Loading...
PC Minutes 11-16-04 04 -"31 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 16, 2004 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7 :00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: VIi Sacchet, Steve Lillehaug, Bethany Tjomhom, Kurt Papke, Rich Slagle, and Dan Keefe MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Claybaugh STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner, and Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: HIDDEN CREEK MEADOWS. SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR A 23 LOT SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES. THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL INCLUDES A WETLAND AL TERA TION PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CROSSING OF A CREEK AND WETLAND WITH A PUBLIC STREET. THE SITE IS 19.2 ACRES ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. RSF. LOCATED AT THE ENDS OF PIPEWOOD LANE AND CARTWAY LANE. NORTH OF HIGHWAY 7. Public Present: Name Address Lisa & Jeff Jewison Don Peterson Steve McSherry Vic Moravec Rick Hueffmeier Gary Carlson Kathy Schurdevin Dale Keehl Cindy & Peter Thomson Perry Ryan Lisa & John Jordan Casey & Joe Bergquist 3842 Meadow Court 6414 Aster Trail 6571 Kirkwood Circle 3821 Linden Circle 6551 Kirkwood Circle 3891 West 62nd Street 3921 Aster Trail 3841 West 62nd Street 4001 Aster Trail Ryan Engineering 6541 Kirkwood Circle 4011 Pipewood Lane Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Bob. Questions from staff. Want to start Dan? Keefe: Sure. A couple questions. The typical housing plan for this, can you speak to that? Is it similar to the houses in the adjacent or is it, are they larger or smaller? Generous: I would, if the developer could answer that. Planning Commission Meeting - November 16,2004 Keefe: Okay. Alright. Can you speak a Iittle bit to the trees? It looked like they were going to take out most of them. The grading is such that they're going to take out pretty much all of the. Generous: Basically all the upland area, or the majority of the upland area will be altered, and so every tree that's outside of the wetland, and except for a couple comers will be removed. Keefe: Okay. I'm just confirming that. And I didn't understand the discussion around the retaining wall behind 8. When I looked at Lot 8 on Block 1, it looked Iike there was a 6 to 8 foot retaining wall I think behind there. But it was just behind that particular lot and I was curious how that worked with you know drainage and why it was just behind that particular. Matt on that? Saam: Yeah, sure. The drainage will come around both sides of the lot. I can go up there. One of our recommendations by the way was to move the retaining wall further to the north to provide more of a back yard area. Something to what Bob spoke about, about having a deck and shed and those sorts of things so, we do want to provide the 20 foot flatter area in that back yard for the future residents. The way the drainage will work is basically it will be spIit around both sides of the house and it will drain out, there will be a swale here and then also one on this side so. Keefe: So it goes out to what, catch basins in that cul-de-sac or something? Saam: There are no catch basins in the cul-de-sac. It will drain to the street which will then drain down to catch basins right here. Keefe: Okay. Alright. Sacchet: Anything else Dan? Keefe: Just the one last question as in regards to the, there was some discussion around Cartway Lane and the cul-de-sac, you know the street terminates in a cul-de-sac and then there's going to be utilization of the road that goes, the gravel road that goes to the east from there. Is that, would the developer then be responsible for maintaining that road? Who maintains that dirt road if we're actually thinking that it might be utilized. Are we thinking it might be utilized? Or, and at least when I looked at it, I'm not sure, I'm curious to know who would maintain that. Is that a city maintained road or is that? Saam: Since it's gravel I don't believe the city plows it right now, even though it is in city right- of-way. I was just talking to a resident prior to the meeting and he was saying that they maintain, the residents who access off it directly maintain it right now as in plowing and that sort of thing. And the reason, just to give a little history on that, the subdivision to the east of the property, when that came in in the 80's, I forget what year, staff at that time was looking ahead to a future connection to that plat, and so they had an easement dedicated for roadway purposes which is shown right here. Now when this plat came in, we looked at basically the same thing. You know do we eliminate the long cul-de-sac's. We want an alternate access, that sort of thing, so we looked at the feasibility of coming through here. It didn't take too long to see that this house is basically right on the easement line and then the one to the south is just a few feet off, about 15 feet. Typically we have a 30 foot setback so we didn't think that was a real good 2 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16,2004 situation to put in a road through there. So we had the applicant show how a future whole city street could come to fruition with the development of this property to the north. And we also use as our out, so to speak, is that we do have Cartway Lane right now for emergency type access. Or if the road is closed down, maybe down here, people can still get out this way to the public street up here and get down to Highway 7. So it's going to be a temporary thing until the development to the north, when they, when the property to the north develops, we can then vacate Cartway and get a public street through some sort of fashion. Keefe: Just for reference purposes, Cartway Lane comes down, goes north to the south and then does like a 90 degree turn. Where on the map does it make it's 90 degree turn? Is that right at the comer of the cul-de-sac there? Saam: Pretty much, yeah. Right in here. So there might be, to get it to connect to the curb line, you know they may have to feather that out a little but it won't take a lot of work to connect it. Keefe: Okay, that's it. Sacchet: Thanks Dan. Any questions Rich? No? Kurt? Papke: Yeah, I've got two. The first one I'm not sure if it's for staff or the developer. Lot 1, Block 1, one of the lots that you're proposing to eliminate here. I'm a little confused as to how the driveway access is with all the wetlands and the culverts there. Is there a proper spacing for a driveway to access the building pad there? Are there any issues with that? You know I would think there wouldn't be but it just. Saam: Yeah, none that we saw. I mean driveways, we do allow them to go down to 10 feet in tight spaces. Typically we see about 20 but for something like that it might start at 10 and then widen out. Papke: When was this, how long has this been zoned residential single family? Generous: At least since the 80' s. Papke: So at the time the Meadow Court development went in, it was zoned residential single family? So any of the residents in that neighborhood should have had knowledge of the RSF zoning at that point. Generous: Correct. Papke: Okay. Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Bethany. Tjornhom: I read through this and I guess the first thing that comes to my mind, and maybe staff can clarify this for me, it seems Iike there's a lot of extreme things happening. A lot of trees being taken down. Wetlands being filled in. Streets being tampered with. Was there any other way to go about this? Without having to do all this. And maybe that's not an easy question, 3 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16,2004 because I realize the developer wants to get as many lots in as possible and get as many homes in but it just seems that, I don't know. It seems kind of extreme. Generous: At least for the wetland filling, that's the minimum that we could do. We, with the extension of Pipewood Lane to provide access to the property, we basically said that. We're going to cross the creek there, and that's the only wetland impact that they have is for the road crossing. The rest of the development avoids that. They are providing mitigation adjacent to it but that's just part of creating it. As far as grading, I don't know. I don't know if Matt looked at it. Is there alternatives to not grading this site? I don't know. Saam: We did mention, it's not a big deal but in the rear yard of Lot 9, I guess it's Block 1 on the north there, there's something they can do there to minimize the extent of clearing into the trees. Other than that, I think that's more a question for their engineer. I know they're trying to balance the dirt work on site so they don't have to truck in or truck out. So I think that's more a