Loading...
PC 2013 07 16 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 16, 2013 (Due to technical difficulties, some of the microphones were not working properly.) Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Maryam Yusuf, Stephen Withrow, and Lisa Hokkanen MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad, Kim Tennyson, and Steven Weick STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer; and Drew Ingvalson, Planning Intern PUBLIC PRESENT: Dave Moore 3811 Williston Road Chris Hammer 9688 Washington Boulevard th Troy Kakacek 380 West 86 Street Jim & Susan Keeler 1817 Freedom Lane Deb Chenoweth 1829 Freedom Lane LuAnn Markgraf 401 Rice Court Dick Roe 6771 Penamint Lane Wally Schwab 950 Carver Beach Road Keith & Julie Peterson 921 Hiawatha Drive Jeff Kerfeld 2702 Shadow Wood Court Karen Blenker 405 Rice Court Joe Dorn 1833 Freedom Lane John C. Knoblauch 1450 Knob Hill Lane Colleen Kroll 2694 Shadow Wood Court Emily Owen 2706 Shadow Wood Court Keith Wyman 2674 Shadow Wood Court PUBLIC HEARING: 960 CARVER BEACH ROAD: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 20-615 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 960 CARVER BEACH ROAD. APPLICANT: DAVID D. MOORE, INC. OWNER: ANITA BENSON. PLANNING CASE 2013-15. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Aller: I noticed in the report that the first plan came by with 33%. Aanenson: Correct. Aller: Was that the porch area then? Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 Aanenson: Yeah I think the interpretation of that was..and actually that was a raised deck so it didn’t include the hard surface coverage. It was this area here because a raised deck off that split so it didn’t count towards the hard cover so it was just a calculation correction on the staff. Aller: And my review of the report it shows the history of the lot, apparently there was an original application for variance which was denied because it was too much on that hard cover and then there was a second one that had been approved? Aanenson: Correct. Aller: And this one is less than the one that had been approved as far as the hard coverage? Aanenson: Yes. Aller: Isn’t that the 16 foot center drive? Aanenson: Yes. That’s pretty minimal. They can go larger, yes. So that’s minimal. Aller: I don’t have any further questions at this time. Any other concerns? Would the applicant like to step forward or make a presentation on behalf of the applicant? Please state your name and address for the record sir. David Moore: Hi. David Moore. David D. Moore, Inc., applicant. 3811 Williston Road, Minnetonka. Aanenson: Mr. Chair if I could, I know we’re having problems with the microphone. Mr. Moore, if you wouldn’t mind just speaking into, you can speak into the one on the podium too. David Moore: Okay. Is that better? Aller: That’s better, thank you. David Moore: Okay. Aller: Welcome Mr. Moore. Tell us about the variance and what you’re looking for. David Moore: Well I went through several plans trying to fit this lot and the difficulty is the width of the lot. Not necessarily the depth. Originally I spoke with some of the staff members about possibly applying for an 8 foot side yard variance to go with it and they suggested don’t do that. Do, follow the guidelines that were approved some time ago at 36% approval for the hard cover. I did the calculations myself with 33.5% not knowing your deck coverage was not included. I would like to reserve the 33.5% is still on my application. That would be a walkout underneath that deck. Would not be underground. And I would like to reserve that possibly to pour a patio. Aller: Okay. David Moore: Give that consideration. The other option obviously would be to put a slab on grade wood platform deck which would deteriorate over time. Not too friendly to the public I don’t think but it is a three bedroom, three bath plan. I could have gone smaller in house. I wouldn’t be here tonight. It would be an 860 split with a single tuck under garage. Not favorable to the public and the values around the area that I viewed myself. I’ve been selling real estate for Edina Realty for 37 years so I pretty much know values when I see it and the functionality of a house having three bedrooms on one floor rather than two. 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 The driveway situation possibly moving it closer to the street. Doesn’t matter to me either way. I would like to comply with the 30 foot setback off the street to go with the back. The other difficulties of this property these, I’m very well aware of this, there is no sewer/water stubbed to the property. It’s out in the street. I visited with staff on several occasions here. There’s a WAC and SAC charge of about $8,200 to go with this in addition to cutting into the street and bringing the sewer service and the water service to the property. Aller: Well I can’t help you with the numbers but… David Moore: No, I’m just saying it’s what I’m trying to deal with here and I understand the whole situation. I’m not new to the building industry. Aller: Great. Well thank you very much. Does anyone have any questions? David Moore: I guess I’d like to leave that, at least on the garage side. An 8 foot side yard application would have been great for only one reason. It gives the width of the bedrooms a 10 foot width dimension rather than reduce down to 9 foot in width. My architect has designed the house for me to cantilever this side of the house 18 inches which does not infringe on the hard cover whatsoever because it’s above ground. It’s a little more difficult to do on the gabled end of a house but it can be accomplished. The aesthetics and the architectural design would be impaired because of that. Aller: Thank you. Aanenson: I just want to get a clarification on the cantilever. You’re getting a variance, when you’re getting a variance, you can’t also double dip on a cantilever on a, when you’re encroaching on. You’re giving an 8 foot then you can’t use a variance too so I guess it’d be instead of, I’m just trying to answer your question. So the way our ordinance is written right now, if you’re getting a variance on a setback you can’t also use the cantilever portion of it. We don’t allow that. The way I understood it he was trying to see if he could get an 8 foot and then make sure, if you were to go that direction, that you couldn’t also use a cantilever on that. David Moore: Okay. Aanenson: That would not be the floor plan in our packet. Aller: It’s in the packet. Unless it’s changed. Alright. Well then at this point I will open the public hearing and…come forward speaking for or against the application for a variance on this property can do so at this time. Keith Peterson: Hi. My name’s Keith Peterson. I live at 921 Hiawatha Drive. Aller: Welcome Keith. Keith Peterson: I guess the reason the neighborhood has kind of always been fired up about this lot. Back in ’99 when the lot first came for sale, three of us over there called the City and the City told us it was not buildable. So we were going to buy the lot and divide it up so each of our lots would be bigger, closer to the size lots that should be in Chanhassen. Well then before we got the deal done somebody from the City buys it and all of a sudden it’s buildable and so that’s why we’re very fired up. I can’t believe the guy that sold the lot didn’t sue the City because he sold this lot for $4,200 and $4,200 in Chanhassen you know doesn’t buy much. It’s a small lot. It shouldn’t be a buildable lot. It should be made into, to make the lots more acceptable size for the houses that are actually there. And another thing 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 I noticed, I wish I had more time to prepare but there’s a letter from Anita saying that in ’99 she was approved for variances. I don’t recall that. The first time I recall anything coming to the City was when she was trying to sell it for $21,000 to Habitat for Humanity without doing a thing. To me that’s just pure profit. You’re getting variances for profit and I don’t, unless you have information that I don’t have, I don’t think it was ever approved in ’99 because we didn’t do the, the other one with Habitat until December of 2000. That’s the first I recall. I don’t know about you guys but, so there was just, just a lot of stuff that really ticked us off and now that it’s reopened again they ended up approving, you know the Planning Commission denied it at first and then you guys didn’t want to get sued, that’s why we were told that they had to approve it but you should have gotten sued by the guy that sold the lot because he sold it for $4,200. We should have sued you because you lied to us. Not you in particular but so. So I think this variance, and another thing I don’t understand is a self created hardship. When you buy a lot for $4,200 and try to sell it for $21,000, if you get the variance, I mean you know it’s a small lot. I think the hardship was created by buying a lot like this. You know it should have been a non-buildable lot and that’s what the City told everybody else so, I don’t know we’re just kind of fired up over there and that’s just, I’m not sure what else I was going to say but I don’t recall just recap. ’99 I don’t recall her ever getting approved and she didn’t, it never came to you guys until she was trying to sell it and to me that’s just pure profit and another thing that lot has been there since what, ’99 she’s owned it. It’s never been mowed once. It looks like a jungle now and for her to be, now she’s asking what, $29,000 for it? I mean this variance is just pure profit and for a city employee to, nobody ever gave us a straight answer how it was unbuildable when we called but a city employee bought it so that’s just kind of where we’re, I’m coming from so I’m not sure what everybody else has to say but that’s my piece. Aller: Thank you. Aanenson: Mr. Chair, in the background we gave the dates that, so there was a variance so. Aller: Right. Aanenson: …nothing happens with a variance for one year then it becomes null and void but there was one approved. The first one was denied… Keith Peterson: In 2000. Aanenson: Yeah we do have in the background… Keith Peterson: It was 2000 and it was approved then in ’99. Aanenson: 2001. Keith Peterson: Yeah. She said it was done in ’99. Aanenson: Well I can’t comment on the factual. I’m worried… Keith Peterson: Well she’s saying she had it approved to make it look like it wasn’t done for pure profit. Aller: Okay, I understand your position sir. Thank you. Anyone else? Wally Schwab: Yeah. My name is Wally Schwab. I live. Aller: Sorry? 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 Wally Schwab: Wally Schwab. I live at 950 Carver Beach Road which is just east of the property in question. Most of what he said is true about the variances. She, Ms. Benson was granted a variance on the basis of to deny her the variance would be creating a hardship, which would result in a taking by the papers from the last time this came up. This now is not the case in this instance because the proposed new owner does not yet own the property. Therefore denial of the variance would not be creating a hardship. Myself and most of the neighbors to whom I have spoken have concerns about a house, a building of any size being crammed into a sub-standard sized lot. If you tour the area, all of the lots in that region are a full, at least a full 100 by 100. Some of them are more than 100 by 200. They’re all nice, big sized lots with decent sized houses on them. Yes, there are smaller lots further down Carver Beach Road. These two lots were originally summer cabins. They’ve now become full time residences. To compare the use of them to this property I think is wrong. It just will not fit in our immediate neighborhood. If you tour the area, the lots are all, there’s space. This is like that. It doesn’t work. That’s my concern. Aller: Thank you sir. Dick Roe: Dick Roe. I live 6771 Penamint. I’m right directly across from the driveway. My property and really at this point I wasn’t for or against. I guess I just wonder how, if all the other homes on both sides are all single family, or not single family but just single story, how this in addition to getting approved, how they would allow a two story home, which would be the only one. Would stick up above the rest of the homes there. There isn’t a two story home anywhere either direction so it’s just a matter of, there’s many things that he’s asking for and I hadn’t seen any prints or plans until tonight but I think that if somebody could meet all the 10 foot, 10 foot and they could do it on a single story then I would be for it. Aller: Thank you sir. Yes ma’am. Katie Eckhoff: I’m Katie Eckhoff and I live at 920 Hiawatha Drive. Aller: Welcome. Katie Eckhoff: And I haven’t lived there as long as these folks have so we’ve been there for 5 years. 6 years actually and we, our biggest issue is that, you know we moved to Chanhassen because our neighborhood and the surrounding area has big lot sizes. That was a big factor for our family in moving to this community and I feel like to cram a house into that tiny, little lot is really going to take away the integrity of our neighborhood and what people are looking for in our neighborhood and I feel that it may detract from, it may bring our value of our house down by having this tiny, little house crammed in a lot where all the rest of the surrounding neighborhood has nice large lots and you know family friendly homes. This one’s just, it just is not going to fit in I guess bottom line and I’m worried for the resale of our house down the road potentially and also like I said, you know if we want to live in a community where the houses were crammed in together we would have lived in Minneapolis. I mean we moved to Chanhassen, this community because it’s a beautiful area and the lot sizes are large and that’s what we were looking for for our family so I mean for what it’s worth that’s kind of my opinion and I just don’t think it’s a good fit for our neighborhood. Aller: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come up speak for or against? Seeing. Keith Peterson: What was the original proposal on the house to be built that? Aller: My history was. 