Loading...
PC Minutes 04-07-2015Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 7, 2015 Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Weick: Second. Aller: Having a motion by Commissioner Undestad and a second by Commissioner Weick, I would offer any further discussion. Undestad moved, Weick seconded that the Planning Commission acting as the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 15 foot setback variance from the 75 foot shoreline setback to expand a 13 foot by 12 foot section of the existing deck subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall reduce the hard surface coverage of the property to not exceed 25 percent. 2. The building expansion does not encroach farther than 15 feet into the 75 foot shoreline setback. 3. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit from the City. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: REDSTONE RIDGE, PLANNING CASE 2015-08: REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES OF 2.74 ACRES INTO FOUR LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 6341 AND 6400 TETON LANE-REDSTONE RIDGE. APPLICANT/OWNER: CHRIS MAY/CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Aanenson: Thank you Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. This is an application from Chris May. Again this is scheduled to go to the City Council. The application is for a subdivision. This is located on lots 6341 and 6400 Teton Lane. Approximately 2.74 acres are included in this 4 lot. The property is zoned Residential Single Family and the site contains 2 existing single family homes which will remain. Access is gained to the site via Bretton Way and Teton Lane and again there’s 2 existing homes. Ultimately 2 other homes will be created. So this looks a little catty whompis here but there’s a couple of different things going on. There’s an excess right-of-way that’s on this northern piece right here that needs to be attached. It’s actually part of a street right-of-way and that will be public hearing for vacation of right-of- way will be held at the City Council meeting and that will be attached. That’s what this red arrow is to show you that it will be attached to this lot and then there’s another portion of this lot here that is owned by this property so the assemblence of those two, with these existing homes is what makes up the requirement for the subdivision. So as I just mentioned this is the right-of- way vacation. Again this item will go to the City Council but we wanted to show you that it is included in the actual application for the subdivision. So as we always do when we do a subdivision, before we look at any variances because this application does have a variance for a flag lot, is to look at what would the implications of doing a public street and looking at how that 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 7, 2015 would service 4 homes on the site and it would mass grade the site. You can see down here it’s pretty steep on the bottom part of the lots and also wrapping around so in looking at that it really took out quite a bit of vegetation so in looking at the other position which would be to use the existing access to the site and see how that would lay out. So using the existing infrastructure in place which would be Teton and Bretton Way was how we looked at providing those additional lots. So you can see the existing home. 3 and 4 and then Lots 1 and 2 would then be the new lots so again that’s picking up the reconfiguration of this excess here and the street right-of-way. But what that does is that it creates number 3 would then have a flag lot so that’s what we’re doing for the variance. In the past when we’ve looked at flag lots sometimes the orientation of the house sometimes doesn’t kind of match the neighborhood. That maybe you might have someone, instead of having side yards next to each other you have someone that’s front yard facing them but in this circumstance you’ve got the separation is such that it lays out pretty well as far as the access to this lot. The existing garage. The front of the lots facing kind of the side or portion of the back of Lot 2 so we believe that it, with the variance, saving some of those natural features there makes sense so we would recommend the variance in this layout. Again not putting additional road right-of-way in an area that we were talking about kind of at our work session earlier. Talking about how you manage stormwater issues on these sites where you have existing lots of record and maybe not as much space. Preserving those trees. Providing for extraction for some of that stormwater we think makes a lot of sense. All these lots do meet the requirements of the 15,000 square feet and actually one of the lots is significantly larger and that would be Lot 3 with existing home. Again all these lots then do meet all the other requirements of the RSF zoning district. So with that with a variance we do have the criteria for the variance in your staff report. If you have questions on that I’d be happy to go through that with you but based on the topography and the likes we do support that variance and so we are recommending approval for the combination and then re-subdivision for a preliminary plat for the 4.74 acres for the property zoned Residential Single Family at 6341 and 6400 Teton Lane and then adoption of the Findings of Fact. I’d be happy to answer any questions you have. Tietz: Kate about the building, designated building sites for Lots 1 and 2. How were those determined and how will those be controlled because it looks like the grading was done for a specific building pad. Aanenson: Yes. Tietz: Yet there’s no architecture for that pad. Aanenson: Yeah that’s a good question. When we look at the grading plan, and actually I do have it here at the end of the report. What we do when we look at the grading plan is we do an elevation so it’s a little difficult to see on here but that’s something that engineering reviews. Tietz: Right. Aanenson: And we mark on that whether it can be a lookout or walkout so when the plans come in they have to match that. And what we do is with the building plans we show approximate location of where that building should be sited in there. That doesn’t give a lot of deviation from that with staying with the grading plan. What we’ve learned historically and we’ve gotten better 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 7, 2015 at is not allowing that change because then it causes excessive grading and what we envision for controlling the