name is Dean Preston. I live at 606 Carver Beach Road. I'll show you my property on the map. Right here. So the builders and the planners for this project have been extremely good to us from the standpoint of keeping us informed as to what they're doing. Our concerns through this whole thing is that we bought this property last year and we bought it because of the way it is. It's natural setting and the trees. We're basically in the middle of those trees and our concern has been, and we voiced it to them, is that the properties as they come along here don't spoil that for us you know behind. And our particular opinion is that if a 50 foot easement instead of 60 for that road increases our chances or keeping that kind of pristine, the way it is right now, we're all for it. Carver Beach being as it is with a fairly narrow road system down there, it certainly is not going to be detracted by the fact that you lost 10 feet there. And I do want to say thank you to those folks that have been doing this and for keeping us in the loop and making sure that we're not getting what we bought destroyed by what they're doing. Thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. Dean Stanton: Hi. My name's Dean Stanton. I was before this Planning Commission a few months ago. We live at 510 Bighorn Drive, right across where the house is and we're in the process of building a home right here right next to the creek. I guess I want to applaud the developer on, it looks like a nice development. I would say that it is a beautiful parcel. Anything you can do to narrow down the road, save more trees, I think is a good route to go. My only concern is that our house is going to be right here, and while it seems like everybody's concerned about having 75 foot setback from the lake for a house, there's only like a 10 foot setback for a boat shed and if there's a boat shed put on this point here, that point sticks out into the middle of the lake. It' s viewed from the entire lake side. I think from a community standpoint I would have a problem with that. That's just my opinion. Everybody's entitled to a dock, but having a boat shed right on that point is going to ruin our view being next door and I don't know, from a community standpoint, being that far out in the lake, what it does to the community. Lotus Lake is one of the nicer lakes out there because you've got, it's mostly wooded. You don't have a house · every 100 feet that's visible from the lake without a tree so that I guess would be my concern. That with part of the easement process was that you could put a boat shed, what kind of structure is that going to be. Kind of a lot of pressure there I think with the looks of that point. Like I said, that' s my own. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Sharmin, or Kate, would you like to comment on what type of structure could be there? Because I wasn't thinking that it could be a boat shed. A1-Jaff: The ordinance defines it as a water oriented structure. Now it could be a shed where you put your life jackets in and. Aanenson: There's a maximum square footage. Blackowiak: Okay, so what's the maximum square footage? Aanenson: 250 square foot. Blackowiak: 250 square foot maximum. Okay. Aanenson: I guess what we're struggling for is we're asking for an easement over the creek. Blackowiak: Right. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5,2001 Aanenson: It's not a protected creek. We're just asking for that. Otherwise he has a fight, whoever owns that lot, he or she to put a... Blackowiak: I guess my question has to do also with footings versus permanent versus temporary. Can it be a permanent structure with slab and footings? Aanenson: Yes, yes. I think that's what we'd like to do is negotiate too, what I was talking about is the height and some of those things, maybe make it a little bit more stricter but it' s still workable for them. That they'd know what kind of they're looking at there as far as that. If we put the easement in place, these are the things that would be acceptable. Put some criteria in place on that. We could have that in place for the council. Blackowiak: For the council meeting? Aanenson: Correct. Blackowiak: Alright, great. Dean Stanton: It's all the soft soils there and like this year, half of those wet. Aanenson: And it may need a greater setback or something like that. Those are things that we can look at and, so it's not sticking out so far. Some of those sort of things we can look at before it goes to- council. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Dean Stanton: I guess that's just a general comment for the lake as a whole. Everybody seems to be so concerned about whether it's a 75 foot setback or the ordinance that came around what, 93 or 94 where you're trying to average it between the neighbors and everything, but yet you can have any kind of a boat structure within 10 feet of the water. That doesn't seem to really make a lot of sense. And I think in the ordinance it is just used for boats. You can make it twice as big versus if it's just for skis and things like that. It just seems to be at odds with the overall theme of the lake of trying to keep the front view of it as natural as possible. Blackowiak: Thank you. Frank Filko: Hi, I'm Frank Filko. I live at 550 Bighorn Drive, which would be probably this. Right in this area right in here. The question I have is from the topography here, this is a pretty, quite big drop off here. What's being done here more for a washout and drainage with rains and all that if you're going to be clearing the trees and all that? Aanenson: That is an area that we're saying that may possibly be a bluff. Our original interpretation was that it wasn't. We're asking them to go back and re-survey it. Specifically those points. Frank Filko: What do you define as bluff?. Aanenson: A gradient of 30%. Let me back up and answer the fn:st part of the question too. We do require erosion control being around the house so, and that's something out there, and stabilize that and the intent is that they're not back in there clearing. That's why we have the limits for the grading. That's 28 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 why they're being custom grade so we don't have that problem, and we're also required to put the erosion control up. I'll read you the definition so I don't misquote it. There's three. A slope and rise of 25 feet. The grade of a slope from the toe of a bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the toe of the bluff averaging 30% or greater. So you'd take that length and figure out the 30%. So that's where we're saying we looked at the grading plan. We want to