Loading...
Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 17, 2000 Chairman Peterson called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Ladd Conrad, Uli Sacchet, Alison Blackowiak, LuAnn Sidney, Deb Kind, and Matt Burton STAFF PRESENT: Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner; Cindy Kirchoff, Planner II; and Teresa Burgess, Public Works DirectoffCity Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE 13.41 ACRES INTO 19 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF TH 101, NORTH OF MISSION HILLS AND SOUTH OF VILLAGES ON THE PONDS, MARSH GLEN, MSS HOLDINGS, LLC. Public Present: Name Address Tracy Scheid Penny White Tony Ferguson Barb Lindemann Steve & M. Kroiss 451 Mission Hills Court 450 Mission Hills Court 8495 Mission Hills Lane 552 Mission Hills Drive 8905 Cove Point Road Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of staff'?. Sidney: Okay Mr. Chair, one question. We had this in our packet for the last Planning Commission. It was withdrawn at that time. What has changed since then, if anything? Kirchoff: Nothing has changed. It's the same proposal that was on the May 3rd agenda. Sidney: Okay. Burton: Mr. Chairman. I was looking at the report, it talks about this is zoned low density residential which is 1.2 to 4 units per acre. And this is 19 units and 13.4 acres. I'm just trying to figure out how that works out. It seems it doesn't even meet 1.2. Kirchoff: The outlots and the water level area are taken out for the net density. Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 2000 Burton: With the outlots and all and everything we've got 13.4? Kirchoff: Yes. The total site area is 13.4. Burton: Yeah, so that even goes further the other way. Now you're saying 19 units on 8.6 acres. So it's .6, rough ninth units per acre. Peterson: Why don't you walk through your question again Matt. Now that all those numbers. Burton: Right on page 2 of the report, of our staff report, at the first paragraph it says it's guided low density residential which is 1.2 to 4 units per acre. And this entire project is 13.4 acres and there are 19 units. But they're actually only building on 8.6. So even if you go with the 13, you're I think it's about .7 units. A unit for every. Kirchoff: Conrad: It could be 4 units per acre so it could 4 times 13. Matt, you can build on 15,000 square feet and this is really low density. Kind: Yeah, it could be 4 units per acre. Conrad: Yeah. Peterson: He was thinking about it backwards. Burton: I'm going in reverse. Conrad: They're way down. Kind: It could be 4 times 8 which is 32. Burton: I knew that. Okay, I'm sorry. somehow. Kirchoff: Peterson: It might have been the math difference, never mind No problem. You're using the old math versus the new math. I do it often. Burton: The other question I had, hopefully it's more...than the first was you had mentioned that the preservation areas appear questionable and can you expand on that? Are there any conditions that address that? I just noticed that as I was reading it again. Kirchoff: Yes. There is a condition that, let's state it backwards. There is a condition that the canopy calculations be reconfigured. That is number 6. The Forester did review the plan and according to the applicant 36% of the site will be saved. Of canopy will be saved. And that will 2 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 2000 have to be revised before it goes to the council. And 35% is the minimum that's permitted to be saved. They're 1% over that. According to their proposal. Burton: Okay. ! did have actually one other question. In reading the Fire Marshal's memorandum he's discussing that private drives in Block 2 and he states that he'd prefer to see some type of turn around and then he goes on that one possible alternative may be a residential fire sprinkler and at this point further discussion should occur between Planning and the Fire Department. I didn't see any conditions relating to that and I was just wondering if there were other discussions and whether that was evaluated at all. Kirchoff: Yes. After further discussion the Fire Marshal decided to leave that condition and that's why it wasn't included in the conditions of approval of the subdivision. Sacchet: Mr. Chairman. In the staff report it says that a second storm water pond may be necessary. Is it or isn't it? What does it depend on? Can you elaborate on that one? Kirchoff: Maybe I can defer this question to Teresa, our new Public Works Director/City Engineer. Burgess: There's some concern that the grades won't work. The developer feels that they will work. The engineering department has identified that we have some concerns. That's why we have put it in there. It is a possibility. If it works with only one pond, we're open to that idea but we do want to make sure that the developer's aware that looking at it from our end, we're thinking that a second pond is probably necessary. Sacchet: So at this point there is a disagreement between the staff and the developer on that? Burgess: The developer believes that he can make it work with one pond, but staff looking at the grades as they are shown has some concerns and so we have put in potential for a second pond. Sacchet: So you're not sure yet? Burgess: We're not sure. Until we have the actual development is actually built, there is some gray area until the actual design is done. At this point we believe that a second pond is necessary. Sacchet: But you can't say until you see the final. Burgess: Until we see the final design of the homes to see if the final grading does work. At this time we're not requiring a second pond. We're just saying it's a potential need. Sacchet: Okay. Now my second question is kind of a math question too. In establishing those percentages of tree cover, is that including the outlots? Kirchoff: Yes it is. Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 2000 Sacchet: It is? Okay. Peterson: Thank you. Any other questions of staff?. Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. Where would the second pond go? Burgess: We've identified the potential for it to go on the northwest corner of the property, or to the property just to the south of the public street in the northwest corner of that property. The lots would need to be reconfigured to allow for that and there's a potential that one lot may be lost. Kind: And question for Cindy I believe. When we were presented this project as a PUD there were 30 homes. And the question was asked at that time how many homes, if this went in as a straight subdivision, how many homes would there be and the answer was 30. And to me that was part of the rationale for approving the PUD and now we see it as a straight subdivision with 19 homes. That's a pretty big gap from what we were told. Could you speak to that at all? Kirchoff: Certainly. I think it was around 27, 28 that we projected. It was an error on staff's part that that many could conceivably be placed on the lot. However we were approving it based upon it meeting the density requirement that is required as part of the comp plan. That was our basis for recommending approval. Kind: The 4 number that Matt was talking about earlier is 8 something acres times 4 gives them 32. And that's kind of roughly. Kirchoff: Actually it met the low density requirements. However they had to change the comprehensive plan designation to medium density because of PUD requirements. Kind: To me this is an example of where the math and the reality don't match and they really can't get 30. I don't see how you could get 30 and meet our setbacks in here and it was an i~teresting lesson for me to learn. I wanted that part of the public record so that maybe some of my fellow commissioners would also notice that. Also, a question about the flag lots and the private drive lots. Can we include conditions that restrict how they're oriented on those lots? I'm thinking about that Creekside home where there's a front door in somebody's back yard because the house is oriented fmmy on the lot. Can we include a condition about orientation? Kirchoff: We could. However Lot 8, which is I believe the one you're speaking about. It would be logical for the back of the house to overlook the lake, not towards the side of the house. Kind: But like the front, that one's probably not as big ora deal to me as number 5. Or number, actually number 6 on Block 2. They could put their front door in number 5's back yard if they oriented the house differently. So it would be acceptable or legal for us to include conditions about home orientation? Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 2000 Al-Jarl: The way the ordinance reads is you have a buildable area. It doesn't talk about how you should orient the house. Kind: Right, which is I think what happened in Creekside. There was no rules about how to orient it and the builder or homeowner decided to turn the house on the house pad. I think they look fine the way they're shown on this plat but somebody else might decide they want to put their front door facing house number 5. Kirchoff: The applicant had spoken to me today regarding this issue and they indicated to us that they would be placing the homes. Kind: In a normal way? Kirchoff: That fashion on the lot. Not guaranteeing exactly where the garage would be on the site but that configuration. That the front door would be facing, or the garage would be facing this direction. Kind: Okay. Kirchoff: Using logic. Kind: Yeah, I mean to me any logical person would never have done what was done at Creekside though. So I'm trying to avoid that happening again. So it would be okay to include a condition to that? Peterson: I doubt it. Kind You doubt it? Okay. I'll put it under my strongly consider that. Peterson: Exactly. Kind: Oh and then speaking of private drives, is there a rule as far as how many homes can be serviced by a private drive? Kirchoff: Yes. The subdivision ordinance says four homes. Kind: Really? Kirchoff: Yes. Kind: Interesting. And then future 101 will be coming in along the back side of 1, 2 and 3 on the west side. Will those homeowners be notified that, where 101 is going to be? Is that part of a waiver that they need to sign with the city or how does that work? Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 2000 Kirchoff: It's included into the conditions and then into the developers agreement that those homeowners when they're purchased will be informed. The developers agreement is recorded against the property so any future homeowners purchasing this property, doing their due diligence will locate that agreement. Kind: Did I miss that? Is that condition in here? Kirchoff: It's in the agreement. The developers agreement. Kind: Which we don't see? Peterson: No. Kind: Okay, thank you. Peterson: Other questions? Conrad: Sure. Cindy, when we made the motion to approve, when this came in before a couple months ago, we did have some recommendations. I don't know what they were. I'm curious if they were incorporated. Kirchoff: The main condition was the exterior of the proposed home. Conrad: Well, we had some conditions on the flag lot. That Block 1, number 8 in terms of screening. We had some conditions for Block 2, Lots 5, 6 and 7 in terms of the screening for the neighbors in terms of where the drive came in. I'm just curious how you handled those. Kirchoff: In that particular proposal it was a PUD so we could request additional screening. This is a straight subdivision. Conrad: And we don't have that control, okay. Kirchoff: Yes. Conrad: Mr. Chairman, just one more question. The reason the City Council did not like what we sent forward was what? Density? Kirchoff: The comprehensive plan change was a big concern. And also the transition between the existing homes in Mission Hills and then the townhomes that were proposed. Conrad: Okay. Kirchoff: They did like the proposal itself. They thought it was a fine addition to the community. However they were concerned about the comprehensive plan change. They wanted to make sure it was within that low density range. Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 2000 Conrad: Okay. Peterson: Okay, other questions? Okay, thank you. Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. Steve Kroiss: Good evening. Steve Kroiss with MSS Holdings. Thank you for looking at our proposal again tonight. As you are well aware, we did promote this as a PUD before...with the neighbors and everything, it just didn't seem to work out so here we are with a single family subdivision. The biggest thing that I really want to address with everybody here is the fact that all our lots are meeting all the necessary requirements. All the side setbacks. Front setbacks. Everything we had done here meeting all the city requirements. I've even gone so far as to actually show homes that we have done in the past so these are very realistic pads with the homes that we'll work on the pads that may go out there. These homes will probably be in about 1,700 to 2,800 square foot range. We'll probably end up doing some ramblers and two story. Price range will run from anywhere from $200 to about $450. Probably two's on the, facing 101 and obviously the four's abutting Marsh Glen. Really I don't have a lot of other things to say at this time other than the fact that we will work with staff. I am working with my engineer now. I know that this pond will work. There will not be a need for a second pond. I've already talked to Dave Hempel a little bit more about that and I don't think that's going to be a problem at all. We will be screening out here as well with a berm and landscaping along 101. I've also worked with Todd Hoffman over at Park and Rec and we have come to an agreement that we are actually going to be putting the trail down between our houses to connect to the future trail and to the park system. So we have no, I'll leave it at that if you have any questions for me. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Questions of the applicant? Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. On page 2, Sheet Number 2 of 5, it's been labeled the utility plans. For me that's the easiest one to look at because that's got the houses on it. Lot number 5 on Block 2, see the rear yard setback is to the south and so should that be 30 feet? That setback line be 30 feet? Steve Kroiss: That is correct. That is 30 feet. Kind: Tell me which lines are the setback lines. Steve Kroiss: Oh, she's over here. Yes, that is 30 feet. Are you referring to here? Kind: The dark lines are the building pads, right? Steve Kroiss: Yes. Kind: And then there's a dotted line that indicates the setback? That's at least what the arrow says, setback line. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 2000 Steve Kroiss: Oh, this is an easement line that's allowed through all of the properties. So are you asking me what my setback is here? Kind: I'm guessing it's 30 feet. Steve Kroiss: Yes. Kind: That bold line. Steve Kroiss: That is correct. That is 30 feet. Kind: And then what's labeled as the setback line, what I'm trying to clarify and to a potential homeowner and to where they can put their deck. Steve Kroiss: Oh, the decks? You would still have enough room here. You've got to realize that this house may not be the house that will be built. Kind: Right. Steve Kroiss: We have over, I think I've got like 55 feet here to work with so we're a custom builder. We would make that work out so they would not have an issue with that. Kind: As far as clear communication though to a client, they need to know that that should be 30 feet fi'om that property line. The setback. Steve Kroiss: They will definitely know that, yes. Kind: And then the same issue on Lot 1, Block 2. That home is on the corner and so it needs to be 30 feet off of both streets? Steve Kroiss: Yes it is. The computer has made an error there. They have not shown the side setback and what would be abutting the Mission Hills. And we apologize for that but even with that you will have over 70 feet to make a house work. Kind: I just want to make sure. Steve Kroiss: It's a computer error mostly. Kind: Yeah. And then Cindy mentioned that you would like to put the trail between Lot 3 and 4. Steve Kroiss: That is correct. Kind: And would it go through the wetland or kind of skirt around it? Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 2000 Steve Kroiss: No, no. It will skirt, we'll skirt around the wetland here. I actually did a little drawing for Todd and Todd was acceptable... That's what it would look like. Kind: So that will go quite a bit into that person's property, of Lot 4? Steve Kroiss: No, really it just touches the edge of it here. What you see here, we've already been working on revisions. The new lot lines are really going to be here along the wetland so this, it's been revised already and so you're looking at what would be the new revision. Kind: And will there be monuments out at the corners so the homeowners know where they can mow to? This kind of came up with Longacres. People seemed to mow further into the wetland and put swingsets and things. Steve Kroiss: I believe there are posts now that are usually put for wetland areas showing the wetlands. They do that in other places so I'm assuming the city is going to require us to do it here. I don't have a problem with that. Kind: Is that something that we require? Al-Jarl: Our ordinance requires wetland buffer monumentation so we could incorporate those into the plan. Kind: And then I noticed on the landscape plan that there is no landscape b~rm between, you mentioned that you were going to put one in between that private drive and the adjoining property. But it's not on the landscape plan. Steve Kroiss: You mean over here? Kind: Right. Steve Kroiss: No. We're putting a landscape berm over here on 101. Kind: Okay. I thought I heard you say along the private drive so glad I asked. So what the landscape plan shows is what you're going to do. Okay. Oh, on Lot number 5. Maybe this is a staff question, I'm not sure but on Lot number 5, Block 2, the depth is supposed to be 125 feet. When I measure it I come up with 114. How do you measure a lot that's irregularly shaped like that? Kirchoff: We take this distance and this distance and average it. If it's not a nice rectangular shaped or square lot, it can be a little more difficult. Kind: Because of the angle though you don't get nearly that depth that's kind of the spirit of the rule I don't think. Steve Kroiss: What the depth is is what you're asking? Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 2000 Kind: Yes, of Lot number 5. Our ordinance requires 125. Do you measure it from the curb? Steve Kroiss: 112. Kind: Right, which is short because we require 125. If from the middle it's 112, 114, something like that. To me that's how I would measure it. I think that one's a little short. That's the one that I'm concerned about seeing a variance for a deck on in a few months because they're not going to have room. And I'll just keep going, is that okay? I have a couple of nits to add. The lake is labeled as Marsh Glen Lake. The name of the lake is Rice Marsh Lake and I think it should be changed on the plat to be what the real name of the lake is. I know that's a nit but there's some confusion in our neighborhood as to what the name of the creek behind us was. A lot of people assume it's Stone Creek. Some people in Trotter's Ridge think it's Bridle Creek and it's really Bluff Creek. And if neighbors had known that that was Bluff Creek, their ears would have perked up for Bluff Creek Overlay District but they thought they were living on Stone Creek and were very surprised to find out it was actually Bluff Creek. So I think the name of the lake needs to be right so homeowners know what lake they're on and if there's any stuff happening on Rice Marsh Lake, they'll know what their lake is. A property line for Lot 11, Block 2, that's that funky shaped lot. I call it the funky shaped lot. Could it be revised so that the back lot line is off that point rather than having a little triangle shape for that homeowner to - mow or figure out where their property is? Steve Kroiss: You mean here? Kind: Yep. Steve Kroiss: Sure. I suppose as long as we meet the requirement of the size of lots. Kind: Yeah, it's 18,000. It seems like it wouldn't. Steve Kroiss: ! think we can accommodate it. Kind: I know I can't make you do that but I just kind of aesthetics wise and knowing, trying to figure out where to mow. Steve Kroiss: Cindy, it all depends whether that can still be considered the rear lot line there. Or rear yard. I only say that if it can be considered still as a rear yard. Kind: Yeah. Since there's an angle there I'm sure it can. Kirchoff: This area right here would be considered a rear yard... Kind: It would be straight. Steve Kroiss: Then I do have... 10 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 2000 Kind: It would not be straight. It would be a slight angle. Whatever. Whatever. I think it could still be a rear but, yeah. I know how mowing in our neighborhood is. I would hate to mow a lot that that's shape. And speaking of lot shapes, number 7, Block 1. That house, the orientation I understand probably preserves some trees. Steve Kroiss: Yes, we'd like to preserve some trees. To be honest with you, this particular lot probably could handle several different types of homes. I just happened to put that one up there. We could do a courtyard. I have choices there. Kind: It just seems aligned a little funny to me and I thought it was to preserve the trees. Steve Kroiss: |'11 probably have a few trees in there that I'd want to take into consideration. Kind: Yeah. Steve Kroiss: Trees are an issue here. | want to save as many as | can. That's what is so important along here especially. Kind: I really appreciate that effort because I love the trees in our neighborhood and what's sad in our neighborhood, and I'm afraid it's going to happen here is that the homes that were oriented around trees, now look kind of funny because the trees have died and are gone. Steve Kroiss: Along here you have, there are some really awesome trees. Kind: Yeah, it's beautiful and I appreciate that. I just want to caution you against two goofy positioning of homes and then you end up with no...That's all I have for now. Peterson: Any other questions? Sidney: Yes Mr. Chair. The applicant. One of the conditions in the staff report addresses a change or a revision in the plan schedule. Are you okay with revising the landscape plan? Steve Kroiss: Oh absolutely. Sidney: You have? Steve Kroiss: We're already in the works of doing that to accommodate the tree loss and so on and so forth, so yes we have. Sidney: Okay, and then also I guess I was prepared to modify that condition so that it included an instruction to have a detailed tree preservation plan. Steve Kroiss: We will have that. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 2000 Sidney: You will have that? Okay. Steve Kroiss: Yes. That's part of our. Sidney: Very good. Peterson: Thank you. Steve Kroiss: Thank you. Peterson: Any more questions? Sacchet: Yeah, I have one more question. Peterson: Wait, wait. We've got one more question. Sacchet: Can I ask you one more question. With the path going between those two lots, does that affect the width of the lot at all? Steve Kroiss: The what of the lot? Sacchet: The width. Steve Kroiss: No. It's, what the city's asking for is a 20 foot easement to go through there which actually works out so my buildable pad that would work right between that and it's an 8 foot trail. It wasn't exactly my desire but I'm working with staff on that and the city would like to see that and so I'm going to work xvith the city on that. It seemed to be the most logical place to go through. Sacchet: And you're confident you can do that without having to revise? ~q~eve Kroiss: Yeah, and it works out the best for elevations too. The elevation is somewhat... through there. I mean it's the least break. Sacchet: What kind of jumped out at me is, by having the Lot 8 being a little too narrow and then having the path having to go in, and then potentially needing another pond. It all kind of adds up a little bit and ultimately would probably translate into losing a lot for you. Now you're totally confident that you can do without that second pond? Steve Kroiss: Yes. We have actually worked out the numbers, the calculations so we know that it will work. Sacchet: Because I think it would also play into the issue with the tree cover percentage. Like if that has to be revised and you're pretty much at the limit already, if you would have all these 12 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 2000 other components, have one lot less, you probably could make a better tree cover percentage that way too. Steve Kroiss: No, we'll be just fine. We'll make our tree, the amount of trees against, the ponding will be. It will work out just fine. And we have no need for a second pond. We've already worked on it so. Sacchet: Okay. That answers my question, thanks. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Motion and a second for a public hearing please. Kind moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commissioners please come forward and state ),our name and address please. Tony Ferguson: Good evening. My name is Tony Ferguson. I live at 8495 Mission Hills Lane. And I can point to that on the map. This is my home. Mr. Chairman, council members. I have some brief comments to make regarding the plan. First I want to express that I have had the opportunity to review the preliminary plat and speak with Mr. Kroiss in an informal meeting prior to this meeting about my feelings. I'd like to take this opportunity to express my feelings to you as well. ! have sent an e-mail into the city regarding my thoughts and feelings. First I guess I would like to compliment Mr. Kroiss for working on, working w/th the city planners and putting together a very nice single family home. It's a much better plan than, I feel than was previously presented. The new plan provides much better continuity with the existing homes and falls within the current zoning which is also a nice, which is what the residents asked for. However there is one issue that remains and this is not a new item as it was also expressed as a concern during the proceedings related to the original plan. On Lot 8, Block 1, in this area of the plan, there is a flag lot with a home that is completely out of place and contrary to the orientation of the original, to the other homes in the neighborhood, this home is tucked back behind the other homes and has the appearance of being in our back yards. From my back yard I'll be looking into the front of this home and also from Block 1, Lot 7, they'll have a home situated in the rear of their lots similar to what you find on Stone Creek, and [ think that was the home that was referred to earlier in our discussions. Which is completely out of place in that position. So I would like to state that I am completely opposed to the layout of that one lot and would like to see that eliminated and I would request to the council to please eliminate that lot from the plan and provide a more consistent look, more consistent curb appeal and alignment of the homes along the street in that area. Thank you for your consideration. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Penny White: Hi. My name's Penny White and I live at 450 Mission Hills Court, and I'm right here on the map. I just have a question and it might be in the staff report. I have not looked at it yet but I'm wondering if the sight lines at this curve have, I'm just, because I had trouble figuring 13 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 2000 out... I'm wondering how sharp of a curve that is coming in. Is it like a direct right turn? And I'm just curious just for a safety issue. Who to ask best of staff or to ask the developer. Peterson: Teresa, can you speak to that? Burgess: I'm not sure what the actual design speed is on there but it is looked at when it comes in as a public street for meeting sight lines and that is purposely set back... When it comes in for final plans we will be looking at it as well. But I know that Dave Hempel as part of his review to look at the street as being a safe street. So we are aware of it. Penny White: What if just by chance, when he does look at it they decide it's not safe, is there even any room for them to do anything? I mean do they just still go forward with it or how do they, because this is you know, there's not a lot of room for them to push it back this way into the wetland. I mean not that they'd push the road back that far but you can't push the homes back any further. So I just wonder, I mean I guess ! feel like probably nothing would really happen because there's nowhere to move it so. Burgess: The review would have been done with the preliminary plat...at that time. I didn't go through the actual review on this plan. Dave Hempel, our Assistant City Engineer would have looked at that and he would have been looking at for design speeds to make sure that it can meet the design speeds of the neighborhood. If there is a problem in the future once it's constructed and you start to see a problem, people are going around this corner too quickly, we.would address that working with the neighborhood. And we would try to work with them to find out why there's a problem and address the cause... Penny White: Okay. And then I just had one other question, just an aesthetics question, and maybe no one can even answer. I'm wondering if we have, you know there's a lot of trees back here. I'm wondering if you know how many will be going, just for planning. We're planting. This is petty but we're plenty things back there so we just kind of know if there's still going to be a lot of shade or is it going to be gone .... Are they marked by any chance? Sieve Kroiss: Yes they are. Any trees that are marked are significant trees and will be preserved or taken out depending. In your particular case there probably is not going to be any need to take down trees except for what will need to make the road right-of-way .... we would save those trees. Penny White: Okay. I was just curious...paint on there or? Steve Kroiss: No, there's actually a metal tag.., and the significant trees are numbered. Penny White: Okay, that's all. Okay, thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you for your time. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Motion to close? Burton moved, Kind seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 2000 Peterson: Commissioners, your thoughts on this one? Second time around. No thoughts? Sidney: Looks good to me. Peterson: Deb. Kind: I'm wondering if staff could speak to flag lots and when they're allowed and not allowed and private drives. I'm concerned about Mr. Ferguson's situation and also the private drive lots too. As long as they meet the square footage for the lot size, that's kind of the measure, is that how it works? A1-Jaff: There are a couple of criteria they need to meet. 30 foot frontage on a public street. Then wherever they reach the 100 foot width, that's where we measure the 30 foot setback. I mean basically that was the only two conditions. Those were the only two conditions for a flag lot. They were intended for long lots that were farmed many years back and then someone wants to sell it and build on it. I don't know if you have specific questions on flag lots. Kind: I share his issue. Flag lots just kind of bug me..They're like, just sticking them in there and if I had bought the home, Mr. Ferguson's home, i would have never dreamed in a million years that there would have been a house kind of shoe horned in back there. And ! guess with the new high water mark that we're measuring from, does that lot still meet the 15,000 number? The way we're not measuring the lot sizes. Kirchoff: The applicant will have to demonstrate that it does. Otherwise it will have to be removed fi'om the plat. Kind: Okay. Peterson: Other questions or comments? Kind: I'll just keep going. I think the plan is, meets all our setbacks. All our ordinance rules. I think it' s pretty clear that it does. I may not like some of the rules that it meets but not my choice. There's a couple conditions that I think need to be added that LuAnn pointed out and the plan needs to be revised to include the right setbacks. But otherwise I think staff did a good job with the report. Everything looks good. Peterson: Okay, other comments? Cindy. Kirchoff: I just have a comment regarding Lot 5, Block 2 that Commissioner Kind brought up. We could put a condition of approval that says the applicant shall demonstrate that Lot 5 has 125 feet of depth as you had mentioned. Kind: Yeah. Measured from where? 15 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 2000 Kirchoff: We could, right down the middle as you had shown. Kind: Okay. Kirchoff: Could you shorten the cul-de-sac perhaps? We can add that in as a condition. Kind: Yep, good. Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, I just have a couple of comments. I would like to see a condition addressing the second NURP pond. Something to the effect that the applicant must add a second NURP pond unless they can satisfactorily demonstrate that a single pond will suffice. And I'd also like to see a condition regarding the wetland buffer monuments and just incorporate that into the record. I like the Lot 5, Block 2 comment regarding depth. And I too am not a big fan of flag lots and I'd certainly like to see 7 and 8 combined in some way and things shifted. I don't know that that can happen but 8 seems just like an after thought. It's not you know it's there to squeeze an extra house in and that's, other than that I don't see it really serves a purpose to, kind of an after thought to the neighborhood. That's how I see it. But aside from that, with those couple conditions, it meets the requirements. Peterson: Other comments? Burton: Mr. Chairman. I agree with the comments. I'm not really going to duplicate them and just to have something on the record, I'm not happy with Block 1, Lot 8 either but it does appear that it's met the zoning requirements so I don't know there's much we can do about it. Peterson: Okay. Sacchet: Talking about this flag lot. Personally I feel it's a little bit jammed and I think it's inconsistent with having a price range of close to half a million dollar house back there. I think if you're aiming at having houses back there against a marsh that are approaching half a million dollar value, it would be much more consistent in giving them a little more space. That in addition to jamming in a path which probably will work, but that also I consider inconsistent with trying to make them a little higher value homes. Plus the question with the pond is still being open. I do feel it's crowded. That stretch. That's really the best part of your development there which is a wonderful development I think. There could be a value in leveraging it as high value as. Steve Kroiss: Are you inviting a comment from me? Peterson: Well, we're just planting seeds. Sacchet: That's my comment. Peterson: Thank you. Anything Ladd? I'll entertain a motion. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 2000 Kind: Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat (SUB 00-1) to subdivide 13.41 acres into 19 single family lots and two outlots as shown on the plans prepared April 10, 2000 with the following conditions, 1 through 27 with a few additions. Number 7 be revised to say, a detailed tree preservation plan and a revised landscaping plan including a greater variety of trees and shrubs should be submitted to staff for approval. Are you adding that to that one LuAnn? Sidney: That's it. Kind: That's it. Okay, for number 7. Number 20 should be revised to indicate that the trail easement will be between Lot 3 and 4. Okay, moving right along. Number, and adding a number 28 that says homes on the flag lot and private drive lots must be oriented as shown on the approved plat. Number 29. Or wait, we decided I couldn't say that didn't we? Never mind. Not 28. Strongly encourage you to do that. 28. Revise the plat to show increased depth of 125 feet and show a 30 tbot rear yard setback for Lot 5, Block 2. And revise the plat to show a 30 foot setback for both street frontages on Lot 1, Block 2. And then ntm~ber 30. Correct the name of the lake to Rice Marsh Lake on all plans. Peterson: Is there a second? Conrad: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Blackowiak: Is this the time where I'd like to make my amendments? My friendly amendments. I think it would be 31 and 32. Is that where I'm at? Kind: Yep. Blackowiak: 31 would be to add the second NURP pond unless the applicant can satisfactorily demonstrate the single pond will suffice. Kind: I think that's number 30. Blackowiak: That would be 31 I believe. Kind: I only added two. Burton: Well we can just say the next number. Blackowiak: Okay, the next number. Somebody else can renumber. And then the final condition that I'll add was that wetland buffer monuments be placed on all applicable lots to delineate property lines... Kind: Thank you for remembering that. Friendly amendments accepted. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 2000 Peterson: An additional point of discussion. I'm a little bit leery about Block 2, Lot 5 when we say we're going to reposition to meet that setback or to meet the 125 feet. I'm leery to say we're requiring that without knowing the impact of moving it. If we move it, whether it would change the cul-de-sac, I don't want us to force to move it back at the cost of, at a more significant cost. Kind: Our ordinance requires 125 foot depth. Peterson: Well but historically, we just changed the way we measured tonight. I don't know whether that's the most prudent way to move ahead. If we historically have always measured it the other way than we just made a pretty dramatic change tonight and I don't know whether or not we should be doing that. I'mjust leery about, if we force that, what's this going to look like up here and we won't be able to see it. It could be more onerous than the other way. Kind: I get your drift. Peterson: And I don't know the answer to that but it could potentially be a big change. Kind: It's offby about 10 feet right now. It's 114. They need to add 11 feet or. Peterson:, Maybe would you be open to letting staff and the applicant work together on that with the desire to do that unless it's onerous the opposing way? Kind: So revise that number 28 to have staff and the applicant review the depth of Lot 5, Block 2 and make sure it meets ordinance. Peterson: With a desire to move it to 125, if at all possible. Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman. If we're approving this and it doesn't meet it, don't we have to have a variance? Pcterson: Well if we considered measuring it in the first way, it met it. Blackowiak: Did it? Okay, is that true? Kirchoff: Yes. Peterson: And that's the way we've measured lots before so again I'm just concerned that we make a unilateral change about how we measure lots across the city tonight. Blackowiak: Yeah. Well then I would certainly concur with you saying staff and applicant work together. Peterson: Okay. Any further discussion? 