PC Minutes 10-16-2012Chanhassen 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