PC Minutes 04-15-2014Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014
PUBLIC HEARING:
ARBOR COVE: REQUEST FOR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE
AMENDMENT OF 3.26 ACRES FROM PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC TO RESIDENTIAL
LOW DENSITY; REZONING OF 3.26 ACRES FROM OFFICE INSTITUTIONAL
DISTRICT (OI) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (RSF); AND
PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW OF 54.67 ACRES INTO 5 LOTS ON PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 3121 WESTWOOD DRIVE. APPLICANT: DOGWOOD ROAD, LLC.
OWNER: WESTWOOD CHURCH, PLANNING CASE 2014-06.
Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. This planning case is Arbor Cove. Again this is
th
the public hearing is tonight and this will go to City Council on April 28. This property is located west
th
of Highway 41 between West 78 Street and Tanadoona. On the west end it touches Dogwood and that’s
actually where their residential subdivision will be taking place. I should point out that in the future you
th
will see there’s a small corner of the property right off of West 78 Street that has a single family home
on it. We will be bringing that in for rezoning. Currently it’s Rural Residential and it’s going to be zoned
as part of the Westwood site for office institutional uses. The request before us tonight actually has 3
components. There’s a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment of the residential portion of the
development. The 3.26 acres off of Dogwood from Public/Semi-Public to Residential Low Density. For
some background, prior to this church going in there, in this site this whole area was guided for residential
low density so that would be consistent with what’s there before there. Additionally they’re requesting a
rezoning of the residential portion of the project from Office Institutional back to Single Family
Residential. And finally they’re looking at preliminary plat approval for the 56.67 acres which is the
entire property into 5 lots. 4 of the lots would be for single family homes and the fifth lot would remain
with the church. Okay, a quick land use amendment. This area, again this area was previously guided for
residential low density. To do the single family home development we need to change the land use back
to low density and then the rezoning that would be, go with that. This land use is consistent with all the
residential development surrounding it and we believe that it’s an appropriate use for this, on this part of
the site and we will be recommending approval. The second part is the rezoning of the 4 single family
lots on the west end from Office/Institutional to Single Family Residential. As part of our analysis under
low density, residential low density there are several zoning categories that could be used. However the
RSF is consistent with all the surrounding zoning and it permits this type of development so we think it’s
the most appropriate rezoning for this and are recommending approval of that. Again the subdivision
creates 4 single family lots that would access off of Dogwood and then the church lot to the east of it.
The total site is 56.67 acres. All the lots exceed the minimum requirements in our code so they’re bigger
than normal. As part of this development we’re looking at, the site is almost, it’s 98% canopy cover right
now and so we’re trying to preserve as much of that as part of this development as possible. Oh I should
go back for our land use map amendment. We did have a 60 day jurisdictional review that was required.
That ended a week ago yesterday. There were no negative comments or objections to the proposed
amendment so…go forward and we have had preliminary discussions with the Met Council and we will
submit this through City Council as a minor amendment so they can have a shorter review time is
required for that. Again the subdivision, all the lots on Dogwood would exceed the minimum
requirements for single family home sites. Their preliminary grading plan showed they’re creating this
swale area in the northwest corner of the site. It picks up water that’s currently coming off of these
wetlands and from the development to the south and they’re putting in for the development an infiltration
pond. However one of the concerns we had is they were concentrating the water in this swale system and
so we are looking at creating a little bit more dispersion as it comes closer to the roadway and so it will
slow down the water moving down there and the applicant is agreeable to that and these are actually plans
that they have provided to us. Again they need to provide an erosion and sediment control plan as part of
the subdivision. They have a preliminary plan in here. One of the conditions that they create a SWPPP or
a Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan for the entire project because they have over an acre of grading
22
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014
that they’re doing and so those have best management practices and ways of preserving that. As part of
their original proposal they were looking at providing a tree conservation easement along the eastern part
of the properties. This point is 65 feet. Our City Forester, she thought that we should try to get closer to
the grading limits that they’re showing as part of this. The developer has some concerns that at least this
first lot is, becomes too constrained for development and they won’t have adequate use of their back yard.
We are looking at between now and City Council that we can come up with a final solution for the depth
of that easement area that would be acceptable to both the City and the developer. I should point out as
part of this project, because of the tree preservation they are getting credits for their surface water
management fees and so we think this would be a good tradeoff. The most northerly, or Lot 1 the
easement would follow what they’re proposing in it and would follow the contours of the grading limits
and then these would be again, what we proposed was 85 feet deep. In the southern end that would add
20 feet to that easement area and on this north end it would add 30 feet on Lot 2 so it sort of slants across
that. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed development subject to the conditions in the staff
report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. With that I’d be happy to
answer any questions.
