The URL can be used to link to this page

PC Minutes 3-15-05 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 15, 2005 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: VIi Sacchet, Rich Slagle, Debbie Larson, Dan Keefe, Steve Lillehaug and Jerry McDonald MEMBERS ABSENT: Kurt Papke STAFF PRESENT: Shanneen AI-Jaff, Senior Planner; Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer; and Josh Metzer, Planner PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF FOX HOLLOW DRIVE. WEST OF HIGHWAY 101. AND SOUTH OF PLEASANT VIEW ROAD (6500 CHANHASSEN ROAD). FOX DEN. APPLICANT. 10 SPRING. INC.. PLANNING CASE 05-08. Public Present: Name Address Richard Herr J ames Rosenlund Cara Otto Scott Rosenlund Tonia & Jason Ashline Tim & Melissa McNeill James Nicholls Maria Vanderzanden Kim & Dave Robinson Rogue Swenson Jim Theis Devin Talberg 120 Fox Hollow Drive 771 Hyacinth Circle Otto Associates, 9 West Division St, Buffalo 622 W. 82nd Street, Chaska 10 Fox Hollow Drive 6441 Pleasant View Circle 6451 Pleasant View Circle 50 Hunters Court 25 Pleasant View Road 35 Pleasant View Road 6400 Chanhassen Road 3304 1 st Avenue Sharmeen Al-J aff and Matt Saam presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Yep, I think we'll have a few questions Sharmeen. Thank you. Who wants to start? Start on this side? Want to start Jerry? McDonald: Yeah, I have some questions for staff. Okay, how's that? Is that on? Okay, I have some questions for staff. One of the things that I guess I'm unsure of as I read through the report, I'd like to ask you about the retaining pond. Reading here about this floating fair cloth Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 skimmer and some of the other work that you intend to do, as part of the development then will the retaining pond be drained so that it can be expanded? Is that what we're talking about here? Saam: Yeah. Based on preliminary talks that I've had with the applicant's engineer, I believe that's what they plan on doing is temporarily pumping it down, expanding it and then allowing it to fill back up. McDonald: Okay, and currently on that pond there is no grate covering over the metal pipe that drains into the area, is that correct? Saam: I'll say currently the outlet, the pipe that controls the outlet for the pond or that drains down the pond, doesn't meet our current specifications. We're requiring them to update that to current standards so after this project it will have the metal grate, the manhole. What we call an outlet control structure so. McDonald: Okay. Then you had mentioned on the roadway going into the new Fox Drive in the area where we're talking about a retaining wall, that they may be able to raise the road a little bit and at that point eliminate the retaining wall. Okay, on the west side that would bring that up but on the east side, that is a significant drop offtoward the pond. What's the effect over there as far as the road? Saam: Yeah, that's a good point. I mean when we raise the road we lessen the slope on one side. We may be increasing it on the other so we may need a small wall on the east side. And we do have those adjacent to ponds. Just at Highlands on Bluff Creek, about half a year ago that has one along an entire side. What we'd be talking about here would maybe be one course of block. You know a one foot type wall. Something small. 1 and 2 feet. McDonald: Okay. And then the other question I've got, the question about the trees on the lines came up. When I looked at these, they looked to be right on the line. What's the concern there? Is there a problem as far as construction maybe destroying those trees or are there other trees that are concerned with here? You know the ones I'm talking about? As you look down, most the trees are right on the fence, and then the question is, is the fence right on the lot line or is it off and those trees are in jeopardy or what's the concern with the trees at that point? AI-Jaff: Well the fence is, according to surveys that we have looked at, it appears as if the fence is on the neighboring property. We are working with the developer to ensure that trees are saved. McDonald: Okay, so at this point we really don't know the impact on those particular trees then? Al-Jaff: In looking at, and I spoke to the City Forester as well. She said that the trees on site are fairly tolerate to construction and the applicant should make an effort to save them. Again, we will work with the developer to make sure that as many trees are saved as possible. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 McDonald: Okay. And on the issue about the width of Fox Drive itself. Oftaking that down to I believe 21 feet as far as surface area. You say that that's wide enough for 2 vehicles to pass but no parking. Saam: Yeah. At least it would have to at least go down to parking on one side of the street. Our private streets are 20 feet wide. We don't allow any parking there. So here at 24 feet we're a little less than half where we allow both side parking so we would definitely be restricting the parking if we would decrease the street width. McDonald: Okay, and there's no plans for this to be a private street, is that correct? Saam: No. Private streets are limited to 4 lots so based on them applying for 6, that kind of threw out that option. McDonald: Okay. And then the other questions I guess I have would be for the developer so I'll wait for those. Sacchet: Okay Jerry. Questions Rich? Debbie, any questions? Larson: I think he covered. Sacchet: Okay, Dan. Keefe: Just a couple follow up's. The proposed retaining wall on the west side is, how far is that from the curb? Would that be the proposed retaining wall. Just out of curiosity. Saam: It would be just inside the right-of-way so it'd be approximately 9. Well let me throw my scale on it quick. Yeah, approximately 9 feet, give or take you know half a foot. Keefe: Okay. And in regards to the trees in the buffer, I'm kind of paging through some of this information you gave us right before and it looks like the neighbor wanted to have, it says 1 conifer tree shall be planted every 6 to 14 feet. I saw that. Code says 30 feet, is that correct? AI-Jaff: That's correct. Keefe: And then, am I reading this correctly? That planning would like them to see, be planted 20 feet? Is that your? AI-Jaff: No. What we did was, we took Mr. Ashline's suggestions and we wanted to respond to them. Why have we made the recommendations that we have? We can't just pick numbers arbitrarily. We have guidelines. We need to follow those guidelines. Keefe: Yeah, which is 30 feet right? AI-Jaff: Which is 30 feet. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 Keefe: Yeah, it just states in here, and I'm looking at number 6 on the second page of the response to questions. And it says we would like to see and planted 20 feet apart, as opposed to 30 feet, and I just want to make sure I'm clear on what. Saam: I think that's Mr. Ashline's memo. Keefe: Is it? It just says... Sacchet: It has his words and inbetween are the answers. Keefe: Okay so, number 6 is actually what he's saying, is that correct? AI-Jaff: Correct. Where the number is... Keefe: The answer is the city's sticking by 30 feet. AI-J aff: ... why have we made our recommendation. Keefe: Just trying to be clear. The answer is the city says 30 feet, is that right? AI-Jaff: Correct. Keefe: Okay, that's what I want to know there. One more question on the street width. Ifwe were to take it down to 24 feet and not only allow parking on one side of the street. The houses which are in the back, that would mean that, or in the development itself, that means people who visited them would have to park on the opposite side potentially if we were to take it down. They wouldn't be able to park necessarily in front of the house if they came to visit them, correct? Saam: Correct. Keefe: Reasonably. Saam: Yeah, correct. Keefe: Would we typically sign that to say parking only allowed or what is it? Saam: Yeah, if we would impose no parking on one side of the street, yeah. To be able to enforce it, ticketing, that sort of thing, we'd have to have it sign. The sheriff wouldn't enforce it otherwise. Keefe: Okay. That's it. Sacchet: Steve. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 Lillehaug: Couple questions. Matt and Shanneen, is there any potential for expanding a regional pond downstream at all or have you guys looked at that at all? In lieu of expanding the one on Lot 8. Saam: No, I didn't look downstream and the reason why is the outlet for this goes under 101 into Eden Prairie so drainage from this area goes into Eden Prairie and out of the county so. Lillehaug: Let's see. On your response to question sheet. One of the answers regarding they need to show a contour elevation at 912 in the bottom ofthe pond, is that a condition we need to add or that you're recommending that we add? Saam: We thought we caught that by, we said there are minor changes needed in the stormwater calculations. You can certainly add it. I've alerted the developer's engineer to it. I don't think it's a huge, I believe it's going to be taken care of but we can add it if it's not there. Lillehaug: Okay. Now the big question. One of my biggest pet peeves. Shanneen, can you explain to me what the code is regarding a, is the 60 by 60 pad in the code or isn't it in the code? AI-Jaff: It's not in the code. Lillehaug: It's not in the code. Are we absolutely sure? I can't believe it's not in the code. AI-Jaff: It's not in the code. It is not. Lillehaug: Is this something we reviewed recently where we, as a planning commission wanted to add it in the code? And it's going forward to the council. Sacchet: We discussed it. I know we discussed it but I don't think it became code Steve. Lillehaug: Got to be kidding me. Okay. I'm done with questions. Sacchet: I have a few questions too. First of all, the property to the west of the subject site, is that being accessed from Pleasant View? Al-Jaff: Yes. Sacchet: So we're not land locking those? AI-Jaff: No, and we looked at potential future development ofthose parcels, whether they can subdivide and they couldn't. Sacchet: And they have currently access. Al-Jaff: They do have existing access off of Pleasant View Road, or. Saam: There's a private drive I think. