The URL can be used to link to this page

PC Minutes 4-19--05 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 2005 Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second? McDonald: Second. Papke moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Comnússion recommends approval of Preliminary Plat 05-13 for the subdivision of 5.2 acres into two lots, as shown on the plans dated Received March 18, 2005, subject to the following conditions: 1. At this time the estimated total SWMP fee due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording is $74,089.00. 2. Lot 2, Block 1, Seven Forty One Crossing Second Addition is subject to a park dedication fee as a condition of approval for subdivision. Park dedication fees for Lot 2 will total $5900 (25,749 square feet or 0.59 acres X $10,000 per acre). 3. The applicant shall provide a cross parking agreement in favor of Lot 2. The agreement shall specify that Lot 1 will have access to 24 parking spaces located on Lot 2. 4. A cross access agreement shall be recorded across Lot 1 for the benefit of Lot 2. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to O. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL. RR TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. RSF: SUBDIVISION REVIEW FOR 40 LOTS. 3 OUTLOTS AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH VARIANCES: AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE GRADING AND FILLING OF WETLANDS ON SITE. PROPERTY CONSISTING OF 62 ACRES LOCATED AT 6950 GALPIN BOULEVARD. LAKE HARRISON. APPLICANT. PEMTOM LAND COMPANY. PLANNING CASE NO. 05-14. Public Present: Name Address Jacqie Daugherty & Ray Alstad Jim & Cheri Broughton Julie Fuecker Kevin Finger Lynn Eggers Cari Piatkowski John Moberg John Holcomb J ud y S tretar Justin Larson 2423 Highover Trail 6927 Highover Court North 6751 Manchester Drive 7052 Harrison Hill Trail 6791 Briarwood Court 6833 Manchester Drive 6738 Manchester Drive 6852 Briarwood Court 6801 Manchester Drive Westwood Professional Services 4 Planning Commission Meeting - Aplil19, 2005 Daren Laberee Dan Cook Dan Herbst Ruoper C. Stacey Hunell Gina Sauer NOlm & Cleare Foster Jean Moore Mike Byrd DanW. Westwood Professional Services Pemtom Land Company Pemtom Land Company 2135 Lake Lucy Road 7460 Bent Bow Trail 2244 Lake Lucy Road 2275 Lake Lucy Road 6826 Manchester Drive Lundgren Bros JRG Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thank you Bob. Questions from staff, and I may add since we have so many people here, and I would assume at least half of you are here for this item, maybe we can ask some of the more important questions and maybe we can corne back to more detail questions after that. Jeny. McDonald: I have a question for staff concerning Lots 11 and 12. Especially Lot 12. That's one of the ones you're recommending that they eliminate. Would you explain why you think that needs to be eliminated, what the problems are with that particular lot from a topography standpoint? Generous: Well it's just adjacent to the top of a bluff area. While we haven't strictly said eliminate it, we did say that deny, we would recommend denial of the setback variances and they would have to corne in and prove that they could get a road in there and a house pad in on top of the hill that would not encroach into that 30 foot bluff setback. McDonald: Okay. And then the other question I have was again you've gone over that about the grade elevations of the road corning in from the west there. That's going to be quite a drop and everything. What do you see being able to be done there in order to meet the requirements for grade? Saam: I believe you're referring to the western cul-de-sac... McDonald: The western cul-de-sac. Saam: That's 1 of the 3 areas where they're proposing to use an 8% street grade. Basically in that area, I did a quick calc from the existing elevation, or on the propeliy line that they're proposing up to the cul-de-sac, you can easily get a 7% grade in there. It's in the middle where they've steepen it up to 8%. It's not like it's 8% everywhere. So that's why we're saying you can easily get a 7% in there. Maybe we need to see some more information about what 7% would do to the site. In our estimation it, at least rrom this, it won't really hurt the site rrom an environmental standpoint. When you're varying a half a foot to I foot, I don't see how that's going to wipe out a lot more trees. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 2005 McDonald: Okay. And then as far as services for the city for snowplowing and those things, what's the impact there, if a lot, or if the elevation isn't within the 7% grade? Saam: Well sure, and that's one of the reasons we limit it to 7% is you can get the ice forming issues. I mean it's easy to imagine in the winter there's ice on a steeper grade. It's going to be harder for cars to navigate, so that's one ofthe reasons we like to limit it to the 7%. McDonald: And also, when do you expect the report rrom the DNR to come back as far as the normal high water mark? Generous: Lori's initiated that. We think within the next 3 weeks they should have at least the initial determination. McDonald: Okay. That's all I have. Sacchet: Good questions. Zorn: Bob, I have a question for you. You mentioned that street access rrom Galpin was considered through Lot 5. Were there any other considerations and can you speak to those considerations? Generous: Besides the existing one? At one time we were looking at no additional access to the east. Just the access off of Lake Lucy Road. However we had some concern that we were creating a long cul-de-sac, even though there were only 29,27 homes on that. We try to provide two means of access into most neighborhoods when possible, and so we moved on this. Part of the reason for the realignment was the amount of upland and the outlot A, the site that the city's looking at for the potential water treatment plant and the park, was being impacted by the road getting shifted into the upland area. So it was just those two, but we did look at connecting it into Highover, but corning down that hill was just too steep. We wouldn't be able to do that. We'd have switchbacks in there and we'd take out the trees that we want to preserve. Zorn: Thank you. Sacchet: Any questions this side? Keefe: I'll just ask one. In regards to, could you speak a little bit more to the parks and where we are with the parks in terms of where exactly is the water treatment facility going to be and when, you know what do we know in regards to the parks? Sacchet: Is it a given that there's a water treatment plant there? I mean the report seems to assume so. Aanenson: Yes, and the, Park and Rec Director has commissioned a study design to see how that could layout and what amenities could go in that facility. With the water treatment, correct. Keefe: So in terms of timing. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 2005 Aanenson: As far as a park? Keefe: Y eah. You know. Aanenson: Well this subdivision, the recommendation is for extraction of park and trail fees, so that would be applied towards that. I think that the goal would be to try to get some of that in ahead of water treatment, which would be a number of years down the road so. This is a park deficient site, so we try to work together. Obviously the parking lot works with the water treatment plant so we'll have to look at that. Keefe: Okay. Sacchet: Mark, Kmi? Papke: One ofthe issues we're bound to hit tonight is the issue of the financial viability of this if we trim back a lot or two, Could you clarify for myself and the other commissioners whether, what the rules are in regards to financial hardship with the developer. Does that constitute, you know one of the conditions for granting a valiance, etc, because that's likely to be an issue that will be discussed tonight. Aanenson: I'll try to take that one. I think obviously there's implications on any development, they try to maximize the lots. It's our goal to make sure that it's a lot that's viable in the fact that whether or not it's, this is a very complicated site in the fact that it's wetlands, heavily wooded, steep slopes. Even getting the access off of Galpin is compromised. Existing driveway snakes around so it's a very difficult site. So I think the balance is to say, if there's some areas that we can give a valiance in principle because it is a tough site, but I don't think that we want to compromise a lot that's substandard in such a way that it would be difficult to make it a reasonable size home in that neighborhood. Sacchet: Ahight. Mark, you have a question? Undestad: No. Sacchet: Okay. I think with the number of people we have here, it makes sense to save the detail questions for later. I have a ton of questions but to go through those would take quite a while so I'd like to move towards the public healing. Before we do that however I'd like to invite the applicant to corne forward. I noticed there was a letter from you that we just got tonight so I assume you're going to summalize what's in that for us. Because I think it addresses some of the concerns you may have based on the staff report. Because I know some of us had a chance to look at it a little bit but certainly to absorb it we can use a little help, if you don't mind. Dan Herbst: Good evening Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission, professional staff, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Dan Herbst. I live at 7640 Crimson Bay in Chanhassen. I'd like to introduce some people who are with me here this evening. This distinguished gentleman here with the vest and the beard is Justin Larson. He's a registered engineer and a planner with 7 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19,2005 Westwood Professional Services. On his left is Daren Laberee, a landscape architect and planner with Westwood Professional Services. On his left is Dan Cook, a partner with mine at Pemtom, and behind them is Matt and Patty Jo Herman from Edina Realty who are helping us market the Jerome Carlson residence. As Kate indicated, it is a difficult site but it's the kind I've been thtiving on for 35-36 years. It's a wonderful site and has great opportunities to really create a neighborhood here in Chanhassen like no other. As Kate mentioned, there's great swings in contours. Is this going to work this way? Sacchet: Yeah, that's just fine if you do it that way. Dan Herbst: The site basically swings in contours by about 114 feet. It's a heavily wooded site. It's got a substantial amount of wetlands. A road was stubbed in from Highover a number of years back when Jerome and Linda Carlson platted that. We've acquired another access off of Lake Lucy so that we can provide proper access off the site. And the main access for years has been the access off Galpin Road. It's a wonderful access and it's a point that we wanted to make a statement with. When you come into the site, you go down. You have a wetland on your left, there's a hill on the right. You have a 1911 windmill. You have the remaining farm site that's been there and you go into the site and when you get on top, the bluff is just beautiful. Mr. Carlson and Linda and Jerome have built just a magnificent soft, contemporary home there. About 8,800 square feet. It's just a killer home with a swimming pool, totlot for kids, an office in it. 8 car heated garage. It's just a very, very wonderful home. So besides the land we need to maximize the housing to compliment that great home on the site with beautiful trees on there. If you've been on the site, Jerome and Linda have planted paths through the site. They've marked trees. It's a miniature arboretum. Jerome, like myself is a farm boy. He's from Mora, Minnesota and as Kate and Bob know, when he originally bought this site he wanted to make sure he's kind of self contained so berms, landscaping were put all around the site so when you're in the site you're just in a perfect situation. You're walking out the house is southwest facing, overlooking Lake Harrison and the views in there so it's a great site. A wonderful challenge and we want to do something special with it. But I think so you understand where we're at tonight, you've got to understand a little bit of history. We've taken staff out there. We started walking the site last year. At that time, I'm not sure all of staff was even aware that this might be a good site for a water treatment plant so we were focusing on coming off of Galpin Road, corning into the site. Creating a very, very special entrance, and we went through a whole selies of plans. The first plan had up to 52 lots on it and we were going to make.. . and we needed another access so we picked up the lot off of Lake Lucy. Some of the earlier plans I didn't bling along but you a stage 2 plan was a plan that, after we were able to acquire the lot off of Lake Lucy, we planned a cul-de-sac off of Highover, which has 10 lots and then 4 plivate lots off in this vicinity. And then as I indicated our earlier plan, we wanted to make a magníficent entrance off here. We wanted to do 10 lots off of Manchester. Preserve all the wetlands and then have an additional street through the property here, and then a state 2 off ofthat was a spin off where instead of having a main road off of Galpin, we looked at a fire and life safety type of road with the lots up in this vicinity, where this would be the main cul-de-sac corning into the home. Another cul-de-sac here with a turn around would be a fire and life safety road, but also would be a trail that the public could use coming off Galpin to get into the site, get into the wetlands and go through that. Then along carne the water treatment plant. So we lost our wonderful benefit of having this magnificent entrance off of Galpin Road. We lost 10 lots off of 8 Planning Commission Meeting - Apli119, 2005 Manchester and so the plan then, and this is not the final version of the water treatment plant because I understand the plat is going to be configured differently than that and possibly even larger than that but, so then we had a neighborhood meeting about a month ago and this is the plan we showed the neighbors with a potential water treatment plant or the balance of the site for parks and then a fire and life safety access off there. And the neighbors had many, many legitimate concerns. I think we had a pretty good meeting. They were concerned with all of the access going off of Lake Lucy, and so we started looking at how can we accommodate splitting that access off of the site, even though Lake Lucy is not even close to being at capacity. I think the road is eventually geared to handle 3,000-3,500 tlips a day. It's only at 1,700 tlips today and we would be only adding 270 additional tlips. We thought we would take that extra step that carne out of that meeting, and corne up with a plan to gain another access off Galpin. Again, at this stage in life we do not have the configuration final with the water treatment plant or the park, so we're showing that land as vacant. We're trying to accommodate the needs of the city. We worked hard, not only to develop a plan here that would be very unique, but to try and fit the city needs for a park and water treatment plant which, if we had our druthers we would like to see go away obviously. So anyway, our main road now, we would ask for a little split. Divided boulevard off of Galpin with a main road corning into the site here. A cul-de-sac corning off of Lake Lucy. A sidewalk system through the entire neighborhood. A trail connecting off of the trail that's cunently under the utility lines there, and I believe there's a sidewalk that comes off of Highover that would connect and corne down so there'd be a complete public trail system through. We're talking about all public streets with the exception of the street we're proposing here that would serve the 2 lots. So the current plan is from 52, a number of different versions down to 39 home sites, 2 of which would be the swimming pool, that would be platted offlater with a home, and the other lot would be the existing home of Jerome and Linda Carlson. So we are doing everything possible here to work with the contours to preserve the trees, to work with the wetlands. It's not a perfect site. Any time you have this kind of a challenging site with all the valiables we just talked about, you're going to have to make some compromises but we feel we have, we're at a point now where it's a wonderful plan. We've got a minimum amount of wetland encroachment. As minimum amount of tree removal that will still accommodate the site and minimum amount ofvaliances. I think if! was in your shoes, and I was in your shoes in Chanhassen a few years back. If somebody handed me a 54 page report and I found out that this guy has been in business for 35-36 years I would have said, you sure in hell could do a better job than this, but we have worked very, very hard on this site. And instead of going into all of the details of the variances and stuff!' d like to cover those later to save you some time. Sacchet: Yeah, and since we didn't get into the detail questions, we'd probably call on you again as we get into more details. Dan Herbst: Any questions at this point? Sacchet: Any general questions at this point for the applicant? Allight, thank you very much Dan. With that I'd like to open the public healing. So this is your chance to speak up as residents. If you have comments, concerns to this proposal. I do want to point out that as a Planning Commission how we look at these proposals is that we have to assess to what extent the proposal confOlms with the regulations and ordinances of the city. We're not at liberty to change those rules in the process, so I just want to make that clear because it's not a free for all. We 9 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 2005 have a basis in the ordinances and the regulations. The comprehensive plan of the city and so our role as a Planning Commission is to assess to what extent does the application conform with that. So with that, is there anybody who'd like to address this item? Please corne forward and state your name and address for the record and let us know what you have to say. Is there anybody? Yeah, first one always takes a minute you know. Please turn the microphone towards you. If you can tell us your name and address for the record please. John Moberg: Yes, John Moberg. I live at 6738 Manchester. Right on the corner of Lake Lucy and Manchester. First I'd just like to clalify the existing road access, and from what I just saw it appears that there will be access both on Lake Lucy and Galpin. Sacchet: Conect. John Moberg: Okay. Sacchet: And then the access is pretty much where it is on Galpin now and on Lake Lucy it would be just slightly west rrom that little well building, the way I understand it. Generous: Yes. John Moberg: Familiar with that, okay. And then as far as the water treatment plant. Is there, has there been discussions around alternate locations or what makes that an ideal spot for a water treatment plant? Sacchet: Is that something you'd address Kate? Aanenson: We did hold a neighborhood meeting on that. Again, there is a recommendation. This is the plimary site. I don't want to encumber the subdivision with that discussion tonight. We'd be happy to meet with anybody that has questions on that. The engineering staff would. John Moberg: Okay, so that's not set in stone by any means? Aanenson: I think this is the plimary site, yes. The City Council will be making that decision as this plat goes forward. There is a recommendation to extract, as the developer has indicated, it's not his first choice but is the number one choice for the city. So we're asking, in working with the developer for the extraction of that. John Moberg: Okay, so what would make that the number one choice, just give me a short answer. Sacchet: Go ahead Jerry. McDonald: We've already been through this with water treatment and what I can tell you is that it comes down to location to the wells. There's 2 wells in the city. There's one over here by Lotus Lake and there's one in your area. So the water treatment plant, the site is pretty much judged by the location of those wells. That's why you couldn't take your water treatment plant 10 Planning Commission Meeting - Apli119, 2005 and put it down 41 someplace. It's too far away to you know do it's job so that's why the placement is where it's at and any alternatives, it's all based upon distance. Aanenson: And again we did have a neighborhood meeting on that last week, and I just didn't want to get off track on water treatment because what we're here to discuss tonight is this subdivision itself. Sacchet: It's tricky. It's a little bit intertwined but it's not what's in front of us tonight. Aanenson: That's correct. John Moberg: Yeah, I was just looking for some clalification on that. Aanenson: Sure, and we'd be happy to give you any information on that. John Moberg: Okay, and then is there, would there be a park integrated with that? Aanenson: That's conect. John Moberg: I've heard some, okay. So there'd be some, pati ofthat plan. Aanenson: Yeah, and both those would be separate review processes that would corne back before the Planning Commission for site plan review, as would, we'd show you, the park would come back for review too. Sacchet: Since it is obviously a concern, and I assume it's not just your concern but other people here in the audience as well with the water treatment plant, we just looked at the primary water treatment plant by Highway 5, what was it 2 weeks ago. And one of the important, interesting things was that really, I mean the tanks and everything is underground and I would assume that would be the same in this case so it's not like you're going to have some ungodly structure sitting around there. Really this stuff is underground so you're going to have more green space is what it boils down to. John Moberg: Okay. Sacchet: And the building, ifit's anything like what is planned for this water treatment plant is a very attractive building. Very well designed so we don't want to get into this, as Kate said, but just to maybe help you be a little more at ease with the notion. Generous: Mr. Chainnan, if! may. Sacchet: Yes, go ahead Bob. Generous: Paul is also planning on another informational meeting. They are looking at the valious sites and they're showing what the differential would be for the cost for that. That was one of the impOliant things that came out of the last meeting. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 2005 Sacchet: So there will be more discussion, public discussion that you could participate in on the topic. Generous: And it hasn't been scheduled yet. John Moberg: Okay, fair enough. And then would there be, what would happen with that end of Manchester? Just short answer. Aanenson: Cul-de-sac. Sacchet: Matt, can you address that? Saam: Oh Manchester's just to the north of... John Moberg: Correct. Right now it's just kind of a blocked off. Sacchet: We'd cul-de-sac it right? Aanenson: Yeah, we'd cul-de-sac the end. Saam: Yeah, right now we're thinking we would just finish up a cul-de-sac. I believe right now it's like a temporary, just pavement behind the curb. John Moberg: Yeah, yeah. Saam: Yeah, we would basically clean that up and make it a permanent cul-de-sac. It would probably be as a part of the treatment plant site. Sacchet: Would become the access to the treatment plant and again there is very minimal, if any traffic to the water treatment plant. John Moberg: Right, nobody gets too excited about that. Okay, thank you. Sacchet: Alright, anybody else. Please come forward. Let us know who you are, where you live and what you have to say. Larry Marty: Hello there. Larry Marty, 2117 Lake Lucy Road. I guess my first initial concern with regards to this development, I think Pemtom's done a very good job of illustrating this and I think doing a very good job as far as trying to make a development that fits within the various neighborhoods around, as well as taking advantage of the property there. But my biggest concern that we have at this point of trying to move forward on the development comes down to the wetlands delineation and acceptance or assumptions at this point of where those borders are. Wetlands are something that change. They vary year to year with the amount of water. Rainfall, so for us to go out there right now and look at it and say, is the hydrology there? Is the plant life there to support it? I have a lot of difficulty in just saying it's a wetland or no, this is where the 12 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 2005 line is because if you really truly want to assess a wetland you need to look at the area over time and you need to really look at the high levels and the low levels to be able to then detennine where that border is. A lot of the development that has already been done around the Lake HalTison area has already impacted these wetlands significantly already. As I back up on the south side of Lake Lucy, we have a lot of wetlands directly behind my property and my neighbors property, and we've already noticed that the land itself, when I had first looked at the lot a little over 6 years ago, there was standing water down there. I literally couldn't walk through that area in a pair of tennis shoes without getting them soaked. There are areas in that that are totally dry now. There's no water there now. The ponding has been channeled to collect the water but it's also affecting the wetland areas. Even the stream on the north hand side of Lake Lucy has been channeled and re-routed and that's also impacted directly. There's a significant amount of wildlife that's in that area. My son's a nature photographer for Minnetonka High School and has gotten pelmission rrom Jerome Carlson to photograph on his land, the large species of animals that are suppolied in this area, and as much as I'm for supporting the development, I'm also for trying to maintain green spaces for the wildlife and supporting that. I've heard pheasant cackling and turkeys gobbling this morning at 5 :45 this morning. A large number of deer. Coyotes in that area, and I'm concerned about where that wildlife gets forced by developing this as well. I'd also like to see a little bit ofthe tree area. It is a heavily area, forested area so I'd like to see a little bit of discussion about what trees are going to be impacted or removed by this development of the site. And then be able to understand that, because it's such a nice area, and it's ideal for a site and I can see where it would be very advantageous from a developer's standpoint, but from my vantage point and looking back on the Carlson property, I enjoy it just the way it is and I' dloved to see it you know, stay that way. Sacchet: We all do. Lany Marty: My last point comes back to the water treatment facility and I know this is not our healing for this, but in a way it is. It is very closely tied to this and so for us to kind of make some assumptions and decisions about this development without understanding what kind of the general direction is for that, I think it's very difficult for me to just accept that carte blanche and say yeah, go ahead. At the meeting on Thursday, you know as Bob pointed out, there was concern that this seemed very opportunistic for a development site for the water treatment plant. I understand the wells are located there. That's where the water's corning rrom, so obviously it makes sense for the water treatment plant to be there, but there was no you know cost elements to understand what about the other options. What is the cost difference between this site and the other sites? And it seemed like there was a lot of I guess some questions that were unanswered with regards to the chemicals to be used for this facility. The design concept, all of that is very well, you know enabled to make it look as low profile and berming and trees to hide that, that this is still a 12,000 foot facility. Brick facility. It's not something that you could just throw some trees up there and it disappears rrom our sight lines, so it is something that I guess I'd like to have a better understanding on so that I could truly bless a development like this as well. Thanks. Sacchet: Very good comments, thank you. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 2005 Gina Sauer: Thank you. My name is Gina Sauer. I live at 2244 Lake Lucy Road and I have one comment and one question. My comment first of all is to thank the developer for having heard us at the informational meeting that took place a few weeks ago. Those of us that live on and around Lake Lucy Road and were concerned about the only entrance being off of Lake Lucy, and our concern was not just about this development but in the aggregate. There are 3 new developments going into our area over the next few months. Pinehurst which is directly north of Lake Lucy. What used to be called Yoberry. I think it has a new name as of, Highcrest? Which are the homes that are being added onto Highover. And then this development. Currently between, on Lake Lucy Road between Galpin and 41 there are approximately 120 homes that feed onto Lake Lucy Road, either who's driveways back directly onto Lake Lucy Road, as mine happens to, or who are on cul-de-sacs that feed onto Lake Lucy Road. Between the former Yoberry, now Highcrest, Lake Harrison and Pinehurst, we're looking at approximately another 112 homes added to 120 so that's really almost doubling the traffic. I understand that Lake Lucy Road is considered a quote, unquote collector road by the city, and that it is considered able to handle the traffic but I think there is a difference between Lake Lucy Road and perhaps other collector roads like Galpin. Namely the number of homes that again, back directly onto Lake Lucy. We have 19 homes with driveways on Lake Lucy. We have our mailboxes that we're crossing the road to get to, and significantly we have a number of children crossing the street to get to bus stops on Lake Lucy, so I do appreciate the fact that there has been consideration taken into that and I looks like we will not have just one entrance on and off so I do appreciate that. My second is a question and a follow-up to the environmental concerns that were expressed, and again I think the concerns of those of us in that area with respect to the environment are because of aggregately what is happening. Pinehurst, we have a lot of wildlife there. We're losing 11 out of 18 acres oftrees which the City Council approved at the end of2004. It's going to displace a lot of wildlife. It's going to change our environment in Chanhassen in that sector. We're looking at a significant amount of wetland change now and a significant amount of trees across the street in the other area. This was a great area, or is a great area of Chanhassen and it's one of the places that makes our city very unique and makes us not look like, not to dis on any suburbs but it makes us not look like Brooklyn Center or Richfield. There, I said it. It has some open spaces. We're losing them. We're losing them in Pinehurst. We're going to lose them here. We're going to lose a lot of trees in Highcrest, so I would ask perhaps the landscape architect or the developer or the city, whoever has the figures readily handy to comment on the amount of trees that we're going to lose, and you had mentioned the city has to live by guidelines. So if you could perhaps comment on the amount of trees that are planned to be lost here and how that fits in with the city's guidelines. Sacchet: Would you want to address that Bob? Generous: Yeah, I'm trying to do the math. It looks like they're removing approximately 15 acres of trees on the 60 acre site, so that's a quarter ofthe land area. If you look strictly at our ordinance, we're exceeding our tree removal but part ofthe issue that the developer has is a lot of their trees are in the wetlands and on the bluff and we don't give them credit for that as a part of their tree removal calculation. So they are preserving a significant amount of the site. 20 acres ofthe site is, approximately 20 acres ofthe site is wetland. That will remain primarily as it is today. They have for the road access, there's a minimal amount of wetland impacts. It's the 2 isolated wetlands that are the big losses in there but the wetland complexes themselves will 14 Plam1Íng Commission Meeting - April 19, 2005 remain as an entity and so we're very pleased about that. You know the developer has worked hard and he has tlied to look at alternatives to save as much as he could. The additional road grade. The use of retaining walls. There's an extensive system in there so if this was another community like Anoka or someplace that was flat, we wouldn't have all these issues but we have a lot of changes. Sacchet: If I can summalize that in a little for you, since you asked a very specific question, and it's important to understand what Bob just pointed out. Is that in the calculation that's being used in the staff report, we're only looking at the upland. All the trees are being saved as part of the wetland are not calculated in that. In tenns of the, what we look at is what's the baseline canopy coverage for the upland, buildable part which currently is 76% ofthat is covered with trees. And the proposed preservation is 30% ofthat. So you could say well, it's 2/3 that gets cut in the upland area. And by looking at that, that's where the other part of the question comes in. Well what's the city regulation with it? By looking at that, they're actually cutting more than the city would let them cut without doing mitigation. So the city would require them to plant 269 trees in order to balance the scale, and what actually what the applicant is proposing to plant 319 trees, so they're exceeding the requirement of planting, the way I understand it, and that's just based on the upland calculation without including all the wetlands, and it also doesn't include the bluff areas, does it? Generous: That's correct. Sacchet: Which is a very significant wooded area as well, so if you factor all that in, it actually is not quite as alanning as you might think at first glance. Does that answer your question? Gina Sauer: That does answer my question and I appreciate the clalification and I guess I would just encourage the Planning Commission as they are consideling this development, I understand that a lot of thought has gone into it, but again to consider, this is really our last pocket of wildlife in that area of Chanhassen and anything that can be done to take that into account is going to make a big difference for the quality of life in our area so thank you. Sacchet: Well I share that. I live there too and I'm culious whether the deer are just going to feast on all the hostas everybody plants and all that stuff. Ahight, with that is there anybody else who wants to address this item? Please come forward and let us know who you are. Al Taylor: My name's AI Taylor. I live at 2340 Lake Lucy. That's the house that's a little bit west of the well house. About where the exit's going to come out. I have a couple concerns. First concern is where the exit's going to come out on Lake Lucy. Besides the extra illumination I'm going to get in my house from all the headlights, the concern I have is that it's coming out on a curve. If you do a traffic study in that area, you have about 2 to 3 seconds from pulling out of 2340,2360 and 2380 Lake Lucy Road from the blind spots along that curve. Now you're going to put a traffic feeder coming out in that same area. So when you come from the 41 area, you have about 3 seconds to a see a car. And I wonder if that was taken into account in your traffic study. Sacchet: Matt, can you address that in tenns of sight lines and that type of concems? 15 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 2005 Saam: Sure. The proposed location being just west of the well site. It is in what we call the, or toward the center ofthe curve so you can see, I guess the example is if you're in the center of the curve you can see around the curve on both sides. This is just off set to the right, or to the east I should say. So in our estimation the sight lines there for the speed on Lake Lucy being 30, you know we're not corning out onto a highway where people are supposed to be up on us very quickly, so in our estimation that location will be fine. Sacchet: So it's relatively, in terms ofthe location in the curve, it's actually at a relatively ideal spot? Saam: Well the ideal spot would be just to the west in the exact center of the curve. We're just off set so let's say it could be worst. It could be a little better but it could be also much worst. You wouldn't want to be on the end of the curve where you couldn't see around to the west at all. Sacchet: So in other words from a traffic engineeling, city engineeling viewpoint it seems like it works. Saam: Exactly, yeah. Al Taylor: What about at 35 or 40? Which is the typical speed on Lake Lucy Road. Saam: Yeah, and people may be doing that. I was out there today and it's posted 30 out there so. Al Taylor: It's posted 30 but it's not enforced. Saam: We're getting into speed. I mean we can't design for a 50 when it's 30, those sorts of things. It comes down to enforcement. Sacchet: The enforcement, it does have, I mean if, and I see some faces about the speed. Talk to the sheliff. Al Taylor: We have. Sacchet: It will be enforced. I mean they do listen. Al Taylor: He sits down at the well house about once every 2 months. That's the enforcement. Sacchet: It's my understanding that they are receptive to requests like that and they do enforce more based on complaints like that. Al Taylor: Enforcement, if it was enforced I think you would get more adherence to the speed limit. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - Aplil19, 2005 Sacchet: Right, there's still the exceptions but. Al Taylor: The other question I have is in regards to dual access. There are currently 6 locations that have single access onto Lake Lucy Road between 41 and Powers Boulevard. Can you explain your process for going through and evaluating why you would require two exits versus one exit and how those apply to this location and how they're not applying to Highover. Sacchet: That's an awesome question that I share too so I refer to maybe Kate to try that one, or Matt. Saam: Well as Bob said we always, at least in larger type developments such as this, 20 plus lots, that SOli of thing, you always look for 2 accesses in and out. Some ofthe reasons are for emergency access. If there happens to be something going on on the road, say construction and there would be a fire, we want to have an alternate access, both for residents to get out and for fire emergency type vehicles to get in. We always look for that. In addition to that, I mean ease of convenience it provides. When you get into a long cul-de-sac situation, it's something we want to stay away from. When you only have the one access in and out, both for convenience, emergency access, that sort of thing so. Al Taylor: Can you explain the Highover situation then? Which is currently. Sacchet: That would be a question for City Council sir. Aanenson: Yeah, we recommended that connection. Al Taylor: Okay, and we're adding to that light with this? Sacchet: Yes. Al Taylor: Another 20 some houses. Sacchet: It is part of our comprehensive plan that we want to connect neighborhoods. Now when there are exceptions made, as I said in the beginning the final decisions are made by City Council. So that would be a question for City Council. Al Taylor: Okay. Sacchet: As far as we're concerned, we want to connect neighborhoods because that's what the comprehensive plan says. Al Taylor: And then on the more personal note of the illumination of my house rrom the exit, where do I address that? Sacchet: What are the elevations there? I understand from the planting plan there is quite a bit of buffer planting in that area planned. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 2005 Saam: Yes. I was out there like I said today and if you look at the plan, where the road is proposed, it's on what I would call the east side of your house and if your's is the house I'm thinking of, your garage is on that side. Al Taylor: Yes. The one right where the mailbox is right next to the little dirt road. Saam: Across the street rrom the well. Al Taylor: Yep. Saam: Yeah. So what I'm getting at is the people corning out of this development, ifthe street is on the garage side of the house, the east side, the windows, the living area's on the other side. I . . . guess m my Opl1l10n. Sacchet: Shouldn't impact it? Saam: No, it's not like the headlights are coming directly into the front, in the family window of your home. Sacchet: Maybe one thing if you were where the little well house is but being moved further, you should be quite allight. Al Taylor: I think it's tougher to move east. You've got a grade there that you've got to overcome. Saam: The other thing is the elevations. Your house is higher in elevation and this will be corning up to Lake Lucy so it's not like the cars will all be coming down and shining on the roof going down the side of the house, anything like that so. Sacchet: Also, according to the landscaping plan there's a double row of trees. .. Appreciate your comments and questions. Who else would like to address this item? Please come forward and state your name and address. Cari Piatkowski: I'm Cari Piatkowski. I live at 6833 Manchester Drive and we over here it's just unclear maybe a little bit with what Bob you had said about there being a denial to one of the requests and something to do with the access onto Galpin. And this is where we're not clear. We want to make sure that what, you know the developer is saying the road goes through and what I heard from him is the road's not going to go through. Sacchet: Can you clarify? Generous: I'll clarify. We were looking at changing the alignment ofthe easterly access and we're not going to pursue that anymore. It will go as proposed on the plan. Cari Piatkowski: Okay, so it will go. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - Aplil 19, 2005 Sacchet: It does not affect the Lake Lucy access. Cali Piatkowski: Not the Lake Lucy. I'm talking about the Galpin access. Generous: Yes, it does not affect it. Cari Piatkowski: So that will be there and we're assured that road's going to be in place. Generous: Unless it's killed by council. Cari Piatkowski: Okay, and who knows huh. And the other question we wondered about is, this water treatment center, if per chance somehow that disappears to a different site, what happens then? Do we go back to one of these oliginal plans for the? Generous: They would have to come in for a separate subdivision review for that portion. Cali Piatkowski: So we would re-address at that point? Aanenson: More than likely, yes. If the council chose not to execute on that, more than likely the developer would come back in, extend the street and propose additional lots. Cari Piatkowski: Okay, on the end of Manchester. .. Aanenson: Right. And that would be another healing process just like tonight's and go through the same evaluation. Cari Piatkowski: Will all that be decided before they start actually excavating and starting work on the subdivision? Aanenson: Well that's the goal, to take it to the City Council and again what we're recommending is that be extracted for the park and for the water treatment. Ultimately that's a legislative, a City Council decision so, by the time we get up to the City Council for this, that decision should be. . . Cari Piatkowski: Should be made and they will address both of those probably at the same meeting is what you're saying. Aanenson: Correct. Cali Piatkowski: So we'll know one before the other is started. Aanenson: Yes. Cali Piatkowski: Okay, thank you. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - Apri119, 2005 Sacchet: Anybody else? Yes, you can come more than once. As long as you don't keep saying the same thing. Al Taylor: This has to do with the water treatment plant, and I was at the meeting the last week. The well pipe that comes from Well House No.7 I think, it's the one on Lake Lucy Road. Sacchet: Yeah, that's number 7. Al Taylor: They had indicated this, that piping would go through this property? Sacchet: Correct. I believe that's right, right? Al Taylor: So do you show an easement right now through here for that well pipe can go down to the proposed water treatment plant? Saam; It will be a combination of easements and then in the proposed street right-of-way also. We'll try to keep it in the street as much as we can. Al Taylor: Can you explain that? What street? Aanenson: The proposed subdivision. Al Taylor: Okay. Saam: The well's light here. We're basically proposing to bling a pipe down the street, then up in here we'd have to go outside the right-of-way. Al Taylor: Okay, thanks. Sacchet: Allight. Anybody else like to address this item? Please come forward. Kevin Finger: I have to wlite down what I'm going to say. I'm not like everybody else. Sacchet: That's allight. As long as you tell us who you are first and where you live. Kevin Finger: My name is Kevin Finger. My wife Teresa and I live at 7052 Harrison Hill Trail. We border the southwest corner of the proj ect. First I'd like to thank the staff for being very helpful in giving me their time at the last minute this week. I appreciate that. I'd also like to point out that I did call and leave a message with the developer about my concerns right after our neighborhood meeting and I never received a call back or a response. I would ask that the Planning Commission execute one of the following alternatives that I present. Two is what I'll present. My first proposal is most advantageous to me and I'm nervous, can you tell? Sacchet: It's alright. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - Apli119, 2005 Kevin Finger: Of course it's advantageous to me but it's also advantageous to the people to the northwest of me in the Highover neighborhood. It's also I think more advantageous to the people of Chanhassen as a whole. I propose that you disallow the bluff setback variance that is necessary to include Lot 12 in the project. I ask that you also then instruct the developer to remove Lot 12 and just include Lot 11 in the proj ect via use of the plivate dliveway just to Lot 11. The developer would also have to request a valiance for this plivate driveway but it's my understanding that's a lot simpler than asking for a bluff variance. Why would the developer ever be willing to give up one of the lots, in fact according to them probably one of the most valuable lots? I believe one lot of this size, if you combine II and 12, with the amount oftrees, the amount of size, the plivacy in Chanhassen, you could name your plice and you'd probably get it. I don't think the developer would lose any money by doing that. Why is it good for me? Well it's obvious. I have more plivacy, correct? Well, it goes beyond that. Lundgren developed our development as you know. They were required to have a tree preservation. It's about, in my property it goes about 200 feet rrom my house back. Now I understand that you don't want to do that anymore because of other reasons, and that's allight, but I believe that the idea of a tree preservation is to preserve the trees. Everyone's concerned. The only reason we're going to add Lot 12 is so they can put a very large house and tear down a large chunk of trees right through here. Not granted I heard they were going to put in a lot of trees, but I know the size oftrees they're putting in. We see them all the time. Takes a long time to replace a tree this size. It will also benefit the people in the Highover area. These houses light here. They have beautiful houses that have a great deal of privacy. You as a Planning Commission certainly do not guarantee these residents total plivacy within their developments but I do believe you owe it to residents that live around new developments to maintain as closely as possible what they have, and/or within reason. By only allowing I housing site on this dlive you will be providing these residents what they believe they would have for as long as they own their house. These individuals would benefit by keeping the wonderful settings that they have become to know and cherish. How does my proposal benefit all the people of Chan? Every time this commission allows another forest to come down you set a precedent to allow one more. By keeping the tree buffer that was required for those of us in Longacres development, you are telling everyone we care about trees that are left and we will do everything we can to preserve them. Okay, so my option one. Disallow the setback valiance and combine Lots 11 and 12 and only allow the housing lot for the housing pod for Lot 11. I believe this is fair. The reason I believe it's fair because I don't think regardless of what they say, I don't think it will cost the developer anything. Okay. Allight, so you're not going to take proposal one. I think proposal two. Sacchet: Well actually that is staff recommendation is not to allow bluff impact. So you can summalize your second one. Kevin Finger: I know but he did add a but to that. He did say that if they could come back and show that they could adequately suppOli that, they would accept it. You know any good engineer can come up with something in today's world. So anyways, so my second proposal, at the very minimum is if! have to have a 200 foot tree buffer, they only have 30 feet here. 30 feet. If I have to have 200, they should have 100. Thank you for your time. Sacchet: Appreciate your comment. Thank you so much. I see somebody else corning up. Let's hear what you have to say. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - Apri119, 2005 Jim Broughton: My name is Jim Broughton. I live on 6927 Highover Court North and this gentleman was... I live light adjacent to 11 and 12 back there and your staff report, if you look at their report they talked about these two lots and there words were that if they were allowed to build structures there, that there would be a lasting detrimental effect on the bluff and the wetland and the Harrison Lake area so I think I understand what this gentleman is saying and I'd also like to understand what they would do with the trees behind our houses there. I have the very same concerns and so I want to hear what was going to happen with that small road that they're going to build and is that road going to, would the bluff setback that is being required there, is that road going to have to move over onto the power line easement area or how does that work? Sacchet: I think that's a fair question. I mean if you tell the applicant we're not allowing the bluff impact, does it or does it not work? Generous: Matt and I had discussed whether or not they can provide a private driveway access into there and it looks feasible. There's 25 feet from the closest point ofthe bluff to the westerly property line. We think it may be engineerable. We don't know for sure. Sacchet: So it might be, okay. Jim Broughton: I guess I would be opposed to anything because a couple people back talked about that area and there's a lot of wildlife there and I think a lot oftrees would be cut down and the impact that would have on that area is, I don't think you should allow those vatiances. I know you aren't recommending that you do that but I would be opposed to doing that. And I think it's part of what you were saying before. In order for you to grant a variance, in your report here, one statement that you make is, it has to be, it can't be based upon the desire to increase value but only to facilitate wetlands being preserved, and if you look at the comments that the staff made, they're saying that there's going to be a very high impact on those wetlands so I think that's an issue here we need to address carefully. Thank you. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Kurt, you have something? Go ahead. Papke: Since there's a lot of interest in this bluff setback issue, I've been trying to search through the staff report to find out what is the incursion? You know how big of a variance is being requested and how much grading into the area you're not allowed to grade in is being requested? I think the comments are all well taken but it would be good to know how big the impact is before we get too far. Generous: The applicant is requesting that the variance be permit to eliminate all ofthe bluff buffer zone so they would grade up to the top of the bluff. And then the setback would be 10 feet rrom that. From the top of the bluff. So that's a valiance request. Sacchet: Across the bluff? Generous: Yes. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - Apli119, 2005 Sacchet: Yeah, okay so that's a lot. If you quantify it like that. Does that help at all? I mean it's not really specifically quantified. Papke: That's pretty quantified. Grading light up to the edge ofthe bluff as opposed to a 30 foot setback, 20 foot setback, that's. Sacchet: That's a lot of variance, yes. Definitely. Papke: And the length of the incursion is how big? How long would this setback be in tenns of, is it you know, it's going to go in in I foot? It's going to be one little spot or is it 200 feet of incursion or? Saam: Well the length ofthe road where it goes into the bluff basically or the setback is approximately 140 feet, but then where it would go the other way directly into the bluff, I mean it's basically the width of the road in some places so you're 20 to 30 feet. Something like that. At the worst point. I mean it goes in and out. If you could follow that. Sacchet: Alright, public healing is still open. Do we have, yeah we have other people. Judy Stretar: Judy Stretar, 6801 Manchester. Sacchet: You're the one who sent e-mail right? Judy Stretar: No, I didn't send. Sacchet: Oh, it wasn't you. Sounded like you. Judy Stretar: No.., We're with Woodridge Heights which is the development on Manchester and Lake Lucy, and when we were built, when our houses were built we were surrounded on all sides by basically forests. We had the tree fmm across the street off of Galpin. We had the Carlson propeliy and then we had the other propeliy and basically we were sunounded by wildlife and forests and now we lost the tree fmm to Ashling Meadows. And we saw what happened at Ashling Meadows and I'm not sure about the tree, you know how many trees you kept but as far as what we saw, and I witnessed it, every tree was taken out and then they put in a few other trees. And they might have, you might have counted. Sacchet: Yeah they left 1. Judy Stretar: Well it went from a tree fatm to nothing. I mean there's nothing there now, and maybe you know 20 years from now there's going to be trees, but where we were put into this lovely little community and it is great, it's wildlife and it's going to be gone and I think one of our primary concerns is the Galpin access, and we greatly appreciate the road going through from Galpin. We think that's very necessary for traffic flow to that area, but we're talking about a water treatment plant and a park that we keep hearing is not settled on yet and it's very much attached to this plans of building this because if the water treatment plant is denied and is moved, 23 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 2005 then his plans have to go back to another, you know putting another 10 houses down at the end of my street or adding houses along the road that's coming on an access road. So what I think we're concerned about is what is the timing? Is this the final meeting? Sacchet: Well I mean the way this goes through the system is that we look at it. We hold the public hearings as the Planning Commission. We mayor may not make recommendation. I mean our recommendation might be to table it, have a little more information but eventually you make recommendation either tonight or maybe next time, whatever it is, and then the decision's being made by City Council based on the proposal that's in rront of us. That means for this particular subdivision. Not the part that is not on it, like if something changes with that corner that may be either development or maybe water plant and all that, that is not part of this proposal. So you've got to look at that as separate tracks, which is a little bit tricky because they are intertwined, and I share that same ITustration a little bit with you. Judy Stretar: And if this plan, as it stands, Plan number 3 I think it is with the Galpin Road and all that is approved and that goes forward and Outlot 1 stays nothing right now, it's like a little prairie right now waiting for the water treatment plant which I believe is coming in 6 years or so, 2009, then when would the hearings start on making that aesthetically pleasing instead of having a well house sitting there? Aanenson: Sure, I believe I stated earlier that the park would advance and that the designs are being done for that park right now to try to advance that as soon as possible. Judy Stretar: So there's going to be some public discussion on the park? Aanenson: Conect. Judy Stretar: And that's going to be announced? Aanenson: When the time table is for the Park Director on that but I'm assuming that would be as timely as possible. Generous: The Parks and Recreation Commission is reviewing this plat next Tuesday the 26th. Aanenson: But that's not the site plan for the piece... Generous: Yeah, that won't have a site plan but they'll discuss the park location there and that's another opportunity for you to provide input into that out. Saam: And whenever that park does come back you'll get noticed on it, correct? Well I'm sorry, the water treatment plant would, if that would go, there'd be a site plan and that would have to come to a body like this and the council so there'd be another hearing on anything like that. Judy Stretar: So when is the next council meeting that's going to be, this is going to be brought to? 24 Planning Commission Meeting - Apli119, 2005 Sacchet: Well currently the time like for this is that if we do corne to a recommendation tonight, which is our goal, it would go to City Council 011 May 9th. Judy Stretar: That's my concern. Sacchet: Alright. Now I saw somebody else getting up there. Ray Alstad: Hello. My name is Ray Alstad, 2423 Highover Trail. Kind of got a little panic in my voice what I just heard about that road that could go in to the Lot 10, or 11, I'm sorry. I live directly next to or to the west of 10. My house is a little unusual is that my walkout is to the east. I'd be looking right at that driveway and right now I have the power lines there so that's like a trail. If that was turned into a road, that would very much hurt the property value. Sacchet: It would not be the power lines. It would be past the power lines. At least that. Ray Alstad: Okay, you know where the fence is? Sacchet: Yeah. Ray Alstad: It's be approximately there? Sacchet: I mean the property that they're dealing with is all past the fence. Ray Alstad: So it'd be on the other side of the existing fence. Sacchet: East of the fence plus according to the landscaping plan, which I'm trying to find here, there it is. There is significant amount ofplantings, but you've got to be aware that under a power lines you can only plant. Ray Alstad: Yeah, I believe it's 10 feet or 11 feet. Sacchet: Right, light, but it has to, I believe the road actually is outside the power easement or just slightly encroaching. Ray Alstad: Okay. That wouldn't be so bad. And I also would recommend or suggest the abandonment of 12. I think we looked at that tonight and that's a heck of a drop there. I can't imagine they could get a home in there so, thank you. Sacchet: It's a long shot, thank you. Appreciate your comments. Okay, who else? Debbie, are you coming up? Debbie Lloyd: I am. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Dlive. To the point of the staff report, I'm sure you've noticed there is no valiance request in here for a plivate street, which is required by code. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - Apri119, 2005 Sacchet: Well there is the finding of fact part, which is a little bit convoluted I have to admit. Debbie Lloyd: But it is not cited for a variance and it is required by code and it was not written that way in the report. I just really want to point that out for the citizens who live there and have pointed out their concerns about the private street. So needless to say. Also I guess my concern about that plivate street, and I know they're concerned about it going in their back yard but I don't understand why a private street has to go adjacent to an existing property owner. When you have undeveloped land, why could not that private street be moved and be a burden to the new development? So in other words move that over to the right and let the new lots deal with it, not have it be a burden for the existing homeowners. Thank you. Sacchet: Thanks Debbie. Anybody else like to address this item? If not, I'm going to close this public hearing and bring it back to the commission. Now we got some good comments and feedback. We do have to come to a conclusion at this point where we go with this tonight. I do have a fair amount personally, a fair amount of detail questions that some ofthem have been addressed to some extent. I'm not sure, I don't think they've been addressed enough so in my case, just speaking for myself, I would have to ask a lot of more questions to try to come to a conclusion but let's have some discussion here. Where do we stand with this and to what extent do we want to get into detail questions with this thing? McDonald: Mr. Chairman, can we ask some detail questions ofthe developer at this point? Sacchet: Certainly. McDonald: Because yeah, a lot of what I have right now after all the meeting revolves around Lot 12. I guess I've got some questions as to exactly what you plan to put in there. In dealing with that area it would seem as though you're going to have to do quite a bit of readjustment of property there in order to put a house there because of where the bluff is at. The distances you've got to work with, and those types ofthings and what I'm wondering is, based upon what the city has said we would like you to do, what can you do without the variance and if you don't get the variance, then does that mean Lot 12 could not be developed? Dan Herbst: Mr. Chair, Commissioner. I'm going to, if! may, answer that question and then go through some of the others, is that alright? Sacchet: Okay, please do. Dan Herbst: First of all I apologize to Mr. Finger. We passionately answer every phone call at our office, and I feel bad about that. We've had many calls rrom your neighbors. We have answered them all. We've had many neighbors come into our office and gone through the project so I really apologize for that. It fell through the cracks somehow but our cell phones, our home phones and everything are available to anybody that calls us so. Should we deal with Lot 11 and 12 first? Sacchet: Please. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - Apli119, 2005 Dan Herbst: Okay. I've done a blow up sketch, just so everybody can figure out what's going on here. The area they're talking about is 11 here and 12 here. There's the proposed private dlive, and this is, is this called Highover Dlive? Sacchet: Highover Way I think. Dan Herbst: Highover here, private drive, little cul-de-sac, Lot 11 and 12. So that is the large scale. This is a little blow up of the site. Okay, here's the proposed road. Some lines I'd like to explain to you. This is a, one ofthe reasons we're asking for a variance, there's a 30 foot power line easement on each side of that, so nothing can be proposed down there. Sacchet: So it's 30 foot from the propeliy line, like rrom the fence. Dan Herbst: It's 30 feet on each side of the center ofthe power line, tight? A 60 foot easement? 