Loading...
CC Minutes 5-9-05 City Council Meeting - May 9, 2005 PUBLIC HEARING ON REQUEST FOR AN ON-SALE BEER AND WINE LICENSE. CJ'S COFFEE AND WINE BAR AT 600 MARKET STREET. GEORGE W ALTER. LLC. Justin Miller: Mayor, members of the City Council. The city has received an application for an on sale beer and wine license from George Walter LLC, which is a sole partnership operated by Cynthia Baker. Mrs. Baker is planning on opening crs Coffee and Wine Bar in the Market Street Station development at 600 Market Street. Law enforcement has completed background investigations on all the principles involved in this organization and no negative comments were found. The city also sent out a public hearing notice to property owners within 500 feet soliciting comments. We received none. At this time staff would recommend holding the public hearing and then approving the request for the on sale beer and wine license contingent upon receiving the license fee and liquor liability insurance. I'd be glad to answer any questions. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Miller? Hearing none, we'll proceed with the public hearing. At this time I would invite interested parties to come forward to the podium. Please state your name and address and address the council on this matter. Anybody that would like to comment on the public hearing on this matter? Please come forward now. Okay. Seeing none we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to council for discussion. I'm assuming that there are no additional questions based upon the public hearing we just preceded with so I'll bring it back to council for comments. Councilman Peterson: Move for approval. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion? Hearing none we'll proceed with the vote. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded that the City Council approve the on-sale beer and wine license for CJ's Wine & Coffee Bar at 600 Market Street, Suite 160 contingent upon receipt of the license fee and the liquor license insurance. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O. REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL. RR TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. RSF: REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE 62 ACRES INTO 40 LOTS. 3 OUTLOTS AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH V ARIRANCES: AND A WETLAND AL TERA TION PERMIT FOR THE GRADING AND FILLING OF WETLANDS ON SITE: LOCATED AT 6950 GALPIN BOULEVARD. LAKE HARRISON. THE PEMTOM LAND COMPANY. PLANNING CASE 05-14. Public Present: Name Address 8 City Council Meeting - May 9, 2005 Justin Larson Matt Hermann Dan Herbst Daren Laberee Dan Cook Patti J 0 Hermann LarTY Marty Julie Fuecker Chris Cowan Mike & Candice McGraw Ann & Al Taylor Stephen Kerkvliet Gina Sauer David Senner Ray Alstadt J acqie Daughelty Cheri & Jim Broughton Westwood Professional Services 3920 Stratford Ridge 7640 Climson Bay Westwood Professional Services Pemtom Land Company Edina Realty 2117 Lake Lucy Road 6751 Manchester Drive 2412 Highover Trail 2446 Highover Trail 2340 Lake Lucy Road 2201 Lake Lucy Road 2244 Lake Lucy Road 6829 Briarwood Court 2423 Highover Trail 2423 Highover Trail 6927 Highover Court NOlth Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The subject site is located on the map just off of Galpin and Lake Lucy, and I'm going to actually talk from the computer. I think at the Planning Commission it was a little hard for some of the people to see the colored map so we'll be using the computer to go through in a little bit more detail. Again as I indicated, the subject site has numerous requests before you tonight. Access is gained via Lake Lucy Road and Galpin Boulevard. The developer was challenged with a very complex site as far as rolling topography, wetlands and significant wooded areas. The Planning Commission did review this application on April 19th. They did recommend approval 6-0. The developer did have a neighborhood meeting and at the original presentation of the subdivision this street light here was actually shown as kind of an access drive and not a full street. The staff had recommended to the developer that we believed that the site should be accessed via Galpin and Lake Lucy. In looking at the overall site in itself, when we laid Lake Lucy Road, the subdivision out, the staff had recommended in this area here the connection. Approximately 10 lots on that bluff, and then also Highover Trail, that this street would come through and connect, but as it works out with the grading and the topography, that connection didn't seem to make the best sense as far as the impact. As far as the eastern part of the site, the direction that the city's going with that is the future water treatment site and a park. As far as the park goes, we gave you an update on that. The Park and Recreation Commission on April 26th did review that site and did believe it would be a reasonable site for a park. It has some very beautiful views up at the top so the Park and Rec Director will be working with the park commission to develop a plan. As far as the water treatment plant, any public process on that would come back through the Planning Commission for a public hearing and back to the City Council, so those are both set for future dates as far as that goes. Again, the connection, this street via Lake Lucy. The developer of this project actually acquired a piece of propelty next to the city's well house to actually gain that access, so that was acquired to make the connection. As I indicated we Oliginally were hoping to tie into Highover but the grades didn't work. Again there is some significant impacts on this development, the topography. There is some variances also being requested. There is a few areas that have 8% grade and I'll go through those in a minute. One up in this area here, and then another one through here. I have cross sections that 9 City Council Meeting - May 9, 2005 I'll be showing you in just a minute. Again it does abut Lake Harrison, which is a natural development lake which does require greater setbacks. In addition there was a question about the OHW. That documentation has been provided and the lots can meet that. Again when you're next to the lakeshore, the lot requirement, the width is larger and as part of this development there will be an outlot created so the lots are non-riparian. That's typical on some of the subdivisions that we have with that anomaly. One of the variances that came up was, and I'm going to go through a color detail that was presented by the developer. When it went to the Planning Commission there was some variances asked along Block 2, which I'll go to in a minute, and then the other significant variance was asked along the back of Highover, which is this area right back in here. The original proposal that was submitted, there was a cul-de-sac up in this area here, which is the plan that was originally submitted. In working through with the Planning Commission it was decided to eliminate that so this is the only part that's a common drive, or common street. The rest of it is a private drive that would serve the back of Lot 12. At the Planning Commission meeting the applicant had proposed and showed how a house would fit on there. They actually put a pretty large house on there, significant in square footage but the staff felt that was premature. We believe it's a reasonable lot. If you look at what we propose for a standard home size, which we now kind of look at 72 by 40, it does meet that. It'd be a side loaded with excellent views looking this way. It can meet that without any variances. So the variance, since we believe it is a reasonable area for a lot, the question then became for the Planning Commission and the staff was, does it make sense if you have a buildable area to grant a variance for 2 homes off of a private drive, so that would be Lot 11 and Lot 12. So this would be the common portion again, and then this would be the private...feasible way to get to a lot, a street can go into the bluff. In this case the staff felt it was much more environmentally sensitive to do the private drive. Therefore we recommended the variance to do that private drive within that. Again as far as the double fronted lot, there is an outlot that runs along Highover where the trail is, so there is an outlot so the lots aren't touching each other. I want to go back and show a little bit.. . get to the engineer's comments. The 7% gray area was in here. One ofthe questions that the Planning Commission had in this area and I'll show this area here on Lot 4, where they wanted to push the houses close to that 25 feet. Again there's significant topography here in order to accomplish that and save as many trees as possible, which was the goal. Was if you didn't allow the 25 feet, you'd actually be impacting the back of the lot 17 additional feet, so you'd actually push it further into the trees, and that was the information that the Planning Commission said was important for them to make a decision on whether or not they would grant a 25 foot variance, so if I could just shoot back to the plat again. So these lots all along which are Block 2, would be those lots that they're asking for the 25 foot variance, and that's similar to what we talked about in Longacres. We've done some of those where we're preserving significant trees. So that was a request. And then the similar circumstance, and actually it's a little bit bigger on Lot 7 where you're actually by going, not allowing that small 8% grade in that area, again the 7% is the ordinance, you're actually pushing back into the trees 54 feet. So staff supported those recommendations for that specific reason. Again there is wetland impacts and those would be one in the area of crossing the creek through here, and two isolated ones within the subdivision. There is a wetland replacement plan. The question raised at the Planning Commission, and I believe in your letter too, the wetland delineation is being done. The lake OHW is off by 1/10 from what they originally proposed. Again working with the developer we're pretty confident that we're going to be very, very close as far as the delineation. They are doing right now and hope to have those done by Friday. They are a condition of approval so 10 City Council Meeting - May 9,2005 before final plat we would have to review those and approve those. Again any increase in lots could not be approved but if there was a reason that they had to assemble lots because they couldn't meet a setback or the like, they can't exceed anything that would be a condition of approval in the staff repOlt. There are some minor changes that we have outlined that we need to make some small changes on, which we believe can be accomplished but again I want to go through the motions that are required for this. It is zoned rural residential. The comprehensive plan has it guided for low density. Staff, it is consistent with the comprehensive plan so the staff is recommending approval of that. Again there is a preliminary plat subdivision for 40 single family lots with the vatiances and those are conditions are also outlined in the staff report. And then condition C would be, and that's on page 23, would be for the variances for all of Block 2. The 25 foot that I just mentioned, and then condition D would be for the wetland impacts. And with that we do have the findings of fact in the staff report that was approved by the Planning Commission with that. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Why don't we just start with general questions for staff and then if you want to get into that, we celtainly can. I think we're going to get to staff's response. The question here is whether we want to get into now a response on a couple of the letters that we received. I think there was, I'm sony. Kate Aanenson: Sure. Yeah, I think written in my narrative I've discussed a majority of them as far as the notification, the variance process. Again we've reviewed all that with the city attorney and believe we're in good standing in all of that. I mean and we have, if you wanted me to repeat anything for the record but some of the, they're worded a little bit different but some of them are the same question asked a different way, if that makes sense. So I'd be happy to answer any of those specifically. Councilman Lundquist: Do you have Mrs. Paulsen's letter? Kate Aanenson: I have not seen it. Mayor Furlong: Why don't you take a look at that and do you want to address that now or give them some time, at least.. . time to review it. And Mrs. Paulsen mayor may not want to speak to that. Councilman Lundquist: Maybe take a couple minutes. Kate Aanenson: If you want to let the developer go I can read it. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Are there any other, before we go to the developer, questions for staff at this point? Clarifying questions. Okay. I may have a couple as we get through this but they might be answered as well so, at this point why don't we go ahead to the applicant. Mr. Herbst, how are you this evening? Dan Herbst: Fine. Mayor Furlong: Good. Good evening. 