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 Keith Peterson: Just a single story wasn’t it? Aller: It was. Keith Peterson: What I recall is they approved a house that nobody would want to build just so they could get something approved and not get sued I guess. Audience: Should you let them know that… Keith Peterson: Oh yeah, she’s been offered to sell that lot at a profit but not like she’s trying to get now. Aller: Thank you. I understand that and for everybody’s edification I can’t control the marketplace and the committee’s not here to look at the value of the property per se but the use of the property at this point which is the application before us and so that’s what we’re looking for and there’s a certain structure that can typically be put on to a property when they combined lots that were platted, these were platted a long time ago so they’re smaller lots so in order to get the value out of the properties owners are required to basically put those platted lots together in order to have a tax parcel and to build on them. Keith Peterson: You should tell the guy that’s selling it that it’s a buildable, not buildable. Aller: But that’s the person’s right and that’s one of the reasons why the property has a value. A person has a right to using that to the best of their ability and for that size…the best use. That’s what we’re trying to do is balance that between what we would like to do as a city and restricting those rights and what a homeowner wants to do with her property so. Keith Peterson: Well I’m sure you would have sold it for a lot more if you would… Aller: At this point I’m going to close the public hearing and we’re going to let the applicant come forward and if you’d like to respond to any of the comments, that’s fine. David Moore: I guess in some of the research I’ve done with the City as well on this property, it was one lot at one point and it was split prior to 1977. The abutting owner’s property, 970 next to 960 was in fact 960 Carver Beach Road. The City did approve and did split along the way this lot. It’s a lot of record and it should be buildable. As far as value, my bank’s got this thing over $300,000. I don’t know where the total values are on Carver Beach Road but I think that’d be on the top of the list right now. Aller: Okay. Any comments? Discussion. Questions. Any questions on the variance? Comments. I think that in looking at this, if we grant this motion we’re allowing for the use of the property in a way which is less than, which was approved by prior Planning Commissions so I feel fairly comfortable with that. That being said I’ve looked at all the conditions and looked at the use that’s been requested. I do believe that it’s a hardship not of the owner’s making but one of the nature of the property itself. I don’t believe that it’s necessarily for purposes of economics, solely for economics but actually use of the property to get the highest and best use of the property is obviously going to raise the value of the property. My hope is that it will raise the value of everyone’s property if it’s built. They still have the hoops to jump through if we grant the variance so I would be voting to approve. Any other comments? Questions? That being said, anybody who’d like to make a motion. I’d entertain a motion. Hokkanen: I’ll make the motion. The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approve the 5.8% hard cover variance to permit the construction of a single family home subject to the conditions of the staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Yusuf: Second. Aller: Any further discussion? I’ll just say I believe that there are other variances that have been granted in that area that this would be in line with as stated in the report. Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission, as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approves a 5.8% hard cover variance to permit the construction of a single-family home subject to the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Decision: 1. The builder shall provide a tree survey as part of the building permit process. The builder shall try to preserve the trees at the perimeter of the property. 2. The building shall be limited to the split level house design. 3. The builder shall apply for a building permit and meet all requirements of said permit. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: BLUFF CREEK COTTAGES: REQUEST TO REZONE 8.9 ACRES OF PROPERTY FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT (A-2) TO MIXED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-8); SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SENIOR HOUSING FACILITY; AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT. PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL AND WEST OF BLUFF CREEK BOULEVARD. APPLICANT: CHESTNUT GROUP, LLC. OWNER: JOHN KLINGELHUTZ, PLANNING CASE 2013-08. Al-Jaff: Good evening Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. The application is for a senior housing project, extended care. The site is located north of Pioneer Trail, west of Bluff Creek Boulevard. The existing zoning as well as the land use on the site, the 2030 Land Use Plan shows this area designed for development as medium density. Medium density allows for 4 to 8 units per acre. Types of development appropriate zoning for this type of land use would be an R-8, an RLM which allows for mixed types of low medium density or a planned unit development residential type of zoning. What the applicant is proposing to develop on this site is a single building which will contain 24 rooms. Individual rooms. The occupants of the building will be individuals that need assistance with their mobility. They will put a substantially less demand on the infrastructure of, on the infrastructure than a typical medium density type of development would. And for a continuing care facility the only type of zoning that is, that allows this type of use within the city is the R-8, which is the medium density. So with that said, what the applicant is requesting is a rezoning of the property from currently as I said it is zoned Agricultural Estate District. They are proposing to rezone it from Agricultural Estate to Medium Density which is R-8. They are also requesting a site plan approval for the construction of a continuing care retirement facility and a conditional use permit since the site falls within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The only way you are allowed to develop within that area is if the City grants a conditional use. The current zoning of the site is Agricultural Estate District. The applicant is requesting they rezone it to Medium Density. That type of rezoning is consistent with the Land Use Plan and staff is recommending approval of this rezoning. It is compatible with the surrounding area. The area to the north of it has a medium density. The area to the east has 4 units per acre and then as we go into the Chaska portion of the 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 city, which is to the southwest, that area is all residential single family homes. The site plan basically consists of a building that will gain access off of Pioneer Trail. Bluff Creek runs along the northeast portion of the site. The total area of this building is 13,700 square feet. As I mentioned earlier it will be one story. 24 bedrooms within this building. The maximum hard surface coverage permitted under this district is 35%. What the applicant is proposing will result in 8.9% hard surface so they are substantially below the maximum permitted. One of the things that the applicant has done with this building is extended a sidewalk that basically goes along the driveway and it will connect with a regional trail along Pioneer Trail. The design of the building is attractive. It is proposed to be constructed of high quality materials. They include a cultured stone and a sample of the materials is available. There will also be paneling. All elevations that can be viewed from the public, by the public have been treated equal. Treated and given equal attention. There is variation throughout the building and the windows, as well as doors will comprise over 50% of each elevation as required by ordinance. Bluff Creek. As mentioned earlier Bluff Creek runs along the northern portion of the site. The area that is highlighted in red on this slider shows the secondary zone while the blue is the primary zone on the site. Staff has had conversations with the developer and it is the applicant’s intention to ultimately donate this property to the City. The required 40 foot setbacks from Bluff Creek primary zone are being met. Of that 20 feet is going to be a buffer. And they have no intention of developing anywhere within the area that is the primary nor the secondary zone. So staff is recommending approval of the rezoning, the site plan approval and the conditional use permit to allow for the construction of this building for continuing care for the elderly and I’ll be happy to answer any questions. Aller: Great, thank you. And the report, as you noted, there’s a number of additional pages other than what has been presented in the viewing screen for the general public and can be found on the website. There are a number of conditions. Have you discussed the conditions with the applicant? And are they, and do they appear to be willing to comply with those? Al-Jaff: That’s for the next item. Aller: Oh, I’m sorry. Do we have an equivalent between, with the shrubs that were requested and the existing vegetation, do we know what that is? Al-Jaff: Yes. It is. Aller: In that buffer. Al-Jaff: They are working with the landscape. They’re working on the landscaping with the City Forester and when she reviewed the plans she indicated that they meet all the requirements. She had no additional comments nor conditions to add to this. Aller: That’s all I have for now so, any questions? Comments? Withrow: What is the size of the amount of land donated to the City? Al-Jaff: They are working with the Water Resources Coordinator and that will be something that will come in the future. There are some steep grades on the site. Some bluffs as well as wetlands. They could do it either through a subdivision or they could grant the City an easement to, over these wetlands and storm ponds. Withrow: Okay, and then in the report you mentioned that we’re still waiting on soil borings. Al-Jaff: Correct. 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 Withrow: And I don’t know a whole lot about those but what is the likelihood that they won’t come back positive? And if so what would be done about it? What effect would that have? Al-Jaff: They will have to correct the soils. Withrow: They can remediate it? Al-Jaff: Correct. Withrow: Okay. Thank you. Aller: And if we pass this then any remediation would have to comply with the Bluff Creek requirements. Al-Jaff: Correct, as well as wetland setbacks, as well as the bluffs. Aller: And then was there a permit required then for the construction? No? Aanenson: Well no getting, I mean Chair, the process would be then for the, it’s not a subdivision so we put together a site plan agreement. There would still be security put in place for any public utilities or any landscaping that was to be put in place. The site plan would administer all that so then also for the building permit process…would be executed to find out if soil corrections…send it to a building official. And I just want to add one other, going back to, if I may go back to the site showing that watershed area. The donation. I’m just trying to find it on this. Oops, there it is. So if you look at this larger area, that’s what Sharmeen had indicated relief at, there’s some steep slopes and there’s some areas that…it’s topographically isolated so it really has no building utility…that’s fine, we can manage that so…because they’re not platting it right now and it’s not needed for any…except for the fact that they’re grading next to it…if they want to work through some other things with the City, that could be a separate discussion… Aller: Thanks for the clarification. Anything else? Alright, would the applicant like to come forward? State your name and address for the record sir. Dave Pokorney: My name is Dave Pokorney. I’m with Community Asset Development Group. My address is 1403 Valley View Road, Chaska. Thank you. So I actually don’t have a lot of comments. I think we spent a lot of time with the staff working through this. I’ve got to tell you I’m really glad I’m here with this project and not some of the other ones we looked at because the landowner has owned the land for a while. We looked at some different uses. I mean you can imagine if we had the townhouse project and we were really having to be up against the buffers and bluffs and that’s what, when we kind of hit upon this is the concept. We just said this is a really good use for the site. Quite frankly we’re not, as Sharmeen’s indicated we kept away from all of the bluffs. Were able to, there are a few trees on one corner that we’re touching but everything else is staying so for us it’s, we’re excited about the project because we think it’s a really good use but quite frankly we’re also excited it was not a difficult process to develop this site. I mean we’ve known for some time that this was going to be a challenge. Relative to the dedication, I think our discussion we’ve been having with the staff is that basically everything that you see that’s outside of the red line and this we would deed either an easement. It probably would be an easement because we are not going through a platting but it really is a piece that should be public. Should be preserved. People should have the right to go in there. It has really little value once we develop this to our property, although it has the same value to us as it does to the rest of the public so we may have, we won’t have our residents hopefully that are using but we may have visitors that will use it as an open space. 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 Aller: Just to make it clear. Dave Pokorney: …we’re happy with, relative to the conditions which I know is the next item, I do have to say I think it’s the most conditions I’ve ever seen in a project in a long time, if ever but we don’t have any concerns regarding the conditions. Aller: Well and I’m sure citizens are glad to hear we’re putting requirements out there. Obviously the dedication portion is not a requirement for purposes of moving forward with your project, nor is it something other than a general interest for the people out there listening. Dave Pokorney: And quite frankly the landowner will probably, because it’s not a requirement he’ll be able to get some kind of tax advantage that will work for him. Aller: So tell us a little bit more about the project itself. It’s a senior’s home. Tell us what you’re constructing. Dave Pokorney: Yep, so it’s a 24 unit building. It’s geared to seniors that have, either they’re having memory care issues or they’re elderly and very few, I mean we won’t have residents that have cars, put it that way. The way that it’s set up it’s actually two separate units. Living units. Both units on each side. Each living unit will have it’s own dining, living room area. We will join, the reason we put it into two 12’s, particularly with people who have memory care issues. The smaller and simpler that you can make them, it’s just a better environment but when we can combine them together then we have the joint staffing so in the evening times we don’t need, we can have one person staffing a 24 unit. During the day there’s more. These tend to be really that one story environment works well for seniors that have these types of issues. We’re, if there’s a down side to the site it’s a little bit remote but from an up side it’s in a really great environment and it’s a place that you know I’d like to sit out in the back porch and that’s what our residents will do so they can take advantage of the environment that’s there and it’s not the most convenient but it’s a place that people who are visitors, they’re going to be able to know how to get there so being right on the county road is actually a positive. I’d tell you that I’m not so sure that we’ll ever use the sidewalk. At least none of our residents will but we’ll put a sidewalk in. So assuming that it gets approved, we do have financing in place and we would anticipate starting construction probably in September and it’s a 6 to 7 month timeframe. Aller: Questions? Hokkanen: No, I think it looks good. Withrow: Yeah I have a question. Will there be any patios or decks or anything on the outside for visitors and your residents to enjoy this setting, as you say? Dave Pokorney: Yes. Yes, so there is, there’s a small patio directly out the back and then there’s on the north end of the site there’s a larger open space walking area. It shows up on our site plan as a little curly pathway. That will be fenced and again it’s because some of our residents will have memory care issues but that’s there for, not only for residents but for residents and their guests. And that type of a space is really important to these because people, for example on a day like today, maybe it was a little bit too hot today but people, it’s really a calming environment for them to be in and so you need to have outdoors, and actually I think it’s a second part of it when you development these. You have to have a minimum amount of outdoor space. We probably exceed it by a fair amount. 