Loading...
PC 2004 02 17CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 17, 2004 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Steve Lillehaug, Craig Claybaugh, Bethany Tjornhom, and Rich Slagle STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Debbie Lloyd Janet D. Paulsen 7302 Laredo Drive 7305 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: REOUEST FOR SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCES TO PERMIT THE EXPANSION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A 0.27 ACRE LOT ZONED RSF LOCATED AT 3637 SOUTH CEDAR DRIVE, TOM AND JACKIE JOHNSON, PLANNING CASE No. 04-07. Public Present: Name Address Dave Bangasser 3633 South Cedar Drive Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Questions from staff. Craig. Claybaugh: What, do you happen to know Bob what the square footage of the side yard variance is? ! know it was expressed in lineal footage but it's running at an askew angle, going from 2 foot 6. The dimensioning on my plans or the one present were too small to read. Generous: Yeah, it's approximately 20 square feet. Claybaugh: Okay. On table 3 with respect to the other lots in the area and the variances that have been granted, there wasn't any expression of dates. How far back does that table go? Generous: If you look at the case number, the first number represents the years. So it goes all the way back to 1975 and the latest one was in 2002. Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Claybaugh: What year was the shoreland setback? Was that '87? Generous: That was the original shoreland. Aanenson: Probably when it was updated. Claybaugh: Okay, and ! know we've discussed in the Carver Beach area but their property out there is a front walkout rambler? Is that accurate? Generous: Yes, it's a walkout. Claybaugh: Okay. What is the, and ! don't know if you use best management practices handbook or what. You've used it express in the past but with respect with ramblers, what is reasonable square footage by current standards? Generous: Ordinance requires approximately 1,000 square feet. Claybaugh: So it's only 1,000 and obviously they're entitled to a 2 car garage and they're using what, 400 and some odd square feet or what is that? Generous: Right. Claybaugh: Okay. ! wasn't able to come up with the square footage that they've got for a footprint on this. Do you happen to have that available? Generous: They show the existing house as 1,181 square feet and proposed at 2,604. Claybaugh: So right now the current footprint is actually in excess of what you identify as a reasonable, okay. Were any issues raised by any adjacent neighbors prior to this point? ! understand there will be a public forum tonight but. Generous: No, ! haven't had anyone that's come in to object to it. Claybaugh: That's all the questions ! have right now. Sacchet: Any other questions from staff?. Lillehaug: ! have a couple. Sacchet: Steve, go ahead. Lillehaug: Your list on page 3 of the existing variances that were approved. Recently we, or the city has approved a few variances that were approved actually as part of another approval. It wasn't a necessary variance on new construction but it was an existing variance. Is this, are all of these variances that were approved, are they variances 2 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 that were needed to expand on construction, because ! think it's important? ! kind of hit on that before is, ! think it' s important to distinguish between the two. Generous: There were two that were, three that were approved to permit new construction. The rest were for expansion. Aanenson: So if it was an existing lot of record, in order to get a house on there. It may have been undersized. Not a 15,000 square foot lot. Generous: Generally they may have the area, it's just they're too narrow. You have a lot of that in that neighborhood. Lillehaug: ! guess I'm not sure if my question, if the question's being answered though. Are some of these, are a lot of these variances just simply being approved because they were already non-conforming and it was simply because they were non-conforming but not part of any new construction or expansion? Generous: Correct. Lillehaug: So there are some then? Aanenson: There are. Lillehaug: And we, when ! look at this ! can't really distinguish between the two. Obviously ! can't so. Aanenson: Well, except that the chart does say approved for a new home. There's 3 that are. Generous: Yeah. 8715, 9104 and 9604. Lillehaug: Okay. The next question on page 4. Finding letter A. You indicate the use of the existing garage which is currently non-conforming appears to be a reasonable request. Can you explain that? I'm not quite following the thought. Generous; Basically they want to maintain and expand that. It has a partial second flooring so they're going to raise the roof on that and it seems reasonable that if they're using that existing structure, that's a reasonable request. Lillehaug: What is staff' s thoughts on actually expanding it to the front of the garage and increasing the non-conformity on the front yard. Are you saying that that's a good trade off for reducing the impervious area? Generous: Yes, because their expansion would be over existing impervious so they're not creating a new one and the new impervious in that location, plus we're going to get additional removal. Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Lillehaug: Okay. ! think that's all ! have for now. Thanks. Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Any other questions from staff?. Slagle: ! just have one. Bob, as we look at again page 3 with the previous variances that have been sent to the city and approved, when we talk about the lakeshore setbacks, ! think it's safe to say that the commission has looked at those closely over the last few years and my question is, is if you know on some of those requests where an example like 9604 or 9201, where we're looking at again numerous feet of variance. Were those on lots where, ! mean was it a tight, short lot if you will and they were already encroaching if you will? Generous: Yes. They were substandard. Slagle: Okay. Do we know, do you know how wide this deck is now? The current deck? Dan Anderson: Left to right or... Slagle: Towards the lake. From house to lake. Dan Anderson: 12 foot. Slagle: 12 feet, okay. That's it. Tjornhom: ! have one question on impervious surface and the deck. The deck is considered part of the structure of the house, is that correct? Generous: Yes. Tjornhom: And so that it's not part of the landscape per se because water can run through it, correct? Generous: Right, and generally we don't count decks against impervious surface. However under this there's a concrete patio. Tjornhom: That was my next question. Well then that's, okay. Generous: So that takes the impervious. Sacchet: So the deck does count as impervious because it's solid underneath? Generous: Well the solid underneath that counts. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Sacchet: That counts, okay. Okay, because I had a question about that too. Now, I'm still not sure exactly where the 75 foot lakeshore setback. Can you point that out on the map once more? You hinted at it before but I didn't catch it clear enough. Generous: ...the elevation. 75 feet would be to this point. Sacchet: So it's about halfway through the existing deck? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: Roughly. Okay. And then just to be, we hit on this a little bit with those variances that you list here which was a pretty considerable list. None of those could be considered the precedent for this? It's a tricky question but you're in a better position to answer that than I. Generous: They're not exactly the same. They are, some of them are on sub-standard lots and this is narrower. Sacchet: This lot is a little bigger than most of those other ones? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: Yeah, okay. Alright. ! think that's all the questions. One more question Rich? Slagle: One more question Mr. Chair. Again getting back to the deck Bob. On page 6 of the photos that the applicant was kind enough to provide, ! see existing deck.., replacing bad wood. Is that to mean, from what you know, is that deck that we see a picture of, is that a recent deck or is that an old deck? Generous: It's repairing an old deck. Probably mostly new wood. Sacchet: Well thank you. If the applicant would want to come forward. State your name and address for the record and let us know any additional information you'd like to add to this. Dan Anderson: My name is Dan Anderson. I'm representing Tom and Jackie Johnson. Tom Johnson: 3637 South Cedar Drive. Excelsior. 55331. Dan Anderson: I want to address a couple small things. On this, as far as the hard cover and working with that, that doesn't seem to be too much of an issue to come up with that. ... underneath the deck you know there' s, there's older concrete underneath there that can be worked with. The entrance to the driveway can be worked with. We want to improve the site as well. They bought the house and it was, it needed a lot of work and they have already done some work on the interior to make it suitable for their family and they've been there about a year and a half, two years and as per some of the pictures you've seen, Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 they've got a small boy and a small girl, they're sharing the same bedroom so the big key here is to get these bedrooms located up over this garage here. We're okay with using the existing structure. We've got a garage that's a sub par garage. You can't hardly put a mid sized vehicle in it, so where it expands out here so it can be useable, and also create a legitimate front entryway. It doesn't have furniture right now. A basement walk in. It was basically a cabin. So we can make all the work and like ! said, we're okay with working with the hard cover issues and working with the driveway. The one thing though ! would love to lend an ear to is this corner right here. ! don't know if you guys have an interior picture of, do you have an interior shot? Sacchet: It's in the packet, yes. Dan Anderson: The interior, this doorway right here that brings us back into the bedroom area. It lines up center on this wall to allow a per code bathroom. That's a minimum sized bathroom per code. And to get the proper storage for the kids closet, to make the bedrooms actually work with the kitchen we came to this corner right here and went straight out from this. If there's one thing, you've got a very non-conforming neighborhood. You walk down the neighborhood, a lot of the things that aren't architecturally correct, and don't even come close. And what we don't want to do is add to that, add to that. We want to be architecturally correct and keep this wall as straight as possible. To move this wall in right here 3 feet eliminates having a kitchen where it's supposed to go and to be able to get back into the bedroom area, to have a code width door, code width bathroom, and a code width hallway and move everything over this way. Now ! encroach on a code width stairs, which is, you know if you look at this real close we're not adding any exorbitant square footage. We're not, nothing is that large. And even the deck over here can be, that could be all met. To meet with the codes and the setbacks, I'd like to make this redesign to make this all work just fine. Sacchet: But angling it is not enough. ! don't think that corner that you're pointing out is the issue. It's that corner. Dan Anderson: Now if you go back to, I'll take you back to the survey. That corner is right there. That's 2.3 or something. Generous: 2.6. Dan Anderson: 2.6 and it's only 2 foot 6 inches into the setback, but if we can walk away with that one, then ! can make all these items in here work. And like ! said, typical hallway, typical bathroom, typical stairs going down. It's all pretty typical. And we can work, we'll actually work with obviously the rest of the, there is a small, ! mean it's a parking lot out there. We can work with, there's a lot of asphalt to remove. You know and we want to remove that. That's where our landscape design. Make it more inviting. And we're willing to spend Tom's money as much as we can. And that's where we're going to spend it. But anyway, this corner is a very important corner. This corner hinges on this whole layout right here. To get to that existing structure, which we just want to use what's there. So if ! had to say there's one thing we want to walk away with this, Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 where it's already been granted to us, we agree with that but we'd like to add that corner to that if we possibly could and the rest will definitely work. Sacchet: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Claybaugh: Yeah, a couple questions. The stairs that you pointed to, those are new stairs or are those existing stairs? Dan Anderson: Currently those are concrete stairs, an outside situation. Claybaugh: But that's the existing entry? Dan Anderson: Same entry moved and we're just going to put them back in place. Inside the structure. Claybaugh: But that's the existing positioning of the entry to the house? Dan Anderson: Yes, correct. Claybaugh: Okay. And with respect to the 2.6 feet, is that dimension to the outside of the eaves? Staff. Generous: The 2.6 feet would be to the wall. Claybaugh: To the wall, okay. Dan Anderson: There again I think we have about a 12 inch or 11 inch soffit and fascia and that can even be worked with design wise. Backing up a little bit to your question, that is not the front entryway to this house. That's just an entryway to the side door to what's currently the kitchen. The actual, they're calling it the front door. It's the basement entrance on a lower level. Claybaugh: Right, so the stairs that you're pointing to are a consequence of building a new vestibule and that's where you orientate them? Dan Anderson: Right. Claybaugh: Okay. That's all the questions I have. Sacchet: Any other questions of the applicant? Lillehaug: Sure, I have a question. Looking at that same diagram there, you're carrying that wall on the top I'll say. Other wall, directly across from it, yep. You're projecting that out from the existing wall of the garage. Dan Anderson: Yeah, we're just lining it up. Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Lillehaug: Why, and the problem is when you get to the top right corner, that's where the encroachment is across the setback. So why do you have to carry the house, the portion of the house wall, why does that have to carry on from the garage? Why can't it be shifted at the back of the garage where it is conforming? Shift it 2.6 feet and then you have a parallel wall going back. You do lose a little square footage in the house but it still needs a variance. Do you see a problem in that? And just one more thing, and ! think it's a pantry if ! were to look back on this. ! mean that can be reduced in size and maybe even relocate it, and then you'll still have a conforming bathroom and stairwell and you're just basically the reducing the size of the pantry. Is that not doable? Dan Anderson: It's not the pantry that I'm worried about reducing and... It's having people walk in and out of this hallway. If in fact this, I'll draw a line here. If this moved in, and this is our work space, now we have an architecturally, we have an architectural issue here about it being in the way of the hallway. Having a clear hallway to shut this off and walk in and out of this. Because this is their main living area right now. Kids are here. The main area for the family is right here. I'm trying just to keep this open and keep it so it matches the rest of the architecture and to angle this wall wouldn't be, that would be an. Sacchet: Architectural harasses? Dan Anderson: Yeah. That'd be like, yeah no, no. Bad idea. Lillehaug: We're talking just 2 lA feet I mean. Dan Anderson: Well 2 lA feet, what that measurement is right there and that puts you in the doorway. When you're ending up with the kitchen cabinets that way. Sacchet: Yeah once you have a counter. Dan Anderson: Once you put a counter in there, and I'm standing there. Well if I'm standing there you're definitely not going to get through the door. Lillehaug: Okay. Dan Anderson: You understand what I'm saying? Lillehaug: That's all I have. Sacchet: One more Craig? Claybaugh: Yeah. To dovetail Steve's question here. The L return on the left side of the sink, on your cabinetry there, what is that? There's no dimensioning on it. It runs parallel with the pantry. Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Dan Anderson: Right here? Claybaugh: Yeah. That dog leg return there. Dan Anderson: That right there is about 1 foot 8. Claybaugh: In terms of the projection. I'm looking at the base cabinets there, on the wall that the sink is located. Those are going to be a 2 foot depth so just I'm thinking that dog leg out of there has got to at least 3 foot 6. Dan Anderson: I don't have my full set of plans here but this, where it turns 90 and goes this way, that's actually about 2 foot 8 to 3 foot right in there. Claybaugh: Okay. So actually if, there certainly is, you'd lose the L return on it and ! understand you don't want to walk down a hallway into the back of somebody preparing food, but. Dan Anderson: Well my only issue is, then ! only have about 10 inches to stand. Claybaugh: If you take all of it. I'm talking about mitigating the first, okay. That's the extent of my questions. Sacchet: Okay. Anything else you want to add from your end? Rich has a question. Slagle: Mr. Chair, ! thought someone might ask a question about the deck but let me just ask you know what are your thoughts from the deck as far as falling within either the setback or reaching some type of compromise with the staff' s recommendation and your proposal. Dan Anderson: Can you see what ! sketched there. ! could do something like this to make this work here. The grade is such that ! would have liked to have the stairs built within that square footage of the deck. As it is, the deck is kind of exposed from down over here. We don't want them to cross the front because it blocks off views but they can come off over here, and we could do something like this over here would be kind of sharp looking. It would also look architecturally correct and have enough footage here where people can pass. That we can work with. That's not an issue. You can just see the layout on the main house, it flows so nicely and it all works the way it should work by keeping my 6 foot into the setback. And maybe even a compromise with 2 foot 6. Maybe you know I'll split the difference or something because that would give me, if you split the difference on that one, as you had said, we'd probably have a good foot and a half if you're standing there and have people walk by and not be an issue. Claybaugh: You know we want to leave you really with any less than possibly 2 feet but don't have any dimensions on the plan. Sacchet: Alright, thank you very much. Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Dan Anderson: Thank you. Claybaugh: I did have one extra. Did you explore options with locating the stairs? That's one of the things that you identified as your string of code issues starting with the current hallway, code bathroom, and code stairs. Obviously did you explore possibly taking it in through the living room or orientating those slightly differently to possibly recapture some of that space that you're requiring a variance for? Dan Anderson: Ah yes. Let me pull up existing structure. If you look at the way that the property sits in it's current state, you'll see that that is the most natural way to pull the stairs up. There's currently stairs right here. But when ! put the stairs, if ! leave those stairs where they currently land, ! then tear up this whole, this spot right here and I've got a dead spot here. Claybaugh: Right, no I'm not suggesting that you should orientate them where they currently are, but in terms of adjusting them or aligning them a couple feet, ! don't have any note there on the drawings either. I'm talking in terms of mitigating. I'm just asking if you explored it. Architectural orientation out there, some structural components that prohibited you from doing that. Dan Anderson: Structure, the old corner of the house is right here and there's less messing around with the whole roof, the wall system, the concrete blocks the wall, where they're currently stay we want to keep them. And outside as well as the inside right here. Claybaugh: Okay, but you did explore it? Dan Anderson: Yes. Claybaugh: Okay, thank you. Sacchet: One more architectural question. You made it pretty clear that angling the wall would be pretty awful architecturally. Would it be as awful to put a jig in it rather than one straight line? Dan Anderson: We had thought about that about where the sink is, or where this stove goes, you can jog it in. There again you move the island in, it interrupts the door and then there's a lot of wasted space in there with the cabinetry. ! think this is better, a simple compromise on the 2 foot 6 setback is either we split it or we work with what, you know go into the setback 2 foot 6 are the two best options. Sacchet: It seems like there's quite a bit of space on the other side of the island. Dan Anderson: Over here? Yeah, there is. Oh, there's this space out here but I think what you've got to look at, if you put yourself in this kitchen. ! don't know if I've got a, I've got to look through this to see if I've got a cross section. Finished cross section. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Okay, right here. Now we've got to zoom on that thing. There. If right here.., come forward. This whole cabinet right here goes away. This thing goes away. And to keep that line straight is going to take me away from just orientating the kitchen and having that wasted space there. Sacchet: Okay, thanks. Claybaugh: I'm sorry. Sacchet: Yeah, go ahead Craig. You've got another one? Claybaugh: You identified the hallway inbetween the pantry and the powder room there as it's labeled, as a code hallway. My dimensions on that, and like ! said they're extremely small here on the reprint but it looks like 4 foot 8 iA. Dan Anderson: Which one you looking at there? Claybaugh: I'm looking at the hallway. Inbetween the pantry and the powder room. Dan Anderson: Okay. Slagle: You're saying up on the landing of the kids room, is where you see it? Dan Anderson: Right. Sacchet: It's hard to read. Claybaugh: Now obviously the door opening is 3 foot and that's what you want but you've got 4 foot, and ! don't know if that's inside frame, an inside frame and then you've got 4 foot 8 lA but that's certainly in excess of what code requires, unless it's something I'm not aware of. Dan Anderson: Correct. Claybaugh: Okay, what would you site as code for that application? Dan Anderson: Well we could probably skinny that up about, I could probably skinny that up, ! think if we were to split that number and jog this. Claybaugh: What I'm after is if we left you what would be reasonable for an L so somebody preparing a meal in the kitchen wouldn't be obstructing the flow of the hallway. Backing off that 3 foot 6 dimension that you identified and mitigating the width and getting that down to more of a code width on the hallway that you've got between the pantry and the powder room, combination of those two ! would expect would match your 2 foot 6, at which point at the back of the garage you could jog that addition. So that your kitchen layout could still function. It wouldn't compromise the code restroom. It 11 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 certainly wouldn't compromise because the hallway isn't to code right now. It's in excess of code. Dan Anderson: I think we could probably get those...it'd probably be pretty close. If I brought this back... Sacchet: There it is. Saw the back of your head instead of the drawing. Alright. Dan Anderson: That right there. ! forgot that measurement. Foot and a half or so, but that does go back to my statement of splitting it or something. That gets us closer obviously. Claybaugh: Right, but ! mean if you drew a line down the side of the hallway and you narrowed that hallway up to even 3 foot 6. You had a 3 foot 6 hallway through there, okay. You come out of there, as best ! can ascertain, it's 4 foot 8 lA and it's very small on my drawings, okay. So that's a net of a foot 2 1/2. You said 3 foot 6 is what your L return or your dog leg return was on your cabinetry. 2 feet would be reasonable ! think. Okay. So that's a net of 1 foot 6 and you picked up 1 foot 2 so you actually got a couple inches to take back and work with however you want to redistribute it. Dan Anderson: That makes sense. Claybaugh: Okay. Sacchet: Go ahead Rich. Slagle: ! apologize but ! thought more about my deck question. Is it safe to say that the deck was built, the old deck was built prior to the Johnson' s purchasing the property? Dan Anderson: No question. There's pictures in your packet that show that it was an existing structure. Actually it was pretty unsafe and they were trying to make it safe. There's a couple bad footings that we had to fix up and that kind of thing. Sacchet: Alright, thank you very much. Good discussion. This is a public hearing so if anybody wants to come forward, address this item, this is your chance. Anybody want to express any aspects about this case? Please come forward. Nobody come forward, I'll close the public hearing. Oops, there's somebody. If you want to state your name and address for the record. Let us hear what you have to say please. Alright, it' s all your' s. Dave Bangasser: Hi. I'm Dave Bangasser. The property directly to the east that we're spending quite a bit of time talking about. 3633 South Cedar Drive. It's been in my wife's family for about 60 years. You'd think that if the property's been in my wife's family that long that maybe she'd be here talking to you, but we took a vote and when the vote was over, it was quite clear to me that my vote didn't count. We're generally very positive about the plan. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Sacchet: Just to clarify, you're on the side where they want to be closer? Okay. Just to be real clear about that. Dave Bangasser: Just to the east. Sacchet: Where that side yard setback is being requested? Dave Bangasser: So again, we're generally very positive about the plan. ! think the designer has been very creative with the plan, both the layout of the plan and particularly the tower is a great design. We do have a concern for the side yard setback. The last time ! talked to Tom, some time in the fall. We went out there and looked at it and ! think Tom you indicated that you were going to jog the wall and you weren't going to ask for a variance there. And the next thing ! knew 4 days ago ! got a notice saying you were asking for a variance. Needless to say ! was surprised by that. We have a relatively tight 40 foot lot. One of the smallest on the lake. Again, as Bob mentioned, it's a very old subdivision. At 70 feet the Johnson's property is one of the biggest lots in the area. Not the biggest but among the bigger lots there. Because of the way the property line angles, and obviously that's a lot of the problems that we're talking about here. Because of the way the property line angles, the addition, and in particular the deck. In particular the deck, we really have a problem with the deck. With that angle, the deck appears to be oriented more towards our lakeshore. Not completely but again because of that angle it's geared towards our lakeshore so when we're down by the beach, if they're out on the deck, which as proposed is within 5 feet of the property, it just felt to us like we'd be almost imposing upon their space. ! have to say ! was really irritated that you showed the deck within 5 feet of the property line and never bothered to call. There's absolutely no function for it. There's no reason to line everything up. If anything, jogs add interest architecturally and ! clearly was not happy with that. My wife was not happy with that. There's an existing mature evergreen tree that's right at the corner of that proposed deck which would have to go if the plan was built as proposed. That evergreen provides a nice buffer there right now. ! think enough's been said about the plan itself. Again ! see no purpose for what appears to me to be a 57 foot long deck across the front of that property. The kitchen, ! agree with the earlier comments that you know ! think modifications could be made. Quite frankly the house, ! don't have a problem with. ! think you've done a nice job of minimizing the windows that are oriented towards our property. ! really wouldn't have strong objections with that but the deck clearly is an issue. We'd like to see that deck pulled back as far as possible. Again ! think with the creativity that you've displayed with the design, ! don't know why some of these modifications couldn't be made and still be a very functional house for you and you know again, we support all the other variances. We're concerned about the side yard setback. We think it'd be a wonderful addition to the neighborhood and that's all ! have to say. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Anybody else want to address this item? If not, I'll close the public hearing. Bring it back to commissioners for comments and discussion. Anybody? Lillehaug: Mr. Chair, could ! ask a couple questions of staff?. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Sacchet: Go ahead. Lillehaug: ! just want to get a clarification on the deck and encroachment of the deck, as well as the eaves into the side yard setback. My understanding is the eaves are supposed to be, they are supposed to be included in the setback? Generous: They're part of the variance, correct. Lillehaug: But they're not included as part of the variance right now as far as the distance, is that right? Generous: That's my understanding. They're not incorporated. Lillehaug: So actually the variance would have to be even more than it's shown? Generous: For the eaves, yes. Lillehaug: 11 inches ! guess more. Okay. Now the second part of the question is the deck. Can the deck encroach into the side yard setback? Generous: The deck may encroach to within 5 feet of the side property line. Sacchet: Is that it? Okay. We have some more answers. Any discussion? Comments. Claybaugh: Would it be possible Mr. Chair to have the applicant comment with respect to the evergreen buffer? That it was something that hadn't been addressed. Sacchet: Do you want to address that? Claybaugh: ! don't know if that's appropriate or not. Sacchet: Yeah, it's a valid question. ! mean the concern that the neighbor brought up with the evergreen would have to be cut down because of the deck expansion. Dan Anderson: ! think we've already made a general decision. As ! commented earlier, Rich's question on the deck, we can work with the deck. That's not a major importance. ! couldn't agree more with the neighbor on the deck. We can tie that back into a nice design on that... Tom Johnson's could not be heard. Sacchet: You can work with it? Tom Johnson: We can work with that. Sacchet: Okay. Alright, with bringing the deck in some. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Tom Johnson: I think that's fine. Sacchet: Yeah, ! wonder whether that would actually make this, take the space for that evergreen. Dan Anderson: Trim off that tree a little bit but not enough to damage the tree or lose... The key is the buffer, is the way ! understood it. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Comments. Discussion from the commissioners. Anybody. Lillehaug: Can ! ask staff one more question? Sacchet: Yes. Lillehaug: Could you put the sketch back up showing the 75 foot OHWL line in reference to that tree. That's the tree we're talking about. Generous: 75 feet actually because the shoreline of the lake is a little closer than that. ! was showing the 12 foot deck extension so this basically is a straight line. Lillehaug: Now a deck cannot encroach into the 75 foot. Generous: Correct. Lillehaug: Okay. Dan Anderson: Can ! ask one question? What was the side yard setback for a deck? 5 feet? Generous: Aanenson: 5 feet. Just to be clear, when someone's asking for a variance, you can attach any reasonable condition you want to to mitigate that, and that might be the encroachment into the side yard. So while that's a standard... Claybaugh: Point of clarification Mr. Chair? Sacchet: Go ahead. Claybaugh: 5 foot setback with respect to the deck. Is that something that's grandfathered in because the existing deck is within 5 feet or is that? Generous: No. The code provides... Claybaugh: The code does provide so it isn't the 10 foot for that. Okay. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Aanenson: For a deck only. Sacchet: Alright. Where do we stand with this? Lillehaug: Well ! can start in comments. Sacchet: Go ahead. Lillehaug: I'm going to hit the four points I guess that we're talking about. First of all I think the applicant has reasonable use of the property as it currently is. ! think that's the number one point that needs to be made. Number two point ! guess would be is, ! think we need to encourage refurbishing of the house. It's an older house. Somehow we need to encourage that but ! guess number one, impervious area. My position is not increasing that at all, and ! would stand firm on that. Whatever happens we cannot increase that impervious area because it's already non-conforming and it's grossly non-conforming. Front yard setback, you know ! don't have a huge problem with it but ! really do think there's already a reasonable use of that existing garage. To me it appears it's 24 foot deep. That's a standard depth of a garage. It's not cramped. That's probably the depth of my garage if ! remember right. So expanding that garage to the front increasing the non-conformance, you know I'm not totally sold on that either. Side yard setback, ! think there's many, many different options that can be, that could take place inside the house. Relocating the stairwell to one location or the other. ! think ! saw 4 baths in the new layout of the house. Is that a reasonable use? ! guess I'm not going to say it is or isn't but there's many other things that can be done in the layout of that house to not encroach in that 10 foot side yard setback. ! do not support any encroachment in that 10 foot side yard setback. What else would there be? Number 4. That'd be the wetland, 75 foot setback. Again, ! don't support any encroachment into that at all. Sacchet: Thanks for laying it out Steve. Any other comments? Claybaugh: Yeah, I'll take a stab at it. Let's see here. With respect to the front yard setback, ! agree with my fellow commissioner that 24 feet depth on the garage is reasonable use. Again the plan that ! have doesn't mention what the additional lineal foot attached to the proposed addition, but ! guess ! view that as the proliferation of a non-conformance with respect to, until it gets or achieves the front yard setback and ! haven't totally made up my mind on that. With respect to the side yard setback, ! agree that there's a number of components with the house's interior that could be modified, re- worked and it's well within their grasp to get that down so it's a variance free application. With respect to the deck and encroachment of the lakeshore, ! don't see a compelling reason to support that. The, with respect to the hard surface coverage, ! would suspect that when some of these things are addressed that they will be within line with what they're current non-conformance is and won't require a variance or won't require further intensification of it so, that's my comments. Sacchet: Thanks Craig. Any additional comments? 16 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Tjornhom: Yeah, I might come off sounding crazy I guess after hearing everybody else but you know, I'm all for taking something old and making it new and improving our city and making our lakeshores look better and our neighborhoods and so ! thought it was a nice plan. ! don't have a problem with expanding the garage. ! don't have a problem with.., architect or your builder seemed to be reasonable in working with these people and getting it back into some better parameters with regard to the lakeshore, and I'm still confused about the side yard setback. ! hate to wreck a whole plan and something that seems to function for 2.6 feet. You know, it just seems to me kind of a crime to, well see ! was thinking. But when the neighbor came up and had problems with it then ! think okay, it is hurting somebody else and it's affecting somebody else and so then maybe it needs to be re-worked and so ! guess those are my comments. Sacchet: Thanks Bethany. Slagle: ! will just make my quick. ! think ! would tag along with Bethany, and especially when she mentioned the functionality of the plan. ! think it's a well thought out plan. ! think with the concern of the neighbor, it led me to this thinking and the thinking is that it might be worth tabling this and allowing them to work out potential plan that could take into account the neighbors... Sacchet: Real quick where ! stand. It's not a hardship but ! think it's a reasonable use to expand on that whole garage. ! think that's pretty clear. ! agree with staff's position basically with the whole thing with one addition. ! would like to see a condition that we preserve that evergreen. ! think that would balance the scale in terms of the neighbors concern. But other than that ! agree with staff. I'm not sure whether it needs to be tabled. ! think the position is relatively clear. ! think we've worked through different options. We established that there are ways to work it and ! have full trust, ! mean you've obviously put in a real quality project together here so personally ! don't think we need to see it again. So with that I'd like to see a motion please. Can we make this into one motion or do we have to make it in two steps? Generous: Well you could combine them. One's for approval and the rest are denial. Lillehaug: I'll make a motion. Sacchet: Go ahead Steve. Lillehaug: I make a motion the Planning Commission approves a 19.3 foot from yard setback variance to permit a 10.7 foot front yard setback for the expansion of the house at 3637 South Cedar Drive based on the findings of fact in the staff report and subject to the following conditions which aren't number but I would number them, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Sacchet: Five would be the new one? No, no there's one on the other side there, okay. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Lillehaug: And then 6 would be the new one. And the condition would be, to fully preserve the tree that we were speaking of. Sacchet: Evergreen to the east of the deck. Lillehaug: Yes. Sacchet: We know which one you're talking about. We have a motion, is there a second? Claybaugh: I'll second. Slagle: Point of clarification. Sacchet: Go ahead Rich. Slagle: So are we suggesting that this motion is to deny the applicant's request for a side yard setback and a lakeshore? Sacchet: Yes, that will be the next motion. Should we make it into one motion? Generous: Well you can add that as the second part of the motion. Sacchet: We probably should make it into one. Lillehaug: Okay. And then should ! just keep going on with my motion then? Sacchet: Yes. Why don't we add that to it. Lillehaug: Okay. And adding to my previous motion, ! recommend that the Planning Commission denies the side yard shoreland, and lot coverage variance for the expansion of the house. Same house, in according with the findings of fact in the staff report. Sacchet: Do we need another second since we added? Claybaugh: Yes, I'll second again. Sacchet: Okay. We have a second to both parts. Any discussion? Friendly amendments? Slagle: Another clarification. Just so we're clear, we, myself, I'll speak for myself. Approve of giving them the side variance setback and a lakeshore setback and the front yard setback, assuming that the deck would work, will actually be voting against this motion? Sacchet: Say again. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Aanenson: Yes. Sacchet: ! lost you. Okay, you got an answer. Whatever the question. Slagle: What I'm trying to say is, there's a motion to approve the way it's written. Sacchet: Pretty much the way it's written, yes. That's correct. We're basically approving the front yard variance. We're denying the side yard, shoreland and coverage variance request. Okay? Alright, we have a motion. We have a second. Lillehaug moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the side yard, shoreland and lot coverage variance and recommends approval of a 19.3 foot front yard setback variance to permit a 10.7 foot front yard setback for the expansion of the house at 3637 South Cedar Drive, based on the findings of fact in the staff report and subject to the following conditions: The impervious surface shall be reduced to less than the current 43.9 percent impervious surface. The driveway shall be removed and re-vegetated as shown on the attached "Impervious Surface Reduction" schematic to achieve a reduction in the impervious surface. Tree protection fencing must be installed prior to any work commencing around all trees near the construction limits. Fencing shall remain in place until all construction is completed. The applicant shall work with staff to provide a vegetative buffer between the principle structure and Lake Minnewashta. 4. Permits must be obtained before beginning construction, alterations or demolition. The tower and other elements of the project which are beyond the scope of Chapter 9 of the Minnesota State Building Code must be designed by a licensed engineer. o The applicant shall fully preserve the evergreen located to the east of the deck. All voted in favor, except Slagle and Tjornhom who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 2. Sacchet: There's two nays and three ayes. That means this has to go to City Council. Aanenson: Correct. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Sacchet: Automatically goes to City Council. We need a big majority to make this.., so since it's not a big majority you will see the City Council on that, and they will make a final decision. Do we know when this goes to City Council? Aanenson: It'd be the 8th. Sacchet: On the 8th? Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. In summary for council, we, this is a very interesting mix of situations. ! think everybody, certainly you should specify why you voted nay. What we voted for here 3 to 2 is that we do agree with front yard setback. That we consider that a reasonable use. That we do not agree to give a variance on the side yard setback because we think there are ample possibilities to mitigate that, as well as with the deck. We definitely want to have the coverage reduced, not increased. That's the one area where we can mitigate the non-conformance of the situation, or the shoreland setback is the most sensitive in terms of the nature so anything you want to add in the for side? Why we are voting for this. Claybaugh: Yeah actually clarification. ! made the point previously in my comments about the 24 foot deep garage. ! think that was an argument for intensifying that non- conformity but in looking a little closer at the plans, ! believe it's less a function of the garage depth and more a function of making the bedrooms above it work out. And as such ! don't have any reservations about that. ! wanted to clarify that. Sacchet: Any more comments? Okay, the cons. Any comments why you voted against for City Council? You want to summarize your issue? Slagle: Concurring on the efforts on the deck, and then probably having...on the description of ample. Sacchet: So what would be your balance point? Slagle: I think it's fine... Sacchet: It's fine encroaching with the kitchen. And the same for you Bethany? Tjornhom: I'd also like to add that it seemed to me that the neighbor and the applicant and the builder seem willing to work together to reach a reasonable agreement. Sacchet: Okay, so let them work basically. And last comment for council, that evergreen. ! think we agree that we'd like to save that evergreen. So that's the summary for council. Lillehaug: One more quick comment? 20 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Sacchet: Yes, go ahead Steve. Lillehaug: ! think it needs to be a 3 foot 6 inch setback with the eaves. Didn't we clarify that earlier, and not a 2 foot 6, so it's more than 2 foot 6. Sacchet: Alright, thank you very much. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE AMENDMENT FROM OFFICE INDUSTRIAL TO OFFICE; AND A REZONING FROM A2 TO OFFICE INSTITUTIONAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF GALPIN BOULEVARD AND NORTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD, 1SD #112, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-08. Public Present: Name Address Rod Franks Paul Schlueter Ben Merriman Bev Stofferahn Ellen Rawson Lori Juelich Karen Kennedy Gary Feldick Gene Kruchoski Peggy Emerson 8694 Mary Jane Circle 427 Campfire Cv, Chaska 8156 Mallory Court 8123 Marsh Drive 2266 Boulder Road 2246 Stone Creek Lane East 2051 Boulder Road 2231 Boulder Road 2030 Boulder Road 8409 Stone Creek Court Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thank you Kate. Questions from staff. Slagle: Kate, in offering the two options if you will, would there be a reason the applicant would be opposed to that, from what you know? Aanenson: No, we did speak to them about that and I think they're comfortable with that. Again we don't anticipate that, but for some reason the school district decided or couldn't build the school in the future, it just protects our options of providing industrial, and also gives the residents some level of protection of what they think might go in there. Slagle: Okay. On page 3, where it talks about O! district. Maximum height. Aanenson: Two stories. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Slagle: Two stories, okay with that. Accessory structures, one story. Okay. On page 4. It talks about minimum setback when it abuts a railroad right-of-way. We have the railroad to the north, and it only raised a question in my mind that potentially, obviously we don't need to address it tonight but you know, could you potentially have a two story gym wall, 10 feet from that property line so that people on the other side of the, you know I'm just throwing some thoughts out. Aanenson: Right, no and I think if they work through the design, I think that was one of the nice, ! mean they have decided it it'd be two story or one, or whether it's a middle or a high school, but ! think as they work through the design, that was one of the nice things about the size of it. It does have some prominence. Some nice views and if it is a two story, ! think we would look at that. What's the best way to site the building. They've certainly looked and had some potential drawings on that but those are all good points. Slagle: Okay, and then let's see here. Oh, on page 5. Just one last question. It talks about in instances where existing topography and/or vegetation provide buffering satisfactory to the city, da, da, da, da, da, the city may reduce buffer yard requirements by up to 50 percent. Obviously it says the city may. You wouldn't at this point see any reason. Aanenson: No, ! think we want to see when the design comes in, but obviously you have, which again lends to this site, you have some built in natural topographic. The railroad tracks. The Bluff Creek corridor which has some expansive wetlands, so there are already some natural, the sub-station for Chaska so there's already some natural kind of breaks and they're buffering the neighborhood and then you've got the industrial on this side so ! think there are already some impediments to the visual impact. Slagle: You know actually one last question, I'm sorry. Speaking of the sub-station. mean any concerns about having a school next to a sub-station? Aanenson: We did an extensive study on electromagnetic fields when we had Kindercare come in and really actually Europe, actually Sweden probably has the most requirements on that but as far as that concern, we'll certainly look at it. More than likely the school will probably be more towards the north, so it'd be probably a parking lot on that side. Slagle: Okay. That's it. Sacchet: Other questions from staff?. Questions for staff. Craig, any questions from staff?. Claybaugh: Yeah. Just with respect to what we're doing with the land use amendment. This is the most restrictive vehicle that we can use to accomplish that for the potential for the school, but still retain as much control for the industrial aspect that we're trying. Aanenson: That's correct. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Claybaugh: ! know we went through. Aanenson: Right. It provides them a level that they can close on the property. It provides the city a level of protection that if they were not to go forward, we have some other zoning in place. Claybaugh: That's my only question. Sacchet: Quick question Kate. In terms of we're losing 95 acres of industrial. Most likely with this move. Is the idea that we try to add some more industrial somewhere else in the city or what's the idea there? Aanenson: ! think that's something that the council is certainly considering too, and in looking at this, when we looked at things that are appropriate for the city's overall well being. Sacchet: Balance. Aanenson: Balancing, certainly. School, institutional uses are a part of that, but as we move towards the 2005 area and 10 and 15, certainly the next project coming up, the lower half of that, we do see. Sacchet: You'll be able to mitigate that there. Okay, thank you very much. That's all the questions. If the applicant would want to come forward. State your name and address for the record and let us hear what else you want to add to this picture. Bev Stofferahn: Good evening commissioners, I'm Bev Stofferahn. Superintendent of District 112. ! reside at 8123 Marsh Drive here in Chanhassen. We know that with a rapidly growing school district we've got more secondary schools in our future. They're down the road a little bit yet, although probably not very far, and one of the first major steps in that process always is to think about siting of those schools, and as you know, not only are land prices in this area soaring, but land is being purchased and increasingly more difficult to get. The purchase agreement that we have right now culminates over a 2 year process that we have been through in trying to find land specifically within Chanhassen that (a), the taxpayers could afford and would be willing to support, and (b), could support us in a secondary school down the road. We very much appreciate the help of this body in helping identify about 18 months ago some potential sites and actually we worked hard from that list to narrow down to the short list based on criteria that the school district used, and ultimately to the site, so we think it's a great site with a wonderful potential for a secondary school and we'd stand by to answer any questions that you might have. Sacchet: Thank you Bev. Questions from the applicant? No question? Thank you very much. Now this is a public hearing so if anybody would like to come forward and address this item, this is your chance. Anybody want to address this? Seeing nobody. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Ah, seeing somebody. Please come forward. State your name and address for the record. Let us know what you have to say. Lori Juelich: Sure. I'm Lori Juelich and ! live at 2246 Stone Creek Lane East in Chanhassen, so our development is close, next to the railroad tracks. Sacchet: Across the railroad, yeah. Lori Juelich: I support this as a school property. I think it's a wonderful addition to our community to have a secondary or a middle school in our community. ! would prefer to have a school there versus some other type of industrial option there. ! would like just to put out there, just because I'll probably forget in the future but with our secondary and middle schools we tend to have a 2 mile walk zone so ! would have concerns with the railroad tracks because everything around this area is industrial other than Stone Creek and then the houses towards Audubon. So that would be a walk in area which ! think is a great opportunity for kids, middle school or high school, if you don't have a car. For them to walk or ride so ! guess I'd be concerned about the railroad tracks and kids always take the short way to school, and that will be over the tracks. So if there would be some way we could put a by-pass underneath. I'm sure the city. Aanenson: There is a by-pass underneath and I think we certainly. Sacchet: There is an underpass or by-pass? Lillehaug: It's a ways away. Aanenson: Yeah, so ! mean if we can work that into the design, there is a trestle... Lori Juelich: Right, and having 4 kids, ! know they will all, you know the kids that are here will cross the tracks here, so I'm wondering if maybe something here, because you're got, this will all be walk zone. And they're going to cross that track. And ! know we've got the old one here, and then you've got this development too so if we can just, ! think ! just know they will take the shortest route and to cross there will be a big option for kids, because you've got this development here too. Coming through. ! also think it'd be a great opportunity for our science programs to have Bluff Creek, the actual creek there. It would be a wonderful experience for our schools. I'll support it, thanks. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Anybody else wants to address this? This is your chance. Please come forward. State your name and address for the record. Karen Kennedy: My name is Karen Kennedy and ! live in Stone Creek, right across the railroad tracks. ! actually butt up, right up to the railroad tracks and ! like the plan. ! really do. ! think it's a great idea. There's been several different options that have come across the way along the line, but one of the questions ! had is, ! didn't really understand, does the school district want to change the ordinance that allows the school to be there instead of an industrial building, is that correct? 24 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Sacchet: Do you want to address that please Kate? Aanenson: Sure. Right now the way the property is guided is for industrial uses only. A school isn't a permitted use in that district, in that land use designation, so in order for the school to go there we'd have to change the guiding to allow it to be something else. Karen Kennedy: But let's say that down the line, four years down the line the school finds another great site and they end up not building. Can something else be built there now that it has a different ordinance? Can some other thing, what kind of things could be built there besides a school? Aanenson: We're going to leave both of those in place, so this body and the City Council will have the choice to pick between office institutional or the industrial zoning. Karen Kennedy: So is it like set in stone that there is going to be a school there or is this just changing the ordinance so if they possibly? Sacchet: Well that's a difficult question to answer. ! mean considering they're buying the property ! think they're certainly a high likeliness. Is it a guarantee? Well no, it isn't and so from the city viewpoint, what Kate is explaining is we want to leave the option open that it can be used for industrial use as it was originally guided within our comprehensive plan framework and at the same time expand the guidance. It's really not changing the ordinance. It's what that land is planned to be used for so what's in front of us here is to make the decision whether we want to expand what it's guided for. Not to just be industrial but also for a school use, which is a requirement to purchase this. ! mean they don't want to purchase it if they can't build a school, right? Karen Kennedy: Right, so they haven't, okay. Sacchet: Alright? Karen Kennedy: Alright, thank you. Sacchet: Any other questions, concerns, nobody, I'm closing the public hearing. discussion, further questions. Bethany? comments. This is your chance. Bring it back to commissioners. Well, seeing Comments, Tjornhom: No comments. Sacchet: No comments? No comments? Claybaugh: No comments. Sacchet: Wow, we're doing well here. We have no comments. ! do have a comment. And ! just want to emphasize that for the record, in our staff report it emphasizes the 25 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 goals of the Bluff Creek Overlay District. It stresses those four points. What we're trying to aim for with the Bluff Creek Overlay District to preserve the quality of the natural environment to regenerate impaired environment where it's impaired, which is in most places. To regenerate natural links between the natural areas. Develop environmental education opportunities which would obviously with the school. I just want to mention this important element there. It's a great asset to be next to mentioned. And it is part of the responsibility that goes Other than that I don't have any comments so I'd like to go very much hand in hand for the record because that's an the Bluff Creek, as the neighbor with working with that property. have a motion please. Claybaugh: Make a motion that the, let's see here. approval of land use amendment to office industrial and attached findings of fact. The commission recommends office institutional subject to the Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second? Lillehaug: Second. Claybaugh moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Land Use Amendment to Office/Industrial and Office/institutional, subject to the attached Findings of Fact. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: REOUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT TO INCORPORATE THE PROPERTY IN THE CURRENT METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA (MUSA); A REZONING FROM A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT TO RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT; SUBDIVISION APPROVAL TO CREATE 61 LOTS (48 IN CHANHASSEN), 3 OUTLOTS (ONE IN CHANHASSEN), AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH A VARIANCE FOR STREET WIDTH; AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO FILL AND ALTER WETLANDS ON SITE, ON 55.6 ACRES (44.6 ACRES IN CHANHASSEN), LOCATED SOUTH OF PIONEER TRAIL AND EAST OF THE HENNEPIN COUNTY REGIONAL TRAIL, THE PEMTOM LAND COMPANY AND BEATRICE ZWIERS, SETTLERS WEST, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-05. Public Present: Name Address Tim & Janet Heady Dan & Val Tester Byron Dickinson Brian Johnson 19019 Vogel Farm Trail, Eden Prairie 230 Flying Cloud Drive 18921 Explorer Trail, Eden Prairie 18924 Explorer Trail, Eden Prairie 26 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Justin Larson Gerard & Martha Clark Mark Danielson Jim Rea 4942 41st Avenue South, Minneapolis 18956 Dorenkemper Place, Eden Prairie 9751 Meadowlark Lane 18492 Pathfinder Drive, Eden Prairie Kate Aanenson provided background information and Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Bob. Questions from staff. Who wants to start? Slagle: I'll start, if that's alright. Sacchet: That is alright. Slagle: Just a couple questions Bob. You're going to need to put up that other shot of the one the gentleman provided. Because obviously as we're tying in this development, which ! think you accurately portray as isolated, ! think it is important for us to consider what the rest of the development that's already in offers to what will be our citizens. So can you tell me, is there parks, park, playground, what have you in the adjacent area to the east? The already developed. ! assume there is but ! don't know for sure. Generous: There is a park further east I believe. I'm not sure exactly where that's located. Slagle: Okay, ! guess we'll ask the applicant that question. ! concur with your sidewalk. You don't have, do you have a preference as to what side the sidewalk goes, north or south? Or east or west. Generous: We looked at the west side where it has fewer streets. Internal streets. Slagle: East did you say? Generous: West. Slagle: West, okay. Generous: Additionally that's one of our issues that how can we tie this into the regional trail. Slagle: Well that was going to be my next question. Did the Park Director or the park commission have input into this? Generous: Not yet. ! believe they're scheduled to go the 24th of this month. Slagle: Okay, because it would seem to me, concur if you will or disagree, that at some point on the west between one of these two lots, whether it be 46, 47, 50, 51, 39, 40, you 27 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 would think it would be advantageous to put a connector trail down into the regional trail. Are you in concurrence with that? Generous: Well ! know the old.., south. A connection may be where it gets flatter... Slagle: Okay, okay. Okay, just somewhere before it gets to Pioneer Trail. Generous: Yes. Aanenson: Yes. Slagle: Okay. So has there been any dialogue, last question with the applicant as to the number of units? You know with some lots not making the size, have we had interchange with them that says, you know what are you thinking for numbers or? Generous: Well we told them that they need to comply with the ordinance and so. Aanenson: So they'll have to be, this is a standard RSF zoning so they have to meet the 15,000 so the message that was communicated is that lots will have to be reconfigured to meet these requirements. Slagle: Okay. That's it. Sacchet: Thanks. Bethany, any questions? Tjornhom: Well ! don't know, it seems like a lot to chew on...to see it all at once ! guess, but there was one part with the erosion control question and it stated that you were concerned about changing the existing topography so much, and why are you concerned about that and what are you afraid will happen? Is it drainage? Saam: Sure, I'll ads something to that. As far as the filling goes that Bob mentioned, ! think that was the main grading point is that in the lots off that cul-de-sac on the southeast corner, they're 20 through 25. The backs of those lots. They're filling from 8 to ! think it's 12 feet. Maybe 14 feet, instead of working with the land more. Maybe they lower the street to get the walkout's in the back instead of filling 10 plus feet. ! think that was one of the major concerns. Tjornhom: You thought that there were different avenues they could... Aanenson: Yes. Tjornhom: ...what they wanted, okay. Another question ! have, because I'm new to some of this stuff, is how do you pre-treat the storm water? How does that, ! don't understand that. The storm water runoff. What does that mean? 28 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Saam: In a pond. They pre-treat it in a pond before discharging it to the, like in this case the Minnesota River Valley. Tjornhom: You mean it just sits there or ! mean how does it get to be pre-treated? Saam: The pond acts as a big settling basin to settle out the sediment and other particles and so as the water goes through the pond, it stays in there a certain amount of time, the particles settle out and then the water that goes out should be cleaner. Tjornhom: So nature takes care of it? Saam: Partly nature but ! mean the ponds are man made and they're designed to settle out particles over time. Aanenson: And the site is graded so the water's running towards the pond, whether it's graded or piped towards the pond. Tjornhom: Generous: Aanenson: Tjornhom: Aanenson: Tjornhom: Aanenson: Okay. Where's the water run off now? Down the bluff. Down the bluff and more towards the Hennepin County trail, yeah. Okay, and that's not pre-treated then obviously either. No. And that's... Yep. Sacchet: Okay. Questions? Claybaugh: Yeah. In reading the report without being able to put it in graphic context makes it a little difficult, I'm sure you can appreciate that but Matt, could you identify the lots again where you felt that the most extreme fill was placed at? Saam: Yeah. I'm just going to reference the report so I get this straight as it's listed here. Yes, the rear yards of Lots 20 through 25, and then Lot 30 which is the southern most lot at the end of the cul-de-sac, if you look in the rear of that. That's being filled quite substantially also. Claybaugh: I'm on sheet 11 of 12, which is the tree inventory plan. Is there any scenario in staff's opinion just like ! said looking at this tonight, looking at the legend, based on the coloration that I'm seeing, that whole corner, trying to get an orientation. Is there a north arrow on here? Yeah, so it'd be also the southwest corner being the orientation. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Again I'm sheet 11 of 12 here. On the legend designation, canopy to be cleared due to grading operations. That's basically the bulk of the canopy in that entire segment of the development. That's also an area where we're bringing in the most extensive fill, if ! understand you correctly. Generous: Correct. Claybaugh: Based on what ! could glean off the elevations here or the topography. Is there any scenario on staff' s opinion based on your touch down points coming in, okay, where any of this can be saved? What I'm trying to do is understand if! understand that they're bringing in 8 to 10 feet to achieve a walkout lot, okay. Is there any scenario where those trees can be preserved, like in any event is the build up going to have to be, even if it was 2 or 3, where they had a lookout lot. We're going to lose those trees anyways. What I'm asking, is there any scenario where those trees would be salvaged based on the incoming touch down points that you have leading up to that end of the development? Or are those trees irrespective of where they're trying to achieve a walkout lot or not, is there any scenario where those trees would be preserved? Generous: Well we believe there is opportunity to preserve. Claybaugh: And I'll try to be more specific. Are these trees gone at the expense of them trying to create all walkout lots, or is there no way to develop that end of the property without, based on the incoming touch down points, where none of those trees can be salvaged? Saam: Well that's what we're hoping to challenge... Claybaugh: So you think there is a scenario that some of those trees can be salvaged? Saam: ! would say yes without getting into fine detail, I'll bet yes. There could be. Claybaugh: Well you said coming in the topography is so extensive, the lines are so tight. The existing topography lines are difficult to lead. They're kind of blat outs on. Aanenson: And that was our recommendation for them and we want to examine that closer to see what we can do. Claybaugh: Okay. ! guess that's the question ! had right now. Sacchet: Steve. Lillehaug: Easy question first. You spoke about a range of a roadway width. We just went through ordinance review and ! think as a whole we decided we want to see a 31 foot roadway width, and now you're indicating that we have a range of roadway width which ! think the ordinance still indicates, but don't we want to recommend the 31 foot roadway width? As we discussed quite extensively. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Saam: I'll take that, yeah. We talked about it internally in engineering. There are a couple other facts or items that weren't clarified, but Eden Prairie's requirements are for a 28 foot so they're matching the existing streets that are out there. So what they'd have to do then is the upgrade, up size the width at the property line to a 31. In the interest of being consistent and with the sensitive nature of the site, if we can bring the street in so they don't have to grade out so far, we thought that was an adequate trade-off. Lillehaug: Well then maybe we want to leave that range on roadway widths back in our ordinance. Saam: Well in certain situations I think it works. Aanenson: Right. It seemed, if the wider end was on the closer to Pioneer Trail, you know but it seemed weird to have it narrow and then widen where you're getting into the more sensitive so in talking to Eden Prairie we just decided that we'd acquiesce on that. Lillehaug: Okay. ! guess ! just want to be frank. ! think it'd be really an injustice to say that any one of us can be spontaneous enough to really objectively give this plan review, a quality review and give any quality comments. ! haven't looked at this. It's, seeing Sathre-Berquist's work before, ! know it's a good set of plans. ! mean any one of us can just page through it like we did in the last 5 minutes and say it's a good set of plans but ! can't give you any good comments here. Aanenson: I guess what we're looking for too is some general direction about some of the things. If you're in concurrence with some of the things that we're moving towards, so as we direct the applicant to fine tune this, if we're moving in the right direction. We're all going together down the same. You know we talked about sidewalks and connections to the trail, so if you give us some of those at least, parameters, ! think that's. Lillehaug: I guess that's just it. I don't want to be misleading thinking, and portraying to anybody, and ! know this isn't a question but ! apologize but ! don't want anyone to think, the developer or staff to think that we really looked at this to really give you a quality review and lead them in a good direction. Sacchet: Just to clarify, we did not get the set of plans until tonight. That's our issue, okay. Aanenson: But again I'll bring back, we see your role as big picture things too. You know we can comply. Make sure all the lots meet. Again what we're asking you to say is, how do you feel about that amount of fill? Do you want to preserve those trees? As Craig pointed out, if they're going to be, if they're going to go anyway at that point. Lillehaug: And that's what I'm saying. ! don't know these issues that well to really give you an objective review and see what my issues are at this point because ! don't know, and ! want to make that clear to the applicant because. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Sacchet: Yeah, and ! think that's a very valid point Steve. That we're a little short changed by not having to be able to ponder plans. However we did have the staff report and as staff clarified, the purpose is also to get the public's input and we have a fair amount of people here tonight so hopefully that part is working very well. And yeah, ! agree with you. We're a little bit. Lillehaug: And the point being, ! just want that to be clear to everyone so when ! come back here next time with a few comments, people know why. Aanenson: Well as an engineer ! think you review it in a different level, right. Yeah. Claybaugh: Questions, followed by comments. Sacchet: The answer to your question is yes. Lillehaug: Thank you. That's the end of my questions. Claybaugh: So noted. Sacchet: I do have some questions though still before we get into the applicant's presentation and the public hearing. Those trees. I mean we're looking at the baseline canopy coverage of 3 8 percent coming down to proposed tree preservation of 6 percent. I have not been able to be out there myself but actually our fellow Commissioner Papke who's not here tonight went out there and walked it and was extremely impressed with that stand of trees on the southern most tip. And based partially on his feedback that he emailed and looking at the staff report, not seeing the plans, I have a very big question. My question is, how can these trees be preserved? Very simple. Do you have an answer to that? Generous: How can they be preserved? Well, through purchase. Through redesign of the project. We're eliminating some of the grading. Reducing street standards. Use of retaining walls. Sacchet: Keep going. Generous: Well that's part of why we're requesting their engineer to look at that. Sacchet: Now an engineering question ! guess that is, by not just cutting pretty much all the trees on top of those bluffs, and there's bluffs on two sides. And in addition, like about a dozen feet of fill, are we now making these bluffs very unstable? Saam: Yes, in one respect that's why we're concerned with blow outs around the pond area. That are right back up to the bluff. And yeah, sure. That 12 to 14 feet of fill right next to the bluff, that's a concern of our's. That's one of the reasons we'd like to 32 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 decrease that amount of fill to stay with the natural land, not change it. You bring in fill that's more apt to move and go down the bluff. To erode. Sacchet: Any more questions Craig? Claybaugh: Yeah Matt, just to dove tail what you just said here. With respect to that, with the NURP ponds being located in a tight proximity to the bluffs edge with the build up in grade closer to the bluff' s edge, did they submit some engineering data with respect to, beyond just compaction of the soil but some soil stabilization techniques that they plan to implement to circumvent that concern or mitigate that concern or? Saam: I'm sorry, did you say did they... Claybaugh: Is there any engineering that they are submitting in conjunction with this application to address those issues, or are they submitting an engineer's recommendation or his statement with respect to the stability of that soil. Beyond just standard soil compaction and say we're going to come back to the 98 and 95 percent at this location. Is there someone commenting specifically in a professional capacity about the ability of that soil to be fully stabilized and not be a liability for that bluff. Saam: As of yet we haven't received any soil compaction tests or anything beyond. Claybaugh: No, ! understand there wouldn't be any compaction tests. What I'm asking is if they go out there and they bring in the fill and their estimate, obviously they're going to compact the fill that comes in place. From an engineering standpoint, is there an opinion available from an engineer that would say beyond standard compaction techniques they need to implement some additional stabilizing techniques, be that in the form of mats, or whatever else might be out there on the market, is that a valid question? Has there been any discussion with respect to that? Saam: Sure, a soils engineer. A professional geotechnical engineer could submit a report. Claybaugh: ! know Sathre-Berquist prepared it, but specifically could someone be available to comment on that specific question? To either say no, this is not of concern and ! can demonstrate through data, however, that it's not a concern or at least identify that that's been specifically addressed and calculated. Saam: Sure, a soils engineer could do that. Claybaugh: Okay, but there's nothing that's been brought forth to this point. Aanenson: We're asking for that. Let me just clarify. Claybaugh: Okay. Okay. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Aanenson: That's one of the conditions that was raised. Claybaugh: Okay. In terms of breaking this down with the changes in topography and the amount of cut and fill. Would it be possible, as long as we're having open discussion about it, to try and phase this down rather than trying to eat the elephant in one bite. ! know at the southwest end that some of the most extensive fill, and ! don't know how extensive it is, working from ! guess it wouldn't be the northeast to the southwest. ! don't know how much fill is happening or occurring at the far end. What caught my eye was the southwest corner. Could you comment with respect, if you segmented the development say into three sections, starting at the northeast or the Eden Prairie piece and working your way to the west. How much fill or cut and fill is happening and how the topography's being treated. Could you comment to that? Saam: Could they do it, yes. They could. My guess is that if they did a phased approach we'd see a stockpile or dirt at the edge of a Phase ! or Phase I! line. My guess is that they're trying to balance the dirt on site and that can explain the cutting and fill. Claybaugh: So there's more cutting that's happening over to the east end of the project towards the Eden Prairie end and more filling happening at the west side or are they filling all the way across the board? Any feel for how much import/export? Saam: We do not have the import/export quantities. Again, in talking with the engineer though, they're trying to balance the soil. Claybaugh: They're always trying to balance the site, ! understand that. Not having the ability to review it while we're sitting here, that's why I'm asking you the question. What's happening from east to west, just in terms of. Saam: Generally speaking yes, there's more cutting in the north to northeast area and more filling in the south to southwest. However the pond areas are obviously large cut areas and pond 2 is the largest pond on the site, so that's a large cut area. Claybaugh: Okay. ! do have one other question that is on the, ! don't have a sheet number, ! apologize but it's under the heading Cooperative Agreements, Construction Maintenance, Public Infrastructure. ! believe there were some comments from Eden Prairie and this may have been addressed, if you could just confirm it for me. Down towards the end of paragraph where it says what the proposed street layout of the project, the turn around location at the boundary between Eden Prairie and Chanhassen is not provided. And it went on to speculate the uses for that. That each city would be responsible for the snowplowing, is what they're proposing at this point. They were looking for a place to turn around. Has that been addressed or was that of concern to the City of Chanhassen? Saam: Yeah, that's going to be a part of the joint powers agreement. We have brought up the issue with the City of Eden Prairie. We've talked about it internally. How are we 34 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 going to plow this? Where do we start and where does Eden Prairie end? And that's all going to be worked in the joint powers agreement. Claybaugh: Okay, more specifically the reason I'm asking is they identify an area for turn around, and I'm looking at obviously the first sheet here, the preliminary site plan I'm not seeing that incorporated anywhere. I'm just asking if that's. Aanenson: I think we've got that worked out. In meeting with them. Saam: Yeah, I'm very confident it will be worked out. Claybaugh: Okay. So they're going to incorporate a turn around or is that deemed a non- issue? Aanenson: We're going to decide who's going to plow what and who gets there first and it's kind of that sort of thing is how it's going to be. That was our initial comments. We met after those comments to try to... Claybaugh: Okay. Sacchet: Any other questions? Steve? Lillehaug: Yes ! do. When you impact the trees due to the storm sewer installation, why don't we