Loading...
PC 2016 05 17 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 17, 2016 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, John Tietz, Nancy Madsen, Steve Weick, Lisa Hokkanen, and Maryam Yusuf MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer; and Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Technician PUBLIC HEARING: 1630 LAKE LUCY ROAD: REZONING FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (RR) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (RSF), AND PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH VARIANCES FOR A 12 LOT SUBDIVISION ON 8.96 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1600 AND 1630 LAKE LUCY ROAD. APPLICANT: YOSEMITE HOLDINGS LLC. OWNER: ALMOND & CAROLYN KRUEGER AND CRAIG & DEANNA CLAYBAUGH. Aller: For the record we have received several items to add to that package. One is a email from Renee Schubbe. A second from Alan and Mary Weingart and a third was a response to the staff recommendations to the preliminary plat filing by the respondent or the applicant and those items will be part of the package which goes to the City Council. We’ve had an opportunity, a brief opportunity to read it. My expectation would be that the developer will also review his responses to the recommendations when they have the opportunity to speak so with that we’ll open up the hearing. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. Planning Case 2016-09, Lake Lucy Road Subdivision. This is a public hearing. The applicant is Yosemite Holding Limited Liability Company. They’re requesting a rezoning of the property from rural residential district to single family residential district and a preliminary plat approval review with variances and we’ll go through those in conjunction with the subdivision. The property is located at the northwest corner of Lake Lucy Road and Yosemite Avenue. It consists of 3 properties or 3 parcels. Two are owned by the Krueger’s and the other is by Claybaugh. Again these properties are currently zoned rural residential. They have 2 single family homes on the 3 properties. The total site is 8.96 acres. The property is guided in the Comprehensive Plan for residential low density uses. What this means is that densities of 1.2 to 4 units per acre are permitted on it and it all depends on the type of zoning that they are given that they determine the final outcome of that development. Rezoning from rural residential to single family residential and preliminary plat Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 with variances. The request, in looking at the rezoning of the property we had to determine which zoning categories are consistent with the residential low density land use designation. Single family residential is a primary zoning category that the City uses on residential low density properties in the community. Approximately 85 percent of our lands that are guided for low density are ultimately rezoned to RSF. A second zoning category that could be appropriate would be mixed low density residential. The R-4 district. This district permits both single family homes and twin homes on the development. Again this is a single family development so staff believes that that wasn’t the appropriate zoning in this instance. The next consistent zoning would be low and medium density residential or RLM. Now this permits single family or attached housing. The one caveat we had in the RLM district is that the developer is to maintain a significant area of upland as common open space. In this instance we don’t have that characteristic of the development. While they’re preserving the northeast corner of the site it’s mostly because of the wetlands that sort of restricted development of that part of the property. And finally a planned unit development residential would be consistent with the residential low density land use. However in that instance we’re looking for either the provision of affordable housing or housing types that cannot be developed outside of a planned development and in this case they can meet all the requirements of the RSF district and so staff is recommending approval of the rezoning to RSF which is consistent with the land use designation. The proposed subdivision of the property would create 12 single family lots and 1 outlot which would contain the 2 wetlands and the preserved wooded area in the northeast corner of the development. Currently they designate Street A as the public street providing access into the development. And then this Street A would connect into Yosemite which is a collector roadway under the City’s hierarchy of road systems. Lake Lucy Road is an arterial road and it’s a road we’re trying to take local access off of so that’s part of the variance request is one of the reasons that we’re looking at that. The 12 lots all exceed the minimum requirement for single family residential development. They are proposing the use of 3 neck lots. At one time neck lots were a permitted category or design standard. In the, I believe it’s the late 90’s the City amended the ordinance to make it a variance. We did this so that we could look at requiring specific orientation of structures so you didn’t have people’s front yards looking into rear yards or whatever the concern may be. Also we can limit size of driveways as part of that and the neck lots so that we can control the amount of impervious surface within the development. It also allows for consistent development patterns within a development. The right-of-way, yeah and these are the 3 neck lots within it. All the rest of them have the full minimum frontage on the public street. The variances