4 Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN PI,ANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 2, 2002
Vice Chairwoman Sidney called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: LuAnn Sidney, Rich Slagle, Uli Sacchet, Bruce Feik, Craig
Claybaugh, and Steve Lillehaug
MEMBERS ABSENT: Alison Blackowiak
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Matt Saarn, Assistant City Engineer
CONSIDER THE REQUEST TO REZONE 68.76 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A-2,
AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, RSF,
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND R-4, RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE,
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO CREATE 46 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, 38 TWINHOMES
AND 1.94 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO
ALTER A WETLAND, AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ALTERATION IN
THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
HWY 5, AND NORTHEAST OF CENTURY BOULEVARD, VASSERMAN RIDGE,
LUNDGREN BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Sidney: Okay, questions of staff.
Sacchet: Yes, I have 2-3 quick questions. The changing to rambler. First of all, the designation
on the plat says NGR. What's NG stand for?
Mike Anderson: No grade.
Sacchet: That sounds good to me, yeah. So that's good. The conservation easement. I saw you
handed out a sample conservation easement. Basically conservation easement is not in place? I
mean that' s something that will be drafted between the developer and staff at a future time?
Generous: Right, at the time of final plat approval we will work out all the description. What
areas to be covered.
Sacchet: So they can be specific what it actually covers and then the standard stuff of preserving
the trees and natural setting and all that, okay. There is one thing that's a little bit confusing, in
the table on page 8-9 of the staff report, you actually included Block 2, Lot 33 as custom graded
and part of the preservation easement and I wonder wouldn't that lot benefit too, I mean it's not
that heavily wooded but it does, I think it could benefit from custom grading as well, Is there a
reason why it was not included?
Generous: It was an omission and that's part of the revision I read in for the condition that it
should be Lots 22 through 33.
Sacchet: Oh you did include 33 in the revision?
Planning Commission Meeting -July 2, 2002
Generous: Yes. Yes, because it was pointed out that that was inconsistent with the table that we
provided for the compliance table.
Sacchet: So it is, okay great. So that's been taken care of. Good. That's all my questions for
right now, thank you.
Feik: Just a few. Is there a sidewalk on Street D? I don't believe there is but just to be
consistent.
Mike Burton: No.
Feik: Is there a sidewalk on Street B as in boy? Because it is shown on page 1 of 12 but it now
shown on 7, 8 and 10.
Generous: I don't believe so. The intent was for...
Feik: So it's shown incorrectly on Sheet 17 Have you got a sidewalk...?
Sidney: Well we'll wait on to call, that's a question for the applicant.
Feik: And then would you please discuss the change in assessments and fees?
Saam: Yeah. You're referring to under the utility section in the staff report?
Feik: Yes. Yes, exactly.
Saam: Watermain and sewer assessments.
Feik: It is the same number of lots, is it not?
Saam: Yes. Yep. The only, the reason those were revised is because these assessments have
been put on their tax rolls so they paid I believe one year's worth of them. The original numbers
that were in the previous staff report were the total assessments before anything paid. So you'll
see the new numbers have decreased slightly. That's because they've already been applied to this
year' s taxes.
Feik: So this is the remaining due?
Saam: Exactly.
Feik: Thank you. That's it.
Sidney: Any more questions?
Claybaugh: No, I don't have any yet.
Sidney: Okay. I guess I have one question for staff. In the land use and rezoning
recommendation it' s contingent upon approval of the Met Council for the land use amendment.
Can you explain a little bit for everybody's benefit why Met Council's involved.
Planning Commission Meeting - July 2, 2002
Generous: The Met Council's involved because the city's proposing a change to our
comprehensive plan. They've agreed to, well they've approved the city's existing comprehensive
plan that guided all the property in the community, and any time you make a change, you have to
submit that for their review. If it' s less than 40 acres, it' s considered administrative on their part.
However, we do have to go through that process and we fill out this form and say what the
change, potential impacts are to the proposed development. The good thing about this is we're
doing the density is sufficient on the rest of the project that we're not losing out overall on what
we projected for households in this area, so I believe that will go forward.
Sidney: Could they stop a development if they wanted to?
Generous: Theoretically but I don't, not on minor amendments. If it was a significant change
that would affect our overall ability to meet our housing needs for example, it may be an issue.
Sidney: And one other question too, I saw in my notes here. When Lundgren Brofhers had a
meeting with the neighbors, how does staff learn of any discussion or outcome of those meetings?
Generous: Well it's generally informal. They sometimes they'll provide us with a letter
documenting what happened. Other times it just in discussions with them what happened.
Sometimes the property owners will come in and let us know. Really that's a private issue. We
want them to be separate from the city in those instances.
Sidney: Okay. Okay, so that is a part of our packet and normally isn't then.
Generous: No.
Sidney: Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward and please state your name and address
for the record?
Ken Adolf: Madam Chair, commission members. I'm Ken Adolf with Schoell and Madsen,
Minnetonka. We're the consulting engineers for Lundgren Brothers Construction on this project.
