The URL can be used to link to this page

7 Replat 7.07/11.5 Acre Outlots CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard POBox 147 Chanhassen,MN55317 Admlnlslratlon Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 BUilding Inspections Phone: 952227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone 952.227.1160 Fax 952.227.1170 Finance ; Phon,952.227.1140 ¡ Fax 9522271110 , , ! Park & Recrealion ! Phone 952.227.1120 ~ Fax 952.227.1110 '~ Recrealiof1Cenler 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax 952227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952227.1300 Fax 952.227.1310 SeniD' Center Phone: 952227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 WebSII, www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us 1, MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manag~r FROM: Shanneen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner DATE: April 3, 2002 RE: Executive Summary On January 28, 2002 the City Council reviewed this request. The applicant agreed to an April 8, 2002 extension and gave direction to the applicant to make revisions to the plat. Staff worked with the applicant to revise the plat, which resulted in reducing the number of lots from 22 to 17. Staff still had issues with the plat specifically regarding grading and vegetation removal. The Planning Commission reviewed this project on March 5, 2002 and recommended denial of the land use amendment for environmental reasons, Since the March 5'h meeting, staff has reviewed a modified grading plan. The attached staff report reflects these changes. The applicant has given the City a written extension to process the application by April 22, 2002. Staff has prepared recommendations for approval with modifications to the plat. Should the City Council de-ny this application, staff recommends the City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact for denial. ! The City 01 Chanha5sen -·'''A growing community with clean lakes. Quality schools. a cha!lTlina downtown. thrivina busínesses. windina trails. and heílllliflJ! nílfk~ A nlP.ílf n!;:¡r:p. In livp., wmk ;nrJ nt::lv Jrrj "-'----J I I I ....1 I I West 6 r i -= CD ~q.f¡ \9 ~l¡cy ane oad 'f 'r. Lak ~. . 'Ç. ";). . Lake Lucy Ridge April 8, 2002 Page 2 Ordinance, IT it meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving a rezoning because the City is acting in its legislative or policymaking capacity. A rezoning must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The City's discretion in approving or denying a wetland alteration permit is limited to whether or not the proposed alteration meets the standards outlined in the wetland conservation act and the city's wetland ordinance. IT it meets these standards, the City must approve the wetland alteration. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving a land use amendment because the City is acting in its legislative or policymaking capacity. A land use amendment must be consistent with the City's goals and policies. CHRONOLOGY November 20,2001: The Planning Commission reviewed and tabled action on this application. The request included 1) the subdivision of 18.57 acres into 22 lots and one outlot. The average lot size was 18,368 sq. ft. with a net density of 2.3 units per acre, 2) rezoning of the 18.57 acres from Rural Residential to Residential Single Family, 3) Land Use Plan Amendment from Residential Large Lot to Residential Low Density, and 4) Wetland Alteration to fill 4,580 square feet of wetland. The Planning Commission directed the applicant to revise the plans by implementing the conditions of approval in the staff report. The issues and concerns raised at the meeting included lot size, road alignment, and amount of grading, January 15, 2002: The Planning Commission reviewed and unanimously recommended denial of this application. The request included 1) the subdivision of 18.57 acres into 21 lots and two outlots. The average lot size was 18,114 sq. ft. with a net density of 2.4 units per acre, 2) rezoning of the 18.57 acres from Rural Residential to Residential Single Family, 3) Land Use Plan Amendment from Residential Large Lot to Residential Low Density, and 4) Wetland Alteration to fill 4,580 square feet of wetland. The applicant was not willing to make changes recommended in the staff report. One of the issues discussed by the Planning Commission centered on the lot sizes in Ashling Meadows as compared to this development. The average lot size in Phase I of the development is 23,728 square feet. The average lot size in the entire development is 21,384 square feet. Lots that abut , Lake Lucy Ridge April 8, 2002 Page 3 Lake Lucy Ridge development have an area of 41,138 - 24,859 - 21,985 - 19,712 - and 18,522 square feet. January 28, 2002: Staff informed the City Council that the applicant is requesting an extension. The City Council granted an extension to the applicant to April 8, 2002, in order for proper revisions to be made, working with staff as directed by the Planning Commission, moving this project in its revised state back through the Planning Commission and to City Council by April 8, 2002. March 5, 2002: The Planning Commission reviewed and recommended denial of this application with a vote of 5 to 1. The request included 1) the subdivision of 18.57 acres into 17 lots and two outlots, The average lot size was 23,254 sq. ft. with a net density of 1.87 units per acre, 2) rezoning of the 18.57 acres from Rural Residential to Residential Single Family, 3) Land Use Plan Amendment from Residential Large Lot to Residential Low Density, and 4) Wetland Alteration to fill 4,580 square feet of wetland. The applicant reduced the number of lots, however, tree removal increased substantially. Also, staff's recommendations that could have minimized environmental impacts were partially met. March 15, 2002: , Staff met with the applicant following the March 5, 2002 Planning Commission meeting. Discussions focused on reducing grading. The applicant submitted revised grading plans on March 15, 2002. These plans incorporate an 8-foot high retaining wall along the northeast portion on Lot 8, Block 3 and save some additional vegetation. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to subdivide 18.57 acres into 17 single-family lots and two outlots. The property is zoned RR, Rural Residential, and the proposal calls for rezoning it to RSF, Residential Single Family. The easterly 7.07 acres of the site is guided Residential Large Lot and the applicant is requesting a Land Use Plan amendment to re-guide it to Residential Low Density. The applicant is also proposing to fill 4,580 square feet of wetland. The average lot size is 23,251 23,028 square feet with a resulting gross density of 1.1 units per acre and a net density of 1.87 units per acre. The site is located south of Lake Lucy Road, northwest of Lake Lucy, and east of Ashling Meadows. Access to the subdivision will be primarily provided via Lake Lucy Road. All lots are proposed to be served via internal residential streets. Lake Lucy Ridge April 8, 2002 Page 4 All of the proposed lots meet the minimum area, width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the Residential Single Family District. There are two outlots shown on the plat. Outlots A and B contain wetlands, a proposed trail and stonn water pond. The rigkt at '.v~' aIsag LaIæ Lias)' CSHR is 50 feet. ".TReR staff met \':ith the afJplieant, \":e reesHlIB6aEleà tke 8fJplieant æàHse tke wid!):" sf tR8 rigfit sf ";:ay t8 save seme Øe the sKistiag ':egeætis8. THe gæàiag }JIaa æßeets that the 59 feet Ägkt af .....ay Ras Rat impr-e':eà gæàiag 88 tHe sile. TkefefoFe, the right-of-way IIUlOt Be is shown at 60 feet as required by ordinance. The site consists of two parcels being assembled into one tract of land, and then subdivided. Two individuals own these parcels. The easterly parcel (currently platted as an outlot) is part of Lake Lucy Highlands (a large lot subdivision served by an individual septic system and well with a minimum area of 2.5 acres). This outlot is mainly wetland. The buildable area on the site is physically separated from Lake Lucy Road by a natural wetland. In the past, the owner of the outlot had attempted to replat it and fill a portion of the wetland to create a connection between the outlot and Lake Lucy Road. As a condition of approval of the Lake Lucy Highland subdivision, the applicant was required to demonstrate that a future structure would be able to meet wetland setback requirements, The applicant did not submit the required surveys to replat the outlot and the plans never materialized. The current plan assembles the outlot with the parcel to the west. The westerly parcel contains a single-family home that is proposed to be demolished. Two wetlands occupy the site. The site has bluffs and a meandering topography. The site has some mature trees, which the applicant is removing and replacing with new trees. In reviewing this plat, staff also had to look at access to the properties to the west and south. Ashling Meadows, located west of the site, is currently under construction. Emerald Lane will connect the two subdivisions. Staff has ensured that the surrounding parcels are not landlocked. During Phase II of Ashling Meadows, Emerald Lane will be stubbed to the eastern property line. When Lake Lucy Ridge develops, the street will extend to the north and eventually hook up with Lake Lucy Road. Lucy Ridge Lane will be stubbed to the south to provide access to the property along the south side of the site. Staff is unaware of any interest in developing that property at this time. Staff has been working with the applicant for the past year. The plan has gone through several changes. The critical issue that staff has been working to resolve is the amount of grading and its impact on the vegetation on site. Staff incorporated conditions to minimize grading and save some of the existing trees. We are recommending that it be approved with conditions outlined in the staff report. Should the recommendation be to deny this application, staff recommends the City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact for denial. The applicant has given the City a written extension to process this application by April 22, 2002. Lake Lucy Ridge April 8, 2002 Page 5 LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT The applicant is requesting a land use plan amendment to re-guide the easterly 7.07 acres (Outlot A, Lake Lucy Highland) from Large Lot Residential to Residential Low Density. The outlot is part of the Lake Lucy Highland subdivision which has a minimum area of 2.5 acres per lot. All homes within that subdivision are served with individual septic systems and wells. Outlot A is physically separated from Lake Lucy Highlands by a wetland to the east and Lake Lucy Road to the north. Both of these elements can be considered natural barriers, allowing Outlot A to fit better with uses proposed west of the subject site (in this case, Residential Low Density). It is a compatible use and allows transition to be maintained. Staff is recommending approval of this minor land use amendment. REZONING The applicant is proposing to rezone the property from RR, Rural Residential, to RSF, Residential Single Family, The area to the north, east, and south is zoned Rural Residential. The area to the west is zoned Residential Single Family. All the surrounding property, with the exception of the area to the north and east of the subject site, is guided for Residential Low Density, The area to the north and east is guided Residential Large Lot. ;., î .~ If the City approves re-guiding the easterly 7.07 acres to Residential Low Density, the 2020 Land Use Plan will show this area designated for development as Low Density Residential, 1.2 - 4,0 units per acre. Appropriate zoning for this land use is RSF, R4 or PUD-R. The applicant's proposal has a gross density of 1.1 units per acre and 1.87 units per acre net after the streets and wetlands are taken out. " Rezoning the 11.5 acre parcel, located east of Ashling Meadows, to Residential Single Family, RSF, is consistent with the 2020 Land Use Plan which shows the area designated for development as Low Density Residential. This area is in the MUSA area. Staff is recommending that this area be rezoned to RSF and finds that the rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan if the Land Use Plan is amended to re- guide the outlot to low density residential. If the City denies re-guiding the easterly 7.07 acres to Residential Low Density, the 2020 Land Use Plan will continue to show this area designated for development as Large Lot Density Residential, (2.5 acre minimum). Appropriate zoning for this land use is RR. The applicant's proposal has lots with an area of less than half an acre. The rezoning of the property will be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and as such, should not be approved. PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide an 18.57 acre site into 17 single family lots and two outlots. The density of the proposed subdivision is 1.1 units per acre gross, and 1.87 units per acre net after Lake Lucy Ridge April 8, 2002 Page 6 removing the roads and wetlands. All the lots exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of area, with an average lot size of 23,251 23,028 square feet. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for the Residential Single Fanùly District. There are two outlots shown on the plat. Outlots A and B will contain wetlands, trail, and a storm water pond. The ordinance requires all structures to maintain a 4O-foot setback from the outside edge of a wetland buffer strip. The ordinance also requires a buffer zone (0-20 feet wide) with an average of 10 feet for the wetland located northwest of the site and (10-30 feet wide) with an average of 20 feet from the wetland located east of the site. The plans show the wetland buffer. The trail located to the east of the property parallels the wetland buffer. As mentioned earlier in the report, there are bluffs on the site. One of these bluffs is located along the northwesterly corner of the site. The second bluff is located along the southeast corner of the site. The ordinance requires all structures to maintain a 30-foot setback from the edge of a bluff. Staff notes that the proposal is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan if the amendment is approved and generally consistent with the Zoning Ordinance with conditions outlined in the staff report. If the City denies the Land Use amendment, the rezoning of the easterly portion of the site must then be denied as well. This will make this plat inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance'and the Comprehensive Plan and therefore, should be denied. WETLANDS Existing Wetlands Two wetlands exist on-site: one natural wetland and one aglurban wetland. Aquatic EcoSolutions delineated the wetlands in May 1996 and reexamined the site on April 26, 2001. Wetland 1 is a Type 3 wetland located in the northwest corner of the property, just south of Lake Lucy Road, The wetland is dominated by reed canary grass and common cattail. The applicant is proposing to fill a portion of this wetland in conjunction with the widening of the access road (Lucy Ridge Lane). The total proposed impact to Wetland 1 is 2,297 square feet (0.05 acres). The applicant is also proposing the construction of new wetland along the south side of this basin for replacement purposes. Wetland 2 is a Type 4 wetland located east of the upland on the parcel. It extends to the south from Lake Lucy Road to Lake Lucy (OHW=956.1 MSL). It is dominated by reed canary grass and common cattail with some lake sedge and a few black willow trees. The applicant is proposing to fill a portion of this wetland in conjunction with the widening of the access road (Lucy Ridge Lane). The total proposed impact to Wetland 2 is 2,283 square feet (0,05 acres). Lake Lucy Ridge April 8, 2002 Page 7 On May 7,2001, City staff conducted an on-site review of a portion of the wetland delineation. The on-site review raised questions about the accuracy of the delineation of Wetland 1. The City met the delineator on-site on May 8, 2001. The conclusion ofthat site visit was that a portion of the wetland boundary established by the delineator was inaccurate. Staff recommended the wetland boundary be changed to be consistent with the findings of the delineator and City staff from May 8. The wetland boundary shown on the plans is consistent with the staff recommendation, Wetland Replacement To achieve the required 2: 1 replacement ratio, the applicant is proposing the construction of 4,910 square feet of new wetland credit (NWC) adjacent to Wetland 1 and 6,525 square feet of public value credit (PVC) through stormwater ponding. Wetland replacement must occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The plans should show a fixed photo monitoring point for the replacement wetland. A five-year wetland replacement monitoring plan should be submitted. The applicant should provide proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland. The City must approve a wetland replacement plan prior to wetland impacts occurring. Wetland buffer areas should be preserved unless otherwise approved by the City, All disturbed buffer areas must be revegetated with native, non-invasive vegetation. Buffers must be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant must install wetland buffer edgt signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and must pay the City $20 per sign. All other structures must maintain a 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. LAKE LUCY The proposed project is within 1,000 feet of the ordinary high water level (OHW) of Lake Lucy and is therefore within the lake's shoreland district; however, none of the lots proposed are riparian lots. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) classifies Lake Lucy as a recreational development lake. The minimum lot size is 15,000 square feet and the minimum lot width is 90 feet. BLUFFS Two areas on the property have been identified as bluff (i.e., slope greater than or equal to 30% and a rise in slope of at least 25 feet above the toe). These areas must be preserved. In addition, all structures must maintain a 30-foot setback from the bluff and no grading may occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top or toe of a bluff). Lake Lucy Ridge April 8, 2002 Page 8 GRADING. DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL Stonn Water Management The proposed development is required to maintain existing runoff rates. Easements Drainage and utility easements should be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas and storm water ponds. Erosion Control Type ill silt fence should be provided adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areas to be preserved as buffer or, if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. Erosion control blanket should be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3: 1. Any disturbed wetland areas should be reseeded with MnDOT seed mix 25 A, or a similar seed mix that is approved for wetland soil conditions. All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood-fiber blanket or sodded within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Suiface Water Management Fees Water Quality Fees Because of the impervious surface associated with this development, the water quality fees for this proposed development are based on single-family residential development rates of $800/acre. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 12.94 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $10,352. Water Quantity Fees The SWMP has established a connection charge for the different land uses based on an average citywide rate for the installation of water quantity systems. This cost includes land acquisition, proposed SWMP culverts, open channels, and stonn 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 $25,621 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 $35,973. Lake Lucy Ridge April 8, 2002 Page 9 Other Agencies The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e,g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval. GRADING Following the 11/20/01 Planning Commission (PC) meeting, staff took a hard look at the previous layout of the plat. Staff attempted to come up with a revised plat layout that would take into account the issues and concerns raised at the PC meeting, i.e. lot size, road alignment, amount of grading. As such, staff proposed the following to the applicant: moving Lucy Ridge Lane to the east, approx, 80-feet, at the intersection of Emerald Lane; moving the Block 1 house pads to the east with the road; deleting Lot 1, Block 1 and Lots 7 & 8, Block 2. .~ ¡j Staff believed the major effect of moving Lucy Ridge Lane and the Block 1 house pads to the east is that it would minimize the severity of the slope grades along the western property line of the site. This would allow the proposed grading in this area to better match the existing topography, It would also provide additional area for drainage swales along the western side of Block 1. ,.;¡ 'j, In addition, staff recommended that Lot 1, Block 1 be deleted. The severe rear yard slope and its close proximity to a wetland made it a questionable lot at best. In the past, staff has seen numerous problems with lots such as this that have severe rear yard slopes. Inevitably the homebuyer or builder will want to grade in more of a flat backyard area and then issues arise with the filling of the nearby wetland, setback problems due to a retaining wall, or both. The applicant has implemented all of the above recommendations with the exception of moving Emerald Lane by, approximately, 45-feet versus the recommended 80-feet. After reviewing the plan changes, staff ßas-.had a few additional recommendations. In the area of Block 1 along the western property line, Lot 3 should be revised to a full basement house pad with a rear pad elevation of 1004, and Lot 4 should be reoriented toward Emerald Lane with front and rear pad elevations of 1012± and 1008±, respectively. In the area of Block 2, all three of the proposed lots should be full basement house pads with matching front and rear elevations or tuck-under type house pads. All of these revisions would have require!! less site grading than what is shown and allowed the proposed house pads to better fit with the existing topography. In addition, staff ¡".. recommendiR;; recommended that Lot 6, Block 3 be reoriented toward the adjacent cul-de-sac street with a front pad elevation of 994± and a southeast walkout elevation of 986±. This would preserve an additional area of, approximately, 6400 square feet of canopy coverage just south of the cul-de-sac. Staff met with the applicant following the March 5. 2002 Planning Commission meeting to discuss the above recommendations, The applicant has decided to not implement the changes as recommended bv staff. Instead. in order to Dreserve the Block 3 canopy coverage. the applicant Lake Lucy Ridge April 8, 2002 Page 10 has IJroposcd an eight-foot tall retaining wall iust south of the cul-de-sac. While retaining walls are permitted bv Citv Code. staff would prefer to see the canODV coverage preserved without the use of a large retaining wall. The existing parcel has a wide variety of grade changes within its limits. The site elevations range from a high of 1026± to a low of 960±. These severe elevation differences combined with a relatively small area «15 buildable acres) make this site a challenging one to both develop and minimize grading. As such, the developer is proposing to grade the majority of the site. The area for the lots in the western portion of the site is proposed to be cut from 5 to 10 feet while the eastern portion of the site will be filled from 10 to 15 feet for the house pads along the wetland. Steep slopes are proposed along the south and west property lines of the site to match with the existing topography. Small retaining walls (maximum of 4 feet) could be employed along the western side of the lots in Block 1 to increase the area provided for drainage swales. The applicant is proposing to grade offsite to the west for the construction of Emerald Lane, which will connect this proposed development with the Ashling Meadows development. Staff has previously met with the applicant and the Ashling Meadows developer to try and come to some agreement on both the location and elevation of Emerald Lane. Following the meeting, a mutual compromise was agreed upon for Emerald Lane and the current plan shows this. In addition, the Ashling Meadows developer agreed to sign a temporary easement allowing the applicant to grade on Ashling Meadows property, The proposed and existing contours along the common property line within the Ashling Meadows site have been shown on the grading plan to ensure that the grading and drainage work. The applicant is proposing to grade the entire site at once. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic control plans, DRAINAGE The majority of the existing site drains from a high point in the southwest corner of the property toward wetlands in the northwesterly and easterly portion of the site. On the drainage plan, the applicant is proposing to collect all of the street and front yard stormwater and transport it to a pond in the north central portion of the site. The pond will treat the stormwater before discharging into the existing wetland. The pond has been designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards with 3:1 side slopes and a 10:1 slope bench below the normal water level. Pre- and post-development ponding calculations have been submitted for the site. Staff has reviewed the calculations and found that only minor modifications are necessary. Staff will work with the applicant's engineer to correct the calculations. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design calculations will need to be submitted. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a lO-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utilities easements will need to be dedicated on the Lake Lucy Ridge April 8, 2002 Page 11 final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. EROSION CONTROL Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City's Type ill erosion control fence, which is a heavy-duty silt fence, be used for the areas adjacent to the existing wetlands. Erosion control matting or wood fiber blankets will be required for the steep, rear yard slopes of those lots in the west and southwesterly portions of the site. In addition, a 75- foot rock construction entrance is required at the site access off of Lake Lucy Road. UTILITIES Currently, there is no public sanitary sewer available to the site. The nearest sewer line is approximately 600 feet west of the site within the Ashling Meadows development. This sanitary sewer will be extended to the Emerald Lane property line with the second phase of the Ashling Meadows development. Staff expects this to happen in the summer of 2002. Additionally, the applicant has previously petitioned the City to extend the sewer as part of a public improvement project. Staff believes that the sewer extension should be a developer driven project, especially when the project is planned within a year. In the absence of the sewer, the applicant has requested to install the sanitary sewer through the Lake Lucy Ridge site and leave a stub pipe for the Ashling Meadows 2nd Addition development to connect to. Staff has no objections to this scenario as long as the applicant is aware that no building permits will be allowed until the sanitary sewer is functional. The City's Comprehensive Sewer Plan shows the proposed development and neighboring properties to the east as being serviced within the same sanitary sewer subdistrict. As such, the proposed sanitary sewer lift station shall be designed to serve this development and the neighboring properties to the east. Any oversizing of the sewer forcemain or lift station pumps, beyond what is needed to serve this development, will be a City cost. Municipal water is available to the site from Lake Lucy Road. The applicant is proposing to connect to the existing water stub and extend watermain throughout the site. In the future, the watermain from this development will be connected to the watermain from Ashling Meadows 2nd Addition. Staff will perform a more detailed review of the utility layout at the time of final platting. Additional hydrants and/or water valves may be required at that time. The two underlying parcels of this development have each been previously assessed for one water hookup and connection charge. The assessments, however, have not been paid. Staff is recommending that the two previously assessed connection charges, which total $8,670 (2002 rates), be respread over the 21 newly created lots. In addition, each newly created lot will be required to pay a sewer and water hookup charge of $1,383 and $1,802 (2002 rates), respectively, Since the property is within the Lake Ann sewer district, a sewer interceptor charge of $1,057 Lake Lucy Ridge April 8, 2002 Page 12 and a sub-trunk charge of $866 will also be due on each lot. The sewer and water lateral connection charges for the new lots will be waived contingent on the developer installing the internal lateral utility lines. All of the above fees are due at the time of building permit issuance. Utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and to supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. STREETS There is one current access available for the site off of Lake Lucy Road. In the near future, the proposed stub street to the west, Emerald Lane, will be extended when Ashling Meadows 2nd Addition develops. This will provide a secondary access to/from the site. In addition, a street access has been provided for future development to the south. The proposed street layout appears to work well. Betft Lucy Ridge Lane, Lake Lucy Court, and Emerald Lane are shown within a 60-foot wide public right-of-way with 31-foot wide streets. Lake LHe)' CØlift is fJfÐ130seEl as a 31 feet wide street '.T:ithiR a 50 feet FigHt af way. TRis rtgkt af way '.':idtk Elsea Ret meet City Cede atul T.\'sHlå Feflliire a \'aFÎ3f1se. Frem aft 6RgiReeflag staREI:peiRt, staff GaARet SHfJfJ8ft tRis >¡ansaee FeEJ1:lest. Tke fJeF€ei~:eà RelisH sf miRimiziag site gFaàiRg by feàwsiRg tRe Fight af '¡:ay Elsea Het held tme ea tHis site. There is still sigaif.is8f1t gFadiRg essl:lmflg SR tÀe lets aEljaeeat t8 Lalre Laey CSHfl. As stated earlier, the site has some major grade changes. Staff has worked with the applicant to meet the City's maximum allowable street grade of 7%. The horizontal curves at the south end of Lucy Ridge Lane do not meet a 30 m.p.h. design. As such, the curves will have to be posted at a slower speed. In addition, a temporary cul-de-sac turnaround for emergency vehicles will be required at the south end of Lucy Ridge Lane along with a sign stating that the road will be extended in the future. The applicant requested to change the name of Lake Lucy Court to Lucy Ridge Court. Staff has no objection to this change. PARK DEDICATION PARKS Neighborhood Park needs for the proposed 17-lot subdivision would be served by the existing Pheasant Hill Park. The park is located just north of the site on Lake Lucy Road. In the future, residents will have access to Greenwood Shores and Lake Ann Parks. Lake Lucy Ridge April 8, 2002 Page 13 TRAILS A trail segment identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan has been included on this plat. The following conditions describe the trail alignment. 1. A 20-foot trail easement is identified. 2. The trail alignment is not within the wetland buffer. 3. The trail easement abuts lot lines, but the trail alignment maintains a minimum 6-foot separation from lot lines. 4. The pond berm, which the trail crosses, maintains a minimum top width of 12 feet to allow for a 2 foot "clear" on either side of the trail. The applicant shall be responsible for the construction of the trail with reimbursement for material costs being made from the City's Park and Trail Fund. The trail shall be 8 feet wide and built of bituminous material to city specifications. Full park fees, with one-third being paid at the time of platting and two-thirds at the time of the individual building permits, shall also be paid. "' ! An internal sidewalk will be located on Lucy Ridge Lane and Emerald Lane to provide residents access to the trail system. TREE PRESERV A TIONILANDSCAPING 1 Tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations for the Lake Lucy Ridge development are as follows: Total upland area (including~utlots) Total canopy area (excluding wetlands) Baseline canopy coverage Minimum canopy coverage allowed Proposed tree preservation 13.11 at 6.56 ac 50% 35% or4.6ac. 7% oFiI.9 ae. 11 % or 1.5 ac. The applicant does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed, therefore the difference is multiplied by 1.2 to calculate the required replacement plantings. Difference in canopy coverage Multiplier Total replacement Total number of trees to be planted 3.7 ae. Or Hil,l72 SF 3.1 ac. or 135,036 SF 1.2 193,401'i 162,043 SF t+8 149 trees The applicant has submitted a landscape plan that meets ordinance requirements. Buffer yard requirements are as shown in the table: Lake Lucy Ridge April 8, 2002 Page 14 Buffer yard B* - North property line, 613' 6 overstory trees 12 understory trees 12 shrubs 6 overstory trees 12 understory trees 12 shrubs The applicant has submitted a buffer yard-planting plan that meets ordinance requirements. Tl1.e ißtent sf tl1.e. eitj"s tree presefyatisß eFElißaHee. is te preser:e ß~HFaI ~,'seàed eß','~:~7~n;s ~~~e~~e~t tHe Ðlt)' Beaa¡¡se ef tHeir lßHefeßt Beßeflts as stated Iß elt)' sFElißlIßee Seatl (à) (1): seil staBilizatisß, redUÐißg steFHI'Nater FUßeff, preteetisn ¡¡¡¡d inerease sf prspe~;:,::Î~~~, wildlife haBitat, aREI geReral f)feteetiøR aRå E'JRt-umeeæ6Rt af iRe E}liality af life aflà geneT I 'elfar-ø of the sit)'. ',I¡Tkile tRig åeveløl3æeRt has met ør.æRBRse FeE}HireæeRts f-aT FeFeæstatieR, Fef'IaeeæeRt aREI Büfler yarà fJIaAtiRgs, staff Ðelie~¡es it Fails t8 meet the ¡RleRt af tke eràiRaRSe. The applicant is proposing to preserve single trees on Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 and Lots 1, 7 and 10, Block 3. Based on past experience of tree preservation in subdivision development, saving isolated trees in front yards is a difficult task accomplished only by strict protection of the tree's root area. Today's building practices often fully utilize the front yard area for access, storage, parking, etc. making protection of untouched root area extremely difficult. Additionally, the trees proposed to be saved on Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 are elms and the trees on Lot 7, Block 3 are box elders. Staff questions the validity of preserving these trees in light of the potentially short life spans due to, respectively, disease susceptibility and thcir existing elevations as to those proposed. Rather than penalizing the builder/developer 2:1 diameter inches after the tree is lost, staff recommends that front yard trees be added to the canopy removed and if saved, then credited against the overall total replacement plantings required. COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT Lot Area Lot Width Lot Depth Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' BLOCK 1 Lot 1 25,322 170.79' 176' 20,931 21,931 110.59' 188' 21,120 110' 192' 26,700 115.42' ~206.59 m' 206.59 comer lot Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Home Setback 30' front/rear 10' sides 30'/50'*/30*** 10' 30'/30'/30*** 10' 30'/30' 10' 30'/30' 10' · · > · Lake Lucy Ridge April 8, 2002 Page 15 Block 2 Lot 1 21,055 i. >. Lot 2 22,008 Lot 3 22,689 Block 3 Lot 1 22,520 22,080 Lot 2 20,012 19,596 Lot 3 20,OOé 19,670 Lot 4 20,007 19,877 Lot 5 29,583 Lot 6 19,877 18,781 Lot 7 18,526 Lot 8 20,003 Lot 9 30,755 LotlO 33,213 Outlot A Outlot B 27,000 291,196 120' 175' 30'/30' 10' 116' 194' 30'/30' lO' ~127.54 M9' 187.69 30'/30' M8! 164'comer lot lO' ~ 89.22' on curve M;!. 160' 30'/30'/60** HG 125.87' comer lot lO' &;h-I4 84.08' on curve 181' 30'/30'/60** 10' 9-l-,@ 94.21 +R-175 30'/30'/60** 10' H4 109 on curve ~170' 30'/30'/60** 10' s' 127.69' on curve 229' 30'/30'/60** ,~ 10'/30'*** ~ 77.76' on curve 180' 30'/30'1 ~ 218' and HJ 128' comer lot 10' 207' -l-éG 146' 30'/30' lO' 73,80' on curve 173' 30' /30' 10' 84.55 on curve 235' 30'/30'*** lO' /60** 95' 278' 30'/30'*** lO' /60** * The 50-foot setback includes a lO-foot average wetland buffer in addition to a 40-foot structure setback. ** The 60-foot setback includes a 20-foot average wetland buffer in addition to a 40-foot structure setback. *** The 30-foot bluff setback includes a 20-foot bluff impact zone. SUBDIVISION - FINDINGS (All of these findings assume that the City will approve the Land Use amendment and Rezoning of the 7.07 acre outlot, located along the easterly portion of the site.) Lake Lucy Ridge April 8, 2002 Page 16 I. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding:: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District. 2. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the subdivision ordinance with recommended conditions. 3. 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 nearest sewer line is approximately 600 feet west of the site within the Ashling Meadows development. This sanitary sewer will be extended to the Emerald Lane property line with the second phase of the Ashling Meadows development. Staff expects this to happen in the summer of 2002. Additionally, the applicant has previously petitioned the City to extend the sewer as part of a public improvement project. Staff believes that the sewer extension should be a developer dri ven project, especially when the project is planned within a year. In the absence of the sewer, the applicant has requested to install the sanitary sewer through the Lake Lucy Ridge site and leave a stub pipe for the Ashling Meadows 2nd Addition development to connect to. Staff has no objections to this scenario as long as the applicant is aware that no building permits will be allowed until the sanitary sewer is functional. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding; The proposed subdivision will cause some environmental damage, however, staff is recommending some modification to the plans to minimize impacts, The proposed subdivision contains adequate open areas to accommodate house pads, 6. The proposed subdi vision will not conflict with easements of record. · · · Lake Lucy Ridge April 8, 2002 Page 17 · 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: , a, Lack of adequate storm water drainage. b. Lack of adequate roads. c. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. d. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision will have access to public utilities and streets subject to finding in #4. REZONING FINDINGS (These findings assume that the Planning Cel'l!11lissisl'l CilyCouncil will approve the Land Use amendment. ) The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: 1. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed use is compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. 3. The proposed use conforms to all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance if conditions outlined in the staff report are met. 4. The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. 5. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. 6. Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. Lake Lucy Ridge April S, 2002 Page IS PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE On March 5, 2002, the Planning Commission reviewed and recommended denial of this application with a vote of 5 to 1. Their reasoning centered around the fact that the applicant reduced the number of lots, however, tree removal increased substantially. RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of the Land Use Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Subdivision, and wetland alteration permit. (Due to ümeliRe Fe~tFietioR5, the P~8RRiRg COIl1lRÌDsioR _5t aet OR this BpplieaüoR at the MaÆh S, 2002 meeüRg.) Staff recommends the PI8ßRiRg CmrunissioR City Council adopt the following motions: LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT "The PlaRRiRg COHllflÏssisR City Council approves Land Use Plan Amendment #01-4 to re-guide Outlot A, Lake Lucy Highlands from Residential Large Lot to Residential Low Density." Should the Planning C8Nimissi8R City Council deny the Land Use Amendment, the rezoning of the easterly portion of the property becomes inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance and the subdivision findings will change accordingly, Therefore, staff recommends the City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare findings to support denial of the application. Staff recommends that the P~8HRiHg CoR1RlissÌlIH City Council adopt the foUowing motions: If the PlaRRiRg CSHI!flissisR City Council approves the Land Use Amendment Request, then REZONING "The PlaRRiRg CemmissisR City Council approves Rezoning #01-4 to rezone IS.57 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential, to RSF, Residential Single Family." PRELIMINARY PLAT "The PlaRRiRg CaærnissisR City Council approves the preliminary plat for Subdivision #01-10 for Lake Lucy Ridge for 17 lots and two outlots as shown on the plans received February 19, 2002, subject to the following conditions: 1. Street lights shall be located at all intersections and at the end of the cul-de-sac, 2. A minimum of three overs tory trees shall be required in the front yard of each lot. · · Lake Lucy Ridge April 8, 2002 Page 19 · \0 3. · 4, ..~ 5. Proposed boulevard planting along all public streets shall be located outside of the right-of-way. Planting and maintenance of these trees will be the responsibility of the developer/development. Tree protection fencing is required around all trees proposed to be saved. Any tree lost will be replaced at a rate of 2: 1 diameter inches. The applicant shall submit to the city a table listing the lot and block and the number of trees required on that property. Trees reauired on each lot, each are 2 Vi' diameter: Block 1, lot 1 ++8 Block 3, lot 3 ~ 13 Block 1, lot 2 8 Block 3, lot 4 14 Block I, lot 3 Hll Block 3, lot 5 10 Block 1, lot 4 14 Block 3, lot 6 12 Block 3, lot 7 & 7 Block 2, lot 1 -W5 Block 3, lot 8 H4 Block 2, lot 2 7 Block 3, lot 9 & 7 Block 2, lot 3 11 Block 3, lot & 7 10 Block 3, lot 1 -l-1 16 Block 3, lot 2 H 12 t~ êf 6. The developer shall be responsible for installing all landscape materials proposed in buffer yard and rear yard areas. 7. 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. 8. Staff has reviewed the ponding calculations and found that only minor modifications are necessary. Staff will work with the applicant's engineer to correct the calculations. 9. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design calculations will need to be submitted. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a lO-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utilities easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100- year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. 10, Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH), Staff recommends that the Lake Lucy Ridge April 8, 2002 Page 20 City's Type ill erosion control fence, which is a heavy-duty silt fence, be used for the areas adjacent to the existing wetlands. Erosion control matting or wood fiber blankets will be required for the steep, rear yard slopes of those lots in the north and southwesterly portions of the site. A 75-foot rock construction entrance is required at the site access off of Lake Lucy Road. 11. The two underlying parcels of this development have each been previously assessed for one water hookup and connection charge. The assessments, however, have not been paid. Staff is recommending that the two previously assessed connection charges, which total $8,670 (2002 rates), be respread over the 21 newly created Jots. In addition, each newly created lot will be required to pay a sewer and water hookup charge of $1,383 and $1,802 (2002 rates), respectively. Since the property is within the Lake Ann sewer district, a sewer interceptor charge of $1,057 and a sub-trunk charge of $866 will also be due on each lot. The sewer and water lateral connection charges for the new lots wiIJ be waived contingent on the developer installing the internal lateral utility lines. All of the above fees are due at the time of building permit issuance. 12. 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. 13. Increase the amount of platted right-of-way along Lake Lucy Road from 74-feet to 80- feet in width. This is the minimum required right-of-way width for collector streets, such as Lake Lucy Road, in Chanhassen. 14. Submit a separate preliminary utility plan that shows the proposed rim elevations, invert elevations, and pipe sizes for all proposed and existing utility lines. 15. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e., Watershed District, Metropolitan Environmental Service Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Army Corp. of Engineers, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and comply with their conditions of approval. 16, The applicant shall include a draintile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge from homes not adjacent to ponds or wetlands. 17, The horizontal curves at the south end of Lucy Ridge Lane do not meet a 30 m.p.h, design. As such, the curves wiIJ have to be posted at a slower speed. , " Lake Lucy Ridge April 8, 2002 Page 21 , ~ 18. !:J 19. i~ 20. A temporary cul-de-sac turnaround for emergency vehicles will be required at the south end of Lucy Ridge Lane along with a sign stating that the road will be extended in the future. Submit a temporary easement for the proposed offsite grading on Ashling Meadows property. The proposed and existing contours for the Ashling Meadows site must be shown on the grading plan to ensure that the grading and drainage will work. Revise Lot 3 to be a full basement house pad with a rear pad elevation of 1004 and change Lot 4 so it is reoriented toward Emerald Lane with front and rear pad elevations of 1012± and 1008±, respectively, In the area of Block 2, all three of the proposed lots should be full basement house pads with matching front and rear elevations or tuck-under type house pads. In addition, revise Lot 6, Block 3 to be reoriented toward the adjacent cul-de-sac street with a front pad elevation of 994± and a southeast walkout elevation of 986±, '" . 21. The proposed sanitary sewer lift station shall be designed to serve this development and the neighboring properties to the east. Any oversizing of the sewer forcemain or lift station pumps, beyond what is needed to serve this development, will be a City cost. 22, Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). 23. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved unless otherwise approved by the City. All disturbed buffer areas shall be revegetated with native, non-invasive vegetation. Buffers shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. 24. All structures shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. 25. All bluff areas shall be preserved. In addition, all structures shall maintain a 3D-foot setback from the bluff and no grading shall occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top or toe of a bluff). 26, The proposed development shall maintain existing runoff rates. 27. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas and storm water ponds. 28. Type ill silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areas to be preserved as buffer or, if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. Lake Lucy Ridge April 8, 2002 Page 22 29. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3: 1. 30. Any disturbed wetland areas shall be reseeded with MnDOT seed mix 25 A, or a similar seed mix that is approved for wetland soil conditions. All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood-fiber blanket or sodded within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. 31. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 12.94 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $10,352; the water quantity fees are approximately $25,621. 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. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $35,973. 32, The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval. 33. Fire Marshal Conditions: a, Submit a plan to the Fire Marshal indicating roads and location of proposed fire hydrants only for review. The submitted plans: grading, drainage, erosion control plan and preliminary utility plan are too congested at this time. b. A lO-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants i.e., street lamps, trees, bushes, shrubs, Qwest, Xcel Energy, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. c. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and brush must be either removed from site or chipped. d. An approved turn around shall be designed and installed at the south cnd of Lucy Ridge Lane to allow the turning around of fire apparatus. Submit cul-de-sac design and dimensions to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 902.2.2.4. e, 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 time of construction. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 901.3. - .. ''"' Lake Lucy Ridge April 8, 2002 Page 23 .. .. f. 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. I. 34. Park and Recreation Conditions: . The following conditions describe the trail alignment: a. A 20-foot trail easement is identified. b. The trail alignment is not within the wetland buffer. c. The trail easement may abut lot lines, but the trail alignment must maintain a minimum 6-foot separation from lot lines. d. The pond berm, which the trail crosses, must maintain a minimum top width of 12 feet to allow for a 2 foot "clear" on either side of the trail. e, The 8 foot bituminous trail shall be extended to Lake Lucy Road. f. The applicant shall be responsible for the construction of the trail with reimbursement for material costs being made from the City's Park and Trail Fund. The trail shall be 8-feet wide and built of bituminous material to city specifications. Full park fees ($25,500 Park Fees, and $8,500 Trail Fees), with one-third being paid at the time of platting and two-thirds at the time of the individual building permits, shall also be paid. "t ,{ -'" s 35, Building Official Condition: a. Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. b. A demolition permit will be required prior to removal of the existing structures on the site. 36. All structures shall comply with the following table: COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT Lot Area Lot Width Lot Depth Home Setback Ordinance 15,000 90' 125' 30' front/rear 10' sides BLOCK I Lot I Lot 3 25,322 170.79' 176' 29,931 21,931 110.59' 188' 21,120 110' 192' 30'/50'*/30*** 10' 30'/30' /30*** 10' 30'/30' 10' Lot 2 · Lake Lucy Ridge April 8, 2002 Page 24 Lot 4 26,700 115.42' ~206.59 30'/30' m' 206.59 corner lot 10' 21,055 120' 175' 30'/30' 10' 22,008 116' 194' 30'/30' 10' 22,689 !@!"127.54 -l@' 187.69 30'/30' -l-é8! 164'comer lot 10' 22,529 22,080 ~ 89.22' on curve .¡.@ 160' 30'/30'/60** HQ 125.87' comer lot 10' 20,!H2 19,596 ~84.08' on curve 181' 30'/30'/60** 10' 29,99{j 19,670 9hé9 94.21 +++ 175 30'/30'/60** 10' 29,907 19,877 -H4 109 on curve ~170' 30'/30'/60** 10' 29,583 127.69' on curve 229' 30'/30'/60** 10'/30'*** 19,877 18,781 ~ 77.76' on curve 180' 30'/30'/ m 218' and m 128' comer lot 10' 18,526 207' !éQ 146' 30'/30' 10' 20,003 73.80' on curve 173' 30'/30' 10' 30,755 84.55 on curve 235' 30'/30'*** 10'/60** 33,213 95' 278' 30'/30'*** 10'/60** 27,000 291,196 Block 2 Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Block 3 Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 6 Lot 7 Lot 8 Lot 9 Lot 10 Outlot A OutlotB * The 50-foot setback includes a lO-foot average wetland buffer in addition to a 40-foot structure setback, ** The 60-foot setback includes a 20-foot average wetland buffer in addition to a 40-foot structure setback. *** The 30-foot bluff setback includes a 20-foot bluff impact zone." .. .. \ill Lake Lucy Ridge April 8, 2002 Page 25 . WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT ~ "The PlaHRiRg CammissioR City Council approves Wetland Alteration Permit #2001-3 for Lake Lucy Ridge as shown on the plans dated received February 19, 2001 and subject to the following conditions: ,. 1. " 2. . Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). . The plans shall show a fixed photo monitoring point for the replacement wetland. A five- year wetland replacement monitoring plan shall be submitted. The applicant shall provide proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland, The City shall approve a wetland replacement plan prior to wetland impacts occurring. ;¡ % ~ 3. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved unless otherwise approved by the City. All disturbed buffer areas shall be revegetated with native, non-invasive vegetation. Buffers shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. 4. All structures shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. 5. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas and storm water ponds. 6. Type III silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areas to be preserved as buffer or, if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. 7, Any disturbed wetland areas shall be reseeded with MnDOT seed mix 25 A, or a similar seed mix that is approved for wetland soil conditions. 8. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e,g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval." A IT ACHMENTS 1. Letter from the applicant regarding the date to process the application. 2. Memo from DNR dated October 31,2001. 3, Memo from Matt Saam, Project Engineer dated February 27, 2002 4. Memo From Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal dated October 31, 2001. 5, Memo From Todd Hoffman, Director of Parks and Recreation, dated November 5,2001. 6, Letter from Mr. Noecker extending the 60-day review process. · Lake Lucy Ridge April 8, 2002 Page 26 7. Application and Notice of Public Hearing. 8. Planning Commission minutes dated November 20,2001. 9. Planning Commission minutes dated January 15,2002. 10. City Council minutes dated January 28, 2002. 11. Planning Commission minutes dated March 5, 2002. 12, Preliminary plat dated received Fel3mary 19, 2992 March 15,2002. .. .. .. Lake Lucy Ridge April 8, 2002 Page 27 . CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA . , .. FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION INRE: ''II Application of Randy Noecker for rezoning. . On March 5, 2002, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Randy Noecker for rezoning property from Rural Residential District, RR, to Single Family Residential District, RSF. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed rezoning preceded by published and mailed notice, The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: , ,~ 1'. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Rural Residential District, RR, 2. The easterly 7.07 acres of the property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Residential Large Lot. 3. The legal description of the property is: Outlot A of Lake Lucy Highlands and also That part of the Southeast Quarter and Government Lot 1, Section 3, Township 116, Range 23 which lies Southerly and Westerly of Lake Lucy Highlands, Northerly of Registered Land Survey No. 89 and Easterly of the Easterly line of Registered Land Survey No. 102 and its Northerly extension. 4. The Zoning Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider six (6) possible adverse affects of the proposed amendment. The six (6) affects and our findings regarding them are: Lake Lucy Ridge April 8, 2002 Page 28 a) The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. b) The proposed use is compatible with the present and future land uses of the area. c) The proposed use conforms to all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. d) The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. e) The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not overburden the city's service capacity. f) Traffic generation by the proposed use is within capabilities of streets serving the property. 5. The planning report #2001-4 Rezone dated March 5, 2002, prepared by Sharmin Al-Jaff, et aI, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDA TION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the rezoning, ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 5th day of March, 2002. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY: Its Chairman A TrEST: Secretary g:\plan\sa\lk lucy ridge\lk lucy ridge.pc3.doc .. it( , .. . . , From NOECKER DEVELOPMENT, INC. 763 786 2117 Mar. 22 2002 11:51AM P01 PHONE No. -" " Noecker Development. LLC 8315 PleASAnt View D";ve Mounds View, Milln. 5!,;!!2 Sharmin AI-laff Scnior PI:ml1cr City of Chanhasscn 690 City Center Drive C'httnhAsscn. Minl1e!:o1a 5~:\ 17 March 21, 2002 RE: Extension tn RC\linw Phu Lake Lucy Ridge Dc;lr Sharmin, Thi~ Idter i~ wJ'Htcn to cxLcnd the time ucodod to reviow the preliminary pJut roc Lakc Lu.cy Rid~. h iN ABI'êc:ublc with me::. tø ex(ond (he PfOUC!)~ fUJ rc¿ul1in~ hmd UI!!C amcndmclll.. wclland ~ltcTation and prclhnil14U)' pJal ulHiJ ^pril 22. 20()2, 11 i" lit)' h"!",, .b... the Clt)" Cóu"çil c"" "pprovc my pt.d rcqu",,' by the ^prll R. 2002 ItIcclinj; S;¿I:V;?tf¿. Randl,lI R. Noook..-. President ,---. Noecker Dcvcl0l'm~"t. , ,I..C R11 ~ PIC<ls8nt View Drivc Mound¡¡ Vi~w> Min" ~~ 112 Cell GT 2-74] ·2(,62 om(;" 763· 7K(,-6J87 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Metro Waters - 1200 Warner Road, St. Paul, MN 55106-6793 Telephone: (651) 772-7910 Fax: (651) 772-7977 October 31,2001 RECEIVED NOV 0 2 2001 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Ms. Shannin AI-Jaff City of Chahassen 690 City Center Drive P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Preliminary Plat, Lake Lucy Ridge, City ofChanhassen, Carver County Dear Ms. AI-Jaff: Thank you for sending the preliminary plat, received October 29, 200 I, for the Lake Lucy Ridge Development to the DNR for review. The Lake Lucy Ridge development is located in the SE y. of Section 3, Township I 16N, Range 23 West, Carver County. After reviewing the preliminary plat of Lake Lucy Ridge, we have the foIlowing comments to offer: 1. It appears that a portion of Lake Lucy may extend north along Outlot A, based on the existing elevations (indicated as a wetland). The Ordinary High Water (OHW) for Lucy lake is actuaIly 956.1' and not 957.0 as stated on the plan. However, that juridical elevation is not topographical shown on the plat. Additional ground elevations are needed to clearly define the northerly extent of the OHW boundary and wetland juridical matters. 2. The extent of vegetation clearing identified on the grading plan is unclear. The southeast section of the project area contains bluffs. These areas should not be disturbed and all structures should be set back at least 30' from the top of the bluff. Other portions of the site appear to be steep slopes and therefore, major topographic alterations should be avoided to prevent erosion and to preserve existing vegetation screening of structures. 3. The Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan is very busy and difficult to review. The drainage plan shows a detention pond adjacent to Lake Lucy Road. It is unclear where the remaining runoff will be routed to. 4. The 100 year flood elevation of Lake Lucy is 957.0'. AIl work that is done for this development must comply with applicable floodplain regulation of both the city and the Ri ley-Purgatory-B luff Creek Watershed District. 5. It appears that a retaining waIl will be placed around the entire development. It is unclear as to the need for such a structure. ""....TnT_r~_~.:..._."C1 "',,£ c,r... . nOn '... ",...,._ ____.~ ,_. _",.. _...... . ............ "'__ .............. . ~. ... . Page 2 Ms. Shannin AI-Jaff October 31,2001 . The following comments are general and apply to all proposed developments; 6. If construction involves dewatering in excess of 10,000 gallons per day or 1 million gallons per year, a DNR appropriation permit is needed. Ifthe application is for less than 50 million gallons, than it typically takes five days to process the permit. " 7. If construction activities disturb five acres ofland, or more, the contractor must apply for a storm water permit fiom the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (Keith Cherryhomes @ 651-296-6945). 8. The comments in this letter address DNR Waters jurisdictional maters and concerns. These comments should not be construed as DNR support or lack thereof for a particular project. Thank you for submitting the preliminary plat of Lake Lucy Ridge to the DNR for review. Please contact me at (651) 772-7914 should you have any questions about these comments. Sincerely, ___ _ ~-A - Travis Germundson Area Hydrologist c: Tim Gieseke, Carver County SWCD Bob Obermeyer, Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District Keith Cherryhomes, MPCA Lucy Lake (I 0-7P) File City of Chanhassen Shoreland File -' CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MarkelBDulevard PO Bo, 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Adminislralion Phone: 952.227.1100 fa,952.227.111O Buildlnglnspeclions Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 F,,:952.227.1170 Finance PhoD€:952.227.1140 F,,:952.227.111O Park & Recrealion Phone 952.227.1120 Fax 952227.1110 RecrealionCenter 2310"CoulterBoulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 fa,952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 ParkRoa~ Phnne:952.227.1300 Fa, 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 fa, 952.227.1110 WebSlle WI'\\w.ci.chanhassen,mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Shannin AI-Jaff, Senior Planner FROM: Matt Saam, Asst. City Engineer /,(7 February 27,2002 DATE: SUBJ: Revised Preliminary Plat Review of Lake Lucy Ridge Project No. 01-03 Upon review of the plans prepared by Mattke Surveying & Engineering dated February 14, 2002, I offer the following comments and recommendations: GRADING Following the 11/20/01 Planning Commission (PC) meeting, staff took a hard look at the previous layout of the plat. Staff attempted to come up with a revised plat layout that would take into account the issues and concerns raised at the PC meeting, i.e. lot size, road alignment, amount of grading. As such, staff proposed the following to the applicant: moving Lucy Ridge Lane to the east, approx. 1SU- feet, at the intersection of Emerald Lane; moving the Block 1 housepads to the east with the road; deleting Lot 1, Block I and Lots 7 & 8, Block 2. Staff believed the major effect of moving Lucy Ridge Lane and the Block 1 housepads to the east is that it would minimize the severity of the slope grades along the western property line of the site. This would allow the proposed grading in this area to better match the existing topography. It would also provide additional area for drainage swales along the western side of Block 1. In addition, staff recommended that Lot 1, Block 1 be deleted. The severe rearyard slope and its close proximity to a wetland made it a questionable lot at best. In the past, staff has seen numerous problems with lots such as this that have severe rearyard slopes. Inevitably the homebuyer or builder will want to grade in more of a flat backyard area and then issues arise with the filling of the nearby wetland, setback problems due to a retaining wall, or both. The applicant has implemented all of the above recommendations with the exception of moving Emerald Lane by, approximately, 45-feet versus the recommended 80-feet. After reviewing the plan changes, staff has a few additional recommendations. In the area of Block 1 along the western property line, Lot 3 should be revised to a full basement house pad with a rear pad elevation of 1004, and Lot 4 should be reoriented toward Emerald Lane with front and rear pad elevations of 1012± and \O08±, respectively. In the area of Block 2, " " ,. ,1 ~ ~ .. o .. .. Shannin AI-Jaff February 27,2002 Page 2 " ¡,.. front and rear elevations or tuck-under type house pads. All of these revisions would require less site grading than what is shown and allow the proposed house pads to better fit with the existing topography. In addition, staff is recommending that Lot 6, Block 3 be reoriented toward the adjacent cul-de-sac street with a front pad elevation of994± and a southeast walkout elevation of986±. This would preserve an additional area of, approximately, 6400 square feet of canopy coverage just south ofthe cul-de-sac. " The existing parcel has a wide variety of grade changes within its limits. The site elevations range from a high of 1026± to a low of 960±. These severe elevation differences combined with a relatively small area «15 buildable acres) make this site a challenging one to both develop and minimize grading. As such, the developer is proposing to grade the majority of the site. The area for the lots in the western portion of the site is proposed to be cut from 5 to 10 feet while the eastern portion of the site will be filled from 1 0 to 15 feet for the housepads along the wetland. Steep slopes are proposed along the south and west property lines of the site to match with the existing topography. Small retaining walls (maximum of 4 feet) could be employed along the western side of the lots in Block 1 to increase the area provided for drainage swales. § ¡:; The applicant is proposing to grade offsite to the west for the construction of Emerald Lane, which will connect this proposed development with the Ashling Meadows development. Staff has previously met with the applicant and the Ashling Meadows developer to try and come to some agreement on both the location and elevation of Emerald Lane. Following the meeting, a mutual compromise was agreed upon for Emerald Lane and the current plan shows this. In addition, the Ashling Meadows developer agreed to sign a temporary easement allowing the applicant to grade on Ashling Meadows property. The proposed and existing contours along the common property line within the Ashling Meadows site have been shown on the grading plan to ensure that the grading and drainage work. The applicant is proposing to grade the entire site at once. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic control plans. DRAINAGE The majority of the existing site drains from a high point in the southwest comer of the property toward wetlands in the northwesterly and easterly portion of the site. On the drainage plan, the applicant is proposing to collect all ofthe street and front yard stormwater and transport it to a pond in the north central portion of the site. The pond will treat the stormwater before discharging into the existing wetland. The pond has been designed to National Urban Runoff Program Shannin AI-Jaff February 27,2002 Page 3 (NURP) standards with 3: 1 side slopes and a 10: I slope bench below the normal water level. Pre- and post:development ponding calculations have been submitted for the site. Staff has reviewed the calculations and found that only minor modifications are necessary. Staff will work with the applicant's engineer to correct the calculations. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design calculations will need to be submitted. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utilities easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the lOa-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. EROSION CONTROL Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City's Type III erosion control fence, which is a heavy-duty silt fence, be used for tile areas adjacent to the existing wetlands. Erosion control matting or wood fiber blankets will bè required for the steep, rearyard slopes of those lots in the west and southwesterly portions of the site. In addition, a 75-foot rock construction entrance is required at the site access off of Lake Lucy Road. UTILITIES Currently, there is no public sanitary sewer available to the site. The nearest sewer line is approximately 600 feet west of the site within the Ashling Meadows development. This sanitary sewer will be extended to the Emerald Lane property line with the second phase of the Ashling Meadows development. Staff expects this to happen in the summer of2002. Additionally, the appliéant has previously petitioned the City to extend the sewer as part of a public improvement project. Staff believes that the sewer extension should be a developer driven project, especially when the project is planned within a year. In the absence of the sewer, the applicant has requested to install the sanitary sewer throu}h the Lake Lucy Ridge site and leave a stub pipe for the Ashling Meadows 2" Addition development to connect to. Staffhas no objections to this scenario as long as the applicant is aware that no building permits will be allowed until the sanitary sewer is functional. The City's Comprehensive Sewer Plan shows the proposed development and neighboring properties to the east as being serviced within the same sanitary sewer subdistrict. As such, the proposed sanitary sewer lift station shall be designed to serve this development and the neighboring properties to the east. '" .. Shannin AI-Jaff February 27,2002 Page 4 ~ .. Any oversizing of the sewer forcemain or lift station pumps, beyond what is needed to serve this development, will be a City cost. b! Municipal water is available to the site from Lake Lucy Road. The applicant is proposing to connect to the existing water stub and extend watennain throughout the site. In the future, the watermain from this development will be connected to the watermain from Ashling Meadows 2nd Addition. Staff will perform a more detailed review of the utility layout at the time of final platting. Additional hydrants and/or water valves may be required at that time. The two underlying parcels of this development have each been previously assessed for one water hookup and connection charge. The assessments, however, have not been paid. Staff is recommending that the two previously assessed connection charges, which total $8,670 (2002 rates), be respread over the 21 newly created lots. In addition, each newly created lot will be required to pay a sewer and water hookup charge of$I,383 and $1,802 (2002 rates), respectively, Since the property is within the Lake Ann sewer district, a sewer interceptor charge of$I,057 and a sub-trunk charge of$866 will also be due on each lot. The sewer and water lateral connection charges for the new lots will be waived contingent on the developer installing the internal lateral utility lines, All of the above fees are due at the time of building pennit issuance. , Utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting, The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and to supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. STREETS There is one current access available for the site off of Lake Lucy Road. In the near future, the proposed stub street to the west, Emerald Lane, will be extended when Ashling Meadows 2nd Addition develops. This will provide a secondary access to/from the site. In addition, a street access has been provided for future development to the south. The proposed street layout appears to work well. Both Lucy Ridge Lane and Emerald Lane are shown within a 60-foot wide public right-of-way with 3 I-foot wide streets. Lake Lucy Court is proposed as a 31-foot wide street within a 50- foot right-of-way. This right-of-way width does not meet City Code and would require a variance. From an engineering standpoint, staff cannot support this variance request. The perceived notion of minimizing site grading by reducing Shannin AI-Jaff February 27, 2002 Page 5 the right-of-way does not hold true on this site. There is still significant grading occurring on the lots adjacent to Lake Lucy Court. As stated earlier, the site has some major grade changes. Staff has worked with the applicant to meet the City's maximum allowable street grade of7%. The horizontal curves at the south end of Lucy Ridge Lane do not meet a 30 m.p.h. design. As such, the curves will have to be posted at a slower speed. In addition, a temporary cul-de-sac turnaround for emergency vehicles will be required at the south end of Lucy Ridge Lane along with a sign stating that the road will be extended in the future. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL I. 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. 2. Staff has reviewed the ponding calculations and found that only minor modifications are necessary. Staff will work with the applicant's engineer to correct the calculations. 3. 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 utilities easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. 4. 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 areas adjacent to the existing wetlands. Erosion control matting or wood fiber blankets will be required for the steep, rearyard slopes of those lots in the north and southwesterly portions of the site. A 75-foot rock construction entrance is required at the site access off of Lake Lucy Road. 5. The two underlying parcels of this development have each been previously assessed for one water hookup and connection charge. The assessments, however, have not been paid. Staff is recommending that the two previously assessed connection charges, which total $8,670 (2002 rates), be respread over the 21 newly created lots. In addition, each newly created lot will be reQuired to pay a sewer and water hookup charge of '- ¡" .. Shannin Al-Jaff February 27,2002 Page 6 '. " the Lake Ann sewer district, a sewer interceptor charge of $1 ,057 and a sub-trunk charge of $866 will also be due on each lot. The sewer and water lateral connection charges for the new lots will be waived contingent on the developer installing the internal lateral utility lines. All of the above fees are due at the time of building permit issuance. '. 6. 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. . 7. Increase the amount of platted right-of-way along Lake Lucy Road from 74-feet to 80-feet in width. This is the minimum required right-of-way width for collector streets, such as Lake Lucy Road, in Chanhassen. 8. Submit a separate preliminary utility plan that shows the proposed rim elevations, invert elevations, and pipe sizes for all proposed and existing utility lines. 9. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e., Watershed District, Metropolitan Environmental Service Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Army Corp. of Engineers, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and comply with their conditions of approval. 10. The applicant shall include a draintile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge from homes not adj acent to ponds or wetlands. II. The horizontal curves at the south end of Lucy Ridge Lane do not meet a 30 m.p.h. design. As such, the curves will have to be posted at a slower speed. 12. A temporary cul-de-sac turnaround for emergency vehicles will be required at the south end of Lucy Ridge Lane along with a sign stating that the road will be extended in the future. 13. Submit a temporary easement for the proposed offsite grading on Ashling Meadows property. The proposed and existing contours for the Ashling Meadows site must be shown on the grading plan to ensure that the grading and drainage will work. · Shannin Al-Jaff February 27, 2002 Page 7 14. Revise Lot 3 to be a full basement house pad with a rear pad elevation of 1004 and change Lot 4 so it is reoriented toward Emerald Lane with front and rear pad elevations of 1012± and 1008±, respectively. In the area of Block 2, all three of the proposed lots should be full basement house pads with matching front and rear elevations or tuck-under type house pads. In addition, revise Lot 6, Block 3 to be reoriented toward the adjacent cul-de- sac street with a front pad elevation of 994± and a southeast walkout elevation of986±. 15. The proposed sanitary sewer lift station shall be designed to serve this development and the neighboring properties to the east. Any oversizing of the sewer forcemain or lift station pumps, beyond what is needed to serve this development, will be a City cost. ktm c; Teresa Burgess, Director of Public Works/City Engineer g:\cng\projccls\Jake lucy ridge\2nd revision ppr.doc .. .~ ¡ · CITY OF CHANHASSEN .. 690 City Centtr Drive PO B(fX 147 ¡, Chonhl1JStn, MinntSota55317 Phont ., 952,937.1900 Central FIIX 952.937.5739 , Enginrmng Department Fax 952,937.9152 Building Dcparnnmt FIIX ~52,'].f.2524 WébSitt Z/lWW.ci.chl111hasml.1nll,JlJ MEMORANDUM TO: Shannin AI-Jaff, Senior Planner FROM: Mark Littfin, Fire Marshal DATE: October 31, 2001 SUBJECT: Preliminary plat to re-plat 7.05 acre outlot and 11.5 acre lot (18.57 acres) into 22 single-family lots and one outlet, land use amendment from residential large lot to residential low density, rezoning from rural residential to residential single-family dwelling and a wetland alteration permit for property located south of Lake Lucy Road, west of Lake Lucy and east of Ashling Meadows Subdivision, Lake Lucy Ridge, Noecker Development. Planning Case: 2001-10 SUB. 1 have reviewed the plat redevelopment. In order to comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, I have the following fire code or city ordinance/policy requirements. The plan review is done based on the available information supplied at this time. If additional plans or changes are submitted, the appropriate code or policy items will be addressed. 1. Submit a plan to the Fire Marshal indicating roads and location of proposed fire hydrants only for review. The submitted plans: grading, drainage, erosion control plan and preliminary utility plan are too congested at this time. 2. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants i.e., street lamps, trees, bushes, shrubs, Qwest, Xcel Energy, cable TV and transformer boxes, This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9- I. 3. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and brush must be either removed from site or chipped. 4. An approved turn around shall be designed and installed at the south end of Lucy Ridge Lane to allow the tuming around offire apparatus. Submit cul-de-sac design and dimensions to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 902.2.2.4. 5. When fire protection, including fire apparatus accesS roads and water supplies for fire protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during time of construction. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 901.3. 6. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all weather driving capabilities, Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 902.2.2.2. , Shann in Al-jaff October 31, 2001 Page 2 7. Street names Lucy Ridge Lanc, Lake Lucy Court are confusing. The city already has a number of Lake Lucy Roads, Lake Lucy Lane with similar street names. Please submit new street names for review and approval. g:\safetylmllplrev2001-10 .. \0 .. .~ CITY OF CHANHASSEN . 690 City Ctn,,, Driv, PO Box 147 ~ Ch1l1/JilSstn, Mimlfsotll 55317 Pholl' 952.937.1900 GtIltrldF{/x 952.937.5739 El1giJlctrŽlzg Ðrpnrtmeut Fnx 952,937.9152 Building Ðcpnrt1l1f11f Fax 9529342524 \\1'b Site lI'II'Il~ri.{bl1l//;i/.ì.¡CI/.II1/J.u.r MEMORANDUM Shannin AI-Jaff, Senior Planner .AI Todd Hoffman, Director of Parks and Recreation --m . TO: FROM: DATE: November 5, 2001 SUBJ: Preliminary Plat, Lake Lucy Ridge, Noecker Development; Park and Recreation Department Review I have received a copy of the preliminary plat for Lake Lucy Ridge. Upon reviewing the application, I have the following comments: PARKS Neighborhood Park needs for the proposed 22-lot subdivision would be served by the existing Pheasant Hill Park. The park is located just north of the site on Lake Lucy Road. In the future, residents will have access to Greenwood Shores and Lake Ann Parks. TRAILS A trail segment identified in the City's Comprehensive Plan has been included on this plat. However, the alignment as currently depicted, is not acceptable. The following conditions need to be met for the trail alignment to be acceptdble. 1. A 20-foot trail easement must be identified. 2. The trail alignment cannot be within the wetland buffer. 3. The trail easement may abut lot lines, but the trail alignment must maintain a minimum 6 foot separation from lot lines, 4. The pond berm, which the trail crosses, must maintain a minimum top width of 12 feet to allow for a 2 foot "clear" on either side of the trail. The applicant shall be responsible for the construction of the trail with reimbursement for material costs being made from the City's Park and Trail Fund. The trail shall be 8 feet wide and built of bituminous material to city specifications. Full park fees, with one-third being paid at the time of platting and two-thirds at the time of the individual building permits, shall also be paid. G:\park\th\PrelimPlatLakeLucyRidge From NOECKER DEVELOPMENT. INC. PHONE No. 763 786 2117 Jan. 29 2002 2:13PM P0~ Noecker Development, LLC 8315 PleRS"n! View Drh'e Mounds View, Minn. 55112 Sllomlfn AI-Juff Senior >Innncr Cify (If Clmnho..cn 690 ('ify ('Cnfer Oriv. Chanl~,ç~n. Mitlnc.ol. ~$3 J7 JOIIIIOI)' 24. 2IH/2 RF.: Exrc'!UJ:inn fn n~\1Jc", Pin' T olkc , "9' Ridge nenr Shnnnin, Thfl: It.ltel' h: ",rille'U to c:\:lcnd the time ltC'Cdcd In rcvicw (h('; pr(\Hrninmy plof for Ln1(c l.uC)' Ride-c. 't ;1\ .ngrcc..c¡bfc win) n1Ç to c...fC'lnd the pmcc.~:5 unHl ^S"Iril R, '.00'.. I( i~"W 11()fIC thnllhc rllllm;ne Con1lnifi~ion and CIf)' CHundl CflUlIVflfOV(" l'hy Þ'nt r<".qu(\c;i before 11131 titHe. sinoorc£f 4zL. ~ R. Noocker, Pre.iden. N<KI<'J<cr Ocvclopl1lcn, '.1 r. tn I ~ Pleasant Vie\\' Dr/ve Mound. View. Milln. SS J 12 Cell 612-741-2662 Office 763-786-6387 '. 'c4 -. '. '., ... ,. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION : APPUCANT, ¡tI,,~~~ L~J .. ADDRESS: 8 ~ (Ç PI" «4 ...J I ~ 6, v: . /J1c-v~/$ VI ~ 41.;;", 5SI("2- ;. TElEPHONE (Daytime) 70 r 7 g(", -- fc3S' 7 Gv/) 0(}....· 7y(-'Z..Ç,!,çL OWNER: s.~ ~ ~~~ (; Ji."".lL " ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: dl ...,k Comprehensive Plan Amendment _ Temporary Sales Permit - Conditional Use Permit - Vacation of ROWlEasements - Interim Use Permit - Variance _ Non-conforming Use Permit X Wetland Alteration Permit , _ Planned Unit Development" _ Zoning Appeal ....K- Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment _ Sign Permits . _ Sign Plan Review _ Notification Sign - Site Plan Review' -X- Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" ($50 CUP/SPRNACNARlWAPlMetes and Bounds. $400 Minor SUB) - Subdivision" TOTAL FEE $ "' j , A Ust of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be Included with the .application. BuDding material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. ~wenty-slx full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, Including an 8Yz" X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. - Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract JTE - When multiple applications are processed. the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. , . . , PRDJECTNAME La/I. ~ Lc..c..y £~p , LDCA1ION /"r01 LdI.. L.. t...c_ U R~ 1.EGAl.DESCRJPTION ç...", ~~ TOTAl-ACREAGE /R.? WETlANDS PRESENT Vves NO PRESENTZONING IZR BEQUESTED ZONING !Z);¡:- PRESENT lAND USE DESIGNATION i_~ f)QA";,i¡ tf- L¡<:... L,,-f¡- R~, REQUESTED lAND USE DESIGNATION _ L~-vJ h<>'H f:'~_ REASON FOR THIS REQUEST p(¿ Lc.¿ L.? ~~~ /his appncation 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 DepanmerU to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application, 1\ tletennination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written rotice Df application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. /hiS is 10 certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with <i1J City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and J am the party whom 1he City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owne(s Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make 1his ~lication and the fee owner has also signed this application. , wm keep myself infonned of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further lJTlderstand 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. /he c1\y l1ereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day iJxtension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are app ved by the applicant. y/~Z Signature of Applicant IO-1-0( Date Signa1ure of Fee Owner J\ppTæon Received on Dale Fee Paid Receipt No. '1ñeapp1icant should contacf !;fAff fnr ~ "''''rm ,...lfJ..,.. ...._u _'-__~ ...I.'~._ ...m t" _ _.__,._..._ _ _ r-._',",_.. _ _,_ .._ .f. _ ___.... NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20,2001 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE PROPOSAL: Subdivision, land Use Amendment APPLICANT: Noecker Development Rezoning and Wetland Alteration Permit lOCATION: Lake Lucy Road NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Noecker Development, is requesting Preliminary Plat to replat a 7.07 acre Outlot and 11.5 acre lot (18.57 acres) into 22 single family lots and one outlot, land use amendment from Residential large lot to Residential low Density, Rezoning from Rural Residential to Residential Single Family District, and a Wetland alteration permit for property located south of lake lucy Road, west of lake lucy and east of Ashling Meadow Subdivision, lake lucy Ridge, Noecker Development. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmin 937-1900 ext. 120. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advanc~ of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on November 8, 2001. LJ'ó ~I 4,¡." {lIcy ana <> -hi . r-" ^ ~i -8 , rh~ [ STATE OF MINNESOTA IN TRUST C/O AUDITOR - DNR WITHHElD .600 4111 ST B CHASKA MN 55318 JACKJ & KATHRYN K RANDALL 1571 LAIŒ LUCY RD EXŒLSIOR MN 55331 JOSEPH J & D GAYLE MORIN 1441 LAIŒLUCYRD CHANHASSBN MN 55317 JAMES & CLAUDBTTE G SCHLUCK 6800 UTICA TBR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GERALD F HOFFMANN 6830 UTICA TER CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RONALD C & MARY ELLEN KNUDTa 6850 UTICA TER CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PA1RICK A MOHR & MAUREEN D LORD MOHR 6890 UTICA TER CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DALE E & GLORIA J CARLSON 6900 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 EDWIN & CORREEN G NEWINSKI 6930 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WILLIAMB & PATRICIA C WARD 6960 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WILLIAM D LAMBRECHT & JOANNE M LAMBRECHT 6990 UTICA LN CHANHASSBN MN 55317 HEIDI J CARISCH 7000 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ALICE L FOWLER 7050 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SCOTT E & TAMARA G SATHER 7090 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROCKFORD R W ALDIN JUDY M CHRISTENSEN 7100 UTICA LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O SCOTT BOTCHE 690 CITY mo BOX 147 CH SSEN MN 55317 ALLAN ROBERT & MARY E WEINGAR 1685 STELLER CT _-- EXCELSIOR .' MN 55331 -' ERIC MICHAEL RIVKEi--- 1695 STELL~/ EX~R MN 55331 JUDITH A DIRKS 6 PHEASANT LA \\TN OLIVI~. -" MN 56277 ...