Loading...
PC 2012 10 16 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 16, 2012 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Lisa Hokkanen, Kim Tennyson, and Bill Colopoulos MEMBERS ABSENT: Kathleen Thomas and Kelsey Nelson STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer; and Joe Shamla, Project Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: th Gary Reed 2461 West 64 Street, Excelsior Tyler Stevens 6505 Fox Hollow Court Scott Lucas, Olson and Lucas Law Firm 7401 Metro Boulevard, Suite 575, Edina Greg Soule 225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4000, Minneapolis Steve Buska 7054 Northwood Court PUBLIC HEARING: CITY CODE AMENDMENT: REQUEST TO AMEND CHAPTER 20, ZONING, TO ALLOW A SENIOR CARE FACILITY IN MEDIUM AND HIGH DENSITY DISTRICTS. Al-Jaff: Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. The first item before you is an ordinance amendment, city code amendment that basically requires a vote by the Planning Commission. There are other elements within this code amendment that require City Council votes only. However to provide a complete picture of what these amendments entail we are presenting the entire amendment to the Planning Commission. This item first appeared before the Planning Commission in the form an issue paper back in June of this year. The City received a request for senior living establishment. Under the current ordinances the closest this type of use can fall under would be a group home. Staff wanted to ensure that we introduced a definition that describes this type of intended use. With this request what staff is proposing is a definition for continuing care retirement facility and one of the things that we wanted to stress is that it’s an establishment that provides sleeping accommodations to one or more adults, but then it goes further to specify that 80% of these adults have to be over the age of 65. And then the types of services that can be provided within this establishment. The amendment also prohibits other types of uses such as rehab homes or shelters so it’s very specific and it’s intended to cater to seniors only. The second amendment would be to allow this type of use within the mixed medium density residential district. The following amendment would establish different types of criteria for this type of use such as licensing, building height, parking standards, limiting the number of beds per acre. And the final amendment would be to Chapter 4 which introduces a park fee of $500 per bed. Typically those are paid at the time of final plat approval and depending, if it was a residential development typically they are paid per acre. In this case staff is recommending that the payment would be per bed. The Planning Commission would be voting on amendments that are within Chapter 20 of the City Code which would include the addition of standards as well as adding the use as a permitted use within the mixed medium density district. And I’ll be happy to answer any questions. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 16, 2012 Aller: Thank you. On the $500 per bed, would that preclude then in the past we’ve allowed for dedication as alternatives to paying fees. That doesn’t preclude that in the future for other individuals that would fall under this section, correct? Al-Jaff: It shouldn’t. If it was a need that is, has been established or identified by the park commission, then it would be an extraction that would be taken with a subdivision. Aller: And then we had indicated, I think back in June when the position paper was opened that input would be taken from the Senior Commission. Can you describe what, if any activity happened there. Al-Jaff: Absolutely. At their last meeting, the Senior Commission meeting we had a very nice discussion about this item. They were extremely supportive of it. Their only concern was where’s the closest hospital to such an establishment and we pointed out that Waconia serves the city of Chanhassen and then you’ve got Shakopee so there are different alternatives. We went over the standards and they were in agreement and very supportive of what is being proposed. Aller: Great, thank you. Al-Jaff: You’re welcome. Aller: I don’t have any further questions after reading the report. Anyone else? Would anyone, I’m going to open the public hearing portion. Would anyone like to come forward and speak for or against the request to change the zoning? Seeing no one come forward, closing the public hearing. Questions or comments or discussion. It looks good to me. I remember back in June and I’m glad that we have the support of the Senior Commission with the changing dynamics and demographics of Chanhassen, it’s I think a need that. Colopoulos: The specificity added here that wasn’t there before that’s a good thing going forward, yeah. Aller: Anything else? Colopoulos: No. Aller: Okay, I’ll entertain any motions. Colopoulos: I’ll make a motion. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council adopt the proposed amendments to the City Code as outlined in the staff report dated October 16, 2012. Aller: I have a motion, do I have a second? Undestad: Second. Aller: Have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Colopoulos moved, Undestad seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the amendment to Chapter 20, Section 20-652 to allow continuing care retirement facilities as a permitted use; and Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 2 to include standards of a continuing care retirement facility. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 16, 2012 PUBLIC HEARING: BEE HIVE HOMES: REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (RSF) TO MIXED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-8); PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT 2.16 ACRES INTO ONE LOT; AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SENIOR CARE FACILITY ON PROPERTY LOCATED WEST OF HIGHWAY 41 AT 6330 HAZELTIN BOULEVARD. APPLICANT: TYLER & KATHRYN STEVENS. OWNER: ROR, INC, PLANNING CASE 2012- 15. Al-Jaff: Thank you Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. The site is located west of Highway 41, south of Crossroads, Crossroads, 7 and 41 Crossings. I’m sorry. Strip mall. There is a residential development to the west of the subject site as well as a single family, larger lot immediately south of the subject site. The site has an area of 2.16 acres. Currently there are 2 existing structures on the site that are proposed to be demolished. There is a 50 inch oak tree along the east side of the site that is proposed to be saved. There’s an open ditch that runs through this site and the drainage will be re- routed on this property, and we will go through that in more detail later in the presentation. The subject site is under the 2030 Land Use Plan the subject site is guided for medium density or office. Historically this site has had some commercial types of uses on it. Currently there are 2 structures. One of them is used as a residence. The property to the north of the subject site is commercial. Neighborhood commercial. It contains a strip mall as well as a Walgreen’s and a gas station. The property to the south contains a single family home, however it is guided for medium density. Staff examined this site in depth and as part of the approval of the 2030 Land Use Plan it was recommended that the site be guided to medium density or office. With this type of use staff is recommending that the site be rezoned from single family residential district to mixed medium density residential district which is consistent with the land use plan. One of the requests that are before the Planning Commission today and as part of this overall development is a site plan approval. The building will be located west of Highway 41. There will be some drainage, as mentioned earlier that will be re-routed on the site. A drainage pond will be located along the north portion of the property and parking will be located along, some of the parking will be located along the east portion of the property. The materials on the exterior of the building are of high quality. Here is the sample of the materials. The accent material is stone. The city code requires a minimum of 20% of the façade of the building be an accent material. In this case the applicant is proposing 36% of the façade be of stone material which exceeds the minimum requirements of the ordinance. The remainder of the elevation will be of a siding that is shown right here. The roof of the building, which will be shingles, has been staggered. It gives relief to the building. Overall the design of the building is proposed to be of high quality and exceeds the minimum requirements of the ordinance such as transparency. Exceeds the 50% requirement for windows. It has a very pronounced entryway into the building. This slide shows that 36% of the façade of the building consists of the accent material which is the stone. There is a monument sign proposed to be located along the southeast corner of the site immediately north of the driveway that provides access to the site. The sign must meet the minimum requirements of the ordinance which is 24 square feet and may not exceed 5 feet in height. It is proposed to utilize the same materials as those used on the exterior of the building. There is also a light fixture that will be used within the parking lot. These fixtures are all shielded and meet the minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance. Parking as mentioned earlier is proposed to be, there are 5 parking spaces that will be located externally. Those are intended to be the guest parking spaces. The majority of the parking, which is for staff as well as, it’s for staff only, will be located underground so it’s within an enclosed garage. Staff is recommending approval of the site plan request. Part of this request before you is a replat of the existing parcel so the existing parcel is an outlot and with this request we are, we are recommending approval of the, oh there. Part of this request will require the applicant to replat the site to Lot 1, Block 1 and it’s a straight forward request. The easements will be expanded and staff is recommending approval of this request as well. At this point I would like to turn it over to engineering staff, Joe Shamla to address a few engineering issues. 