Loading...
6 Approval of Minutes' ~ U EETiNG G LAR M ': NOVEMBER 17, 1999 -_- .. - . 4 , MeMBeRS P~SeNT:' Ma~ BU~0n; '-... ~dAlisonBlacko~ ' . ", -- --MEMBERS ABSENT:' Craig Peterson -_ : _ _ .AC~L~SHQ~PARCEL:ZONED:RSF~AND~ ~AT~6665 ~-~_'-:': ' - -Name-' " ' :~- : .~ C~ista~ & Nicholas:VaSSal0 Sandra & John Cunningham- ,. '-- -- :6663 Bob GenerOus g _. : . :~ :-'-JoYgei i-An~' questions:for Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1999 Hempel: I'd have to defer that to the forester to answer but I would think construction traffic alone building a new home in there would be the most detrimental to the tree. Long term versus asphalt versus gravel. Generous: Mr. Chairman, I did discuss this with Jill as part of our review and she said that she didn't anticipate that the installation of the driveway would kill the tree. We think that it's, as long, prov!ded we can ge.t the tree protection fencing up and keep the construction activity off the critical root zone, a majority of that should survive. Conrad: Mr. Chairman, just one more on this one. So what did they do during construction that keeps that tree alive? Keep it of.f the root system? Keep heavy stuff. Hempel: Exactly. We require the tree protection fencing around it so that's what. Conrad: Okay. Joyce: Any other questions for staff?. Kind: Yes Mr. Chairman. Bob, on condition 17 you talk about no shoreline vegetation removal Will be allowed for access or a view to Lotus Lake. But our shoreland ordinance, management ordinance does allow for removal of some vegetation to create a view and also for access like stairs or lifts, that sort of thing. Could you speak to that a little bit? Generous: That specific language would preclude any of that. Kind: And the reasons are? Generous: Well they felt again the Forester reviewed this. She believed that they had sufficient ability to access the lake without taking that out and views are not an issue. They have views .to either side. Kind: I guess my question would be getting down, like if they had a boat down at the lake. How do they get down there without having stairs? You need to clear some vegetation to get stairs or a path or something like that. Would this preclude that? Generous: Preclude putting in the stairway, yes. If any vegetation had to be cleared. Kind: And vegetation includes scrub brushy? Generous: Any vegetation. Kind: Vegetation is vegetation. Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1999 Generous: Understory and trees. I think the primary concern is for the overstory trees but the way it's currently written it would include the understory stuff. The brush. Kind: It seems reasonable to me that they should be able to get access to the shore. I'll wait to hear from the applicant on that. That's all for now. Joyce: Any other questions at this time for staff?. I just have one Bob. Recommendation number 9, or condition number 9. Is a recommendation obviously. How strongly are we, the City looking at that? I just think that they have a pad there that they're just trying to lower a house and even jockeying it 5 feet here or there, you know it's, you don't have that much room. Generous: Well there is a little bit of ability to shift it towards the northeast. We're not sure how much additional preservation. Our main concern was the tree preservation along the property line. And looking at this I'm not sure we're going to get a lot of it. The applicant has discussed this with me and his intention is to revegetate that area. Joyce: So maybe we should wait for that. I just thought I'd bring that up. But so we're saying that the driveway is part of the City Code Dave, but the condition 9 is kind of just best of all world type of situation. Generous: Make sure they look at it. There's no real teeth in the way it's written. Joyce: Okay. Then at this time if the applicant would like to address the Planning Commission at this time, please step forward and state your name and address. John Cunningham: My name is John Cunningham. I live at 6665 Horseshoe Curve. The other applicant is my wife Sandra. We have lived, we bought this lot in 1968 so we've lived them quite a while. We're very happy living there. At a certain point we decided that maybe we needed a different house for our present needs and our first idea was if it would be possible to split the lot we could satisfy both situations. Found the old plot that the prior owner had left us and we went into City Hall and we first met with Cindy and she was extremely helpful and she's the one that showed us how to use the cross access and the easement to get to the back part of the lot because the lot, as you can see, it's a triangular shaped lot. It doesn't break itself into two... It's much easier to do it on the way it shows on there. And about this same time our daughter decided perhaps she would buy our house so the whole thing began to fall together for us. We hired Scholl and Madsen to do a survey and at this point they made a mistaken and they thought it would be a simple metes and bounds situation which of course didn't prove to be the situation. We also began to have meetings with Bob Generous and he was most helpful in showing us how the property lines could change angles so that the houses would have their own, totally their own view. Turning like this... And that also was very positive for us that we could do that because we really do not want to impact the lot any more than we absolutely had to. And obviously putting a house there is going to change things but we wanted to keep that to a very minimum. We talked to him about the various setbacks that are required and we've satisfied all those. About this time the survey had a meeting with the City Hall and suddenly the survey cost tripled and Sanra and I became developers, which was okay. We met again with Bob to check about the Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1999 positions and the setbacks and everything looked okay so we went ahead with the complex survey and we turned our materials in by the deadline and got the staff report last Friday. Generally things looked fine to us. They asked us to raise the house a half foot which we already did. We called the Schoell and Madsen and told them to put that into position. The request to consider moving the house 10 feet north is a little more of a problem to us. We had considered it over the last 6 months we've probably considered every possible angle and position in that triangle because it is rather limiting and we really feel that clearly this to be the best position for the house for several reasons. It keeps the house most completely out of the sight lines of the existing house. Pulls it back as far as it can go and we think the best situation for the two houses existing on the same, in the same area. In terms of moving the house 10 feet north, the second reason why we think it's a bad idea is if you take 10 feet away from that triangle, that building triangle, you really cut down the amount of space in the house. The amount of potential space in the house. The shape that you see up there is a 1,600 to 1,700 square foot house with a two car garage. There's not room for a three car garage and a screened porch. Our intent is to create a walkout basement for future bedroom space for families that would come along after us. This is not a big house and the reduction of 10 feet times the building triangle creates a much more difficult building pad. The building pad does come to a point and when you take that 10 feet away it really comes to a point very short, in a very short period of distance. The idea of...from the east creates a new set of angles. It doesn't really pick up much and an odd shape like that is difficult to design around. And the other thing that happens when you move the plan to the north is it leaves room on the east end almost only for a garage. There's not, we have it the way the plan is set up now, and I can show that to you in a minute. We have a garage and a front entry on that side so when you drive in from the road you come up to the garage and then there's a nice front entry and we think it's really very nicely designed. When you start moving it you run out of space to put that front entry on the same end as the garage. Now reacting to the reason of moving to minimize impacts to existing vegetation. There are two trees which I'll mention in a moment. The only other existing vegetation on our side is a hedge and that particular hedge was there when we moved in. It's an important hedge to us and as I'm sure it's an important hedge to the neighbor and we certainly would plan to keep it. It provides cover in the summer and should it be damaged in construction I would certainly replace it. I don't see any problem with it's roots because I don't think it has that big of a root area. There