----. ROGER M & E ELAINE SAMPSON 6710 POINTE LAKE LUCY CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROGER M & B ELAINE SAMPSON 6710 POINTE LAIŒ LUCY CHANHAsSEN MN 55317 BONNIE S MCCOSKEY 6720 POINTE LAIŒ LUCY CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT H MASON INC 14201 EXŒLSIOR BLVD HOPKINS MN 55345 ROBERT H MASON ~ 14201 EXCELSIOR BLVD H0!!9NS---- MN 55345 ..- PRINCER NELSON 7801 AUDUBOIDID----- CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ------- DENNIS E & SUSAN J SCHEPPMAM 16637 NOR11I MANOR RD EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55346 MATTHEW L & SUZANNE C woom 6745 LAKEW A Y DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LOSCHEIDER CUSTOM HOMES INC 1607 FLORIDA AVEN GOLDEN VALLEY MN 55427 ALAN ROBERT WEINGART & MARY E WEINg,ðRI__/ 1685 STELL-£R CT EXeELsIOR MN 55m '" ,. '" .&., REINHOLD & LORRAINE GUTHMlu.ER '. 8290UNlONHlILBLVD BEU..EPLAINE MN 56011 - CITY OF ŒANHASSEN ClO SCOTT BOTCHER 690 CITY WO BOX 147 SSEN MN 55317 .. JOHN F & MARJELLEN WALDRON i. 1900LAKELUCYRD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 .~ JOHN W & MELANIE L GORCZYCA 1850 LAKE LUCY RD ... EXCELSIOR MN 55331 .. ALAN K PETERSON 1831 LAKELUCYLN EXCELSIOR MN 55331 .. io MERLE W & DIANE M STEINKRAUS 1800 LAKE LUCY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 .. JERRY REUEL GILL & . CYNTHIA MILLER GILL 1760 LAKE LUCY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 . PATRICK V JOHNSON & MARY C CORDELL · t 730 LAKE LUCY LN EXCELSIOR MN 5533 t -'I WILLIAM R & PAMELA G ASPLIN 1665 STELLER CT EXCELSIOR MN 55331 . PHILIP R THIESSE & KIM B TERNING THIESSE 1675 STELLER CT EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ALLAN ROBERT & MARY E WEINGAR1 1685 STELLER CT EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ERIC MICHAEL RIVKIN 1695 STELLER CT EXCELSIOR MN 55331 ALLEN L & BARBARA J FINSTAD 1701 STELLERCT EXCELSIOR MN 55331 JUDITH A DIRKS 6 PHEASANT LAWN OLIVIA MN 56277 " , " PRINCE R NELSON 7801 AUDUBON RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 2001 . Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and gave an introduction to the audience on how the meeting would proceed. MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich Slagle, LuAnn Sidney, UIi Sacchet, Alison Blackowiak, Bruce Feik. Deb Kind and Craig Claybaugh CITY COUNCIL LIAISON PRESENT: Mayor Linda Jansen STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson. Community Development Director; Sharmin Al-Jaff. Senior Planner; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Matt Saam, Project Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REOUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT A 7.07 ACRE OUTLOT AND 11.5 ACRE LOT (18.57 ACRES) INTO 22 FAMILY LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT. LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL LARGE LOT TO RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY. REZONING FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT. AND A WETLAND AL TERA TlON PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF LAKE LUCY ROAD. WEST OF LAKE LUCY AND EAST OF ASHLING MEADOW SUBDIVISION. LAKE LUCY RIDGE. NOECKER DEVELOPMENT. Public Present: Name Address Bill & Joanne Lambrecht Gloria & Dale Carlson Scott Reinertson Jim Schluck Dennis Scheppmann Jack & Melanie Gorczyca Tamara Sather Eric Rivkin John & Mariellen Waldron Tedd Mattke Randall Noecker 6990 Utica Lane 6900 Utica Lane 6801 Utica Terrace 6800 Utica Terrace 6740 Lakeway Drive 1850 Lake Lucy Road 7090 Utica Lane 1695 Steller Court 1900 Lake Lucy Road Mattke Surveying and Engineering 8315 Pleasant View Drive, Moundsview Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Okay commissioners. do you have any questions of staff? Rich, any? - - Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 .. Slagle: Sharmin if! may. There's more than just the firsttwo I'm going to mention but as I read through this, what came across to me was a number of things that were not in the plan. And understanding that there were then clarification that this could be worked on, it could be da, da, da, da, da. My simple question is, is there a reason that we can't sit with the applicant and get all of these done and presented to the commission as a, either a complete or an almost complete proposal? As one commissioner Ijust want to say I don't feel comfortable with as many of these numbers of, and I've only mentioned two, or I could talk about two. I know there's 4 or 5 that we could just have that worked on and then present it again. And Kate you're going to address that it looks like. .. .. .. Aanenson: Sure. We've worked with the applicant. Sharmin has extensively over the last several months to make the changes. Eventually get to the point where it needs to come to a different arena to get those changes made. .. Slagle: Understand, So maybe it's a question to the applicant. 1" Aanenson: Correct. So I guess that's why we're saying, if you feel like those changes are significant enough that you want to see it again, then it may make sense to table it to see what the changes are but at this point the direction needs to come from the Planning Commission because the staff s taken it to the level they can to get the changes made. ... Slagle: Fair enough. That's all I have. .. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you, LuAnn? ,. Sidney: Questions for staff. I see that the applicant will need to apply for other permits from regulatory agencies such as Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Army Corps of Engineers. What type of permits would those entail? Can you give us any idea of, will they be a show stopper or are these just routine permits? .. .. AI-Jaff: These are permits that are required of every project that goes through the city. The wetland alteration will require DNR approval. Watershed, any subdivision that comes through the city would need to receive a watershed permit. . Aanenson: Just to add onto that. The Watershed District generally doesn't give approval until the city's given a preliminary approval so this is the first step, Obviously if the other permits are not granted, then that project stops. .. Sidney: Okay. Do you see any problem with that or any red flags at this point? Aanenson: It has been sent around for comments as part of the original application it has been sent out and those comments that we've received to date are included in your packet. . Sidney: Okay, thank you, 1 Blackowiak: Okay, VIi. Any questions? Sacchet: Yeah, I have a few questions, I mostly have comments but I would like to clarify a few points at this point. In the staff report it mentions that some mature trees might be saved, That the applicant's making an effort to save those trees. Do we know where they are? Which trees it is? 2 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 . AI-Jaff: What you see highlighted in green is area proposed to be saved. This is a bluff right here and there are a few trees surrounding it within the 20 foot no touch zone that's being saved. The majority of this is bluff and again you've got the 20 foot impact zone that cannot be graded or touched. And of course this area. There are a few scattered trees here and there that we questioned whether they can be saved. Our experience when you have trees within a front yard, they don't always survive but this is the main area that is proposed to be saved. . Sacchet: Okay. Thanks Sharmin. Then we're talking, you mentioned that too in your summary, that revisions that are required based on the conditions may lead to the loss of some lots or a reconfiguration to some extent of the plat. Do we have some sort of an understanding how many lots would be less or what the reconfiguration is? That's totally open at this point? Okay, Then staff report also points out that wetland mitigation is only about half as much as it should be. Do we have any discussion or idea where the other half of the mitigation could be accommodated? AI-Jaff: There are different options. Different alternatives that the applicant could pursue. The first, wetlands are required to be replaced at a ratio of 2 to 1. The first one of the two has to be a wetland. The second one of the two will have, can be, let me point to that one, And this is based upon the Wetland Conservation Act. For instance, this stonn pond, 75% of the stonn pond could be calculated as wetland replacement. Another option would be to provide a 16 Y:z foot wetland buffer around the replacement section, so again there are different options that the applicant could pursue. Sacchet: But they haven't been clarified at this point? AI-Jaff: No, We haven't, and again. Looking at it we think it's doable but we don't know how it will be done yet. Sacchet: And then with the trees, I was a little confused about the numbers in the staff report. In one place it says the minimum coverage, canopy coverage allowed is 30% and then on the next page it says it's 35%. Is there, like if you look on page 11 it says minimum canopy coverage allowed is 30% and then on page 12, in the second block of their information it says minimum canopy coverage allowed is 35. AI-Jaff: Okay. In our opinion we looked at some aerial photos and we believe that there may be more trees than is shown on the plans. Based upon your existing canopy, that percentage changes. Sacchet: Then that also changes the number of trees to be planted from 117 to 155? AI-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: So we still have, would have to determine which one is actually accurate then? Al-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: So that's an open ended thing too still. And then my final question is actually 2 questions. That area is considered environmentally sensitive, correct? AI-Jaff: Yes. Sacchet: Reasonably so. 3 .. Planning Commission Meeting - November 20,2001 .. ¡" Al-Jaff: You've got the wetlands, the natural wetland and bluffs. ¡" Sacchet: Is the alignment of the road, does it follow somewhat the natural contours or is just plowed in there? '. AI-Jaff: If you follow contours, there's potential that you may lose some lots. Sacchet: Okay, that answers the question. Thank you. That's all my questions, . Blackowiak: Thanks. Bruce, any questions? .. Feik: Yeah, I had one. If all the regulations regarding the retaining walls and the walking paths, and then all the necessary setbacks and the buffer zones were imposed, how many lots specifically if you know that, are in jeopardy? If you were to take the map that we just saw and overlay exact, and forced the retaining walls and the walkways to confonn to the codes, how many lots would be in jeopardy? < .. Al-Jaff: You can reconfigure things. .. Feik: I'mjust, as configured. p , · Aanenson: I don't think, we've worked this so many different ways and I guess we're uncomfortable saying that. · Feik: I guess where I'm leading to is if those were to be enforced, does the plan in it's entirety materially change? In which case we would be looking at a very different project. I don't know, I'm trying to, I look at the one sidewalk which goes along the entire east side and the retaining wall on the second lot coming from the north side, and I'm trying to understand how much of this project. · Aanenson: This one? .. Feik: Yes. How much of this project is in jeopardy if those buffers and codes are enforced? Aanenson: Well if you look at the one I just pointed to, that may be one lot that needs to be combined. .. Feik: And that's the only one that. .. Aanenson: Wel1 I'm not sure. We're not sure what the implications of moving the trail out would be and how much things shift so, it could be another I or 2 possibly. · Feik: Okay. I was just wondering if the plan would material1y change, In which case we would want to see it again. The public may want to see it again. Aanenson: The applicant may be able to answer that more specifically too, yeah. · Feik: That's my big question for now, thank you. · Blackowiak: Okay. Deb, any questions from you? 4 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 . Kind: Madam Chair. The Lake Lucy Highlands, the large lot portion of this parcel is currently landlocked, is that correct? Al-Jaff: That's a fair statement. . Kind: So the only access to it really is this access point up here, and if that was to be developed in the future you would need to get some sort of cross access agreement or something like that. An easement. Okay. Let me see what else I have. Oh! The grading is quite extensive on here. I was wondering how this compares to other subdivisions that we've approved recently. Does any come to mind that has had this much grading? Aanenson: Yes, this has some other encumbrances with it, wetlands and trees but yes. We've got other projects that do to make it work. , Kind: The only one I could think of would be maybe the Pulte project which has extensive grading but the trade off there was that we were preserving a lot of open space and that sort of thing but there's really no trade off here for this grading, AI-Jaff: : Ashling Meadow to the west of this site had some grading on it as well. The vegetation, many of the trees were moved from one area to the other. That site, the Ashling Meadows site was initially a landscape business. But again a lot of the trees were moved from one area to the other. Kind: What was the net density of Ashling Meadows? Do you remember? Aanenson: I think the average lot size was a little bigger. Al-Jaff: Yeah. The average lot size in that subdivision was around 18. Kind: Well that's what it is here too though. AI-Jaff: I don't recall, I'm softy. Kind: Okay, On Lot I, Block 3, this is the lot right next to the one that's too narrow. That one also appears to me to be too narrow and I'm wondering if the calculations are based on it being on a curve. AI-Jaff: Yes. Kind: And to me that curve seems pretty much of a joke. To be calling that a curve. I mean isn't it reasonable to require the frontage to be 90 feet on something like that? Aanenson: ... by sliding different lot lines. AI-Jaff: Yes. Kind: We already talked about the wetlands. Where would they go? Oh, the retaining wall by the pond, the newly created retention pond, what is the height of that? I tried to, I think my calculations, just based on the topographical map here, plat, shows the trail at 968 and then the wetland is at 960 so am I to assume it's about an 8 foot wall? 5 :- '" Planning Commission Meeting - November 20,2001 .. Saam: Yeah, 8 to 9 feet. Kind: Okay. And that is higher than our 4 foot requirement so that they would need to be engineered. '" Saam: Exactly, .. Kind: Yeah. And we've got a condition about that. I was just curious what the height was because the chain link fence that is being proposed to be at the top of it, is that a city requirement or is that? .. Saam: Yes, I believe where pedestrians could potentially harm themselves so where it's shown along a trail, I believe that is a building department requirement. .. Kind: So if the trail moves then that chain link fence at the top of that retaining wall would not be necessary . .. Saam: Exactly, yep. Kind: And do we know what the material for the retaining wall is proposed to be? .. Saam: No. I'd suggest that you ask the applicant. .. Kind: I will. The utilities on page 9 of the staff report it talks about, there's no public sanitary sewer available to the site so could a case be made that this development is premature? .. Saam: It could be, As I stated in the staff report, we have received an application, or a petition I should say from the applicant to extend sewer to his site as a public improvement project. It has received council approval for the feasibility stage so we've been approved to go out and have a feasibility study done on doing that. One of the conditions of that approval was that this preliminary plat be brought before the Planning Commission. Have a public hearing heard on it so we're still working with the applicant on the sewer issue as I refer to in the staff report. ;.. · Kind: Thank you. One piece I could not find in my packet was a lighting plan, Is that proposed? Al-Jaff: We've added a condition. · Aanenson: Three conditions. · AI-Jaff: Three conditions actually, I put them in front of you and I'm sorry I did not mention them earlier, We've added 3 conditions. First one, remove retaining wall from the right-of-way. Kind: On the back of that? Sorry, sorry, Here we go. · ., Al-Jaff: Located north of Lot 8, Block 3. I'll point to it. There's a retaining wall proposed within the right-of-way, Staff is recommending it be removed. There's an existing house on the site as well as accessory structures, they need to be shown on the plan. And then street lights shall be located at all intersections and at the end of the cul-de-sac. Kind: Okay, And I'm assuming it shall comply with our rules as far as 90 degree cut off? 6 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20,2001 . AI-Jaff: Correct. If I may, an earlier question was the average lot size for Ashling Meadow. I said 18,000. It's actually 28,000, Kind: And the reason for the bigger lots in Ashling Meadows is to accommodate 3 car garages or? AI-Jaff: Most developments have, what we see is typically a 3 car garage and the type of home that they design requires the additional width, additional depth on the lots. Kind: So is it safe to assume that the developers for this project is envisioning a different type of home than what would be in Ashling Meadows? Aanenson: Well the ordinance requires a 60 x 60 pad. That's what they have to show and if it meets that then it's demonstrated to be a lot. It meets the 15,000. Kind: Gotch ya. The horizontal curves on the south end of Lake, let's see. Of Lucy Ridge Lane, with the sharp curve that would need to be posted at a lower speed. I've never seen that in a staff report before that we allow having a slower speed area. Saam: If you remember Marsh Glen, that development just north of Mission Hills. As you come into it, there's a sharp curve there. I believe we had a sign posted there, That's the only one that comes to mind. We would post it 25 probably. Kind: So we do allow it? Saam: Yes, Kind: Page II, they're talking about trails. The trail that goes along the wetland. There's really no good way to access that trail on the south side of this development. I'm assuming that there will be in the future if the parcel to the south develops. Al-Jaff: If you look at this area, you truly have some steep slopes. So there isn't a logical place to extend that connection, but as it extends in the future, most probably . Yes there will be. Kind: In the comp plan it shows further south that there would be a future trail. Okay. And then I'm assuming that based on the land cost that none of these lots would meet affordable criteria for owner occupied homes, which our comp plan calls for I believe it's 30% of owner occupied, yeah, Aanenson: No, Kind: So that would need to be made up in a multi-family development somewhere else. And there's one other quick question, Condition number 20 on page 18 talks about discharge and having a drain tile system behind the curbs. That's the first time I've seen that in a staff report. Saam: That's standard, yep. In all the low points within streets under the curbs we require. Kind: Is it normally on the builder's plans and that's why I've never seen it as a condition before? Saam: Yeah, it may not have been shown on a preliminary plat before but we require it on the final plat. We consider it a minor detail so. 7 .. ., ,¡" ¡ .. .. '" 1. 10 '. .. .. .. .. " · · · · Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Kind: I think it's great, Ijust never saw it before on any others. And that's all. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Craig, do you have any questions at this time? Claybaugh: Yes I do. I'd like to come back and revisit the statement that you've been working with the developer for probably a little better than a year. It seems like there's quite a number of outstanding issues after 12 months of negotiation and dialogue to be coming in front of us right now. That's a substantial concern. Question for engineering. The storm water calc's, any concern that those aren't forth coming yet? Saam: We've received some pond calculations. However they do not meet the NURP criteria which we require in town. That's why I said we'll require additional storm water calc's. I have no reason to believe that we won't obtain those. Claybaugh: It seems like there's a lot of smaller items or things being portrayed as smaller issues that by the sheer quantity of then have the ability to greatly affect the overall layout of the subdivision, You've got substantial calc's for the NURP pond. I don't know how that affects in terms of the size of the retention pond, , Saam: That could potentially be a major issue, Claybaugh: You've got a number of buffer areas that potentially are going to encroach on the lots. The fact that they've been in negotiation for over a year, I'm assuming, tell me if I'm assuming incorrectly that this has been revised and the number of lots have come down since the original plans have come into the city or is this pretty similar to what came in the door the first go around? Al-Jaff: Initially when we met with the applicant, and I have to go through some paperwork to find when we started this process.. .not part of this development. And then at a later point the applicant acquired this Outlot A. But it's always been 22. Claybaugh: It has always been 22? I was just wondering from the development cost standpoint divided by the number of lots how they're being affected there. Has the forester been out to take a look at the property? Aanenson: (Yes). Claybaugh: Okay. Most the questions have been asked. I'd just like to reiterate the concern that this amount of time has passed and there's still quite a few issues outstanding yet that should be incorporated at this point in my opinion in the preliminary. Blackowiak: Okay. And I don't think I have too many additional questions. Wetland replacement sheets, We don't have sheets yet. I still haven't seen anything tonight, okay, And you said the forester had been out to the site so the numbers that are in here, the staff numbers are her numbers? She's comfortable with them? Aanenson: That's her recommendation. 8 Planning Comnússion Meeting - November 20, 200 1 Blackowiak: Her recommendation, okay. And how bout the Water Resources Coordinator? I didn't see any specific I guess conditions from her. That had her name on them I guess. · AI-Jaff: They're under the wetland alteration, · Blackowiak: Okay. Are those all. · AI-Jaff: Page 22 and they came out a, b, c, d through i. Blackowiak: Okay, so those are all from her? From Lori? · Al-Jaff: Yes. Blackowiak: Okay, Okay, that's it. Those are the questions I have at this point. Vii. Sacchet: May I add one more question? Blackowiak: Sure. We've got a couple more here. VIi, go ahead. Sacchet: Real quick, The grading is relatively extensive. Now you pointed out those areas where the trees are supposed to be preserved as part of this color green on the drawing up on the table. There is no grading happening in those areas that are colored green? AI-Jaff: Not according to the grading plan. Sacchet: Okay, because I had a little hard time with the grading plan has so much on it. It was really hard for me to decipher where the grading takes place, So as far as your understanding there's no grading in those areas? Al-Jaff: Not according to the plans that were submitted. Sacchet: Okay, that's my question. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay Rich, do you have another question? Slagle: ., .question Chairman. Since the applicant made their original intent known to staff, how many plans have you seen? I mean is a lot or are we looking at just a few? Al-Jaff: 4 or 5. I would have to go through the file. Slagle: And the reason I'm asking is, per Craig's question you stated that it stayed at 22 basically from the onset. Number of sites. Al-Jaff: When we first met with the applicant Outlot A was not part of it. Slagle: I understand. I got that part. AI-Iaff: At that point I believe the number of lots were 17. 9 - i.. Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 ~ Slagle: Okay, so Outlot, that addition of land in addition to Outlot A is that it's added 5? Al-Jaff: Yeah, ""' '.. Slagle: Okay, Since that point, what I'm trying to gauge is what kind of conversations and communications and let's just caU it partnering has happened since that point, and I need your viewpoint as well because we're going to ask the applicant that, and I think it's fair to hear both sides. ¡. Aanenson: Okay. I think our staffreport speaks to what we believe is to make it work. Okay, and we've laid those out in conditions that we say the retaining walls have to come out. We need better storm water calc's, Looking at if those things can be addressed then we believe we have a site plan that meets city ordinance, What the implications of those, we're not aU sure yet. I think if we listen to the applicant's presentation they may be able to address those but if we can, if these changes were incorporated into the plan, the subdivision, then we would have a project that meets city ordinance. .. '; o - Slagle: Okay, '~! "5 Blackowiak: Thank you. Now would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? If so, please come up to the podium and state your name and address for the record, .. Randy Noecker: My name is Randy Noecker, .. Blackowiak: Excuse me, do you want to just grab the microphone and so we can aU hear. Thank you, " Randy Noecker: My name is Randy Noecker and I live at 8315 Pleasant View Drive in Moundsview, Minnesota and I am the applicant. I'm going to be highlighting a number of things about the plan and then for more detail I'm going to introduce my engineer, Tedd Mattke...in this process. To begin with let me make a few general comments. One of them being that this is a, has been a very complex site and because of it's nature, basicaUy rising about, I think it's 59 or 60 feet above Lake Lucy Road, it makes it extremely difficult to develop, And we've brought revisions to the staff on numerous occasions, like Sharmin indicates, and I've had several conversations with Teresa and other staff members concerning this site. Some of the main issues that we ran into were road alignment because initially before we even brought a concept plan to the city we had looked at a different road alignment but it just caused such a hug amount of tree loss that we basicaUy stuck with the plan that we've had, and although there is a significant amount of tree loss on this site, we've tried to minimize it as much as possible given the conditions that we've been working with on the huge topography changes. Also we've had one of the things that I approached, I live on a street that has teenagers and I'm the ninth house in on the street and it's nothing for teenagers in my community to be hitting 50 miles an hour before they get to the stop sign. And with a, we basicaUy are maxed out at a 7% grade on this site to make things work and we even then couldn't achieve the desired flatness ofthe close to stop signs that we would like to have achieved. And so I approached Matt one day and I said hey, would it be possible that we minimize these curves somewhat because it will help slow down traffic, And if you've got a 700 foot run at the top ofthat hill down to the stop sign, dime to donuts somebody's going to go sliding through that stop sign in the wintertime so that's one of the, I know one ofthe comments were made about those curves and that was why we had done that. The other thing also is we had looked at, in one of the, in some of the previous plans we had looked at bringing the trail up through the cul-de-sac and trying to minimize the impact on the wetlands. So the trail and the associated home ownership of the people that were living there by having that trail come up through the cul-de-sac. Todd Hoffman indicated that that just was something that they would prefer not to see. They'd like to keep the trail along the wetlands. And in so doing it's, .. .. - · · · 10 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 200 1 · maybe I can summarize this a little bit by saying, if you check my track history you'll find that my developments are a little bit above neighboring developments if you will, and I'm somewhat particular about the land that I purchase and in so doing, try to achieve and create developments that are upscale if you will. And I've already met with several builders for this development. Charles Cudd and just a number of them without naming a whole bunch of names, but they are very interested in acquiring this property, or acquiring the lots in the property and would be building homes probably in the 700 plus range. And there has been discussions about having a model at 1.1 with one of the builders. So it's a very high caliber neighborhood if you will and we're very, we tried to save as many trees as we possibly could. We originally identified that we had about 98 trees to replace and I made a proposal that we put in 114 and then calculations that Sharmin has come up with is different than what we had. One of the, and I'm not saying that it's even my engineer or Sharmin is off but I will say this. One of the problems in looking at aerial topography is that when you do that you pick up shadows of trees instead of the trees themselves and sometimes you calculate different amounts than you would really if you did not look at the shadows of the trees. So this mayor may not be a problem at this point, I don't know but whatever the case, we're in agreement to conform to what we need to to achieve this development. I've literally practically got it all sold out before it's even built. There's a high demand for this area. There will be many beautiful lots overlooking the lake and be able to have that many beautiful homes associated therewith. I'm going to let Tedd go into a little bit more detail here on the plan. And feel free if you have any questions now or later if you'd like to ask me and glad to answer. · · , Blackowiak: I think we'll hear the entire presentation and then maybe we'll call you back up if that's alright. Thanks, Randy Noecker: Alright. Tedd Mattke: My name is Tedd Mattke. Mattke Surveying and Engineering, There are I think 3 parts that we probably should talk about. The reason why we don't have the buffer that we're supposed to have along the wetland is that we didn't understand what we were required to do. What we have shown is an 8 foot wide bituminous trail that's right along the side of the property lines of the lots that would be created and then between the bituminous trail and the wetland we're showing something in the ranges between 10 feet and about 50 feet that we thought was considered buffer. We now understand that the requirement is that there be a 20 foot trail easement that does not count as the buffer and that the trail is supposed to go down the middle of that and apparently the city is going to be mowing it or something like that on both sides and then the buffer is outside of that. So in order to create the trail according to the requirements, we will have to lose a lot, I lot from those 6 lots that are facing towards the wetland on the east. We looked at that earlier and that's the number that we come up with in order to have the area that meets the city requirements there. As far as the wetland mitigation, we're showing wetland mitigation in the northwest comer of the site. We can also provide the public value credits with the pond and the buffer area. So as far as how you want to designate that, which part goes to achieve the wetland mitigation public value credits, we're going to have more than what we need with this project as it is right now and with the trail we'll have even more beyond what is required. As far as the pond sizing goes, we do meet, in my opinion, meet the NURP size requirements but we don't have the 10 foot bench in there right now and that's a requirement but that would increase the size of the pond in the, also be using up some of that area of that lot that we're going to lose so we're going to end up with a project here that's 21 lots, not 22 and we can accommodate the requirements for the NURP requirements and also the trail setback requirements for the buffer along side the wetland as we now understand it to be. Discussion about the trees is I guess the other issue. The shading that you see on there that shows trees, a lot of those trees are buckthorn and box elder and small 3 inch, 2 inch diameter trees that provide canopy right now but they're not significant trees and there's a lot of open space on that site too. And a majority 11 .. ... Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 ,'" of our grading is in that open space and taking out those small trees and then we have to replace them. Randy pointed out that in looking at the aerial photos you may over judge the area that is canopy based on shadows and so forth. We had discussions at the time of what we were supposed to include as canopy and some of the discussion included, well do you want the little brushy trees? The willows that are down next to the wetland and so forth, are they supposed to count? And our understanding was that they weren't supposed to count but if the forester wants to count them, Randy's willing to accept that too. It's not a deal breaker I guess, Nothing in this project is a deal breaker. We'd been working with staff as Sharmin has said, and Randy has noted also and we're willing to continue to do that to meet these latest things that staff has come up with. I point out that this is the first real full scale review we've had because in the past we've been dealing with issues such as will you allow a steeper grade than 7% to save some more trees? And it was decided by staff, no we want to stick to 7%. The question came up about those retaining walls. The retaining walls are far enough away from the pads right now that we can move them so that, and meet the 30 foot setback. We didn't understand that the retaining walls were considered structures when it came to the setback from the wetland buffer, So it's another misunderstanding on our part and we'll just move them, The reason we have a retaining wall shown right now, I believe it's shown on the edge of the right-of-way rather than in the right-of-way. If it's shown in the right-of-way, then it has to be moved or eliminated and the reason for that retaining wall is to save a large white pine, As far as grades go, this site is, I don't think it's that difficult a site other than you've got a lot of topography going across it and so you have to make flat areas for the pads and staff takes a conservative view in calculating what we're losing in terms of trees by saying that anything that's within, I think she said 10 feet Sharmin, of the pad area we considered as a lost tree? .~ " f" ... .. '" , .. .. 'q - A .. AI-Jaff: What we've done in the past is looked at 20 feet. Based upon our experience those are the trees that typically get removed, , Tedd Mattke: Okay, so we accept that calculation. It's our intent when we go out on the site and begin grading to try to save more than that. We don't get credit for those that we save but it's our intent to save them and let the homeowners take them out if they have to. After they see how their house sits on a lot, so this is a worst case scenario that you're looking at in terms of the trees that will be lost. One final thing I guess is that the Lake Lucy has riparian rights and the initial intent was to try to get a couple lots that could have lake frontage and docks and so forth and the city wants to have a trail that goes along the wetlands. They didn't want the trail to go up to the cul-de-sac. They wanted the trail down along the lake and so the city acquires those riparian rights which are significantly valuable, let's put it that way. And so the public gets to use that trail and if there's a dock or something put in there, down there on that southeast comer, it's a public dock. It's not a dock that is owned by the person on the last lot down there, I think there's been, and one final thing I guess. In crossing the wetland on the north end where, we're filling above the area of a house, about 4,000 square feet, and it's a requirement that we go out to Lake Lucy Road by the city. We have to go out there and that's the only place we can cross without filling more than 4,000 square feet so we're doing the minimum, or holding it to a minimum that we can and we're trying to do it in a way that the city wants us to do it. And now I guess, unless Randy has something more to add, I'm done. .. " '~ . Blackowiak: Okay. Mr. Noecker, do you have anything else you'd like to add right now? ''011 Randy Noecker: Not right now unless you have any questions, Blackowiak: No, Well why don't we start with Mr. Mattke then. Any questions, engineering type I'm assuming, If anybody has any. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 · Slagle: Just a couple questions. Randy mentioned that there was an altemative route you looked at. · Blackowiak: Say Rick, can we just leave him up there. We'll do, for Mr. Mattke the engineering questions first. · Slagle: 1 think he can answer it but Randy's the one that mentioned it. · Blackowiak: Okay. Slagle: There was an alternative route that you guys discussed that you looked at first. My question is where would that have gone? Tedd Mattke: The city indicated they wanted a road that went around the wetland and Randy indicated that he would like it to come up to the cul-de-sac and follow. Slagle: No, road. Tedd Mattke: The road? Slagle: Yeah. Tedd Mattke: We had, one of our originally...a road coming like straight across. Slagle: On that road that goes into Ashling Meadows? The road, Tedd Mattke; Correct. And staff didn't like that. Staff decided that it would be better to have a T intersection here, Make this one come through with the curves, We also considered having a cul-de-sac here, It was desired that this road continue on through. We didn't want to get into the bluffs so there's been shifting back and forth here in this way to avoid the trees and to hold the house.s back away from the significant trees, There's been shifting of the road in through here and curving of the road to avoid the significant trees that are in here and that make the grades work and still avoid the bluff and have buildable lots in there. This road here has had some shifting in through here. In the end it's been pulled back as a result of comments and to avoid the bluff and a number of things. To basically fine tuning this thing as far as we could go so. We've been, there's only one way really to develop this property in the manner that is being proposed and that's like it's shown right here. If you want to achieve the things that the staff wants to achieve and Randy wants to achieve. Slagle; Okay. Blackowiak: Sorry Rich. I just want us to keep one up at a time, Any other questions for him? No? Feik: No engineering. Blackowiak: No engineering. Deb? Kind; Yes Madam Chair. Is Sharmin's recollection that before Outlot A was included that there were about 17 lots and that the addition of Outlot A allowed the addition of 5? I3 ¡", Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 ,. ... Tedd Mattke: I wasn't involved in it at that time so I couldn't comment on what happened back before Outlot A was added. .. Kind: I'll ask when Randy's back up there, Blackowiak: Okay. :. Kind: Yeah, that's it. - Blackowiak: Okay, any engineering questions? .. Claybaugh: Yeah I had one question. The alignment for the proposed road off Lake Lucy, how consistent is that with the existing drive that's there now serving the property? Tedd Mattke: It's pretty much laying right over the top of it. il . Claybaugh: Okay. So there's no, that's already substantially degraded in that area so, okay, That was my only question. ~ , , ,'i " Blackowiak: Okay, Thank you, And I don't have any questions of you right now, thanks. Your turn. Alright, questions of the applicant. Rich, go ahead, ~ .. Slagle: Randy you had mentioned that you had developments that you've done before. Just a couple examples of those just for my own frame of mind. .. Randy Noecker: Eden Prairie, Mitchell Bay Townhomes. Foxbriar Ridge in Maple Grove. Wildwood Village in Blaine. Goodview Ridge in Wyoming, which is a couple miles north of Forest Lake, .. Slagle: Okay. · Randy Noecker: And I've got some preliminary stuff on 80 acres in Shakopee and I have another 20 house, 20 townhome house development unnamed in Blaine that's going on, and another 10 acre parcel in Blaine. · Slagle: Okay. That's all for right now, Blackowiak: Okay. Questions Uli, questions? · Sacchet: Yes, one question from the applicant. I'm very perplexed about this, I have to admit. How can you fit a million dollar house on a 15,000 square foot lot please? · Randy Noecker: I should probably have Charles Cudd here. From a square footage perspective it's very easy. The ones, some of the requirements inside my development are 3 car garages. I am debating between requiring a 10: 12 pitch on all roof lines, but I think I'm going to go back to 8: 12. In previous developments I required ramblers to be at 6: 12 and 2 stories, especially gables that face the street to be 8: 12 or higher. In a development like this you're going to see a lot of 1O:12's and 12: 12 pitch roofs, Then you'll have, it will almost, I have about 25 residents from Chanhassen that are waiting for this approval because I have one advantage that other developers mayor may not have, I can sell a lot to a private party and they can use their own builder and there's a fair number of people that don't want to 14 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20,2001 . build with the national builders if you will because they force you to build with them on their land so 1 don't build with sticks. I create developments and put in the infrastructure and sell the lots and it's not a, I have met with almost 2 handfuls of builders and not one of them has talked about putting a model up less than 700. . Sacchet: On the 15,000 square feet roughly? Randy Noecker: Yeah. Most of the time, you're basically not going to have any problem when you get to about 16,000 square feet. You may have a little problem depending on the width of the sidewalk and how much blacktop they want to put in, and maybe the size of the patio in the back, but you're, the impervious area does create a factor because you've got that 25% rule here in Chanhassen. Sacchet: Okay. I'll have comments. Blackowiak: Okay. Any questions Bruce? Feik: Yes. Have you read the staff report yourself? Randy Noecker: I've glanced through it. I did not have a chance to read it in detail. Feik: Have you read each and every one of the staff recommendations for approval that would be required for approval? Randy Noecker: No. Feik: I guess I'm wondering from your perspective then, based upon staff's recommendations, how doable those recommendations are and to what degree it would change the project. But if you haven't reviewed them. Randy Noecker: I kind of handed the football off to Tedd and when I delivered the comments to him and I said go over this and let me know where we are in detail and he's basically indicated to me that we are, because of the increase in the pond and the trail issues that we would likely lose 1 lot. It's based on what the other comments are in the staff report that I saw and that he commented on, it doesn't appear that we're going to lose more than 1 lot. 1 may be wrong on that but. Aanenson: Can staff comment on that? Feik: Please, Aanenson: Just to make sure something's not being misrepresented, because we've been trying to articulate this over the last couple of months, The trail impact issue. I'm not sure the engineer still has the setback correct. We're not sure that only 1 lot is going to solve that problem. Feik: Okay. Aanenson: And he's still not interpreting it correctly, although we've been trying over several months through written correspondence documented to explain to him what the setback is. That's why we're at this point tonight. 