11 City Council Meeting - May 9,2005 Dan Herbst: Honorable Mayor, members of City Council. Professional staff, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Dan Herbst with Pemtom. I live at 7640 Crimson Bay in Chanhassen and as I get older I need more support staff so I'd like to introduce the group behind me. In Sergio Garcia green is Justin Larson, a professional engineer and planner with Westwood Professional Services. On his left is Matt Hermann with Edina Realty, helping us market the Jerome Carlson home and lot. On his left is Daren Laberee, landscape architect and planner with Westwood Professional Services. On his left is Dan Cook, partner of mine at Pemtom. On Dan's left is Patti J 0 Hermann with Edina Realty helping us market the site. I just want to touch on a few things. Kate did a great job of giving you an outline of the property. Some of you have been on this site. We've had all the staff on the site numerous times. This is a magnificent parcel of land that Jerome Carlson bought, and Linda a number of years back, along with the Highover property. Been a wonderful steward of the land. Put some trees on the site. Many trails. Little maintenance building. Beautiful swimming pool and a house. If you've been in the house, a magnificent 8,800 square foot soft contemporary home with 4 cars up, 4 cars down. Heated garage so and that kind of sets the tone for what we're trying to create here. The property, and it's got many challenges but it's the kind of property I thrive on. It's the kind of property I like to create some of the great neighborhoods I believe I've created at Trillium Bay and Eagle Bluff, Crimson Bay, Chimo in Deephaven. On this particular site you've got over 110 foot swings in contours. You've got numerous trees. You've got wetlands. And it has all of the right ingredients that I like to do to create the kind of neighborhood we're attempting to do here. So our original vision for the property was you know obviously looking at all existing conditions, doing the topography map, doing the tree survey, doing the wetlands, you know the siting the site very carefully and neighborhood, the city had plans for connecting Highover Trail on the west through the site. Lake Lucy up to the north. There was no connection planned through there, and there was another connection planned to go into the site at a future date off Manchester and then the entrance to the Carlson property is off of Galpin Road. And this map kind of shows where Jerome has put some of the trails in on the site. Maintenance building over here. Swimming pool, and the entrance to the site, but the entrance to the site was critical to us. It kind of gave us a wonderful feeling. You come in. You've got a bluff on the right. You've got a wetland on the left. It brings you in through the site. You've got a 1910 windmill sitting on the old farmstead site where the turn around is, and then it brings you into the woods into the site. So that was our vision, to create a magnificent entrance off of Galpin. So we started looking at vmious plans, and I think it's important to look at the history of these plans, but as Kate mentioned, we talked about bringing a street off of Galpin, through the site and then connecting in through Highover. We did not have access to Lake Lucy at that time. So we studied that with staff and bringing all that, half the traffic through Highover, the other half off of Galpin, did not make a lot of sense to us. That plan had 57 lots. Then we moved on to putting a cul-de-sac off of Highover. Putting a cul-de-sac off of Manchester. Having a small entrance road coming in off of Galpin and then putting a temporary cul-de-sac through the property with 10 lots here, 10 lots through here, a couple lots here, and the rest of the site, and that particular plan had 53 lots. Then as we started moving through the site we prepared this plan which was presented to the neighbors at a public hearing on March 10th. And the neighbors were very actively involved in the site and gave us some good suggestions. Our plan was to do a cul-de-sac off of Manchester, cul-de-sac off of Highover and then we wanted to use the existing trail as kind of a fire life safety emergency road and then have a cul-de-sac coming off of Lake Lucy, and 12 City Council Meeting - May 9, 2005 then we optioned up the Gestach-Paulson lot off Lake Lucy, and then shifted out emphasis to having two entrances off the site. One off of Galpin, and one off of Lake Lucy. And then as we got fUlther along in our planning process, we actually submitted this plan to the city. We started having discussions with your need and the staff need to do a park on this site and a water treatment facility. So now our great vision of having this beautiful entrance off of Galpin went away. And now we're looking. Todd Gerhardt: No, it's still there Dan. Dan Herbst: Huh? Todd Gerhardt: It's still there. Dan Herbst: It's not something that we had in our vision and our plans. Not, wouldn't be my first, wouldn't be my first plan that I've ever created that would have had a water treatment plant at it's entrance for the entrance monument but anyway, so now we start adjusting our plans. We wanted to accommodate the neighbors concern. Not bringing traffic through Highover. We wanted to accommodate the city's needs for a water treatment plant and a park, and this is the plan that evolved. And then since the location of the treatment plan and the park facilities are not designed yet, and you plan, this plan had 47 lots. The plan we are presenting to you tonight, I believe this plan for park purposes and for the water treatment plant creates an entrance off of Galpin, creates an entrance off of Lake Lucy, and lots off of Highover and 2 lots on a private road off of Highover Trail. Then after our Planning Commission meeting, you know the Planning Commission did a mastelful job of picking this plan apart. Looking at all aspects of it and with staff we went back to the drawing board again and came up with a plan to create only 2 lots off of the trail to eliminate a private road and to just put a driveway with a turn around on the site. And after the public hearing comments, we'll go into these cross sections but after going back to the drawing board, comments from the Planning Commission, we were able to create enough site plan to do a large structure here on Lot 12, and a large structure on Lot 11. And the lines that you see here is the bluff setback and this is our setback from the 30 foot from the high line that runs behind the Highover homes. And the only variance that we're going to be required to do this would be a slight fill on that plivate drive. And that fill actually creates a positive impact for all the wetlands that are down below. Right now there's a considerable amount of drainage that's going back of these homes, down through this ravine and once we are allowed to fill with a slight variance say over this private drive we could capture all that drainage onto the private street, and then down into the Highover Trail and capture the storm water through the NURP ponds. So we can go over those in detail to show the cross sections to the homes. So basically in summary, this is all private propelty. It's 60 some odd acres. And this site, if approved tonight as presented to you, only 24.5, 24.8 acres will be actually not encumbered in some way. With the public right-of-way of about 6.2 acres. There will be a conservation easements of 13.8 acres. And there will be a dedication for park purposes of 17.2 acres. And our density here is less than all of the neighborhoods around us. If we want to go through each one of the variances that we're requesting, almost everyone of them will have a positive impact on the site. Whether it's saving trees. Whether it's protecting wetlands. Whether it's protecting drainage. And in the case of the plivate dtive there, and you know I think in all my years of doing this, I've never had a site that there will be so much land given to the public for putting 13 City Council Meeting - May 9,2005 conservation easements on or 62% of the site will be actually either dedicated to the city or have easements on it... It's a magnificent plan on a great site and our goal is to create one of the finest neighborhoods here in Chanhassen, and I think the letters that you're going to be addressing tonight and public comments make it sound like we're pushing the envelope and trying to do this for economic reasons, and as you can see as I walked you through, all the lot plans we have here, we have diminished our density here substantially. All the variances we're requesting tonight in effect actually enhance the site. Trees, drainage, etc. When it's all done, I think you're going to have a great neighborhood here. Any questions? Mayor Furlong: Thank you, questions for the applicant. Perhaps just for my help and for people in the audience here and those watching, and whether Mr. Herbst this is a question for you or Ms. Aanenson, since the Planning Commission met, approved it with various conditions, what sort of changes have we seen? One of them for example, with regard to the length ofthe private driveway. The private street has been moved back to 11. I think on the pictures that's no longer a round turn around. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Maybe you can just quickly walk through some of those changes so if people were at the Planning Commission, or watched there, they can see some of the evolution that's taken place. Kate Aanenson: This is the old one. Originally this was a cul-de-sac located up in here. This is a 30 foot right-of-way as per city code, and the rest of it is a driveway. So that's a big, the biggest change. There was a cul-de-sac up in this area that impacted so it's outside of the bluff. It is, this portion is in the bluff impact zone, but again that's a driveway to the one lot. Mayor Furlong: And is that, in terms of turning around, in case delivery trucks or other vehicles come down, how does that take place? Kate Aanenson: That would be taken care of right here. Right, otherwise anybody else going to this home would turn around in that person's driveway but that would be the common portion at that point. Mayor Furlong: So where's the driveway? Where would be the proposed driveway for Lot 11? Kate Aanenson: The driveway? Mayor Furlong: Yeah. Kate Aanenson: It could come off this one or that one. Depending on the home placement. I just wanted to show the difference between that and the original just to be clear. If you could maybe zoom in on that one. This one had a cul-de-sac quite a ways up so that we believe mitigated those impacts. The need for a retaining wall, and that is shown on, I know it's on here. Did I skip it? Where is the cross section with the retaining wall? Did I miss it? This one, I'm sorry. So I scaled it. About 160 feet, 150 feet between the houses on Highover and the closest 14 City Council Meeting - May 9, 2005 lot. Approximately. This is between the houses. So this is the area we're talking in here would be where that ptivate drive, would be the retaining wall. That slight portion where we're in this area. So that's the change. Councilman Labatt: Kate, coming down off of Highover, in that 30 foot, not there. As I'm looking at the TV, that way. To the left. Other side. Kate Aanenson: Oh, that left. Councilman Labatt: There. That stretch there. Now that's a public road? Kate Aanenson: This is, this is what the request for the variance is a private drive, which is required to be 30 feet, which this is. This portion of the plat, and the rest of it is a driveway. So this is the portion that's serving more than one lot, and that was the variance request, and again the staff's position on that was, the staff believes this is a buildable lot. Originally the developer wanted to get variances on it. We believe it can be met without variances, and if the variances want to come in, we want to see a specific home plan at a future date. Not something speculative. That may not meet somebody's needs, so the staff recommended against that, as did the Planning Commission but they did support a variance for the street. ... a driveway, additional driveway to come off so it's just the two homes. And again, to go back to your question on the Paulsen, we believe this meets the code. Councilman Lundquist: Dan, you've already got the drawings for that house on Lot 12 because you're building it right? Kate Aanenson: So that was the one biggest change. And the other one, if I can just go through those slides again, the other biggest change which was hard to understand at the Planning Commission level was the impact of those 7% grades. There's 2 or 3 areas that exceeded the 7% and our recommendation is to only give those, if there's a reason for the impact to the trees. And while we had a very technical explanation, I think it was. Mayor Furlong: Second derivative is positive. Kate Aanenson: I think a picture's worth a thousand words, so they actually try to do it in a picture format, and as I showed on that Lot 7, which is the Highover connection. The impact would be actually 70,54 feet of additional tree loss because you actually have to make, blend that dÜt down in to make that work. To get to the 7%. Mayor Furlong: So you're saying by allowing to have an 8% grade versus 7% grade. Kate Aanenson: In that section, conect. Mayor Furlong: In that particular section, it's 54 feet of reduced grading and that's what they would use as part of the condition. 15 City Council Meeting - May 9, 2005 Kate Aanenson: Yeah, that was one of the 3 variance requests. And that's up in this area, up in here. Mayor Furlong: And there are trees along that line? Kate Aanenson: Correct. This is heavily wooded, and that's where it's dropping off quickly also down towards the creek. Mayor Furlong: Does that become part of the contract, the development contract? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: So that by granting this variance we build into the contract the expectation that that grading and that. . . will not occur. Kate Aanenson: In the conservation easement, correct. Right, right. And that goes back to how we choose other ones too, that there's an expectation. Someone buying that lot isn't going to go back later and then want to put a different amenity in their back yard. The goal is to save the trees. Mayor Furlong: You said conservation easement. Are we putting a conservation easement from, or are we just as part of the grading and development? Kate Aanenson: Well you know, in order to save the trees for the grading, I think there needs to be expectation that by pushing it for we're getting something and that would be to preserve the trees, so it should be written in that that would be the, you know to save the trees, that would be. If we didn't push it forward so the trees could go later. Councilman Lundquist: So is that part of the conservation easement on the property now? Kate Aanenson: No. Councilman Lundquist: One of the conditions so that would be written into the development. Kate Aanenson: It should be a condition, yes. Councilman Lundquist: Condition of this approval or condition of the development contract? Kate Aanenson: Well it would be with final plat when it comes back, we'll put it in there. And then the other area which I mentioned was Lot 4, Block 2, I think this... Again just for clarification, all of Lot 2 which backs up. Sorry, I'm moving these back and forth here. Again just so everybody's following. In this area here again, dropping off in the back. There is a retaining wall in the back. Again the goal was to preserve as many trees so for example on Lot 4, by allowing the 20 foot you're actually saving 17 feet of additional trees. By that grading. By pulling the grading back. And so those were the major changes from the Planning Commission. And this was their original request. The Planning Commission kind of got it to the technical 16 City Council Meeting - May 9, 2005 explanation but we're just showing it to you more visually so everybody can understand those impacts. Todd Gerhardt: Kate, on the conservation easement, the reason we're taking the conse 'vation easement is if we were to replat the lots, then we'd have to give probably more varianc~s on setbacks or reduce the lot size? . Kate Aanenson: Well in addition to that, if the expectation is to pull the houses to save the trees, you don't want someone to come back later and need a Sport Court or a tennis COUlt orl something like that in the back yard because the goal was to push it fOlward to save the trees. Todd Gerhardt: Right, because then they'd come in and cut down trees and make morll of a back yard. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Flatten it out to meet their needs so there's an expectation th~t this was a different type that once that wooded lot. I Mayor Furlong: And I think a question on that, I mean I certainly can understand if thd developer's coming in saying we want to do an 8% grade versus 7, which is code, 7, sot e can save the trees. I think there's an expectation there that the marketplace wants a woode lot. I'm a little concerned these would be conservation easements then across the back of the ní lots? Kate Aanenson: Conect. I I Mayor Furlong: Or in the outlot areas? Kate Aanenson: They would be on the backs of those lots, and there is a retaining wall in the back, and that'd be similar to the approach we did with Vasserman where they're acros the back. Vasserman Ridge, across the entire back of those lots. Councilwoman Tjornhom: So is there potential trouble in the future for people wantin decks or for putting. .. Kate Aanenson: No, I think the developer's done a good job looking at his marketing. If you look at the grading plan, I don't have. One, they put the retaining wall because you kn was we've gotten better at looking at these and as the applicant has as far as approaching th ir market, that was one of the reasons they put the retaining wall too in so you created tha demarcation of where the usable area is. So I don't know if you have a copy of that that shows I one with the retaining wall. Yeah, these are always harder to read. But on the backs of\ this is Lot 4 which is the one I showed you where the grading goes down. There is a retainin~ wall in the back so again that's kind of that area of saving the trees behind that and allowing some buildable area behind the back of the house. And again that was another reason why 01 some of those, pulling that 25 foot forward gave you some of that, because people want some b ck yard. Patio, deck. I Mayor Furlong: What are those, I'm sony. Go ahead. I i 17 City Council Meeting - May 9,2005 Dan Herbst: The site, Kate had mentioned that the site is really deceiving. This pond here is 20 feet higher than this pond here. So Mr. Carlson placed his home properly up on the site, so now we're across the street. We're dropping 20 feet from here to here. We're trying to do it not as it would go down that slope, it's going down very aggressively so if we can raise the grade of the street and we can move the setback 5 feet forward, we can save those cross section of trees and still have... This is kind of a gentle grade through here and it's on the north side of that pond about 20 feet below the grades and then it drops off very aggressively so we want to keep the houses forward. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, and again just go back to some where we've had, like on the back of Y oberry. If you remember we had existing houses we were trying to work with and that's a complexity here. When you've got an existing house on the site, trying to work the street elevation across. Kind of sets a benchmark, in this section. Which was their challenge. Any other questions on changes? Mayor Furlong: Any others? Kate Aanenson: I think those are, unless I missed anything, I think those are the major changes from the Planning Commission. Mayor Furlong: I guess for clarification Kate, in the staff report I think it's right up on page 2, and this might have been left over from the Planning Commission but it states that the staff does not support approval of a variance as being requested. Based on what I've heard tonight, I'm assuming that that statement isn't entirely accurate. Is that left over? Kate Aanenson: Yeah, that would be for, we just assumed that they still wanted the variance for the house, and I believe it was like a 5,000, 7,000 square foot. 10,000 square foot. It was. Mayor Furlong: For Lot 12? Kate Aanenson: Yeah. And that was, and again the Planning Commission concurred that that, so we still advance that forward, as of their request, but we didn't support it, nor did the Planning Commission. Mayor Furlong: Okay. So but, but the Planning Commission's recommendation was to provide the variance for the 8% grade at the points where it was appropriate. Kate Aanenson: That's conect. Mayor Furlong: For the front yard setback and the private driving, bringing it back to Lot 11. Kate Aanenson: Conect. Mayor Furlong: Which is on. 18 City Council Meeting - May 9, 2005 Kate Aanenson: And then if they did want to, if they wanted to do something that couldn't meet that, that they would have to apply for a separate variance and they mayor may not get it. Mayor Furlong: Future... Kate Aanenson: Right. It would give them the discretion to say you have to meet that building envelope. Mayor Furlong: And that's staff's position as well? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Given the information we received at the Planning Commission and after. Kate Aanenson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? The applicant? No? Okay. At this point I would like to accept some public comments. We did have the full public hearing at the Planning Commission and all of us have had an opportunity to either watch that meeting or read the notes, so I would ask that the comments be not redundant and repetitious from the Planning Commission but celtainly invite if there's additional comments or information that residents or others would like to provide to the council on this matter, I would certainly invite them forward now at this point. If we can just, we'll follow the guidelines for visitor presentations and we invite public comment at this time. Jim Broughton: Again I'm Jim Broughton, 6927 Highover Court North. Mr. Mayor and councilmen. City staff. I've heard a lot of things here and I think in my mind there, we have a lot of concerns about the way this applicant brought fOlth the application. There are a number of variances... I have 34 households that have signed a document saying that they are concerned about this development. I'm just going to try, and this is very complex I know but I'm going to try and just go over this btiefly to try and just tell you where I think we stand on this. First of all I think variances should be few and far between. I think the more vatiances we grant on a piece of land like this, it makes the code not what it's supposed to really be. Not of the intent of the code. And my, I would just think why don't we take a beautiful piece of land like this and try and develop it without all these variances, and I think the reason we're not doing that is economically based. And the zoning ordinance in Section 20, which is referenced in Section 18 of the, this particular thing it says that a valiance cannot be granted for an economic basis. And I think that's one of the things that I see happening here and I think this piece of land is beautiful. I think we should preserve it and build houses if we can. But not with all the variances. There's the bluff encroachment. I believe Kate showed the driveway going across the bluff setback and the bluff impact zone. A variance is required for that. You can't put a driveway in the bluff setback or bluff impact zone without a variance. It's not being required here. The private street needs a vmiance. The private street will also be in the bluff impact zone, I think and the bluff setback. That structure that also needs a variance I believe. The street grades. The lot setbacks. Lot 11, which we haven't talked about. The plan that I've seen there are some structure setbacks there that aren't being met. There should be a 30 foot structure setback from the street. That's 19 City Council Meeting - May 9, 2005 not being met. There's a retaining wall behind that house. I mean I could just show that here. Can we zoom in on that a little bit? There's a lot line here on Lot 11. This is the retaining wall behind this house, the way it was proposed, at least what I saw. There's no setback from the lot line on that retaining wall, and that's a structure and by code that's not allowed. That's a variance. Retaining wall is encroaching the bluff setback and the bluff. Maybe not quite the bluff impact zone but that's a variance. The way it's proposed here, the house pad needs to be set back 30 feet from the street. It's not. It's not 30 feet. That's a variance. So I just want to point out, and I'm not an expert but I've studied the code because I realize what the impact was going to be on my neighborhood and so I sort of tried to take charge here and just point some of these things out. The next point is the applicant was incomplete and rushed I believe. There are things required in the code for an application that are not in place. I haven't seen any. I could be wrong but if someone can tell me, that's fine. Soil borings. Soil reports. Other things that are required in the code for the plat have not been done to my knowledge. And then thirdly there are serious issues here with the environment. We have wetlands, wildlife, lots of trees coming down. If you look at the web site, the Chanhassen web site, it talks about how we want to preserve trees and wetlands, how they're very important. So bottom line here is why don't we just, why don't we build, you know why don't we build houses and put things in there that meet the code without all of these variances because there are a lot of them, and a lot of them haven't been brought forward yet. In my mind. And the bottom line here is this is an economic reasons why we're doing all these things. Why we're trying to make this such a complex deal. And really contrary to the spirit of the city code I believe to grant all these variances, I'm opposed to it. And I guess we're surprised, I'm surprised that the city staff management isn't more thorough and that they aren't supportive of the spirit of the code. And of course this all got started when I sawall the trees that were coming down back in my house. I think if you're trying to squeeze 2 houses on those lots, I think it's unusual. It's not a very good thing. In fact my, the guy 2 doors down from me said he's going to move because he doesn't want those trees to come down behind him and I understand the trees have to come down when you build a house. In this case you need a lot of variances. It's a beautiful piece of land. City staff actually has said, I believe Jill Sinclair wrote the piece that I sent you in the e-mail about any development or problems with that bluff or grading up there long term is going to have a severe impact on Lake Harrison, and I think it's fine to make all this happen and grant all these variances but when you actually get in there and start grading, I think it's going to be not what you'd expect so, than you for hearing all the comments and thanks for your time and thanks for the e-mails that you read. Mayor Furlong: Thank you sir. Please come forward. Gina Sauer: Thank you. My name is Gina Sauer. I live at 2244 Lake Lucy Road and while we're on the topic of variances and the environment, I'll just add one additional variance that's been requested, and it really sort of got I think rushed through at the Planning Commission level and really wasn't specifically addressed tonight. It's my understand that part ofthe wetland alteration permit includes the filling in of 2 ponds to create 2 housing pad sites. And Mr. Herbst had made the comment earlier that all of the variances that are being requested for the Lake Hamson development in one way or another will have a positive impact and enhance the site. And I would just hope that we would be able to look at those 2 ponds in a little bit more detail. Ask a few more questions and specifically understand how they're going to positive impact the environment. You may be saying okay, what's a couple ponds? Who cares about a couple 20 City Council Meeting - May 9,2005 ponds and if it was just these 2 ponds in a vacuum, that might be true but I think we have to look at the overall impact. There has been significant environmental impact in tellliS of wildlife habitat and overall change to the environment in this corner of Chanhassen. This spling going on. The City Council approved the Pinehurst development. I've gotten to listen for the past 2 weeks to 11 acres of trees coming down. It's not a nice sound. We're going to have a new housing development between Longacres and Highover. So this is the third one. This is really the City of Chanhassen' s last opportunity as the last presenter sort of pointed out, to take a stand and say when we are faced with a decision we're going to make an environmentally sound decision. So in that respect 2 little ponds may be is a little bit bigger deal. I'd like to make a procedural comment about that as well. It's my understanding from the Planning Commission that the guideline that is followed when a variance is requested is what kind of a hardship is going to be caused if the valiance is denied, and again that was sort of rushed through at the Planning Commission level. The only real discussion about these 2 pieces of wetland, the 2 ponds were a question, why did they need to be filled in and the response from the developer was, well we're not filling in the big ones so we're going to fill in the small ones. That doesn't really seem like a sound justification because I think that the City Council probably would not allow the very large bodies of water on this property to be filled in so it's really not an issue of a trade off. And more significantly, there wasn't any hardship that was specifically addressed so again I would hope that we could get into a little bit more detail about that tonight and consider that more fully. Finally, if the environmental aspects of this don't appeal to anybody, I guess I would just appeal to the City Council's sense of duty to future homeowners. I understand these are going to be big, beautiful homes. Million dollars plus some of them and I just wonder what it would feel like to be a perspective buyer of a million dollar home walking through with a real estate agent and ask, you know what are we sitting on here? Corn fields? No, we're sitting on a couple of ponds. I'm not sure how I would feel about that house, so again I would just like to see a little bit more detail and a little more investigation and not rush that issue through tonight. So thank you very much for your time. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Kate, just point of clarification. We've had some comments already and I will accept more public comments so that's fine, but to address some of these issues that have come up. Specifically with those last comments. The ponds and the proposed, is that pmt of one of the valiance requests or is that just part of the mitigation. Kate Aanenson: No. It's a wetland alteration permit and our wetland, or Water Resource Coordinator has a very detailed repOlt on the wetlands and their existing condition. And every wetland alteration permit, one of the things you look at is how is it being used. Is it isolated? What we always try to do is look at it as a place that we can enhance. Maybe save a better wetland. Every project loses some trees and there's isolated wetlands that cannot be saved based on a project so we don't save every little pocket, and Loli Haak, who is our Water Resource Coordinator did do a thorough job looking at what they were impacting and making that decision. Did that seem reasonable so staff believes that again, looking at the layout of the project and providing those 0ppOltunities of larger areas instead of individual fingers, that's a very reasonable approach. And then if I can just comment on the preservation of the natural features. Again the reason why there is variances on all of Block 2, we can eliminate those variances but then it impacts greater tree loss. So the reason for the variances was to preserve the natural features. If we say we're not going to grant those, then those areas where I showed 21 City Council Meeting - May 9,2005 the additional 54 feet or additional 17 feet, there's actually more tree loss. So it's that balance of compromising to preserve something, so again that was the rationale on that. And if the street issue, I'm not sure that people are still understanding what the rules are on that as far as a variance request. Those are two buildable lots. Yes, there will be a retaining wall in there. A street, if you read the continuation ofthe city ordinance as cited it says ifthere's no other feasible way to get through there, that's where the staff recommended the common portion of the drive and then separate driveway to the back to eliminate that impact. Again preserving natural features. Mayor Furlong: So the variance to go with the private street is in lieu of a public road. Kate Aanenson: That's conect. To save the natural features, because you could put a private street, I mean a public road in. The road says if there's no other feasible way to get there then, so that's why we recommended. We think it's more sensitive to do the variance, again similar to what we have all of Block 2. We think that preserves the natural features. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And I guess to follow up on a couple other items that I've already heard. Let me just clarify. There was the issue about retaining walls and private drives. Are those structures in conjunction with the ordinance? Kate Aanenson: Yes. The retaining wall can go in there on the, because it's part of the street and the home, the one additional one on the home. Again, depending on how the home placement comes in on that, that's again, and they showed a lot buildable area but again.. . carefully on that to see how that home is sited and obviously you want to minimize that as would the developer minimizing that. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Is the setback, the 30 foot setback, is that required from a private street? Kate Aanenson: It meets the 30 foot. Mayor Furlong: Oh it does. Kate Aanenson: Yeah. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Kate Aanenson: Or it can meet it, conect. Councilman Lundquist: Kate, for clarification on this. This isn't a preliminary or final plat. Kate Aanenson: It is preliminary. So it has to come back for final plat, correct. Councilman Lundquist: So to show all of those at that point would then have to have show all of the setbacks as well on that final plat. 22 City Council Meeting - May 9, 2005 Kate Aanenson: Right, we did make a recommendation on a couple of tweaks but yes, everything would have to be, all the storm water calc's and all that would be required. Councilman Lundquist: These are drawn as rough building pads. Kate Aanenson: Right, and construction plans. All of that, cuts and fills are evaluated to make sure that we're still within that. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any other public comment this evening? Good evening sir. Al Taylor: Mr. Mayor, councilmen, and staff. My name's Al Taylor. I live at 2340 Lake Lucy Road. Right across from the well house and light across from the exit from this subdivision. I wanted to address two concerns that I had that were not adequately addressed at the Planning Commission meeting. I hied to set up a meeting with a member of the Planning Commission meeting and the city engineer. That meeting has not taken place. The staff member subsequently left and I had no other recourse but to address you. My concern centers around the exiting onto Lake Lucy Road and the traffic concerns that I have with that. I have two concerns. One of them is the traffic on Lake Lucy Road. The road between 41 and Galpin is not designed to be a 30 miles an hour road, although that's the posted limit. It's a very wide road. The developer stated at the last meeting that the road is not designed for that type of speed limit. People take that road faster. Those of us who live on Lake Lucy Road know that. There are enforcement problems with the speed on Lake Lucy Road. If you look at where the exit is... If you look at the exit light here, we're coming around a curve right here from 41 and you have a clear sight vision of about 4 seconds worth of time at 30 miles an hour of cars coming from the west. Going to the east towards Galpin, and we have a heck of a time just getting out of our driveway, and my belief is there's going to be some potential incidence for cars trying to exit onto Lake Lucy Road, looking for cars coming from the west. I don't believe that's been adequately addressed. From a personal standpoint, the other thing is that that road happens to exit right across from my driveway, so not only do I have the adventure of getting across Lake Lucy Road when I try to back out of my driveway, I now have to look at an intersection of people coming from this development. I've asked if that road could be moved to the east, and I believe there's problems with a well house. So my concerns center around, I understand the developer's need to make a profit. He's in it for risk reward but he is in it for a profit. But I don't want to see safety saclificed as a result of that. And I would like some mechanism to review with the traffic engineer of taking a look at what that situation looks like, and I would recommend that we have that study done before this is approved. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Maybe we can at least, given that you weren't able to talk to staff, Mr. Oehme do you want to address the issue of the location, sight lines, access point. Paul Oehme: Yeah. Mr. Taylor brought up a couple points that my assistant did share with me on this plat and we did read through some of the stop sight distances and we did look at access points and line of sight at the cunent location for this development on Lake Lucy Road. And just based upon our site analysis and stop sight distance that we calculated, we feel that the access point cunently is located sufficiently for Lake Lucy Road. It is posted 30 miles an hour. 23 City Council Meeting - May 9,2005 It's Lake Lucy Road is a somewhat wide street and we feel that that speed limit is adequate for that area, and the sight lines for the new development will be adequate as well. Al Taylor: Can I address council again? Mayor Furlong: Certainly. Al Taylor: I think the council stated, or the staff reported that that's a 30 miles an hour, but I don't believe that is the typical speed on Lake Lucy Road. Especially in the area between Galpin and 41. Again the road is wide. It encourages speed and I believe the sight lines at 40 miles an hour are considerably lower in timing. So I think there's an enforcement issue of the speed on Lake Lucy Road. We've had several complaints. We've complained about the speed on Lake Lucy Road. There's limited enforcement and it's not been effectual. Mayor Furlong: Okay, so we have the enforcement issue and I guess just clarification on the sight lines. Is there a difference coming in from the, using a non-engineering term, the outside of that curve on Lake Lucy? Cars coming off of this development are coming from the outside so they'll have the view this way versus being on the inside I think where Mr. Taylor is. Paul Oehme: Right, they actually have better sight lines on the south side of Lake Lucy Road than they would have on the north side. Mayor Furlong: And if it worked at 30, did it work above 30 or was it right at 30 or? Paul Oehme: We looked at it 30 and I believe 35 too and in both instances it was adequate. You know and again it's posted for 30 miles an hour. If speeds are above 30 miles an hour that's part of an enforcement issue we're trying to maintain our city standards. Councilman Lundquist: Which part of Lake Lucy are we narrowing this year? Is that in that section or is that further down? Mayor Furlong: East of Galpin. Councilman Lundquist: East of Galpin. Okay. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to provide public comment? Just stay close. Larry Marty: Larry Marty, 2117 Lake Lucy Road. Mr. Mayor, council members, city staff. Thank you for your time and your diligence on this. I do appreciate that. I do also appreciate the insight about the variances and what not and the fact that by increasing it from a 8% to 7% that we are saving more trees. Less impact from that so I do appreciate those types of things. I did send an e-mail to the council previously and I guess just in reiterating a couple of key points that I saw. That I guess I believe really still haven't been addressed or I'd like to see addressed better before we approve this development. The first is just with the bluff setback. If we're able to have buildable lots that are accessible through the form of streets, private drives, without impact 24 City Council Meeting - May 9, 2005 to the bluff, then I guess I'm okay with it but I'm still not convinced that we're doing that and when I walk that lidge and I look at where the homes are today and I look at where the power lines are, and I look at the trees that are there on that bluff that will be taken out, I really question our ability for two lots to do what we're asking to do. With the roads there and the private drive. Second of all, is dealing with the wetlands and the delineation. I understand we're trying to accelerate things to understand what the OHW repOlt is. The key that I guess I struggle with here is the 0 in OHW is ordinary high water. When I first lived or built my home here, a little over 7 years ago, 8 years ago now, there was a lot more water back in the wetlands and the area behind my house there that abuts to the Carlson property. Because of the development, because of the changing of streams, because of the ponds that have been created and diverted, that is no longer what I would deem, and I think what a lot of the DNR would now classify as a wetland, so I'm concerned even about some of that land potentially at the risk for development in the future because somebody now doesn't believe it's a wetland. Doesn't meet 3 criteria of hydrology and plant life in order to SUPPOlt that. Even tonight we heard about how the bluffs and the grading will, and the ponding on the top side of the Highover side will prevent water runoff down to Lake Hanison and to the wetlands down below. And that was viewed as a positive. I don't see that as a positive. I see that as a big negative in that these wetlands will be impacted and will be impacted negatively. This area supports an extreme amount of wildlife and I guess I'm concerned. Even yesterday there were 9 deer that came down Lake Lucy, almost caused an accident and this was coming down from the Pinehurst development where we're already cutting the trees now, so the deer are already trying to find new ways to navigate through this area. We're going to develop the land, I understand that. I was a big part of this development to begin with when I built my home here, but I'm real concerned about the wildlife. Where it's going to go. And I think we should also consider that and understand the impact that that's going to have for the city as far as complaints of potential deer/car accidents, etc.. The last concern also echo's the traffic element on Lake Lucy. This road is a collector road. I understand that. We've talked about speed. We've talked about enforcement being a pmt of the project... program. To try and control speed to step up enforcement, and I understand it is an enforcement issue, but that has, we've done what, I think all that we can do. We've put up signs. We've had the speed trailer. We've had the Carver County Sheriff sit out there on Father's Day Sunday and monitor traffic. And none of that has helped so that's why I'm concerned that we're adding another development. We're putting the entrance to a road that is in a challenging spot with the existing speed. I also happen to have the situation of having a shared driveway. I have a challenge that I have to look for where my neighbor is backing out of his dliveway before I get onto Lake Lucy. I'm backing out at an angle so it's difficult to see traffic in both directions easily, and we're increasing the traffic. The speed is likely to increase or stay at the higher levels rather than decrease. And we have a number of developments in the area around us, with the Pinehurst development as well as some of the other ones. So I'm concerned that with this traffic we're making an enforcement, a greater enforcement issue. Greater challenges for the traffic without any concern or a plan for really handling that. Thanks. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Ray Alstadt: Good evening. My name is Ray Alstadt. I live at 2423 Highover Trail. I want to take a moment too and thank the council. I was part of the Y obeny group, or I was involved in the Y obeny proceedings and we all appreciate your SUPPOlt of our alternati ves from the 25 City Council Meeting - May 9, 2005 Highover group to offer the cul-de-sacs and we're welcoming 15 year neighbors and that's terrific but, I guess first of all I'd like to address that the variances that are being offered, I had one on Lot 9 and could we see that drawing. I just had a quick look at it with Jim and it looked like there were huge retaining wall behind that. Kate Aanenson: Is that Lot 11 ? Ray Alstadt: I'm sorry, 9. On the top, right. And I have a drawing... It sure looked like a huge variance there would have to be granted to allow 9. Kate Aanenson: This has been revised. There is a retaining wall... Ray Alstadt: Okay. Okay, so this wall is gone now? Kate Aanenson: No, it still exists to a lesser extent. Ray Alstadt: Okay. Kate Aanenson: And that's the one that we're saying, just to be clear again those are ones that we want to see the custom home plans on to minimize those off those, of this area. Again that street has changed. Homes on 11 and 12 for that retaining wall. Ray Alstadt: Thank you. So I guess that's, I was just trying to address that. Thank you very much. I think that answers some of it. I also heard the comment 30 feet several times tonight and I guess the, for the road that's going to go in. Kate Aanenson: Correct. The right-of-way needs to be 30 feet. Typically they're not paved to that wide, and then the driveway, just meet the minimum for the driveway. Ray Alstadt: So the road that will be on the other side of the existing fence will be a 30 foot wide road? Kate Aanenson: No. Ray Alstadt: 12 foot driveway? Kate Aanenson: As you're looking at a private road... Ray Alstadt: That's perfect. That's perfect. This is new to me so forgive me. Kate Aanenson: Yep. I'll give you this. This part right here, this is.. . common. This portion right here. That's the 30 foot right-of-way. This portion here. After that it becomes a 12 foot driveway. And what we're saying what the Planning Commission recommended and the staff is saying when they get a specific home plan, we believe it can meet if they come back and they want a variance, there's no guarantee they get a variance. That's their risk. So if the Planning Commission, obviously they could appeal that to the City Council to decide at that time whether 26 City Council Meeting - May 9, 2005 or not that met the minutes so this would be the 12 foot portion. Again, we separated the closest house and I believe it's about 160 feet was probably the closest house? Dan Herbst: 114... Kate Aanenson: Okay, 170 that's what I scaled off. Okay, the separation. Ray Alstadt: Now I'll go back to this if I may. This is my home light here. My walkout is on the east side of that. So if what I'm hearing correctly, this is a 30 foot road. Kate Aanenson: The right-of-way is. The pavement part is only 20 feet. Ray Alstadt: So this is a 20 foot wide road. Kate Aanenson: Conect. Ray Alstadt: That's con"ect, okay. I have a little problem with that because I know I am a distance from here. A fairly substantial distance, but why do we need this turn around point? Kate Aanenson: That's a recommendation so, for the common drive. That if somebody goes down the wrong way that they have a place to back out without going all the way down oops, and got the wrong address. Fire Marshal also likes to see a secondary, as does engineering. Ray Alstadt: Okay. And will that be marked private dlive, private road? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Ray Alstadt: It will be? Kate Aanenson: Yep. We can make that a condition. Ray Alstadt: I guess that's it, other than in closing to say there is, I agree with a lot of people that have been speaking tonight. There is a lot of wildlife in that area and I think we should be very careful of that. Once this property is gone, it's a beautiful piece of property. Once it's gone, it's gone. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Mike McGraw: Mr. Mayor, councilmen, planning staff, I'm Mike McGraw. I live at 2446 Highover Trail. I talked to Bob Generous early last week and he mentioned that the intention is to clear cut all the trees along Lots 10 and 11, beginning east of the power line to the front half of both of those lots. Is that correct? Kate Aanenson: I'm not familiar with that conversation Bob would have with you. Again when you do a driveway, and I'd let the developer address how they intend to put the driveway in but typically that's something you do a walk through and try to, there may be areas that the dliveway 27 City Council Meeting - May 9,2005 snakes, if that makes sense. If there's a significant tree you want to save. I think that's kind of what they're trying to do to get the amenity. I don't want to speak for the developer but it's typically what you do to preserve the value of that. That you would snake that driveway in to save the tree. Mike McGraw: Okay, well then I'd like to make my statement. It sounds like there's a possibility it might be. Clear cutting would directly expose the power lines and the supporting towers which would not contribute to the natural beauty of this property and neighborhood. And there was an article in our local paper about a week ago really explaining the natural beauty of Chanhassen. The trees that are cunently there, that are targeted to be clear cut are a nice mix of young and mature birch, maple, basswoods, and oaks that dramatically soften the power lines and existing supporting structure. The developer is saying that he will replace a small fraction of these trees with nursery stock, start up trees that I think 99% of us won't live long enough to see them even come close to the growth and height that those current trees have. So what would be a better plan? I think a better plan would be not to disturb the trees that are just, that butt right up to the power line on the east. Create a moderate strip of trees closest to the power line, all the way along Lots 10 and 11, with a depth to be determined after we look at elevation maps. Wherever we put a road or a driveway along Lots 10 and 11, we're going to lose trees. There's no question about that. So I think the issue is to pick the place that maintains the natural beauty and property and preserves that for the neighborhood. So what are the pluses and minuses of what I'm proposing as an alternative plan? First the minus side. The only minus that I can think of is that we may, may increase the height of the slope by moving that road farther east. But we're already going to need a boulder wall in there and I think if we have to add another layer to that just to save the trees on the, up to the power lines, would be a good decision. Erosion should not be a factor. I think if the wall is engineered correctly, I think we have probably the longest and highest boulder wall at the comer of Lake Lucy Road and Highover Drive in the State of Minnesota. And that has been there for 7 years and there's no sign of erosion there. Now for the positives. The new owners of Lots 10 and 11, if we move that road, driveway in a bit will have dense trees on both sides of the driveway, which will serve as a natural barrier or an natural barrier for both noise and a buffer for the visual high line and supporting structure. The existing residential Highover will continue to have the dense trees to look at as a natural part of their neighborhood, and also probably concealing somewhat the high line that is there. I think the existing trees also will, on the western side of the road if we move it in, will actually help to prevent soil erosion and prevent wash out's to that road. And then finally I think that barrier also would be habitat for the wildlife inbetween the two neighborhoods. So in summary, I'm asking to preserve the existing natural beauty of Chanhassen and move the entrance access to Lots 10 and 11 farther east of the power line than it's present intended location. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Kate Aanenson: Can I just add to that? Mayor Furlong: Please. Kate Aanenson: I would agree with everything he stated and I think the developer would too. In looking at the location of the driveway, as we move through here, obviously looking at where the 28 City Council Meeting - May 9, 2005 significant trees and I think between now and if the council were to go in the direction of preliminary plat, between now and that and then final, we would look at again the right-of-way is 30 feet, of siting that within that, the best location... I just also wanted to point out, while we're working hard to preserve the trees, Xcel is looking at additional voltage on that line through there to get to the southern end of the city and to service Chaska for additional power, so they were out this spring. Some of you, or this fall as some of you may know, they were out surveying that line so there may be some other removal on that, so we're taking that into consideration with this too, but I think certainly working with the significant tree and we can put the driveways around it, that would be a good goal. Mayor Furlong: And just for visual understanding, underneath the power line right in that area there's a fence that says plivate propelty. That's the property line and so, further behind that fence is part of the easement for the power lines? Kate Aanenson: Yes. Yes. Mayor Furlong: Or is the easement for the power lines contained all within the outlot? Kate Aanenson: It's hard to see on the exhibit... Dan Herbst: Here's the propelty line. Project propelty line of Mr. Carlson in the outline. This is the easement. The power line is here. This is the easement, 30 feet on each side, so nothing can be built within that easement. As far as structures. Basically the whole graphic I think Ijust want to clarify because it's a better graphic than we had at the Planning Commission but the buff line here shows where the bluff is on this site. Nothing is being accomplished in the bluff except for a slight fill there to make that driveway work. The blue line is the bluff setback, where it says no impact. Within 20 feet nothing is being done as far as structures, except for this private road. The yellow line is the building setback, 30 feet from the bluff line and all of our homes will be, because there was a lot of discussion about Lot 11. There is nothing on the retaining wall or the home pad that will be near the bluff impact zone. So the only thing that's requiring a slight variance on this entire plan as far as bluff setback and bluff impact is this driveway, which will be a 12 foot wide dliveway. There will be no trees removed between any of these residences and the power line. Nothing will be done. Audience: That's not your propelty. Dan Herbst: No, but I remember there was a discussion that we were going between the, as far as visibility of the power. So nothing is going to be disturbed in there and the question of drainage off of, you know if you understand the stOlm water drainage, what the stOlm water people don't want is they don't want lawn feltilizer and drainage coming down off these lawns, going down into the wetland. So this will be picking up storm water on the private drive, on the road. Putting it into the storm water system. Putting it into NURP ponds before they go into the wetland. So basically those two lots are in full compliance with all of your codes and all of the ordinances, there will be no building in the bluff impact zone, but we are asking for a fill for that driveway within that line. 29 City Council Meeting - May 9,2005 Mayor Furlong: And just a question with regard to, I think it was Mr. McGraw's comments in terms of starting at the property line, Mr. Herbst and going back in. That's where the chain link fence is now, is that correct? Dan Herbst: Yes, and if we can do that, by all means. Mayor Furlong: Then I guess the question is, is that something you'd be willing to work with staff on to try to leave a buffer of trees there between that and the... Dan Herbst: Trees are my friend. Every time one goes down I have to replace it, and it also appreciates my market value so anything we can do to save trees will be done. Mayor Furlong: And we've got some flexibility within the right-of-way as well as the... Kate Aanenson: Right, and Ijust want to be clear again we're in the power easement and there are restrictions, and I just want to make sure that's on the record. We definitely want to work with them. Mayor Furlong: Within our opportunities to create a buffer there if possible. Kate Aanenson: Absolutely, yep. Dan Herbst: Okay. Then a question about getting our homework done about reports not being, everything that's required of your ordinance is more that's been done. Surveys, topography, tree surveys, geotechnical, wetlands, work with the DNR, work with staff, so that's all available and something we have to have. Something you have to have, so there's no shortcutting has been done here whatsoever. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there any other public comments? Something that we haven't heard at the Planning Commission or this evening. Audience: Can I make one more? Mayor Furlong: Is it a new issue? Al Taylor: It centers around another suggestion for exiting from the area. Which would go back to the developer's original plan to exit off of Galpin. My belief is, if you do your traffic study, the clear line of sight from both of those areas, north and south, are considerably longer than what they are on Lake Lucy Road. It's 11 seconds to 13 seconds coming from the south to the north and it's about 7 or 8 seconds coming from Lake Lucy/Galpin intersection from the north. And I believe that's a safer mechanism than what we're doing on Lake Lucy Road. However, I believe what changed that was the fact that you're going to put a water treatment plant where they planned to put that exit and I believe that's more economically driven than safety driven. Just want to mention that to the City Council for further consideration. 30 City Council Meeting - May 9,2005 Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Couple more comments. Jacqie Doughelty: Good evening. I'm too short. I realize that a few of the points that I have here will be considered to be redundant but I think they bear repeating just because I would like you to know how important it is to not only myself but my neighbors. My name is Jacqie Dougherty and my address is 2423 Highover TraiL As a neighbor who's property adjoins the Carlson property, I'm in agreement with everyone who has stated that this is a unique and special place. As staff reported it is 62 acres, the majority of which are mature trees. It has a lake, bluff areas, and wetlands and is home to deer, pheasants, fox, coyote, possum, owls, hawks, ducks, geese, numerous song birds and of course the infamous turkeys. They visit all of our yards. It's been kept in park like condition and is literally alive with nature. Before us tonight is a proposal that would reduce tree canopy cover on this property by two-thirds. It would fill in wetlands, impact bluff areas and destroy animal habitat. Combine this with all of the other developments that are going on in the Lake Lucy Road area between Galpin and Highway 41 and you'll see that nature is literally being squeezed out of our town. Once these resources are gone or damaged, they are gone for good. No amount of 2 'h inch trees will replace them. You may feel that this is the price one pays to grow our city and that these comments are merely sentimental rhetoric, but it is my purpose here to encourage all of the involved and make very careful choices and take a more sensitive approach to the development of this property. Pemtom has stated in a letter we received from them in February that they take great pride in creating unique communities. I agree that Tlillium Bay is one of the most beautiful in the Twin Cities area. The trees were preserved. The topography respected and minimum environmental impact was made. The other developments I visited were not treated as such and were no more special than any other in the area. The Carlson property is the perfect opportunity to make another Trillium Bay. Currently the plans before us don't show us that. Don't make a mistake where you could make a masterpiece. In closing I would ask that you take a long careful look at this proposal. If you haven't done so already, go out and tour the propelty and consider what is going to be gained or lost here. Don't allow impact to the bluffs and wetlands for the needless cutting of trees just because it's easier and cheaper to go in with a bulldozer rather than work around the existing trees. Lots 11 and 12 and the pri vate road off Highover Trail are particularly troublesome as they impact all of the above mentioned items as well as encroach on their neighboling homes. Once this development is done, Pemtom, Lundgren will move onto their other projects. It is the neighbors who sUTI"ound this area who will have to live with the results. I hope that this is something that we can all be proud of. I thank you for your time and your consideration and manner. I'd also like to say that I think Mr. McGraw's comments were very good. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is it a new comment? I'd like to try to get moving here. Jim Broughton: Yes it is. I'djust like to say that I went to the City, I asked Bob on the staff if he had the soil bOling reports that were required for the pre-plat and he said, no. He didn't have those yet so I don't think everything was there, just for the record. I want to make that comment. Also I believe on Lots 8 and 9 in Block 1, the topography there is questionable whether those are also bluffs. I measured the distances and I think we may be, I just want to ask the question of staff if they evaluated Lots 8 and 9. I think the slope is 30% or more. It's close but it's 30%. I think those also qualify as bluffs and the proposal is to build 2 homes on those. Thank you. 31 City Council Meeting - May 9, 2005 Kate Aanenson: It has to be 30%. Well, in our evaluation it wasn't. If it's 29.9, as the City Attorney stated, and I don't know what they are off the top of my head, what the slope is, it would qualify so, and we do have, as someone pointed out, in Highover there's significant, throughout the city, and we do look at those really carefully. There was a time when we just only looked at those on the southern end of the city and we made a conscience effort to apply that ordinance city wide. Audience: I don't think Highover's pertinent to this development. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Last one. Janet Paulsen: My name is Janet Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. I wish to talk specifically about Lot 11. Well this lot is approached by a plivate street and private streets according to code, Chapter 20-615 is supposed to have the front lot line measured from the public street. The lot line closest to the public street, and that is the lot line running east and west. The delineation of the bluff, it doesn't look to me like you have a 30 foot front yard from the front lot line and I was wondering how you wish to address that. Kate Aanenson: I believe it does. Disagree. Janet Paulsen: And how do you believe it does? Kate Aanenson: You can let the engineer. Mayor Furlong: Maybe the developer can show us. Daren Laberee: My name is Daren Laberee. I work for Westwood Professional Services. I'm a landscape architect and planner. It's not a public road. It's a private road and all the setbacks are from public right-of-way. What we have here is a private drive easement. You see the lot lines are darken black here. This is the same... we used in Pinehurst where this is not right-of- way. This is not an outlot. These are within these two lots and there's an easement for cross access along this private road. The front yard setback would be from this lot line, 30 foot which is actually, we are 20 foot from back of curb which is the same standard we used in the Pinehurst, which is adequate for parking and driveway and not blocking a street. The setback is actually from right here, the property line is way exceeds 30 feet. Kate Aanenson: Plus you can move that building pad back further. Janet Paulsen: Well I beg to differ. The lot line that's the front is this lot line. It has to be measured from the public street that they determine what the front lot line is. This is the side lot line. This is the back lot line. You have to have 30 feet in front, 30 feet in back. The bluff doesn't allow that so you need a variance. Does anybody have a code book here? You can check it. Chapter 20-615. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is there any comments? 32 City Council Meeting - May 9, 2005 I Roger Knutson: I would have to measure things for myself to satisfy myself but staff has looked at it, but there's no variance requested so none is being, on the setback. Am I correct? Kate Aanenson: That's conect. Roger Knutson: So they'll have to meet what the code is. They'll have to move the building pad if necessary, but apparently staff has looked at it and they disagree with that interpretation. But if that were true, then you just have to move the building pad. You're not approving building sites here tonight. Mayor Furlong: So they would have to follow the ordinance. Roger Knutson: Yes. We're not giving them any deviation from the ordinance, explain it in that respect. Audience: Mr. Mayor, can I just make one more comment? Mayor Furlong: I really would like to go on. This is a courtesy we provide the public comment here. I'm not trying to cut people off but at the same time we can keep going and going so, you know I think it's important we've had a lot of issues in addition to what we've heard tonight. Again we've heard everything that was offered at the public hearing as well, at the Planning Commission so. Audience: Thank you very much for your time. Mayor Furlong: Thank you for your consideration. I guess at this point we've had a lot of issues. We've had some questions answered throughout. Is there any questions or follow-up questions for staff at this point? Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Can you just refresh my, it's a 60 acre parcel and what. Huh? Councilman Peterson: 62. Councilwoman Tjornhom: 62 acre parcel. I'm sony, refresh my memory. What is the actual number of acres that are being built on? And what is being preserved? Kate Aanenson: I'd have to look it up real quick in my notes. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Sony. I thought someone gave me those numbers earlier. I didn't write them down. Councilman Labatt: 22 acres. Councilwoman Tjornhom: It's 22 acres out of the 62 that are being developed? 33 City Council Meeting - May 9, 2005 Dan Herbst: The total site is 62 acres, as was mentioned. The bluff indicates right-of-way, there'd be 6.2 acres of right-of-way. The conservation easement will be 13.8 acres, which is the magenta color. And then all of this land, outlot, 17.2 acres will be dedicated to the city as parkland. Mayor Furlong: Could you, Mr. Herbst could you put that chart back up there? Dan Herbst: Sure. Mayor Furlong: On the conservation. Upside down. Okay. The lot lines, especially along what will be the extension of Highover Trail. Those lot lines basically come up to the point of the conservation easement, is that conect? The back lot lines. Dan Herbst: These are going right for the back of the lot lines through here. Mayor Furlong: Is that correct? Todd Gerhardt: Dan, you're not showing the conservation easement that would be on the individual's property though. Dan Herbst: Not through here but we do have, on the back of these lots, the OHW, that's probably going to be an outlot versus the back of the lot lines so. Kate Aanenson: Just to answer, it would go up further into those lots. Mayor Furlong: And where is that in the conditions? And I guess I want to be clear because you know in terms of providing the variances, especially in these lots. Kate Aanenson: Right, and that's what needs to be to preserving the trees through a conservation easement. Mayor Furlong: We can hold the developer to the tree preservation as part of the grading plan, conect? Todd Gerhardt: Conect. The conservation easement is taken on the individual property owners. Dan is showing in the, I call it purple area, is an outlot that would be dedicated back to the city. The conservation easement will be owned by the property owner and that property owner will not have any rights to clear cut or cut any of the trees in the conservation easement area. Mayor Furlong: I guess I didn't see that and I thought maybe I missed it. Kate Aanenson: I think the appropriate nexus for that would be under the variance that says, as a part of the variance the 25 foot, that there be tree conservations be placed on those lots. Mayor Furlong: And I guess what I'm looking for, and maybe we're getting into comments and I'd be interested in my fellow council members opinion, is clearly the developer's asking for a 34 City Council Meeting - May 9, 2005 valiance on the street grade. We should hold them to account in terms of the tree preservation with their grading plan. But then to further impose a permanent conservation easement on a future property owner, that's where I trip a little bit there. Just in terms of property rights for those propelty owners as well. We hold the developer, the developer's putting in, and I guess that's my question Kate. Didn't see that in here. Kate Aanenson: It's not in here and I think if you look through the construction plans, look at them more closely, you know we've got, fmther iteration of the impact of the grading. That we also look at that and what's a reasonable pad for that as part of the final plat and proposals, conservation easements on those lots, and we would review those on those individual lots as a pmt of the final plat. Mayor Furlong: Yeah I guess, clearly I think there can be, having not seen that I guess that would be something that would have to be looked at. Kate Aanenson: Well I think in the gross sense it is on the site plan, if you follow the grading limits. What you don't have is the instrument to convey that and that would be in an easement document that would we would then approve. Mayor Furlong: If there's a desire to put that easement over the individual plivate propelty. Kate Aanenson: Conect. That's conect. Mayor Furlong: We've got the conservation easement on the, in the outlot areas and in the large preservation. Kate Aanenson: That would be conect. Mayor Furlong: Areas already. That's coming. Kate Aanenson: Conect. Anything that would be in the bluff protection area, that would be a no touch anyway or the wetland, conect. Mayor Furlong: And that makes sense. Kate Aanenson: Those areas that go beyond that, and what the developer showed you was those minimum areas and it's that additional property, the wooded area. Mayor Furlong: I guess I'm.. .not in there because I didn't see it so. Kate Aanenson: That's conect. Mayor Furlong: Okay. We can talk about that. Any other questions for staff at this point? Based upon comments received or other information. 