Aller: Any commissioners have questions at this time? Based upon the report I don’t have any. Would
the applicant like to make a presentation? Welcome.
Todd Simning: Welcome, thank you. Todd Simning with Dogwood Development. I think the only open
item really is just the tree preservation and I think we can come to a conclusion with that. As I spoke with
Kate and Bob earlier tonight, we did another development, Wynsong just off of Galpin Boulevard and
have had tree preservations before and they’re very constraining. Can’t put swing sets in there. Can’t put
you know really you can’t do anything with them and so the one lot for sure was just a little tight where I
was just saying, we’re really not encumbering any trees there and just want to make certain that we can
maximize any back yard for somebody but obviously we wanted to preserve trees too because we think
that brings value to the land and as it goes to the north and around we just want to make certain we can,
can use as much as we can so I have a lot of confidence in working with the City and really don’t have
any issues with trying to figure something out there so, with that I really don’t have anything other than
that and we’ll come to a conclusion so.
Aller: Great, I appreciate that.
Todd Simning: And if guys have any questions for me.
Aller: I appreciate you working on that because those overstory trees make such an impact in your
biofiltration system and the buffer between the properties so it sounds like you’re on your way to creating
a good plan.
Todd Simning: Yes.
Aller: Anyone else?
Todd Simning: Thank you.
Aller: Thank you. At this time I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak for or against the
item before us can do so at this time. Sir, if you could state your name and address for the record, that’d
be great.
John Getsch: John Getsch, 7530 Dogwood Road. I don’t know the actual of the property. It’s, we
subdivided it off and they gave it some weird thing but anyway it’s directly diagonal off the southwest
23
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014
corner of the property on Dogwood Road. My concern is, I support the development. I think it’s but I do
have some concerns. Originally when the road was set up there it narrowed right at that point, the south
because there was not a plan for future development of that property. So the road is narrower there. It’s
also on a curve. The bend in the road is on a curve with very steep gradient in there. And the driveways
are coming down, it appears they come down quite steeply to the road. I think there may be an issue with
them bottoming out on the road when they come out. One of the things I looked at was, where they come
down. Having to make a, I think it says in there that the Planning Commission was concerned about the
steepness of the grade on the front of the lots. Was that, did I read that correctly in there?
Aanenson: Are you talking about the staff? In the staff report. The driveway.
John Getsch: Yeah. Because it is quite steep if you come up that, you know with Lot 4 is quite steep
where they’re trying to preserve that tree. I think that’s almost 8, 8-9 feet above the road in about 15 feet.
And you come down and it’s also on the curve of the road and the next lot the, 1 and 2 I don’t see a
problem with but I do see a problem with 3 and 4 for that, and actually my recommendation would be,
contrary to what the past discussion was, would be to move the houses further back. Those two houses
further back on the lot. Let them come along and then keep some of the native vegetation up there on the
front side of the lot.
Aanenson: Maybe Alyson, do you want to address it but you’re fighting grades trying to move the houses
back. And the steepness of the driveway.
Aller: And if I can ask Alyson to kind of piggyback on that. My understanding is the grading will be
done at once and that part of the conditions here, the grading that is done is to meet the remaining grade
so that there’s a nexus, a smooth transition.
Fauske: Certainly I can address those questions.
Aller: Thank you.
John Getsch: Okay.
Fauske: Good evening.
John Getsch: Yeah. Good to see you again.
Fauske: It’s good to see you as well. I had the pleasure of working with this neighborhood back when
the street and utility project went in so speaking to some of John’s points and as some of the residents will
recall, when the street and utility project was done in 2006-2007, just to give a little bit of background to
the commission and those in the audience here that weren’t present at that time. Staff was working very
closely with the neighborhood with regards to the street widths and so as John mentioned there is, the
street does narrow at this location. Because there was some existing homes in that area that we wanted to
be respectful of and tried to do some tree preservation in the area because the original road was I believe
12 or 14 feet wide. It was very narrow. So we did have some tree clearing associated with that and that’s
why we didn’t build it to the standard 31 feet because of, to try to be considerate of the existing residents.
It did widen to a 31 foot wide street where it transitioned into the new development.
John Getsch: Well it’s actually right on the corner. On the south corner it does transition to a standard
city width.