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 Aller: Thank you sir. Anyone else have questions? Okay, I’m going to open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak for or against the item before us please come forward. State your name and address for the record. Chris Hammer: My name’s Chris Hammer. Address 9688 Washington Boulevard. It’s the property directly to the north of the property in question. My only possible cause of concern is potential impact into the wooded area and Bluff Creek itself in the future. It’s an area that should be protected. Is the City preventing any future development into that because that would affect our home values directly to the north. We have a nice private space with the wooded area and the creek behind with all the wildlife. We’re worried about the value of our homes being impacted in the future because if something comes in, what’s going to happen next. Aller: Okay, anybody have an answer for that? Aanenson: Sure. Similar to what we did on Liberty at Bluff Creek which is where you live, we actually preserved all these trees and this is part of that same continuum of the Bluff Creek Overlay and it’s in that area because it probably has significant slopes and the creek goes through there so it’s, you can see the area that’s…right now is where they’re putting the building and… Chris Hammer: Okay. Aanenson: So we worked hard to try to find a use that would accommodate that as the applicant just stated so. Aller: Thank you sir. Anyone else wishing to come forward speaking for or against? Seeing no one come forward, close the public hearing. Comments, questions from the commissioners. Hokkanen: I think it’s a good use of the property. It’s a nice addition to the city. Audience: Sir, I think we have audience comments… Aller: Oh, come on. Move faster than ever. Colleen Kroll: Three months ago I talked with Sharmeen about the possibility, 3 months ago we got letters explaining what was going to be developed in that space. My property is the odd shaped one on the north and. Aller: And your name and address? Colleen Kroll: Oh I’m sorry. I’m Colleen Kroll, 2694 Shadow Wood Court. Aller: Thank you. Colleen Kroll: And like I said, I’m the property that is the odd shaped one. Short on the north and long on the south side. Our property runs right down to the pond. We have a nice woods to the north and I’m curious about how the donation would be if it would become open for trails and public parks and so forth or how that would be detonated with Mr. Klingelhutz donating a certain percentage of what he has, as well as many, many years ago the easement for Pioneer was to become a much larger road and so the property can’t, the State owns it at the time period for it’s beginning to expand. When they no longer choose to have that as a need, what is that going to look like, once we say it’s okay to put a building in, how does that affect future development? Will there be a second building? Will there be a, you know 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 how do you limit the growth on it because it’s really not that big of a space. It’s a meadow. It has a deep, steep slope. The ravine that runs through the trees is quite steep. I know that when you own something and you can take down as many trees as you want but it will change that entire environment and wild turkeys and the deer and everything else we have so we have some questions about that. Also how the sewage is hooking up into the city of Chaska so, I will let the other guys to address that part but we need to know more what the future’s going to be because when they’re sitting out on their back patio, which is going to be great, they’re going to be watching my kids in my pool. It’s a direct way. It’s about 50 feet away so it’s not that, as well as the pond fluctuates in height and to know exactly, I understand that the City, and I don’t know if it was Chanhassen or Chaska, took the highest height. What the pond history has done but there’s no flags on the meadow right now. There’s no flags for us to even understand where this development’s going to be. How it’s going to implement us so we’re going off of that but the building’s not even put on it in relationship to our houses so it’s really kind of hard for us to imagine what’s going to happen so the new building. In March we had a building placed on the, plotted out but not on the new development pieces that we’ve seen so, it does affect us that way so that’s our part. Aller: Thank you. Aanenson: Mr. Chair, there is copies of the plat. I mean it’s all engineered. Well this, I mean they’re all in the packet so maybe we can get that to the residents as well. Aller: And it’s all available on the website as well. Aanenson: Yep, so you can go on the finished floor elevation and then you can find your finished floor elevation from your building survey and then you get an idea of what that would be. Aller: Okay. And then can we go, there was a view of the property. There you go that at least gives you an idea of where some of the landscaping looks like it’s potentially… Aanenson: Yeah, all the plants are in… We can go back to the other one. Maybe Sharmeen wants to talk. It’s not our intent to get into where the trees and the ravine are, we don’t think that’s buildable. When MnDOT vacates the right-of-way on that property there is potential for another building. Again this property is zoned medium density. There could have been a lot of townhouses in there. We worked really hard to try to find that transition between the single family in Chaska and the residents in Chanhassen that are guided also medium density so we thought this was really a good use. Much less units in there. Much less traffic in there plus they’re also lower profile buildings so. Aller: That’s the question I got as well as the fact that we’re getting incredibly low hardscape. Aanenson: Correct, if we can go back to, yeah. Aller: So that’s going to help. We give a little here and there on these variances all through the city. It’s nice to be able to keep some so that we can get some of that water flow through the. Aanenson: Yeah, I’m just trying to find the one that showed the, I guess for the right-of-way. So when MnDOT would vacate that right-of-way, the potential then for additional building would be you know somewhere in this area. Somewhere through here so, but we don’t know what that timeframe is going to be. Al-Jaff: And it would have to appear before the Planning Commission and a public hearing would be held so we would have to go through the entire process again. 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 Aller: Yes sir. Come forward. Please state your name and address for the record. Jeff Kerfeld: My name is Jeff Kerfeld. I live at 2702 Shadow Wood Court in Chaska and so I am two doors to the north and west of the Kroll family so just wrap around that cul-de-sac just a little bit so. Couple questions I have I guess, we’d like to get a little more clarification as far as how the sewer’s going to be connected to our neighborhood. It’s my understanding that the utilities will not be provided by the City of Chanhassen but will be provided by the City of Chaska and directly across the road from us is a lift station and on a regular basis we have the City of Chaska coming out to do maintenance on that. Their truck is there you know several times. Sometimes several times a month and of course we are concerned about that because we had issues with flooding in our basements. Power goes out but more importantly you guys had an incident in Lake Susan about 3 years ago I think with a watermain break that forced raw sewage in people’s basements and I don’t think we’re in a position where, if there’s a failure or a fault as a result of how this utility connection is being made that we want to have that possibly circumstance come to play into this Shadow Wood neighborhood so can we get a little, if now’s the appropriate time to get a little clarification. Aller: Let me see what I can get for you. Jeff Kerfeld: Okay, that’s great. Aller: That’s your main issue? Anything else? Jeff Kerfeld: Yeah, the other part is, I’d be very curious as far as Colleen had mentioned, it’s a fairly steep hill. I mean our kids go sliding down it during the winter time and then you know there really is no crest per se. It kind of goes down off to the other side so I’d be very interested, I did see on the map a little bit as far as where it’s placed. It seems like it’s placed more towards the pond than this but I really question how much leveling of that land and how they can do some leveling without removing some of those big trees. You know we see wild turkey and deer and pheasants and you know wildlife continually through that area so that’s, you know that’s a major concern. Aller: Thank you. Jeff Kerfeld: Beyond that I would also be curious to know as far as what sort of lighting is going to be used with regards to the building. Right now we look out obviously at a dark field. We do have the neighborhood to the north but that’s all protected. My house looks to the north and I don’t ever see those townhouses in that area and everything so the hope obviously would be that any lighting would be below the building so that at nighttime we wouldn’t, we don’t want a Walmart parking lot I guess is what I’m saying sitting out there in the field across the pond from us and everything so that’s a concern. And then lastly runoff. The pond fluctuates immensely. I mean we’ve had, I’ve lived in my house for 22 years so I’ve been in the Shadow Wood neighborhood for 22 years and we did have one year when there was no water in the pond. Generally we have water and we use that as a hockey rink. Skating rink for the kids in the neighborhood. I’m the dad that goes out and takes the snow blower out and blows off the pond every year but that’s part of our recreation for the neighborhood and everything. We want to insure that that water flow, that natural watershed provides water for that area for, you know for our continual enjoyment and such so. Beyond that, that’s all I have. Aller: Thank you sir. Jeff Kerfeld: Thank you. Appreciate your time. Aller: You want to hit those? 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 Fauske: I would love to answer the questions. Aller: Thank you. Fauske: Is this on now? Okay. The question about the sewer connection, City staff has met with the City Engineer and the Utility Superintendent from the City of Chaska. The question we had is, we had heard that there had been issues with this lift station that services the Shadow Wood area in the past. They’ve indicated that they have taken the appropriate measures to go in and increase the wet well of that particular lift station and that they would have capacity for this site. At this time the City of Chanhassen will send a letter to Chaska formally requesting the connection. With regards to where it physically will be located, the sewer line would run within the Pioneer Trail right-of-way to Shadow Wood Court. Would connect to a sanitary sewer manhole that’s at the intersection of Shadow Wood Court and Pioneer Trail so we don’t have the specific alignment plan profile of that but, and I apologize we don’t have it on the screen but if you do have a packet, Civil Page 4.0 is the utility plan and that does show a close up of where that proposed sewer connection is so we have had those conversations. Excuse me, the conversations with Chaska to discuss you know why is the proposal going to Chaska versus Chanhassen. Just to give you a little bit of history, we did look at making a connecting to the north to the K. Hovnanian project to the north and as Sharmeen had indicated in her presentation there’s woods and slopes and a creek and significant slope elevation changes in there so that’s why pursuing that option, that option was not pursued. With regards to the elevation difference. There’s just, to kind of give you an idea of what the elevation difference is from the elevation of the wetland to the first floor of the building is about 20 feet so that can kind of give you, and that’s the slope of the ground. So that should give you an idea of the elevation difference. And then runoff to the site, on the north side, here’s that outdoor space that Mr. Pokorney was speaking about. There’s a pond, small pond that will treat the runoff from the parking area before discharging to the wetland here and then there’s a second, it’s an infiltration basin that will collect some of the runoff from the drive before discharging to the wetland so those are the two stormwater amenities that they are proposing to provide some treatment and some peak discharge attenuation. And his fourth question was regarding lighting which. Aanenson: I would just also indicate, it is our water. We will be serving with the City of Chanhassen’s water…and again the reason for the sewer is when we looked at the original proposal, there was significant tree loss with trying to bring it through that area that we were just talking about we’re trying to preserve so there was a decision made to say what’s the best way to preserve that overlay district is to come through Chaska… Al-Jaff: There was one other question regarding lighting on the site. Any lighting would have to meet ordinance requirements. 90 degree cut off. Not to exceed half a foot candle at property lines and all light fixtures have to be shielded. Aller: Anyone else? Come on forward. Welcome. Emily Owen: Thanks. My name is Emily Owen. I’m at 2706 Shadow Wood Court. I’m just to the north of Jeff Kerfeld and I share all of their concerns as well. I additionally, and I may have missed this in a presentation because I was a little bit late but my, one of my concerns is the road that comes out onto Pioneer. Will that, the traffic that it’s going to increase. I don’t know if visitor hours are going to, if there’s going to be hours or if it’s just going to be any time. What that’s going to do to the traffic on Pioneer and whether we’ll have to have a stop light. I guess there’s pro’s and con’s to either way so that’s my only question. Thanks. 