Loading...
PC 2005 02 15 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 15, 2005 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Dan Keefe, Debbie Larson, Kurt Papke, and Jerry McDonald MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Lillehaug and Rich Slagle STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive HIDDEN CREEK MEADOWS SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR A 21 LOT SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES. THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL INCLUDES A WETLAND ALTERATION 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, D & G OF CHANHASSEN LLC, PLANNING CASE NO. 04-31. Public Present: Name Address Jeff & Lisa Jewison 3842 Meadow Court Dean Carlson 7820 Terrey Pine Court Perry Ryan Excelsior, MN th Dale & John Collins 10758 130 Street, Glencoe Kathy Schurdevin 3921 Aster Trail, Excelsior nd Dale Keehl 3841 West 62 Street, Excelsior Cindy Gess 4001 Aster Trail, Excelsior Peter Thomson 4001 Aster Trail, Excelsior Bob Generous and Matt Saam presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Questions of staff? Any questions from staff? Papke: I’ll start. Yeah, question on the drainage from the wetland there. The lines you showed on your drawing on the north side, that will be the 948 lane. 948 line I believe you said. The 948 elevation. Was that the number you were using there? Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 Saam: On the north side, yes. I had shown the 948 which would be the flood elevation for the houses on the south side. Papke: Right. Saam: I just wanted to show what the amount of area that we have to store water in before it could even flood these houses. Essentially we have a large amount of area. Papke: And that’s with the grading as proposed right now, not the alternative grading or the existing conditions? Saam: No. This line is showing the proposed grading. What this site would be like if it’s approved basically as is and graded as proposed. Keefe: Just for clarification on that, sorry. The 948, I mean the blue line is your 100 year mark right? Saam: Yeah. The blue line is the 100 year high water level. Papke: This 948 one is if it’s lapping at the doors of the buildings on the south side, that’s how far it will come up on the north side. Saam: In the 100 year case I gave you both elevations. They’re both approximately 943. They’re 4 to 5 feet below the houses. There’s really no issue at the 100 year. Papke: Okay. Kind of a related question on page 6 of the staff report you’re asking that the applicant demonstrate that the installation of the 42 inch proposed culvert will not cause water to back up, etc, etc. I’m a little curious here, given the background letter from Ryan. Given your analysis, what’s the deliverable there? I mean what is the developer going to have to provide that will satisfy that request? Saam: Yeah this, the recommendation you’re referring to came from our Water Resources Coordinator. Not myself. I guess I would say that they’re basically at where we need, they’ve given us what we need to see, other than tweaking some storm calculations, which I think is a condition in here. We’re basically, I’m satisfied that the 42 inch is going to be sufficient. Papke: Okay. So in your opinion that’s a done deal. Saam: Yes. Papke: Okay. Next question on the tree coverage discrepancy between what the developer submitted and what city staff is recommending. First question is there’s a difference in the percentage of the minimum canopy coverage allowed. The applicant’s analysis requires a 25% minimum of, or 142,000 acres which would probably be square feet by the way, and your 2 Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 recommendation is 35% minimum or 200,000 square feet minimum canopy coverage. How did we arrive at, is that just as a percentage of the total canopy area that you feel is there? Generous: Yes. Based on the existing conditions, our assumption is that there’s more canopy coverage than they stated in their tree survey because we count lower story trees and he was saying that these are just the big trees. And so if you have a different starting point, there’s different target preservation. Papke: Okay. And that was my next question was how could we be so far off between the developer and what we recommended so the basic difference is the inclusion of the understory trees in the calculation. Generous: Correct. Papke: Okay. Those are my primary questions, thank you. Sacchet: Any questions Debra? Larson: He stole my questions. Sacchet: That does happen. McDonald: Okay, I’ve got a couple questions for you. To the west, just so I understand this, on Piperwood Court, the culvert that is currently there, that is a 42 inch so that’s the same size we’re talking about going in on the other road, right? Saam: Correct. McDonald: Okay. And also just so I’m clear, because I guess I’m a little confused about this flooding. Water does flow from Lake Minnewashta into Lake Victoria, is that right? It’s flowing. Or Virginia, I’m sorry. It is flowing in a northerly direction. Saam: Yes, northwest. McDonald: Okay. So that the, well okay. Then on the Cathcart Lane, you have a list of questions about that and some have been answered but currently what the plan would be is that that will remain just basically the path that it is, and at some point in the future as the other land nd is developed, a new access off of, is it 62 or 92. nd Generous: West 62. nd McDonald: 62 Street. A new access will then be developed down from that and Cathcart Lane just kind of goes away. Saam: Yes. We vacate that at that time. 3 Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 McDonald: Okay. And an issue was also raised about a break away gate. Now I take it that that’s something that you would not be in favor of. Saam: Yeah. We talked about that today. We kind of, the city’s kind of gotten away from doing that. I know there was a time in the recent past where barricades and that sort of thing were put up. More in a general nature. But we don’t feel that’s necessary. It’s a public road now while it’s not improved, it’s a gravel type road. You know it can still be used and I guess we want that for basically emergency access. We don’t see a lot of traffic from this development unless they’re going to that park maybe and they could even walk there. Using that road. They could, to go to Highway 7 they’re more than likely going to take the paved road to the south. McDonald: Okay, the city maintains that road then at this time? Saam: I don’t believe so but I’m not certain. I was told last time by a neighbor that we don’t so I’ll take his word. McDonald: Okay. I guess at this time, that’s all the questions I have right now. Thank you. Sacchet: Dan. Keefe: Just a quick follow-up on my question. The Cartway Lane or is it Cathcart, which comes north/south? Cartway Lane right? And that’s going to remain gravel, is that correct? And then cul-de-sac is going to be paved right to where the terminus, the north/south terminus at the southern end of, where it takes a 90 degree there? Just so. Saam: Yeah, basically. Where it starts to turn, the plans show the…so you will be able to drive over the curb to get to the basically the gravel road like a driveway. Keefe: Okay, but it’s really not going to act like a regular street. Saam: No. Keefe: So it isn’t going to feel like oh well here’s a great way to go. Saam: No. And yeah, that kind of leads to why we don’t think it’s going to be used as a major access. At least to get to Highway 7, the main you know road to this development into the metro so. Keefe: Sure. Question, sidewalks. Is there a sidewalk in this? It’s on the north side? And does that go all the way to the cul-de-sac then so that people would, if they were going to walk to the park… Saam: Yes. We would terminate it basically at the road. Keefe: Okay. And that goes all the way from really where the bridge is, correct? And does that connect up to the existing? 4 Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 Saam: Existing side line, yes. Keefe: Yeah, okay. You know when I was out there I was looking at the wetland, and maybe you can just speak a little bit to this. It seemed like there was a lot of stuff in the wetland and really on the property out there and I know as a part of the re-grading, they’re going to be cleaning up a lot. What happens to the wetland because I know it’s going to be more, we’re doing some mitigation of wetlands. Taking out some wetland and then we’re mitigating some of the wetland. In terms of any clean-up and I don’t know, I wasn’t actually in the wetland so I don’t know but it sure seemed like along the shoreline of it, you know, can you speak to that at all? …of it and what would we do if anything. Saam: Yeah, during construction we have inspection. If we, the same thing happened in the first phase. There was a lot of trash. It was used by some as a dumping area. Appliances, that sort of thing. We’ll expect that to be cleaned up and taken away and we’ll make sure it happens through inspection. So basically the finish product will be cleaned up. That’s our intent. Keefe: And is that for the entire wetland or is that just kind of along the shoreline or how does that work? Saam: Well I guess whatever we can see we’ll make them do, if that’s what you’re getting at. Keefe: You know just curious to know. Saam: …if we can see trash related, we’ll make sure that gets cleaned up prior to full acceptance. Keefe: Yeah, okay good. And then let me see. I’m just going to, let me re-visit the high water. I mean this, when I was reading through this I thought, okay you’re going to put in a culvert, 42 inch culvert. There’s potential that the water could back up stream from maybe even like Virginia. I’m not sure if that’s true or not but potentially back up there. You’re going to add a lot of homes, some potential hard space that you’re going to have runoff coming from the north down into this wetland. You may not have anywhere else to go. You’re comfortable that the 945, which is the 100 year high water? Dean Carlson: 942. Keefe: 942? Saam: Yeah, it’s more around 943. Keefe: Okay, so with the addition of putting in the, both putting in the culvert. Putting in these additional homes with the additional runoff that may be created that would go into that wetland, the alterations of the wetland as we’re proposing, that pond on that north side or that wetland on the north side, it will have the capacity... 5 Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 Saam: Yes, definitely. Yep. Keefe: Okay. Saam: I mean from the development area, most of that water will be treated and stored in the pond and released at a slower rate than what the water under the existing condition goes into the wetland at, if you follow me. They have to meet that existing rate. Typically they hold it back even more. Plus with the filling of the wetland, they’re mitigating so they’re creating additional wetland. Basically additional storage area. Keefe: There’s like 2,000 square feet or something, right. Saam: Yeah, I’m not sure of the exact square footage but basically more than what was filled, so with those two items and the over sizing of the culvert, again our SWMP plan which basically modeled the whole city for a 100 year storm, said the minimum pipe size there required would be a 36 inch. They’re proposing 42 inch which is a little more conservative. It gives us additional capacity. That sort of thing so water won’t be backed up so I think with all of that, all of those items, we’re not going to have a problem. Keefe: Okay. Yeah I guess, my concern is, I don’t know exactly what happened on the south side as to why the water is where it is. I just would not like us to go forward and have the same situation on this side. That we’re well planned for that. Saam: We don’t want to either. Most of the problems we encountered in the first phase of this development was more related to construction procedures. At least in my opinion, versus like pipe sizing and that sort of thing. And we’ve tried to address that with a number of conditions here. The ones Bob gave you tonight so, we’re going to be watching this one closed based on the mistakes that happened in the first one so. Keefe: Yeah, okay. That’s it. Sacchet: Okay, I’ve got a few questions also. Little more about trees. So you feel you’ve pretty exhaustively looked at that with changing some house styles we couldn’t save any of the significant trees because I find it very disappointing. There’s really basically no tree saving except at the very edges. Generous: We ran, had Matt run the numbers. Saam: And we sat down with Jill, the City Forester. Sacchet: And I agree that the place that you showed you there is no significant trees in there, I mean. Saam: That was her thoughts exactly so. Sacchet: Okay. 6 Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 Saam: And she shared your disappointment too so yeah, we have looked at it. Sacchet: Okay. Little more about trees. In the conditions, condition number 42. Actually lists trees pretty specifically for lot, however by my math it adds up to 156 when in the condition number 41 we say they’re asking for 193 trees so how much, how does that get reconciled? Generous: Well we have some will go with the end of the. Sacchet: Some are not in lots basically. Generous: Right. Sacchet: So that’s not. Generous: They may be in the outlots too. Sacchet: Okay, so that’s understood. And then another tree thing, condition 46 talks about one tree that’s being saved on Lot, which is really the only tree in the whole development that’s getting saved per se. On Lot 6, Block 2. That’s that tree next to the street. Generous: Yes. Sacchet: Is that, okay. The grading plan shows another couple of trees circled as if they would be saved but they’re outside of the grading limits, like on the western edge. Generous: It’d be Outlot B I think it is. Sacchet: I hope they’re going to save more than just those out there. Yeah, I find it very disappointing that one tree is being saved and that one is questionable, not that we have to have a condition