24
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014
Fauske: Yeah. So that was kind of a balancing act back when this project went through. With regards to
the grades, both the vertical curves and the horizontal curves, again we were working within the
constraints of the existing right-of-way. There was some acquisition done with this project but when you
have the existing homes on the lake side of the road, there is, we were constrained as far as what we could
do with doing some of the grades so there is a balancing act here with the grades both back when the
street project went in and with the development as proposed. Speaking to the development proposal for
their grading plan, when staff took a look at this and looked at the extent of the grading I think that there
was a conversation with the developer that this lends itself to go in and get the grades to the point, as
indicated on the grading plan, just for a balance perspective because if you have, depending on how the
lots sell, to go in and grade one lot and then leave the next lot vacant and then try to tie the grades into
another lot over, when you’re doing that leapfrog it doesn’t lend itself to a good grading plan in staff’s
opinion so we did have that discussion with the applicant.
John Getsch: I appreciate you.
Fauske: And I think the developer might have something to add to that as well if the Planning
Commission’s okay with him.
Aller: Come forward so we can have a discussion.
Todd Simning: John if I can, one of the items that we worked with the road down so high. You know
that bank.
John Getsch: Yeah.
Todd Simning: It originally comes up like that.
John Getsch: It’s quite steep, yeah.
Todd Simning: Unfortunately we have to relocate all of the gas and all the electric because all of that is
actually being shaved down right there. So that bank that comes up like this, we have to actually take out
all the existing gas line and the existing power line.
John Getsch: Because they’re not in the road. They’re up.
Todd Simning: They’re up in that, in that kind of that, as the road goes up and that’s all going to be
lowered down to give a lot better sight line across the roadway so if you guys drove down there you’d see
that it really goes up and then even the electrical boxes are sitting up god, probably about 4 or 5 feet
higher than the road and all of that is going to be lowered down and we actually have to pay CenterPoint
Energy and Minnesota Valley Electric to come and bore new lines and so that we can grade all that down
so sight lines from the road will be a lot better than what they actually appear to be right now so.
John Getsch: Okay. So, but you are grading the one tree there is going to still be up fairly high.
Todd Simning: Yes. Yeah because that one is, that one’s kind of off of a gosh, what do you call it? Off
of the road and what we worked with the City on is said we’re going to try to preserve that one so we
don’t really know if that one, we’re not really getting credit for it. Okay as canopy and tree cover but
we’re going to try to save it because we think we can because, I mean I like trees and I think it’s a great
benefit to the.
John Getsch: Yeah, that’s why when I looked at that.
25
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014
Todd Simning: But I’m not certain if it will actually be there.
John Getsch: Both Lots 3 and 4.
Todd Simning: To the south.
John Getsch: The two south lots have those located further back but you could preserve quite a few trees
and then leave the front more of a wild front and then come in. But like you said, you have to grade for
the, you have to change for the utilities anyway.
Todd Simning: Yes, and then the negative about bringing the trees back as we’re working with the tree
preservation is there’s really, really nice trees in the back yard that the City wants to preserve so that was
kind of the give and take on trying to figure out exactly.
John Getsch: Well the houses end up actually where they came through and cleared off for all the utility
lines back 15 years ago. They clear cut a path right straight up through there.
Todd Simning: Yes. Yep. So thank you.
John Getsch: That’s all that I wanted to mention on that.
Aller: Thank you. Anyone else? Yes sir.
Todd Dillon: Todd Dillon, 7481 Dogwood Road.
Aller: Welcome Mr. Dillon.
Todd Dillon: My house is the last house that Pulte put in, The Arbors.
Todd Simning: Yep.
Todd Dillon: Does this development start right next to mine?
Todd Simning: Yes.
Todd Dillon: Okay, because there’s already a real estate sign there. Kro.
Todd Simning: Kroiss.
Todd Dillon: Yeah. So they’re.
Todd Simning: Dogwood Development is actually my partner Steve and I. We own Kroiss Development
and we’re builders also.
Todd Dillon: Okay.
Todd Simning: But as developer we’re developing another Dogwood Development.
Todd Dillon: Okay, because I see there’s a lot. There’s two, I saw them come in and do the surveying
and there’s two of those signs but then there’s a big Chanhassen development sign so how come.
26
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014
Todd Simning: We just didn’t put enough signs out there.
Todd Dillon: Okay. So that, the church, Westwood owned all of that property and you all have
purchased that and that’s where it starts?
Todd Simning: Yes.
Todd Dillon: Okay. I just wanted to get that clear because I didn’t know where Dogwood Development
came in there so, okay.