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 Aller: Thank you. My understand is, and anyone can jump in and correct me if I’m wrong. The State would be the one to come in and take a look at stop lights and the requirements for stop lights along that corridor. Aanenson: Or the County. Aller: Or the County and the use as requested is substantially less than the use that could be there so I think overall you’re looking at getting less traffic this way by far than if it is approved than if we leave it alone and let somebody come in and build under the zoning currently present. So is that a correct assessment? Aanenson: Yep. Aller: Any additional comments? Questions? Please sir, come forward. Keith Wyman: I’m Keith Wyman, 2674 Shadow Wood Court in Chaska. I’m not opposed to the project. I believe it’s a good use for the space compared to what could be in there. I do have some, a couple concerns. One is sight lines or the height. Finished floor is 20 feet above the pond with a I feel fairly steep roof. You know can that be dropped down at all? Can the roof lines be cut down so we’re not seeing this big roof up above the trees that is there? Is there anyway that that can be, you know can we drop finished floor down a little bit more? Create some retaining walls on the one side where we have that steep grade. Our houses now on the other side of the pond are probably you know maybe 12 feet, 10 to 12 feet above the pond. He’s going to be 20 feet above the pond. You know is there a way to drop that down to get those you know, the top of that roof down lower? And then also have concerns too with the sewer connection. I do understand the need for tying into Chaska. You know no, you don’t want to go through those, to the north. It just doesn’t make sense but when the lift station was put in it was sized for our neighborhood. Not for this addition so is it, you know we went to that meeting with, what Matt had a couple nights ago for you know he’s saying that it’s over sized already but I guess I’ve never seen a developer put anything in over sized in the past. Why would they over size this one? So, and you know it has had problems in the past so you know, if this does causes problems what is, yes it’s tied into Chaska’s system but where does Chanhassen or the owner going to do if it does happen so. Aller: Thank you sir. I know, most of the matters that come before us like you’re about the water systems and the safety systems and sewer systems being put in and my understanding is they look, just as we do, we have a 2030 plan. We look for future growth and that’s why you have systems in place to accept that growth when it comes and they never come but they try to do that so unless I hear something differently from staff, it sounds like Chaska has made that representation. Fauske: That’s correct. Aller: Anyone else? Comments. Concerns. Okay. Sure? We’re going to close it now. Close the public hearing. Comments. Questions. I like the fact that there’s diversity with the growing age of the citizenry of Chanhassen. We’ve looked at the demographics here recently and it’s good to have projects like these. I like the fact that we have a project which is going to allow for significantly less impact on the hard cover surface area and it looks like we’re preserving a great deal of the Bluff Creek system and of course the developer has to work with them as well so. With what’s in the report and the representations I think I would be looking to approve at this point. I’m not hearing anything that is going to sway me to say that we shouldn’t allow for the opportunity for the product to move forward. Hokkanen: Well I think we clarified the conservation of all those trees and areas that concern the K. Hovnanian and some of the others have talked about and the different elevations. It’s a nice project. 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 Could be a lot worst in that development and higher density project. Could be much more difficult…so I think it’s a great addition to the city. Yusuf: I agree. It seems like a very good use of the… Aller: Okay. Any thoughts? Withrow: No. Aller: Entertain a motion if anyone would like to do so. Withrow: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the rezoning of property from Agricultural Estate District (A-2) to Mixed Medium Density Residential District (R-8). Site plan approval for construction of a continuing care retirement facility called Bluff Creek Cottages. Conditional Use Permit to allow development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District, subject to conditions of approval and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Hokkanen: Second. Aller: Any further discussion? Withrow moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council Planning Case #2013-08 to rezone 8.9 acres of property zoned A2, Agricultural Estate approve District, to R-8, Mixed Medium-Density Residential Bluff Creek Cottages contingent upon site plan approval, as shown in plans dated received June 14, 2013, and adoption of the Findings of Fact. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Withrow moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the conditional use permit for Planning Case 2013-08 for Bluff Creek Cottages as shown in plans dated received June 14, 2013, and including the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation, subject to the following conditions: 1.The plans are amended to read “Assumed wetland boundary – area not delineated per 1987 Corps Manual.” 2.The 894’ contour is the assumed wetland boundary for purposes of determining buffer and setbacks. 3.Wetland buffer shall be shown to measure twenty (20) feet as is consistent with a Manage 2 wetland. The setback from this buffer shall then be thirty (30) feet. 4.That portion of the property containing the Bluff Creek Primary Zone and the tributary to Bluff Creek is dedicated to the city as per discussion with applicant and city staff. 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 5.The applicant must apply for and receive a NPDES construction permit prior to any earth-disturbing activity. 6.The applicant must prepare a SWPPP consistent with the NPDES construction permit requirements (Part III) and submit this SWPPP to the city for review and comment. 7.The construction of the bioretention area shall be phased such that it is not disturbed until after the rest of the site has been graded. The plans shall be amended to reflect this and perimeter control shall be installed that will prevent the operation of equipment and the stockpiling of materials in this area. 8.Sediment control Best Management Practices shall remain in place around the bioretention basin until the area tributary to the basin is stabilized. 9.Inlet protection shall be installed on the double catch basin on Pioneer Trail located downstream of the site prior to commencement of earth-disturbing activities. Inlet protection shall be installed on all catch basins and curb cuts interior to the site after installation until final stabilization is met. 10.All outfalls, including the curb cut, shall be stabilized within 24 hours of connection. 11.The rip rap for the curb cut shall extend, uninterrupted, to the normal water level of the proposed pond (905.0’). 12.The geotextile fabric shall have a permittivity value of 0.5 or higher. 13.The model shall be amended to show that the peak discharge rate at the curb cut is no greater than 3.0 cfs during the 25-year storm event. If this cannot be achieved, the applicant is strongly encouraged to use pipe to convey stormwater runoff. 14.An operations and maintenance manual shall be provided to the city for review and approval and shall cover the bioretention feature and the swale inlet into the pond. 15.The outfall for the stormwater detention pond shall be pulled away from the wetland such that there is adequate room to install all rip rap without any disturbance below the 894’ contour. If practicable to do so, the outfall shall be pulled entirely outside of the wetland buffer area. 16.The bioretention feature shall be designed in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Stormwater Manual “design criteria for bioretention”. 17.A detailed plan for the bioretention feature, including phasing, soil amendments, underdrain (if necessary) and planting schedule shall be provided to the city for review and approval. 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 18.Percolation tests shall be performed in the bioretention area to determine infiltration rates. The model shall be amended based upon these findings and provided to the city. 19.The bioretention feature shall be designed such that it drains within 48 hours. 20.Pretreatment shall be provided prior to discharge to the bioretention feature. This shall be a grass swale consistent with the MN Stormwater Manual “Guidelines for filter strip pre-treatment sizing”, a forebay or a sump manhole at least three feet in depth. 21.The applicant must receive permission from Carver County for the proposed runoff condition into Pioneer Trail and provide a spread and run calculation to show that the proposed catch basin will capture the ten-year event or otherwise design the storm sewer to capture this event. 22.The applicant is responsible for all other permits and approvals.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Withrow moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the site plan consisting of a 13,700 square-foot continuing care retirement facility, Planning Case 2013-08 for Bluff Creek Cottages as shown in plans dated received June 13, 2013, and including the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation, subject to the following conditions: Building Official Conditions: 1.The proposed structure is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. 2.All plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. A geotechnical (soil evaluation) report is required. 3.Designs\plans for retaining wall(s) exceeding four feet in height must be prepared and signed by a structural engineer. 4.Detailed building code-related requirements have not been reviewed; this will take place when complete structural/architectural plans are submitted. 5.Structures and site must meet Minnesota Accessibility Code. 6.The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. Fire Marshal Conditions: 1.Add one hydrant at the intersection of Pioneer Trail and the entrance road. 18 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 2.In addition to 12-inch address numbers on the building, address numbers will be required at driveway entrance. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for requirements. 3.A PIV, Post indicator valve will be required. 4.Yellow painted curbing and “No Parking Fire Lane” signs are required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for details. 5.City Engineer shall verify that the purposed fire apparatus turnaround is sufficient. 6.A three-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrant(s). Planning Conditions: 1.All rooftop and ground equipment must be screened from views. 2.Approval of the site plan application is contingent upon approval of the rezoning and conditional use permit for Planning Case 2013-08. 3.The monument sign may not exceed 24 square feet in area nor be higher than 5 feet. The sign shall be located 10 feet from the property line. 4.Sign illumination and design shall comply with ordinance. If illuminated, the letters shall be backlit and use individual dimension letters, at least one-half inch deep. The sign materials shall be compatible with the building. The applicant must apply for a sign permit. 5.The trash enclosure for the building has not been shown on the plans. The structure must be screened from views and constructed of the same materials as the building. Recycling space and other solid waste collection space should be contained within the same enclosure as the trash. 6.Light levels for site lighting shall be no more than one-half foot candle at the project perimeter property line. This does not apply to street lighting. Light fixtures shall be downcast and the light shall be cut off at a 90-degree angle as required by the city code. All fixtures shall be shielded. Park and Trail Conditions: 1.Park fees in the amount of $12,000 shall be collected as part of the site plan permit. Engineering Conditions: 1.An agreement must be obtained from MnDOT and Carver County to allow the driveway to connect to Pioneer Trail (County Road 14) and to allow construction of private utilities in the right-of-way. 2.The applicant must apply for and receive a NPDES construction permit prior to any earth- disturbing activity. 19 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 3.The applicant must prepare a SWPPP consistent with the NPDES construction permit requirements (Part III) and submit this SWPPP to the city for review and comment. 4.The construction of the bioretention area shall be phased such that it is not disturbed until after the rest of the site has been graded. The plans shall be amended to reflect this and perimeter control shall be installed that will prevent the operation of equipment and the stockpiling of materials in this area. 5.Sediment control Best Management Practices shall remain in place around the bioretention basin until the area tributary to the basin is stabilized. 6.Inlet protection shall be installed on the double catch basin on Pioneer Trail located downstream of the site prior to commencement of earth-disturbing activities. Inlet protection shall be installed on all catch basins and curb cuts interior to the site after installation until final stabilization is met. 7.All outfalls, including the curb cut, shall be stabilized within 24 hours of connection. 8.The rip rap for the curb cut shall extend, uninterrupted, to the normal water level of the proposed pond (905.0’). 9.The geotextile fabric shall have a permittivity value of 0.5 or higher. 10.The plans must be signed by a registered engineer. 11.Ten-foot drainage and utility easements are required over all public utilities. 12.An existing topography plan sheet must be included in the plan set. 13.The grading plans must be amended so that no slopes exceed 3:1. 14.The developer’s engineer must submit a soils report and boring log for this site indicating the soil conditions, permeability and slope. 15.The plans must show the elevations at the corners of the proposed building and where the building foundation is acting as a retaining wall. 16.The plans must identify any stockpile areas that will be used during construction. 17.The developer’s engineer must call out the 6-foot retaining wall around the “outdoor space” in the plans and include top and bottom of wall elevations. 18.The following materials are prohibited for retaining wall construction: smooth face, poured- in-place concrete (stamped or patterned concrete is allowed), masonry, railroad ties or timber. Walls taller than 6 feet shall not be constructed with boulder rock. 19.The developer’s engineer must adjust grading at the face of the east retaining wall to create a swale so water will flow away from both the wall and the building. 20 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 20.The retaining walls shall be privately owned and maintained. 21.All retaining walls over six feet high and within 10 feet of a sidewalk or other public way must have a fence or other barrier. This condition includes the areas where the building foundation will act as a retaining wall. 22.Before vehicles enter Pioneer Trail, the driveway must provide a landing area that starts at least 50 feet back from the crosswalk and is at a 2% maximum grade. 23.The parking lot aisle must be 26 feet wide. 24.The turnaround must allow enough room for a fire truck to turn and exit the parking lot without going through the parking spaces. Approved turnarounds include a 100-foot hammerhead and a 70-foot diameter cul-de-sac. 25.The plans are amended to read “Assumed wetland boundary – area not delineated per 1987 Corps Manual.” 26.The 894’ contour is the assumed wetland boundary for purposes of determining buffer and setbacks. 27.Wetland buffer shall be shown to measure twenty (20) feet as is consistent with a Manage 2 wetland. The setback from this buffer shall then be thirty (30) feet. 28.That portion of the property containing the Bluff Creek Primary Zone and the tributary to Bluff Creek is dedicated to the city as per discussion with applicant and city staff. 29.The model shall be amended to show that the peak discharge rate at the curb cut is no greater than 3.0 cfs during the 25-year storm event. If this cannot be achieved, the applicant is strongly encouraged to use pipe to convey stormwater runoff. 