15 ... \" Planning Commission Meeting - November 20,2001 - Feik: Thank you. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay. Deb, any questions? ,~ Kind: Yes. The retaining wall near the entrance, what's the proposed material for that and did I calculate the height right at about 8 feet? . Randy Noecker: I thought it was about 6 but maybe it is higher than that. And the material would be Keystone more than likely. .. Kind: And if the trail is moved to be not along that retaining wall, I'm assuming the chainlink fence would go away? That's on top ofthat retaining wall. ¡" .'11 Randy Noecker: I don't know about that for certain. I would, depending on the situation, I assume the premise that the city doesn't want kids playing in the wetlands so I kind of assume that nobody should be there but there is a safety issue involved that we'd have to look at you know and if in fact the wall is 8 or 9 feet high, I think just for sheer safety issues I would have some kind of fence up there. ;, .,. Kind: Even if there is no trail? .. Randy Noecker: Yeah. You'd have to think of public safety. .. Kind: Okay, I guess that's it. Blackowiak: Okay. Craig do you have any questions for the applicant? .. Claybaugh: Yeah I did. You commented on some of the previous subdivisions you've done. Do you typically do infill type subdivisions? Is that what you'd considered your nitch or? · .. Randy Noecker: I guess I don't sense it that way. I'm real sensitive about the parcel that I acquire. I look at it in detail. This one here I happened to pick up in 1996 under an option agreement and I currently am the fee owner on Outlot A. · Claybaugh: I guess I'd like you to try and comment if you can, I understand it may be difficult about some of the miscommunications that seem to have taken place between the correspondence and yourself and your representative over the course of the last year, and if you can, go ahead. · Randy Noecker: I don't know if it's, let me say that every community does things a little bit differently. Tedd has been with me for a number of projects and we are used to, and that's our fault. Don't misunderstand what I'm saying but we're used to putting a plan into the city and then in a short time thereafter we get comments and we revise those plans and then it goes onto a first planning commission so we have an opportunity to get, I say clean up the plan, but the city of Chanhassen chooses to do it without that step in it. And so when I sensed that I ended up having I or 2 more plans submissions trying to get comments from the staff as much as possible. But seeing that they preferred to do the methodology in this fashion we ended up submitting as best we could based on the conditions that we understand and from there we're basically getting our first full blown report back. We haven't had that opportunity to get that back before. Aanenson: May I comment on that? 16 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20,2001 .. . Blackowiak: Certainly, go ahead Kate. Aanenson: 1 think we've given them written comments. We've met with them numerous times. Engineering, the forester, the wetland to try to give them direction. It wasn't a complete application, We will not bring a project to you until it's a complete application. And whether it does or doesn't meet all the design things, often the applicant's looking for a recommendation of approval to go forward so we have to have at least a subdivision that's close to meeting it. Again, even looking at this, with the numerous numbers of modifications that we're recommending, you can see that there's some differences of interpretation of the city ordinances. And how they impact. Although we have tried diligently to explain that. I'm not sure it's been communicated what those standards are. . Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Aanenson: And again it's complex because of the slopes, the trees, the wetlands. Those are limiting factors that affect the layout and that's what we're trying to work on. What the city ordinances are. Where the Park and Rec wants the trail, which they direct and those sort of things. Blackowiak: Yeah, thank you, Craig, any other questions? Claybaugh: No. Kind: Madam Chair, 1 forgot to ask my question about the before Outlot A and after Outlot A, how many more lots were you able to work into your plan? Randy Noecker: In my original plan that 1, my concept plan that 1 put together prior to acquiring Outlot A, and 1 might add without even contacting the city other than the only 2 factors that 1 knew were that you needed to have a 90 foot frontage and you needed to have 15,000 square feet and Ijust went off of a blow-up on a half section map and I acquired I think 21 or 22 lots there. Then I acquired the 6 or 7 acre parcel of Outlot A, which only has about an acre, acre and a half buildable, but by 'acquiring that Outlot A I was then able to basically put in a cul-de-sac, which I really wanted to do from the beginning, and I had negotiated for several years on Outlot A but was unsuccessful until recently. Kind: So in your opinion Outlot A did not allow you to add any more lots? Randy Noecker: No, Aanenson: We would concur with that. I think his objective has always been to try to get 22 lots. But as he stated, when he came in he ignored the topography, the wetland issues and that sort of thing. He just went with the minimum lot requirements, Kind: Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: Thanks, Okay, and at this point I don't have any questions of the applicant so what I will do, unless anybody has more questions, I will open the public hearing. This is a time when public can get up and make comments on this project, so step up to the microphone, State your name and address for the record please and like I said, we may ask a question or two so we fully understand your concerns but feel free to come up to the microphone. 17 .. .. - ... .. I. "'-I " " " " ..,. · · · Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Tamara Sather: My name is Tamara Sather. I live at 7090 Utica Lane, and I'm representing for the members of Greenwood Shores and I have read this report several times myself since getting it last Friday and I guess a red flag came up to me immediately with the amount of recommendations that are still not met after months and months since this proposal has been made. And I think that we feel the main goal here, if you read my e-mail that 1 sent out today, is that it appears the objective is to get as many homes in as is possible and the topography of this land, as the applicant stated himself, this land is laid out in such a way that it is difficult to develop and I think that screams in itself to keep it's integrity as it is. And the amount of trees that are on the lots aren't as numerous. I' walked back there last weekend. It's a beautiful site and I think that the amount of trees that will be lost is significant and will increase light and noise pollution and the amount of lots is just too great. The amount of vegetation loss is too great, so I think we would like the request for large lot residential to low density be denied to preserve the integrity of that land and perhaps limit the amount of lots that we could be developed. ,.¡: 1: ,... Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. And Sharmin, can I just ask that a copy of this go to the council in the packet when this does move forward. Okay, thank you. - :\ > '" John Waldron: Hi. My name is John Waldron. I live at 1900 Lake Lucy Road, just to the west and on the north side of Lake Lucy. When I went through the report from staff I thought it'd be awful hard to". whole lot of public comment because if you make all these changes or recommendations that it calls for in here, I don't think this is all going to look the same way. And so it's kind of hard to say and give a comment on what the end result's going to end up looking like so I would hope that you, ,. table it this evening and have it re-worked and brought back. And the other thing is when I look at the plat I have a visual of coming down Lake Lucy Road going to the west and right now you see lots of trees and some big white pine and a lot of more wooded areas., .coming down Lake Lucy Road and now if you come around that curve, right where you see this property, you could end up seeing this 8-9 foot retaining wall right in the middle of the wetlands. Then you're going to have a 6 foot chainlink fence right on top of it, and with the amount of grading that you've got from one side of this parcel to the other, I think we've got about 66 feet and so it's getting scraped off one side and pushed over on the other side and I think it's in, I guess this is Block I, Lot lover here. If I look right it's about 18 feet. Probably mitigated wetland up to the pad and so that's awful darn steep in my book for having a house sitting right out there, So you're going to have not only this retaining wall and a chainlink fence sitting right there as you drive down Lake Lucy Road. You're going to have a couple of these houses sitting right out there that's going to be right on the edge of a steep bluff and the amount of grading that's going to happen in there, you'll have a hard time seeing how you're going to save a whole lot of trees so. So I would ask that the city end up having the plat, something at least all the different buffers for the slopes and wetlands. And I'm not against somebody developing the site but I think, . .development this drastic that having any trees saved is such a hard thing to do. Plus the fact, on small lots like that, homeowners have lots of choices and the house they buy and I heard the number for some of the lots of $300,000 for a lot. Well you can usually figure that the lot's 25% of the price of the house, That's a million 2 house and there's a lot of people, there are a lot of places somebody can go to get a million 2 house rather than on this size lot with possibly only a 2 car garage so my request would be that, you have.. .and have it fit into the area it is and save as many trees as you can. And table it for now, bring it back so we can give public comment on what something's really going to look like. The way it's actually going to be built. Thanks. <, Blackowiak: Thank you. Dale Carlson: Hi. I'm Dale Carlson, 6900 Utica Lane. Certainly there's a lot of things that disturb me about this, having lived on Lake Lucy for 30 years, But I guess a couple of questions I have and I don't know if you can answer them necessarily for me but they're questions, When we moved there, all that 18 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20,2001 ~ property around Lake Lucy was in fact zoned as residential large lot. Why do we bother doing this sometimes if all we're going to do is turn it into residential low density? When we bought out there we thought our lots were going to be good sized and now somebody comes along and says I can't develop this property and make 10 million dollars off of it so you've got to make it low density so I can develop. I don't understand. I'm confused about that. Secondly is that, if I'm understanding this right, there is no sewer going through there so I assume it's septic, Is that true? . , Blackowiak: No. Well Kate, go ahead. Aanenson: Let me answer both questions. That property is guided for low density residential. The sewer just came through, or will be coming through as Lundgren also which was zoned similarly large lot because there was no sewer in that area. Those in the Steller Addition because they're larger lots will remain septic and well, but this area was guided for low density. It was left rural or large lot because there is no sewer and water. This project anticipates bringing sewer and water to it. Dale Carlson: At what time will that happen? Aanenson: With the subdivision, When it's approved, They have to wait for it to come, It's on the eastem side, adjacent to Galpin as it's coming across with the second phase of the Lundgren subdivision. Dale Carlson: Okay that answers my question because I know that when the sewer went through in '75 on the east side, we had no choice. We had just put in a new septic system 2 years earlier. We had no choice but to hook up to sewer. Why? Lake Lucy so that's going to happen I guess, thank you, Blackowiak: Okay, thank you, Eric Rivkin: I'm Eric Rivkin and I live at 1695 Steller Court. My property on the plan, if it's possible to show where my lot is here. This gray shaded area is this outlot and this here is the lot that's up for review tonight. My lot is this one. Right here this 10 acre parcel. So I'm quite affected by the outcome of this. In past life, when I first moved here 13 years ago, when I built my house there, I got together with the lake homeowners and helped form the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association. With Dale Carlson being a co-chair person. I can't speak for the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association tonight because we didn't have a meeting but I do want to historically say that in all the years we have been having issues come and go, that we've all concur one sure thing and that is we would like to see the outlot there remain a natural amenity for the lake. There was a proposal 9 years ago by the Hennepin County Lakes Board to try and clean up the chain of lakes and this issue came up in public meetings. What to do with this outlot. The city was going to toy around buying it but they didn't have any money at the time the debate was going on whether they should put on a dock. And the trail seemed to be a sure thing and nobody seemed to object to that. I don't object to it personally now. The lot itself, it's my understanding, is this dotted line, where is the edge of the outlot on the western edge? Can you explain that to me on this plan? AI-Jaff: It's right here. Eric Rivkin: So there are some houses. Al-Jaff: There are 2 houses proposed within this area. There is a comer of a house in this area and another comer in that area, 19 .. ... . ;. . '" "- :;. · · · · · Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Eric Rivkin: Okay, thank you. As Mr. Waldron has indicated, and I also know from historical history that when we first were buying these lots 14-15 years ago the Lake Lucy Highlands had 19 homeowners there. That we were all sold on the basis that this outlot would remain an outlot. That's, you know it's designated legally as an outlot and here we are looking at a zoning variance and I oppose any change in doing anything to this as an outlot. There are trees that grew up and yes there are 2 inch trees. There was nothing there before but now nature's taken over, as it gloriously does and provided lots of buffer visually and naturally to help build up grasses, savannah and natural woods that allow you know prevention of your erosion and sedimentation and nutrient loading it1to the lake coming down from, washed out from the slope. There's already considerable amount of, I did a lot of research with the homeowners association regarding lake water quality and always come to these meetings whenever there's a development going around the lake to try and preserve what I can of the lake water quality. Lake Lucy, as you know, is a headwaters and the water clarity is cleaner than Lake Ann from time to time. Most of the time actually, according to the records. We have a lot of springs that are around the lake that feed into there naturally and this wetland here is fed by at least 2 natural springs year round, And it's clean water coming out of the ground. By adding nutrients from runoff, storms, rooftops, whatever, streets, we're stressing it already. There's already rakish water that is on a sedimentation pond located right here that the city has not cleaned out according to an agreement by the Merle Steller, the land developer when it was developed and that should be taken care of. As a result, the vegetation around here in this area as large just kind of goes down. It's kind of a filter. Kind of like the Everglades. Just kind of filters right through, And we're going to add to that and there's a lot of weed growth right here right now that hasn't come up in past years. It used to be fairly clean here and now it's becoming stressed because of the nutrient loading coming off these developments all the way to Galpin. Galpin Boulevard to the west. So anyway, I think that because the number of houses here really severely stresses the landform and stresses the amount of trees and natural amenities, this kind of thing to me belongs on a flat lot. It doesn't belong on something that's very hilly, difficult to grade and to try to keep natural amenities. It seems to be very forced. I agree with Mr. Waldron about the million dollar houses on small lots. I don't think it's going to, it just is incongruous there. I think in my opinion that these houses along here should be eliminated. This road should be eliminated and the remaining 17 houses be spread out and relaxed in such a way that fits the land. Fits the natural amenity of the area. There's already high density going on to the west. We've got 2 Y2 acre to 10 acre large lot going on over here. I think it would be best to compromise and do something inbetween the density so that things are relaxed here. It's just too tense, so I think that it should be tabled and I think that the plan come back and have less density. I also want to thank the lady here for mustering up a petition. That's the kind of thing I used to do all the time on things like this, Ms. Sather, and Mr. Waldron for coming to speak up. And I concur. I signed Ms, Sather's petition which she circulated this evening, Thank you very much and I concur with everything on it and so I wanted to add some, a little bit of historical perspective as to why in my own personal opinion why it should be tabled, Blackowiak: Okay, thank you, Aanenson: Madam Chair, can I just bring up a point of clarification on the outlot. Blackowiak: Certainly. Aanenson: The outlot that we're talking about as a part of the Steller Addition, was given outlot status until such time that the infill sites could be determined, I've been with the city 10 years, The first few years I was here we, Mr. Herbst did try to develop this property working out a wetland alteration permit. Whether you choose not to rezone this, we would still make this develop, provide access, There is buildable area on this site. Whether it's a septic, I guess our preference would be that if it can be 20 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 ~ provided sewer and water, that would be our first choice. Whether it's one lot, or if it's included in this, but forthis to get access, and that's part of our job is to make sure that instead of having 2 access points on Lake Lucy, the better planning way would be again, regardless if this was included in the plat, that this project provide access, I hate to use the word, possibly a driveway. Private drive to provide access to that lot. So when we added to it, the mix, that's some of the discussion that we had with the applicant. How do we make that work because there is development of an area up there. It was just a matter of getting access and that was part of the issue to come across this. Now we'd have 2 close driveways on Lake Lucy which would not be our preference. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Vernon Hall: Hi. My name is Vernon Hall and I would just like to speak from an integrity standpoint. I'm hearing the applicant come in here with a lot of conflict it sounds like with the city and hearing that and also I mean I'm here and I agree with what's being addressed. I'm on the petition here. But from the fact that if! from a business perspective was an issue, he's coming here and not even knowing clearly what the city has made amendments and those who don't, even aren't on this today that I don't understand how that it could even be any more than tabled and looked at further down the road. How can we progress with any plan in progress when there's not even anything complete or near accurate to look at from my understanding without even looking at the complete report. So that concerns me as being a neighbor, and a neighbor but the builders building there with what I perceive as a lack of strong integrity and especially again in a wetlands area with concerns of the lake and the issues that surround that. Thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you. Okay, is there anyone who would like to speak? Okay seeing no one, I am going to close the public hearing. Now's the time for the commissioners to make comments. Craig, do you want to start? Claybaugh: Why don't you go ahead and start with Rich. Slagle: I can start, Blackowiak: Okay. Slagle: I have a quick question if I may to staff. The comment was brought up that we had to go through or the recommendation by staff was to go through Lake Lucy Road. Aanenson: Yes. Slagle: If I can have a little clarification as to why that is. And let me preface that question by saying this, I live in a development, Forest Meadows that we have to go through Longacres to get to our 18-19- 20 homes. My question is, why wouldn't we have just gone through Ashling Meadows to get to here. Aanenson: It's vice versa. Ashling Meadows does not have the access point. You remember they wanted the one lot that had the wetland in front that we said no. That they wanted that lot adjacent to. This is an access point also for Ashling Meadows to come out this way. Slagle: Okay, but I guess I'm asking why couldn't everything come out Galpin, 21 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20,2001 AI-Jaff: You will have an extremely long cul-de-sac. There are 50 plus home sites on the Ashling Meadows site. Add another potentially 20, 22, whatever that number, That's a large number and a fairly long cul-de-sac, You need a second access. Slagle: I might concur, The intent though when we're stopping the road down at the south end of this property, is your intent to take Lucy Ridge Lane further south and to the land that's going to be at some point developed maybe? Aanenson: Yes. Slagle: So you're going to have sort of a curvy road. Aanenson: Yes, / Slagle: Okay. Ijust wanted to have that answered since that came up. Here's my thoughts. First of all I think this is premature, I don't think it's complete, and I would just ask as best you can as a staff to try and do everything you can to prevent this, these situations from coming up where there's just numerous questions, I just wouldn't feel, as this gentleman alluded to earlier, I wouldn't feel comfortable voting yes or no on this proposal given what's come before us, And I'll mention a few things. Septic system. My gosh, if we have a situation next to this lake and we are advocating some homes having a septic system, and I understand the logistics behind it, my recommendation would be that this needs to wait for sewer. Next, the assessments have not been paid, at least from what I read. I don't need to get into that, the assessments based upon what's been happening so far and I don't need an answer for that but Ijust have concerns about that when I first see that assessments have not been paid. Tree preservation plan is sort of, we heard some thoughts but I don't see anything definitive in that. The areas retaining wall, bluff setback, absence of wetland buffer. The question about Outlot A, and there's a lot. I mean this is a mouthful or handful, however you want to describe it, of things that come up in front of this group that I think in some respects I don't think it should come before us to be quite honest. I think it should have been addressed and if the need was to come to us to ask the applicant to modify some of these things, then great. I mean you're hearing us. We hope you build and I hope this is a desirable development but there's just a lot of questions I don't think as a commissioner or a citizen that I could vote on so with that, that's my thoughts, %i " , Blackowiak: Thank you. LuAnn, Saam: Madam Chair, could I add just a point of clarification? Blackowiak: Yeah, on the septic. Saam: Yeah. Blackowiak: Go ahead. Saam: Every lot is intended to be on city sewer and water so there will be no septic out there. The only question is whether it's a city project that brings the sewer to his lot line or whether he waits for Lundgren to extend it through Ashling Meadows. That's the only issue right now, Slagle: But is, if I can ask Matt, is the concept though that there would be homes built with septic until sewer came? 22 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Aanenson: No. Saam: No. AI-Jaff: No. Slagle: Okay, so there's no septic's planned to be built at all. AI-Jaff: No. Saam: No. Aanenson; Let me, the point of clarification was the one lot that was originally owned by Mr. Dirks, that was the outlot. When they acquired the rights to include that in the plat, Mr. Rivkin brought up the point that those were left to be large lot. Our recommendation is if we would provide, ask that this developer provide access to it, and because he's doing that, we'd also recommend that sewer be extended to that lot rather than, if it being left in it's current large lot and given septic and well, we think it's better environmentally to put it on municipal services. Slagle: Absolutely, so basically you're agreeing with me. Aanenson: Right. Right. Ijust want to make sure it's clear because there is the one large lot that we had included in the rezoning. Slagle: Fair enough. Blackowiak: Thanks. LuAnn, Sidney: Okay, 1 agree it's a complex site. It's environmentally sensitive so it does need special treatment. I do concur with the comments that I heard that we have a large number of conditions assigned to this application and it seems like a very large number for the type and size of development so it does point to the fact that we have a lot of outstanding issues. And I think looking at the number of recommendations we're supposed to make, the preliminary plat stands out as the one which needs the most work obviously and needs to be addressed, And I would hope that if we table this that whoever makes that motion that we really call out all of the conditions which we would like addressed, And I checked off a number of these, you know starting from retaining wall, number one to remove the retaining wall to also have a canopy coverage calculations completed and on and on and on. And I think that needs to be delineated specifically for the applicant to address. And if those things can be shown and put into a fonn which resembles an application that we could review again, I guess I'd entertain that but I don't feel it should move forward at this point. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Uli, Sacchet: As far as I'm concerned, this doesn't work. It doesn't work at all. It has no credibility. It's full of holes. It says the applicant makes an effort to preserve mature trees, but then on the other hand we have massive grading going on. We're cutting to 15 feet on the one side. We are in 15 feet on the other. We have retaining walls that are 6, 9 feet tall. We have several retaining walls, We don't have enough buffer. We don't have enough wetland mitigation. And in terms of the credibility Mr. Noecker, I really 23 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 appreciate your intent to be real sensitive about your parcel, but I don't see any evidence in here of that. I'm sorry. I don't see any credibility for that. I consider this an extremely insensitive, environmentally insensitive proposal. Besides the fact that it's totally incomplete. I agree with Commissioner Slagle that this shouldn't even come in front of us, This is not even nearly cooked and I find it very disturbing hearing from the presentation that you seem not to really pay attention to what staff is asking from you. You say well they're misunderstandings and, given. I mean everybody has misunderstandings and wants to clear those up, but it looks like these misunderstandings have been going on for something in the neighborhood of a year and there's just way too many in there. Staff finding on page 15 to the subdivision, staff finding number 5. The proposed subdivision will cause environmental damage, However, staff is recommending some modification to help to minimize impacts. I don't think that mitigation that's proposed comes even close to make this anything near environmentally sensitive as far as I'm concerned. There is way too much damage being done to that environment and the main thing that why I say this is not credible, in all due respect, I cannot envision how you can put a house that's more than a million dollars or even a million dollar or in the neighborhood of a million dollar on a 15,000 square foot lot, or 16,000 for that matter. It doesn't make a difference. I just recently built a house in a neighborhood where the average lot size is around 30-40,000 square feet and the price range around 4 to maybe $600,000 ofthose houses. It does incredible impact on the nature of place. It's, the forest, nature is extremely reduced. If you want to have houses twice as expensive on lots that are half the size, there's no space for anything natural. Based on how I see this. You want to do a neighborhood that is above standards of neighboring neighborhoods. Ashling Meadows, with 28,000 square foot average per lot, I cannot believe how you want to be in a higher standard if you make your lots that much smaller and at the same time expect to put an expensive structure on it. The road alignment, I don't know how sensitive it is to the contour ofthe environment. I don't think it is. On that basis, I would want to deny this. The land use amendment for the outlot, I think that outlot is a wonderful buffer towards the large lot on the other side. The naturally sensitive area of the wetlands, I do think it makes sense to include it to have sewer but I don't think it makes sense to include it to ram in 22 minimally sized lots to put huge structures on. The land use therefore I would recommend to deny. The rezoning I would deny because of the environmental damage, I think it's way too much and that's a finding that could be positive to move that forward. The preliminary plat I would want to deny because there's just way too many loose ends. There are at least 20 items that are blatantly unresolved. That have not been paid attention to and therefore I don't think it should be even tabled. It should be denied, The wetland alteration permit, I think that needs to be worked out in more detail that it shows the sensitivity and where all these things are. It's wide open loose ends so also there I would want to deny. That's my comment. ]~ i1 '!f ~ , Blackowiak: Okay. Alrighty Craig, your turn. Claybaugh: I concur with the other fellow commissioners that it is premature. I don't feel as strongly as Commissioner Sacchet does that it's as environmentally insensitive as he does but I do feel that it's premature at this time and as such would move to table the issue. I think it's imperative that the developer get together with the city staff and really communicate and listen to one another and try and incorporate those things in a timely fashion and bring a completed package in front of the commission so we can take action on it in the future. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you, Deb. Kind: Yes Madam Chair. I agree that this should be tabled for many of the outstanding issues. I'd like to see a plan that incorporates all of these conditions because I think they're going to really impact what we're looking at and have another opportunity for the public to comment on what the new plan looks like, And those, my favorites that I would like to see addressed are the bluff setbacks, the wetland 24 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20,2001 setbacks, the retention pond. Where would it be and what size would it be. A lighting plan. Lot widths need to comply. Tree canopy calculations per the city forester's calculations. I think that's what we need to go by. And retaining walls and I would also like to see the existing house and driveway shown on these plans so we can get our bearings a little bit more clearly. And I would like knowing that this technically meets ordinance and all of our rules for square footage and such, I would like the applicant to consider larger lot sizes that are more fitting with neighboring Ashling Meadows and really take into consideration the topography of the land and see if it can be improved and less grading. And my hot button, which I'm sure you could tell is that entry feature. Consider maybe using a natural material, boulders versus a Keystone and see if there's a way to avoid having a chainlink fence at that entry area. I think we need to table it and I think we need to table all 3. I think we need to keep this bundled together. Blackowiak: Okay, Bruce. Feik: I will be brief, I agree with much of what was said tonight. It is a beautiful site, I'll give you that. It will not ever be able to be developed without significant alterations to the site, and I agree. You cannot develop that in any way, shape or form, I've walked it at length without knocking down a significant number of trees and moving a lot of dirt. Be that said though, I am very uncomfortable with approving a plan then having the staff have to work out this many details after the fact. I don't.think that's fairto staff or the process and based on that I would also agree that we should table this tonight. Blackowiak: Okay, Well I really have nothing new to add. I agree with my commissioners who were kind of tending towards tabling it. I believe that we've got a lot of direction for you and some of the key issues that we feel the need to be addressed before we see it again. One thing Mr. Noecker you said that you wanted an opportunity to clean up the plan and I think you're going to get it so I hope you've gotten adequate direction, Please take the time to review staffs report, and I'm assuming Kate you will supply, or Shannin will supply minutes with specific directions and comments. Aanenson: Just for point of clarification. I think Commissioner Sidney alluded to it. We would like specific direction given to the applicant and I think that's where she was going and that's part of why we're here tonight. To make sure that you've all given comments but we want to make sure that that's articulated exactly what your expectations are so we're not back at this same juncture in a future meeting. So if you can summarize that in a motion, that would be helpful for us. Blackowiak: I think we can but also if we can just refer to the minutes and in our comments I think take a look at what everybody has said because I think among us all we have hit most of the issues, and I wrote you know mine were specifically, let me go back, Grading, trail, buffers, fence, retaining walls, wetland issues, canopy coverage, storm water calculations, no wetland replacement documentation. So those, and a couple... Aanenson: ... for the record and make sure it's clear on the record because it's still not being understood. That it was where the location of the trail should be. Can we read that for the record? Just to make sure they understand. The trail location outside the wetland buffer language. Blackowiak: Okay now, is that in a condition? AI-Jaff: It is as a condition. Aanenson: But I'm not sure they understand the implications of that. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Al-Jaff: There will be a wetland buffer that is an average of 20 feet so it can be 10 feet, it could be 30 feet. The average is 20 feet. The trail will be outside the buffer. The other thing that I wanted to point out is, and it depends on what method of replacement, wetland replacement they follow. One of the options that are available to them is creating a 161/2 foot natural buffer and then from that point, so 16 y, feet and then from that point you'd take the setback. So the setback, the wetland setback will be in addition to the buffer. Ijust wanted to clarify. Aanenson: We wanted that on the record, thank you, Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Slagle: Madam Chair. If I can ask a question to the applicant. Is there anything that we're saying that needs more specificity? I mean I'm hoping that based upon what we've talked about, the opportunity to work with staff in a real partnership is here. Is that, may I ask that? I mean I just want to make sure, staff is asking that. I just want to make sure I hear it from the applicant. One way or the other. Randy Noecker: One of the things that I'm, I guess I'm not grasping is they're talking about the trail being outside the buffer. We've recognized that and by, keep in mind we just found out about all these issues on Friday. We weren't aware that we had to move the retaining wall out. We weren't aware of any of this stuff until last Friday, okay. Aanenson: You know what, I have to say something on that. Blackowiak: I understand but, okay Kate. Aanenson: It was given to you in writing on a letter dated September 10th and that's why we're at this juncture. Randy Noecker: Okay well, if we had a retaining wall in the right-of-way marked it was unintended, alright. We thought we had on the edge of the right-of-way. Apparently we had it inside according to your calculations. But as it be, if you have a trail between the pond and the wetland, is not the pond defined as wetland? So then does the trail go on the south side of the pond or is it okay to leave the trail there? Slagle: I don't know the answer to that question. I'll defer to these folks but here's my just question to all of you. Is could we take this plan, along with Matt and the planning group and just provide them where it could go, and then you can sort of say yeah/nay. I mean because if there's still some questions as to where it has to go, I think staff could show you where it could go and hopefully that would be the beginning, if not the end of sort of the placement of that path, Or at least a start. I mean there shouldn't be after the folks, all you meet, there shouldn't be a lot of ambiguities after that meeting, is that safe to say? Randy Noecker: Yeah, if we have caused confusion or in any way caused a problem, we were unaware of it on our side, I mean I had made calls after I submitted this plat to see if there were any changes you'd like to see made but we received no response along those lines so Ijust thought that was the methodology that Chanhassen chose to work their plan through. Blackowiak: Well I think at this point you've got lots of responses and some direction and. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20,2001 Randy Noecker: 1 would like to say, we're going to try to accommodate all of them. Blackowiak: Good, okay. We'd like to see that. So at this point we'd like to have a motion please. And good luck to whoever makes it because we're going to have to muddle through this but I want to try to get all the hot buttons and all the direction for the applicant that we possibly can in this motion. I'm assuming it will be a motion to table and LuAnn, are you? I thought you were volunteering. Sidney: 1 will. I have a question about whether or not we need 4 motions or not? Blackowiak: Kate what's the? Aanenson: You can make it all in one. Blackowiak: Motion to table. Aanenson: ., ,all requests. Blackowiak: All requests and then direction to the applicant specifically, you know but not limited to these items. Sidney: Well help me out. I'll take a shot at it here. Okay I'll make the motion that Planning Commission recommends tabling the request for rezoning of the 18.57 acres of property as shown in the staff report. Also to table the request for preliminary plat to replat a 7.07 acre outlot, as shown on the staff report, Also to table the wetland alteration permit to fill 4,580 square feet of wetland. And also to table the land use plan amendment from residential large lot to residential low density. In terms of the preliminary plat, I'd like to give direction to the applicant to work on several points and as I said, I think it's important to be very specific about this in terms of the conditions that are outlined in the staff report. I would welcome friendly amendments as we go along here, I'm going to go down the list because this is very important so that we have a clean proposal next time around, Recommendation I. One of the conditions is to remove the retaining wall, I'd like to see that done. As Deb pointed out, we need to show the existing house and accessory structures on the plans. A condition 4. We need the applicant to resubmit canopy coverage calculations. As shown in condition 5, the applicant shall submit a landscape plan for the city for approval. And I'm going to move to condition II. We have a recommendation from staff, and I concur I should say, that the proposed outlot structure of the pond be moved to the easterly end of the pond to prevent short circuiting and etc as shown in that condition, Also condition 12. We do need some ponding calculations and we need storm sewer design calculations as shown on condition 13. Okay, and condition 18, We'd like to see a preliminary utility plan, And also let's see, condition 25. The structure setback from each of the existing bluffs is 30 feet. We'll need to have the retaining wall eliminated or moved as indicated in that condition, 28. A big one in my book. We'd like to see revised grading plans as shown. We've got several points here. Show all existing utilities. Show the proposed NWL and HWL of the pond and silt fence. Revise the contours. Add a legend, etc. Also condition 30. We have a wetland buffer issue here that needs to be worked on and that impacts the trail alignment. And I guess the big one that really is going to affect the plat itself is that the retaining walls be located outside the buffer areas, That's condition 31. And we have storm water calculations that need to be submitted. Condition 34. And also following the park and rec conditions to make sure that the trail alignment meets the requirements suggested in that condition, So I' II leave it at that I guess. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? 27 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 Kind: I'll second that motion. Blackowiak: Okay, moved and seconded and do we have any amendments to the motion? Kind: I might have a friendly amendment or two. I'm not sure. Did you touch on the wetland replacement documentation? Was that one ofthose? Sidney: No, you can add that. Kind: I would add that we'd like that documentation provided, And condition number, where'd it go? Let's see, 44. I'd like that one added to make sure that all of the lots maintain that 90 foot width, I question, especially I would add Lot number I on Block 3 to that condition. So it'd be lots I and 2 on Block 3, I think just a minor curve in the road does not put a lot on the curve. That's it. Blackowiak: Okay. Amendment accepted? .~ ;¡ ,.' Sidney: Accepted. Blackowiak: Okay, It's been moved and seconded, Sidney moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission table the Land Use Plan Amendment #01-4; Rezoning #01-4 to rezone 18.57 acres; Wetland Alteration Permit #01-3; and the Preliminary Plat for Subdivision #01-10 for Lake Lucy Ridge as shown on the plans received October 24, 2001, with the following direction to the applicant before the item is brought back before the Planning Commission: 1. The retaining wall be removed. 