35 each side? Okay, so it's a 70 foot easement. I think we're only showing 30 feet here, is that conect? I guess maybe the geometlics are probably right. We took the desctiption light offthe legal descliption of the power line easement so minus the red line that's running, which means no buildings can be placed within that. We are proposing, if you can imagine, if you've been by Bearpath, we're not allowed to put large trees under that but we're proposing some very high arborvitaes the entire length of our property. All of this is off of Highover propeliy. This is all of our properiy lines of Mr. Carlson's here. So we're screening this all with landscaping. There will be no buildings on the easement whatsoever. These are both very large lots. We're proposing on Lot 11 that there would be a number of retaining walls, so there would be no encroachments beyond those retaining walls. The lot that creates a question for everyone is Lot 12. This, if there was a building setback, this is where it would be at rrom your bluff line, and you can see as Bob mentioned we are putting the home light within the proposed building. This is your blue bluff line, and this is an open area within the lot that is also pretty flat that a driveway could be down but. Sacchet: In may ask a clalification. That's the edge of the bluff, not the edge of the bluff setback, correct? Dan Herbst: This is the bluff line itself. Sacchet: Okay. Okay, just want to be clear. Dan Herbst: And Lot 11 is a very sizable lot. It's 1.44 acres. And if what we are proposing is approved, there would only be an area of about 14,854 square feet of that out of a total area of 62,896 that there would be any construction on whatsoever. Everything else would have easements over it and would be protected. On Lot 12, which is the controversial one, it's a very sizeable lot. It's 3.66 acres and there's 1.92 acres that's in the bluff, and of that the area we are proposing that would be encroached upon is about .31 acres. And about 13,365 square feet. I know you do not prefer any building on the bluff. You have a 30 foot setback, but both environmental and economic sanctions can be put on place in this lot. Every home I've built on Lake Minnewashta whether it was on Lone Cedar or on Climson Bay Road, was built light on the bluff. Right on Lake Minnewashta and if you put the proper erosion control measures in 27 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 2005 place, as we've done on all the houses right on the bluff. Not 30 foot back but right on the bluff, you can protect that. And I'm willing also to place economic security in place so that if there is any encroachment but all of this area would be covered by an easement. It's very difficult to have an erosion event if you confine all of your construction to the area we're proposing that would ever impact on Lake Harrison. And I think to double that security you can add erosion fences behind all the construction and you can also put another safety net at the end of the property line. So I believe it's a very doable development. We're showing a very large house there. I do not know if a home will be built that large. Weare putting in all the landscaping that we're legally allowed to do to protect the homeowners to the west because obviously they've lived there many years, and you want to appease, they'd prefer not to see anything but the woods and the trails. But I would bet that there are very few lots in the city of Chanhassen that have a home on them that will have the covenants and restrictions and easements placed on it that we're proposing here, and also to put separate environmental protection on those lots and economic sanctions to make sure that nothing happens to that wetland down below. Any questions on Lot 11 and 12? McDonald: If I can answer your question, around that bluff area where the elevation begins to go down, which is just about where your green space is at, and then from there to the west you know there's quite a bit of drop off. Are you looking at using a retaining wall then in that area to shore up that particular area? Dan Herbst: This doesn't drop off that fast, but here we do have some drop off's and we're outside of the bluff but we would put retaining walls in here because the topography pretty much demands that we want to keep that building pad up and we do not want to encroach into the trees. This area here doesn't drop off quite as fast and if retaining walls are necessary we would definitely do that also. But it is an issue of dropping off as much as our encroachment upon your code that says no building within 30 feet of the edge of the bluff. And we're actually proposing a house light on the bluff. But I think there is a hardship here. Weare struggling to make this property work with the loss oflots for the water treatment plant. We have a 35 foot easement there which is pushing everything down the envelope. If we were allowed to move everything up to the property line we'd have a different situation. We could easily, if you move this building 35 feet to the property line, we could easily comply with your bluff ordinance. McDonald: Is it possible to put a smaller house on that parcel that would then fit within the requirements? Dan Herbst: Yes. I'm always reluctant to put a little one on there because you're saying.. .so I wanted to show basically. . . McDonald: Okay, well what that gets back to then is my question at that point, is it only viable with a larger home on it. What happens if you do put a smaller home on it? Is it still viable at that point to do something with? Dan Herbst: You know the realtor can certainly answer your question better than I can but you know there's almost an over supply of larger homes. We're actually proposing extremely upscale neighborhood on the Sweat property in Wayzata right now, where we're also proposing 28 Plalming Commission Meeting - April 19, 2005 that all the home sizes would be reduced down. Instead of having the very large boxes that are being built around Lake Mitmetonka light now. And I think the market is there for that also so. Papke: What's the size of the building pad that you're proposing? Dan Herbst: I don't know if we scaled that out but it's probably a typical home I guess... different scale. You know there's the Jerome Carlson home which is a very large. About 9,000 square feet. Daren, you have any idea of how many square feet that house might be? Daren Laberee: About 5,000. Dan Herbst: Up and down. Daren Laberee: No, that's the footprint... Dan Herbst: Okay, so the footplint is 5,000 with the garage and the home. Papke: Sometimes you see on a lot where you, ifit's along a lake or something like that you'll see a house constructed that's very long and nan-ow. This looks very rectangular and it seems like you could move a little further away back from the bluff by coming up with a design that more accommodates that setting. Dan Herbst: We just got him through landscape so now we're going to work on. .. Yeah I agree with you. First time I saw it that was my reaction. Sacchet: Did you want to address some other aspects you said in the beginning? Dan Herbst: The tree issue is you know, you've heard my speech before. I love trees. I've spent millions of dollars saving them. Millions of dollars planting them. I get torn as you do and staff does here. I live in Chanhassen but I think you really have to challenge what's going on in this town with 60 foot rights-of-way and 31 foot of road. And we're getting Matt's blood pressure up but you know I would like to provide to you if! can legally do it a book, in it's third edition by the Amelican Society of Civil Engineers and Urban Land...National Association of Horne Builders. We really on a site like this, my plize site of my whole career is Chimo in Deephaven. I was able to talk the city into a 24 foot light-of-way and a 20 foot street. And it's on Minnetonka Boulevard and Excelsior Boulevard. It's something I did in 1976 but I'd like you to go look at that. We have 12% grades on the west side. We have 20 foot roads. A 24 foot right-of-way and when you go into that site you know that all the trees have been saved. They're right touching almost the blacktop. You do not need a speed sign. You do not speed under any condition on that nan-ow road because it's bending, it's lising up the hill. You know you've got some very tough code resttictions that fight what you're trying to do. You're trying to cut down on impervious surface here. If you were to go from a 31 foot street, which is proposed in your code, to what you did at Settlers West, we could save almost 2 Yi acres of blacktop. And if you were to cut those streets back from 60, for the light-of-way from 60 to 50 feet, or even to 48 and put a 26 or 28 foot street in there, I think people, the reason people speed on Lake Lucy, unless you're going to have a sheliffthere all the time, it's a wide road. It's open and you don't get the 29 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19 , 2005 perception of speed. So I think if you really want to save trees, I think you've got to challenge your street lights of way in your code. Highover Street has a grade almost approaching 9% at the end and we're just asking you to raise the grade by 1 % slightly over and that's going to save grading and save some trees. We're asking you to, oh some setbacks from 30 feet to 25 feet. That will keep rrom pushing the house down the slope and save some grading and same some trees. And we'll do everything possible duling our process to save as many trees as we can. But when you start putting this size of road segment through there and you try and keep everything at 7%, you're running with some conflicting goals here. So I think all of our variances are very justified. I think there is a hardship that's expressed here on Lots 11 and 12. Papke: On the issue of the tree preservation on page 4 of staff report, you know one of the areas of contention here, getting to the setback that you're asking for, city standards allow 105 feet of tree removal and you're showing on Lots 3 and 5 105 to 115 and then you've got another 1, 2, 3, 7 or so lots where you're clearing 115 to 140 feet. How do you reconcile that, and that's one of the major issues here and I haven't heard an explanation of why you require to clear those trees beyond the level of city standards. Dan Herbst: I'm going to let Daren Laberee address that issue. I think it has to do with grading and having the house set up with the road through there. Daren Laberee. Daren Laberee: As Dan said, my name's Daren Laberee. I work with Westwood Professional Services. A landscape architect. I did the planning on this site. The reason why you see that extra you know tree removal on the back side, it's not right at the 105. 105 is what you have to qualify to take out. You can actually save in the rront of those trees and you can't count it as saved according to ordinance. Well that doesn't really show it. You can see the dark lines here. These are retaining walls that we are putting in the back sides ofthese sites. One of the things I could do on site is provide back yards for families. With that 25 foot setback, 60 foot deep pad and then the additional 20 foot, trying to maintain a slightly flat back yard for a family to have. That's where we start drawing the lines then to get, that's where we put our walls and that's where we grade down as fast as we can to get to match that tree line. Other areas, you know you're talking about 8, 9, 10. There's no wall. Well 9, 10 we're not, probably back to 8. We're trying not to use walls as much as possible. We're trying to match the existing grade. One of the biggest problems and constraints with this site, we just did an overview looking, and if you look at how this site lays out, Kate said in the beginning you know that it's got a lot of, a lot of opportunity or constraint, whichever way you want to look at it. There's two major wetland systems. One up here. Down here on the southern side. One up here on the kind of the northern side. There's a 20 foot drop inbetween these two wetland systems that most people don't recognize and that gradually makes it's way around and they connect to this low area through here. On top of that 20 foot connection, you know the existing home that we're trying to save is sitting up 30 foot above this wetland. It's 20 foot above this one so this house is 50 foot higher than this wetland system, and that's one of the reasons why 8% grade in the road, we have to try to come down rrom this part here. Get up to the house and then come back down to try to meet you know the difference between this 20 foot, between the 2 wetlands and the grading downhill here is down to this really, really low wetland is what's kind of really hurting us on these back yards, which is why we're trying to force these houses along that street. See I'm pushing it 5 foot. The way to get the 5 foot on the front, that goes 5 foot on the back. We're trying to do 30 Planning Commission Meeting - Apli119, 2005 everything we can to get out ofthat. Like Dan said, we'd like to do more. We'd like to go down to the 50 foot right-of-way. We'd like to do everything possible but we tried to work with staff as well. Sacchet: Since we're on that light-of-way and setback issue a minute. One of the variances you're requesting is that reduced front setback on what is it, Block 2. Or 1. And it seems like staff is not quite agreeing with you on the benefits that are delived from that. If I understood the staffrepOli correctly, staffs position is that you're really not bringing the results you would expect from that type of a variance. Can you address that? Daren Laberee: Yeah, I think staff's position is 5 feet is 5 feet and I think they feel that if we push back the units back 5 foot then that's just 5 foot more that it has to go into there and I don't think they see the concern for a waiver in this case. It's kind of our job to put our best foot forward. We would like to go 5 foot away, We're doing everything possible. We're trying to, you know the reduced front yard setbacks. The increase in the road. Slopes to you know, actually up to lOin the tree ordinance. They actually suggested in the tree preservation ordinance in the city and they're suggested to stay away from trees, to stay away from wetlands, to stay away from the natural things. It's not like we're pulling these numbers out ofthe air and you know and just throwing them out to look at. We're grabbing them out of ordinance to make these work and the way I look at it is that we are in SOli of...1' d like to prefer to say that I'm confonning with ordinance because I'm trying to use the tree preservation ordinance pmi where it suggests to do this type of stuff. Some of the staff disagrees with that, but that is their right to do so. Which is why we have Planning Commission's to sOli through it. Sacchet: Oh, we'll see about that part. Do we have other questions fi-om the applicant? Since we have the applicant on the spot here. Otherwise I would suggest maybe have a few more questions rrom staff and then if we need more applicant input we'll ask you for that or if you want to ask something, you'd certainly be welcome to do so. Did you want to add something at this point still? Dan Herbst: Well I just want to do a little summary here in case I don't get another chance. I think that since the water treatment plant carne into play and the park and everything we are making extraordinary efforts here, concessions in marketing, economics to try to make this thing work. If I thought, as Mr. Finger represents I could sell one lot for a million dollars versus two lots for $500,000, I would do it but I don't think I can do that. So, and I think we are encroaching so little on that bluff and for the compromises we're making, and the hardships incurred here, I think one lot, and the things I want to put in place, both environmentally and economically to make sure nothing.. .we can handle that. I don't believe there's any neighborhood in the city, when it's all said and done you'll have, ifI can find my last little chart here. I just want you to focus on this for a moment. Out of the 62 acre site, between what we are giving to the city in light-of-way, which is in the buff color, which will be left as pennanent wetlands in the pink colors and putting the easements on it, which will be a benefit to the city, and the land that we will be donating to the city, there's over 62% of this whole land mass will be under your control. Will be public and will be beautiful space, which doesn't exist today. 100% of it is all plivate. And I do think that if you look at the big picture here, instead of picking away at 5 foot setbacks here and the bluff ordinance here, I think if you look at the big 31 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19 , 2005 picture here and what we're trying to create and how hard we've worked to do this, with the limited time we have left to get this done, I need you to give me some direction tonight because I don't have the time frame to be able to be tabled. I need to get to the council to make some decisions because the landowner has got other options with other developers so I want to put my best foot forward. I want to create great neighborhoods for the city. I live here. I want to be high class. I want you to be proud ofit when it's all done, as I am on every neighborhood I do. And I think on a 62 acre, 39 lot, the 2 existing homes included, we're looking at a very low density, probably lower than Highover or anything around. I think the density is less and protection of environmental features is better. I think the traffic access is magnificent now and in the scheme ofthings it looks like we're asking for a lot of variances, but if you're really looking at it. Sacchet: If I may ask you a very straight question. I mean is this Lot 12 a make it or break it for you with this project? Dan Herbst: How I, you know nothing is over until I go back to the landowner and say this is the deal you know so, but it's a break point right now with, the deal was structured before we knew about a park. Before we knew about a treatment plant and so I'm struggling to make this all work within the time line because he's got other vultures like myself that want to buy... But I want to do the light thing, I really do and I know you'll be proud of it. Sacchet: Appreciate it. Thank you very much. Dan Herbst: You're welcome. Sacchet: Alright. McDonald: Before he goes. Sacchet: Yes, go ahead Jerry. McDonald: I have one question and it's because, you really haven't answered this about Lot 12 for me. I've been out there. I've been all over that area. I understand the city's concerns about bluffs. What I haven't heard is, how are you going to mitigate any damage to that area if we allow you to go up to the edge where you're asking for? What you've shown today is that you could get by without a variance. You just couldn't build as large a home on that particular lot, which would probably be much more attractive, and I understand that. But what I can't get past is how are you going to, you haven't convinced me to give you the variance yet. Dan Herbst: Well let me go back to the graphic. If you were to go to the proposed building setback line and then go back 30 feet rrom there, and that's the width ofthe garage there, I don't think you can get the kind of house that's warranted on that site, you know. Somebody's not going to pay that kind of money for a lot and want to put a 1,200 square foot ramble with an end loaded garage on it. McDonald: I agree with you. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 2005 Dan Herbst: So we're, we tlied to exaggerate here. Show you a bigger envelope but in telms of grading and tree loss, there isn't much happening here, as I indicated in the numbers I gave you. The only thing that we're stepping on is your 30 foot setback from the bluff. Because as I understand the private drive has to be incorporated as a valiance into your, when we get to the counciL.. We're talking about something that's beenapproved before. 