Loading...
PC 2009 02 17 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 17, 2009 Chairman Papke called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Kurt Papke, Kathleen Thomas, Debbie Larson, Denny Laufenburger, and Dan Keefe MEMBERS ABSENT: Kevin Dillon and Mark Undestad STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and Angie Auseth, Planner PUBLIC PRESENT: Steve Mestitz 7200 Willow View Cove Regina Herron 1380 Thrush Court Mark Senn 7160 Willow View Cove Nancy Laplatt 7012 Cheyenne Trail Cathy Velko 40 Basswood Circle PUBLIC HEARING: SENN SUBDIVISION: REQUEST FOR A SUBDIVISION CREATING AN ADDITIONAL LOT WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7160 WILLOW VIEW COVE. APPLICANT: MARK & SUZANNE SENN, PLANNING CASE 09-02. Angie Auseth presented the staff report on this item. Papke: Okay, questions for staff. Dan, start with you. Keefe: So really looking at one variance, right? Auseth: Yes. Keefe: And you had indicated that they’re willing to go with Alternate B, is that correct? Auseth: Correct. Keefe: And so are we still kind of deciding between the two or are we really just focusing on B in the variance? It isn’t clear to me. Auseth: We’re focusing on B. Keefe: B alone? Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2009 Auseth: (Yes). Keefe: Okay. And okay. So if you don’t know exactly where this house is going to go, I mean how can you say that you’re actually going to save a bunch of trees because the one area that’s on your, you know it’s got a lot of trees. It looks to be right where this pad is but how do we know? We don’t at this point do we? Auseth: We don’t know exactly where it’s going to be but it’ll be in the buildable area which is more west onto the property. Keefe: Okay. That’s it. Larson: Okay, can you go back to that picture? That one. Okay. Where it has the white buildable area and where this proposed road widening would happen. Would that, if they go and widen the road so the, well people can access, or the other people, the Senn’s, does that change the buildable area? Auseth: No. What really, the driveway would stay exactly as is. That’s one of their. Larson: Okay, where the hash marks are. Auseth: That’s just the easement and so the lot lines will stay in that dark black and then that’s just showing that that lot area will have to be removed from the calculation. So it won’t impact the buildable area at all. Aanenson: Mr. Chair if I may. I think Angie’s done a pretty good job. I just want to clarify again, there’s 3 components of a private street. One is that it has to have a 30 foot wide easement, which we are going to require. The other is the 7 ton design, and the other is a 20 foot pavement width. And the 20 foot pavement width and the 7 ton design is the area that we’re agreeing to support a variance on. Not the 30 foot easement but what Angie is saying is that the easement area can’t be included in the lot area. So we believe there’s adequate, the driveway could come off quite a ways sooner so we’re just building in that flexibility. We want to see how the house fits on there so the only portion that would be the 30 foot is the portion that’s, once the driveway starts, then the 30 foot goes away. We don’t know so what was looked at there was the worst case scenario. Larson: Well my thought was, you know you’ve got it plunked right here. What if they put it closer to that road. That’s what I was wondering if it would be too close then because your buildable area is in where the hash marks, you know they meet. Auseth: Right and the driveway could come in up there. Larson: Okay. That’s all I have. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2009 Laufenburger: I did have a question. Angie, does the gray on this depict the present driveway? In other words is the present driveway, will that be used as the same corridor for the private driveway? Auseth: Yes. It will be as is as shown on this drawing. Laufenburger: Okay. And then a couple other questions. The private street, as we call it. That will be, the maintenance of that will be the responsibility of the owner of which lot? Auseth: They’ll have a joint agreement for the private street. Laufenburger: Okay. But it will be maintained totally by. Auseth: Privately. Laufenburger: By privately. Okay. Are there requirements, does the 20 foot requirement meet code for movement of emergency vehicles and stuff like that? On the private street. Aanenson: The fire marshal did, to talk about it right now, that’s how it’s servicing that property so if you had to service that property today, the fire truck would be at the hydrant at the end of the street so that was one of the issues that we looked at. If they did have to go to the driveway, that’s how it’d be serviced today. I think the measure that we want to look at is where that new driveway comes in and it’s not impeding stacking. We’ve had some of those issues so that’s certainly something staff would want to look at. Where that tie comes in I think and that’s where Commissioner Larson is looking at too. Where’s the best place for trees