Also here this evening Mark Anderson and Mike Burton of Lundgren Brothers. First of all on the
sidewalk issue, there are no sidewalks on either of the road side streets... To elaborate a bit on
the area where the adjustments were made; and maybe you can zoom in on there a little bit just to
see the color. This is the area where the significant changes were made in the proposed
elevations and these two homes, this was a lookout that was changed to a rambler and this was a
walkout that was changed to a rambler so that it reduced the grading in the rear yard area and then
as Bob described, the street was raised up. The affect of that was that these lots were changed to
no grade lots. The proposed home elevations where the grade elevations of the proposed homes
match the existing ground very closely so that the tree preservation that's shown here is certainly
possible. The area that's outlined in green is the area that would be, the wooded area that would
be left in place after the initial site grading, and you can see it's curving out for the street in this
area. What staff has asked that we include some areas going around each building and identify
that also as trees that could possibly be removed and that's for the purpose of the reforestation
calculation. So those trees are included in that calculation. At the last commission meeting the
discussion seemed to focus on trees that were 30 inches in diameter or larger, and just following
up with that, the trees that are color coded here are those that are 30 inches in diameter or larger.
The orange trees are those that would be preserved after development and that would be after the
home construction. And then the ones colored in yellow would be taken out either with the initial
site grading or potentially with the home construction. There's also some larger trees over on the
west side in the rear yard area, and counting all of those there's a total of 40 trees 30 inches and
Planning Comn~ssion Meeting -July 2, 2002
larger of which 21 are shown in the orange color that would be preserved. So that's kind of an
overview of the changes that were made since the last plan. I'll be happy to address any
questions.
Sidney: Questions of the applicant?
Sacchet: I have one question.
Sidney: Yes.
Sacchet: On Lot 33, as we're having that in the custom grade list that's presented by staff, would
it be possible to draw the tree preservation line along the canopy area rather than cut into it. Do
you see what I mean? It's a small change, but since it's, if it is a custom lot it would make sense
to take that tree preservation down to the edge of the woods, wouldn't it?
Ken Adolf: That could be done. You're talking about this...
Sacchet: Yes. If it falls somewhat that canopy area and then swing around closer to the street,
would that be doable and then as custom graded it would be accommodated for the construction
at the time when a permit is pulled.
Ken Adolf: That could be done, yes.
Sacchet: Okay. That's nay only question. Thank you.
Sidney: Other questions?
Claybaugh: Nothing new to add, no.
Lillehaug: I have one quick one.
Sidney: Sure.
Lillehaug: For the record can you just confirm that by raising the elevation of the intersection of
Streets A and C, that it doesn't increase or any wetland impacts on the west?
Ken Adolf: Yes. This is on the west side of the street. This is the street that was raised up so
these house pad elevations were raised up also by, the front was raised up by about 3 feet. The
rear was raised up by about 2 feet. It went from 8 foot basements to 9 foot basements so there is
not any filling as proposed in the rear yard like it is here and that's why these trees are being
preserved. The proposed home elevation, the basement or the walkout basement basically
matches the existing ground on the back of the pad. A significant change from the previous plan
was, the previous plan had a 20 foot or so fiat back yard area. In this case it just continues to
slope off.
Lillehaug: Thanks.
Sidney: Any other questions? If not, thanks.
Ken Adolf: Thank you.
Planning Commission Meeting - July 2, 2002
Sidney: And even though this is old business, I'd like to open this up for a public heating.
Anyone that would like to address the Planning Commission on this issue, please come forward.
Seeing none, I guess I'll close the public heating. Comments, commissioners. I'm always
looking left here. Let's look right first. Okay.
Lillehaug: Just a quick one. I think the applicant and staff have addressed the concerns which
tabled this item previously and I'm pleased with the grade and modifications made by the
applicant. I'm willing to move forward and support this.
Claybaugh: Yeah, I wasn't here at the last meeting but based on the meeting minutes that I read,
the modifications would be sufficient to move forward with this petition.
Feik: I' ve got no comments.
Sacchet: Just a couple comments real quick. First of all I like to thank the applicant for really
having made a very substantial effort addressing the concerns that we brought up at the last
meeting. Depending how those significant trees are counted, or the original number by staff of 25
and obviously a couple more depending where you delineate it, but according to what I looked at,
if we say it was 25, and depending which 25, it looks between 12 and 18 of those 25 will be saved
but with this new proposal. And that's certainly very much in line with what we asked for at the
last meeting. We said well we'd like to have something in the neighborhood of half of them
preserved, so I want to thank you very much for having taken that to heart. Yeah, I would like to
pick a little bit at the findings just to be more explicit. I mean Finding 5, for the preliminary plat.
The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage subject to conditions. I would
like to say will not cause excessive environmental damage. I mean considering all the changes,
there's some environmental damage, but it's reasonable so it gets balanced within the framework.
The same with condition 3 of the conditional use permit. This will not excessively change the
essential character of the area. It will change it somewhat but not excessively. Obviously there' s
a fair amount of grading and adjusting of the tree coverage. The same as in Finding 9. Will not
result in the excessive destruction, loss or damage of natural scenic features. And with that I
would also like to add condition 20, which we've already somewhat modified which now
includes through Lot 33, Block 2. I'd like to add the element that the, what's that line called.
The no cut tree line. The limit of initial site grading would be slightly moved south to follow the
edge of the canopy as much as practical since that would also be a custom graded lot. And there
are a few more editorials when we get to make a motion. That's my comments for now. Thank
you.