require a 2 to 1 diameter ratio? You know as indicated in condition number 13. Generous: Because those weren't initially calculated in the tree removal, so if you take out trees as part of an initial removal, it's a 1.2 to 1 if you don't meet the target. So we're saying that because you've going to, we know you're going to impact the amount due to calculations now, and then that's a 1.2 to 1, if they say we're going to save these trees, and then later permanently remove it, that's where you do the 2 to 1 replacement. Lillehaug: Okay. That's easy enough. And then one other question, I'm not seeing, in your report you indicate that you want to eliminate all grading in the bluff areas. ! guess I'm not seeing that. Is that somewhere in a condition? I'm not able to pull it out of there. Saam: Condition 21. Lillehaug: 21. Okay, thank you. That's it. Sacchet: Any other questions? Let's move this show ahead. We have no questions? Just groaning, okay. Okay, if the applicant wants to come forward. We'd like to hear what you have to add. You notice we have some concerns. ! don't think we'll be able to exhaust this whole discussion tonight but we're curious to hear what you have to say. Dan Herbst: Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission, professional staff, my name is Dan Herbst, 7640 Crimson Bay in Chanhassen. ! have Justin Larson here with 35 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 me from Sathre-Berquist and one of my custom builders, Chris Thompson is also here from Settlers Ridge. Pleased to come before you tonight. I'm kind of excited. I haven't been in Chanhassen City Hall here for about 14 years with Crimson Bay, but it's been about 32 years since I sat in your chair and chaired this body for a number of years and I'm kind of glad I got off. You guys have done a much better job. The town looks quite a bit better but we will not do a full presentation tonight. Our primary purpose would be to get the feedback from the public. It's not my style to come before you with this long list of staff reports. Also when we found out that you did not inadvertently didn't get the plans, I think it'd be more fair to you and to everyone to let us go back to staff. Work out many of these issues we discussed tonight and then come back to you with a real strong presentation, but what Kate and Bob are asking for you is very helpful to us. The things you're concerned with, with grades and trees, storm, wetlands are all extremely important to us. The same with the trails. This property has been an intrigue to me for many years, both positively and negatively. When I was developing Settlers Ridge and acquiring all the properties out there, I was always fascinated by the beauty of this property, but every day when you heard the high power rifle range going off and the shooting range and the grading, and Eden Prairie people coming to me and saying how can we have a conservation area with trails that we were building, going down to a rifle range. It just didn't make a lot of sense. The antenna tower, many things, and as the city, since those are non-conforming uses, you really have no control over there. They were there when they were functioning so ! think the real beauty is here of once we get a plan that you're going to approve, that antenna tower's going down. The rifle range is going away. The shooting range, the erosion control, all the many things that have been going on that have been, I've been watching negatively out there for many, many years. In fact ! brought one of your elected officials out there maybe 10 years ago and she said to me Dan, this is not Chanhassen is it? So it is kind of an orphan piece. It's very part of everybody things it's part of Eden Prairie because of the way the trail is. It's triangulated there. Very complicated property for you ever to think about serving in the future if you were to try to bring utilities up so ! think your staff has been a real positive direction by solving those issues. But we will go back to the drawing board after we hear the comments from the public tonight, and we will, ! assure you we will do everything possible to resolve the wetland issue. We will do everything we can with trees, but keep in mind, you know one of the, I've planted millions and millions of dollars worth of trees in my 35 years in this business but one of the things you know that you have to do when you're providing housing and homes and putting utilities and NURP ponds, all the things that we want is unfortunately we have to do some trade off' s and take some trees down, but ! will not cut any corners on your tree preservation plan. ! will exceed all your tree planting limits and if you've been through Crimson Bay or Settlers Ridge or Trillium, ! want, when this is all said and done, for all of you to go back out there and this will be a very, very unique neighborhood for the city of Chanhassen. The wetland issues, ! think we've had some good meeting today. It's complicated because we've got two watershed districts. We've got two city wetland people involved and we've got a trade off. ! understand Chanhassen's position not wanting Eden Prairie water running towards Chanhassen but if you kind of go out there and study the land, you know God has kind of made it run from the hill down to the river, so unfortunately that's from Eden Prairie to Chanhassen so ! don't think we want to fight that. We want to come up with the best solution we can, and 36 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 figure out how we can minimize the amount of water that's going to be heading down towards the Minnesota River, because we do want to protect that. We're showing on these plans a pretty extensive storm sewer pipe going down, but ! think we've looked at some alternatives. We want to study that carefully. Shorting that up. There may even be a possibility in one of the outlots there, this Outlot C, over in this vicinity here to actually, if we could find some trees that will support, actually create a wetland down in that area to put another wetland before it gets down to the creek before it gets down to the Minnesota. There may also be a possibility down into the, you know for Chanhassen's benefit we also want to stabilize that mine and stabilize that bluff which is pretty ugly. So we may be able to temporarily create some type of wetland down below but we want to find the shortest distance to do that with pipe. With a minimum amount of tree loss so as ! say, we will go back. Do our homework and ! promise you we will not come back until that list is a lot longer. In my 35 years in the business, that's the longest staff report I've ever seen. ! was not too pleased coming here this evening with that so with that in mind we would like some of the things you're talking about. That 50 foot right-of-way and the 28 foot street, we would like to see some consistency with that with Eden Prairie and Chanhassen. We very successfully built 28 foot streets all throughout the community here and 50 foot of right-of-way. It gives you 11 foot of boulevard on each side to do sidewalks and trails, so I'd like your feedback on that. It's very important to us. ! think we can cut down on impervious surface. Make the lanes slower. Some traffic calming. The same with that 180 foot radius that's described in the curve there. ! think the curve really helps slow traffic down and ! don't, it may not meet your engineering standards but ! think it's a great calming device and we'd like to incorporate that into our plan. One of my pet peeves all my life in this business has been street widths and impervious surface and ! tried to propose some beautiful center islands out at Crimson Bay where ! live. In other areas we have put them in at Trillium and Greenwood on the Lake and stuff and ! know it's difficult with this long of cul-de-sac but those to me soften streets. You get some vegetation and the blacktop. Every time ! go home and drive into my 90 foot cul- de-sac out there ! say there's got to be a better answer than this, but then we've got the high fire trucks and you've got the school buses so obviously there's trade off's in everything in life but. We want to come back to you with a much shorter list of things that you've got to contemplate here. We want to come back with a plan. I'm not going to show you, it's not going to be perfect because no plan is. We're going to ask you to do some trade off, but again the end result, when this project's all done, you're going to be mighty proud of it and it's going to be a very good looking project and you'll have a wonderful neighborhood out here. Custom homes and the trail is very important to me. I'm a heavy walker. I've done a lot of running so that was inadvertently left out of the plans but unfortunately Pioneer Trail, Hennepin County has not got plans for many years to widen Pioneer Trail, even though we've given them the right-of-way there. So that means there's no trail along Pioneer so unfortunately the people at Settlers Ridge and these people have to seek a way to get down to that Three Rivers trail so we will find a way to do that. We think right now probably the best place is where the pipeline easement is, which will be up kind of in the northern part. Make it very accessible to the Settlers Ridge people. We also would like to make another connection to the Richard T. Anderson Conservation Area which would kind of go to the south and to the east so there'd be a way for the people that live there to get down to the beautiful. ! know you 37 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 went out there walking the site but if you want to go see the conservation area below Settlers Ridge, it's awesome. There's a lot of hand groomed trails down there that we've provided access to. Location for parts. ! know this commissioner asked the question. There's a beautiful Lake Riley park that's probably, ! mean it's just an awesome place that has everything you can imagine. There's a very near...which is just east of Settlers Ridge across Riley Creek. The city just developed a beautiful neighborhood park and those are all very, very proximate with trails to them so there's plenty of access and Bob Lambert, the Director of Parks is very anxious to, he knows a lot of his Eden Prairie people are coming to Lake Ann to enjoy your beautiful lake and he has no problem with having Chanhassen people come to the Eden Prairie park system and using it so, thank you very much and ! know you've got a busy night so we'll cut our presentation short. Is there any questions? Sacchet: Thank you. Excellent presentation. Very convincing. Questions from the applicant? Slagle: A couple. Mr. Herbst you brought up the parks. My question specifically was in Settlers Ridge. Is there a park? Dan Herbst: There is a private park but you know, and by the covenants I can incorporate that into the documents but I prefer not to. I've got 220 homeowners there now and I think if I add, it would just create some issues. Slagle: So would you group be open on Settlers West Road, similar to what... Dan Herbst: With a totlot. Slagle: ! don't know how.., conducive if you've got families but ! mean would you have an area that you could see a lot be designated as a gathering space? Dan Herbst: You know I want to look at that because as I was sitting here tonight I was also thinking about maybe a little gazebo for school bus type of thing too would be nice out there so I will look at that. We're definitely going to be losing some lots on the Eden Prairie side of the equation too. To minimize the flow of water from the Eden Prairie to Chanhassen, we're going to, and because of the wetland issues, we're going to probably be losing some lots up there and there might be a possibility we could do a little totlot. Possibly a little bus stop gazebo. That's a good suggestion. Slagle: And then another question would be, what would be Settlers West Road entering onto Pioneer, and I will ask this...staff as well. When this comes back to us, can we really hopefully what I will call more of a universal approach to this area. I mean including photos, descriptions of Settlers Ridge... commissioners can understand how it all. Dan Herbst: Yes, we had a power point presentation for you tonight but it's pretty lengthy and you have a lot on your plates. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Slagle: My question is this, is on the road, is there a concern of having, what I think is two roads fairly close together when you have complaints, as we received as trying to take either into the development or out of the development depending on the time of day. Dan Herbst: As you know, or maybe you don't know, the County has adopted quarter mile spacing distance but you can see, if you look here, many locations here. They haven't met that spacing requirement but it's so difficult to work with. You take Deerfield or Settlers Ridge and some of the other neighborhoods there, I mean you either don't use them or you have to figure out a way to work around those but we're going to be working with your engineering department, and Eden Prairie's and Hennepin County to come up with a solution for that entrance, and we will. Aanenson: Just to be clear.., but Hennepin County ultimately would have the jurisdiction on that because it' s a county road. Slagle: I guess I'm just wondering, was there discussion of this development on Explorer Trail to what I will call the Settlers Ridge, and.., either empty out or. Dan Herbst: Well I don't think Eden Prairie's in favor of that. In fact Eden Prairie wanted me to acquire that access point before they were at one point in time were going to approve Settlers Ridge and I couldn't do that because of the gentleman at the time just wouldn't sell it to me, so we had no choice. This, the access point that's there was platted like in 1980 something to serve the property back here, because there's four different land owners so that access point was pre-determined even before Settlers Ridge came along. Ideally at that point in time it would have been nice if we could have gotten this other access point, which Eden Prairie wanted and now we'll be able to do that. Sacchet: Any other questions from the applicant? Question from the applicant Steve? Lillehaug: Yes I do. You mentioned, I know this is a detailed point but I think it's important. You mentioned 50 foot right-of-way but your drawings are showing 60 foot right-of-way. Dan Herbst: I know that, yes. Lillehaug: But you do plan on revising your drawings to 50 foot right-of-way. Dan Herbst: With your blessing. Lillehaug: Just wanted to be clear what your intent. Dan Herbst: Yeah, we think it makes your sense. Your engineer commented on the, you know if we have less of a right-of-way, we can bring the houses in closer. We can have less tree, less grading, everything else. One of my greatest projects of all times is Chimo. I've got a 24 foot right-of-way and a 20 foot road and I love going into that place. Chimo 39 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 East and Chimo West on Minnetonka Boulevard. It's a wonderful spot. There's no speed limit signs and as soon as you get on that road, trees are touching your car. You're going 10 miles an hour you know so. Again, it's one of my things that I've been carrying a grudge about all my life. Sacchet: Is that it Steve? Lillehaug: Yes it is. Sacchet: ! have a question or two also. First of all we have this question about the fill. Dan Herbst: Yes. Sacchet: From what I, the quick time we have to look at this, I see a tremendous amount of fill on the south side. Are you planning to balance fill or import fill... Dan Herbst: ! guess we haven't done the final cut and fill analysis and it's going to come out of all this wetland and NURP ponding type things but we will get that for you and. Sacchet: Okay, so that's to be determined? Dan Herbst: Yes. Sacchet: Then the other question is, with the description of this tree growth on the south side as being really, really unique from several people that I've seen now. Is there any possibility to save more of those trees that you can envision at this point? ! mean right now you're basically cutting down pretty much all of them. Maybe 90 percent or so, and it, is there, do you see any possibility how that could be mitigated? Dan Herbst: We will take a real good look at that but you know we're trying to create some very unique lots here and the same kind of applies to the fill. You know if you go to any of your market place, flat lots are pretty acceptable but for some reason or other, I've got 220 lots at Settlers Ridge. The two that are left are on the bluff and they're flat and they've been sitting there for 4 or 5 years and it's a very, so we're trying to create some views. We're trying to create some walkouts, and ! know the site has been heavily tree loss before both up on the plateau, you can see it here. And down below and we want to minimize that as much as we can but to say it's not going to be perfect and. Sacchet: Well yeah, it's always a trade off. Dan Herbst: Yes. Sacchet: My concern is, and ! don't know whether that's founded. I'm not an expert at this but I'd like to hear your opinion about this. Is if you cut down most, let's say 90 percent of the trees on top of the bluff, that to me would raise a concern about 40 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 destabilizing the bluff, plus then adding another 10 feet of fill seems to make matters worst. What's your? Dan Herbst: Well, if you look at your staff report further, and the same thing we had to do with Settlers Ridge, which actually caused us to lose more tree loss. You're asking that we be very sensitive to the rear lot drainage. Most lots, as you know the house, front houses and everything will go towards the street but it's the rears of these large homes so we're looking at berming. We're looking at putting in a storm sewer system so the rear of these homes, and when you do that, you're moving the whole envelope back and trees are impacted. The trade off there is you're stabilizing a spooky bluff that's out there now. You know we had the same issue at Settlers Ridge. Settlers Ridge had 4 or 5 extremely steep ravines, and we filled those ravines and no, there's no guarantee they'll ever be stable but then we went ahead and put a rear lot storm water system in certain areas and it's worked very, very well. So when you say ! have to have the house pad here and then ! want to put a berm behind there and a storm water system behind it, a catch basins and pipes, you move that envelope back a little further so, that's the trade off. Sacchet: Yeah, we'll certainly have more discussion on that. Thank you very much. Dan Herbst: Thank you. Claybaugh: I'd just like to clarify. You indicated that the cut and fill analysis hadn't taken place? Dan Herbst: The final one and we'll get that for you and also if you want some stuff from Braun Intertec, we can bring that to you. Claybaugh: Yeah, I'm not necessarily looking for the final analysis. ! was trying to get behind the reasoning or what the change in elevation or the degree of fill was a function of so if! understand it correctly, it's a function of wanting to have all walkout lots. Dan Herbst: And to balance the site and to do the walkouts and to make the drainage work. You know that's, there's lot of things that get involved other than just the walkouts you know, but we can do some cross sections for you too. That might be helpful and kind of show you what' s going on. Claybaugh: Did you end up doing anything in terms of stabilizing soil beyond just a standard landscape walls or berming? On Settlers Ridge. Dan Herbst: Well as ! mentioned, we filled all the ravines. We stepped them up and we compacted that and then we put blankets and we planted vegetation on them and then we put storm sewer