were some significant maples mentioned in the report. I couldn't find those. Maybe something was mismarked or something but looking at the trees in the house area, starting at the east end. This tree right here, these are oaks and they're pretty good sized oaks. They're about 20 feet from the comer of the garage and this is a slab garage here. Across from these. At any rate, there's 20 feet there and I'm hoping probably enough space. There is a dutch elm here. I don't know how it survived the dutch elm disease but it did. It's growing underneath the canopy. There's a number of trees on the other side of the property line that really, that I propose to take that tree out which is about a 9 inch. Then if you move here there's a fir tree. It too has problems because it gets no light from the south side so there's no branches whatsoever on the south side of it and I don't see much problem in taking it out. Other than that the surveyor...maple tree that's right in here. I can't, I disagree with it and my aim is to try to do the garage turn around to save that tree. If we can't we'll take it out. But other than that we don't intend to take out any other trees and don't think we have to. I share the same concern as others do about this place where the road goes between these trees. Obviously we're going to try to save that oak...whatever is required to protect it. I Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1999 would assume that,..building phase that that driveway would be gravel. So like I say, we're just going to do the best we can to save that tree. Well then the existing vegetation that was there along here is pretty well scrub vegetation. It's stuff that has come up by itself through the years. That end of our yard has never really been a place where we've tried to grow anything specific. We just let it be the way it was. We could get some hostas and some ferns to grow in there but that's about it because there's a lot of oak trees back in here that form, that shade that area so our intent is to, and we went over it with Halla Nursery. Once we picked out, once we get the construction part done here we propose to put in here a bunch of plantings that tolerate shade and we have a planting design that we thought. At any rate, we've done some planting to go along here. That includes the existing trees that...believe will stay there. Obviously we would replace anything damaged or caused problem by the construction. There is that one maple that we certainly would lose in the driveway area that I'm going to try to save if we move the house. That would be a goner. There are 27 hardwoods on the lot. You don't see all of them on that plan because a lot of them didn't impact the canopy and they're off down on the point. So we're only taking two possibly three trees out. I thought that was a pretty good placement of the house on the lot in terms of the trees. For these reasons I believe after doing and ask for consideration, the best situation because of the house position, superior design possibilities and improvement in vegetation, is to have the house positioned which satisfies all city requirements as it was originally presented. I would echo the concern about the crushed rock driveway. I know I'm in a minority but I believe a crushed rock driveway that is kept up is a more natural looking surface than pavement or cement. I have on a number of occasions observed my driveway during storms. It soaks up most rain and then gully washes, the drainage crosses at the low point. This driveway has been through two 100 year rains, which I don't know if you people were all here when we had those but we had two 100 year rains. I don't, this isn't a big deal to me and I'll pave the driveway. The new driveway will even have less slope than my present one. I suspect sometimes it has more to do with people neglecting the upkeep orr crushed rock. It needs to be surfaced every once in a while with new rocks and weeds kept out of it. I'll just show you maybe quickly the exterior of the house. This would be the front that you would see from the road as you're coming in. We tried very hard to make that side of the house attractive but also, this was what I was talking about. If you took 10 feet away from here, that would... I thank you for your consideration and I can answer any questions that I'm capable of answering I guess. Joyce: Commission have any questions for the applicant? Thank you. Kind: Mr. Chairman, I do. Mr. Cunningham, sorry. I do have a question for you. On condition number 17, you did not speak to that as far as access to the lake. Would you like to be able to get down there? Jolm Cunningham: I think I understand what, I can, the main thing I think with... Kind: That's what I heard Bob say. Generous: You mean clear vegetation. John Cunningham: No, I wouldn't intend to clear it. Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1999 Kind: Even scrub vegetation. John Cunningham: ...I just assume, as far as I was concerned, I never...but I just assumed that I would be able to access the lake. Kind: So you're okay with condition 17 the way it reads? Sandra Cunningham: If we're able to access the lake. John Cunningham: I mean you're not telling us we can't go down to the lake? Joyce: No, I don't think that's the letter of the law. No. John Cunningham: ... Kind: Joyce: up? Thank you. Okay, this is open for a public hearing. Could I have a motion and a second to open it Blackowiak moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Joyce: This item's open for public hearing. If anyone would like to address the Planning Commission on this subject, please step forward and state your name and address. Seeing none, may I have a motion to close the public hearing. Burton moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Joyce: Anybody just jump right in. Commission, anyone like to tackle this and give us their insight on it? Deb. Kind: Sure Mr. Chairman. I went out and looked at the site today and I was very glad that I did because on paper it looks goofy but when you're there it looks like a very reasonable thing to do and it's a beautiful site and I think it's a nice project. It was fun to see the elevations. I think it's going to be really attractive. Condition number 9, talking about the 10 feet. Moving the property. Or moving the house 10 feet. I don't see that that's necessary. I like it where it is. I think it provides the best view for both homes and replacing that vegetation, if it's destroyed will be sufficient. Were there any other issues? And as long as they're okay with condition 17 on the shoreland access, I'm fine with the plan and agree with the staff report. Joyce: Thank you. Alison. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1999 Blackowiak: Yeah, I pretty much agree with what Deb said. My only comments are going to be regarding condition 15. And this is the driveway. I don't know if I've been convinced that it needs to be an asphalt or concrete driveway. As is it looks nice. There are several other rock driveways in the neighborhood and I think it's consistent with the neighborhood as a rock driveway. I however don't feel the need to necessarily take this condition out but I would maybe say to council look carefully at that because I don't see that it absolutely has to be. I mean not from an engineering standpoint. Not from a public safety standpoint. So I'm not convinced that it needs to be paved. Then just one little comment about condition 15. It's worded the driveway on both lots. We just have to stick a number 1 in there. But that's it. Otherwise I agree with what Deb has said and it's, I think it's nicely done. Joyce: Ladd any comments? Conrad: Nothing new. I think there should be better definition to condition 17. It looks like it's just sitting there and doesn't, I don't know what it applies to. I'd be real uncomfortable ifI were the Cunninghams and I think, yeah you don't want to. It just, it's too vague and they do have access. They do have property. They have no intention of removing any of the vegetation down there but it just is one of those real bad statements that I don't know how I would change it. You know we do want to say that the vegetation on the point shouldn't be taken down. I think that's what staff is saying and there's some clear, there are some significant trees down there but, and they happen to be on the shoreline but that's not their intent so I don't know. I guess I~ without even making a motion on that one. I think staff just should be better, a little bit clearer on what their intent is. I'd leave it in but I'd certainly get some clarification on that. The other points I think, Deb's point I think on taking the first half. I don't think the pad should be moved. It will hurt some other things and I would like to make their vegetation plan a part of the conditions. We do have a way of mitigating any minor changes they're making to their side yard setback so I think that should be a part of the conditions. Kind: Number 16 speaks to that. Is that adequate? Conrad: Well see that's a preservation and removal plan. Preservation Bob, is that the re, does that also mean the revegetation or? Generous: Could be. Conrad: Okay. Well if you interpret it that way I'm comfortable that we could stick a word in there that talks about. I think that's good. It's good for the neighbors to see that they're doing something. Making that side of the house attractive, which it is already. Joyce: Thank you. Sidney: It looks straight forward. I appreciate the thoroughness of the staff report. I think we do need to about that last condition maybe. That our verbiage, with the help of staff. I do appreciate the applicant's thoroughness too in working with staff. That's great. It looks like a good plan. I am in favor of modifying condition 9 to remove that shifting of the house 10 feet. Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1999 Burton: I agree with basically all the comments. I'd remove 9 and 17 doesn't particularly trouble me because of the way this property is set up but ! was thinking that, I guess this is kind of a question for everybody here. Could we add something to the end of that to the effect that in the case of a hardship for a proposed reasonable use which is consistent with the neighborhood, the City could approve removal of vegetation or something like that so there's an opening if needed? I don't know if we even need to do that. Just a thought but something along those lines. Joyce: Okay. I agree with everything that's been said. I don't think we need condition number 9. If condition 15, if that is part of the code that the driveway has to be paved, fine. I'd have to' agree with everyone else. I think the driveway as it is is fine. Also I think that's what the neighborhood looks like and a lot crushed rock driveways there so I don't see why they have to put a paved driveway in there. Leave that up to City Council to decide on that one. I have to agree with condition 17. I think what we're talking about is significant foliage, vegetation type of thing. Get down to the...not the letter of the law so if someone can brilliantly come up with some motion, condition there to get this through, that would be wonderful so with that said, can we get a motion here. Kind: I'll make a motion Mr. Chair. I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for subdivision #99-11 creating two lots for Sandy Point Addition as shown on plans prepared by, I don't know how you say that. Schoell & Madsen, Inc. dated October 15, 1999 subject to the following conditions 1 through 18 with number 9 changed to read, the walkout elevation of the dwelling should be raised a minimum of ½ foot to provide positive drainage from the home. Away from the home. Number 16. Change to read, the applicant shall submit tree preservation and landscape, let's see. Tree preservation, removal plans and landscaping plans to the City prior to City Council approval of the final plat. And number 17 change to read, shoreline vegetation removal must comply with shoreland management ordinances. Conrad: I'd second. Joyce: Any discussion? Conrad: The only thing I'd like to do as a footnote, and it doesn't need to be part of the staff report but I'd really like staff to revisit the asphalt driveway. And maybe I'd buy our ordinance. The direction it's going but in this case I'm not sure. It may be the common portion of these two lots that have asphalt and maybe the Cunningham's done want that, but consider that. Obviously we're leaving it in so that's what you're stuck with. Staff doesn't have to move one iota on that if we leave it in. But to have the common portion...that's going inland a little bit or into the property a little bit to have that rock. But that's just a footnote. That's not an addendum or that's not a change to condition 15. 15 is there and it's probably something that you should talk to City Council about. Kind moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #99-11 creating two lots for Sandy Point Addition as Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1999 shown on plans prepared by Schoell & Madsen, Inc., dated October 15, 1999, subject to the following conditions: o o 10. 11. 12. The principal structure on Lot 1, Block 1 must maintain a 76 foot setback from the normal water elevation (896.3). In lieu of parkland dedication the developer shall pay full park and trail fees for Lot 1, Block 1 to the city pursuant to city ordinance. Access easement width must be 30 feet. Because of the distance and the setbacks for the proposed building, additional address signs will be required at the driveway entrance in compliance with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #29-1992 regarding premise identification. (Copy enclosed). Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for proposed address identification at the driveway entrance. A demolition permit must be obtained to demolish the existing detached garage and gazebo. Both of these structures must be removed. The water service serving the new home on Lot 1 cannot pass through the garage. The water service line must be sized based on the available water pressure and the amount of plumbing fixtures in the building. The address for the existing home on Lot 2 will have to be changed to 6669 Horseshoe Curve and the new home on Lot 1 will be addressed 6665 Horseshoe Curve. The applicant must contact the appropriate agencies to coordinate this change. The walkout elevation of the dwelling should be raised a minimum of 0.5 feet to provide positive drainage away from the home. A detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plan will be required at time of buiding permit application for city staff to review and approve. Drainage swales must be installed and maintained along both sides of any house proposed on Lot 1 to manage runoff from the front yard to the back yard and maintain the neighborhood drainage pattern. Erosion control measures will be required on the building permit certificate of survey. Erosion control fencing shall be installed on the downstream side of the grading limits. A rock construction entrance shall also be required at Horseshoe Curve. The developer and staff shall work together in determining a path for the sanitary sewer service which creates the least disruption to existing vegetation. The water service shall be extended by the City at the developer's cost from Horseshoe Curve to the easterly property line of Lot 2. The developer will be responsible for extending the water service through Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1999 Lot 1 to Lot 2. The developer shall escrow with the City $2,500 to guarantee the cost of water service extension across Horseshoe Curve. Lot 1, Block 1 will be responsible for a sanitary sewer and water hookup fee and connection charges at time of building permit application. The cost of extending the water service across Horseshoe Curve shall be deducted from the watermain connection charge. 13. The final plat shall dedicate an additional 10 feet of street right-of-way for Horseshoe Curve along with the standard 10 foot front and rear and 5 foot side yard drainage and utility easements. In addition, a 20 foot wide utility and drainage easement shall be dedicated over the existing sanitary sewer line that runs through the westerly portion of Lots 1 and 2. 14. The developer shall be responsible for all City Attorney fees associated with the review and recording of the final plat documents, Surface Water Management fees, and GIS fees pursuant to City Ordinance. These fees are due at time of final plat recording. 15. According to City Code, driveways within the urban service area shall be paved with an all weather surface such as asphalt or concrete. The driveways on both Lots 1 and 2, Block 1 shall be paved with either bituminous or concrete. The common portion of the driveway must be twenty feet wide pavement width with a seven ton design. 16. The applicant shall submit tree preservation and removal plans and landscape plans to the city prior to City Council approval of the 'final plat. 17. Shoreline vegetation removal must comply with shoreland management ordinances. 18. Tree preservation fence will be required to be installed at the edge of the proposed grading limits. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE A PARCEL INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS OF 20,134 SO. FT. AND 19,591 SQ. FT. LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF POWERS BOULEVARD AND HOLLY LANE, ARROWHEAD ADDITION, ARROWHEAD DEVELOPMENT. Public Present: Name Address Michael Spiess Michael Abbott Robert M. Bowen 470 Flying Cloud Drive 1281 Medina Road, Long Lake 6275 Powers Blvd. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1999 Tad Ware Joyce Hagedorn Robert Rabe Frank & Florence Natole 1225 Lilac Lane 630 Carver Beach Road 6307 Teton Lane 6251 Teton Lane Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Joyce: Are there any questions for staff at this time? Blackowiak: Mr. Chair I have two quick questions. I think the first one will be to Dave. I'm assuming that Carver County gave their blessing on the driveway location. Hempel: At this point I have not heard back from them on this revised plan. The initial plan they did have concern when the driveway was located further to the north on the property. Because of the sight line distance plus the driveway was off set from Holly Lane and I believe it's Willow Creek, private street directly across from this lot. What we did is looked at it. Adjusted it to the south to a line across from Willow Creek and improve the sight lines for the driveway access point. We believe Carver County would concur with the location. Blackowiak: All right, good. And Bob I just have kind of a general question. Often times we have a tree replacement conditions. I've seen in other contracts or other conditions that we require the trees to be guaranteed. Do we ever do that with straight residential subdivisions or what? Generous: Yes. What we do is part of, it's in the ordinance so we don't have to incorporate it as part of any conditions of approval. That they will guarantee them for two years. Basically it works out too. They can either do that through a letter of credit or a cash escrow to the City. Blackowiak: Okay and so that, like that doesn't have to be a condition or anything? Generous: No, because that's part of our city ordinance. Blackowiak: Good, all right. Thank you. All right, thank you. Joyce: Any other questions for staff at this time? All right, if we can get the applicant up here to address the Planning Commission. Please state your name and address. Mike Abbott: I'm Mike Abbott. My address is 1282 Medina Road in Long Lake. We had gone kind of round and round on how we wanted to divide this up and I think what we've ended up with now. As Bob mentioned, actually it was kind of funny. I took over trying to do something with this property somebody else in our company had started. We were intentionally, our initial idea meant that the driveway was really long and it went to the north and the reason we did that was that the slope on that hill, on that lot is really steep. I think what we've got now, we had our surveyor out there looking at it and I think we can do a 10% grade on that. I don't think it will be any steeper than that. I mean we don't want it to be coming down where the two driveways 11 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1999 merge together and they come down onto Powers Boulevard. You know you don't want it to have, my driveway at my house is very much that way where you either take a running start to get up or you go really slow coming down in the winter so. I think the plan we have now I independently of even meeting Bob drew a plan that was very, very close to that so when I went in the day I met him he sort of said well come on in. I want to show you something that I would recommend and same thing that I had so ! think the plan accommodates what we want to do as well as what you want to do. We will be planting trees. That's one of the things that, we don't do a lot of developments but the ones that we do we do try to keep you know the environment as much the same as it was, if not improved. We're a very small company but everybody in our company as well, we have plant probably a thousand trees a year. We have trees stockpiled on lane that we own that we'll make it look nice. I think for one I think it will also, from our own selfish point of view, it would be nice to have some pine trees along that front road anyway just so that the people don't hear the noise as much and that the view from the people coming out of Willow Creek or Holly Lane still have a nice view. I mean that's a nice piece of property, but it's also a piece of residential property that somebody could put one or two homes on so. ! don't know if, maybe just go through the conditions here and see if there's. There aren't many variances and I think it pretty much meets the conditions here. That's really all. I don't think there's anything else here that really needs talking about. I think what we've done is something that will work so if you have any questions I'll be glad to answer them for you. Joyce: Any questions for the applicant at this point? Mike Abbott: Okay, thanks. Joyce: Can I get a motion and a second to open it up for public hearing please. Conrad moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Joyce: Okay, this is open for a public hearing. If you'd like to address the Planning Commission on this item, please ,step forward and state your name and address. Robert M. Bowen: My name is Robert M. Bowen. I reside at 6275 Powers Boulevard and I wish to make a few comments with respect to these procedures. The zoning ordinances of Chanhassen were established for a reason. I think. The area, in our opinion, is unsafe and unsuitable for two homes. And the aesthetics of Chanhassen's entrance and property value in the neighborhood will likely drop precedent and a slippery slope. The zoning ordinances of Chanhassen were established for a reason. And presumably to preserve our pleasant suburban community. Attract commerce, it will help Chanhassen grow and support the tax base and preserve homeowners property values. Ignoring the ordinances for the proposed project will undermine all of these purposes. Therefore the zoning ordinance should be forced uniformily. There are unsafe and unsiteable sites for two homes. Highway 17. The reason these two points where the staff referred you to is that Highway 17 is a dangerous road, and if you don't believe it come on down and see it. The proposed site is a steep hill and sees a great deal of drainage. Highway 17. She's a stinker. She's a fast road. Entering cars, especially along this stretch out there near the 12 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1999 proposed home is at a risk of accidents with the traffic. Because the traffic is much, is often much faster than the posted 45 mph. They're still coming over in excess of 50 mph out here to the astonishment of us all. Particularly since they built a thing that's called, not a highway but a religious item. The thing that was being fed in here all summer long. That little area on the side. A trail. We had big trail business. The 45 mph doesn't mean a damn. You and I know you've been out on that highway where 50 was ignored, and that's right in the community. Within two miles here you can go from 50. That's the term we use for 55, 56 and worse. South, til you get down to where the two homes are proposed to be made, and then it drops to 30. It's crazy. Because traffic is often much faster than the posted, posted miles per miles. They don't even have it even posted at that. Excelsior sets up speed traps just beyond Lilac Lane on Highway 17 for a reason. The site is not suitable for one home, let alone two for reasons of drainage and the creek about the property and noise from the highway. Come on down and spend a night trying to get to sleep when these things are screaming through there. I've heard many a night and sometimes occasionally a crash. It's a mad house out there and as you must all well know, just recently they ordered a 25 mph speed off to the south line off the south shore of Christmas Lake. This site has been for sale for decades for a reason. No one wishing to build a home for his or her family would choose it. There is no small coincidence that a corporation intent on hit and run profits is the party to propose this development. With respect to that sale for decades for a reason, is that my father fought these same problems back prior to '43. Aesthetics of Chanhassen's entrance. Currently the entrance is attractive. These houses will marr that. The trees planted on the hills are going to be gone. It's going to be stripped down. And you and I know it. All you have to do is get out here a few miles and what this town does has been trying to preserve something but we will go through, it will go. Two structures constructed according to the standards necessary to cram them into land the size of a postage stamp on a steep hill will not live up to the standards of other homes in the neighborhood. The inconsistency would damge those homeowners' interest. And bending the rules for this chase will set a dangerous precedent for all and anyone to side step zoning ordinances. Do you have any questions? Joyce: No sir. Thank you very much for coming. Would anyone else like to address the Planning Commission on this topic? Robert Rabe: Robert Rabe and I live on Teton Lane, which is just to the west of this property. And I guess just a couple questions. Is it true, just to confirm, that this is at variance with the ordinances for the zoning? Joyce: Bob, could you answer that question? Generous: As originallly proposed it was but based on the revisions it complies with city ordinance. Robert Rabe: And what were the sizes of the lots when it was originally proposed? Generous: They were the 23,719 and 16,010. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1999 Robert Rabe: Okay. And so by basically manipulating the lines it has been possible to fit two lots in this space and just squeeze over the zoning limit basically. Is this how it? Generous: No, they're substantially above it. 15,000 square feet is the minimum lot size in the zoning district. So they're both about 5,000 square feet over. Robert Rabe: Okay. I understand. I tend to concur with Bowen's comments. I guess I would like to ask what is the benefit to the community of having two houses on this lot? What is the purpose derived from that? It's a very noisey place due to the traffic. It's a busy road. It's a steep grade. To me it's very reasonable that, as Mr. Bowen stated, that there could be a serious problem of traffic entering onto basically what's a fast road at that point. And as a property owner basically adjacent to this, I am highly concerned that the trees that are currently blocking the view of Mill Street might be all cut down and I don't believe we have any control over that. And I really, I haven't heard anything addressed with regard to that topic specifically. And I don't personally have a lot of confidence that the views of the neighbors are going to be respected. In my experience with developments of this type it's basically get the most dollars out of the property that you can possibly get out and ! think this is a case in point. So the developer will be long gone. I mean they'll put the house in and you know what, how long? Maybe a few months it takes to turn the property around after it's completed. Sell it for whatever price perhaps they can get. Hopefully more than they would have gotten for one nice house on the property. And then they're gone and out and we're left with it. Basically forever so, while it may comply with the zoning ordinances, [ can't deny that, I do feeI that it is contrary to the nature of the neighborhood and is basically inconsistent with the overall intent of the community and I would propose that it not be allowed to be granted just because it happens to comply with some facts on a page. At the very least I would like to know what is going to happen to the screen of trees around the homes and particularly to the west where right now it's quite a nice, thick stand. I would like to know what actions are being taken to preserve that. And also I think the risk of accidents on Mill Street is a very great one and a very serious one. I would like to know specifically what is being done to guarantee that there wouldn't be a problem here so with that. Joyce: Thank you very much. Bob I'm going to, I need to intrude on the public hearing here but I did have a question for you, for the staff and I apologize. Do we take a tree inventory here of when this development, will there be a tree inventory when they do the tree removal? Generous: Part of their building permit application they have that requirement. Grading and drainage and tree removal specific for the site. We did a canopy coverage calculation as part of this subdivision. Joyce: What kind of, would you happen to know what kind of trees are in there? Are they substantial trees like oaks and elms and things like that or is'it more of a scrubby type of tree? Generous: Yes they were. There is a nice stand of conifers on the northern portion of this site. And that's the area that we're trying to preserve in its entirety. But it was ironwood. Maybe some basswood in there. Some, there weren't many large trees. It was like regrowing a meadow area. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1999 Joyce: How do those, how do we go from this preliminary plat to the moving site where we find out what trees are actually being moved? Do you go over that with the applicant once they put the, I want the process here. So everybody knows what's going on. Generous: As part of this application they need to provide the City with a landscaping plan for the installation of 17 trees that are required as part of the subdivision. Joyce: Why wasn't it part of that? Why weren't we requiring it now on this preliminary plat? At least the landscaping plan. Generous: Well I think initially they didn't feel .that it was such a small plat that they didn't have that much to provide. So the applicant is, and that is something we believe that we can work with. Our major concern in designing this was trying to preserve as much of the site as we could. And we were able to almost double the area of tree preservation based on the revised plans. Then fi'om that we take the, we can tell them the quantity and then work with them on the specific landscaping plan. Then as part of the site grading for the building permit we'll look at specific protection measures of trees in the area. Of the building pads to see if there's additional trees that can and will be preserved as part of the plat. Joyce: All right, thanks for. Yes ma'am. Sorry to. Florence Natole: ...picture that I could show. Okay, I'm Florence Natole, 6251 Teton Lane. And we are the only two lots that are in back so when they take the trees down, our lot is going to be like this. They're worrying about trees. They're plum trees a lot of them. They're not big, beautiful trees. They've been there since we've been there, 37 years. I used to reach over our fence to pick the plums. ! asked this of Bob when I talked to him on the phone. I was a little hot under the collar that day. Some days I get like that. But I said what's going to happen to our land which goes up like this and then this goes down like that. They take all the trees and build a house, where's our land going to be? Up in the air with nothing? Is there going to be anything, I haven't heard a word. Is there going to be anything about making a 45 degree angle or whatever they talk about, which they did Lorus when Centex put in those houses. They had that as a stipulation that they couldn't leave him with the hill so everything ran down. So our land is right there where the land is. That's what I was trying to say. It's, we're the Natoles and our land runs right to there. The two trees, the two biggest trees we have, my husband put some white ties on so we can see from there. Yeah, that's us. Right where this land is that they'll propose the two houses. So you're talking about some trees. I'm not worrying about the trees. I'm worrying about what's going to happen to our land when it's up in the air and we want to sell maybe and somebody wants to build a house back there. Then what do they do? Joyce: Could I have Bob maybe address that for you right now? Since we're at it. Florence Natole: Well I've already talked to him once about this. Generous: She didn't like my answer. 15 Planning Commission Meeting -November 17, 1999 Florence Natole: No, I don't like your answer. Joyce: Help us all then. Is there a retaining wall right there as well? Is that what we're talking there? Hempel: Mr. Chairman maybe I can address that. Joyce: There we go. I knew someone could help us here. Hempel: The plans before you this ev'ening show approximately a 3 to 1 side slope from the property line down to the driveway. There's also a small retaining wall proposed by the garage on this particular type of home site that they're proposing. Now one of the things that staff said in the staff report was, this is just one way to develop the property. Another home builder may come in and design another home style that reconfigures the footprint and that's where we go and we say to them, okay show us a detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan, tree removal plan and show us how you're going to maintain that slope so it doesn't just slide off and leave you with a cliff. Florence Natole: Yeah, up in the air. Hempel: Those are things that we address at time of building permit application. Florence Natole: Okay. This then, right now you don't have anything covering that at this particular time? Hempel: Well there are ordinances in place that protect you from that. They want to use a retaining wall, there are certain requirements. They have to be engineered. Safety requirements to put a fence above them if they're over 4 or 6 feet high... Florence Natole: It's going to be. It's quite a high one. I've