question for him as to the other options in terms of the grading. Yeah, that's a good point. They have revised it since we originally looked at it on the north side of the plat where the slope comes down into the rear yards. Previously they had walkouts there which would have required larger retaining walls, more severe grading, so we have had them revise that so I think they did a good job in that respect to minimize. Sacchet: Steve. Lillehaug: What is the schedule as far as the deadIine that this must be forwarded to the council for a recommendation and approval? Aanenson: 13th? Generous: Yeah, it's scheduled for the December 13th meeting. The deadIine is December 14th. Lillehaug: Okay. Question number 2. What is staff's opinions on the condition and type of trees? Obviously most ofthem are being wiped out. What is staff's position on those trees? Are they significant? Significant trees or are they you know described mostly as scrub trees or? Generous: Yeah, Jill didn't mention that she noticed any significant trees out there per se. It was more an older farmed area. So not a good example of big woods. Some box elder. Trees like that. Lillehaug: And my final question would be, do we not have in our city code the requirement that they must demonstrate a 60 by 60 pad? I mean I know we went back and forth on this but is that not applicable here? Generous: The specific language for a 60 by 60 pad is not in there. It says for tree removal we estimate at least 105 feet. But we're looking at existing, what kind of housing we have out in the community and we're trying to make these sizes acceptable to that. We're finding out that it's reall y a wider lot, not a deeper lot that's important for this and so that's sort of what we're moving to with the recommendation. That they add additional width to the lots. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16,2004 Lillehaug: So I wasn't successful in getting that in city code I guess was I? Okay, that's all the questions I have, thanks. Sacchet: I have a few questions too. Let me try to keep it to the ones that are really essential. So basically we're saying that staff recommends that lot lines for Block 2, for Lot 1 and 13 will be revised to include most of the wetland. I'm not quite sure still what that means. Generous: Well Lot 1 is on the north side. Sacchet: No, I'm talking about, yeah. That one will be eliminated. The other one. Generous: Here, this line would shift over so it picks up the wetland area. Sacchet: So it would. Generous: It would shift to the northeast basically. What I was trying to do is keep these at radial to the curve so that they come almost straight out. Sacchet: Okay. Generous: And then over on the west, or on the east end for Lot 13, what I drew was a line that just continued the west lot line of Lot 12, but it picks up all this additional wetland area. Sacchet: So that would become then a part of the outlot. Generous: Part of Outlot A which has the majority of the wetland. Sacchet: Okay, we would also crop it not to border Highway 5? Generous: Yes. This is, and there's a lift station about in this location and then they have a manhole and that's what I suggested that we go up to that manhole area. Sacchet: That answers that. Thank you. There is no tree inventory that comes with this. Generous: No specific individual trees. Sacchet: We don't know what significant trees are there at this point? Generous: Not by, no, by what they submitted, no. Sacchet: Is that something, usually we get a tree inventory. That's not a required component? Generous: Well I think the, we accepted this for the area. They were removing everything that was in the upland, so we say, I don't know that it, that we would get any more information out of having the specific trees in there. Sacchet: Well, we know they remove pretty much everything. I'm just curious what everything is. I mean I went out there looking at it but it's a little hard to make heads and tails. I mean it 5 · - - Planning Commission Meeting - November 16,2004 really, better to have an inventory. Now, when we say they revised some ofthese lots, we say that, like on condition 8. To incorporate more of the wetland so you have an idea of what more is. You would be able to quantify that specifically. By eIiminating some of the lots that you've pointed out, this space will be proportioned to the other lots. Do we have any idea how they would be proportioned? Generous: I don't know. The applicant was going to look at that... Sacchet: Okay, we can ask the applicant to that. Yeah, only my big question is, why is this not worked a little more into detail before he comes here but that's not a fair question to ask so I leave it at that. You have two more Steve, go ahead. Lillehaug: Two quick ones. What does staff anticipate as far as ownership of the outlots? Generous: That they would be donated to the city. Lillehaug: Okay. And one specific question. What would be the radius of the roadway curve where it is extended from Pipewood Lane, or better yet does that meet city standards? Saam: Yeah, and we brought that up with the applicant on a previous submittal and you can ask his engineer, or the applicant when he comes up there, but it does meet our minimum radius. Lillehaug: It does meet it, okay. Saam: Yes. Lillehaug: Okay, that's it. Sacchet: I have two quick questions. I mean you already addressed but I want to be real clear about that. You said the deadline to get a decision for this in place is the 14th of December, unless we get an extension? Generous: Right. Sacchet: So we really either have, we have to make a decision tonight on that basis. If we don't get an extension on this. Generous: Or actually continue it to December ih and then turn it around for the following Monday. Sacchet: Okay. And then my last question real quick here, because that's something that I think we'll be seeing more in the near future than here. Lot 12, Block 2. We have a side yard bordering back yards to the east. How's the city, I mean there's a little bit of buffer here but still, what's the city's position of composing side yards against back yards of another development. Is there anything we do in terms of buffering or mitigating? Aanenson: Well I think that's one of the criteria you should look at with your variance request on that. If you want to attach specific conditions with that lot of how the house should be 6 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16,2004 oriented or buffering, because they are requesting a variance so you can attach a reasonable conditions to mitigate what you think would be appropriate orientation or buffer. Sacchet: Okay, well there isn't really much play room because it's already bumping into the wetland there. But alright, anyhow. I think that's enough of questions. Yes, one more question Rich. Go ahead. Slagle: Actually two if I may. To Matt, Lots 4, 5 and 6 on the southern side, any guesstimate as to the width of those lots at about halfway into them as you go southbound? I'm just getting, trying to get an idea of what kind of houses. Saam: Roughly 70 feet. Slagle: 70 feet. Saam: 65-70 feet. Slagle: Okay. And in discussions, if I can ask with staff and the developer, I mean they were comfortable with side yard setbacks. Aanenson: No, we're not. Slagle: I understand. I understand, but I mean even if we eliminate one lot, I'm trying to figure out my math as I apply it to 12, potentially 13 other lots. Okay. And then last question is, on the flat lot, was there discussion initially from the staff as to perhaps discouraging. Aanenson: Just to be clear, this is the second draft of this project. It did come in. Substantial changes were made. We're still requesting some more, but that was discussed, yes. Slagle: Okay. That's all. Sacchet: Alright, with that I'd like to ask the applicant to come forward and present what you have to tell us. And if you can please state your name and address for the record. Please move the microphone towards you, thank you. Gary Wilkerson: Commission members, staff. I'm Gary Wilkerson, one of the partners in the applicant. I have with me Mr. Ryan who is our engineer and also here to answer your questions. I've heard the staff comments. We haven't had a comprehensive chance to review them and integrate them into our design. We're sensitive to the comments however and understand the city's concerns here. And you know, under the way that I understand the comments, we would lose several lots in our development, but it might make it a better development in the end and I'm not saying that we're opposed to those changes, but we haven't had a chance to really analyze their impact. I've heard a lot of questions about width of lots and so on. I think this would allow us probably an extra 5 foot of width on those lots, and it might allow us a little better building