make sure so we've asked them to re-survey that specifically that area to see if it meets that criteria. Frank Filko: I mean that area is probably a 15 plus foot drop off. Where it goes on that side and the trees down below. Aanenson: Right. And it may be 20, and we want to make sure that it doesn't exceed that 30% so we've asked them to survey it and they've agreed to that. Frank Filko: I concur with the rest as well and if anything can be done to narrow that road to leave that area of the trees down that are in place would be wonderful. Blackowiak: Thank you. Jerry Paulsen: Good evening. Jerry Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive. I think Commission Sacchet's earlier remark is well taken, if I understood him right. That they should demonstrate that they do have the full 90 foot width at the 90 foot setback line, which is not explicitly stated on the plat. It appears that they meet that requirement but I think they should demonstrate that as required by the ordinance. Debbie Lloyd: Hi. My name's Debbie Lloyd. I live at 7302 Laredo Drive in Chanhassen and I didn't have an opportunity to really review the plat on this but there are a couple of quick questions. I think Jerry addressed one. The lakeshore width must be measured at the ordinary high water line, and although I believe on the plat it' s measured at the survey line and that' s a real technical point of difference but I think we have to get on track to make sure that's always done. And I don't know if the meander line is on the plat, which is 2 feet above that ordinary high water line. I don't know if there's a soil report with permeability and slope, considering how high this land is. Slope needs to be considered. That has affect also on the driveway grades for each individual lot. And the final point I want to make is I wouldn't confuse the 60 foot right-of-way with the actual pavement entering the site. I think the city should question giving up 10 feet of right-of-way. It doesn't mean that that's where you build. I mean if you're going to give a variance for the width of the right-of-way, you could give a variance on the setback requirement on those lots instead. Thank you. Blackowiak: Anyone else? Andrea Eidsness: I'm Andrea Eidsness and I live at the property just to the north here. 630 Carver Beach Road, and I guess I have not had an opportunity to really look through the report and communication between my husband and I is less than what I'd like right now. I've been traveling a lot and am pregnant so I haven't been, I'm probably not up to speed on this as much as I should but in listening to the comments that were offered tonight, I just have to say that I'm a little bit disappointed that we haven't, or that I'm not aware anyway that we've given great enough consideration to using the existing road that's there so that we're not demolishing additional trees to put in the new road. There is an existing asphalt road that goes down to the pump station and I guess I'm not clear on why we are choosing to eliminate that road and create a new one destroying trees in the process. 29 Planning Commission Meeting- June 5, 2001 Blackowiak: Okay. Would you like to answer, talk about that right now or? Let's give staff a chance and then why don't you come on up. Or would you rather not talk? AI-Jaff: Let me point to the, number one the applicant was trying to accommodate the neighboring property and increase the distance between future homes and their existing home. They're also looking at how potentially these properties could develop. That's one of the. Saam: I'll add something Madam Chair, also I would guess their engineer looked at topography. Accommodating walkout type homes which everybody wants and so I would guess that' s another reason, but like Sharmin said, we worked. We kind of looked and planned for this whole area and for a future street stub to the north, it seems to make better sense to put the street there. Blackowiak: Certainly come up. I didn't want to say that you couldn't come up. I just thought the staff might want to answer questions. Denise Preston: Sorry, just kind of jumped the gun. Blackowiak: Come right on up. Denise Preston: Denise Preston, 606 Carver Beach Road. I live right here, and at this point we have a lot of isolation which is why we bought the property this last year. We haven't even owned it a year yet. So when the plans first came to our attention, there was a great deal of, in our estimation, you would decrease our property value a very high amount if this became a public road. When they were discussing this development and said that the road would be further north, that would maintain the integrity of our property while still allowing them to develop at the least amount of disturbance to us. So that was one thing that we' ve been very concerned about and those were the first questions we started asking when we heard about this. Where was that road going to be? And there is an existingroad there now but you also see that it goes through the properties that will be developed, so there would have to be movement there in order to allow for the access then. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Randy Schlueter: Randy Schlueter, 580 Fox Hill Drive. I've been in this area 25 years and seen a significant amount of trees being taken down by developers. Nothing wrong with that but you've got to have a place to live, but has there been any provision for adding trees to, just a ton of them that's going to be removed by the road and the new road. Could you answer that? Aanenson: It's a condition of the staff report. Bill Coffman: It's our intention to replace at a minimum of 24 additional trees that we'll work out with Jill, who's the City Forester. In addition to that there will be many machine moved trees that we'll be able to pull out of the woods through the road area and so forth that we can save as well and, because we want to maintain the wooded nature of the site as much as possible as well and we' 11 be able to harvest some of the smaller trees that would be normally taken out. We can move them so they will in fact be saved so we are agreeing to maintain at least 24 trees moved, if not many more. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. 