in it. Then the wetland. Yeah, we talk about proposed wetland grading can be avoided in Lots 10 through 12, Block 2. How much grading is actually in the wetland? With the proposal that’s in front of us. Generous: If you can zoom in, it’s this little corner. Sacchet: Can you slide it a little more Bob please. There, okay. Generous: So it’s this area right in here. They can just pull that contour over. Sacchet: Okay. That’s it? Generous: That was it. Sacchet: Oh boy. 7 Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 Generous: That’s all that they intruded into it. Sacchet: Okay, well that’s trivial. That’s easy to fix. Lot 7, Block 1. I’m still struggling with that. It seems kind of sandwiched in there to put it mildly. We put in, there’s a condition that there must be 20 feet between the building pad and the retaining wall. Is there currently that much? Saam: No, it’s slightly under that. It’s in the 15ish area. Sacchet: Well 5 feet is not insignificant in this type of squeeze. Saam: No, we think it can be done. It may require a taller retaining wall though to do that. Sacchet: Okay. Yeah, because that’s an area where we’re wiping out the whole buffer tree cover there in order to squeeze in that retaining wall, right? One more specific thing. We had a couple questions about Cartway Lane and I’m still not clear. Is Cartway Lane going to, what is Cartway Lane now? When it goes away, when there’s another access from the north side, from nd 62 or what it is, is that going to connect to this, whatever this road is called, the cul-de-sac? Or is there not going to be connection anymore? I don’t think we clarified if there’s going to be a connection or not. Do we know? Saam: Yeah, in the. Yeah again hard to see on this plan. What we’ve envisioned right here, it says possible future right-of-way. I’m on the site and utility plan. So what we’re envisioning is a street connection. It doesn’t have to be exactly right here. Sacchet: Okay, so it would connect to the road. Saam: …somewhere in there lots could come off each side. It would come up and eventually tie into. Sacchet: So there will be a connection in other words? Saam: Yes. Yes. Sacchet: The answer is yes. Okay. Generous: And then they vacate the Cartway right-of-way that exists. And those will become rear yards. Sacchet: Excellent. Clear answer. I like clear answers, thank you. That’s all the questions I have. Keefe: Is there a tie in directly to the regional trail off of this phase or is it off, just off the other one? Generous: Not off of this phase, no. 8 Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 Keefe: Okay. So residents in order to get to the Hennepin County Regional Trail would, I don’t know what it’s called. It’s the main trail which goes sort of northeast to southwest, yeah. They would go through the development to the other stub in or… Generous: Well there’s two ways. They could walk up Cartway and then get on it from the north, or they can go to the south and come in it through Hidden Creek, there’s a trail connection and a sidewalk system that connects into that. Keefe: And that was, the sidewalk will tie into. Generous: Yeah, the sidewalks all tie together. It’s up that little cul-de-sac just to the west of Pipewood Lane. Keefe: Okay, thank you. Sacchet: Is that all the questions? Alright, with that I’d like to invite the applicant to come forward. If you want to add anything to what we’re looking at here, and maybe we’ll have some questions as well for you. It’s your turn. Do you want to state your name for the record and you can pull the microphone your way so we can hear you better. Dean Carlson: Good evening. My name’s Dean Carlson with D&G of Chanhassen. I wasn’t able to be here in November. I missed all the fun of that first meeting, but I think everybody handled it as gracefully as possible with some of the original issues we were dealing with. Planning and ourselves felt that we had put together a pretty comprehensive package at that time and as with any first presentation you run into a few items. For addressing just some quick topics from the conversations that you’ve had this evening, and I’ll go back to one that just is fresh in mind. The Lot 7, Block 1. Setback in the back. We’ve designed all the pad sites on the property at a 60 foot depth. The predominant home depth, and even with a triple car garage is around 40 feet. We would assume a buyer and/or the builder for this particular site will you know weigh the location on the limits of the site, so currently on the current design, if you look at your P-1 layout, it would show you that on Lot 7 we reduced it from 60 to 50 depth. And we’re pretty sure our engineering is on the 20 foot setback from the rear and it should actually give that lot about a 30 foot rear yard space. Sacchet: So you reduced the pad a little bit to balance it as well. Dean Carlson: Based on the design we showed a 50 foot reduction down to 50 feet on that site because of it’s, pinning it down into that property line. But I will point out too, on that lot in particular and 6 and 5 where some of the trees will be cleared to the lot line, the rear lot line, we’re not going into the tree line that is part of the railway bike trail. There is still a substantial contingency of trees in that corridor that run along the old railway bed which will still keep that property buffered from the trail and I think give it a nice seclusion. There’s a lot of pines that run through there that we didn’t do a calc on but there are a lot of trees in that area. The other thing in the staff recommendations with regards to the comments on trees. In our November proposal we had less salvage of trees on the site based on our canopy coverage and calculations 9 Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 but in the revision from 23 lots to 21 we created basically, by eliminating one lot in Block 1, the outlot B which is the majority of the forestation in that section. That’s where a majority of the trees are so we do not have any recommendation a zero salvage of trees. We’ve got a substantial amount of trees being saved in Outlot B, the back of Lot 8, Block 1 and the attempt to salvage with proper grading in Lot 1, Block 2. So to say that we have a zero tree salvage in our plan is incorrect I think if you look at. Sacchet: Yeah, I should have said except on the periphery. Dean Carlson: Well I think the Planning Commission statements actually infer it’s a zero and it’s actually not so that maybe was misleading. So just a correction there. I think that covers 7. It’s my understanding that the connection to Cartway is in fact for emergency vehicles only. I’m not sure what the planning department and finish design plans will entail but I’m assuming we’ll just continue the gravel type environment that’s somewhat ridged to eliminate just immediate runoff or run through to the cul-de-sac. Hopefully we’ll probably have to put some signs up there that just say emergency vehicles only to eliminate residents from trying to do short cuts through that location. And I think a break away fence would be disappointing to plug into the equation. I’m not sure in the recommendations and the tree canopy of course after this evening with an approval we can sit down with Jill St. Clair and try to attest to our numbers but I mean the original canopy coverage was estimated based on aerial photography. We’ve done a tree count to attempt to identify the highest, best growth of trees to salvage those and we think that the Outlot B and potentially the salvage of those trees in the back of Lot 1 and 2 in Block 2 addresses at least some of the trees that are of a quality type that really warrant being attentive to. Did we not salvage a tree between, I don’t know if we could… Sacchet: There’s some behind 3 also. Dean Carlson: I don’t see it in here so maybe it’s. It is in there? So is that between 6 and 7? Perry Ryan: On the grading plan. Dean Carlson: Yeah, that’s the one tree that has a condition actually. On Block 2 right? Generous; Yes. Dean Carlson: We’re hoping to position that in an offset front yard location so that we can keep it intact. Sacchet: Yeah, that was the one tree I was referring to. The one tree that is within the development. So we speak the same language. Dean Carlson: Well within the developed lots, yes. The outlots still would give us additional coverage. I would raise one question for the Planning Commission and the City this evening with regards to a condition that was talked about and that’s under utilities. Some time ago, and I’m not sure when, I have not researched the history of this site back to the dates of this assessment of utilities went into place but on the McPherson property there is an existing 10 Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 $25,477 utility assessment that is being recommended for payment at final plat. I’m not sure really what that came from. Most of the people in this room weren’t in city hall at the time it was issued. To me it seems like an unwarranted expense given the extent of what we’re doing. If there is an old sewer main or an old water pipe in this location it was never utilized over the last 20 plus years that it might have been in existence. It would be under sized and really not useful to the existing subdivision. The only connection charge that I think we’re having a waiver of in lieu of a $25,000 payment is the connection at that location at Cartway then to the watermain that comes from Hidden Creek Meadows. I think that’s right. Not Hidden Creek Meadows but. Generous; Hidden Creek Estates. Dean Carlson: Meadow Court. So I would like to have at least the option to look at that potentially as a waived item in the future if we can. I mean I’m not sure what it’s for. I don’t know if anybody in the room is aware of what it’s for. It seems to have been put in place when Cartway Lane was just made into a gravel road extension. Sacchet: Are you talking about the thing in condition 26? Dean Carlson: No, if you go back to page 9 under utilities. Keefe: I think it’s the same thing. Saam: Same thing, yeah. Sacchet: Oh, same amount yeah. Dean Carlson: In this parcel the $25,000, I mean that parcel that that assessment is against has about I think 5 lots total being created out of it’s reed development. The hook-up charges would be still being charged. They’re recommending for still charging for hook-up charges to the water and sewer mains which occurs each time a house is built on one of those new lots. But I guess I’m looking for relief of an old assessment that seems unwarranted at this stage. Sacchet: Do we know, is it an old assessment? Saam: Yeah, yeah. It’s an, I believe it’s an old utility assessment for the sewer that serves the whole area. It’s basically an area charge because there’s a lift station right there which serves the, so we typically when these areas or parcels are platted then, that have existing assessments, we want them paid in full at time of final plat. Now to what the developer said, if there are any lots or houses, buildings that are currently connected to sewer, then those, the hook-up charges, which you referred to that every new house pays, could be waived for the same amount of houses that are currently on the site. For example, if there’s 5 lots or 5 homes say that are hooked up to sewer, then he could get a credit for say his first 5 lots in this property. They wouldn’t have to pay a hook-up charge. Sacchet: Is that the type of thing you’re asking for? 11 Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 Dean Carlson: Well I mean to my knowledge the 4 parcels that we’re acquiring to make this development possible, none of the 4 existing structures are connected to any sewer utilities of any sort so, and to my knowledge there’s no line or watermain coming from the end of the existing Cartway Lane to even the house that’s part of this primary parcel that the assessment’s against which is, I’m sorry I don’t have the address. But it is the Cartway Lane address. 6501 I think is the house number. Sacchet: Yeah, we normally don’t go to the nitty gritty of these charges because they’re usually pretty standard so it’s probably something that. Saam: Yeah, we can review it before this goes to council. I’ll get in contact with the developer but I believe the large, the $25,000 number is for an area assessment. There’s a benefit for having sewer in your area that you can connect to. Whether you’re connected to it or not doesn’t matter. You still have that benefit. That’s what the 25 is for. In addition there’s hook-up charges if you are connected and that’s what I’m saying you get a credit for. But we can meet with them and discuss it before council. Sacchet: Okay, we heard you. Dean Carlson: Just wanted to touch on that topic. No other comments at this point unless you have any questions of me. Sacchet: Questions from the applicant. Kurt, you’re grabbing a mic. Papke: Yeah, on the city recommendation for 193 trees to be planted, do you have any issue with adhering to that recommendation? Dean Carlson: We have concerns on the basis of the original submission in November and between then and today we were, it was a request of the city to obtain a tree survey or a complete count. That our calc’s for the canopy coverage could still be utilized and we just have not since received the recommendations of the Planning Commission tonight been able to go back and re- do the calc. So we’re not necessarily in agreement with the new number but we would hope to meet with Jill St. Clair and reconfirm what that number should be. The over story trees is of question. If you read this it says 190 I think 3 trees now. But does that also include the trees being requested at the end of the new cul-de-sac at Pipewood Lane and Cartway? Or not include those or are those in addition to the 193. Papke: Do we know? Generous: Yes. It would, any tree you provide on site would go towards meeting the total, even those buffer trees at the end of the street. Condition 41 says we want to work with you and confirm these numbers. 