The URL can be used to link to this page

3 SUB Burlwood AdditionCITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: CC DATE: 9/16/03 10/7/03 10/13/03 10/27/03 REVIEW DEADLINE: 10/1~1/03 12/14/03 CASE #: 03-12 SUB 03-1 WET BY: Ak-Jaff:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: Preliminary Plat to Subdivide 5.17 Acres into 7 single-family lots and two outlots with a Variance to allow a private street, a 50-foot right-of-way, and a Wetland Alteration Permit to fill a wetland, Burlwood Addition. Southwest of the intersection of Lake Lucy Road and Powers Boulevard. Richard Ragatz Epic Development, LLC. 3441 St. Paul Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55416 (612) 730-2814 Larry and Kathy Kerber 6420 Powers Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 474-4710 PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Single Family Residential District 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density (Net Density 1.2 - 4.0 units per acre) ACREAGE: 5.17 acres DENSITY: 1.3 Units per Acre Gross 2.0 Units per Acre Net SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Subdivision of 5.17 acres into 7 single-family lots, wetland alteration to fill a wetland, and a variance to allow a private street to serve four homes. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. Staff is recommending approval of the request. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi judicial decision. The City's discretion in approving or denying a wetland alteration permit is limited to whether or not the proposed alteration meets the standards outlined in the wetland conservation act and the city's wetland ordinance. If it meets these standards, the City must approve the wetland alteration. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Burlwood Addition September 16 October 7, 2003 Page 2 On September 16, 2003, the Planning Commission reviewed and tabled action on this item. They directed the applicant to work with Mr. Martinka and Mr. Christensen to realign/change their access from a private access easement to a public street. This staff report has been amended. All new information will appear in bold. BACKGROUND included pros and cons. The history of this area started when Mr. Ravis, the single family home located south of the Kerber property and fronts on Powers Boulevard, decided to develop the property. The Kerber's were not ready to sell or seriously consider development alternatives. As a result, City staff completed Alternative Development Proposals for the Ravis Property and adjoining parcels dated January 30, 1995. The owner of the property proposed a private street to serve four homes. Staff evaluated the site and recommended the use of a public street. We also proposed to examine the surrounding area, potential for development, and services to those properties. All options maintained existing home sites. Mr. Kerber's "Twins" garage is removed in all options. Dashed lines represent existing property lines. Solid lines represent proposed lot lines. Utilities would be able to be extended to each option; however, Option E would require less utility and street construction. Each alternative The following is a summary of these alternatives: OPTION A This option develops the northerly portion of the site with public street (assumes Ravis subdivision proposal over the south half). Pros - City street - Utilizes properties to their full potential - Adequate intersection spacing on Lake Lucy Road - Access limited to Lake Lucy Road - Allows for Berming along Powers Boulevard and Lake Lucy Road Cons - Requires properties to be consolidated and replatted Burlwood Addition September 16 October 7, 2003 Page 3 Tree loss Significant grading/filling Rear yards against Powers Boulevard House type, mostly ramblers versus walkouts Still requires private driveways to serve parcels to the south OPTION B This option is similar to Option A, but extended to service all parcels. Pros Basically the same as Option A except serves all the parcels. City Street Utilitizes properties to their full potential Adequate intersection spacing on Lake Lucy Road Provides room for berming along Powers Boulevard Access limited to Lake Lucy Road Cons Same as Option A, but this option does not need private streets. Becomes a long (1075') cul-de-sac with one access point J Mad r~P,a- ~ ~ ...... ;..~ :lnfanger ~ OPTION C Pros Same as Options A and B except allows two access points and the long cul-de-sac is reduced in half. Cons Same as Options A and B except the long cul-de-sac is resolved. Burlwood Addition September 16 October 7, 2003 Page 4 OPTION D Basically the same as Option B, except access is from Powers Boulevard and Lot 6 would have access on to Lake Lucy Road. Pros Cons City street Utilizes properties to their full potential Adequate intersection spacing on Powers Boulevard Provides room for berming along Powers Boulevard and Lake Lucy Road. Requires properties to be consolidated and replatted Tree loss Significant grading/filling Rear yards against Powers Boulevard House type mostly ramblers versus walkouts OPTION E This option combines the use of private and public streets to develop the site. Least disruptive to existing features and also allows for the area to develop, for the most part, independently of each other. Pros Minimizes site grading/filling and tree loss; retains existing topographic features for the most part Provides a mixture of house types, i.e. walkout, rambler, etc. Allows for parts of the area to develop independently of the rest Provides public street access Curb cuts align with or across from existing driveways Adequate intersection spacing Room for berming along Powers Boulevard and Lake Lucy Road Maintains use of existing driveways Most likely the most feasible from an economic standpoint Eliminates long dead-end cul-de-sac Cons - Still requires two or more parcels to replat in order to develop layout Burlwood Addition September 16 October 7, 2003 Page 5 Ultimately, option E was selected. As mentioned earlier, the Kerbers were not considering development at the time. As such, the public street could not be constructed. The City Council approved the development of the Ravis Property (Golden Glow Acres). The development consisted of 4 lots served via a private street. As part of the Golden Glow Acres, the Right-of-Way for the bubble of a cul-de-sac was dedicated. The intent was to facilitate the future construction of the street. If the street was built, the intent was to close off the private street access on Powers Boulevard and redirecting traffic to the cul-de-sac. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to subdivide 5.17 acres into 7 single family lots and two outlots. The property is zoned RSF, Single Family Residential District. The site is located at the southwest intersection of Lake Lucy Road and Powers Boulevard, and contains a single family home and a detached garage. Access to the site is proposed off of Powers Boulevard and Lake Lucy Road. All lots meet the minimum lot area, width and depth requirements of the zoning ordinance with an average lot area of 21,323 square feet. Each parcel contains a 60' x 60' house pad. Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, Block 1 are proposed to be served via a private street which will require a variance. The proposed right-of-way is 50 feet wide. The ordinance requires 60 feet. The existing right-of-way Burlwood Addition September 16 October 7, 2003 Page 6 located on the Golden Glow Subdivision, is 50 feet wide. This right-of-way will be in keeping with the existing right-of-way. Outlots A and B are being created to be incorporated into the Christensen property. When the Christensen's are ready to subdivide their property, these outlots will serve as street frontages. A wetland alteration permit is also requested. It will result in filling 5,963 square feet of wetland and replacing it off site. Approval of the subdivision is contingent upon approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit. Staff has been working with the applicant for several months. The initial plan showed As shown on the preliminary plat, the applicant is proposing to build a temporary cul-de-sac to serve the property. It terminated approximately 90 feet east of the Christensen property. The reason for that is there is a cross access easement serving the Christensen and Martinka properties. The Marinka's are were not interested in vacating their rights in the easement. The City de, es did not wish to accept a public street encumbered by an easement. Since the last Planning Commission meeting, the applicant, Mr. Martinka and Mr. Christensen have been able to reach an agreement dedicating the right-of-way for the entire cul-de-sac and vacating the private cross access easement. When the Marinka's are ready to develop their property, the access easement will then be vacated and the remainder of the right of way will be dedicated. Also, the roadway will be extended at that time. The one issue that remains unresolved is the construction of the cul-de-sac bubble over the Golden Glow Acres subdivision. The applicant is requesting that the bubble be constructed if and when the Kohmans and/or Infangers decide to subdivide their property. Staff wishes to see the private street serving the Golden Glow subdivision realigned and access off of the proposed cul-de-sac for safety reasons. Staff is recommending the entire cul-de-sac be built. The agreement the applicant reached with Mr. Martinka and Mr. Christensen preclude the construction of the bubble. If this becomes a reason for the private agreement to be dissolved and if the city wishes to see the entire cul-de-sac built, staff recommends the city approve the subdivision of Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 only since they are served via a private street and will not impact the southerly half of the site from an access stand point. Lots 5 and 6 can be replatted into an outlot and Lot 1, Block 2 remains as proposed on the plans. Staff is recommending approval of the subdivision with variances and the wetland alteration permit with conditions outlined in the staff report. Burlwood Addition September 16 October 7, 2003 Page 7 PRELIMINARY PLAT The applicant is proposing to subdivide a 5.17 acre site into 7 single family lots and two outlots. The density of the proposed subdivision is 1.3 units per acre gross and 2.0 units per acre net. All lots exceed the minimum 15,000 square feet of area, with an average lot size of 21,323 square feet. All proposed lots meet the minimum width, and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. A wetland occupies the northerly portion of the site and is proposed to be filled and replaced off site. Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, Block 1, are proposed to be served via a private street. This layout is in keeping with a previous council recommendation. Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and generally consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. WETLANDS Existing Wetlands One ag-urban wetland exists in the northern portion of the property. GME Consultants, Inc. delineated the wetland in May 2003. The wetland is dominated by reed canary grass. The applicant is proposing to fill the wetland and mitigate it off-site through the purchase of wetland credits from a wetland bank. The total proposed impact to the wetland is 5,963 square feet (0.14 acres). Because the existing wetland is of low quality and future property owners would likely impact the entire wetland if the wetland was preserved during the subdivision process, staff is recommending sequencing flexibility. This will allow the applicant to fill the wetland and replace it with a wetland of greater function and value off-site through the state wetland bank. Wetland Replacement Wetland replacement must occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The City must approve a wetland replacement plan prior to wetland impacts occurring. GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL Storm Water Management There is a culvert on Lot 1, Block 2 that flows into a drainage-way on the property to the west. There is presently no public storm water intYastructure downstream from the culvert. The applicant should work with staff and downstream property owners to address storm water issues in this area prior to the development of Lot 1, Block 2 and the extension of the proposed street to Golden Glow Court. Burlwood Addition September 16 October 7, 2003 Page 9 be added to the plans to address this. The applicant is proposing an outlet overflow point to control the discharge of water from the proposed pond. This is inconsistent with current City specifications and past practice. Staff is recommending that an outlet control structure be installed to control the water discharge rate from the pond. Further, staff is recommending that a storm sewer line be constructed from the pond outlet to Lake Lucy Road and west, approximately 350 feet, to an existing storm sewer line in Mulberry Circle. An underground detention system has been proposed to control the drainage from the south half of the site. This would be the first such system in the City; however, they have been used in other metro cities such as at the new Cub Foods on Highway 7 in Shorewood. Staff is gathering information from other cities regarding maintenance of these systems which act as underground ponds contained within large diameter pipes. Staff is willing to allow this type of stormwater system due to the unavailability of ponding sites in the area. · A storm sewer stub must be extended to the south to handle drainage from the future cul-de-sac, just south of the site. · The damaged portion of the existing storm line that goes through Lot 1, Block 2 must be replaced and connected with the proposed street storm sewer. · A minimum 20-foot wide public drainage and utility easement is required over the existing ditch/drainage way on the Martinka property. Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that a rock construction entrance be shown on the plans in accordance with City Detail Plate No. 5301. UTILITIES · According to City as-built plans, all of the proposed lots have both sewer and water stubs except Lot 6, Block 1. · Them is ah'eady an existing sanitary sewer line in the area of the temporary cul-de-sac. As such, the proposed sewer line can be deleted, · The proposed watermain must be extended to the south property line for future looping purposes. Burlwood Addition September 16 October 7, 2003 Page 10 · Sanitary and water services shall be extended to the west property line for future development of the neighboring parcels. The underlying parcel has been previously assessed for five utility units and those assessments have been paid. Since the applicant is now proposing more units than what was previously assessed, the one additional unit will be charged a watermain and sanitary sewer lateral connection charge at the time of building permit issuance. The current 2003 connection charge for water and sewer is $4,513 each. Sanitary sewer and water hookup charges along with the Met Council's SAC fee will be due on all of the lots at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council. The current 2003 sanitary hookup charge is $1,440/unit, the water hookup charge is $1,876/unit and the SAC fee is $1,275/unit. Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be 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. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, Carver County, etc. STREETS The applicant's street layout follows a previous Council approved layout for this property and the street connection with Golden Glow Court to the south. Staff would prefer to see is recommending that the entire street and cul-de-sac be installed with this project instead of the temporary cul-de-sac that is proposed. However, due to the existence of a private driveway easement through the site and a small piece of right of way off the southwest comer of the property, the developer is unable to install the entire street. As such, staff is recommending that Since the applicant has a signed agreement with the adjacent land owners to dedicate the necessary right-of-way, there is no reason that the full street should not be built. Upon completion of the full street and cul-de-sac, the existing private street, which serves Lots 3 and 4 of Golden Glow and the Kohman/Infanger parcels, would access onto the new public street and not Powers Boulevard. Lot 1 of Golden Glow would, however, continue to access Powers Boulevard through its existing driveway. If the full street and cul-de-sac is not built at this time, then a financial security must be supplied to the City to cover the cost of the future street extension and removal of the existing private street to the south. This is in line with the Golden Glow Acres development contract which required the street to be extended with the development of the Kerber property. Burlwood Addition September 16 October 7, 2003 Page 11 Lake Lucy Road is designated as a collector road in the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code Book. Collector roads require 80-feet of right-of-way or 40-feet on each side of the roadway centerline. As such, additional right-of-way will need to be platted to achieve a total of 40- feet from the centerline of Lake Lucy Road. The developer will be required to pave the portion of the existing neighbors' driveways that are within the subject property as per City ordinance. A private driveway easement will also be required for the shared portion of the driveway. In addition, any shared portion of the driveway must be constructed to a 7-ton design. The developer will be required to provide inspection reports verifying this. PARKS This property lies within the neighborhood park service areas of both Curry Farms Park and Carver Beach Park. TRAILS Two segments of the City's Comprehensive Trail Plan are located near this property. The first is an on-street trail located along both the eastbound and westbound lanes of Lake Lucy Road. The second is an off-street 8 ft, wide bituminous trail located on the east side of Powers Boulevard. This is across the street from the subject plat. The best crossing location for pedestrians is at the intersection of Powers Boulevard and Lake Lucy Lane. With these public services in place, the Park and Recreation Director is not recommending any additional public park or trail services be constructed as a part of this subdivision. In lieu of any public improvements, a park dedication charge of $19,200 will be applicable at the time of platting. TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING Canopy coverage and preservation calculations have been submitted for the Burlwood development. They are as follows: Total upland area (excluding wetlands) Baseline canopy coverage Minimum canopy coverage allowed Proposed tree preservation 5.27 ac. or 229,583 SF 35 % or 79,465 SF 30% or 68,875 SF $15% or 22,958 SF Burlwood Addition September 16 October 7, 2003 Page 12 The developer does not meet minimum canopy coverage allowed, therefore the difference between the baseline and proposed tree preservation is multiplied by 1.2 to calculate the required replacement plantings. Difference in canopy coverage (68,875 -22,958) Multiplier Total replacement Total number of trees to be planted 45,917 SF 1.2 55,100 SF 51 trees (55,100+ 1089) The total number of trees required for the development is 51. The developer has proposed a total of 12 trees. An additional 39 trees must be added to the landscape plan. All replacements must meet minimum size requirements. No more than one-third of the trees may be from any one species. The canopy coverage and replacement calculations submitted by the applicant differ from those presented by staff. According to the submitted calculations, the canopy coverage saved is 30%. Staff does not agree with their calculations for two important reasons: 1) some of the trees listed and counted as preserved are not on the applicant's property; 2) many of the trees listed as preserved are actually within the grading limits such as in the areas proposed as berm or pond. Staff does not accept the claim of tree preservation for any trees that are not protected by fencing and outside of grading limits. Therefore, tree preservation on site has been calculated at 15% which includes trees located on Lot 1, Block 2, the west side of the property behind a silt fence located at the grading limits, and the 12 evergreens scheduled for transplanting. The subdivision is also required to have buffer yard plantings along Powers Blvd. and Lake Lucy Road. Requirements are as follows: Location Powers Blvd. - buffer yard B - 20' width 500' length Lake Lucy Road Buffer yard B - 15' width Required 10 overstory trees 15 understory trees 25 shrubs 4 overstory trees 8 understory trees 12 shrubs Proposed 0 overstory 12 understory 0 shrubs 0 overstory 3 understory 0 shrubs The developer has proposed a 4' berm along Powers Blvd. on top of which would be placed transplanted evergreens. The buffer yard area is only 20 feet wide and a 4' berm would require at least 24 feet in width in order to meet the city's 3:1 slope standard. The developer should reduce the berm to 3' in height or install a fence instead. Burlwood Addition September 16 October 7, 2003 Page 13 Ordinance BLOCK 1 Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Lot 4 Lot 5 Lot 2 BLOCK 2 Lot 1 COMPLIANCE WITH ORDINANCE - RSF DISTRICT Lot Lot Lot Home Area Width Depth Setback 15,000 90' 125' 30' ffonqrear 10'sides 21,057 100' 210' 30'/30' 10' 18,862 90' 209' 30'/30' 10' 18,778 90' 208' 30'/30' 10' 18,694 90' 207' 30730' 10' 15,038 111' 134' 30730' 10' 15,193 95' 134' 30'/30' 10' 41,336 141' 295' 30'/30730' 10' SUBDIVISION - FINDINGS The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the RSF, Residential Single Family District and the zoning ordinance if the private street and right-of- way width variances are approved. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the comprehensive plan and subdivision ordinance. Burlwood Addition September 16 October 7, 2003 Page 14 o The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and storm water drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision is served by adequate urban infrastructure. 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental damage subject to conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision contains adequate open areas to accommodate house pads. 6. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record. Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: Lack of adequate storm water drainage. Lack of adequate roads. Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision will have access to public utilities and streets. VARIANCE Section 18-57. Streets. (r) Private streets serving up to four (4) lots may be permitted in the A2, RR, RSF and R4 if the criteria in variance section 18-22 are met and upon consideration of the ~bllowing: Burlwood Addition September 16 October 7, 2003 Page 15 (I) The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. In making this determination, the city may consider the location of existing property lines and homes, local or geographic conditions and the existence of wetlands. (2) After reviewing the surrounding area, it is concluded that an extension of the public street system is not required to serve other parcels in the area, improve access, or to provide a street system consistent with the comprehensive plan. (3) The use of a private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources, including wetlands and protected areas. Staff is recommending approval of the private street based upon the analysis provided in the background section of the report. VARIANCE FINDINGS Sec. 18-22. Variances. The city council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in this chapter as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: (2) (3) (4) The hardship is not a mere inconvenience; The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the land; The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property; The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. Finding: Based upon the analysis within the background section of the report, it is possible to serve the site through a public street; however, by doing so, site grading and the dependence on other property owners increases. The applicant's request is fairly reasonable. As to the 50 foot right-of-way width, it is in keeping with the existing right- of-way for Golden Glow Court. Based upon these findings, staff is recommending approval of this variance. Burlwood Addition September 16 October 7, 2003 Page 16 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motions: PRELIMINARY PLAT "The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision #03-12 for Burlwood Addition for 7 lots and two outlots with variances to allow a private street and a 50 foot right-of-way as shown on the plans received August 15 September 29, 2003, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show a minimum of 51 trees to be planted. 2. A minimum of three deciduous, overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of each lot. 3. No more than one-third of the required trees may be from any one species. 4. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits on Lots 1-4 and 6, Block I prior to any grading. All transplanted evergreens must be warranted for two growing seasons. A revised landscape plan must be submitted to the city before final approval. In lieu of any public improvements, a park dedication charge of $19,200 will be applicable at the time of platting. Show all of the proposed and existing easements on the preliminary plat. On the grading plan: a. Add a rock construction entrance per City Detail Plate No. 5301. b. Revise the grading on the east side of Lot 6, Block 1 to prevent trapping water near the house pads. c. Show new ditch grades in the areas where driveways will be removed. d. Show the proposed contours for the berms along Powers Boulevard. e. Show all existing and proposed easements. f. Add a benchmark to the plan. o Burlwood Addition September 16 October 7, 2003 Page 17 10. On the utility plan: a. Show all proposed and existing utility easements. b. Show all existing utilities and services in the area. Also, call out the pipe type, manhole numbers, and fim/invert elevations for all existing and proposed utilities. c. Add streetlights at the intersection of Powers and the new street. 1 I. Ail of the existing driveway entrances to the property from Powers Blvd. must be removed during construction. 12. A driveway culvert is required under the proposed street entrance to the site. A Carver County permit will also be required. 13. An outlet control structure is required for the proposed pond per City Detail Plate No. 3109. Also, install a storm sewer line from the pond outlet to Lake Lucy Road and west, approximately 350 feet, to an existing storm sewer line in Mulberry Circle. 14. Revise all slopes that exceed 3:1 or install a retaining wall. 15. A temporary easement is needed for the portion of the cul-de-sac that is outside of the proposed fight-of-way. 16. All final construction plans must be signed by a professional engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 17. Any work outside of the subject property or fight-of-way will require temporary easements. 18. Seed and mulch or sod the site within two weeks of grading completion. If dirt is required to be brought into or out of the site, provide a haul route for review and approval. 19. The applicant has submitted drainage calculations for the site; however, additional information is still needed. Staff will work with the applicantrs engineer to revise the calculations. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. 20. Draintile will be required in back of the curb on the public street. 21. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. Burlwood Addition September 16 October 7, 2003 Page 18 22. Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be 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. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, Carver County, etc. 23. The basement elevations of Lots I through 4, Block 1 must be a minimum of three feet above the HWL of the proposed pond. 24. Private easements are required for the existing and proposed services to neighboring parcels that are outside of the right-of-way. 25. A 30-foot wide private driveway easement is required for the private drive which serves Lots 1-4, BI.1. In addition, the driveway must be constructed to a 7-ton design. The developer will be required to provide inspection reports verifying this. 26. End the right of way for the new street at the edge of the existing private driveway easement. Also, deed the land for the future street right of way to the City. 27. Vacate the existing public utility easement in the area of the new street. 28. Additional information and detail must be added to the plans to show how the stormwater from the temporary cul-de-sac will be handled. 29. A public drainage and utility easement is required over the proposed pond. 30. A watermain and sanitary sewer lateral connection charge will be due for Lot 6, Block I at the time of building permit issuance. The current 2003 connection charge for water and sewer is $4,513 each. Sanitary sewer and water hookup charges along with the Met Council's SAC fee will be due on all of the lots at the time of building permit issuance. Ail of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council. The current 2003 sanitary hookup charge is $1,440/unit, the water hookup charge is $1,876/unit and the SAC fee is $1,275/unit. 31. A financial security must be supplied to the City to cover the cost of the future street extension and removal of the existing private street to the south. Burlwood Addition September 16 October 7, 2003 Page 19 32. Additional right-of-way will need to be platted to achieve a total of 40-feet from the centerline of Lake Lucy Road. 33. The existing gravel driveway to the neighboring parcels must be maintained until the new street is graded in and curb is installed. 34. A storm sewer stub must be extended to the south to handle drainage from the future cul-de-sac, just south of the site. 35. The damaged portion of the existing storm line that goes through Lot 1, Block 2 must be replaced and connected with the proposed street storm sewer. 36. The proposed watermain must be extended to the south property line for future looping purposes. 37. Sanitary and water services shall be extended to the west property line for future development of the neighboring parcels. 38. The developer is required to pave the portion of the existing neighbors' driveways that are within the subject property as per City ordinance. A private driveway easement will also be required for the shared portion of the driveway. In addition, any shared portion of the driveway must be constructed to a 7-ton design. The developer is required to provide inspection reports verifying this. 39. A minimum 20-foot wide public drainage and utility easement is required over the existing ditch/drainage way on the Martinka property. 40. The entire public street and cul-de-sac must be installed with this project. 41. Building Official conditions: a. Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. b. Each lot must be provided with a separate sewer and water service. c. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures. d. The homes located at 6648 and 6650 Powers Blvd. will require address changes as they will be accessed from a different street. 42. Fire Marshal conditions: Burlwood Addition September 16 October 7, 2003 Page 20 a. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Qwest, Excel Energy, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. b. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus. Submit turn- around dimensions to City Engineer and Fire Marshal for review and approval. Exception: Fire Marshal is authorized to increase the dimension of 150 feet where 1) the buildings are equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1,903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3 of the Fire Code. c. Block I and 2 - Streets will be required to have street names. Submit names to Chanhassen Building Official and Fire Marshal for review and approval. d. No burning permits will be issued for trees/shrubs disposal. Any trees removed must be removed or chipped on site. e. Three additional fire hydrants will be required; one at the intersection of Lake Lucy and the driveway serving Block 1, one at the end of Block 1, Lot 4 near the emergency turn- around, and the third one must be installed near the temporary turn-around proposed for Block 2. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal and City Engineer for exact location of required fire hydrants. 43. Approval of subdivision 03-12 shall be contingent upon approval of Wetland Alteration Permit 03-1. 44. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant shall have an approved wetland replacement plan prior to wetland impacts occuncing. 45. The applicant shall work with staff and downstream property owners to address storm water issues in this area prior to the development of Lot 1, Block 2 and the extension of the proposed street to Golden Glow Court. 46. Based on preliminary estimates, the water quality fees for the development are $4,906.00 and the water quantity fees are approximately $12,139.00. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $17,045.00. 47. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) and comply with their conditions of approval. 48. Outlots A and B shall be deeded to the City to facilitate flexibility in future road alignment." WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT The Planning Commission recommends approval of wetland alteration permit 03-1 as shown in plans dated received August 15, 2003, with the following conditions: Burlwood Addition September 16 October 7, 2003 Page 21 1. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant shall have an approved wetland replacement plan prior to wetland impacts occurring. 2. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) and comply with their conditions of approval. 3. Approval of Wetland Alteration Permit 03-1 shall be contingent upon approval of subdivi sion 03-12. ATTACHMENTS 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Application History of area Hearing notice and property owners list. Memo from Todd Hoffman dated July 30, 2003. Memo t¥om Steve Torell dated August 6, 2003. Memo from Matt Saam dated September 29, 2003. Memo from Mark Litffin dated July 28, 2003. Letter from Gary Thompson dated July 25, 2003. Tree Inventory. Minutes from September 16, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting g:\planXsa\burlwood pc.doc APPLICANT: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE (Day time) CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION ,..t,¢,t.LC' ~e_. ,~e (°£ 'OWNER: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment __ Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit __ Non-conforming Use Permit __ Planned Unit Development* __ Rezoning Vacation of ROW/Easements Variance ~[' )_Oc:, Wetland Alteration Permit ~ 2 ~.~ Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment __. Sign Permits __ Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review* Subdivision* Notification Sign ~ /~.