requested in conjunction with the subdivision are for the use of the flag lots. The 3 that they’re proposing. To have a cul-de-sac bubble less than the 60 foot radius and this is for Lot 11. You see how the cul-de-sac is offset to the east and because we have the full width it really cuts into this Lot 11 and if we’re able to move that over farther we believe we can improve the stormwater capability of the stormwater pond which is located on the east side of the development. The other variance would be for setback from that right-of-way from, only from the cul-de-sac bubble for Lot 11 so in essence we’d be picking up 20 feet of buildable area in this area which would allow them to shift this over and this house over and potentially get more of this outlot area or green, easement area on the east side of Lot 12. The next one is for the 300 foot offset between street right-of-ways. In reviewing this development when it initially came in 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 we looked at 3 different access points. One would come off of Lake Lucy Road which is an arterial roadway. The other was to push it farther north and come in between the wetlands. However we ruled out this consideration because it could have very negative impacts on both the wetlands on the property and would eliminate the preservation of the only viable wooded area that we had on the site. Finally because of the wetland this access location is forced south so we could not meet the 300 foot separation on Yosemite. And again if we had gone off of Lake Lucy Road that’s an arterial. We’re trying to remove access from directly from that so. Staff believes that this 300 foot offset. We did have the application do a queuing study to see if there’s any back up issues for traffic that would make left turns into the development and there should not be. There’s sufficient distance between the two. And I’ve already hit the building setback on, just on Lot 11 from the cul-de-sac bulb. They would still need to maintain the 30 foot setback from the rest of the street right-of-way so this building line remains the same. This is the one that comes over approximately 20 feet and so staff is recommending approval of the subdivision with variances. And then we’re going to tag team this and Alyson will address the infrastructure and grading issues on the project. Fauske: Thank you Bob. When the applicant first came to staff with the proposal for this development the driving factor, one of the driving factors for the design of the site was the sanitary sewer design. Sanitary sewer for this site is being extended from the Glaccum subdivision which is just to the east of this property. As you may recall it’s, it was approved last year and they brought sewer in from across Lake Lucy Road to the Glaccum subdivision. Extended it to the west and under this proposal the applicant proposes to extend the sewer from that location within the Glaccum subdivision to their site. The challenge with that being is even though the sanitary sewer with the Glaccum subdivision was set as low as possible, it still it was not low enough to serve all of this site so the developer’s engineer had a challenge in designing the site in order to try to get the sanitary sewer to service the lots and in fact in the staff report we’ve indicated that the sanitary sewer is actually shallower than we usually see it in order to try to get service to these lots so we’ve been working with the applicant. That was, like I said that was a driving factor on the site. One of the design considerations for this site. In conversations with the applicant’s engineer as well when they were looking at the grading of this site, one of the desires of the developer was to balance the earthwork on this site meaning that they wanted to limit the amount of fill that would be brought into the site. I’ll let them speak a little more to that if you have questions with regards to that but that was something that they had indicated to staff as well as far as trying to build the site up to get the gravity sewer as well as we’ve had some discussions with some of the building styles in particular over on the west side of the site. Lots 6 through 9. When we look at this the trail connection is high and then the grades dive down with drainage going to the back of the Lots 6 and 7, as well as here over on Lots 8 and 9. We had some conversations about that area. If there was an ability to alter that so that we could get a more level back yard and again I’ll let the developer speak to that as far as what their constraints were with bringing that portion of the site up. And most of the grading, the grading portion of the staff report covers mostly pages 6, 8 and 9 of the staff report for those who may be following. As staff mentioned in the staff report, and just to what I had just touched on previously when staff looks at these drainage patterns here in the back yard they are close to the 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 proposed building pad. Again the developer has indicated that the building pads shown on these sites are oversized. That the actual home styles would not utilize all of the building pad here. We understand that. We’d like to make mention of it though. Just as go through this process just to have it, just to have it out there as a concern. It’s not, it doesn’t make the lot unbuildable but with the drainage swale depending on how they place the home on the property utilizing that building pad that we’ve had feedback from residents when their back yard is encumbered by an easement. That’s a concern for them because it limits what they