12 Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 Dean Carlson: Yes, and we’re in agreement there. The only other question would be on the over story trees and if those were also in that count, and we assume that that would be the case. It’s just finding what that real number should be at the end of the day. Larson: I just have a brief question regarding the species or the type of trees that…there was no specification at the top of page 4… Is there going to be a variety of I mean hardwoods or pine or? Dean Carlson: We haven’t compiled that list. Of course we would look to the City Forester before we go to final plat and planning to make sure that we’re creating a replacement schedule that is acceptable to the city. It’s what’s there is a mix. There are some beautiful trees on the property which we’re trying to address but a lot of this location also is very old growth trees. The assessment was done in the middle of winter and having been on the property during the summer months I know that there’s a lot of dead fall that hasn’t been taken into account. We just calculated what was standing. Larson: Sort of weedy type trees and scrubby trees and stuff in old farmland type? Dean Carlson: It’s very old farmland. A lot of boxelders and the example that was proposed on re-changing the grades behind the walkout proposed lots in Block 2, the Forester went out and identified that that section of potential salvage was in fact a lot of the scrubby stuff that really is tired and basically half dead anyway. So I think when we’re done with the tree canopy replacement calcs that we will have reforested you know a very nice new subdivision for 21 residents. Larson: Alright, that’s all I have. Sacchet: Thanks. Jerry, any questions? Dan? Keefe: I just want to place a similar question of you that I placed on Matt. Are you comfortable that you know with the placement of the culvert and with the runoff that’s going to be coming into the development from the hardscape that you’ll be putting in place, and you know the creation of the new wetland and the movement of the wetland that the placement of these homes will be unaffected by the height of the water in that area. Dean Carlson: Well first let me ask, I’m not sure if my documentation of my summary of this concerns was forwarded to you members. It’s a letter, kind of an essay of the history of that site that addresses, yes it was attached to your packages. If I start from the top to the bottom, and I don’t claim to be an engineer. Perry’s my guy. We have city engineers, Matt and his supervisors to look at this. You also have the city outsourcing wetland estimates for water from SHW I think or I’m not sure who the city’s engineering consultant is but that’s been also looked at. They gave us calculations for the flow under 7. But if you look at the 948 being this massive threshold that we would have to meet in order to flood these homes, the 100 year water mark for Minnewashta is 944, which is shown on the example. That would mean Minnewashta would have to be a massive lake to be at 948 feet, a 4 feet higher elevation. Minnewashta Parkway would be overrun with water and impassible in my estimation based on that elevation. What is 13 Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 in existence today sets the stage for a 943.5 in the southerly wetlands and a 942 in the south for the high water marks at 110 year flood event. So I think we’ve met those criteria as best we can. God forbid we all run into a massive 100 year flood event sometime after this is developed, but I think we’ve taken those estimates into account. The 42 inch culvert at the recommendation of the engineer, who was a participant also, my engineer, Perry Ryan, in the Hidden Creek Estates development. The placement of both culverts and the up sizing in the original development of Hidden Creek Estates to Hidden Creek Meadows, went from 36 inches which was recommended to a 42 inch. We put it at the same elevation from this subdivision and location as it is in Hidden Creek. And the change in grade is obviously minimal. From one site to the next. It’s a very slow flow through to Lake Virginia, so equally I’m concerned but I think the engineers have addressed it as best that it can be. So I feel confident in the experts. If that’s a response. Keefe: That is. That’s all I have. Sacchet: Well you heard a little bit some of my concerns and you addressed them to some extent. My main concern is the amount of grading and that really there’s, and I want to thank you for having made the tree survey right away. That helps a lot. In looking at the tree survey, I mean there are some significant trees sprinkled around, more in the central part of this property and a little bit on the western side. And I was hoping that it would be possible to save a couple more except just those on the very periphery. You feel you’ve exhausted all possibilities because I mean it’s in your interest in the end too. I mean people like having trees and yes you plan on planting a lot but they’ll be little trees. At least for a while. Dean Carlson: And I would agree. I’d love to save them all if I could, but I mean with the requirements for pad site creation, with the 60 foot design pad width, depth, the reality of a 60 foot road right-of-way. If we could minimize that to 50 feet we might be able to save a few more trees but I don’t think that will happen. So given the extensive amount of work that it takes to put this new road in, I don’t think that there’s a way that we can focus on trees centrally located through the subdivision in order to facilitate putting in the right-of-way and getting the right widths to allow for emergency vehicles and everything else. And believe me, I’ve walked the site. I know there’s a lot of beautiful trees yet on it that aren’t dead fall, as we’ve talked about earlier. Sacchet: Right. You have to distinguish between them. Dean Carlson: Yeah. But I think we’ve attempted, as best we can to salvage everything that’s salvageable. Sacchet: And then my other concern was the Lot 7 in Block 2. Block 1. So same thing. You, I would think you’ve probably tried all kinds of alternatives trying to. Dean Carlson: Well, if you can recall, if you were here in November the original site plan there had 10 lots. By reducing it to 9 on Block 1 we, you know reconfigured the lots to create Outlot B to expand that tree preservation. Sacchet: Right, the main difference is that Outlot B got created, right? 14 Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 Dean Carlson: Yes. Outlot B being created, but also you know to not allow 8 to be some monster parcel, the bubble cul-de-sac made sense. Made sense to the planning and so that’s the way we stuck with our design since November until today. So 7 being a little shallow, I understand your concern but at the same time I don’t think we’re eliminating any trees in that location. Sacchet: Yeah, and as you pointed out you have a nice buffer beyond you. Dean Carlson: Well beyond it, yes. The railway authority has set aside, I’m not sure the distance from our back lines to the center of the park, or the trail, but I know there’s still probably I would assume a 30 foot. Perry, what is our right-of-way setback? I think it’s 50 feet actually. So there should be a strip of trees remaining in that corridor of 30 to 50 feet. Behind these lots along Block 1. All to the north up against the trail. Sacchet: Closer to 30 feet in looking at it. I would like to invite the residents, if you have something to add beyond what was mentioned last time and what’s new in front of us here, if you want to comment, this is your opportunity to do so. If anybody wants to speak up, please come forward. Seeing yes, I see somebody standing up. Please state your name and address for the record. Janet Paulsen: My name is Janet Paulsen and I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. I have a main question about this cul-de-sac. Sacchet: The easterly cul-de-sac. Janet Paulsen: Yes. According to my reading of the code, this creates double frontage lots here which according to Chapter 18 isn’t allowed by code. And so it would require a very strict variance. It’s one thing to have a development have a double frontage lot within it and the person who’s buying the lot knows what they’re getting into but for someone who’s already been living on a single frontage lot and suddenly be faced with a double frontage lot, this is hardly fair. Not what I want our code to ignore. So that’s my main point. Thanks. Sacchet: Thanks Janet. I like that point because I’m in the same boat with my own lot right now but that’s a different story. Actually I’m going to be triple fronted. Okay. Is that something staff can address? I mean are we, I mean this cul-de-sac does touch the other property line so is this. Generous: We could pull it away. The alternative was to run the road through there. I don’t think they’d be pleased with having a corner lot there. Yeah, we can shift it so that they’re technically not touching. We can revise that so that the right-of-way meets at the right-of-way. Sacchet: So basically, you’re saying that one alternative is to actually pull it through there. I don’t know whether that’s realistic. I mean it would basically touch the corner of the house there to the north, wouldn’t it? 15 Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 Generous: And that house is built on next to the right-of-way. McDonald: Yeah, currently isn’t there already a double frontage there? The house at 3828. Dean Carlson: Touches Cartway Lane. McDonald: Right. There’s already a double frontage there, and there is a right-of-way supposedly that was put in at one time and I agree with you, you can’t put a street in there. Because at that point the distance between the houses, that’s unacceptable. But I think all this was in the plans. It’s nothing different than what’s currently there. Am I wrong on this? Generous: Except for we’re creating a bigger bubble in that back yard, and yes we could pull the right-of-way to the west slightly so that the property lines sides up. If that is a design issue that we want to resolve. Sacchet: So are you saying we’re not really creating a new double frontage. It already was double frontage. Generous: Well it’s already, we’re creating a bulb behind that one lot. It’s already a corner lot. We’re connecting the right-of-way basically that’s there. But instead of. Sacchet: So technically we’d say, based on the planning in place, this was actually a corner lot and it’s kind of being shifted more into a double frontage type of situation through this. Generous: Well it has a little bit of frontage on that corner. Sacchet: Right. Dean Carlson: There’s also an existing structure there that I mean we abandoned going through between those residents and doing a bubble cul-de-sac to eliminate a lot of. Sacchet: Do you want to come up to the microphone? Dean Carlson: When we, my name’s Dean again. When we originally designed or expected to design this plan, the Pipewood Lane would come through to Meadow Court and be a direct access/exit to Church and to Highway 7. At staff’s recommendation we terminated that expectation of the original city planner in lieu of the positioning of these existing structures on an old right-of-way that was only 50 feet. We’re touching here the back of one lot that, I don’t know what our distance there is. Maybe 6 feet but I’m not sure what the legal right-of-way would have to be to even put a driveway would I’m sure exceed that so I’m not so sure we’re creating a double frontage that gives legal access for another driveway. Plus the grade change here just for purposes of calculation. The cul-de-sac that we’re building is almost 15 feet below Meadow Court, so the reality of someone reversing the layout from that lot instead of from Meadow Court to our new cul-de-sac would mean demo’ing a lot and building it into an uphill environment. 16 Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 McDonald: At that point it’s not going to work because of the elevation. The garage up on the court above is, as you say, it’s about 15 feet above the back yard. Dean Carlson: Yeah, it’s between 10 and 15 feet to the next cul-de-sac elevation. Cartway Lane was in existence long before I came tonight and I think we’ve eliminated any concerns and hap hazards for the neighbors, the residents of Meadow Court and I’m not sure Bob, if you feel we need to pull it off 6 inches, we can always do that but it seems that a double frontage here, in my opinion, doesn’t exist because what’s the driveway width requirements just to put a driveway for access to a street? Generous: Well minimum’s 10 feet. Dean Carlson: But don’t you have to have so many feet of frontage on that right-of-way in order to create a street or an access? Generous: Not as long as it touches but they already have a driveway. They would need a variance for a second driveway. Sacchet: So it wouldn’t be straight forward definitely. And I guess you could also argue that, having asked, being asked by staff to make a cul-de-sac you’re actually have to use more space to make a cul-de-sac in terms of grading. Dean Carlson: It does create a larger radius and moving it at this point would create a lot of changes in our calculations at this end of the street. Sacchet: Yeah, I mean we’re just exploring and doing justice to the comments we’re getting. We’re not asking you to change this. Keefe: Can I just ask a question in regards to the cul-de-sac? If we’re going to have access up the road going north, and I’m sorry it’s Cartway or Cathcart, whatever that north/south one is, what is the sort of functionality of that cul-de-sac? Is that there for emergency reasons or because I’m thinking if somebody’s actually going to drive up there to turn around and they see this road there, are they just going to continue up that road? Generous: That road would look like someone’s driveway. It’s not… Keefe: Okay. Are we going to have any signage? Saam: Yeah, I agree with the earlier comments. We can sign that. Emergency vehicles only, yeah. McDonald: Okay, I have a question about that because you’ve got residents living on that road. You’re