product, so it could be an improvement to our lots. But we have to look at the economics of it and we have to look at the product types that would go on it and that's a process we're still going through. Comments are fairly recent and our reaction is kind of ongoing to it. But I would envision just kind of reacting to some of the questions I heard as I sat in the 7 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16,2004 audience, probably 95 foot lots if we were to lose the two lots that we're talking about. Similar price range product to the existing development, but I think a little different type of single family home. We would hope for maybe a little more of a community feel. We've talked about prairie style homes with porches and maybe some more comprehensive covenants that are in place on the first subdivision that's already there. That's kind of my generic comment and either I or the engineer would be happy to answer any further questions. Sacchet: Thank you. Questions from the applicant? Do you have questions? Rich. Slagle: If I could ask a couple. The development to the south, the one that we approved in '90, what year was it Bob? Help me out. Generous: 2000. Slagle: 2003, excuse me. 2003. What are the frontage footage, if you will, on those lots? Are they in excess of 100? Gary Wilkerson: Some of them are but not, I don't think on the overall average they aren't. I don't have those off the top of my head. Slagle: Okay. Do we know? Generous: I was going to look, grab that tonight and I forgot. Slagle: Okay. Generous: I know they're not all over 100 though. Slagle: Okay. Next question. On the flag lot, tell me your thoughts on that. Perry Ryan: Our thoughts as we took a look with the developer, and you've got a lot there that's in excess of an acre and I think it's actually 54,000 square feet. And that may come down a little bit. I'm just looking at Bob's notes here. It would come down to about 48,000 square feet with some of the modifications that he's suggesting. It's just, it's a tremendous you know land area that's sitting back there that has no real good access to it and we're able to give a tremendous amount of buffer space still to Highway 7 and a tremendous amount, he's even got some distances on here. Those homes to the east are 118 feet away from our property line. It's just a, you know you've got almost, just shy of an acre and a half. 1.3 acre site sitting there. You know when you look at the overall density I think we're down to 1.2 and I'd like to speak a little bit, as Gary suggested, we're still kind of looking at what the ramifications of staff's recommendations are on the possibility of deleting those two lots and maybe after your other. .. Slagle: And the last question, thank you for that. Is this gentleman, you mentioned that you're still sort of sorting things out. Would that lead one to believe that, and I don't want to speak out of turn Mr. Chair but would that lead us to believe that a continuance if you will might be something you'd be open to. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16,2004 Gary Wilkerson: Well we certainly would do that if it's in the best interest of reaching the best project for everybody. On the other hand, the land owners who have agreed to sell the land to us have waited a long time for this project to go forward. I'm reluctant to delay it just on their behalf. Slagle: Okay. That's all. Sacchet: Any other questions from the applicant? Alright, thank you very much. Did you want to add anything? Perry Ryan: Yeah, let me just add a little bit on what we were looking at on the setbacks. We'll look at the lot that they're talking about, specifically Lot 10, you can see we've got kind of two different, three different shaded areas that kind of go back to your question Steve on that 60 by 60 foot pad.. .show a 60 by 60 pad. On this one originally we did and staff appropriately noted the change. We're actually showing this entire band through here which we call the building pad corridor, and that is at 60 foot deep. So what you're seeing here on Lot 10 where we've got the dotted shaded area which is the 16 Y2 foot wetland buffer and then the 40 foot beyond the wetland setback, that is encroaching by about 10 feet at the very southwest comer of Lot 10. All that's saying is that, at that particular point in that lot you couldn't build a 60 foot deep home, and so that may be the garage side but it's still certainly a viable lot. Lot 10, I'm not sure what the areas, obviously they're all over 15,000. The other one that kind of came up, and I don't, was Lot 1, Block 1. And that one there we've actually got, at the front setback, it's actually 45 feet wide and at the rear 60 foot wide and that's a 60 foot deep pad. And again it's still a very viable lot. Staff has pointed out that they'd like to see the outlot over the wetland there. The wetland is a fairly thin band here. It gets a Iittle confusing on this graphic showing all the setbacks but the wetland is really about as thick as my finger shows there. We would certainly be open and again this is if we are attempting to move forward with not removing the lots, but we'd be open to placing an outlot or easement over that. The lot would still be sufficient in size to meet the size requirements and I think that Matt pointed out as well, we did take a look at what the driveway access would be, and the driveway access is still sufficiently far away from that wetland to put in an appropriate driveway so that was kind of our thoughts on those two and the same thing with Lot 1, Block 1. You can see, it encroaches into a portion of it. It's just the, you know that that pad I think still is, I think that one actually, I'm not sure if it is 50-70 feet wide in the back there, so certainly sufficient too. Aanenson: Mr. Chair, can I just comment just for clarity on this issue. Sacchet: Please do. Aanenson: I think we're not talking about, we're splitting hairs here but the issue the staff has is, this goes back to Steve's point. This 60 by 60 pad. As we've indicated, we've looked at the houses in that area. They're not 60. They're larger than that, so herein lies the problem. You have a house that may fit on the pad. That may be true but when you get a homeowner in and the developer's gone and they come in to put a deck, they're going to be back to see you for a variance because in this buffer area you cannot put a structure and we don't think that's a service for the resident or the homeowner to buy a lot that has no opportunity to do any additions as lifestyle change needs, and that's the issue we're raising. Same with this. Yes, you may be able I r I 9 I I Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 2004 to carve a home in there but you're really constricting the buildability of that lot and that's the issue that we have. Keefe: How about Lot 8 on the north side there where the retaining wall is. Do they have the same issue? Aanenson: You know you're going to have some lots that some people are going to discount and to give different choices, and that I think is a little you know, but when you've got that much wetland behind you, it's hard for a homeowner to understand. When you see a wall behind you, that's a little bit clearer line so. Perry Ryan: Yeah, that's a good point. Sacchet: Thanks Kate, appreciate it. Slagle: Mr. Chair, one last question for Mr. Ryan. Getting back Nann, if we can look again at that overview. Your building pad area that you show in each of the lots, if I can just ask on the southern side, what would be the average setback from the front of, from the road to the front of the homes. I mean it looks like they're fairly close to the street. Perry Ryan: They're all at 30 feet from the right-of-way. Slagle: Okay, 30 feet. Okay. Perry Ryan: From standard required setback. Slagle: Okay. And my guess is with some of these lots that we're talking about, you would probably be having those homes. Perry Ryan: Yeah, most ofthem really. I've seen a lot ofthe certificates of survey that came through on the stuff to the south. I mean Kate's right. I mean no matter how wide the lot is, people are going to build all the way up to the setback. They're going to start right at the front setback and just capitalize on it. It doesn't matter if it's a 9 foot lot or 120 foot lot. Slagle: So one last question, are you cognizant to staff's concern that in the back of these homes where people would typically want to put things, this current plan would pose some issues? Perry Ryan: Yeah, it would certainly pose an issue I think on Lot 10. It doesn't quite so much on Lot 1 and 8 does. I think we drew that retaining wall at 20 feet back and I think there's certainly some room if it can move back another 10 feet, and again that's a 60 foot pad but you're right. I mean there you've got a real visible barrier so. Sacchet: Alright, thank you very much. With that, do you want, you didn't want to add anything? Okay. Gary Wilkerson: Thank you. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 2004 Sacchet: You're welcome. With that I'd like to open the public hearing, so if anybody wants to come forward and comment to this proposal in front of us, this is your turn. And if I don't see anybody getting up, I will close it. No, there's somebody getting up. Alright. Please come forward. State your name and address for the record. Let us know what you have to say please. And move the microphone. Thank you. Jeff Jewison: My name is Jeff Jewison. I actually Iive in the property east of the development, right behind the cul-de-sac. And just had a few items. One, I might have missed it as far as the access to Lot 13, I think it's Block, he knows what I'm talking about, yeah. Sacchet: Block 2? Jeff Jewison: Yeah, the access to the house. As far as would they be using the cul-de-sac? Sacchet: Yes. Jeff Jewison: And then I envision some sort of sidewalk. Sacchet: That's the term flag lot. There is a little sliver of land that connects the cul-de-sac to that lot. Jeff Jewison: Okay, so... Sacchet: Do you want to point it out for him Bob? Just to make sure he's clear. Jeff Jewison: Yeah, I think I see it. Like a long sidewalk? Aanenson: Driveway. Slagle: Right behind your yard. Jeff Jewison: Perfect. And then the other concerns we had was one, this was mentioned already too is the back lot to the side lot, or building. They seem to be fairly close. Granted we're used to these open wetlands and backs so anything's going to be a lot closer than desired but if those could be pushed back. And then the other, I guess just strange issue I guess I wasn't familiar with, or I haven't seen before but with the cul-de-sac bordering most of the back yard of our property and then basically the other cul-de-sac bordering the whole front yard of our property is just kind of strange having that surrounding front and back yards but that was my concerns. Questions? ,. Sacchet: Thanks for bringing it up. Anybody else? Yeah, alright. You can come one at a time or you can come both. Rick Hueffmeier: We're neighbors. Sacchet: You're a team, alright. Alright, want to state your name and address for the record please. i I 11 J ,. É .- - Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 2004 Rick Hueffmeier: Rick Hueffmeier at 6551 Kirkwood Circle. We're on the south side of Highway 7. Sacchet: Okay. John Jordan: And I'm John Jordan. I'm at 6541 Kirkwood Circle and we abut right up to the creek where it runs across on the south. Rick Hueffmeier: I'm just curious, how much is wetland there now? I mean what is it? What does it look Iike? Generous: Basically most of Outlot A and part of Outlot C on the property to the south are wetland. There's a creek that runs through the middle ofthis. John Jordan: And that overflows. Generous; Yes. These are the wetlands. John Jordan: See something that we have that we've been running into, you know you put the Hidden Creek project down. Rick Hueffmeier: And now our water's not running. John Jordan: It's not running out. It's flooding into our property and we've lost probably close to about 20 trees so far on our property. Rick Hueffmeier: And I'm going to lose another couple here in the next. John Jordan: I talked to, I think it's Lori over there. Aanenson: Yes, Lori. John Jordan: And she said that they were going to watch it for a year and they weren't going to be doing anything.. . and I haven't seen anything done yet. And now they're talking about putting a culvert in that's only 42 inches in for the road. How do you calculate the number of gallons that are going to be coming in through the lake? Because when that lake is full, I mean that's a full force and we got that this year. And I had to go over to Hidden Creek to clean that culvert out umpteen times this last year just to keep it open. We've got. Rick Hueffmeier: Yeah, well we are concerned about the flow because we don't have enough, having carp swimming up to your back door kind of gets... Sacchet: Do you want to address that Matt? Saam: Sure, yeah. There's modeIing that's done based on rainfall that we see in Minnesota and based on the drainage area that goes through there, and that's how they calculate the size required for the culvert. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 2004 John Jordan: It seems like there's got to be something, not to interrupt you but that's a huge culvert. If you look at it, it's at least 6 feet wide and now you're going to 42 inches. That tells you, and what they put underneath Highway 7 how much water can go through there at one time. There's no restriction at the lake to stop the water. There's no dam. It's strictly open. So if you get a huge flow through there, I'm a mathematician so I know how to calculate that stuff out and I know that you're not right. Aanenson: Well I think there's some other issues that were during construction and Lori may have talked to you about that. There was some construction issues that the DNR was involved in, and also there's other jurisdictions that have approval on that too. John Jordan: Well they, I talked to the DNR and they did comment that there was a possibiIity of having a problem here. They did not totally agree with us, but they said that you guys came up with the proper calculations so if I have a problem to come back to you guys, and that's what I'm doing... Sacchet: Is there not a DNR approval or a state agency approval step involved? Aanenson: Yes. He's saying that there is. I'd have to follow up on that. Saam: We can review it again too, but Minnehaha Creek Watershed District also looks at this and gives approval so. Sacchet: Okay. Alright. Good point. John Jordan: So I mean the other thing too, I want to know what are you guys going to do with the stuff that we're losing in our back yard. Our trees are dying. We've had multiple problems back there. Sacchet: You're talking about right to the south here? John Jordan: Yep, we're Lot 31 and you're Lot 30, right? So. Aanenson: We will follow up on that. I'm not prepared to answer that question... Lillehaug: You're on the south side of Highway 7? John Jordan: Yeah, opposite side. LiIlehaug: Opposite side of Highway 7. John Jordan: Yeah, and we're getting really hit hard. And by looking at these plans here, I've seen another plan down at Carver County and it does show this whole area back here as being a wetland. I don't know how they zone that residential. I never signed anything where they changed that over. Aanenson: It's still being left as a wetland. The only part that can be developed is if it's upland. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 2004 John Jordan: But they want to go over the creek though too. Generous: Include a street crossing. Aanenson: Just for the street crossing. John Jordan: Street crossing? Aanenson: Correct. John Jordan: So if they could get that corrected for us, I think we'd... Aanenson: We'd be happy to look at it. If we can get your name. John Jordan: Okay, yep. That'd be great. Sacchet: Thank you. Yes, please come forward. State your name and address. Vic Moravec: Vic Moravec, 3821 Linden Circle. I'm about 5 houses from these guys. But what I wanted to bring up was how much fill you're going to fill into this wetland here. I have their same concern where my back yard, the creek 5 years ago was 2 feet wide and since they've changed this, it's become 4 feet wide and it's flowing through a lot faster so I think we're restricting the water flow and I've got concerns about filling in the watershed here to get down to that smaller culvert so I just want to reiterate what these guys are saying that we really need to look at that. And I'd Iike to see more information on it if I could. Thanks. Sacchet: Thank you. Appreciate it. Steve, you have a question for him or. Lillehaug: Bob, can you talk about the mitigation of the wetland and the ratio. Filling in that wetland portion. Is it a 2 to 1 ratio? And are they mitigating that on site to answer the gentleman's question there. Generous: Yes they are mitigating it on site. They're actually creating additional wetland. We are just saying that we want to relocate it. We think there's a better location for the wetland mitigation adjacent to the storm water pond, and that the pond be elongated so that we'd have ponding in the back yard and then the wetland mitigation behind that. The mitigation requirements are 2 to 1. You get one acre of new wetland created for each acre that you impact and then the other acre can be through storm water ponding, preservation of upland area. You get what's called pubIic value credit. And so they're meeting all the requirements. The filling that they're doing is the minimum to get the roadway in and across. And then it's just looking at the sizing for the pipe to make sure that's adequate. Sacchet: Thanks Bob. Vic Moravec: Can I add a little something to make sure... Sacchet: Sure, go ahead. Yes, you can come back more than once if you really have something to say. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 2004 Vic Moravec: Thank you. He talks about the pond in here. Creating an additional pond. Generous: The storm water pond. Vic Moravec: What's happened since the development north of 7 where they changed the wetland, the pond in the lot next to my lot has increased in size as well. So my neighbors are all losing property to the pond, the wetland which is fine. It's beautiful but why are we paying for what they're getting, what developments are doing. Sacchet: Alright, thank you. Alright, next. Your turn. Steve McSherry: My name is Steve McSherry and I live at 6571 Kirkwood Circle and I'd like to start off by thanking the members of the commission for doing your due diligence and staff, as well as the owners of the property or future owners of the property. I'd also like to thank my neighbors for steaIing my thunder here. Thank you very much guys. Essentially what I'd like to do is echo what they've just said. I mean we've got our neighborhood on the south side of the highway and we're losing property. We came to the meetings last time. We took a look at altering wetlands and building back there and everything looks great on paper. Unfortunately we alter this and we alter that and certainly I have a lot of respect for the understanding of the people in this room as far as drainage and that type of thing, and appreciate the fact that you're doing your due diligence. However, where the rubber meets the road for me is we're seeing the fallout from the construction on the other side of the road and we get these little flyers in the mail and the first thing I see on here is, wetland alteration permit and a red flag goes up. I'd much rather be watching TV or working with the kids doing homework but certainly something, this is a concern to us because what I need to look out for is what's in my best interest as you're looking out for my best interest and the developers are looking out for their best interest. Everyone wants a good product but by the same token, once this is in and it's gone and everyone's moved on to the next one, you know we're bailing out our basements and losing property. Thank you very much. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Anybody else want to come forward? Dale Keehl: My name's Dale Keehl. I live at 3841 West 62nd Street. I happen to be, if you want to, this lot right here. We're right on the comer of Cartway and I'm real concerned about, being our road isn't maintained by the city, and we do our own plowing. We just luckily have people that live on that road that plow. And the traffic that's going to be, if they use that road. I'm just real concerned about connecting that road for use. There could be something done if it needs to be for emergency but we already get a lot of traffic down there to the tennis courts and they come down our road and I just love the park there. That's one reason I bought there and I don't mind the traffic going to the tennis courts and the hockey rink and the, you know we love watching the kids but I really don't want the traffic from that development going out past my house. That road is very narrow and like I say, we maintain it and really don't want it for pubIic use. Sacchet: Thank you. Yeah, I actually drove it. I know it's very narrow. I have a hard time imaging it would be used very heavily. Does staff want to comment about the purpose of the connection? " ~ 15 I · Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 2004 Saam: Yeah. The purpose is to have an alternate access for emergency vehicles and emergency times if the paved road is shut down, something Iike that for an interim basis. And I agree. I don't foresee, at least I know I wouldn't want to if I was a new resident in here, going out to Highway 7. I'd much rather go on the nice new paved road than the thinner gravel road. So I guess I don't foresee a lot of traffic wanting to go out that way. Sacchet: It could be regulated too. Saam: Yeah, we could, yeah. And we intend to do that. Sacchet: Okay. Alright, do we have anybody else? Yes we do. Gary Carlson: Can we bring up. Slagle: You are? Gary Carlson: I'm sorry. Gary Carlson, 3891 West 62nd Street. I'm the anchor of the city up in that area. My home was built in 1886. It has 15 bedrooms, 9 complete bathrooms. My garage heated 5 stalls. I have indoor parking for another 13 cars. And I've been there myself since 1967. And at that time it was a township. Not too long afterwards they came around and said well Mr. Carlson, you're now in the city. I went wow. Fantastic. Not too long after that they said well you're R1. Wow. Fantastic. Right now I apply for a horse permit annually. I apply and receive apartment permit to occupy the apartments that are within my home. I apply and receive a beachlot permit. I'm, I keep the same hobby farm however that my dad grew up next to and he worked at these two farms that are now being developed. I guess to start, I need to go back to the first print which shows just the undeveloped property. I guess that will show up. Sacchet: Yeah, we can see it. Gary Carlson: You can see it? Sacchet: Yeah. Gary Carlson: Okay. There are already some mistakes that have occurred within my short time of holding down the anchor. The anchor property I'm talking about where I live is this whole tract here and it includes this home site here which I divided off. This property here. There is, right here where I'm drawing my stylus, there's already another lot off, and that's already a platted lot, so that is somehow here in 2004, it hasn't gotten on the city maps yet but there is another lot right here. It's right along here. It's a long line there. I developed Minnewashta Meadows over here on the east side where some of these neighbors spoke. I developed that property and over the years I've had a good relationship with the city of Chanhassen. I can't thank you enough for what you've done and what your predecessors have done through the years, and I worked with city staff many times and even on my project. It's not an easy job and they've done you know, they've brought this project a long ways along. This particular property is extremely hard to develop. Extremely hard to develop because it has the problem of the only creek in this whole area of the city is Minnewashta Creek. It drains all of Lake Minnewashta. I can't stress how important that is. Drainage, drainage, drainage. And if it was a 6 foot culvert 16 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16,2004 under Highway 7, every culvert from there to Lake Virginia should be 6 feet. It can go completely dry, and it's been years where it will flow where you can put a canoe and hey, why aren't we canoeing this every year. That's how much water can come out of Lake Minnewashta. And because it Iies, a lot of this development lies along the creek, every, you're looking at a little part of this development and you're looking at a Iittle part of the city but all of Shorewood drains down toward the creek. All of Victoria drains down toward the creek. My property, when I say it's always the anchor because I'm on a tri city border. So I have, I've met with Shorewood City Council and I deal with Victoria because they're all looking for where their water's going and why it's going, why it's not getting there. And so I want the City of Chanhassen's engineering department to really look at how much water's coming. And not only is it getting to the creek but all of these lots across here have to have water across them. From up land and if you look at the elevations, this developer does not have that much elevation to work with. It's not Iike he's got rolling hills and high lands. He's down at the bottom ofthe flowage in this area because this whole area drains into the creek. The creek drains into Lake Virginia. Goes into Minnetonka and down the old Minnehaha Watershed District, which everyone's concerned with. My concerns on drainage are down my west property line, right down here which is also my border with the new development. Right now we split that drainage. The drainage comes under the railroad right there. It drains all of this area up here. There's a new development up here, Hidden Creek. They've already put a catch basin here and now I'm going to use the same culvert. After it leaves the railroad, it comes open. It's open swale that's between my property and the previous Collin's property but it's now the new development. And if those big bulldozers are out there pushing the soil around and they push it right over to the edge of their property