Sidney: Okay. Any other, Rich anything?
Slagle: No.
Sidney: I guess we're pretty much set. I agree with my commissioners that, fellow
commissioners that made good progress. I'm happy with staff and the applicant worked together
and they saved more trees and we got the trail issue resolved to our satisfaction. Appreciate it.
So I think we're ready for a motion. And it looks like there's 3 motions, is that correct Bob?
Generous: Yes. 3, yeah. The rezoning and land use are...
Sidney: Okay we need a motion for the land use and rezoning.
Feik: You've got the changes.
Planning Commission Meeting - July 2, 2002
Sacchet: There's no changes in the first one.
Feik: I'll make a motion. The Planning Commission recommends approval of a comprehensive
land use amendment from low density to commercial for the 1.94 acres of property and approve
the ordinance for a planned unit development rezoning the property from agricultural estate, A-2
to mixed low density residential R-4, subject to the findings in the staff report and the following
conditions 1 through 3.
Sacchet: 1, i, 2 and 3.
Generous: We have a gremlin in our computer that keeps renumbering them. 1 through 4.
Feik: 1 through 4.
Sidney: Can I have a second?
Slagle: Second.
Feik moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of a
Comprehensive Land Use Amendment from low density to commercial for 1.94 acres of
property, and approve the ordinance for a Planned Unit Development rezoning property
from Agricultural Estate, A2 to Mixed Low Density Residential R-4, subject to the findings
in the staff report and the following conditions:
1. Approve design standards for the 1.94 acres of co~mnercial and zoning for the PUD.
2. Conditions of the subdivision.
3. Conditions of Wetland and Conditional Use Permit.
4. Approval of the Metropolitan Council for the Land Use Amendment.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Sidney: We have a subdivision #2002-02 PUD recommendation.
Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair. I'd like to make the motion that the Planning Cormnission
recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Vasserman Ridge including 84 residential lots, 1
commercial lot and 6 outlots as shown on plans dated June 24, 2002, and subject to the findings
of the staff report and the following conditions, 1 through 48 with the following changes.
Condition 7 talks about the silt fence. I'd like to add that the silt fence gets removed when
construction is done. Condition 20 as modified already by staff, with the addition that the initial
grading limit on Lot 33, Block 2 will be following the edge of the canopy as far as practical. And
we cut out 21. That was cut out by the extension of 20. Then a condition number 31. I'd like to
make that a little more assertive. Structures on Lots 11, 12 and 13 of Block 2 shall be designed,
not should be designed. Shall be designed to accommodate decks or other accessory structures
within the 60 by 70 building pad, or the lots shall, not should, be reconfigured to provide more
flexibility. And similar picky thing on condition 46. The city shall accept the small upland
portion of Outlot F in the northwest comer of the project as parkland dedication as all of Outlot F
Planning Commission Meeting - July 2, 2002
is transferred into public ownership. Not assuming. We're not assuming here. This is clear
situation so that's my motion.
Sidney: Okay, and do we have a second?
Feik: I'll second.
Sacchet moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
preliminary plat for Vasserman Ridge, including 84 residential lots, 1 commercial lot, and 6
outlots as shown on plans dated June 24, 2002, and subject to the findings in the staff report
and the following conditions:
Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans will be required for
each lot at the time of building permit application for City review and approval. In
addition, as-built surveys will be required on each lot prior to occupancy.
.
If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant
will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic control plans.
.
Each of the ponds shall be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP)
standards.
.
The existing well and septic systems must be capped and/or removed in compliance with
State health codes.
5. Staff will work with the engineer to correct the drainage calculations.
.
Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review.
Depending on the size of the drainage area, additional catch basins may be required at
that time. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event.
Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public
storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, emergency overflows, access
routes for maintenance, and wetlands up to the 100 year flood level. The minimum
easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Emergency overflows from all stormwater ponds
will also be required on the construction plans.
.
Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the
City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City's
Type III erosion control fence, which is a heavy duty silt fence be used for the area
adjacent to the existing wetlands on the north, east and west grading limits of the site.
Type II silt fence shall be used in all other areas. A rock construction entrance must be
shown at the entrance drive that will be utilized during construction. In addition, wood-
fiber blankets will be required on the steep slopes of the proposed berms and off the west
side of the "D" street cul-de-sac. The silt fences shall be removed upon completion of
construction.
.
Utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's
latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans
and specifications will be required at time of final platting. Additional manholes and/or
valves may be required at that time. The applicant will also be required to enter into a
development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the
Planning Commission Meeting - July 2, 2002
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and
the conditions of final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
will be required prior to construction, including but not limited to MPCA, Department of
Health, MnDot, Watershed District, etc.