water. If someone goes in and does excessive grading will change the drainage pattern in the neighborhood so that is the intended approximate location of the building pad. Tietz: Okay. Aanenson: And then driveway orientation again and then the plans will call out whether it can be lookout, walkout, or just a full basement. Tietz: Yeah because the site, building pad number 1 looks more flexible depending upon, you know how the property sits today. Aanenson: I would agree, it’s the flattest. Tietz: That’s the flattest. Aanenson: Correct. Tietz: And then number 2 it starts to go up in the back side of the property. Aanenson: Correct. Correct. Tietz: So there would be some latitude if a contractor, developer, architect wanted to come in and push that building pad back as long as they deal with the stormwater runoff? Aanenson: Correct. Or if there’s tree preservation in that area. There’s also, let me go to the, there’s a tree preservation. So this is the area we’ve identified that most of the trees will be in that shaded green area. Tietz: Right. Aanenson: So the existing trees as I mentioned, where it’s steeper on the backs of lots, most of those is where we’d want the trees to be saved but you can see on the back of Lot 2 there is still some area that we would preserve some of those. You know most of this is not much vegetation so to get access to lots is mostly in the front. It’d be an area then for replanting or buffer. Tietz: Okay, thank you. Aller: Any additional questions of staff? Seeing none we’ll have, open the public hearing portion. Is the applicant present? Chris May: Hi. My name is Chris May. I own the property at 6400 Teton Lane. Just want to introduce myself and. Aller: Welcome Mr. May. 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 7, 2015 Chris May: Thank you. Yeah just asking for you to consider this proposal with the flag pole lot. I think it fits best with the neighborhood not having to have another cul-de-sac or street coming into the property and it gives the best options. And also looking at the house pads, you know for Lot 2 they’re, we tried to keep the setbacks so that that house could still even be moved towards the back of the lot as well so it’s just where it might finally end up could be different from where it’s shown on that picture but still sticking within the setbacks and variances there. I’ve owned the house for about 4 years now and you know just kind of looking at developing the front 2 lots. Probably just market it and see what the options are. Whether it be you know a custom build or maybe even trying to build a house on my own on one of the lots too so. And the plan too would be you know custom homes but keeping it consistent with the other sizes of the homes in the neighborhood and hopefully it works out. Thank you. Aller: Great. Just the packet for those of you who are here haven’t seen it or those at home and haven’t checked the website, you just talked about taking a look at other options. We did look at the public way option which would have been a cul-de-sac but that would have been a detriment with regard to the water and access for purposes of the homes and setbacks correct? Chris May: I agree. Yes. Especially I mean seeing the slope of the hill and trying to cut a road in there and now all of a sudden the houses would be pretty well set up. Otherwise you’re going to have a real steep kind of street going in there so it’s kind of, I think for grading issues and everything just you know being able to do the flag pole lot would kind of be the best for the existing. Aller: This way we can maintain a lot more trees. Chris May: Yes. I mean it’s. Aller: Preserve. Chris May: And again a lot of the tree coverages in the back behind the house along the bluff, towards the park and all that will be left undisturbed. And then along the fence line to the east, you know there’s some nice trees that are along that way and that all remains not to be taken out so. Aller: Great. Any additional questions? Mr. Weick. Weick: Just is existing house 4 included because you needed a little bit, did you redraw the property on that? Chris May: Yes. Weick: Just to gauge. Chris May: If you can see the original property lines, so that 6341 I worked with the neighbor to do a lot line transfer. They owned the whole frontage along Teton and I needed that frontage to allow my driveway accesses for Lots 2 and 3.\\ 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 7, 2015 Weick: Oh it went that way. Oh I got you. Chris May: Yeah, you see he owned that whole frontage there so I. Weick: Yep. Yep, understood. Aanenson: Can I just add, with any infill development there’s challenges, yeah. So obviously he worked with staff. With Sharmeen who actually put, did the staff report to try to figure out a way to accomplish that and then even vacating the street to get that little remnant piece attached to this so a little bit more. And back to the cul-de-sac issue, and maybe Stephanie had some additional comments on just the implications of trying to address additional stormwater and the like. Bartels: As I think has been mentioned it does a service to keep the trees and the existing tree coverage where it is. As far as keeping additional water flowing down there. Keeping all the sediment that’s already there. The soils that are there in place with those tree roots and with that tree coverage. It’s to the benefit of the stormwater in the area to keep that there if possible. Weick: Because it’s a significant drop. I’m horrible with directions. That way you know off. Bartels: Yeah you can see right here. Chris May: In the back yeah down to the park it’s. Weick: Well the other one too. There’s houses right back. Chris May: On the east side as well it drops off that way but it’s pretty level to the west. Weick: So we certainly don’t want to create anything that pushes stormwater that way. Aanenson: Yeah, right. Weick: Okay. Aller: Great, thank you. Chris May: Thank you. Aanenson: And I just want to point out too, I think which was mentioned that there is trees up in this area so if you push that house back you could put a driveway through that might minimize some of those trees and preserve. I think so too yeah. So we would work on that because these are custom homes we’d work on that with the future buyer. I’m assuming that someone buying it may want to consider that too. 