always dreamed of having a house up on that upper acre there because you can see a lot farther than from where we are. So it's a beautiful spot as far as we're concerned. But what's it going to look like after that's gone? Well, for now I guess that's my big objection. Tad Ware: My name is Tad Ware. I reside at 1225 Lilac Lane. The points that my grandfather brought up came up at dinner on Sunday with my father who owns the property immediately north of the Natole's and also abuts that hill. Exactly that one right there. And the four major concerns that came out, the first was the, what we felt was lack of compliance with the zoning ordinances. Are those all complied with now? Including setback from the, okay. The second thing that we were worried about was, as Mrs. Natole mentioned, the erosion of the hill. There is a great deal of water that travels through that land. Both the...that feed into Christmas Lake travel down that hill. There's a big ditch that runs along that property and carries a lot of water for that reason and our concern is that it's going to not only, with the grading that I'm sure is going to have to happen to flatten that out in order to build two structures there. At least to my 16 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1999 uneducated guess, cause some sort of erosion if it's not very carefully done. Our third concern was Highway 17 now traveling into Chanhassen is something that we're pretty proud of. It's a very beautiful strip of road. Mr. Bowen has built a bunch of evergreens along there before the new trail that was put in. Went in and it's a very nice strip that goes into Chanhassen and we're worried about what putting two houses in is going to do to the appearance of the neighborhood. Also, the property's been up for sale for a couple of decades. Every since I was a little kid and I'm pushing 30 and it's a very steep piece of land and...doing around 40 or 50 and is frequently doing much faster. There's a reason why the Excelsior police set up right past Lilac Lane and make out a lot of money on people coming out of Chanhassen. And our concern is partly that folks traveling through there are going to be placed in greater danger just because more people are going to be coming out onto that county road. And also that, what was the other point I was going to get to? Sorry, I get nervous public speaking. I think that was about it. But those were the concerns that we had and if they could be addressed more to our satisfaction that our property values aren't going to drop and the hill isn't going to erode and cause damage to the land that we own, it would...our fears. Thanks. Joyce Hagedorn: ...45 Holly Lane and it butts up to your property Mr. Bowen. And our garage has collapsed twice. Kind: Could you tell us your name and address please? Thank you. Joyce Hagedorn: I'm Joyce Hagedorn at 630 Carver Beach Road but we also have a house at 8145 Holly Lane. And the garage has collapsed twice and if there's going to be more erosion, more water coming down our property we are going to lose our garage again for the third time. I have never complained to the Chanhassen Village for it but this is a big concern. We had Mr. Kerber come and try to re-support our garage and rebuild it again but every time there was a huge rainfall, this water comes down. Now the City has done an excellent job of putting some rip rap along Holly Lane but up on Willow Creek there's no, and it comes down Willow Creek and into my garage. There's going to be more runoff. I'm going to lose my property so I'm very concerned and I just wanted to bring this concern before... Joyce: Thank you very much for. Anybody else. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Kind moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Joyce: Okay commissioners. Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, may I ask for clarification from Bob before we start? Joyce: Sure. Blackowiak: As I was sitting here playing with my little scale of 30 feet here, I was reading through the conditions and it talks about the front yard setback on Lot 1. It's condition 15. Which is the lot line that you are considering the front lot line? 17 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1999 Generous: It would be the side line. Property line closest to the county road. Where the driveway would be. Blackowiak: Okay, so not the one that's most north of south? It's the diagonal...? Generous: It becomes side lot lines... Blackowiak: So as ! look at the 30 feet, it appears that the garage is encroaching into that 30 foot setback. So what are we seeing here? Are we seeing an actual plan or would any garage encroach into it or not? Generous: That's part of the reason we're requesting that they provide the individual grading, drainage and erosion control plans because these are stylized house plans. We don't believe this is what's actually going to go on the site. They would have to comply with the setback requirements. That's another reason I put it in the conditions so it's very specific. Blackowiak: Good. Great, that helps. Thank you. Joyce: Okay. Did you want to continue on Alison? Blackoxviak: Certainly. As 1 first read this, on paper it looks like a fairly straight forward subdivision. However as l've driven by this property many times. Have in-laws that live up in Excelsior so I drive this road a lot and I do know that it is kind of a tough road. I know the traffic moves quickly. And I also see Excelsior police making their money on people both going to and leaving Excelsior because there are lots of people that are stopped there on a regular basis. I do think traffic is a main concern, it's access is directly onto 17 is less than ideal. I don't know that it could really be any other way unfortunately. But short of a right-in, right-out, something like that, if there are going to be houses there, they need to have access. Although it might not be the best thing to do, you got to get there. I do have some questions or problems I guess with the erosion specifically. It is such a hilly lot. I think there are going to be a lot of potential erosion problems. Not only on the lots themselves but the lots directly to the west. And also potentially onto the highway. I worry what's going to happen onto the highway after maybe a rain. Are we going to get mud slides or something coming down onto the highway because we're losing dirt off the property? I don't know. One of the people...pointed water flow to Christmas Lake and that's something that concerns me. If you have streams going through the property, any time you start changing directions of streams and water flow you're going to have, there are potentially huge problems. And I would like to find out a little bit more about where the streams are. How they are impacted by the proposed houses and would hope that as city council looks at this they could get some answers onto, as to what the situation is with the runoff patterns now. Where the streams are and how this is going to impact this entire parcel. Obviously this is a very tough one. I can see why it has been for sale for a lot of years because it won't be easy to build on it but I do want to be sure that the neighbors are protected in terms of erosion specifically, both uphill and downhill fi'om this project. And I think those are my major concerns. It's not as straight forward as I thought it was. I don't have any problems with any of the other conditions as long as all the 18 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1999 setbacks are met. Not much we can do as a Planning Commission if ordinances are met. But we can put conditions in and we can make comments to try to make it the best possible subdivision I hope that we can work something out. Kind: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple questions for Bob. I wonder if you can address some of the questions that were brought up by the public. Mr. Bowen commented several times on, he felt the lot was too small for two homes and I heard you say quietly and I just want to make sure it's for the record that our minimum lot size is 15,000 square feet and these both exceed that. Generous: That's correct. They're almost 20,000 square feet each. Kind: So they're on the large side of our standard lot size. And then I noticed there's no condition in here talking about tree conservation. Is that something that we could put in as a condition? That there be tree conservation lines, especially along the west. Generous: You can put any condition you like in there. Kind: I might. Generous: We believe with the revision to the plan we were able to save the northern triangle. That would be an appropriate place for it. It becomes a little more problematic on the west side of the property near the house pads because they don't know if they're