35 City Council Meeting - May 9,2005 Councilman Lundquist: Kate back to the other list from Mrs. Paulsen. On her questions 1 through 8. Kate Aanenson: The OHW that we received from the DNR, we did receive a letter 993.6. What they originally showed in their plan was 993.5 so we have reviewed all those calculations for the house setbacks. Those lots that abut the, and I think the rest of them were kind of encumbered in the street issue. The definition of a private street, private drive... Councilman Lundquist: Okay. But you feel like that we're within interpretation to meet all of those? Kate Aanenson: That's correct. I think we respectfully agree to disagree. Councilman Lundquist: Okay. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff? If not, let's open discussion. We've got a number of issues here due to the development that's clearly going through, has some challenging effects but has some opportunities as well so I guess I'm interested in my fellow council members comments. Councilman Peterson, would you like to start? Councilman Peterson: Sure. It's nights like these where this high paying job is a little frustrating. You know when I first heard that this property was going to be developed, I was concerned about the ability to retain the feeling and the general ambience that Mr. Carlson has maintained over the years and really built. And I actually expected a lot more density than 1.35 acres. Which I was very pleased to see that that the density was that low. I think that is a testament to the developer being sensitive to all the issues that were brought up by the citizens tonight. I think we've talked a lot about the variances that are here, and when I was prepping for the meeting this week, I was, I saw the variances as being minor in nature. Relatively speaking. Relative is really an important word there. Relatively the variances are minor. And they are done for the right reasons and I truly don't think that they're economic because at the end of the day everything is about economics when you're developing property but the density that this is low, and the variances were to save the trees and to save the general feeling of that neighborhood, which I think is a huge positive. I also heard a lot about the wildlife and we hear about that with every development and chances are the wildlife that is in this area now was in the area that the people that are talking about it tonight, they were probably, the deer were probably laying in that building pad before a house was built so everything is contracting and we can't really do a lot about the fact that the land owner has a right to develop and our obligation is to develop that and guide that development in proper fashion that we want our city to do. And through the comprehensive plan so you know, I wish the city could afford to write a check and keep that 60 some acres of parkland. We can't. So that means we have to develop it in the most sensitive fashion possible. In summary, I'm pleased with the development. I think that the variances are small and appropriate. I think everything that's been brought up tonight, the developer seems to be amenable to working with staff by working with the neighbors to continue to improve it as we get to final plat so, I'm looking forward to the final plat being a sensitive, to that particular environment as it can be and I'd recommend moving ahead. 36 City Council Meeting - May 9, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom. Councilwoman Tjornhom: I guess I concur with what Councilman Peterson said but you know what, I also feel that the developer, I've often said is only as good as his reputation is and I think this developer does have a good reputation of having a really excellent final product and a product that we can all be proud of and I think we should you know, be thankful he is trying to do what he is doing to make that work. I think the variances also are a positive thing. I think a lot, a couple people said tonight when we were talking about preserving habitat and preserving trees and the wetlands and I think that's what these variances are doing. You know we're saving the trees and we're saving, or we're trying to protect our bluff so the animals will have a place to still live, and I think Councilman Peterson's light that it's just, it's growth and that's what happens throughout the city. I've lived in Minnetonka and we've had 12 deer in my yard. I've lived in Chanhassen, I've got 9. We all have deer. I think we all have, I see ducks on top of our neighbors house you know. We all have to learn to live together at some point and hopefully that will happen. And so I'm suppOltive as also, I'm always encouraged when he does try to work with the neighbors and have meetings because a lot of details and a lot of fears get ironed out through those meetings and I think he's done a good job with that, and working with staff. And the Planning Commission also I think did a good job in trying to iron out some of these wlinkles. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilman Lundquist. Councilman Lundquist: I would echo comments made previously and also I think this is one time when the term valiance, it kind of has a negative connotation usually when we get into these things. That that's somehow a bad thing always, and generally speaking might be considered that way, but this, at least in the grading ones here seems to be a positive thing and we've got to look at the site as a whole and say, we've heard a lot of comments from staff from the developer and from residents that we want to save the trees. Yet if we want to save the trees, we've got to have some variances. So I'm in favor of those. I think the ptivate street is a good compromise there. Again those lots can be developed so if you can put a building pad on that. We could easily within the ordinance plow a nice 30 foot wide street through there with curb and gutter and sidewalks and all kinds of stuff that's undesirable through there, so that's also a good compromise. Any time you have a site that's fully wooded or predominantly wooded like this one is, it's always a challenge and also need to understand that just because you have a lot that's full of trees doesn't mean that you don't have a right to cut some of those trees to put a building pad on it. And that's why we have our preservation ordinances the way they are and the developer will be planting a lot of trees, and when there's a lot of pieces in our city that when they do get developed unfortunately, some trees come out, but again there's a compromise there. And again as Councilwoman Tjornhom said, this developer has in the past and other developments and expeliences shown a sensitivity to the natural resources so again I am thankful that we have a sensitive or a developer who has some background being sensitive with those resources here. It is I think ironic or funny that all of these developments are coming in this part of the city at the same time. And I think that exacerbates the impact, especially as one of our residents commented tonight, with the Pinehurst, the Crestview that we talked about tonight, the Y obeny in there as well, so yes. There's a lot of things going on in this area at one time. For what reason I guess I don't know. We haven't done anything special up there so just so happens 37 City Council Meeting - May 9,2005 that that's the way it's going so, yeah. It does push it and it does impact it. I think the curious thing in this one is, not that I want to propose this but funny how we also have another cul-de-sac coming out of Highover. Perhaps that will be the birth place of long cul-de-sacs in our city rather than through streets so Mr. Mayor, I know you'll appreciate that comment. But on a serious note, I think a lot of time, effort has been put in. Staff, developer. I do thank all the residents for comments and for taking your time out at the Planning Commission and here tonight. The e-mails. They are read. They are considered. And by staff as well. Hopefully you feel like as you've given your comments, that they're heard and considered. They're not obviously all granted all the time, but know that they are heard and considered as well in the grand scheme of things. So, I am in favor of the development as it stands as well. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Councilman Labatt. Councilman Labatt: Well I won't disagree with a majority of the comments that I heard here from my three counterparts up here. The only, I mean I like the, I think it's a wonderful piece of property and a wonderful development and the applicant has obviously taken steps to minimize the overall impact environmentally I think. The only really concern I have is this Lot 11, Lot 12 issue. But I realize this is preliminary here and I think the city staff has put in enough safeguards to protect the residents along here and I mean if they can't build on it once they come in for final, they can't build on it so. My whole, you know grant a variance there for the bluff impact to fill that and to create that driveway. That's my sticking point but overall, you take the development as a whole package, I think it's a very nice development. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Interesting to hear those comments for me. I believe I would concur with them. The only thing I'd like to, I think it was helpful this evening for me to see the progression of plans Mr. Herbst laid out initially. Where this started. Where it ended up and that, how the process continued to evolve. That continued with the neighborhood meetings, with the Planning Commission. I think the Planning Commission will concur with Councilwoman Tjornhom. I think they did a very detailed and diligent job in terms of reviewing this and coming up with good recommendations. They had more information than staff did going into that meeting and once that information and the answers started coming out, then you can see the justifications for why they wanted to go 8% versus 7%. I mean we sit here and we argue about 1 % grade in the road, but when you start seeing where the benefit of that is, to the city in terms of our natural resources, it's worth asking those questions and making sure that we see those answers. You know again, the developer's history with the city is helpful in terms of developing a level of trust here and trust would verify, a phrase spoken by I believe President Reagan was the one that made that more public and I think that's what we do with our conditions and our, looking at all the plans as we trust that we verify and we make sure that it's done as they say they're going to do it. In terms of, you know and I asked some questions here tonight. I'm not, I believe that from a, in terms of preserving some of the trees in the forested areas in the backs of some of these lots, I think we can do that with... Kate Aanenson: Can I comment on that, and I'm sorry. If you look at condition number 34 on page 19. Ijust want to make sure this is on the record. That does say any trees outside the tree preservation plan, and if! can just show this really quick. We do have a colored preservation plan. It's on the plans that you have. 38 City Council Meeting - May 9, 2005 Mayor Furlong: Any trees removed. Yes, I saw that. Kate Aanenson: Okay, and that, Ijust want to show this for the record really quickly. This is the colored one. So if you look at the map that the applicant showed, it'd be more, it'd be, can you zoom in all the way out. Sony, back it up. So if you saw what he was preserving, it was this area here, but they're stilL.and so that goes back to your question. So this is the tie back to the preservation plan and that's condition number 34. Mayor Furlong: And I understand. Kate Aanenson: Okay, but Ijust want to make sure everybody understood that. We weren't looking at the minimum on that. We took it through the middle and that was the intent on that, so there is a condition in the staff report. Mayor Furlong: Yeah, and as I looked at that condition, and just for clarification, I think when the developer's asking for a variance, in order to preserve trees, we make sure through the grading plan and through the tree preservation plan, that that occurs. That the developer does what they say they're going to do, and that's the trust would verify that I look at. The question is then the continual government demand on what, on the use of those trees when it becomes somebody's private home. That's the leap that I haven't taken yet. That being said, I don't see that here and we can talk about that if that comes back, but I think overall, to build upon a couple of the comments that my fellow council members made. You know I think what the vatiances here are indeed trying to preserve some of our natural resources. I had an opportunity a couple weeks ago to join Jill Sinclair, who's our Environmental Resource Specialist, Forester at the national, I guess it was a national Minnesota Arbor Day luncheon out at our Arboretum where the City of Chanhassen received Tree City USA award, which is awarded by the National Arbor Day Society. Tenth year in a row. It was our