30.An operations and maintenance manual shall be provided to the city for review and approval and shall cover the bioretention feature and the swale inlet into the pond. 31.The outfall for the stormwater detention pond shall be pulled away from the wetland such that there is adequate room to install all rip rap without any disturbance below the 894’ contour. If practicable to do so, the outfall shall be pulled entirely outside of the wetland buffer area. 32.The bioretention feature shall be designed in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Stormwater Manual “design criteria for bioretention”. 33.A detailed plan for the bioretention feature, including phasing, soil amendments, underdrain (if necessary) and planting schedule shall be provided to the city for review and approval. 34.Percolation tests shall be performed in the bioretention area to determine infiltration rates. The model shall be amended based upon these findings and provided to the city. 35.The bioretention feature shall be designed such that it drains within 48 hours. 21 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 36.Pretreatment shall be provided prior to discharge to the bioretention feature. This shall be a grass swale consistent with the MN Stormwater Manual “Guidelines for filter strip pre- treatment sizing”, a forebay or a sump manhole at least three feet in depth. 37.The applicant must receive permission from Carver County for the proposed runoff condition into Pioneer Trail, and provide a spread and run calculation to show that the proposed catch basin will capture the ten-year event or otherwise design the storm sewer to capture this event. 38.The applicant is responsible for all other permits and approvals. 39.The developer’s engineer must show the detailed lift station design and location in the plans. 40.The City of Chaska must approve the sanitary sewer plans. 41.The sanitary sewer and watermain shall be privately owned and maintained. 42.A plan sheet is required to show the watermain extension from the driveway to the connection to Chanhassen’s watermain system. 43.The watermain that is parallel to Pioneer Trail must be 8 inches for fire flow conditions. 44.The developer’s engineer shall model the watermain extension for fire flow demand to the development to ensure the watermain pipe size is adequate. 45.Fire hydrants are required every 400 feet, and gate valves are required every 800 feet. 46.This property has outstanding assessments from previous improvement projects that were deferred due to the property’s Green Acres status. Altering the zoning for this property will cause the assessments to come due. 47.Water and sewer trunk and hook-up fees are to be collected with the development contract. 48.A permit is required for any work within the MnDOT or Carver County right-of-way. 49. A temporary construction easement will be required for the installation of utilities within road right-of-way. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: PRESERVE AT RICE LAKE: REQUEST FOR LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY TO RESIDENTIAL LOW AND MEDIUM DENSITY; REZONING FROM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND MIXED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R4) TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL (PUD-R); SUBDIVISION OF 13.22 ACRES INTO 16 LOTS AND 2 OUTLOTS WITH VARIANCES; SITE PLAN REVIEW; AND WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT. APPLICANT: J & S VENTURES 1, INC., PLANNING CASE 2013-12. th Al-Jaff: The subject site is located south, at the southeast intersection of Tigua Lane and West 86 Street, north of Highway 212. Staff would like to briefly go over the existing conditions of this specific site. It 22 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 is located north of Highway 212. The site has an area of 13.2 acres and it contains multiple bodies of th wetlands. Access to the site is gained via 86 Street. Another existing condition with the site is the fact that it falls within the shoreland overlay district of Rice Marsh Lake. This is Rice Marsh Lake. The entire area that is within 1,000 feet of this, of the ordinary high water mark of the lake is considered shoreland. And as you can see the portion of the site that is highlighted, shaded in this light blue in it’s entirety falls within the shoreland overlay district. Every single parcel proposed on this site is within this overlay district with the exception of Lot number 1 but even then it, the overlay district touches it. The existing land use for this development is low density residential. That type of development would allow for single family homes as well as attached townhomes. Attached single family homes as long as the density does not exceed 4 units per acre. The current site has two zonings. The portion of the site to the west is currently zoned RSF while the eastern half is zoned R-4 which allows up to 4 units per acre. And briefly the property to the north of the site is zoned RSF, Residential Single Family. Property to the west contains townhomes and has an 8 unit per acre density. Property to the east is actually open space and to the south is the Highway 212. So the proposal before you will, has multiple components. The first one is a land use map amendment. There’s a rezoning, a subdivision, a couple of variances, a site plan review as well as a wetland alteration permit and staff will briefly go through these different items. One of the first things that we looked at was, what was it that the developer was trying to achieve. The reason I went through, staff went through the background and features of the site is just to give you an idea of the environmental sensitivity of the site. With all of these items that we detailed, development becomes constrained. There are certain setbacks that the different ordinances, different agencies that have jurisdiction over this site would, that the applicant would need to meet. One of the main constraints was the fact that the applicant wanted to develop this site as a single family development and it would be a total of 16 lots. The lots were, that the applicant is proposing, typical parcel would have a 25 foot front yard setback, 30 foot rear yard and then as far as setbacks, the garage would have a 5 foot setback. The other side, living space would have a 10 foot separation between homes. Any two homes would have to maintain 15 feet so that’s what they are trying to achieve. If we look under the, I mentioned this is in the shoreland overlay district. If we look at the shoreland overlay district requirements, they require that each parcel maintains a 90 foot frontage. 90 foot rear width. Each parcel has to maintain a 15,000 square foot minimum. With all of these requirements, plus we have the existing wetland setbacks. With all of these things we no longer have the flexibility that we were hoping for. We attempted to find some ways to meet the intent of the ordinance as well as facilitate this development and do our best to preserve the site. One of the options that worked best for the site would be to rezone the site to a medium, a planned unit development with an underlying zoning of medium density. A planned unit development would give us all the flexibility that we need. If we went with a planned unit development low density. Again we’re back to the 15,000 square feet and our hands are tied. We don’t have this flexibility that we are trying to achieve. We contacted the DNR, Department of Natural Resources and we tried to explain the situation. Familiarize them with the constraints of the site and one of the solutions that the City recommended to the DNR and talked about with them was re-guiding the property to medium density. Under our ordinances there is no minimum lot size under the medium density. If there is no minimum lot size, that will give us the flexibility that we need but at the same time we needed to make sure that we don’t exceed the 4 units per acre. In order to achieve that we went with a planned unit development which allows us to draft an ordinance that dictates how many parcels you can have. What is the minimum lot size and the City will be able to achieve what this, what the intention was to develop this site. So with the subdivision, again 16 single family lots. Setbacks will be 25 feet front yard and 30 feet minimum in the rear. All of the parcels and the structures will have to maintain required setbacks from wetlands as well as have a wetland buffer. Minimum lot area on these, or minimum hard surface coverage on these parcels is actually 30%. The applicant submitted some house plans that could potentially be developed on these parcels. Not all of the house plans would fit on each parcel. Some of them such as Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, there’s only one house pad from what the applicant gave us that would fit on those. One of the other concerns was, as the developer builds the home and then the City is continuing to deal with homeowners, will they ask for a large patio than what the parcel can handle so to get to, to address this point staff listed under the 23 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 ordinance, the planned unit development ordinance which will govern this development, we listed the maximum hard surface coverage permitted on each parcel. These are the homes that the applicant is proposing. Two car garage and they range, the homes range in size. In width between 50 and 60 feet depending on the type, depending on the parcel that we will be looking at. The setbacks currently under our planned unit development ordinance requirements, this development would need to maintain a 50 foot setback along the perimeter and the applicant would be able to meet all of these requirements with the exception of the area along Highway 212. There will be a wall that will separate this development from Highway 212 and that will be an adequate buffer. This setback is a buffer so it’s a double buffer if you will in this case and staff is recommending that the setback variance be approved. Another variance that is requested with this development is the length of this cul-de-sac. The city code limits the length of a cul-de-sac to 800 feet. This one exceeds that, that length and typically we look at situations like this and say, will this road, if connected, how will it connect and we really have no way of reconnecting it. th Looping it with 86 Street nor with Tigua Lane. Staff is recommending approval of the length of this variance as well. We address the rezoning of the site and explained why we are recommending approval of rezoning it to planned unit development. We also went over the guidelines and the ordinance that will govern this site. In order to allow this site to be a planned unit development with a medium density, the underlying zoning medium density, the zoning has to be consistent with the land use plan. The current land use plan guides this site for low density residential. The only, the planned unit development ordinance under the medium density specifically states that it has to, the land has to be guided medium density to allow that type of zoning so in order to stay consistent between the zoning ordinance and the land use map, and the land use we would need to amend the land use map. One of the benefits of rezoning the site to a planned unit development will be an extension of an existing noise wall and it will currently all there is, is a chain link fence and it is immediately next to a noise wall that is located between Highway 212 and the development to the west of the subject site which is Mission Hills. So again that wall will be extended along Highway 212. It will be within MnDOT right-of-way and there will need to be some agreements with MnDOT. All approvals would have to be granted in order for the wall to be built. At this point I would like to turn it over to Alyson with our engineering department to address drainage, grading and, before we go any further I just wanted to apologize. There was a section in the staff report addressing the grading that I failed to include. I have handed it out. It will be on the website and it will also be included in the staff report that will appear before the City Council. Aller: And for the record we have received a copy of the drainage and grading consisting of three pages. Al-Jaff: Correct. Aller: And it has been reviewed. Al-Jaff: The conditions will remain as is. They have been included. It’s the discussion of the item that was omitted from the staff report. Aller: So again for everyone present or watching, this will be down on the website shortly so you can take a look at the discussion with regard to drainage and grading, if that’s important to you. I know it’s important to us so thank you. Fauske: Thank you Sharmeen. Staff just wanted to let the, show the Planning Commission what the drainage patterns are doing on this site. Under the current conditions as shown at the top here of the screen, the area outlined in purple currently drains to the north via the wetlands on the site and the area in blue here on the east side that drains to the east through the MnDOT right-of-way area and then to Rice Marsh Lake. Under the proposed development patterns the area in purple still drains to the north via the wetlands. This area, and I apologize if it’s not really clear. This area where the arrow is going, they do show a proposed bioretention area. At this point they show it on the plan. Whether or not there’s 24 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 adequate separation from the proposed bioretention basin to the wetland elevation, we’re unsure of if that would really function as that so for these purposes I did show it as draining to the wetland but that might change to a stormwater management facility. The area in pink indicates all the area on the site that drains to a pond that will be constructed with the development. There are two ponds proposed. One is a small pond on the southwest corner of the site and then the larger pond over on the east side of the site. And there again there’s this area on the east side that would drain to the east side. Also of note is just the way the lay of the land and unfortunately we’re not able to change the grades enough to be able to get this small sliver here. It’s about 200 feet of street that would drain onto Tigua untreated and within the development ponds and one of the conditions in the staff report states that we need to get an analysis of that because there’s, the current stormwater system on Tigua, from our observations and from what we’ve heard is at capacity and so we want to see if there’s something that can be done to provide something like an inline treatment. Some kind of inline attenuation to prevent that peak discharge from going to the existing storm sewer system. Also in the staff report, with the hydrology analysis that was done, a section of the city code requires that the peak discharge rates for a proposed development cannot exceed the current conditions. In the discussion that we’ve had with the developer is that it’s at each discharge point. So for example on the proposed condition here there’s an existing peak discharge point at this location and at this location and under the proposed development conditions, depending on the type of event you’re looking at, whether it’s a 2 year event or a snow melt event, there is some peak discharge rates that will be exceeded. That being said there are some, in our review of the hydrology calculations that were done on the site, the developer’s engineer had assumed 32% impervious on the home sites so taking that down to the 30% maximum that’s allowed, we’re not sure if that, it will certainly help. We don’t know if that will bring it into compliance but that remains a condition of approval for the proposal. And in addition to, where those discharge points lie is there’s