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 AI-Jaff: There is a private drive. Sacchet: In terms of the expansion of the pond, right now the developer is proposing to pretty expand it to the north. Use the whole space there, I guess it's a question for you Matt. Trouble is there's some nice evergreens there, so has there been efforts to explore how the pond could be expanded without using that whole space to the north there? Saam: Yeah, I believe we have. We've looked at that. Myself and the City Forester brought that issue up. She would like to keep those if we can. Let me go up here. Really the only decent size area that we have to get some significant volume is, as I see it in this area. We can't pond in the right-of-way. We have to keep that on private property. We own the property but still, consider it private. But in this area, I believe the entrance monument to the development is in that area. Sacchet: Oh, that's used, okay. Saam: Yeah, excuse me. So I guess it would be possible to dig that out. Relocate the entrance monument somewhere. And then we could maybe cut some of this down. That would be in my opinion about the only option you have. There's a little corner here but again with sloping up and everything, I don't think you're going to get the water quality. What we need is the below water level. That volume. So we really need some area down low because by the time you come up to the top then at a slope, you know you start to get out so we could, we can investigate this further. We probably have to talk, I believe they have a homeowners association and talk with that to see if they would mind moving that. Sacchet: Thanks Matt. I don't know whether this is related on page 8 of the staff report, on the bottom. It talks about replacing city trees that get lo,st. Are we talking about those trees around the pond or? ., Al-Jaff: That's correct. Sacchet: Okay. Let's see. That might be it for my questions. Yep. So with that I'd like to invite the applicant, if you want to come forward. We'll hear from the applicant and after that we do the public hearing. So if you want to add how happy you are with what and which ones maybe you're a little less happy with. Scott Rosenlund: Yeah, my name is Scott Rosenlund. I live at 622 West 82nd Street, Chaska. And I'm an owner of 10 Spring Inc. with my son Jamie. And we have worked with Cara Otto from Otto Engineering extensively and with the city staff and I think pretty much it's been covered. We're pretty, you know there are some issues. One issue I had, want to bring up on the trees. I think Jason did have his property surveyed and we were out there. We met with him. I think the trees are pretty clearly on the property on Fox Den and someone asked if we could maintain them. It is in our best interest to leave the trees there. It just increases the value of the property but there are a few of them that are leaning quite extensively to the north and they might interfere with, if we put a two story home up there. So those we would look at, if they might 6 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 have to come down. But if possible we'd like to maintain the trees. That was one issue on the trees. The issue on the pond, I know Matt had brought up the fact that some of the ponding, the existing pond, the staff is not up to city code and it just seems like it's an unfair burden that all of a sudden now it's our responsibility to bring it up to code when maybe things have changed so that was just an issue. As far as the issues with the grading and the depth of that, ifthat's our burden, it's our burden. It just seems maybe a little unfair to, if you do have something that's out of date, that maybe the city needs to address that. But we'd be happy to answer any questions and Cara is here from Otto Engineering, if you have any technical questions. Sacchet: Maybe Matt, could you address the point that he just brought up. I mean how far is this pond off of code? Are they being stuck with an undue burden to bring it up to code plus to accommodate the new thing? What's the proportion? Can you give us an idea please? Saam: Sure. Yeah, I think there may be a little miscommunication. The current pond is sized just for the developed area of Fox Hollow that's going there. Sacchet: It's properly sized for that. Saam: Yes. We're not asking this developer to increase it to bring it up to cover the existing area. He's being asked to increase it for his area and then the 912 contour is for additional area to the north. A regional area if you will. The code allows for a small credit of the SWMP fees, the Surface Water fees at time of final plat for doing that. I don't think the 2 foot depth will, you'll see a large increase or decrease I should say of his fees but, so just to clarify. We're not asking him to bring the current up to any code. Weare asking the outlet structure to be updated. He's asking to expand that so to control the rate, that's got to be updated. We feel that's well within his burden. Sacchet: Is that a satisfactory answer to you? Scott Rosenlund: It was more of a grading issue....a grade even if we add onto it. Sacchet: Do we have questions? Slagle: I've got one. If I may. The application as I see it with 6 lots, staff mentioned some concerns, perhaps 2 of the lots, I don't want to read into it but at any point did staff share with you the concerns that perhaps you're trying to put too many lots into a parcel this size? Scott Rosenlund: Yeah we had, the point we talked about was specifically Lots 1 and 4 and the width ofthose and the question came up, can a house even fit on there so we actually provided a picture and plans that we have. We have this house built in Mound and I think we shared the address, and that is the exact plan that we built. It's probably about a $600,000 house that we have built in Mound on a 50 foot lot. Slagle: Is that on the lake? Scott Rosenlund: No. Not a $600,000. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 Slagle: So you, if! can just ask again, so you're comfortable with the number oflots? I mean you think it's not going to appear as though 2 are being squeezed. At least 1 for sure, being squeezed into this development. Scott Rosenlund: No I do not. I'm comfortable with it. Slagle: Okay. McDonald: Can I ask a follow up to that? Have you looked at the rest of the development as far as lot sizes and houses and spacings and those things and will what you put in here be in character with the rest of the neighborhood? Scott Rosenlund: You mean with Fox Hollow? McDonald: With Fox Hollow. Scott Rosenlund: I would say that the, this will probably be you know obviously newer but probably a little bit the price point I think will be quite a bit higher just based on the value of the property today. McDonald: I'm not talking about price. What I'm looking at is spacing and the way houses fit on the lot. The size of the lots in comparison to the rest of the development. Is this going to be comparable to that or is this going to be smaller to where it looks out of place compared to the rest ofthe development or is it bigger? Where is it in relation? AI-Jaff: May I answer that question? McDonald: Sure. AI-Jaff: I'm more familiar with the area of Fox Hollow. That subdivision is actually a planned unit development. Parcels were permitted to go down as small as 11,000 square feet. The overall average lot size for the entire Fox Hollow had to maintain 15,000. There will be some parcels within the Fox Hollow subdivision that are below the 15,000 square feet. The subdivision you're looking at before you today is 100% 15,000 or larger. McDonald: Okay. And then the other questions I've got concern Lots 4, 5, and 6. On the backs ofthose lots is now a trail. That is also out to 101. It's very flat at that point. All those lots are pretty much open to the trail and also to 101. Do you have any plans as far as barriers or buffers or berms or anything such as that for the back of those lots? Scott Rosenlund: We have built on similar sites like on Highway 5 before that back up to Highway 5 and usually it's in our best interest to put some sort of berm or trees on the back side there. I know we're a little bit limited with the trailway there and the possible easement there, widening of Highway 5 but definitely some planting many trees back there would help that site. Ifthere was room we could put a berm in there. I'm not sure if we had planned. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15,2005 Cara Otto: Drainage wise it would be tough. Scott Rosenlund: Drainage wise it would be tough so we'll probably just end up with a tree. McDonald: Okay, and have you given any consideration to a barrier fence or something along those back lines? Scott Rosenlund: I really haven't gotten to that point but that's not a bad idea. Might be a little uncharacteristic for the neighborhood but. McDonald: Well it would actually fit in with the neighborhood if you go north of Pleasant View, there's a fence there. If you go south. Scott Rosenlund: The Eden Prairie side? McDonald: Right on the Chanhassen side and also on the Chanhassen side within Fox Hollow itself as you go down there are fences. Cara Otto: I just wanted to note, Cara Otto with Otto Associates. One of the project engineers. There is, as part of the staff conditions, some additional buffer planting that is in addition to what we had originally proposed. And that's mentioned I believe in one of the conditions. It lists a certain number and type that they want ofthat so, we would comply with that buffer planting. McDonald: Okay. That's all I have. Sacchet: Any questions this side ofthe crowd? No? Anything you want to add from your end? Scott Rosenlund: Maybe just a chance to respond later if necessary. Sacchet: Okay. You can always come back. With that I'd like to open the public hearing. We'd like to invite any of the residents that have comments to this item in front of us to come forward and express what you want to tell us. I do want to point out, since we have quite a good number of people here tonight, that if I could ask you not to keep repeating the same thing over and over in the interest oftime. Then ideally if you have like a spokesperson ofthe neighborhood, that's the best solution. But certainly everybody's welcome to speak up so is anybody here that wants to address this proposal in front of us? This is your