Aller: Great. Alright we’re going to close the public hearing. Commissioner comments or questions. I
think it looks like a good development and I think a good use of the existing tree cover, which is
important. Looks like the drainage and bio scenario is going to be good as far as the runoff on the water
that we were working with the swale and slowing that down which is I think important at making sure
there’s infiltration so that looks really good to me. Anyone else? I’ll entertain a motion at this time.
Hokkanen: I’ll make a motion. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council approve a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment of 3.26 acres from Public/Semi-
Public to Residential Low Density, Rezoning of 3.26 acres from Office Institutional District to Single
Family Residential District and Preliminary Plat review of 54.67 acres into 5 lots subject to the conditions
and approval and adopt the Findings of Fact and Recommendations.
Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Weick: Second.
Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion?
Hokkanen moved, Weick seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that
the City Council approve a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment of 3.26 acres from
Public/Semi-Public to Residential Low Density; Rezoning of 3.26 acres from Office Institutional
District to Single Family Residential District; and Preliminary Plat review of 54.67 acres into 5 lots
subject to the conditions and approval and adopt the Findings of Fact and Recommendations:
Parks & Recreation
1.In lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction, full park dedication fees shall be
collected at the rate in force at the time of final plat approval. At today’s rate, these fees
would total $23,200 (4 lots x $5,800 per lot).
Building
1.Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
building permits will be issued.
2.Engineered design and building permits are required for retaining walls exceeding four feet
in height.
27
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014
3.Each lot must be provided with a separate sewer and water service.
4.Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any existing structures.
Natural Resources
1.The applicant shall plant a total of 29 trees in the development. A revised landscape plan
shall be required prior to final plat approval.
2.The applicant shall remove Amur maple from the plant list and replace it with an alternate
ornamental tree.
3.Prior to any grading, the applicant shall install tree preservation fencing using metal stakes
around tree #33 on Lot 4. The fencing shall be placed at the dripline or the furthest point
possible from the trunk and no closer than 20 feet. Within the fencing, the applicant shall
spread a 3 to 4-inch layer of woodchips to protect the root zone. These protections shall
remain in effect until construction is completed.
east of the grading limits on Lot 1,
4.A tree conservation easement shall be recorded over the
3and over the rear 75 feet of Lot 4
rear 85 feet of Lots 2 through 4 . The applicant shall
supply a legal description for the easement.
5.Easement signage shall be placed on the lot lines at the point of intersection with the
easement on Lots 2 through 4. Signage shall be placed at points of directional change on Lot
1. Signs shall be approved by the city.
Engineering
1.The grading plan shows steep slopes on Lots 2 and 4. Grading must be revised so that no
slope is steeper than 3:1.
2.Grading plans must be revised to show existing and proposed elevations at each lot corner
and the center of the proposed driveways at the curb line.
3.The developer’s engineer must revise plans to include spot elevations and building corner
elevations that direct water flow away from all structures.
4.Grading plan must show spot elevations to illustrate where water will flow at the back of Lot
3.
5.The EOF shall be noted with arrows showing the direction of the overflow.
6.Include a lot benching detail in the plans.
7.Draintile service must be provided for Lots 3 and 4, which have drainage flows from the
back to the front of the lot.
8.Proposed stockpile areas must be indentified in the plans.
28
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014
9.All existing easements shown in the plans must be properly referenced with the document
number or plat they were dedicated under.
10.A conservation easement is proposed along the back of Lots 2, 3 and 4 as well as the east
corner of Lot 1.
11.A new drainage and utility easement over the filtration basin and the channel on Lot 1 will
provide the City access to these stormwater facilities.
12.The developer’s engineer must include the elevation of the top and bottom of the retaining
walls.
13.The following retaining wall materials are prohibited: smooth face, poured in place concrete
(stamped or patterned is acceptable), masonry, railroad ties and timber.
14.Grading must be revised to include a swale at the top of the retaining walls for drainage.
15.The topography shown must include elevation contours for Dogwood Road adjacent to the
proposed lots. The centerline gradients must be labeled. The developer’s engineer must
incorporate pressure-reducing valves and a surge protection system into the watermain plans.
16.At the time of final plat, the Dogwood Road improvements assessment must be paid or
reassessed.
17.Partial water and sewer hookup fees must be paid at the time of final plat.
Water Resources
1.A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) including all required elements listed in
the General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction
Activity Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System
Program must be prepared and submitted to the city for review and approval.