going to have car traffic on there that is not emergency vehicle. You’re going to create a situation that becomes confusing as to who needs to get on there or not because I’d suggest do not put the sign up. If the whole point is that that’s going to go away and then become a trail, 17 Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 leave it the way it is because it’s not much of a road right now. It looks as though it’s somebody’s driveway. Saam: Yeah, those are good points and something we’ll have to look at. I know currently the residents they access, the only way they can to the north so I guess with this potentially yeah, they may want to come from the south, I don’t know but it’s a good point that we’ll have to look into. Keefe: And the question is why cul-de-sac versus just making it a road? Saam: Turn around. We require a turn around. Sacchet: At this point you need a turn around. McDonald: For the plows? Saam: Exactly. Dean Carlson: Cartway Lane too is not, as spoken earlier, is not being maintained by the city because of it’s width. It’s a 30 foot gravel, almost a private street, which would bring back another topic for me is to, if it isn’t maintained by the city and it isn’t a public right-of-way, how that $25,000 assessment would still be applicable but I just thought I’d touch on that. Sacchet: We’ll leave that one alone for now. Dean Carlson: Was that good? Sacchet: That was good. Dean Carlson: Anyway, have we addressed the frontage? Double frontage. Sacchet: Yes. Yes, thank you for your comment. Anybody else want to make a comment at this point? Please state your name and address for the record. Lisa Jewison: I’m Lisa Jewison and I live in the house that’s going to be bound by the two cul- de-sacs so we’ve heard of these concerns before that we’re not happy with that layout. I guess the question that I have, if we don’t pull the cul-de-sac further west, and there’s going to be trees around this cul-de-sac, where are the trees going to be planted? Sacchet: That’s a good question. I wondered about that too. Can you address that? In the right- of-way. Generous: In the boulevard. They’d have to go in the boulevard… Sacchet: In the boulevard. In the right-of-way. I mean the cul-de-sac doesn’t come to the property line. It’s the right-of-way that comes to the property, so how much space is between? 18 Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 Lisa Jewison: Because it doesn’t really look like there’s, it doesn’t look like there’s trees necessarily planted within that boulevard anywhere else in that property so I guess I’m a little confused about that. Sacchet: Do you have a picture? Dean Carlson: This graphic might be able to be zoomed in on. Right here if you see in a color format there is quite a green space that would be within that boulevard between the actual hard surface and the end of the lot line. Is that visible? Sacchet: Yeah. Do you want to zoom in a little more Nann please. Lisa Jewison: So it would be right in this… Sacchet: Yeah, in that little strip. Lisa Jewison: Alright. And the plan is to plant 9 trees in that little area? Is that, plus 3 ornamental. 9 evergreens and 3 ornamental right inbetween here and here? Generous: Well along that edge, yes. We would work out the exact location in the field when they get to that stage. Lisa Jewison: Okay. Then the other question I have is, supposedly there’s a right-of-way that goes into the flat lot from there so where do the trees fall in relation to where the driveway’s going to be built along with the small little area here for about 12 trees to be planted. I’m confused by that. Because it looks like… Sacchet: Do we actually have plantings along the flag lot driveway? Do we get involved with that? Generous: You can if you want to add a condition. Sacchet: At this point we don’t have something but we could add something. Generous: We could add something if that was something that you wanted to approve the variance for the flag. It’s a reasonable condition. I know for Hidden Creek we did on the private street that served two lots, we provided landscaping between the paved surface and the edge of the property. Remember this is only a driveway for a single home so it’s a minimum 10 feet and a maximum, what is it? 30 feet wide but it has to maintain some setbacks from the side so there is area to do it. Sacchet: So there is room to plant and we could potentially ask for it as part of the flag lot variance. Generous: Right. 19 Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 Sacchet: Okay. That’s a good answer. Lisa Jewison: And then I guess the last point is on the gravel road here. Sacchet: Cartway. Lisa Jewison: Yeah, Cartway. That is not going to be looked as a driveway to somebody’s home. I mean it’s a through street. You can see straight down that street. You can see it connects to the park and people are going to be using that so if there’s any opening there, you know you talked about the break away gate and how you didn’t want to go that route, but people will be using it to get to the north side. We see a lot of shortcuts going through our residential streets already so I just wanted to make that point. Sacchet: Okay. Question of staff. I mean it could be signed not through or not a through way or what are our options? Saam: It’s going to be tough with the local traffic there, which Commissioner McDonald brought up. We’ll have to think about that one. Sacchet: Okay, so something to work with staff basically. Saam: Yeah. Larson: I mean could they come up with some sort of a break away post or something that just discourages people that like if they were walking or something, they could cut through there. I mean do you have a problem with pedestrian type traffic or it’s more the cars? Lisa Jewison: No, more the cars yeah. Sacchet: We have a family gathering. Did you want to add something too? Jeff Jewison: Yeah, I just wanted to add my two cents on the one point. I’m glad Mrs. Paulson brought that up because I brought it up a number of times and it didn’t seem to go anywhere so I thought maybe I was wrong but yeah, with the cul-de-sac being on, or our property then being on two cul-de-sacs, it just kind of you end up with two front yards. Just kind of seemed weird. You lose that privacy or the feel of a back yard. Larson: How long have you been there? Jeff Jewison: Just about 2 years. Lisa Jewison: Yeah, not even. Jeff Jewison: Not even. Year and a half. 20 Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 Lisa Jewison: Little bit over a year. We moved in November, 2003. Jeff Jewison: Yeah, we were told that that land back there could not get developed ever. We were obviously lied to but. Larson: You might want to talk to that person. Jeff Jewison: Yeah I know but yeah, it’s my only two cents. But we would rather, obviously have that than the road connecting the two cul-de-sacs but if that cul-de-sac can get moved back or obviously anything would be better than having two front yards. Sacchet: Thank you. Lisa Jewison: Thank you. Sacchet: Question. I mean is it possible to pull that cul-de-sac back a little bit? I mean be a relatively small tweak or would that be a big deal? Saam: It could be done. We’d have to look at the issues. Sacchet: I mean we’re not talking about. Saam: You have the existing right-of-way there so, and to keep the uniform radius we’ll have to look. Sacchet: And it could be pulled back and still give adequate connection to the flag lot on Cartway? Saam: Yeah. Sacchet: That seems to be possible. You want to add something to this? Go ahead. Dean Carlson: I appreciate the couple’s concerns. Mrs. Jewison, I’m sorry? If we looked at the tree canopy coverage. I’m not sure which one that is. I would focus again up in this corner where the existing cul-de-sac is being proposed. Where the new cul-de-sac is being proposed. I mean the alternative here is, again reminding everyone present that the city’s design was for this road to connect to Meadow Court. And staff and myself and Perry of Ryan Engineering looked at this quite extensively. We’re dealing with a 50 foot right-of-way which will now be abandoned to the benefit of both property owners that are affected. We’re not proposing going through to Meadow Court which would be the ultimate alternative for the city. If you look at the tree coverage in this area, currently there are no trees in existence for several hundred feet and so I’m not in disagreement that when we get to replanting the 193 trees, or whatever the count is, that we consider reforesting this portion of the site with some of that tree count. I’d hate to be held to a higher standard where we’re increasing that to create a buffer that doesn’t currently exist or to replace something that doesn’t exist. 21 Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 Sacchet: Well yeah we could argue that right now it’s not a street so you’re not buffering because you see… Dean Carlson: Well there is a street here currently. Don’t forget the Cartway Lane does come through it, only it does service the one property, which has had minimal use for many years with it’s existing owners and residents. Sacchet: Okay, I see your point. Dean Carlson: The artery has always been in place. What we’re doing is redirecting traffic. We’re creating a dead end rather than a through street that is part of the original city’s plan. Sacchet: And you are adding significant buffer plantings, I hear you. Dean Carlson: And our grade elevation is well below the elevation of street at Meadow Court so headlights and things hitting that cul-de-sac for 2 or 3 residents that are at the end should be minimized just based on the elevation. It’s not that we’re at the same plane or where those will be coming in to windows and that kind of environment. Sacchet: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else want to address this from the resident side? nd Dale Keehl: My name is Dale Keehl. I live at 3841 West 62 Street which is right up here on the corner of Cartway and 62nd. And I guess my concern is traffic again. That people will try and use it but if this is going to be used for emergency, the city doesn’t maintain it or plow it and this last lot here, the driveway is about here so there’s going to be 60-70 feet that won’t be plowed. So if we have a lot of snow, how is an emergency vehicle going to get to that cul-de-sac if it isn’t plowed? Right now we have people that live on there that plow it, but like I say, it’s the city sewer runs under the street but they don’t maintain it and it’s, I don’t know what the width it’s supposed to be but it’s, two cars can’t meet on it. Sacchet: So are you suggesting it’d be better if the city would maintain? Dale Keehl: Well I’m just saying if they’re going to want it for emergency use, it’s going to have to be so a truck can, a fire truck can get through it. Or a police or an ambulance. Sacchet: It’s hard enough to drive with a small car when I tried it. Dale Keehl: So they’re going to have to connect somehow so they can get through there. And if it’s connected for an emergency vehicle to get through, people are going to use it to go out that north end because that, to get onto Highway 7 sometimes is ridiculous and if you were going to go towards Yellowstone Trail or to the elementary school or whatever, they’re going to use that road because it’s easier than going out on Highway 7. So that’s my main concern is I have 3 families that live, that pass by my house and now there’s going to be a lot more traffic. Plus the people come down to use the park. They come down that road and park on the grass. They don’t park up in the parking lot when they’re going to use the tennis courts and stuff but, or the basketball courts and that. They always park along the street on the grass, which it’s park land I 22 Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 guess. Nothing we can say but our road already gets used for that. So it’s just a concern that there is going to be more usage on that road, whether you think so or not. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. You want to address that please? Dean Carlson: I guess I would go back to, it would appear that all the neighbors in the area would agree that Cartway Lane has been the abandoned street in this part of Chanhassen. Part of nd that is maybe that from 62 Street I believe the city transitions to another city, so it is a dead end street that is in Chanhassen but isn’t serviced by streets in Chanhassen, am I correct? Dale Keehl: Right. nd Dean Carlson: The 62 line Chanhassen or is that Victoria? nd Dale Keehl: 62 is Hennepin County’s road. Keefe: Shorewood. Dean Carlson: It’s the transition between two cities. I guess in just a brief conversation and maybe the simplest thing to do here is to create a termination. I think most people generally who drive on asphalt streets wouldn’t bypass emergency vehicle signs posted at either side of this bridge type gravel event that would take you from the cul-de-sac to Cartway Lane but if need be we could design two 6 by 6 posts with a break away plastic chain. Creates a buffer on something that the city then would have to maintain but it was also pointed out to me very recently, the fire department that would service this location is just on the south side of 7 and the corner of Minnewashta Parkway and when an emergency vehicle goes into Highway 7 they have the right- of-way and they will probably take the asphalt road in if there were a fire in this subdivision, so they’re going to take a left on 7 and enter on Pipewood Lane off of 7 logically. The only time this might be used is if an emergency vehicle, ambulance or other you know got lost. Realized that there was a point of access maybe coming down Cartway Lane and feeling the need to get to Pipewood in the reverse fashion rather than as an exit. So it’s of interest. I think this is something that we can address with the Planning Commission after this evening and design something that is a, not maybe a break away gate that would be obstruction ominous kind of looking and not appealing. Sacchet: Something a little more. Dean Carlson: But something that’s going to keep a pedestrian vehicle from trying to migrate over that location. Okay? Sacchet: Okay. Thank you. Alright, anybody else want to address that before we move on? Seeing nobody I’ll bring it back to the commission. Discussion. Comments. Kurt, you want to start? Papke: You seem to be going left to right tonight so what the heck. 23 Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 Sacchet: Might as well keep that pattern here one more time. Papke: In general I’m very supportive of this. I think the developer has made a very good effort with the elimination of the 2 lots. The change in the drainage situation. The way the lots been laid out so I think this is a much improved plan. I’m very happy to see, when we saw this for the first time, this was just ripe with issues and I think we’ve addressed most the issues so. I’d be in support of this as long as we address some of the screening and, you know landscape screening on the east side. I’m good to go. Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Anything you want to add Debra? Larson: No. Basically it does look like this developer has really gone to a lot of trouble to make this very nice neighborhood. As far as the flood issues, I think those have been addressed to my satisfaction. You know as far as Cartway Road goes, the bit that I did read about I guess from your previous meeting, the minutes, the gentleman that owns the property adjacent to that, I think it’s over here. Sacchet: On the north, yeah. Larson: You know he’s willing to work with the city as well to try and work out whatever will be best for that road in the future so I guess, you know I think that I’m basically. Sacchet: You’re fine with it? Larson: Thank you. Been a long day. Sacchet: I know how that goes. Thanks Debra. Jerry. McDonald: Well I actually went out to the site on this one and I went from the east to the west, north to the south. I walked up and down the trail. Did go back on Cartway. Looked at that area back there. Went up on the circle above. You know did the look through all that. I’m in favor of the plan as is. A lot of what’s come up today about Cartway I would not want to see in there as a condition but I do think it needs to be addressed. The developer has expressed a willingness to address it with us but the thing is right now I’m afraid that we’re looking at too quick of a fix to a problem that may or may not be there and there may be a better solution that with time we can come up with. I also believe that in looking through all this, that’s not going to be a problem much longer. It is going to go away. The gentleman did bring up a good point about if that’s going to be an emergency egress, what about snow plows. Again that’s why I think it needs to be looked at separately. We’re not going to solve that today but I think the plan that’s in there is very good. And I did go back and look at Outlot B and I wasn’t here in November but I don’t see how you could have put a house back there because it looks like all the water funnels in that area back there and anybody that would have been living back there would have been very, very wet. Because I followed the creek all the way back through there and it was kind of wet this weekend so, that was a good solution to do what you ended up doing there. Other than that, the issues to the south I think some of that may lie with the state about the culvert under Highway 7. I’m not sure who’s responsible for that. If that were to get clogged up. It does become a dam 24 Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 and at that point you could probably reach the high water mark rather quickly. You wouldn’t need a 100 year flood so I’m not sure who’s responsible but that is a concern but I don’t think it’s the developer’s. And then looking at the rest of this, again the flow of the water through the development. The 42 inch culvert. I did look at that. You’ve got grates over it right now. That does seem to be adequate as far as letting water through there. The size of the culverts themselves were fairly large and you’ve got the metal grates to protect against debris coming in there. Unless trees start falling down, we start you know damming it up that way but I don’t think that’s going to happen. So the possibility of that becoming stuck I think isn’t going to happen. I’d like to see the same culvert as you put into the development. Same design and I think it will solve the problem. And with going with 42 inch, I believe you’re probably going to do that. Some of the other comments about the closeness to the road. I actually went out there and 3891, whatever that road is right there. That backs up right onto 7. So that the houses in the development to the east are a lot closer to 7 than the development here. I mean otherwise I think they put together a good plan that addressed all the issues from November and I would be in favor of it as is. That’s all I have. Sacchet: Thanks Jerry. Dan. Keefe: Brief comments. I’m in support of this plan. I would like to see the, I think the developer’s done a great job in working through the issues. I would have liked to see him or them work with the residents in regards to buffering and to make sure the buffering, particularly on that east side works out to their satisfaction. It seems like we’ve got some pretty good discussion going on here and I’d like to see that continued so that they get comfortable. And I’m nervous about the wetlands and all the changes which are going on there and the potential for you know it seems like you know we’re getting greater and greater swings in regards to the amount of water which affects areas and I’m concerned about that but I have to go with the professionals who really looked at this and the developer who’s also you know stated his case in regards to that. But overall I’m in support of this. Sacchet: Thanks Dan. I don’t have too much more to add…to my questions and concerns earlier. It’s a little bit bittersweet. I do want to thank you for having some certainly due diligence. We gave up 2 lots to accommodate our concerns that we mentioned in November when you were here. And at that time I went out there and looked at it and I have to agree that a lot of these trees are probably better taken out. And at the same time I do regret that it isn’t possible to save a few more and it looks like staff made an additional effort today to look at whether something could be changed with the type of houses, and it turned out that’s not the case which I find disappointing. But I would think that it would help to have like a planting schedule or a landscape plan before this goes to council, like we had the question that came up about what kind of species. I think Debra you asked about that. To have a little bit an idea where those goes also in the context of the buffering to the east side. The east neighbors. I really can feel the concern of those east neighbors being sort of sandwiched between two cul-de-sacs, which is far better though I would think than having the road go through and getting good accommodation with buffering I think will help the issue. I would suggest for us as a Planning Commission to put in a condition that the developer work with staff to add some additional buffering also along the driveway to the flag lots, since the flag lot is a concession that we’re making from the city side, so I think it’s balanced to ask for something extra in that context to help mitigate that 25 Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 aspect. It’s a bit of a give and take there. I think that’s not more than fair, which again will benefit the immediate neighbors there to the east. Which we want to do what we can to keep everybody happy obviously. And the same thing with Cartway Lane. I don’t see that we should be specific as you expressed Jerry, in terms of making of conditions. Basically ask that the applicant work with staff to further look at the situation with Cartway Lane in terms of the maintenance issue. In terms of the traffic concern that was mentioned by some of the residents there. And also in terms of the width. I mean I drove it in November and I mean it’s, you have bushes scratching your car even if it’s not a truck so it’s something that needs to be looked at. I mean that doesn’t quite add up right yet and it may not have to add up totally again because it’s a temporary solution so don’t think it’s something that we have to go too far with but it needs to be looked at a little bit further. So that’s my comments and I support it in that framework so I’d like to ask whether somebody wants to venture a motion here please. Papke: Mr. Chair, I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends preliminary plat approval for a subdivision with a variance for a flag lot, plans prepared by Ryan Engineering dated August 20, 2004, revised October 14, 2004, and January 14, 2005, subject to conditions 1 through 55 as amended by staff, with one change to condition number 48. I’d like condition number 48 changed, after the words Pipewood Lane, and along the east boundary of Lot 12, Block 2. And at the end of this condition I would like to add, along the cul-de-sac and along the east side of the flag lot maintaining planting density of the cul-de-sac along the east border. Sacchet: Excellent. Any second for this? Keefe: Second. Sacchet: Do we have any friendly amendments? So you covered the plantings. Do we say something that asks for a landscaping plan before this goes to council? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: Is that in there? Generous: Well not before council. It says before final plat approval. Keefe: That’s number 43. Sacchet: 43. A landscape plan. Generous: On page 15. Sacchet: Yeah, I guess that covers that concern. Do you want to say something about work with staff on Cartway Lane? Something to the effect, developer will work with staff to further establish the functionality of Cartway Lane. Is that acceptable? Papke: That’s pretty fuzzy. 26 Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 Sacchet: Well I’m not trying to be very specific on purpose here. Papke: Okay, to resolve access. Sacchet: Resolve access to Cartway Lane. Papke: Yeah. Yes, that’s acceptable. Sacchet: Issues in the context of access to Cartway Lane. Okay. Alright. That would take care of that one as far as I’m concerned. We have a motion, we have a second. Papke moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of preliminary platapproval for a subdivision with a variance for a flag lot, plans prepared by Ryan Engineering, dated August 20, 2004, revised October 14, 2004 and January 14, 2005, subject to the following conditions: 1.A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. 2.Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site. 3.Separate sewer and water services must be provided each lot. 4.Retaining walls more than four feet high must be designed by a registered structural engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction. 5.The sauna on Outlot B must be removed. 6.Outlots A and B shall be dedicated to the City. 7.No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. 8.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 the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. Temporary street signs shall be installed on each street intersection when construction of new roadways allows passage by vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4. 9.A 20-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. 10.Full park fees shall be collected at the rate in force at the time of final plat for 17 single- family residential lots. 27 Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 11.The grading on Lots 10-12, Block 2 shall be revised to avoid grading within the wetland. 12.The applicant shall create a five-year maintenance and monitoring plan for new wetland construction to ensure proposed wetland functions and values are obtained and non-native vegetation does not encroach into the mitigation area. The monitoring plan shall include the preparation of annual reports as required by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. 13.Wetland buffer widths of 16.5 feet to 20.0 feet shall be maintained around all wetlands on- site. All structures shall maintain a 40-foot setback from wetland buffer edge. Wetland buffers and wetland buffer setbacks shall be shown on the grading plan. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and signed 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 will pay the City $20 per sign. 14.The applicant shall develop detailed plans (including an erosion and sediment control plan) for the installation of the culvert at Pipewood Lane. A winter installation of this culvert is preferable. A professionally engineered temporary diversion of the stream through a stable channel during culvert installation is an acceptable alternative. 15.The applicant shall demonstrate that the installation of the 42” proposed culvert at Pipewood Lane will not cause water to back up through the existing 4’ by 6’ culvert under Highway 7 to the south side of Highway 7 in 10 and 100-year storms. 16.All structures shall maintain a minimum 50-foot setback from the ordinary high water level of the creek. 17.The applicant shall submit calculations to ensure that the pond is sufficient to provide water quality treatment to NURP standards for storm water from the development. 18.The proposed storm water pond shall be designed to accommodate storm water from the upstream areas of the MC-A2.6 subwatershed. 19.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 year-round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Time (maximum time an area can remain unvegetated Type of Slope when area is not actively being worked) Steeper than 3:1 7 Days 10:1 to 3:1 14 Days Flatter than 10:1 21 Days These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter 28 Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 system, storm sewer inlet temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 20.Daily scraping and sweeping of public streets shall be completed anytime construction site soil, mud, silt or rock is tracked or washed onto paved surfaces or streets that would allow tracked materials or residuals of that material to enter the storm water conveyance system. 