18 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 2000 Kind moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat (SUB #00-1) to subdivide 13.41 acres into 19 single family lots and 2 outlots as shown on the plans prepared April 10, 2000, with the following conditions: o o o 10. The property lines for Lot 3, Block 2 shall be revised to maintain the required 90 foot width at the 30 foot setback. Outlot B shall be extended south and west to the 75 foot buffer indicated on the preliminary plat. It shall be demonstrated that Lots 4-8, Block 1 maintain the minimum 15,000 sq. ft. lot area and 90 foot lot width as required by the shoreland ordinance. The property lines for Lot 8, Block 1 shall be revised to maintain a minimum 100 feet of width. All signage shall comply with Article XXVI of the City Code. Park and trail fees are required. Park fees are $1,200 per dwelling unit and trail fees are $400 per dwelling unit. One-third of these tees are required with the final plat and the remaining two-thirds will be paid with each building permit. The applicant can coordinate this construction and be credited appropriately. The canopy calculations shall be revised to reflect the full potential of grading impacts to tree loss or the applicant shall provide other documents to support proposed calculations. A detailed tree preservation plan and a revised landscaping plan including a greater variety of trees and shrubs should be submitted to staff for approval. Buffer yard plantings shall be increased to meet minimum ordinance requirements. One hundred percent screening shall be installed along Lot 1, Block l and Lots 1-3, Block 2 to provide buffering from future TH 101. The Fire Marshall conditions are as follows: On Block 2, Lots 6 and 7, additional address numbers must comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department policy regarding premise identification pursuant to Policy #29-1992. Submit plans to the Chanhassen Fire Marshal and Chanhassen Building Official for review and approval. bo When fire protection including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection are required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 901.3. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 2000 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Co A ten-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. do If any trees or shrubs are to be removed, they must either be chipped or hauled off site due to close proximity of neighboring homes. No burning permits will be issued. eo Additional fire hydrants will be required. Two will need to be relocated. This will be reviewed with the City Engineer and corrections will be made on his plan. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff review and City Council approval. The construction plans and specifications will need to be submitted a minimum of three weeks prior to final consideration. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year storm events and provide ponding calculations for stormwater quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post- developed storm water calculations for 100 year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet Model. Emergency overflows from all storm water ponds and wetlands will also be required on the plans. The applicant will be responsible for a $19,918.80 water quantity connection fee and $8,048 for water quality fees due payable to the city at the time of final plat recording. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies i.e. Minnesota Department of Transportation, Watershed District, Metropolitan Environmental Service Commission, Minnesota Department of Health, and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and comply with their conditions of approval. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 2000 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. No berming or landscaping shall be permitted within the City's right-of-way. A 2% boulevard grade must be maintained along the City's right-of-way. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. The drive aisle width on the private street shall be a minimum of 20 feet wide bituminous surface and built to 7 ton axle weight pursuant to Ordinance 18-57 o-1 and 20-1101. On street parking on the private street shall be prohibited. Cross access easements and maintenance agreements shall be prepared and recorded by the developer over Lots 5, 6 and 7, Block 2 in favor of the property owners. The minimum driveway easement width shall be 30 feet wide. The developer shall dedicate to the City a 20 foot wide trail easement between Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 to Outlot B. The exact alignment shall be determined in the field by staff. Compensation for the easement shall be applied to the developer's trail fees. The developer shall dedicate on the final plat the following easements to the City at no cost: a. A 50 foot wide drainage and utility easement over the existing sanitary sewer line _ through Outlot A. bo Utility and drainage easements over all utilities, stormwater ponds and wetlands outside of the right-of-way. The minimum easement width over the utilities shall be 20 feet wide depending on the depth of the utility. Drainage easements over all ponds and wetlands shall be up to the 100 year flood level. The plans shall be revised as follows: The lowest floor elevation of all buildings adjacent to stormwater ponds and wetlands shall be a minimum of two feet above the 100 year flood level. bo The street grade at the west end of Mission Hills Lane shall be lowered to 891+ to match grade with the future intersection of Trunk Highway 101 and Mission Hills Lane. c. Provide emergency overflow swales for all ponds. do Designate dwelling types on grading plan, i.e. walkout, lookout, and rambler with lowest floor, top of block and garage floor elevations. e. Show existing structures and well location on grading plan. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 2000 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. The sanitary sewer and watermain lines through Outlot A and the City's property (underneath future Trunk Highway 101) shall be cased. go Provide ponding in accordance with NURP standards for development runoff. Pond slopes shall be 3:1 with a 10:1 bench for the first one foot depth of water or 4:1 slopes overall. h. Denote Lots 6-8, Block 1 as "custom graded" on the grading plan. Tree preservation fencing will need to be denoted on the final grading and drainage plan. j. Show a rock construction entrance at access points to the site. All lots, except the first building permit, shall be subject to current City sewer and water hook-up charges. The hook-up charges are due at time of building permit issuance. The developer and future property owners should be aware there may not be any noise abatement improvements constructed in conjunction with the upgrade of Trunk Highway 101. Provisions for noise abatement (landscaping/berming) should be included in these ~ development plans. Mission Hills Lane is a temporary dead end street. In the future when Trunk Highway 101 is upgraded to urban standards Mission Hills Lane will be connected. Lots 6, 7 and 8, Block 1 shall be custom graded at time of building permit issuance. A detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plan shall be submitted to the city for review and approval at time of building permit application. The applicant shall be responsible for obtaining and complying with the appropriate building permits for demolition of the building, disconnection of the sanitary sewer and well abandonment. Staff and the applicant shall work together to ensure that the depth of Lot 5, Block 2 meets the ordinance, and to show a 30 foot rear yard setback for Lot 5, Block 2. The applicant will also revise the plat to show a 30 foot setback for both street frontages on Lot 1, Block 2. Correct the name of the lake to Rice Marsh Lake on all plans. The applicant shall add a second NURP pond unless the applicant can satisfactorily demonstrate the single pond will suffice. Wetland buffer monuments be placed on all applicable lots to delineate the property lines. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 2000 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: LuAnn Sidney noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 3, 2000 as presented. ONGOING ITEMS. Kind: ! have a question. Do we elect our chair today? And Vice Chair? Peterson: No. Kind: When do we do that? Peterson: Next time. Sidney: I'm wondering when these items that were deleted will be back. Kirchoff: Thank you for asking. They will be on the next Planning Commission meeting which is now moved to Tuesday so it will be on June 6th. Sidney: Okay. Kind: We're meeting on Tuesdays now? Kirchoff: Yes. ,, Kind: Forever and ever? Kirchoff: Yes. Kind: I must have missed that meeting. Peterson: Did you get my e-mail? Kind: No. Peterson: You're the only one who didn't respond to my e-mail. Kind: I bet you have an old e-mail address. Peterson: I got it from Kate. Kind: Doesn't mean it's any good. I did not get that e-mail. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 2000 Peterson: Is Tuesday an issue? Kind: No. Peterson: Open Discussion. Anything? Kind: Yes. I have something that I want to hand out. This is kind of a synopsis from our joint meeting with the City Council of some of the items that we discussed and some potential projects for our planning department. And ! don't know that it makes sense to discuss them tonight but I wanted to kind of jot them down and maybe include this as an item under old business at a future meeting for discussions as to whether we should direct staff to work on any of these projects or not. Peterson: I think it's a great idea. I also kind of followed up with the Mayor afterwards and I think that we have an opportunity as a commission to be, as Ladd said it very well, be more proactive and think about the future instead of thinking about today and what's in front of us and being forced into having a developer come in and say I'm ready to do this now but I have to do it this way otherwise I'll move. So if we accept those parameters, and prior to the developer coming in, they would know a lot more and we would have gotten probably a better product. I think it's a great idea and we just, we as a group should probably dedicate some quality time to, xvhether it's a strategic planning session or just talking about those kind of issues, you know off the record and I think it'd be extremely valuable to set aside time to do that. Kind: Do we have a work session coming up that it makes sense to do that? Peterson: We haven't got one scheduled now but it's on the thing that I'll talk to Kate about getting one in there. During one of the low meetings. Kind: So what do you think makes sense for next steps for addressing some of these ideas? And I know other people have other ideas I'm sure too. Should this be put on our next agenda? Pcterson: You know I think a work session is about the only effective way to do that. I don't think public meeting is going to really have the right tone and context of the meeting. I think it's a matter of sitting down and going through these items and others and saying, how can we as a group of people help the city staff through some of these issues and how can we give them recommendations so I'd say we have a work session that's not a public hearing and push it forward then. Kind: And how do we, just direct staff to set up a work session for one of our next meetings? Yeah, okay. And hopefully this makes people think of other ideas. You know you read this and say oh yeah. That reminds me of this or that and we can come up with a really long, long list of things for staff to do. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 2000 Conrad: Well the good thing that you should be doing is, tonight your issue was flag lots. That strikes something, you should direct staff to come back. You know we don't have to do all 20 things at one time. Kind: Right. And you notice flag lots is at the bottom of my list there. Conrad: Well they're always an issue. They look out of sorts but there is a purpose for them, but again flag lots is an issue so when it comes up in a project, deal with it. Have staff work on it. We don't direct staff to do squat. Kind: I know. Conrad: We really don't. Really, they're doing what they want to do. And they love it. They just love it. They're totally in control of the seven of us. But ask them to do some research for you. Kind: Well I think the flag lot one, since that came up tonight, ! think maybe that might be a good one to pull off of this laundry list I just passed around and have staff educate us a little bit about it and make some recommendations on what can be done to avoid some of the problems. AI-Jaff: A couple of years ago I did a paper on flag lots. Kind: Well .just pull it out then and photocopy it. Conrad: Well you're done. It's over with. A1-Jaff: I can have it ready for you by next meeting. Kind: That would be great. So that's my new stuff. Peterson: Good work. Kind: And Pulte status? Eckankar update? I'm interested. Nothing? Kirchoff: Eckankar is scheduled to be on the council meeting next Monday night. Pulte, they haven't submitted new plans as far as I know. AI-Jaff: Power Ridge is coming back. Kind: Who? Al-Jaff: Powers Ridge. Kind: What? 25 Planning Commission Meeting - May 17, 2000 A1-Jaff: The site plan for the rest of the buildings. Kind: Oh, we only did building. A1-Jaff: You did Building A. Peterson: A and B I thought. Al-Jaff: A only so they're coming back with B, C, D and the community space. Peterson: But we've essentially seen. A1-Jaff: You're seeing everything. Peterson: But we saw everything before. A1-Jaff: Correct. And there was a condition that it be consistent with the master plan. So it's going to be a straight site plan. Kirchoff: That will be on the next agenda by the way. On June 6th. Kind: On Tuesday. Kirchoff: On Tuesday. And there will be a conditional use permit as well so there will be four items on the next agenda. Blackowiak: I'm sorry, what was that? Kirchoff: There will be a conditional use permit as well for a contractor's yard so we'll have tbur items on the next agenda. Chairman Peterson adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:00 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Narm Opheim 26