2.No native soils may be used in the filtration soil. Instead Mix B from the MN Stormwater
Manual - 70% washed sand and 30% leaf-litter compost mixture shall be used.
3.Pretreatment practices to be employed shall be shown on the plan view and in the detail
sheet. This shall be shown at the curb cut. It is highly recommended that something similar
to the Rain Guardian developed by Anoka Conservation District be used. The pretreatment
device must be approved by the City.
4.It shall be called out on both grading plans that steps shall be taken to prevent compaction
and siltation of the area resulting from construction activities on the site.
5.Remove the filter fabric from the detail and use a choker course of rock instead.
6.The underdrain shall be smooth walled and have a tracer wire.
29
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014
7.A knife gate valve shall be included prior to the underdrain entering the proposed 27-inch
manhole. This valve shall be reasonable easy to access.
8.Calculations shall be provided demonstrating that the feature will draw down within 48
hours.
9.Efforts shall be made to decrease the depth as close as possible to the 9.6 inches but no
greater than the 14.4 inches recommended for MH HSG B soils.
10.Side slopes shall be no steeper than 5:1 and as close to 10:1 as possible except that the south
boundary may be up to 3:1.
11.The feature shall be kept offline until the vegetation has been established. Plans and the
SWPPP must include this information and describe the methodology to be used to achieve
this.
12.A detailed planting plan and schedule must be developed and included in plan set for
approval
13.The in-situ soils shall be ripped to a depth of 12 inches prior placing the amended filtration
soils.
14.The developer shall be responsible for the construction of the biofiltration feature and shall
make assurances that the plant materials, mulch and side slopes into biofiltration feature are
maintained throughout the life of the feature. This is most typically accomplished though a
Homeowners Association. The city will be responsible for maintenance of the underdrain,
outlet pipe and inlet protection device at the curb. An operations and maintenance manual
shall be developed describing how the feature will be maintained and by who will be
responsible for the maintenance.
15.The applicant shall include tree 119 and 129 into the protection plan.
16.The drainage and utility easement shall extend from top of bank to top of bank for the
proposed channel.
17.The 988 and 986 contours shall be broadened to create a more laminar flow before
discharging onto city right-of-way.
18.The plan shall maintain a separation of at least two (2) feet between peak flow elevation in
the channel during the 100-year storm event and the top of bank for that portion behind the
proposed structure on Lot 1.
19.The SWPPP as well as the erosion control plan must indicate how the conveyance from the
wetland will be permanently stabilized.
30
Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 15, 2014
20.A detail of the rock checks must be included. This shall be consistent with Technical
Supplement 14C to Part 654 of the National Engineering Handbook.
21.An estimated surface water management connection fee of $14,066.50 will be due with the
final plat.
22.The plans must meet all requirements set forth by other agencies with authority over the site.
The applicant is responsible to procure all necessary approvals and permissions. This
includes, among others, the MN Pollution Control Agency and the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District.
Planning
1.Lots 1 through 4 are the only lots included in the land use map amendment from
Public/Semi-Public to Residential Low Density.
2.Approval of the Land Use Amendment is subject to Metropolitan Council determination of
consistency with system plan.
3.Lots 1 through 4 are the only lots included in the rezoning from Office Institutional District
to Single-Family Residential.
4.Approval of the Rezoning is contingent upon approval of the final plat and execution of the
development contract.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
th
Aanenson: And this item appears before the City Council on their April 28 meeting.
Aller: Thank you. And again all the documents are on the website. Moving onto item number 3.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CODE AMENDMENTS: CHAPTER 18, SUBDIVISIONS (SECTION 18-61) , AND CHAPTER
20, ZONING (ARTICLE VIII PUD DISTRICT AND ARTICLE XXIII GENERAL
SUPPLEMENTAL); AND CHAPTER 1, GENERAL PROVISIONS.
Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller. Commissioners.
Aller: Excuse me, can you go outside. Thank you.
Generous: Most of these amendments you’ve seen before and so we’re just coming back to, we have to
hold a public hearing before we can take them to City Council and have any adoptions to them. Again
your review responsibilities for Chapters 18 and 20 which are Subdivision and the Zoning ordinance. In
Chapter 18 we’re looking at the tree requirements in our ordinance and everyone knows about the
Emerald Ash Borer and so we’re eliminating that as an approved tree within our ordinance. We’re also
doing some clean up for consolidating all the tree species. Instead of listing them separately we’re saying
if you want to have a maple you can have a maple. The only exception is platanoides which Jill told me
to put that name in and I don’t know exactly what it is but it doesn’t do very well up here and it’s
31