a 12 inch culvert at this location and an 18 inch culvert at this location that would need to be included in the model because again there are concerns about the existing drainage patterns through that site. There’s a ditch along the northern property line that is, after the rainy season that we’ve had this year has been flowing full so we want to make sure that, that there’s some capacity there under the proposed development conditions. Additionally we talked to the developer about some concerns with some of the ground water. When the soil borings were taken there wasn’t any ground water encountered at that time but with the way the drilling operations go, they put the drill down. They get the samples of the soil. They tell us what kind of soil they’ve encountered. They look and see if there’s water present and then they back fill. The developer at these, these are the approximate locations but has installed pedometers to provide us with some ground water elevations and so he’s provided between 4 and 5 readings for the site and so we have seen some ground water elevations come up and stabilize and so the developer’s been working with us to adjust the low floor elevations of the adjacent homes so that there’s 3 feet of separation. The reason we want to have a separation from that ground water to the lowest floor is, even if you do have a sump pump, draintile system, power failures, your sump pump fails, we want to provide that extra assurance for a property owner that there’s some separation through there so that’s why we’re so closely monitoring these ground water elevations. Additionally one of the things, and it’s just the nature of soils, we don’t know what will happen but the area on the east side of the site here where the proposed pond is, is in close proximity of this boring 14 which has shown some higher ground water elevations. The pond area is actually will be about 12 feet of cut so I’m not sure if the ground water that’s present in boring 14 will find it’s way to that cut area. We’re not sure but we did include that as a point of discussion in the staff report that if that’s the case the pond design would not function as it is because it’s not assuming a ground water flow into the system. So that’s another element that unfortunately with the nature of soils is kind of a wait and see situation. The other element I would like to talk to you a little bit about is the wetlands. As Sharmeen had indicated there’s a wetland alteration permit application along with this subdivision request. The area shown here in red is at the roadway location and that impact is shown at a location that the roadway design situated so that it would minimize that wetland impact. There’s just due to the site constraints unfortunately that’s an impact that we just don’t see as avoidable. Another impact that’s shown on the proposal is that the cul- de-sac there on the very tip of the wetland here on the east side of the site. That impact, as indicated in 25 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 the staff report, is avoidable if the trail moves to the north side of the street. The grades coming off of the road there could be adjusted so that that impact would go away. The trail would also move onto the side of the street where the homes are. There would be some snow storage provided at the cul-de-sac there next to the wetland so those are some reasons, some other reasons besides the wetland impact to look at relocating that trail to the north side. Additionally when you look at having that trail on the south side of the road, I apologize this isn’t working. The future trail extension, there we go. The future trail extension to the east would also have an impact at this location. You know there’s an opportunity to put, if there was a boardwalk in that would minimize the impact but that’s an additional cost. There’s also the high flows through the wetland, will that impact so those are all things that through the analysis, that was why the wetland application was denied based on the trail location so the condition of approval as stated in the staff report is to move the trail to the north side. Al-Jaff: Staff is recommending approval of this application to include a land use plan amendment, a rezoning, a subdivision, variances, site plan review and a wetland alteration permit with conditions. Again this has not been an easy site. We have been working on it for a very, very long time and I’m going to back track just one moment. There is a possibility, there is a way to achieve the 15,000 square foot lot area but that would mean extending lot lines into the wetlands. That is not what we want to end up with. Often we have seen people say, well I own the wetland and I can make some alterations so our intention is to preserve the site and again staff is recommending approval of the application and with conditions and we’ll be happy to answer any questions. Aller: I think that report was very thorough for my purposes so I don’t have any questions. Withrow: I have a question with regard to the comprehensive park plan. Is that an open issue to compliance? I’m just reading the staff report it indicates that the site is too far away. Al-Jaff: Correct. One of the, we talked to the Park Director about this item and one of the things that they suggested was there is no place for an actual park within the immediate area. The trail, the sidewalk will connect to a trail and that trail is a regional trail. It will go underneath Highway 212 and will connect with the park along Lake Riley Boulevard and Lake Riley. I know I’m not answering your question but there isn’t a park within the immediate area or a place to have one. Aller: I think that answers. Hokkanen: Well I have a couple questions. Are we trying to squeeze too much into one space? What if we had one less lot in that span, would that create some of the, I mean there’s so many conditions in, would that help? Al-Jaff: Any time you reduce lots, yes it will but it’s a matter of can they meet the conditions of the ordinance that the City would be adopting and it’s up to the applicant to demonstrate that they can do that. Aanenson: Can I just clarify that? We went through this in the preliminary. To get to medium density zoning you meet the minimum which is 4 units an acre which also is the maximum for low density so when we went through this in the preliminary process, because some of the size actually are four, four does allow for twinhomes which is a minimum lot of 10,000 square foot lots so we probably could do some twinhomes in there so looking at that, those are some of the factors that we went into…4 units an acre but that was the goal. Al-Jaff: As it is right now we are exactly at 4.002. Aanenson: Yeah, so then you weren’t meeting density requirements. 26 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 Hokkanen: Another question. The variance for the 800 length of the cul-de-sac, do we have another long cul-de-sac or multiple ones in Chanhassen? Aanenson: Highover. There’s a few of them. Hokkanen: Right. Okay and then the curve with the 40 miles an hour, can you explain that? Fauske: Certainly. At this location the street design would not meet a 30 miles an hour design curve and so we just would require an advanced warning sign. The yellow caution sign so that drivers would know that it’s not 30 miles an hour and they would have to slow down. And again that design is dictated based on the constraints of the site with the wetland and then the proximity to the 212 corridor. Aller: The cul-de-sac, has it been determined that that will safely handle the fire truck if needed? Fauske: The cul-de-sac is our standard diameter cul-de-sac and the cul-de-sac length, the reason we had included a limitation on the length in the city code is to limit the number of units on a cul-de-sac so that if there was an emergency where the access was cut off you would limit the number of residents that were inconvenienced by that. In this situation there is a…supporting the variances. You have the first, I think it’s 500 feet of the street does not have any homes on it and then you have a one sided benefit to the street for another 500 feet or so, so that’s why we support that variance. Yusuf: So how long does this cul-de-sac end up being? Al-Jaff: 1,300. Yusuf: Did the staff consider having two accesses here? Maybe like a ring road with an access to, is it Tigua Lane? Fauske: When we look at that then we, there would be additional wetland impacts and we would not meet the sequencing requirements of minimizing impacts so that’s a very good question. That was one of the reasons we didn’t look at looping the street back. Yusuf: Thank you. Aller: Okay, which leads to the conditions as stated in the report and that we approve tonight would mandate that those sequences be met. Anything else? The applicant said he would like to come forward. Welcome sir. John Knoblauch: Good evening. I’m John Knoblauch, 1450 Knob Hill Lane, Chanhassen. We’re the applicant and developer and this project, we started I think sometime in April or May of last year and very many drawings have been done. Staff has worked diligently to try to put their best foot forward to develop this parcel. We feel this is the best use of this parcel. A couple of pluses, we have hired Shirley Walker, an engineer that did the sound walls for 212 and she is working with MnDOT on the sound wall. Noise wall and that will be a huge asset for all the neighbors in that Mission Hills area and everybody to the north and also to the west. Part of the sound wall in what we call the hole is going to be about 20 feet high and there’s a lot of noise that rides through that hole on the south side so that’s going to dramatically help many of the neighbors far reaching from this development. The wetland, you know the main wetland is a Type 3 wetland. The two wetlands on the southeast there are Type 1 wetlands and both the wetland delineator and Terry, the LGU here in Chan has said that both, well especially the one next to Lot 1, Block 2 there, it’s a very poor quality wetland. It’s a seasonal wetland. It’s got sumac in it and so we 27 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 have a recent drawing that was just delivered to the City here I believe maybe 2 days ago where we’ve moved that cul-de-sac just a little bit and we’ve tweaked it to the north and we’ve also put a very small retaining wall, about a 35 foot retaining wall along the sidewalk. It’s 2 to 3 feet high and that will completely eliminate that little red, what we call the point impact so we will actually not have any impact on that wetland and where you see the orange stripe for the, when it turns into a trail. By the way I’d like to define the, Alyson referred to it as a trail. I just want to make sure that the, on the drawings that are out there right now, all the way to the end of the cul-de-sac is a regular sidewalk so it’s a regular 5 foot sidewalk. The 8 foot blacktop trail would start at where the road would, the cul-de-sac. So we’re able to have no impact there. With a boardwalk we can cross that area between those two wetlands and have zero impact. Totally allowable with the LGU. I talked to him today and that would be an application that would be totally allowable and have zero impact. What I would like to see which would be smarter for the city of Chanhassen, and unfortunately we can’t get to our laptop up right now but these two wetlands, the delineators that worked on these two wetlands, I’ll go over and talk over here louder. In this area, right in here, this is basically, when this wetland has a bump it eventually flows over into this wetland and then eventually it goes through this area and dumps down into here and then goes north into Rice Lake. We are proposing the trail to go here. I know staff has talked about trying to put it on the north side to avoid this impact. We have not come up sequencing wise with a good way to get the trail to come through this area. Between this wetland and the ponding we need to do it’s become very, very difficult to lay out. If I have pictures of this and really if you go out there, this has trees in it. It literally does not look like a wetland. It was really delineated, in my opinion as a convenience because the two were so close but if you walk out on the property this is very, very high ground right here. In my opinion, and also my wetland delineator which is Mike Gram from Wenck and also my engineer has said that if the trail were to go through this way, we would deal with a lot of ice and this is about a 6 foot drop that would go inbetween this V and then come back up. So in other words we either deal with a culvert, a much more problematic here or we deal with a much smaller culvert here and my suggestion just for maintenance is that somehow staff works, that we just try to avoid this wetland as much as we can. That staff tries to work it out that we’re able to bank this area and put a culvert in here and have this blacktop. 8 foot through this area and the reasoning for that is maintenance so that your crews can get a snowplow back here and so forth so that’s just some of my suggestions. We don’t really know any other way to get the trail over to hook up to the new 3 mile connection which is the parks department’s main goal. I wanted to show the National Wetland Inventory Map around Rice Lake Marsh. If you go to the National Wetland Inventory and you goggle it, right now the existing trail that goes around Rice Lake Marsh, there’s about a mile and a half that’s finished on the north side, as most of you maybe have walked it, and we’re going to be, we would be a final link on the south end of Rice Lake that will eventually go through the MnDOT property. Right now about a mile of that trail goes through a PEMA wetland area according to the inventory. According to the National Inventory, there is no wetland between these two and so I would like, if you get a chance to pull that up and get a grip on the 3 mile trail because the wetland impacts that have been done on that existing trail are unbelievable. It’s beyond what I could ever imagined. When I started to look around and really see what this trail was to do to this project, I just think it’s miniscule in the realm of the overall trail system that’s going to be put in. So we would like to see the trail stay where it is on our drawings. And the other thing is, most of the reasoning is that the trail will be just that more enjoyable. Walking between houses, we have a trail over at Knob Hill like that. You know it’s looking in people’s windows and you know up against a fence on a trail versus you know walking along a beautiful wetland, it’s just a much more pleasant experience. And also the ground on the, along the MnDOT right-of-way is higher. I think there’ll be a lot less maintenance issues on that ground versus the ground that’s to the north so our trail’s all busted up right now from the heavy clay that we have in Chan and I’m pretty convinced that the soils are better the closer you get to the MnDOT right-of- way for that trail. So those are a couple of my comments as far as the trail location if this came to fruition and got approved, I’d like Planning Commission to look hard at that and possibly would be willing to visit the site and walk it to show you what we’ve got in mind with the trail. Thank you. 28 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 Aller: Thank you. Questions? Okay, I’m going to open the public hearing. Any individual wishing to speak for or against the item, please step forward. Welcome sir. th Troy Kakacek: Thank you. Troy Kakacek, 380 West 86 Street. I am right across the street from where the development’s going. I guess I only have one clarification or question is, so as part of the, because there’s multiple variances being requested here. So as part of the change, the zoning change from the single family, or residential single family to the, what’s the zoning? Sorry. Al-Jaff: Planned unit development. Troy Kakacek: The planned unit development. So as part of that and changing it from low to medium it all kind of, it’s a package deal is kind of what I’m getting at so if we approve, if it’s approved to do the plan and then the PUD eventually falls through like the plan itself, is it now considered medium density property for other uses outside of this current PUD? Al-Jaff: There is, as a condition of approval we have made a contingency so approval of the rezoning is contingent upon approval of the subdivision. Troy Kakacek: The subdivision, okay. And then okay, perfect. And then the subdivision currently sits, I couldn’t see the current plans for the homes but they’re all, the 16 lots are all single family detached homes? Al-Jaff: Correct. Troy Kakacek: With, I don’t know what the square footage approximately was but I think they were all included in there and I couldn’t read it, it was too small but so with that I’m very much for the single family homes. My only, you know my concern with how much is going into this approval. There’s a lot going on so it is just no more townhomes in that area because it’s all single family to the north and through Mission Hills so it’s really, and it’s a very quiet dead end road so with townhomes that would bring in significant traffic and also with the drainage that we’re already kind of talking about. That would add to the drainage problems in that area through, because all of the current townhomes to the, it’d be the west drain down to that holding pond so everything, if it rains hard now it’s kind of like a river going through my front yard. So I’m fine with single family, or for single family. Not for any change if this PUD does not go forward. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Any additional comments? Welcome. Karen Blenker: Hi. I’m Karen Blenker and I live at 405 Rice Court and that backs right up to the road. The proposed road and the reason I bought my place was because of privacy and because of that wooded area and the wetland and you know I paid $5,000 more for that townhome compared to the exact same thing on the other side of the road so what is that going to do to the property values? And then also what is it going to do to the wildlife out there? And the wetlands and you know people putting chemicals on their lawn and it’s draining into the wetlands and I guess I, I think we should preserve these areas, especially with all these wetlands and you know get back to the way of life and give back to nature and you know keep these areas the way they are so I guess that’s my opinion. Aller: Thank you. John Knoblauch: Two comments I thought about was the one is that Knob Hill Lane where I live in the north part of Chanhassen, we’re at 1,250 foot on our cul-de-sac. This is about 50 foot longer than Knob Hill. Secondly, we own about, how maybe wetlands do we own Joe out in western Minnesota? You 29 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 know we have no intention of doing any damage to these wetland areas. All the wetland areas have a 30 foot buffer on the Type 3. Is it 25 or 30? Al-Jaff: It’s a 30 foot setback plus 16 1/2 foot average buffer. John Knoblauch: Okay so, we’re hoping that there’s a lot of filtration there before any lawn issues would come up and so we’re pretty confident that with these buffer areas that are set up, and the rezoning provides for that, that these yards won’t have a ton of impact. You know the nice wetland that’s there, I think the wildlife will not change that dramatically. There’s a few deer that live in there and the areas to the, especially to the east because that whole property to the east is actually going to be left fairly wild from the cul-de-sac to the east where the pond is and then over to the MnDOT property. Unfortunately this drawing really makes it look like we’re, I don’t know if there’s another drawing but it looks like we’re kind of building some lots inbetween a lake on an island. If you walk out on the parcel, this was a farmed parcel for years. They farmed right through those two blue wetlands to the southeast and he has a cattle walkway where the road is now and we encourage anybody to go out and take a walk back there and I think it will be a really nice site. One thing that I would also mention is that the homes that I’ve built in Shakopee for the last 17 years, we’ve been building on lots from 8,500 to 9,200 square feet and those homes are 2,700 to 2,900 square foot, two stories and these pads are actually bigger, believe it or not than those at 10,000 square feet and so if you think about it, the buildable area in this, on this drawing up here is 4 acres. It’s an even 4 acres. Now keep in mind this site is 13.62 acres. Okay so that gives you a perception of really what’s out there. I think this is the best thing that could come along rather than twinhomes. There was a couple twinhome plans that were looked at, that we looked at trying to do, and we still think this is the best scenario. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Any additional individuals wishing to step forward? Yes ma’am. LuAnn Markgraf: I’m LuAnn Markgraf. I live at 401 Rice Court. I would be the first townhouse unit that would be impacted by the entrance, and there’s lots of trees and oaks right in the back of my unit and how much of that, is all of that going to disappear? And is it going to be looking at a sidewalk? Is there going to be a retaining wall? What is going to happen with that area? I noticed that there is going to be a street sign that is going to be going in that corner. In relation to that map, where is the sign going to go? So those are my biggest issues. Because it is a very quiet area and it’s going to be impacted by you know more cars. They’ll be having that speed limit sign up for people to show how fast they’re going through th there because people speed through there on 86 now as it is. So there’s a lot of issues, and granted they live in a townhouse. Don’t live in a single family home which I think John kind of, the last meeting last winter it was like oh the real estate market for the townhouses has just gone down the tubes. We don’t really care about townhouses. What we care about is getting as much, as many units in that area as possible and not care about the townhouses that face the entrance and the only one entrance to this development, which is a big issue. So that’s my comments. Aller: Thank you. John Knoblauch: May I address one? Aller: Sure, that would be great. John Knoblauch: Yeah, I’ve been well aware there’s about 6 significant oak trees. Aanenson: Mr. Chair, I’m sorry but we’re having a difficult time hearing… Aller: Why don’t you come up. 30 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 John Knoblauch: Okay. Aller: Thank you. John Knoblauch: Yep, and backing up to their four, I believe it’s a four isn’t it? LuAnn Markgraf: Four units. John Knoblauch: Yeah the four unit, there is some significant, in the tree survey, I believe there’s about 6 oaks there and my understanding is those will not be touched. They’re pretty tight to the townhome property. One plus that I heard from one of the townhome owners is that right where the road is proposed there’s 3 huge cottonwoods that basically clog their air conditioners every year and those 3 big cottonwoods would actually come down but the intention is the berm that’s there now, next to the town, there’s kind of a natural berm that comes up and the oaks that are on that are going to remain. Thank you. LuAnn Markgraf: What about the sign? Al-Jaff: There is a sign that is shown on the plans that is proposed to be located at this corner, which th would be a southeast corner of the intersection of West 86 and the proposed road. Staff is recommending that it meets all ordinance requirements pertaining to wetland setbacks, wetland buffer, property line setback, which would be 10 feet. It cannot be within sight distances and the area of the sign cannot exceed 24 square feet nor 5 feet in height. Aanenson: I just want to make sure we’re talking about a development sign, not a stop sign. Al-Jaff: Correct. Yes. John Knoblauch: We would like to do a stone for a sign. It’s very, very small spot. It’s a very small window on that front corner. I want to call it the southeast corner of the intersection. It looks like it’d be doable to get a stone, you know engraved stone. We don’t have any intentions of having any large, you know some kind of a monument or anything. It would be pretty minimum for signage but it looks like there’s a small spot there. We would like it on that side. Opposite of the townhomes. Thank you. Aller: Any other individuals? I will close the public hearing. Comments, questions. Hokkanen: Very thorough report. Yusuf: I don’t have any questions. Aller: If we were to look at the, is there a way to leave open alternatives? I don’t think there is. Aanenson: Well what I would suggest Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission is that you direct your motion and but maybe you can also direct staff to work between now and City Council to consider some of those alternatives to present to the City Council. You could word it such that…if you wanted to approve it going that direction but consider the following things between now and then. Aller: Okay, and this is now…to the commissioners. We’ve got the potential application of the sidewalk which I’m fully in favor of and the whole idea of a PUD is that the City gets certain things out of a PUD that it normally wouldn’t under the zoning and that’s the purpose of changing it. And so that would be one of my goals is to make sure that the City and the desires of the City to protect that wetland and those 31 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 buffers is effectuated so I’m all for going ahead because I think there are enough protections here to vote in favor of moving forward the way it has been presented by staff but my thought is that if Terry and Water Resources and staff come up with a better plan, I don’t want to forestall that and I don’t want to have them need to come back so that would be my thought. Hokkanen: No, I agree. Aller: Because there are a number of conditions that we will be waiting for to be met as far as numbers to be crunched and water tables and things that would impact that specific requirement. So with that any other questions or comments? Withrow: No. Aller: I’d entertain a motion. And you add that in there… Hokkanen: Okay. Okay, the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the Land Use Map Amendment from Residential Low Density to Residential Low and Medium Density. Rezoning from Single Family Residential and Mixed Low Density Residential to Planned Unit Development Residential. Subdivision of 13.22 acres into 16 lots and two outlots with variances. Site plan review and Wetland Alteration Permit subject to the conditions of the staff report and adoptions of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation including further review of the location of the trail within the wetlands. Or future recommendations of proper placement. Aller: That being a motion, do I have a second? Yusuf: Second. Aller: Any further discussion? Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council the land use map amendment from Residential – Low Density to Residential – Low approve and Medium Density with the following condition, and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation: 1.Approval of the Land Use Amendment is subject to Metropolitan Council determination of consistency with system plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council the rezoning from Residential – Low Density (R4) and Mixed Low Density approve Residential (R8) to Planned Unit Development – Residential (PUD-R) with the following condition; and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation and attached ordinance rezoning the property. 1.Approval of the Rezoning is contingent upon approval of the final plat and execution of the development contract. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. 32 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council the preliminary plat to subdivide 13.22 acres into 16 lots and 2 outlots as shown in approve plans dated received June 14, 2013 with the following conditions, and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation: 1. All lots must comply with the following table: COMPLIANCE TABLE Maximum Area Width Depth Hardcover Notes (square feet) (feet) (feet) (square feet) 60 at PUD 10,000 building 100 30 percent setback L1 B1 10,510 139 122 3,153 Wetland L2 B1 10,076 89 108 3,022 Wetland L3 B1 10,100 135 107 3,030 Wetland L4 B1 10,353 84 141 3,150 Wetland L5 B1 10,011 69 146 3,003 L6 B1 10,622 62 130 3,198 L7 B1 10,017 62 120 3,005 L8 B1 10,000 62 124 3,000 Wetland L9 B1 10,041 62 128 3,012 Wetland L10 B1 10,212 61 126 3,063 Wetland L11 B1 72 (building Wetland 12,936 121 3,880 setback) L12 B1 75 (building Wetland 10,089 118 3,026 setback) L1 B2 Wetland, * area of neck 96 (building 12,723* 128 3,817 (5,580 sq. ft.) excluded setback) from lot area calculations L2 B2 10,830 75 102 3,249 Corner lot L3 B2 10,096 106 127 3,029 L4 B2 10,004 91 148 3,001 Outlot A 6.46 acres open 281,352 space/wetlands Outlot B 1.1 acres open 48,043 space/wetlands ROW 72,309 1.66 acres TOTAL 576,299 13.23 acres Wetland setback: 20 ft. buffer, 30 ft. principal structure, 15 ft. accessory structure. Front: 25 ft. Rear: 30 ft., accessory structure 15 ft. Side: 10 ft. house, 5 ft. garage 33 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 2.All relocated trees shall be warranted for two seasons and replaced by developer if dead or dying within that time period. 3.The applicant shall show proof to the city of permission by MnDOT to place landscape materials on state right-of-way. 4.The applicant shall increase bufferyard plantings along the south property line to meet minimum requirements. 5.Advanced warning and speed advisory signs are required where the design speed is less than 30 mph. 6.The site plan and HydroCAD model must be revised to address the following comments: a.Peak discharge rates are proposed to increase at the following locations: i.Runoff leaving the overall site for the two-year (2.8-inch) rainfall and snowmelt events. ii.Runoff leaving the wetland located on the western portion of the site for each design event. iii.Runoff leaving the site to the north for the snowmelt event. b.Use a pond in the model at the 18-inch culvert located north of the site. c.The analysis should reflect any overtopping of the driveway or other overland flows that may occur. d.Due to the increased velocities through the12-inch culvert leaving the western wetland, the developer must provide a design to address associated erosion at this location. Any required improvements outside of existing easements shall require additional easements. e.The drainage areas and/or curve number in the HydroCAD model must correspond to the Drainage Area and Curve Number Table. f.Directly connected impervious areas must be modeled separately rather than included in the composite Curve Number computation. g.The applicant must provide calculations (or submit a model) demonstrating that the city’s requirements for water quality are satisfied. i.If the event-based NURP standard cannot be achieved by dead pool storage, then (P8 or other) calculations should be based on equivalent annual removal efficiencies. ii.If an iron-enhanced filtration system is included in the design, calculations should be provided demonstrating the water quality treatment benefits of the BMP. Detailed plans of the system should be submitted for review with the calculations. 