3O Planning Commission Meeting - June 5,2001 Kari Romportl: I'm Kari Romportl and I live at 620 Carver Beach Road and we are one of the developers, which for those of us that don' t know us, we do live there. We have lived there for 4 years. We've very concerned about losing trees and frankly I think a lot of the city ordinances have driven more tree loss than what we would like to see so I just wanted to clarify that point. That we do live there. We do watch the owls in the trees and we do have a vested stake in that property and we're not just a developer so I just wanted to clarify that. Sacchet: Can I ask you a question, Madam Chair? If I may? Blackowiak: Sure. Sacchet: So you're actually planning to stay there? Kari Romportl: Yes. We're the Romportl's with the 50 foot. That isn't so much important for us to be able to stay while we build. It's more the preservation of trees, so we've lived there 4 years. We plan staying there. Sacchet: So you'll be actually one of those people in one of these new developments? Kari Romportl: Yes. We'll be in, I don't know what lot number. Lot 9. So we are staying on the property and. Sacchet: Okay. Alright, thank you. Kari Romportl: So we have an interest in all those trees too so. Jeff Kleiner: I'm Jeff Kleiner. I live at 655 Carver Beach which is just up the.road from there. I've been there 23-4 years now. I don't have any questions about the tree removal. I've seen them at the other developments. My one question is about the lift station. If it's going to be able to handle all the extra flushings and everything like that. Because it does get a lot of traffic during'the winter and backing up and they do have a pump truck here that goes there very frequently in the last 20 years. That's all I have to worry about. Blackowiak: Okay. Matt, do you want to clarify that a little bit? Saam: Sure. Yeah, as Kate said, staff has met and discussed the capacity of that lift station. We met with the utility superintendent. We do plan in the future to upgrade that lift station because it does overflow at certain times where effluent may even go into the lake and that's certainly, it does. Okay, that's something we would like to see remedied and fixed. That's why we' re requiring the additional easement so if we need to increase the wet well in that lift station for the additional capacity, we have the easement in place. We can go down there and do the necessary upgrading. We're also recommending an easement for access to the site and the developer is willing to comply with that so. Blackowiak: So then is there a plan in place to upgrade now? I mean it sounds like it's sub-sized as it stands. Saam: Well the utility superintendent would like to go out and do it in a couple weeks but this is long range planning. We haven't gone, Teresa hasn't gone to council with anything yet on that, but that's coming I would say in the next couple of years we'd like to see a project there to upgrade that lift station. 31 Planning Commission Meeting- June 5, 2001 Jeff Kleiner: Is there any way you can do that sooner? I mean if it' s overflowing now and going into the lake, it seems like it's already exceeding it's capacity so either there's more homes built in there, why would you look at delaying it further? Aanenson: I don't know if it's a capacity issue. It's an electrical problem. When we have power go out, that's when the problem occurs. Right now we do not have an easement to that property, so this plat is solving some other problems that we can take it to the next step. Besides getting property easement to the site, we also will get the easement for additional space on the property. Again most of the problem is when there's electrical failure. That's when the problem occurs. Jeff Kleiner: You don't have a generator? Saam: Yep, it's very loud. Jeff Kleiner: Well that versus...before the houses go out? Saam: I'm not sure of the timing on what goes out first. I would assume if electricity goes out to houses, it's out to the pump station and vice versa. Blackowiak: Okay. Is there anyone else who'd like to speak to the Planning Commission on this issue? Paul Eidsness: Hi. I'm Paul Eidsness. I live at 630 Carver Beach Road with my wife who I apparently don't communicate very well with. I thank the developers for keeping me informed on what's going on. .... I don't understand whether or not you folks are going to go with a 60 foot easement or a 50 foot easement. And I'm not sure how that impacts us. Will the road go closer to our property here if there's a 50 foot easement as opposed to the 60 foot? Will the road be essentially 10 feet closer to us? Aanenson: No. Blackowiak: The road itself will be the road. I mean Matt. Saam: Not necessarily. If we would go down to a 50 foot right-of-way, we want to center the road in the right-of-way so now it would move as Deb said 5 feet. Blackowiak: So it would shift. Aanenson: 5feet, co~ect. Blackowiak: 5 feet to the north. Aanenson: The pavement surface, right. Paul Eidsness: I guess I would prefer to have the road stay where it is then and I would opt for the 60 foot easement, at least with respect to this stretch here. I don't care what happens down in this area. But I understand...Romportl's to some extent in whether or not they can live in their existing home...and I wouldn't want to get in the way of that. But I do like to preserve the integrity of our parcels here because I think in the future whether it's us or the next owners of our property, they may want to develop that area. And I'd just as soon have the road stay where it's drawn. Clearly these lots are quite large here and 32 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5,2001 I'm just a little bit afraid that with the road even closer to our properties here, it's going to become a little bit difficult to make these properties a little bit less sellable. That's all I have to say. Blackowiak: Okay. Thank you. Come on up to the microphone. Dean Stanton: I' ve got one question. The roads coming in to the development, what size are those currently? Aanenson: 40 feet and 20 feet. AI-Jaff: 40 feet and the pavement is 20. Dean Stanton: So why wouldn't you do the exact same thing that's feeding into the neighborhood? If that road's only for 9 homes, why do you have a small pipe coming in and then a larger pipe just in front of those 9 homes? A1-Jaff: To meet ordinance requirements. Dean Stanton: Is it possible to go to a 40 foot, just like the incoming roads? Saam: Sure we could. That would be well below the standard. Our standard is a 60 foot right-of-way with a 31 foot wide street. Here we're saying we'll allow them to go down to a 28, and they proposed 60 foot and I think that's up for debate tonight. Dean Stanton: But why not 40? Just because it's the standard? I mean this is an environmentally sensitive piece of land, maybe we should just meet the standards of the surrounding area rather than what's in existence for new pieces of property that are out on flat prairie. Saam: And I think that is up to the council and Planning Commission to decide. This