Loading...
PC Minutes 07-07-2015Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Aller: The matter is moved to the City Council. Those individuals wishing to discuss other items with regards to the City Council or follow this item to the City Council for it’s final determination is presently set for July 27, 2015. Thank you all for participating. We’re going to take a minute recess here to allow the room to clear and those individuals that might have been here for item number 3 that was presently on the calendar. Arbor Glen planning case, that matter has been removed from the calendar at their request and that will be extended and heard by this st commission on the 21. The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: GLACCUM SUBDIVISION, PLANNING CASE 2015-18: REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (RR) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (RSF); AND SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES OF APPROXIMATELY THREE ACRES INTO FOUR LOTS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1510 LAKE LUCY ROAD. APPLICANT/OWNER: ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION/MICHAEL & LEAH GLACCUM. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. As you stated Planning Case 2015-18 is Glaccum Subdivision. Glaccum’s are the property owners for this site and so that’s where the name comes from. Tonight we’re holding the public hearing and this goes to City Council on th July 27. The applicant is Estate Development Corporation and Michael and Leah Glaccum. Again it’s a rezoning of the property from it’s currently zoned rural residential to residential single family or RSF. The property is guided in the Comprehensive Plan for residential low density uses and this means density of 1.2 to 4 units per acre. This development will come in within that range and it complies with all the requirements of the RSF district. The property is located at the northeast corner of Lake Lucy Road and Yosemite. Property address is 1510 Lake Lucy Road. There is an existing single family home on this site as well as a couple out buildings and a little garden. The northwest corner of their property consists of a wetland complex and the one issue we had in here is there’s a small portion of the site meets the city criteria for a bluff and the City defines a bluff as having an elevation change of 25 feet or more and a slope of 30 percent or greater so when it has both those criteria then we consider it a bluff. However this entire ridge area, there’s only a small percentage of this. The development to the east Shadow Ridge has the same slope configuration. However none of that met the bluff criteria so everything around this bluff area could develop except for that specific area behind the existing house. That house does not meet the City’s requirements for setback from a bluff. It’s approximately 10 feet from the top of the bluff. Bluff setbacks are 30 feet. So the applicant, as part of this development with the subdivision is requesting a variance from the bluff setback requirement and in this instance to go to zero setback they want to take out the top of that hill and make the residential area developable. What staff worked with the developer on was trying to preserve the wetland area and the wooded area on the northern, on the north side of this project. Down in the bottom of the bowl if you will. Again this is a rezoning from rural residential to single family residential district and a subdivision of the property into 4 single family lots. As part of the development they would outlot the wetland and they would also 22 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 provide, dedicate the right-of-way for both Yosemite, Lake Lucy Road and the small cul-de-sac that will access the 3 lots on the eastern side of this development. The property on the west side is limited to access off of Yosemite since Lake Lucy Road is classified as an arterial roadway and the city’s hierarchy of road systems and we do not permit direct property access to arterial roads when we can avoid that. That’s why we’re having them put in the public street. That little cul-de-sac bubble. The zoning of the property, for property that’s guided residential low density there are several zoning districts that would be consistent with that. The single family residential district is the most prominent one that we have in the city but also the R-4 district which is low and medium density residential. The RLM district which is residential low and medium density district and a planned unit development residential could all be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. However in this area there’s not single family residential PUD’s immediately surrounding this. The single family properties to the north and east are zoned RSF and on the south side of Lake Lucy Road is also zoned RSF. The large lot developments to the southwest of this are part of, off of Steller Court are part of large developments, 2 ½ acre minimum lot sizes and the rural residential district zoning is consistent with that. However the RSF district is not. What our Comprehensive Plan allows is that we don’t make people rezoning to be consistent with the land use until such time as they propose to intensify or redevelop the property and at that time any approvals by the City must be consistent with that. The RSF district is consistent with