The URL can be used to link to this page

PC Minutes 2-15-05 O{+~·ô I CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 15, 2005 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Vli Sacchet, Dan Keefe, Debbie Larson, Kurt Papke, and Jerry McDonald MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Lillehaug and Rich Slagle STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen AI-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 AL TERA TION PERMIT TO PERMIT THE CROSSING OF A CREEK AND WETLAND WITH A PUBLIC STREET. THE SITE IS 19.2 ACRES ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. &SF. 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 Dean Carlson Perry Ryan Dale & John Collins Kathy Schurdevin Dale Keehl Cindy Gess Peter Thomson 3842 Meadow Court 7820 Terrey Pine Court Excelsior, MN 10758 130th Street, Glencoe 3921 Aster Trail, Excelsior 3841 West 62nd Street, Excelsior 4001 Aster Trail, Excelsior 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 light? 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 is developed, a new access off of, is it 62 or 92nd. Generous: West 62nd. McDonald: 62nd 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 banicades 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 stm1s 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, cOITect? 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 hied 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, light? 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 62nd 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 ofChanhassen. 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-llayout, 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 refening 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 propel1y 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 acquiting 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 plimary 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 adheling to that recommendation? Dean Carlson: We have concerns on the basis of the otiginal submission in November and between then and today we were, it was a request of the city to obtain a tree surveyor 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 necessmily 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 box elders 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 cales 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 ofthis 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 critelia as best we can. God forbid we all run into a massi ve 100 year flood event sometime after this is developed, but I think we've taken those estimates into account. The 42 inch culvel1 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 otiginal 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 concem is the amount of grading and that really there's, and I want to thank you for having made the tree survey light 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 petiphery. 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 tight-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 light-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 hied all kinds of alternatives trying to. Dean Carlson: Well, if you can recall, if you were here in November the otiginal 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, light? 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, cUITently 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 tight-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 cunently 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 tight-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 oliginal 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 dliveway 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 Com1, so the reality of someone reversing the layout from that lot instead of from Meadow Com1 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 light now. It looks as though it's somebody's dtiveway. 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 light- 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 light-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: Altight. 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 vanance. 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 Ijust 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 SOli 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, Ijust 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 pri vacy 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 light now it's not a street so you're not buffeting because you see. . . Dean Carlson: Well there is a street here cUITently. 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? Dale Keehl: My name is Dale Keehl. I live at 3841 West 62nd Street which is tight up here on the corner of Cat1way 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'mjust 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 dtive 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 n011h end because that, to get onto Highway 7 sometimes is lidiculous 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 com1s and stuff but, or the basketball com1s 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 that is maybe that from 62nd 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. Dean Carlson: The 62nd line Chanhassen or is that Victoria? Dale Keehl: 62nd 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 dlive 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 comer 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. JetTy. 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 tight now I'm afraid that we're looking at too quick of a fix to a problem that mayor 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 buffeting 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 Cat1way 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 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 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 monitoting 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 monitoting 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 duting culvel1 installation is an acceptable alternative. 15. The applicant shall demonstrate that the installation of the 42" proposed culvel1 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: Type of Slope Steeper than 3:1 10:1 to 3:1 Flatter than 10: 1 Time (maximum time an area can remain unvegetated when area is not actively bein~ worked) 7 Days 14 Days 21 Days These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a stOllli 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 lO-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-Ievel. 32. Show the proposed storm manhole 11m 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 rem'yard 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 Lot 1, Block 1 Lot 2, Block 1 Lot 3, Block 1 Lot 4, Block 1 Lot 5, Block 1 Lot 6, Block 1 Front yard 2 2 2 2 2 2 Rear yard 6 3 3 3 3 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. The applicant shall install landscaping at the end of the Pipewood Lane and along the east 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. A minimum of 9 evergreens and 3 ornamentals shall be planted 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. 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 the dates of March 15th to June 15th 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-l 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 O. 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 Engineeling 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 a Wetland Alteration Permit, plans 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 Type of Slope (maximum time an area can remain unvegetated 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 O. Sacchet: Do we need to summarize for councilor 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