is what the applicant has proposed to us. Aanenson: That meets the ordinance. Saam: Yeah, it meets city ordinance. I'm not going to tell him what to do. What to propose. If he wants to go for a variance, he's sure welcome to. That's his right. Dean Stanton: Okay. Do you think he'd get resistance on that variance if they do reduce that or how does that pay in? Saam: I guess we would have to look at that. Review it in a little more detail. I didn't look to see if, you get into things like grading. Would a sidewalk work? Room for easements. Small utilities. Blackowiak: Thanks Matt. I think we don't need to really get into that right now. Let's, you know that's not the issue before us tonight so we'll just kind of focus on the application before us. But I'd like to offer some time if anybody else would like to get up and speak. Make sure that everyone's had a chance to make their comments. If everyone is finished then I will close the public hearing and ask for commissioner's comments. Bruce, would you like to start? 33 Planning Commission Meeting- June 5, 2001 Feik: Yeah, that'd be fine. Thank you. I guess I've been to the site. I quite frankly agree with the width personally, irrespective of some of the other goals city engineering has in respect to the history. I would like to see it narrower. I think it would be more in keeping with the neighborhood. I happen to agree with to some degree with the last gentleman's discussion regarding the rationale of putting in full curb and gutter, street width, sidewalk and everything else in a little landlocked area for 9 lots. So I would like to see the road narrower. Blackowiak: Okay, Deb. Kind: I agree with Bruce and I would support a 50 foot fight-of-way with a 20 foot front yard setback so we could save more trees. I think that the City Council clearly can do that. It's stated in our ordinance that you can approve, grant a variance as part of a plat approval process and if the findings are met in the variance section, this is on 18-21 on page 999 of your ordinance book. I think that this would meet those requirements, especially the hardship is not a mere inconvenience because it would be the city requiring the developer to save more trees and that would be the hardship so I could easily support that variance. There's several other conditions that I would want to consider making amendments to. Number 26. I would like to see the applicant post a sign stating the street may be extended in the future. This is that stub street going to the north. That's my favorite condition. I'd like to add that to number 26, just to make it clear to everybody that's moving there. That that street will be extended probably. I'd like to add a condition that says that the applicant has, since they have shown that they can do a variance free plat, that they may revise, if they desire, the shape of Lot 7 and 8 so that it has a more straight property line. I'd like to see them have that option at least. Get rid of that funky lot. And Sharmin's condition that should be added about getting a new survey to determine whether indeed there is a bluff on Lot 6. I support that. I would add a condition number 33. I don't know what it would be at but that prior to final plat the retaining wall should be removed from the fight-of-way. I liked LuAnn's idea of identifying the significant trees. And a couple ideas that came from the people who spoke, which good job people. That we specify that prior to the City Council meeting the applicant should work with staff to specify limitations regarding lake accessory structures. And revise also revise .the plat to show the 90 foot width at the ordinary high water mark and at the building setback line. And I'm not quite sUre what to do about that lift station. I guess I'd be interested in my fellow commissioners comments about that. And I think that's about it for what, for my comments. Blackowiak: LuAnn. Sidney: Although I would like to compliment the residents. That was an excellent discussion. Very intelligent comments and questions. One of the better discussions I think I've participated in on a commission meeting. Also I guess I'd like to encourage staff to, as we're talking about changing dimensions on the street, also setbacks of the houses. I'd like to see those options laid out in a plat so that council might be able to look at that. I think we need to be able to visualize that and also relate that to significant trees. Aanenson: I think we can tie those two together. Sidney: Right. Aanenson: If it makes sense. Sidney: And then also you' 11 have the bluff survey done so that I think will be really helpful as well, so to provide some tools for City Council I think would be a good idea. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5,2001 Blackowiak: Okay. Sacchet: I have about 12 reason in my mind why I think this should come back. I think this should be tabled at this point. There are too many holes in it. I think we need a clear tree inventory. We need to know where they are. What they are. Which ones go. Which ones stay. I think we need to document the shoreline measures. I believe that we should have a condition that that lift station gets upgraded along with, if not before that development goes in. I do think from having looked at it early this afternoon, there's a good chance that it is 25 feet drop at 30%, meaning it would be a bluff, which introduces potentially quite a variable for Lot 6. I do believe that since we do state that this is an environmentally sensitive site we haven't really done anything particularly to do justice to that fact. That's important. And to at a minimum reduce the width of the road and work out solution that works for all the abutting residents. I mean that's something I think that needs to be worked on. That's not a straight forward thing, but I think we need to do something. We need to work with the developer with possibly getting more input from the neighbors if you think we need more, and do something to do that better justice. I do think we need to have clarity here how we apply this lakeshore setback situation. It's actually slightly embarrassing if this will be the final report. I do think we need to be clear about this stuff with...where is the balance, and I really appreciate that they're willing to consider that 50 foot setback from the creek because it' s not a DNR protected creek. And find, where's the balance. I mean it's what. I mean this is not clear enough for me that I would want to send it to council. I don't think it's cooked enough. Then I think I have a few more reasons. Oh, I really don't agree with the finding number 5. That there is no environmental