The assessments for the BC-7/BC-8 project were based on the existing zoning for the site
yielding a developed total of 68 units. Since the applicant is now proposing more units
(84 + 3 units for the commercial lot) than what the property has been assessed for, the
additional 19 units (87 - 68 = 19) will be charged a sanitary sewer lateral connection
charge. The assessments for the Highway 5 project, based on existing zoning, yielded a
developed total of 76 units. As above, since more units are now being proposed than
what was assessed for (87 vs. 76), the additional 11 units will be charged a watermain
lateral connection charge. The current 2002 lateral connection charge for sanitary or
water is $4,335 per unit. Based on the current rate, the total amount due payable to the
City for the additional 30 units would be $130,050 (30 @ $4,335). In addition, each
newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges are
$1,383 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,802 per unit for water. Hook-up charges are for
core utility system infrastructure, i.e. wells, lift stations, water towers, etc. Connection
fees are in lieu of assessments which were absorbed by the City instead of being levied at
the time of construction. In this case, more units are proposed to be constructed than
originally anticipated.
The total remaining assessment due payable to the City for the BC-7/BC-8 Trunk Utility
Project is $77,350 for sanitary sewer.
The total remaining assessment due payable to the City for the Trunk Highway 5 project
is $112,651 for watennain.
Encroachn'tent agreements will be required for the islands within the right-of-way.
The applicant shall include a draintile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump
discharge from homes not adjacent to ponds.
Areas with a street grade greater than 7% must be revised to meet the criteria.
All plans must be signed by a registered engineer.
Access to the cormnercial lot shall be via a shared driveway with the neighboring
commercial lot to the west. The access will be located just east of the median on West
78th Street.
Move the pond outlet pipe for the pond in the southwest comer of the site from beneath
the 20 foot berm.
Applicant shall revise landscape plan to show a minimum of 365 trees to be planted.
The developer shall be responsible for installing all landscape materials proposed in rear
yard areas and buffer yards.
Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits on Lots 29-34,
Block 1 and Lots 22 -32, Block 2 prior to any construction. A conservation easement
Planning Commission Meeting - July 2, 2002
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
shall be placed over said lots. The initial grading limit on Lot 33, Block 2 will follow
the edge of the tree canopy as far as practical.
All trees removed within the utility easement along the north side of the development
shall be replaced 1:1.
All of the proposed house pads must have a rear yard elevation at least three feet above
the HWL of adjacent ponds.
On the grading plan:
a. Show the emergency overflow for the back yard areas of Block 1.
b. Show the rear yard low points for the areas without a pond or wetland.
c. Show the existing contour elevations for the neighboring property to the east a
minimum of 100 feet outside of the site.
d. Show all existing and proposed easements.
e. Show the benchmark which was used for the site survey.
Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant shall submit a wetland alteration permit
application. Prior to wetland impacts occurring, the applicant shall obtain City approval
of a wetland replacement plan.
A wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 10 feet) shall be
maintained around Basins 1, 3 and the wetland mitigation areas. A wetland buffer 10 to
30 feet in width (with a minimum average of 20 feet) shall be maintained around Basin 2.
Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the
City's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the
direction of city staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign.
All structure shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer.
All proposed trails and trail easements shall be located outside of the wetland buffer area.
The grading and erosion control plan shall show the actual wetland buffer widths
proposed to meet the minimum average buffer width requirements as well as the 40 foot
wetland buffer setback.
Structures on Lots 11, 12, and 13, Block 2 shall be designed to accommodate decks or
other accessory structures within the 60 x 70 building pad or the lots shall be
reconfigured to provide more flexibility.
The proposed development shall maintain existing runoff rates. Storm water calculations
shall be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond is sized adequately for the
proposed development. On-site storm water ponding shall be sufficient to meet all City
water quality and quantity standards.
Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland
mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds.
Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any existing structures.
Planning Commission Meeting -July 2, 2002
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
All on-site sewage treatment systems must be abandoned in accordance with City Code.
Prior to permit submittals the developer shall meet with the Inspections Division to
discuss the design and construction of the twinhomes.
Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
building permits will be issued.
A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees,
bushes, shrubs, Qwest, Xcel Energy, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
When fire protection, including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire
protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made
serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1997 Minnesota
Uniform Fire Code Section 901-3.
In the cul-de-sacs with the center island "no parking" signs wilt be required. Contact
Chanhassen City Fire marshal for additional information.
No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees or shrubs must be either
removed from site or chipped.
Submit street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for
review and approval.
Submit cul-de-sac to Chanhassen City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review
and approval.
Additional fire hydrants will be required. One will be required at the intersection of "A"
Street and "B" Street; one will be required between Lots 23 and 24, and an additional
hydrant will be required at the intersection of "C" Street and West 78th Street Frontage
Road.
The applicant shall be required to build the "wetland" trail between Lots 18 and 19 and in
the rear of Lots 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25. This trail shall be 8 feet wide and
constructed with bituminous pavement per city standard specifications. The trail shall be
connected with the existing trail, which terminates at Lot 13 of The Meadows at
Longacres. A permanent 20 foot wide trail easement shall be described by the applicant
generally centered on the new trail and granted to the City to allow the maintenance and
upkeep of this public trail. The applicant is eligible for reimbursement of the construction
costs of said trail, including materials and labor, but excluding engineering, surveying,
legal and all other associated costs. To be eligible for reimbursement from the city's trail
fund the applicant shall submit construction plans and specifications and construction
costs to the City 45 or more days prior to the start of construction for review and
authorization. Assuming authorization to proceed is received and upon completion of
construction, the applicant shall be eligible for reimbursement. Said construction shall be
covered by warranties equal to or exceeding industry standards.