2 lots. Ptivate dtive, and that's acceptable I think. Sacchet: Okay? McDonald: Okay. Dan Herbst: Thank you. Sacchet: Allight. Where do we go from here? I appreciate your being up front, that you do want to move this ahead and I do want to acknowledge that you certainly make a very valiant effort and your developments are awesome. There are a fair amount of issues in this and I mean ideally personally I would like to see it again. Little worked out a little further than it's worked out right now. So the question that I have for fellow commissioners here is, do we want to jump in and go through more detailed questions with staff at this point and try to wrestle this to a point where we can make a recommendation and again our recommendation is meant to be how does it apply to the rules and regulations. We're not at liberty to change the rules and regulations as part of this process. Papke: I think we need to move fOlward, seeing what happens when we vote no and pass them along so. Sacchet: Allight, anybody have detail questions? Otherwise I start with some detail questions. First of all we touched on the Highover, the termination. I heard you say that we were kind of conservative so we're not expecting much of a surplise there that could impact the development, because that is a big variable. Generous: Yes. When Loti and I walked the site we used their oliginal map and we were uphill of that. Sacchet: So with the 150 foot setback we should not create more issues most likely? Generous: Right. Sacchet: Now in tenns of the couple oflots, can you explain what's riparian and what's not because I'm a little confused. The staff repOli says that 3, at least those, what is it, 9, 10 and II? On that Block 3, would have, that one of those lots would have to be eliminated because it does not meet the riparian lot requirements in terms of width and surface. Generous: Right. And that's with them platting the lot lines out, all the way to the property line. We believe the ordinary high water elevation is somewhere in here. That's what the DNR needs 33 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 2005 to determine. A solution to that is if they outlotted that, then these lots becomes non-riparian and they're upland lots and they don't have to meet the 40,000 square foot and the 125 foot low width. Sacchet: So it's my understanding normally we would include all the wetland part in the outlot. Generous: Right. That's one of the recommendations under. Sacchet: And then therefore you would not have to meet the riparian size requirements. Generous: Correct. Correct. Sacchet: So they would be okay. They would not lose any lots. Generous: They would work, yes. Sacchet: Okay, because that's not what, the understanding I got from the report. In terms ofthe wetlands, I mean what kind of alarms is again with the wetlands that it requires further investigation. I mean what I'm trying to establish is how solid is the data that we're based on at this point? I mean I can understand the urgency from the side of the developer wanting to move forward. On the other hand for us to make a well founded recommendation we need to have some solid data to base ourselves on so we're not sure exactly where the high water line is. And with the wetlands we say it needs delineation. And we had one pretty strong comment from one ofthe residents. Unfortunately we don't have the luxury to measure this over a couple years, but at least we should measure it with some solidity. Generous: As part of the determination though they do look at historical, aerial photography of the site and look at it over time to help them make the determination. Sacchet: So what's missing, I mean I know the staff report says very clearly requires further investigation and delineation. What's missing? Generous: We don't have the final delineation report because of the timing. They need to wait til spling basically. Sacchet: So it is spring, so how close are we to at least, I mean in Minnesota you never quite know for sure. You want to address that please? Daren Laberee: Yeah, certainly. I think what we discussed with staff is that the approvals we're going for tonight are all contingent and that's the risk that Dan's put on himself is that ifthe wetland delineation is significantly different, we would have to come right back forth to staff and say hey you guys need to change you know, this doesn't match what you guys showed before. If it's significantly similar, and there isn't a large change and it's you know minor tweaks here and there, there would be no reason for us to have to corne back. It'd just kind of be a staff say yep, you guys met everything with your plan as is, and that was the reason why we felt that we put very conservative lines on the plan when we went out this winter and did it. The growing season 34 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 2005 I believe is going to be May 1 st this year is when the first time that the, it's all up to the agencies which there'd be 3 different agencies on the site, to go out and look at it together and.. .vegetations and they can get proper soil bolings too to... Sacchet: And those are people that have experience to see a little bit over a time rrame, not just where the water is at that very moment. Daren Laberee: Exactly, and that's. Sacchet: And that's where we get some reassurance. Aanenson: .. .we have our own wetland person on staff to velify all that. Daren Laberee: And the DNR one too for the. Sacchet: Now the, okay, thank you. Now there are these two little wetlands that are being filled for house pads. In the past having sat here on the Planning Commission for a while, there is wetland impacts to build a road, and that's one thing. But I think it's another thing to fill a wetland to make a house pad. Can you enlighten me how we justify that? Because it's my understanding fì-om looking at the findings of fact or what we're supposed to apply to this fact that that doesn't necessarily fit. Is that something you want to address Bob? Generous: I think it's built into the grading for that roadway and all that. But yes, they are creating a house pad out into those wetlands. Sacchet: I mean there's two little wetlands. It's not that huge a deal but I mean what's our framework? Generous: I believe that we were looking at the preservation of that contiguous large site was more important than these isolated wetlands. Sacchet: Okay. So it's a little bit of a give and take, which makes sense, yeah. It's a balancing act. Now, we have this approach here that says we have to, first step avoidance of wetland impacts. Second step, minimization of wetland impact. Third step, rectification of wetland impact and fourth, mitigation. And we're, if I understand the staff report conectly, we're stating that those steps have not been followed sufficiently yet. That's still something that the developer has to do? Or where are we at with that? Generous: Completely, yes because we first we need to find out, make the final delineation determination and so we will know what the total impacts are. Sacchet: Yeah, you see that's where I'm getting a little uneasy you know. Generous: We know we have made minimization. We're looking at, at least for the roadway. We're trying to go with the existing alignment on the existing dliveway to follow that to 35 Planning Commission Meeting - Apri119, 2005 minimize it on the east side. And then this coming down to meet city ordinances for the road coming in on the right. Aanenson: Let me just add to that a little bit, just for clarification so everybody understands the process. So as the developer has stated, they're proceeding at their risk. That they believe that they're pretty close. And that there might be minimal line changes which would affect buffeling and the like, but obviously ifthere's a substantial change it would result in changing the plat. If they drop a lot, typically we don't bring that back. It happens often that a lot gets dropped between now and final plat, but this process, as it moves forward, goes to the City Council for preliminary recommendation. They still typically take anywhere rrom, up to 2 months to do a final plat, and that's where all the t's are crossed and the I's are dotted and work with the staffto make sure that's done. And that final plat again goes back to City Council and when all these conditions are put in place, go back to the City Council and we itemize how they've been addressed and it states that they have been addressed or been modified or, so they can all be tracked to make sure it's executed as stated in the conditions. Sacchet: And I have to be honest, I mean if it wouldn't be a developer that we know and we know your integtity, I would think that would be a reason actually not to move forward at this point because I mean we're a little bit out on a limb with that. Now based on the fact that he has a proven integtity of dealing with the city and I don't think that's.. .point but it's certainly not a point of warm and fuzzy. Alright, the building setbacks, 40 feet from the wetland buffer strips. There are a couple lots that need to be adjusted according to that. That can be done without too much. That's trivial? Generous: Yeah, it's just they show some oftheir lots are back farther or the houses are back farther. Sacchet: Alright. And to come back once more to our favorite two lots, that 11 and 12 there on the private, little street on the west, southwest side. When I read the staff report, it also implies that Lot 11 has some, it might be impacted. Lot 11 also needs a variance from the bluff setback? Generous: Just for a portion of the retaining wall. Sacchet: The retaining wall's encroach? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: Okay. Okay. Now, retaining walls is another area where I'm very uneasy. I mean do we know the height of these retaining walls? Saam: Yes. Sacchet: There are a lot of them. Saam: Yeah. Specifically Lot 11, the ones in the rear yard that Mr. Herbst was showing. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 2005 Sacchet: There are 4 or 5, is there? Saam: Yeah. 4 I believe. 3 for the most part and then there's a fourth. At the highest that I saw it was 16 feet approximately. Sacchet: 16 between the 4 combined? Saam: Yeah. That'd be in the 4. Yeah. Sacchet: Okay. Saam: Then as you go, say to the south down the plivate drive, the retaining walls along the west side it looks like they're about 8 feet. Those would be holding back Highover basically. Sacchet: So Highover would be higher than the private road. Saam: Yes. Sacchet: But then there's also a retaining wall on the other side of that. Saam: Of that cul-de-sac. That one's 8 feet also. That's where in the staffrepOli we were talking about it holding back both sides like a tunnel. Sacchet: Both sides are higher, so the cul-de-sac is like set down into the ground. Saam: Conect. And that's, I guess that's an area I want to c1alify. That plivate dlive does go in the bluff in that area. No other area goes into the bluff. There's a structure setback where they go into but they are actually, they do go through the bluff in that area, just to clalify for everybody. Keefe: How deep are we going down into the bluff in that area, do you know? Saam: How deep? Keefe: Yeah. In other words I mean you're saying you cut in but, to what, it's a little piece light and then how high will the wall, how high would the wall be? Sacchet: It would have to be held up by a retaining wall that's not shown right now, isn't it? Saam: No. Let me go up here. This is going to be hard to see probably but maybe we'll zoom way in Nann. Sacchet: Yeah, we can see it. Saam: This dark line light here is the actual bluff. So as you can see, the plivate street goes right through that. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 2005 Sacchet: But how, they need a retaining wall to hold it up? Saam: The retaining wall is on this side because Highover over here is higher in elevation. Sacchet: So we don't need, we don't need anything on the low side of the bluff? Saam: Not in this area, but as you can see as you go to the south then you do start to get into another knoll or high area, so they have to cut in that cul-de-sac and they need a retaining wall to hold back that dirt. Keefe: How high is that retaining wall? Any idea? Saam: That one's about 8. Sacchet: And then on the opposite side you said it was, it's a double retaining wall. Saam: Yeah, this one's about 8 in here. This is the 16 that I mentioned, you know approximately give or take a foot or two. I just wanted to clarify that. Sacchet: Alright, yeah appreciate that. So that's why you called it a tunnellike access in the staff report. Aanenson: Can I just give.. .clarification to that. Sacchet: Go ahead. Aanenson: One of the things that we talked about, and I'm not sure you understood that, but when Bob made his presentation, as you look at that bubble that we were just talking about, that one way to solve that additional retaining wall on the bluff side, where actually you pull that bubble back and maybe you could just. Saam: Yeah, why don't I show that quick here. That's fine Nann. So what we were mentioning to get away from the need for the valiance in this area is to move this bubble back into the, basically out of the bluff area onto Lot 11 say. You may have to reconfigure the lot. Then you hug a dliveway for Lot 12 up in here and get it up away rrom the bluff. Papke: How long would that driveway be? Saam: Well I'll scale it here quick. It'd be quite a long driveway, but it would be again for a single house. It'd be shorter than the one that the existing house has. Keefe: Is that an acceptable solution rrom your perspective or? Saam: Now we haven't looked at that in terms of grades. That's something, I mean we're challenging the applicant to do but that's an alternative to what they've proposed. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - Apli119, 2005 Keefe: Is that an acceptable solution? Saam: It looks like about 350 feet maybe to the house they were showing. Sacchet: So there is a possibility of an alternate solution. Aanenson: Conect, just reduce the grading. Sacchet: Allight. Jumping around here a little bit. We're asking for a light turn lane on Galpin, but not on Lake Lucy, is that accurate? Saam: Yes. That's due to the speeds on Galpin versus Lake Lucy. Sacchet: With the lot, you said like in Block I lot size adjustments and with adjustments that's something that could just be shifted and adjusted easily. And we touched on the tipalian thing. Keefe: Go to Block 2, the setback valiances. Lots 1 through 12. Sacchet: Alright, let's see what else. The ponds. Storm water ponds. Right now there are 3 planned. Can you point out where those 3 are because it seems like the conditions actually state one of them should be eliminated. So if you could clalify where the two are and which one needs to be eliminated. Saam: Yep. There's one right here in the north, just west ofthe Lake Lucy access. Sacchet: Yep. Saam: Then as we go to the east there's another one here on what would possibly be the park water treatment plant site. Then there's also a very small one just south ofthe road off Galpin. That's the one we're seeing, based on the design. It doesn't meet our existing clitelia and it looks, what we're recommending is just take this lot here and bling it back here. Sacchet: Okay. In tenns of wetland mitigation, I mean the staff report makes a point that cunently wetland mitigation is lacking. There's not enough and I understand the applicant made a request to possibly do off site mitigation rather than on site. Where are we at with that? Aanenson: We're still working on that. We believe that some of it probably could be on site, maybe on some city property but in close proximity. We're working through that too. Sacchet: Okay. The, I mean those are type ofthings that to be honest I' dlike to have some clality when we have to make recommendation. Now the real sticky thing I have is with the findings of fact. I mean we have, the way I read them I get very confused because on one hand you're recommending, staff is recommending not to allow the valiances, pretty much all of them except the wetland impact. The findings of fact, I'm not sure I follow exactly what's happening there. The first finding, let's see how this works. First there is actually, Deb you'd be happy to 39 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 2005 hear, it actually does talk about private streets so that has not been forgotten. If you look at the staff report it's the part, finding of fact where, it's page 2 but it's not page 2 ofthe staffreport. It's in the appendix, the findings of fact. It says that the private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources, specifically bluffs and forest areas. Now, how does that fit together with pardon the expression, shoe horning in a house or a lot between a bluff easement and a utility easement. Then it seems like that comes straight out of code that the plivate street permits enhanced protection of city natural resources, specifically bluffs and forested areas. Is that a reason to allow the private street or not? Generous: Well, we believe you should allow the private street. We're looking at the alternative that we would shorten the cul-de-sac and they would have private driveways, individual dliveways. Sacchet: Okay, so that's how we try to mitigate it. Generous: That's, yes. What we were looking, I was looking at when I was making that finding. Sacchet: And I understand the quandary of the applicant and we're not really at comments but I do want to make a comment that for me certainly the bluff setback restriction has much more weight, is more significant to me than utility easement setback. I mean from a city viewpoint, in terms oflooking out for the welfare of the city. So that needs to be balanced there. Then we have a variance rrom the subdivision ordinances. The setback, now we're not really, the staff report does not recommend that we grant the setback variance, correct? Generous: Correct. The one option was for Lots 3 and 5 I believe. Sacchet: Because the findings of fact lead me to believe that they sound like they're conceived to actually back up. I'm not sure, I'm confused about that part. And then the variance rrom the bluff setback, which again staff is recommending not to grant it, proposed setback variance enhances tree preservation. That doesn't compute for me. I mean if we give this variance we let them cut further into the trees. It's not based on the desire to increase the value or income potential. Well, if we grant the variance we make it easier to put a building in there which definitely is at this point, since this is a development situation, an increase of the income potential. And it's not self created. Well it's self created by wanting to put a house there. So I'm not very clear about those findings of fact and I think they're very fundamental because that's the legal foundation for the recommendation, ultimately for the decision that the city's going to make. I have a very hard time on that basis not to lean towards tabling to be honest. Let's see. Well I've talked long enough. I can add more in later and maybe let you guys, other guys take a little bit, make noise here for a while. Anybody want to jump in please. Jeny. McDonald: Well I guess the couple things came up. You know I'm not going to give up on Lot 12, but I'll move off of that for a second. You said something during the reading of this that onto Galpin it would be a light turn only. Keefe: Right turn lane. 40 Platming Commission Meeting - Aplil 19, 2005 McDonald: Okay, good. Sacchet: Because I guess Galpin being a county road would require a light turn lane. Is that accurate? Generous: Conect. McDonald: Okay. I guess rrom the city's perspective, help me understand this thing about this variance he wants on the bluff, because he's light at that end of the property, yeah it's not as severe as it is. I always envisioned the home being more toward the high point and what he's doing is going past that down the low point, and it's not as severe. What's the impact of us you know either granting or not granting that variance for that home on Lot 12. It doesn't seem to me, as I recall the property, to be that big of a deal. Saam: Again we're recommending denial ofthe bluff valiance. We believe with some revisions to the plan that they can stay out of the bluff and still possibly get a lot, on Lot 12. So as far as where they're coming from, you know the applicant stated his case. We disagree. We're against that. McDonald: Okay, because I know there was a few houses in that area that they're pretty much on a bluff, especially the one on the corner down there. That's close to Lake Lucy and 42 where you first go into, I guess that's Highover Dlive. The house light there on that comer sits up quite a bit. They've done a lot oftenacing to create a lot on that particular house. In fact. Sacchet: It probably doesn't qualify as a bluff, does it? McDonald: Well it doesn't qualify as a bluff but I mean when we allowed some building on an area there that you created a livable space which is, you know what the developer's asking to do here and I see in that particular area where he wants to go it'd be a lot less severe than a few of the other areas in that general neighborhood that were granted. Aanenson: If I can just refrain. I think you're asking us to make the decision for you, which we can't. We're just giving you our infol1nation but the bottom line is, there is some buildable area. What the applicant is saying, to make it reasonable, reasonable use ofthat area, he would need to go into the bluff. Because if he showed. Sacchet: The bluff setback at least. Aanenson: In the bluff setback. Because as he showed you on the plan, what he could get is a 2 car garage and a smaller home on there, and he's saying for a large acreage lot, that probably wouldn't equate to the value. So that's what he's saying, I need a little bit more. There is some buildable area but is that reasonable for that big of a lot and that's. McDonald: Again what I'm trying to do is get a balance here from both sides. I want to hear both sides before I make a decision on this because there is an impact of what we're being asked to do here. 41 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 2005 Sacchet: There's a third element we can do Jerry. I mean we can discuss this as Planning Commissioners. I mean we're still, I was, we were jumbling a little bit our process here tonight because this is such a complex thing in front of us but, so we're still doing questions at this point but at the same time I think we probably could discuss this Lot 12 amongst us commissioners and then if additional questions come up, either to the applicant or the staff, we can ask those questions. I mean that's the type of discussion that needs to be taking place in public because that leads to recommendations that we ultimately make. And I'm certainly willing to make a statement where I stand with the Lot 12. Personally I think the bluff set requirement has a lot of weight. I mean it's like the wetland setbacks. The bluff setbacks are generally things that we don't monkey with. They're important. They're put in there and that's one of the few places where we can actually preserve sensitive nature. And we've heard several of the residents point out that abundance of wildlife, the beauty ofthe nature in that area. I think it personally, I really would like to see that area remain as natural as possible. And to grant a variance that helps impact that further seems totally contrary to the interest of the city at large to me personally. That's my discussion contribution to this point. Keefe: Well, he could still you know, they're in the, if you didn't grant the variance he could still build something on there. Sacchet: Potentially yeah, but we don't know that. I mean and that's one of the reasons I would like to see what they can work out. I mean the ideal case I would like to see this come back a little more cooked with the wetlands delineated, with this worked out in terms of what can be done with it without a variance and so forth. And also with the grades ofthe street. Aanenson: Otherwise ultimately until you see house plans you're not going to know. So that would be the other option is when he comes back with a house plan. McDonald: Well okay, if we look at trying to preserve the area, I mean the house you're looking at preserves the vast majority ofthat area down there. It is unbuildable and it remains as is, you know natural and everything. Keefe: But I don't think it is unbuildable. I mean it's unbuildable as the plan that he's proposed but he could still get a house in there. You could still. McDonald: Well yeah, what I'm saying is if we granted the variance, you're still saving the majolity ofthat 3 some acres so I believe that we begin to meet more of the criteria's we trying to accomplish here of saving area but yet at the same time you know giving the developer an opportunity to develop that piece of property into something that would be viable for the community. I guess that's all I'm saying on that point. Sacchet: Go ahead. Papke: One of the things, this bluff area drains down into a wetland, yes? Sacchet: Yep. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - Aplil 19,2005 Papke: So I think we not only have to take into account a bluff impact but also the environmental impact of the constl1lction along there. And we've looked at these SOli of bluff setback valiances before. This has been in the city code since what, 1988? I believe somewhere in that range? 88, 89. Somewhere is when the bluff setback went into play? Aanenson: Probably. Sacchet: Quite a while. Papke: Quite a while, and we've been pretty much sticklers on this one and this one, the only word that comes to my mind is this is an egregious violation of the setback and this is not 5 foot incursion. This is right up to the bloody edge of the bluff light over a wetland. I don't know, it's just egregious. Undestad: I was just wondeling if maybe Kate, can I ask you a question? Aanenson: Yes, I'm sony. Undestad: On the bluff, I mean again going to the zoning lot 12 here but you know the bluff ordinance. I know there is quite an extensive report that's gone through and it covers much more than Lot 12 through the City of Chanhassen. Can you just kind of give a little 2 minute summary as to why that 30 feet is important and why it stretches along the entire bluff ordinance out there, not just. Aanenson: Sure. I mean the goal was to prevent, it used to just apply in the southern end of the city and we statied applying it city wide, just to prevent erosion. People that wanted to build light to the edge, or to put their swimming pool or those gazebos, it was really an erosion control kind of tying back into some of the other preservation such as the trees and wetlands that we incorporated. Because I can just take a minute and go back to Lot 12. There is a buildable area on Lot 12, so you can create a lot and not give it a vatiance. And somebody's going to corne in and ask for one later. Because there is a buildable envelope on there. Outside the 30 foot setback. Undestad: With just the size issue.. . Aanenson: Yeah, we're just scaling off, correct. Is it to get the variance now and know that the developer can get something pretty similar on there, which is what he's seeking but it is a buildable lot. Undestad: Did you corne up with a scale number on that? Aanenson: Yeah, we just looked at that outside the bluff in the dliveway, if you stop the dliveway short, you could have, outside the easement, 70 foot depth to the edge. The setback edge by maybe 60. Little tighter than that. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - Apri119, 2005 Saam: It's not 70 the whole width but there's a width of probably 25 feet that's 70 and then like.. . Aanenson: It's got an anomaly to it, yeah. There's a push out to it that, and that's what makes it more complex so if you approved it as a lot, which it meets a lot requirement for building on a bluff, you may get somebody coming in and asking for a variance to, if you were to give it two dliveways off that street. Keefe: Okay, so it's kind of two questions. One, do we grant the variance. And then the second piece is, do we allow the lots at all or just take the lot out? Sacchet: No, I don't think we, this is without our jurisdiction to allow or disallow a lot. If they're buildable.. . Keefe: .. . one of their recommendations was to not allow that lot. Sacchet: Some things went a little back and forth on that, yeah. But I mean our jurisdiction is not to allow or disallow buildable lots. Our aspect is to look at does it meet ordinance and regulations and in this case is there the justification for a variance how it is spelled out in our code to meet it, which is, is it a hardship? Is it applicable to other properties in similar situations? Is it self created? Is it detlimental? And aspects like that. About 5 or 6 items like that. Aanenson: Just to rerrain it again, to get to the driveway to the back lot, number 12 you'd have to get a variance on the first, on Lot 11 for a private street so the other driveway can come off it. Sacchet: Yeah, and that's where it does fall apart as far as I'm concerned because the private street element says use of the a private street will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources specifically while it's in forested areas. Undestad: So on this lot again ifthe variance wasn't, if it was denied tonight, the subdivision, the preliminary plat was approved and the variance was not, the applicant would then come back at another point in time with a more detailed plan as to how they're plan to. Aanenson: But there's two things that need to happen. First, you need to give the street valiance, so there's still the variance required. If you gave the street variance that allows a second lot, and whoever bought that lot pursued, or the applicant chose to come back at a later date with a specific home plan, you could approve or deny that. You could say it has to meet the setbacks or you may grant some reliefbased on the design of the home. But it's all predicated on the first variance. Sacchet: But then at that point the variance would be for a specific encroachment. It wouldn't be just blanket. Aanenson: Correct. A specific design and you could attach. 44 Planning Commission Meeting - Apli119, 2005 Sacchet: Because light now it's across the board to the bluff. All the setback basically waived. That's what I understand the applicant is asking for. Aanenson: Correct. Keefe: Let me ask one other question. Ifwe deny the street valiance, and we're not even dealing with the bluff variance right because they can't build on it. Aanenson: Right, because you wouldn't be able to... Keefe: Right, you couldn't access the site, right? Aanenson: That's conect... Keefe: So if we were to deny the street, light. Yeah. Sacchet: And again, I mean I'm not trying to be difficult but I do have to assume that this comes out of city code this statement here on the findings of fact, where it says use of the plivate street will pennit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources, specifically bluffs and forested areas. I mean if that is in our code, we're not at liberty. Generous: The specific, natural resources, I added the specifically the bluffs and forested areas to that. Sacchet: Okay, but the other pati is code? Generous: Yes. And Mr. Chainnan, number 7 also deals with the private street. That's part of the findings. Sacchet: Okay, so we have them both, side by side. Is that how it's meant to be? Generous: Because you have to find that it meets the cliteria and also that it meets the valiance clitelia under the subdivision vatiance. For a plivate street. Sacchet: Yeah, I appreciate you made it relative by saying substantially. Not substantially detrimental. This is a tough one. More discussion on this? Jeny, I mean you started back on this Lot 12 thing and I do think it's one of the pivotal areas here that we're struggling with. McDonald: It's kind ofthe last one. I mean that whole thing about the wetlands is dependent upon the DNR study. It sounds as though they put it up...in there. Ifit doesn't work out, the developer understands the lisk so that problem could probably take care of itself. It looks as though the only thing left is this one corner and how we're going to deal with it. Papke: There's a number of other variances being asked for here. We really haven't discussed some of the other ones like the street grade. We're 1% off. How do people feel about that? 45 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 2005 Sacchet: Well it seems like staffs position is that it could be possibly mitigated and that they would like to see whether that has an impact, which I think is a reasonable position to take. But then where does that put us? I mean that puts us in rront of a proposal that is just not fully cooked yet. I hate to say that because I know you did tremendous effort as the applicant for this. Keefe: Well we've also got the valiance on the Block 2 as well, the 5 foot variance. 30 foot to 25 feet. Can you speak to that just a little bit in terms of you said that well if they were to clear fewer trees you might consider it. I wasn't clear on what. Generous: Under the subdivision ordinance we state that in calculating tree removal, that we estimate that every subdivision will remove the first 105 feet oftrees. That's our basis. Now. Papke: Not the first 105, first 105 feet from the right-of-way. Generous: From the right-of-way. From the rront property line to 105 feet into the lot will be cleared. Sacchet: So that will be moved to 25 feet instead of30 feet with this? But you're saying that's not what's happening. Generous: That's not what's happening. What we've been doing is saying well we could, we would support recommending approval of a setback variance if we could show that it pulls back that tree clearance, instead of 105 feet it's 100 feet, or it's 90 or whatever the case may be. And then in this instance it's true, they were right at the threshold and you know Jill was giving them the benefit of the doubt and the rest of them, they were grading even farther. Keefe: Can you reconcile then the point that they were making that part of the reason why they were asking for the setback variance was due to more grading issues than necessalily the tree. Generous: Because the site's on a slope, yes. They have to. Keefe: Yeah, so it isn't really driven necessarily by the tree clearing per se. It's more due to the depth of the property based upon the drop off of the land. Generous: Yes. Keefe: That's the reason with the topography ofthe land is the reason why they're asking for the setback. Generous: Right. It's that 50 foot elevation from the existing house to that northerly wetland. Keefe: Yeah, and that's what I'm confused. I'm trying to understand why you were saying in the report that if they were to clear fewer trees, but it doesn't sound like that's what, the reason why they're asking for the variance. The reason why they're asking for the variance is for the depth of the lot. 46 Planning Commission Meeting - Aplil 19, 2005 Generous: Well it allows them to pull up. Saam: Yeah, I think the applicant added in there, they like to provide a little back yard. So in order to do that, just from my review, and meet the 105, because it slopes off so much they would have to put in retaining walls pretty much at the 105 foot point all the way down. So instead of doing that they're matching into the existing grade at a 3: I. That takes them beyond the 105 foot, if you follow that. Sacchet: Now there is still very significant retaining wall, like this it's called a 4 tier retaining wall. How high does that get, do you know? Saam: Yeah, on Lot 5 that one gets up to 16. On Lots 5 and 6. Sacchet: And is that dropping off? I mean that's the retaining wall going up behind the building, or going down? Saam: No, it's the back yard slopes down. Sacchet: It goes down. Saam: Yeah. Sacchet: Going down, okay. Keefe: So the setback valiance, what we have to find in regards to that is the hardship as it's related to, would probably be related to the topography of wetlands in this case. Aanenson: Correct. .. .it's not for treatment. Understand their goal is to create a bigger back yard, which is a legitimate goal. People want to have that but we're just saying it wasn't for treatment. Sacchet: Since we're corning back to retaining walls, I mean in past developments I've seen staff make an effort to try to minimize retaining walls. I mean there is more retaining walls in this development that I've seen probably in any other development ever before and understand it's a challenging site. Has a lot of elevation changes and everything, and the natural value of it, it's celiainly special. Aanenson: As the developer stated, there's a 50 foot change in grade. Sacchet: So staff is in concunence that those retaining walls are appropriate to this extent, which is a.. . extent anywhere else? Aanenson: Yep. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 2005 Saam: Yeah, I think so. I mean it's a balance. You know like I said, either you put in the wall and stop the grading and filling pretty much, or you tie into the grades and you fill out another whatever it is, 20 feet. Aanenson: It's an expense for them. It'd be cheaper to fill it, which we don't want. Sacchet: Okay, so it's a value to the city, okay. Aanenson: Yeah. Sacchet: Good. Keefe: Can you address the 8% grade variance? Which roads are we talking about specifically? One was the private street, as I recall. Saam: No, the plivate streets can go up to 10%. Keefe: Okay, so we're okay. Saam: Yeah. Let's see, you guys can correct me ifI'm wrong. I believe, maybe let's zoom in a little Nann, if we can. Thanks. One, I know this is hard to see but there's a street here. That's 7, okay. Now I know this area's in the 8%. Oh, I'm sorry. Somewhere in here it just goes over the 7 up to 8. Sacchet: Both sides of the existing house? Yeah, I can see that where the lines are closer. Saam: Yeah, which is right here. They go up to 8. And then the other area is way over on the west which I stated earlier, this cul-de-sac. And again, my point is we don't mind giving that but we want to see some real proof and when I looked at it, think of it rrom our perspective. They're varying it by 1 %, which means it's going from a half a foot to a foot. Well, it would seem to me you could do some modifications to gain that foot back and you're not filling any more. You're not taking out more trees for that. If you go to a 3 to 1, 1 foot is 3 feet additional that you have to fill so, I guess that we're challenging them to show us how this is going to effect this site up here. Where's all the tree degradation that's going to happen if you meet a 7%. Keefe: Can I ask one of you to respond to his, just in terms of that? Justin Larson: My name's Justin Larson. I'm with Westwood. Sacchet: Do you mind moving the mic to your neighborhood? Thank you. Justin Larson: Justin Larson. I'm with Westwood Professional Services. We looked at that too. As you know there's a couple of areas that we're looking for variances on. I did put a couple exhibits together to help illustrate the point. First of all I think I probably should address the existing home area. You can tell by the grading plan, give me a second to track it down there. I've got too many exhibits. I tried to cover all the different facets... Okay, this particular 48 Planning Commission Meeting - Apli119, 2005 profile, if you can take a look at it here. This is the crest of this hill is where the existing home is located and what we're trying to achieve, as you can see we're trying, this is a huge deep hole that we're trying to get down to as quickly as possible, and the only way we can achieve that is to seek that 8% variance. Keefe: Just so I'm clear. We're looking at the elevation ofthe main road and you're looking at, to the light it would be the west, is that conect? Justin Larson: Conect. Well, this is the west side. This is the east side. Keefe: Okay, we're looking north. Justin Larson: So the existing home and the grade in rront of this garage are really what sets the high point or this crest elevation, and you can see, well you probably won't be able to see it at this detail but this house is located basically on top of a hill and it's 20 feet or so in elevation. With these deep ravines that we're going down to. We're just trying to limit the amount of fill that would be required ifhe went at 7%, or whatever the grade is, and that fill would mostly take place on the north side of this road here. Now when you go from 8% to 7% or vice versa, what you're really doing is you're changing your veliical grade 1 foot for every 100 feet. So the actual difference between a high point and our low point in this case, the pbi which is, and I know these are kind of mundane details for many listeners but you know that's 300 feet which is 3 vertical feet which would save us 9 feet in back. So 9 feet ofholizontal distance we no longer have to grade that far out into the trees or the wetlands. The other point I want to make is, the transition that we have going from this pbi, which is basically an invisible point in space where the surveyor could layout the vertical curves for sight distances and things, but the pbi here and the pbi at the high point, that's where the 8% is computed but anybody dliving on this road would really never see an 8% grade because they're coming up the hill, and as soon as they hit the crest or where the 8% tangent would be, they're actually be getting a different, if you can imagine, they're going up a hill and then it transitions immediately to going over the hill, so they never really see 8% grade. Sacchet: So it's not 8%. It's just, it comes and goes. Justin Larson: Right. You're not dliving an 8% for any distance. It's an instantaneous point in the road where it transitions to a reverse vertical curve. Papke: I'm not sure I'm following you. I mean if the overall grade over that whole 300 foot distance is 8%, but they're not seeing 8% over much ofthe distance, at some point they're seeing a heck of a lot more than 8% for it to average out, or I'm misunderstanding your math. Justin Larson: Well I guess I'm not, the 8% is computed over the distance from some station in your roadway to, in this case it's not necessalily a low point but a pbi point so the transition from 2 different grades. Papke: So the average over that entire distance is 8%? 