21.At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording is $45,348. 22.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, United States Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval. 23.Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. 24.Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data with a drainage map will need to be submitted for staff review. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. The pond is required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. Drainage and utility easements will need to 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 utility easement width shall be 20 feet wide. 25.Type II silt fence must be used adjacent to all ponds and wetlands. In addition, an erosion control blanket is required for the steep slopes along the north property line of the site. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading would require an easement from the appropriate property owner. 26.The remaining utility assessment due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording is $25,477.05. In addition, the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for each of the new lots. The 2005 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,458 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,955 per unit for water. Each of these charges is based on the number of SAC units calculated by the Metropolitan Council. 27.Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the City’s latest editions of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, MNDOT, Department of Health, etc. 28.Show all of the existing and proposed easements on the plans. 29 Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 29.Show all of the existing utilities on the plans. 30.The proposed development is required to meet the existing storm water runoff rates for the 10- and 100-year, 24-hour storm events. 31.The walk-out elevation of the proposed homes must be a minimum of 3 feet higher than the adjacent pond or wetland high-water-level. 32.Show the proposed storm manhole rim and invert elevations on the utility plan. 33.Show all emergency overflow elevations on the grading plan. 34.The existing temporary pavement turnaround for Pipewood Lane just south of this site must be removed when Pipewood Lane is extended. Any disturbed area must be sodded and restored. 35.The retaining wall in the rearyard of Lot 7, Block 1 must be 20 feet off the back of the building pad. 36.Revise the rearyard grading of Lot 9, Block 1 to prevent trapping water behind the curb. Either a catch basin will need to be added or the area will have to be re-graded with a minimum slope of 2% to drain from the rearyard to the street. 37.The existing gravel road known as Cartway Lane must be connected to the proposed cul-de- sac at the eastern border of the site. 38.The existing culvert across the street from Lot 9, Block 2 be connected to the storm sewer for Pipewood Lane. 39.A minimum of two overstory trees shall be required in the front yard setback area of each lot. 40.Tree protection fencing is required around all trees proposed to be saved. Any tree lost will be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches. 41.The applicant shall confirm the tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations. A total of 193 trees will be required to be planted unless otherwise noted. 42.The following trees are required on each lot as shown on the landscape plan dated 1/14/05: Lot Front yard Rear yard Lot 1, Block 1 2 6 Lot 2, Block 1 2 3 Lot 3, Block 1 2 3 Lot 4, Block 1 2 3 Lot 5, Block 1 2 3 Lot 6, Block 1 2 4 30 Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 Lot Front yard Rear yard Lot 7, Block 1 2 5 Lot 8, Block 1 2 6 Lot 9, Block 1 2 2 Lot 1, Block 2 2 4, 3 side yard Lot 2, Block 2 2 2 Lot 3, Block 2 2 4 Lot 4, Block 2 2 2 Lot 5, Block 2 2 2 Lot 6, Block 2 2 2 Lot 7, Block 2 2 4 Lot 8, Block 2 2 3 Lot 9, Block 2 2 4 Lot 10, Block 2 2 4 Lot 11, Block 2 2 5 Lot 12, Block 2 2 1 Outlot A 30 (buffer plantings included in total) Outlot B 9 43.A landscape plan with a plant schedule that specifies the proposed quantities of each species shall be submitted to the city prior to final plat approval. 44.The developer shall responsible for planting any trees located in the rear or side yards as shown on the landscape plan dated 1/14/05. 45.The applicant shall plant only species adaptable to wet sites near the wetland boundary edge. 46.Tree preservation fencing shall be installed at the dripline of the tree saved on Lot 6, Block 2 prior to any grading. 47.Any plantings occurring on Outlots A or B be field located and no existing vegetation shall be removed or compromised for the planting of new trees. 48.and along the east The applicant shall install landscaping at the end of the Pipewood Lane boundary of Lot 12, Block 2 around the cul-de-sac. Evergreens and ornamentals shall be installed so as to reduce headlight glare and buffer views of the street from the existing homes. along the cul-de-sac and A minimum of 9 evergreens and 3 ornamentals shall be planted along the east side of the flag lot maintaining planting density of the cul-de-sac along the east border. 49.The applicant shall remove Colorado blue spruce from the plant schedule and replace it with white fir or a species of pine. 31 Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 50.The grading limits shown on the grading plan for Lot 2, Block 2, shall remain as is and the developer shall adapt to the existing plan as necessary to preserve a small group of maples 12” and larger. 51.Temporary rock fords should not be used; and crossing the stream with flowing water and no established stable crossing must be avoided. No work shall take place in the creek between thth the dates of March 15 to June 15 to minimize sediment impacts to spawning fish species. 52.MN DOT category 3 erosion blanket and seed should be applied to exposed creek slopes near / around Pipewood Lane within 24 hours of final grade. 53.Following stormwater inlet installation Wimco-type (or equal) inlet sediment controls should be installed and regularly maintained. 54.Following street and utility installation, Chanhassen-specification Type-1 silt fence or other approved perimeter sediment control is needed for all positive slopes curbside. 55.The silt fence proposed across the existing and proposed Pipewood Lane is not practical due to site access needs.” 56. The applicant will work with staff to resolve the access issues on Cartway Lane. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Sacchet: Now we have a second motion about the wetland. Somebody want to take that? Page 16. Papke: I’m on a roll. I make a motion that we recommend approval for a wetland alteration permit plans prepared by Ryan Engineering dated August 20, 2004, revised October 14, 2004 and January 14, 2005, subject to conditions 1 through 6 as stated in the staff report. Sacchet: Do we have a second? McDonald: I second. Sacchet: Any comments? Papke moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval for aWetland Alteration Permitplans prepared by Ryan Engineering, dated August 20, , 2004, revised October 14, 2004 and January 14, 2005, subject to the following conditions: 1.The grading on Lots 10-12, Block 2 shall be revised to avoid grading within the wetland. 2.The applicant shall submit a five-year maintenance and monitoring plan for new wetland construction to ensure proposed wetland functions and values are obtained and non-native 32 Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 vegetation does not encroach into the mitigation area. The monitoring plan shall include the preparation of annual reports as required by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. 3.Wetland buffer widths of 16.5 feet to 20.0 feet shall be maintained around all wetlands on- site. All structures shall maintain a 40-foot setback from wetland buffer edge. Wetland buffers and wetland buffer setbacks shall be shown on the grading plan. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and signed 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 will pay the City $20 per sign. 4.Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, and storm water infrastructure. Easements shall be at least 20 feet in width to allow access for inspection and maintenance. 5.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 year-round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Time (maximum time an area can remain unvegetated Type of Slope when area is not actively being worked) Steeper than 3:1 7 Days 10:1 to 3:1 14 Days Flatter than 10:1 21 Days These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, 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 man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 6.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, United States Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval.” All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Sacchet: Do we need to summarize for council or are we clear enough? I think we were pretty clear. I think we discussed this sufficient that we don’t need to further summarize it. If you’ll bear with us…all this paper before we get to the next item. 33 Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 PUBLIC HEARING: CODE AMENDMENT REGARDING ELECTRIC SUBSTATIONS: SECTION 20-574 (9) CONDITIONAL USES IN THE A2 DISTRICT, SECTION 20-814 CONDITIONAL USES IN THE IOP DISTRICT, SECTION 20-257 ELECTRICAL SUBSTATIONS AND CHAPTER 1 DEFINING AND REGULATING SUBSTATIONS. Public Present: Name Address th Dennis Wolf 4291 West 200 Street, Jordan Ronald Jabs 217 Juergens Circle, Jordan Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Sharmeen. Questions from staff. Any questions? Yeah, go ahead Jerry. McDonald: Well are we going to hear from the applicant first? Sacchet: Well we don’t have an applicant. The applicant is the City in this case. It was driven by a request from an electric utility and that is a context but it isn’t…but it is a public hearing so you’re probably here for that. McDonald: I’m not sure if you can answer all these questions then. Okay, the first thing is you’re asking us to do a couple things. What we had discussed was we really didn’t want to get into a situation of issuing variances. As I read this, and correct me if I’m wrong but it appears you’re asking us to vary the 5 acre requirement because this is only what, 2 to 3 acres. Also we’re looking at varying the minimum of 500 feet because it’s within about 200 some feet from. Sacchet: You weren’t at that discussion that we had were you? McDonald: Yeah, that was the first meeting. Sacchet: You were there, that’s right. Okay. Al-Jaff: I can remind you of what the direction was. McDonald: Okay. Al-Jaff: You directed staff to draft an ordinance that remained as restrictive as possible. You wanted to have the latitude to grant variances should you deem it necessary. You did not want a reduced size in. McDonald: Okay. 34 Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 Sacchet: I did the same stuff. If I may address this Jerry. I actually did the stumble. I read this and what did we do here? And then I remembered. At first I had the same reaction, and I think where we were at at the time is that we actually, I remember I took the position that we actually want these type of situations to come to us, because they’re exceptional. And we do want them to come in and then we look at the particulars so it’s two different things. Giving a variance is one thing. Putting the ordinance in place is a totally different thing. McDonald: Okay. I just, I kind of forgot about that part of it and that’s why I asked the question because the way I remembered it was, we didn’t want to be issuing variances and we were going to try to come up with something that would fit and that we could use going forward. I have no problem with issuing a variance. I mean I’m in favor of doing that. But yeah, this kind of got me. It was well we’re going to leave the 5 acres in but this isn’t 5 acres and then you know we got the 500 feet. Sacchet: They’re all there. McDonald: …and it’s, I thought we were going to try to get around that but okay. But based upon that, and street type. You’re right, based upon that, I remember it now. That’s fine. You addressed that issue. The other part that I have a little bit of a problem with, and this is something I need to address to an applicant really because it come into design. The area out there is a depression where they’re going to put this and what I’m concerned about is, are we going to be flooding out the distribution station and all of a sudden we have power outages? You know that becomes a concern because where the switching station’s at is at a higher elevation. You walk back to where your property is and it’s got to be about a 6 foot bowl that’s in that area and if that’s where you’re going to put it, what are you going to do to keep water from collecting in there, going underground. Shorting things out. I could be wrong but I’d just like to know that that’s going to be addressed because otherwise we’re creating a situation that during storms that area that you’re going to be serving, they’re going to be without electricity. They’re not going to be happy. Keefe: And they’re going to need to come in for an application right? Sacchet: Yes. I don’t think that’s part of the item in front of us right now. McDonald: In that case, that’s hanging out there but you know based upon this, I’m in favor of this. Sacchet: Good point. Very good point. Any other questions? Papke: Yeah, I’ve got a couple. There’s on item 9 of section 2 and item 13 of section 3. There’s a request for reasonable and prudent measures to minimize EMF levels along all alternative routes. What, is it clear? It’s not clear to me what we mean by alternative routes here. Is this clear enough for an applicant or is this, are we going to be