can do to some extent in the back yard, as well as with the grades as well as any permanent structures within that easement so we like to bring that, we just like to note that in the staff report to say that these are things that we see. We’ve had discussions with the developer and they can, I’m sure they’ll speak to the fact that like I said they have different building styles that wouldn’t utilize the full building pad and how they site it on the site and they can talk about what the market is telling them what they would like to see and what their buyers are desiring now in this economic climate. Another discussion that we’ve had is with regards to the impervious surface coverage on a lot. When we start looking at particularly at some of these neck lots, again it’s an oversized building pad so we just wanted to bring it, have that conversation. Make note of it in the staff report that depending on the house out there they might be approaching, they might be getting very close to the maximum impervious surface coverage. We like to note that. The developer had indicated that they would be doing some disclosures with the builder that they’re looking at on the site to make sure that they’re aware of the 25 percent standard. The desires, we don’t want to be in a position where a building permit comes in and the home that they want to put on the lot simply doesn’t fit given the impervious surface coverage restraints so these are all things that we like to earmark because it is such a challenging site. These challenges arise on a site like this so we just wanted to make note of that in the staff report. I haven’t had a chance to go through the developer’s comments that were submitted this afternoon in great detail. We had some conversations earlier today with the grading and the drainage to the south here and I just wanted to speak to that. I know we’ve had some correspondence distributed to the Planning Commission so I felt it would be prudent to go over what we’re looking at for drainage to the south and again the developer’s engineer is here to answer any questions that you might have with regards to that design. So when they were looking at this site there’s a drainage treatment feature here and then they’re looking at another feature here at the back of Lot 4 and somewhat into Lot 3 and 5 but this area right here and it’s this area that drainage underneath Lake Lucy Road and to the properties to the south. We do have another slide that shows the pathway once it goes south of Lake Lucy Road but just wanted to go over a little bit of where we’re at with the design of this system and doing the analysis on the existing to the proposed conditions. We want to make sure that, that what’s being approved is feasible and that it’s s something that will work long term. We want to make sure that the drainage, the grading plan shown here and the assumptions that were made in the drainage report are reasonable and ultimately that’s how the drainage system will function so we’ve had conversations with the developer’s engineer and will continue to do so as we move and refine that process. As I mentioned when we looked at that drainage feature on the south side of the site it drains underneath Lake Lucy Road. This green line here indicates the existing storm sewer that would convey that drainage to the south. And then there are a couple of driveway culverts on this property that extends to the island within Lake Lucy so it flows. It’s a 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 circuitous site, or pardon me. A circuitous route. It comes around through here and kind of winds down through here so as you can see it’s a meandering path and the developer has designed the pond so that the rate and volume after development would not significant, would not increase. There’s a little bit of tweaking for what we call the 10 year event. What you would expect to see once every 10 years so I feel confident that we can keep working with the developer to achieve that goal but that was one of the concerns and again a challenging site. One of the design parameters that staff’s been working with the applicant on. Generous: Then landscaping. Actually I want to get back to, as part of this development there’s a, the City reviews it under the tree preservation ordinance and what we do is initially establish what the total canopy coverage of the site is and so that comes out to be a percentage of the total development. And then our ordinance establishes targets for preservation of canopy coverage. Because we were aware that as part of any residential development you have to put in a public street. You’re going to take out trees. You have to put in stormwater improvements so you’re going to take out trees and so what the ordinance says if you can meet that target we won’t penalize you. If you can’t meet that target then you have to replace those trees you’re taking out at a 1.2 to 1 basis so it gives us a numerical way of determining how many trees need to be planted as part of the subdivision. The initial landscaping plan submitted by the applicant showed 66 trees that are being replanted on the site. However based on staff’s review and our tree preservation ordinance the applicant needs to provide 111 trees. Primarily we get it in the buffer yards along the streets and at least 1 tree per front yard. We believe as part of this development those extra trees will have to go into the revegetation of Outlot 1 and on the east side and maybe along some of the other perimeters in the project. Especially staff’s concerned with the view from the house that’s directly to the north of that. That