damage. Half the trees coming down in a heavily wooded area is definitely environmental damage in my book. Condition number 12 has kind of a funky sub-clause. Letter C. The private utility system could not be reviewed. The plans did not contain enough details. Well, so what are they? I mean in order to plan to pass this onto council I think we need to have that little better determined. I do agree with I think Commissioner Kind suggested that we work on straightening out that zig zag lot line a little bit. See what can be done there. I think that needs to be improved, and also then the issue that came up with the retaining wall in the right-of-way. That all adds up to enough reasons to me that I personally feel this should be tabled and should come back with these things a little further defined. That's my comment. Blackowiak: Okay, Rich. Slagle: Madam Chair, I'm of the same thinking I guess as Uli. I'm concerned about the tree inventory. Concerning about what is to be taken and what is to be replaced with. I have to be honest with you, I'm very concerned about that lift station. I mean if we're pumping, or overflowing water into Lotus Lake, the comment, and I understand how it was made and why it was made but it's a long term project, or long term planning. I have a concern about that and before I was, felt comfortable voting on this along with the bluff question, along with the tree question and a few other things, I just don't have enough information to make what I consider to be a solid decision and I certainly don't want to pass this onto council and have staff and council spend a lot of time working on some of these questions, which I think could be addressed within this forum so I would tend to agree with Uli on this. Blackowiak: Okay Kate, before I make my comments I just have a quick question. If indeed it's a bluff, I mean Sharmin, Kate, it changes everything. Am I correct? Aanenson: We said we'd eliminate the lot. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5,2001 Blackowiak: Okay. And I'm sure that for the applicant and the developer that that would be a huge change and might be that if it's doing a project and not doing the project, and I'm making assumptions so. I'm just kind of wondering what's that going to happen. Aanenson: We've talked to them. They know that that's a possibility. I mean we do subdivisions all the time where a lot's dropped between now and council. That's fine. I just wanted to make a comment on the lift station too. That's not the obligation of this developer. It's a city problem so the nexus there doesn't work. That's a City Council issue so you know. Slagle: Pardon me Kate. While it might not be this applicant's issue, we are asking for approval of a subdivision that will actually bear, it will require things from that lift station and if that lift station has occasions that it's not performing, I'm trying to think common sense wise why. Mayor Jansen: If I may Madam Chair, may comment. At this point the direction that staff will end up going in is really taking a look at the lift station and bringing a proposal forward to council. We'll need to take a look at the CIP and I'm sure Teresa, as she comes back from maternity leave, will be on this issue as to what all of the nuances are that are occurring on the city side that we need to address. But to put that burden on the developer at this point, it' s a city project which is what staff is trying to communicate here. We'll need to take this into our processes and address it as a city project within the CIP. Slagle: If I may Madam Mayor, if that was the only concern amongst this proposal I would have no issue with that. But it's one of. Mayor Jansen: I'm just mentioning the lift station. It's just the lift station. Slagle: I'm with you. Mayor Jansen: As a city project. Sacchet: May I have a point of clarification Madam Chair? Blackowiak: Certainly. Sacchet: Isn't part of what we are tasked to evaluate, review with this sort of framework. I recall at one point it is whether the development is actually, what' s the term used here. Premature, because if the required infrastructure is not in place, it would be inclined to conclude that it's premature to put that development in. If we don't have appropriate facilities to accommodate sewer from this development, is that not part of what we have to look at? Aanenson: Yes. I'm saying we're issuing building permits up there in other areas that are serviced by this so I'm saying we've got to be equitable in how we're... Sacchet: So it's not this particular subdivision? Aanenson: Right. I mean I'm just looking at the equity issue. Blackowiak: Yeah, you know. It's down to the equity issue. I look at the subdivision before us and what we have before us tonight is something that has no variances and the question that we have is, does 36 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 the subdivision before us meet ordinance requirements? If it meets ordinance requirements, then we have to, is my reading of it, then we must approve it. That is what our city ordinance says. If we have an ordinance in, or if we have a subdivision in front of us, it meets requirements, it must be approved. Slagle: If it is complete. Blackowiak: Yes. Sacchet: And my point is that I feel there are too many incomplete elements at this point that I would feel it's right to pass it onto council. I'm not questioning whether it meets ordinance. What I'm questioning is, that there is a lot of elements that are not complete to the point that I feel it's appropriate to pass it onto council. Blackowiak: Specifically the tree inventory? Sacchet: Yeah, I think I had about 10 or 12 of those particular, what I would consider incomplete items. Sidney: I guess my thought would be, could those be included as conditions? Sacchet: I think it would be premature. I think it's too many. I'm not trying to be difficult and I know you'd like to move ahead with this as quick as possible. I don't know where we are with the 60 day rule. Blackowiak: We are, deadline is July 3rd. Aanenson: And we don't have a meeting. .. Sacchet: So we don't have a meeting to accommodate the 60 day: Blackowiak: Correct. Aanenson: Or we could put it on in 2 weeks. Sacchet: We could put it on still in June. Okay. I would still maintain that it would be better from the viewpoint of the needs of the city and what I believe our task is in front of the council to fill these 10 or 12 gaps a little better before we pass it on. That's my position. Blackowiak: Yeah, I'm just, I'm struggling because I'm not sure if I, I mean I understand your position. I just don't know if I'm of the same mind at this point because we have something before us and the question is completing this I guess. You know is the tree inventory going to help us? Yes, we'd get more information. Would it help us make a decision on what's before us? No. Sacchet: I agree with that. Blackowiak: Would the fact that it's environmentally sensitive, that's a given. However it has, that has no bearing on what is before us. Sacchet: How about the bluff? 