34 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 iii.The report notes that the east pond is able to remove 87.8% of the phosphorus load. This removal efficiency appears excessively high. It is anticipated that there is either an error with the model inputs or the calculation was performed for a particular rainfall event rather than annualized removal efficiency. 7.The HydroCAD model must be revised so that the impervious surface of the lots is 30%. 8.If groundwater is encountered during site construction the lowest floor elevations must be adjusted so that there is a minimum three-foot separation. 9.The developer must provide additional information showing how the proposed “Preservation/Stormwater Volume Reduction Area” between the large wetland and the back of Lots 4-7, Block 1 will meet the minimum requirements. 10.Storm sewer sizing calculations must be submitted with the final plat application and shall include the existing storm sewer at Tigua Lane (approximately 280 feet east of the proposed street intersection). The existing 12-inch reinforced concrete pipe north of Lots 7 and 8, Block 1 shall also be included in the analysis. 11.The grading plan must be revised to address the following comments: a.The developer must obtain a MnDOT permit for the proposed grading within the MnDOT right-of-way. b.The grading plan must be revised at the slope down from the street to the wetland at Station 3+00, and between Lots 3 and 4, Block 1 so the slope does not exceed 3H:1V. c.The lowest openings of Lots 2 and 3, Block 2 must be at least one foot above the emergency overflow elevation. d.The minimum floor elevation of Lots 8, 9 and 10, Block 1 shall be 897.6’. e.The building envelope for Lot 3, Block 2 must not encroach into the drainage and utility easement. f.The side yard drainage and utility easements between Lots 10 and 11, Block 1 must match what is shown on the plat. g.The building pad shown for Lot 1, Block 2 cannot accommodate any of the house styles provided and must be revised accordingly. h.It is difficult to discern between the proposed contours, lot lines and setback lines. The developer’s engineer is requested to change the drawing line weights. 12.A building permit is required to construct the proposed retaining wall. Plans must be submitted with the permit application and must be signed by an engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 35 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 13.Some homes may choose to install a privately-owned and maintained booster to provide a higher water pressure. 14.The watermain shall be 8-inch PVC (C-900). 15.Prior to final submittal the developer must obtain the necessary easement to install the sanitary sewer off-site, to the north. 16.A portion of the trunk sewer and water hookup fees must be paid in cash with the final plat in the rate in effect at that time. 17.Street and utility plan and profile construction plans must be submitted with the final plat. 18.The Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be prepared as a standalone document and submitted to engineering for review and comment. This SWPPP shall include a narrative, plan set and applicable details. 19.The SWPPP must include the required elements as listed in Part III of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity (NPDES Construction Permit) and in the MPCA SWPPP checklist. 20.A detailed erosion prevention and sediment control plan must be submitted for review and approval per the requirements of Section 19-145 of Chanhassen City Code and the NPDES Construction Permit. This should include, among the other listed requirements, all temporary and permanent best management practices. 21.There is significant evidence of gully erosion at both off-site discharge locations. Rates must be reduced below existing discharge rates or efforts must be taken to stabilize these discharge points to prevent further channel incision and head cutting. 22.A vegetation establishment and management plan must be developed for all areas preserved as open space including those areas graded for the construction of stormwater management practices that are above the normal water level. 23.Minnesota Department of Transportation right-of-way is outside of the City of Chanhassen’s WCA jurisdiction as MnDOT is their own LGU. Chanhassen’s review of wetland boundaries ended at the property limits. The applicant must get all appropriate approvals from MnDOT for work on the sound wall. 24.The development must comply with the MN Rules Chapter 6120 and the DNR must issue their concurrence to this effect. 25.Estimated Surface Water Management Connection charges due at the time of final plat are $67,483.50. Provide area of wetland buffer after development to accurately calculate credit. Fifty-percent (50%) of shall be collected in consideration for the dedication of 26.park fees Outlots A and B. The park fees shall be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat 36 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 46,400 submission and approval. At today’s rate these fees would total $(16 lots X $5,800 per /2 lot). 27.Dedication of a public outlot or easement to accommodate the construction of a neighborhood trail connection to the future Rice Marsh Lake Trail shall be further reviewed for proper placement through the wetland. 28.Construction of the 8-foot wide neighborhood trail connection from the public street to the southeast corner of the property. 29.The applicant shall comply with all MnDOT requirements for any work within their right-of- way, i.e. noise wall, landscaping, etc. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council the Variances to allow a reduced setback from Highway 212 and a cul-de-sac that approve exceeds 800 feet in length as shown in plans dated received June 14, 2013 with the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation: 1.Approval of the variances is contingent upon approval of the Land Use Plan Amendment, Subdivision, Site Plan Review, Rezoning and Wetland Alteration Permit. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council the site plan for a medium density development as shown in plans dated received approve June 14, 2013 with the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation: 1.Approval of the Land Use Amendment subject the Metropolitan Council determination of consistency with system plan. 2.Adoption of the Chanhassen PUD Ordinance, which shall be created to govern the site and design standards. 3.Execution of the Site Plan Permit. 4.Approval of the final plat and execution of the development contract. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council the wetland alteration permit as shown in plans dated received June 14, 2013 with approve the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation: 37 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 1.Wetland buffers are required around all wetlands on site. 2.A plan should be provided showing the location of all wetland buffer signs. These signs shall be placed concurrent to the installation of erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs except when grading is proposed at a buffer monument location. 3.The plan must meet the sequencing requirements of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. This can be accomplished by locating the sidewalk to the north side of the proposed road and extending the regional connection between lots 11 and 12 of Block 1. 4.A completed Application for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits Form shall be provided with the Minnesota Local/State/Federal Application for Water/Wetland Projects as well as a signed and executed purchase agreement between the applicant and the bank holder. 5.Wetland nomenclature on plan set shall be amended to correspond with HydroCAD drainage report and wetland replacement application. 6.Approval of the Wetland Alteration Permit is contingent upon approval of the Land Use Plan Amendment, variances, Rezoning, Site Plan Review, Final Plat, and execution of the Development Contract. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: 9150 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO ALLOW AN ALTERNATIVE TO A SUBSURFACE TREATMENT SYSTEM (SSTS) ON PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURAL ESTATE (A2) AND LOCATED AT 9150 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD. APPLICANT: CITY OF CHANHASSEN. PROPERTY OWNER: JAMES D. WILSON, ET. AL, PLANNING CASE 2013-14. Aanenson: This is the Wilson Nursery piece. This is a request for a variance in the City Code to allow the installation of a sewage…on property zoned Agricultural. The subject site is 38, I mean 39 acres and is seasonally used as a nursery site. It’s guided low density in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. This is the location of the subject site. Again it’s almost 39 acres. It abuts Highway 101 where it just so happens that the City is doing an improvement project. This is kind of the engineered drawing of the improvement project. …but as they were working in the, what they believed was the easement, existing septic site was in that easement area and was not…so it was accidentally hit so if you look at this map, which would be a little easier to read then the engineering plan…it’s right on the easement area so it was hit. …so the resolution that we’re proposing with this variance request is to put a holding tank in there. The City has adopted Carver County’s ordinance for holding tanks and that’s what we’re referring to here so the recommendation would be to replace it with a holding tank so it has to be pumped regularly. We feel comfortable with this use as this, the Wilson Nursery property because it is a seasonal use. So no one’s living there. It’s used as part of the operation. The reason why another septic site could not be placed on this site is that the entire area’s been compromised through the activity that’s taken place with the landscaping business and then the ultimate grading of that right-of-way for the City’s… There wasn’t a good site to put that so this is in a future growth area. We do believe that within the next number of years they could potentially redevelop. Basically a lift station built off of Powers Boulevard immediately to the west of this property bringing sewer up…but we do believe that is coming in in the near future so the staff 38 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 is comfortable putting the holding tank in there. We did put the conditions on there in the staff report specifically relating to time line…discussion with the city engineering regarding that…certainly if we’re not in there with sewer and water, we would extend that again as long as we needed to make that happen until such time that sewer and water is available. With that we put the standard conditions that would be required through the County and through our ordinance to make that happen. So again you put those ordinance references in there from the County and that we are recommending a variance to install holding tanks. Subject to those conditions so I’d be happy to answer any questions you have. Aller: Questions? Yusuf: Who will be servicing the holding tank? Aanenson: Oh that’s a good question. Actually I think because the nursery is, I did ask the City Engineer that because the nursery is managing their septic system right now. Once they install it, then they will be managing that. They’ll have their private contractor manage the… Aller: Anything else? Yusuf: Do you have any idea how long this type of… Aanenson: You know we thought we had some development happening on that, we had a project that didn’t come to fruition as the economy turned but you have to come from the property to the, just to the west of this that abuts Powers Boulevard. That’s where the lift station would be so, but…interest in the property. It’s the property in front of it that’s not as interested at this time in developing so. Don’t know. Could happen in 2 years. Could happen in 5 or 6 years or more. Yusuf: Thank you. Withrow: Kate, will these be visible from the highway? Aanenson: No they won’t. Withrow: They will be shielded. Aanenson: Yep they’ll be, yeah. Actually they are buried so. Withrow: They’re buried, oh okay. I’m sorry. Aanenson: That’s okay. I probably didn’t make that clear but they are, yep. Yep, and they won’t be outside the right-of-way. Aller: I’ll entertain a motion. Yusuf: I’ll make a motion the Chanhassen Planning Commission as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves Planning Case 2013-14 for a variance to permit installation of sewage holding tanks subject to the conditions of approval and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Withrow: I’ll second. 39 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 Aller: I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? I have none. Yusuf moved, Withrow seconded that the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves Planning Case #2013-14 for a variance to permit installation of sewage subject to the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of holding tanks Fact and Decision: 1.Variance allowing holding tanks to be time limited to three years. 2.Sewage holding tanks may not serve an inhabited structure. 3.Site served by holding tanks must be seasonal use only. 4.Sewage holding tank(s) to have capacity alarm. 5.Sewage holding tank(s) pumping contract required. 6.The new holding tanks must be 50 feet from the well on the property. 7.The tanks must 50 feet from the wetland on the north and west sides of the property. 8.The tanks must be outside of the right-of-way. 9.The septic holding tank system must be installed per plumbers code. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Hokkanen noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 18, 2013 as presented. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: th Aanenson: There was no council update. They also did not meet because of the 4 of July and just to go over your upcoming items. Next meeting will be National Night Out so we hope you’re all doing something in your own neighborhood so, we’ve had a lot of requests that people…in their own neighborhood so… For sure we’re expecting something to come in on this th Friday, so that will be on, a small subdivision on for August 20. And we also note that the rd Southwest Village Townhomes will be in for September 3 so we do anticipate two other projects coming forward. And we do have a definitive date for our joint commissions tour and th that will be September 11, which is a Wednesday. I’ll send you out another note so, we’re going to meet, so three weeks in a row there… Withrow: So our next meeting is when, I’m sorry? th Aanenson: It will be on August 20. Withrow: Thank you. th Aanenson: Yep, August 6 is National Night Out. And also I included in your packet was, just some information on some new businesses that were welcomed to the City. Aller: Yeah, so anybody that’s watching please check us out on the website and take a look at the new businesses that are issued sign permits throughout the year. They’re obviously looking for us to Buy Chanhassen. Thank you to all the sponsors out there who did such a great job on th the 4 of July parade activities. They were great. With that I’ll take a motion to adjourn. 40 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 16, 2013 Withrow moved, Aller seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 41