that and we are recommending approval of the rezoning which would permit this development. That leads to the subdivision of the property. They are proposing to creating 3, or 4 single family lots. We’re having them outlot the wetland in a separate lot so that that can be dedicated or donated to the City and then we retain control over that. Each of the lots exceeds the minimum requirements of the RSF district. On average the lots are approximately 20,000 square feet in area. RSF district requires a minimum of 15,000 square feet. The house site on Lot 2 is approximately where the existing house is located. They’re just pushing it to the north and northwest slightly and that’s where the bluff area is. To make this site developable that’s what they needed to do. They are providing a stormwater infiltration system between Lots 2 and 3. As part of this project we’re having the project engineer look at the maintenance and repair. Maintenance responsibilities for that providing that to the City. Long term the City will be responsible for maintenance of that public improvement which serves all the lots on the cul- de-sac basically. As part of the plat again they’re dedicating the right-of-way for Lake Lucy Road and Yosemite and the small cul-de-sac bulb that will serve the easterly lots. They are providing large areas of drainage and utility easements including over Outlot A which is the wetland as well as the stormwater conveyance system between 2 and 3 and then we have our standard drainage and utility easements around all the other lots which are 10 feet on the front and rear and 5 feet on the common property lines. Again there’s a small area of this entire ridge area meets the criteria for a bluff. Again the existing house does not meet the bluff setbacks. They could come in and rebuild it. However we wanted to see a uniform development on here. There are some benefits for allowing them to take that out. There’s a lime stone retaining wall along Lake Lucy Road that will be coming down as part of this development proposal. That would be in the City’s right-of-way so in long term the City would have been responsible for maintaining that or getting rid of that. We are providing a larger area buffer around the wetland as part of the development and a conservation easement will be recorded over that. In this grading picture it’s shown as a hatched area around the wetland and along the north property line. The trees within this area will be preserved. The conservation easement will be recorded over that and it will prohibit the property owners from going down and removing those trees. 23 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 Again this is in the bottom of the slope so it’s in the really adjacent to the wetland and it will provide a nice natural area to the north of these house sites. However everything on the top of the bluff and in the back yards of this will be graded as part of the mass grading for the development so. As part of this project the applicant will be providing sewer. Sanitary sewer, water and storm sewer improvements. Again the storm sewer between Lots 2 and 3 is an infiltration system and it meets the new requirements from the watershed district. We’ll get a maintenance schedule for that and long term the City will be maintaining that. They’ll connect to the water that’s in Lake Lucy Road. As part of this project they will extend sanitary sewer to the west end of Lot 1 so. Landscaping for the project meets requirements of the city ordinance for landscaping on residential development including replacement trees. Based on the calculations they needed to provide a total of 26 trees within this development. They’re providing a buffer yard along Lake Lucy Road and there’s also some plantings adjacent to the eastern property line where there are existing homes to the east. One of the requirements is that they provide an access easement across Lot 4. Should the property to the east eventually redevelop or decide that they don’t want to have direct access onto Lake Lucy Road they could come into this cul-de-sac and then have access off of a public street. Again that would improve traffic flow Lake Lucy Road. Staff is recommending approval of the rezoning and approval of the subdivision with the variance to the bluff setback requirements to allow the development to take that bluff out and subject to the conditions of the staff report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Weick: Was there any study done on what the work on the land would do to the wetland? The impact on that. In other words I imagine there will have to be a significant amount of grading. Aanenson: Right. If you could go back to that grading slide. So typically what we do before those is we’d actually put erosion control up so there’s a no touch zone for all those trees so that would be outside of any, that’s kind of a no touch zone. Yeah. Tietz: Just doing a quick calculation it looks like it could be 7,000 yards of earth that’s going to be taken off. If you take 6 feet off the cap. Aanenson: Yep. Tietz: And then you’re building significant retaining walls down by the wetland just to create the lots. It’s a pretty disruptive proposal. It looks like it’d be better with 3 lots instead of 4. Aller: But in this, and I guess a question, in this process they’ll have to have the NPDES permits. Aanenson: Correct. I think some of the challenges