2. Show the existing house and accessory structures on the plans. 3. The applicant shall resubmit the tree canopy coverage calculations. 4. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan to the City for approval. 5. The proposed pond must be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards with a 3: 1 side slopes and a 10: I slope bench below the normal water level. The proposed outlet structure of the pond shall be moved to the easterly end of the pond to prevent short-circuiting and to outlet the treated water to the eastern wetland. This would better follow the proposed drainage pattern shown in the City's Surface Water Management Plan. 6. The applicant shall provide additional information and revision for the ponding calculations. 7. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design calculations need to be submitted. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100 year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20,2001 8, The applicant shall submit a separate preliminary utility plan that shows the proposed rim elevations, invert elevations, and pipe sizes for all proposed and existing utility lines. 9. The structure setback from each of the existing bluffs is 30 feet. This will require that the retaining wall shown on Lot 2, Block 1 be eliminated or moved. 10. Revise the grading plan as follows: a. Show all existing utilities including the storm sewer and watermain in Lake Lucy Road and the existing driveway culvert. b, Show the proposed NWL & HWL of the pond. c. Add silt fence along the south property line of Lot 13, Block 3. d, Revise the contours in the rear yards of Lots 1-3, Block 2 to meet the maximum allowable side slope of 3: I. e, Add a legend, survey benchmark, and all proposed and existing easements to the plan. II. A wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 10 feet) shall be maintained around Wetland I and the wetland mitigation area. A wetland buffer 10 to 30 feet in width (with a minimum average of 20 feet) shall be maintained around Wetland 2, Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of city staff, before construction begins and shall pay the city $20 per sign. )2, All retaining walls shall be lòcated outside of required buffer areas. Proposed trails shall also be located outside of required buffer areas. All other structures shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. 13. Stormwater calculations shall be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond is sized adequately for the proposed development. 14. Park and Recreation conditions: The following conditions need to be met for the trail alignment to be acceptable, a. A 20 foot trail easement must be identified, b, The trail alignment cannot be within the wetland buffer. c, The trail easement may abut lot lines, but the trail alignment must maintain a minimum 6 foot separation from lot lines. d. The pond berm, which the trail crosses, must maintain a minimum top width of 12 feet to allow for a 2 foot "clear" on either side of the trail. 15. Wetland replacement must occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The plans shall show a fixed photo monitoring point for the 29 Planning Commission Meeting - November 20, 2001 replacement wetland. A five year wetland replacement monitoring plan shall be submitted. The applicant shall provide proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland. 16. The lot width for Lots 1 and 2, Block 3 shall be adjusted to maintain 90 feet. All voted in favor, except UIi Sacchet who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. Blackowiak: 1 would like to add to the applicant that I would like you to please take a look at all the conditions, not just the ones that we outlined. The ones that we outlined I think are very special, but they all have merit so please don't ignore the other conditions. This item will be placed on the next available Planning Commission agenda, which will be? Aanenson: Whenever they get the changes made, Blackowiak: Whenever they, okay. So probably not in December. Aanenson: Probably January. Blackowiak: Probably January, okay. I just want to say thank you to the neighbors and residents for coming and I urge you to follow this item. We will be getting another mailing out to you when the next meeting will occur. It will be similar to the one that you received, And also I'd like to recommend that for those of you who are members of the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association, have a meeting before the next, before our next meeting so you can kind of get a feet for what the majority of the residents in that area, what their wishes are and that would help us too. So thanks again for coming. The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REOUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK TO REVISE THE PERMITTED USES WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT SIMILAR TO THE PERMITTED USES IN THE INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICT. STEINER DEVELOPMENT. Public Present: Name Address J. Polster Joe Smith Fred Richter 681 August Drive, Chaska 3610 County Road 10 I, Minnetonka 3601 County Road 101, Minnetonka Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Commissioners, any questions of staff? Sacchet: Yeah, I have a question and a half. One is specific to the vocational school. Why would we want to make that an exclusion? Could we specify that. 30 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 15,2002 Chairwoman BIackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich Slagle, LuAnn Sidney, Uli Sacchet, Alison BIackowiak, Bruce Feik, Deb Kind, and Craig Claybaugh CITY COUNCIL LIAISON PRESENT: Mayor Linda Jansen STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmin AI-Jaff, Senior Planner; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Matt Saam, Project Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: David Hinners Deb Lloyd Janet Paulsen 935 East Wayzata Boulevard, Wayzata 7302 Laredo Drive 7305 Laredo Drive CONSIDER THE REOUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT A 7.07 ACRE OUTLOT AND 11.5 ACRE LOT (18.57 ACRES) INTO 22 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT. LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL LARGE LOT TO RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY. REZONING FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT. AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF LAKE LUCY ROAD. WEST OF LAKE LUCY AND EAST OF ASHLlNG MEADOWS SUBDIVISION. LAKE LUCY RIDGE. NOECKER DEVELOPMENT. PUBLIC PRESENT: Name Address Patrick Mohr Jack & Melanie Gorczyca Merle Steinkraus Scott Reinertson 6890 Utica Terrace 1850 Lake Lucy Road 1800 Lake Lucy Road 6801 Utica Terrace Sharmin AI-Jaff and Matt Saam presented the staff report on this item. Aanenson: Let me just clarify something, The plat that we are recommending appl uval of is not the plat that you're seeing here. The plat that Matt went through with the changes is what we're rccommending so it would have a different look to it. Our concem as a staff is we usually like to get it as clean as possible so you can see the implications. Matt tried to go through and explain to you what we believe is a better plat by reducing the grading, While we impacted some of the tree canopy, we believe we're also saving some other significant trees and even the backs of the lots that would be adjacent to Ashling Meadows because of the minimizing of grading. So I just want to clarify what Sharmin' s telling you is that the plat that we're recommending approval, doesn't look like this plat. We're recommending approval with changes. Now if you're uncomfortable with doing that, you have a choice as to ask for an extension because we're at the end of the, oUr review period. If you're uncomfortable with the plat then Planning Commission Meeting - January 15,2002 your choice is either to recommend approval with the changes as it goes towards commission or recommend that you feel it's premature and recommend denial ofthe land use change. So everybody's clear on that. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Al-Jaff: The conditions of approval. If you would kindly turn to page 24. Condition number 32. The second paragraph of [he sentence. A wetland buffer 10 to 30 feet in width. It's struck through in the staff report. We need to put that back in. With a minimum average of 20 feet shall be maintained around wetland 2. And we're adding to it a 4 foot retaining wall shall be utilized to protect the buffer. No fences shall be used. And then on page 26. Condition number 49. Under the compliance table. Lot 1. The setbacks read, 30-50-30 and the second 30 has 2 asterisks next to it. It should be 3. And the same is true for Lot 2. Those are bluff setbacks. And we'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Blackowiak: Shannin, I think I'mjust going to start since one of my questions had to do with this compliance table. It shows 21 lots in the compliance table. If there would be changes to any potential plan, how do we know how this compliance table fits in? We don't? Al-Jaff: It changes. Blackowiak: Okay. So but you're still comfortable putting this in as is even though we know it would change? AlcJaff: Assuming that changes do take place. Aanenson: In order to get the plat approved for final plat, and you recommend approval of this, depending on what the City Council would do, that's what the plat has to reflect. So it would have to be in compliance and you would make that a condition that all lots meet the city zoning ordinance so if you were to recommend this plat with the changes that we're recommending, that compliance table before it gets to final plat would have to reflect that. That's what I was saying before, The difficulty is you don't... Blackowiak: Right, exactly. Okay, thank you. Well then I'll just ask fellow commissioners any questions of staff? Rich? Slagle: None right now. Sacchet: I have a question or two. Real quick. So with those changes you're recommending do we know what the average lot size is going to be? Do we know what the density's going to be? We don't at this point. Aanenson: We know what the density would be. We wouldn't know what the average lot size. Sacchet: What would the density be? AI-Jaff: Density would be .8 and that's gross density. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15,2002 Sacchet: Gross, thank you. So at this point if we would want to see the changes before we approve it we would either have to get an extension of the time frame or otherwise we would have to deny it. Is that where we're at? Aanenson: Well you have 3 options. I'm asking you whatever you're comfortable with. Your option is to ask for an extension to see the changes. Sacchet: Okay. Aanenson: To recommend approval and let the council see the changes. Or recommend denial. Sacchet: Got it. Now this is really the main question ultimately I think from everybody, including us up here primarily but in tenns of the comprehensive plan, it's my understanding that this outlot is intended to be a transition element between the large lot area and the low density residential. At this point it would appear to me that this doesn't really fit into a transition concept. Can you say something about how that fits the comprehensive plan please? Aanenson: Sure. I'd be happy to address that. How we looked at this. If you compare this to one that you looked at previously. I'm trying to get one that's got a wetland on it. If you look at this property in relationship to this subdivision, there's a large wetland complex here. This is one lot. Kind of an anomaly. The other lots are all coming off of the subdivision. The other lots in this neighborhood are coming off this cul-de-sac, While this is a lot that's associated with that, it orientates itself a different way. Access to this lot is very difficult because of the wetland adjacent to Lake Lucy. It's the staffs opinion that the best way to service this lot, whether it's left as a large lot or if it's, the guiding is changed, is to provide a stub to this property somewhere through a subdivision here, That's the best way to service it. So we're not saying that it has to be changed but we're saying in our opinion it makes, the transition is the wetland. And the orientation really to service it should come off a street the other way for the less degradation to the site. And if you compare that, let me just go a little further. Compare that to the Rossavik one that we looked at last time, those two pieces. The utility and efficiencies of those were tied together. There was no topographic break or natural feature separating the two, They were tied together so we looked at this a little bit differently. Sacchet: See you're not totally addressing what I'm actually shooting for because what you're addressing the individual lots here and I'm trying to see how this fits in the context of the, more interested in particular lots. Actually of the whole area. And it seems like we have large lot to the north and to the east pretty much. We have residential single family to the west. So in terms of looking at this from the comprehensive plan, it appears to me a reasonable viewpoint that this is a transition between the large lot area and the single family. Aanenson: Well it's either going to be on this lot. It's either going to be on this lot, ur it's going to be on those lots. What I'm saying is here there's a wetland and that provides a transition.., Sacchet: That helps right. Okay. Aanenson: That's how we looked at it and again we compared it to other ones where there's not that aesthetic perspective. Again what we looked at too is what's the best way to provide access to that and that was through the subdivision. And again whether it's large lot or lower density, how they access could probably be best. Whatever happens on this piece of stub street. Planning Commission Meeting - January 15,2002 Sacchet: Thank you. I' Il get back to that in comments. Blackowiak: Okay. No other questions? Deb anything? Kind: I'm sure I do. On the staff report Outlot A is actually labeled Outlot B 6n the plans we're looking at. It's Outlot A from Lake Lucy Highlands and we're referring tò it as Outlot B for this Lake Lucy Ridge. AI-Jaff: The applicant is replatting a portion of Outlot A into an Outlot B. Yes. Kind: I think I was able to keep it straight when I was reading the staff report. The wetlands that are Outlot B and Outlot A on this new proposed plan, who would be responsible for maintaining those? Al-Jaff: There will be a drainage and utility easement over them, Aanenson: There's a letter of credit put in place until we accept the subdivision and everything's completed. They have to maintain those during construction and we'd put up the escrow for the silt fence. Saam: In recent times we've gone toward owning them, I know on Ashling Meadows we assumed ownership of the outlots. That's one that comes to mind right away. \ Aanenson: Yeah. We don't have to". Saam: No we don't have to. We'll get an easement though at a minimum, Kind: Okay. And if we approve the revisions revising the land use, which is a big if, technically all of these lots do meet our rules for size, shape, setbacks, frontage with exception of that one lot. Whal is staffs rationale for some of these conditions that suggest moving the road and deleting certain lots? Aanenson: Do you want to go through that again Matt? Saam: Yeah, I can speak a little to that. You had a plat before you last time with 22 lots. Your level of discretion with the land use, and correct me if I'm wrong Kate is, if you don't like it, even if it meets minimums, you can require a little bit more because you're giving them a change in the land use. So you directed us to go back with the applicant and look at revising it. Basically making the plat better. That's what we did here. We believed by moving the road over, it's going to make those lots, those Block I lots along the west side better lots. More usable yards. Perhaps help to minimize the grading along that slope. That's our major rationale for suggesting the moving of the road. Kind: That makes sense. On the neighbor petition at the back of our packet talked about, had one point in there that I thought was interesting and that is, well all the points were quite interesting but there was one that caught my attention and that is that the comp plan policy requires a majority of area residents to approve rezoning in their area. Aanenson: I can address that. We put that in there as a policy issue. That's a legislative issue. The City Council can't do rezoning. That was a court case recently in the Best Buy. You can usurp that and residents vote what their land use designation. That's a policy decision. But what the intent of that policy decision was for neighborhoods, people that buy the large lots, we've had this example in for 4 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 example Timberwood where they were adjacent to Stone Creek. Some of those neighbors wanted to have municipal services and subdivide and what we said at that point, until the neighborhood decides to come to the city and say we no longer want to be large lot, that we want to change the character of our neighborhood, then the city should consider petitioning. If it's one person, then that might be enough to say let's hold a neighborhood meeting and decide but really our intent was there, that we want to have more than just one person decide and we would hold a hearing and let the council hear that debate and discussion but you can't usurp that legislative authority. Kind: But the question here would be is that one property owner of that Outlot A, B on this plan, are they technically asking for subdivision of just their lot without getting the agreement of their other neighbors? Aanenson: Again as I'm saying, that's a legislative act with a recommendation. Do they have to get 100percent agreement? You know we like to see. Again the staff s interpretation on that was, because it's the topography and the wetlands separated the two, it's a little bit different circumstances as far as continuation of that neighborhood. Kind: Okay. Aanenson: So that's a discretion that you'll have to make and the council's going to make. I'mjust telling you what our recommendation was. Kind: Okay. I'm sure I have other questions. Just let me quick look through here. Oh, the other one, this is on page II of the staff report. The second to bottom paragraph it talks about the new fee that would be assessed and specifically that there were two previously assessed connection charges which total, and then there's a number that struck out and a new larger number on there. And I just thoughtthal that was' interesting, how could it have been previously assessed, How can that number change if it was previously assessed? Saam: Sure. First sentence there. Each of the underlying parcels has been previously assessed for hook- up and a connection charge. However they haven't been paid so in essence we went in, put in the water but we said to the property owner, well we're going to assess you these 2 units but you don't have to pay us until you develop. That's somewhat typical in town. The reason these numbers changed is because we have an ordinance in town where every January I" our connection and hook-up fees go up. An inflation factor. Construction cost factor. It went up on January J, 2002. So that's why there is a difference. Kind: So our tabling this made their rates go up? Saam: No. You shouldn't think that because these aren't applied until the building pennits come in so even if you would have approved it in November. Say it went to council in December, they've got final plat. Or preliminary approval and final even. Until they pull building pennits, so until the site is developed and constructcd, it would have been into this summer, Kind: Good, I was feeling a little bad there. Oh the condition being struck through that requires the street names to be changed. What happened there? AI-Jaff: The fire marshal spoke to Carver County Sheriffs Office and they decided that those names are acceptable. Planning Commission Meeting - January IS, 2002 Kind: So they won't be confused? AI-Jaff: No. Kind: And one of the other requests that was made at the last meeting was around the entry feature to the development. Was anything discussed about that with the developer? That was a silent no for you Nann. I think that's all. Oh, condition number 35 on page 24. This was a minor thing but I noticed it was emphasized in the staff report is that locating the bluff within 20 feet from the top. I'm assuming you want to add or the toe of the bluff. And then condition number 42 appears to me to be the same as 19. So that can be struck through. That's it. Blackowiak: Craig, do you have any questions of staff right now? Claybaugh: I'll leave my questions until the public hearing's been done. Blackowiak: Okay great. At this point will the applicant or the developer like to come up and make a presentation. If so, please step to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Randy Noecker: Madam Chair and council members, staff. My name is Randy Noecker and I live at 8315 Pleasant View Drive in Moundsview, Minnesota and I'm the developer. This evening I plan to ""plain more of the details of this project than I did previously, and some have commented about the insensitivity and, to the use of this land and to the trees and the wetlands and it's my hope this evening that I can accomplish 3 things and kind of dispel that ideal that seems to be prevalent. I want to identify the desired goals that we've tried to achieve. I want to effectively explain the issues,. .as it relates to several imposed conditions. The goals, or I should say possibly the most important goal for me has been to maintain the site integrity of the land. And at the same time striving to create an executive neighborhood in this project. Additional and important issues to me have been to avoid wetland impact and minimize the tree destruction. Some cities have a preference to trees, and I can remember"at our first staff meeting when Lori and Jill were present, I remember telling or remember Jill telling me that there was no difference between oaks and box elders in the city's eyes and when I asked if the city had any tree preference like that. It was after that meeting that I remember thinking that the City of Chanhassen had a very strong tree preservation policy, or attitude, and it was one of the strongest that I had come across in the metro area. And the code book later verified my suspicions if you will. And please do not misunderstand me. I think this is a good thing. It's good from an economic point of view. It's good from aesthetic point of view and it has just a number of benefits by minimizing the tree loss. The primary goal in maintaining the site integrity began initially from the start. I remember at the previous meeting one of the members had asked about my original concept plan, and I'm going to set that on the table here. This is originally what I had come across, or designed as a plan when I had bought the first parcel, and this was prior to hiring any surveyors, anybody at all whatsoever. It was just a rough concept of how I envisioned the site might look eventually. If I can. I'm going to layout another plan here. One ofthe things that, when I had started out it was my desire to really maintain a cul-de-sac inside of this development. I thought that was the best way to handle it and I put aside suggestions from both Matt and Sharmin in creating some kind of, rather than a cul-de-sac, having that road as it's drawn today. This one right here, going to the south. My preference was to come straight through and then long story short, I'm not sure if it was Sharmin or Matt that first suggested it to me but they said you should really use, you should really follow the ridge as you, or with the road. And so the idea of the ridge road came into effect and I thought, and about that same time Matt had indicated that we really need an access to the south. We were obviously pinpointed in our Emerald Lane position and the city was also requiring access from 6 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15,2002 ,. Lake Lucy Road because again there's many lots in the future that would be developed to the south and those lots would be serviced by this sub-collector. So in the end that "ridge road" was an ideal way to make the site, what do I want to say? Specific to the use of the land if you will, and this thing, I was later much appreciative of Matt and Shannin bringing, or basically saying hey you should really take a second look at this because it wasn't until after I did that and sat down with Ted and on the computer and made some, a few changes that had began to appear as a very feasible idea. One of the things that we're stuck with inside of this development is a 7percent grade and it's been a very, as Matt has indicated earlier, a very challenging site. And we've got about a, I think a 59 or 60 foot drop from Lake Lucy Road over from Emerald Lane and in so doing we've got a 7percent grade that, with the exception of a little flat spot right here next to Lake Lucy Ridge Lane, and a little flat spot down at the bottom, we've got a 7percent grade on that thing all the way to the top. And so we don't have the flexibility to move that elevation wise to move that road. I don't think there's a foot elevation in there possibly. I'd have to ask my engineer for sure but I don't think there's much more than that. With the elevation fixed, we also know that you basically control your pad site elevations, or your house pads approximately 2 feet above your street elevation because your house pad, some say 18 inches but your house pad is basically 2 feet above your street so that you have a gentle drive into your garage floor. With the street being controlled from an elevation perspective and the pads therein being controlled by the street, you find elevations that may or, you mayor may not want. I mean if I may let me give you an example. Oh one other thing that I'd like to point out in the, if you look at the top, or aerial photos of this land you'll find a farm road that runs right under Lucy Ridge Lane right now. It was basically the fann road that went back from the house to this big meadow that was back in here. And so again it was real logical from my perspective when I initially looked at the site to identify with the road right in that location. One of the things, for example here in this grading plan. It may be a little bit hard to see but I'm going to point out a few things because it's been suggested that I possibly look at eliminating some lots. And right at this point right here, this is the center line center line. That would be the center line of Emerald Lane and the center line of the Lucy Ridge Lane, You have an elevation of 1009. 1,009 if you will. Where my pen is in front of Lot 2, we have an elevation of 10, an existing elevation of 1020. Cöming down one line you have an elevation of 1018. That 1018, if you follow across over here to the comer, you basically would have, if for example I totally eliminated Lot 5 and just left it just like it was, You're going to have a 7 to 8 foot retaining wall right at the comer, or you would if engineering wouldn't force you to eliminate as a result of sight visibility issues. And it gets bigger as you would go up the street in this situation. Also you have the same thing across the street. You've got down where the stop sign is, you have a proposed building elevation of 1010. You've got an existing, the first line going up Emerald Lane is your 1018 line, so again you've got a 7 to 8 foot retaining wall that you would have if you never touched those lots. You basically in essence, again to match the road so that you can build your pads, have to scoop out that dirt on these 4 lots in Block 2, and on these lots going through here on the west side. You don't have any alternative upon it. You could skip building houses on it and you're still going to have an issue of high retaining walls if you did not deal with some kind of cut in there. Premise being there's a lot of tree removal that has to take place on this site. Not necessarily so much in this meadow area, but there are situations throughout the site that you can identify with that show, or that basically require cuts. And those cuts, be they desired by the developer or required by engineering, are basically in the majority of the cases going to take place. Reducing for example these 5 lots down to 4 lots isn't going to gain us anything. Alright. Now, the other thing I'd like, the other thing I'd like to comment on. I've got the wrong one. This is the, I was given a transparency on top of the map like this, and it shows where this 80 foot road, or this road would be moved a distance of approximately 80 feet. Again, one of the things that I comment. If you move this road here 80 feet, this lot right here would basically have, if I've got 10 or 15 feet or whatever kind of number you want to use to the retaining. Or there is no retaining wall but to the slope in there, you would then have a level space 80 feet long in the back yard. And I really doubt if the majority of developers. I mean obviously a homeowner would love to see an 80 foot deep back yard. Planning Commission Meeting - January 15,2002 I mean who wouldn't? Okay. But it's something that's, it's over reaction to an issue is what's transpired here. And 1 can remember on several occasions going to Ted's office and saying, Ted I need to change this and here's what I want to do. And he would say yeah but Randy if you do that, then this happens and that happens and you end up with a chain reaction on this site like none I've ever seen on any property I've ever developed. And I want to give you an example of that. Just right herc because right now I've got some pencil marks on this thing. I'm not sure how far we can blow this thing up, if it can be done. But right here you've got an existing elevation on this road at about 1003 and I took the liberty of assuming that we could drop this down to at least 1000 feet. If that road elevation were, or if that road were placed where it was and that road was dropped down to 1000 feet, you then have a 3: 1 slope with those markings that would go down to this house pad. You've got a 984 at approximately 6 feet away from that house pad which would be 1 foot under the walkout, or 1 foot under the back door level if you will. Because it's a full basement. There's no lookout or walkout on it. .OJ ;;~ '% tè '> Aanenson: Excuse me Madam Chair, can Ijust interrupt for one second? Just to, there's some confusion going on. Certainly it's out intent that those house pads all have to be moved to reflect the new road location. Okay so. . ~ ~ Blackowiak: Yeah, that's in the conditions. 4 Aancnson: Correct. Yes, so what you're talking about now is kind of not relevant because all the house pads would move to reflect the new road location. And that's what we haven't seen. It's not our intent to Ip"vp that lot like that nor the other lot. Randy Noecker: Well, where would you suggest moving it to? Aanenson: I think we've gone over that with you. Randy Noecker: I guess I never heard. I mean you can't move that house pad unless you're going to run into that cul-de-sac. Or if you want to move it this way then we would destroy those 3 trees that we talked about saving back in here and if you recall last time, I had a retaining wall in here to save one of those trees and I was told to eliminate it. And basically like the message I got from staff was, eliminate as much retaining walls as you possibly can because the council and the planning commission don't like them. Okay. So we took the premise of trying to eliminate as many of these walls as we possibly could, I think this is extremely relevant. The other issue that I'd like to point out here too is in, this is a 60 to 1 scale. Right now there is no place to move that pad. You're going to be, I mean you might move it 15-20 feet one way or the other. You're definitely not going to move it any closer to that cul-de-sac because it's up against that cul-de-sac right now. So if you move it that way you're probably going to eliminate those 3 trees that we talked about. But here's the real crux ofthc situation. If you look at the right-of- way line, this area right in here, I think Matt said was about 9,000 square feet. Maybe 100 x 90 or something like that. I've got my scale which is a 60 to 1. This is the 1002. There's the 1000. This thing is dropping down in 2 foot increments. It's taking 60 feet to drop 6 feet. It's a 10 to 1 slope in there. You've got a forested area. All of these trees run along this ridge that I've been trying to save. That was as per direction of Jill in the beginning. That's what I'm doing, and so now we've got a nice gentle slope, heavily wooded. I'm guessing there's 150 to 175 trees in there. And the premise now is, well it's okay to knock them all down. We're just going to put up 7 or 8 trees and replace the 175 that he knocked out of there. Then you would have this 3: I slope coming down and there's no way, as a builder, that you're going to have water of that magnitude sliding down that hill into that pad. And want to be liable for it. There's no way as the developer I would want to be liable for it. This is a wrong plan. This is not the way to go with this plan. And don't misunderstand me, it's easy not to see things when you redraw 8 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 on this because I've done it several times. Ted will attest to that. It just, the whole site is problematic and the view, the view that many have had, or appear to have is that I'm insensitive to what's going on, and that's not the case. You've got a very complex site here that has real issues that cause chain reactions when you try to move something. We've really spent, I mean I've spent probably a year and a half working hard on looking at the details of this site, and there's been dozens and dozens of revisions. Now this, we made, Matt and Shannin made a few conunents to us, and we did get the staff report on Saturday and we attempted or we had been working on making changes. I do want to bring to your attention, this is the plan that we have dated January Sth. It's one that we were looking at redoing. I have a letter here from Steve Schweider. He's a builder of Wood ale and he and Charles Cudd and Robert Mason, or excuse me. Tom Mason, and I met many weeks ago. They obviously as perspective builders in this development and I selling lots. The staff had made me aware that they were concerned about Lot I, Block 1 and so I talked to Steve about it and hence he wrote this letter. And he basically references in the first paragraph, Lot I, Block I of Lake Lucy Ridge development. I think this lot is a very buildable lot. There are pluses and minuses to this lot as with lots anywhere but the pluses outweigh the minuses in this case. It has a 70 foot wide building pad and is 60 feet deep. This was changed from the previous plan that we're quote unquote, technically discussing because that was only 60 feet. We've made a 70 foot wide pad here basically per suggestion from these guys because they indicated that we should give, as in for width wide or with perspective on frontage of lots we should be somewhere around that 75 foot mark. So it's likely that we are, it's likely that this thing might move a couple feet more but it's definitely going to stay at least 70 feet. And one of the suggestions that Matt had was give us a 20 foot 10: 1 platform going out the side of that lot. When I handed him this plan at that point a week or so ago, Ted had that drawn in. Okay. The reconunendation, I mean I see a reconunendation, I think it was number 29. You know it says eliminate Lot 1 of Block I. There's a lot of things that could have been said on that line other than eliminate it. It could be widen the pad. Make, do this. Make that. It's strange that you would just say eliminate it. But that's the way the staff report came out. We have, as I indicated before, we've virtually eliminated every retaining wall on the site. These lots over here could easily, and here again 1 just talked with a lady, it must have been Thursday or Friday. She had called me back. She's called, I've talked to her several times on this development. They want to buy a lot in the development and I was relating to her that we eliminated as many retaining walls as we could, and she pops up and says, weill would like to have retaining walls in my back yard. And so I think there's going to be plenty of opportunities for people to have retaining walls in this project, even though we'd like to eliminate them. And if they do that on, like for example on Lots 3, 4 and 5, you're definitely going to have a much wider back yard depending on how many walls and whatever they might want to do. From my perspective it's kind of been reconunended that 1 avoid walls because council and planning conunission is not really in favor of them. I don't know if that's true or not but that's kind of the message that 1 got, and sometimes that's over the years and thinking about that issue, I think that's an appropriate response. One of the other issues that we have is Lot 9, Block 3. If I may again I'd like to get a blow-up on that thing. That lot currently here is, it has a part curve and part straight line road on it if you will. And that curve is 47.05 feet and the straight line portion is 20.88 feet. Now there's no clarification in the code book that defines what's a cul-de-sac lot and what's another lot and so I'm not exactly sure how you differentiate between them, but in the, if you just broke this lot out on a curve basis and a straight line basis, this 40, the minimum lot, the minimum curve is 60 feel in Chanhassen. I've got 47.05 right now, and that's a 78.4percent of the requirement. If you take the 20.88 on a 90 foot lot, that's a 23.2percent amount of a standard regulation. If you take that 23.2percent and the 78.4percent you come up with IOlpercent. Okay. Blackowiak: Excuse me Mr. Noecker. Randy Noecker: Let me get to this. Planning Commission Meeting - January 15,2002 Blackowiak: We're getting into a lot of detail here. Aanenson: Can I just make a clarification too on that. You have the authority to make an interpretation in the code so whatcver you decide, if it's straight or not. Our interpretation was it was a straight line. Blackowiak: Right. Okay, and I guess that's even not where I'm going right now. I'd be kind of interested in hearing what you think about staff s recommendations and how you feel that your plan is able to work with or not work with what staffs recommendations are. I'm hearing right now you're not in favor of moving the road. The idea of losing lots is not appropriate, or not one of your possibilities I'm thinking. Just kind of what's your gut reaction to this. I mean they made a lot of recommendations should this move forward and how are you feeling about that? Randy Noecker: Let me get to that but let me finish one thing here before I. Blackowiak: Sure. Randy Noecker: Alright. We can comply if in this, if I can get a blow-up here again on this. We can comply with this lot as to the city standards. We have 28.88 feet on the straight line and we have 61.4, which actually exceeds the curve line so we have a djstance of 90 feet in there, alright. However, the problem with doing that is we have 15,000 feet in this lot, and then when you start working with your impervious calculation requirements here at the city, you run into real problems with this lot in association to the other lots on this ridge because obviously these ridge lots that overlook the lake are going to be more expensive than others, And so you end up with, if you use the plan that we've put together, which is 67 feet across, even though it's part straight and part curved, it's a much better plan in the end because you get more square footage in that lot. Okay. Those are things that have cultivated through the process that if asked we could have explained right from the beginning, okay. But the report comes across hey, this lot is no good. It's only whatever and that's maybe in reality the case but it's not the case when you have 47 feet out of 60 to do that. To get back to your questions now about what, how I feel about the staff recommendations. I guess I'm not in favor of the road because I've got enough support from builders that have verified the city's concern about problems with these lots. This lot on the end for example can be turned to the other street and probably solve 99percent of any problems that any staff member might be able to come up with. But there's many different ways to, not on all lots but on several lots in this development. For example like on 3, which is a full basement, you can make that a lookout you know. Blackowiak: Right, you could custom grade every lot. I mean basically. Randy Noecker: But in any case, I'm not in favor oflosing Lot I, Block 1. I've showed from a letter from Steve Schweider and I know I could get others if needed. That's a very beautiful lot. It's going to overlook the wetlands. I'm not in favor of moving the road. I think these, to talk about these trees down here, I think one of those trees may have been in the pad, but I think the other one could be saved with a retaining wall, and we would gladly do that. I know that you're not going to be able to move that pad like it was... If you moved that road, you've got, instead of a nice, heavily wooded thing, heavily wooded situation with some knee high plans and rain coming through that into a leaf bed that's 100 plus years old, if you're going to tell me that the soaking value of the rain falling on there is the same as a 3 to I slope coming into the back of that house. no way. And then for the staff, you know it's 20percent rules and it's 80percent politics sometimes, okay. But for staff to, in the initial meetings to tell me that a box elder and an oak have the same value and then to tell me this plan is okay if they wipe out ISO to 175 10 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15,2002 trees and replant with 7 trees or 8 trees, we've gone into the political end of this thing. You know. I'm just not in favor of it, no. I've got several, we've given additional infonnation to the staff about changes that we planned on making. It was too late in the process to apparently present them to you, although I was not in agreement with that issue either but none of these issues are beyond the scope of what I would refer to as minor housekeeping changes. Yesterday at the counter staff and Sharmin both agreed with me that we could make minor lot changes and things like this as the plan went onto City Council. So I'm in favor of the plan that I've submitted with these suggestions that I've made. I'm obviously not in favor of septic systems. I don't need that close to the lake. I don't think that issue needs further discussion. There is a couple of items inside of here that I want to clarify for the record and I think it's just possibly, you know they intended to write it this way but it may not have gotten, may not have been written that way, but I'm assuming that over sizing costs for all aspects of the needs that the city has for utilities, like for stonn water manholes, the lift station itself, the size of it. The larger pumps. The force mains. All of that stuff would be included in the city cost that over sizing... Blackowiak: Let me clarify. Matt, is that something the city generally does? Assumes all cost of over sizing? Saam: In this case we did ask the applicant to do some