chance. Yes, please come forward. State your name and address for the record and let us know what you have to say please. Jason Ashline: Hi. I'm Jason Ashline, 10 Fox Hollow. Sacchet: Do you want to put the mic a little in front? There you go. Jason Ashline: Okay. As you guys are aware, I have some concerns about the proposed development. I'm not opposed to development in general but I do not support this development 9 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 in it's current form. Further study and modifications need to be made. I will cover several issues as timely as possible. I'll try to get through these as fast as possible. I would refer you to my memo, I think all of you have that, and further information. First of all I'd like to point out that in Section 20-1182 regarding foundations and aesthetic plantings, it specifically states that boulevard plantings are at a minimum of 1 tree for every 30 is required. So it's a minimum standard. It's not a maximum standard. It's a minimum. So I would like to focus on the word minimum and I would refer the commission to my asking for a modification of the condition attached to the staff report, page 12, number 12, letter (I), to say one conifer tree should be planted for every 6 to 14 feet except within the sight triangle. I would refer the members to my proposals and condition add on's and maybe possibly friendly amendments. I would also like to see adherence to Section 20-1176, Section F(8). Basically this section of the code says in instances in which the city deems it necessary to provide year round screening, the city may designate that all plantings be conifers. So that's the first area that I wanted to cover. The second area is Section 18-61(D)(4). It's in regards to providing relief to preserving trees in adjusting lot lines and advocating modified grading. I would refer you to the expanded language that I included in the current condition in the staff report, page 12, number 12(H). I would remind the commission that trees 142 and 143 may possibly be considered boundary line trees and be co-owned by myself and then the current owner of 6500 Chanhassen Road. Number 3, regarding the proposed retaining wall on page 3 ofthe staff report, we'd like to explore the retaining wall option with the developer if it is passed by the commission here and also work with the city and the engineer ifthey don't have an objection to that. I've had discussions with the developer and his engineer and if a wall is put in, we'd like to make sure it's fit in as aesthetically as possible with our property to minimize it's length as much as possible as well. We'd like to see a landscape architect's rendition of how the retaining wall would look like and what type of stone material could be used. We'd also like to see how the street would look like if the wall did not go as well, and I would refer you to a friendly amendment that I've proposed as add on language that I've submitted as well. The next area that I'd like to cover regarding the street width variance on page 10 of the staff report. I believe that a 24 foot wide street is more than adequate and I believe that there is an environmental hardship and safety reason for going to 24 feet and also adjusting the cul-de-sac radius accordingly. I've gone out there and I've measured it, you know 9 ~ feet off my property line to the east for a 31 foot paved surface, back of curb to back of curb, and basically the edge of the curb on the eastern side of the proposed Fox Drive comes extremely close to the edge ofthe current pond slope. There would be virtually no room to plant boulevard trees which is what the environmental resource coordinator is advocating. And I want to be very clear, we do not want, we do need at least a partial buffer with evergreens because of the noise and the headlights and other visual impacts from Route 101. As you know all of the buffers, the 15 large trees that are currently north ofthe pond are being removed, and also there is a safety issue of the road being located so very close to the edge of this pond. I believe there is a true hardship reason here and as far as addressing the concerns for on street parking and access to emergency vehicles, and in my memo I referenced an 8 year study conducted by a consulting firm, Swift Associates in Longmont, Colorado and I'm sure there are other studies out there that basically concluded that the safest street in residential neighborhoods is a 24 foot wide paved street. Basically it concluded that speeds were slower, provided ample room for emergency vehicles. It decreased impervious surface, which reduced storm water runoff, which in turn reduces the size of storm water ponds. Additionally a 24 foot wide paved surface reduces maintenance costs for the city and also construction costs for the 10 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15,2005 developer. It will also increase for the developer front lot size, and who wouldn't want that? Other municipalities in Minnesota use 24 feet wide, 24 feet wide streets very effectively. I would refer the commissioners to Afton, Minnesota, Lake Elmo as examples. Parking could be on one side ofthe street, and we're talking about a very small area here between the pond and east of my property line. And we're only talking with access to this proposed subdivision, only 60 trips a day. So really instead of asking for maybe an after the fact variance, you know maybe we can do it right the first time around and look at ways to address low impact development. Lastly I want to address the proposed pond expansion. I believe that the current proposal is premature. Basically on September 21,2004 Lori Haak wrote to Todd Gerhardt a memo about the storm water management program basically saying it is out of date and there are also specific design standards for storm water ponds. Not just NURP standards but other standards that must be adhered to for an effective storm water pond. Before we go ahead with this pond expansion I think the commission really needs to ask itself you know several questions. First of all, are there any reasonable alternatives than to expand the pond that would lessen the impact and wipe out the needed buffer? Have we looked seriously at the alternatives and are we absolutely sure there are no alternatives to expand the pond by such a large amount? And third, is there anything else that we can do to reduce impervious surface that will reduce runoff? And I propose you know one area where we could reduce the street width. I mean I think most engineers would agree that reducing impervious surface reduces runoff. And are there any other unintended consequences with the decision to expand the pond? Basically there are alternatives. I proposed some. I'm sure there are others. I would recommend that before we approve this plat, the City should hire an independent firm to look at the proposed expansion, and this is why an expansion may not be necessary. The contributing watershed would be, is still rather small. It's a little over 12 acres. According to the Metropolitan Council, which is the regional planning agency serving the Twin Cities area, in their best management practices for urban small sites, the wetland size to a watershed area ratio should be a minimum of 1 %. According to storm water center.net, this type of pond should not consume more than 2 to 3 percent of the contributing drainage area. Based upon the calculations submitted, the area consumed would be at least 3.8%. It's really too large for this drainage area. The last thing we want to do is increase the size of our pond and then MnDot decides to comes in and expand 101 to 4 lanes which may happen in the future. Furthermore the design and shape of this pond, if you go through with this, is not consistent with how storm water ponds should be designed. Firstly, the pond length to width ratio should be at least 3 to 1. This pond, if expanded, will be as long as it is wide. Or nearly so. The length to width ratio ofthe sediment forebay should be 2 to I to avoid short circuiting. No one even seems to be able to address this issue regarding the forebay. I've raised it several times and no one can really seem to respond to it. The riser, is there a riser associated with this pone near the outlet? All inlets really should enter through the first cell of the storm water pond. There are multiple inlets. In fact at least one inlet is very close within 2 feet of the outlet, and then the pond really should be a tear drop shape. The pond is very rectangular. Tear drop shapes minimize dead zones caused by corners. And then also there should be emergent wetland vegetation planted. Long natural grasses and shrubs, plantings such as soft stem bulrush, arrowhead, wild rice. This all should be planted along the side of the pond for full visual enhancement and to reduce runoff. Slagle: Excuse me Mr. Ashline, if! can ask Mr. Chair. II Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 Sacchet: Sure. Slagle: First of all I appreciate everything you've done and researched into this. I guess the simple question is, did you have discussions with the developer? It sounds like you have, and of what areas of those discussions did you guys reach any mutual agreement or was everything that you're bringing up not agreeable with the developer? Jason Ashline: Well we did meet I believe last Thursday for the first time, and we did raise some of these issues. Actually most of these issues were raised. The pond, the road width, the trees in my back, trees 142, 143 and 144 on the tree inventory. So all of these issues, maybe not as in depth as what we're presenting here, or what I'm presenting here or in my memos but they were raised in generalities. There were no agreements. There's no signed agreements. Slagle: Was there any just outright refusal to work with you on them? Jason Ashline: No. I mean there was, no. Slagle: Okay. Jason Ashline: But then again there were no agreements, I think it was more of an informational exchange of ideas type meeting more than anything else. Slagle: And just what I'm trying to gather is sort of where we are today, tonight. Common ground, if any and how we proceed. I mean just as one voice up here. As an example, if I may. As an example, on your lot, what I will call the eastern boundary, and I apologize for not having been out there but you know are there, do you have your own trees? Have you considered planting your own buffer? Have you talked to the developer about helping you out in that respect? Jason Ashline: Not specifically about along my eastern line, no. Slagle: Okay. Sacchet: Before we get into questions, do you mind wrapping up. You've been going for about 20 minutes. Jason Ashline: Oh sure, no. I was just going to wrap up and basically you know, before we rush to judgment you know I think we need to investigate here a little further. There are several issues that need to be resolved and basically in closing you know, I presented to the commission a memo and some proposals for additional conditions and friendly amendments and I would like you guys to consider those. Obviously if you do vote in favor of this, obviously I still remain opposed for the reasons that I've mentioned but I would, you know I appreciate your full consideration and thank you very much. Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else who would want to address this issue? This is your chance. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 Please come forward. State your name and your address and let us know what you have to say please. Kim Robinson: Council members, my name is Kim Robinson and I live at 25 Pleasant View Road so I'm on the opposite side from Fox Hollow people. Sacchet: Right next to it or, you want to point it out? Kim Robinson: This is our lot right here. It's our back garage. And my question, or I'm glad to hear that trees are an issue with the planning but, and trees that were on the same lot line and stuff but I have trees in my yard that I inherited. We didn't plant them. I would have never planted them this close to the lot line but they exist. They're mature ash trees and there are 4 of them within feet ofthe property line. And a weird circumstance. We have also directly behind our lot, the ground slopes away quite steeply and for some reason not so much here and here but right here, and so my tree roots are primarily on that side of the trees are in that steeply sloping area. And what we're wondering there is what's going to happen to that slope during construction, because it looks like if it was mine to do, I would dig that out and put a retaining wall there because who's going to want to mow it? Mr. Bongaard didn't like doing it when he had to, and so my concern is the trees. Sacchet: Matt can you address what the grading is happening there... I don't see too many grading lines there but can you give us an idea please. Saam: Yeah. Of course the developer's going to be staying on their property, but it sounds like the concern is that the roots may go in off ofthe resident's property into the south property. What the developer is showing there is a drainage swale. A small swale for drainage along that north side of the house. Sacchet: Okay. Saam: So it does look like there will be a little cutting. Doesn't look to be severe as in multiple feet. More like 6 inches to a foot. Without looking at how far the roots come into the property out there, I'm not sure if they can be saved or what the impacts would be. I guess I would maybe suggest we explore this further later maybe with the City Forester. Definitely if we can save those trees, you know we would. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Thank you, good concern. Anybody else want to address this item? Please come forward and state your name and your address for the record. Maria Vanderzanden: Hi. Maria Vanderzanden at 50 Hunters Court and that is right here. Trees are popular tonight. Just some clarification. In the outline along the entire perimeter of this property I believe the trees are like 100 years old minimum. They're beautiful, gorgeous trees. Is the proposal to remove all of those trees around the perimeter? AI-Jaff: What you see in green in areas that, there will be a silt fence out here. Anything beyond the silt fence will not be removed. It will remain natural. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 Maria Vanderzanden: Okay. And what is the distance between the homes? From here to here. I want to get to your question in terms of it being consistent with what's really going on in the neighborhood. AI-Jaff: Sure. The city code requires a 10 foot side yard setback, so at a minimum you'll have a 20 foot separation. Rarely, a typical parcel is 90 foot wide. Maria Vanderzanden: Between two homes? AI-Jaff: From this, per ordinance, from this point to this point you have a 90 foot minimum. Assuming a 10 foot separation from setback from the property line, your house is going to be 70 feet wide. Now rarely do we see 70 foot wide homes, but that's a possibility. Maria Vanderzanden: Okay. It's clearly not consistent with what is going around, going on along the perimeter of this property. I mean we have minimum 30 feet between our homes so I'm real concerned about changing the look and feel of the neighborhood with this type of set-up. That's one thing. I wonder too, if any consideration has been given to move this road elsewhere and what I'm really concerned about is the distance between 101 to here. This neighborhood is full of children, and there's not a whole lot of opportunity to slow down on 101 before you turn onto this road, and cars whip around that corner as it is. They already take this whole street just to turn this corner. It's not safe already and then you're going to have additional vehicles coming at us here and trying to turn either way. I'm very concerned about the safety of that. Not only for the children but for the pure speed of the vehicles going this way, so has consideration been to perhaps reduce the homes from 6 to 4 and relocate this road. Where the existing road already is on 101, if they went down to 4, it would be a much safer access and you could use the existing access. You wouldn't have to mess with other people's property. You could maintain those beautiful trees that area already there. You wouldn't have to change the landscaping so drastically. This is a real security issue. Sacchet: Matt, what's the speed limit on what is this, Fox Drive? Fox Hollow Drive. Saam: I would guess it's 30. I mean 30 maximum. It may be at 25 but in terms of moving the street access. Sacchet: There isn't any no alternative is there? Saam: No. And Highway 101 is a state road. Arterial roadway. I don't believe, again going back to Yoberry, I don't believe they would allow access, direct access onto 101. Wouldn't be the first preference, especially when we have street right-of-way dedicated for the sole purpose as Shanneen said. We're trying to limit access to those type of highways. And that, frankly in my opinion this access will be safer than a direct street coming out onto 101. Another street coming out onto 101. There are already many access points onto 101 so we want to try to limit those. Sacchet: It's probably not what you want to hear but. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 Maria Vanderzanden: Well but wasn't there a comment made earlier about if they were 4 houses, the access could be different than 6 houses... Sacchet: It could be a private road. And it wouldn't change where it comes out. Maria Vanderzanden: Okay. And how tall are these houses going to be? They look like... AI-Jaff: Our city code permits up to 35 feet in height. Maria Vanderzanden: I'm just, I'm not clear on how the houses as scoped here are really you know, I don't get how only this much can be house. My concern is that the house is actually going to be much closer to the property line. I don't understand how you can have such a big house this size that's 60 by 60. I'm not clear on that. Slagle: If I can, Sharmeen, do we have a picture? Did you have a picture earlier, a photo of, I'm assuming it's something that they've built. AI-Jaff: Somewhere else, correct. I also want to point out that our city code has requirements for hard surface coverage. Slagle: I think you wrapped it in a piece of paper. I saw it earlier. AI-Jaff: Is that what I did? Slagle: I didn't see where you put it but I did. AI-Jaff: And I know I had it in my hand. Maria Vanderzanden: Well I understand ifthere's floorplans, and that's okay, you don't have to present the floorplans. I'm just, I don't see how you can have. . . Sacchet: And we don't know what they're going to build. I mean this is, it's not to the stage of knowing what they're going to build. This is just an example. Do you want to zoom in to it Nann? AI-Jaff: If! may add, there are several things, several mechanisms in which what's built on a property is regulated. Number one, you have a 25 foot, 25% hard surface coverage. Now when it's 25% hard surface, that includes the house, the driveway, sidewalks. Anything that water does not penetrate through. That is calculated as hard surface coverage and the developer or. . .right there. You can't just pave the entire parcel and put a house on the entire thing. That's not an option. Sacchet: So there are some safeguards in place. AI-Jaff: Correct. There are mechanisms and then you have the setbacks. That's another thing. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 Slagle: But this photo that we're seeing here, if I can ask, does this resemble the house in Mound, the floorplan that you? Scott Rosenlund: Exactly. Slagle: Okay, so this would be something that you might see on Lot 4? Scott Rosenlund: Exactly. Slagle: Okay. Saam: I'll mention one thing too in regards to a resident brought up building back toward the rear lot line. The silt fence is shown on this plan. They're not going to be taking out trees in back of that. We inspect that. There's penalties if something like that would happen so there are safeguards in place. We get financial security from the developer ifhe would do something so we can use that to correct.. . Sacchet: So in other words what you see in green on this plan is what the developer agrees to, and the city's going to hold him to it. Maria Vanderzanden: Okay. And maybe I can just, I don't know who I can talk with after this but all over my property are all these little flags and now I'm getting concerned that people think that it's their property so I really want to make sure I'm clear on property lines. Sacchet: Flags as in little marker things? Maria Vanderzanden: Well you know, little markers and orange tags and you know, I mean they're all on my property. Several feet. Sacchet: You want to address that Matt? Or you want to talk with her? Maria Vanderzanden: Well I can speak to him afterwards. I can meet you in my yard, you know. Saam: Yes, we can set that up. Sacchet: Excellent, thank you. Anybodyelse? Public hearing's still open. Yes, please come forward. Tell us who you are and what you have to say. Tim McNeill: This will be real quick. Sacchet: That's alright. Just get up there and tell us. Tim McNeill: I'm Tim McNeill. I live actually right behind Lot 3. Over there. And definitely happy to hear that the green areas are saved because there are a lot of good trees back there. The 16 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 water in that area just basically builds up. There's no, we don't have any sewer in our small subdivision. It's a private road with no sewer and I was just wondering whether or not there were any plans to maybe use city sewer to get some of the water out of that area otherwise the water from Lots 1, 2 and 3 will probably pool somewhere you know in this area. Sacchet: What's the drainage? Can you explain the drainage a little bit Matt and how that would affect them? Generally it should improve. Saam: Yes. And the engineer's done a relatively good job I think in this area. They are installing a rear yard catch basin that will collect storm water in this low area back here. Now they're not going to be going again into the green area so there might be, if there's pooling there today, that will continue but as it builds up, it will drain in here versus going to the existing homes or the new homes so. Sacchet: Is that what you asked about? Tim McNeill: Yes, that's exactly it. Keefe: So it may not be perfect but it will be improved probably over... Saam: Yes. Yeah, I would say it'd be an improvement. Sacchet: It's a trade off. We don't want to go into the trees. We want to preserve the trees, right. Tim McNeill: Okay. And I had that same question about the actual survey ofthe land and different tags on different trees so. Sacchet: Yeah, basically all the trees get inventoried so a tag on a tree doesn't mean it's going to be cut. It means that it was actually surveyed. Tim McNeill: Right. There's also stakes in the middle of our yard so you know, we just think you know, well actually it brings up another question. Our subdivision, the 4 houses on Pleasant View Circle which are offthe private road, there's no official survey by the City ofChanhassen on file. And it might be a good idea. Sacchet: To know where you are. Tim McNeill: To know you know, for the City to know where we are. Sacchet: So you're on Pleasant View Circle. I wondered about that when I drove by, and that's the property right adjacent. Okay, that was my question earlier. Okay. Tim McNeill: Thank you. Sacchet: Alright, thank you for your comments. Appreciate it. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 Lillehaug: Matt, can you comment on who's responsibility it is to actually verify that their lots are their lots. Saam: Yeah. As you probably know it's the homeowner's responsibility. The City, we don't do mass surveys of the entire city. That would be nice to have every lot. Certainly when every new lot comes in, we require one now but we don't have existing, older neighborhoods we don't have a lot of those surveys on file. Sacchet: Sometimes not even that old. Saam: No. Sacchet: But I just want to ask the question of the applicant. I mean I assume you verified where you're lot lines are. Is it possible that there are some possible unclarities with the neighbors to the west? I think that's an issue since we have heard it from two people now that maybe you could say something about. Cara Otto: I don't know how much definition I can give to it other than yes, there is a boundary survey that was done as part of the property. I have not been brought up to any, know of anything that was you know ambiguous with any of the property lines. I'm not sure what the stakes are. I can check in and see ifthat's something that is from our stakes or not. I don't know if Matt. Saam: I was thinking maybe it might be utility locates. If you guys were. Cara Otto: Oh like a Gopher, yeah. Private utilities. Saam: Yeah, maybe your, their survey crew had called in for those to get them on the plans. Sacchet: Definitely important to clear that up. Cara Otto: But typically if there's something that is researched that's a gap or ambiguous with the description, usually that's pointed out and further research. I haven't heard that at this point. McDonald: Yeah excuse me. Is that property abstract or Torrens? Cara Otto: I would have to look. I believe it's just abstract. McDonald: And when you did the survey, did you do it according to the property description within that document? Cara Otto: The property's description from an abstract, yeah. McDonald: Were there any irregularities that you found in verifying the information on the abstract? 18 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 Cara Otto: That's what I'm saying. I don't, I'm not aware of it. I'm not the person who does, I'm an engineer, not the surveying end but typically if there's some issue with a property line, that's brought up fairly early because the boundary survey is the first piece of work that we do do so. Lillehaug: The bottom line is, a registered land surveyor is doing this period, right? Cara Otto: Yes they are, yep. And a new one has been done. We're not going off of old information. Saam: And I'll just add at time of final plat, what they do is reviewed at the County too so it's not like Otto's surveyors are the only ones to do it and nobody else looks at it so. Cara Otto: Yeah, the final plat is sent for plat checking with all the neighboring properties. Slagle: But if I can throw out though, it might be helpful if the applicant, along with your survey, could work with staff and the neighbors. Saam: Oh sure, yeah. Cara Otto: Oh yeah. Yeah. I'm just saying that I don't know, this is the first I've heard of anything. I don't know if it's our stakes or just like a Gopher One call, but I'm not aware of anything that's ambiguous. Sacchet: Thank you. Public hearing is still open so please come forward. Let us know who you are. There you go. Richard Herr: I'm Richard Herr and I live at 120 Fox Hollow Drive so I'm not adjacent to the property. Sacchet: Little further down on Hollow Drive. Richard Herr: Little further down the line and I'm not sure ifthis is necessarily the right forum for this but the one thing that I have thought about that would be of general value to the neighborhood would be, like some other neighborhoods have further down 101. They have a neighborhood pool, and I guess I bring that up as an idea that may change the layout here and could potentially change this from a 5 property, or a 6 property to a 5 property area and might address some of the runoff concerns and that type of thing so I just thought I'd bring that up. I don't know even how to approach such a thing but only to say maybe that the neighborhood might have an opportunity to purchase one of the lots, or to be involved in one of the lots or half lot. Sacchet: Well you met the developer. Better talk to him afterwards. Thank you very much. Anybody else? Yes, please come forward. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 Dave Robinson: My name's Dave Robinson. I'm at 25 Pleasant View. Right there. Sacchet: Okay. Dave Robinson: And I guess my only question is, when construction starts, what can we expect as far as, are all the houses going to be built pretty much at the same time and sold, or is it going to be people buying lots and building houses one at a time? By the developer. Sacchet: Does the developer want to address that quickly? It's my understanding you're also the construction so you're actually the builder? Scott Rosenlund: All of the above. Sacchet: Okay. You're the whole thing. Scott Rosenlund: It's pretty hard to predict at this point exactly how it will go down but if they were all sold out immediately, that'd be a good thing for us. Sacchet: So it's market driven. Scott Rosenlund: Yeah, exactly so I can't... Sacchet: From your experience would you say likely 2-3 years? Scott Rosenlund: Probably 2 years. Sacchet: About 2 years? Okay. Alright, thank you very much. Anybody else wants to speak up at this public hearing. This is your chance. So you'd better come forward before I close the hearing. State your name and address. Let us know what you have to say please. Jim Theis: My name is Jim Theis. I live at 6400 Chanhassen Road. I'm the bigger corner lot here. I guess I've kind oflooked over some of the stuff and I'm up to speed on it some. My only issue was when Kim brought up about the have to grade here. My only concern is here there, again there are most of the trees I believe that are on this line are actually on these properties. Off the Pleasant View side. I have some concerns here when I heard Matt say that they were going to maybe do a swale, if they are going to inbetween here, that I want to make sure that we're up on that before we start getting into any kind of roots on those things because those are mature trees that are our buffer right now and are going to buffer us from that development. Otherwise, I don't really have anything. I guess I would also say, I'm on the fire department too. The road wise, I'll just say from the public safety side of it that our ladder, when we set it up, if we have something in here, we got you know 2 story houses going up. If we go to the 24 foot road and we set our ladder up, it's 16 feet wide so you basically shut that road off for anything else getting in or out. So it's just a consideration and.. .happy with 31 foot. And I only say that just more so from the public safety side. I don't know how much impact there really is visual or on any ofthe other stuffbut from the public safety side I think that is an issue so. Other than that, it's just I want to make sure that the developer, that we can work along with that 20 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 because I would be concerned about trees and stuff there, and I'm sure both sides, there are people that are going to be buying the lots are going to want the buffer both ways, so we just want to make