when we looked at this first, Bob if you could go back to the slide that shows there’s different land uses we could have looked at. So you could have done 4 homes that you could have clustered them on smaller lots would have been another too. To develop this to preserving that one area so you just went past it. There you go. So if you look at preserving that lower part and you could have come in, which we’ve done in the past. Some of those smaller lot configurations so clustering that would be another way to get the 4 lots so we did walk the site with, the staff did walk it. The Forester, City Engineer, Water 24 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 Resources Coordinator, Mr. Generous walked that site to look at, to evaluate all that because it is an anomaly out there and going back to looking at, so one of the City’s desired goal is we talked about that retaining wall and that’s failing against the City’s right-of-way so some of the trade off so those are some of the things that we looked at to make sure that we can mitigate for as you indicated a significant amount of grading because it was a challenge. Tietz: But the vegetation it doesn’t look like there’s much of significance. It’s down in the low lands. Mostly box elder and up top there’s a few reasonable trees but they’ll be sacrificed. Aanenson: Right but that was the decision that the Forester made too is looking at the quality of what was on the site so all those things went into the factor to consider that but I would agree that taking that top piece off is, it’s a significant amount of grading, yeah. Tietz: Yeah Bob, I want just a question in the staff report on page 10 of 17, regarding the maintenance of that proposed drainage system. It said if a system is approved it would fall to the City to maintain and operate. The staff is concerned about what liabilities the City might be exposed to. Is the City willing to accept that responsibility and with the design as proposed and? Fauske: That’s an excellent question Commissioner Tietz. As we approach these new rules with the watershed district and we look at the State requirements we’re finding that staff has to play out the worst case scenario in these situations and so the comments made in the staff report is just taking a look at the long term viability of these stormwater management systems and ensuring that the maintenance agreements that have to be in place now would adequately cover staff’s concerns with regards to making sure that this is a maintainable system. The concern stems from, that the proposed stormwater management system is on a 3 to 1 slope that goes between two yards so that’s one of the things that we go through with some of these developers and talking about okay well what’s reasonable. How deep will it be at it’s deepest point? Do we have adequate easement in order to go and maintain that system if the need arises? Generous: And if you would, condition number 44 was put in there specifically addressed to make their engineer determine what those maintenance responsibilities would be. Tietz: But there’s not a homeowners association in this project right? So it would be the responsibility of the City. Generous: Right and also. Tietz: If we accept it. Generous: Right and the City doesn’t do all stormwater management. We have a stormwater utility established to help pay for that. We require the developer to initially install that and then we have to accept it as a public improvement long term. Aller: Any additional questions? 25 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 Madsen: I have a question about the proposed benefit for that access easement with the neighboring lot. So for that to occur does that neighbor have to fund that to build a new driveway to attach to it at some future point? The cost to connect it at this point is not covered within this project. Fauske: At this point the, the existing single family home to the east is not required to make that connection. The staff condition, the condition of approval is just to set up an easement to allow for that to occur in the future if the need arises. As far as who’s responsible for the cost, if it’s, if there’s, the homeowner wishes to do that, that would be their, the onus on them. Another time when that situation might be different is if the City was in there with a street project. Lake Lucy Road was resurfaced back in 2005 so we don’t anticipate that we would be in there with a project in the near future, where we would open up that discussion with a resident. Aanenson: If I may, we found this in situations where we tried to connect these and we want to be clear about our intention because if you don’t the homeowners in there, in the future may say we don’t want that connection and the homeowner that may not be this owner that’s to the east of the site but it might be a future owner that says you know I’d prefer to be able to get to that cul- de-sac because it’s a T intersection there so over time they may want that. So by having that in there it doesn’t prohibit those homeowners to say we don’t want that connection made because now it’s in writing and it’s recorded. So that’s why we put it in place if that makes sense. So just trying to plan ahead as Alyson said. There might be a time in the future where somebody may want to make that change. Madsen: Okay, thank you. Aller: Additional questions at this