10
Planning Commission Meeting - July 2, 2002
45. The City shall accept the small upland portion of Outlot F in the northwest comer of the
project as parkland dedication as all of Outlot F is transferred into public ownership. The
dollar amount of this credit will be calculated per City ordinance.
46. All remaining park and trail fees shall be collected per City ordinance.
47. All lots meet the standards of the R4 zoning district.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Sidney: We have one more motion to make here for wetland alteration permit motion. Okay.
Feik: I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Wetland
Alteration Permit for alteration and Conditional Use Permit for the development within the Bluff
Creek Overlay District as shown on plans dated June 24, 2002 and subject to the findings in the
staff report and the following conditions 1 through 11.
Sidney: Second?
Sacchet: Second, and I'd like to also state on condition 10, that the silt fence will be removed
after construction.
Sidney: Do you accept that?
Feik: Accepted.
Feik moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Wetland Alteration Permit for alteration and Conditional Use Permit for the development
within the Bluff Creek Overlay District as shown on plans dated June 24, 2002 and subject
to the findings in the staff report and the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall install a bridge over the swale between Basins 1 and 3 to avoid
wetland impacts and enhance the aesthetics of this area.
2. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland
Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant shall submit a wetland alteration permit
application. Prior to wetland impacts occurring, the applicant shall obtain City approval
of a wetland replacement plan.
3. A 5 year wetland replacement monitoring plan shall be submitted. The plans shall show
fixed photo monitoring points for the replacement wetlands.
4. The applicant shall provide proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and
Covenants for Replacement Wetland.
5. A wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 10 feet) shall be
maintained around Basins 1, 3 and the wetland mitigation areas. A wetland buffer 10 to
30 feet in width (with a minimum average of 20 feet) shall be maintained around Basin 2.
(Those buffers considered for Public Value Credit (PVC) under the Wetland
Conservation Act (WCA) shall maintain a minimum width of 16.5 feet.)
11
Planning Commission Meeting - July 2, 2002
,
Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the
City's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the
direction of city staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign.
7. All proposed trails and trail easements shall be located outside of the wetland buffer area.
o
The grading and erosion control plan shall show the actual wetland buffer widths
proposed to meet the minimum average buffer width requirements as well as the 40 foot
wetland buffer setback.
Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland
mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds.
10.
Type III silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areas to be
preserved as buffer or if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. Any
disturbed wetland areas shall be reseeded with MnDot seed mix 25A, or a similar seed
mix that is approved for wetland soil conditions. All upland areas disturbed as a result of
construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched, covered
with a wood fiber blanket or sodded within two weeks of completion of each activity in
accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The silt fences shall
be removed upon completion of construction.
11.
The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies
(e.g. Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Army Corps of Engineers) and
comply with their conditions of approval.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
REOUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE
BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT, A 20 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 40 FOOT
SHORELAND PRIMARY ZONE SETBACK AND A 20 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE
40 FOOT STANDARD WETLAND SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
SWIMMING POOL AND RETAINING WALL ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R AND
LOCATED AT 7525 BENT BOW TRAIL, STEVEN M. COHOON.
Sidney: Before we get started and have a staff report for this item, I'd like to make a few
suggestions for those planning to speak and for the Planning Commission. First, I want to keep
the discussion, which includes, well the discussion focused on the contents of the application
tonight. And secondly, I'd like to remove the discussion about the wetland delineation and
subsequent appeal from our discussion because that isn't within our scope of responsibilities and
currently this subject is before the Board of Water and Soil Resources so really it's what we have
before us tonight that we should address. Staff report please.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Sidney: Any questions of staff? I keep loo~ng left. I'll look right this time.
Lillehaug: I do have a question. If you conld look at this drawing here that was included in the
packet.
12
Planning Commission Meeting- July 2, 2002
Sidney: Which page is that?
Lillehaug: I'm not too sure.
Feik: This one?
Lillehaug: That' s the one. It shows previous to any construction I think the edge of the pre-
existing wetland and the drainage and utility easement and the conservation easement. And my
question is regarding the drainage and utility easement and conservation easement. First of all the
drainage and utility easement. Is there any city utilities in that easement or proposed utilities in
that easement where it would be required for the city to maintain that easement there?
Generous: There are no utilities. It's just a drainage easement.
Lillehaug: Okay. And then as far as the conservation easement goes, was this a conservation
easement based on the old edge, the old delineation of the wetland? And this conservation
easement, was it part of the development?
Generous: It was part of the original planned unit development, yes.
Lillehaug: Okay, thank you.
Sidney: Any other questions?
Claybaugh: Yeah Bob, I had a couple questions. On page 4, under proposal summary. Last
paragraph in the staff report states that however the Meadows at Longacres 2nd and 3rd Additions
received a blanket 10 foot variance from 30 foot front yard setbacks. What were they trying to
accomplish with that?
Generous: Well the newest part of the Longacres development there were significant
environmental features. Trees and wetlands in the rear yards of a lot of these properties and the
way to relieve that would be to allow the houses closer to the right-of-way so that they would
have sufficient area to build in.
Claybaugh: Okay. But this particular property is built, I believe they're deeper on their setback?
Generous: Yes.
Claybaugh: I think I saw some with 34 feet but there isn't any significant canopy coverage or
tree coverage in that back of that?