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 16, 2012 Shamla: Good evening Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. Currently the way the site is set up right now is it will be a right-in/right-out only. This will stay in place until the property to the south, if the property to the south ever develops access will be provided through the property to the south and then it will T into the intersection of the middle school so they’re kind of bringing the intersections together along Highway 41. We’ve had discussions with MnDOT and that was a preferred option for them. As the site exists today there’s a 36 inch storm culvert underneath Highway 41 that goes through the property to the south. Discharges into the subject site and the blue, or the turquoise line bisecting the site is the current ditch. This ditch has water in it when it rains but currently it is dry due to the weather we’ve been having. In the proposed condition the storm water will be re-routed around the property to the south so it will be maintained within MnDOT right-of-way until it enters the subject property and then it will, it is actually shown as the green line in the slide so it will be bypassed around the building and then also the pond that will be created for this site will connect to that also. The pond in Outlot A is not sized for the development of this site so the developer is proposing their own pond for the stormwater treatment. Also the sewer and water is being stubbed from the northerly property line to the property to the south so that when the property to the south develops in the future their sewer and water is available and it will be held short of the property line by a little bit just to maintain the utilities on this site’s property. Now I will pass it back to Sharmeen. Al-Jaff: Staff reviewed this proposal. We consider it reasonable and suitable for the site. Staff is recommending approval of the rezoning of the site, the preliminary plat as well as the site plan request and I’ll be happy to answer any questions. Colopoulos: This is a home service retirement community. There’ll be health care services provided to the folks. The residents. Aanenson: I think you might want to speak directly to the, we try to answer that but let the applicant give you more detail on that. Colopoulos: I’ll hold the questions. Okay. Aller: Are we intending on having the easements vacated prior to the plat or contemporaneously with the filing of the plat? Al-Jaff: Everything has to move concurrently. The vacation will appear before the City Council when they review this item. Aanenson: Are you talking about the drainage? Al-Jaff: Correct. Aanenson: That drainage is about 75 square feet. It’s pretty small. Aller: Yeah. And then as I read everything they’re required in the conditions, to meet all other state requirements and permits for purposes of re-routing that water and dealing with the infiltration system. Shamla: That is correct. They’ve already been working with the Army Corps on getting those permits and they are aware of any permits needed to re-route that water. Correct. Aller: I don’t have any further questions right now. Anything right now? Okay. Would the applicant like to step forward? State your name and address for the record. 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 16, 2012 Tyler Stevens: Good evening Planning Commission, Commissioner. My name’s Tyler Stevens. My address is 6505 Fox Hollow Court, Chanhassen, 55317. Aller: Welcome Mr. Stevens. Tyler Stevens: I’m here tonight. My wife and I are here tonight to speak on behalf of Bee Hive Homes. Growing up I had the privilege of living with my grandparents and basically they ended up raising me. Growing up with my grandparents it became very apparent seeing it firsthand what this aging really is and kind of what the processes are. What the struggles are. You know losing independence. All that kind of stuff that goes into it so from that in 2008 my wife and I started a company called Encore Senior Home Care where the mentality would be that we were going to take caregivers like nurses and home health aides and certified nursing assistants and place caregivers in resident’s homes so they can stay safe and you know and continue to live at the home that they love but then also receive the services so they’re safe. One of the biggest things that we’ve encountered, and I’ve encountered personally just with my grandparents is, one of the main reasons that people tend to shy away from assisted living is that in Minnesota there really is only one model and it’s big, facility based, kind of like a hotel setting and at least from my personal experience going through this with my grandparents is, there has to be a better option than that so that’s kind of how Bee Hive Homes came about. People like my grandfather you know with these bigger facilities get lost in the crowd very easily so the idea of creating a home for the elderly where they can be safe. Thrive, which is a big thing, especially in the elderly. Sometimes you know there are statistics out there that when they move to a big facility their life span, once they go through the move tends to decline. So Bee Hive Homes offers a unique approach to senior living in that it’s small enough where all the residents will get to know each other. It’s group association that you can only really provide in a smaller setting and having a cap of 25 residents, it’s a family style setting where you know we can tailor make the day to day schedule per the clients needs. My family and I live in Chanhassen. We think that this would be a great asset to the city of Chanhassen. It’s currently not something that’s being offered around, or at least not very close and I think this would be a great asset to the community. Serving the elderly is something that I am very passionate about. I’m in this industry already. This is something that I’ve wanted to do for a long time. The idea behind this project is you know get people like my grandfather, including my grandfather to move into this home where a lot of people don’t thrive in the bigger settings so this would be a caveat to that. So with that I’m asking for your recommendation for approval. Colopoulos: Thank you. This is though basically a facility that would provide health care services. Tyler Stevens: Yes. Colopoulos: For folks. So for example if someone needed help with the activities of daily living there’d be a nurse on staff. Tyler Stevens: Yep. Colopoulos: That would be able to help that so someone’s fee for this service would be depending upon the extent of help. Tyler Stevens: Yep. Depending upon the amount of care that they would be required to have. Colopoulos: So I’m looking at the plan here and I have to confess that even with my glasses this plan was a little challenging for me to read. It looks like they’re single room apartments. That’s how it’s. 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 16, 2012 Tyler Stevens: Yeah. You know every room, so there’s 25 bedrooms and in every single bedroom there’s a bathroom, a closest and in that bathroom there’s a shower, sink toilet so one of the things, the benefit of having a house that’s like this, that’s this size is that we promote activities. We promote not being in your room all the time. That’s one of the biggest things with the bigger facilities is the isolation component of it so we have, so yeah 25 bedrooms. 