{- X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CUP/SPR/VACNAR/W AP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. ~,"~y/ /;Il- Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. *Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8Y¢' X 11" reduced copy fOr each plan sheet. ** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION ADDRESS: TELEPHONE (Day time) ~e -,e u~¢' OWNER: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: __ Comprehensive Plan Amendment __ Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Interim Use Permit __ Non-conforming Use Permit __ Planned Unit Development* Variance -~ [~¢:~ Wetland Alteration Permit Zoning Appeal __ Rezoning __ Zoning Ordinance Amendment __ Sign Permits __ Sign Plan Review X Notification Sign Site Plan Review* Subdivision* X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CUPISPPJVACNARNV APIMetes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. *Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/='' X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet. ** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. LOCATION ~ -~ c~ ~ ~o ~-- e.,' _~ ~ o ,~, i~ v ~,,'o/ LEGAL DESCRIPTION ~-,:- o I', ,,.,~ 1c~''' ~-'.[ TOTAL ACREAGE WETLANDS PRESENT PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST ~ t,-, ," [<.' p 't~,~ p r~ ~ et'-/L y, ~ ~ ~'~ 9 ~ .',-~ ~ (~ - This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the appliCation shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pedaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. -/? Date Date Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant'S address. HISTORY OF SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING AREA The history of this micro area really started when Ravis, the single family home that is adjacent to the south of the Kerber property and fronts Powers Boulevard, decided it was time to develop the property. Unfortunately, the Kerber's were not ready to sell or seriously consider development alternatives. As a result, Chanhassen completed Alternative Development Proposals for the Ravis Property and adjoining parcels (LUR File number 95-4) dated February 24, 1995. This weighed the pros and cons of various scenarios. In the end, Option "E" was determined to be the best solution. One of the main reasons was that it would eventually eliminate one access point from Powers Boulevard. This scenario was chosen. The City process resulted in a Final Plat and Development Agreement dated December 16, 1996. The development agreement states that if/when the public street/cul-de-sac is constructed in the future, access to Lots 2, 3 and 4 shall be limited to the public street/cul-de-sac and the private driveway along the south side of Lot 1 shall be abandoned and removed in conjunction with the project. In addition, Ravis dedicated a 50-foot cul-de-sac easement over Lots 1 and 2. Subsequent to the Final Plat Approval from the City of Chanhassen, 3 homes were built and sold in 1999 and 2000. In addition, the developer, Ravis, sold to Carol Egyhazi in January 1999. The other properties affected by the cul-de-sac are the Christensen and Martinka parcels. Christensen bought in August of 1994 and Martinka purchased in July 1999. Given the above history and our several meetings, we are moving forward with the Option "E" that the City determined was the best scenario. It should be noted, however, that we are stopping the road short, dead-ending this street to the platted Golden Glow Court cul-de-sac due to Martinka's unwillingness to participate (sign the application). It is not possible to extend the road and connect up with the platted Golden Glow Court cul-de-sac without having a portion of the road and road right of way on Martinka's property. The road and cul-de-sac can be connected at a future date when Martinka and/or the two under-developed parcels to the south decide to subdivide. See attached development agreement that I presented to Robert Martinka. In my opinion, this agreement was more than generous and gave the Martinka's the ability to subdivide in the future, would result in the least impact to their property, preserve as much privacy as possible, and all of this at no cost to the Martinka's. He was unwilling to sign this development agreement. At this point, I have withdrawn this more than generous offer. I have also purchased 17 feet from Carol Egyhazi, parcel abutting to the south, in order to minimize the impact on the Martinka and Christensen parcels. Subsequent to this agreement, Egyhazi rescinded the offer the day after, however, according to my attorney, it still represents a binding agreement. I do not plan to try and enforce this agreement. As a result, the future street connecting the cul-de-sac to Powers Boulevard is primarily on my/Kerber's property that is being developed. This is the situation even though Martinka and Christensen both can and will subdivide their properties. In addition, engineering has stated that I, being the developer, will be responsible for all of the cost of any road/cul-de-sac constructed, even though several people benefit (14 potential/future lots benefit with my development comprised of 5 of those benefiting lots). This cul-de-sac also adversely impacts the three southern future lots of my property due to the lots having double or triple frontage. I understand that planning can be extremely challenging when parcels develop independently, however, a parcel owner should not be penalized for waiting to develop. The land plan submitted is the most effective considering the current constraints. City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 Date: 7/24/2003 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Sharmeen A1-Jaff, Senior Planner Subject: Preliminary Plat to replat of 3.63 acres into 9 single family lots with variances, and a wetland alteration permit, Burlwood, Epic Development, LLC, located at the southwest intersection of Lake Lucy Road and Powers Boulevard. Planning Case: 2003-12 SUB The above described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on July 18, 2003. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on August 19, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than August 8, 2003. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. 1. City Departments ity Engineer ~1~. City Attorney ( City Park Director Fire Marshal ?..~uilding Official ~,~Water Resources Coordinator t g./Forester 2. wate¥~ed District Engineer *~ 3. Soil Conservation Service 4. MN Dept. of Transportation (,,8?'Telephone Company (US West or United) ~'~Electric Company (Excel Energy or MN Valley) ~i0~' Triax Cable System 11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife ¢.arver County (~,) Engineer b. Environmental Services 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers '6.~ Minnegasco 13. 14. Other- 7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources CITYOF CHANHASSE 77(/0 IJarb~t Boulevard Oha~ hasse i MN 55317 Administration P're9522271100 ~ax 952 '~27 1110 Building Inspections Pi~o!e 5)52 227 1180 Fix 952 227 !190 Engineering P! ori~~, 952 ?27 1!(}0 ~ax !~52 227 1170 Finance ?',one 952 227 1140 Fax 952 :;27 1110 Park & Recreation Phone 952 227 1120 Fax 952227 1110 Rpcrealion Qenter 2310 Oou!ter Boulevard Phcqe: 952.2271400 Fax 952 227 1404 Planning a Natural Resources Ph,zne ,~!52 227 1180 Fa> 952 227 1110 Public Works !591 Park Roa(; Photo: 9527'27 1300 Fax 952 2271310 Senior Center Phcr/e 952 227 1125 Fax 952227 ~!10 Web Site August l2,2003 Re: Proposed Burlwood Addition Dear Property Owner: This letter is to notify you that the application of Epic Development, LLC, (Larry and Kathy Kerber) requesting Preliminary Plat to replat of 3.63 acres into 9 single family lots with variances, and a wetland alteration permit, Burlwood, located at the southwest intersection of Lake Lucy Road and Powers Boulevard has been postponed from August 12, 2003 meeting and has been rescheduledfor Tuesday, September 16, 2003 at 7:00p.m. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me by e-mail at saljaff@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or 952-227-1134. Sincerely, Sharmeen AI-Jaff Senior Planner The City of Chanhassen · A gro¢~n]~ c,;r:!r; L]l~lt'y '~, r ' , , 4 ~ !ti ] ;,li kl ,i i,(1:! ;LIILil ;)ri ~: ': ;;~; [;ill ,Pillr~ iii:! [)% Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® JAMES ERIK & PATRICIA JOHANSON 3500 PEACEFUL LN 3HANHASSEN MN 55317 HELEN JACQUES CIO A SUZETTE LEIZINGER 16010 EXCELSIOR BLVD MINNETONKA MN 55345 JON G & LAURIE P STECKMAN 1215 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 3ARVER COUNTY CARVER COUNTY GOVT CTR-ADMIN 300 4TH ST E CHASKA MN 55318 RONNIE K & TERESA M HAGEN 1200 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CIO BRUCE DEJONG 7700 MARKET BLVD PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BEDDOR ENTERPRISES LP 7951 POWERS BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN P & BARBARA J SPIESS 6610 ARLINGTON CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PETER J & CYNTHIA L MILLER 6605 MULBERRY ClR E CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TERRANCE E & DEBRA J BLACK 6511 WELSLEY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CIO BRUCE DEJ~ 7700 MAR~..T-.'B'EVD PO BOX 147 CHA..~SEN MN 55317 PAUL D & ANNE M KAPSNER 6635 MULBERRY CIR E CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS M & DEBRA J GIVEN 6521 WELSLEY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHRISTOPHER SCOTT EIMAN 1206 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KEVIN L ANDVIK & TONETTE F CLINE-ANDVIK 6606 MULBERRY CIR E CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SUSAN K ARNDT 6520 WELSLEY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL A WANNER & SCOTT HEGEL 1180 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DUANE H & MONA R UDSTUEN 6636 MULBERRY CIR E CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARY ELIZABETH MARTIN 6620 ARLINGTON CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JEFFREY ROBERT SMITH & CAROLYN WELDON SMITH 6601 ARLINGTON CT ,CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LESTER F ~11 & JUDY L BOLSTAD 1101 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 E SAMUEL CHASE III 6621 ARLINGTON CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SYLVESTER & MARY ROERICK 6600 ARLINGTON CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT MYRON AHRENS JR & PATRICIA M AHRENS 1081 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TODD W & TERESA E DECKARD 6611 ARLINGTON CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHARLES E & LAURAL R JOHNSON 1100 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS K & ANNE H MCGINN 1121 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 NICHOLAS M & JUDY A JACQUES 1214 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CIO BRUCE DEJO~I~~' 7700MARKET.J3.L'WD PO BOX 147 C HA MNI-tASgE~ 55317 SCOTT J & JESSICA FREDRICKSON 6681 POWERS BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® DAVID M & COLLEEN B RONNEI 6666 MULBERRY CIR E CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JEFFREY N & MELISSA A ELDER 6696 MULBERRY CIR E CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ANDREW B & SUSAN L AKINS 6699 MULBERRY CIR E CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID F SMITH & LAURA L FRANZEN-SMITH 5770 KELSEY DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 STEVEN J & DEBORAH MANNING 6687 MULBERRY CIR E CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID P SMITH & JULIA A SIMENSON-SMITH 6724 POWERS BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O BRUCE DEJONG_,~.,,-,~ 7700 MARKET...J~¥OPO BOX 147 CHAN HAGS'E'N MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CIO BRUCE ~ 7700 ~M~ BLVDPO BOX 147 , CHAI'CRASSEN MN 55317 RUSSELL G KOHMAN 6730 POWERS BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LAYTON B & MADELYN L PAINE 1092 SHENENDOAH CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PAUL A & SHERYLL A KREUTER 1090 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KEVIN L & JULIE A GRAFFT 6726 POWERS BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT R & ETHELYN CHRISTENSEN 6648 POWERS BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BRUCE & JULIE MAYER 6693 MULBERRY CIR E CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WILLIAM & JULIEANN INFANGER 6740 POWERS BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LAWRENCE & KATHLEEN KERBER 6420 POWERS BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL J CUCCIA & MARGARET J CUCCIA 6722 POWERS BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PALLAR NGEP & CHANTHAN HOUR 6770 CHAPARRALLN :CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JENNIE A HAYS 6691 POWERS BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CAROLJEGYHAZI 6720POWERS BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 REMIGIJUS KLYVIS , 6780 CHAPARRAL LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD C ERSBO 6665 MULBERRY CIR E CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROY R & JACQUELINE B ANDERSON 6695 MULBERRY CIR E CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JEFFREY W & LAURA A BROS 6771CHAPARRALLN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT E & DIANE L MARTINKA 6650 POWERS BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RUSSELL J & BONNIE G SIAKEL 6703 MULBERRY CIR E CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN L & PATRICIA A PAUL 1031 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MATTHEW G & LISA L KLING 6683 MULBERRY CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN~ CIO BRUCE DEJ~~ 7700 MA~f,~F-"FBLVDPO BOX147 CHA~SSEN MN 55317 WILLIAM R & JEAN K TOUPIN 6781 CHAPARRAL LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 I~AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® JAMES P MANDERS 6791 CHAPARRAL LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 slaqe-i ssaJpp¥ ®A~ClAV~ BRENT & KARLA WENNERSTROM 6790 CHAPARRAL LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GERALD A JR & DENISE M FEDIE 6800 UTICA CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT J BOE 6801 UTICA CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MATTHEW H & SANDRA L HARDY 6800 CHAPARRAL LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 e09~5 Jo~ aleldLUal aSN ~z Sleaqs paa=l qloouJs NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, AUGUST 19, 2003 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7700 MARKET BLVD. PROPOSAL: Burlwood Addition APPLICANT: Epic Development, LLC LOCATION' 6700 Powers Blvd. NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Epic Development, LLC, is requesting Preliminary Plat to replat of 3.63 acres into 9 single family lots with variances, and a wetland alteration permit, Burlwood, located at the southwest intersection of Lake Lucy Road and Powers Boulevard. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmeen at 227-1134 or e-mail saljaff@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on August 7, 2003. Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® JAMES ERIK & PATRICIA JOHANSON .~500 PEACEFUL LN SHANHASSEN MN 55317 HELEN JACQUES CIO A SUZETTE LEIZINGER 16010 EXCELSIOR BLVD MINNETONKA MN 55345 JON G & LAURIE P STECKMAN 1215 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CARVER COUNTY CARVER COUNTY GOVT CTR-ADMIN BOO 4TH ST E CHASKA MN 55318 RONNIE K & TERESA M HAGEN 1200 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O BRUCE DEJONG 7700 MARKET BLVDPO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 BEDDOR ENTERPRISES LP 7'951 POWERS BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN P & BARBARA J SPIESS 6610 ARLINGTON CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PETER J & CYNTHIA L MILLER 6605 MULBERRY CIR E CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TERRANCE E & DEBRA J BLACK 6511 WELSLEY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 , :CITY OF CHANHASSEN CIO BRUCE DEJONG 7700 MARKET BLVDPO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PAUL D & ANNE M KAPSNER 6635 MULBERRY CIR E CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS M & DEBRA J GIVEN 6521 WELSLEY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHRISTOPHER SCOTT EIMAN 1206 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KEVIN L ANDVIK & TONETTE F CLINE-ANDVIK 6606 MULBERRY CIR E CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SUSAN K ARNDT 6520 WELSLEY CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL A WANNER & SCOTT HEGEL 1180 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DUANE H & MONA R UDSTUEN 6636 MULBERRY CIR E CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARY ELIZABETH MARTIN 6620 ARLINGTON CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JEFFREY ROBERT SMITH & CAROLYN WELDON SMITH 6601 ARLINGTON CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LESTER F Ill & JUDY L BOLSTAD 1101 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 E SAMUEL CHASE III 6621 ARLINGTON CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SYLVESTER & MARY ROERICK 6600 ARLINGTON CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT MYRON AHRENS JR & PATRICIA M AHRENS 1081LAKELUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TODD W & TERESA E DECKARD 6611 ARLINGTON CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CHARLES E & LAURAL R JOHNSON 1100 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS K & ANNE H MCGINN 1121LAKELUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 NICHOLAS M & JUDY A JACQUES 1214 LAKE LUCY RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O BRUCE DEJONG 7700 MARKET BLVDPO BOX147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SCOTT J & JESSICA FREDRICKSON 6681 POWERS BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® DAVID M & COLLEEN B RONNEI 6666 MULBERRY CIR E CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JEFFREY N & MELISSA A ELDER 6696 MULBERRY CIR E CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ANDREW B & SUSAN L AKINS 6699 MULBERRY CIR E CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID F SMITH & LAURA L FRANZEN-SMITH 5770 KELSEY DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331 STEVEN J & DEBORAH MANNING 6687 MULBERRY CIR E CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID P SMITH & JULIA A SIMENSON-SMITH 6724 POWERS BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O BRUCE DEJONG 7700 MARKET BLVD PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O BRUCE DEJONG 7700 MARKET BLVDPO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RUSSELL G KOHMAN 6730 POWERS BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LAYTON B & MADELYN L PAINE 1092 SHENENDOAH CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PAUL A & SHERYLL A KREUTER 1090 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 KEVIN L & JULIE A GRAFFT 6726 POWERS BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT R & ETHELYN CHRISTENSEN 6648 POWERS BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 iBRUCE & JULIE MAYER 6693 MULBERRY CIR E !CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WILLIAM & JULIEANN INFANGER 6740 POWERS BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LAWRENCE & KATHLEEN KERBER 6420 POWERS BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL J CUCCIA & MARGARET J CUCCIA 6722 POWERS BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PALLAR NGEP& CHANTHAN HOUR '6770CHAPARRALLN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JENNIE A HAYS 6691 POWERS BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CAROLJ EGYHAZI 6720POWERS BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 REMIGIJUS KLYVIS 6780 CHAPARRAL LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RICHARD C ERSBO 6665 MULBERRY CIR E CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROY R & JACQUELINE B ANDERSON 6695 MULBERRY CIR E CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JEFFREY W & LAURA A BROS 6771 CHAPARRAL LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT E & DIANE L MARTINKA 6650 POWERS BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RUSSELL J & BONNIE G SIAKEL 6703 MULBERRY CIR E CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN L & PATRICIA A PAUL 1031 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MATTHEW G & LISA L KLING 6683 MULBERRY CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 'CITY OF CHANHASSEN I CIO BRUCE DEJONG i7700 MARKET BLVDPO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 WILLIAM R & JEAN K TOUPIN 6781 CHAPARRAL LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 AVERY® Address Labels Laser 5160® ®09~5 ~S~l JAMES P MANDERS 6791 CHAPARRAL LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 siaqel ssaJppv BRENT & KARLA WENNERSTROM 6790 CHAPARRAL LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GERALD A JR & DENISE M FEDIE 6800 UTICA CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT J BOE 6801 UTICA CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MATTHEW H & SANDRA L HARDY 6800 CHAPARRAL LN CHANHASSEN MN 55317 c~0915 JO~ a~,eldma~ asfl ~,,, slaatiq paa4 u~oouJq CITY OF CI H gE 7700 Manet Boulevard PO Box 147 O~a asse ~ MN 55317 Administration P!l(XSe !)52227 1100 ~,: ~,~-~ ~b~ ~z, 1110 Building Inspeclions P! c, ne 952 227 1150 Fa,, ,,J:,~ zz 1!90 Engineering Phcx e 952227 1160 Fax 952227 170 Finance Phone 952 227 1140 Fa× !}52 227 i110 Park & Recreation Ph3r/e 9622271120 Fax 952227 1110 Recrea o~ Certe 2SI0 C:L ~ter Boo evaC Pl~or!e: 9522271400 Fax 952227 1404 Planning & Natural Resources Pi~on~ 9522271130 Fax 952 227 11 ~0 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone 9522271300 F~x: 952 2271310 Senior Center Pn,cne 952 227 1125 Fax 952 2271110 Web Site '~V'4",~,' ,I :i!ar hass~,'l! qii LIS MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmeen A1-Jaff, Senior Planner FROM: Todd Hoffman, Director of Parks and Recreation DATE: July 30, 2003 SUB J: Preliminary Plat; Burlwood I have reviewed the proposed plat for Burlwood Addition to determine if park and trail services for these future residents are currently available. My comments only address park and trail services. Any need for pedestrian sidewalks should be addressed by others. PARKS This property lies within the neighborhood park service areas of both Curry Farms Park and Carver Beach Park. TRAILS Two segments of the City's Comprehensive Trail Plan are located near this property. The first is an on-street trail located along both the eastbound and westbound lanes of Lake Lucy Road. The second is an off-street 8 fl. wide bituminous trail located on the east side of Powers Boulevard. This is across the street from the subject plat. The best crossing location for pedestrians is at the intersection of Powers Boulevard and Lake Lucy Lane. RECOMMENDATION With these public services in place, I am not recommending any additional public park or trail services be constructed as a part of this subdivision. In lieu of any public improvements, a park dedication charge of $19,200 will be applicable at the time of platting. The Oily of Chanhassen · a grey,, ng ',:(',r/~IrT/LJr/it!' ~'v'ith clean lakes quality schools a cha;mmg downto~'n thrv ~g b~snesses ,,,,,'inding trais a~nd ' ' parks (areal t, a,,t 'o i've ',,,'~,', ,~k and pia~ MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: Sharmin AI-Jaff, Senior Planner Steven Torell, Building Official August 6, 2003 SUB J: Site Plan review for: Burlwood, Revised Planning Case: 2003-12 SUB I have reviewed the plans for the for the above development and have the following conditions: 1. Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division be£ore building permits will be issued. 2. Each lot must be provided with a separate sewer and water service. 3. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures. 4. The homes located at 6648 and 6650 Powers Blvd. will require address changes as they will be accessed from a different street. G/safety/st/memos/plarffBurlwood 2 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Markd Boulevard PO B,ax 147 Chaqhassen MN 55317 Administration Phc, re 952 227 1100 Fix: 952 227 1110 Building Inspections Phxle 952 227!180 Fa,< 952 227 1190 Engineering Pqor e: 952 227 1160 Fax 952 2271170 Finance ,cue 952 227 1!4(I .b2~c/li10 Pork & Recreation Phone: 9522271120 Fax: 9522271110 Recreation Cenier 2310 Cou!ter Bodlevard P!ore 95222}71400 Fa× 952227 1404 PlanninD & Natural Resources Plone 952 227 1130 Fax 9,52 227 1110 Public Works 159! Park Road Phone 952227 !300 Fax 952 227 ~310 Senior Center PPcne 9522271125 Fax 952227 1110 Web Site ¢,,',~".,' ,.',i ch4~r ha~sen ;TiS MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUB J: Sharmeen A1-Jaff, Senior Planner Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer September 5 29, 2003 Preliminary Plat Review of Burlwood (Kerber Property) Land Use Review File No. 03-16 Upon review of the plans dated August 15 September 29, 2003, prepared by Ryan Engineering, I offer the following comments and recommendations: GRADING/DRAINAGE/EROSION CONTROL The grading plan needs to be revised along the east side of Lot 6, Block 1 to avoid trapping stormwater against the respective housepads. · The basement elevations of Lots 1 through 4, Block 1 must be a minimum of three feet above the HWL of the proposed pond. It is unclear from the plans how the applicant is proposing to handle the stormwater from the temporary cul-de-sac at the south end of the project. Additional information and detail must be added to the plans to address this. The applicant is proposing an outlet overflow point to control the discharge of water from the proposed pond. This is inconsistent with current City specifications and past practice. Staff is recommending that an outlet control structure be installed to control the water discharge rate from the pond. Further, staff is recommending that a storm sewer line be constructed from the pond outlet to Lake Lucy Road and west, approximately 350 feet, to an existing storm sewer line in Mulberry Circle. An underground detention system has been proposed to control the drainage from the south half of the site. This would be the first such system in the City; however, they have been used in other metro cities such as at the new Cub Foods on Highway 7 in Shorewood. Staff is gathering information from other cities regarding maintenance of these systems which act as underground ponds contained within large diameter pipes. Staff is willing to allow this type of stormwater system due to the unavailability of ponding sites in the area. · A storm sewer stub must be extended to the south to handle drainage from the future cul-de-sac, just south of the site. The City el Chanhassen · A gtc'cji ;i community with clean lakes quality s(:hools a cl~arqi~',9 dswntowr~ thriving businesses winding trails a~d beautiful parks A, great :~!aue to iive ¢,'ork and Sharmeen A1-Jaff September $ 29, 2003 Page 2 The damaged portion of the existing storm line that goes through Lot 1, Block 2 must be replaced and connected with the proposed street storm sewer. · A minimum 20-foot wide public drainage and utility easement is required over the existing ditch/drainage way on the Martinka property. Erosion control measures and site restoration shall be developed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that a rock construction entrance be shown on the plans in accordance with City Detail Plate No. 5301. UTILITIES · According to City as-built plans, all of the proposed lots have both sewer and water stubs except Lot 6, Block 1. · There is already an existing sanitary sewer line in the area of the temporary cul-de-sac. As such, the proposed sewer line can be deleted. · The proposed watermain must be extended to the south property line for future looping purposes. · Sanitary and water services shall be extended to the west property line for future development of the neighboring parcels. The underlying parcel has been previously assessed for five utility units and those assessments have been paid. Since the applicant is now proposing more units than what was previously assessed, the one additional unit will be charged a watermain and sanitary sewer lateral connection charge at the time of building permit issuance. The current 2003 connection charge for water and sewer is $4,513 each. Sanitary sewer and water hookup charges along with the Met Council's SAC fee will be due on all of the lots at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council. The current 2003 sanitary hookup charge is $1,440/unit, the water hookup charge is $1,876/unit and the SAC fee is $1,275/unit. Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be 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. Permits from the Sharmeen A1-Jaff September 5 29, 2003 Page 3 appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, Carver County, etc. STREETS The applicant's street layout follows a previous Council approved layout for this property and the street connection with Golden Glow Court to the south. Staff would prefer to see is recommending that the entire street and cul-de- sac be installed with this project instead of the temporary cul-de-sac that is proposed. However, due to the existence of a private driveway easement through the site and a small piece of right of way off the southwest comer of the property, the developer is unable to install the entire street. As such, staff is recommending that Since the applicant has a signed agreement with the adjacent land owners to dedicate the necessary right-of-way, there is no reason that the full street should not be built. Upon completion of the full street and cul-de-sac, the existing private street, which serves Lots 3 and 4 of Golden Glow and the Rohman/Infanger parcels, would access onto the new public street and not Powers Boulevard. Lot 1 of Golden Glow would, however, continue to access Powers Boulevard through its existing driveway. If the full street and cul-de-sac is not built at this time, then a financial security must be supplied to the City to cover the cost of the future street extension and removal of the existing private street to the south. This is in line with the Golden Glow Acres development contract which required the street to be extended with the development of the Kerber property. Lake Lucy Road is designated as a collector road in the City's Comprehensive Plan and Code Book. Collector roads require 80-feet of right-of-way or 40- feet on each side of the roadway centerline. As such, additional right-of-way will need to be platted to achieve a total of 40-feet from the centerline of Lake Lucy Road. The developer will be required to pave the portion of the existing neighbors' driveways that are within the subject property as per City ordinance. A private driveway easement will also be required for the shared portion of the driveway. In addition, any shared portion of the driveway must be constructed to a 7-ton design. The developer will be required to provide inspection reports verifying this. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Show all of the proposed and existing easements on the preliminary plat. Sharmeen A1-Jaff September 5 29, 2003 Page 4 2. On the grading plan: a. Add a rock construction entrance per City Detail Plate No. 5301. b. Revise the grading on the east side of Lot 6, Block 1 to prevent trapping water near the housepads. c. Show new ditch grades in the areas where driveways will be removed. d. Show the proposed contours for the berms along Powers Boulevard. e. Show all existing and proposed easements. f. Add a benchmark to the plan. 3. On the utility plan: a. Show all proposed and existing utility easements. b. Show all existing utilities and services in the area. Also, call out the pipe type, manhole numbers, and rim/invert elevations for all existing and proposed utilities. c. Add streetlights at the intersection of Powers and the new street. 4. All of the existing driveway entrances to the property from Powers Blvd. must be removed during construction. 5. A driveway culvert is required under the proposed street entrance to the site. A Carver County permit will also be required. 6. An outlet control structure is required for the proposed pond per City Detail Plate No. 3109. Also, install a storm sewer line from the pond outlet to Lake Lucy Road and west, approximately 350 feet, to an existing storm sewer line in Mulberry Circle. 7. Revise all slopes that exceed 3:1 or install a retaining wall. 8. A temporary easement is needed for the portion of the cul-de-sac that is outside of the proposed right-of-way. 9. All final construction plans must be signed by a professional engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 10. Any work outside of the subject property or right-of-way will require temporary easements. Sharmeen A1-Jaff September 5 29, 2003 Page 5 11. Seed and mulch or sod the site within two weeks of grading completion. If dirt is required to be brought into or out of the site, provide a haul route for review and approval. 12. The applicant has submitted drainage calculations for the site; however, additional information is still needed. Staff will work with the applicant's engineer to revise the calculations. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 1 O-year, 24-hour storm event. 13. Draintile will be required in back of the curb on the public street. 14. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. 15. Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be 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. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, Carver County, etc. 16. The basement elevations of Lots 1 through 4, Block 1 must be a minimum of three feet above the HWL of the proposed pond. 17. Private easements are required for the existing and proposed services to neighboring parcels that are outside of the right-of-way. 18. A 30-foot wide private driveway easement is required for the private drive which serves Lots 1-4, Bi.1. In addition, the driveway must be constructed to a 7-ton design. The developer will be required to provide inspection reports verifying this. 19. End the right of way for the new street at the edge of the existing private driveway easement. Also, deed the land for the future street right of way to the City. 20. Vacate the existing public utility easement in the area of the new street. 21. Additional information and detail must be added to the plans to show how the stormwater from the temporary cul-de-sac will be handled. 22. A public drainage and utility easement is required over the proposed pond. Sharmeen A1-Jaff September $ 29, 2003 Page 6 23. A watermain and sanitary sewer lateral connection charge will be due for Lot 6, B1. 1 at the time of building permit issuance. The current 2003 connection charge for water and sewer is $4,513 each. Sanitary sewer and water hookup charges along with the Met Council's SAC fee will be due on all of the lots at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council. The current 2003 sanitary hookup charge is $1,440/unit, the water hookup charge is $1,876/unit and the SAC fee is $1,275/unit. 24. A financial security must be supplied to the City to cover the cost of the future street extension and removal of the existing private street to the south. 25. Additional right-of-way will need to be platted to achieve a total of 40-feet from the centerline of Lake Lucy Road. 26. The existing gravel driveway to the neighboring parcels must be maintained until the new street is graded in and curb is installed. 27. A storm sewer stub must be extended to the south to handle drainage from the future cul-de-sac, just south of the site. 28. The damaged portion of the existing storm line that goes through Lot 1, Block 2 must be replaced and connected with the proposed street storm sewer. 