Generous: Not normally in the back yard, no.
Claybaugh: Alright. Then on page 5 under the wetland's heading. It said on the paragraph, the
construction of the public trail by Lundgren Brothers in the mid 1990's filled a portion of the
wetland of this property and virtually eliminated the wetland buffer. So there was some, the
wetlands behind the property were altered as I interpret that at this time?
Generous: Yes.
13
Planning Commission Meeting - July 2, 2002
Claybaugh: Okay. And obviously there is no buffer in place. I was looking for something with
respect to the elevation and the overall width of the proposed berm. Is there something you could
point out for me?
Generous: I don't know that they've come up with an elevation for that. They're looking at two,
I believe it's two feet. So when that would be determined as long as we go forward we get all
those details worked out.
Claybaugh: Okay, but that was significant to me because of the proximity of the trail to the
proposed pool. Based on the height of that berm, a required fence around that pool, those were
areas of interest so if I understand you correctly, nothing's been set forth at this stage?
Generous: Not yet. The pool I believe would be, the edge of it would be higher because it'd be
within the wall area. They haven't got that elevation.
Claybaugh: That's all the questions I have.
Sidney: Okay.
Feik: No questions for staff. ·
Sacchet: One quick question. The property to the east has a swirmning pool. That swimming
pool is alright with all the setbacks and the permits and easements and what have you?
Generous: Tile wetland and tile Bluff Creek corridor fall away from that property. It goes
towards the southeast as it extends to the east. So yes, they've met the setback.
Sacchet: Okay. So they met all the requirements for that one, okay. That's my question.
Sidney: Okay. And I don't have any questions for staff at this point. So would the applicant
like to come forward and please state your name and address for the record.
Steven Cohoon: Steven Cohoon, 7525 Bent Bow Trail. Thank you for the opportunity. Good
evening. I wanted to first note that we do have a petition signed by 14 of our neighbors in
support of the situation, and I know we don't want to get into specific discussions of the
delineation but I do want to show a couple graphics because it's important to the issue of whether
it's really a 20 foot variance or something less than that. The extent. I'd like you all to
understand the extent of the issue. So first thing, kind of a background. This is overall lot
survey. It shows the location of the adjacent properties. The houses and all of the, talk about that
with regard to the setback because setback was determined somewhat by those properties. And of
course as you' ve noted, the wetlands delineation of record actually goes north of the trail and
we're in agreement with city staff that that's an elTor. The wetland's boundary is somewhere
south of the trail. We've had a lot of good staff interaction. We really appreciate the support of
staff. Bob in particular has been very, very helpful. We have gone through a process and as
Madam Chairman indicated, there is a delineation issue. We're pursuing that recommendation of
the staff as well. This variance was recommended to us by the staff as an interim action. So a
little bit here, if we, yeah there we go. Just to say to look at the property. I know at least 4 of you
were able to come see the property, and I appreciate you taking the time to do that. So this is
depiction. You have the path. It's actually about 7 feet between the path and the retaining wall.
The path is approximately 9 feet at that stage and then the actual edge of the mowed portion is
about 25 feet from the retaining wall. These indicate sites that we're monitoring for hydrology.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - July 2, 2002
In the report there was a reference to Chip Hentges of Carver County and his delineation. You
see that is somewhere between these two points. Between 31 feet and 48 feet from the proposed
retaining wall. There was a question about a neighboring pool and since some of you I think
everybody who available or able to see, this is a picture of the site of the neighboring pool. You
see the topography here. This is actually the rear of 7525 and you see the topography as it goes
eastward to the property at 7517 where the neighbor's pool is. And it's very similar topography
there. In terms of actual location, the neighboring pool here again is in similar proximity to the
path, and in the judgment of the City Water Resources Coordinator, the wetlands borders the fill
of the path. So it appears to us frankly that that pool is in the same proximity to the wetlands.
One, there was a question about the retaining wall and the intent of fencing. The intent of fencing
is around or at the top of the retaining wall so it won't, the berms will be independent of the
fencing around the pool. The intent isn't to fence the whole yard just the raised portion... One
thing I would like to point out though in choice here of our neighbors to use a berm instead of a
retaining wall, it gives them a little more potentially distance from the wetlands for construction
but it provides some intrusion into the path easement which we wanted to avoid. We didn't want
to have a berm that intruded into the path easement itself. Now the question of the setback is an
interesting one. I tried to depict the house at the minimum setback in this drawing here, so
basically there's a, I just copied the house outline and moved it forward. You can actually see the
original rear portion of the house so this is actually a duplication of that here, but when you move
it forward to the minimum setback, we have violated the side setbacks. In fact the house is
situated the forward most position it can be and maintain the 10 foot side setbacks on each side.
That was one of the concerns that we had when we sited the house. The other concern we had
was that the other two houses were already staked and under construction when this house was
sited, and you can see as you move the house forward, you actually violate their line of sight
significantly. This neighbor' s dining and family room is on this side of their house, and same
thing on this side of the house, so they would have a real nice viewpoint of our sides of our house
which we didn't think they'd appreciate. Now in terms of actual size of the house, because that
certainly can be raised as an issue of how big is the house relative to the lot. Three houses,
comparison here the 3 houses. One at 7525, the one in question is kind of in the mid-range of
width. The one actually to the west is about 6 feet wider. Depth is relatively comparable. We've
got this house is a little bit deeper than the other two but they're all in about the 50 foot range.