25 bathrooms in each one. And all ADA compliant obviously and all that. Colopoulos: Memory care included in the model? Tyler Stevens: Well we’re not going to be classifying it specifically memory care. We are going to take, we’re building it, we’ve been working with Jerry Moen with the building classification. We are going to be building it to have the capacity for memory care but because we’re such a smaller home like atmosphere we’re going to have some clients that have more memory loss than other clients and so we’re going to be able to treat that and have that but we’re not going to be you know like a Pres Homes that has a, you know we have a memory wing floor. You know we’re going to have to be more flexible with what that is to us. Does that make sense? Colopoulos: Yeah. I’m trying to get some idea of the longevity of a stay. You know someone enters there with a slum score of 25, then a year later it’s 15. That doesn’t mean they have to go to another facility. They can stay. Tyler Stevens: The only way that they would ever have to, so we’re really kind of positioning this as aging in place so if somebody moves in, I’m sure everyone here knows that there’s, they’ve experienced a loved one, a friend or whatever that’s had to make a move and when you’re 80 years old moves can be devastating honestly. So the thought process with this is this is not a nursing home and if you get to a point where you need 24 hour nursing level care, then this home isn’t going to be appropriate through end of life. But most people towards the end of life don’t necessarily need nursing care. They need help with like you said, activities of daily living. Bathing, showering, cooking, cleaning, laundry, medications, that kind of stuff and that’s something that we can do all the way through end of life. Colopoulos: Thank you. Aller: Questions. Okay, I believe there’s a true need for this type of facility here and I’m happy, as I said before that the Senior Commission was supportive of your application. But our business here today is to determine whether or not this is the right location and whether it fits the location so that being said, how is the parking going to be screened? Is there, are you going to screen any of that as far as landscaping? Tyler Stevens: Yeah. The way we have it set up right now is basically on all four property lines we have a buffer so a buffer to the property to the west. Property to the south. Property to the north and obviously we are going to be planting you know trees and shrubs along the east property line which would be 41. One of the reasons that we wanted to put the parking underneath is because we only had 5 spots out front for a reason. We want people so when they see this home to think home. You know this home is being built kind of like the anti-facility. It looks like a home. Acts like a home. Is built by a home builder but yes, we are going to be, as you can see, we are providing a buffer on all four corners and it’s going to be concentrated as you can see overlooking the parking spots. Aller: And it appears in our report that your goal is to exceed the minimum requirements, not by a little but by a lot. How did you come about choosing and selecting your materials? Tyler Stevens: Well when we were designing it you know like Sharmeen had said, the 25% I think was that the number I believe, if you go that route it ends up looking commercial. Even if you don’t want it to 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 16, 2012 look commercial so when we were meeting with Mike Sharratt who was the architect to this, I said you know what it’s imperative and the one thing that I’m really, really going to hold my foot against is making this look like a home and you do that with things like pillars and stone and things like that that make it look more like a home. If we were to be at the 25% it would like a home for the first half of it but the remaining 50 feet it wouldn’t. Aller: And what about the lighting, how did you select the lighting? The type of lighting that you’re using. Can you tell us a little bit about that? Tyler Stevens: The lighting with, from like the street? Or like in the parking lot. Aller: Your parking lot lighting. Tyler Stevens: Yeah we did one part, we did one spot because we wanted staff to be able to you know at the end of a shift if parking underneath was full or whatever, that they would be able to get to their cars obviously safe but we kept it to a minimum because again we, when people are driving by and when people and visitors are coming, we genuinely want it to look and feel and act like a house. You know everyone doesn’t have their own phone number. If they call one number, that’s the main number but yeah, we wanted to keep it to a minimum so it didn’t look you know like the gas station to the north. We wanted it to be a house. And also respect that we are in a residential area too. Aller: Okay. I don’t have any further questions. Tyler Stevens: And our engineer’s here if you have any specific engineering questions. Hokkanen: I just have a question about that oak tree. Is that for sure staying? That’s a requirement. I can’t find it in here but it is, okay. Tyler Stevens: Yeah. Al-Jaff: The applicant is proposing to save it. There will be tree protection fencing around it. It’s one of, when we first met with the applicant they made it very obvious that this was one of the things that they really wanted to do. They were intent, yeah. Tyler Stevens: Well and that tree’s kind of I mean the flagship to the site. I mean it’s right where you drive in. The canopy goes over the home and. Aller: And with this type of facility I wouldn’t expect there would be a great deal of increased traffic based on the, even though you’re having residents there. 25 residents in a fairly local situation. Tyler Stevens: Yeah the higher concentration of visit times would be weekends. You know Monday through Friday, you know there’s going to be very minimal traffic and that was one of the things that we had to express with MnDOT is, you know one of their caveats that this is the last thing they want is a project that you know has 200-300 trips a day so yeah, I mean people that are, that live in this home don’t drive and they’ll, people that will be coming in and out were just employees and you know family and friends. And it’s small enough that we’re not going to be getting deliveries of food trucks and you know that. It’s you know residential. Aller: Any other conditions? I know one of the items was the waste disposal area was going to be in a façade which is similar to the main structure. 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 16, 2012 Tyler Stevens: Yeah we’re building it to the exact same materials of the home so I mean we’re going to be making that enclosure look like a shed, not necessarily like a trash enclosure so it’s going to have a roof. It’s going to be built to the same materials as the house. Minus the stone obviously so it’s just going to have the same you know shake look all the way around it. Aller: Any further questions? Thank you sir. Tyler Stevens: Thank you. Aller: Okay, I’m going to open up the public hearing portion of this request. Anyone wishing to speak for or again please come forward. State your name and address for the record and we’ll try to keep everything to about 3 minutes. Scott Lucas: Thank you members of the commission. My name is Scott Lucas. I’m with the law firm of Olson and Lucas and our address is 7401 Metro Boulevard, Suite 575, Edina, Minnesota 55439. Aller: Welcome Mr. Lucas and for the record we have received correspondence from you that was emailed today to the City so it is part of the record. Scott Lucas: Thank you very much and I’m really here just to elaborate a little bit on that letter and to answer any questions you may have. Of course I’m here representing Mel Brooks and Nancy Perkins Brooks and we’re of course talking about the issues you were discussing with the applicant regarding whether this particular lot is right for this purpose. My clients have a claim of ownership in part of the property due to the doctrine of adverse possession. They’ve been, and alternately a prescriptive easement and those are two legal theories that basically establish either ownership or right of use based upon a history of use. They built a berm onto, that goes in certain places about as deep, has the width of that drainage and utility easement that’s on the back part of the property and then they landscaped the berm. They sodded it. Planted trees on it. Put a porch swing on it and they’ve maintained it as part of their yard since 1994, well in excess of the statutory requisite period of 15 years. There is an issue, I’ll be very candid with you that I’m sure the applicant’s counsel raised which is that ordinarily one cannot make those kind of claims against property which is owned by the public pursuant to a statutory provision, Minnesota Statute Section 541.01. Here though it’s a different situation for a couple reasons. One, because the City’s interest is an easement interest, not title. Not record interest. Secondly because the Brooks’ aren’t looking to oust or change the use that’s being put to the property by the City. They’ve peacefully coexisted with the City’s non-exclusive easement for some 18 years. There’s no reason why that can continue. That can’t continue and in fact they’re looking to preserve the status quo. In addition to the legal issues raised in the letter frankly my clients have some concerns about the use of the property. The proximity of a commercial building to their home. In their back yard literally and the height of the building and all of those things. Now we’re certainly interested in and open to having discussions with the applicant about how those issues can be resolved but I think perhaps one reason why we’re all here tonight is that my clients first talked to the applicant late last week and it’s because they reached out to the applicant and it’s possible that those conversations happened earlier that these issues would be resolved but we’re still hoping to have those productive conversations. With that I think I’m probably up against my 3 minute deadline if you have any questions I’ll be happy to, and lawyers have a hard time shutting up so. Aller: And quite frankly I don’t want to, I think it’s above my pay grade at this moment to kind of make any decisions or even inquire as to any of the issues that are presented in your letter other than taking your testimony and making it a part of the record and then letting the parties in this, what amounts to be a civil matter work out those issues. 