because they're shaping a new home pad, they're going to move that flowage that's in a swale now, all onto my property. I need to have them work with me. I will give them a construction easement, and we can create a proper swale so all that, it's draining all of that area of Shorewood and it drains the whole comer of West 62nd and Cathcart. It goes all the railroad right-of-way. Railroads do not have a water stand under their beds and so that's been graded for years that it goes to catch under and down into the natural flowage and then I don't know west of me where the next flowage comes out but it's going to the east. So I don't know if there's more issues along the railroad right-of-way. If there's more...concerns me. That flowage has to be dealt with and if this development has to put in a silt fence, my fencing was put in for the horses all along this property and along the Cartway. Along, on the Cartway I have a horse fence. And when Schmidt divided this up into Schmidt's Acre tracts, Mort Grace already lived here and he had his driveway here. And that's why it was turned into a cartway because Schmidt wanted to divide off his lot so each daughter and son could have 8 or 9 acres. But he already had Mort Grace there so the cartway was then established on a piece of paper, but it was already a cartway. So it wanders and my horse fence, which has been there for 20 some years or more, also wanders so. In the process of silt fencing, if you want to come in and set the silt fence, you know they put in the post and silt on the bottom and you can put one more wire on then it can be a temporary horse fence, which is fine with me. And then we can work our two borders properly, and then when it's all done we can just, if you'll replace my fence back to the proper setback that the city requires. I'd love to work with them in that matter. Sacchet: Excuse me for interrupting but I think all that would not touch your property. I meant all the development has to take place on the property where the development takes place. Gary Carlson: I know but these lines and fences on the cartway wandered off the property Iines. They weren't even on, they weren't set by a surveyor when they were put in. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 2004 Sacchet: Oh you're concerned that the Iines are not accurate? Gary Carlson: This is my horse fence on the west. Dale Collins saw it go in. You know he's my neighbor to the west. He says, yeah. That seems like about the right place but. Aanenson: Mr. Chair, maybe I can resolve this issue. I think this is appropriate discussion one, in a pre-con meeting and two, typically we walk a site and I think this is an appropriate appIication that we walk with both property owners before we begin construction and try to work out these issues. Not in this arena but in that type of arena where we try to work those things out. Sacchet: Right, we won't be able to settle these things. Aanenson: But I think that we're certainly willing, the staff is certainly willing to you know facilitate that and. . . Gary Carlson: Yeah, I am, I've worked really great with the city. I would gladly allow... The next issue is also the flowage issue, and that's on the cartway. Cartway Lane, which I named. It was always called the cartway and never named for years so I finally said let's name our street. It got named the Cartway. Cartway Lane. That accepts all the water out of the park called Cathcart Park. All that water comes out the southwest comer of the park and goes onto that cartway and it comes down and you cannot, you can canoe down it when we've had some rain events there in the park. The park has never been required to manage their own water. I mean they just let it, go right out. And I've been before the City of Chanhassen and the City of Shorewood on that water problem. And we've got, that water is crossing this property now and it's just so that again we're aware of that volume of water's going to come down that cartway. It will wash a pile of gravel as high as that chair out of the cartway. It completely washes all the gravel offthe cartway. I've got a video of it. So that's an issue again, getting back to drainage. Sacchet: So it basically would go across the area where the cul-de-sac is planned? Gary Carlson: It will hit this comer of the cul-de-sac. .. and affect all the people in Minnewashta Meadows. All their back yards drain into the property. As I said, if you go back to the previous map and it was small hobby farms set back from the creek during all these years. And if the developer has that kind of kahuna's that wants to tackle a wetland developing into homes, I say more power. I mean I'm glad he's doing it. But the city and all you folks have to make sure that these new homes and the way these pads are created, there's space between each one of them for that water to get down there because the creek is the lowest in the whole city and all of the other neighbors around here, all drain through that property. Aanenson: Can I just give clarification of that. This issue's been going on with Mr. Carlson and the city for a while. We're trying to resolve those issues, just for your edification. Meeting with the City of Shorewood. There's a lot of drainage that is coming onto his property that is not in the city. There is the...earlier subdivision going in, Schmidt's Acres. There was not a requirement for ponding so there's some pre-existing conditions so trying to separate what the obligation of this appIication is. Certainly we don't, as people...said, there's some problems. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16,2004 There was a permit stop for a while. There was problems out there. We worked to resolve them. Certainly but we recognize the need to go back and make sure that we're in a good spot, but... Sacchet: So in other words we're aware of this. Aanenson: Correct, and we've been working with Mr. Carlson so just so you know, we forward this and we're working on that issue. Sacchet: That's important. Important to know, thank you Kate. Aanenson: And we did put a condition in here which is reflected in the staff report on page 14 regarding a catch basin on the cartway. That was a condition that was added to address specifically Mr. Carlson's drainage issue. So we are aware of that. Sacchet: Thank you. Alright Mr. Carlson, what else? Gary Carlson: Thank you for your patience. On the 51, maybe on page, which is on page 14. (g). The first issue. (g). Add a catch basin on the north side of the cul-de-sac at the eastern end of the project and how that it will be adequate to accept the runoff that now occurs from Cartway Lane. I'd Iike to see them put this in here. It's a tremendous amount of water so I just can't tell you how much it is. Sacchet: Yep, and there's certainly other neighbors made a similar comment of the importance of that. Aanenson: Again Ijust want to separate that there's two jurisdictions involved and so we're trying to sort that out as a city staff that some of it's coming from Shorewood. Sacchet: If it's somewhat Shorewood related. Aanenson: We certainly understand that we need to work to resolve the problem. Gary Carlson: And the last issue is 51. The existing gravel road known as Cartway Lane. To be connected to the cul-de-sac to, you know that's, yes. You have emergency somewhere in that development. There's a house explosion. A huge accident and then there's a fire call. And the fire, yes. You have to have a way in. I am wondering, I have heard of it, that there is a break away emergency gate that can be placed at the edge of that cul-de-sac. In other words, a fire truck can run, hit it and it falls over. I mean, but to leave that as an accessible and yes, it's a good idea to connect that to the cul-de-sac so that the folks in the new development can walk up there and get to their park. Otherwise they're going to have to be going through someone's back yard. Sacchet: More for pedestrian use basically. Gary Carlson: Yeah, pedestrian use but some sort of emergency break away. You know unless the city's going to start plowing the road and, it just isn't going to happen. It's just a narrow, little gravel access that was just originally put in as driveways and. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 2004 Sacchet: Good point. Gary Carlson: And if it can be an emergency break away gate, that is all just emergency vehicles need to know about it and we've got a fire department that's educated. They can yes, if we get a call in there, we can't get in. Come in this way. Sacchet: Good point, thank you. Audience: Who would take the liability of going across there? Sacchet: If you want to come up in a minute, you can do so please. Okay. Gary Carlson: Good question. They'll be on public road all the time. Sacchet: Excuse me. We cannot have discussion amongst yourselves. We'll never get done that way. We have 3 more items to do that other people are waiting that we get to. Gary Carlson: My father reached into his 80' s worked for these gentlemen and their homesteads are still there. I think a tree inventory would be, there are some, unless there's no value in saving huge trees Iike this, but if there is, I think that would be a good request in here. It would put more burden on the developer but I mean he's jumped through a ton of hoops to get here. It's a difficult property to develop and I appreciate your time and working so hard on this. And the staff too has done a great job. I mean it's just a ton of Iittle things you have to think about because each one of these lots is another wetland problem because we're right at the edge of the creek. Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you sir. Lillehaug: Mr. Carlson, before you leave I have to ask you a question. I hate to do it but I have to. You own the big lot there and staff is making a, I'm an assumption that this will be developed in the future and looking at an interim connection of a roadway. What is your plans with that lot? Do you plan on developing it within the next couple years or what are you thinking? Gary Carlson: Well the developer's approached me. He's done the best he could, it's just how do you replace that large a home. Lillehaug: So you don't have any immediate plans? Gary Carlson: I mean I'm ready to do more permits with the city. I mean I'm really thankful having all these permits but I'm willing to go through those hoops too. Yes, I don't know. I've been there, I haven't changed that property in, you know other than keeping it improved. The layout, and either have my neighbors in 30 years so this is going to change and then again when I might change, it depends. My children are ready to take over the home and so then there may not be a change, and these other neighbors, Mr. Keehl was up here and Mr. Toll. He has the same concerns that Dale does and I own this end home here. But you have to tear down 4 homes to put in the new road and build up 12 more. I don't know. You know I could argue either side of this. These neighbors to the west, these neighbors to the north, these neighbors to the east, 20 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 2004 these neighbors to the south would all like to continue to look at the wetland just the way it is. They're not jumping up and down to have 25 homes so that they can say the creek is over there between that brown home and that, whatever. No, we would just as soon leave it. To us it's always looked like wetland. But now that they've brought in the delineators and they said there is room to squeeze in some homes. I'd rather see the city go and say, I'd rather see the city say it's not time to develop that. Go find a nice farm that's square, has some rolling acres and put in a nice development. Leave the creek the way it is. If you want to continue a hobby farm, there is your 4 acres and a home. If you want to continue the hobby farm, here's your 4 or 5 acres. . . sell it as that. Sacchet: Thank you sir. Gary Carlson: I would rather see that but. Sacchet: You definitely answered his question. Gary Carlson: You really did. I could argue either side of this question because there are pros and cons to both sides. Sacchet: Thank you. Appreciate it. Gary Carlson: I'm glad to work with you. Sacchet: I see somebody else standing up. I assume you want to speak up. Please come forward. State your name and address and let us hear what you have to say please. If you can get the microphone. Casey Bergquist: I'm Casey Bergquist and I live at 4011 Pipewood Lane. The new development that just went in and I guess my biggest concern is because of the new development that we live in and then the old existing development that was there, we have right now 35 lots that access Highway 7 and then adding 23 more will add 58 lots accessing Highway 7 through the same access. Is that typical for a neighborhood? Sacchet: Good questions. Matt, do you want to say something about that? Saam: I don't know if typical's the right word but we do have other subdivisions with more lots than 50. Well Ashling Meadows is about 50 but Longacres. They have two accesses. Springfield. There are other subdivisions. Sacchet: There are, so there's really only one access to Highway 5 at this point. Saam: 7. Aanenson: Highway 7. Sacchet: 7 not 5, sorry. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 2004 Saam: And that's incidentally one of the concerns MnDot had too is to make sure that there is another access so it's just another reason we really want to keep another alternate access. Whether just for emergency or what. Sacchet: Now obviously Cartway I would not call another access. I mean the road is this wide. It's for emergency, yeah. And we yeah, but we're not at discussion yet. Do you want to add anything else to this? Casey Bergquist: No, I was just then, and I mean and if the plan was to go through, what would be done to slow down the speed because right now we already have people speeding down Pipewood Lane to get to their back neighborhood, so now people are going to be turning onto our road and speeding down our road to get to their neighborhood and we're expecting our first baby in January and it's Iike, we're going to have cars speeding down our road so I'm wondering what's going to be done. You know stop signs put in. Maybe a little speed bumps. What can be done to slow down. Sacchet: I don't think we do speed bumps in our city yet so far but what's. Aanenson: It's your neighbors. You know we just have education programs. Be happy to discuss that with you or get the sheriff's office. Casey Bergquist: Okay. Slagle: I have a quick question for you. Were you aware that the road was going to go through? Casey Bergquist: When we developed, our builder told us that possibly it would continue on but it probably wouldn't happen for a significant amount of years. He said probably about 10 years so that's what we were told when we bought the house. Sacchet: That's pretty standard. Casey Bergquist: We moved in in June. Sacchet: So that's a pretty quick 10 years huh. Casey Bergquist: Yeah, real quick 10 years. So yeah. Sacchet: Well appreciate your comment, thank you. Casey Bergquist: Thank you. Sacchet: Anybody else wants to address this item. If I don't see anybody getting up, yes Mr. Carlson has a follow-up. Gary Carlson: Well when you live out there for so many years, you can't cover everything in one short time. But I won't take another 40 minutes. That flag lot, you know the City of Chanhassen plows and maintains this pump station down here. Very important pump station. It pumps all of Minnewashta sewage up the cartway. It's all pumped up by, in a force... Anyway, 22 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16,2004 why can't that flag, I mean there's a lot of residents that have a driveway on 7. Further west. Further east. There's a lot of residents that's the only way they can get to 7. That's how it was created originally. And the city has got a nice turn-off. It's paved. Why can't 13 have access... Sacchet: I don't think MnDot does not allow driveways on Highway 7. Is that accurate statement to make? Gary Carlson: It's not a new driveway. It's not a new driveway. Aanenson: It's a different type of turn movement as far as the frequency the city would be in there as opposed to a residential use. It's not recommended. Sacchet: Okay? Good try. Thank you Mr. Carlson. Alright, last call. Anybodyelse? Seeing nobody, I'm closing the public hearing. I want to thank you all for all your comments. Very good range of comments. Good concerns. I'd like to bring it back to the commission for discussion. And to make a decision. Rich. Slagle: I'll make mine fairly quick. I would suggest to all of us that we consider, this is not a motion but consider asking for a stay on this and the reason being is one, I do think that a tree survey should be done. I'm surprised there isn't one. Secondly, I think the amount of lots that the developer is trying to implement are too many. I have serious concerns about the flag lot. And I understand and this developer I'm aware of, seems Iike a solid citizen but gosh, one of these days I'm really going to be deIighted when someone comes in with a parcelIike 13 and says, you know we've decided to make that a private park for our community. Or something. The trail area, something other than let's put a house close to Highway 7 and, or I shouldn't say close but closer than the rest of them. And then lastly, the lot sizes I think need to be re-worked. Totally. The idea that someone can't put a deck or a playground because their lot stops, and given the quality, and I have to say on a positive note the quaIity that this developer is known