Loading...
PC Minutes 12-07-2010 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 7, 2010 Chairman Laufenburger called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Denny Laufenburger, Andrew Aller, Kathleen Thomas, Kevin Ellsworth, Tom Doll and Mark Undestad STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Mary Beth Maki 150 Lakeview Road East Joe Jablonski US Home Corporation and Lennar Tom Vasquez 179 Lakeview Road East Tim Amlie 8796 North Bay Drive Andy Hopper 181 Lakeview Road East PUBLIC HEARING: LAKEVIEW: REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY (RSF) AND MIXED LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R4) TO RESIDENTIAL LOW- MEDIUM (RLM); AND SUBDIVISION OF APPROXIMATELY 50 ACRES INTO 66 LOTS AND 4 OUTLOTS ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD AND SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 212. APPLICANT: US HOME CORPORATION (DBA LENNAR), PLANNING CASE 2010-12. Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Laufenburger: Alright, thank you Sharmeen. Nice job. In just a moment we’ll ask the applicant if he or she would like to make a presentation but before we do that, are there any questions from the commissioners for the staff? Kevin, I’ll start down on your end. Ellsworth: Yes Mr. Chair. Sharmeen on, I have a few questions. On page 6 we talk about th comments due to the City by December 13 regarding the approval of the wetland type and boundary. What’s the purpose of that public comment and does it have any impact on what we’re talking about today in terms of decisions by the Planning Commission? Al-Jaff: There is a new ruling that basically when you delineate a wetland you need to have a 30 day comment period for them to basically provide you with any feedback. Ellsworth: So the public could have input on if they delineated it incorrectly for instance? That would be the feedback that they’re looking for from the public or what kind of input are they looking for? Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 Al-Jaff: It’s not the public per se. It’s the agencies that need to provide the feedback. Ellsworth: Oh okay. Has there been any? Al-Jaff: The Water Resources Coordinator has had conversations with them and they don’t believe there will be any issues. They’re fairly confident that it will be fine. Ellsworth: Alright, thank you. And then on page 7 talking about the Best Management Practices. It’s I don’t know, two thirds of the way down. It talks about additional Best Management Practices will likely be necessary as the project progresses and condition changes. Who monitors that project as it progresses and makes the decision that they need to change what’s proposed or add different practices? Fauske: The City contracts with Carver County Soil and Water Conservation District to do site inspections and so that comment just kind of covers as rain events happen, certain storms they might have to look at alternative practices but the plan that they submitted by and large meets our standards. Ellsworth: Do they go out after a rain event or is there just. Fauske: Yes. Ellsworth: Okay. Fauske: They have regularly scheduled inspections and then after a rain event they’re checking on developments. Ellsworth: Very good. Then on page 8, talking about North Bay receiving some of the drainage and it talks about adequate capacity in their storm sewer system. Was that, has that been determined or is that do you think will be an issue or? Fauske: We don’t anticipate it will be an issue but we are updating the model. The City has a model that we’re working with the developer’s engineer to ensure that there’s adequate capacity. Ellsworth: And that would come out of the Outlot D, that water quality basin 300? Does that become the reserve, the reservoir for the storm water and then it drains out of there over time, is that how that works? Fauske: That’s correct. Ellsworth: Okay. And then on page 9 the phosphorus treatment going into Lake Riley. How, I guess I read that but I didn’t understand. A, is it an issue? B, is it measurable? Is it C, treatable? What actually goes on in that regard? 2 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 Fauske: Phosphorus removal is a requirement set down by the State. Phosphorus removal is typically taken by the systemic solids within the runoff so the particulate matter in the runoff contains phosphorus and so the ponding that you see throughout a development is intended to allow those particulate matters to settle to the bottom of the pond and therefore reducing the phosphorus load within the water. And then part of the City’s maintenance of storm water ponds includes every, it depends on the pond but you dredge out the pond. You take those sediments out so that it continues to function as designed. Ellsworth: Okay. Is there any monitoring downstream of the pond to see if the phosphorus is actually settling out with the sediment? Fauske: The City works with the Watershed District on doing water quality monitoring. I don’t know the specifics of the downstream in this particular case. Ellsworth: Is Riley getting worst or better from the treatments that we’ve been providing, or don’t you know? Fauske: It’s hard to say because the data is so new. We don’t have any long term monitoring on that. Ellsworth: And aren’t they doing a study with the carp who are digging up the sediment on the bottom too and trying to take those out? Fauske: Yes. Ellsworth: Okay. And then the same, right below that talks about the NPDES general storm water permit, and I guess a more general question too. There was a comment about all other agencies permissions are applied for. What’s the follow up for that? How do we know that that actually occurs? That’s on I think page 18 when we talk about that. Al-Jaff: We will not issue a building permit until we have copies of all of the different permits and we are copied on them as each agency approves them. Ellsworth: Okay, so it’s. Aanenson: It’s actually, they don’t get a letter to proceed until all that’s permitted. They don’t proceed until all those have been met. Ellsworth: So you wouldn’t prohibit any earth movement. Aanenson: Typically we would, yeah. For grading permits and all that, so there wouldn’t be, usually we walk a site. Typically if there’s erosion control or if there’s tree buffering, or tree fencing that needs to go up, then we would walk, typically walk all that. Then they’d be given an order that they can start the project so that’s something that Alyson would usually check through and make sure that’s all put in place before they can get that. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 Ellsworth: Okay, great. Yeah. Thanks very much. That’s all I had Mr. Chair. Laufenburger: Thank you Kevin. Kathleen. Thomas: Yeah actually I have a question. How, are these streets pretty much the way they’re going to be because I have a question about Street C. It’s the one that kind of just dead ends currently. You know there’s not a cul-de-sac. It’s that, yeah those rows to the left of Street C. Yeah because it’s just kind of like a, you know it just stops. I was just curious if it provides adequate turn arounds for fire vehicles and things like that. Al-Jaff: It’s a condition of approval that they provide a turn around. Thomas: Okay because it just looked very dead end so it didn’t seem like you could back a truck, a fire truck back up and get out. Al-Jaff: You are correct. Thomas: Okay. I just wanted to double check. Thank you. Laufenburger: Anything else? Thomas: That is it. Laufenburger: Okay. Mr. Doll. Doll: Just curious, I know you’ve looked at this. Any concerns with Lots 1, 2, 3, 4 I guess and Lot 4. It seems like they’re pretty steep in the back yard to that pond. Al-Jaff: It is a 3 to 1 grade and there is adequate back yard. It exceeds 15 feet in width. Doll: It is 15, okay. Al-Jaff: That’s in addition to the actual patio area. Doll: Oh, okay. And just a thought on Lot 4, Block 4 you’ve got a, kind of a road. Just think about headlights hitting somebody’s house. Maybe there’s a thought. I know you want garages on the high side