37 Planning Commission Meeting- June 5, 2001 Blackowiak: In terms of the bluff, yes. That's a definite, but if the developer understands that there's a potential loss of that lot, then they lose the lot if it's a bluff. Slagle: But with the lot that they lose be the one, proposed as it stands now or would this development be redone? Aanenson: I don't think you can pick up an extra lot. We've looked at it. I think it'd be very difficult to try to pick up an extra lot. I mean the lot's going to go. Those other lots on the other side, I mean are large. And let me go back to the tree inventory. It meets the tree ordinance. We can give you more information but the lots in the plat meet the tree. Sacchet: I agree with you Alison that the tree thing by itself would not be a reason to hold it up. However, considering the bluff, it all adds up a little bit. I mean...by itself wouldn't be a reason. But we have, the bluff thing is quite another question. The way we're applying the lakeshore setback thing is very loose to say the least. Blackowiak: The lakeshore setback is 75 feet and that' s, I think staff was trying to make a point in the way the report was written. Sacchet: Yeah, I'd like it rewritten. Blackowiak: Well but whether or not, the thing is it meets the ordinance requirements of 75 feet. Sacchet: Right, it does. Blackowiak: Okay. My reading of it yes it does. So I mean as I look through, I mean I guess I'm disagreeing with you because I'm not seeing issues that are unresolved. I'mseeing, it doesn't meet ordinance. That's the question we have to keep coming back to. In my mind. Slagle: With no variances. You've got the setback or the easement. Blackowiak: That's not, they did not propose that. Slagle: Staff did. Blackowiak: No. No. That's something that a couple people have talked about but it's not in the report. It's a 60 foot easement. No variance there. Slagle: Clarification. When you say some people have talked about, meaning? Blackowiak: It was in the staff report. They said that would be a possibility that there'd be some trees saved but because this an application with no variances, that they were not going to go that route. Now whether the council would like to visit that issue, and grant variances will be a totally, that will be up to the council but like I said, we have to look at the application before us. Slagle: And the application before us, I've heard that they want the 50 foot. Blackowiak: No. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Slagle: Okay, so they're okay with the 60 foot? Blackowiak: Yes. Slagle: Okay. It's just the desire of others and maybe members here. Blackowiak: That there would be some opportunities to do 50 foot and that might be something to consider, but they are not requesting a variance for the 50 foot easement. Slagle: Okay. Mayor Jansen: And Madam Chair, if I might add as far as what council in general might be looking at, and might find favorable. We have had discussions about reducing the size of some of these roadways, so if you go the direction as some of you have spoken to, of the 40 foot, if staff can work that out, within your recommendation, if the commission wants to make that sort of a recommendation, what I'm communicating is I think you will find a council that's amicable in that direction on an environmentally sensitive piece of property this way. You can make that recommendation. Blackowiak: That would however be a variance and I'm, well I suppose we could make that recommendation that you consider it .... from public safety perspective I don't even know if they would go for that but. Mayor Jansen: What I'm communicating is that if you want to make the recommendation, have staff look at it before it comes to council, it would be appropriate. That's I guess my point too is I think we need to look at what we have before us. Make the recommendations that we see fit. In other words, council please look at ways to increase, it's to save more trees. To decrease the easement. Possibly to look at...changes. Look at the lift station. Look at the setbacks. I mean I think that we can just say to council, you know what. It meets, as it is right now it meets our current subdivision requirements and if you'd like to go ahead and make some changes that you feel would be appropriate for the area, then that would be the place to do it. Slagle: I'm comfortable with that. Kind: Madam Chair, question about this timing issue. Kate, you suggested that this could come back to us on the 19m of this month? Aanenson: Right. Kind: And then would that give it enough time to go to council? Aanenson: We can ask for additional time if we want to look at the lot. I guess my point is, they've got the number of lots on there. The only question is would it be one lot less. They can't add any more lots because you've given approval with so many lots. The only question would be one lot less and you feel like you have to see it to have one lot less. That's my question. Sacchet: No, I don't think we need that. Aanenson: We want to demonstrate whether or not that's a bluff and we've asked them and they've agreed that they will re-survey that. We will meet them on site to validate that. That was the only area of 39 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 gray that we found. That we want to make sure that there is concurrence on. We'll make sure on the tabulation, the lakeshore lots are there but we did measure all those and all checked and we' 11 make sure they're on the survey. Verified. Signed by the surveyor when it goes to council. But we can ask for additional time to put that on when it goes to council to make sure those comments are translated. Blackowiak: Okay, well I think what we need to do then now is to get a motion and we certainly can give some direction. Kind: Madam Chair, I' 11 make a motion. Blackowiak: Give some direction. Kind: What I'd like to do is make a motion to approve the preliminary plat the way it is and then I would like to make a second motion regarding the variance so we can vote on them separately. Does that make sense as a way to go? Sacchet: There is no request for a variance. Blackowiak: There's no request for a variance so we cannot vote on that. We make recommendations to council so