The other feature of the lot that influences the pool location is the slope of the back yard. And
unfortunately with the house where it is, the slope really drives the pool to the position where we
proposed it. It' s, there' s not enough pad at the back of the house, even if we were to push the
house say 10 feet further forward, we wouldn't have sufficient pad and a safe access area around
the pool. So that's what led us to the pool positioning and the house positioning where it is. So
the key features that influenced the positioning of the house were one, the wedge shaped lot itself.
And the slope of the back lot. Well...as part of the topography of the lot. There was one issue in
the report about trees showing...back on trees. I know several of you viewed the lot so there's
very little impact. There is actually one tree that we planted in the, within the original small
retaining wall. Our intent is to move that if the tree is not saved. We want to and intend to
replace that tree. In fact within the proposed buffer strip we want to plant more trees. So I think
we answered the question about the fencing. Any other questions?
Sidney: I guess, any other comments? I guess not. Questions of the applicant?
Claybaugh: I' 11 address a question with respect to the berm. I'm assuming that you're going to
match the height of the retaining wall. Grade that back towards the trail. My concern was, it was
just approximately 5 to 7 feet and depending on evidently who's doing the measuring inbetween
there. How far out that berm was going to go and the retaining wall that was in place.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - July 2, 2002
Steven Cohoon: What our intent is, I'm not sure I understand the question but maybe I can feel
my way towards the answer. The intent of the, we're going to grade the apron around the pool so
as to not to drain on the north side, that is the long side of the... So we want to grade the apron
first so that any water on, from the pool or rain water would drain naturally into the lawn area.
Then these actually would come right up to the sides of the retaining wall so there'd be no gap, if
that was the question.
Claybaugh: Yeah, that does answer the question. And as far as the maintenance drainage of the
pool, I understand for incidental rainfall and such that you've got the pool apron graded to go
back into the yard for planting. Is there a place for maintenance drainage of the pool? What
would that be?
Steven Cohoon: Actually the buffer strips will improve the current drainage situation because
there's a considerable amount of potentially everything from about this line back drains to the
back of the property so it's going to help with a lot normal rainfall.
Claybaugh: In terms of the maintenance drainage for the pool though, when you drain the entire
pool seasonally.
Steven Cohoon: Well there is not completely drained seasonally.
Claybaugh: Okay, you don't drain it for late fall, winter?
Steven Cohoon: No.
Claybaugh: It's all heated, okay. Alright. That's all the questions.
Steven Cohoon: If we even have to do that, we'll arrange to have it pumped.
Sidney: Anyone else?
Claybaugh: I do have one more question. You highlighted the fact, and it was pretty evident in
viewing the site that there is quite a grade coming down there where you've got the buffer strip
shown on here proposed say to the west side of the pool, I believe that's correct. How are you
looking at handling that drainage if it's not following it's natural course at this stage?
Steven Cohoon: You mean this side here?
Claybaugh: Right, on the west side of the property.
Steven Cohoon: There's a very, there's a steep hill. The intent here, and the discussion I've had
with our neighbor is, to plan this buffer strip. They have a natural kind of area here. So blend
this buffer strip and have the buffer strip be similar, natural plantings and the two of them
together would filter and contain the runoff.
Claybaugh: Maybe it's a question for engineering. Would that be interrupted with the buffer
strip there Matt? Is there any need for any drainage calculations in there?
Saam: I don't believe we'll be requiring drainage calculations but I think the point you're trying
to make is, if you put this berm in and alt the water.
16
Planning Commission Meeting -July 2, 2002
Claybaugh: Where you going to put the drainage? The existing drainage that's in place, you're
changing that natural, the course of that drainage. Basically containing that. Is there any need for
any drainage calculations for that?
Saam: No, I don't see any.
Claybaugh: Okay. That's all the questions I have.
Sidney: Okay. Just one comment. I was wondering, you mentioned you have a petition from the
neighbors. Has staff gotten a copy of that and, now they do. Very good. And that can be
included in the packet for City Council. Okay, one last chance here? Okay, thank you very
much.
Steven Cohoon: Thank you.
Sidney: Okay, this is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission on
this issue? And I see nobody except the applicants out there in the audience, so I will close the
public hearing. Commissioners. Who would like to tackle this one first please? Well we're
looking left this time.
Slagle: No comments.
Sacchet: I don't have much comment to this one. I have to emphasize that we have to deal with
the data in front of us and on that basis 20 foot variance out of a 40 foot is a huge variance. And I
basically agree with the staff report in terms of the hardship and the self created part so I don't
think we are in a position, I'm not in a position to approve this based on the data in front of us.
But then on the other hand, if what the applicant showed us with the wetland delineation they
may possibly, you may not possibly even need a variance once that goes through but based on the
data in front of us, it's clear the other way around. That's my comment.
Sidney: Okay, Bruce.
Feik: I would not be able to support the variance. The absence of a pool is not in my mind a
hardship. The pool could have been located more northward had the retaining walls not been
installed prior. The pool apron on the south side could be minimized reducing the variance as
well. And the pool also could be made narrower. Given what is in front of us, to approve or not
to approve so to speak, I'm not of the opinion that I can support the variance.