but maybe flip the garage on that so that they’re not getting hit and people aren’t being disturbed by cars coming in and out of there. Al-Jaff: That’s a very good point. Doll: Do any indication of what would be going into the west you know as far as future thought of development? Aanenson: It is guided low density residential. We’ve asked the applicant to look at that piece just you know again working with them as Sharmeen indicated to make sure, because we have 4 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 the drainage. Maybe you could point to that drainage area to the west there. It kind of, and looking at the grades, where is the best place to put it so we did ask them to meet with the property owners to the west just to make sure we had that in the best place to provide, that’s our job to make sure that they have adequate ability to tie into that street and it would go all the way over to Quinn Road so it could come in RLM. Again the reason we went with the RLM zoning, as Sharmeen indicated, we’re kind of between some other zonings. It’s a nice transition so if you go over to Quinn Road those lots are a little bit bigger so they could change but it wouldn’t be probably less than what this is. It could be a little bit bigger lots. Right now those are still on septic and well in that area. Doll: Oh, they’re nice homes. Any, I didn’t really look at the berm area on 212. No issue with drainage into, you know back into the proposed lots? Fauske: There is some drainage that enters into MnDOT right-of-way and so the applicant will have to work with MnDOT to get a drainage permit to allow for that but overall the drainage within MnDOT right-of-way decreases with this development because of the on site ponding and the grading that they’re proposing to do. Doll: Okay. And you’re good with, you know you mentioned in here you’re worried a little bit about getting access to 100 and 200 or you know. Fauske: That’s always something that seems to come up quite a bit with developments. We’ll work with the developer to try to grade in a bench so that we can get equipment down there to maintain the ponds. Doll: Okay. I have no further questions. Laufenburger: Okay. Mark. Anything? Andrew, do you have any questions? Andrew: No I went down. I just want to note that there’s some 38 conditions on the motion as well and by meeting these conditions then they’ll meet or exceed all our standards as required by code. Laufenburger: I have just a couple. Sharmeen you mentioned that there was a neighborhood meeting. Al-Jaff: Yes. Laufenburger: Any idea on how many attended that meeting? Al-Jaff: My understanding there were 5 couples that attended the meeting and maybe that would be a question for the developer. Laufenburger: For the applicant, yep. Okay. Bear with me just a moment here. The visual that you have on the screen right now, it suggests there will actually be a visible stream going from 5 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 the northwest portion of the property, along that low area and then draining into the wetland. Do you anticipate that that will actually be visible and there will be surface water running there? Al-Jaff: It depends on how much rain we get. It does carry quite a bit of water from 212 and Alyson do you want to. Laufenburger: Is this water being carried from the settling pond in the cloverleaf of 212? Fauske: That’s correct, yes. Laufenburger: Okay, so that water, after it settles and it reaches a certain point, it will drain into this wetland and then from the wetland into Lake Riley. Al-Jaff: Correct. Laufenburger: Okay. Alright, thank you. Okay, I think that was all the questions I had of staff. Thank you very much. Do we have an applicant present that has, wants to make some remarks. State your name please. Joe Jablonski: Good evening. Laufenburger: Would you speak at that podium please. Thank you. Joe Jablonski: Good evening. My name is Joe Jablonski representing US Home Corporation and Lennar as the applicant. I apologize, I’m fighting a cold a little bit here but we’ll fight through it. Just a real brief history of the site, or I guess where we got the plan that you see before you this evening. First off I want to thank staff for their work and introduction on the application before you this evening. I think they pointed out several things that were key in coming up with what you see before you. Really when we looked at this we looked at three different issues that the site really has, or challenges I guess. One of them is, the higher density on the north end by North Bay and then the opportunity to transition it down into Springfield. That was one of the things that we looked at as a critical component in the planning. The other one was of course dealing with Highway 212 and the MnDOT drainage right-of-way there and how that kind of dissects the property the way that it does and how to appropriately plan and prepare for that so that we were minimizing the impacts that the residential lots would have up against 212 and we feel that we’ve done a pretty good job of doing that with this plan. And then the other part of it is dealing with the shoreland overlay. Again that’s another issue on the site. It’s not a real big site to begin with. It’s 50 acres and that’s dealing with three pretty challenging things. I think our s site plan here has done a very good job of dealing with those and just wanted to run through that real briefly for you. Other than that I guess to answer the question or comment on the neighborhood meeting, there were I believe 5 couples that showed up. We did have separate meetings with the two property owners immediately to the west there and the neighborhood meeting notices were sent out to the same list of public publications so it went out to the 500 foot radius and we did contact the homeowners association at Springfield and invited them to pass information to encourage them to attend as well so. I guess I’d be happy to answer any other questions you have. I think we have done, I think with the components of the site and 6 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 the size of it and what we had to deal with, I think we really did come up with a good plan that meets the needs of the site and fits within what the City is looking for in future development so be happy to answer any questions. Laufenburger: Alright, thank you Mr. Jablonski. If you just want to wait there for a second. Mark, any questions? Undestad: No questions. Laufenburger: Andrew, how about you? Aller: Mr. Jablonski, I went out to the site and I took a look at it and I think the plan does a really good job of utilizing the area that you have, which is minimalized by shoreland overlay. My major concern when I was out there was looking at the transition from the wetland and on those properties that abut that and I’m wondering with the, do you know what type of footings are contemplated as far as the homes that are… Joe Jablonski: You mean the shoreland overlay? Aller: Yeah. Are they going to be deeper than normal? Are they going to be standard? Are they going to be? Joe Jablonski: Well what we would do is attempt to, or we would work with our soil engineer and our primary design engineer to come up with, our first choice would be to correct them all so that any house can be built on any pad and not have those issues. If there are certain cases where, because basically what we’re doing is, if you were out there you’re familiar with the fact that obviously the wetland sits down low and that as you get up towards 212 the elevation comes up quite dramatically. It was another challenge of this site that I didn’t really point out but what we were proposing or planning to do was basically bring the grades of those up so that we’re correcting pads and creating walkout’s on there so that they’re taking advantage of the 8 to 10 foot fall from the top at the street grade down so our intention would be to not have to do that but of course we work with our soil expert and our professional engineers and the City’s building department to make sure we’re following codes and standards. Aller: Do you know how high you contemplate that from being from the high water mark of the wetland? Aanenson: City ordinance is minimum 3 feet so those are always checked between the different departments for review but that’s the minimum. The lowest elevation. Fauske: Mr. Chair if I may. To answer Commissioner Aller’s question, based on the information, the high water level of the proposed pond is at 869 with the low for the adjacent walkout’s being around a 92 so there is over 20 feet there in elevation so we anticipate adequate. Laufenburger: Does that answer your question? 