Loading...
PC 1998 05 20CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION IlEGULAIl MEETING MAY 20, 1998 Vice Chairman Joyce called the meeting to order at 7;05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: LuAnn Sidney, Matt Burton, Alison Blackowiak, Allyson Brooks, and Kevin Joyce MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad and Craig Peterson STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin A1-Jafl] Planner II; and Dave Hempel, Asst. City Engineer PUBLIC HEAIIlNG: CONTIIACTOII PIIOPEIITY DEVELOPEIIS COMPANY IlEQUEST FOIl IIEZONING OF 16.4 ACIlES FIIOM IlIl, IlUIlAL IIESIDENTIAL TO IlSF, IIESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY; PIIELIMINAIIY PLAT OF 16.4 ACIlES INTO 17 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VAIIlANCES. THE PIIOPEIITY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LAKE LUCY IIOAD, JUST NOIITH OF LAKE LUCY, LAKE LUCY ESTATES. Public Present: Name Address Greg Kopischke Dan Sjordal Betsy & Jack Randall A1 Weingart Joe & Gayle Morin Kathryn Femhollz Homer Tompkins Richard A. Loscheider Bill Lambrecht Nancy Tichy Bob Christensen Westwood Professional Services Westwood Professional Services 1571 Lake Lucy Road 1685 Steller Court 1441 Lake Lucy Road Westwood Professional Services CPDC 1607 Florida North, Golden Valley 6990 Utica Lane 1471 Lake Lucy Road 1511 Lake Lucy Road Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. (Audio on the tape was poor quality for this portion of the meeting.) Homer Tompkins: My name is Homer Tompkins. I am President of the company called Contractor Property Developers Company. We are a wholly owned subsidiary of Scherer Brothers Lumber Company. A family owned business, third generation... Our primary business function is to provide lumber material and services to... home builders. My division is in charge of land development. We develop land on our own. We also do joint ventures. We would be Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998 developing in joint venture partner in this project is Nick Loscheider, who is... home builder. We've developed 14 residential subdivisions throughout the Twin Cities metropolitan area. We have five more... Greg Kopischke: ... and tried to do our best to adjust grading. Work with retaining walls. Eliminate retaining walls. Add retaining walls if necessary. Adjust roads here and there so that we can minimize those impacts to the greatest extent, or even where necessary.., so we tried to take a conservative approach in terms of... and if we could talk about utilities for just a second. As was mentioned.., sanitary sewer comes from.., in this vicinity.., and routed down this way and extending it through to service the lot. We do know that the city engineer asked if we'd extend it to the property to the west where.., storm water will be picked up within the street, routed down and routed through a pond, or storm water quality treatment storage.., mn through a few of the staff report items that probably need some addressing. The first item would be number 1 where the recommendation is to replace the 63 required trees... In talking with the city forester, in developing our reforestation plan, we proposed something a little bit different than this. Utilizing 2 1/2 inch trees. Certainly... want boulevards where you.., visible perhaps the ponds and so forth but we're also looking at reforestation of the site in terms of working with some smaller trees and.., leave that open to work more closely with the forester and staff on that particular item so we do come up with something that's more appropriate for this particular site that we get the best reforestation management. Something that's going to have.., long term appropriate for this site. We can certain, on item 2 we can certainly work with the staff on tree removal limits as appropriate. On item 3 it talked about berming and landscaping along the right-of-way of Lake Lucy Road and we're more than happy to do that but there are fairly minimal openings, if any, to do that without removing existing tree cover. So we'd like to, when it comes to final plan stage, work with staff on that particular item and we'll provide it where appropriate and without destroying the existing tree cover in those locations. Item 5(a) talks about creating plans for some of these custom lots and we can certainly do that but would prefer to do that with each individual building permit that comes in .... how fight it may go in there so it may be a little bit difficult to pre-conceive a grading plan for some of those. I think there's a later item that talks about setting some elevations and identifying building sites, whether they're walkouts or tuck unders and so forth. We can tentatively set some of those on the custom home lots, but it might be a significant range of house types.., anticipate custom homes. There could be any number of sites.., little bit more open ended and work with staff on those particular.., at that particular time. There was item 9 talked about dock access.., riparian lots. Lot 6 in the southeast comer already has a dock and it would remain in that location.., we'll have to work with staff on Lots 4 and 5. Some type of a plan to work with access there... What else do we have here? Actually that's all our concerns and comments. There was one comment from the engineer about including drain tile system behind the curb and gutters, along lots that are not adjacent to wetlands and storm ponds. Just looking for a clarification as to why. I'm not opposed to it if it's a city requirement but.., a clarification on that particular item. Under item 26(c). Shorten and lower the cul-de-sac. Certainly we can look at what those particular impacts would be. Elevationally it might be a little bit easier to do the short.., along with the shortening and increasing the radius to 60 feet, it may have a bigger impact on proposed Lot 7 right here in terms of that.., so we think that's an item to work with staff a little bit more in detail on that. I think with that, oh one additional item. On the pond. This particular lot there was a note about minimum floor elevations relative to the flood levels. I think we have a 2 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998 little bit.., in that this pond actually overflows to the wetland.., there might be some type of slight deviation from the norm but I think it's one that's probably appropriate. With that I'd like to Katie Fernhollz to come up and just talk a bit about her investigation.., with the city forester and how that... Joyce: Are there any questions for the applicant? Did you want to talk about, well I'll ask. About the builder, the developer. Who's the builder? Who's the developer?... Greg Kopischke: CPDC is the developer. Mr. Loscheider is the builder. Nick Loscheider: My name's Nick Loscheider from Loscheider Custom Homes and I became aware of this property and asked Homer Tompkins... Joyce: You're going to build all the homes? Nick Loscheider: Actually we're probably going to most likely pull in one other builder. Joyce: So you've got two builders. Yourself and one other builder. Nick Loscheider: Correct. Joyce: You have a question? Brooks: Yeah, I have another quick question. You said you might need a Corps permit. What would you need a Corps permit for? Greg Kopischke: I think that was a condition of the approval I believe. Is that correct? And I would say that's probably just a laundry list. Certainly we will... Brooks: What else do you need a Corps permit for? Usually it's the amount of runoff from the road. Hempel: To be perfectly honest, it is a boiler plate condition. Brooks: Yeah, okay. Greg Kopischke: I'm not seeing anything... Hempel: The City has a water quality requirement. This particular pond has to meet... phosphorous removal of 75% and their initial design.., appears to meet that. We have not had formal quality numbers, calculations... We are comfortable with where the pond is proposed, on the east side of the cul-de-sac. Condition 21 I believe it is... Greg Kopischke:... Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998 Aanenson: ... we've had problems in the past where.., domino effect. So we feel strongly that we need to have that in order to... the trees so we would not recommend you change that... Hempel: If I could just add to that as well ....as part of the installation for sanitary sewer, there will be minimal.., based on the sewer... Joyce: What about the situation... Aanenson: I think we'd like to work with the applicant and... And that's what we're saying... We have custom lots in this city that... Greg Kopischke: Right. We'll provide that... Katie Fernhollz from Westwood Professional Services, presented the woodland preservation plan to the Planning Commission. Joyce: Does anybody have any questions for Kate? Brooks: I have some for the staff about the trees. Do you guys know the Autumn Woods subdivision that's across from where I am. Just at the beginning of Chaska. Is that sort of the percent of the trees we're going to have left? I'm trying to visualize what it's going to look like. They did a pretty good job leaving most of the trees in there. If you drive through, that's pretty, I mean you still feel like you're in a forested area. Aanenson: Well just to be clear, we don't allow them to stick 63 trees in. They are required to do a woodland management plan so that's what we're working towards. What those 63 trees are and where they go is what they're trying to resolve with the stafl~ Brooks: I'm trying to get a visual idea of what this is going to look like and like what I'm saying is, even though it's just over the border in Chaska, that Autumn Woods, when I drive through it, those houses still look like they're in forested area and I'm trying to get a feeling if on this one, when you drive through it, are you still going to get the feeling that you're in a forested area. Or are we losing so much that we're just losing the whole feel of the property. Are you following me? A1-Jafl2 You're losing 50% of what's out there. I mean you'll drive through and there will be an open swath in the middle, which is something that you'll find with most wooded parcels that are subdivided.., in the middle to provide for access, for the street. Brooks: The homes themselves, are you still going to get the feel that you're in some woods? Aanenson: That's why we're saying we want the elevations of where the homes are going so you can custom grade those.., but there will be tree loss. It's unavoidable in order to do something like this. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998 Greg Kopischke: ... we're trying to do our due diligence. We want to keep the cost of tree removal down and maintain that value that people want... Brooks: Well I was just trying to make a comparison in a sense that when I drive through that subdivision, I still feel like I'm definitely in a wooded area. I mean they did a good job of making you feel like you're still in the woods and I'm trying to get, understand ifI drive through your proposed subdivision, if I'm going to get the same feel or is the tree loss is so great that it's going to be lost. Greg Kopischke: That's what we're trying to maintain here is... due diligence in trying to figure out what it is that we have and how... Joyce: I did have one question regarding the trees. We're saying a minimum of 42% of the canopy will be lost but then there's a suggestion of the possibility for another 15% could be lost. Is that taking into account the 63 trees? If we lose more trees, do they. A1-Jafl~ They have to replace more. And right now the 63 trees are. Joyce: That's for the 42% loss. About a tree per a thousand square feet... A1-Jafl~ Yes. Joyce: Okay, thank you. All right. Can I get a motion to open this up for a public hearing. Sidney moved, Brooks seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Joyce: Public hearing on this issue. Anybody like to address the Planning Commission at this time, please step forward to state your name and address please. Jack Randall: I'm Jack Randall on Lake Lucy, just west of the property. I'm probably the most affected by what we're talking about here. There is a number of concerns I've got. Number one I want to say I think these people are quality people. They're doing a good job and we're not trying to stop the development of the property. We're just trying to shape it to where we think it's fits with the neighborhood. Lot size, number one, is probably a concern, and I think in the letter you have in front of you that they started out with 16.4 acres, but...take out the wetland and the roads and stuff like that, you're down to really .64 acres per lot. Half acre lots. That's pretty small in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. I'm on 12 1/2 plus acres. The rest of my neighbors to the west of me are dealing with 2-3 acres a lot. Of land. And I think this doesn't quite fit the neighborhood. I'd rather see the larger lots to kind of blend more with what's happening around the area. Obviously it affects the value of my property, there's no question about that. And then from a canopy standpoint, yeah. They're talking about 64% but by the time you get down building the houses and having individual preferences and stuff like that, that canopy area is, I'm afraid is really going to shrink and I understand the forester's concept and ideas that the tree are old, diseased and stuff like that but you know we've got some 100 year old Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998 oaks in our properly that are diseased but they're probably going to be... 20-30 years. They'll out live me probably. So what's the definition of disease? What does that mean? If it's still there, it's still part of what's going on and I hate to see those beautiful old trees come down. Unnecessarily. You know if Mother Nature takes them out, that's fine. Then...the lot sizes, we're dealing with them pushing for this 10 foot side yard setback. Well, that's even pushing more trees out because you've got 20 foot between houses. There's no room for a tree to live there. It's not going to happen. So how are we going to, how are you going to replace that and how do you replace, that doesn't fit. And then more specifically on the farther, I want to say, the southern, southeastern most part of my lot, which is where we had thought they are supposedly... 10 foot side yard setback on the house they're building down there next to the lake. So they're going to, and what they're using for a buff'er zone there is basically what's on my properly are the trees and the shrubs and stufl} the undergrowth that's on my properly. Well if they build something 10 feet away, that stufl's going to die because they're going to cut the woods out. I mean you've got to give me more room there. I don't think that's realistic in consideration of the area. I have some general concern, and I read the proposal that Sharmin that did, which I think is great, about the driveway. The stub that they're going to build to put in to service what might happen to my properly. I'm not saying I have any.., subdividing today or tomorrow. I don't know if 10 years or 20 years or 30 years from now what's going to happen, but I don't want to be restricted, and as it's kind of laid out, that if I would ever even divide off one lot, that I would have to use that side road and I don't want to do that. I want to be able to use my driveway for access for me or whomever. I want to have my options open. I have no idea what my plans are or what, if we were to develop that properly, how it would look and so... coming out of this, a conclusion where... I don't know. I want to keep my options open .... And finally, I understand you're going to run the utilities across, specifically the sewer. I have to say it's got to make more sense to do it on the lower end, otherwise you're going to have a bunch of houses down in the low side that's got to be pumped up... And I want, the concern I have is I built my house, and you may not realize it. We've only been there for a couple years and we took an old, 1900's farmhouse and kept it and built around it and created a nice spot there. And at the time I was forced to put in a whole new septic system and stuff like that and they promised that I would not have, if sewer came in the next day, I'm not going to be forced to hook up to it... sewer assessments. I want to make sure that that's not going to happen. And finally, I don't know if it's up to you or between us and the developer. I would like to have some sort of written documentation, easement for my driveway that I'm not going to be fighting with individual land owners in the future to use my driveway because that's, I can see that happening once somebody buys a house and says.., driving through my back yard. Well yeah, I will. That's it for me. Thank you. Joyce: Yeah, I want to address a couple. I had 2 or 3 questions that.., no, not for you... I thought you brought up a couple good points that I actually had a couple concerns on. The 20 foot side yard setback. The reasoning behind that is to save some of the trees, isn't it? Is that how I'm reading this? A1-Jafl2 That's on Lot 6. Joyce: Okay. Yeah, Lot 4. Is there a 10 foot setback on Lot 4? 