time. Hearing none if the applicant wishes to come forward and make a presentation that’d be great. Welcome sir. If you could state your name, address and representational capacity. Tom Gonyea: Sure. Good evening members of the commission. Tom Gonyea with Estate Development Corporation, 15250 Wayzata Boulevard, Minnetonka, 55391. I think staff did a good job of explaining the project. One thing I’ll note, with me tonight Mike Glaccum is the owner of the property. His mother lives there and he’s in from out of town for the meeting so if there’s questions of him he’d be available to help us out I’m sure. Couple of quick notes. One, you know we did work with staff quite a while and talked a lot about the access. You know I think the idea and staff’s goal eventually, if you could get all the driveways off Lake Lucy Road that would be a good goal. It’s kind of got to be up to the people but it was important to keep that in a spot where somebody had the option to hook up there if they so desired. Now we’re down the road. You know you’re at the top of a hill so it’s kind of a spot where you want less things coming out onto the road. Not more anyway. One other note as Bob was mentioning the retaining wall. As that comes out you know there will be a new, the trail will probably be sacrificed and so there’ll be a new trail installed along with that for the whole frontage of the property up to the cul-de-sac and on the other side of it. I think it continues the whole way right now, is that correct? Yeah so other than that happy to answer any questions you have. I’ll leave it at that. 26 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 Aller: Looking good, thank you. And at this point in time we’ll open the public hearing. Any individual wishing to come forward and speak either for or against. Craig Claybaugh: Need my name and address again? Aller: Please. Separate hearing. Craig Claybaugh: Craig Claybaugh, 1630 Lake Lucy Road. Aller: Welcome again sir. Craig Claybaugh: Alright. Question I had, and it’s just a question if anybody can address it is the elevation of the sanitary sewer because they extend to the... What the elevation is as it runs parallel to Lake Lucy Road. Aller: While she’s looking for that, is there a concern that you wanted to discuss about that or? Craig Claybaugh: Well it isn’t so much a concern as it is just in terms of how it’s being achieved. How deep it is? Is there any lift stations and houses or how they’re accomplishing that? I own a property just to the west of that, beyond that so I have a vested interest in it so. Aller: Awesome, thank you. Craig Claybaugh: Okay. Tom Gonyea: I could speak to that a little bit if you’d like. Aller: Sure. Tom Gonyea: We did take that into account and staff wanted us to keep it deep enough and stub it the west side of the property. I don’t know the exact depth over there but the idea was to serve a future property. Our houses are all fed gravity sewer. There is no lift stations in the houses or common lift station for all of them at all so. And there might be, Alyson could maybe find the… Aller: And we have standard depth requirements for our system. Fauske: For sanitary sewer we look at the grade of the sanitary sewer pipe. There’s a minimum grade at which we would accept the pipe. We do encourage designers to go, to design a little bit above that grade in order so they can make sure that the constructability of the line isn’t compromised. Just looking at the plan set, the proposed sanitary sewer on the west end of the site is 16 feet deep. It appears that they are running it at a minimum grade so the desire is to try to keep that sanitary sewer as deep as possible so that we can get as many folks on a gravity service as possible. 16 feet is not an excessively deep sanitary sewer. You usually look at sanitary sewer is installed below watermain and watermain is 7 ½ feet deep so the shallowest is usually somewhere around 10 feet so 16 isn’t, is deeper than average but certainly not excessive. 27 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 Craig Claybaugh: The…would be the road surface or a third or? Aller: I’ll repeat the question if I could hear it but I couldn’t hear it so. Craig Claybaugh: The benchmark is 16 feet is the benchmark road surface? Fauske: So the proposed sewer layout is just to give a little bit more background is extending from an existing line in Lakeway Drive up into the cul-de-sac and then also extending to the west and it actually the sewer extension lies north of the existing trail, thank you Bob. So the, with regards to the question as far as what the relative elevation would be it would be the surface elevation at that point to the bottom of the sanitary sewer connection. The sanitary sewer pipe at that location. 16 feet. Tietz: So it’s flowing east to Lakeway Drive and then south on Lakeway. Fauske: Correct. Tietz: Correct so we’re always. Aller: Gravitationally. So you don’t foresee the use of a lift station in that area. Fauske: Not at that location. We’d have to take a look at some of the existing homes on Yosemite. They are larger lots. Some of the homes are set back a little further on the property. Like I said the goal is to have gravity service to as many properties as possible. That being said we realize that when we’re looking at extending sanitary sewer after the lots have been developed with homes on them, that there are some situations where we can’t achieve a gravity service to the property. Aller: Additional questions? Mike Glaccum: Comments to raise other than an opportunity to just thank. Aller: Sir you’re the property. Mike Glaccum: I apologize. Mike Glaccum, 1510 Lake Lucy Road is our family’s property. I’ve not been a resident here for quite some time. I’ve served in the US Military in the Air Force for the last 26 years. I’ve just recently retired in January and we’ve now relocated into the Washington D.C. area which is where I reside now. I would just reflect back on you know purchasing that property, my family in 1965. 