49 Planning Commission Meeting - Apri119, 2005 Justin Larson: No. Papke: No. Justin Larson: No. It's an 8% rrom 2 invisible points in space to layout your vertical curves. So if going from this point in space to this point in space and you see the road doesn't actually go up, the different between that space and this point in space and the actual roadway elevation is. Papke: So where is the roadway elevation depicted on your drawing? Aanenson: I think if you can show it on the road itself and not the. Justin Larson: This is the. Aanenson: No, go to the road map. Now take that same translation. Justin Larson: When you're coming up the hill right here, it's a constant. I guess, I hope I'm answeling the question here but when you're going up this hill it's the curve of the vertical, the curve ofthe street never really reaches 8% because as soon as you, it's transitioning rrom this tangent, and it's kind of a hard concept I guess maybe to illustrate but if you're traveling along the road at 2% and this is the 2% street grade here, and suddenly it starts, it's like a parabola. Papke: So the second derivative is positive. Justin Larson: Right, it's changing. So it's always changing but that parabola is built on 2 points in space and those points are different by 8%... Sacchet: Yeah, I mean there's a somewhat simpler way to look at this. If mean if you have the grading lines close together, that means it's steeper. Justin Larson: Right. Sacchet: And in those two places the lines are closer together. And then how close together would be 7% versus 8%? I mean that might be making it a little more understandable for. Justin Larson: Yeah, I got stuck with kind ofthe engineering. Sacchet: With all the parabola part. Justin Larson: It's 1 foot in 100 and you know I heard the argument from Mr. Saam that there's an ice issue that we don't want to be driving on 8% grades when there's ice. Really when you're dealing with ice on a road, there's not going to, the condition isn't really any different from 7 to 8 percent. Sacchet: Yeah, let me stop you here though because we have to be very clear about this. I mean I keep saying this. We're not at liberty to change the rules. I mean whether, if you're making a 50 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 2005 case that 8% is really not more dangerous than 7%, that's not what we are tasked to look at. Our task is to look how does it meet ordinances and regulations. Justin Larson: Well I can say that the reason why we're pursuing these 8% grades is specifically to preserve trees. Sacchet: Okay, that's significant. Justin Larson: And that's, as Daren mentioned earlier, that's permitted. That's what your tree replacement or your tree preservation code wants us to do. Keefe: That would be our hardship? Giving a variance for that. I mean could be the additional tree preservation for a 1 % grade. Saam: And Mr. Chair, and again I'm saying well that's fine. We'll look at that but we need to see what's being saved. Again when we look at this you can easily get a 7% and maybe a wall has to come up a foot in the back. Well if you have a 16 foot wall anyways, what does it matter ifit's now 17 feet? We want to see where these trees are that they're going to be saving. I guess that's what our point was. Papke: I think everyone would agree that we're willing to trade off saving trees for giving a little bit on the grade, but city staff doesn't understand where that trade off is being made. I as a Planning Commissioner, we just went through this long explanation and I still don't bloody understand how, where the thing comes into play here. McDonald: My comment on this is getting back to something that you said is that, we're being asked to approve something without any details. You know we would like to see some details but we can't get the details until later. How can we grant valiances on something we have no details on? This whole thing on Lot 12, what I'm beginning to understand there is that yeah, you don't need a valiance light now. When you build a house you need to corne back and then you may need a variance but we can't just give you a blanket variance. On this whole thing with the roads, that's begin to become a blanket variance too. City staff has got a problem because you haven't proven your point to them that it needs to be 8% versus 7. They're willing to look at it but they need some more details. Ifwe give you a variance, you don't have to prove it to them. You've got your valiance. So I think going back to one of the things that you said, this may not be ready yet. We just may not have enough details to grant some of this stuff. Keefe: Let me ask him one more question. In regards to the tree saving, is that tree saving just on the mail road? How about the cul-de-sac? Would you say that's the reason why for both of them or is that a different case in each one? Justin Larson: It's the same for both. The road, the cul-de-sac, what I did is I looked at it as 7% and 8% and if you would I've got an exhibit here. Hopefully this will be somewhat more clear. I have an 8% grade starting basically at this station, and it extends for 300 feet. You don't see it here but down to station 4. If you just look at the first 200 feet, I'm saving my house, these pads can be 2 foot, this pad and specifically can be 2 feet lower than if I was at a 7% grade. And what 51 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 2005 that equates to on the back of the pad, and that's what we're really trying to drive home is, by setting these pads lower, in this case 2 feet, I can save an additional amount of grading off the back of these houses and what I've shown here in this exhibit, and I'm thinking I may have 32. I'm trying, basically my grading limits would extend all the way down to, I don't know how close you can zoom in here. But if this became 7% instead of my 8%, this road would corne up 2 feet. This pad would corne up 2 feet. This walkout elevation would come up 2 feet, and if that elevation comes up 2 feet, that pushes my grading farther out, which means you know if you have a slope here, you know when we draw our grading plans we're drawing at 3, you know our contours are at 3 to 1 slope but in this case this slope, these are 3 Y2 to 1 or something, which means we're not going to daylight our proposed contours. We're not going to match in until we start creeping down the slope and the farther we have to creep down that slope, the more losses that you're going to have in trees. And that's, again that's what's driving it. We're saving 1 foot for every 100 feet vertically in the street. Which equates to 3 horizontal feet in the back. Keefe: So, and you haven't had an opportunity to really study that at all. Saam: This is the type of info that we don't have that we didn't have. I took their proposed elevations rrom that cul-de-sac going to the west property line of Highover. That's less than 7%. So you can obviously get a 7% in there. Now we didn't see the effects of what he's presenting now. That's what we're asking to see. Keefe: Well I mean it's possible that you could look at that and say well, we agree with that. Therefore we agree with the variance versus deny the variance. Aanenson: Correct. Keefe: But we don't know. Justin Larson: Can I also add that, you know there's a lot of different parts that were shown in the plans. We have retaining walls as well as the variance hopefully we can get for the streets, but you know this is all, it's all interrelated and we're employing it in the plan to save trees. Sacchet: Thank you. There's one key question that you brought up Jeny. I mean if we would take the position that we'd like to see this one more time a little more solidified, what's the time line? Right now according to what I read here it's that the deadline, the review deadline is the 21 st of May. That's what's on the staff report. It's currently planned to go from here to City Council on May 9th. If we table tonight we can see it again in 2-3 weeks? Potentially, yeah. And that could still bring it to City Council before the May 21 deadline. However, that would restrict the City Council to have any wiggle room, and I certainly heard the statement of the applicant that they're really not, they've got a specific request that they'd like us to make a decision if at all possible, so what's staff s position on that in terms of the time line? Aanenson: I'll leave that up to the applicant. Sacchet: Okay. Do you want to address that once more Dan, if I may please ask you. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 2005 Dan Herbst: Chainnan, members of the commission. Dan Herbst. The deadline is not imposed by asking for an extension with the legal. I've got a deadline with the land seller. It's because of all the things we've been doing since last fall with all the things I talked about earlier, treatment plant, the park, moving things around and everything. Okay. So what I'd like you to do is what I outlined in the letter to you and I outlined verbally, I would like you to approve what you feel comfortable with tonight and if you don't feel comfortable with it, I don't have the liberty to come back in 3 weeks to go to the council. If you don't feel comfortable with it, deny what you don't feel comfortable with. Sacchet: Now I'm not asking you to give us an extension. What I'm asking you is, if within the cunent review deadline, which is like 21 st of May, whether you can work with that because I'm under the impression that, and staff please correct me if that's unrealistic, that if we would end up tabling tonight, which I don't know whether everybody's leaning towards or not at this point but I think it's something that has come up several times in our discussion that I'd like to have a clear framework for it, that it could still go to City Council before the 21st of May. And I'd like to ask you whether that would break your deal, your time line with the owner. Dan Herbst: Again I'll have to go back to the land owner and work it out you know. Tonight I don't have the liberty. Sacchet: Okay, okay. Keefe: Our next meeting is what, the 3rd of May? Aanenson: Conect. Keefe: And it might be possible to get this back on then? Ifwe were to table it. Sacchet: How is our agenda for the 3rd? Aanenson: Yeah, just to be clear. There's some information we're still not going to have. We're still not going to have the wetland infonnation. Okay, so the information that you're really asking for, you're debating among yourselves is the street valiances and the other lots. You're not going to get the wetland stuff before the next, even if we met again on May 3rd, which is the only meeting you can meet to still meet the 21 st deadline. The clitical infOlmation is the street valiances and the lot. The street with Lot 12. Sacchet: The bluff and the plivate street, okay. Aanenson: And let me just, you know maybe idea. What my understanding is what you're saying is that, if... couple of those valiances you would just as soon as have them make a recommendation yeah or nay on those? Dan Herbst: Yes. Sacchet: To have it move forward, yes I think we understand that. 53 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 2005 Dan Herbst: Specifically with the street variance. We can build this with 7%. There'd be no problem. These kids are struggling to save trees, save grade and that's the charge I gave them. You want 7%, we'll do it. Aanenson: Right, just to be clear too, no matter what you recommend, the council can re-hear those same items. Sacchet: Right, absolutely. Aanenson: Besides the additional information, correct... Sacchet: Alright. Thank you for making such a clear statement Dan. Alright, back to us guys. Where do we go with this? I think we have a proposal in front of us that a lot of effort went into it. I think the point Kate made is that we still wouldn't have the wetland information in 2-3 weeks, which is a significant variable. That leaves the variable with the street grade, which I think we got ultimately pretty good explanation and insight once we got beyond the parabola. And then the other thing is the situation with that Lot 12, which we discussed at quite some length, and then we have the aspect with the private street. Would we want to go somewhere with that? Deborah, are you itching to say something? You've been quiet here for a while. Zorn: Digesting. Sacchet: Yeah, there's a lot to digest. Keefe: Yeah I mean, look at the way it lines up in terms of the recommendation and the Lot 12 is in with the denial with the approval of the plat. So that variance, in terms of that bluff variance and the private street variance is tied in to number B, or letter B on our recommendation. The other variances and the other variances we're talking about are the street variance, the setback variance and those two are recommended to be denied and I don't know if we're on comment time but those are the. Sacchet: Yeah we are. Keefe: Okay. My thinking on those is just based on their presentation. I might consider allowing those versus B where I think on Lot 12, based on the discussion, I'm not very comfortable with that so I would likely go, I would agree with the wording with Letter A, Letter B. I would probably look at C and say, I might approve the rront yard. Where's the street? Saam: The street grade is in B. That's in denying it. Keefe: Okay, so that's why I'm trying to talk through this. See I might approve the street valiance. I might approve the street variance based upon what I'm hearing tonight. McDonald: You talking about the private street? 54 Planning Commission Meeting - Apli119, 2005 Sacchet: No, the grade. Keefe: No. No, I would approve, I would change the wording in B to approve the valiance and then C, I would approve the front yard setback but deny the bluff setback. The bluff valiance. And then lastly. Sacchet: That's wetland. Keefe: Yeah. Papke: I'm with you so far and then maybe move the cul-de-sac back to Lot 12 to Lot 11. Sacchet: Where does it talk about the plivate street in the conditions, and the motion? Generous: Well it doesn't say it specifically. There's a condition related to it which is subdivision, 37. Sacchet: See that's part of what scares me too. We have like conditions that are as long as the staff report. Keefe: I'm trying to work the developer and to his wishes and also to try and get some movement here. Papke: The only thing that still makes me a little nervous here, if we go ahead with the private street but we deny the bluff setback, and even if we move the cul-de-sac back to Lot 11, do we still have a bluff setback problem with the plivate street if we trunk it at Lot II? Saam: I mean possibly. Just from us looking at it, we think. Let me clalify something. The plivate street is not classified as a structure, so you can put pavement in the grading setback. Papke: The grading setback. Saam: But it's where it's in the bluff, I mean nothing can go in the bluff. No grading, no pavement, no anything. So we think they can get the plivate dliveway, they skinny it up to 10 feet just for Lot 12, by the bluff yeah, and stay out of the bluff. Sacchet: I don't see anywhere in the proposed motions where it actually gives them the valiance for the plivate street. Is that just implied or I mean that's. Generous: Yes. It should be as part... Keefe: So we could add that. Generous: Street grade and Plivate street. Sacchet: So Debbie Lloyd definitely did have a point about that pati, okay. 55 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 2005 Keefe: So can we add that? Sacchet: Or deny it. Keefe: And then letter D, I guess I would agree with what they've got there. Sacchet: Alright. Comments. Anybody else who wants to make comments? Kurt, you look ready. Papke: I'm ready to roll. Sacchet: Alright. I'd like to make comment that I do agree with your point with the exception that I really, based on how I read this justification that is required for private street, I don't think we can support a plivate street variance. That's in the findings. If you go further back, it's on page 2 of the findings. The last bullet on bullet C on the bottom, and apparently the full first line of that bullet C comes straight off city code and say, use of private streets will permit enhanced protection of the city's natural resources. I think on that basis we cannot make a variance for a private street. Papke: Why? Using a private street here instead of a public street you are protecting the natural resources. Sacchet: You could never justify a public street in that case and by allowing the private street, you allow further cutting into the natural resources. Keefe: But not as much as you would with a public street. Papke: That's the rationale for a private street, so you can make them narrower. You can have. . . you work around those constraints. Sacchet: Okay, thanks. Alright. Are we ready to roll? Papke: I'll take a crack at it. Okay. I make a motion. I'm sorry, did you ask for a motion? Sacchet: Yes, I'm asking for a motion. Papke: Okay. I would like to make a motion. Sacchet: A whole collection of them. Papke: A collection of motions, A through D. First of all A, I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the rezoning of the property from RR, Rural Residential to RSF, Single Family Residential District based upon the findings of fact attached to this report. Motion B. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat (Subdivision) to create 39 single family lots, four outlots and public right-of-way with, and 56 Planning Commission Meeting - Aplil 19, 2005 here's where I differ from what's wlitten in the staff, approval of valiance for a plivate street and I will strike with denial of variance for street grade. Plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services Inc. dated 03-18-05 based upon the findings of fact attached to this report, subject to conditions 1 through 62. Keefe: Can I do a point of clalification at this point on B? Papke: You'll have to wait until I finish with the motion. Sacchet: Let him make the motion first and then we get a second and then we get. Papke: And then I would like to add condition 63 that the cul-de-sac be moved back from Block 1, Lot 12 and that private street be truncated at Lot 11. Okay. Motion C. The Planning Commission recommends denial ofthe, stlike front yard, so it'd be denial of only the bluff setback variances based upon the findings of fact attached to this report, and motion D, recommend approval of the Wetland Alteration Pelmit to fill and alter wetlands on the site subject to conditions 1 through 5. Sacchet: Allight. We have a motion. Do we have a second? McDonald: Well point of c1alification on that one. It should be 1 through 13 on D. Sacchet: D is 13. Papke: Oops, I'm sorry. I have the other page on top of the second page. Yes, I stand corrected. 1 through 13. McDonald: I will second the motion. Sacchet: Alright, we have a motion. We have a second. Now we can stati weeding through this. Dan? Keefe: C you said, could you repeat what you said on C, I'm sorry? Papke: In C I stated I recommend denial of only the bluff setback variance. So approval of the front yard vatiance and denial of the bluff setback. Sacchet: So did you say approval of the front yard? Papke: Approval of front yard. Denial of the bluff setback. Sacchet: So we do get an approval there and a denial of the bluff setback. Okay. Alright. Keefe: Going back to B. Are we still creating 39 single family lots? Papke: Yes. 57 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 2005 Keefe: Even with, if we're not allowing access to 12. Sacchet: Well we don't disallow. I don't think it's within our perimeter to disallow that. That's the landowner's light. Keefe: And then, okay. Are we creating an additional outlot with. Papke: It's merged in. If you look at condition 14, it incorporates all the wetland into Outlot C. I don't believe you, the way you stated the conditions that it creates a new outlot, ifI'm reading it. Keefe: That was my question. Sacchet: Clarification and possibly friendly amendment. B, condition 3 reads Lots 10, 11, 12, Block 3 must be reconfigured to meet minimum standards. This will result in the elimination of one lot. Generous; Not with the outlotting ofthe wetland. Sacchet: So that's understood? Generous: You can delete that condition. Sacchet: Well we can leave it in too if it doesn't conflict with anything. Just want to be clear. Papke: Then it's going to be confusing about how many lots we ended up with. Sacchet: So we want to get rid of this will result in elimination of outlot. Just the first sentence stays then, that's my fliendly amendment. Papke: Accepted. Sacchet: I think condition 7, I don't know whether my English fails me there. If the land is not dedicated for park purposes then the development shall pay full park fees. I know we've talked about that land in what is it, north east corner but the condition certainly doesn't say that. So maybe you could say what we're talking about. Like the amendment would be, ifthe designated land on the northeast corner. Aanenson: Outlot something. Generous: Yeah, it'd be Lot 1, Block 4. And we actually have 40 lots. Sacchet: So we have to make it 40 lots, then we call this by name, that would help. Generous: Lot 1, Block 4. 58 Planning Commission Meeting - Apli119, 2005 Papke: So condition 7 reads, if Lot 1, Block 4 is not dedicated for park purposes? Sacchet: Yep. Papke: Okay, got it. And we go to 40 lots in motion B, yes. Sacchet: And we actually have condition number 17 which makes it very clear about the bluff setback already, which would have conflicted with the valiance. Keefe: If 14 is included, do you need the second sentence in 16? Because we're not creating any lipalian lots if, we're including it all in outlot correct? Sacchet: That's fuzzy at best. That lipalian situation at this point. Papke: Do you still have riparian lots though? Sacchet: They may. Keefe: You wouldn't, would you? Generous: You probably wouldn't because the OHW would. Aanenson: Just leave it in and. .. Sacchet: Ahight. Do we need to say something about the plivate street beyond what we said at this point in order to be proper? Papke: I added condition 63. Generous: A valiance for the ptivate street and. Sacchet: Is in there, okay. Allight. Condition 57, the second part of it sounds more like notes than a condition. I had discussion with city engineer. That needs to go but that's no big deal. Anything else? Papke moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Rezoning of the property from RR, Rural Residential, to RSF, Single Family Residential District based on the fmdings of fact attached to this report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to O. Papke moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Comnússion recommends approval of the preliminary plat (Subdivision) to create 40 single-family lots, four outlots and public right- of-way with approval of a variance for a private street and street grade, plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc. dated 03/18/05, based on the fmdings of fact attached to this report, subject to the following conditions: 59 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 2005 1. The lot area for Lot 2, Block 1, shall be increased to a minimum of 15,000 square feet. 2. The lot rrontage for Lot 3, Block 1, must meet the 90 feet standard at the building setback line. 3. Lots 10, 11 and 12, Block 3, must be reconfigured to meet the minimum standards. 4. The lot rrontage for Lot 14, Block 3, must meet the 125 minimum lot width. 