and access so you’re not plugging that driveway. One place has additional guests that there’s adequate, so those are something that we would work on with the house plan as that was evolved. Laufenburger: Okay, thank you. I think one last, actually two last questions. The while, what’s called the buildable area, that’s an area defined by appropriate setbacks within current code. Auseth: Yes. Laufenburger: Okay. So that building pad could really be positioned anywhere within that as long as it’s a 60 by 60 or a 3,600 square foot pad, it could fit anywhere in that white buildable area. Is that correct? Auseth: Correct. Laufenburger: Okay. Alright. Then the last question that I had, I noticed it in this, in the information that was sent to us, there was a statement sent to you by an area hydrologist. Can you just explain that a little bit for me? Auseth: Get to that real quick. This was based on the original design. Laufenburger: Original A? 3 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2009 Auseth: Yes. Where it did not meet the 90 foot width. Laufenburger: Okay. So this really doesn’t come into play since we’re really focusing on B. Auseth: Yes. Because the 100 foot width supersedes that 90 foot that’s required within the shoreland. Laufenburger: Okay. Do we have, what’s going to be the property address? If this is approved. Auseth: That’s determined by. Aanenson: The building official. Laufenburger: Okay. That’s all I have. Thank you Chairman. Thomas: I just have one little question Angie. This property at the moment, it’s being, the subdivision is for, they’re going to subdivide it and potentially the second building could be owned by anyone at any time but at the moment isn’t it owned by, going to be family, is that the plan or the reason they’re subdividing it? It’s not. Auseth: I believe that’s the intent but it could be sold as an individual lot. Thomas: As an individual lot on the cul-de-sac. Okay. Aanenson: And for the record I think it’s always best to look at it, it can always change hands and make it the best lot you can and that’s why we proceeded with making it meet code as much as we could. You never know. Thomas: Thank you. Papke: Okay. Any other questions for staff? Alright, if we have an applicant here tonight, if you’d like to step up to the microphone and color in the lines for us. That’d be great. Mark Senn: I don’t have a whole lot to say. I mean we’re. Papke: Could you state your name and address. Mark Senn: Oh I’m sorry. Mark Senn, 7160 Willow View Cove. We’re in concurrence with staff’s Alternate B. Kind of came up at the last minute and once we saw it, it was very similar and solved most of the problems so we were fine with it so. Other than that I’d be happy to answer whatever questions you have. Papke: I think you were last so why don’t you go ahead first. Thomas: Yeah, actually I don’t. I’m good. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2009 Laufenburger: I’m good too. Papke: You know the subject of tree removal with respect to where the house will actually be place came up as an issue earlier on. Do you have, can you shed any more light onto that at this point? Do you have any idea yet? Mark Senn: Yeah if you could, if Angie can throw up the, if you look at the lot there, it’s a little hard to tell with the differences in the shading but essentially where the house is going to go, the only thing we’re really going to be taking out mature wise is a one mature tree that’s about 3 ½ feet wide and 20 feet tall because it’s been hit 3 times by lightning and it’s just a big mess. That’s the only tree we’re really taking out, and that’s one of the reasons why we’re positioning the house where we’re positioning it. We wanted, a lot of the early discussions between us and staff and the whole jogging over the lot. We have a couple of 100 foot pine trees you’ll see there just kind of to the left side of that and we do not want to impact those and that’s one of the reasons why we were having some problems sliding that back and forth and getting it in the right position to accomplish that and that was a big consideration that we just didn’t want to mess with those. Other than that I mean there may be a few small scrub trees or something like that along the existing edge of the woods or whatever but like I say, the only one that will really be impacted will be that one that kind of needs to be out of there anyway. Papke: Sounds good. Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Okay. At this time we’d like to open the meeting to the public. If you’d like to give us your opinions. Your thoughts. Your feelings on this case, please step up to the microphone. State your name and address and let us know what you think. Nancy Laplatt: Hi, my name is Nancy Laplatt. I live at 7012 Cheyenne Trail and I wanted a cookie. No. Papke: Please do. Nancy Laplatt: We, in that picture you can kind of see the back of our house opposite the proposed. Right there. So naturally we’re concerned about our view and when we bought our home in ’92 we came to the city and we looked at how things were drawn out and potential of anything happening and we never expected that we’d be looking into another house so we’re fairly upset about it but we recognize you know it’s someone else’s lot so, but I just want to go on record that it might be challenging for us. We’re looking at whether to sell or big trees. I don’t know what but thanks so much. Papke: Thank you. Cathy Velko: Hi. My name is Cathy Velko and I live at 40 Basswood Circle, which is part of the Kurvers Point community. I am a member of the neighborhood board. Okay? Newly, I’m new at this kind of stuff. ...surprise, first project here so, I’m here to make a statement on behalf of the Kurvers Point community and board that I know Jason has been in contact with Mr. Senn but it would be nice if we could state our comments to the Planning Commission that we do 5 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2009 support the split so long as neighboring residents support it, and I think there’s a few here tonight, and that they would need to comply with the architectural requirements that are stated in the neighborhood covenants. I’m very glad to have other neighbors here to help with… Papke: Now you realize that the city has no hand in enforcing those covenants. I mean that’s up the homeowners association. Cathy Velko: Okay. But then I can have it on the record too, right? Papke: Yes. Yes. That will certainly be part of the public record. Cathy Velko: So, I think that was the intention that… Papke: I just didn’t want any misunderstanding about what the city’s responsible for. Cathy Velko: We all agree to the covenants when we move into the neighborhood and just to state that we would ask that those be respected and followed and respect given to the neighbors as well. Papke: You bet. Cathy Velko: Thank you. Papke: Okay. Those are excellent comments. Please, step up. Steve Mestitz: My name is Steve Mestitz. 7200 Willow View Cove. The property immediately south. Just one question that I have, and maybe it’s a concern as we plan and this is about drainage. Every year we have a problem with, if I can go over there and show you. Papke: Please do. Steve Mestitz: This area right here is much lower, it’s about 5 feet lower and the storm sewer comes in right here. You can see the line. This is a drainage line I think that comes from the other neighborhood and this whole area is under water whenever we have a large rain storm, and I know I go out there and just put my hand in and try to de-clog it. It’s a big mess. So with the addition of a new parcel I’m just wondering whether that drainage is going to be adequate and whether there needs to be some looking from the standpoint of the city to see if there needs to be either a wider mouth or some sort of a better way to drain those areas because I think we’re just going to have more under water with the silt coming in from construction and stuff. That would be my only concern about that. Because it backs up. It puts my property under water. Papke: Excellent observation. Is the City aware of any grading or drainage issues on this? Aanenson: No, but we can certainly look at that and be prepared when it goes to City Council to provide additional information on that. If it needs a bigger culvert or something like that… 6 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2009 Laufenburger: Mark, do you have any comments about that? Had a problem. Mark Senn: Well it floods my property more than anybody’s but it only happens when there’s a severe storm, and most of the flooding is actually not on that side of the cul-de-sac. It’s, or on that side of the driveway. It’s on the north side of the driveway because all the drainage comes through from the neighborhood to the north. Audience: I have a comment about that. Mark Senn: And it drains basically to the south at the point there where it’s on our property line and Steve’s property essentially there’s… Aanenson: Mr. Chair, for the record he’s not at the microphone. Papke: Okay. If you’d like to step back to the microphone and make a comment on this. We want to make sure we capture this for the public record so. Nancy Laplatt: It’s just a quick, I don’t, I don’t know what changed but that drainage area used to stay wet at our place for quite a lot of the summer and about 5 years ago it started just running through a lot quicker and we don’t know what changed and we wouldn’t mind if it stayed a little wetter to the north and then flowed slower on down so they don’t get inundated but something changed and we don’t know what it is. Papke: Okay, thanks for your observation. Aanenson: We can do some looking. Papke: Would you like to step back up to the microphone. Cathy Velko: For the record. Papke: Yep. Cathy Velko: Observation. I walk the neighborhood 4 times a week. It is more than just in storms. It is wet. I think we had a wet year last year and it was, that end of the cul-de-sac was standing water quite a bit. Thank you. Papke: Thanks. Great comments. Anyone else like to, have any comments or questions or observations? Okay. Hearing none I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission here for comments and discussion and a decision. Keefe: You know I just had one additional question, and maybe staff can help out with this. You know for a subdivision I assume we typically have landscaping requirements. Like if they’re going to take out trees, don’t they need to re-plant. I mean is that something that would apply in this case or not? I know it’s just a single lot. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2009 Aanenson: Yeah. Let me give you some background on that. Because the original application was so divergent and the request that we weren’t sure where you were going to go with that so some of those things were not put in place. As Ms. Auseth showed you there’s a list of things that we need to get before it can be done. This is also a little bit different. It’s not a straight subdivision. It’s a metes and bounds so technically there will be another public hearing. It’s at, I rd believe it’s set for March 23 so it will be noticed again for a metes and bounds subdivision but those things will be required before the permit’s issued. We need to see where the driveway’s going to go. Check those drainage, where the utilities are coming in so we want the additional information. Regarding the trees itself, because there is a large lot, it has a significant amount of trees, we do allow some tree loss but we would, normally we would have it staked and then we’ll verify that too where the house pad’s going to see if it matches up with the trees that were shown so anything beyond that would be required for a normal lot would have to be replaced so those are all the things we would do before building permit. Keefe: Would it require additional, and now I’m going a little bit to the comment you know, just in terms of any sort of landscaping, screening, anything along those lines. Aanenson: Yep. Yeah. And I think that’s something that we can work with to provide the best screening to see how, it is heavily wooded on the front end but to the. Keefe: North. Aanenson: To the north, yes. That we, if that’s a place to put it too so we’ll look at that. Keefe: Right. That assuming that we could require it through the next, I mean is that something we would… Aanenson: If you want to make it as a condition, you can attach any reasonable condition that you think’s appropriate for mitigation. Sure. Keefe: Right. But would that occur now or at the next one? Aanenson: Well I think this is going to go up to the City Council so I think you should put this on. If you want to make sure that you know landscaping. Any replacement be in a good place to provide buffer, if that’s kind of the direction you’re going. Keefe: Right. That’s the direction, yeah. Aanenson: Yeah, yeah. That’d be fine and then certainly we’ll look at the drainage issue too before it goes up to council. I think there’s a broader issue in that neighborhood that’s certainly parochial to this end of this cul-de-sac we would look at that too. Keefe: And is the drainage from this particular house, does it drain back towards the street or does it drain… Aanenson: Well because we don’t have the elevation on the type of house plan yet. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2009 Keefe: Right. Yeah. Aanenson: You know because again we were pretty divergent on the original request and where the staff was going. We weren’t sure where you were going to go with that so we will look at that too and to look at what’s the finished floor elevation and where that’s going so we’ll provide that too and make sure we’re not causing water to run off onto somebody else’s property. Keefe: Okay. Other than that you know I support it. I think for the most part it meets what we’re trying to do so I’m fine with it. Larson: I think I concur, yeah. Moving the house building pad over to where it’s not going to have much effect on anything other than you know if we could somehow resolve the Ms. Laplatt’s…having some sort of screening. I think maybe if everybody can come to terms with that, I would be in support of this too. Papke: Sounds good. Laufenburger: It appears that the applicant has worked with staff to come to a cooperative result through Alternate B so I would be in support of that too. Thomas: I too am in support of it. Papke: Okay. Yeah, I’m always happy when an applicant and city staff comes to a meeting of minds before the public hearing and we don’t have to grind that out so that’s fantastic. So with that, I will entertain a motion. Thomas: Sure, I’ll do a motion. The Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Case 09-02 with a variance to allow a private street with a width of less than 20 feet and less than a 7 ton design and approval of the subdivision creating two lots as outlined in the staff report subject to conditions 1 through 17 below and adoption of the Findings of Fact for Alternate B. Larson: I’ll second that. Keefe: Can I friendly amendment? Thomas: Okay. Keefe: That the applicant works with staff to enhance landscaping on the north side of the property. Thomas: Yeah, I accept your motion. Papke: Okay. Mark Senn: Mr. Chairman, could I address that? 9 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2009 Papke: I’m sorry. The public hearing is closed at this point. That’s what I warned about early on. Once the public hearing is closed, it’s closed. So I apologize for that but that’s the way we conduct the meetings. So with that we’ll take a vote. Thomas moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Alternate B for Planning Case 09-02 with a variance to allow a private street with a width of less than 20 feet and less than a 7-ton design, and denial of the lot area variance to create a lot less than 15,000 square feet, lot depth less than 125 feet and front yard setback less than 30 feet as measured from the 100-foot lot width and a 40 x 60 foot house-pad, and approval of the subdivision creating two lots as outlined in the staff report subject to the following conditions and adoption of the findings of fact for Alternate B. Conditions of Approval: 1.Approval of the metes and bounds subdivision is contingent upon approval of the private street variances. 2.A grading plan must be submitted for review and approval and shall comply with the City Code. 3.A utility plan must be submitted showing the existing sanitary sewer and water services to the existing home,the existing gas, electric, cable and telephone services to the existing home and the proposed sanitary sewer and water services to the new lot. 4.A drainage and utility easement must encompass any portion of the new services that crosses another property. The easement width shall extend a minimum of 10 feet, on center, from the service. 5.If the sanitary sewer and/or water service are extended from the utilities within Willow View Cove, an escrow must be posted for the restoration of the street. The escrow amount will be determined when the utility plan is submitted since the extent of excavation is unknown at this time. The escrow will not be released until it is deemed the area is in satisfactory condition after one freeze-thaw cycle. 6.The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges for Tract C shall be paid with the building permit application at the rate in effect at that time. The 2009 rates are $5,087 for the City water hookup charge, $1,893 for the City sewer hookup charge and $2,075 for the Metropolitan Council sewer charge. 7.The party applying for the building permit is responsible for payment of the hookup charges. 8.Environmental Resources Specialist Conditions: a.The applicant must submit tree preservation and removal calculations and survey for city staff approval prior to recording. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2009 b.All trees proposed to be preserved shall be protected by fencing throughout the construction process. The fencing must be installed prior to any excavation or grading. c.No trees on Tract C or Tract D shall be removed unless approved by the city. 9.At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of recording, is $1,984.88. 10.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) necessary and comply with their conditions of approval. 11.All disturbed areas shall be mulched and seeded or sodded according to following table: Time (maximum time an area can remain unvegetated Type of Slope when area is not actively being worked) Steeper than 3:1 7 Days 10:1 to 3:1 14 Days Flatter than 10:1 21 Days These areas include any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 12.Full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected in full at the rate in force upon approval and recording. 13.Submit a revised survey showing the following: a.Drainage and utility easements. b.All utilities must be shown and relocated if necessary prior to recording. c.Driveway access to the new parcel must be shown on plan. 14.Submit a 30-foot wide private cross-access easement over the shared portion of the private street. 15.A drainage and utility easement must encompass any portion of the driveway serving Tract D and encroaches on Tract C. 16.Tract C must meet the minimum criteria for a non-riparian lot within the shoreland management district as described in Chapter 20, Article VI. 17.The applicant shall revise the lot lines as shown in staff’s layout (Alternate B). ” The applicant works with staff to enhance landscaping on the north side of the 18. property. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2009 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None. Papke: Thank you very much. With that we’re off to the Fountain Conference Room I guess. Thomas: Don’t you have to close the meeting? Papke: Oh! Actually we should approve the minutes quickly before we adjourn. There are no minutes this time to approve because we had just a working session last time so we don’t have anything there. We have no commission presentations that I’m aware of so with that, we’ll adjourn the meeting at 7:29. Chairman Papke adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:29 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 12