additional sanitary sewer work. The lift station, for it's development is planned to serve existing houses in that neighborhood to the east, in the future. We don't know when. So we did say we would compensate him for the additional cost, but only for the sanitary sewer. At least that's all I've looked at so far. And that's in the staff report too. Randy Noecker: Yeah see in my comments I've included stonn water, water and sanitary, and all aspects associated thereof. I got no problem with building my own but if you want to make it twice as big then I shouldn't have to pay that cost because'the cìty needs to service a different area. That's a logical premi se. Saam: Also in the memo I think there's some storm water fees that Lori Haak, the Water Resources Coordinator went through and I think I saw some credits in there that she lists out so I believe those have been taken care of also, Blackowiak: Okay, thank you, Randy Noecker: One other, and likewise with one other area and that's the park trails. I can remember a letter coming across that they were going to pay for the blacktop material. Well, you have to haul the material in. You have to spread the material out. You have to compact the material. Test the material and then lay a blacktop down on it and haul it all in and then roll it so there's a little bit more expense to making a trail than just the blacktop material. Aanenson: Just to be clear, we don't pay for that so ifhe has an issue with that he'd have to speak to the Park and Rec Director. Blackowiak: Right, because I see that they pay for materials and then installation is the developer's. Aanenson: Correct. Blackowiak: Okay. It is their, it's their deal. Randy Noecker: So do credits then come back from a subtraction of park fees on that or? . Planning Commission Meeting - January 15,2002 ~ . Saam: Trail fees. There are no trail fees... Blackowiak: There are no trail fees. Saam: And I think that's why because Todd's asking him to put in the trail. That's the way I understand it. Blackowiak: Right, because it's already served by different parks. Randy Noecker: My mistake. I missed that. Blackowiak: Okay. Okay, Mr. Noecker. Would you want to stay up there? I think we may have just a couple questions for you. Rich, anything you want to? ~; B Slagle: Sure. Just a couple questions. I didn't hear a lot about your thoughts on what you term Outlot B, and what I think is termed as Outlot A. In the sense of the change. The proposed change. Meaning if we were to not approve the change from the rural large lot to the, help me out. J ~ ;~ Aanenson: Low density. SJaglc: Yes, low density. I mean what happens if that stays the same? We do not approve, and J realize that the rest of the program starts to, I don't want to say unravel but I mean would you be open to at some point having that Outlot A, or B as you call it, having 2 homes, 2 sites and then working out a new plan for the other parcel? Randy Noecker: I would say no to that because I look at,l'm a real, or at least I think I'm a down to earth person. I'm a real logical based individual. I believe in fairness in paying my share of costs and I don't believe in paying the costs for the city or other people, alright. I'll pay my own but that"s it. Under that premise, it's logical, especially considering the wetland separation from the other large acreage lots, It's very logical to develop this, I think I've got about an acre and a half of usable ground from that 7 acre lot that I acquired, It's very logical to attach that to a sewered and watered project. If you guys said no for some reason, I would probably create an outlot on the entire cul-de-sac and the lots associated therewith and come back again at a later point in time because it's logical to develop it this way, It's a nice looking neighborhood when you get done. You obviously have people across the bay that don't want to look at house tops. They want to look at trees, and nobody wants, from a resident's perspective, nobody wants their own personal little park destroyed. We run into that all the time. And so I would not be in favor, if I'm understanding what you're saying, J would not be in favor of that because it's just logical to do this development, in my mind, the way it's proposed. Slagle: Sure. And if you were to then, what you just mentioned, take it to a different idea to come back to us with, extending the yards or the lots, you would then thus have less lots, is that correct? Randy Noecker: No. Slagle: Okay. Randy Noecker: No, I would, I think what you're referring to, I mean under that plan yes you would, okay. But I thought you were referring in this Outlot A, Outlot B scenario. With these lots here along 12 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15,2002 the lake, if I'm again, if I'm understanding what you're telling me, I would just put all of those, including the road into an outlot and come back when there's more sense to what I'm doing. Slagle: Okay. Randy Noecker: Because it's logical to do this. If you can show me, I mean you've got politics involved but is it logical not to do this? And if so, please share that with me. Slagle: Okay. One last question, and it's more to Matt but I'd like you up there to answer it. Matt, was the reason we did not take Lucy Ridge Lane straight due south was because of the grading and the speed concerns? That's why we made the curve. Is that correct? Saam: Yes. Yep. Slagle: And there's really no other thought as to how to, because I mean I'm thinking. Saam: As to why it isn't just straight? Slagle: Straight yeah. I mean could it be straight if the speed concern was not an issue? Saam: I guess the existing topography too came into play somewhat but for sure to put a slight curve in there. In talks with Mr. Noecker, he thought teenagers would be speeding down there and so did we so we wanted to not make it a runway for them so to speak. Slagle: Okay. Randy Noecker: One other issue that I forgot to mention that Ted just reminded me about was the retaining wall on the back of the pond. We've got a comment on the sheet that says the Planning Commission can either do a 4 foot retaining wall or we could plant wild flower mix on there. One of the, I think it was Mrs. Kind that had commented, it would be better without a retaining wall in that area and so then we found out from Sharmin that if you did a retaining wall you had to get council approval so we'd prefer not to do it but if we do a retaining, if we don't do a retaining wall we have to grade inside the buffer area and we would gladly replant the buffer area with the wild flower seed mix. Or any mix that might be recommended. Aesthetically it's going to look better in the end rather than have the retaining wall because I think Mrs. Kind is right on that issue. Rut we'll do it either way. Whatever, I mean that's our preference. Blackowiak: LuAnn. Sidney: I guess you mentioned a number of letters that you received supporting your position. Have these been shared with staff? Would you like those included in the application? Because I'm thinking you might want to include that as supporting documentation. Randy Noecker: I'm not sure about, I'm not sure if the letters I was referring to was letters that I could get from other builders or was it at this meeting? Sidney: Yeah, you mentioned Steve... · 'if Planning Commission Meeting - January 15,2002 " Randy Noecker: Yeah, I think that was in reference to other builders that I could go to and get letters from them that would basically substantiate the same thing but I, Steve is a real good builder. He builds a lot of houses over 700-800 and I'm real comfortable in his knowledge about situations. In fact that's why I approached him and Cudd and Mason came along. Sidney: I guess if you feel comfortable including that, if it would support your position. Randy Noecker: Oh yes. I would definitely, in fact I made 3 or 4 copies of that letter to give to staff so yeah, that letter is definitely a part of the whole process here. Blackowiak: Vii, did you have any questions? Sacchet: Well we talk about a lot of things and yes I do have a lot of questions but I'm not sure they would add much value at this point. Blackowiak: Okay. Well, if you reconsider. Craig. Claybaugh: Yeah. A couple specific questions. Your opening statement you stated you'd like to identify or focus on 3 different areas. Goals, issues and complexity. We spent substantial amount of time on complexity. The rest on issues. We really didn't touch on goals. One of the things you identify as your goals was to develop executive sites, and I guess looking at the plan and listening to the different discussions and the rest of it, if you would I'd like you to maybe give a brief narrative of what you think defines, in your mind, an executive home site. Randy Noecker: Well one of the things that I would gladly, I may have a copy in my briefcase but I'm not certain. One of the things that I would gladly share are the conditions of the architectural committee approval and the proposed covenants that we plan to utilize on the site. Claybaugh: Maybe I could re-address that question, As it relates to maintaining the land integrity. Randy Noecker: Those 2, primarily those 2 issues were the avoidance of wetland, mitigate. Or not mitigation but wetland impact and the saving the trees. You know minimizing the tree destruction, Those were the 2 goals that I have identified, or I guess that we, as developers try to minimize as much as we can. We made, we looked at possibly impacting the wetlands on the 6 or 7 acre site and deemed it was inappropriate because it was a naturally based wetland whereas the other one was not. And that's why we put our additional wetland on the other wetland on the west side of Lucy Ridge Lane rather than on the lake side, again to minimize impacts as much as possible. Claybaugh: Okay. I'm presuming you don't assign a lot of weight to the square footage as it relates to an executive home site. The square footage of the lot. Randy Noecker: Oh yes we do. We're, that's why we're basic, we basically made the determination in our marketing efforts, and I'll use them as a comparison. I usually try to maintain about 96 to 97 foot frontage on my lots. It's not always possible. If for example when you have a curve you, at the 30 foot setback line, it's real easy to keep that at 90 because if you go 5 feet back, you're then at 92 or 94 and you know usually your garages are set back 6 to 12 feet anyway so by the time you're back at the house level, you're way over what the desired width of the lot would be. But Lundgren Brothers basically, I haven't seen their basic premise is very similar to that. They're in that 95-96 range. In their desired width of a lot. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Claybaugh: Right, with respect to the square footage though I think the adjacent subdivision Ashling Meadows, correct me if I'm wrong, is averaging around 22,000 square feet so. Randy Noecker: Okay. Let me give you a little breakdown. If you've got a 2,000 square foot 2 story. Okay you'd have roughly 4,000 feet on the top 2 levels. You've got a driveway that is approximately, let's call it 30 feet. Let's call it 20 foot wide at the right-of-way line and 30 feet wide at the garage. Average 25. You're at 25 times 30 is 750. Let's call it 800. Okay, you've got 2000 feet on the house, you've got 800 feet on the driveway. Your garage is typically a 24x34 will run you right around 850 square feet. Maybe 800. Well that 850. Add another 150 for your stoop and your sidewalks, you're at another 1,000 so you're 28, or excuse. You're 2,800 from the blacktop and the house plus your other 1,000 for your garage and your sidewalk. You're then at 3,800. Add 2, just for easy figuring, add 200 feet for patios. Claybaugh: 4,000 square feet. Randy Noecker: So you've got 4,000 square feet. You need a 16,000 square foot lot. Claybaugh: Okay. Now you've used a 2,000 square foot footprint on a two story. When you were up the first time you spoke in tenns of possibility of 3 car garages. What would you consider the average footprint that the 3 builders that you entertained would be placing on some of these 16,000 square foot lots? I'm assunùng there's. Randy Noecker: They're all between 18 and I supposed they'd go up to 22. Claybaugh: The footprint? Randy Noecker: The footprint. Claybaugh: Okay, for, Randy Noecker: For the house. Claybaugh; Now you also spoke in terms of nùllion dollar range on some of these properties, Randy Noecker: Yep, and those lots that are priced in that category have adequate square footage to substantiate where we're at. Claybaugh: Okay, then I'm still struggling with the 2,200 square foot and the cost impact to the buyer. I can't even fathom the cost per square foot, what that property would be. I'm thinking in terms of 4,000- 5,000 square foot for the price tag that you're talking about and I'm assunùng everything in there isn't going to be a two story. Randy Noecker: I would venture to say that you nùght have 1 rambler or 2 ramblers in there. The rest are going to be two stories. That's what the market's doing right now. Claybaugh: Okay. Just to come back to, this would involve Matt there with respect to the fairness issue for upsizing the utilities. Are you satisfied that that is being addressed? Are they just. , Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 ,) Saam: You mean will the applicant be fully compensated or? Claybaugh: Or just the city's position I'm assuming is to pay solely for the upsizing. Saam: Correct, yep. Yep. That's what we're looking out for. That's what's meant to be addressed in the staff report. Claybaugh: Okay. And that will be followed up I assume. Saam: Correct. Claybaugh: Say have you made any allowances for what I would consider fairly strong community resistance to the project? Randy Noecker: Allowances? Claybaugh: Well just looking around, usually we don't get this kind of crowd so that's a fairly good turnout and I believe they're here for this petitioner so yeah, Do you feel in your mind you've made any allowanccs? Or that you should make any allowances? Randy Noecker: Well, there's always a, I mean Ijust got a plat approved in Blaine a couple months ago and thcrc were 7 people adjacent to the plat, and they were the only ones that showed up. The people, the 26 or 8 letters of, or 26 or 8 names and phone numbers of individuals that I have that wanted me to notify them of when this development is ready so that they can buy a lot, and all but one live in Chanhassen. I bet their ain't one of them here tonight. I mean they're not here because I mean. Claybaugh: No disrespect but that wasn't the question. Randy Noecker: Well, and'I appreciate that. The. Claybaugh: ".feel that you should make allowances, I'm just asking the question. Number one, do you feel that you should? And if you do, do you feel you have? Randy Noecker: I'm not sure that I've made allowances. The concern that, or excuse me. Most of the comments that I related, or that I identified with in the last time we were here, they gave different comments but they, in the end they related to tree loss. I remember one guy or a couple people standing up and saying we should have less houses there. And his reason was that he wanted to save the trees, and I've tried to go through that process here this evening and show that we aren't going to save many trees if we have 21 versus 20 or 19. The tree loss is going to be there simply because of the impact of the topography and how it relates to our ability to raise that road as fast as we can. Claybaugh: Which I guess leads into my next question and that is, do you feel the situation is aggravated by the degree of lot density that you're counting? I understand there's a lot of elevation problems, that it's a complex site. I understand the nature of that but I also believe from my personal standpoint that the situation's being aggravated by trying to develop it as fully and completely as the plan in front of us. Randy Noecker: It obviously could be aggravated. The only people that I would suspect are here are from the north and from the east. The ones that are doing single family developments in Ashling 16 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Meadows aren't here I suspect and obviously the property to the south is not developed, but that's going to be developed the same as this. So when you have two neighborhoods that come together, you obviously have opposition. Claybaugh: You're in a transition. Randy Noecker: Yeah. And it's you know, but I feel, I didn't think there would be that much of a problem because of the natural divide. I mean there's hundreds of feet across that wetland to the different properties and from that perspective yeah. The other thing I'd like to mention too is, I guess, I'm making this proposal based on the parameters that the, that is what I see available with the city. I'm not here proposing a large lot development. I'm proposing the one that I'm doing. IfI wanted a large lot development proposal, that's what I would have come in with. I'm sure those that are here this evening would like to see a large lot proposal, but that's not what I'm doing. I'm doing the one I'm proposing. Claybaugh: No I was just curious if you thought there was any middle ground there. Even for myself, 16,000 square feet on an executive's homesite is on the short end. I understand there's people that are on the other side that are looking for large lot but that leaves a huge divide and a lot of suggestions that the city's making and some of the things that the neighborhood is saying, I'm just curious, I haven't gotten the impression that you're ready to entertain any of those. Randy Noecker: No I'm not because the number one reason is, just like, I mean you see in the paper that we're doing 60 or 70percent townhomes. Well if you understand the market out there right now, you could be doing 90percent townhomes and not satisfy the demand. The townhome demand in the metro area is going so fast it is unbelievable. Now I make that comparison to this because this site is one that people want because of it's location. It's near work, or nearer to work than it woùld be if they bought a large lot out in the country. They're choosing to buy this lot and put these houses on them. Most of th~m in today's market do not want a big yard. All I'm doing is being in tune with the marketplace, Claybaugh: And I think from, at least my perspective, we're trying to be in tune with what the community's about. I think that's part of what we're trying to convey to you is that that may be what the market is in other cities, but we're also here to try and represent what Chanhassen is supposed to represent and that's, it's mixed. We have large lot. We have small lot and you're caught in a transition area and I can appreciate some of the problems it's causing for you. I guess last thing is, I guess I take exception to the 20percent policy and 80percent politics. We've worked with the staff. A lot of us are new to the planning commission but we've seen nothing but first rate service to people that have come across their desks so that's all I have. Blackowiak: Okay thank you Craig. Deb, questions, Kind: Yes I have one quick question and that is on the second page of the blueprints. The one that has all the contours on it. Could you point out to me where this retaining wall and/or buffer sloped area would go. Is that the entire length of Outlot B or is it just near the entrance area? I see arrows going to two places and it makes me think it goes the whole north/south distance. Use Outlot B, yes. And it's the one I'm looking at is, what is it called? Grading, drainage and erosion control plan. Slagle: 12-18-0 I on the bottom left. Aanenson: Could you give me the page again, I'm sorry. · Planning Commission Meeting - January 15, 2002 Kind: This one? Randy Noecker: Oh yeah we got it. This one. Basically if you look at the legend.. .to differentiate between the two is the darkness ofthe line. If! can I'll point out the tree preservation fence which basically is over here on the bluff. And the tree preservation that encompasses alt of this green area that Jill asked that I save as a part of that ridge. The rest of this stuff, like along the trail, that's silt fence. Kind: That's that boulder shaped wall that I thought was a retaining wall at first and that's really an erosion fence. There's a little note here that says Planning Commission/Council choice. Randy Noecker: Okay. The Planning Commission/Council choice basically has to do with a possible retaining wall along the pond. Between the pond and wetland. Maybe a couple hundred feet long. But it's not marked on here. We just made the notation, The only thing that's marked on here is the silt fence, okay. But we made the notation that we would do a 4 foot wall with no buffer disturbance or that the buffer would be sloped 3: I with wild flower seed mix. Kind: Which is what you touched upon earlier. And then that's got two arrows kind of going ooooh. So is that the whole distance of it? Randy Noecker: Right. That's the distance of the retaining wall. , '. Kinù: Okay, So it's not, you're proposing that it goes the entire length of the wetland? Randy Noecker: The wall? Kind: Right. Randy Noecker: No. Kind: Thank you. And then staff, that was Sharmin's latest condition that she added tonight was staffs perspective is, they're recommending that the Planning Commission and Council choose the retaining wall option and I guess I'd like to hear staffs rationale for why you prefer that over the wild flower 3:1 slope option. Al-Jaff: Whenever we have the chance to save a buffer and keep it in it's natural state, then that's what we attempt to do. In this case, if we went with a retaining wall, we would be able to save the buffer. And it's a natural wetland so minimize impact on the wetland, Kind: Thank you. That's all. Blackowiak: Bruce, questions. Feik: I have no questions for thi~ applicant. Blackowiak: UIi, have you? Sacchet: Yeah, I have a few quick questions. There's one thing that really perplex me. You're stating your goal, you want to make executive home sites. ...what I don't understand is, if that's your goal, why 18 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15,2002 are you so adamantly opposed to having less lots and a little larger lots and therefore be able to be a little more sensitive to the nature there. Randy Noecker: It doesn't save any trees by making larger luts. The impact of the cuts involved with the topography basically wipe out your trees anyway. I mean if there's an area that you can save trees it's, you know given there might be some trees there, I can sure look at it but we've spent a lot of time with this issue on trying to identify a possible area that we could deal, or do that with the elimination of a lot. The unfortunate or not unfortunate, however you want to look at it, the development is really broken up into 3 segments. You've got these Slots and Lot I, and these 4 in Lot 2 and the rest of it. And by eliminating 1 lot in one of those areas, it does not help any of the other areas. Sacchet: Yeah, I would agree with that. One lot wouldn't do it. Now I have two other things that kind of perplex me, I mean you touched on a lot of things but two things I just want to make sure I didn't misunderstand. When you were talking about moving the road and making those lots in Block 1 deeper, you're going into quite a lot of detail how the elevation is relatively severe and how it has to be graded and how the lots have to be plowed in for Lot 4-5. I guess that's the one in Block I you're addressing, and what I don't understand is, it seems to me that if the lot would be deeper, you would have a gentler slope. You would have more room for that grading so you actually made a case that the road should be moved then. Randy Noecker: Well no, not exactly because you, imagine, here's the side of my house. Okay. And you have the hill coming down. You want to get that hill down as quickly as you can so you've got a flat area going into the house. Y oudon't want to do it at a 5: I so it slams right into the back of the house. You want to hit that bottom on a 3: 1, put a swale in there so the water runs away, and then comes back up to the house. But in this plan right here, moving it 80 feet, you've got an 80 foot difference plus my back yard that's currently drawn in there on Lot 5, which let's say is 20 feet. You now have 100 foot back yard behind the pad under that plan, and that was just an overkill. It's not necessary. There's a, I don't know what there is. Well it's 150 feet deep. It's a 60 foot back yard right now. Sacchet: And then the other little detail I briefly want to touch on, when you were talking about Lot 9 and moving those lines around. I was kind of perplexed. I didn't know that before you actually pointed it out is that by straightening out these lines a little bit, if I understood you correctly, to make the front wider, you would lose enough square footage in the back that you get in trouble with the impervious surface because the lot is so small already, is that pretty much what you pointed out? Randy Noecker: What I was trying to make, or identify with is to, you want to, when you have a section, in developments you can have sections that are higher priced than other sections, okay. The cul-de-sac is a classic example. Those homes are going to be much higher priced than others. Or let me say, have a higher average value than this same development, okay. Likewise, these 4 or 5 lots, and possibly the one across the street is going to have the same situation involved with it. These over here are the less priced lots, 1 through 5 over here, okay. Well, if you've got a neighborhood that you're trying to protect, you want to keep those values of the, you want to refrain from restricting any kind of value or anticipated value that you have so you want to keep your square footages up at the point that you feel necessary. I've made a delenrunation that I like to keep my lots at around 16,200 minimum. Not all are going to achieve that because inside of the fonnula that you use, you also want to have about a 75 or 77 foot lot width. 10 foot on each side makes it 97 feet wide. You can't always get 97 feet and you can't always get 16,200 but there's nOl, not everybody's going to need 16.2 because remember, there's going to be a lot of these houses that are only 45 feet deep. · · Planning Commission Meeting - January 15,2002 · Sacchet: Yeah, my question however was, you made a comment about getting in trouble with impervious if you move some of these lines around. Randy Noecker: Yes, that's true. That's the general idea. If I move those lines under this plan that I showed, it certainly can be done, okay. But it's not the right way to do the development because then by moving the lines I'm down to somewhere around 15,000 and I've made a determination in my decision making process that I want to be at around 16.2 or above. And in so doing I can accomplish the goals that I want for this nëighborhood. But to knock it down to 15,000 makes the lot a question mark because you may either have trouble selling it or it may not be the type of house that you really want to get for that particular location, and it's just a basic premise of establishing and protecting your investment that you have inside of an entire project. Sacchet: Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. And I don't have any questions at this time, So we'll move along. I am, at the request of some of the neighbors I will open the public hearing briefly to hear their presentation. 5 minutes or so. When I say or so, please take that with a grain of salt. I guess Tamara is not here tonight. She's. you are Tamara? Okay. How come I didn't think you were going to be here tonight? Tamara Sather: I don't know. Blackowiak: 1 don't know either. Tamara Sather: I was the first one here. Blackowiak: Good for you, Well why don't you state your name and address for the record and then just go ahead. Tamara Sather: Okay. Madam Chair and Planning Commission. Thank you. My name is Tamara Sather. I live at 7090 Utica Lane and I'm representing the petitioners and the local residents around the development. I will be brief and concise. My husband says I might get too sassy if I go off the way a little bit. The neighbors really want to stress that, the surrounding neighborhood residents are not against land development. In fact we all live in a development so we really want to get that point across that we're not against a new development coming in here. However we are opposed to the proposed development for the following reasons. Development is not consistent with the surrounding developments which range from % to 10 acre lots. Lake Lucy Highlands, Greenwood Shores and Ashling Meadows. As you can see the map to the east of Lake Lucy, those homes in Greenwood Shores on the lake are a minimum of % acres and in the Lake Lucy Highlands they range from 1 acre to 10 acre lots. In the development of Ashling Meadows, just to the west of the development, the 3 lots in the northeast comer are abutting 5 lots in the proposed development. According to the comprehensive plan of 2020, Outlot A is part of Lake Lucy Highlands. Lake Lucy Highlands was developed as a large lot development and has maintained that character. Outlot A which on the new plat is Outlot B, needs to remain part of Lake Lucy Highlands. And if we look at the comprehensive plan it does show that that naturally fits in with those, with the Lake Lucy Highlands. Therefore, you can see the lots a 7.7 and a majority of it is wetlands. I think they mentioned about an acre and a half that would be buildable so with the majority of Outlot A being wetland, we would just feel that that whole lot goes with the Highlands. Residents urge the Planning Commission to deny the land use amendment of Outlot A. If the land use amendment is denied, the rezoning of Outlot A would be inconsistent with the zoning ordinances. And then as you mentioned before, the policy. If we believe that that outlot is part of Lake 20 Planning Commission Meeting - January IS, 2002 Lucy Highlands, policy states that the large lot subdivision is to remain as is until a majority of the residents request to have it changed. The petition reflects SO residents from the surrounding neighborhoods that wish to leave Outlot A as it is. Chanhassen is a high amenity community. Residents appreciate it's natural environment which include trees, slopes, vistas, uncluttered open spaces. The proposed development will result in extensive grading, a high loss of canopy and loss of value wetlands that protect Lake Lucy. Here's a photo of the area. You can see the amount of trees. It doesn't show the topography.. . You can see that this development is obviously very close to the lake so there are many concerns for the lake. Now it is obvious the applicant is trying to fill the development in with as many lots as possible. The 21 lots proposed is too dense and does not fit with the surrounding neighborhoods. We feel the topography of the land does not lend itself to 21 homes and the grading needed to squeeze these homes in would be environmentally detrimental to the land and Lake Lucy. It's been addressed by the applicant himself that this is, there's a lot of challenges with this land and I think that it is increased with the amount of lots that he is trying to put on it and I think it's a beautiful piece of land. We think it's a beautiful piece of land that could have some nice homes on it. Larger lot homes that would match the surrounding area and fit in with the community around the development. After a year and one Planning Commission meeting the applicant still has not met some recommendations of staff or direction given by the Planning Commission. We are concemed about the development that is negligent in meeting recommendations. Residents would like to see a development that reflects integrity with full regard for the environment and consistency with nearby neighborhoods. We are not opposed to a new development. We would like to see development that would be more consistent with the surrounding neighborhoods. We want Outlot A to remain as it is shown in the comprehensive plan. Thank you. Blackowiak: Thank you, Okay in fairness, if there's anyone else from the neighborhood who would like to add anything that wasn't covered in the presentation, please come up and briefly state. Okay, name and address for the record. Scott Sather: Hi. I'm Scott Sather, 7090 Utica Lane. I guess my big question. I've had the opportunity to work with the developer the last couple years and he's always stressing environmental impact and one thing that he's mentioned to me is that you cannot change the rate of which a piece of property sheds it's water, but you can change the volume and according to what I see, there are no holding areas to deter the rate at which that water will shed. And the lake, from what I understand from talking to the neighbors. has really deteriorated over the years because of what we think, a lot of phosphates and what not and a lot of extra runoff so I guess my only point is, is there a plan to change the rate at which the water will shed off this new development? Saam: I can address that if you want. Blackowiak: Yeah, if you want to briefly. Saam: Yeah, sure. I've worked with the applicant's engineer. They are proposing a pond to control the rate that it will discharge into the wetland and Lake Lucy so they are meeting our requirements. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Pat Johnson: My name is Pat Johnson, I'm a resident of Lake Lucy Highlands. I live at 1730 Lake Lucy Lane. Just a brief comment. Of course I also signed the petition. Most of us in the Lake Lucy Highlands area are still there. We were the original purchasers and homeowners and one of the things that attracted me, and I think most people, was the fact that we had restrictions and covenants which included an architectural committee. Now a lot of our homes are probably not as valuable as the homes that are being . " Planning Commission Meeting - January 15,2002 . proposed to be built, but because of the large lot residential, which was attractive to many of us. The fact that our area contains a lot of wetlands. We have a number of natural separation in our neighborhood. And a lot of wildlife. These are big lawns, etc. These are pretty much natural looking lots, and so we're concerned as to having a lot of buildings being built. We're concerned about having buildings being built on these lots, evcn storage sheds, that were out of character for that particular area. And so we had, the developers drew up, I think the Steller's drew up a number of restrictive covenants which are still in effect for our development. And I don't think anyone's brought up the fact that these restrictive covenants now are eITecti vely being devalued or taken away from us by taking the Outlot A, which is part of our development, and putting it into the proposed development without consideration of these covenants, which include our approval of anything built on Outlot A. I mention that. It may be a legal question. Blackowiak: Well I do kind of know the answer to this one. Pat Johnson: I believe you do. .'i ." è Blackowiak: Yeah, and I think Kate needs to just back me, or just sort of make sure I'm stating it correctly. The restrictive covenants are not something the city can enforce and it's between the residents and Kate, I don't know exactly what the legal basis is, Maybe you could clarify that a little bit for us, d~ Aanenson: Well that's correct. It's between the owners of the subdivision to enforce that. Certainly if this lot was replatted, that would have to be looked at. Blackowiak: But it's not something that we really can give a lot of weigh to I think in our decision. Pat Johnson: Okay. My second point, without reiterating, this development appears to be a fairly high class development. It would fit in well I think in Minneapolis or in Edina or an inner ring suburb but it's going to be out of character, at least the way it now stands with these large lots. I mean our development's 2 \/2 to 5 acrès. Many cases 10 acre developments and with that density and then all of a sudden taking a density where it would have houses on 16,000 square feet is just simply going to be out of character for that area. So we're hoping that the commission will deny the application and that we woul!! have some compromise from the developer. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Alright I am going to close the public hearing right now. I wonder if I should start. No, I think we'll just, I'll let the other commissioners make comments. I guess the over riding question that I'm going to have, and maybe we could all discuss this, is the re~oning question. And that's something that I'd like you all to address. Whether or not the land use amendment should or should not go forward because that's going to determine how far we go with the rest of the motion so with that, Craig why don't you start us out. Claybaugh: Given the current circumstances as they're laid in front of us tonight, I would not be in favor of voting in the affirmative for the land use amendment. ... with the surrounding area encompassing some of the things that were discussed here tonight and in the plans. Blackowiak: Thank you. Deb. Kind: I agree. I think that Matt summed it up well. I think we can expect some sort of trade-off in exchange for changing the land use designation from large lot to single family residential. A plan that 22 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15,2002 would require less lots with less grading I think would be more environmentally friendly and more in keeping with our comprehensive plan and I do not support changing the land use. Blackowiak: Okay, Bruce. Feik: I concur. I am not comfortable agreeing to change the land use based upon the current plan and the amount of staff considerations that we've seen since the last time this has been here just a month ago. Month and a half ago. So I would not be in favor of changing the land use at this time. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. UIi. Sacchet: Well, I made my position pretty clear last time. I don't believe we're over reacting. We certainly agree on one thing that this is a problematic site to build. Unfortunately we don't agree which one is the wrong plan. You made a statement that this is the wrong plan. Well, I think we have divided opinions which one is the wrong plan. I'm not sure there is a right plan at this point. It seems obvious, and the staff report states it and I think ultimately your deliberation Mr. Noecker made that plenty clear too, is that proposed Lake Lucy Ridge maximizes the number of home sites in this development. Your goal is to maximize and as such I still disagree with the staff finding that the proposed subdivision will cause some environmental damage. I believe it causes much. Much environmental damage. And that's obviously very significant finding and there's so many conditions here to try to mitigate and I want to commend staff for the effort you've made to try and put this in a framework to mitigate all the negative impacts and find something viable but obviously the developer chose not to consider hardly any of the significant suggestions so I cannot possibly envision how we could let this go forward without seeing what, where it's actually going. I mean it's just way too many things that were pointed out during the presentation of the applicant again as well. We would need to know specifics. What is the average 101 size? And rhen that leads me to the key point here. This development is a transition, According to t"~ comprehensive plan, the way I understand the comprehensive plan, it is a transition. There has to be a flow. In Ashling Meadows we have an average lot size of what is it? 22 or 25,000 or what? Blackowiak: I believe it's 28,000. Sacchet: Or even 28. 