7 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 Aller: It does, thank you. Otherwise I’ve again, I’ve been out to the property. I compared it with the drawings and the specs that we have on the report which was another great job by staff and I think it looks like a really nice plan. Laufenburger: Okay. How about this end? Kevin, you have any questions of the applicant? Ellsworth: Yes Mr. Chair. Mr. Jablonski, was there any decibel curves drawn from the noise from the freeway? What do you anticipate for noise in those homes you know closest to the highway? Joe Jablonski: We have not evaluated that through a study. We would, obviously we understand that there’ll be certain challenges marketing wise for those particular homes and we’ll do I guess what we feel necessary. Probably above and beyond the landscape type plan that you see there but would meet those through our marketing. Ellsworth: I guess my concern is that, you know 5 years from now the homeowner’s get together and say oh it’s too noisy here and then now you petition MnDOT for a sound wall and then we all pay for the sound wall whereas it would be part of the development if it went up first. I have no idea what the relationship with MnDOT is in petitioning for a sound barrier or not. And maybe staff can help me there. Joe Jablonski: The, I can speak to that a little bit. Well first off the good thing about this case is that the road is already in so the homes are going to be familiar with the fact that the road’s there. It’s not going to be something that 5 years, 10 years from now it’s going to be a surprise. I think people understand that over time the traffic’s probably going to get worst you know and it’s going to be used more. However we will also, through our purchase agreements and things, properly disclose that you know obviously you’re in close proximity to a highway and that, we’re going to make sure they understand that we’re doing everything we can to tell them and be upfront with them about the highway and things. There are decibel standards put forth by MnDOT for sound walls and those type of studies that are done and one of the things that they do is a, I guess a feasibility or reasonableness study and with that they measure how many homes will benefit from the use of a sound wall given a distance away from and I believe in this calculation it was approximately 12 homes. Not having a soil, or a sound study completed but just off of my conversations with our engineer, and with that, what they do is they take the feasibility or the cost related to preparing sound walls. See how many homes it will benefit and then what the cost and the, in this case what is determined is that the cost associated with a wall would probably not benefit the community as a whole. Because as you get further away from Highway 212 that need for it is going to continue to drop and so. Ellsworth: But are the homes on the edge looking down on the highway or is there a berm that separates it? That you look up from that yard. Joe Jablonski: The homes as you go from east to west, I believe the homes on the far west, which would be Lot 11 and 12 are approximately 68 feet above, sitting about the highway at garage level. So those homes and yards will be at or above the garage. Or Highway 212. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 Ellsworth: Okay, thank you. Laufenburger: It does present a marketing problem though doesn’t it? Joe Jablonski: It could. It could be challenging a little bit on those particular home sites but that’s why, you know when we went through several concepts when we were laying this out and one of them had several homes backing up into 212 corridor and we decided to make the adjustment and change it the way you see it tonight simply to reduce or minimize the number of homes that are impacted by it. Laufenburger: Kevin, you have any more questions? Ellsworth: No. Laufenburger: Commissioner Thomas. Thomas: I do not have any questions, thank you. Laufenburger: Commissioner Doll. Doll: What was the, and you may have said this and I missed it. The consensus from your meetings with people. Positive? Negative? Joe Jablonski: To be honest the most response we got was people prospecting or looking to move from Springfield into a new community. So I would say that’s a positive for us, yes. Laufenburger: Anything else? Doll: No. Laufenburger: Mr. Jablonski, do you, does US Home Corporation have any other experience in Chanhassen? Joe Jablonski: Yes. Laufenburger: Can you talk a little bit about that please. Joe Jablonski: We, US Home Corporation is also an affiliate of Lundgren Bros and Orrin Thompson Homes. We did develop and build the homes across the road in Springfield. We’ve built Ashley Meadows. We’re currently building in Pinehurst and Lake Harrison. We have built a number of communities throughout Chanhassen through the years so we’re very well versed in Chanhassen in the area and have a pretty long history. Laufenburger: Okay, very good. In the report there’s discussion about the phases or the pace at which you would likely develop. Can you just speak to that a little bit, now that you’re here. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 Joe Jablonski: I can. Obviously it’s a little bit difficult to speak about the marketability or how quickly things will go but what our current projections are, between 25. 20 to 25 a year so it’d be about a 3 year development or build out. Laufenburger: And if things go well you would begin development in the spring, is that correct? Joe Jablonski: Correct. Laufenburger: Okay. So just for those of us that are not familiar with the construction industry, if you begin development in the spring does that mean we’d likely see foundations showing up in the fall or the following spring? Joe Jablonski: We are pretty aggressive in starting our homes, as long as we’re able to work with our, with the building department and the fire marshal. We like to get started pretty early in the process if the access is appropriate and we’d like to get started for sure by fall so that we have something ready right away in the spring of the following year. Laufenburger: Okay. Do you name the streets? Joe Jablonski: Me personally, no. Laufenburger: But does the developer? Joe Jablonski: The developer does. We were limited in naming the main road coming in because it is a dead end connection from North Bay so that was a required street name. The rest of them, you can correct me if I’m wrong but. Aanenson: They submit the names of, building department reviews them and then also the County can reject them too if there’s ambiguity or similar type names so. Laufenburger: Do you sell the names and get a huge royalty like TCF Bank Road or anything like that? Aanenson: No. Alright. Thank you. Any other questions? Aller: Mr. Jablonski, would you be intending to grade all at once or piecemeal? Joe Jablonski: That’s going to be challenging part of this. It’s likely we will have to grade the whole thing just because of the topography of the site and some of the things that we’re having to deal with. It’s very likely we’ll have to grade it all. Aller: And do you foresee putting in the park during the grading phase or Phase I? Joe Jablonski: Well it is a city park so we’ll be working with the park commission and the park board and City Council to see what they want to do but certainly our, we would prefer to see the park done as quickly as possible. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 Aller: Thank you. Laufenburger: Alright, thank you Mr. Jablonski. Ellsworth: Mr. Chair. Laufenburger: Yes. Ellsworth: Mr. Jablonski, I’m not familiar with developments how they evolve. Will you start on the northern end building homes or is it really whoever comes in and says oh I like that lot and so you build a house there. Someone comes in and says I like that lot over there or is there a process? Joe Jablonski: Well we would start with the primary entrance off of Lyman Boulevard there and assuming we were doing approximately 25 lots per phase, that would get us about part, up to the intersection of the first cul-de-sac road and may even get into that whole first cul-de-sac on the west side. And typically we start model homes and inventory homes obviously with close proximity to a main entrance but from there it is kind of market driven on where people want. Ellsworth: Thank you. Laufenburger: Alright, thank you Mr. Jablonski. Joe Jablonski: Thank you. Laufenburger: At this time I’d like to open the public hearing. If there’s anybody present that would like to speak about this item, I’d ask that you please step up to the podium. State your name and address. Good evening and welcome. Tom Vasquez: Good evening. My name is Tom Vasquez. I live at 179 Lakeview Road East. That’s in North Bay and for the last 5, 6 years I’ve been privileged to serve as the president of the North Bay Homeowners Association. I’d like to call the commission’s attention to two errors that are made in the application for this development. On page 3 of the application, under the heading City Standards, in that paragraph it reads to the east you will find the higher density North Bay neighborhood. North Bay is made up of attached and detached townhomes. That is not correct. North Bay has only single family homes. There are no common walls. There are no attached townhomes. I suspect that that statement might have been made to affect the last sentence in that section which relates to the differing densities between North Bay and other areas. However let it be said that North Bay has only single family homes. The second error I’d like to mention to the commission is that if you look on that map up there you see on the northeast side the continuation of a road. A road that currently is a city street and goes through North Bay and the name of that road is Lakeview Road East. It’s been that road for 11 ½ years that my wife and I have lived in North Bay. On all the maps that go with the application, that road is identified as Lake Riley Road East. That is not correct. Lake Riley Road East is a road further to the east in the Lakeside development. But let it be known that Lakeview Road East is 11 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 the proper name of the city street that is referred to in these maps in the North Bay area. We are not opposing, we are not opposing this development but we do have some concern. The primary concern is surface water runoff. We would like to be assured that the development plans are such that catch basins are provided for 100% of the surface water runoff from the proposed development. A bit of history. About 6-7 years ago the development to the east of North Bay called Lakeside was developed and there we were alerted to the fact that that land, as is the land in the proposed subdivision, is higher. Higher than the land in North Bay. At the Planning Commission 6-7 years ago I mentioned our concerns and the developer of Lakeside at that time agreed without hesitation that it was a proper concern to have 100% of the surface water runoff directed to catch basins. I realize that with this proposed development a lot of grading is to be done but still we are concerned about the surface water runoff and I have seen nothing in the proposed plan that was released to the public to address that fully and we would like to be assured that that is the case. A second concern we have is a concern that has been very gratefully observed by the developer of Lakeside and also the current developer that is doing some additional work there, and that is that we have a lot of senior citizen residents that live in the single family townhomes along Lakeview Drive East. Lakeview Road East, I’m sorry. Right name. Lakeview Road East. And we have requested in the past and the contractors and the developers have very kindly observed this request that construction vehicles, worker vehicles and so forth use the Lyman Road entrance to all work rather than coming up Lakeview Drive East, and they have observed that. So we would like to be assured about the surface water runoff. We’re lower but we don’t need a flood. Thank you. Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Vasquez. I appreciate your notation of the two items. Staff can you speak to the naming of Lake Riley versus Lake, Lake Riley Road East, Lakeview Road East. Is that just a mistype or? Fauske: We’ll get it corrected. Laufenburger: Thank you. Alright, I thought so. How about the surface water runoff, is that something you can address? Fauske: Certainly. One of the requirements and we touched on it a little bit earlier at the meeting here tonight is that the existing drainage of this site towards the development to the east, there is currently drainage going to that area. The developer proposes with the changes in grading and with catch basis, as Mr. Vasquez mentioned, he would like to see catch basins in the street. There are catch basins in the proposed street connection to the east. We are reducing the area draining to the North Bay development and city staff is working with the developer’s engineer just to ensure that we have the capacity in the pond there to make sure that the pre and post development discharge rates and volumes are adequate. Laufenburger: Okay. Pleased that you’re aware of that and thank you for addressing that. And the last item that Mr. Vasquez mentioned was a construction, and I know that the City works very closely with the construction departments to ensure that the vehicles, to the best of their ability avoid the residential streets. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 Aanenson: I think we put in the development contract when Ron Clark did the Lakeview, that they use that construction access and we’d do the same thing here. Fauske: That’s correct and as Mr. Jablonski had mentioned with the phasing of their development, it would certainly make sense to have access off Lyman Boulevard but we’ll work with the developer to make sure that works with their development plans and stipulate that in the contract. Laufenburger: Okay. I think I want to ask this question of Sharmeen. I take Mr. Vasquez’s word that on the error number one where he says North Bay is only single family homes. Does that change your transition plan at all? Al-Jaff: No, it is the same and it’s in their narrative that the applicant had submitted to the City. Laufenburger: Okay. Al-Jaff: It’s not staff that put that language in there but it is still a transition. We looked at the density. What North Bay has is a denser development, yet they are detached units and the development that you have before you today is actually a transition so it’s less dense as it gets closer to Springfield development and the property to the west. Laufenburger: Okay, thank you. Any other comment from the public at this time? Ellsworth: Mr. Chairman, a follow up? Laufenburger: Oh sure, please do. Please step up and I’ll ask your name in a moment. Ellsworth: I share Mr. Vasquez’s concern about the runoff to North Bay and I know there’s the modeling and so on but what’s the recourse for North Bay residents if the modeling’s wrong? So development goes in and we have high rain that year. Maybe near the top of the model’s constraints and they’ve got flooding problems down there. Who do they talk to? And then how is that resolved? Fauske: It would be public infrastructure and we would work with the residents to develop the solution. Ellsworth: Because we approved the modeling and so on, then it becomes the City’s responsibility to address any issues that came from that? Fauske: That’s why we’re extremely diligent with our runoff calculations. Ellsworth: Good point. Thank you. Laufenburger: Thank you. State your name and address please. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 Tim Amlie: Good evening. My name is Tim Amlie and I live at 8796 North Bay Drive in North Bay. I live kind of at the corner, in the northeast part of the map there. The very corner where North Bay and Lakeview meet. A couple first things. First of all then noise issue that was touched on earlier. Before the development gets going I would do anything in my power to work with MnDOT to get some kind of wall up there. Where I live the noise isn’t horrible but when you’re coming down Lakeview, when it’s busy times of the day and night, the noise just comes over that field and people who live further down, I know that it will be an issue for your homes as they come up and you know with the density getting deeper there, my experience is the more dense they’ll work with putting walls and stuff in. I highly recommend doing that before any building was done because it is definitely noisy there. It’s very definite so I’d definitely for your marketing plan and everything else, work with that. Second of all, when they’re doing all this grading on that area and our prevailing northwest winds are blowing towards all the dust that’s going to collect in North Bay and the area. What is the building going to do to work with us on that when I come out on my patio and it’s pitch black and dust and things like that? You know what’s going to happen to my neighborhood when that’s going on? And then a third and final thing I’m questioning on, right at the, where the end of the street is where Lakeview comes to an end before, where the dead end just meeting that new area, for the last years and years and years we’ve been able to park, we’ve got boat access so we have our, keep our boat trailers back up in those bushes and stuff and we do not want to lose access to our edge of the property there for keeping our boat trailers and stuff back in the summer back there, so that’s an issue too to make sure that we have access to that area because that’s important to us to keep our boats at North Bay. Laufenburger: Kate, could you address that please? Aanenson: Well I’m not sure that when we originally put that plan together that that was intended to be a parking place for boats. It was always intended to be a street to go through so. Tim Amlie: Well it’s back in the woods. It’s, but it’s just that we don’t, when they build their lots and stuff that we still have access to our edge of our lot back there. Aanenson: It’s common, that’s common HOA property because those lots are actually in about 3,000 square feet so that really would be an issue for the homeowners association to address because we did not accommodate. There is guest parking in that area but we have not accommodated for outdoor storage or boats on that property so I guess I’d ask you to work with your homeowners association on that. Tim Amlie: We just don’t want to lose the access to get out stuff to it. That’s what we’re talking about. It’s not. Aanenson: What I’m telling you is, the City has not approved a legal plan for you to have outdoor storage so I don’t see our’s, it wouldn’t be our mechanism to make sure that you continue to use that. The only outdoor storage that should be there would be temporary parking. Otherwise that’s something that typically we get enforcement complaints on so. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 Laufenburger: So you have a convenience of that, just as a result of no activity in that area but that’s not a convenience that is an entitlement associated with approval of the plans so the Planning Director is speaking truth here. You need to work closely with the homeowners association. Tim Amlie: Well I’m on the board there too. Aanenson: Yeah, you might try to find some other place that you can accommodate that is what I’m saying on that site because I’m not sure how the grades are going to match up there and some of that vegetation, how that transition’s going to work so that might not still be accessible. Tim Amlie: Sure. Aanenson: Okay. Laufenburger: Did you have a comment? Aller: No. Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Amlie. Any other comment from the public? Certainly. Aanenson: Can I just ask one other question that was grading and dust? Laufenburger: Yes. Aanenson: I know this is a common complaint and we do manage our sites, we try to keep the construction activity, manage that so if it is an ongoing issue, that’s something that any of the neighbors can call and let us know, we’ll actually they’re supposed to be keeping those sites watered so the dust doesn’t come up so that’s something that we try to manage. So if there is complaints about that, that it’s not being properly managed, that’s certainly an enforcement issue that we’d want to be aware of but that’s also part of the development contract. Before they get the order to proceed things that we expect them to manage and sometimes we have a few dry weeks and things get out of hand but we certainly want to manage that and we want to be informed if there’s a problem. Laufenburger: That’s a good point. We can enforce that which we know about and though we may be on site doing inspections periodically, it’s often then neighboring citizens that we would encourage to contact us if we, or contact the City if there’s any problem. Good evening. State your name and address please. Andy Hopper: Good evening. Yes, my name is Andy Hopper and I live at 181 Lakeview Drive, or Lakeview Road. Sorry Tom, East. Laufenburger: We’re going to get this name right… 15 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 Andy Hopper: I live coincidentally right next door to Tom on one side and Tim on the other side so. Laufenburger: This is a conspiracy, is that what you’re saying? Andy Hopper: That’s right. I’d really like to talk about two things. One is to reinforce or once again state our concern about the, during the construction the potential for mud and rain and so forth coming down that road. If you’ve been on Lakeview Drive or Lakeview Road, it’s a, almost a straight shot up the hill. If you look up where the little north sign is on that map. If you’re, at the bottom of the hill it’s a straight shot up the hill and it’s a perfect cul-de-sac. Conduit I should say for rain water. And so if there’s mud and debris that’s loose from the construction, it’ll all come right down that street. And right at the top where it makes the turn, that’s the high point and the, there’s a, the road had been previously graded. It’s at a higher elevation than the surrounding terrain. I’m not sure what the developer planned to do about that. Whether they’re going to lower that road or whether it’s going to stay elevated the way it is but I can assure you mud and debris will come down that road. Now the other thing is, to my understanding that when the Highway 212 was originally envisioned or put in, that there was an agreement with our association some time ago and the state highway department that the sound barrier that’s there actually would be longer. That it would extend further toward Highway 101 than they actually ended up by doing so it has been, according to my understanding, the State did less than they said they would do at the time they put that highway in. Now as Tim has so aptly stated, it’s a very significant, that noise is a very significant factor. Especially at commute times in the morning and at night. Doesn’t affect us personally too much because we’re behind a couple of other homes but if you stand out in the street, it’s loud. So a piece, a word of advice to the developer. I would say you ought to strike while the iron is hot here and while there’s the prospect of 50 homes or there about’s. I’m not sure exactly how many homes. 