29. The proposed watermain must be extended to the south property line for future looping purposes. 30. Sanitary and water services shall be extended to the west property line for future development of the neighboring parcels. 31. The developer is required to pave the portion of the existing neighbors' driveways that are within the subject property as per City ordinance. A private driveway easement will also be required for the shared portion of the driveway. In addition, any shared portion of the driveway must be constructed to a 7-ton design. The developer is required to provide inspection reports verifying this. 32. A minimum 20-foot wide public drainage and utility easement is required over the existing ditch/drainage way on the Martinka property. 33. The entire public street and cul-de-sac must be installed with this project. g:\eng\projccts\burlwood~revised ppr3.doc CITY OF C HASSEN 7700 ldarket BoulevarC PO t}ox Charshass~l MN 55317 Pho/e 952 727 1100 Fax: 952 227 1110 Building Inspections Phoebe 952 2271180 Fax 952 22,' 1190 Engineering Finance Fax 952227 1~0 Park & Recreation Phone 952 227 'd20 Fax 95222711 !0 Becreatiors Center 2310 Ooul~er Boulevard Phone: 952 2271400 Fax 952 227 X404 Planning a Natural Resources Phoebe: 9522271130 Fax: 9522271110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phorle: 952227 1300 Fax: 952.227 1310 Senior Center Pt~one: 9522271125 Fax 9522271110 Web Site www a chanhassen r~n us MEMORANDUM TO: Sharmin Al-Jarl: Senior Planner FROM: Mark l,ittfin, Fire Marshal DATE: July 28.2003 SUBJECT: Preliminary plat to re-plat a 3.6.3 acres into nine single family lots with variances, and a wetland alteration permit, Burlwood, Epic Development. Li,C, located at the southxvest intersection of Lake I,ucv Road and Powers Boulevard. Planning Case: 2003-12 SUB I have reviewed the preliminary plat for thc above prqject. In order to comply with thc Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division, I have the lbllowing fire code or city ordinance/policy requirements. The plan reviexv is done based on the available information submitted at this time. If additional plans or changes are submitted, thc appropriate code or policy items will be addressed. Three additional fire hydrants will be required. One at the intersection of Lake Lucy Road and the driveway serving Block 1; one at the end of the driveway serving Block 1 and one at the intersection of County Road 17 and the road serving Block 2. A I 0-loot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e, street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Qwest, Excel Energy, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. 3. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unstructured width of not less than 20 feet. Pursuant to Uniform Fire Code Section 503.2.l. Sharmin A1-Jaff July 28.2003 Page 2 o ° Dead end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved area tbr turning around fire apparatus. Submit turn around dimensions to City Engineer and Fire Marshal tbr review and approval. Exception: The Fire Marshal is authorized to increase the dimension of 150 feet (45720 mm) where: 1. The buildings are equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1. 903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3 of the Fire Code. Block 1 and 2 - Streets will be required to have street names. Submit names to Chanhassen Building Official and Fire Marshal for review' and approval. No burning permits will be issued for tree/brush disposal. Any trees removed must be removed or chipped on site. g:\safcty\mlXplrev2(103-12 Gary A. Thompson' Kay M. Thompson * l'}ea[ Property Law Specialist Bar Association THOMPSON THOMPSON' LAW OFFICE PLLP 177 ! 7 tii.~[m, ay ~even Minnetonl.'a, MN 55345 Phone 952-474-3221 Fax 952-474-2575 July 25, 2003 Ms. Sharmeen A1-Jaff City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Post Office Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 553 ~ 7 RE: Richard Ragatz Development 6700 Poxvers Boulevard My Client: Robert Martinka My File No.: 1111-1 My client, Robert Martinka, who lives at 6650 Powers Boulevard has spoken to be me about a proposed development on the adjoining property. He has shown me the Abstract of Title to his properly which includes an easement about which he wishes me to advise the city and the developer. There is a permanent easement for ingress and egress described between the Martinka property and Powers Boulevard which crosses the proposed Lot 1, Block 2, the proposed street and the proposed Outlots A and B as shown on Mr. Ragatz' most recent drawings. This easement is perpetual and is not released without the consent of Mr. & Mrs. Martinka and any mortgage lien holder on their property. At the very least, Lot 1, Block 2 will remain encumbered by this easement through the middle of the proposed building site. The Martinkas do suggest an adjustment to the proposed plan which would narrow the east-west portion of the proposed roadway such that Lots 1, 2 and 3 could be 15,000 square foot lots. The narrower roadway would also keep it further away fi'om the Martinka boundary. If such a thirty foot roadway access would have to be a private road, we feel the city would benefit by allowing such a private road if it could avoid substandard lots for Lots 1, 2, and 3. Mr. Martinka is ready to discuss this idea further with the city or with Mr. Ragatz. Gar;vA. Thoc(pson GAT:rks cc: Richard Ragatz Robert Martinka (via facsimile 952-401-3836) BURLWOOD TREE INVENTORY - pA NO, ._~!?F. ?T~E SA VED t OS T TPANSPL NO. ,'", 560 602 "" 5§1 562 604 563 605 i 564. 606 (~ 565 24' MAPLE X 607 .,~q,~, 566 24' MAPLE X 608 567 22' MAPLE X 609 r~ 568 22" PINE X 6!0 569 10" PINE X 611 ~ 570 8" MAPLE. X 5!2 571 6" ASH X 613 c~ 572 12" ASH X 614. 57,3 18' MAPLE X 6f5 ~ 574 t8" MAPLE X 6t6 575 to: ASH X 576 12 ASH X 618 577 6" ASH X 619 578 2" ASH X 620 ~,~ 579 10' ASH X 621 580 X 622 581 12' ASH X 623 582 18'"ASH X 624- 58,3 14" ASH X 625 584 14' ASH X 626 ~' 585 627 .~ 586 8" MAPLE X 628 587 6" ASH X 629 588 12" MAPLE X 630 589 8" MAPLE X 631 590 14" ASH X 632 591 10' MAPLE X 633 592 12" MAPLE X 634 593 635 594 6" ASH X 656 595 10' MAPLE X 637 596 10" MAPLE X 638 597 12" MAPLE X 639 598 8" MAPLE X 640 599 841 600 8' MAPLE X 642 601 18" ASH X 64-3 SlZ£/TYP£ 7" ASH !0" MAPLE 4' ASH 6" ASH 6' ASH §" ASH. 6" ASH 8' MAPLE 6" ASH 2" MAPLE. z.' ASH 8" ASH 4' ASH 4'ASH 4" ASH 6" ASH 10' MAPLE 46' OAK 6" MAPLE 12: ASH 18 ASH 12" MAPLE 6' MAPLE 12' ASH 6" MAPLE 4-" ASH 3" ASH 3' MAPLE 14" ASH 20" MAPLE 16" ASH 4' ASH 4' ASH 4-" ASH 8' MAPLE 24' ASH 4' ASH 4' ASH 8' ASH 6" ASH FE-D X X X X X X X x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X LOST x TRANSPL BURLWOOD TREE INVENTORY 7/7 8/03 - PA GE £ NO. $1Z£/T~£ SA 'lED £ OS T 644 6`' MAPLE X 645 6' MAP~ X 6~ 8= MAP~ X 6~7 8" M~ X 6~ 10" MAP~ X 649 14" MAP~ X 650 10' MAPLE X 651 6" ASH X 652 12' M~o~ X 653 12' MAP~ X 65~ &' MAP~ X 655 6' A~ X 656 12' MAPLE X 657 6' ASH X 658 10' M~ X 659 12' M~ X 66O 6' ASH X 661 5' ASH X 662 14' MAP~ X 663 18" ASH X 66~ 8" M~LE X 665 ~" ASH X 666 ~6" ASH X 667 ~" P~ X 668 B" A~ X 669 10' MAP~ X 670 12" ASH X 671 12' ASH X 672 12" A~ X 673 12" ASH X 674 6" ASH X 675 6" M~ X 676 8" MAP~ X 677 10" M~LE X 678 10" M~ X 679 12" MAP~ X 680 10" M~ X 681 6" MAPLE X 682 6" ASH X 683 8" ASH X 684 6' A~ X 685 6' ASH X N~ 688 687 688 689 69O 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 7O0 701 702 7O3 794- 705 706 7O7 708 7O9 710 711 712 713 714 716 717 718 719 72O 721 722 723 724. 725 726 727 728 £/Z~./TYPE ~ ASH B" ASH 4' ASH 1 MAPLE MAPLE: 12" MAPLE 8' ~APLE 14" MAPLE. 10" ASH 10' ASH 12' ASH 12' ASH 6" ASH 4' PINE 6" PINE 6" PINE 6" PINE 6' PINE 6" PINE 6" PINE 6" PINE 6" PINE 6' PINE 6' PINE 6" PINE 6" PINE 6" PINE 6" PINE 6' PINE 6" PINE 6" PINE 6" PINE 6" PINE 6" PINE 6' PINE 6" PINE 6" PINE 4' PINE 6" PINE 6" PINE V A X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X LOS'? X [~A/v'SPL X X X X X X X BURLWOOD TREE INVENTORY - No. 729 6~ PINE 730 B' PINE 73,1 4.' PINE 732 6" PINE 735 6' PINE 734 6" PINE 735 4' PINE 736 4" PINE 737 6" PINE 738 P NE PINE 740 8" PINE 741 13" PINE 742 8" PINE 743 4" PINE 744- 8' PINE 745 6" PINE 746 6' PINE 74-7 12" PINE 748 10' PINE 74.9 6' PINE 750 8' PINE 751 10' PINE 752 14" PINE 753 6' PINE 754 6" PINE 755 6' PINE 756 4,' PINE 757 6" PiNE 758 6" PINE 759 6" PINE 760 8" PINE 761 6' PINE 762 6" PINE 763 6' PINE 764- 10" PINE 765 6' PINE 766 6" PINE 767 6" PINE 768 6" PINE 769 6' PINE 770 6' PINE ~.qA ~O X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X L O~gT FA'A/VS'P/_ X X X X X X X X X X X. X X X X X X X 771 6" PINE 772 4" PINE 773 8" PINE 774 6" PINE 775 6' PINE 776 6' PINE 777 6' PINE 778 6" PINE 779 6" PINE 780 6" PINE X TOTAL CAUPER iNCHES ON SITE TOTAL CAUPER INCHES SAVED TOTAL CAUPER INCHES LOST I net X X X X X X X X X 1814- 1373 (75~) Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT TO REPLAT 3.63 ACRES INTO 7 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES, AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION OF LAKE LUCY ROAD AND POWERS BOULEVARD, BURLWOOD ADDITION, EPIC DEVELOPMENT, LLC. Public Present: Name Address Laurie &Jon Steckman David Smith Bob Martinka Mike Cuccia Kent Kelly Bob Christensen Larry & Kathy Kerber Rich Rogatz Perry Ryan Kevin Grafft 1215 Lake Lucy Road 6645 Mulberry Circle East 6650 Powers Boulevard 6722 Powers Boulevard 6539 Gray Fox Curve 6648 Powers Boulevard Powers Boulevard 3441 St. Paul Avenue, Minneapolis 430 Lafayette Avenue, Excelsior 6726 Powers Boulevard Sharmeen Al-Jarl presented the staff report on this item. Slagle: Your last drawing you showed I think, is it Kohman and Infanger? A1-Jaff: Yes. Slagle: Could subdivide their lots to additional properties... A1-Jaff: Yes. Slagle: Okay. So basically if that was the case, if you go back to your Option B. If you went back to Option B or Option C, did those take into account the additional two homes or do they assume right now that Kohman and lnfanger, if that's how you pronounce it. If not I apologize. It only looks like there's two lots that. A1-Jaff: Correct, and I don't know how viable this option is any more only because this parcel has been platted. Slagle: Okay. Okay, so. A1-Jaff: You h ave a neck 1 ot o r a flag 1 ot h ere, a nd i t does not allow for t he subdivision o f Kohman and Infanger's properties. Slagle: So it might be, for our purpose tonight, assume that they probably won't subdivide, or can't any further. Those two lots. A1-Jaff: Under scenario E, Option E, because that's what was adopted by the City Council, they will be able to. 30 Planning Commission Meeting- September 16, 2003 Sacchet: Well, let me clarify. I mean the way I understand it from the staff report, this is history. Option E was adopted. Is basically where we're at. That's the foundation we're working from. The rest is just a story. I mean that doesn't have any bearing on our considerations here tonight, isn't that? A1-Jaff: That's correct. I just wanted to tell you how we got to this point. Sacchet: Right, and I think that's important for everybody. A1-Jaff: And from a policy standpoint, we've amended our ordinances. Private streets. Neck lots. All of these are variances. Sacchet: So with the Option E they have the possibility to subdivide those two lots that you've shown us? So that's not really a point for discussion is it? A1-Jaff.' With Option E? Sacchet: Yes. Al-Jarl: Kohman, Infanger can subdivide. Sacchet: And that's what the current situation is. A1-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. Slagle: That will be 14 and 17. Okay. So my question is this, the Chair is obviously correct in that Option E is the only thing we're looking at. I just want to be clear. A1-Jaff: Correct. Slagle: The City Council approved this option that has in essence 4 private. Sacchet: We don't have any legal over that. Slagle: I understand. I'm just, I mean. Al-Jarl: Now remember, this was approved back in '95-96. And this is the basis that we were working off of, and this is the direction that we gave the applicant. Slagle: Okay. Sacchet: Did you have something too Bruce? Feik: Yes, Option E, I want to clarify something that I'm seeing here. On Option E the private lot which goes to the north which goes to Lake Lucy Road, on the plans I've got they show access onto Powers inbetween Lots 3 and 4. Does your plan show that as well? Saam: I could clarify that. That's not an access. It's meant as a partial hammerhead turn around. So it won't actually connect into the Powers Boulevard pavement. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Feik: Okay, that was my question, thank you. Sacchet: Oh it doesn't connect'? Saam: No, it's not proposed to. Sacchet: Okay. Well that's important to know. Saam: Just the turn around for the private street. Feik: That was my only question, thank you. Sacchet: Alright, you want to go on Sharmeen please. Al-Jaff: So as part of the Golden Glow Acres, we, Mr. Ravis dedicated the right-of-way for the bubble of the cul-de-sac right here. The intent was to facilitate the future construction of the street. If this street was built, this private street would then be closed off. Traffic would be redirected to the bubble of the cul-de-sac and then out to Powers Boulevard. Sacchet: Including that house between the cul-de-sac and Powers? Al-Jarl: That's the intent. Sacchet: So that house that's currently accessing to the east would then access to the west. A1-Jaff: Correct. This is what it would end up going. Sacchet: Alright. Just to clarify that. Thanks. A1-Jaff: And again, this was for safety reasons. Sacchet: And that was decided, that foundation that they're building from. Al-Jarl: There are conditions of approval on the Golden Glow Acres that reflect that basically if the cul-de-sac is built, that this would be closed off. Sacchet: And is it accurate to assume that when this discussion happened, the then residents of those parcels that we're actually looking at tonight, had their involvement, every possibility to be involved as much as they wanted in that decision, correct? Al-Jarl': Now, please bear in mind that the only people that remain from the original group are Mr. and Mrs. Infanger, Mr. Kohman, Mr. and Mrs. Kerber. Everyone else is new. Sacchet: Is new. But nevertheless, these agreements were a part of the public record that were made at that point. A1-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. 32 Planning Commission Meeting- September 16, 2003 A1-Jaff: And when this was happening, the only individual we were working with was Mr. Ravis who resided right here. Slagle: Is it true that he is, if I read right, he has sold that property? Al-Jaff: Yes. Long gone. Sacchet: Okay. Continue please. Sharmeen Al-aaff continued with the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Questions from staff. Who wants to start? Kurt, do you want to start? Papke: One clarification on the change to item 11, and the item 11 itself. What's the rationale for closing that during construction'? Saam: It is a county road there, Powers Boulevard. They want to limit direct accesses off of a county road, so with the development of this, there's no need for that gravel driveway, so we want to just have a condition saying that with the development it's got to be closed. That's the only reasoning. Sacchet: Rich, no questions? Bethany? Tjornhom: Just for my own interest. What kind of outlet structure is needed to control the water discharged from the pond? What does that mean? Saam: It's basically a man hole with two different holes in it to let the water in, and they're at different elevations and those elevations control the normal water level of a pond. Basically where the water's going to be in the pond. And it's something with every development that we require as a standard item. Tjornhom: Okay, that's it. Sacchet: Bruce. Feik: Wetland. I did not see that these were being replaced at a 2:1 ratio. A1-Jaff: They are under, they have to, that's state law. Well if you look on page 18, condition number 1. When it says wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act and the number, that's what. Feik: And this would qualify for 2 to 1 ? Okay. That was my only question, thank you. A1-Jaff: I don't think Lori would let that one go by. Sacchet: Quick additional questions. Like we've seen there's a new letter here from the Martinka's. The Martinka's. I was just wondering with that temporary cul-de-sac being built, would the Martinka's also access that temporary cul-de-sac? Is that something that's been looked at? A1-Jaff: It's a public right-of-way. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Saam: I would guess since the private, their existing private driveway is going to remain with this plan, they would access their site off of that. But they certainly have the right to go on the public right-of-way. However it wasn't going to be paved. There was not going to be a paved connection between the existing private driveway and the new public cul-de-sac. Do you follow that? Sacchet: Okay. So they could potentially keep their current access... Saam: Yes, that was the plan. That was the plan. Sacchet: ...pretty much parallel to the cul-de-sac, which yeah I mean they're in their rights for doing that. Couple of other engineering things Matt. Bethany touched on the water, storm water situation. It talks about the infrastructure downstream from the culvert being kind of lacking or not quite there enough, could you tell me a little bit more about that'? Saam: I'm sorry, I didn't follow you. The infrastructure downstream from what? Sacchet: Yeah, presently there's an old public storm water infrastructure downstream from the culvert. I'd like to understand that a little more. Saam: Maybe ! can clarify this showing you the overall area. Let's just zoom in on this. Maybe a little more Nann. Thank you. Here's the site, and there's proposed pond basically right there. Our nearest existing storm sewer is down here. Basically at the comer of that street. Mulberry Circle I believe it is. We have no storm sewer along Lake Lucy Road between that catch basin at the street and the Kerber property. So what we're proposing as a condition and what's in the staff report is to put that outlet control structure in the pond and basically pipe from the pond in our right-of-way down, and let them connect into that existing catch basin. Sacchet: Okay, that's good to know. Matt, it also talks about storm water from the temporary cul-de-sac. Where would that go? Is there an idea of what happens with that? Saam: That's something that we need to discuss more with their engineer, myself and Lori and...but yeah, it's basically the storm water coming off this temporary cul-de-sac. We don't see a need for them to build a big pond just for this little street at this time. N ow when this all develops, and I think Lori added something in the staff report that we'll work with the developer and the existing property owners to look at a long term solution to the storm water. Sacchet: Okay. And then it talks about additional right-of-way might be needed on the north side for Lake Lucy. Does that have an impact at all at the current plat? With the lots. Does it accommodate this? Saam: A little bit but I think we've solved it. What I'm referring to is up here on Lake Lucy Road. As other sites to the west have developed, Lake Lucy Ridge, Ashling Meadows, some other ones that developed before you all ~vere on the Planning Commission, we acquired additional right-of-way along Lake Lucy. Lake Lucy's a collector road. By code we need 80 feet of right-of-way there so with development, if we're lacking in right-of-way, we obtain additional right-of-way as the properties develop. So what we're requesting, ! believe there's about 33 feet of right-of-way there now. So if you cut the road in half, half of 80's 40 so we're requesting an additional about 7 feet so we'll have 40 feet of right-of-way there. And how that, the implication to the plat is that all these lots are pretty much at the minimum for width and everything so what 34 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 we're proposing to do is just slide this street down the 6 to 7 feet that we would need in order to gain the right-of-way here. The street would be just off set I mean by 5-6 feet from existing Shenandoah Circle. We believe we can live with that. It's not 30 feet or 100 feet. It's basically right across the street. Sacchet: So you would shift the whole thing south? Saam: Yes, that's what we'd propose to do. Sacchet: Okay. Saam: Let me just point out, that way the applicant wouldn't lose any lots. Sacchet: Okay. Otherwise it would have an impact. Saam: Potentially, yeah. Sacchet: Okay. The trees. The trees. The dear trees. That's a little fuzzy in this proposal. I mean if the staff report says some of the trees were counted actually are not really on the property, but then on the other hand it looks like it was re-calculated. Basically to come up with the number of how many trees need to be replaced, so staff is satisfied with that? A1-Jaff: Yes. Sacchet: As a condition number 2, minimum of 3 overstory trees shall be required in front of each of these lots. These lots are not that huge. Is there enough room for a driveway and 3 trees? Without crowding them, we think there is? Al-Jarl: According to the city forester. Sacchet: According to the city forester, okay. Okay we addressed this one. I think that's my questions. Thank you very much. With that, would the applicant want to come forward and address us please. State your name and address for the record and let us know what you have to say please. Rich Ragatz: Rich Ragatz, 3441 St. Paul Avenue, Minneapolis. And I would like to start out again, I'm going to have to give a little history of things in a minute here but I've been working with Larry and Kathy Kerber on this 5.17 acres since April and I think before we get into the specifics of the development and why I think it's something that should be approved, I wanted to get into the history so you can understand why we're at this point on a relatively small site like this, doing two phases. So I guess to start out with the history. I've been working with Sharmeen and Matt, as she said since April, and went in there and talked to them several times and had several different proposals that I brought forth and each time I was pretty much shot down because there's two main things that we have to do here. We have to, safety's a big issue and the second one is you have to allow the two people on the southern part of the development, the ability to subdivide in the future and you can't do, you can't have more than 4 lots off of a private drive so that's one of the big issues. And then the second is the safety concern. Rather have traffic coming off of a 31 foot improved public street versus a 20 foot private drive, so we tried to come up with some different options on that but it all came back to Option E and I think in the end that is the best thing for this area. So then starting out early on, in April and June I called all the adjacent property owners and just let them know that I was going to be the property owner 35 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 that's going to move forward and work with the Kerber's on development of this site, and left my name and number and if they had any questions or comments, to please feel free to call me. Then it moved onto July and I started to show some of the plans that we've come up with and I can start out with the first plan here. And this plan is the July 3rd plan. It shows right here. We're connecting with the existing cul-de-sac that was platted back in '96, and the 50 foot right-of-way and just a little portion of the property, there's a right-of-way and just a very, very small portion would be on Martinka's property. Sacchet: If I could ask you to go relatively quickly through the history, because we have another applicant and there are people here that would like to address that so, if you could mainly focus on the actual current proposal, I would appreciate that very much. Rich Ragatz: Oh, and not go into the history. Sacchet: Well you can touch on it but what I'm asking you is if you could just really summarize the history part please. Rich Ragatz: Okay. Okay, that's fine. Sorry about that. We went through several different alternatives and I guess we went through the alternatives because we were trying to be, work with everybody so this would be a win/win situation for everybody but based on the '95-96 Option #E that was adopted by planning and council, the only way to move forward and develop this is to get the Martinka property to work with us and, met with him several times. We had a neighborhood meeting and showed him plans and tried to work with him and in the end I really never understood w hat h e w anted, a nd I asked him several times a nd h e n ever came u p with anything and you know I have some time constraints. I'm working with the Kerber's, contractual obligations and we wanted to move forward with what we thought was the b est plan and let planning and City Council take a look at it. So we went through a couple different renditions and in the end ~ve think this proposal here that has the temporary cul-de-sac and doesn't impact anything in the easement is the way to go and I'm willing and would love to work with everybody to get this thing finally connected to the easement that was done in '96. So I guess I was going to touch on some other things but I think I'll just get to the meat of the. Sacchet: If you would, I think that would be appreciated. Rich Ragatz: Alright. All the lots in the development are 15,000 square foot minimum lots. They all have at least 90 foot frontage and 134 feet deep or more. The average about 18,000 square feet. We're only asking for one variance for a private drive and that's mainly to save the mature trees. There's two oak grove, burl oaks on the site and several other mature trees on the western property boundary and if we were to put a cul-de-sac in that way, it would really destroy the trees and ruin the natural features of the site. So secondly, also looking at mitigating the wetland which is 5,963 square feet because it's a type I wetland. It's basically a muddy hole with reed canary grass and if we were to put homes in there, the people that live in the homes would probably mow that. Fertilize it. It wouldn't act or look like a wetland so it's probably best to move it off the site. So what I'm looking to do also is custom grade the site and I wanted to clarify that if we were to custom grade I think we could do a little more in terms of tree preservation for this. And we're looking to build the road as close to the easement as possible and eventually extend it if we could. And this would be the first addition and as a part of it, we'd be deeding Outlots A and B and the future road and right-of-way for the second addition, and I'd be delighted to move forward with the entire thing as soon as everybody else is willing to move forward on it too, and I thank you for your time and look forward to your feedback. 36 Planning Commission Meeting- September 16, 2003 Sacchet: Thank you very much. Question from the applicant. Commissioners. No questions from the applicant? One quick question. You mentioned the custom grade, is that part of the current application in front of us or is that a change to the current? The way you were talking. A1-Jaff: It is not. Sacchet: Okay. grading? Right now it's mass graded. So you're proposing that rather than mass grading you'd rather do custom Rich Ragatz: Yeah, custom grade it and then work with the city if we can save more trees then it's better for everybody. Sacchet: And apparently there was not a disagreement but a difference in counting of the trees, the canopy cover. Has that been resolved between staff and the applicant and you? Rich Ragatz: Yes it has. Sacchet: It has, okay. So you're basically concurring with the numbers that staff put into the staff report at this time? Rich Ragatz: I think, generally we are. Yeah. Sacchet: Well, okay. Well that's good enough for me. Okay, thank you very much. Slagle: Chair, I do have a couple. Sacchet: Commissioner Slagle go ahead. Slagle: If I may. Can I ask, you made reference on a couple times in your presentation of the Martinka's, if that's how you pronounce it. That you just couldn't work it out. Is there a simple explanation as to what you needed from them? Rich Ragatz: Well according to the '95-96 resolution that was adopted, the only way to connect to the cul-de-sac is to have some right-of-way and a portion of the road, a very minor portion on his property and since his property's affected by the development, he'd have to sign the development application. Slagle: So was that a small parcel of land, safe to say? Rich Ragatz: Yes. Sacchet: It's the little comer. Slagle: With the cul-de-sac. Sacchet: That little comer there, yeah. Slagle: Okay. And then the last question, pertaining to maybe the property you used to own, if I understand it. What I'll call the, how do you pronounce his name? Rich Ragatz: Egyhazi. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Slagle: Yes. Under proposal E, we're working with, are they connecting, is their driveway on Powers, is that what it's going to be? A1-Jaff: There's an existing private street. Slagle: Correct. I just want to make sure I'm not getting confused here Sharmeen. That that is not going to be closed. Okay, but you made the comment future development, they will close that and they will have to go through the cul-de-sac. A1-Jaff: Correct. Slagle: ...from some folks that that maybe wasn't what was thought, so I want to make clear that they're going to go around their house, even though their house faces Powers. They're going to drive around the back end of their house. Saam: The whole point Commissioner Slagle with that one is to close that access to Powers. Slagle: I understand but I just want to make sure that that property owner's fully. Saam: And ! wasn't around when that was adopted, Sharmeen was, but from everything I've read and from what Sharmeen's brought me up to speed on that, that's been the intention all along. Slagle: You believe that that property owner knows that that will. Rich Ragatz: They're well aware of that, yeah. Sacchet: Thanks Rich. Bruce. Feik: One quick thing. In going forward the Martinka's will access Powers how? Rich Ragatz: Well they'll currently have the existing access. Feik: They have a current gravel road I believe. Rich Ragatz: Gravel road that goes through. Feik: And that will continue? Rich Ragatz: Well it will continue or they can use the new improved street and just have a gravel road from there. Feik: Okay, thank you. A1-Jaff: Our preference is to limit the number of access points onto Powers Boulevard. Sacchet: Could we ask, could the city ask them to use that temporary cul-de-sac? Saam: Sure, I guess we could but they have an existing easement off what will be Rich's... Sacchet: Whether it makes sense or not, yeah. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Saam: Yeah, I mean if they have rights to do it, then. But see with development our plan was to close that. Sacchet: I don't know whether the Martinka's are here tonight. Probably if they are I would like them to speak for themselves. We got the letter from them that sounds much more reconciliatory than what the staff report reflects so if they're here, I hope they talk. Rich Ragatz: Yeah I just want to add one thing. I mean part of the reason we're doing this temporary cul-de-sac is there is an easement for access and utilities and I was willing to bring the public street and have it connect to the Christensen and Martinka property, which would provide a public street which is over and above the current requirements of the easement, and also bring the utilities and stub them off at the property. But he thought, and he never said that he'd be in that instance willing to relinquish his rights in the easement so it didn't make sense for me to move for~vard if there's that possibility. It's too risky. Sacchet: So from your vantage point there has been sufficient discussion between you two? Rich Ragatz: Yeah. Sacchet: Alright. Rich Ragatz: Yeah, and I just wanted to clarify two things. In the preliminary plat that Sharmeen brought up. Number 13. Perry and I have talked to Matt about this and you had mentioned the last time that we talked that we could maybe, you were open to suggestions on other ways to maybe go about this if they made sense. Saam: Yep. Rich Ragatz: So okay, just want that. And then on page 17 of the same thing, number 30. No, 31 I'm sorry. Also wanted to add, it says a financial security must be supplied to the city. I wanted to add in there, for developer's pro rata share of cost. Feik: Isn't there typically a multiple on that? Saam: What do you mean a multiple? Feik: If you're doing a bond or if you're doing a letter of credit it would be. Sacchet: 1.2 or something like that. Saam: Oh, l l0percent. Yeah. Yeah. Sacchet: Okay, so it'd be 110 percent of the pro rata share. Saam: I think what he's trying to address is he just wants to pay his own fair share and he would just like that clarified in there. We're fine with that. Rich Ragatz: And that's, oh go ahead. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Slagle: Point of clarification with Matt. On that 13 that we just talked about, you said you're open to suggestions. I'm assuming, and we just talked about the closest one. Saam: Yeah, how that came about, you can see they don't propose that on their plan. They kind of propose just out letting it into the neighboring property. Lori, the Water Resource Coordinator and myself sat down and came up with this proposal and ! just communicated that to Rich's engineer, that this is what we've come up with. You know you're welcome to look at it but what you've proposed right now really doesn't work for us. So we're open to other suggestions but this is what we've come up with right now. So barring any other ones, I guess we'd like to go with this. Sacchet: So you don't see a really an alternative at this point but you're willing to entertain if an alternative is presented to you, but the original proposal, to just let it out on the neighbors property is not acceptable. Saam: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. So would a work with staff be sufficient then at that condition? Saam: Sure, work with staff on finding a resolution to the pond outlet or something like that. Slagle: I can see one that's more generic... Sacchet: Did you want to address another one? Rich Ragatz: No, those were the ones I wanted to address. Sacchet: Thank you very much. With that, this is a public hearing. If anybody wants to come forward to address the Planning Commission on this item, please come forward now. State your name and address for the record and we listen to what you have to say. Anybody takers with this? This is your chance. Jon Steckman: Good evening. I'm Jon Steckman. I live on the property west at 1215 Lake Lucy. Sacchet: Would you want to point out which one it is, just for our orientation. Okay, excellent. Some beautiful trees there. Jon Steckman: Pardon me? Sacchet: Beautiful trees on your property. Jon Steckman: Most of them are on the Kerber property, but a few. The only question I have I guess, and that's more of a question. A couple questions. With the pond, I guess do we believe, and I did talk to Rich a number of times on the phone and worked out very well. But I guess with the pond, and the question maybe is to you, or over there, do we think that there will be water in that pond? I know I talked to, about that just in general. It's quite a huge pond that borders my property and just was interested in the possible depth of that pond. Where we thought that would be. Sacchet: Can you answer that Matt please? 