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 16, 2012 Scott Lucas: I appreciate the opportunity. Of course we have copied it to your city attorney. Aller: Thank you. Scott Lucas: Thank you very much for your time. Aller: Thanks for your time. Aanenson: Mr. Chair I just want to make one clarification. There is a city drainage easement on the property that’s, so it’s shown on all the site plans. That’s, the little portion we talked about. 75 square feet of that being vacated but this shows the easement right here. Oh, I’m sorry. There we go. This is the drainage easement here kind of showing it. This is the outlot so this is the replat of Outlot B to, so this is the existing drainage easement filed in 1991. The City’s drainage easement. Just, we are still recommending going forward on this project or our recommendation. Obviously there’s some concerns with the neighboring property owner but the City does have a drainage easement over there. We are contemplating with this project providing some additional drainage through that City. There will be some grading in that to provide overflow for the back of the lot to this property so it’s, it will be used as is intended for drainage so. Aller: And we still haven’t dealt with the finality of, it’s my understanding from what’s before us the water issues and whether or not the approvals and permits are going to be forward so. Aanenson: Right, that’s still part of the process. That’s standard part of the recommendation. They’ll have to meet all those things before they can go forward. All those letters have to be in place before a building permit can be issued but we’ve addressed what we believe based on the height, again when we, Sharmeen briefly addressed this. I don’t want to spend too much protracted time on this but this, the height in this zoning district is 35 feet. When we went through the comprehensive plan we looked at this property and the property to the south. As we talked about it, it is an area of uniqueness when you’ve got the middle school across the street which generates a lot of traffic at peak times. You’ve got the commercial piece to the north so we really contemplated what would be the appropriate use for this, especially with that commercial to the north. We looked at office and medium density residential which would allow up to, you know if you look at the 8 units an acre, it could be a higher use there and so when this proposal came forward is why we recommended the zoning change. The height could be 35 feet coming into the 29. We felt that this was really a nice fit, a residential fit for this area and so that’s why we brought you back that issue paper a few months ago talking about recommending the zoning change because of the uses that could go in there, this seemed like the least intense as far as traffic and intensity as opposed to an office or other medium density. So just the background on that and we certainly are aware of this issue. Sounds like there may be some issues that we are not necessarily a part of but we are going to use that drainage easement in the future so just for the record. Aller: Thank you and I think Mr. Lucas understands that and will take whatever action he feels is necessary in the best interest of his client so moving forward, is there anyone else just come forward to speak for or against. Sir, state your name and address for the record please. Greg Soule: My name is Greg Soule. Aller: Mr. Soule, welcome. Greg Soule: My office is at Suite 4000, 225 South Sixth Street in Minneapolis. I’m the attorney representing the applicant. I’ll be very brief. At this point, we just got the same letter that you got today so we haven’t had really time to react to it. We have made various proposals to the neighbors to see if we 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 16, 2012 can accommodate some of their concerns and we’ll continue with those conversations. At this time I think the staff’s recommendation to proceed with it irrespective of this claim is appropriate because they at the current time they have no legal interest in the property. If they initiate a lawsuit, if they prevail in the lawsuit, maybe they’ll get to have a legal interest in the property but they don’t as of this time. The people who have the ownership interest are before you properly and we’ve requested, you know made a request to you and you’re dealing with us so I think that’s perfectly appropriate and again of course your city attorney can comment on that. The only other point I would make is that the applicant did have a town hall meeting where the neighbors were invited the Brooks chose not to attend and I believe the applicant also sent them a letter informing them about the project and didn’t receive a response so it’s not as if the applicant didn’t reach out and try and talk to the neighbors but we’ll continue to talk to the neighbors and see if we can leave some kind of an accommodation with them but we appreciate your continuing the process in the meantime. Aller: Thank you for your comments. Greg Soule: Thank you very much. Aller: Any additional individuals wishing to come forward, for or against? Sir, come forward. Gary Reed: I’m Gary Reed and my brother and I own the property. My folks bought the property in 1935. Aller: Welcome Mr. Reed. For the record could you please give us your address. th Gary Reed: 2461 West 64 Street, Excelsior mailing. Anyway I think this is probably the best use. We’ve been up with proposals many times with this property since my folks passed away and we’ve had the houses rented out and a lot of the renters haven’t been very desirable neighbors and the house was trashed by the last tenant so we had to close it up but my folks, like I say bought the property in 1935. They moved out there in 1939 and owned the property until they passed away and then it went to my brother and I. And I know that they would really agree with this use for the property and so. I’m one of the neighbors and I think it will create a nice buffer from the highway. 41 is a noisy highway and so we’re looking forward to having something nice on that property that is a residential style building. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against? Seeing no one come forward I’ll close the public hearing. Comments from commissioners. Undestad: I think it’s a very nice plan. Very nice project. The design is, I mean it’s a beautiful building. Hokkanen: Yes it is. It’s like a home. Undestad: The transition from a gas station to a neighborhood, I think something of this caliber in there is an excellent transition between the two so, I like it. It’s a great project. Aller: Anyone else? Hokkanen: No, I agree. Colopoulos: I agree. 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 16, 2012 Aller: I think everyone who knows about the 2030 plan as far as the use of the area and the zoning factors, it fits the bill for what we’re looking forward to utilizing these properties for in the future as Chanhassen moves forward and as our demographics change so that being said, entertain any motions. Hokkanen: I have a motion. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve a rezoning of the property from Singe Family Residential District to Mixed Medium Density Residential District, preliminary plat to replat 2.1 acres into one lot, site plan approval for the construction of a continuing care retirement facility Bee Hive Homes and the adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Tennyson: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hokkanen moved, Tennyson seconded that the Planning Commissionrecommends approval of Planning Case #2012-15 to rezone 2.16 acres of property zoned RSF, Single Family Residential District to R-8, Mixed Medium-Density Residential District for BeeHive Homes Subdivision contingent upon final plat approval, as shown in plans dated received October 9, 2012, and adoption of the Findings of Fact. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Hokkanen moved, Tennyson seconded that the Planning Commissionrecommends the City Council approves the preliminary and final plat for Planning Case 2012-15 for BeeHive Homes as shown in plans dated received October 9, 2012, and including the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation, subject to the following conditions: 1. Full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication shall be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. 2.All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including the MPCA, Dept. of Health, Carver County, Watershed District and MnDOT. 3.The developer must work with the City to properly locate the easements over the utilities and over the treatment pond. 4. Storm water connection fees will be collected with the final plat. The fees are estimated to be $12,231.20. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 16, 2012 the City Hokkanen moved, Tennyson seconded that the Planning Commissionrecommends that Council approve the site plan consisting of a 15,681 square-foot continuing care retirement facility, Planning Case 12-15 for BeeHive Homes as shown in plans dated received October 9, 2012, and including the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation, subject to the following conditions: 1.Install tree protection fencing around the preserved oak at least 30 feet from the trunk. The fencing shall be installed prior to any construction activity and remain until site construction is completed. Wood chip mulch shall be applied within the fenced area to a depth of 4-6 inches. 