50 years ago. I think that qualifies my family as some of the original homeowners at least dating back that far. Certainly it was our intent as a family, my family and I when we purchased that land from my mother 13 years ago to relocate back there ourselves and request to build a new structure roughly where site number 3 is was what we had envisioned. Trying to leave as much space around us as possible to enjoy the size of the lot. You know for reasons that you can all appreciate from our national security situation in the last 15 years my call to serve was strong and I remained on active duty and that delayed and set back our desire to relocate to this area so that I could continue to serve. So the time has 28 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 come now. My mother is retired. It’s time for her to find a different place where she can be more comfortable and we appreciate the effort that’s gone into this building plan. Certainly we appreciate the neighbors and the folks that have lived in the area for quite some time but we do recognize that it’s time for her to move on and so again, thanks to Tom and the team for what they’ve put into this for the work that you’ve all done thus far coming up with this plan and if there’s any questions from me as the property owner I’m happy to entertain those. Aller: So is it your intention then to reside here or are you going to liquidate? Mike Glaccum: No it’s not. We’re selling the land to Tom and to his team and they’ll take it forward for development from there and for the time being we’ll be remaining in the Washington D.C. area. Aller: Any additional questions? Okay, thank you for your service and if you ever want to come to a real city, we’re here. Mike Glaccum: Yes sir. There’s a lot of work left to do in the world so thanks. Aller: Okay we’re going to close the public hearing portion of the meeting and additional comments, questions. Weick: I am always all for single family development, especially in areas where you know it seems difficult to add houses sometime in Chanhassen. However sometimes areas are undeveloped for a reason and I believe this area falls under that category. So my opinion is that due to the presence of the bluff and the amount of disruption to that area that I see anyway, the plan as it exists now is in my opinion too much. So I would not be in favor of a variance to remove the bluff. That’s my opinion. Aller: Additional comments, questions as a result of Commissioner Weick’s comments. Undestad: I think I’m looking at it and part of the comments were made earlier as far as there’s a lot of dirt moving around and things like that. It is a tough site. It’s probably you know you’re right, it’s why it hasn’t been developed for a while but I think that really falls onto what the owners want to spend to create their lots on there. Not so much as it doesn’t make sense. Yeah it costs a little more but you know that’s up to them. And I think there was some tradeoffs being met for the variance on there and taking care of some things on the street out there so. Yeah it’s a lot of work. There’s a lot of dirt moving around. There’s a lot of trees shuffling around but I think at the end of the day it works for me. Aller: Comments. Madsen: Although it would be better if you didn’t need to remove so much dirt for the bluff I do appreciate that there’s going to be improvement into the retaining wall and the permanent green space, or the watershed area will be preserved so I do appreciate that. 29 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 Aller: I’m torn. This is one of those ones where I have always said you know preserve our wetlands. Preserve our bluffs and here it’s kind of a tradeoff and I’m looking at the highest and best use of the property and I’m trying to see whether or not the tradeoffs are sufficient because we’re going to get this sewer and water and they’re great considerations but I’m just, I’m torn. We’re going to protect our wetlands regardless so it’s great that it’s an outlot and it will be protecting it but I think we’d be protecting those anyway. The nature of the bluff, the only thing that sways me a little bit with the nature of the bluff is that it’s such a small bluff that it’s inconsistent with the rest of the community and that our overall plan and goal in the highest and best use if we’re going to grant a variance it would allow for that building to occur with limited. It’s not like a typical bluff where I would expect it to impact the wetland so because of that I would probably support. So based on that. Tietz: Yeah I think, obviously there’s significant change going to occur on the site and it’s a very difficult site but you know in respecting the bluff and the desire to protect those in the community, this is not an