28,000, I've heard 28,000, Across from your development that you're proposing there is large lot which means a minimum of 2 V2 acres. So if you look at this in a context that the logical thing, and you mentioned your appeal to logic here too. The logical thing would be that the lot sizes in your development, the average lot size should be between 28,000 and 2 V2 acres. That's logical to me. And on that basis there's no way I could support changing that outlot designation in order to maximize the lot density, which doesn't mean I'm in support of having septic systems there in the end, but the current proposal does not warrant a concession like that. Blackowiak: Thank you. LuAnn. Sidney: I agree with my fellow commissioners' comments and I'd like to make a fcw hcrejust to make a few additional points. I agree it's a very complex site to develop which merits special consideration. And I think everyone here recognizes it will be developed at some point. The question before us tonight, is this the plan that we want to see go forward. One thing that really struck me is that we have huge changes in the grade from west to east and it seems like the current plan is much more appropriate for a flaller lot like something that would be in Blaine rather than the current situation in Chanhassen. And I view that a less dense development would be a beller transition zone, like UIi stated, and would be more appropriate for an executive neighborhood, I don't think that what we have before us is compatible as a . '. Planning Commission Meeting - January 15,2002 . transition between the two developments nearest to the proposed development. So I cannot support the change in the land use and cause this to promote a development which, like I said, I believe is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. I also want to state for the record that I feel that I have, well I do have some concerns about the process this application has followed. I strongly believe staff has diligently worked with the applicant and it seems like the applicant, from what we have heard tonight, has reached lillle agreement with staff. And also little agreement with the neighbors to this development and I support all of staff s recommendations and highly value their opinion and I think all developers that we have seen here have made some concessions and have worked effectively with staff on most all occasions. And I feel that the applicant needs to work more closely with the neighbors and staff to bring forward an application which everyone is going to have a good feeling about. Ijust cannot feel good about what we have before us tonight and that's feeling but back to the fact that I can't support the land use amendment because it is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan in my view. Blackowiak: Rich. Slagle: As far as the rezoning, I just could not support the rezoning application. And to be quite honest with you the applicant as well as others who might think of this lot, I really have a struggle as to how you could develop this any other way than the current situation that it's in today. I don't think it would be appropriate to have numerous homes as a result of a proposed zoning change. And I think as other commissioners have discussed, the density and the transition are just I think absolutely critical to this situation. And I know the applicant mentioned the development to the west, Ashling Meadows. Well there's no homes there. I would bet a dollar that if there were homes there, you would have this side of the room taken up by citizens, and again not that they don't want a development, but it is a transition from large lots to very nice lots and then it continues to Highover and up to Longacres and this just seems to be a situation where there are a number of homes that are being proposed and I think it's just too much and I don't think as Uli sort of suggested in a quiet way, it's not just I or 2 home sites. And obviously that's my viewpoint but I couldn't approve a rezoning. Blackowiak: Okay. Thank you. I agree with my fellow commissioners as well and I thought LuAnn would say my favorite phrase and she didn't. Is there a compelling reason? We go back to this so often in rezoning questions and land use amendments. You know what is the compelling reason for us to change and if we don't hear that reason. If we're not convinced that it's for the good of the community, the good of the property, then there's really no way that we can go ahead and say just because we want to do it we can do it. We need to hear good reasons and logic behind it. It's shown as part of the Lake Lucy Highlands right now. The Outlot A/B, whatever we're calling it, and it makes sense to leave it as such in the absence of any reason to the contrary to change it. Second thing. There's some strong neighborhood opposition to the plan and I think that we have to weigh that as well, and thank you all for coming. You did a great job tonight making your presentation and kept it very factual, which is often hard because it can be very emotional to hear changes that are proposed that you're not in agreement with. But tonight I didn't hear reasons for changing the land use so I would not be able to support any land use amendment or rezoning. With that I'll need a motion and I would refer, whoever wants to make itto page 19. Top of page 19. Sacchet: Yeah, Madam Chair. I'd like to make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the Land Use Map Amendment from Residential-Large Lot to Residential Low Density for Outlot A. Lake Lucy Highlands based on the following as stated with one correction. The last sentence should read, therefore the Planning Commission finds that the conversion of the easterly 7.07 acre outlot from Large Lot Residential to Low Density Residential is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Not may find but we do find that that's the case. And then further I'd like to move that the Planning 24 Planning Commission Meeting - January 15,2002 Commission denies the rezoning from RR, Rural Residential District to RSF, Single Family Residential for Outlot A, Lake Lucy Highlands and the westerly 11.5 acre parcel due to the following 1 through 3. And I'd like to move that the Planning Commission denies the preliminary plat of Subdivision 01-10 creating twenty one lots for the Lake Lucy Ridge subject to not complying with the land use designation and zoning requirements. And that the Planning Commission denies the Wetland Alteration Pennit 2001-3 for Lake Lucy Ridge based on the Wetland Alteration Pennit being a part of the Subdivision proposal for Lake Lucy Ridge and the Subdivision has been denied due to inconsistency with the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance requirements. Blackowiak: Okay, well unless there's any objections I'm going to, yes Rich, Slagle: Just a housekeeping. Do you want to add 2020 comprehensive plan? Sacchet: Yes, that's acceptable. Blackowiak: With the 2020, and that's in motion 4? Or in. Sacchet: That's in the first. Slagle: In the first. Sacchet: In the first, the last sentence. Slagle: I think it's somewhat obvious but we'd better put it. Sacchet: To be specific correct. Blackowiak: Okay. So unless anyone objects, I'm going to take all four of these motions. Aanenson: You can have them all as one. Blackowiak: Yeah, we'll vote on them all at once. Yes we'll need a second. Feik: I'll second all four. Blackowiak: Thank you. You're going too fast here for me, I'm sorry. I was looking for objections at first. I didn't see any so it's been moved and seconded that, as Vii stated, motions 1 through 4 for denial are in front of us. I don't know how I'm going to get out of this one. Sacchct movcd, Fcik scconded that the Planning Commission recommcnds dcnial of the Land Vse Map Amcndment from Residential-Large Lot to Residential Low Density for Outlot A, Lake Lucy Highlands based on thc following: Thc existing land use designation of the 7.07 acre outlot is for Residential Large Lot. This area has been devcloped with single homes on larger lots. Chanhassen is a high amenity community. One of the amcnities is that we have a range of residential land uses from large lot to high density. Maintaining this mixture is one of the city's goals. In addition, the community highly regards it's natural environmcnt including trees, slopes, vistas, and uncluttered open spaces. The development, as proposed, significantly impacts these features, Lake Lucy Highlands was developed as a Large Planning Commission Meeting - January 15,2002 Lot development and has maintained that character. The 7.07 acre outlot is regarded as a buffer or an undevelopable site unless it was demonstrated that a future structure would be able to meet wetland setback requirements. This language clearly demonstrates that at best, this site would accommodate two home sites, based upon lot area only. The proposed Lake Lucy Ridge maximizes the number of home sites within this area. Therefore, the Planning Commission finds that the conversion of the easterly 7.07 acre outlot from Large Lot Residential to Low Density Residential is inconsistent with the 2020 Comprehensive Plan. Also, that the Planning Commission denies the rezoning from RR, Rural Residential District to RSF, Single Family Residential for Outlot A, Lake Lucy Highlands and the westerly 11.5 acre parcel due to the following: 1. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be inconsistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed use does not confonn to all perfonnance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. 3. The proposed development incorporated the two parcels, therefore, the proposal can not proceed. Also, that the Planning Commission denies the preliminary plat of Subdivision 01-10 creating twenty one lots for the Lake Lucy Ridge subject to not complying with the land use designation and zoning requirements. Also, that the Planning Commission denies the Wetland Alteration Permit 2001·3 for Lake Lucy Ridge based on the Wetland Alteration Permit being a part of the Subdivision proposal for Lake Lucy Ridge and the Subdivision has been denied due to inconsistency with the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 7 to O. Blackowiak: This item goes to City Council on January 28"', so members of the audience, please make sure you follow this item through to that City Council meeting and see what happens there. Thank you everyone for conùng. We'll take a 3 nùnute break and we'll move onto the second item as soon as we get back. PUBLIC HEARING: REOUEST FOR VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF. RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 6890 NAVAJO DRIVE. MARK NELSON. Public Present: Name Address Don Peterson 6896 Navajo Drive Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. 26 City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 Councilman Peterson: That was mine too. I think to look at it again in 12 months and, because I think that sometimes you can become overly focused on trying to find a cleaner that says green on it, and even though it's within 10 percent of the price doesn't mean it's all that environmentally friendly but I've seen a lot of people buy stuff that they think it's environmentally friendly because it's got the word green on it and it's not as simple as that. Mayor Jansen: Okay. And thank you for bringing the proposal forward and suggesting this. I hope that you can in fact find some level of implementation to it. It's certainly admirable to know that with the amount of paperwork that the city does go through, that we are trying to be as conservative as we can. Todd Gerhardt: Jill did you mention that the Carver County also has a similar program like' this? Jill Sinclair: Yeah. Mayor Jansen: Okay. With that if! could have a motion please, Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve adopting the policy as submitted. Mayor Jansen: And a second. Councilman Boyle: Second. Resolution #2001·19: Councilman Peterson mo\'ed, Councilman Boyle seconded to approve the Environmental Preferable Purchasing Policy as submitted. All \'oted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to O. PRELIMINARY PLAT REOUEST TO REPLAT A 7.07 ACRE OUTLOT AND AN It.S ACRE LOT INTO 21 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND I OUTLOT: LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL LARGE LOT TO RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY: REZONING FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT: AND A WETLAND AL TERA TION PERMIT: LOCATED SOUTH OF LAKE LUCY ROAD. WEST OF LAKE LUCY, AND EAST OF ASHLlNG MEADOW SUBDIVISION. LAKE LUCY RIDGE. NOECKER DEVELOPMENT. Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The applicant has asked for an extension, r just wanted to go through a few brief points with the City Council. Just because there's some concern with the staff. We've been working with this applicant for over a year. When it went to Planning Commission we had recommended some changes. The Planning Commission did ask the applicant if they were willing to make the changes, and the applicant at that time said no. So the Planning Commission felt like it was inconsistent with a land use change, therefore all the other requested proposals fell by the wayside. I just want to share with you briefly some of the changes that we had, because we'd just like a little bit of direction if we're going, you have 2 choices. One is to support what the Planning Commission did, and thaI would be to recommend denial and have it come back for findings. Or allow the applicant for an extension. Councilman Ayotte: Allow the applicant what? Mayor Jansen: An extension. City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 Kate Aanenson: Again, this is off Lake Lucy Road. There is a land use change on this proposal and that's what the Planning Commission recommended against the land use change because of the change between the large lot, which is on the other map. The large lot property, and as it moves toward the Lundgren subdivision. The concern that the staff has was the amount of grading. There are bluffs in the area which is the darkest green. The staff had reconunended in order to reduce the amount of grading and give lots that were allowed for additions of patios and decks and a back yard that didn't slope off, that the road be moved. This would result in a number of lots being lost. So what the staff is looking for for direction, if the council does choose to allow the applicant the extension of time, is that you give direction to the applicant. And I'm not sure there's anybody here representing the applicant tonight, of the expectations because, and what we heard from the Planning Commission and the staff s recommendation is dropping one lot, was not significant enough to make the changes in order to make the transition with the large lot rezoning. So the other point I wanted to make is he did ask for an extension to March 15th and that does not work in our timeframe for the staff. Councilman Ayotte: It does or does not? Kate Aanenson: Does not. We're requesting at least a 60 day, and just looking at the time frame, one of the things that we would, if it does go back to the Planning Commission, is the neighbors were deeply concerned. Again, you've got a large lot, 2 Yz acre on one side and the average lot of over 20,000 on the other side and the concern was the transition, So in order to go back to the Planning Commission and hold a public hearing and get the neighbors informed, we need the 60 days, which will probably take us out closer to first part of April. So if you are going to give the extension, his letter says the March 15th, and we really need 60 days. We couldn't turn it around that quick at the City Council. Get you a Planning Commission hearing and back. 5J Mayor Jansen: So when you're saying first part of April, do you have a date in mind? That we would be communicating. Councilman Boyle: Or first Planning Commission meeting? Kate Aanenson: It would be the first City Council meeting in April. Mayor Jansen: In April? Kate Aanenson: Yes, I had April 8th on my, I believe that's the first City Council meeting. Councilman Boyle: When would it go back to Planning, would you guess? Kate Aanenson: I looked at most likely it would be March 19th. That'd give you a month to turn around, because we haven't seen any changes to date and he's not here to give us the timeframe. Mayor Jansen: And I'll share with you here that he did call me shortly before the meeting and it was my fault for not being available. I was in a meeting all day, that he wasn't able to conununicate to me until later this afternoon that he would very much like the extension to be able to work with staff prior to going back to the Planning Commission. This is one of those issues that I have sat through now twice as the liaison on the Planning Commission so I did clearly conununicate what we would need to have happen, and that in fact we would not be addressing revisions here at the council meeting, That we do rely on the Planning Commission and the Planning Commissioners I thought were very specific in their comments as to what the needs are for the revisions. So he has expressed his willingness to come in and 45 City Council Meeting - January 2S, 2002 work with staff. I can certainly maybe help be sure that he is in fact moving in the direction before it goes back to Planning Commission so this does not end up belabored to Kate's point as far as our giving clear direction as to what we would like to see happen. I do think, and Kate correct me if you disagree. I thought the Planning Commission, if we can direct him along the lines of their comments, it would be, he should be able to come in with a project well guided br their comments. Kate Aanenson: Right. Staff would concur. We certainly want to work with the applicant. He was asked specifically if he was willing to make the changes and we've been asking him for over a year and the Planning Commission at that point said, then we have to recommend denial because they didn't support the land use change. So again the proposal for you tonight, just two choices. One i~ to recommend the denial with the motions in the staff report with the City Attorney coming back with the findings of fact, or to grant the extension. And I need clarification from the City Attorney because he did give us the date of March IS"' and I'm not sure that's going to give us enough time. Roger Knutson: I think what you could do, if you want to is you could tell him that you need until, what is it. April S"'? Kate Aanenson: April S"', yeah. And that's the outside one but I believe that's up there. Roger Knutson: You need til April S"' to properly review, to bring this back through thereview process so he has a choice. He can give us an extension til AprilS'" or you'll take this up at your next City Council meeting and you'll. Mayor Jansen: Deny. Kate Aanenson: Okay again, just for clarification. The 120 days ends on February 22"', and I believe your next meeting is the I I"' so we should stay within that. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Okay, good, Kate Aanenson: So we could put that on consent if that's, with the letter, that's my understanding, Ifhe does give us an additional letter or it would be on the regular agenda if we don't get the letter. Roger Knutson: Ifhe gives you the letter, you wouldn't need to do anything. The council tonight could say we'll, we will grant, we will table action on this consistent with the instructions you want to give him, including the fact that he'd better give us an extension until AprilSu,. Or rather than go through a review process that won't be adequate, you'll take this up to your, at your next City Council meeting and act appropriately. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Councilman Boyle: Have you got that? Mayor Jansen: And also as a part of our motion, and why don't Ijust go ahead with this. I'm going to move that the City Council grant the extension to the applicant to April S'" so that proper revisions can be made, working with staff as directed by the Planning Commission, moving this project then in it's revised state back to the Planning Commission for review. . ..an extension to April S"'. Do I have a second? City Council Meeting - January 28, 2002 Councilman Peterson: Second. Mayor Jansen moved, Councilman Peterson seconded that the City Council grant an extension for Lake Lucy Ridge so that proper revisions can be made, working with staff as directed by the Planning Commission to move this project in it's revised state back through the Planning Commission and to City Council by April 8, 2002. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to O. Mayor Jansen: In fact Kate, it might be helpful in this situation to maybe bullet point the issues that the Planning Commission and yourselves are suggesting as revisions to the plans, just so we do have it clearly documented and communicated. As I said, I did speak with him today and made that direction pretty clear I think as to what we were looking for as far as his working with yourself. Thank you. REOUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO DEVELOP WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT: CONCEPT AND PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS: SUBDIVISION TO CREATE TWO LOTS AND TWO OUTLOTS ON 8.52 ACRES: AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 3.960 SO. FT. CONVENIENCE STORE AND A 2.873 SO. FT. CAR WASH: LOCA TED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BLVD.. GALPIN BUSINESS PARK: WCL ASSOCIATES. € Kate Aanenson: I'll try to make this brief but they've been waiting here all night and so we'll try to give you a little bit of the project overview. This piece, the VanDeVeire piece is being available...based on the West 78th road going through and providing access to the development. This is being rezoned. There's actually 4 requests for you, and that's put on that executive summary. It needs a rezoning to PUD and this, the staff believes this is an excellent example of the use of the PUD in the Bluff Creek Overlay District, and I'll just take a minute to go through that. It's also a subdivision, a conditional use for development within the secondary zone, and also a site plan review. The application of the PUD request is actually because with the West 78th project there's a remnant piece on the north side and in order to protect the creek and yet go back and landscape it, the PUD allows the transfer of the impervious surface within the project so it's actually a win/win situation. This is the proposed Kwik Trip as it's coming in for site plan review. The Planning Commission had several issues with the overall site plan, Some of the neighbors got up and spoke regarding lighting, as looking at it from the Walnut Grove area. Included in your packet was the cross section of the lighting. We spent a lot oftime in working with the applicant, it was an all brick building. I'll pass around the materials in a minute, but we were really pleased with the way that it laid out and actually the best side of the building, all brick has been changed. They made modifications to the site plan and the car wash. We've asked that they both be brick. Original for the car wash was block. We've added changes, asked for changes. What they've made for the building. but you'll have a brick building with windows on the back side, West 78th and the extra canopy will be on the front. And then you have anothlOr building so actually the canopy's kind of sandwiched inbetween which we think adds to reducing the light issues, but the neighbors in Walnut Grove were concerned aboutlighl. We had them do a cross section, if you can zoom in on this quite a bit. This would be the Walnut Grove area. Looking across the creek through the gas station, you won't see the canopy, which was our intent when we originally worked with the applicant on that. So we think that's, and we did provide this infonnation to the neighbors so they can review that. So with that, being the fact that it's all brick, they've asked for changes. The color renderings that you see in your packets, there has been modifications since then. One of the other requests that they had made was for a pylon sign. If you're adjacent to Highway 5, you can go 20 feet in height. The Planning Commission wanted 47 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 5, 2002 Chairwoman BIackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Blackowiak, Deb Kind, LuAnn Sidney, Rich Slagle, Uli Sacchet and Bruce Peik MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Claybaugh STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmin Al-Jaff, Senior Planner: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Matt Saam, Project Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet Paulsen Steven Lillehaug George & Connie St. Martin Tom Schmall 7305 Laredo Drive 1441 Heron Drive 9231 Audubon Road 2224 Stone Creek Drive OLD BUSINESS: CONSIDER THE REOUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLA T A 7.07 ACRE OUTLOT AND 11.5 ACRE LOT (18.57 ACRES) INTO 17 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND ONE OUTLOT. LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL LARGE LOT TO RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY. REZONING FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT. AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF LAKE LUCY ROAD. WEST OF LAKE LUCY AND EAST OF ASHLING MEADOWS SUBDIVISION. LAKE LUCY RIDGE. NOECKER DEVELOPMENT. Public Present: Name Address John Caughron Tedd Mattke Ronald Noecker Eric Rivkin 6560 Devonshire Drive Mattke Surveying & Engineering 8315 Pleasant View Drive 1695 Steller Court Sharmin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, before we start Ijust want to make a comment. We have seen this twice before us so in an effort to kind of move it forward, I would hope we could kind of focus on changes that have been made to the plans that we've seen. and not try to rehash what's been before us. And let's just make sure that we save our comments for the comment period and let's clear up any questions we have right now about changes that we've seen since the last application. So with that, do we have any questions for staff! Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 Sidney: Yes Madam Chair. To follow Alison's comments, I'm wondering if you could review just briefly what changes have occurred since we saw this last. Al-Jaff: Sure. The initial application that appeared before you had 22 lots. We started with 22 lots. Now we're down to 17 lots, The average lot size was approximately 16,000. I need to look that up. The average lot size when we first started was 18,114 square feet, which included wetland areas. The plan before you today is at 23,000, The buildable area, or useable area on each lot was minimal. One of the concerns that staff had was, there were no yards, The revised plan that is before you provides quite a bit of yard around each house pad. So there has been improvements as far as the layout of the lots, What we're, oh one of the other conditions that initially staff had was moving Lucy Ridge Lane 80 feet to the west. To the east. The applicant has moved the road 45 feet, and again it provides some yards. We have lost additional vegetation, additional trees than the first one that you saw, and again as I mentioned earlier, Matt has some conditions. He reviewed the grading on this portion of the site and believes that some of the big trees can be saved. Blackowiak: Thank you, 'r Sidney: One more question for staff, and this has to do with the sewer line that would be stubbed in. Is this unusual in this kind of development, is this development premature if we're talking about we're really wanting to have the second phase of Ashling Meadow development, sewer services you know to this plat or parcel, and yet we're going to do something different in the meantime, Could you address that Matt? r;: ~ , Saam: Sure. Let's see, where should I begin? I don't know how unusual this is, It does have sewer nearby. Of course it needs the sewer to be extended through Ashling Meadows 2nd Addition. The applicant has petitioned the city to extend the sewer lines through Ashling Meadows if they don't develop say by this summer. We have agreed, one of the conditions through is to, was for him to submit this and to have it receive preliminary plat approval before we go ahead with designing the sewer line, incur those types of costs so, We don't believe it's a big issue, If this receives approval from the City Council, then we'll go ahead with the petition to extend the sewer line. We've had discussions with the development owners to the west, Lundgren Brothers. Made them aware of it. So we don't believe from an engineering standpoint it's a big issue. Sidney: So it's not premature? Saam: No, we don't believe so. Sidney: Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: Questions, go ahead. Slagle: Just an update, On page 9, Sharrnin you list that the applicant has implemented all ofthe above recommendations with the exception of moving Emerald Lane. Looks like they're suggesting 45 feet versus recommended 80. Is the plan that's on here 80 or 45? AI-Jaff: 45. Slagle: Okay. Any thoughts on that from your perspective? It's workable? 2 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 Al-Jaff: I will ask Matt. If we're looking at grading, I would request that Matt answers the question. Saam: I guess from our opinion we would, or our department had recommended 80 feet. We think that would be the best situation. We think this can work with the conditions that we implemented so that's where we stand. Slagle: Okay. Blackowiak: Questions? Peik: A couple. Staff, in Outlot A. At one time that, where Outlot A is currently, was to be a lot. If this goes forward, what would be the status of Outlot A going forward in that, would the residents moving into this development be assured that Outlot A would not be developed in the future? Al-Iaff: Yes. It's entirely wetland and we're talking about Outlot A. Peik: That's all wetland now? Okay. Al-Iaff: Correct. This Outlot A? Feik: Yes. Because there was a lot that was closer to Lake Lucy before. Al-Iaff: That's all wetland. Feik: Also Block 2, the 3 home sites on Block 2. They do not have full basement capabilities at this time? Saam: No. They do have full basements, I think they're walkouts and lookouts though and we recommended making them basically a ramble type pad with a full basement. So no walkout availability from the basement level. Feik: I see. I wasn't clear On that. Okay, that's it for now, Thanks, Blackowiak: Okay, questions. Kind: Yes Madam Chair. A couple questions. Changing the road right-of-way back to 60 feet, will that affect the building pad area? AI-Iaff: They should have enough room to adjust. It will be 5 feet on either side, 5 to the north, 5 to the south and they should be able to meet the minimum requirements. Kind: So they still get to keep all their lots. This comp plan discussion about large lot subdivisions needing to approve lots in their neighborhood. I went back to the minutes from our last meeting trying to get a handle on this and I still don't really understand it and I want to be clear on this. The comp plan says large lot subdivisions. This is on 12 of the comp plan if anybody wants to follow. Large lot subdivisions that do not have city sewer or water shall be allowed to remain as is without requiring urban services even when they are in the MUSA area until the majority of the residents want/request to change their use, And then later on in that paragraph it says, if at some time the majority of the households/residents, more than 50 percent petition to have their zoning changed and urban services, city 3 Planning Conunission Meeting - March 5, 2002 sewer and water brought to the property, then they can further subdivide their property. My question is, is this more of a sewer and water issue and the policy is in there to prohibit one property owner from compelling the rest ofthe people in the subdivision to hook up to sewer and water? Is that what it's about? Or is it about getting permission to subdivide? Aanenson: We've had requests for large lot subdivisions. For example, in Timberwood when Stone Creek went through. Some of the people that were on the edge of that, to tie into it. Be able to split their lots, and that's where this came up. We put that policy in place. Rezoning is a legislative decision, We just put that in there for some criteria for people that have bought into a rural, large lot. That someone in the middle of it doesn't try to get access to sewer and change the character. Again the staffs position on this is the best way to get access to this parcel, while it's a part of that neighborhood, we would agree. It's topographically separated. You cannot get to it through a driveway off of Lake Lucy. The best way to get access to this property, whether it's large lot or subdivided is through the development of this piece of property that's before you tonight. To the outlot. Kind: And is staffs opinion, in order for the city to grant rezoning we do not get, need to give permission from the owners? ',õ , Aanenson: Correct. Kind: To change rezoning. If an individual owner wanted to subdivide it, that would be a scenario where they need to get permission. Aanenson: Correct. Kind: I think I'm understanding this. Okay. I just, I wanted to really be clear on that and make sure. Aanenson: Just to be clear, one more thing. There is a consistency with the comp plan that does require, and there has to be some findings. And again that's the staff s position in the findings is that again it's an access issue and as you said, sewer and water provide that. But the rezoning should be consistent with the comprehensive plan or you have to change the comprehensive plan or you have to change the comprehensive plan with some rationale basis and that's what we were giving you, That basis to make that decision. Kind: Great. Another quick question. Page 10 talks about erosion control and it brought to mind this erosion control area around pond, I don't even know what the number of it is, but it has this section in here where it left in the applicant left in the question that the Planning Conunission and Council can choose between a 4 foot retaining wall or a buffer with 3 to I slope with wildflower seed mix. What's staff s opinion on that? Last time we said we wanted a 4 foot retaining wall. Where are we at? Al-Jaff: The Water Resource Engineer and the Park Director sat in my office and had a discussion over which one would be preferable. Basically what will happen is, assuming that we have a 4 foot retaining wall, you have a trail and then a retaining wall that drops 4 feet down, and then you will have the edge of your wetland, The other alternative would be to have a 3 to 1 slope, that's steeper than 3 to 1. But a 3 to I slope with native vegetation to the wetland. For safety reasons, staff is leaning towards the 2 to 1 slope versus a retaining wall. If for any reason someone would fall off the trail, they would fall 4 feet is a long way. Kind: And I heard you say native species versus wildflowers which are. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 Al-Jaff: Correct. Kind: Okay, So that probably should be a condition if we decide to go forward with this. Oh, on page 12 of the staff report. That's where we talk about the tree preservation and that only.9 acres, about 1 acre is being saved of the original 6 V, acres of canopy area, I'm trying to figure out a way to mitigate that because we were pretty clear about what we wanted the applicant to come back with to preserve more of that. Would it be reasonable to suggest adding more plantings than what is nonnally required as a way to mitigate that? Aanenson: The ordinance, the landscaping ordinance is in place to reconcile that. That's what we have to follow. If you're taking trees out, then you have to... Kind: But in trade-off for the rezoning, could we say you need to go above and beyond that? Aanenson: Well, as a general rule we don't put mitigation on a rezoning, Either it meets the test or it doesn't. If you put in a variance or the other, that's why the engineering conditions were such that in order to mitigate some of that, or try to save some more of those trees, Matt's recommendation was to minimize some of that grading on the back of that cul-de-sac so Ithink that's where we're trying to save more of those trees. At the end of that cul-de-sac, Kind: Okay. I think that's it. Saam: If I can add something. It's just a simple fact with this site, and I've tried to tell Sharmin that, that with 60 feet of drop on a little site like this, there's going to be grading, There's going to be tree loss, What we try and do as staff is minimize that so, I know it's tough to, and I know UIi loves mature trees but there's going to be some loss. Sacchet: I haven't even said anything yet. Kind: We're getting to Uli. That's it for my questions. Take it away Uli. Sacchet: Alright. Yes, Madam Chair, I do have questions, My first question was, has there been any dialogue with the neighbors that you're aware of? Aanenson: Have they been informed of the changes? Sacchet: Yeah, I mean has there been any discussion in terms of trying to address the neighbor's concerns or? Slagle: With the applicant. Sacchet: I guess I'll ask that of the applicant. Gives you a preview of what I'm going to ask you, On page 9. We're really talking about Lake Lucy Ridge, not Emerald Lane that has to move over 80 feet and was moved 45, correct? AI-Jaff: Correct. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 Sacchet: Ijust want to be clear about that. Now, I think it's very commendable that the applicant has implemented all recommendations with exception of that. Did we really get what we need out of this? That's the second question. But if we would insist that this road gets moved 80 feet, what would be the impact and what would be the benefits? That's probably for you Matt, Saam: Sure. What we were trying to get at last time was additional, let me step up. Yeah the applicant, last time the road was approximately here. We had asked them to move it over 80 feet. He did 45. What we were trying to get at was additional room on this side for drainage swales. To stay away from the steep slopes. Basically if you're dropping 10 feet and you have a wider area to do it, the slope doesn't have to be a steep, that's what we were trying to get at. To try to match in with the existing topography a little better. So that's the basis of the recommendation. Sacchet: So we got some of that? Saam: Yeah. Yep, we got some of it. Sacchet: Did we get enough? , " , Saam: I guess that's for you guys to determine. I would still stand by my 80 foot recommendation, but that's where we stand. Sacchet: Okay. Now, that's actually another question in terms of the grading aspect. Because it's pretty severe grading, and it's basically grading everywhere except in bluff areas, is that a fair statement? Saam: Basically. yes. Sacchet: And I mean if somebody wants to grade their lot, that's kind of their business, If they want to reverse the slope so they can look out the basement in the back, even though the slope goes this way, they want to look, they're free to do, right? However, at this point it means that they cut literally every single tree except those in the bluff, is that correct? Saam: Yes, that's what this plan is showing. Sacchet: From an engineering viewpoint, does that work? You have a slope like that. You make it steeper so you go like this so you can look out the back window into the dirt or, I mean is that engineering wise workable or are you going to have water problems? Saam: W ell let me address that this way. That's what precipitated the conditions that I added this time, and I'll just touch on those. In this Block 2, all these lots with the exception of Lot 3 here, these two are lookouts, and yeah the hill coming down here. That's why we recommended making those a flat, rambler type lot instead of digging into the slope to create a greater slope and more grading, let's try and match in. Sacchet: How about the ones on the west side of Block I? Isn't it even more severe in those cases? Saam: The west side of Block 1. Right here? Sacchet: Yeah, I mean those 4 lots. Isn't there the slope even more severe and it's reversed even more drastically than in those on the bottom in Block 2? 6 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 Saam: Yes, yep. But you do have conditions to address this too. Sacchet: Only one of the 4 lots though isn't it? Saam: Lot 4, Sacchet: I think it's Lot 4, right. Saam: Lot 4. is that the one? Sacchet: That is the one you asked to turn around. Saam: I think I also said Lot 3, to change the elevations of that one to match in a little better. I've got the plan that I sketched on, if you want to show that. Sacchet: Yeah, I think you did answer my question though, Thanks Matt. Appreciate it. I do have more questions though, In terms of the tree preservation, I have a couple quick questions. Just to be real clear what's currently, well it's probably an applicant question, What's currently staked on the lot as tree preservation does not reflect the current plan I presume, As far as you know that's accurate? AI-J aff: That's an accurate statement. Sacchet: Now, and again they're basically clear-cutting everything except the two bluff areas, is that correct? And the wetland buffer. There might be some things growing in there. Al-Jaff: Up to this point. Sacchet: Okay, Now, in terms of based on our ordinance, we're asking for re-planting at the 1.2 multiplier rate and it never hit me before, even though I must have seen this several times is that we're asking for I tree for more than 1,000 square feet of canopy. Okay. Just, I want everybody to just be very clear about that. We get I little tree, 2 Y2 caliper in place of 1,000 square feet of canopy, so I think that's something we really have to be clear about. And my understanding's correct about that? Al-J aff: Yes. Sacchet: Okay. One question I have, with the lot sizes we're actually in pretty good shape relatively speaking where we were the last time certainly, it's comparable to some of the other developments in that area like Lake Lucy, Pointe Lake Lucy. Is that one there or White Tail Cove? But what startles me is, those two developments, there are a lot of trees left. So why is this because, and they're not flat either there. Al-J aff: There was tree loss, Sacchet: Of course it's tree loss but here they're all going to be down pretty much, except marginally. Aanenson: It's sloping one direction, this isn't. Al-Jaff: Correct. It ends with a cul-de-sac. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 Sacchet: 1'm trying to understand, and I know it might be an unfair question but. Aanenson: It's a different piece of property. Sacchet: It's a different piece of property, It's a different developer, It's a different everything. Aanenson: ...right, it's different. It's not the same, right. Sacchet: But my question is, if it was possible in those other two developments that aren't flat either, and had some challenge I would expect, why can't we get anywhere here with this? Aanenson: You have certain fixed touchdown points. One is coming from Ashling Meadows, That's a fixed point. You have to meet that point. The other point is coming on Lake Lucy Road. You have to meet that. The other's going towards the property to the south. Those are 3 points you have to meet at a certain elevation. Within that you have to maintain certain grades so that herein comes the challenge, Now you had a different situation. You had one touchdown point coming off of Lake Lucy for the other subdivision going down. ~ Sacchet: So that helped, okay, Aanenson: Right, you didn't have 3 points you were trying to balance. That's completely different. Sacchet: Alright. Now there's a real interesting statement in the staffreport on page 13, Where we say the applicant basically meets the tree ordinance, but fails to meet the intent of the ordinance in terms of preserving natural wooded environments. Soil stabilization, Reducing storm water runoff, wildlife habitat, quality of life. This development has met ordinance requirements for reforestation replacement and buffer yard plantings, but staff believes it fails to meet the intent of the ordinance, Could you add a little more to that? It's a tough one, AI-J aff: We have a formula in the ordinance to replace trees that are removed. And it meets the ordinance requirements. Sacchet: But apparently there's more to the ordinance, There's an intent that goes beyond. Al-Jaff: We always try to save as many trees as possible. However in this case, and due to the steep grades of the site, grading is taking place. Sacchet: Would it be fair to say that that intent is not just the ordinance, but possibly things that are anchored in the comp plan? Comprehensive plan. We'll get to that in comments, One last, I think it's my last question. Or one of the last ones, Now, just to be really clear. In your findings, like we always have a list of findings, in this case for the subdivision. If I, as a planning commissioner do not agree with one of those findings, basically that's enough to not go with that proposal, is that correct? We have to agree with all the findings? I mean one negative finding makes the whole thing go? Aanenson: However you want to vote and, ..on a rational basis, Whatever you want to base it on. Sacchet: That's all my questions, thank you. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 Blackowiak: Rich, questions? Slagle: Just a couple, Sharmin or Kate. Just want to confirm that the land use plan amendment, the staffs perspective or position is that we would, you're suggesting a change to it because of access? This would be in essence landlocked or what not. Now is it also true though, if we did not.. .on that outlot, or excuse me that 7 acre, and then I'mjust throwing out a number, 6 home sites on the other, you could access those 2 home sites through his development? You could require that, correct? Aanenson: Yes. Slagle: Okay, so it's not, so it's a planned use amendment that is not necessarily, if we deny it, it's not going to mean those, that 7 acres are landlocked? It just means that someone's going to have to come up with a new development to get to those. So I just want to make sure, is that correct? Aanenson: Right. Again piece that's part of the Lake Lucy Highlands that's the one outlot, has wetland in front of it. Slagle: I'm with you. I'm with you. Aanenson: Right, so Ijust want to make sure everybody's clear. That in our opinion instead offiIling the wetland to get to it, the best way to service it would be to come the other direction instead of going north/south/east/west. Slagle: I'm with you as long as this remains an individual lot. If you connected it with this other lot and made a connection road to the street, you could still potentially have the same access on Lake Lucy. Aanenson: Right. It still could get access that way. It would take a wetland alteration permit, and some environmental. Slagle: Exactly. It'd be less homes basically, perhaps. Aanenson: Or more environmental impact or, right. There's some balance, checks and balances, Slagle: So I just want to clarify that. The second thing is a question to Matt. If we stayed with the 80 feet Matt, hypothetically, on Lake Lucy Ridge Lane, what in your opinion would happen to Lot 6 in Block 3, 7 in Block 3 and yeah, 6 and 7 in Block 3 I think. Would those perhaps not be buildable? And maybe that's a tough question. Saam: Well another related issue with that 80 feet, or with the last plan I should say that the applicant submitted, Lucy Ridge Lane was also moved to the west, so all those house pads came up to the west more, So if you go back to where Lucy Ridge Lane was before, then you'd have the room to move, to keep the same number of lots that he shows, and move the road over. Do you follow that? Slagle: Sure, yeah. I'm with you, Saam: Okay. Feik: I don't. Do that again please? 