2.One spruce shall be added to the plantings along the west property line. The tree should be located behind the proposed group of five lilacs. 3.Building Official Conditions: a.The proposed structure is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. b.All plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. A geotechnical (soil evaluation) report is required. c.Designs\plans for retaining wall(s) exceeding four feet in height must be prepared and signed by a structural engineer. d.Detailed building code related requirements have not been reviewed; this will take place when complete structural/architectural plans are submitted. e.Demolition Permit(s) are required for the removal of any existing structures on the site. f.The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 5.All rooftop and ground equipment must be screened from views. 6.Approval of the site plan applications is contingent upon approval of the final plat, rezoning, drainage and utility easement vacation, and the City Code amendment – Planning Case 2012- 15. 7.The monument sign may not exceed 24 square feet in area nor be higher than 5 feet. The sign shall be located 10 feet from the property line. A sign permit is required before construction of the sign. 8.Sign illumination and design shall comply with ordinance. 9.Recycling space and other solid waste collection space should be contained within the same enclosure as the trash. 10.The existing buildings must be removed prior to grading. Demolition of structures must comply with National Emission Standards of Hazardous Air Pollutants, Minnesota Rules 7035.0805 and any other pertinent rules, regulations and laws. 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 16, 2012 11.The developer will be responsible for all the costs associated with rerouting the storm water. The City will own and maintain the proposed storm sewer upon acceptance by the City. The developer must model the drainage area discharging to the 36-inch storm sewer to determine the proper sizing of the storm sewer through the site. 12.A permit is required for any work within the MnDOT right-of-way. 13.The NURP calculations and or drainage area map must be revised to correlate to the plans. 14.The roof drainage from the rear of the building needs to be collected and piped to prevent storm water from discharging to the properties to the west. 15.Drainage maps and hydrocad calculations were provided for this site. The maps do not show the correct drainage boundaries. The maps and calculations must be revised to meet City standards. 16.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. 17.The applicant shall work with staff on the proposed location of the new lines. The sewer and water lines located between the existing lines and the property to the south will be city owned and maintained. The lines connecting to the buildings will be private. Drainage and utility easements will be required on the public portion of the sewer and water lines. Permits are required from the Department of Health and MPCA for the sewer and water extension. 18.Each new building is subject to sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. The 2012 trunk hookup charge is $2,107 per unit for sanitary sewer and $5,717 per unit for watermain. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council and are due at the time of building permit issuance. 19.The utilities will need plan and profile sheets of all public utilities. The public portion of these utilities will be inspected by an engineering inspector. Upon completion, as-builts must be completed to ensure that the utilities meet the specifications of the City. 20.Existing easements are shown in the location of the proposed building. A portion of these easements must be vacated to accommodate the building location. 21.The developer must post a letter of credit or cash escrow ensuring the future connection to the property south of this development. This connection must occur within one year of the completion of the first lift of asphalt. Upon completion of the new access point, the BeeHive Home property must remove the right-in/right-out access. The City will hold the letter of credit or cash escrow until the BeeHive Home property connects to the future access point and removes their current right-in/right-out. 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 16, 2012 22.The applicant shall provide the NPDES Permit number prior to commencement of earth- disturbing activities. 23.The SWPPP shall be amended such that under Project Contacts, the City contact is Terry Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator 952.227.1168 and Chip Hentges, Carver County SWCD, 952.466.5230 shall be added. 24.That portion of the SWPPP with the heading “Responsibility Requirements” shall be completed in full and submitted to the City and included in the on-site SWPPP at the pre- construction meeting or otherwise prior to the commencement of earth-disturbing activities. 25.Per Part III. A. 3 of the NPDES permit, a narrative describing the timing and placement of all erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs must be included in the SWPPP. 26.Those areas to be protected from grading, construction traffic, material stockpiling or other disturbance shall be clearly labeled on the plans and adequate protection in the form of fencing with metal T-posts shall be shown on the plans and installed prior to any earth- disturbing activities. This shall be included as part of the SWPPP. 27.Category 3 erosion control blanket is only required where slopes exceed 3:1. All blankets shall use natural netting and stitching. Hydraulic soil stabilization would be a preferred alternative. 28.Erosion stabilization mat shall be placed at the outfall in the intermittent channel. This shall be classed by shear stress within the channel as described in MnDOT Specification Manual 3888.1. 29.All silt fences shall be standard machine sliced or heavy duty. In no case may preassembled silt fence be used without approval from the city. This shall be indicated on the plan and in the legend. 30.The legend shall be included on sheet C6: Erosion and Sediment Control Plan in addition to sheet C1. 31.The rock construction entrance shall be consistent with section 19-145 in that it must be at least 75 feet in length unless it can be shown that it is not possible to do so. 32.The swale located southeast of the proposed building shall be stabilized in its entirety. 33.The SWPPP must identify the receiving waters for this project. 34.All City standard detail plates shall be edited so that they are legible. 35.The applicant must receive approval from the United States Army Corps of Engineers prior to working within the existing intermittent channel and provide proof of approval to the City. 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 16, 2012 36.Any dewatering needed shall have a plan which shall be included with the SWPPP. This plan shall be provided to the City and the City shall be notified at least 48 hours prior to commencement of dewatering activities. 37.Stockpile areas shall be shown on the plan and shall include the anticipated sediment control practices which will be implemented. These additional quantities shall be added to quantities currently in the plan. 38.Encroachment agreements are needed for any structure located in the drainage and utility easements. This includes but is not limited to the parking lot and light poles located in drainage and utility easements. 39.The applicant shall work with staff on minor plan modifications. 40.The trash enclosure shall utilize the same exterior materials as the proposed building. Recycling space and other solid waste collection space should be contained within the same enclosure. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Aanenson: Mr. Chair, just for the record. This is proceeding to the City Council next Monday nd on the 22. Aller: So those of you interested in following this matter before the City Council should look to the City Council on October 22, 2012. And all these documents and records can be found on the City of Chanhassen website. Moving onto item 3. PUBLIC HEARING: WYNSONG: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 9.37 ACRES INTO 4 LOTS WITH A VARIANCE FOR A PRIVATE STREET, AND VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ON PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT- RESIDENTIAL (PUD-R) LOCATED AT 7042 GALPIN BOULEVARD (LOT 1, BLOCK 1, SONG ADDITION). APPLICANT: STEVE KROISS, GALPIN BLVD. PARTNERS, LLC. OWNER: CHARLES SONG, PLANNING CASE 2012-16. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. As you stated this is a public hearing for a subdivision approval for the development’s name is Wynsong. This property is located on Galpin Boulevard between Highway 5 and Lake Lucy Road. It’s on the west side. It’s just south of the Lake Harrison development and if you go to the next slide. Too far. Just to the north of this is the Lake Harrison development. That’s a single family residential development with a large wetland complex that this property connects into it. To the south of this is the Woods of Longacres, the development which is a single family detached housing with a larger area of open space, wetlands and then there’s a private park area. Originally this property was part of the Woods of Longacres subdivision. It was an outlot for that development. The Song’s replatted it as the Song Addition and built their home in the mid to late 90’s and then now they’re coming in requesting a subdivision of their site into 4 lots. Each of these lots is over 1 acre in area and that’s on a net basis so when we did our review we took out all the wetland area on the individual lots. It has a lot of significant environmental features on the property. To the west is Lake Harrison which is a natural environmental lake. There are 3 wetland complexes within the property boundaries. There’s a significant 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 16, 2012 elevation change that goes 45 foot increase in height as you go from the east to the west of the property. There are 3 high points on the property. It’s currently zoned, served by a long driveway. As a part of the development they’re requesting a variance to use a private street and this would follow approximately the alignment of the existing driveway. Private streets require a 20 foot pavement width and they’re built to a 7 ton design but they’re smaller than our public streets and the use of a private street in this instance is appropriate because there’s no other properties that need to receive access from the street system. Both to the north and the south they are accessed by their own public streets. There are significant environmental features that can be preserved through the use of the smaller street cross section. The wetlands as you immediately come in force the location of the private street or any public roadway and so if we widen this roadway to meet our public street standard they would significantly impact those environmental features as well as additional tree removal within the existing roadway easement. Again private streets are allowed for up to 4 single family homes so this would be the maximum development that could take place within this project area. So as far as the use of a private street we believe it meets all the criteria for that and are recommending approval of the variance. As we said the middle portion of the site is heavily wooded. It is an example of the Big Woods. With the street, private street extension they also are putting in public utilities, both sanitary sewer and water service for all the properties. The existing home is served right now by city sewer and water and they will reconnect to the new system that’s put in place with the development. As part of the tree removal plan the developer has proposed a worst case scenario if you will and they’re using 100 by 100 foot building envelope area that they’re saying that they’ll remove everything. However as these sites develop each of them will be custom graded and will review the development proposal. One of the conditions under the, our forester was that we look at, as part of the building permit process if there’s additional trees that are shown for removal that could be preserved by the house design or use of other environmental features like retaining walls around trees such as the City did with the public works building to preserve the large oak right in front of the entrance to that building. So there are things that we can do with the siting of a building but they’re just using a gross plan to say this is where we would take out the trees and so we think that we can do a better job when the final building permits come through. As part of this project, because of the unique environmental features we’ve also requested that, or are requiring that the developer provide conservation easements to preserve these trees, or significant portions of these trees. Instead of providing a standard stormwater ponding system as part of this development we’re using a system that by preservation of trees they get credit towards meeting their stormwater requirements and we found out that trees do treat a lot of water and they, not only are they beautiful feature for the site but they are environmental improvement to our stormwater system. We have worked out an agreement for the extent of the conservation easement on Lot 4 which is the northerly lot in the project. What it does is it probably limits that house site to a lookout house on the northwest elevation rather than a full walkout on the property. Which is Lot 4 is here and so originally, this preserved area is larger than would normally be required under the City’s buffer yard standards for wetlands. This is a significant wetland up here because it’s an example of a wooded wetland so it has very high quality. It’s connected to a larger system which extends up to the north and actually to the northwest through the Lake Harrison development. They are providing additional buffer area for the wetland setbacks and those are shown in red on the property and like I said there’s 3 areas of wetlands within this development. We believe that the proposal meets all the requirements of the city ordinances and we are recommending approval of the preliminary plat with the variance for the private street. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Colopoulos: …private street, is that an expansion of what is essentially his existing driveway? Generous: That’s correct. Colopoulos: Okay. And the maintenance of the street will be the responsibility of the residents? Generous: Correct. They’ll have a maintenance and access agreement that’s recorded over it benefitting the 4 properties. 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 16, 2012 Aller: I think the report follows through with all the questions and again I don’t see anything in the report so you’re just confirming right now that the, that we don’t see anything and there’s nothing presented to us that is in violation or would not meet the city requirements? Generous: That’s correct. They exceed minimum requirements of our ordinance. Oh except for on Lot 1 they need to add 2 feet of frontage on the lot so they adjust the lot line and that’s one of the conditions of approval. Aller: It’s a condition on the report? Generous: Yes. Aller: Okay. I’ll open up the public hearing portion of this matter. Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against on this request, please come forward. State your name and address for the record. Steve Buska: Hello, my name is Steve Buska. I live at 7054 Northwood Court and I’m against the proposal as it’s presented. I have a few photos that I’d like to show. If you can zoom in on that that’d be great. So overall at a high level, I mean this is a great proposal and I look forward to being a neighbor of this proposal. My home though is located right here on the southern edge of Lot 3 and my concern is that they’re going to take out 40 mature trees from 25 inches in diameter to 40 inches. I’m sorry to 35 inches in diameter for the 40 trees and I’m also concerned that the concentration of those trees all being on Lot 3, which is shown here so my concern is that they’ve come in with a large 100 foot by 100 foot pad and they’re requesting that all the trees be removed from the pad, as well as they’re requesting trees be removed outside of the pad. Again my home is on the southern edge here and the City has requested that some of the trees be preserved. I’d like to put in record that I’d also like to see you know trees 57 and 58 be preserved. And then additional photos is looking out the back of my yard. You can see I’ve marked some trees but tree 50 would be preserved. Tree 49, tree 57, and tree 58 would all be taken out and again this is the south edge of the Lot 3 and then looking a little bit further to the west you can see trees 63 and 64 being removed as well as some of these large trees will be removed so just concerned that the raw number of trees being 40 trees being removed. Also concerned with the location of the trees. The oversized pad and the number of trees being removed. And then this is an aerial view. Again this is the south edge of the lot so it’s…from the north/south direction but again examples of trees 49, 57, 58, 63, 64. By preserving those trees you can create a buffer between the Longacres community and this community. Preserve some of the sight lines of everyone in the neighborhood as well as provide plenty of room to put a house on Lot number 3 so again emphasizing, try to preserve additional trees especially trees 57 and 58. For the trees that the City has requested to be preserved, stronger language. Making sure that a majority of those trees are preserved and then just making sure that additional information is considered on the justification on why those trees need to be preserved and that information is not available on the current proposed plan. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. And Bob for clarification, that lot that’s going to be directly across from that, is that 1, 2, 3 or 4? Generous: That was Lot 3. Aller: 3. So there’s no present decision or determination on the actual size of anything that’s being put on that particular lot. Generous: That’s correct. We don’t have a specific building pad. They are proposing, that’s a worst case scenario. 