able to interrupt what this means? Sacchet: What does it mean? 35 Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 Al-Jaff: Electric lines. That’s my intention. Papke: Alternative. Al-Jaff: Electric line itself. Papke: Okay, alternative electrical line routing, is that? Al-Jaff: Okay. Much better wording. Papke: Okay, because I didn’t know if we were talking about alternative you know EMF. You know routes for the EMF or routes for cars or routes for wires. I mean what routes were we talking about here? It just wasn’t clear to me. Al-Jaff: Electric wiring. Papke: Okay. Sacchet: So if we would say alternate line routing, is that clear? Papke: Yeah, that works. I just want to make sure I understand and any applicant understands what’s being requested. Just to make sure I understand what we’re stipulating here. In the request for current research regarding the health effects of EMF levels, we’re expecting an applicant to tell us, okay. What’s the current research on, if I have so much EMF you know I’m going to have such and such probability of getting cancer or whatever. Okay, so that’s one data point. The other data point we’re asking for in sections or in item 8 or item 12 in Section 3, we’re asking them to provide the EMF levels at the maximum and average anticipated loading so we’re asking for a body of research for impact and then we’re asking for the EMF levels but we’re not stipulating any limits for EMF or anything like that and as long as you know that’s what we’re intending to do, that’s fine but you know, so. Did I miss something? That’s a minimum of 500 feet but that doesn’t say anything about the acceptable levels of EMF at the locations being stipulated by item number 8 and item number 12. Yeah, you know everything is kind of repeated here twice, yeah. So is that what we want to do? Are we going to say give us the current research. Tell us the EMF levels and we’re going to make a call every time we see one of these, or do we intend to set a maximum EMF level at these locations? Sacchet: Could we? I mean is there enough of a body of knowledge that would allow to do that. Al-Jaff: The information that I have looked at leads us to believe that there is inconclusive data. Well, we can study EMF. There is inconclusive evidence that it will actually cause for instance cancer. And that’s the main. Sacchet: It’s a slippery slope. 36 Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 Papke: It is a slippery, it just means that every time we see one of these we have to re-read the research. Re-interrupt. Make another decision which is going to be subjective on the basis of whoever happens to be on the Planning Commission and City Council at that time. And as long as that’s what we want to do, that’s fine but we all have to know that that’s what we’re setting ourselves up for. Sacchet: The trouble is, do we have a better alternative? Papke: Yeah, I don’t know. Like you say, the research is very, this isn’t like a setback where we just say okay, you’ve got to be 30 feet from the property line or something like that. I mean this is okay, give us the research and we’ll read through the research papers again and we’ll look at it and we’ll look at the EMF levels and we’ll make another decision. McDonald: Could I address part of that because the thing is, as long as we’re saying give us the reads, this will be open for a public hearing. Papke: Right, and so people can comment on the readings. McDonald: We want people to come in and say these readings, we feel there’s this danger. That may be encumbent upon the commission then to look in to see well, what supports that. And then to make a call as to whether or not we’re going to approve it at that point. But we’ve got the numbers to deal with and at that point you’re right. 6 months from now the whole data could change to where it says triple that is okay. Or it could go the other way and as long as we put in there, give us the numbers we can make a decision. Larson: Does it really change? McDonald: Well the numbers will, no the numbers do not change. Papke: The physic’s doesn’t change. This isn’t like is coffee good for you or bad for you? And every year they, it reverses itself. McDonald: Yeah, but the numbers are the numbers. Papke: The numbers are the numbers but the research isn’t always the research. McDonald: The effect may change… Larson: …get sick in an area, they’re going to say oh. Papke: So one year you glow in the dark and the next year it doesn’t make any difference, right. Larson: Yeah, okay. Let us know if they change it you know highlight what’s new. Sacchet: Alright, okay. Yeah, Dan. 37 Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 Keefe: One question. In Section 1, it wasn’t clear to me what these statements were trying to do. Electric distribution substation located above ground near to the end users. Distribution substation transformers change the transmission or sub-transmission voltage to lower. What are we trying to state there? Sacchet: That’s the definition? Al-Jaff: These are the definitions. Keefe: Of the electrical substation. Al-Jaff: …substation and the underground distribution substation. Keefe: I thought the transformers were out on poles behind your houses. Is that different? Sacchet: This is the bigger ones. Keefe: These are the bigger ones that are contained within the facility itself? Al-Jaff: If you look at page 5 of your staff report. So the underground distribution substation is entirely underground. The pad mounted transformers are those green boxes that you see in front of your house. There’s a photo. Sacchet: Drawing. Keefe: So, wasn’t clear, and that’s kind of what I thought. So it isn’t clear to me then from this definition that, oh the electrical substation is located above ground near to the end user. Distribution, so this entire definition is for the unit that’s near the house? Al-Jaff: No. Keefe: No. Al-Jaff: The units next to the house, what we typically see a green box, that’s a pad mounted transformer and service line. Sacchet: Which is different. Keefe: Which is different than? Sacchet: It’s not a substation. Keefe: Okay. So all this is meant to regulate then is the. Al-Jaff: The substation and here is another example of a substation. 38 Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 Keefe: Okay, it’s my confusion then. When I started reading transformers I started thinking something else, and so I’m fine with it. Sacchet: Okay. Is that it? Keefe: That’s it. Sacchet: Any other questions? Alright, now this is a public hearing. I’d like to invite anybody who’d like to come forward address this proposal, that staff proposes. If you have any comments, this is your chance. Yeah, I see some people standing up. If you want to state your name and addresses. Names, probably more that part then the addresses. Ron Jabs: Good evening Mr. Chair, commission members. My name is Ron Jabs. I’m with Minnesota Valley Electric and with me is Denny Wolf. th Denny Wolf: Yeah, Denny Wolf, Minnesota Valley Electric. Address is 4291 West 200 Street in Jordan so, we’d just like the opportunity to address, kind of co-address your comments here. The one thing we don’t have is the actual ordinance changes ourselves to address here so we’re kind of winging it from we’re at right here so. Sacchet: Okay. Ron Jabs: I guess if I might, I pulled up the information on the internet today and looked through the proposed ordinance changes and just as your reaction was a little bit trying to recollect what direction was given to staff, I was trying to re-group and figure that out myself as well, and I think the staff has done you know just exactly what you had indicated. But it also created a little bit of confusion because what I believe happens here is initially it was drawn up to be very restrictive and not allow the bulk type substation or excuse me. It had provisions by the acreage and so forth to accommodate that sort of thing but made it very, very restrictive. When addressing it from the standpoint of a local distribution substation, all of the conditions that became problems in siting a local distribution substation kind of came to bear and it looks like in so many of those points out of the 6 original points, in what seemed to make sense for a location, it required about 5 variances and so my first reaction was well, wouldn’t it make a little bit more sense to address the ordinance to look at what is really appropriate, if you will, for a distribution type substation. And the concern about allowing or requiring the major roadway accesses, beyond arterial streets, the collects and so forth, as we had discussed. The in and out. The comings and goings are rather minimal so I’m not sure if that would be totally appropriate. Looking at item, well item 2 certainly seems appropriate from our standpoint. Item number 3, the 5 acres. I think we, the footprint of the substation, the fenced in area itself is about 150 by about 160. We realize that we would need more than that in order to properly screen it and so forth. You know anywhere from an acre and a half to 2 ½ acres you know would very easily do the job in most cases. But a 5 acre requirement just seems like, well it would require a variance I guess is the bottom line. Number 4, 6 foot fence. Okay, I think Denny talked about that. I know the National Electric Safety Code for us requires more than that but you know 6 foot. It should be 6 foot or greater you know kind of a thing. And then the distance away from single family residents is you know, the indications are that once you get to the perimeter of the fence, 39 Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 typically that EMF kind of a concern diminishes to the point that it isn’t a whole lot different than it would be elsewhere on the system, and so from those standpoints it almost seems like it would be more appropriate to look at modifying the ordinance to allow something more closely relating to what is required. But I do understand the approach and method and the issues involved. It’s kind of a 6 of 1, half a dozen of the other kind of a standpoint there. In terms of many of these things talk about I think 6, 7, 8, 9 and so forth all are kind of related to EMF sorts of things. It seems like it might be a cleaner approach for the city. Certainly from the power company, the utility if we knew what the parameters were and had targets that we could meet and address and they were fairly uniformed. Approaching it from a, well let’s look at various research then who do you determine is the expert? You can find experts that will definitely differ and you know which one, so it certainly creates a lot of controversy if a standard is established and you stick to it, it tends to be something that you can quantify and deal with and move forward. But I understand the pros and cons kind of thing on that. I think those are, I think as you noted on 9 I had a little concern as well. The alternative routes. That doesn’t quite pertain to apparently doesn’t pertain to a substation itself. It pertains to the lines that feed into it and with that understanding I don’t see a problem with that. On the repeat of those numbers I see it jumps from 7 to 12 and was that just a typo or. Generous: Gremlins. Ron Jabs: Oh okay. I get those occasionally too. Okay. So it was intended that the number sequencing is identical then from the first list to the second list. I guess those are my primary points and beyond that I’d stand for questions and offer Denny’s expertise as well. Sacchet: I do have a question. Actually I have two questions. When you talked about the 5 acres. The 500 feet. Are you basically saying it’s over kill? Ron Jabs: I would suggest it’s probably not the best use of the property. It’s way more than is necessary, that’s true. Sacchet: Okay. And then the thing with the parameters. Do you believe there are clear enough parameters at this point about EMF that…it’s kind of a little premature but ultimately you’re the electrical experts here. Ron Jabs: I think there’s a gray area in, I don’t think government has really let out a definite standard as well. I think there’s a couple of them out there. There’s some guidelines and if you were to follow my suggestion it might be to adopt one of those government provided guidelines. Sacchet: Ultimately I would expect that something like that would not be regulated on a city level. I mean this would be regulated on a state level or a higher level certainly than a city level. So, and I would look to that to take shape and this to feed into that. Ron Jabs: It’s pretty complex for a local unit of government to do all the research to come up with something definitive. Everyone around the country doing the same sort of a thing. I guess as a utility we would appreciate that there’d be national regulations on it and that would be easier for everyone’s administration. 