9 Saam: Here, let me go over it. Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 Blackowiak: Net effect, where did we start and where do we? Blackowiak: Thank you, You said he moved west, so there'd be a negative number there and, walk us through. Saam: Lucy Ridge Lane, this moved, it used to be approximately here say. It was moved over to the west now. Blackowiak: Okay, excuse me. Would that be iteration 1 or iteration 2? The first one. Saam: It was the one that was before you the last time. Blackowiak: So it would be the second one that we saw? Saam; Yeah. Blackowiak: So it's moved substantially to the west since we saw it? f¡ , Saam: It's moved, 1 don't know about substantially. It's moved 40 feet maybe. About that. So, if you move this road back, then you can get the 80 feet here and on my sketch that I did on my desk, you kept the same number of lots, Slagle: Just not as deep perhaps? Saam: Yeah. Some other stuff may have to be moved. The cul-de-sac would be. This was also moved since the last plan. A lot of little things were tweaked but in essence they all add up to kind of a big change so, do you follow that? So you keep the same number of lots Rich, if that was your question, It wouldn't affect them. Slagle; Okay. And then if! may the last, just thought for, just to throw out a thought. Vii's question, Commissioner Sacchet's question about the tree loss. I mean the analogy of the lots, the developments to the east I think is important because I think it, as an average citizen, if I had seen those parcels before they developed and see them now, I would tend to think that gosh, they saved some big trees. And to think that literally almost every single tree in that development, or proposed development that we're looking at today will be gone, and replaced by small trees. I mean simply put. And so I don't know which way I'm going on this, but that to me just that visual is interesting to see. So anyway, that's about it. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. I don't have any questions at this point so would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? If so, please come up to the podium and state your name and address for the record, Randy Noecker: My name's Randy Noecker. I'm the developer. Blackowiak: Okay you know you can move the mic if you'd like to so we can all hear, Thank you. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 Randy Noecker; I've basically, inbetween in our last meeting I came in with a plan with 19 lots and some, the staff made additional recommendations that I've changed, and we have a plan before us now that was recommended to achieve by staff, and we've tried to accommodate all of the different aspects that staff had recommended, with the exception that we've been talking about this 80 feet. And if I may here, if your down in this area, this part of the road.. ,move 2 feet and 4 feet. And then when you get to the intersection of Emerald Lane and Lucy Ridge Lane, this area in here, I believe it moved about 55 or 60 feet from the original. But I may be mistaken on that. And this road over here moved about, approximately 30 to 32 feet, somewhere in there is my recollection. And one of the things that Tedd and I, my engineer, the difficulties that we had, we looked at these lots over here. Their proximity to the cul- de-sac. We literally go down about 3 to 1 slope behind the houses to the cul-de-sac and hence I've wiped out a number of trees that from the first plan we were trying to save. And by moving this road over, I can relate to the desires of staff but I can remember way back when when Matt made the suggestion. He said Randy, instead of a cul-de-sac here we really want to have a continuation of Lucy Ridge Lane and so follow the ridge as the recommendation. In fact that's how I came up with the name. He called it a ridge road so I came up with Lucy Ridge Lane, you know. Well, what's happened here on this road right in here, when this road was over here 40 to 50 feet, we were on top of the fann road. We were following the ridge. But when we moved it out 60 feet or 45 feet or whatever number you want to use, we moved it off the ridge and into the slope. And when you've got a slope here and when you're putting the road here, and now you move it over here, this catch up distance between the existing and the 3 to 1 slope, it takes a long time for them two to meet and so hence what you have is a vast majority of the trees being wiped out here that you had... Prom the beginning I've indicated that it's an extremely difficult site to develop. We just...causes a chain reaction and it's been difficult, to say the least. I don't know what else to say. We've followed staff recommendations and I haven't seen the additional report here that you have this evening but as to what we have before us, I feel it's a very viable plan. It's got what I would refer to as more than adequate sizes to lots, but I just feel it's a good plan. Yes, it does wipe out a lot of trees, but I think Matt has even indicated that when you've got a topographical drop of 60 feet and the conditions that you have to pinpoint, it just creates a site that doesn't give you a lot of ability to move so we just end up wiping out the trees. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Commissioners, any questions of the applicant? Slagle; Mr. Noecker if you can answer this for me. When you proposed having that road, which I guess would be more west than it currently is on the plan, Lake Lucy Ridge, What was the reason given that it couldn't follow that ridge line? Was it because of the access or the stub to the south? They wanted that more east? And Matt if you want to chime in, you can. I'mjust curious. Randy Noecker; I need a clarification there, I lost you. Slagle; Okay. You were saying that the original farm road is where you had your road, correct? Randy Noecker; In this area, yep, Slagle; Okay. What I am suggesting is, and help me out for memory sake but why weren't you allowed to just continue that road south? And make the cul-de-sac as you originally wanted to the south, Randy Noecker; Staff wanted to have an access point going into the property to the south, Slagle: And I guess my question, well maybe it's a staff question later, If you want to address it now we can. 11 Aanenson: Sure. It's the same question you asked me before of Outlot A. We have to provide access. We can't landlock somebody. Provide access to a parcel. Planning Comnússion Meeting - March 5, 2002 Slagle: I'm with you but I guess my question is, could we, and maybe it's too late but could you have had a stub going south in Ashling Meadows at that, you know further west. Aanenson: There is one. Slagle: So that's not enough for the property south? AI-Jaff: The topography on the parcel to the south requires those two stubs. Slagle: Okay, Because if you didn't have to have a stub, it actually would improve this development from just a grading, you know land, wouldn't it? I mean if you could have a cul-de-sac at the end of this road versus a through street, you could work with these lots I think easier. ~., .J " AI-Jaff: This road right now is really not requiring that much grading, It matches the existing elevation as it touches the property to the south. ,~ Slagle: Okay. I guess what I'm saying though, the position of this road, Lake Lucy Ridge Road, either east or west, which is what we're discussing 45 or 80 feet, is predicated on that being a connector street or a through street. If it wasn't, is what I'm saying, if it was a cul-de-sac down at that part, it might be easier but obviously there's nothing we can do at this point. Because at some point the 45 feet or the 80 feet becomes a question and how that affects the lots becomes a question that we have to decide tonight. Randy Noecker: Yeah we looked, again Tedd and I looked at the placement of this road and we identified with staff s recommendation to move it 80, but in our judgment by moving this in the way that we did, it was a compromise between these houses on both sides of the road, We had to deal with the drop to the cul-de-sac on this side, and we had to try to keep these houses far enough away from the bank to give us a drainage issue requirement. So it was kind of like, you know it was a compromise to make both ofthem work. Saam: Rich, if I could just add something, I don't think the issue with the street going to the south is as a big a determining factor in where the location of that Lucy Ridge Lane is. I don't think it is because he moved it from the last plan so it's not like that's set in stone and, I think that's what you were getting at. Slagle: Yeah, and I guess I'm just wondering when I ask the question of those two lots to you earlier, if you moved that Lake Lucy Ridge Lane further east another 45 feet, what happens to those lots? Could they in essence be unbuildable? Randy Noecker: We would likely just make retaining walls down here. Slagle: Okay. Randy Noecker: There's no, I don't see a logical reason to move the road. It doesn't generate enough, I mean I don't know what, how much more a guy would be looking for in the back end ofthese houses. We've got plenty of drainage right now. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 Slagle: Then I've got to get off this and go to Matt and just say, Matt you're suggesting or hoping or saying that you would like 80 feet. And I guess I'mjust saying, is the 80 feet, you know you're sticking to that or not. Saam: Well we didn't make it a condition this time, I would still stand by that as being better so to speak than this. However, what they did here I added conditions to make that acceptable also. So I guess it's up to you guys to decide and the council which way we should go. I would stick by the 80 though if I had. Randy Noecker: Matt, in sticking by the 80 have you looked on how far that would push these lots to the cul-de-sac? I don't think the change would be,.. Saam: Yeah, I went off the second plan though I think that you submitted, the last one they reviewed. So like I said, that cul-de-sac moved, Lucy Ridge Lane, the connection to the south moved so it would be a different plan than what you're showing now. But I think it could work. Blackowiak: Okay, any other questions for the applicant? VIi, question? Sacchet: Yeah, Mr. Noecker. My question I had before to staff. There was no dialogue with the neighbors or seeing how their concerns played with this or was there an effort made in that context? Blackowiak: I guess Uli, can I clarify? Since this last plan, is that what you're talking about? Sacchet: Yes. Blackowiak: The last, okay, Sacchet: Since the last plan. Because there were all the concerns. Randy Noecker: Since the last time I've had a Mr. Sather communicate with me. Lives nearby. Otherwise I haven't. I've had many conversations with Mr. Rivkin, but I haven't other than those two, and individuals that I stopped and talked to and introduced myself and shared with them. Those were people directly on the north side of Lake Lucy and even in the Steller Court area, that I stopped and talk with most of those neighbors in the beginning so, tried to get different feelings about how they were but, you know. Sacchet: Okay. One thing that still perplexes me considerably, and I brought this up before with staff, And I didn't catch this fully, and it probably was the case in the previous plan too. And I didn't see it in the current plan until I really studied in detail. It's, you have like your Block 1, the lots on the west side, it's basically a slope that goes one way, and if I'm understanding you made that slope steeper so that you can have a slope the other way so you can have lookout houses. Is that correct? Randy Noecker: Well. Sacchet: I mean I'm over simplifying but. Randy Noecker: You, more prevalent in those 4 houses in Block 1 is a 40 to 50 foot drop going north. And so your lookout or your walkout or whatever that might be. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 Sacchet: Would be more to the north then? Randy Noecker: Actually as you're facing the house on the right side or the north, yes. Sacchet: Right, right. Randy Noecker: Now keep in mind too, we draw a master plan here but there is, I mean the builders are going to come in and develop. Sacchet: Change it, yeah. Randy Noecker: You mark it a flat lot, they'll make a walkout on, or a lookout on it you know so. And abide by the grading because in the end they have to conform to drainage and if they can conform to drainage and get a lookout versus no lookout, they'll grab it. Sacchet: And I respect your space. I mean how you want to grade it, that's the developer's thing. Aanenson: Let's be clear on that. We'll call what type oflot it is and we will check to make sure that's the lot it's going to be. You don't get to make the decision when it comes in, We will tell you what the elevation's going to be and the type it's going to be, and it gets checked when it comes through, Sacchet: Those are fixed. Aanenson: Those are fixed, correct. Sacchet: I mean, and I don't mean to get involved with that part, but it seems to be that in by somewhat reversing the slope, how it is, seems to be a major contributing element to having to grade everything so severely, Is that correct? Randy Noecker: No. If I'm understanding your question, then it's not, If you have the back, if you have a slope coming down and this is your main floor elevation, you have to keep the water away from the house. You don't want the slope to go into the house, So you bring the slope back here and you also slope away from the house. The water runs down a "swale". So yes, you do need to drop a foot or two or more or whatever you feel comfortable from the back of the house because you need to keep the water away from the house. Sacchet: However the type of house you build has a big influence on that. If you want to make a lookout, obviously you have to grade more than if you just have regular full basement or even a tuck under. And I know tuck under's aren't that popular here in this country or this culture but if you have a slope like that, you build a house and this is where the street is, in Europe when I come from, you make it a tuck under garage. You don't try to reverse it so they can look out the back into the slope. And I know, maybe I'm culturally deprived but I have a hard time with that. One more question Mr, Noecker. Just to confirm, I went out there. Actually went out twice because this is a, I find this a rather tough nut to crack, And I found a rather large area staked as tree preservation. But when I look at your plan, it obviously seems to be much smaller area that's currently staked as bluff area. I'm talking about the southeast comer. Can you just clarify what is actually staked out there as tree preservation? If you know, Maybe you don't. Randy Noecker: To my knowledge nothing is staked out there. I haven't staked anything. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 Sacchet: You didn't stake that. So it's even before you dealt with it then, because there is a fair amount of area is very clearly staked with stakes that have little orange ribbons. I mean those pinkish ribbons on it, and written on the stake tree preservation. Randy Noecker: Oh yeah. When the surveyor goes through they, depending on the system that they use, they'll put a stake in and mark the tree and most of the time put a metal tag, Sacchet: Yeah, saw those two and actually marked some to see where they are, But that, these are wooden stakes that say tree preservation on them, but you seem not to know what they're about. I don't really have any wisdom. I'm still startled that a couple hundred yards further east we have those developments like White Tail Cove and Pointe Lake Lucy, and it seems like they were able to save quite a bit of the trees. Can you explain, maybe give me a little wisdom how come that in this case it seems really except for the bluff areas, pretty much everything seems to have to make room, Randy Noecker: Well, like Kate mentioned, each property is uniquely different and we've, I've never had a parcel like this where I've had such a severe fall. One of the things, I mean just between the last plan that I submitted and this plan, if you recall there was an entire set of trees that we saved back behind this area. But when the road got moved over, the topographical changes did not allow for any of those trees to be saved because the biggest problem with tree location is it's elevation, If it's 2 feet difference you can't save it, you know. Aanenson: Can I just bring up another point? Both those other subdivisions employed private streets, Sacchet: They had private streets in them. Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: And that allowed them to have. Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: More sensitive configuration for the environment? Aanenson: Exactly. Sacchet: Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay. Okay, thank you. Although this item is not required to be open for a public hearing, I had a request by one of the neighbors to make a brief statement so at this time if you would like to come forward and state your name and address for the record please and make your statement. Eric Rivkin: Thank you very much. My name is Eric Rivkin. I live at 1695 Steller Court. My property is located adjacent to this area right over here. And I'm also one of the ones that helped draft the petition that's in your packet, along with Tamara Sather. She couldn't be here tonight and she said on her behalf of all the half of the residents on her part of the lake, that I could speak on their behalf as well as the other petitioners. In response to the changes here. I don't know why we're talking about the trees when we haven't even seen the forest yet, literally. And the petition, you know still addresses some things that were not met here. There's not a majority, Mr. Noecker did not have a dialogue with anybody as far as I 15 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 know, Not with me and not with anybody after this, during or after this proposal was being done. Okay. And from what I understand, there has to be a majority of residents to approve any change in the rezoning. But in essence of that, the intent of that was that we didn't really want any change in the nature or the amenity that this Outlot A provides. There's a strong line of trees along this ridge, along the slope and that, as our feeling needs to be preserved. And also the trees along the bluff area need to be preserved and this wetland area. And the buffer that the trees, major trees along here provide need to be preserved as well. And the lot sizes, yes. He cut down from 22 to I 7. It's headed in the right direction but it is still not enough. It's still causing an extreme amount of stress on the landform and there's really no need for this, Mr. Noecker told me in a conversation once that he was a rich man and didn't need to be greedy so okay, relax you know. Make it 14 lots instead of 17. The petitioners had proposed a, if you can focus in on this a little bit but, we made a proposal. Thank you very much. That although we're amateurs you know, it shows that we can still allow development and preserve what it is that we see necessary. The outlot border is right here. And the trail is here. It follows these lots in here are commensurate with the size of lots in the neighborhood, The majority of trees are saved. Not, especially along here and all along this ridge, including the major tree slopes here, There's a huge stand of trees all along this area here, and that would be all gone, All wiped out and if you've got a view from Lake Lucy Road or from the lake itself or even from way across the lake itself, you're going to stare into a big hole, This entire Lake Lucy region is a big bowl of trees, okay. And you can't just cut big, giant holes in it. It just doesn't fit. So this has to fit, alright and we're saying by petition not one resident, including Prince, okay who's the majority landowner right on this property right here, not one, we have 100 percent of all the residents in this area telling you that this has to be preserved. Alright. And the land use amendment is our strength in this and we'd like you to honor that. The residents would be happy if you went to a lot density about like this. I appreciate the engineer, city engineer's analysis of moving houses away from here so why not take this road and move it over a little bit to the east. Peòple along here would I'm sure love the idea of having all these trees you know in their giant wooded lots overlooking the lake, You wouldn't want to reverse grade anything with this kind of a plan. Perhaps if you wanted to move the road like this over to here and put two lots over here instead of one, fine, But it can just show you that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out you can have tree preservation. You can have landform preservation, You don't have to have so much stress and you can still make a lot of money and have a very nice development. So a little creativity you know goes a long way, so. '"i; ; ~ -\ Blackowiak: Okay, thank you, Eric Rivkin: Okay, you're welcome. Blackowiak: Okay, I'm going to close the public hearing now, Commissioner comments. Who'd like to start? Slagle: I'll start, sure. That kind of concept is somewhat along the lines of what I've been thinking and I'd like to know what doesn't work about that plan, not in a specific manner but just general. And ifthis is not the time Madam Chair to ask staff, then I can just sort of make my assumptions why it's not. But that to me is along the lines of what this property needs, and I do want to make the comment to the applicant that I believe that the steps are in the right direction. But when I look at those developments to the east and White Tail Cove is an example, that is not an easy to build. And there are a lot of trees there. And so what I would like to let the other commissioners know is, at this point I am not in favor of changing it. I do believe there is a better plan that can be done, and if that better plan is brought back to this body, I would be in full support of it, but at this point I'm still not ready to okay this. 16 J Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 Blackowiak: Okay. And just to all comnùssioners a note, we do need to act on this tonight so I'll just say that before we continue with our comments so LuAnn, go ahead. Sidney: Okay. Continue along the line here. I think as I said the fIrst time we had this proposal in front of us that.. .the proposed development requires what I consider excessive grading and requires significant alteration of the topography. And this is for a residential development. Now with residential developments we have smaller building pads than we would in commercial or industrial developments that we usually see, and it would make sense that this should be able to be blended into the topography. Now staff has made some recommendations to do so, which I think are good recommendations and also there's another problem I saw in the staff report that's noted that we don't have a street that's to design standards. So we're really trying to force fit something into the topography as it stands now, I do believe the development tries to maximize the number of home sites and it is too dense in my opinion for this particular topography, and I do believe it would cause environmental damage, So because of this and the fact that it does tend to degrade the quality of the site, I really can't support this application and would recommend denial. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Bruce. Comments. Feik: I generally agree with changing land use on this, I think it makes more sense that it not be rural residential on the east portion, It fIts better with the rest of the development going onto the west. I hear the concems of the residents and the rest of the council members up here, or the comnùssion members. I have walked the parcel. It is a beautiful parcel. I'm not going to argue that with anybody who's been through it. It's absolutely lovely. It is zoned, whether we like it or not, it is zoned as it is. It's going to require the removal of the majority of the trees if this is developed. I don't see a way around that. Now can we mitigate it and is this the best plan, I'm not sure. It's a plan that is I think substantially better than the previous plans we've seen. I think the developer has shown some intent to work with staff and I thank him for that. Would I like to see larger lots? In a perfect world, yes, On the other hand it is still a private development and as much as I like large trees, he does meet, as outlined by the staff, he does meet the letter ofthe rules and the letter of the law as it relates to tree replacement, and I can't see forcing him to go above and beyond so to speak. Now if you disagree with the rules, that's one thing. But if he's living up to the rules, that's another thing and therefore I can't say geez, we need to leave trees just because we need to leave trees, As much as I would like to do that, I'm not sure this is the best plan but I think it's signifIcantly better than what we've seen and those are my comments. Blackowiak: Thank you. Deb. Kind: Yes Madam Chair. I am in favor of changing the land use for a compelling reason. I believe that the Planning Comnùssion can recommend that change without permission of the neighbors and that that is within our role. However, it needs to be done for a compelling reason and I don't see it with this plan, There were two things that this group asked for, and that was to reduce the number of lots and to improve the environmental impact, I should say, on the site and the applicant did a great job. Reduced he number of lots by 4, which is great, but I am really concerned that the second aspect was not met. I was hoping that reducing the number of lots would allow more of the topography to be preserved and more of the trees to be preserved so I feel like it was halfway met. And since it wasn't totally met I don't think that we have a compelling reason to change the land use. In my 3 years on this comnùssion I don't recall ever seeing a plan come through where it's totally leveled like this, We're always able to save some of the trees in the back yards at least. I know along the street that's not reasonable, but in the back yards we usually can save some of the trees so. I understand trees need to be removed for development. I know that that's going to happen. The neighbors need to prepare for that because they will be coming out, but 17 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 we should be able to save some of them, So I feel that in cases where we're being asked to change the land use, that we can expect a trade-off and I don't see the trade-off so I do not support the land use change, Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Uli, do you have anything else to add? Sacchet: Yes I do Madam Chair. First of all, I do want to commend the applicant for having adjusted the number of lots. When I first started reading this report I said oh great, we're actually getting somewhere. And I was disappointed though when I realized that on the environmental side it really didn't improve it at all. It was still basically force fit, the way I read it, especially when I start reading the grading plan a little more carefully. When I realize that all the trees on the north side that the neighborhood pointed out, would be removed except that teeny little bluff piece. And as I said before when I asked you a question Mr. Noecker, 1 don't mean to get involved in how this gets graded. I mean that's a developer issue, but I do believe that it becomes a city issue when it has the impact that this has on the environment. And to address Commissioner Feik's comment about well, he does meet the letter of the law, and there is this statement in here that really threw me for a loop when staff made the statement that he meets the ordinance but fails to meet the intent of the ordinance. And I did a little research. I pulled out our comprehensive plan and if you bear with me I'd just like to point out a few things from the comprehensive plan out of Chapter 3, which deals with natural resources. There it says, it starts, the City of Chanhassen recognizes the importance of it's natural environment to the quality of life for it's citizens and the need to protect and enhance these resources. It defines what natural features are. Natural features pose specific constraints as well as development opportunity. They add a set of values which make a specific geographic area unique and different. Policies can be established to maximize these resources and enhance their benefits to the community, And I'm just picking, cherry picking out of here. In Chanhassen four large scale features dominate the landscape. They include lakes, wetlands, creeks, and river corridors and tree cover. A little further on then it talks about tree cover since that's the main one I've been hammering on here, Some ofChanhassen's most prominent natural features to this day are the forested areas that exist within the community, These areas contribute to the open spaces and rural flavor of the community. They are important determinates of the city's image, health and livability and as such should be preserved. In addition to the aesthetic and social contribution, tree cover has economic benefits for the city as wèll. And it touches on the reduction of pollution and, air pollution and noise, storm water runoff and so forth. Trees do serve as an indicator of community health and image and have significant and economic impacts. Chanhassen should strive to create and maintain such sustainable force, And then it goes actually into a section in the comprehensive plan that deals with policies where it goes just beyond the intent type of dialogue. t-: Blackowiak: Okay Vii, should we just add that all, have the. Sacchet: Well it's only two more sentences, Blackowiak: Okay. Sacchet: On the policies it points out, to preserve natural slopes whenever possible. So that would touch on the grading. Achieve objectives for a safe, healthy diverse and functional urban forest. Protect significant wildlife habitats. Preserve areas by means of development restrictions. So based on that, and sorry for taking the time to go through this, but based on that, I'm of the opinion that the applicant, even though he meets the calculations of tree preservation, he does not meet the comprehensive plan framework. It's, and I would disagree with Commissioner Sidney that at this point I would not say any more that the applicant is trying to maximize the number of lots because he's shown an effort to 18 ,..," Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 minimize the lots. But the other aspect, and there was a second aspect that we very clearly asked for last time, is that the development as proposed significantly impacts the features of trees, slopes, vistas and uncluttered open spaces. That has not been changed at all. In some ways even got a little worst. And therefore I totally disagree with the subdivision finding number 5, The proposed subdivision will definitely cause excessive environmental damage and therefore I cannot support this proposal, even though I do believe that that buffer lot does not necessarily have to stay a buffer lot. The outlot, in order for this to work because these trees on the southeast corner pretty much buffer this development from being visible from the lake, But it would definitely cut a hole into it from further up north. So the short of all my speech here is that I still believe it's better to deny this at this point of time. Blackowiak: Thank you. Sacchet: Based on my understanding of the comprehensive plan. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. My comments will be brief. I agree with Deb in terms of the rezoning of the outlot, and that's again we look for reasons. We look for compelling reasons. I said it before and I'm not seeing it. I'm not seeing the benefit that we as a city are getting from this development in terms of changing the land use. So that's kind of where I'm sitting. If we don't change the land use designation, this proposal cannot move forward as is. So based on that, I would also recommend denial. So I will ask for someone to give me a motion and Deb, would you like to? Kind: If I can find it. Blackowiak: Page 17. Kind: Madam Chair, I move the Planning Commission recommends denial of the Land Use Map Amendment from the Residential Large Lot to Residential Low Density for Outlot A, Lake Lucy Highlands based on the following paragraph as stated in the staff report dated March 5, 2002. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion, Is there a second? Slagle: Second. Blackowiak: All in favor. Sacchet: Can I make a friendly amendment? Blackowiak: Certainly. Sacchet: I would like to strike the last sentence about the maximizing of lots. I don't think that applies anymore. Kind: I would accept that. Sacchet: And I would like instead to refer to the comprehensive plan in the context of the environmental features that get impacted. Like we could say, in addition as outlined in the comprehensive plan the community highly regards, okay? Kind: Sure. I'd accept that. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 Sacchet Okay. Blackowiak: Okay, moved and seconded. Kind moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the Land Use Map Amendment from Residential Large Lot to Residential Low Density for Outlot A, Lake Lucy Highlands based on the following: The existing land use designation of the 7.07 acre outlot is for Residential Large Lot. This area has been developed with single homes on larger lots. Chanhassen is a high amenity community. One of the amenities is that we have a range of residential land uses from large lot to high density. Maintaining this mixture is one of the city's goals. In addition, as outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, the community highly regards its natural environment including trees, slopes, vistas, and uncluttered open spaces. The development, as proposed, significantly impacts these features. Lake Lucy Highlands was developed as a Large Lot development and has maintained that character. The 7.07 acre outlot is regard as a buffer or an undevelopable site unless it was demonstrated that a future structure would be able to meet wetland setback requirements. This language clearly demonstrates that at best, this site would accommodate two home sites, based upon lot area only. Therefore, the Planning Commission may find that conversation of the easterly 7.07 acre outlot from Large Lot Residential to Low Density Residential is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. All voted in favor, except Feik who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Blackowiak: Next motion please. Sacchet Madam Chair, I move that the Planning Commission denies the rezoning from RR, Rural Residential District to RSF, Single Family Residential for Outlot A, Lake Lucy Highlands and the westerly 11.5 acre parcel due to the reasons in the report. Blackowiak: There's a motion, is there a second? Sidney: Second. Sacchet moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the rezoning from RR, Rural Residential District to RSF, Single Family Residential for Outlot A, Lake Lucy Highlands, and the westerly 11.5 acre parcel due to the following: I. The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be inconsistent with the official City Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed use does not conform to all performance standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. 3, The proposed development incorporated the two parcels, therefore the proposal cannot proceed. All voted in favor, except Feik who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. 20 fi ~ Planning Commission Meeting - March 5. 2002 Blackowiak: Bruce. I'll wait til the end to ask you your reasons if you want to put them on the record. So the motion carries 5-1. Next motion please. Sidney: I'll make the motion, the Planning Commission, recommend the Planning Commission denies the preliminary plat of Subdivision #01-10 creating 21, excuse me. That would be 17 lots? Blackowiak: Correct. Sidney: 17 lots for the Lake Lucy Ridge subject to not complying with the land use designation and zoning requirements. Blackowiak: There's been a motion, Is there a second? Slagle: Second. Sidney moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #01-10 creating seventeen (17) lots for Lake Lucy Ridge subject to not complying with the land use designation and zoning requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to O. Blackowiak: Next motion please. Sacchet: Madam Chair, I move that the Planning Commission denies the Wetland Alteration Permit #2001-3 for Lake Lucy Ridge based on the Wetland Alteration Permiì being a part of the Subdivision proposal for Lake Lucy Ridge and the subdivision has been denied due to an inconsistency with the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance requirements. Blackowiak: All in favor signify by saying aye. Sidney: It needs a second, Blackowiak: Oh excuse me, second? Sidney: Second, Blackowiak: Thank you. Sacchet moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission denies the Wetland Alteration Permit #2001-3 for Lake Lucy Ridge based on the Wetland Alteration Permit being a part of the Subdivision proposal for Lake Lucy Ridge and the subdivision has been denied due to an inconsistency with the comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to O. Blackowiak: And Commissioner Feik, if you would like to comment on your reasons for your no votes on motions I and 2 for the record. that would be appropriate, Feik: My reason may surprise you, believe it or not. Blackowiak: Surprise us. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 Feik: I do believe that the zoning perspective from a land use perspective it makes more sense to go with the west. I believe additionally though that maybe the western parcel is zoned improperly, and that the western parcel maybe should have been zoned rural residential. I think it's very tough to get to a, based upon the existing zoning, to effectively utilize that parcel. And the developer is up against a wall here a little bit with trying to conform or trying to use that parcel as currently zoned, I think there's an inconsistency between the two zonings and the topography on the western parcel. I think in a perfect world the western parcel maybe should have been left zoned rural residential. I think it would have worked better. Blackowiak: Okay. Thank you for your comments. This item goes before the City Council on April 8th. Okay we have a second item. I'm going to take two minutes so commissioners can take a look at the handouts that we were given before the meeting tonight. There are I think 3 different items to take a look at. Changing conditions, petitions by residents, . ¿ ;'.' Sidney: Madam Chair. Rosalie Bass: I just needed to ask. Is it possible, because of time, this is on Pipewood Curve is our particular redevelopment plan that's happening, We're the ones that actually butt up to it. You've got mothers here of very young children and the time ran really late. I have a child with pneumonia and she has a nursing baby and I'm wondering if we could table it until the next time so that we can come back in our defense. It's sort of a hardship kind of thing. I mean we can stay and it will last for another hour and a half, but it's not good. Blackowiak: Kate, did you have any suggestions for me? Aanenson: Well, the applicant's here. I mean it's published and you know. Feik: Can we do comments first? Aanenson: Well you can take the comments first but you know, it's up to the applicant. It's highly unusual. Blackowiak: Yeah, I don't. Feik: We're routinely here tilll:30 anyway. Aanenson: Even if we tabled it for next time. Blackowiak: Yeah, What I think would be then appropriate in this situation is, since the applicant is here and we are hoping to move forward with this tonight, if there's no objections from other commissioners, if you personally or other neighbors would like to make your comments first without hearing the applicant's presentation, that's your choice and I could certainly do that. Otherwise I really feel it's important to kind of follow our normal procedure and do the staff report and then have the applicant make their proposal. But if you would like to go ahead and make your comments first, that would certainly be fine, So I'll leave that one up to you. Kind: Do you want her to comment now or do you want us to read a little bit? 22 ~;;;t Planning Commission Meeting - March 5, 2002 Blackowiak: So think about it. I would just like us to be able to take a look. We got some petitions from the neighbors so I'd just like us to have 2 minutes to take a look at this and think about it. Give me your decision then. The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REOUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLA T APPROVAL TO CREATE 20 LOTS. FOUR OUTLOTS AND PUBLIC RlGHT·OF·W A Y WITH A VARIANCE FOR THE USE OF PRIVATE STREETS AND FROM THE SUBDIVISION STANDARDS. AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT ON 22.28 ACRES OF LAND ZONED RSF. RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHWAY 7 AT THE END OF PIPEWOOD CURVE. MATRIX DEVELOPMENT. LLC. HIDDEN CREEK ESTATES. Public Present: Name Address Perry Ryan Greg Greenwood Kris Sittler Peter Thomson Cindy Gess Dan McInerny Marien Zanyk Beth Ramsey Greg Lang Cindy Ahlm Rosalie Bass Ryan Engineering, Inc, 650 I Kirkwood Circle 6526 Aster Trail 4001 Aster Trail 4001 Aster Trail 6550 Aster Trail 6590 Pipewood Curve 411 I Paddock Lane 6524 Aster Trail 638 I Aster Trail 6570 Pipewood Curve Marien Zanyk: ""and it needs to be preserved as it is. And one concern is the connection of this road right here. There is about 1,000 feet based on information from the other developers, about 1,000 feet here that is expensive for them to create a road here, There's just wetlands. They can't put homes in. Aanenson: Focus on the plat. She can focus on the plat. Marien Zanyk: This works for me. Aanenson: But if you focus on the plat then they can see,.. Marien Zanyk: Okay. Wetlands, House lots, okay. What's the point of putting in just 2 homes right here that butt up against some neighbors of mine? They don't want to see houses right up against their house. The expense of putting in a road right here, although the sewer line is there, but that's just a waste and it also is a deterrent for the animal life that lives in here and believe me there's tons of animals in here, Why not put a nice neighborhood right here and leave this land alone and leave this neighborhood alone? We understand that the reasoning behind the road access onto Highway 7, a couple of points there. It's an 8 percent grade within 15 feet of the highway and it's supposedly dangerous. It's not dangerous. A year ago I asked about that specifically, Ministry of Transport, or MnDot, whatever you call it in the United States. ., ,Ministry of Transport, They said that there has only been 2 accidents 23