sure that we don't lose anything that way. Sacchet: Thank you. Good comment. Keefe: Quick question. Matt, maybe you can answer this. What safeguards are there in regards to protecting trees that are on adjacent properties that may have root systems which go in? I mean anything that you can comment on? Saam: That's a good, I mean other than putting up the tree fence. You know walking it. The City Forester always walks it as do our inspectors and other than putting up tree fence, you know where we see kind of the edge of the root or the drip line, I don't know that there's a lot. I mean basically you've got to move away from them as much as you can. Keefe: So it's making the developer aware that the Forester typically has a discussion with the developer. Saam: Well she's out there with his contractor and everything so. I think it's something we can work through. Sacchet: Okay. Alright, public hearing is still open. Do we have any other people who'd like to speak up? Yes. Cara Otto: I was going to just speak to a few ofthe engineering comments that were made. Sacchet: Please. From the developer's viewpoint. Cara Otto: Probably one of the most important ones is possibly the pond. There was a lot of discussion on the pond. It really makes a lot of sense water quality wise and maintenance wise. Space wise to have a larger existing pond than to have several ponds throughout every single 2.77 acre development. We did try to do what we could to save the trees and I understand that it's tough to have those trees removed. I wouldn't want it if! were Jason sitting there too. There's a lot ofthings that Jason, or Mr. Ashline I should say, you know has a hardship because he didn't have this originally. A lot of times the city requires that road to be extended to the property line and built as part ofthe development. In this case it wasn't done and now we're taking over, or the developer's taking over that cost of it and some of the political back fire that comes with that. It's sort of unfortunate and we're doing the best we can. As far as with the pond design, we are meeting the city standards. I would suggest that the independent party that's looking at it is the city. I certainly don't have any kind of relationship with Matt that I think he's going to tell me that I can do a pond different than anyone else in the city. There are things that we have to change. We're working through that with staff. There also are some of the criteria that was thrown out, and there's a lot of different design criteria. Not all of it is any sort of bible. There's different methods. There's different means. You can say a lot of different types of design criteria to use, but that is not all inclusive of what the requirements are for the city, so we did meet volume requirements, depth requirements and some ofthose issues. There's certainly 21 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 things that you'll find in text books that they a pond should do this or a pond should have that. In an ideal world we might have all those but there's very few ponds that do so we're doing what we can... Sacchet: Basically have to work with what we've got, right? Cara Otto: Right. The only other thing is just to mention that the buffering on the pond that is currently existing is all on the north side of the pond so in thinking about what we would do for replacement, the developer's fine with doing buffer replacement along 101 that's required. The boulevard trees, but the 6 to 11 foot trees along Fox Hollow and Fox Hollow Drive, there's no existing buffer in that area now so I think that the boulevard trees would provide something for that. If that cover it, thank you. Sacchet: Excellent comment, thank you. Alright, we have somebody else who wants to speak up. Please come forward and let us know who you are. Rogue Swenson: Rogue Swenson, 35 Pleasant View. Right over here. A question I have is just to understand this. The developer was talking about $600,000 houses. Is that correct in this area or was he just giving an example of an area in Mound that has a house of that amount? Is that the type of homes we're looking to building this area? Scott Rosenlund: Probably in that range. Rogue Swenson: Okay. I'm just curious with 101 there, what happens if nobody wants to buy a house that costs $600,000 along the highway there? What happens to the property then? Just a question. Thank you. Sacchet: I don't know whether we're qualified to answer that question. It's the way the real estate market is going, I wouldn't necessarily be personally too concerned about it. What probably happens is the price comes down a little bit. I mean that's the risk that any developer accepts. Rogue Swenson: Lot size.. .to ask for homes then to pay for everything else? Sacchet: To put more homes? No. He cannot put in more homes. Definitely not. That stands firm. Anybody else? Rogue Swenson: It will always remain single family then too? No townhomes or... Sacchet: That's the zoning. Single family and not more than 6. That's the maximum that fits in there. Anybodyelse? If! don't see anybody else getting up I will close the public hearing. Alright. Well, I want to thank you all for your comments. Very interesting, good comments. We'll bring it back to the commission for discussion. Comments from this side. Saam: Mr. Chair, could I correct one thing I said earlier? 22 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 Sacchet: Please. Saam: It goes to the point of two residents. In just looking at that north lot line, where I think Mr. Theis and the Robinson's brought up, initially I thought they were cutting. It does look like they're filling there slightly so maybe that will help... that was brought up. I just looked at it again and I just wanted to point that out. Looks like just along the north side of that Lot 4, they are filling for that swale in there. They don't need to cut so I think that will maybe even help if there are exposed roots in that area, it might not be as much of an issue. Sacchet: They'll fill a little bit but then after that they cut down, right? Saam: It does look like they're filling just bécause the house pad's being raised up in that area so. Sacchet: Okay. Alright, yeah that's a good point. Appreciate your clarifying that. So it's back to the commission. Further issues to clarify. Things to discussion. There's certainly plenty of material in front of us from all the comments from the residents and we have to make a decision about this tonight. A recommendation that is to City Council. Anybody want to start? Lillehaug: I can start. Sacchet: Go ahead Steve. Lillehaug: Pond design. It's an adequate pond design. Absolutely. I think you summed it up very well. It's not ideal pond design. It's not perfect but it does meet our standards. You've got to, that's all there is to it. The access on Fox Hollow, that is the safest spot for the access so I fully support that's where the access does need to be. Not off 101. The roadway should be 31 feet. Why would we consider anything different? I mean there's some pretty valid points raised but it is safer to have a 31 foot, especially for fire trucks. Also needed for snow removal to get our trucks turned around there. The roadway next to the pond, I don't totally agree with that. There's, it's curb and gutter. It's a 6 inch curb. That's considered a barrier. It's not a safety hazard for that road to be next to the pond. Absolutely not. I always kind of, it's hard to weigh out taking out trees to put in a pond, but I think there's been a valid point that most of these trees are at the north end of the pond. The applicant is putting pretty adequate trees as a buffer there. So I do support how the trees are laid out at this time. The question with staff would be, good questions about having changing trees to conifers. Are we okay with what's shown here? What were the trees lined up on the west side of the pond, if I can ask that question quick like. AI-Jaff: They are evergreens and... Lillehaug: Okay, there we go then. My big hang up and it's, if you look, if you can switch to the overhead there, what's wrong with that layout? You can see it, it just stands right out to you. It's Lot 4 and Lot 1. You've got a 60 by 60 foot pad on Lot 2, Lot 3, Lot 5, Lot 6. You don't have it on Lot 1 and 4. Why not? Because it can't fit. So what happens, the lot size is pretty sub-standard and simply put, I'm not happy with Lot 1 and 4. Is it the developer's fault? Absolutely not. I mean he's adhering to our city code. So I would almost like, not like to 23 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 support this because it doesn't meet a 60 by 60 foot lot, but I can't do that because it meets our code. So I challenge the commission as well as our city council and staff that there should be a 60 by 60 foot pad requirement on our lots in Chanhassen. I fought for this for 3 years, and this is a prime example of why, I mean I don't know what else I can say. I do support the proposal based on current city code. Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Dan, you want to go next? Keefe: Just a couple of comments. One is in regards to, I guess it would be in regards to, well maybe I add these a little bit later but one of the conditions talks about the retaining wall and Matt, you talked about we're going to kind of reassess that and whether we actually need that or not. Perhaps raise the road up a little bit so it doesn't require, maybe we need to have some word smithing on number 23 in regards to that because if we put it onto the east side, because right now I think it refers to the west side. We may need to look at rewording that. And then in general I support the proposal. I think the developer's actually done a pretty good job in regards to this. I appreciate all the comments by the residents. I think they're all very valid but I do also think the developer's done a good job of trying to you know, preserve some of the trees. I think he's worked with city staff to preserve a lot ofthe trees. The street width, I'd like to see a 24 foot width in a situation like this but actually I think from a safety perspective I think you've got to keep it at 31 feet just you know so that (a), that new residents who are in there have enough room to park. Also there's room for fire trucks to get back in there and other emergency vehicles to go back in there if needed, so I support this. Sacchet: Thanks Dan. Debbie. Larson: Just my main concern or question. Not necessarily concern, regarding the pond and the removal of all the trees. I was out there today and it's really a lot of beautiful trees along that edge and what I would like to see possibly is the conversation about re-shaping the east edge where the signage is. And if we could somehow you know expand the pond more that way, which would lessen some of the tree loss on the other side. If that's something that could be done, I mean they really are some old gorgeous trees in there and quite a few trees are going away that is. When I was looking at the property today, pretty much everything in the middle gets cleared out so that's my main concern. Other than that, the proposal, as you said, it's within the city code and I would support it. Sacchet: Thanks Debbie. Rich. No comments? Jerry, any additional comments? McDonald: I guess the only thing I would say is I've lived in that area for 20 years. I knew what it was like. Pleasant View and 101 used to flood all the time. The City went in there to correct the pond. They corrected that drainage. I have confidence in what the City says as far as the drainage pond so I feel quite comfortable in leaving that up to them. The comment about the access to 101, I do have to speak to that because that is also, that is a major safety hazard. You're 25 feet away from Pleasant View. That road's already bad enough. I believe they need a light there, especially in the morning and the evening. You would just really make that a very bad situation so that is not even close to being easy as far as safety. That we would be creating a hazard. You talk about dangers, there would be wrecks there for sure. As far as the road and 24 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 everything, I did go out to the property. I've looked at it. It's consistent with the neighborhood. I do not believe that you can make that road narrower and at that point be inconsistent with the neighborhood. I was surprised to know that you're going to try to put $600,000 houses there. Good luck with that but again, that's the risk that the developer takes. The other thing on the two lots. I do have to address that because a couple weeks ago we did bring that up about the, both the pad size and everything, and as was pointed out and one of my concerns at that point is that, what do we do about developable land, and if you now, again a 60 foot pad, you now have lots that cannot be developed and I think that is a problem and you're right. I would agree with that the council needs to address it but that's not an issue here. As far as some ofthe other concerns, I think that the trees are being addressed. I did walk the property lines and everything and as long as the surveys have been done correctly and everything, I think most ofthe trees, especially along the lot lines, should be saved. So I don't have any major concerns there. The barrier trees that you talk about, I remember a lot of those were new so I think that if we could, and again that comes back to pond design, if you could save a couple of those, they are mature trees but I would defer to the City Engineer on that. I guess as far as some of the other issues, the comment I would make about the gentleman about the swimming pool is I think you need to address that with the homeowners association and ifthere's something that can be done there, you probably need to come back to the city and petition something because there is a park down at Lotus Lake and there's a lot ofland there and that's something that should be addressed through them. And I guess that's it. Sacchet: First of all I want to thank all the neighbors who spoke up and certainly Mr. Ashline who seems to have done a tremendous effort researching all this. And I'd like to invite, where is he? There he is. I'd like to invite you to continue giving input to the city. The difficulty that we're facing is that when we have a proposal like that in front of us, and I mentioned that in the beginning. We're not at liberty to change the rules. We have to apply the ordinances and codes of the city as they are now. Now are they necessarily perfect? Well no, they're not. None of us is perfect. That's why we try to improve them as we go. We do the best we can but we can't hold something up because we know it's not perfect because it's never going to be perfect. That way we never get anything done. So a couple of the issues that were raised by several residents. Reducing the number of lots in order to reduce traffic. We hear that quite routinely with.. . and the number of homes. This is not determined by the number oftraffic. It's determined by the size of the property. And the city code makes it very clear that we allow, in this zoning which is clearly single family residential, a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. Now all of these lots fulfill that requirement. Are they necessarily the perfect shape? I mean I would think it could be better but under the circumstances can be done better, I don't think it's that easy to improve this. I really think the developer did a very admirable job to make the best out of this situation. With the details of boulevard planting and all that, I would refer those details to staff. To work with staff. Work with the City Forester. The street width, you know street width of Fox Hollow Drive right now I believe is standard sized streets so that's 31 feet wide. The people are going to live in that Fox Den place. They're going to want to park their cars. To just allow parking on side of the street is in my opinion unenforceable. It would be a very unhappy situation and we heard about the safety concern about getting in and out with fire trucks and all that. So I do think that we have to live again by our city ordinance and rules that say we ask for the 31 feet curb to curb, and there is lots of reasons on when to do that. That doesn't, can it be changed? It can get changed but it can't be changed just for one development. It's something that I would invite 25 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 anybody who has an interest to think, that thinks that some of these rules are not quite right, to work with city staff. Work with us. Apply for commissions and make an effort to line things up that you think need to be lined up. The ponding design, we have to work with the code as it is now and obviously there are some areas it can be improved. The developer you mentioned that you felt it was a little bit of a concern that you have to bring it up to standard while it wasn't before. Engineering clarified that it wasn't necessarily sub-standard in terms of what's already there. With exception maybe of that outlet structure and stuff like that, which is not that big a deal. The tree cutting, I looked at the tree survey and really relatively few trees are very old growth that get cut. I mean I think there's one tree that's over 20 inches in diameter that gets cut, and most of the significant trees, the way I've been able to determine by looking at the survey and the lot, are around the periphery so I think that is reasonably mitigated. However the things I think we can do something about is, and I don't know whether that justifies a condition is to make sure the boundary survey is correct because we have had situations in this city where, especially something that has not been official surveyed, I think we want to make doubly sure that we don't drawn into any bad surprises there for either developer or some ofthe neighbors. The pond, the pond. What I think we can do is we can ask that the developer work with staff to evaluate alternative designs. Maybe to use available space, as far as it's available to minimize the cutting into the trees to the north of the pond. I wouldn't want to make it a condition that it has to be that way but certainly that it gets further explored. Then also to look into putting plantings around the pond. I think that's a very valid concern that was brought up. That a pond with just sod going over the edge is not really an ideal situation. And then the other concern that was brought up was the trees to the north side where there was a concern about cutting into the roots. That's also something I would like to ask that the developer work with staffto evaluate what can be done. How much impact those trees will have. I mean there might be a compromise necessarily if there's some cutting into the roots that maybe the trees have to be cut down in size a little bit so it gets balanced so that they have a fair chance of survival. But ideally of course we would like to have no impact to those trees so that buffer gets preserved. That's in the interest, as much ofthe neighbors as ofthe developer. It's equal, of equal benefit. Okay. Let's see, what else? The retaining wall, same thing. Work with staff. I don't think that's an item that warrants holding this up or something that be worked out. It's a detail in the overall scheme of things, and I would want to address you once more Mr. Ashline. I'd like to encourage you to work with the city staff and also with the developer. A lot of the comments I believe you made, specific comments, very constructive. To some extent into a detail level that is not in our discretion as a planning commission but it certainly a good thing to work with the developer. We have to keep in mind that the developer, the owner of the land has obviously the right to develop it and according to the plans and the rules that are in place at this time. So that's my comments. Unless somebody has any other aspects you want to bring up, I'd like to ask for a motion. Lillehaug: I make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Planning Case #05-08 for Fox Den for 6 lots with a variance for a 50 foot right-of-way width as shown on the plans prepared by Otto Associates, stamped received February 11, 2005, subject to the following conditions, 1 through 25. Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second? McDonald: I second. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15,2005 Sacchet: Any friendly amendments? Friendlyamendments? I'll have some, if! may. I'd like to make, I don't know whether that integrates anywhere in particular. Let me see, do we want to keep trees where trees are mentioned or, well let's make a new ones. Condition number 26. Developer will work with staff to explore possibilities of minimizing tree loss to the north of the pond and consider alternate design on the pond using available space. Or space as available. Is that acceptable? Keefe: You want to add it to 12(j)? Make it 12(j). Sacchet: Make it 12(j). Okay. We can make it 12(j). That's fine. So that's that one. And that can go with the same one, staff work with developer to consider buffer plantings around the pond. Lillehaug: Sure. Sacchet: Staff, developer will work with staff to evaluate the impact to the buffer trees to the north ofthe cul-de-sac, or we can mention Lot 4. Lillehaug: Yep. Sacchet: Okay. And do we want to say something about boundary survey? I guess that's just a request from staff. That's not a condition. Lillehaug: Yeah, there's through the final plat. Sacchet: Through the final plat, that should be an automatic verification in there, okay. Do we want to say anything about the type of trees? We have a request for emphasis of conifers versus deciduous trees. I guess that goes with work with city staff on plantings. Lillehaug: Is that an added condition then? Sacchet: We can state it. Work with staff to evaluate the placement of evergreens versus deciduous for buffering purposes. Lillehaug: Sounds good. And then one more. Condition 23. Staff is recommending. Maybe add that developer work with staff, because there was a comment about it may not even be necessary so how do we make that compatible with number 23? Saam: Yeah, well these conditions are per what was submitted. So based on those street grades we would need... Sacchet: Okay, so we would need it. Okay, so we leave that one alone. Saam: ... they be working to try to eliminate that as they do all these conditions. They try to get them down by the time of final plat. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15,2005 Sacchet: So no amendment to that. I think that's it. Anybodyelse? No? Lillehaug moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat for Planning Case #05-08 for Fox Den for 6 lots with a variance for a 50 foot right-of-way width as shown on the plans prepared by Otto Associates stamped "Received February 11, 2005", subject to the following conditions: 1. The pond on Outlot A, Fox Hollow shall be maintained to ensure it meets the size and volume standards to which it was originally designed. Any inlet and outlet structures on that pond requiring maintenance or replacement shall be maintained or replaced. 2. An outlet meeting National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permanent storm water management system requirements (NPDES Permit MN R100001, Section C, Subsection ID, Page 11 or 26) shall be installed at the outlet of the pond on Outlot A, Fox Hollow. 3. A floating Faircloth skimmer or another preapproved method should be used for dewatering. The flow route, distance to receiving waters and name of receiving waters of the storm water basin and dewatering activities shall be included on the plan. A detailed dewatering plan with method, rate, and erosion and sediment control considerations, such as energy dissipation, shall be provided. 4. Geotextile or gravel bed and riprap shall be provided for energy dissipation at the existing and proposed flared-end inlets to the storm water pond and the outlet of the pond on the east side ofHwy 101. 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: Type of Slope Steeper than 3: 1 10:1 to 3:1 Flatter than 10: 1 Time 7 days 14 days 21 days (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area is not actively being worked.) These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. 6. A detail for the catch basin (CB) sediment control shall be provided for the CB between Lots 2 and 3. 7. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as-needed. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 8. The applicant shall pay the total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording. At this time, the estimated fee is $8,021. 9. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-BluffCreek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. 10. Building Department conditions: a. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. b. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site. c. Existing wells on the site must be abandoned in accordance with State Law and City Code. 11. Fire Marshal conditions: a. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. b. A 10-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 that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. c. 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. d. Temporary street signs shall be installed on each street intersection when construction of the new roadway allows passage by vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4. 12. Environmental Resources Coordinator Conditions: a. Applicant shall revise landscape plan to show a minimum of21 trees to be planted. b. A minimum of two 2 W' deciduous, overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of each lot. c. No more than one-third of the required trees may be from anyone species. d. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits around all trees proposed to be preserved prior to any grading. e. Any trees proposed for preservation that are lost due to grading and construction activities will be replaced at a rate of 2: 1 diameter inches. f. All 21 trees shall be planted within the proposed development. A revised landscape plan will be required prior to final approval. g. A landscape buffer shall be planted along Hwy. 101 and include, at a minimum, 5 overstory trees, 7 understory trees and 12 shrubs. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15,2005 h. Trees #142-144 and six green ash not shown on the tree inventory, located along the south property line near the existing shed, shall be preserved. 1. The applicant shall plant boulevard trees along Fox Hollow Drive and Fox Drive to replace trees lost due to pond expansion. One tree shall be planted every 30 feet except within the sight triangle. Species selected shall be approved by the city. j. Developer will work with staff to explore possibilities of minimizing tree loss to the north of the pond and consider alternate design on the pond using available space. k. Developer will work with staff to consider buffer plantings around the pond. I. Developer will work with staff to evaluate the impact to the buffer trees to the north of the cul-de-sac on Lot 4. m. Developer will work with staff to evaluate the placement of evergreens versus deciduous for buffering purposes. 13. On the Utility plan: a. Show all easements. b. Add a note "Any connection to existing structures must be core drilled. 14. Add the following City detail plates: 1005,2001,5300 and 5301. 15. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan. 16. The sanitary sewer hook-up charge will only be applied to five ofthe six new lots. The water hookup charge will still be applicable for each of the new lots. Since the developer will be responsible for extending lateral sewer and water service to the lots, the sanitary sewer and water connection charges will be waived. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for water-main. Sanitary sewer and water-main hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council. 17. All ofthe utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also 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. The applicant must be aware that all public utility improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including the MPCA, MnDOT, Watershed District and MDH. 18. A professional engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. 19. The applicant must be aware that any grading on privately-owned property will require a temporary easement. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - March 15, 2005 20. The applicant will be required to clean the existing stormwater pond after enlargements have been completed. 21. Prior to final platting, storm sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review. The storm sewer will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour storm event. 22. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds and drainage swales up to the 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. 23. Staff is recommending that a small (1 '-3') retaining wall be installed along the western right- of-way of Fox Drive south ofthe site. This will alleviate the steep slopes in the area and provide room for a boulevard area in back of the curb for snow storage. 24. A minimum 20-foot wide easement will be required over the watermain that is outside of the right-of-way. 25. The developer shall pay full park dedication fees." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to o. Sacchet: Motion carries 6 to none. Good luck with this. Thanks again to all the residents for your input. This will go as a recommendation to City Council. City Council will look at it on April 11 tho I don't know whether they will take further comments from residents or not. That's up to their discretion, but you certainly can follow it through that way. I don't think we need to summarize for council. I think it's pretty clear with the comments we made and amendments so do we want to take a 5 minute recess before we continue? Let's take 5 minutes. (The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting.) PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AN AFTER THE FACT VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE USE OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AS A TWO-FAMILY DWELLING IN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) DISTRICT LOCATED AT 3891 WEST 62ND STREET. APPLICANT GARY AND MAUREEN CARLSON. PLANNING CASE 05-09. Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Questions from staff. Jerry. McDonald: I have a question that concerns property. Seem to remember from 2 weeks ago, isn't there a plan that at one point this becomes one of the outlet properties to put a street through to get up to West 62nd Street? AI-Jaff: If at the time this property comes in for development, we will definitely research that. I apologize, I don't have. 31