40 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Saam: Sure. Yes, the pond is intended to hold water. The plan shows a normal water level which is in generic terms where the water will usually be at of 995. The bottom of the pond is 990, so it'd be about 5 feet deep at it's deepest point. Jon Steckman: Yeah, and I was just wondering about, sometimes you see the ponds around and they're quite reedy and mossy so what we have, which is going to be to a couple people's back yards, I was just interested if that could flow into that potential, proposed storm sewer, or something related to that. So, and then I just wanted the clarification on that point number 13, since I was the property currently where that might out flow or where it was originally proposed but, and then if that storm sewer goes through, that would be in the easement, we could lose some trees related to that on my property so I was just concerned and wanted staff to know that I guess. Saam: Okay. I'll just mention, if I can add to his. Sacchet: Go ahead. Saam: That the easement would be on the Kerber property. The pipe would be on the Kerber property. So our intention would be to limit the destruction I'll call it to things on your property. And I'll add just one more thing. The way they have this pond set up, in staff's view would be advantageous to your property if and when at some time you would develop. You would also have back yards which go toward the pond. The pond would be all set up for his drainage, that sort of thing so. Sacchet: So, but what you're saying Matt is that once your property develops, his development, that private street could actually use that as storm water pond as well? Is that what you're saying? Saam: Yes. So...basically right here so you can see what I'm saying. His property would be set up just like this one with a walkout's, whatever, looking at the pond to take care of the storm runoff. So I just want to point that out. It's good for future development also. Sacchet: For runoff, not necessarily for storm water from the other private street though. Saam: Well unless they put a catch basin in and piped it there. Sacchet: Okay. Alright. Jon Steckrnan: Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Anybody else like to address this item. This is your chance. Please come forward. Debbie Lloyd: Hi, Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I'll try to keep it short but I've seen some things in the staff report that I'm questioning and I just caught the stuff tonight so please bear with me. First question is, even though council approved this back in 1995 for E as the option, because it was not developed, is not required, is that correct or not? Sacchet: It's my understanding that the council decision was for Option E and that we're building on top of that. Are you saying are we locked into it? 41 Planning Commission Meeting- September 16, 2003 Debbie Lloyd: But because it wasn't, because it did not move ahead. Sacchet: Well some of it did. Like the cul-de-sac on the south is dedicated. Debbie Lloyd: So we are locked into Option E? Sacchet: Pretty much. A1-Jaff: I'm sure there are other alternatives. However, based upon the cul-de-sac, the right-of- way for the cul-de-sac and the alignment that we have, yes. You can say that. Debbie Lloyd: Okay. I think the number of, I'm going to change my focus a little bit here. I think the number of accesses is not a positive thing. Two private streets is not a positive thing. Private streets, the maintenance of those streets is left up to the owner of the property. I believe a public street should serve this area. Not be served by two private streets and one public street. In terms of, let's see. On the preliminary plat, page 6. Average lot size. I had a question mark on, it's shown as 21,323 square feet. Actually the developer said the average is about 18,000 square feet in his statement so staff report is not correct there. Sacchet: Sharmeen, I think that number comes from your compliance table doesn't it? Al-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: And it looks to me like you added up the lots and then divided them by the number. So I didn't check the math but. Debbie Lloyd: What is Lot 1, Block 2 with 41,336 feet? Sacchet: That's the lot on the southeast comer, right? Debbie Lloyd: This is really poor, can you read it here? Rich Ragatz: I'm talking about the...but if you use all 7 lots, it does average to 22. Sacchet: That makes sense, okay. That resolves that question. Thank you for clarifying that. What else did you find Debbie? Debbie Lloyd: On page 9 under streets, the last point. The last line. The additional right-of-way needs to be platted. So if it isn't platted it affects the buildable area I believe. And I don't know if that's part of the calculation. Just a notation. Sacchet: Yes, it seems like that's not been worked out at this point Matt, is that accurate? Saam: Yes, however the lots will stay the same. Other than Lot 1, Block 2 would decrease by that 7 feet because we're essentially pushing everything south so the big one will lose a couple hundred square feet or whatever it is. A1-Jaff: They're platting the entire subdivision now. Sacchet: Okay, and as you pointed out you don't have an issue with the street being offset by a couple feet. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Saam: No. Shenandoah is a sub-standard street so possibly in the future if that would get upgraded, we could...on center. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Debbie Lloyd: Okay, one other thing I wanted to point out about the private streets for Lots 1 through 4. Because of having private streets there, actually there's a gain to the property owner of 10 feet, because now you're requiring 30 feet for a private street. Sacchet: Can you repeat that? I'm not sure I got that. Debbie Lloyd: You're requiring 3 0 feet here of width. F or a public street there would be a requirement of 50. Sacchet: Correct. That's one of the advantages of the private street. Debbie Lloyd: Right, so there's almost a full lot gained by putting in private streets. The calculation is around 10,000, ifI calculated correctly, about 10,000 square feet. Sacchet: So the point being? That they would lose a lot if it were a public street? Debbie Lloyd: Correct. Sacchet: Did you also take into consideration that there are two private streets if they would go down the public street in the middle ~vhere all the big trees are, that actually the easement for the public street would be shared between the easterly and westerly lots. Is that accurate Matt? A1-Jaff: Yeah. Yes it is. Sacchet: Okay. Because I would think if you take that in consideration, then I'm not sure whether your point would really. Debbie Lloyd: Well there is a gain on each lot when you put in a private street. It's just a point. Sacchet: ...where would you go with that? Debbie Lloyd: It's just a point that you're gaining a buildable lot and granted it's a development that's been passed already but I do want to make that point because of the private street issue. On page 17, point 25. This does not mention that the driveway must be 20 feet wide. It says it's required for the private drive. That word should be private street so there's no confusion after all the code changes we went through. Sacchet: Okay, can you say this again so we're all on the same page? You're looking at number 25 on page 17 and what would you change? Debbie Lloyd: Point number 25. The driveway should be paved to 20 foot width. Saam: If I can add something to that, and the only reason we didn't add that is because they're already proposing it at 20 feet. 43 Planning Commission Meeting- September 16, 2003 Sacchet: So it's already there. Saam: It's already shown on the plan as 20 feet, yeah. Debbie Lloyd: But I would like to change the word from private drive to private street. Sacchet: Is that consistent with our language? A1-Jaff: Yeah. Sacchet: Okay, good point Debbie. Thank you. Debbie Lloyd: And apart from that, the only other point is meeting the variance requirements for private street, but again if this has been approved, ! don't know if it's a moot point or not. But the variance study here did not go over point by point, let's see. Page 14. Variances. You have point 1 through 4 but you have a general finding. In the finding it is possible to serve this site through a public street so you need to work through all those variances I believe in order t o sufficiently meet the variance. Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you Debbie. Am I correct by assuming that those considerations were made when this originally was chosen as Option E? A1-Jaff: Now please remember that back then it was not a variance. Sacchet: It was different, okay. Al-Jarl: We were operating under a different set of rules. Sacchet: Alright. This is a public hearing. Anybody else would like to come forward, this is your chance. State your name and address for the record please. Kevin Graft: My name is Kevin Graft. I live at 6726 Powers. Sacchet: Is that on the plat there? Kevin Graft: Property 13. Sacchet: Property 13, thank you very much. Kevin Grafft: Just a couple quick and easy questions. Main question is probably, I'm not sure who to address this to. What was the main reason for closing down the private drive to homes 11, 12 and 137 Sacchet: Matt, do you want to address that please. Saam: Y es. O ne to limit direct accesses onto Powers Boulevard, a collector. High traveled street, and two, was approved that way under the Golden Glow development, which is that development to the south. The development contract for that site says that when this future cul- de-sac public street is put in, that private street will go away. Kevin Graft: So once this addition's put on, that will close off the 3 homes down there? 44 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Saam: Yes. Kevin G raft: Because the o ne 1 ady w ill s till h ave, t he old R avis property w ill s till h ave h er access there? Saam: I'm not sure which one the old Ravis' is. Kevin Grafft: Number 18 there. Sacchet: Why don't you point it out on the plat there. Kevin Graft: Right down here. Ravis' is right there. So you're going to shut these 3 homes and route them... Saam: Yeah, good point. That would come out here to the cul-de-sac. Kevin Graft: Well then who's going to be responsible for maintenance of that road? Saam: When this gets built it will be a city street so we'll plow and maintain it and everything. This will remain a private street as it is now. Kevin Graft: Okay. Then just one last quick question. This is kind of regards to Mr., is it Ragatz? Ragatz. As far as Mr. Bob Martinka's inability to be accessible. I have a letter here from his attorney that's talking to you saying that he is willing to talk. Sacchet: Yeah, I believe we have a copy of that letter as well. It's the letter from September 15th? Kevin Graft: I want to say it's July. Feik: He's got a letter from an attorney. This is from Martinka themselves. Sacchet: Oh, this is from Martinka's themselves, okay. Kevin Graft: July 25th. So I was kind of confused by that. Feik: In reference in paragraph A of the Martinka letter. Reference to paragraph A. Sacchet: Alright. Kevin Graft: Because Bob's been kind of the spearhead in our area, kind of the bring us abreast and work hard as far as coming up with a solution for everybody so. Sacchet: So your point being that some additional... Kevin Graft: It's kind of confusing why he's been contradicting this all night. Sacchet: Yeah, but the point you're making is that it would be good to have some additional discussion there? Is that basically what you're saying? 45 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Kevin Grafft: Correct. Sacchet: I mean I don't want to put mouth in you, words in your mouth but. Kevin Grafft: I mean it's been totally opposite so I'm kind of confused by that I guess. Sacchet: Yeah, July 25th. That's the letter that was actually in our staff report. Feik: Oh yes in the back. Sacchet: That's the one you're referring to, right? Kevin Grafft: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. Kevin Grafft: That's all I have. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Anybody else want to address this item? This is your chance. It's getting late so I'm going to close it if nobody else stands up. Nobody else stand up? Are you sure Debbie. Debbie Lloyd: I'm really sorry because I know we're trying to keep these as short as possible. I just guess I'm like really confused. So if this was already approved, the subdivision was approved. Sacchet: That's my understanding. Debbie Lloyd: The purpose of this meeting then is to allow the variance? Sacchet: We're looking at the plat, we're looking at the variance and the plat. Two things. Plat and variance. Debbie Lloyd: But the plat was already approved. Feik: Conceptual. A1-Jaff: The Ravis plat. Golden Glow was approved. Sacchet: The Golden Glow plat. A1-Jaff: Which resulted in certain alignments, dedications put in place. Slagle: IfI may. Sacchet: Go ahead Rich. Slagle: Mr. Chair, and I want to get back to my thing from the beginning of this presentation, and I appreciate you trying to keep us on track, but I still have a question and that's why I was trying to get more history of this options because is this indeed E, call it E, the only framework that we're allowed to work with, because I'll give you an example. We had the development on 46 Planning Commission Meeting- September 16, 2003 Powers, and I won't go into the details, that we called premature and I'm questioning why this wouldn't be somewhat premature as well. Sacchet: Can you say why? Slagle: I'm not sure why but I'm just asking. What I'm saying is, we had a developer, or applicant who wanted to develop their land and we as a commission voted that it was premature. And what I'm saying is we're sort of being instructed, and I don't want to put words in the staff's mouth but this was already approved by City Council. You have to work under this guideline. And I have yet to see anything from the meeting of '95 that showed that, so I'm taking you guys on your word that that's our framework. Sacchet: Well let me clarify that. I mean obviously the issue in front of us is not which one of those 4 or 5 options is appropriate. Slagle: I understand. Sacchet: The issue in front of us is, the option that was chosen by City Council and I assume the Planning Commission at the time, on that basis here's a plat. Does this plat work? Does this plat meet the regulations and ordinances of zoning. That's the question I see in front of us. Al-Jarl: And the Ravis plat was approved based upon Option E. Feik: Right, but this plat was not filed. This was a conceptual plat. It's just conceptual... It was not a filed plat. It wasn't a done deal. Slagle: Correct and that's what I'm trying...is we have the ability Mr. Chair I think, to look at this proposal and if you will question certain things and have the ability to do that without thinking that a previous City Council approved this. Sacchet: Okay, question to staff. Is that accurate? Do ~ve have within our reach to go back and evaluate these options at this stage of the game? Slagle: Not what I'm asking. Sacchet: That's what I'm asking. I know that's not what you're asking but we might as well go all the way here. Saam: I'll give my opinion and I think what we, because this is what Rich talked about. Rich Ragatz the developer brought that up right from the beginning and what we've always said is, the council has the ability to change and say you know that council back in '95 didn't know what they were doing and just throw that out the window. I guess in my opinion we really don't. We have a development contract in place. We have platted right-of-way that we want to hook up, so we've already looked at the whole area. Gone through all the options. I think the plan's in place. We build off of that. Can we tweak this? Sure. Sacchet: I mean but basically staff's position is we don't want to reinvent the wheel in this particular case. Al-Jarl: Well we spent a good 6 months on the Ravis plat. Going through all of those options and 6 months might be an exaggeration. But it was quite. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Sacchet: Well I'm sure it wasn't an easy decision just by judging what we're going through here tonight with this. A1-Jaff: It wasn't...and our initial recommendation to the City Council was that this was a premature development for the Ravis. We said until Kerber is ready to develop, Ravis should not move forward, but. Slagle: And I guess what I'm, if I may, what I am suggesting is that with the absence of a couple of parties of this, who have properties in this already, let's just say design proposal. That's maybe the wrong word, I am wondering why we can't help that process along to reach an agreement to all parties to then have a solution that works for everybody versus leaving a couple folks out. That's really what I'm getting at. Al-Jaff: And in all honesty, if you look at this proposal, and we've spoken to Mr. Ragatz about this, one of the reasons he's calling it Phase I, Phase II is because with Phase I he's able to develop the entire property located to the northwest and then in the future when the remaining parties are all on the same page, they would be able to continue this cul-de-sac. Sacchet: Yes. Actually we're still having an open public hearing. Feik: I think I'm understanding you. Basically, I'm going to paraphrase what I heard and you tell me if I'm wrong. We're doing Phase I until they can secure that triangular piece of dirt to access the Golden Glow Court. Al-Jarl.' And Mr. Feik: That's the only thing that's holding this thing up as a two phase is to get that triangular piece of dirt. A1-Jaff: Correct, and Mr. Ragatz needs to work with Mr. Martinka to vacate, or. Sacchet: To come to an agreement. Simple. A1-Jaff: Come to an agreement. Sacchet: So we still have an open public hearing here. We have not heard from the Martinka's so I assume they're not here. Here's another person though who'd like to address us. Please come forward. Bob Martinka: Good evening and thank you. As I said in the opening statement of my memo to you. Sacchet: Name and address please. Bob Martinka: Oh I'm sorry. Bob Martinka... Sacchet: You are here. Welcome then. Bob Martinka: As I said in the opening statement in my memo I sincerely wish both the developer, Mr. Ragatz and the seller, Mr. and Mrs. Kerber you know every success in this 48 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 regardless of what the configuration is. Personally we got our little place back there in the woods and our lives will continue and we've got a large family and it fits us pretty well but, I kind of promised a couple folks that ! would not be standing up here this evening and I'm here for one reason only, and that is to you know this is all on the record and I want it to be accurate. There's a couple of things that were said here tonight and I'm not suggesting that they were said you know with any intention to have it appear other than it really is. However, Mr. Ragatz said I have conducted neighborhood meetings. Mr. Grafft is here from the neighborhood. Mr. Smith is here from the neighborhood. Mr. Cuccia is here from the neighborhood. Bob Christensen is here from the neighborhood. There was never a neighborhood meeting until one evening late in the process I personally called Rich to join an informal group for coffee out in front of Mike's house and we chatted about a few things. The subject of easement ! invite members of the commission to very thoughtfully read my memo. I made a number of overtures to bring the subject of easements on the table. Never, ever once did the developer approach me on the subject of easement. Never did we turn down or reject consideration of setting aside of the easement, and indeed I initiated procedures with my lien holder in case I was approached, which I never was approached. Ever on that subject. That needs to be set clear for the record because the Martinka residence, property is being, appearing to be used as a, you know as a reason why the development is being done in two stages. And may I just encourage you to look more carefully at what appears to be that little corner of property that has to be crossed. It's a 25 foot line and I invited staff to come out and look and take a walk. I also, at Sharmeen's recommendation, very well advised recommendation, you know mentioned to the developer out in the field, have an engineer's chalk line drawn so I could better see and understand what we're really talking about. Because what we were talking about was the proposal never discussed in advance. I discovered, you know I learned about it for the first time when I picked a copy up from Sharmeen's office, who by the way has been really very helpful and responsive and cooperative. That proposal put the right-of-way within 2 to 4 inches of the string of some of the oldest, tallest evergreens in Carver County, and threatened their survival. I went in to see a staff member in the planning council and he said well, yeah. Those trees would probably have to go. Well, they define the whole character of that property. Never discussed in advance so you know I think some of those things, had there been a little planning in advance, as I suggested in the last paragraph of that memo, and encourage you to look at it, who knows. We might have a win/win situation that Rich referred to there. Well, I don't want to belabor that point just that I think the record needs to be corrected, particularly on those points. I made perhaps a half a dozen initiatives on the subject of easement and never got a response. Sacchet: Appreciate your. Bob Martinka: The subject's never been brought up. Sacchet: Appreciate your sharing that with us. If I may ask you a question or two. Bob Martinka: You bet. Sacchet: I think you are accurate in that that road alignment would have significant impact onto the trees to your east. If by looking at the plat I think it's very evident that that roadway, going to the cul-de-sac of Golden Acres, Golden Glow, or what's it called? A1-Jaff: Golden Glow. Sacchet: Golden Glow Acres. Would have a significant impact on the trees. Not on your property but just across your property line to your east. And you expressed that would have a 49 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 significant impact on the character o f your residence. Now from that I would be inclined t o conclude that you do have a resistance for that roadway to go in, which I fully understand. Bob Martinka: I have resistance to making decisions and taking action without everybody with the best interest sitting down at a table and some advance information and the guidance and gradually moving towards a best mutual outcome that we can have and that opportunity has never been provided. Sacchet: Then I have another question of that. Were you aware of that road being planned when you acquired that property? Bob Martinka: No sir. Sacchet: Okay. Well that's part of the problem. Okay. Bob Martinka: You know that property is going to be developed at some point in time. They just ain't making land no more, especially in Carver County, and we're open and reasonably easy and trying to be okay folks to work with. That really has not been the process that's been used. The process that's been used you know, here's a plan. That's what we're going ahead with, or respond to it and I think if everyone were involved at the earlier stages of the process, everybody had a chance to listen, to express their thoughts, their concerns, their recommendations. Sacchet: Then part of what we're struggling with here tonight is that a lot of this planning took place what, 8 years ago. And most of the people here, actually almost all of us were not here. Bob Martinka: She gave you a short course in the background, yeah. Sacchet: Well I appreciate your coming to speak up. Thank you very much. Feik: Mr. Martinka, one question please. As a stakeholder, what would you have us do? Bob Martinka: I would have you structure a new look with this, as almost as though we were starting from the beginning because I think there are some options out there. You know Phase I, Phase II with Martinka's easement apparently being the, so. Sacchet: Sharmeen points out that you did submit a proposal from what you would encourage? Do you want to zoom in on that Nann? Yeah. A1-Jaff: This is the Martinka property. And the Christensen's are right here. What this calls for is a cul-de-sac that terminates in front of the Christensen property. A foot path, oh this is a private street. A foot path and then where the cul-de-sac bubble sits would be turned into a mini park area for the neighborhood. Sacchet: And the access of those properties to the south would stay the way it is? A1-Jaff: Correct, so they would not be able to further subdivide. Sacchet: Okay. Thank you for pointing that out Sharmeen. Al-Jarl: Sure. 50 Planning Commission Meeting- September 16, 2003 Bob Martinka: There's been an expression of non-interest by those two parties in developing their properties now. Obviously times change. Houses sell, etc but. Sacchet: Alright. Thank you very much. Appreciate your comments. Thank you for stepping up, even though you apparently promised some people you wouldn't. We definitely wanted to hear from you. With that, unless somebody else wants to address the commission, yes. There is somebody else. Please come forward. State your name and address for the record and let us know what you have to say. Larry Kerber: Larry Kerber, 6700, well I own the property at 6700. I live at 6420 Powers, and the only comment I have is, I'd like to, I think I disagree with Mr. Martinka. He was well aware of this project and proposed turn around, everything when he bought the property. The person he bought it from Bob Peterson and I discussed it even when Martinka bought and I said, does he know. And Bob says oh yeah, I showed him Option E. Showed him everything. So maybe he just forgot or something. Sacchet: Based on information you have, let's not go there. I mean this is, but I appreciate yes. You made your statement, I appreciate that but I don't think we want to discuss that. That's not our scope here. Obviously we have some disconnects here and I wish people could work those out, but that's not our task here at Planning Commission. Al-Jarl: And if the Planning Commission would focus on the proposal that is before you today. Sacchet: Yeah and basically, anybody else want to address the Planning Commission here? This is still open public hearing. Last chance. I'm closing the public hearing. Bring it back to commissioners. And to emphasize Sharmeen's point, our task here is this proposal that's in front of us. Our task is to look at this. Does this meet the city regulations, ordinance, zoning and make a finding on that. Whether we agree with the staff. Whether it needs to be tweaked or where we go with this. That's basically the task that's in front of us as a Planning Commission. With that I would want some comments, and the group is pointing to you Rich. Feik: I'm just pointing at that end. Slagle: You know I'm not exactly sure what to say on this one to be frank with you. Actually I don't have anything to say right now. Sacchet: Okay, that's good enough. Anything more from you Kurt? Papke: It's clear there's been some breakdown in communications here, but I think the plan in front of us involves 7 lots and were there to be other alterations here, you know it doesn't sound like they would affect the 7 lots in question here. I think the developer should be given the right to proceed with what's on the table right at this time and have all these other considerations taken into account as we move forward with the rest of the development. Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Bethany, want to give it a stab? Tjornhom: You know I just agree with what happened at the other end of the table. I guess I agree with everything they said and I approve, or I think it is a good lot development and good luck. Sacchet: Okay, thanks Bethany. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Feik: I'm in a quandary. I would be not nearly as resonant as I am if the easement that access the Martinka property out to Powers, that piece would go away and we would eliminate one more access onto Powers on a temporary basis. That would make me very comfortable with what's in t¥ont of us. I guess my question to you Matt is, we've got the proposed cul-de-sac which dead ends you know right off of the Powers coming in 100 feet or whatever it is, and then just to the south of that another, help me out, 30, 50, 60, 75 feet. Saam: That's about right. Feik: Is the gravel road to the Martinka, if I'm pronouncing it properly I hope, and then we go another 200-300 feet and we've got the private road that was ultimately to be abandoned if this could go in. I can live with the private road to the south. I would have liked to have seen some accommodations by the developer here to try to really encourage this abandonment of that one gravel road just south of the new road. Saam: Could I add two points? Feik: Please. Saam: To that for you Commissioner Feik. First of all staff is fully in support of getting rid of that gravel drive. Putting in the entire public street cul-de-sac. Having everybody come off that. We told Rich that. In fact his previously submitted plan showed that. However in discussions with him, that he told us, he wasn't able to, as you know, come to an agreement with Martinka and I think Christensen also has a stake in that easement. Without getting rid of the easement, which Martinka and Christensen have to sign off on, I don't think we can require that. We can't shut them off. Feik: I understand but now we've got a cul-de-sac that comes in 100 feet or so and then to the southwest comer of that cul-de-sac we've got a private road, which is going to skirt that cul-de- sac by about 4 feet. Sacchet: Or less. Feik: Or less. And then ultimately wander back out to Powers. Sacchet: It doesn't make sense. Feik: It doesn't make sense at all. Saam: I agree. If the residents would be willing to get rid of just even that far east portion and come off the cul-de-sac we would be in favor of that. The city. A1-Jaff: Mr. Ragatz has no control over this. Feik: I understand that. Sacchet: Yeah because Mr. Martinka is in his rights with having this easement. Anything else Brace? Feik: No. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 Sacchet: Alright, my turn. This is sticky, judging by how long it takes. I'm going to get real bad marks from the City Council by having such a late meeting again. Feik: We're not done. Sacchet: I know. Basically I agree with everything that's been said. I think the applicant is in his full rights to develop this. It's a proposal that's based on previous decision of City Council in terms of the private road. The wetland alteration is reasonable. Do I like it? Well, yeah I'm a tree guy and I'd like to see a little more consideration for trees, but that's not a reason to hold this up. B ut I d o agree with Commissioner F eik. I think t o h ave an additional access to Powers within 80 feet or less from another one existing is not acceptable and I think this would be reason to table it and ask the parties to discuss this. For the Martinka party, there are really 3 issues. One is the easement from the potential temporary cul-de-sac out to Powers. And I don't know whether legally we have a sound foundation to turn it down on that basis, but I certainly think we have a solid foundation to table this on this basis and asking the parties to work on this. Now the other two aspects that affect the Martinka property. One is that piece of property that would have to be taken for that roadway alignment, which I don't think is that big an issue. I think for the Martinka property the real issue is the road going in there and all these trees coming out, but that's a separate issue from the access onto Powers. I think it's reasonable to table it on that basis and ask that to be looked at and worked on and come back to us and we will take it from there, so that's where I'm at. Feik: I have one more quick question before we go any further. Sacchet: Go ahead. Feik: Matt, the lot block, Lot 2, Block 1 existing house, the large lot, how does that structure and how do they access when this is done to Powers? Saam: I believe they go through that gravel drive also, don't they? Rich Ragatz: Yes, it'd be the gravel drive. Saam: Yes, they also access that way. Sacchet: Through the same access as the Martinka. Saam: Yes. Sacchet: So that's a shared easement there, okay. Well yeah, good question Bruce. Any other aspects, otherwise I'd like to have a motion. Anybody dare to make a motion on this one? Bob Martinka: If you deny me I'll respect your decision but I would ask for 30 seconds. Sacchet: Okay, please come forward. We're late either way. 30 seconds go fast though. Bob Martinka: When I bought that property I was n ever aware of a development that would encroach on our property, nor that would jeopardize these massive evergreen trees. Of course I was aware of a cul-de-sac that borders our property and that a road someday would run through 53 Planning Commission Meeting - September 16, 2003 there but I really, I need Larry to understand that and I need you to understand it because my veracity is kind on line. Sacchet: Appreciate, thank you. And it only took 30 seconds. I appreciate that particularly. Are we ready for a motion? Feik: I'll move we table. Sacchet: Do we have a second'? Slagle: I'll second. Feik moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission table the Preliminary Plat request for Burlwood Addition at Lake Lucy Road and Powers Boulevard. All voted in favor, except Papke who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Sacchet: So we have 4 to 1. Anything you want to add? You made your position pretty clear. Papke: I think I made my comments pretty clear. Sacchet: Okay. So we see you guys in a couple weeks. 3 or more. And I think we had enough discussion on it that we know why we tabled this. I'm not going to go back into this further, and I would like to move onto our last item on the agenda. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY TO COMMERCIAL ON 8 ACRES AND CONCEPTUAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD} REVIEW FOR A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING A FAMILY ACTIVITY CENTER AND TOWNHOMES ON 14 ACRES ZONED AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT (A2L LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF TH 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD, JOHN PRYZMUS, SWINGS. Public Present: Name Address Marlene Bentz Lois Degler 7300 Galpin Boulevard 9111 Audubon Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Questions from staff. Feik: Sure, I'll start. Bob, this was guided as residential. The piece that's on the east of Galpin that now is occupied by the Kwik Trip, how was that guided? Generous: It was guided for commercial, medium density residential or and parks and open space. 54