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 7, 2015 Aller: When they come in to do a final. With that I’ll open up the public hearing portion. Any individual wishing to speak either for or against the item before us can come forward and do so at this time. Sir if you come forward and state your name and address for the record that would be great. Daniel Fuller: Daniel Fuller, 6430 Bretton Way. So I’m 2 doors down to the east on the corner on Bretton Way. Overall I’m fine with this. I think it will look nice. You know have the lots be similar with the rest of the neighborhood. My only concern is because you know it was mentioned before that to the east there is a very steep hill and I’m at the bottom of the hill along with some of my neighbors. Our yards are pretty much unusable from March until June because of the snow melt and the rainfall so anything we can do to make sure all these houses, their stormwater goes west instead of down the hill that would be great. Thanks. Aller: Thank you. Bartels: And if I can address that. Aller: Please do. Bartels: Yeah. Taking a look at the grading for the proposed site, you can see that it keeps the existing drainage pattern of the area. It’s continuing to drain mostly towards Bretton Way and towards Teton Lane and it’s not creating additional grading that would, that would be sending extra water down that hill towards those homes. Aller: Any additional comments, questions? Any other individual wishing to come forward to speak for or against the item or comment on the item. Seeing no one come forward I’m closing the public hearing and opening it up for commissioner discussion. I think it’s preliminary plat. What we’re trying to do here is give a good starting point. It will be finalized in the fine tuning and the drainage, final drainage issues will be resolved at that time and certainly part of the record and staff is aware of our concerns and as a City we’ve always been concerned with our waste water management and our management system so based on the report and the comments as provided I would support a motion. Undestad: I’ll jump in again here. Aller: Commissioner Undestad. Undestad: I recommend that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve preliminary plat with variances to replat of 2.74 acres into 4 lots, Redstone Ridge on property zoned single family residential (RSF) and located at 6341 and 6400 Teton Lane and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Madsen: Second. 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 7, 2015 Aller: Okay, I have a motion by Commissioner Undestad and seconded by Commissioner Madsen. Any further discussion? Undestad moved, Madsen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Preliminary Plat with a Variance for the use of a neck lot, to replat 2.74 acres into four lots, Redstone Ridge as shown in plans dated received February 14, 2015, including the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation, subject to the following conditions: Park and Trail Conditions 1.Full park fees in lieu of additional parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected as a condition of approval for Redstone Ridge for the two new housing units only. The park fees will be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. Based upon the city’s 2015 single-family park fee of $5,800 per unit, the total park fees for Redstone Ridge would be $11,600. Engineering Conditions: 1.The plans shall show the first-floor elevations of existing buildings on adjacent properties. 2.The grading plans shall be revised to show the proposed elevations at each lot corner and at the corners of the proposed structures. 3.Draintile service must be provided for Lots 1 and 2 where runoff will flow from the back to the front of the lot. 4.A soils report is required indicating soil conditions, permeability, slope and water level if detected. 5.The plan must indicate that all swales discharging off site are to have the final 200 feet stabilized and the method to be used. 6.The silt fence must comply with City Detail 5300 which requires the use of metal tee-posts. 7.The silt fence shown across Lots 3 and 4 must be placed twenty (20) feet from the top of the bluff to ensure that entire bluff impact zone is protected. 8.Inlet protection shall be shown on all existing catch basins with the potential to receive runoff from the site or tracked material. 9.Plan must demonstrate the placement of a rock construction entrance and include a detail. 10.A note shall be made that no less than six (6) inches of topsoil, meeting the MnDOT specifications for 3877.2 Loam Topsoil Borrow must be placed to achieve the final grade and prior to the placement of any sod. 11.The plan must show a stockpile area for stripped topsoil. 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 7, 2015 12.The erosion escrow shall be required reflecting the quantity of topsoil necessary to place six (6) inches over Lots 1 and 2 excluding the 25% hardcover allowed with the Development Contract. 13.The grading plan shall label the elevation at the centerline of the proposed driveways. 14.The plan must label the proposed grade of the new driveway for the home on Lot 3. 15.The new driveway pavement being installed at Lot 3 may not exceed a width of 50 feet. 16.Escrow for the construction of the new sanitary sewer and water services and the associated restoration of part of Teton Lane will be collected with the Development Contract. 17.Surface Water Management Utility fees totaling $6,025.80 shall be due at final plat. 18.Partial water and sewer hookup fees will be due at the time of final plat; the remaining hook- up fees will be due with the building permit. The fees will be assessed at the rate in effect at that time. Environmental Resource Conditions: 1.Tree protection fencing will be required at the edge of grading limits near any preserved trees. It shall be installed prior to grading. 2.Each lot will be required to have a minimum of one tree in the front yard. Planning Conditions: 1.Approval of the subdivision is contingent on approval of the right-of-way vacation. 2.All lots must maintain a maximum hard surface coverage of 25%. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Aller: Okay going back to new business. ADOPTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION BYLAWS. Aller: Under the present Bylaws 7.4 review, we do an annual review of the Bylaws. Has everyone had an opportunity to read and review the Bylaws that are in draft form before us? Any comments? Recommended changes. Hearing none I’ll take a motion to adopt the Bylaws. Undestad: Motion to approve. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Weick: Second. 13