extensive bluff line. We’re not down in the Minnesota River. We’re not in an area where we have a mile and a half of bluff with mature oak trees. This is a fragment of a, I would call it a hillside as opposed to a true bluff. The vegetation obviously this area was farmed for many, many years and the trees that have come back are not mature. The disruption is going to be significant and I think that needs to be monitored closely during construction to protect that wetland and I don’t know, has the wetland report come back? It said it would be th July 10. Do we really know the status of that wetland? As a classification, at least in the staff th report it said you wouldn’t have a report until the 10 of July. Aller: I don’t think they have to do a clarification of the waterline. Tietz: Just a clarification of the quality. Was it the waterline? I can’t cite the page but I do recall reading that. Fauske: Yes. The delineation has been, was completed and it was classified as a Manage II within the City’s management classification and I’m just looking to search for the comment that you’re referring to Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: Yeah, I could probably find it Alyson but regardless I think it just needs to be monitored during construction to protect what we do have down there. And as infiltration. Aller: If I could Alyson, is a permit going to be issued by Riley water or DNR or is that shared? It’s not us right? Fauske: It was, I just read it too. It was. Aanenson: I think what the conditions are, the approval that are on there so if the wetland delineation moves at all we’ve got some preliminary delineation. One of the things that we’re requiring is that they put a wetland buffer and that puts the homeowner on notice. These are going to be very large executive homes that there’s no creep into that area so we’d put wetland delineation markers out there but that’s after the homes are built but the challenge is if you look under the conditions then would be that everything is silt fenced and monitored so before we 30 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 authorize construction to begin all that has to take place so that’s actually field walked to make sure all that silt fence is up and that’s in a non-disturbed area so that’d be all those trees and then all the wetlands so what would change would be if the wetland delineation is approved, I’m reading from the conditions of approval, or be modified then the setback and the buffers would be changed so we have, the house plan would be changed. Commissioner would be, you have to meet a setback from that but I think we’re all, all those homes as shown, again these are boxes. Not the actual homes. Tietz: Right, right. Aanenson: So it would, it may modify a home type on there. Whether a deck could go there or something like that so when that would be finalized we would check that to make sure that all those homes meet the setbacks as we do standard with routing of a permit. Tietz: Okay. Aanenson: So that would be the minor change that would occur there. Tietz: And so if I misspoke, it’s on page 5. 5 of 17 under wetland protection and it says that th comments are due by July 10 and that’s from the Minnehaha. The report from Minnehaha so I apologize. That was not accurate. Aanenson: Yeah. Yeah. Hokkanen: On page 14 of 17 are you talking about item number 7, the wetland delineation is approved. Be changed, you’re talking about that one right? Aanenson: That’s what I’m talking about yes. So if the wetland goes 10 feet one direction or another, then that would affect the setback and the buffer treatment that is required. So we would have that before we do a final plat. Again standards with the preliminary plat and then with the final plat that would be modified. Hokkanen: And there is the area of tree conservation in there. Aanenson: Correct and that’s, that would all have to be before grading would be commence. We have to authorize that and that would all be staked and silt fenced and we’d walk that to make sure it’s in the proper place before they would begin grading. Hokkanen: I mean I guess as a part of a bluff or hillside you can tell by the retaining walls that are going to be on two of these lots are significant. They, I mean and staff is fine with. Those are long, tall, bigger than I mean they’re going to be in for 4 feet correct. Aanenson: Yes and they’re dropping. Hokkanen: And they will be the homeowners responsibility. There’s no association. They will have to maintain those boulder walls. 31 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 Aanenson: That’s correct. Hokkanen: I mean that’s a big deal. Aller: Commissioner Weick. Weick: Yeah my concern is and continues to be the proximity to that wetland and you know in my tenure here on the Planning Commission we certainly have precedent to encroach bluff setbacks. To my knowledge we’ve never gone right into the bluff, right and whether or not it’s a significant or insignificant piece of the property, it qualifies as a bluff. I would be concerned about the precedent that that sets especially in the proximity to the wetland you know to take how ever many feet off of that designated bluff area. Aller: Could the house on Lot 2 be built with a variance as to the bluff setbacks without modifying the whole plan? Just as a question. Generous: That house pad starts where the existing house is but then