tenth anniversary receiving that award as a city, and we're the only city in Carver County, to my knowledge that gets that award each and every year. While we look at what's taking place, let's not forget some of the good things that we are doing too. To build a house you have to cut down some trees. I was very pleased to hear Mr. Herbst tonight listen to Mr. McGraw and say, hey can we look at creating a buffer there. And the willingness to do that and work with that. Those are things that staff and the developer can work on after here, and that's all again, getting back to my first comment where this process started, that process continued tonight with regards to pmt of the public comment and that's, you end up getting the best development in this area. I would agree with, going back to Councilman Peterson's first comments and others up here as well, I think we've got a very nice development here. It is a development. It's changed. There will be houses where there are now trees. But I think that in terms of what could have been done, and here's the example. Coming through, following our ordinance with a 7 foot grade. Taking out more trees. Would that have been found? Would that have been discovered? I don't know. Just going with the standard setback on Lot 2, or Block 2 I think is where we're providing a 5 foot, getting them 5 foot closer to the street so we can save 17 feet when they come through with the grading and put up those tree preservation. Save 17 feet in the back. Would that have been discovered? I don't know. But the developer is bringing those forward as a way to make the development better. Wooded lots are more valuable. That's clear and I think we all appreciate that, and but there it's a classic 39 City Council Meeting - May 9,2005 example where perhaps the profit motivation of the developer is right in sync with what as a city we'd like to see and that's preservation of trees where we can't, so overall I support this. Ithink the staff, the developer put a lot of time and I especially thank the residents for being involved in the process to make sure that we trust to verify that we get all the information in there. As Councilman Lundquist said, we may not always agree with the recommendations but I can assure you that we do listen and that we do read the e-mails and that we do take the information very seriously and spend the time to understand what's in the packet and what the information that the residents are bringing up so I appreciate their involvement. Overall I agree with the proposal and the plan this evening, which was recommended by the Planning Commission. I think they did a good job and I would concur with what we have and what my sense is my fellow council members concur with as well. Any other comments? Questions. If not we have a number of motions beginning on page 15. Who'd like to go? Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor, I'd be willing to make a first motion which would be to approve 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. Councilman Lundquist: Second. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion? Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to move 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 5 to O. Councilman Peterson: I'd make the second to approve preliminary plat subdivision to create 40 single family lots, 4 outlots and the public right-of-way with the approval of a variance for a private street and a street grade, plans provided by Westwood Professional Services dated 3/18/05 based upon the findings of fact attached to this report, subject to conditions 1 through 63. Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussions on that? One point, just a note earlier Kate. Councilman Lundquist: Discussion on number 63. References a cul-de-sac. Kate Aanenson: That should be eliminated. It actually on the motion if you want to modify we should reference Lots 11 and 12 as modified on plans dated 5/9/05. Mayor Furlong: Do you incorporate that? Councilman Peterson: Yes. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Labatt, you would concur? 40 City Council Meeting - May 9,2005 Councilman Labatt: Yeah, deleting the 63 then? Mayor Furlong: Not 63. I think. Councilman Labatt: Changing from the cul-de-sac. Mayor Furlong: Just stlike the word cul-de-sac I think. Kate Aanenson: That's what 63 should say, conect. Mayor Furlong: Just stlike the word cul-de-sac would clean that up? Okay. Councilman Labatt: Yep. Mayor Furlong: I had a question on condition 57. Usually I don't see personal pronouns in conditions. Does that need to be re-worded? Kate Aanenson: Yeah... Mayor Furlong: So stlike the last sentence? Kate Aanenson: Conect. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other comments? If not, then Councilman Peterson you moved the motion as stated with these additional comments? Councilman Peterson: Yes sir. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Labatt you seconded? Councilman Labatt: Yes sir. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any further discussion on this motion? Heating none we'll proceed with the vote. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve 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 findings of fact attached to this report, subject to the following conditions: 1. The lot area for Lot 2, Block 1, shall be increased to a minimum of 15,000 square feet. 2. The lot frontage 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. 41 City Council Meeting - May 9,2005 4. The lot frontage for Lot 14, Block 3, must meet the 125 minimum lot width if it is a lake shore lot. 5. Lot 12, Block 3, contains a swimming pool and shall not be platted as a separate lot until 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 monitoring 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 Restrictions and Covenants 42 City Council Meeting - May 9,2005 for Replacement Wetland. The applicant shall secure City approval of a wetland replacement plan prior to any wetland impacts occurring. 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 of 20 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 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. 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 prior to final plat approval. All plans shall illustrate Lake Hamson's OHW and a 150 foot structure setback from the OHW. 16. All non-riparian lots within the shoreland management zone shall be no less than 90 feet wide with 15,000 square feet of lot area. All riparian lots within the shoreland management zone shall be no less than 125 feet wide with 40,000 square feet of lot 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 from the top of the 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, appropliately sized, shall be installed at flared end outlets for energy dissipation with underlying gravel base or geotextile fabric. All emergency over flow structures shall be stabilized with riprap and geotextile or pelmanent turf re-enforcement blankets. Erosion and sediment controls shall be installed for the planned sanitary sewer crossing for Wetland A area. Silt fence, 43 City Council Meeting - May 9, 2005 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 Yz -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. 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). 44 City Council Meeting - May 9,2005 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 culvert leaving the wetted perimeter free of silt fence. Soil shall be prevented from entering the waters of the state. 31. At this 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 pennits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed Distlict, Department of Health, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewateling), 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 prior 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 overs tory, 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 1 None - existing front yard trees to be preserved Lot 1, blk 2 4 Lot 2, blk 2 3 Lot 3, blk 2 2 Lot 4, blk 2 2 45 City Council Meeting - May 9, 2005 Lot, Block Number of trees required 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 front 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 private street is required to have 20-foot wide paved streets from 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 private 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 from 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. 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 permit from the Building Department. 46 City Council Meeting - May 9,2005 41. Plior to final platting, storm 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 storm sewer will have to be designed for a lO-year, 24-hour stOlID 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 100-year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Emergency overflows from all stOlIDwater 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 of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. The applicant must be aware that all public utility improvements will require a preconstruction meeting before building permit issuance. 44. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for each of the new lots. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for watermain. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building pelIDit 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 permit issuance. 45. The applicant shall include a drain tile system behind the curbs to convey sump pump discharge from 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 watelIDain that is outside of the light-of-way. 47 City Council Meeting - May 9, 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 Drive. 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 watermain 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 lO-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. 48 City Council Meeting - May 9,2005 57. Two additional fire hydrants are required. 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 during 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 of the new roadway allows passage by vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4. 60. No burning pelmits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. 61. Submit street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. 62. Create a Lot 1 ,Block 4 on the eastern portion of Outlot A, east of wetland E. 63. The pri vate street for Lots 11 and 12, Block 1 shall be modified as shown on revised plans dated 5/9/05. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O. Mayor Furlong: Motion C. Councilman Lundquist: You're on a roll Peterson. Councilman Peterson: Yeah, Mr. Mayor I'd recommend City Council approve the front yard valiance for Block 2 and deny the bluff setback variances based on the findings of fact attached to this report. Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion? Hearing none we'll proceed with the vote. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve the front yard variance for Block 2 and denies the bluff setback variances based on the findings of fact attached to this report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O. Mayor Furlong: Fourth motion. Councilman Peterson: Mr. Mayor I'd recommend City Council approve the Wetland Alteration Pelmit to fill and alter wetlands on the subject site with the following conditions 1 through 13. Mayor Furlong: Is there a second? 49 City Council Meeting - May 9, 2005 Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Furlong: Seconded by Councilman Labatt. Any discussion on this motion? Hearing none, proceed with the vote. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve the wetland alteration permit to fill and alter wetlands on site subject to the following conditions: 1. The wetland alteration permit 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) A voidance 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 monitoring 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 Restrictions 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 of 20 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. 6. Building setbacks of 40 feet from 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. 50 City Council Meeting - May 9,2005 8. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and stOlm 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 culvelt leaving the wetted perimeter free of silt fence. Soil shall be prevented from entering the waters of the state. 13. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed Distlict, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Depmtment of Natural Resources (for dewatering)) and comply with their conditions of approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O. Mayor Furlong: Very good, we'll see some things back on final but thank you Mr. Herbst and your associates, we appreciate it. RESOLUTION REGARDING THE CHANHASSEN SKATE PARK. Mayor Furlong: Do we have copies of this for those in attendance? Okay, there are copies at the table. Councilman Lundquist, this was your item. If you'd like to go. Councilman Lundquist: Thank you Mr. Mayor. Resolution that I put together, the skate park is of pmticular interest to me. My family and I use pmticularly the playground equipment and park behind the elementary school so we're in this area a lot, although I'm glad that we have the skate park. Keeps that activity from, mostly from being on our, in front of our library and the steps and certainly from the businesses around Subway and that over there. I am dissatisfied with where the, what's going on at the skate park lately, and so I put this resolution together to dlive some change to that particularly in the foul language, excessive litter and even this morning wondelful graffiti that we had on there at 6:30 in the moming as I drove past. So the purpose of it is I guess, well not I guess. The purpose is to direct Mr. Gerhardt and staff, also the Park and Rec Commission to, within 30 days to submit a plan to use for what we can do to eliminate those behaviors and other things 51