you can include as many conditions as you'd like. Kind: Okay, I will add it as a condition then. Here we go. I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision 4/2001-3 for Creekwood for lots as shown on the plans May 21, 2001 based on the findings in the June 5, 2001 staff report and subject to the following conditions 1 through 30 with the followingchanges. Actually I'd like to make a change to the findings first. Point number 5, revise the finding to state the proposed subdivision will minimize environmental damage subject to conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision contains adequate' open areas to accommodate house pads so that's the finding for number 5. Moving back to the conditions. Let's see, I'll take them one at a time here. Number 12. (c). The private utility system shall be reviewed prior to going to council. Reviewed by staff prior to going to council. Number 26. I would like to add a sentence after the second sentence that says the applicant shall post a sign stating that this street may be extended in the future. And a new condition number 31. Since the applicant has shown a plat that meets ordinance for lot sizes and building pads, the applicant may revise the plat to straighten a property line between Lot 7 and 8. The lot sizes must meet the ordinance and the applicant shall show a suitable house plan that will meet all setbacks on Lot 8. I'll note to my fellow commissioners that this is an optional thing for the applicant. Number 32. The applicant, let's see. Here we go. The registered land, a registered land surveyor shall re-survey the slope on Lot 6 to determine if a bluff exists. The 60 by 60 house pad shall maintain a 30 foot setback from the top of the bluff. If the house pad cannot meet the standards, the lot shall be eliminated. What number was that, 32? And I had some more. I had some more. Here they are. 33. Prior to final plat the retaining wall shall be removed from the right-of-way. 34. Applicant shall identify the significant trees prior to presentation to council. Number 35. Prior to City Council presentation the applicant shall work with staff to specify limitations regarding lake accessory structures in the encroachment agreement. Number 36. The applicant shall revise the plat to show 90 foot width at the ordinary high water mark and building setback lines. That's my motion. Blackowiak: There's been a motion. Is there a second? Sidney: I'll second it. 4O Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 Kind: Oh, I was going to add that variance stuff in there. Blackowiak: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Kind: I have a friendly amendment to myself. Sorry guys. Fm pretty friendly to myself, aren't I? I'm trying to figure out how to word this because I had it kind of in the mind of a variance but add a condition, I don't know what number we're at. Are we at. 36 was the revising the plat to 90 so I'm 37 I think. That the Planning Commission recommends the City Council consider allowing a 50 right-of-way and 20 foot front yard setback for this subdivision based on the fact that the City Council can grant a variance as part of a plat approval process and that this meets the hardship requirements because it's the city's desire to preserve as many trees as possible. Aanenson: Can I get clarification on that? I think I understood too you wanted that to tie into the significant trees when we're looking at the variances. If there's a reason because they're significant trees, tie those two together? Kind: Sure. And that's it. Blackowiak: Okay, is there any more discussion? Sacchet: Can I make a friendly amendment? To your 35, you're talking about accessory structures? Kind: Yes. Sacchet: Can we put the dock into that package? Kind: Sure. Sacchet: And did we decide we're not mentioning the lift station? Kind: Yes. I decided not to mention that in here. I suppose we could, since I threw in that variance that City Council consider it, we could. Do you have some language on that Uli? Sacchet: Yeah, I think at a minimum I'd like to see something that the capacity of that lift station needs to be evaluated from a city point of view in view of this new development. I think that' s definitely a responsibility that we have in the context of this development. Kind: I'll accept those friendly amendments. Blackowiak: And I assume you accepted your own, right? Kind: I accepted my own. Blackowiak: Alrighty. Is there any more discussion? I have one point. I believe number 33 you had about the retaining wall, that doesn't apply yet I don't believe. And Matt, correct me if I'm wrong. It only applies when and if the street gets extended to the north. Is that when you were talking about potentially... Kind: That stub is part of the conditions. 41 Planning Commission Meeting- June 5, 2001 Blackowiak: Correct, but the retaining wall is on the Eidsness property. Saam: Yeah, any retaining wall within the right-of-way... Blackowiak: Has to be taken out. Saam: Yeah. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you for clearing that up so we'll just leave that as is. So we have a motion and a second. Kind moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision g2001-3 for Creekwood for 9 lots as shown on the plans dated May 21, 2001 based on the amended findings in the June 5, 2001 staff report and subject to the following conditions: I. The applicant shall correct the lot frontage on Lot 5 to 127 feet. . 3~ . o . . . o 10. I1. Storm water shall not be discharged into any wetland basin prior to pretreatment. No dock shall be placed on Lot 7 without an encroachment agreement. No water oriented accessory structure shall be allowed on Lot 7 without an encroachment agreement. All structures shall maintain a 50 foot setback from the ordinary high water level of the creek. The applicant shall provide storm water calculations. A detail of the skimmer proposed on the storm water pond shall be provided. A drainage and utility easement shall be provided over that portion of Lot 7 that is west of the sanitary sewer easement. Drainage and utility easement shall be provided over all existing creeks and existing and proposed storm water ponds. Based on the proposed developed area of 6.3 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are estimated at $5,040 and the water quantity fees associated with this project are estimated at $12,474. The applicant will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from the site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. Credits may also be applied to the applicant's structures. The applicant will not be assessed with the SWMP or the provision of outlet structures. The applicant will not be assessed for areas that are dedicated outlots. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording is $17,514. Environmental Resource Specialist conditions: 42 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5,. 2001 12. 13. 14. 15. a. The applicant shall submit a landscaping plan showing 24 trees as replacement plantings. Plan shall specify size, species and locations. b. All areas outside of grading limits shall be protected by tree preservation fencing. Fencing shall be installed prior to grading and excavation for homes on each lot. Building Department conditions: a. Demolition permits must be obtained from the Inspections Division before demolishing any structures on the property. b. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. c. The private utility system shall be reviewed by staff prior to going to City Council. Fire Marshal conditions: a. Submit proposed street name to Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. bo A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, US West, Cable TV and .transformer boxes. This is to ensure that the fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. C. When fire protection including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection is required to be installed such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 901.3. d. 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 driving capabilities. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 902.2.2.2. e. Because of close proximity to neighboring houses no burning permits will be issued. Trees or shrubs to be removed shall be either chipped on site or hauled off the property. With regards to Lots 7 and 8, houses must comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy Premise Identification referencing, if structure is not visible from the street additional numbers are required at the driveway entrance. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed. Park and trail fees shall be collected in lieu of land dedication pursuant to city ordinance. Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans will be required for each lot at the time of building permit application for city review and approval. In addition, as-built surveys will be required on each lot prior to occupancy. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 4° 25. 26. 27. 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. Each of the ponds shall be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. Staff needs to receive and review the water quantity ponding calculations prior to preliminary plat approval by the City Council. The permanent utility easement around lift station #10 must be increased from a 50 foot square area to a 60 foot square area. In addition, a 20 foot easement for access is required off of the proposed cul-de-sac. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design calculations will 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 up to the 100 year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Emergency overflows from all storm water ponds will also be required on the construction plans. 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 Ill erosion control fence, which is a heavy duty silt fence, be used for the area adjacent to the existing creek. The final grading plan shall extend silt fence around the north and south sides of the proposed cul-de-sac. In addition, tree preservation fencing needs to be added around the construction limits. 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. Each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hook up charges at the time of building permit issuance. Revise the preliminary utility plan to show all of the existing utilities around the site. Revise the preliminary grading plan to show all proposed and existing easements along with the normal and high water elevations of the proposed pond. A second street shall be stubbed to the north property line across from Lot 4. This street would be extended as properties to the north develop. Sanitary sewer and watermain should also be stubbed to the north to serve future lots. A sign shall be installed stating that this street may be extended in the future. The applicant shall include a draintile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge from homes not adjacent to ponds. Planning Commission Meeting - June 5, 2001 31. 32. 33. 34. 28. Dedicate an additional 10 feet of right-of-way on the west side of the site, along Carver Beach Road. 29. All plans must be signed by a registered engineer. 30. The applicant shall change the name of the proposed plat. Since the applicant has shown a plat that meets ordinance for lot sizes and building pads, the applicant may revise the plat to straighten a property line between Lot 7 and 8. The lot sizes must meet the ordinance and the applicant shall show a suitable house plan that will meet all setbacks on Lot 8. A registered land surveyor shall re-survey the slope on Lot 6 to determine if a bluff exists. The 60 x 60 house pad shall maintain a 30 foot setback from the top of the bluff. If the house cannot meet the standards, the lot shall be eliminated. Prior to final plat the retaining wall shall be removed from the right-of-way. Applicant shall identify the significant trees prior to presentation to council. 35. Prior to City Council presentation the applicant shall work with staff to specify limitations regarding lake accessory structures in the encroachment agreement. 36. The applicant shall revise the plat to show 90 foot width at the ordinary high water mark and building setback lines. 37.. The Planning Commission recommends the City Council consider allowing a 50 right-of- way and 20 foot front yard setback for this subdivision based on the fact that the City Council can grant a variance as part of a plat approval process and that this meets the hardship requirements because it's the city's desire to preserve as many trees as possible. 38. The City shall evaluate the capacity of the lift station and it's ability to serve the new development and the existing neighborhood. All voted in favor, except Uli Sacchet who abstained, and the motion carried 5 to 0 with 1 abstention. Blackowiak: The motion carries 5 to 0 with Uli abstaining and would you like to explain why you're abstaining. Sacchet: Yes, I do think that the responsibility for the Planning Commission would be to refine a little bit before passing it to council as discussed before. Blackowiak: Okay. So the motion carries and this does go onto City Council the 25th of June. The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting. OLD BUSINESS. 45