for, I would be surprised that people would buy the homes and not want to put those types of things in, because you do build very nice homes so. I would at this point be open to passing on this and seeing if they would be open to it. Sacchet: Thanks Rich. Anybody else? Steve? Lillehaug: A couple quick questions. I agree with everything Rich said. A couple others. I don't see any sidewalks in this project, and I know we don't have a huge amount of traffic but wondering why. Slagle: It's on the north side. Lillehaug: Am I just not seeing it? Sacchet: Yeah, there is on the north side Steve. Lillehaug: Sorry, I'm looking at the wrong one. Okay, there it is. Scratch that. Well, I totally agree. My concerns, I mean we have 51 some conditions in here and there's probably about 20 in here that should really already be addressed and I reaIize that you've been working with the applicant but there's just too much fine tuning in here for us to really look at a quality 23 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 2004 development and really put an approval on anything. There's too much tweaking to go on. And then I want to read something in the report real quick Iike here. Quote, it says these building envelopes would not accommodate the types of housing the city has typically seen in adjacent development, nor will the building envelopes permit construction of accessory structures, etc, etc. When we reviewed codes I fought pretty hard to get a 60 by 60 pad in the codes and I finally conceded and said forget it. That would have addressed this and now I mean it's evident that we should have something in the codes on that. If we wouldn't need this in here, we would have had the proper size lots in here and I think us as a Planning Commission should recommend to staff to re-address that and look at modifying the code to add that in there. So other than that I also agree that I think this should be tabled. Thanks. Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Tjornhom: I agree. Sacchet: Any other comments Kurt? Papke: I was very surprised by the, and pleased by the people that came in from the other side of Highway 7 tonight. I didn't expect that volume of input from people that far away from the development, and I don't know, I'm not completely convinced that we have the full impact ofthe hydrology situation here. If there is that much water flow down into this area, I don't know. The size of the culvert there, the 42 inch culvert just seems Iike we should take a look at it, and that certainly has an impact on the decision on Lot 1. That could certainly force that one to disappear. So I just think it's premature. Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Do you want to add something Dan? Keefe: Just a question. What does tabIing do? I mean what is the process and what's the time frame and impacts. Sacchet: We established that with the current time line we have til the 14th of December for a decision, which is the 60 day rule, and it would have to go to council on the 13th. That's the original plan. However, we can ask the applicant for an extension to fit into 120 days. We probably would want to get that formally from the applicant. It's my understanding from the appIicant's comments that he's willing to consider that and we would probably need to ask you that more formally. And that would allow us to table it, send them back to take care of some of these issues. Because there's quite a list ofthem. Keefe: Was it 120 days. Sacchet: From when the appIication was complete. Which would be 60 days back from the December 14th date so we'd have another 60 days on top of that. Keefe: So approximately February 14th. Sacchet: Right. Which doesn't mean it would have to take that long. As a matter of fact, things that we table come back as quickly as possible. It's really up to the applicant to fulfill the requests that are made and work with staff on the issues that we point out and we see them come 24 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 2004 back within 2 weeks sometimes. Sometimes they even still make the same council meeting that was originally planned so. Keefe: I think it's a fair solution. Sacchet: Okay. I feel very strongly that this needs to be tabled. I don't think this proposal is cooked enough. There are too many very significant items. The lot Iines are being shifted around. There's wetland issues that are sort of, there's an idea there but it's not really specific and how to reassign wetland to the lots is sort of clear but not totally. I'd like to see these things really specific in order to have a clear picture. The tree inventory, the tree plans, there's what, 141 trees that we're requiring to be planted. We don't know where they're going to be. We don't know what kind of trees are there now. There are way too many conditions about grading fixes, about hydrology, about the cul-de-sac radius, you name it. Things that can be taken care of that can be focused. That can be to the point. That we can look at and know what we have in front of us. Right now I don't think we have that. A whole list of issues that came up is the importance of the flooding issue. I mean the importance of looking at the drainage issue, the grading and all that. I think it's a very valid concern that really in terms of what, watershed aspect, it may have to be looked at in a large context than just the immediate neighborhood. I mean that was a very good aspect that I think we have a responsibility to whether it goes across city borders or not. I mean we have to look at the whole picture. And as far as that's practical and possible, within the framework of course. And I would look to staff to balance that aspect. Now there are several smaller aspects like the access to Highway 7. The access to who has access or what would be the restriction to the access to Cartway North. Things Iike that are more detailed. I mean that wouldn't be a reason to hold it up but it certainly can be addressed too. I think the conditions could be significantly cut down and this be more specific so on that vein I'm ready to get a motion please. Should we ask, now before we do that. Could I ask the appIicant point blank, are you willing to give an extension? Gary Wilkerson: I've heard the concerns of neighbors as well as commission and I do understand them. We have some contractual obligations with the people selling to us to proceed in front of the council. So I'm reluctant to have this delayed too long. On the other hand, it makes no sense to go forward with an application that you're not comfortable with, you're not going to approve. So you know, is there some middle ground short of 60 days or do we have to ask for 60 days? Sacchet: No, it is a 60 day for the formal part. However, there is a possibility even that you could address these issues within the 2 weeks frame. If you can address these issues within a week, get it back to staff, it's very possible that you could be on our agenda at the beginning of December and still make the council's 13th date. Maybe if that's not possible to slip, but there isn't another council meeting later in December. It'd slip into early January but we're not talking about holding you up til February. I mean that's in your hand how quickly you can be addressing these things and your assumption's correct that if we don't get an extension, we would probably end up recommending denial. Gary Wilkerson: Right, and I understand that. I do appreciate and I've heard the concerns of the neighbors to the south and if I Iived in a home where the creek was rising and I was losing trees, I would have those concerns too. I would point out that they exist independent of our development. That we didn't create those problems. I understand their concern is that we not 25 Planning Commission Meeting - November 16, 2004 make them worst, and that's our responsibility but I would hope not to have to pay for the previous developer. Sacchet: No, it has to be fair in this overall, absolutely. Gary Wilkerson: But given what you're saying, I would petition for a 60 day extension. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. So with that I think we have a good foundation to make a motion. Slagle: I'll make a motion. I recommend that the Chanhassen Planning Commission table the preliminary plat approval request for a subdivision with a variance for a flag lot, plans prepared by Ryan Engineering dated August 20,2004, revised October 14, 2004, subject to the numerous conditions. Sacchet: Alright, we have a motion. Is there a second? Lillehaug: Second. Slagle moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission table action on Hidden Creek Meadows to allow the applicant time to address the concerns raised by the residents and commission members. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to O. 26