5. Lot 12, Block 3, contains a swimming pool and shall not be platted as a separate lot unless the pool is removed or the platting of the lot is concurrent with an application for a building permit for a principal dwelling on the lot. 6. Prior to final plat approval, the developer shall verify that acceptable building pads can be accommodated on all lots that have lake setbacks. 7. If Lot 1, Block 4, is not dedicated for park purposes, then the development shall pay full park fees in force at the time of final plat approval. 8. Building Official 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. The developer must submit a list of proposed street names for review and approval prior to final plat of the property. d. Retaining walls more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction. e. Separate sewer and water services must be provided each lot. f. Existing wells and on-site sewage treatment systems on the site but be abandoned in accordance with State Law and City Code and the existing home must be connected to city sewer service when available. g. The swimming pool adjacent to the existing residence must be protected by a fence in accordance with City Code. h. The developer must coordinate the address change of the existing home with the construction of the development and provide access for emergency vehicles at all times. 9. A wetland delineation report illustrating wetland type, boundary and vegetation shall be submitted prior to final plat approval. 10. The applicant shall submit a Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) application illustrating two alternatives that demonstrate proposed plans were sequenced in the following order of decreasing preference: 1) Avoidance of wetland impact, 2) Minimization of wetland impacts, 3) Rectification of wetland impacts and 4) Mitigation of wetland impacts. The applicant shall not impact basins A, G and F until it is demonstrated that these impacts have met the above sequencing requirements. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The plans shall show fixed photo 60 Planning Commission Meeting - Apli119, 2005 monitoling points for the replacement wetlands. A five-year wetland replacement monitoring plan shall be submitted yearly beginning one growing season after the wetland is created. The applicant shall provide proof of recording a Declaration of Restlictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland. The applicant shall secure City approval of a wetland replacement plan prior to any wetland impacts occuning. 11. All impacts, including the filling of wetlands and conversion of wetlands into storm water pond, shall be mitigated with the proposed project. The applicant shall demonstrate and document how replacement will be satisfied to ensure the 2: 1 replacement ratio for all impacted wetlands. 12. A wetland buffer with a minimum width of20 feet shall be maintained around Wetlands A, B, C, E, F, G and H. A wetland buffer with a minimum width of 16.5 feet shall be maintained around Wetland D and any wetland mitigation areas. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. 13. Building setbacks of 40 feet from the wetland buffer stlips shall be maintained for all proposed building pads. Lot 3, Block 3 and Lot 11, Block 3 shall be revised to meet building setback requirements. 14. Lots 11-15 Block 3 and Lot 10 Block 2 shall be revised to incorporate all of wetland B into Outlot C. 15. The OHW determination shall be completed plior to final plat approval. All plans shall illustrate Lake HatTÌson's OHW and a 150 foot structure setback from the OHW. 16. All non-lipalian lots within the shoreland management zone shall be no less than 90 feet wide with 15,000 square feet oflot area. All liparian lots within the shoreland management zone shall be no less than 125 feet wide with 40,000 square feet oflot area. 17. The bluff area on the property shall be preserved. All structures must maintain a 30 foot setback from the bluff and no grading may occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e., the bluff and land located within 20 feet rrom the top ofthe bluff). 18. The proposed development shall maintain existing runoff rates. Storm water calculations shall be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water ponding is sized adequately for the proposed development. 19. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds. 20. MN DOT category 3 erosion blanket and seed shall be applied to exposed creek slopes near/around road crossing within 24 hours of temporary/final grade. Riprap, appropriately sized, shall be installed at flared end outlets for energy dissipation with underlying gravel 61 Planning Commission Meeting - Apri119, 2005 base or geotextile fabric. All emergency over flow structures shall be stabilized with riprap and geotextile or permanent turf re-enforcement blankets. Erosion and sediment controls shall be installed for the planned sanitary sewer crossing for Wetland A area. Silt fence, mulch and wetland seed shall be used for restoration. All 3: 1 slopes shall be covered with category 3 erosion blanket. An outlet meeting NPDES water quality discharge requirements is needed on Pond 1. 21. Following storm water inlet installation Wimco-type (or equal) inlet sediment controls shall be installed and regularly maintained. A detail for the inlet sediment controls shall be provided. 22. Following street and utility installation, Chanhassen-specification Type-l silt fence or other approved perimeter sediment control shall be installed for all positive slopes curbside. 23. Geotextile fabric shall be installed under the rock to promote effectiveness and lifespan of the rock construction entrance. 24. Chanhassen type 2 heavy duty silt fence with straw/hay bale re-enforcement shall be provided for all silt fences adjacent to wetland and creek areas. Chanhassen type 1 silt fence shall be installed at the OHW elevation of storm water basins following permanent outlet installation. 25. The "Inlet Sediment Filter" detail shall be altered to show a rock berm (1 ~ -inch rock, 2 feet wide and 1 foot high along the outside of the silt fence. Only metal t -posts shall be used, not wood stakes. 26. Silt fence shall be installed between wetland impact areas and the remaining wetland. 27. 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. 28. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. 62 Planning Commission Meeting - Aplil 19, 2005 29. All development phases shall be represented in the SWPPP (clear and grubbing, mass grading, large utilities, small utilities, home building, along with any special requirement such as wetland or creek crossing areas). 30. Construction phasing of the road shall be provided for the wetland/creek crossing. Due to potential concentrated flows, a creek crossing plan shall be developed and outlined in the SWPPP. A detail shall also be provided. Stabilization of the crossing area shall be provided within 24 hours following temporary or final grade. The silt fence shall be wrapped up and around the culved leaving the wetted pelimeter free of silt fence. Soil shall be prevented rrom enteling the waters of the state. 31. At tIlls time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $135,285.38. 32. The applicant shall apply for and obtain pelmits rrom the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley- PurgatOly-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Department of Health, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Pennit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Carver County, Met Council) and comply with their conditions of approval. 33. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits plior to any construction. Fencing shall be in place and maintained until all construction is completed. In no areas shall the fencing be placed within the bluff impact zone. 34. Any trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans, dated 3/18/05, will be replaced at a ratio of 2: 1 diameter inches. 35. A total of 319 trees are to be planted. The number of overstory, deciduous trees, as shown on landscape plans dated 3/18/05, required in the front yard of each lot are as follows: Lot, Block Number of trees required Lot 1, blk 1 5 Lot 2, blk 1 2 Lot 3, blk 1 1 Lot 4, blk 1 1 Lot 5, blk 1 1 Lot 6, blk 1 2 Lot 7, blk 1 2 Lot 8, blk 1 2 Lot 9, blk 1 1 Lot 10, blk 1 2 Lot 11, blkl None - existing front yard trees to be preserved Lot 12, blk I None - existing front yard trees to be preserved Lot 1, blk 2 4 63 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 2005 Lot, Block Number of trees required Lot 2, blk 2 3 Lot 3, blk 2 2 Lot 4, blk 2 2 Lot 5, blk 2 3 Lot 6, blk 2 1 Lot 7, blk 2 3 Lot 8, blk 2 2 Lot 9, blk 2 2 Lot 10, blk 2 7 Lot 1, blk 3 5 Lot 2, blk 3 2 Lot 3, blk 3 2 Lot 4, blk 3 3 Lot 5, blk 3 1 Lot 6, blk 3 1 Lot 7, blk 3 1 Lot 8, blk 3 2 Lot 9, blk 3 2 Lot 10, blk 3 3 Lot 11, blk 3 2 Lot 12, blk 3 3 Lot 13, blk 3 3 Lot 14, blk 3 3 Lot 15, blk 3 2 Lot 16, blk 3 1 Lot 17, blk 3 None - existing rront yard trees to be preserved 36. The developer shall be responsible for planting any trees in side or rear yards as shown on the landscape plan dated 3/18/05. 37. Any plivate street is required to have 20-foot wide paved streets rrom back-of-curb to back-of- curb, be built to a 7-ton design, have a maximum slope of 10%, and contained within a 30-foot wide plivate easement. At the completion of the project, the developer will be required to submit inspection/soil reports certifying that the private street was built to a 7-ton design. 38. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes and traffic control plans. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement rrom the appropriate property owner. 39. All of the ponds are required to be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards with maximum 3: 1 slopes and a 10: 1 bench at the NWL. 64 Planning Commission Meeting - April 19, 2005 40. Any retaining wall over 4 feet in height must be designed by a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota with an approved fence. Also, it will require a building pennit rrom the Building Department. 41. Plior to final platting, stonn sewer design data will need to be submitted for staff review. Depending on the size of the drainage area, additional catch basins may be required at that time. The stonn sewer will have to be designed for a 10-year, 24-hour stonn event. Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, emergency overflows, access routes for maintenance, and wetlands up to the 1 OO-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Emergency overflows rrom all stonnwater ponds will also be required on the construction plans. 42. Erosion control measures and site restoration must be developed in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook (BMPH). Staff recommends that the City's Type II erosion control fence, which is a heavy-duty silt fence, be used for the area adjacent to the existing wetlands. Type I silt fence shall be used in all other areas. In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. Erosion control blankets are recommended for all of the steep 3: 1 slopes with an elevation change of eight feet or more. All disturbed areas, as a result of construction, must be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. 43. 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 seculity in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation ofthe 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 pennit issuance. 44. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for each ofthe new lots. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for watermain. Sanitary sewer and watennain 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 and are due at the time of building pelmit issuance. 45. The applicant shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge rrom homes not adjacent to ponds. 46. All plans must be signed by a registered engineer in the State of Minnesota. 47. Maximum 3: 1 side slopes are allowed without the use of a retaining wall. 48. On the preliminary plat sheet show the street right-of-way for the cul-de-sacs. 49. Minimum 20-foot wide public drainage and utility easements will be required over the sanitary sewer and watennain that is outside of the right-of-way. 65 Planning Commission Meeting - Apri119, 2005 50. On the grading plan: a. Show the benchmark. b. Add a note to remove all existing approaches. c. Show the retaining walls top and bottom elevations. d. Revise the street grades to comply with the 7% maximum requirement. e. Eliminate Pond 1 and bring the drainage to Pond 2. f. The proposed grading for Lots 4-6, Block 3 needs to be revised to prevent the garage elevation of Lot 4 from being lower than the street. g. The garage elevations of Lots 5 and 6 need to be at least 1.5 feet higher than the emergency overflow for the street. h. Install a culvert under the proposed street connection at Galpin Boulevard. 1. Show the 1036 contour around the housepad of Lot 2, Block 1. J. Show the proposed storm sewer on the plan. 51. Label the existing and proposed street names on all plan sheets. 52. On the utility plan: a. Revise the note to say "All storm pipe shall be Class 5. . .". b. Show all existing utilities, pipe type and manhole rim/inverts within Lake Lucy Road, Galpin Boulevard, Highover Trail and Manchester Dlive. c. Revise the location of the downstream sanitary sewer from MH-15 so it goes between Lots 4 and 5 versus Lots 5 and 6, Block 1. d. Show all utility and storm ponds easements. e. Sanitary service must be 6-inch PVC and water service I-inch copper type K. f. The watermain must be looped through to Manchester Drive versus Galpin Boulevard. 53. Staff is recommending that a raw water transmission main be extended through the site for future connection to the City's second water treatment plant. The construction cost for the raw watennain will be paid by the City from the water portion of the Utility Fund. The developer will be required to provide public drainage and utility easements over the transmission main and to install the pipe as a part of the utility construction. 54. Since the applicant is now proposing more units (39) than what the property has been assessed for, the additional 38 units (39-1=38) will be charged a sanitary sewer and watermain lateral connection charge. These charges are due at the time of final plat recording. 55. As with past developments that access off of Galpin Boulevard, a right-turn lane into the site will be required to be constructed. The turn lane must meet Carver County design requirements. 56. 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 hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. 66 Planning Commission Meeting - Aptil 19, 2005 57. Two additional fire hydrants are required. I had discussion with Assistant City Engineer Matt Saam as to their location. 58. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable plior to and duling the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. 59. Temporary street signs shall be installed on each street intersection when construction ofthe new roadway allows passage by vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4. 60. No buming pennits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed rrom site or chipped. 61. Submit street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. 62. Create a Lot and Block on the eastern portion of Outlot A, east of wetland E. 63. The private street cul-de-sac shall be moved back from Lot 12, Block 1 to Lot 11, Block 1. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to o. Papke moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the front yard variance and denial of the bluff setback variances based on the fmdings of fact attached to this report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to O. Papke moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the wetland alteration permit to fill and alter wetlands on site subject to the following conditions: 1. The wetland alteration pelmit is contingent on final plat approval for Lake Harrison. 2. A wetland delineation report illustrating wetland type, boundary and vegetation shall be submitted prior to final plat approval. 3. The applicant shall submit a Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) application illustrating two alternatives that demonstrate proposed plans were sequenced in the following order of decreasing preference: 1) Avoidance of wetland impact, 2) Minimization of wetland impacts, 3) Rectification of wetland impacts and 4) Mitigation of wetland impacts. The applicant shall not impact basins A, G and F until it is demonstrated that these impacts have met the above sequencing requirements. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The plans shall show fixed photo monitoling points for the replacement wetlands. A five-year wetland replacement monitoling 67 Planning Commission Meeting - Apri119, 2005 plan shall be submitted yearly beginning one growing season after the wetland is created. The applicant shall provide proof of recording a Declaration of Resttictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland. The applicant shall secure City approval of a wetland replacement plan prior to any wetland impacts occurring. 4. All impacts, including the filling of wetlands and conversion of wetlands into storm water pond, shall be mitigated with the proposed project. The applicant shall demonstrate and document how replacement will be satisfied to ensure the 2: 1 replacement ratio for all impacted wetlands. 5. A wetland buffer with a minimum width of20 feet shall be maintained around Wetlands A, B, C, E, F, G and H. A wetland buffer with a minimum width of 16.5 feet shall be maintained around Wetland D and any wetland mitigation areas. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staffbefore construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. 6. Building setbacks of 40 feet rrom the wetland buffer strips shall be maintained for all proposed building pads. Lot 3, Block 3 and Lot 11, Block 3 shall be revised to meet building setback requirements. 7. Lots 11-15 Block 3 and Lot 10 Block 2 shall be revised to incorporate all of wetland B into Outlot C. 8. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds. 9. Erosion and sediment controls shall be installed for the planned sanitary sewer crossing for Wetland A area. Silt fence, mulch and wetland seed shall be used for restoration. All 3: 1 slopes shall be covered with category 3 erosion blanket. 10. Chanhassen type 2 heavy duty silt fence with straw/hay bale re-enforcement shall be provided for all silt fences adjacent to wetland and creek areas. Chanhassen type 1 silt fence shall be installed at the OHW elevation of storm water basins following permanent outlet installation. 11. Silt fence shall be installed between wetland impact areas and the remaining wetland. 12. Construction phasing of the road shall be provided for the wetland/creek crossing. Due to potential concentrated flows, a creek crossing plan shall be developed and outlined in the SWPPP. A detail shall also be provided. Stabilization of the crossing area shall be provided within 24 hours following temporary or final grade. The silt fence shall be wrapped up and around the culvert leaving the wetted pelimeter free of silt fence. Soil shall be prevented rrom enteling the waters of the state. 68 Planning Commission Meeting - Apli119, 2005 13. The applicant shall apply for and obtain pennits fÌ'om the appropliate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-PurgatOly-BluffCreek Watershed Distlict, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Petmit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewateling» and comply with their conditions of approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to o. Sacchet: Well we wish you luck with this and I got to be very honest. Ifit was a different developer I would have had a very hard time going along with this. So we'll take a 5 minute recess and we'll try to bliefly address the remaining items. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM A2 TO PUD-R~ SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES OF APPROXIMATELY 91 ACRES INTO 84 LOTS. 3 OUTLOTS AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY; SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 459 TOWNHOUSE UNITS~ WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ALTERATION OF THE FLOOD PLAIN; AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD. SOUTH OF LYMAN BOULEVARD. AND NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL. LIBERTY ON BLUFF CREEK. APPLICANT. TOWN AND COUNTRY HOMES. PLANNING CASE NO. 05-11. Public Present: Name Address Jeff & Jenny Silus Rick Dorsey Keith Wyman Dave Zelinsky 2662 Shadow Lane, Chaska 14215 Green View Court, Eden Prailie 2674 Shadow Wood Court, Chaska 2886 Ironwood Blvd. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thank you Kate. Questions. Go ahead Kurt. Papke: Yeah we're, if my math is correct we're losing about 3% of our office industlial space. Aanenson: Correct. Papke: What's our feeling in terms of tax base? In terms ofthe market for office industlial right now? You know is this lost? Aanenson: Well that's the question that the council has. When, in the process oflooking at the AUAR they spent some time saying that maybe this should be predominantly industlial, this area down here. What you have to remember is when we updated the comprehensive plan in 1998, we put this land use together. Projections were made. People made other economic decisions 69