going to put the retaining wall in or go with the 3 to 1 slope which is a standard grading...so we didn't want to restrict it too much. We knew it's a difficult site. Kind: Okay, thank you. Hempel: Maybe I can add to that. The northerly half of the site you're basically couldn't build anything in there becauase of the setback requirements so you certainly could place a tree conservation easement over that but I guess there's no way to build in that area so we felt it would be preserved for the most part. Kind: Thank you. With that Mr. Chairman I'll make my comments. I agree with what Alison said and my main concern is the aesthetics of the site be maintained and especially the view from the people to the west. So I'd like to see some sort of, I don't know. Tree conservation plan or inventory of the significant trees be made and efforts be made to preserve those. I understand, I like how it's been creatively laid out so that the northern portion is basically left undisturbed and I understand your point about it. It kind of goes without saying but it seems important to point that out that all those trees on the north half I guess of the lot will not be changed. And there will be no grading or anything happening in that really severe, steep area. The driveway entrance is a big concern also. You've got to be able to get into these houses somehow. IfI had my way I would say this lot shouldn't be developed at all until all of those lm'ger parcels are developed and they all be developed at the same time but I don't get my way on that. So with that being said you know this lot is a residential lot and there's two homes that can fit on there within our ordinances, it's got to have a way out to the street and the County needs to approve that so if they 19 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1999 approve it, which is, it's in their hands I guess, we can go with that. My favorite place to get sweet corn is at Kerber's which is that next right turn when you head south and I know I've been almost rear ended making that turn. This drive is even before that so I would be very nervous about living there. Very nervous but I won't be buying it. So you'll be the one rear ending the person making the right turn. It is. I agree. Okay. Joyce: Great. Keep the comments at the commission level here because it's our turn now. Ladd, do you have anything else to add? Conrad: Well they're all valid questions but it is, it's a buildable lot. Legally. Yeah there's nothing to add. My big concern is the erosion and the tree replacement. To make it fit in, and we've talked about that. I think the conditions reflect the control we have. The conditions reflect the control we have on this. Before I stop my comments let me ask Dave a question on retaining walls. Is that's what's going to be? Is that what you would guess would happen on the steep slope? Hempel: I would envision some retaining walls on the westerly side of the Lot 1. Conrad: How big? Hempel: I would suspect to try to keep them in the 4 to 6 foot range. As you get higher than that they get very expensive. They have to be engineered. A fence for safety issues. Conrad: And so our rules will manage, what manage retaining wall height other than you? You do that. In terms of safety, what's the control we have on safety when you have a 6 foot retaining wall and maybe children on the other side. What guidelines do you follow Dave? Hempel: I believe there are some building codes to protect residents from that. We've also instilled a policy here, any time you're adjacent to a property like that, a residential use, that we would require a fence be placed on top of a retaining wall. Anything above 4 foot 9. Conrad: Thank you. Bob, your tree replacement plan has 17 trees. A minimum of 4 trees must be conifers. We don't know where those 17 are going, do we? We don't. Generous: We're requesting that they provide us with that plan prior to council approval. Conrad: Is that as stiff a tree replacement plan as we can put in right now? Generous: Yes. Conrad: That's what ordinance tells us to do. Okay. Mike Abbott: Could I address that now? Joyce: No, we're done now. You can address that at city council level. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1999 Conrad: I'm sure this will be replayed at City Council so. A minimum of 4 so what sets that minimum? Our ordinance again, a minimum of 4 was that staff's? Generous: Well no, that was staff's recommendations. 20% have to be conifers. Conrad: I'm just getting into the small points. I think the residents would like to know some of the details and the details aren't available yet. They're just not there. The ordinances are there and you almost have to say trust the ordinances. We've gone through this before but you've got to sort of follow the process through. I think we all know what the issues are and I think staff is now hearing us express what the issues are, and they're pretty good at following through on this. Nothing else. Joyce: Thank you Ladd. Matt. Burton: I agree with all the comments prior really for a change. And what I understand is going on is they're not really asking to build any particular houses. They're asking that this single lot be divided into two lots and with these proposed lines and they've met the requirements that we have for doing that. The staff did work with them pretty diligently it appears to preserve the site the best as possible. And because they've met the standards, I think our hands are pretty tied and the details about where the driveway could be or retaining walls and all that and the grading, that's all I think for the next step that we're not at. I understand the concerns of the neighbors and I respect the concerns but what we're essentially faced with is a drawing of a property line and they've met the standards. I don't think that we have much flexibility at this point in how we handle it. I think we have to approve it. Sidney: I agree with the previous comments. I am concerned with the drainage issues. I think that's.., it does sound like there may be a bit more than originally outlined in the staff report. Also I am concerned about the safety issue for a driveway entrance. That Carver County will review that and things will work out...At first glance it seemed to be a straight forward subdivision. ! think those issues...subdivision meets ordinances. Joyce: I don't have much else to add. This is a sensitive piece of property. But it is a buildable piece of property and what you're telling me it's been considered a buildable piece of property for a long time so now they've decided to act on that and I think it's within reason. I would like to make one comment though for consideration is that we put some sort of condition or at least acknowledgement that we don't approve this proposal until the County can verify the access location. An acceptable access location. I didn't see that in the conditions. Condition 11 says that the applicant will be responsible obtaining, complying with necessary permits such as Carver County, MPCA, etc, etc. I'd like to kind of highlight, if someone would be willing to do that, that there definitely has to be concurrence with the County that the access location is acceptable. I think that's kind of important and still puts some of the onus on the County to decide whether it's a safe entrance for this development or not. So, with that said do I have a motion? 21 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1999 Blackowiak: I'll make a motion. I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Arrowhead Addition, Subdivision #99-10 creating two lots as shown on plans prepared by Advance Surveying and Engineering Company dated June 24, 1999, revised October 26, 1999, subject to the following conditions 1 through 15. And I've got a few of my own to add. Number 16. Explore the possibility of a tree conservation easement for the northern triangle of the property. Number 17. Investigate potential erosion, drainage and water flow problems for the parcel. And number 18. Condition of approval being concurrence with the County for an acceptable driveway location. Joyce: Is there a second on that motion? Kind: Second. Joyce: Got a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Kind: One question Alison. Would you be okay with a friendly amendment? I think it was 16 of your's that included a detailed plan of tree inventory. Blackowiak: Bob, do we need that or is that part of our ordinance? Did you say it was part of our ordinance, tree inventory? Generous: As part of the specific plan, yes. They have to provide that. You can repeat it here if you want to. Kind: Just to emphasize how important we think it is. Here's my proposed number 16. Let me know what you think here. The applicant provide a detailed plan of tree inventory and tree conservation easement, especially along the western and norther portions of the parcel. Blackowiak: I can live with that. Joyce: Okay. We have the amendment to number 16. You accept that? Okay. Any other discussion? Blackowiak moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Arrowhead Addition, Subdivision #99-10 creating two lots as shown on plans prepared by Advance Surveying and Engineering Company dated June 24, 1999, revised October 26, 1999, subject to the following conditions: The development shall pay full park and trail fees pursuant to city ordinance in lieu of park land dedication. If any soil corrections are done on the property a final grading plan and soil report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits will be issued. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1999 o o o ° o 10. 11. 12. Address numbers must be posted at the driveway entrance on Powers Boulevard and on each dwelling. Each property must be served by independent sewer and water services. It may be possible to provide an easement for a joint service, however a manhole structure would be required at the service split. The applicant shall submit landscape plan as part of the final plat approval showing a total of 17 trees to be planted as part of this development. A minimum of four of the trees must be conifers that shall be located along Powers Boulevard. Conifers shall average seven feet in height at planting. The balance of the trees may be from the city's approved tree list. Trees shall meet minimum size requirements. A detailed grading, drainage and erosion control, tree removal plan will be required for each lot at time of building permit application for city staffto review. The applicant will be required to enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee installation of the public improvements and conditions of final plat approval. The applicant shall dedicate the southeasterly 50 feet of Outlot A for public street purposes for Holly Lane. The applicant shall prepare and have recorded a 20 foot wide private drainage and utility easement in favor of Lot 1 over Lot 2 to extend sewer and water service to Lot 1. In addition, the developer shall prepare and have recorded a 30 foot wide private driveway easement agreement across Lot 2 to provide access to Lot 1 from Powers Boulevard. The driveway width shall be a minimum of 18 feet wide and a maximum of 24 feet wide in the common portion of the driveway area. Individual driveways may be a minimum of 12 feet wide and a maximum of 24 feet wide. All driveway areas shall be paved with an all weather surface such as bituminous or concrete. The applicant shall prepare detailed construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates for the extension of sewer and water service to service Lots 1 and 2. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to city staff for review and approval three weeks prior to final plat consideration. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with the necessary permits such as Carver County Highway Department, MPCA, Watershed District, and Minnesota Department of Health. Lots 1 and 2 shall be responsible for a sanitary sewer and water hookup charge at time of building permit application at the rate in effect at the time. 23 Planning Commission Meeting -November 17, 1999 13. SWMP fees shall be paid to the city in the amount of $2,530 ($782 quality and $1,802 quantity) prior to the recording of the final plat. 14. The applicant shall dedicate to the city a drainage and utility easement over Outlot A. 15. Since Lot 1 does not front on a public street, the front yard shall be considered the lot line closest to Powers Boulevard. The required 30 foot front yard setback shall be maintained from this lot line. 16. The applicant provide a detailed plan of tree inventory and tree conservation easement, especially along the western and norther portions of the parcel. 17. Investigate potential erosion, drainage and water flow problems for the parcel. 18. Condition of approval being concurrence with the County for an acceptable driveway location. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Joyce: Okay, this will pass onto the City Council on December 13th. Thank you all for coming. Appreciate your comments and coming out this evening. Audience: I have a question. How can we be made apprised of the situation because... Joyce: Okay, what I suggest you do is call Mr. Generous over here, who will be very happy to walk you through any further questions you have. And you've got, like I said, the t 3th of December is when this comes before the City Council which will make the binding decision on this. And I'll just say to everybody that the City is pretty good about answering questions and being accomodating to sort of problems you have so please stop in. Bob Generous, Kate Aanenson, happy to talk to you. Dave Hempel too. OLD BUSINESS. Generous: ...received additional financing through the Met Council so we believe that project will go forward now? Kind: Apartments? I missed the first part. Generous: So we've been working with them and the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency to find additional funding sources beyond the City of Chanhassen. So it looks like it's a go now. Or should be a go. Joyce: Was it the bicycle shop that's starting to take shape? Generous: That building and Building 4 is going up. The swim school is in for construction. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1999 Burton: Bob, I can't recall, is the bike shop all a bike shop in that building or wasn't there some other space too? Generous: There's a little juice bar area that they're going to have in the window on the patio side. And then they have their office space of course up on the top. NEW BUSINESS. Joyce: New business? Generous: Yes. Next meeting you will have two variances. What everyone likes to hear but at least you can make final decisions on those .... apartments, that's on hold. That's the ones as part of the Lake Susan Hills development. Yeah, we're working with the applicant to revise the plans. So rather than do like we did tonight, we have one set of information and then have to change it all. We're going to come up with a. Kind: Where are these located? Generous: Lake Drive West, inbetween Powers and just off of Powers on the south side. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Deb Kind noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 20, 1999 as presented. ONGOING ITEMS. Generous: As part of the Pulte Home development, that's up for reconsideration at Council. The original proposal failed on a 3 to 2 motion and so, then one of the people on the 2 side has requested it be reconsidered. These are answers that Kate prepared for the residents comments that were made at the meeting. And so she just asked that I bring these down so you are apprised of what's going on with that. At least in the discussion on that. Conrad: Why does the City, you know that was brought to us as a sketch plan review. And I haven't made an issue of this but why is City Council reviewing this, because it was a sketch plan review? Why wasn't it brought back to us? After the. Kind: To noodle it kind of. Conrad: Absolutely. The sketch plan, and we'd better talk about this sometime when Kate's back and we have everybody here but the sketch plan review is a very informal process where you get input from everybody. And then it's up to the developer to come back and do what they think is right based on the informal comments. What was presented to us was very formal from Kate. Very detailed. Very specific with conditions and I've not seen that before. I made mention of it that night but what the little bit of interest to me right now is how involved the City 25 Planning Commission Meeting - November 17, 1999 is at this point in time. Maybe saving the developer some money. But I want to understand the process because I don't understand it right now. Generous: Mr. Chairman, the big issue at the council level were the land use issues. Is this the appropriate land uses for that so that was part of their discussion. Conrad: And that's valid, yeah. It's always been valid. Generous: And then the question also became what's the advantage of the PUD and that's part of what Kate's trying to explain in those comments that there is a lot more control through that process rather than they could come in with a straight subdivision and use like an R-4 zoning and go with twin homes or RSF and do a standard subdivision on portions and we'd lose some of the preservation and common open spaces. Joyce: Okay. Ongoing item. Generous: Pulte. Joyce: And we've had some open discussion? Conrad: "['hat was it. Joyce: Motion to adjourn. Kind moved, Conrad seconded to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 26