catch basins in front of those areas and berms. So that if the storm would plug up, there's a berm and then hopefully it would spread it out versus having it go down in a set area, so and that's critical in my business too. ! don't want to be selling anybody a lot that's going to be down the Minnesota River some day. 41 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Claybaugh: And I'm assuming your engineer at that point on that project was able to demonstrate through calculations what he was doing? That it was meeting the needs of the ravine. Dan Herbst: Correct. Claybaugh: Okay. That's all I have. Sacchet: Alright, thank you very much. Great presentation. Dan Herbst: Okay, thank you. Sacchet: With that I'd like to open the public hearing. This is a public hearing so everybody you'd like to address this item, please come forward at this time. State your name and address. Any takers? Mark Danielson: My name is Mark Danielson. I live at 9751 Meadowlark Lane which is just across the bridge. Just into Chanhassen. First street there right just north of the Vogel farm. I have quite a few concerns about this. One, the traffic on Pioneer Trail has become horrendous so that even in the morning it's backed up past my house. Now maybe a few more houses in there isn't going to change that much relative to what's happened and with all due respect to the developers and any residents of Eden Prairie, I think they've done a real dis-service to that whole part of Eden Prairie. I've been disappointed in how the development has just encroached on what used to be a peaceful for us. I'm concerned about the fact that there'd be another access road onto Pioneer Trail. It looks to me like it's right at the edge of that bridge. They're already, I think some people brought up the fact that people have trouble getting onto Pioneer Trail from Settlers Ridge. I see it every morning people pulling out in front of me. I've had to slam on my brakes because whether they're waiting, they get frustrated. They pull up to Pioneer Trail and thing that they've got the right-of-way, and quite frankly I'm surprised that there haven't been any accidents there but it concerns me that there would be another access road, especially right at the edge of that bridge where I think sight lines are different because of the slope of the road coming down. I hate to see that area built up. It is a beautiful area. Many of you have probably walked along the trail and as I look at this more closely, I have a sneaky suspicion that as I look out the back of my house, I'm going to be seeing more houses, which I have the right to move which you know may be a possibility but I hate to see that happen. Maybe a solution is to not have as many houses in there. To not develop it so that it looks as much like Eden Prairie, although there is you know, it's contiguous with Eden Prairie and so to have a change in that look, although if it's going to have a different access, maybe the lots could be bigger. Maybe that would mitigate some of the concerns about trees and bluffs and those types of things so. I'm not in favor of this. I hate to see it happen. I know that development happens and I've seen a lot happen in the 11 years that I've been out there, and I guess I was naive to think that the apple orchard would always be there and we'd be sort of in this little fairy tale area, but I've seen what the development has done to wildlife patterns. As it's moved all of that from the Eden Prairie side over to our side. It's, you know we hardly 42 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 ever saw any deer before and deer are beautiful. Now, they're wandering through our property every night looking for a place to be, and the development over there on Settlers Ridge has had a big impact ! think on the whole area, not only from traffic but from wildlife and noise and ! guess I'd rather listen to the shot gun shells every once in a while than to put up with some of the other problems so thank you. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Aanenson: Mr. Chair, can ! just ask Matt to comment on the traffic. Regarding a signal at 101 and the implications of 212 maybe. Saam: Sure. 101 and Pioneer Trail. MnDot and the County have plants for a signal there in 2005 so what that would do is hopefully help with the spacing where, when people come up to Pioneer Trail through say Settlers Ridge or this development, they'll have a little longer gap in traffic to be able to turn out onto Pioneer Trail. Right now it's just a four way stop so theoretically every other car could. Sacchet: Would it also be reasonable to assume that with 212 being built there's going to be a tremendous change of the volume of traffic on Pioneer? ! mean right now it's the east/west connector basically for that southern side. Saam: Yes, yes. That's a good point. That was going to be my follow-up. Actually with 212 coming in on the 2020 traffic numbers for Pioneer Trail are showing less traffic on Pioneer Trail then if 212 wasn't there. Sacchet: So we should see improvements basically. Saam: Yes. It's going to help the traffic on Pioneer Trail. In addition to the signal be helping cars coming onto and off of. Aanenson: I think if we can put that empirical data in your next report, is that where you're going? Because we have those numbers. So that we can communicate. Slagle: Another study, right? Aanenson: Well it's MnDot projections for 212. Slagle: ! know but ! mean we've also had discussion, just point of clarification, as 212 and Commissioner Papke if he was here would have a couple of things to be saying right now, but with the production for the fewer number of connections and entrances onto the new 212, ! think that will still impact this area. Because basically everybody from 101 east will take Pioneer to connect 212 or they might go up 101, you know winding their way up. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Aanenson: Also a lot of the traffic on Pioneer also is coming all the way from Chaska over, so ! mean some of that's going to go away. So we can show you where the traffic movement's coming in as a part of that study. Slagle: But I think it's a fair question again and it gets back to the discussion of traffic. Are these intersections fairly close, ! mean are they within the.., but given the amount of traffic that is on Pioneer, and you only have to drive it morning or afternoon to understand, is this asking for more issue? And it might end up being that the City of Eden Prairie, that it just can't be worked out. This has to be the way it is, but ! think it' s seriously a valid concern on the neighbor's part. Saam: It's a good point. ! do think though you have to look at it and say where else is the access going to come from? We've already made the choice that they can't come from the south so now it's got to come from Pioneer Trail. So we're either going to funnel 60 more homes through the existing access which we just heard is difficult to access onto Pioneer Trail, or we're going to add another access in the best spot that we can based on sight lines and spacing. We're really ! think between a rock and a hard place. Slagle: And ! only ask, if ! can Mr. Chair, that we think of, is it better to have people going 5 miles an hour on Explorer Trail connecting to wherever the main entrance is to Settlers Ridge versus two entrances fairly close together with people trying to shoot the gap to get in and out? ! don't know the answer but. Saam: That's a good point. Sacchet: Before we go on, this is not the size of a development that requires a traffic study? Aanenson: No. Sacchet: Okay. Just to clarify. Alright, we still have our public hearing open. We appreciate anything you want to say. Any other takers? Let us know what you have to say. Bill Hyman: Hi. My name is Bill Hyman. I'm an Eden Prairie resident. I live at 18504 Overwood Trail in the Settlers Ridge development. As both a resident and a board member of one of the sub associations within the Settler Ridge development. I come here speaking more as a resident because I have not talked to the rest of the board and I don't believe we have a formal position at this time. However, in talking to many of the residents within the Settlers Ridge development we do have various concerns about the new development that we'd like to make sure are at least addressed. So some of these concerns Mr. Herbst has already talked about and I think will provide resolutions to our concerns. First and foremost, we are concerned about the additional traffic burden, primarily within the development. Within the streets. And particularly for the residents who are along the entrances...Explorers Trail, Selma Drive, Sierra Trail, and there's a 44 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 concern that there will be more traffic coming in, depending upon the time of day, particularly with the two entrances. Although we're ! believe that some residents would be happy to try to divert as much of the new traffic from, away from the main entrance and the existing housing whereas other residents probably are not as happy about that. We're also very concerned about the additional road and the stress that the new residents will put on our private park and pool within the system. Currently the pool is locked and members of the association, we see keys to it. However, the park itself is basically open and it does look like it could be a small city park. It has a small play structure. Small picnic area and so forth. And right now there's a belief that park, our park is barely big enough to meet the needs of the existing neighborhood, and so we're worried about the additional burden that the new neighbors would impose upon it. Another big concern is just the general concern about having a sort of political split between Chanhassen and Eden Prairie within the development itself, and that extends between Chanhassen and Eden Prairie, Hennepin County, Carver County and Chaska School District and the Eden Prairie School District. And there are concerns within the neighbors of you know, you know what sort of impact that's going to have on the families. You know some families in one part will be going to Eden Prairie schools. Right next door they'll be going to Chaska schools, and residents have expressed concerns about that. Another concern has to do with the bike path connection, and that's actually been addressed by Mr. Herbst and ! certainly would encourage that that be added to the plan. Because right now as has been stated, the Settlers Ridge development is sort of, you know some of the terms I've heard were, peninsula, it's orphaned. It's actually sort of an island that is geographically part, you know together. ! have a pretty rough drawing here of the area that sort of shows the geographical boundaries within it and right here, ...basically crude outline of the street layout for the proposed Settlers Ridge Road, and kind of an outline of what the whole Settlers Ridge development would be. And what we can see is, to the north we have Pioneer Trail, which is a two lane road. Everyone's familiar with it, and they have this 50 miles per hour speed limit. To the west we have sort of, well currently it's undeveloped of course and it slopes down rather steeply to the LRT trail. To the south we have the Richard T. Anderson Conservation Area, which is a beautiful conservation parkland within Eden Prairie. And then to the east we have Riley Creek, which also, it's wooded. It's kind of, it's fairly steeply bluff and with regard to bike paths and trails, really we are isolated on this peninsula. There's really, it's very difficult for anyone to safely get to any of the main paths within or outside the development. Essentially to get to the LRT trail right now one has to go onto Pioneer Trail and cross it and for the sight lines, which ! sort of crudely drew right here, this right here is the proposed entrance road. Settlement Drive. There's sort of a hill right here, and right now as you're coming from the east to Settlement Drive, it's very difficult, you really have to pull up to the top here with your car to be able to see the cars coming from the west. ! believe that you'll have the opposite problem from the new entrance road because you'll be more towards the bottom of the road. Bottom of the hill so it will be difficult to see the sight lines above. Likewise, or because of this, if you're on a bike with cars going 50 miles per hour, you're really putting yourself at risk and so ! think it's very unsafe without having, if we don't have a direct path, trail connection to the LRT, people are going to have unsafely take that, or cross at this point. Likewise to the east, right now there's a partial path.., development that sort of stops right before Riley Creek. Actually about 20 feet 45 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 above it and maybe 30 feet back. So it comes up to a drop off. It's my understanding, although ! haven't talked with the City of Eden Prairie about it, if Eden Prairie intends to develop the bike path system and give up their connection to the east. Particularly Crestwood Park which is a brand new park that's been developed to the east. So in any case, ! believe that residents would very much like to see better trail connections to Chanhassen and to the LRT. Another concern would be the rifle range. Certainly, particularly in hunting season in the fall it's very noisy and loud. We'd very much like to see it closed down. Also the existing antenna tower which is on the property, it appears that if this development does go through, that will be removed and we're in favor of that of course. And so going back to the actual entrance and for my final point, you know with regard to the problems you have with the bike connection and the crossing on bike, you can also see the problems that cars would have with trying to enter onto Pioneer Trail so we have issues with the sight lines, and you know ! know it'd be nice if Hennepin County would grade it out, but to my knowledge ! don't know when that's anticipated. ! would expect it to be several years out so, anyway those are a lot of the concerns that ! hear from the various residents and ! want to bring them forward. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Anybody else wants to address this item? Please come forward. State your name and address for the record. We'll listen to what you have to say. Gary Clark: I've got my own little. Our concerns, my wife and I. Sacchet: Name and address for the record. Gary Clark: Gary Clark and my wife Martha back there. Sacchet: And you live? Gary Clark: We moved into Settlers Ridge in July and we bought one of the homes that over looked that little road that you're talking about, and the pond that's there right now. And my wife and ! were kind of concerned about the pond that's right outside our back door right now. Sacchet: Do you want to show him how to put the drawing on Bob? Gary Clark: The pond is right there. Is that going to stay there? Generous: The pond would stay there is my understanding. Aanenson: Yes. That's all in Eden Prairie. Slagle: You know it might be wise just.., for the next meeting to have a representative of Eden Prairie here just to understand the questions. Sacchet: Yeah, because you've got to understand. 46 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Aanenson: They're also having a public hearing too. Sacchet: The Eden Prairie part we really don't have jurisdiction over. Gary Clark: I understand that. I just wanted to know. And this it didn't show it. It's still there... That's all ! have. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Anybody else wants to address this item? This is your chance. Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. ! just want to know, will this be brought forth as a public hearing next time it comes, because normally if it comes up once, next time it's not a public hearing. And ! think with, personally ! think with how. Sacchet: Yes. The answer is yes. There's a simple way to do this that ! will declare the public hearing as to be continued. Okay? Debbie Lloyd: Thank you. Sacchet: Thanks for bringing that up. Go ahead. Byron Dickinson: Hi. My name's Byron Dickinson and ! live at 18921 Explorer Trail in Eden Prairie. ! guess ! just wanted to bring up one of my concerns and it' s primarily that, looking at this map here. ! live here on Explorer Trail, and I'm not a big fan of boundaries but...there's going to be some virtual boundaries here. ! mean my understanding right now is that the existing Settlers Ridge will have access to the private parks and the pool over here and the new portion of the neighborhood would not have access to that and so, you know there would be a boundary here of! would have access to the pool but my potential friends and neighbors would not have access to the pool and likewise there's another boundary which has already been mentioned that will be Chanhassen schools for a large part of the neighborhood and Eden Prairie schools for a smaller portion. And ! guess I'm sort of wondering, if any thought had been put into potentially making a court out of Explorer Trail and trying to grab up as much of the Eden Prairie property...being Settlers Ridge existing and potentially have a separate access into a separate neighborhood which would be more Chanhassen. Sacchet: So basically having them distinct is what you're supposedly. Byron Dickinson: Right. ! guess it's never been clear to me, and maybe it's something that Eden Prairie has requested but it's never been clear to me why they're trying to take a Chanhassen neighborhood into Eden Prairie and kind of merge them together. ! really don't see what.., street over here really buys the neighborhood here or the neighborhood here because it's.., are not being accessible by the new portion of the community. Slagle: ...you can imagine it's one of those questions we may. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Aanenson: We have that all over town. We have in your neighborhood Highover we have Minnetonka and Chaska going right through the middle of the neighborhood. We have that situation in Tristan Heights where the City of Victoria provides, or we provide water and it's actually in the City of Victoria so we have that. Claybaugh: I live on the boundary as well. Aanenson: Pardon me? Claybaugh: ! live right on the boundary as well. Aanenson: Right. Slagle: ...is saying is the concept of the private parks and public parks, especially with how our pedestrian trails or sidewalks show, you run that issue, and ! use Vasserman Ridge where you put a public sidewalk right straight through the development, across the street is a park, but it's a private park. And I'll wager a year's salary that people walking on that sidewalk will see that park and they'll go and play. ! mean... Lillehaug: Chairman Sacchet, point of clarification. Kate, I've heard the residents say that it is District 112. Is that true? Do we know that? Aanenson: Yes, that would be servicing, correct. Lillehaug: So it is the city line? Aanenson: Correct. Lillehaug: Can that be changed? Aanenson: I'm not in charge of that... Sacchet: We don't have jurisdiction over that. Claybaugh: We should have covered that earlier when Bev was here. Lillehaug: Question to the resident. Don't you like us in Chanhassen? Byron Dickinson: ...several different boundaries... Who will have access to the private park and what school. It seems like it will be a little...where our kids will be able to use, will be going to Eden Prairie schools but won't have access to the pool and you go over a couple more houses and they won't have access to the pool and will be going to completely different school. It just seems to me that we could potentially.., boundary so potentially the houses over here will be...other side of the boundary the kids will be going to the Chaska School District and they wouldn't have access to the pool. Kids 48 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 won't play together and have friends that live on the other side but it seems like, it's potentially confusing and it will be a little park here where it's unclear and it seems like potentially... Sacchet: Good point. Good comment. Thank you very much. Anybody else? Go for it. Name and address for the record please. Brian Johnson: Yeah you guys, my name is Brian Johnson, 18924 Explorer Trail. Just across the street from Byron .... spot on the map here. My location is here. Obviously I'm looking dead head at the...road and where the pond is. It looks to me, this is another point about the street that is there now. The bridge that is currently there, is that in Eden Prairie? Okay. And obviously a conversation to bring up with them as well but the bridge itself seems to be only wide enough to bring across two lanes of traffic. There doesn't appear to be enough room there for a turning lane. There is a turning lane into Pioneer Trail coming from the west and also from the east. In this direction over here, ! don't see where there would be enough room with the bridge that seems to be relatively new, to have a turning lane go in there so again to address the point of safety, ! have taken my bike with my family, we have a family of 5 and we have young kids, across the street here and down through here and that is a very dangerous area. Obviously Mr. Herbst has addressed the plan. Everybody has. Let's have some access to the park area and to the LRT so we can get to there so ! think that will be covered but a part of this, the danger on the street, I'll sit up here and ! drive a big Chevy... ! sit up high when ! drive up over this spot here from down by the creek, and I'll drive up here and you literally have to go a little too far to ensure that you can see traffic coming at you before you turn. ! couldn't imagine what it'd be like to drive a small sports car. Now coming from this way, and ! know my neighbors mentioned the same thing. You're getting out in effects of turning into the neighborhood from here...they're going to be acting pretty quick to you know slam on the brakes or get out of the way for this car so... The wetland here, on this map here it says this one can stay the same. Although the pond is right in here and this says wetland proposed. And so this, again just to clarify the existing pond? It looks to me like, I've been out here many times. This road that you have here is actually further west than what is currently there. It may be the developer could answer that. Is it actually closer to the bridge than where.., currently? Dan Herbst: ! can't answer if it's, the access at Pioneer Trail is going to be pretty close to where it's at because the road is actually, we're trying to create some interest at the front end with ponding and getting a little curvature to the road and also a little change in grade. So that's why we got a little loop in there. Brian Johnson: Yeah, it appears that this pond, if I understood, correct me if I'm wrong but it seems. Sacchet: But that pond is not even... Brian Johnson: ...my lot is right here and ! walk straight back...I've been skating on it this winter so it's... 49 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Dan Herbst: We will come up with a more detailed plans. What happened is that the pipe that goes underneath the, from the storage of that pond, there's an outlet pond here that goes underneath Pioneer Trail, a pipe that collapsed so this is holding a lot more water than it's supposed to... Sacchet: So it's backing up. Dan Herbst: ...wetland people want us to make that back a wetland and not a pond but there will be both a pond and a wetland. So this will be a wetland. There will be less water in it than today because that's probably.., some additional ponding. Sacchet: Thank you for clarifying that. Brian Johnson: ! think that's all ! have. ! wasn't sure if it was noticed that there's an 80 foot easement there and to be able to get a lot in here seems to be aggressive but obviously the development.., will be figured out so. Sacchet: Let me point out that all those issues will be issues for the City of Eden Prairie to deal with. But ! appreciate you bringing them up here too. Brian Johnson: Correct. But there's an entrance into Chanhassen that needs to be discussed, yeah. Sacchet: Absolutely. Brian Johnson: Especially the safety. Sacchet: Safety is definitely a concern. Thank you. Anybody else wants to address this item. Yes. We have somebody else. Please state your name and address for the record. Jim Rea: I'm Jim Rea, 18492 Pathfinder Drive, Eden Prairie. My doctor said my medications would give me dry mouth so see how long ! can continue to talk. For all the reasons that were given here today, I'm not sure this is the right time to be doing this development. I've known Dan Herbst since 1999. ! bought the first lot in Settlers Ridge. He'll do a great job at it, but it does need to be separate from Settlers Ridge. It shouldn't even be named Settlers Ridge. It does have to have adequate access which it doesn't in this design. Even trying to put more traffic through the main entrances into work, you do take your life into your hands now a days trying to get onto Pioneer Trail. So I'm not sure it works. I've got a letter from Dan that he sent today that talks about the fact that eventually the lower part of this development will be built and will be accessed off Highway 212, and ! think it makes a lot more sense to consider the long term perspective, maybe the right thing to do here is to build this out once you can get access to 212. Once you've got what you need for infrastructure down below and build it upwards instead of trying to kind of jab it in, which is what it looks like we're trying to do today. 50 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Sacchet: Thank you very much. Slagle: ! have a quick question. Sir, would you make that comment if Pioneer Trail was a quieter road? Jim Rea: From an access standpoint, if we had some better way to get on and off Pioneer Trail. To handle the traffic that's there today, that wouldn't be as large a problem, no. still believe that it does need to be a separate division, subdivision from Settlers Ridge... Sacchet: Thank you. Mark Danielson: Can ! say something again? Sacchet: Certainly. Mark Danielson: ! agree with the gentleman about the access or the availability of a turn lane onto that new road from Pioneer Trail if you're going east. The traffic, you know just the way traffic patterns go, people are driving 50 miles an hour basically until they get to the Settlers Ridge area, and it's interesting to hear the people that are coming out of Settlers Ridge talk because ! thought they just had an attitude and just decided they were just going to pull out in front of us. They're saying that they're don't see us, which is interesting. ! have, ! do have a concern though that if there is another road right at the edge of that bridge, and there isn't room for a turn lane, that you have the potential for rear end accidents. People are coming across that bridge at 50 miles an hour, which is their right to do, and ! think even if you reduce the speed limit down, you've got the potential there for a bottleneck and that's something that ! think needs to be addressed, whether that means the road can be moved further east, but then ! think you've got issues with how far the roads need to be apart so ! think it's a big concern. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Unless anybody else has a comment, as ! stated, ! will not close this public hearing. This public hearing is to be continued when this item comes back in front of us, and a lot of these issues will be addressed as the developer has certainly very eloquently promised to us. Very convincingly ! should say. With that, I'll bring it back to the commission. Comments. Additional comments that we can give in terms of guidance to the development. Where to go with this. Comments to what staff has prepared. ! would say comments maybe in addition or carrying some of the long list of ideas further. Go ahead Craig. Claybaugh: ! have a comment in the form of a question for staff. ! apologize for that but Kate, would it be possible to possibly express how the process works with respect to Pioneer Trail. Who has jurisdiction? Who does the review process for inlets, outlets, turning lanes? What, it's not unlike what we go through for traffic studies and where we think possibly from a citizen standpoint, whether there should be a stop light and the threshold hasn't been met for that, so people possibly have a better understanding. Aanenson: Sure, I'll let Matt address it. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Saam: Sure. In this case in terms of turn lanes and access points onto Pioneer Trail, it's a county road as has been mentioned. Hennepin County has jurisdiction over the location where the proposed new access road comes out. Carver County's just to the west. In addition, Eden Prairie, where the access comes out is within Eden Prairie so Eden Prairie will also have somewhat of a say in that. In addition to that, we will be reviewing it because it will be an access for our, as in Chanhassen residents. So three, possibly four governmental agencies will be looking at it but ultimately jurisdiction will be Hennepin County' s. Claybaugh: Okay. And then for my benefit the question would be, how much latitude do we have as a Planning Commission body here in reviewing the access point onto Pioneer Trail, the traffic levels and the rest of it. Aanenson: Very limited. Claybaugh: Okay. That's the point I just wanted to clarify. Sacchet: Okay. Slagle: You know I've just got to say Commissioner Claybaugh that, while we have very limited ability to either both influence that type of thing, the discussion of asking whether long term we should have a development of X scope or XY scope in an area that could be either under serviced by traffic. Claybaugh: Infrastructure. Slagle: ! mean it's a fair question, wouldn't you agree? Claybaugh: ! would agree with respect to, is the development, if you were going to use the term premature, due to lack of supporting infrastructure. ! think that we would be on a slippery slope if Hennepin County and the other professionals that had jurisdiction with respect to traffic patterns, traffic load had given it's stamp of approval. And then for us to wade into that debate, like ! said, ! feel that would personally be a slippery slope. Sacchet: It should be in line basically with it, yeah. Claybaugh: Yes. Sacchet: Good point. Alright. Other issues? Comments? Lillehaug: Sure, questions. Sacchet: More feedback. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Lillehaug: Since we, or more feedback, right. There is a 80 foot gas main easement in Eden Prairie and then it ends at Chanhassen. What impacts does that have to Lot 54 as well as the wetland behind Lot 54 and 53? That'd be a question ! have that ! guess we can either discuss now or the applicant can be prepared to discuss later. Does staff have any comments on that now? Sacchet: It's kind of unique. It ends. Why does it just end? Generous: That's interesting. Sacchet: At the city border. Audience: It goes into Chanhassen. Sacchet: ! would certainly think so. Audience: It eventually goes on the north side of Pioneer Trail. Dan Herbst: Yeah, obviously the pipe continues to, but what's happening right now is the easement is over the entire property from that point on and as typically happens, back in those days when they're putting those easements in, farmers granted them blanket easements, which are basically illegal and now they're being confined by the legislature so, Williams is confining that easement right now, so that's exactly how it exists today. Sacchet: So it will be a sliver just continuing. Dan Herbst: It will be exactly like it is. That same easement runs all the way through Settlers Ridge, all the way.., blanket easement, yeah. Sacchet: Thank you for clarifying. Lillehaug: Does it need to be redefined though to include a portion of, ! mean if there's gas line on the back portion of Lot 54, I'm sure the easement needs to be. Dan Herbst: It will be definitely, we'll meet the setback requirements of the State and the gas line. It will be defined. That's in the process right now. Lillehaug: Okay. Dan Herbst: That comes about at final plat. Sacchet: Thank you. Lillehaug: Still another question. We had mention of access off 212. Does staff have a comment on that? 53 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Aanenson: Yeah, again in looking at this site, when we went through the comprehensive plan, that was one of the issues that we talked about is that it would be providing access between 169, Flying Cloud Drive, up to Pioneer Trail. Because that's how we would get the water and the sewer up that way. We held that position pretty strongly until the last, probably the last year and a half, two years where we looked at, because 101 is not being upgraded. Bluff Creek is being heavily used, we felt that this connection would actually serve as more of a detriment than to servicing the top half. Providing that bowl. Not derogating the bluff. Bringing utilities up there. Because if we were going to do that, then the connection would go all the way through, so we kind of re-assessed what's the best way to service the property based on topography and felt getting utilities from Eden Prairie was probably the best way to service it. Sacchet: So let me clarify. What you're saying is that with this approach, we would not necessarily have a connection going down there? Aanenson: It eliminates the possibility of that ever being connected. Bringing all that traffic along 169 up through Pioneer, getting that. Sacchet: And you say there are benefits to that? Aanenson: That was the position that we made to the council. That's the number one benefit to that. Sacchet: Got it. Aanenson: Because it would be a better road than 101. Sacchet: Well yeah, people would start jumping up and down. Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: It would be a major connector. Lillehaug: Okay, more here. What is unique, or first of all, what is staff's position on the 60 foot versus 50 foot right-of-way because we're reducing the roadway from 31 to 28 which is only 3 feet. Why would we reduce the right-of-way width by 10 feet? ! guess would disagree with that. Aanenson: Well ! think that's what we want to look with the building envelope more, because part of what we talked about is what's forcing the amount of fill. Lillehaug: Exactly, because in my mind. Aanenson: We can look at those calculations more closely to see if we can, if pulling the houses forward more helps save more of the trees. 54 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Lillehaug: Is it for saving the trees or is it for you know allowing, I think there's Lots 7 through 54 in Chanhassen, which is like 48 lots, is it allowing, because where were a few non-conformancies of the lot. Is this allowing to still put that many lots on there? Is that one of the reasons? Aanenson: That's not our intent. No, not to increase it. We could have done a PUD and we said we wanted to do a straight subdivision. We didn't want to have the appearance that we're trying to get more lots. But that's again what we want to go back with the next iteration to look more carefully at, what does that accomplish. If it's not saving more trees, then what would be the point of doing it? And that's what we wanted to be able to show you. Lillehaug: So my comment would be, if it, if there's no reason to do it, let's stick with 60 feet. Saam: Commissioner Lillehaug, I'll just add. That was the first time I heard about that was tonight. Was going down to the 50 foot so like Kate said, we'll have to look and see if there is indeed any benefit to doing that or not. Lillehaug: And likewise with the road. ! mean you're narrowing it by 3 feet. We've got a small private road over here that we just approved that the developer wanted a 31 foot road on a private drive. There was obviously a reason behind it. Now we've got a pretty big development where they're putting a 28 foot, where they want a 28 foot road you know, what's the difference here? Aanenson: Right. Well I guess the difference that we saw is you're coming in through 28 feet. Now you're widening at the end of a cul-de-sac. Lillehaug: That's right. Forgot that. Aanenson: So it just seemed kind of like you know, trying to match that out. Lillehaug: I agree with that. 28 feet it is. No more on that one. Has staff contacted Hennepin County, and then if not, ! think it's necessary. Yeah, Hennepin County isn't our jurisdiction in this area but ! think it's a necessary measure that our staff contacts Hennepin County and doesn't rely on Eden Prairie to do so. Generous: We did contact Hennepin County. They said they would rather work with Eden Prairie. Lillehaug: Well tell them they've got to work with us. Aanenson: Yeah, we've communicated our concerns to Eden Prairie. We've met... Sacchet: It needs to be a team effort. 55 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Aanenson: Yeah, we are meeting. We're doing that. We're not going to drop the ball on that. Lillehaug: Because truthfully ! don't think, you know ! don't know the trip generation here but it may justify a right turn lane and that's not going to work with this access so that's a very large concern and you know that might be a deal breaker here or totally change the plan. ! think it's very important that we get out, that out front. Okay. And then ! support staff's direction with the following key points. Lot sizes meet requirements, taking into account the exclusion of bluff areas as staff indicated. ! think that's important. Eliminate grading in all bluff areas. ! concur and ! think that's important. ! support the cul-de-sac islands but with that we must meet the right-of-way requirements, as well as minimum diameters of the cul-de-sacs you know to provide the adequate and proper vehicle turn movements, especially for, not only fire trucks but if there's a truck that goes down there, it has to have somewhere to turn around. The number of conditions. Boy, there's 57 on just the subdivision approval. I'd be happy to see that about in half. Down to 28. So let's make a goal of 28. Sacchet: Including all the other ones. Lillehaug: Yeah. You know ! think that's good enough for me right now. Thank you. Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Craig, you want to jump in? Claybaugh: Actually ! don't feel ! have anything beyond what's been addressed. Sacchet: Thank you anyway. Bethany. Tjornhom: I agree with. Sacchet: Rich. Slagle: Yeah, a couple of things. ! mentioned earlier an overall photo, if we can to have them show lots, parks, sidewalks, trails, just for an all encompassing standpoint. We talked about the canopy coverage and what might be termed a dramatic cutting. And ! don't know if this would be a good call. I'll leave this up to staff's discretion but you know if we could get a comparison, use Vasserman Ridge, Ashling Meadows, Stone Creek, Longacres, what did we start with from the canopy coverage. What did we end up with? ! mean was it quite the same level? And then with respect to the work together with Hennepin County, ! don't know if this would be as an example of requesting a traffic study, and even though it sort of goes into another county and city, ! mean couldn't we measure what Settlers Ridge load and Pioneer Trail are like. Give us, and that would give us a chance to use our objective third party resources. Claybaugh: That's the most exciting part. 56 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Slagle: And then lastly, but more importantly, ! think that the discussion of the park and the two neighborhoods and knowing these gentlemen like ! do, they've been wonderful developers. ! mean bar none. I'm going to ask you to really consider putting in a park in this development. A private park, and again that's without park commissioners, the director having input but you might go a long way to making this 60 some odd, or 50 some odd lots you know feeling like they've got their park and then the folks to the east have their park, and there's not that usage of the private. You know ! know there's a cost in that but. Dan Herbst: Is a public park an option for you? ... not a public. Slagle: Is it? I didn't even know that so that's where Todd and the group would have to weigh in. The answer is ! don't know Mr. Herbst but ! can see that happening. That's it. Sacchet: ! have about half a dozen quick points here. ! think the road width is a no issue. We have to blend with where it comes from. It doesn't make sense to make the road wider all of a sudden as you go into a development, and ! think the mitigating factor would be sidewalks. Since the road is more narrow, obviously there's more of a need for more sidewalks, which is an important balancing element. The need for a park ! think is very real and ! would go as far as more than encouraging. ! would request, and ! don't know if we have the authority to do that. As a person. As a citizen ! would request that you consider putting a park out there where you have all these incredible trees. ! mean to use the words of Commissioner Papke, who unfortunately couldn't be here tonight, his point was that he can't recall seeing such a pristine sugar maple grove in Chanhassen that is unchoked by buckthorn. They should do whatever they can to preserve as much of that as humanly possible, and ! second that opinion. ! think that we have a treasure there. We have a treasure there. A natural treasure and we have a need for a park. ! mean ! think it would really enhance the quality of the development, make it even more special, and obviously you're doing very high quality developments, if you can leverage that natural treasure that is there with those trees. It could fulfill the need for a park in a very good way, and ! would think the city would be thrilled to have that a public park. It would mean less lots, and ! think you expressed, you made a comment that seems like that's not necessarily totally unexpected that there would be less lots. ! think this environment requires that. There's a big traffic concern, and ! think we need to look at turning lane possibility. We need to have an idea even though the traffic situation per se in terms of the road is not our jurisdiction, in terms of us judging whether this development is appropriate or premature for that matter, we need some information on that. It's very fundamental. In terms of separating it from Eden Prairie, ! don't know whether that's that big of an issue once we have a park facility in there, and especially also, ! think it's very important to have these trail connections established. So ! think if you put those two things into the equation, it might be desirable to have the connection. ! live in a neighborhood where there's a number of houses that go to Minnetonka school district and the rest goes to Chaska. ! have not really found that to be much of a problem. Potentially, and I'm surprised this hasn't been discussed more. ! mean it's great to come in with a straight forward subdivision situation but ! think we have enough of a sensitivity of the nature out there, between the bluffs, between the trees, that the idea of a 57 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 density transfer is something that maybe can be looked at to some extent. I mean I'm kind of surprised this hasn't been explored further. You mentioned that you didn't want to go to a PUD with. Aanenson: Well here's the problem with the PUD is you can go as small as 11,000 square feet. The value and the size of these homes are not going to fit on them. Sacchet: It's not going to fit on 11,000, no. Aanenson: And that's the problem we found with using a PUD in that application. The lots get too small. Sacchet: Right. Yeah, and ! don't think that's the vision of the developer to go to the smaller lots in this case, but if we can have the concept of a density transfer, ! mean there are trade offfs. ! mean the developer made that comment repeatedly, there are compromises that need to be struck. A balance need to be found, and right now there is no balance in there between the natural sensitivity of that place. ! think there's no balance. So that's, I'd like to see a balance there. That's enough. ! talked enough. ! hope that helps. With that, I'd like to take a motion. ! think what's in front of us is the motion to table this with an endless list of ideas and conditions. Slagle: So moved. Sacchet: Well ! can't make a motion. We need a motion first. Lillehaug: ! make a motion the Chanhassen Planning Commission tables review of the development for Settlers West to permit the developer to revise the plans to address the following issues, 1 through 57 and cut them in half. Sacchet: Plus 1 through 8 of wetlands in addition? Lillehaug: Yes sir. Sacchet: And all the other comments and concerns we brought up. Lillehaug: Yep. Generous: Especially traffic. Sacchet: And nature. Lillehaug: Yep. Sacchet: We have a motion. Do we have a second? Slagle: Second. 58 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Lillehaug moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission table review of the development for Settlers West to permit the developer to revise the plans and to address the following issues: Subdivision: The developer shall agree in writing to a waiver of the 60-day review period until revised plans have been submitted to the city. All lots shall maintain a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet. Bluff areas may not be included in the minimum lot area. The developer needs to verify that lots 14, 15, 16, 26, 37, 38, 39, 47, 53 and 54 have 90 feet of frontage at the front setback line. The development of the property is contingent on Eden Prairie approving the subdivision within their jurisdiction. Without the road access and sewer and water service, this project would be premature. A joint powers agreement between the Cities of Eden Prairie and Chanhassen shall be established for the provision of services to the city. A trail shall be provided from the end of Settlers Court to the east property line which is the westerly boundary of the Richard T. Anderson Conservation area. Note on sheet 1 of 12 shall show Design Standards for Chanhassen's minimum lot width of 90 feet and minimum rear setback of 30 feet. The design standards should state a minimum lot depth of 125 feet, and a minimum bluff setback of 30 feet. The City of Chanhassen street standards are 60-foot right-of-way with 31-foot streets. Outlot C shall be extended across the easterly 50 feet of Lot 25 to connect the bluff area on the east side of the project into one outlot. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show a minimum of 290 trees to be planted. All trees shall be a minimum of 2" in diameter. 10. A minimum of three overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of each lot. 11 The developer shall be responsible for installing all landscape materials proposed in front, side and rear yard areas. 12. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any construction. Fencing shall be in place and maintained until all construction is completed. 59 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 13. Any trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans, dated 1/16/04, will be replaced at a ratio of2:1 diameter inches. If the grading plan is revised, the developer shall recalculate tree preservation. 14. The developer shall make a separate calculation of the tree removal proposed as part of the storm sewer installation down the bluff. These trees shall be required to be replaced at a ratio of 1.2:1 diameter inches. 15. All bluff areas shall be placed in an outlot and shall be covered by a conservation easement. The outlot may be dedicated to the City. 16. The grading plan shall be revised to show existing wetlands that are proposed to be impacted. 17. The applicant shall have Wetlands ! and J field verified by City staff prior to the discharge of pretreated storm water into these basins. 18. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The replacement plans shall show fixed photo monitoring points for replacement wetlands. A five-year wetland replacement monitoring plan shall be submitted. The applicant shall provide proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland. The applicant shall be required to receive approval of a wetland replacement plan prior to wetland impacts occurring. 19. The developer shall evaluate the potential to mitigate for Wetland G on the northern portion of the site. 20. A wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 10 feet) shall be maintained around Wetlands E and G and wetland mitigation areas. A wetland buffer 10 to 30 feet in width (with a minimum average of 20 feet) shall be maintained around Wetlands ! and J. (Those buffers considered for PVC shall maintain a minimum width of 16.5 feet.) Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. 21. Bluff areas shall be preserved. In addition, all structures shall maintain a 30-foot setback from the bluff and no grading may occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of a bluff). The plans shall be revised to eliminate grading within the bluff and bluff impact zone. A conservation easement shall be recorded over the bluffs and bluff impact zones. The developer shall work with staff to develop and install appropriate markers to demarcate the bluff impact zone. 22. The applicant shall work with City staff to develop a plan for bluff management. 60 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 The plan shall include an assessment of the stability of bluff areas, an inventory of the discarded materials, a plan for the clean-up of bluff areas and a restoration plan for critical and/or severely eroded areas. The plan shall also address reclamation of the Moon Valley site. The bluff management plan shall be implemented prior to or concurrently with subdivision construction. 23. The lots abutting bluff areas (Lots 13 through 40 and 46 through 50) shall be graded to drain away from the bluff and bluff impact zone. In addition, a system of swales and storm sewer with surface inlets shall be designed and installed for the rear yards of the lots abutting bluff areas (Lots 13 through 40 and 46 through 50). The system shall be located between the building pad and the bluff impact zone on each lot. 24. The plans for the cross-country storm sewer on Outlot C shall include: the location of the dirt haul road through the woods (as identified on-site by City staff and Justin Larson of Sathre-Bergquist, Inc.); details on proposed vegetation and tree removal; temporary erosion and sediment control; permanent erosion control and revegetation; and construction phasing. 25. In-pond forebays shall be constructed in Ponds 2 and 3. 26. Manholes with a two-foot sumps shall be installed as the last structures that are road accessible prior to discharge to each storm water pond. 27. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds. A drainage and utility easement at least 20 feet in width shall be centered over any swales and/or storm sewer, including pond inlets and outlets. Slopes within the easements shall be gradual enough to permit access with heavy equipment. Easements shall also be required on the adjacent properties where the storm sewer is being routed and over the creek in which the storm sewer discharges. 28. Adequate, non-compacted topsoil shall be applied to a depth of at least 6 inches prior to the installation of permanent erosion control practices. 29. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover for the exposed soil areas year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Time Steeper than 3:1 7 days 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 21 days (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area is not actively being worked.) 61 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as-needed. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $107,618. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Lower Minnesota River Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, City of Eden Prairie) and comply with their conditions of approval. The applicant will be required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the 10-year and 100-year, 24-hour storm events. The proposed ponds must be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. The storm sewer must be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. Submit storm sewer sizing calcs and drainage map prior to final plat for staff review and approval. Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100- year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet. Because of the sensitive nature of the site, staff recommends that Type III silt fence be used around the perimeter of the entire site. In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. Erosion control blankets are recommended for the steep slopes in the rear yards of Lot 7-12, 20-24, and Lot 30. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, must be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. A 75-foot minimum rock construction entrance must be added to the entrance that will be accessed during construction. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic control plans. Add the following City of Chanhassen Detail Plates Numbers: 2201, 2202, 3101, 3102, 3104, 3107, 3108, 3109, 5200, 5203, 5205, 5300 and 5302. Revise the 100-scale plans so they are scalable. Permits from the appropriate governmental agencies must be obtained including: MPCA, Watershed District, Hennepin/Carver County. 62 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 40. The walk-out elevation of Lots 42 and 43 must be a minimum of 3 feet above the HWL of Pond 3. 41. On the grading plan: 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. a. Show all existing and proposed utility and pond easements. b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. c. Show the existing topography a minimum of 100 feet outside the property. d. Show the emergency overflow elevation and location between Lot 53 and 54. Show the off-site storm sewer in a minimum 100-scale plan. Revise the grading plan to minimize the amount of filling in the rear yards of Lots 20- 25 and Lot 30. The grading plan must be revised to decrease and/or eliminate the draining of storm water from Settlers West Road and Explorer Trail in Eden Prairie to the pond in Chanhassen. A combination berm/swale and storm sewer system must be designed for the rear yards of the lots adjacent to the bluffs. The plans must be revised to maintain a 180-foot curve radius. A 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk must be added along Settlers West Road and Settlers Court. Fire hydrant spacing per the Fire Department is 300 feet. There are a couple of fire hydrants spaced at more than 400 feet. Please relocate and resubmit to the Fire Marshal for review and approval. Due to the fact that the new Settler West Road is almost a one-half mile dead end with a cul-de-sac turnaround, the proposed center island in the cul-de-sac is not acceptable and must be removed. Any vehicles parked in the cul-de-sac would prevent fire apparatus from turning around. Even attempting to negotiate these turnarounds proves difficult if not impossible under normal circumstances. Any trees removed must either be chipped or hauled off site. No burning permits will be issued. City of Chanhassen maps must be updated to show access to Settlers West Road due to the fact that it comes in from the City of Eden Prairie. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Qwest, Xcel Energy, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to 63 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 insure fire hydrants can be quickly located and operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. 53. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during time of construction except when approved, alternate methods of protection are provided. Temporary street signs shall be installed at each street intersection when construction of roadways allows passage by vehicles in accordance with Section 505.2 of the Minnesota Fire Code. 54. Submit revised cul-de-sac design dimensions to the City Engineer and Fire Marshal for review and approval. 55. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. 56. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site. 57. As utility service will be provided by the City of Eden Prairie, responsibility for permits and inspections of the private sewer and water services must be determined. Wetland Alteration Permit: 1. The grading plan shall be revised to show existing wetlands that are proposed to be impacted. 2. The applicant shall have Wetlands I and J field verified by City staff prior to the discharge of pretreated storm water into these basins. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The replacement plans shall show fixed photo monitoring points for replacement wetlands. A five-year wetland replacement monitoring plan shall be submitted. The applicant shall provide proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland. The applicant shall be required to receive approval of a wetland replacement plan prior to wetland impacts occurring. 4. The developer shall evaluate the potential to mitigate for Wetland G on the northern portion of the site. A wetland buffer 0 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 10 feet) shall be maintained around Wetlands E and G and wetland mitigation areas. A wetland buffer 10 to 30 feet in width (with a minimum average of 20 feet) shall be maintained around Wetlands I and J. Those buffers considered for PVC shall maintain a minimum width of 16.5 feet. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City' s wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install 64 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds. A drainage and utility easement at least 20 feet in width shall be centered over any swales and/or storm sewer, including pond inlets and outlets. Slopes within the easements shall be gradual enough to permit access with heavy equipment. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover for the exposed soil areas year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Time Steeper than 3:1 7 days 10:1 to 3:1 14 days Flatter than 10:1 21 days (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area is not actively being worked.) These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Lower Minnesota River Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, City of Eden Prairie) and comply with their conditions of approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Sacchet: So we'll look forward to see you back here. This is a very exciting project and we're all very curious to see whether we find our balance with that. Dan Herbst: Thank you. Sacchet: With that, does somebody want to note the minutes? APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Slagle moved to note the minutes of the Planning Commission meetings dated January 20, 2004 and February 3, 2004 as presented. Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 10:07 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson 65 Planning Commission Meeting - February 17, 2004 Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 66