60 homes. Laufenburger: 66. Right now 66 lots are part of the rezoning. Andy Hopper: That they, that this would be an opportunity to see if you can gather up those promises and see if they could be, that sound barrier could be done. It’ll have to be some day because it’s, it ends abruptly right at about where the light green area starts and doesn’t extend at all. Now I had a couple more general questions about the nature of the development itself. The wetland. We’re kind of new to the neighborhood. We love it. We love the native, the very, very natural kind of view. Sense you get when you drive through the neighborhood. There are deer. There’s the, I even saw a large turtle coming out of that pond about 6 months ago just before, I guess mating season or egg laying season or something. What will be the impact of this development on that pond? Can anybody answer that question? Laufenburger: I think we can. Do you want to ask your second question as well and then we’ll try to answer them. Andy Hopper: Okay. Are there going to be fences on this property? Anywhere on this property. Laufenburger: What do you mean by fences? 16 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 Andy Hopper: Well between the lots for example or are, because in our neighborhood there are no fences at all and I’d like, if possible I’d like to see it continue that way. In other words the wildlife and so forth is able to wander freely around the place and that’s one of the things that makes it nice. The other thing is the pond is fully grown over with reeds and grass. Will the developer or anyone attempt to change that? Aanenson: I’ll answer the fence question first. I think they’re kind of embedded together. Similarly when this subdivision, North Bay went in the functionality actually of that wetland probably improved a little bit as far as going from agricultural and how it was being used and straight runoff being pre-treated which similarly this will also do, is pre-treating it before it goes in. Obviously you’re taking some of the runoff from 212 but as far as putting fences on there, if the homeowners choose to put fences around there, typically we have ordinances when you get closer to the wetland. How they’d be open but if someone else in there wanted to put a fence up, I don’t think we would want to prohibit that. Consequently we also have the MnDOT drainage area for movement if there’s wildlife to go through that area throughout the city. We still can anticipate that. We have the golf course that’s also probably mentioned some wildlife that would still move between that area. Andy Hopper: Well could you make that a little more specific? Exactly how that would apply here. Aanenson: Well I’m saying there’s a wildlife corridor. You know when we look at the city there’s a significant wildlife corridor, like when you go down Bluff Creek starting at Minnewashta and going down to the Minnesota River Valley. There’s also when you go further to the west, maybe you can show the slide of that. The first slide Sharmeen where the wildlife would be on there going from the golf course, going over down. As you go down Lyman through the Springfield neighborhood. Down Bandimere Park. Kind of that corridor right there. There’s another big wetland when you get to the corner of Lyman and 101. If you could use the pointer please Sharmeen it would be very helpful. Maybe take the pointer and kind of show kind of that, so you’ve got those wetlands there. Those complexes. That’s where some of that wildlife’s moving. Down to those wetlands there along 212. You go down now at 212 you see deer along kind of those corridors so it’s still going to move through that direction. Andy Hopper: Well, will the nature of the pond be changed in any way? Aanenson: I think as far as improving the quality because we’re pre-treating some of the runoff that’s going in there now. Alyson if you want to add anything to that. Fauske: Wetlands are protected by the State so there will be no alteration to the wetland as you see it. There will be minor grading to install for example a pond outlet so that it can discharge through there but the vegetation that you see today is what will still exist. Andy Hopper: Pond outlet? Fauske: Yes. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 Andy Hopper: What is there now? Fauske: The pone that’s directly north that you. Andy Hopper: Oh that little pond. I’m talking about the larger area. Yes, okay. Fauske: So there will be some minor disruption but the vegetation surrounding the wetland and the buffer, as Sharmeen explained, had discussed during her presentation, there’s a wetland buffer. That’s an area that cannot be disturbed with the development. Al-Jaff: And this development is proposing to leave it intact. Andy Hopper: And so the residents couldn’t reasonably be expected to start to build the beaches and parks and what have you on the edge of the pond? Aanenson: No. Laufenburger: This will not become Lotus Lake, if that’s what you’re saying. Andy Hopper: Yes. Thank you. And with the fences I guess there’s nothing we can say about that. Aanenson: Well I guess you know we do have an ordinance that requires when you’re adjacent to a wetland how you can place a fence. So you can’t block the wildlife movement but I’m anticipating this is a more traditional single family neighborhood that if someone had a pet or wanted to fence in their yard would typically, it’s different than the North Bay where you’ve got a smaller lots and it’s common. These people have individual lots and not a common lot. Andy Hopper: Yes, I understand. Aanenson: It’s a little bit different. Yeah. Andy Hopper: Okay, but does the developer plan to put fences in as part of the specific home development? Laufenburger: Mr. Jablonski, do you want to speak to that at the podium? Thank you. Joe Jablonski: Mr. Chair and to answer the question, we would not be putting any fences in ourselves necessarily per se up front. We would leave it at the discretion of the homeowners if they choose to. Laufenburger: So there’s nothing in the, in the appearance of the general design of the entire property that calls for, what would I call it? Ornamental fencing of any sort. Joe Jablonski: No. We have not planned for any up front. Again it would be at the discretion of the homeowners or the individual lot owners as they so choose. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 Laufenburger: And as long as the lot owners follow the ordinances that are in place by the City, then they’re free to build that fence if they choose to. Aanenson: And I think it’d be really typical, if you look across the street in the Springfield neighborhood, there’s some homes that have fences and some that don’t and it’s kind of individual choice depending on how they use their yard and how they see it. Laufenburger: Okay, thank you Mr. Jablonski. Mr. Hopper, thank you for your comments. Anything further at this time? Andy Hopper: No. Thank you very much. Fauske: Mr. Chair, if I may just to clarify one of the questions that came up is where the drainage along the street there. Laufenburger: Yeah. Fauske: Just for clarification for both the Planning Commission and the residents. The high point is approximately at this location so that should give the residents an indication of exactly how much, approximately 300 feet of street that would be draining down towards the North Bay development. Laufenburger: So the general contour of the property at that point is not going to be changed to shift the drainage from the east to the west, is that correct? Fauske: Correct. Laufenburger: You’re pointing out the high point. Fauske: Correct. So from approximately this location it will drain to the east, and that’s that section of storm sewer and the drainage calculations that we’re verifying to make sure there’s adequate capacity in the system. Laufenburger: So there is some drainage there right now. Fauske: That’s correct. That’s correct. Laufenburger: Okay. Understand that commissioners? Okay. Thank you very much. Is there any other comment from the public at this time? Okay I want to thank everybody who not only came but also especially those who came forward and expressed their views. I’m pleased to see that, as I’m sure all the commissioners are, that the surrounding citizens do want to express their feelings. I thank them for that. If there’s no other public comment, I’d like to close the public hearing at this time. Commission members, do you have any additional questions of staff as a result of the comments from the public? Anything? Okay. Well let’s just take a moment to consider your thoughts on how we should proceed on this. Mark. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 Undestad: Yeah, you know I mean I think it’s very well put together. Staff did a great job. They’ve got a great development team on the whole package. I like it and I think it’s well done. Laufenburger: Good, okay. Mr. Aller. Aller: Well I had the same concerns that some of the residents did and that’s one of the reasons why I went out to actually look at the property. When I went through the conditions that are stated in the findings and what is expected of Lennar in putting this together, I think all my concerns were pretty much answered. It will all be in the doing. The planning appears to be appropriate and I think it’s just going to be a matter of whether or not the soils will handle it and as they move forward whether or not certain conditions need to be addressed, which they probably will. Most things are moving target in doing a subdivision so I think the plan though looks I think appropriate for the property. I think it’s a great use of the wetland and maintaining that wetland and I would recommend the property. I think it looks good. Laufenburger: Okay. How about down here. Tom. Doll: I think it’s well thought out and I wish them good luck. Thomas: Yeah, I agree. Laufenburger: Okay. Kevin. Ellsworth: I think it looks very nice. A lot of work. A lot of good work went into it. I still have concern over the noise. I lived off of 494 for 7 years in Minnetonka before they put up the wall and there were days you couldn’t have a conversation in the yard it’s so loud. Now I know they’ve made advances in concrete and that the concrete’s a little quieter on 212 but also I live presently off of Pioneer Trail and Highway 101 and in rush hour it’s noisy down there. If the wind’s out of the north at all, and so it just seems there’s an opportunity to get that sound wall up now. I mean if it does, the one gentleman pointed out, it ends just past the property of the adjacent property and you can see it in one of the pictures. But again that’s obviously a conversation the developer’s had and considered it with MnDOT. I’m surprised the City doesn’t have any kind of ordinances regarding protection from sound and that type of thing but apparently we don’t. Laufenburger: I wonder if we could have staff clarify something. I certainly believe what I believe it was Mr. Hopper, what he said that he thought there was something. Is there some way we can check to see whether or not MnDOT in fact had made a commitment to extend that sound barrier farther to the west? Al-Jaff: Once a highway is in, MnDOT will not use any funding for walls. At least that’s, we’ve had conversations with them and basically, I’m going to read the sentence. MnDOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such areas. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 Laufenburger: Is it possible for us to determine whether or not there’s any validity to the comment, I’m paraphrasing this. We thought the barrier was going to be farther, closer to 101 than it actually turned out to be. Aanenson: I can address that briefly. When they did the 212, it was a design build and part of the construction cost, the only mitigation that was put in place with those homes put in place. They will not go back and retrofit that. Laufenburger: Okay. Aanenson: So a lot of discussion went on like the burden for individual development to bear that, is it a fair burden for an individual developer to build at that scale. It seems onerous. We’ve had a discussion with the developer saying we need to look at the noise mitigation attenuation to see what we can do. They’re working on that. It’s not going to be the same scale and size of the existing wall. Cost prohibitive. But they are working on that. They’re aware that is an issue. We pointed that out so we’re going to come back before final plat with some more specific plans. They’ve got a berm and you know try to work through that. I think as the developer pointed out, I think the best thing that we did was try to make the cul-de-sacs go and looked at how many houses were against it and we tried to remove that. We tried to mitigate through design the best we can and we’re trying to take it to the next level but MnDOT’s not going to come back and build the wall and to ask the developer to build it at that cost, is very expensive. Laufenburger: So we’re really asking for consideration for those people that do not yet live there. Obviously we can’t change it for the people that are already living in North Bay. Aanenson: Right. Laufenburger: I mean that’s. Aanenson: But so noted as was stated, I think you don’t want to create something that’s inferior over time that becomes less desirable to live so if we can try to prevent that now, that’s the best thing to do through good design and that’s what we’re trying to work on between now and when we get to final plat. That we can try to make this desirable so you don’t want that to be kind of the less desirable. And whatever we do for mitigation there, just works it way to provide better mitigation as you get towards North Bay and further down the line too. Doll: And don’t you think that someone that’s going to purchase the property is going to realize that they’re sitting on 212? Laufenburger: Yes, I would think that but there’s also people who buy property near the airport that after they buy it say well come and add more sound proofing to my home. Thomas: It’s nice to think that it will for sure be well I know the highway’s there but you can’t you know, you never know. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 Ellsworth: The sound wall was finally put up on 494 when they moved it from 2 to 3 lanes so it was a total reconstruction and that’s where the funding came from for those sound walls. Aanenson: Correct. Yeah, and this one was when they did the 212 corridor, they limited it in some of that to reduce their cost and they’re not going to go back, as Sharmeen stated, they’re not going to go back and fence it. Aller: And I would believe that this is still a moving target with the noise and the barrier because you have a natural barrier will only put in those trees and the buffer there. We put in actual homes where there are none now, that might act as a buffer and reduce some of that noise. Ellsworth: And then I’d very much like to work with the water. I think that will improve that pond from where it is today because. Aanenson: Pre-treat it, yeah. Ellsworth: Absolutely. So thank you. Laufenburger: Well I hope we don’t interrupt the habitat for that turtle. Aanenson: No. No. Aller: Save the turtles. Laufenburger: Save the turtles, exactly. Aanenson: If I may, I think that’s why the park commission also wanted to put the park. It takes a really nice amenity for Springfield to enjoy, and also you have that backdrop of the wetland behind you and then the views there are nice. You can see the lake too so I think preserving some of that, that edge on both those also provides a nice environment for you know, for people and for the wildlife there too. Laufenburger: Okay. Any further comment? I’ll entertain a motion. Aller: Mr. Chairman I move that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Lakeview subdivision and rezoning subject to the conditions of the staff report and the adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation thereto. Laufenburger: Thank you. We have a valid motion. Is there a second? Undestad: Second. Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Undestad. Is there any further discussion? Aller moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approves Planning Case #10-12 to rezone 50.48 acres of property zoned RSF, 22 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 Single Family Residential District, and R-4 Mixed Low-Density Residential, to RLM, Residential Low and Medium Density District for Lakeview Subdivision contingent upon final plat approval, as shown in plans dated received November 5, 2010, and adoption of the findings of fact. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Aller moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approves the preliminary plat for Planning Case #10-12 for Lakeview Subdivision for 66 lots and 4 outlots as shown on the plans received November 5, 2010, subject to the following conditions and adoption of the findings of fact: 1.The applicant shall add 34 trees to its total for tree planting. The landscape plan shall show at total of 282 trees to be planted. 2.All trees proposed to be preserved shall be protected by tree preservation fencing. Fencing shall be installed prior to grading. 3.All work and drainage discharge within the MnDOT easement must be approved by MnDOT. 4.The public drainage and utility easement on the north side of the development must be vacated. 5.The existing building and driveway on the north side of the site must be removed. 6.Based on the proposed grading a low area will be created west and north of the Street C stub. The developer must work with the adjacent property owner to either grade out the low area, or install storm sewer to prevent water from ponding in the area. 7.The developer's engineer will shift the storm sewer at the back of Lots 38 to 41, Block 3, further north in order to provide a larger unencumbered backyard area. 8.The storm sewer alignment at the back of Lots 19 and 20, Block 3 must be adjusted to minimize the required drainage and utility easement. 9.The lowest opening of a building must be minimum 18 inches above an adjacent emergency overflow. 10.Additional information must be shown on the final grading plan to show how drainage from the Highway 212 berm will be directed into the existing flared end section located north of proposed Lot 27, Block 3. 11.An encroachment agreement is required if the developer wishes to install an entrance monument at the Street B intersection of Lyman Boulevard. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 12.A temporary turnaround is required at the western end of Street C. 13.The development is adjacent to Lyman Boulevard and is therefore subject to the arterial collector fee at the time of final plat. 14.The developer will not be reimbursed for the relocation cost of the 12-inch watermain since the work is development driven. 15.The watermain within Street B between Lyman Boulevard and Street A shall be 8-inch. 16.The delineated wetland boundary must be moved so that no portion of the boundary is located at an elevation less than the 868-foot contour. 17.The delineated wetland boundary will not be considered approved until the public comment period has ended on December 13, 2010. 18.The wetland buffer behind Lot 7 and Lot 8 of Block 4 shall be minimized to be coincidental with the rear lot lines. The area of buffer that would otherwise be present shall be compensated for elsewhere along the wetland boundary. 19.The applicant, with the assistance of the City, must show that adequate capacity exists within the North Bay storm sewer system to accommodate the proposed drainage area to be directed to North Bay. 20.The NPDES General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity must be applied for and obtained prior to any earth-disturbing activities. Proof of this must be provided to the City. 21.Reasonable efforts must be made to provide a maintenance access road to ponds 100 and 200 in compliance with City Code and the NPDES General Stormwater Permit for Construction Activity. 22.Additional data must be provided for cul-de-sac D to demonstrate sufficient grade for adequate drainage. 23.A minimum of two feet of separation must be provided between the emergency overflow for the MnDOT drainage swale and the low floor opening for Lot 5, Block 2. 24.Two-foot sumps shall be included with structures CBMH-104, MH-203 and MH-222. 25.All storm sewer shall be within a drainage and utility easement. 26.Hydraulic calculations shall be provided to the City for review and approval before the final plat can be issued. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 27.Mulch, MnDOT Type 3, certified weed free shall be used in all of Block 4, Outlot A and Outlot B whenever mulch is called for. 28.The remainder of the gully which originates under Lots 4 and 5, Block 2 shall be filled in. This shall be done in such a manner as to avoid additional tree loss and the introduction of weeds and invasive species. 29.The estimated SWMP fees, in the amount of $82,228.55, are due at the time of final plat. 30.Phosphorus removal will need to meet the minimum 60% removal rate and should maximize that to the greatest extent practicable. 31.The applicant shall be responsible to assure that all other agency permissions are applied for and resulting conditions are met. 32.A Landowner Statement and Contractor Responsibility form will need to be filled out and submitted to the LGU (City of Chanhassen) and the DNR. The form can be found at: http://www.bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/forms/Contractor_Responsibility.doc 33.Appendix A C.1 and C.2 must be addressed including: a.Exposed soil areas must be stabilized as soon as possible but never later than seven (7) days. b.A discussion of the feasibility of infiltration and the appropriate response to these findings. 34.Building Official Conditions: a.Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures on the site. Application for such permits must include hazardous substances investigative and proposed mitigation reports. b.A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. c.Retaining walls over four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and require permits, inspections and final approval. d.Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services. e.The developer and or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 35.Fire Marshal conditions: a.Submit street names to Building and Fire Marshal for review and approval. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2010 b.No burning permits will be issued. Tress, scrubs etc. must be removed from the site or chipped. c. Mains and fire hydrants shall be installed and made serviceable prior to combustible construction. d. A three-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. e.Temporary street signs shall be installed as soon as construction begins. Signs shall be of an approved size as required by the Chanhassen Fire Marshal. They shall be weather- resistant and maintained until replaced by permanent signs. f.Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. g.The proposed hydrant between Lots 3 and 4, Block 2 must be relocated to the intersection of Streets B and C. h.The proposed hydrant between Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 must be relocated to intersection of Street B and Lyman Boulevard. 36.The lot width at the rear setback line for lots 1 and 2, Block 4, must be adjusted to reflect 90 feet as required in the Shoreland Ordinance. 37.Successful transfer of Outlot B (4.83+ acres) to the City of Chanhassen through a combination of dedication (3.08+ acres) and fee purchase (1.75+ acres) for development and use as a public neighborhood park. 38.A sign reading “This Road Will Be Extended in the Future” shall be placed at the west end of Street C. 39.The applicant shall work with staff to evaluate the use of a privacy fence and vegetation along the north edge of the property to lessen the noise impact from Highway 212. A solution will be presented with the final plat.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Aanenson: Excuse me Mr. Chair, if I may. Just anybody following this item, this item is th actually going to the City Council next Monday, December 13 so anybody tracking this item, it’ll be on next Monday at the City Council. Laufenburger: Okay. Thank you very much Kate. Thank you to those in attendance for this item and we appreciate your participation in this community activity. 26