Claybaugh: Like my fellow commissioners I'd like to reiterate we need to look at the petition in
the context of the current delineation. I understand that that' s in dispute and that needs to run it' s
course. With respect to the neighbor's pool and positioning, based on the information that I've
been given, they have maintained the wetland and buffer setbacks which the current petition in
front of us is not able to do. And with that I again have no compelling reason to approve the
variances in their current form.
Lillehaug: I agree with staff and fellow commissioners also. I think that approving this variance
as the lines and boundaries fall, currently fall, that it definitely would set a precedence for the
entire Bluff Creek Overlay District and I guess I'm not willing to support it. These wetland
boundaries are set by the local governing unit which is the City of Chanhassen, and they are the
determining entity of that wetland boundary and as they currently have it, it does require a large
17
Planning Commission Meeting - July 2, 2002
setback, too large. It's 20 foot out of 40 foot. That's just too much in my mind so I do not
support it.
Sidney: Okay, thank you. Yeah, I agree with the comments that have been made by my fellow
commissioners. I do support staff' s interpretation of the ordinances and agree that we, well I feel
that I would support approval of the conditional use permit. However, the variance as stated,
we're talking about a 20 foot variance from the 40 foot setback from, for the Bluff Creek Overlay
District primary zone and that is a significant variance. And as stated by other commissioners, I
don't feel that we have really seen in this application a demonstration of hardship. The applicant
does have reasonable use of the property without the need for a variance so I can see where if the
delineation has changed as a result of their appeal to the Board of Water and Soil Resources, we
might see this back again and we could reconsider it but what's in front of us, I guess I can't
really support the variances as stated. So, any other comments? Otherwise...
Slagle: I'm going to have to take I think a different approach to this one. I think my fellow
commissioners you were absolutely correct that a 20 foot variance is huge. My biggest issue on
this one is the home to the east. And while it does fit technically to the requirements, I think as
you look at both properties, they're basically in line and when I look at the property to the south
of the trail, which I was out there today, it is not much different. And so in respect I could see, I
mean I could see exactly where you're all coming from and certainly honor that opinion but I
think in this situation I'm going to have to say that I would approve the variance request just
because of the next door neighbor's property. And I know it's a little deviation from what we're
used to doing but I'm going to have to do that I think. That's where I'm at.
Sidney: Okay. I guess we're ready for a motion. This wilt be for the conditional use permit
please.
Lillehaug: Madam Chair, I make a motion the Planning Commission reconm-tends approval of
the Conditional Use Permit #2002-2 to allow construction within the secondary zone of Bluff
Creek Overlay District in a PUD-R District for a pool and retaining wall subject to the following
conditions 1 through 2.
Sidney: Okay, a second?
Feik: I'll second.
Lillehaug moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Conditional Use Permit #2002-2 to allow construction within the Secondary Zone of Bluff
Creek Overlay District in a PUD-R District for a pool and retaining wall, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The pool and retaining wall shall maintain a 20 foot setback from the wetland.
All disturbed areas shall be revegetated with a combination of the native vegetation listed
in the Maple-Basswood Forest community of Appendix C of the Bluff Creek Natural
Resources Management Plan ("Bluff Creek Environmental Corridor Common Plant
Species of Natural Communities").
All voted in favor, except Slagle who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - July 2, 2002
Sacchet: Point of clarification. We approved the version that asked to maintain a 40 foot
setback, correct?
Sidney: That's correct.
Slagle: Mind if I ask for clarification? So you're saying this approval for the conditional use
permit requires a 40 foot setback? And the variances are suggesting is a 20 foot.
Sacchet: Right.
Slagle: So I'm going to vote nay.
Sidney: Okay, so we have a 5-1. Okay. So this will go forward to City Council. Well excuse
me, yes.
Slagle: We need to vote on the variance.
Sidney: Oh I'm sorry. I'm getting all confused here. Okay.
Claybaugh: Make a motion?
Sidney: Make a motion.
Claybaugh: Make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends denial of Variance
#2002-7 for a 20 foot variance from the 40 foot Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary Zone
setback and a 20 foot variance from the 40 foot wetland setback for the construction of a
swimming pool and retaining wall based on the findings of the staff report.
Sidney: Okay, second?
Feik: I'll second.
Claybaugh moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of
Variance #2002-7 for a 20 foot variance from the 40 foot Bluff Creek Overlay District
Primary Zone setback and a 20 foot variance from the 40 foot wetland setback for the
construction of a swimming pool and retaining wall based on the findings of the staff report.
All voted in favor, except for Slagle who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to
1.
Sidney: Okay, another 5-1 here. This will go forward to City Council at some point.
Generous: July 22nd.
Sidney: July 22nd, and just a comment to the applicants. Appreciate your working with staff and
I think the whole thing is really hinging on the delineation issue at this point and certainly the
question about the neighboring lot and how that fits in too, so good luck with City Council.
Thanks.
19
Planning Commission Meeting - July 2, 2002
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Bruce Feik noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission
meeting dated June 18, 2002 as presented.
Vice Chairwoman Sidney adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:05 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
20