6 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998 Al-Jarl) Yes. Mr. Randall is referring to Lot 4. Joyce: And why are we doing that? Al-Jarl) Lot 4 has just meets ordinance requirements and the ordinance says 10 feet. Lot 6 has a 10 foot variance to save trees. Joyce: I got that now. I understand... My question, and I'm a little confused, is do we need a variance for that 10 foot setback? Al-Jarl) No. That's the ordinance. Joyce: That's standard? Al-Jarl) Yes. Joyce: Okay. Did I miss something in here about that easement situation Mr. Randall brought up? Was that in our packet? Aanenson: Are you talking about the access? Joyce: Yeah. Aanenson: Well we can address that and Dave may want to comment on that but we have to look at adjoining properties, how they'll subdivide. Whether it happens today or 20 years from now. Joyce: I understand that. Aanenson: Right, so we were looking at what's the best way for that to be subdivided in the future and we're saying that it comes out.., the topography is such that it makes sense to... The Council and the Planning Commission have chosen not to provide future access, then we've had problems later when we've ... I don't know if you want to comment more on that. Hempel: Sure. Mr. Randall's driveway currently goes through these back yards... We looked at Mr. Randall's properly... We left the options open for utilities... Joyce: Okay. We'll continue with the open discussion here. Joe Morin: My name is Joe Morin. I live at 1441 Lake Lucy Road. I'm the landowner just to the east of the proposed development. I'd like to thank Sharmin and the staff for their diligence in addressing this issue and also the members of the Planning Commission for your service to the community. My major concern I think is the number of lots. I personally would like to see fewer lots on the pond area in an attempt to preserve some of the natural beauty of the area and minimize the tree loss. One of the I think good examples of a development over on Lotus Lake is 7 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998 the Frontier Development. I realize that that's, there are some differences between our topography but driving through there I think gives you, at least gives me an idea of what could be in our area and I think the developer could realize the economic value from this development with fewer lots and preserve more of the natural beauty of the area. One of the things that also concerns me is the location of the Walker Pond and the reason for my concern is the precedent that was set with the Willow Ridge development to the east of our property. The Lundgren home development just to the east of Pointe Lake Lucy. There we had, I think it was Barr Engineering coming in front of the Planning Commission and the City Council assuring us that the Walker Pond would in fact retain the water but what we have seen, what the residents have seen in Greenwood Shores is that the Walker pond and the natural ponds all flow together and the resulting storm sewer drainage goes directly into the lake, polluting the lake. And I'm very concerned about it being on the west side for that reason, and also for the fact that there is at least one significant oak tree in that area that could be saved by moving it to the other side of the street. Now on the other side of the street there may be a problem with natural springs, because I don't want to dump storm water into a natural spring and we've located one of those springs. I don't think it would be in the area. Eric Rivkin knows where the other one is so we can locate that one also. I think also that it would kind of improve the aesthetic beauty of the area to have the Walker pond on the other side of the street. So you'd have the pond. You'd have the cul-de-sac with a nice you know vegetated area in the center. Then you'd have the natural pond in the lake. I think it's a much, it would look a lot nicer too. The other thing is with the Walker pond on the other side of the lake, we have the insurance of if it did overflow, then the vegetation in the area would absorb the nutrients before the water would reach the lake and I think that would, I think that's a good insurance to have. Now I'm working with Mr. Tompkins on some of the details. I think that he had mentioned that we have not yet come to an agreement on the sewer easement. He's working on some issues with me but you know, that needs to be resolved. Also, once I see a plan here that I can support, I don't see any reason why I would not grant that easement but I think we're pretty far from that right now. At least we're a little bit far. When he met with the neighborhood he talked about the deed restrictions on the properties on the lake and also the one that has potential for subdivision and I like that idea of the deed restrictions and with that I think we might be moving in the right direction so I think what I'd like the Planning Commission to do is think about maybe a conservation easement.., since the private restrictions are not, seem to be not the way to go. I think that you're moving in the right direction. We certainly made some progress from the initial plan that was presented, I don't know a couple years ago where there were 23 lots. This plan that's being presented before you now is not a whole lot different. There are some improvements but it's not a whole lot different from the one that was rejected by, or not rejected but almost rejected by the City Council. And although we are making movement in the right direction, I don't think we're quite there. I don't think we're quite ready yet to present a plan to the City Council. It's my hope that myself and Mr. Randall and Mr. Weingart, the Tichy's and the other neighbors could come to the City Council with a plan that you've approved. That we all endorse. That returns a good economic value to the developer and I think we can get there but I don't think we're there yet. Thank you. Joyce: Anyone else like to address the Planning Commission at this time? 8 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998 A1 Weingart: My name's A1 Weingart. I live on 1685 Steller Court and my self interest in this is also that I own that island, that 10 acre parcel just outside, off of the, across the lake from where the development is proposed. And I've got to say that I would like these guys to develop this properly. I like Dick and Homer and they've got their tree people as organized as I've ever seen anybody, particularly relative to the prior experience we had a couple years ago. None of you, Ladd Conrad I think was the only one on the Planning Commission at that time that went through that brutal sort of afl'air but this was, this is a properly that's been quite controversial. The points of course we all sort of tried to allocate what we were going to chat about here and frankly Joe and Jack stole my show a little bit but there's a couple of things, and I certainly endorse the lot size and the number of lots on the properly. We would like to see that more consistent with the surrounding development and the surrounding parcel sizes. My acreage on my homestead is 6 acres. Jack's got 12. Joe's got, I don't know, 5 or 6 there. 7 or 8, something like that. And so we'd like to keep it somewhat consistent. We realize of course that Pointe Lake Lucy, next door to it is on a smaller scale. That is a much more open landscape kind of design. Not nearly as undulating with the land. It's much more flat and frankly, you know if we had to do that over again, I'm sure the neighbors would be a bit more concerned about how that particular parcel was developed, particularly the Greenwood Shores folks who got you know that parcel was relatively scraped clean. So we are a bit sensitive to how this is being developed. We are not opposed to the development of it. A couple of things. The impact on Lake Lucy, that particular bay out between the development and the island in there where the Randall's house sits. Very sensitive. Very shallow bay subject to a lot of growth and any kind of runoff that goes into there, I think you saw in the letter that was presented to you. You may not have had a chance to read it but I'm really concerned about some big bloom of algae and weeds coming in there and restricting any of the fishing and anything else that goes on in that bay. So that is a very big concern and I think the Walker pond issue, which people have talked about tonight, has to really be nailed pretty well to know that that's going to be filtered before it hits that particular part of the lake. The subdivision of Lot, further subdivision of Lot 6. We talked about a deed restriction. Now Kathryn you indicated that that doesn't work. I would think that the way we proposed it in our memo today, was that if we would put a deed restriction in there, and Homer and I have talked about this on the site the other day. We thought that putting a deed restriction on that particular lot whereby, we didn't go this far over but whereby we would need the consent of all of the land owners, deed holders in that subdivision as well as the ones that are on either side of it, to consent to that deed restriction removal, that that would work. And I know from a, talk to real estate attorney, he said that they've done that before. Putting that kind of deed restriction in there but it was requiring the consent of the parties who are impacted by any kind of further subdivision of that parcel. Aanenson: The City would not be a party to the homeowners association covenants. We wouldn't do that so if you were to put a restriction on there, anybody that would buy that lot would have the right to come back and ask... A1 Weingart: They do. They would but they'd have to get the consent of all of the land. Aanenson: But what I'm telling you is the City. A1 Weingart: The City would be part of that. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998 Aanenson: The City would not become part of the homeowners, as a rule. We would generally are not party of a homeowners. A1 Weingart: Right. Could you make a recommendation to that effect? With respect to putting that kind of deed restriction on the property like that? Joyce: Kate, is there a possibility of doing a conservation at all? Aanenson: Right, I think what you could do, but again you take the risk that someone's going to come back and.., ask them to vacate it. It happens all the time. A1 Weingart: No, I understand that you can't enforce that. I'm just saying could the Planning Commission or the Council make a recommendation, non-binding, to suggest to the developer that that kind of deed restriction be placed on that particular lot? Aanenson: Sure. I mean it's our preference that they leave it one large lot. What I'm saying is that someone can sit on that lot for a year or two and ask... A1 Weingart: Correct, but private parties can make that kind of arrangement relative to having approval of other. Aanenson: You could put it in your homeowners without.., the City and how you guys enforce it, the majority of the property owners... A1 Weingart: Okay. I just wanted to, yeah okay. And the same thing with respect to the docks on Lots 4 and 5. A similar kind of, you know again Homer we talked about that a little bit about restricting the agility for those homeowners to have docks and I'm not necessarily opposed to them having docks. It's just that the impact for those particular parcels having to go through 100 to 150 feet of wetlands to get out there may be almost economically unviable in and of itself and so I'm just curious whether that could be considered as well. That's all I have. Appreciate it. Thank you. Joyce: Okay, would anybody else like to address the Planning Commission? Seeing none, could I have a motion to close the public hearing? Brooks moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Joyce: Thank you very much. We'll bring this back to the Planning Commission. Allyson Brooks. Your comments and thoughts. Brooks: Well, I guess my biggest concern is the tree cover but I don't think there's much we can do. It sounds like everybody's gotten together and is trying their best to resolve the issue and see that in the end we end up with a nice looking landscape. Other than that I don't have too many 10 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998 concerns. It's mostly with the trees. They were talking about in another development where the storm water pond didn't work. Is the engineering firm liable for that? Hempel: I believe back when the Willow Ridge subdivision came in, the storm water requirements weren't as stringent as they are today. I don't believe they... Walker or NURP ponds at that time.., sediment trap where the storm water went into a low depression and overflowed into the wetland. I can certainly check on that. Brooks: I guess I don't have any more comments. Although I would like to see a conservation easement on that one lot. The Lot 6 and even though it may be unenforceable, I think we ought to try it. Aanenson: Sure. That'd be one way of... Blackowiak: I have a few comments. I'll just sort of run down the staff recommendations. First of all regarding the trees. Another concern right here that that large percentage is going to be taken out. I believe that we should follow the ordinance and plant the particular trees as required by ordinance. And if more have to be added, then definitely follow whatever the ordinance says. As I was sitting up here I did have a thought when I was listening to Katie Fernhollz. She was talking about varying sizes. Could we take a total caliper inch figure. So in other words, we've got 63 trees at 2.5 inches.., and I don't know if that's good or bad. So we've got roughly 168 caliper inches. We could say we would like a minimum of 40 trees or 50 trees or whatever it is with a total caliper inch not to be less than 168. Something like that. Maybe there is a formula that can be used or something that can be worked out to get a little more of a variety that people seem to be talking about, but yet still follow the intent of the ordinance and get the inches of trees. That would mean they'd have some smaller trees which may be more appropriate in certain areas, but yet the trade off would be that we would get some larger, maybe 4 or 5 inch caliper trees going into different areas. Now I don't know if that's ever been tried before but it just made me think about it when I was sitting here so that would be, at least something I hope we can maybe look at... I would certainly hope so... warranted if they didn't. I mean if they buy them, there's certain warranties so anyway. That was one of my thoughts. Going through to... 2 to 3 I think, follow what the staff has said. Number 5. 5(a), I feel strongly we need to have the preliminary grading plan and information before we go ahead. I would be very concerned about setting a standard and then all of a sudden finding that the.., grading was 4 feet too low and therefore the house is going to be way too low or something's going to happen that we don't want to happen so I think we need to cover that condition.., before we start anything. Going up to number 18. Talking about permits. I would like to add.., but I would suggest maybe that we add a line saying, no work shall commence until all appropriate permits are obtained.., copies of the DNR permits and so I don't know if they're still applicable. I don't know if they have to be repermitted because a certain amount of time has lapsed. I'm not certain about that but I want to make sure that everything's in place before we start grading and cutting down trees so that we don't two months down the road find out that something didn't happen and we've got a bunch of lots that should have been graded.., moving forward so I would hope that we could do that. The water quality pond, I defer to engineering. I really don't know a lot about it. And then Lot 6, Block 2. The conservation easement. That was in my notes, although I didn't know...but I think that's a 11 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998 great idea. I think.., has the properly already been sold? ... because I was going to say because that could be a stipulation in the contract.., conservation easement remaining in force for 6 years, 7 years, whatever. I mean that's the type of a thing that gets written in all the time so I don't know about the deed restriction but.., conservation easement is perfectly... I don't think we need to keep subdividing any more. And then to the neighbors comments. I too would like larger lots, like Mr. Randall. I hope the tree canopy issue can be resolved. I don't know about the potential streets, I don't know what to say about that one. I think that if they're going to do a grading plan, I think if there's going to be lots sold, that the street has to be provided. You know whether or not.., location, I don't know but maybe some further thought is needed... And overall I think it's a good proposal. I hope that we can just be very sensitive to the impact from the runoff and the impact of the trees and we really have to move carefully on this. I think everybody, it's in everybody's best interest to do a good job on... I certainly hope that you can.., something that everybody's happy with. And I'll be quiet. Joyce: Okay, thank you very much. Matt. Burton: Well I agree with just about everything Alison said, or both Alison's said on this is a sensitive site and I'm glad they're going to be reducing lots to 17... I liked Alison's idea of the caliper inch.., decide how to do it. The lot size I feel.., about your lot sizes but I do think also that the proposal complies with the zoning ordinance. I'm not sure there's a lot we can do... lot sizes in the development. I like the idea of the conservation easement.., but I don't think we can do anything more than just in terms of... And if the dock, I think the staff made a good recommendation. I like to see the one dock... I guess that's all I have. Sidney: Appreciate stafl's efforts on this application. Also the applicant's diligence in working with a forester and preparing a forest management plan. I'm very impressed with that. A few comments and I think I agree with most the comments that my fellow planning commissioners have made. I do appreciate the neighbors keeping before the planning commissioners. I do think you have some very good comments and suggestions for staff and the applicant. I think Sharmin when she started off said that there are.., points here that the development is consistent with the comprehensive plan and that it meets all ordinance requirements and in that respect, we're saying that this development probably should go forward to Council. And that restricts our ability to really change the number of lots and.., lot sizes so with that, just a few additional comments. I would like to see an attempt made for a conservation easement, like the other commissioners have stated. Also I'd like to see the applicant and staff work to address some of the issues that Mr. Randall has for the southwest comer of the properly. There would be something we could do there. And I do like the idea of having more flexibility in the reforestation and the tree replacement plan and I'd like to see the applicant work with staff to develop a tree replacement, reforestation plan that.., conditions for approval. And also if there would be a possibility of changing the location of the watershed pond. Just as another look see to see if something could be done. I do agree with staff that I would like to see 5(a) remain as is. I think that's very important for the overall layout of the development to be well understood by everyone before they start building. So those are my comments. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998 Joyce: Okay. My comments kind of echo all the other planning commissioners. I would like to say I think everybody involved put a lot of work into this. You've done a good job. A lot of effort and a lot of thought's been put into this. I think the neighbors are very well organized. Very nice presentation. Definitely suggest you continue this onto City Council. They'll listen to you and take to heart some of the things you said. I think what it all boils down to is whether it could be developed or not. Very simple.., talked about lot sizes and stuff and Dave said, you're building roads and putting utilities in, you're going to lose trees. So it's either a decision of do you develop or not develop. I think these folks have presented it can be developed and they're on the right track as far as being considerate of what's there. Like LuAnn said, we have a comprehensive plan. They're following the comprehensive plan as far as lot sizes so I don't think lot sizes are as big an issue as we're making it. I, the one concern I have in the back of my head is the storm water situation and I'm just going to go on record, I hope.., they can come up with the right concept on the storm water. Whether it's on the east side or west side, I just don't feel comfortable commenting on it. I don't know a lot about it but it's a concern. Definitely a concem...and things like that. Otherwise, the conservation easement, good idea. Let's put that in a conditions, whatever and let's see what happens. Otherwise I think we can make sense out of this development.., so those are my points. So what we need here is a motion to send it to City Council. Blackowiak: Okay, I'll do it. I'll make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of rezoning 16.40 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family (95-1 REZ); Preliminary plat (95-3 SUB) to subdivide 16.40 Acres into 17 single family lots, with variances (a 20 foot front yard setback for Lots 7 and 10, Block 2, and Lot 3, Block 3, a 10 percent street grade and a 50 foot wide right-of-way, five homes accessing via a private street, and a 10 foot side yard setback for the west side of Lot 6, Block 2), Lake Lucy Estates, as shown in plans dated April 24, 1998, with the following conditions. 1 through 33 with condition 18, adding the line, no work shall commence until all appropriate permits are obtained. And condition 34. The Planning Commission suggests conservation easement on Lot 6, Block 2 to prevent further subdivision. And changes to condition 21 and 26 as per the memo from Dave Hempel. I hope I don't have to read that all. And I think I'd like to add a condition 35. That there would be a cross access easement agreement prepared for the use of the private driveway including the Randall parcel... I think I got.., would anybody like to add something? Aanenson: You're just throwing.., use their driveway? Blackowiak: Correct. I'd just like to... Aanenson: I'm not sure if it's a city matter or a matter between two property owners but we understand what you're saying. Audience:... Joyce: You're on the record on that. Unless. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998 Aanenson: What we're saying is that it may be a civil matter. We'll review it and point it out to the City Council. Audience: ...tree sizes? Brooks: I thought we stated the applicant shall plant 63 trees or develop an appropriate reforestation plan with the city. Blackowiak: I'd like to keep 1 written as is and just direct the staff and applicant to possibly review other options to present to Council. But I like this. I mean at minimum we need to keep this in. Should the Council ask them.., you know, something else can happen, that's great and I think that that might be a possibility but at a minimum I want this condition 1 to stay as is. Joyce: Could I have a second? Brooks: Second. Joyce: Is there any discussion? Blackowiak moved, Brooks seconded that the Planning Commission reconunends approval of rezoning 16.40 acres of property zoned RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Residential Single Family (95-1 REZ); Preliminary plat (95-3 SUB) to subdivide 16.40 Acres into 17 single family lots, with variances (a 20 foot front yard setback for Lots 7 and 10, Block 2, and Lot 3, Block 3, a 10 percent street grade and a 50 foot wide right-of-way, Five homes accessing via a private street, and a 10 foot side yard setback for the west side of Lot 6, Block 2), Lake Lucy Estates, as shown in plans dated April 24, 1998, with the following conditions: The applicant shall plant 63 trees as replacement/reforestation plantings. Trees shall be selected from the city's Approved Tree List and meet minimum size requirements. A landscape plan shall be submitted to the city for approval. Included in the plan shall be location, species and size ofreplacements. The applicant and staffwork further to present possibly reforestation options to the City Council. Tree removal limits shall be established 20 feet from the building pad for all custom graded lots, once the type of home is designated. Tree protection fencing must be installed at the limits and maintained throughout construction. No berming or landscaping will be allowed within the right-of-way. The applicant shall work with the City in developing a landscaping replacement plan on the site and along Lake Lucy Road right-of-way. The vegetated areas which will not be affected by the development will be protected by a conservation easement. The conservation easement shall permit removal of dead or diseased vegetation. All healthy trees over 6" caliper at 4' height shall not be permitted to be removed. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998 A snow fence shall be placed along the edge of tree preservation easements prior to grading. Building Department conditions: properly. 10. Revise the preliminary grading & erosion control plan to show the proposed dwelling pads with standard designations and indicate the lowest level floor, entry level floor and garage floor elevations. This should be done prior to final plat approval. Obtain demolition permits. This should be done prior to any grading on the Obtain building permits from the Inspections Division for retaining walls over 48" high. Revise Grading and Drainage Plan to indicate lowest floor level elevation, top of foundation elevation and garage floor elevation. This should be done prior to final plat approval. Fire Marshal conditions: a At the east end of Lake Way Court provide an approved turnaround for fire apparatus. Pursuant to 1991 Uniform Fire Code, Section 10.204 (D). b. Relocate the existing hydrant that is located on block 8 on the south side of Lake Way Court to the north side of Lake Way Court on block 2. c. With reference to block 2, lot 6, if structure is not visible from the street, additional address numbers will be required at driveway entrance. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Permit Policy Premise Identification No. 29-1992. Full park and trail fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of land acquisition and/or trail construction. The buff'er on Lot 5, Block 2, shall be adjusted so that there is a smoother transition along the Lot 5 properly line. All riparian lots shall access the lake at the point of least impact to the wetland on a shared dock. The location of this dock would be on lot 6. The proposed SWMP water quality charge of $800/acre, (or $9,184 for the 11.48 acres) for single-family residential developments may be waived if the applicant provides water quality treatment according to the City's SWMP standards. To receive this credit the applicant must provide the City with plans for a stormwater quality pond designed to retain up to 75% phosphorus according to the Walker Pondnet model. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998 11. 12 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. The proposed development would then be responsible for 11.48 acres resulting in a water quantity connection charge of $22,730. This fee will be due payable to the City at time of final plat recording. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval. Type III erosion control fence shall be used adjacent to the wetlands and Type I erosion control fence shall be used adjacent the grading limits. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood-fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval three weeks prior to final plat consideration. The City will install wetland buff'er edge signs before accepting the utilities and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10-year and 100-year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve prior to final plat approval. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post developed stormwater calculations for 100-year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Carver County, Watershed District, Metropolitan Waste Control Commission, Health Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and Minnesota Department of Transportation and comply with their conditions of approval. The appropriate drainage and utility easements should be dedicated on the final plat for all utilities and ponding areas lying outside the right-of-way. The easement width shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide. Consideration shall also be given for access for maintenance of 16 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998 20 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. the ponding areas. A 40-foot wide drainage and utility easement will be required over the utilities located within Lakeway Court. The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to the wetlands or storm water ponds shall be a minimum of 2 feet above the 100-year high water level. The proposed stormwater pond must have side slopes of 10:1 for the first ten feet at the normal water level and no more than 3:1 thereafter or 4:1 throughout for safety purposes. The pond shall be redesigned in an effort to minimize tree loss east of the cul-de-sac. The stormwater pond shall be designed and constructed with a 75% phosphorus removal efficiently. A landscape plan providing upland and wetland plants to naturally blend the pond into the surroundings is recommended. Existing wells and/or septic systems on site will have to be properly abandoned in accordance to City and Minnesota Department of Health codes/regulations. The existing home (Tichy) on Lot 4, Block 3 shall be connected to the City's sanitary sewer system within 30 days after the system becomes operational. Connection to City water is not required unless the well on Lot 4, Block 3 fails. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain files found during construction and shall re-locate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. The construction plans shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs and gutters on those lots which are not adjacent to a wetland or storm pond. All lots shall take direct access to the interior street system and not Lake Lucy Road. Lot 4, Block 3 shall relocate their driveway from Lake Lucy Road to Lakeway Drive. In addition, the street address for this lot shall be changed accordingly. Lots 1 through 3, Block 1, Lots 1 through 3, Block 2, and Lots 1 through 3, Block 3 shall be custom graded at time of building permit issuance. A detailed grading (with two-foot contours), drainage, tree removal and erosion control plan shall be submitted with the building permit application for review and approval by the City engineer prior to issuance of a building permit for the lot. The grading, drainage, and construction plans shall be revised incorporating the following changes that conform better with the existing grades and minimize grading and tree loss: a) Tree protection fencing. b) Consider the use of retaining walls along the northeast comer of Lakeway Lane and Lakeway Drive to reduce grading and minimize tree loss. c) Shorten and lower cul-de-sac and increase radius to 60 feet. d) Provide "Y" or "T" temporary turnaround on Lakeway Court. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. e) Denote dwelling type on all lots including garage, first and lowest floor elevation. f) Label height of retaining walls. g) Provide drain tile behind the curb for those lots not adjacent to wetlands or stormwater pond. h) Design private driveway (Lakeway Drive) to drain partially back to cul-de-sac. i) Add outlet control structure to pond. J) Revise sanitary sewer alignment through Morin's parcel and provide sanitary sewer service to parcel to the west per stafl~ Preliminary and final plat approval shall be contingent upon sanitary sewer service being extended to the plat from the Coey property (Point Lake Lucy) to this site and the applicant obtaining a drainage and utility easement from the Morins. All private streets shall be designed and constructed in accordance to City Ordinance No. 209 and a turnaround acceptable to the City's Fire Marshal. A private maintenance agreement and access easement shall be provided for all parcels served by a private street(s). A temporary turnaround may be permitted on Lot 10, Block 2 or Lot 1, Block 3 until the Morin's parcel further subdivides. The applicant shall extend utilities to the parcel to the west through a location determined by staff2 Temporary barricades shall be placed at the end of Lakeway Lane. A sign shall be placed on the barricades indicating "this street shall be extended in the future". A condition will also be placed in the development contract to inform all property owners in Lake Lucy Estates of this street extension. The property to the west may continue to utilize the existing private driveway, until such time when the property further subdivides. It will then gain access via Lakeway Lane only and the existing private driveway shall be abandoned. The applicant or their assignee shall submit a haul route and traffic control plan to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to site grading commencing. Individual sewer and water services to the lots shall be field verified to determine the path of least impact to the trees. The applicant shall be entitled to a refund (up to 90% depending on construction costs) of a portion of future sewer connection charges collected from Morin's parcel when building permits are issued. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998 33. Cross-access and maintenance agreements will need to be prepared for use of the private driveway including the Morin's parcel." 34. The Planning Commission suggests conservation easement on Lot 6, Block 2 to prevent further subdivision. 35. That there would be a cross access easement agreement prepared for the use of the private driveway including the Randall parcel. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: EDEN TRACE CORP. REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 15~000 SQ. FT. OFFICE/WAREHOUSE/MANUFACTURING BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD AND LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LAKE DRIVE WEST AND AUDUBON ROAD ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN BUSINESS CENTER 4TM ADDITION~ QUANTUM CONTROLS INC. Sharmin Al-Jarl presented the staff report on this item. Joyce: Thank you Sharmin. Are there any questions for staff'at this time? Blackowiak: I had a question. Sharmin, on page 5, the compliance table. A1-Jaffk Yes. Blackowiak: It talks about no variance is required, yet the south building setback is at 10 feet and the PUD ordinance is 25 feet. Would that require a variance or is that 10 feet? A1-Jaffk It is 10 feet. It is an interior lot line so that was a mistake. Aanenson: No variance is required. It's an interior lot line. An exterior lot line is 25 feet. Blackowiak: Okay, so interior is...okay, good. Just making sure. That's it, thanks. Joyce: Thank you. Anyone else have questions? Is the applicant here and like to address the Planning Commission? Please come forward. Mark Understad: Mark Understad with Eden Trace... Not a lot to say. Joyce: What you see is what you get huh? Mark Understad: Yeah, and hopefully we've got it right again here so. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998 Joyce: Any questions for the applicant at this time? Sidney: A question about the drive in doors. What's the purpose of that and would semi's be pulling up there or what are they used for? Mark Understad: No. The loading dock is going to be tucked back in here. The primary use for them... Sidney: Is that like garage doors then or something like that? Mark Understad: Yeah. Overheads. And the thought... Joyce: There are three docks... ? Would anyone like to address the Planning Commission on this item? Seeing none, could I have a motion to close the public hearing? Brooks moved, Burton seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Joyce: LuAnn? Sidney: Looks great again. No other questions. I'm glad to have an applicant that comes in consistently with the right number of trees and... Joyce: Matt. Burton: I agree.., staff recommendations are appropriate and... Joyce: Alison. Blackowiak: I agree. Looks fine. Brooks: Fine. Looks fine. Joyce: Yeah, you did a nice job with the loading docks... You have it down now.., so all we need is a motion. Sidney: I make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan 98-9 for Eden Trace Corp-Quantum Control as shown on the plans dated April 24, 1998 and subject to the following conditions, 1 through 19. Burton: Second. Sidney moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #98-9 for Eden Trace Corp-Quantum Control as shown on the plans dated received April 24, 1998, and subject to the following conditions: 20 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998 10. All driveway access points onto Lake Drive West shall incorporate the City's industrial driveway apron (Detail Plate No. 5207). The developer shall be responsible for relocating any conflicting street lights along Lake Drive West. Rock construction entrances shall be maintained by the applicant until all parking lots are paved with a bituminous surface. In addition, all catch basins inlets shall be protected with silt fence, rock filter dikes, or hay bales, as well. All drive aisles shall be revised to meet the City Code requirements (20-1101 and 20-1118). Driveway radiuses onto Lake Drive West shall be increased to 20 foot radii. Sanitary sewer and water hookup charges shall be applied to the building permit. Charges shall be based upon the number of SAC units determined by the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services. The applicant shall provide the city with a financial guarantee in the amount of $2,500. To guarantee boulevard restoration as a result of the driveway access point. The contractor and/or developer shall contact the City's Engineering Department for inspection of the driveway apron and curb/street restoration prior to pouring the concrete. A 24 hour notice is required to schedule an inspection. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest editions of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates and/or State Plumbing Codes. Detailed utility plans and specifications shall be submitted in conjunction with the final plat approval for staff review and approval. The private utilities will be inspected by the City's Building Department. The developer and/or builder shall be responsible for obtaining the necessary permits from the City. The final utility plans shall be revised to include an inside drop for the sewer service connection to the existing manhole. One lane of traffic must be maintained at all times. The street (Lake Drive West) shall be restored in kind within 7 days after work commences. The contractor shall be responsible for providing and maintaining traffic control. The developer shall escrow with the City in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow in the amount of $2,500 to guarantee street restoration. The developer shall extend the existing berm northerly to wrap around the comer of the site to screen the easterly side of the building and parking lot. All existing trees shall be protected during the construction of the berm and replaced by the applicant if necessary. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to include three additional trees be planted in the eastern comer of the property to help screen the parking lot from Audubon Road and incoming traffic. These trees should be an extension of the buff'er yard plantings and not 21 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998 11. 12. interfere with any plans for future expansion of the parking lot. Landscaping shall be consistent with buff'er yard B planting requirements of the landscaping ordinance. Overnight parking of motor vehicles will not be permitted unless applicable portions of the building is designed to meet the code requirements for a parking garage. Meet with the Inspections Division plan reviewer as soon as possible after approval to begin the building code plan review process. 13. Fire marshal conditions: 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. a. Refer to Utility Plan. A post indicator valve must be added to the 8 inch water main running into the building. NFPA 13 1991 Section 4-5.1.1.7. The post indicator must have tamper protection which is connected to the sprinkler system monitoring. Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #40- 1995. Please contact Fire Marshal for exact size and location for installation of a lock box on the side of the building for fire department access. MN Uniform Fire Code 1991, Section 10.302. The applicant shall enter into a site development contract with the city and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of approval. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by walls of compatible appearing material. Wood screen fences are prohibited. All exterior process machinery, tanks, etc. are to be fully screened by compatible materials. As an alternative, the applicant can use factory applied panels on the exterior to the equipment that would blend in with the building materials. All freestanding signs shall be limited to monument signs. The sign shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet in sign display area nor be greater than eight (8) feet in height. The sign treatment is an element of the architecture and thus should reflect with the quality of the development. A common theme will be introduced at the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout. Each property shall be allowed one monument sign located near the driveway into the private site. The monument sign must maintain a ten foot setback from the property line. The signs should be consistent in color, size, and material throughout the development. The applicant should submit a sign package for staff review. A separate permit is required for all signage on site. Lighting for the interior of the business center should be consistent throughout the development. A decorative, shoe box fixture (high pressure sodium vapor lamps) with a square ornamental pole shall be used throughout the development area for area lighting. All light fixtures shall be shielded. Light level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 foot 22 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998 candle at the properly line. This does not apply to street lighting. Lighting equipment similar to what is mounted in the public street right-of-ways shall be used in the private areas. Wall pack units may be used provided no direct glare is directed off-site and no more than 1/2 foot candle of light is at the properly line. 19. Park fees shall be paid in accordance with city ordinance requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING: COFFMAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES~ INC, REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR 8 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACKS AND WETLAND SETBACKS AND 20UTLOTS AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR WETLAND MITIGATION ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF~ AND LOCATED JUST SOUTH OF SANDPIPER TRAIL AND WEST OF PIPER RIDGE LANE. THIS PROJECT WAS APPROVED IN 1995 AS OLIVEWOOD. Public Present: Name Address Bill Coffman Arnold & Anne Weimerskirch Bob & June Bauer Thomas J. Schoenecker Ken Adolf Mike Steadman 7409 West 112 Street 2831 Sandpiper Trail, Excelsior 2700 Sandpiper Trail, Excelsior 2820 Sandpiper Trail Schoell & Madson 5016 Highland Road, Minnetonka Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Joyce: Any questions? Brooks: Yes, I do. These are about 5 acre parcels, large lots? Aanenson: No. Actually the upland portion is a little less. They're averaging around a half acre. A large portion of it is wetland. The back of these lots will be natural wetlands towards the lake. The ordinary high water line... Brooks: I guess what I'm going for is, are the people that buy these lots going to be able to subdivide them? Aanenson: No. No, if you look at the home placement on... There's not enough square footage... 23 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998 Sidney: ... in the clean water act section. It says staff believes the impacts to the wetland can be avoided by adjusting the lot lines. Aanenson: That was one, that last sentence should be, starting right there, that should be struck. That's no longer a requirement. Sidney: Okay. Joyce: Would the applicant like to address the Planning Commission, please come forward. Ken Adolf: Mr. Chair and commissioners. Good evening. I'm Ken Adolf with Schoell and Madson. We're engineer consultants for the owners. Also here are Anne and Arnold Weimerskirch. The owners of the property. They live in one of the houses. The other house is occupied by Anne's mother, Olive Neumann. Bill Coffman, with Coffman Development who is the project or the development manager and actually the applicant is here, and Bill's associate Mike Steadman. As far as, I'd just like to emphasize again that this is essentially the same project that was approved by the city four years ago. The owners are comfortable with the conditions in the staff report. On the woodland management plan, they have retained Kevin Norby to work with the city staff in developing a wetland management plan for this site. With that we'd be happy to address any questions. Brooks: There's homes on the property now? Aanenson: There's two homes. Both homes will...the previous plan those homes were to stay. Now they'll both be new. Brooks: What year were those homes built? Audience: I believe '35... Brooks: ... we don't need a Corps permit for this project? Ken Adolf: No. The wetland alteration is 812 square feet which is less than the minimum that's allowed by the Wetland Conservation Act so no mitigation is required. Brooks: No federal permits at all, okay. Joyce: Anybody else have questions? Thank you very much. May I have a motion to open this for a public hearing please. Blackowiak moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998 Joyce: Thank you. This