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 16, 2012 Aller: Okay. Aanenson: Again these lots are well in excess of one acre and it’s part of that original project. All the lots in the Longacres are under the PUD so they could be as small as 11 and when we did the Woods of Longacres there was a lot more woods in that area too. I think by doing these custom grading it helps us preserve but we don’t know until we get a buyer. That’s the challenge of the custom grading but the developer has to provide you know a certain footprint area so when the plan comes in we’ll try to work with it so obviously our goal is to always try to preserve as many trees as we can but until you have an individual buyer, you have to have a plat first before you can offer it up and then we try to work with it that way. Certainly we recognize that saving those trees and providing that buffer’s important and the area that they’re going is the area with the least amount of grading so if you were to go further to the Galpin Boulevard side, there’s significant grade changes in there so that would, putting a house there would also take out the trees and providing a lot of additional grading that doesn’t make a lot of sense so you try to work within that so depending on the style of house that comes in, whether walkout or whatever, they’re going to use some of those grades on the other, on the higher piece there so that’s part of the challenge but like we said you know sometimes you can save those trees. Individual trees through retaining walls but what we’ve learned in our past history is that trying to over protect those trees will lead to a lot of disappointment of people who say it’s our expectation they’re going to say when they go down later so we always try to provide the worst case scenario so you know we have clear expectations so that is the worst case scenario and that’s what we try to present because we’ve moved along in our tree preservation. When we first started we tried to save trees too close to the house and then we had an unhappy homeowner in 2 years when the tree died and we made them save it and they worked around it so we’ve worked really diligently when they’re that close we just make that decision in looking at whether or not it’s possible to try to save it or not so it’s a very you know careful consideration when the home plan comes in and can we tweak it. Can we move it and try to find the best solutions so our goal here tonight is just to present the worst case scenario. Certainly hope we can save more trees but it depends on the house. Aller: But I think it’s important to recognize the concerns of the neighbors as well as the recognition of the city certainly since I’ve been dealing with different committees in their efforts to maintain those trees and keep them. The importance of the overstory and understory plantings that occur in these developments so it’s a good discussion and good to have it on the record. Any other individuals wishing to come forward, either for or against? Come forward. Please state your name and address for the record sir. Todd Simnig: Todd Simnig, 2051 Pioneers Drive, Chanhassen, 55317. Aller: Welcome. Todd Simnig: I’m actually the developer and builder of the lots, Wynsong. Particularly for Lot 3, just to answer any questions you have, we actually do have a buyer for that one. Interestingly enough the back grade of that house, as the neighbors are looking back and where our house is because of the slope of the private street coming up, there’s actually going to be a retaining wall in that back area to keep our house down because we have a, you know a limited 10% driveway to come up and so with that 10% driveway we know that the house foundation’s going to be at a certain level and that is actually going to be dropped from what that area is in the back back there. So with a retaining wall sitting back there and we know what the buyer actually has a swimming pool that they’re going to be putting in the back yard, I can’t guarantee that those trees are going to be saved or not. At this stage we’re still designing the house. Still going through the process. Technically speaking we have a little over 2 acres of trees that we can take out of the site to meet requirements within the City. Now our goal is, I mean you guys know this, I mean really nice lots back there. The goal isn’t just to take down every tree and you know to completely take it out and then not have a nice development but to unequivocally say today that you’re going to be able to save those trees or come up with some hard line language saying hey, we’re going to make certain those trees are there. It’d be very difficult until we actually are able to design the houses, particularly with the custom lots. Custom grading as Bob and 18 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 16, 2012 Kate had mentioned, as well as working with the City to actually preserve 2 large pieces of trees particularly on Lot number 4 where we gave up a walkout lot just to be able to go with a lookout to save more trees and the City really worked well with us with that. I think we still exceed the minimum requirements on that so to put additional requirements on tree preservation today is I think very difficult until we actually get into the design of the houses. Grading. Finishing it out because as Kate and Bob also stated, and we’ve been builders for 25 years, my partner and I, in Chanhassen and other areas where all of a sudden we try to save these nice oaks with a retaining wall 10 feet away and 2 years later they’re dead. If you can’t stay a long ways away from the trees that are there the chances of them living are really, really slim so anyway I understand because I live in Chanhassen. Live in the area also but to put a hard definitive yes, we’re going to be able to save something is difficult tonight so, and I’ll open that up to any questions you guys have for us too. Hokkanen: I have a question. Can you share with us, is that going to be a rambler or a two story that you’re thinking of? Todd Simnig: That one’s going to be a two story and it’s going to be most likely a lookout to the side. It’s going to be a full basement in the back because I don’t, if you look at the grade it goes uphill so fast that that’s the reason why we have to have a retaining wall in the back side back there drop down just to have a decent level back yard back there. Hokkanen: Okay. Todd Simnig: And minimum of, at least that would actually help bring the house down and not look at a big you know back yard. And additionally the house will actually be facing obviously not to you guys but it’s actually going to be facing you know people are going to take advantage of the southwest, not looking back at the, I guess that’d be the, what would be? More of the south. The house is going to be facing this way so you might see a little bit of a side of it but you’re not going to see you know a great big structure in the back. Aller: And then you’re going to need to be dealing with the wetlands and your water runoff and all those things so that is to come in the future and I’m sure that you’ll be dealing with the appropriate authorities with regard to which trees should and shouldn’t be maintained or attempted to be saved based on the natural resources and where they want the water to be so. Todd Simnig: Correct. Aller: Okay. Anything further? Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forward either for or against? Seeing no one come forward, close the public hearing. Comments from commissioners. Anything? Hokkanen: I just love the trees. It’s a very wooded development so the less, you know if someone, hopefully someone would not come in and want to take down a lot of trees. The purpose they’re going to want to be there is in a wooded development. A little concerned with a pool. You’re going to need to take down trees for a pool but you know I think they’ll deal with that at each specific time. Aller: And as I stated before, I think the City’s done a good job in looking to preserve those things. It’s in the report. Certainly the backing of several environmental agencies indicating that the overstory trees are just as good or better than trying to put in other alternatives for maintaining the wetlands and the water runoff so with that I’ll entertain any motions. Undestad: I’ll propose that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends City Council approve the subdivision creating 4 lots with a variance for the use of a private street subject to conditions of the staff report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendations. 19 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 16, 2012 Colopoulos: Second. Aller: I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Just I think that it’s a, just an addition. We didn’t really cover, although it’s in the report, it’s in the Findings, the variance issue with regard to the street. I think it’s absolutely fits the bill for purposes of a variance in that it’s a unique property. It would be a hardship on other individuals not to have that use in that fashion so… Undestad moved, Colopoulos seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the preliminary plat creating four lots, plans prepared by Otto Associates dated 09/10/12, with a variance for the use of a private street, subject to the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation: Building Official Conditions: 1. The developer’s proposed street name, Wynsong Lane, is acceptable and shall be shown on the final plat of the property. 2. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures on the site. 3. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. 4. Retaining walls over four feet high require a permit and must be designed by a professional engineer. 5. Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services. Engineering Conditions: 1.The private road must be within a 30-foot wide access and maintenance easement recorded against all four properties. 2.At the end of the project, the developer must submit documentation stating that the private road meets a 7-ton design. 3.The developer shall work with the existing homeowner to minimize service disruption during construction. 4.Lot 1 has paid the sanitary sewer hook-up charge. 5.The sanitary sewer hook-up fees for Lots 2, 3 and 4 will be collected as set forth in the City Code at the rate in effect at the time. 6.No water hook-up charges are due with this plat. 7.The existing 12-inch drain tile and the proposed 4-inch drain tiles shall be privately owned and maintained. 20 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 16, 2012 8.Should the gas service to the existing home be relocated with this project, the existing service via Lake Harrison Circle must be cut according to CenterPoint Energy's requirements. 9.Staff will work with the developer's engineer to either realign the wall so that it lies entirely on one property, or draft an encroachment agreement for the wall, which would be recorded against both properties. Environmental Resource Specialist Conditions: 1.The applicant shall custom grade lots and work with staff to try to preserve any of the following trees currently proposed for removal: Lot 2: #78, #86, #97, #70 Lot 3: #49, #59, #63, #64, #66 Lot 4: #133, #134, #137, #138, #142, #143 2.Prior to grading, each lot shall install tree protection fencing at the edge of grading limits. 3.Building permit surveys for each lot shall be required to show all inventoried trees within the grading limits and 10 feet beyond and their removal or preservation status. Tree removal for each lot shall be approved by the city. 4.The applicant shall work with staff to develop conservation easements to preserve existing wooded areas on Lots 1, 3 and 4. 5.Conservation easement signage will be required to be installed by the developer at property lines and angle points on each lot. Signage shall be approved by the city prior to installation. Fire Marshal Conditions: 1. A three (3) foot clear space shall be maintained around the circumference of the fire hydrant per MSFC Section 508.5.5. 2. Nothing shall be placed in a manner that would prevent or hinder operation of the fire hydrant by firefighters per MSFC Section 508.5.4. 3. A street sign shall be installed at the street intersection prior to any new home construction per MSFC Section 505.2. 4. “ No Parking Fire Lane” signs shall be installed in the hammerhead turnaround. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for location of signs . Parks & Recreation Conditions: 21 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 16, 2012 1.The developer shall pay park dedication fees at the rate in effect at the time of final plat approval concurrent with or prior to recording the final plat in lieu of parkland dedication or donation. Planning Conditions: 1.Revise the front lot line of Lot 1 to meet the 125-foot minimum lot width. Water Resources Coordinator Conditions: Surface Water Drainage and Treatment 1.Alternate stormwater management techniques will be allowed for the site. The proposal is to use enhanced buffers and tree preservation for volume reduction and stormwater management. Tree preservation areas must be contained within a legally recorded conservation easement before release of the final plat. The wetland buffer must be included within a drainage and utility easement or conservation easement. 2.Appropriate signage demarcating the boundary of the conservation easement must be placed by the applicant before release of the final plat. The signage must be at any point the easement boundary intersects with a property line, either existing or proposed, and any point of deflection greater than 10 degrees. At no point may the distance between signs be greater than 200 feet. Sign placement must be shown on a plan sheet. 3.Stormwater efficacy calculations shall be based upon Carver County Rules Calculator Version 1.1 or the Minnesota MIDS Calculator Worksheet. This worksheet shall be updated to reflect the conservation easement area and must exclude any wetland within the easement. 4.The eastern limit of the conservation easement on proposed Lot 4 shall be as shown in figure 2, protecting a wooded buffer at least 50 feet in width from the eastern wetland boundary and preserving trees 133, 134, 136 and 140. Natural Resource Protection 1.All wetland buffers shall meet the requirement codified in Sections 20-411 and 20-412 of city code. 2.Buffers not meeting the minimum requirements for native vegetation as required by code or being considered for enhanced buffers for stormwater management will require a vegetation management plan. 3.Appropriate signage demarcating the boundary of the wetland buffer must be placed by the applicant before release of the final plat. The signage must be at any point the buffer boundary intersects with a property line, either existing or proposed, and any point of deflection greater than 10 degrees. At no point may the distance between signs be greater 22 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 16, 2012 than 200 feet. Sign placement must be shown on a plan sheet. 4.Setbacks shall be labeled on the plan set as to if they are setbacks from the OHW of a Public Water or setbacks from a wetland buffer. 5.All tree protection fencing shall employee metal T-posts. Erosion and Sediment Control 1.All silt fences shall be machine sliced or heavy duty as defined in part 3886 of the MnDOT Standard Specifications for Construction 2005 Edition. 2.Those areas to be protected from grading, construction traffic, material stockpiling or other disturbance shall be clearly labeled on the plans and adequate protection in the form of fencing with metal T-posts shall be shown on the plans and installed prior to any earth- disturbing activities. This shall be included as part of the SWPPP. 3.Final stabilization must be shown on the grading plan. The graded areas contiguous to wetland 1 and wetland 2 must be stabilized with Method 2, 3 or 4 as defined in part 2575 of the MnDOT Standard Specifications for Construction 2005 Edition. 4.Seed mix or other method of establishing vegetation in disturbed areas shall be called out on the plan set. 5.A method of establishing native vegetation within the disturbed buffer areas shall be called out on the plans. 6.Sediment control best management practices shall be specified on the plan set for both culverts draining to wetlands. Strong preference shall be given to inlet protection. 7.It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to assure compliance with all other pertinent regulations and requirements, including, but not limited to NPDES permit requirements for phased development where the total disturbance associated with the common development exceeds the minimum threshold. 8.All applicable details shall be included within the plan set. The city can make these available to the applicant. Surface Water Management 1.The applicant shall provide the city with an exhibit quantifying those areas within conservation easement, wetland, and wetland buffer areas so that the fees accurately reflect the amount of developable land. 2. Based upon the information provided, SWMP fees due at Final Plat are estimated to be $33,305.60. 23 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 16, 2012 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Hokkanen noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 2, 2012 as presented. CITY COUNCIL UPDATE. th Aanenson: The Riegert variance on 620 96 Street, the City Council did approve that variance. You had recommended, you didn’t have a super majority so they did recommend approval of that as submitted. And then the Bretton Way one actually we just dealt with the one use there and so actually the City Council also has the review to actually look at all the uses in there so instead of just taking that one issue, because to kind of clarify what should be in there and shouldn’t be, we’ll be addressing all that at their meeting on Monday night. Your other variance request actually chose instead of going up to the City Council to appeal is actually come back before you but because of the meeting dates we had this agenda full. It will actually be on your November meeting, which is kind of my next point. So we just have 2 more meetings before the end of the year. We will not be meeting at our next one. I’m assuming you’re going to be voting or watching the th elections so our next meeting will be November 20 and that’s when we’ll have the one variance request on th and then the other one will be December 4, yeah. And we do have some other applications. Another variance of course but we are working on some other projects and some pretty nice ones that will be coming probably the first of the year. A couple of big ones so that’s all I have. Aller: Great. Thank you. Thank you all. Aanenson: Thank you. Aller: Motion to adjourn? Colopoulos moved, Undestad seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 24