it would go into this bluff area. Additionally you have that stormwater system that’s running right down the middle here. Aller: So you’d lose the stormwater system? Generous: Well yeah. It’d have to be reconfigured probably to the east or to the west. Aanenson: So we started at the same point you did then we said let’s walk it and see what makes sense on the ground with the experts that are in their field and disciplines to say what makes sense. Is it an anomaly? Is it you know? Then we would go the other way and say okay we could do 4 smaller lots on there. Cluster them in a different way so that was a decision made kind of with the disciplines to say where’s the tree preservation? How are we going to manage stormwater? How are you going to preserve the wetland and look at this anomaly of that grading. As was indicated it’d be farmed in the past so because the house was probably here and avoided that one spot but for that. So what are the goals we’re trying to accomplish and that’s kind of where we went from there to say what were the other goals we were trying to accomplish and that was the vegetation adjacent to the wetland. We kind of have corridor of some wildlife moving through there. Deer moving. Generous: And if you would look at the landscaping plan you can see what our required buffer width is. It’s right here. We’re basically extending that out to this area. So anything in this crosshatch would now become a buffer area. A conservation easement. One of the conditions is to make sure that the retaining walls are located and constructed so they’re outside of that easement area also so there will be some slight revisions at that final platting stage. Undestad: I’ll make another comment here. I mean I agree with what you’re saying on the bluff point but you know the significant or insignificant comment, I think when you really go out and look at this, you know the comment was made it’s really just more of a hill with insignificant vegetation on there which is again why staff had walked it and said alright, what do we really 32 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 have here. I’m sure if was again like was stated, if it’s a Minnesota River bluff or some of our larger bluffs along the creeks and that would be something we’re probably definitely going, you know that’s different. That is different so I think if it hadn’t been, everybody hadn’t been out there and really we look at it and go, what’s you know. The word bluff is on the paper but what are we really changing out there and is there a benefit to it? Aller: Any additional comments? Concerns, questions of staff or discussion with each other? In that case I’ll entertain a motion if someone would like to make one. Undestad: I’ll make the motion. That the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve rezoning the property from rural residential district (RR) to single family residential (RSF) and subdivision approval with a variance to the bluff setback to create 4 lots and one outlot subject to the conditions of approval and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Madsen: Second. Aller: Having a motion by Commissioner Undestad and a second by Commissioner Madsen, any additional discussion on the motion? Undestad moved, Madsen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the rezoning from Rural Residential District (RR) to Single Family Residential (RSF) subject to the following condition: 1.Contingent on final plat approval. All voted in favor, except Weick and Hokkanen who opposed. The motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. Undestad moved, Madsen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Subdivision with a Variance to create four lots and one outlot subject to the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation: Building: 1.Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. 2.Engineered design and building permits are required for retaining walls exceeding four feet in height. 3.Each lot must be provided with a separate sewer and water service. 4.Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures. 33 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 5.Proper removal, abandonment or sealing of storage tanks, on-site septic systems, wells, etc. is required. Permits are required, as applicable. 6.If applicable, existing home(s) affected by the new street will require address changes. Engineering: 1.The existing easements on the property shall be shown on the existing topography page of the plan set. 2.The easement dimensions must be revised over the sanitary sewer to provide adequate area to excavate the pipe for future maintenance at a 1:1 slope (minimum), or a 1:1.5 slope (preferred). 3.The developer shall dedicate a conservation easement over the wooded area being preserved adjacent to the wetland. The conservation easement language must allow the property owner of Lot 3, Block 1 to perform proper maintenance and/or replacement of their lower retaining wall or the conservation easement and/or wall must be shifted to allow enough area for said maintenance. 4.For future benefit, an access easement across Lot 4 must be granted to the property at 1430 Lake Lucy Road, or the portion of Lot 4 that lies between the cul-de-sac and 1430 Lake Lucy Road must be dedicated as public right-of-way. 5.The grading plan must be revised to include the proposed elevations at each lot corner. 