is item is open for public hearing. Anybody can come up and address the Planning Commission, please step forward and... Seeing no one, I would like to ask to close the public hearing. Burton moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Aanenson: I did receive some calls from neighbors on the lake. I just want to make this part of the record that were concerned about the boats in this area. Again we explained that each could have a dock and we felt this was the best way to handle it... Blackowiak: What was their reaction... Aanenson: Just adding additional boats. They have concerns from people that live on the lake and they're concerned that this is a very shallow area and the impact to that... Brooks: ...multiple docks? Aanenson: Yeah. Obviously our first choice is not to have additional.., but I don't think based on the way that's set up, you have to get out of that bay area before you can go... Blackowiak: I don't have a lot to say really. The fact that it was approved several years ago makes me feel a little bit more comfortable with going ahead.., doesn't appear to be any significant changes from the original approval so... Brooks: I'm fine with it as long as, you know they can't subdivide. I think there's too many people buying large lots thinking they're going to subdivide and that ruins the whole point. But with that said, it actually... Sidney: ... somewhat concerned with the other subdivision, tree preservation... I'd like to see the applicant and the staff to... Joyce: I don't have much more to add.., so we have four motions... Burton: I move that the City Council. Aanenson: Oh sorry. Burton: I move that the Planning Commission approve preliminary plat #94-3 of 25.95 acres into 8 single family lots with variances for Olivewood as shown on the plans stamped April 24, 1998 and subject to the following conditions 1 through 21. Joyce: Second? Blackowiak: Second that. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998 Burton moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approves the preliminary plat (#94-3) of 25.95 acres into 8 single family lots with variances for OHvewood, as shown on the plans stamped April 24, 1998 and subject to the following conditions: 1. A 20 foot from yard setback variance for Lot 1, Block 2. 2. Approval of the vacation of Minnewashta Avenue at the time of final plat. Approval of the 50 foot right-of-way for street. The radius of the cul-de-sac shall be 60 feet. A moving and demolition permit for the existing homes as per Building Official's memo dated May 6, 1998. Revise grading plan to include the following: a) Erosion control measures in accordance with the City's Best Management Practices Handbook. Type III erosion control fence shall be installed along the wetlands and stormwater pond b) Provide boulevard per City's typical street detail along Lots 1 and 2, Block c) Denote temporary stockpile to be removed upon completion of the project. d) The dike along the proposed pond shall be constructed with structural fill material. e) The high point on Tanagers Point shall be relocated from Station 3+00 to Station 1+00 to reduce drainage to Sandpiper Lane. Replacement plantings for the development total 46 trees. The applicant shall submit a planting plant to the city that includes location, species, and size. The applicant shall submit sample tree preservation easement document to the city for review Tree preservation fencing will required around all trees to be saved. Fencing shall be installed prior to grading and excavation for homes on each lot. Lowest floor elevations of the homes adjacent to the wetland areas shall be two feet above the wetland's ordinary high water level. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998 10. Individual detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans will be required for all lots. The plans shall be submitted to the City for review and approval at time of building permit application. 11. The applicant shall pay the appropriate storm water quality and quantity fees or provide storm water management improvements in accordance to the City's Surface Water Management Plan. 12. Storm water calculations for ponding and piping shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. All storm water ponds shall meet Walker standards. The storm sewer shall be designed for a 10-year storm event. 13. All utility and street installation for public improvements shall be in accordance with the City's latest edition of standard specifications and detail plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted to the City at least three weeks prior to final plat consideration for review and formal approval in conjunction with final plat approval. 14. The applicant shall 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 platting. 15. The applicant shall receive and comply with all pertinent agency permits, i.e. Watershed District, DNR, MWCC, MPCA, Minnesota Dept. of Health, etc. 16. Submit street name to Public Safety Department for review prior to final plat approval. 17. Accept full park and trail dedication fees for the Olivewood Subdivision in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction. One-third of the park and trail cash contribution shall be paid contemporaneously with the filing of the subdivision plat. The balance, calculated as follows, shall be paid at the time building permits are issued: rate in effect for residential single family property when a building permit is issued minus the amount previously paid. 18. The City shall establish a No Parking Zone in the cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac shall be posted and signed as per the Fire Marshal for no parking. 19. Any existing or deferred assessments against the parcel shall be respread over the development on a per lot basis. 20. The existing wells and septic system on the site shall be abandoned in accordance with City and/or State codes. 21. The street construction plans shall include a traffic signage plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998 Burton: I move that the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit #94-2 for the recreational beachlot subject to the conditions 1 through 4. Joyce: Second? Brooks: Second. Burton moved, Brooks seconded that the Planning Commission reconunends the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit #94-2 for the recreational beachlot subject to the following conditions: 1. Receive DNR approval for dock with more than 4 slips and updated DNR permit. 2. Verify water depth and submit the appropriate configuration of dock. 3. The dock shall have a maximum of 8 boat slips. 4. The recreational beachlot shall meet all of the General Issuance Standards of Section 20- 232, conditional uses. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Burton: I move that the Planning Commission approve the wetland alteration permit #94-2 for mitigation of the wetland subject to the conditions 1 through 3. Sidney: Second. Burton moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission reconunends that the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #94-2 for mitigation of a wetland subject to the following conditions: 1. As per WCA deminus rules, 812 square feet of the wetland on Tanager Court may be filled in without replacement. 2. The discharge of dredged or fill material into any wetland or water area requires authorization under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act from the Corps of Engineers. 3. The following wetland setbacks shall be maintained: Natural wetland 10'-30' buff'er strip and 40 foot structure setback Ag/urban wetland 0-30' buff'er strip and 40 foot structure setback All voted in favor and the motion carried. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - May 20, 1998 Aanenson: The street vacation, you don't have to do that. That's a Council action. I just put it in there so you understand that that's... Joyce: Good. That City Council date on this now is. Aanenson: It should be June. Joyce: So this will come back in front of the City Council in June. Aanenson: The same date's the other one's on. Joyce: June 8th this will be in front of the City Council. Thanks folks for coming in... NEW AND OLD BUSINESS: Joyce: More tree business? Aanenson: I'm just passing that out if anyone's interested in that. Just to let you know. Joyce: The old news, new news. Aanenson: The City Council, at the last meeting approved Houlihan's. Also the... Just so you know June 3rd, your next meeting. You do have quite a bit on. It will be a full meeting... We have the golf course... We have two industrial site plans. The Chapel Hill site plan going into the old St. Hubert's... so we have quite a few items on. So based on that, I felt putting the comp plan on would be too much. So right now we've got nothing else on for June 17th... comp plan. That will give enough time... APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Blackowiak noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 6, 1998 as presented. Vice Chairman Joyce adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Planning Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 29