40 Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 Sacchet: Did you want to add something there too? Denny Wolf: Yeah, add a little bit on that one here. This is a report done by the National Institute of Environmental Health Services. They have a web site here and it’s about a 65 page document. Basically towards the end here it’s exposure standards and it’s just a question here. It says are there exposure standards for a 60 hertz EMF and the answer is, the United States there are no federal standards limiting occupational or residential exposure but they have 6 dates of set guidelines. Florida gives the electrical field, basically the distance between the power line and underground or what’s ever there. And they’ve also got a regulation for magnetic field. Minnesota gives a recommendation for electric field, 8 kilovolts per meter so at 115 kV it amounts to about 39 feet or so in there so. But they don’t give any recommendation for magnetic field. Montana’s the same. New Jersey has one for the edge of right-of-way. And then you’ve got 200 milligauss for the edge of right-of-way there so there are some guidelines set forth in this here. One other thing I’d like to address here and that’s just a recommendation or a thing here. It’s on item number 4, 6 foot high security fence shall surround a distributional electrical, underground electric substation. That’s a good thing because that’s something we’ll do. Just because of the legal ramifications I would like to add that it would be installed per the National Safety Code as a minimum. So that would cover you. You don’t have to set, I wouldn’t put the 6 foot fence in there because it’s probably below standards and it opens you up to subjective something. The other thing with the electric fence there, if it’s a chainlink fence, which is pretty much 90% of what’s going to out there in the field, they’re also kind of getting into electric. There’s also grounding measures. In other words, you have a fence here. It has the potential of becoming energized so if the public walks up to this fence here, this fence has to be grounded so that if they reach up and touch it, it’s not going to do any harm to them so. Sacchet: Would that be taken care of with the National Safety Code? Denny Wolf: Yes, that would all be addressed in there so just a recommendation that if you’re going to… Sacchet: Very good point. Denny Wolf: It’d be good to put that in there so. That’s about all I guess. Like Ron said, there’s the 5 acres does create a, basically an economic hardship along with the, as you’re buying excess land at the, looking at the price for, there are limited sites out there. It isn’t like we can go and buy property out there. It’s people that understand you’re looking for this, this is the site you’ve got. You’ve got no other place to go, they kind of hold it to you a little bit so it’s not the, you know we’re going to have to pay more for it. We’d just like to be able to not have to buy any more than we really need is adequate… Sacchet: And again it’s my recollection from when we had the work session or discussion about this, and I don’t know whether that’s where we end up with it tonight but at the time part of our thinking, with the direction we gave to staff was that we, since this is a rather exceptional type of event, that we actually would want to see that come in front of us pretty much in every case. Not necessarily that in the end we would insist on the 5 acres. Which I mean yeah, it creates. 41 Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 Keefe: Can I ask a question? I mean in regards, I mean what you would be proposing would essentially be in compliance with everything but assuming we amend number 4, you being in compliance with everything but number 3, the 5 acres, is that kind of how you read it? Ron Jabs: The 500 feet setback. Keefe: The 500 feet they wouldn’t. Sacchet: And the street type. Keefe: And the street type they wouldn’t. Okay. So there’s 3 things which would trigger that. Alright. And so in regards to setting up these particular requirements, the thought was we want to trigger them to come here, right? Sacchet: Right. We don’t want to see. Keefe: Can’t we state that? That they need to be reviewed by the Planning Commission somewhere in the code or not? Sacchet: Yeah, that’s a good. Keefe: In lieu of sort of setting up unrealistic, I mean because if you’re, if you were to pick up the code, I’m certain you’d have discussions but you may, somebody may be looking and all of a sudden they’re out looking for 5 acre sites, minimum sites, and that really isn’t the intent. Sacchet: But if somebody would come in with a 5 acre site on a collector with the 500 feet, then it’d be clear. Al-Jaff: We are writing an ordinance that would cover the entire city. Not just this… McDonald: I think the thing is. Al-Jaff: So please keep that in mind here. McDonald: But the thing is, these are not going to, I mean we have enough trouble with people with double lots. You know looking back and forth. You try to put in an electrical substation into a residential area on 2 acres or 2 1/2, and we’re going to have people in with pitchforks. 5 acres you know is the minimum that the City wants and it should stay that way. That’s not to say that we will not approve it because on this particular one, I’m in favor of it. And I will vote for a variance to do it but the thing is, it works. There are no problems with it but in other areas of the city this gives us some control. If you want to come in with less than that, you need to come in and make your case. You talk about the levels. I am not in favor of putting the levels in, even what you’re saying. I understand they’re based upon science but they’re based upon your science. We will get people in here from the other side. They will be based upon science. It will be subjective. There’s nothing that we can do about that. Until this issue is settled beyond 42 Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 this area, beyond this city hall, it’s always going to be controversial and it’s going to be up to the Planning Commission and the City Council to take the information, with the help of staff, and come up with a recommendation and you’re just going to have to trust that we want to have growth. We want to do things and we’re going to do what’s right. This isn’t put in here to restrict electrical companies or utilities from providing services. A city would be dumb to do that. You know it’s, we do want to see this stuff. If you came in and you fed everything here exactly, there probably wouldn’t be anything really to talk about. The issue of 500 feet. People feel good with 500 feet. There will be a variance here. I don’t think it’s going to be a problem because of the fact you’ve already got the high voltage lines out there and people are living there. This adds nothing to what is currently there, so again this doesn’t create a big problem but to restrict this down to fit this site is not right and I would agree with staff that we need to have something that yeah, if you want a variance you’ve got to come and talk to us. Plead your case. You know the public has got to come in and at that point let them plead their case too but we can’t redo the ordinance to fit this site. You know what we can do is look at this site and then grant the variances and as I say, I don’t have a problem granting those variances and I don’t think anybody here does either. It works but I’m not in favor of changing the code. I’m sorry. It’s just, I understand where your numbers come from and everything but until someone can come out with definitive numbers, and that’s probably never going to happen. They keep changing the amount of vitamins you’re supposed be taking on cereal boxes. We’re going to have these controversies. That’s what we’re here about. Papke: On the other hand if the, he did say that the State of Minnesota does have a recommendation on electrical fields and we could reference that and just say it must meet State electrical field standards. Keefe: Why wouldn’t we try to get, I mean if he’s, if they’re saying the sort of normal site size for something like this would be in the 2 to 3 acre range, why wouldn’t we sort of put that in here as sort of the normal range and then make a requirement for them to come in and get approval versus sort of putting up this artificial number up there that’s going to sort of trip them into coming to us. You see what I’m saying? Sacchet: I can tell you why. I can tell you why. Because, and Jerry hit it on the head. I mean if somebody wants to do that in the middle of a residential area, we need to have something that we can balance it. And the 5 acres, the 500 feet, the collector gives us some leverage to do something about it. Otherwise we couldn’t do anything about it because it meets ordinance. McDonald: Yeah, it meets ordinance at that point. Sacchet: So there is a purpose beyond just having them come in because if somebody meets this, then we want to make sure it could be anywhere in the city without an issue, and we’re restricting it by size, by distance and by type of roads it can be next to because it’s not the type of thing we want in anywhere. Just you have to be a little bit selective where this goes, which is another reflection of whether there place is suitable or not. I think it’s very suitable too. 43 Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 Keefe: And I’m responding to those guys who are in the business of saying you know, typically a site size for this is this. You know perhaps 5 acres is the right number. I’m not, I don’t understand where our numbers came from necessarily and what they’re based upon. Sacchet: They’re pretty subjective at this point. McDonald: But see 5 acres, if you’ve got a residential area around, a 5 acre buffer should not be a problem. Papke: Yeah, and it is somewhat congruent with the 500 foot separation as well. I mean if you have a 5 acre plot, you’re probably going to be somewhat in the range of 500 feet. Sacchet: And also there is nothing wrong if we are potentially a little more restrictive than let’s say the state framework. I mean not saying that we want to do that but I think that’s certainly something that is reasonable to have as an option at our disposal. McDonald: I would agree with the thing you came up with about the fence because yeah, a 6 foot fence, you go to all the other substations and what, they’re at least 12 or better. Ron Jabs: Generally 8 foot is what we’ll standardize in our substations. McDonald: Yeah, and then you’ve got the barbwire across and all like that. Sacchet: And there are standards. McDonald: Yeah, and there are standards. I mean you bring up the other good issue about the electrocution. Yeah, there have been some in the past because of grounding or those things, something happens so it would be good if we had that standard in there because that way it will take care of that. Not that a utility company wouldn’t follow the standard but he’s right about the liability for the City too. Denny Wolf: And we don’t have any, I think the thing was trying to make it a little more simple here but there’s no problem with the 5 acres as long as there could be variances and I think we could state a good case for the variance, as long as that avenue’s open yet. Sacchet: Absolutely, and the idea. Denny Wolf: And I understand where you’re coming from is that, yeah this is general. This is for everything out there and it makes. Sacchet: It’s for the whole city. Denny Wolf: It eliminates the, yeah I guess. I understand that too we’re just having trouble out in a 100 acre field trying to site one much less getting it to a residential area so. 44 Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 McDonald: Well things you guys need to get there ahead of development and stake out your sites and then come back and you probably wouldn’t have a problem. Denny Wolf: Can’t even beat that anymore. Sacchet: Alright. Anything else you wanted to add from your end? Denny Wolf: I think that pretty much… Ron Jabs: I would agree. We certainly feel comfortable with it with that understanding and looking at it at face value, it isn’t real clear that that is the appropriate avenue so. But definitely you know you need to adopt an ordinance, as you indicated, that’s good for the entire community and we’re not suggesting at this point that it needs to be specific to our’s. But our’s does have certain. Sacchet: It set it in motion yeah, but we have to keep it separate. Ron Jabs: Exactly. Sacchet: I think it’s very important to look at it as totally separate tracks at that point. Okay. Ron Jabs: We understand that clearly so thank you very much. Sacchet: Appreciate it. Anybody else wants to address that in our audience that left. I don’t see anybody getting up so I’m going to close the public hearing and bring it back. We have a fair amount of discussion already on this topic. Anybody want to add more to it? As we fine? To summarize, we did change Section 2, number 9 and Section 3, number 13 to say alternative line routing. And we also I think one thing that was discussed is on Section 2, number 4 we would not be specifically saying 6 foot. Papke: Greater than or equal to 6 feet. Sacchet: Well, or just say compliant with the National Safety Code. Something like that. Papke: Right. There we go. McDonald: Yeah, if you could get us that standard. Ron Jabs: I could probably direct you to a consultant rather than me giving you the standard, if that’s okay. Sacchet: Okay. Just a way that we could know, if we refer to a standard we should have it documented. We should have it at hand. Ron Jabs: It’s written…distances and what a normal person… 45 Planning Commission Meeting – February 15, 2005 Sacchet: So we would direct staff to locate that standard. That we know what it is. Denny Wolf: I can give you the name and address of the federal consultant… Sacchet: Alright. I think that’s kind of what. Papke: How about, there was some discussion about, in item 8 referencing the Minnesota State guidelines for electrical fields. Is there, does anybody feel that that would be worthwhile? I do. I think there’s some value. Sacchet: There is some value in that. Papke: There is a state guideline, we should reference it. Sacchet: We should reference it as that we want to be compliant at least with established State standards. Something to that effect. Papke: Yep. Works for me. Sacchet: Any other aspects of discussion or do we want to have a motion? Where is the motion? The motion is on the cover. Papke: Alright, I’ll make a motion that we recommend approval of the attached amendments to Chapters 1 and 20, including those discussed and summarized by Chair this evening. McDonald: I’ll second. Papke moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the attached amendments to Chapters 1 and 20 amended as follows: Changing Section 2, number 9 and Section 3, number 13 to say alternative line routing. Section 2, number 4 to include the wording, compliant with the National Safety Code, and Item 8 referencing the Minnesota State guidelines for electrical fields. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:Commissioner Keefe noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 1, 2005 as presented. Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:15 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 46