6.Lot 1, Block 1 shall require drain tile service to promote drainage from the back to the front of the lot. 7.The wetland delineation is approved or, if need be, modified for approval and the setbacks and buffer areas are changed as necessary. 8.The Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall be modified to include all elements as required in Parts III and IV of the General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination/State Disposal System. 9.The SWPPP shall list among the quantities the required volume of topsoil to spread six inches on all areas to be sodded or seeded. 10.The retaining walls will be owned and maintained by the individual property owners. 11.The plans shall show the top and bottom wall elevation for all proposed walls. 12.Walls over six feet high shall not be boulder walls. 13.Tiered boulder walls with a combined total height greater than six feet must have adequate spacing between such that they do not structurally impact one another. 14.The vegetation between tiered walls shall be low or no maintenance. 34 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 15.A stop sign shall be installed for traffic on Lakeway Drive before crossing or entering Lake Lucy Road. 16.The plan must show proposed driveway elevations at the center of the proposed driveway at the curb line as well as the maximum slope on each driveway. 17.The maximum allowed driveway grade is 10% at any point on the driveway. The Lot 1 and Lot 4 driveways must be revised to be under that maximum. 18.The plan shall be revised such that there is a five-foot buffer between the trail and traffic on Lake Lucy Road. 19.The pedestrian ramp at the corner of Lake Lucy Road and Yosemite Avenue shall be replaced with an ADA-compliant pedestrian ramp. 20.The City of Chanhassen standard detail plates for pedestrian ramps shall be added to the plan set. 21.The sanitary sewer main on site shall be installed per the City of Chanhassen Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. 22.The eight-inch watermain shall be installed per the City of Chanhassen Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. 23.The proposed sanitary sewer and water main shall become city-owned after construction and acceptance by the City Council. 24.The city shall require the developer to extend the sanitary sewer and water main to the northern property line of Lot 1 for future connection of properties to the west. 25.The detail plates in the plan set must be updated with the most current City of Chanhassen plates. 26.The applicant’s engineer shall provide the anticipated operations and maintenance requirements for the infiltration system and shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the city, how maintenance, including excavation can occur. 27.The applicant shall move MH 2 to the curb line and, if need be, move OCS 3 a commensurate distance. 28.The sump depth of MH2 shall be four feet. 29.A total of $14,722.50 in storm water utility connection charges shall be due at time of final plat. 30.The applicant is responsible for procurement of, and compliance with, any other agency approvals that may be necessary. 31.Water and sewer partial hookups are due at the time of final plat. The partial hookup fees will be assessed at the rate in effect at that time. 35 Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2015 Environmental Resources: 1.Tree protection fencing will be required at the construction limits prior to any grading. 2.Lots 1 through 4 will have the following quantities of trees planted, as shown on the landscape plan dated 6/16/15: Lot 1: 4 trees; Lot 2: 3 trees; Lot 3: 3 trees; Lot 4: 4 trees. Bufferyard plantings will be located on Lots 1, 2 and 4. 3.Conservation easement signage shall be installed at property lines and directional changes. 4.All retaining walls must be located outside of the Conservation Easement. Fire: 1.Provide a three-foot clear space around the new fire hydrant. 2.No burning permits will be issued for tree, brush removal. 3.Submit proposed street name to Chanhassen Building Official and Fire Marshal for review and approval. 4.Street name sign shall be installed prior to any building construction. Parks: 1.Full park fees in lieu of additional parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected. One lot is being granted park fee credit in recognition of the existing single-family residence that was on the property. The park fees will be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. All voted in favor, except Weick and Hokkanen who opposed. The motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Undestad noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 2, 2015 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. Aller: I’d just like to say thank you to all the sponsors and workers and volunteers that have th been out here for the Chanhassen 4 of July celebration and you should take a look at the different names and sponsors that were out there and the best way we can say thank you is to go ahead and Buy Chanhassen. Go in and support them. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Aanenson: Subdivision for Moline’s was approved. Resolution, Dayco Concrete, their site plan nd amendment, CUP amendment was also approved and then BeeHive, the 2 Addition was also thnd approved. And that was for June 8 and then on the 22 there was a variance for, that you had 36