they still have that more native feel on it but we’ll work out that revised landscaping plan as part of the final plan submitted and the final plat application process. And of these trees 75 percent of them have to be an overstory type tree so they’ll be larger trees. Eventually they’ll revegetate the site and it will probably better species than are there now because there’s a lot of boxelders and ash in place and so. With that staff is recommending approval of the rezoning of the property to single family residential and preliminary plat approval for 12 lots and 1 outlot and public right-of-way with variances for the use of the flag lots, cul-de-sac bubble size and local street center line offset of less than 300 feet and a building setback variance from the cul-de-sac for Lot 11 to permit a 20 foot setback from the right-of-way subject to the conditions of approval in the staff report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: Anyone have any questions at this time of staff? Commissioner Weick. Weick: Give me a second. For the 300 foot variance, that’s between Street A and Lake Lucy. What is the distance? That we’re varying to. I couldn’t find it. It’s hard to read. They’re blurry right. I’m an old guy. 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 Fauske: Commissioner Weick if you wouldn’t mind proceeding with some of your other questions and I’ll take a look at that and provide you with an answer. Weick: Yep, that’d be great. And then the other question I have is in reference to the bubble. The cul-de-sac bubble variance. If you could explain that, exactly what that variance is asking again. Generous: Do you want to? Fauske: Certainly. Commissioner Weick I would be happy to answer that. Weick: Oh, I was hoping that was over here, sorry. Fauske: So through the design iterations on this site staff worked with the applicant. Originally there was, this feature was actually over on this side and we had a meeting and a discussion and got a larger feature moved over to this site and one of the concessions with moving the stormwater management feature to this site would be that, we would be willing to reduce the setback and the right-of-way requirement for the cul-de-sac bubble so that Lot 11 could be shifted further to the west and allow to accommodate in this. My understanding is that this plan doesn’t necessarily show the reduced setback and I apologize if I’m incorrect in that. So there’s still an opportunity to shift this further to the west and so we’ve included that in the recommendations to approve the variance understanding that we still have a little bit of the stormwater design work to finalize and so that if this feature needs to increase in size to the west, that the Planning Commission has already made a recommendation with regards to that variance so that it would be, that they could move forward with shifting Lot 11 further west. Weick: So we’re not changing the diameter of the cul-de-sac then? Fauske: Correct. The actual street cul-de-sac diameter remains the same. It’s the right-of-way that we’re reducing correct. Weick: Thank you. Aller: Yep, Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: Yeah Bob and Alyson maybe, I don’t know who I should direct the question to but it appears from looking at the topo map that the drainage basically breaks down from southwest to northeast. We have the greatest number of homes and lots in the southwest side but the capacity to hold water is all in the northeast side so I’m really concerned. My concern is about the overall drainage. Have there been calculations assuming a typical, if there is a typical home that would be built on this site, considering the hard surfaces for the house. The hard surfaces for proposed driveways. Hard surfaces for the roads. What percentage of the 8.96 acres is hard surface and it looks with the mass grading we’re going to have severely compacted clay soils which have 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 naturally been infiltration’s been quite natural for the last probably 40 or 50 years. I just, what is the analysis and what’s the impact? Fauske: Sure. I’d be happy to answer that question Commissioner Tietz. In the stormwater analysis what they’ve done is, they’ve taken a look and they developed the drainage area boundaries based on their proposed grading so with, in response to your question about splitting the drainage. What goes to the north and what goes to the south, the storm sewer catch basins within the street would capture the runoff from the street and place it to the north. So that, and the design, the grading design and the storm sewer design is such that the area going to this south basin would be, and I’m not accurately drawing them. I’m just going to show it representatively but, and I believe in the staff report there was an exhibit that shows the portion but a small portion of the back of Lot 6, through the side of back 5 and then looking at the house pads that they’re showing on the grading plan, approximately 75 percent of the grading, of the building pad draining to the south to that pond. With regards to the question with the stormwater management and how they model this, the model includes what they call a curve number and a curve number assumes a certain amount of impervious surface on a residential lot so the assumptions that, the numbers that were placed in the report we agree with. It also takes into account the soil type so when we look at the current soil type and the proposed soil type, the current soil type as you had mentioned we’ve got, we’ve got some tree canopy coverage and some soils and one of the concerns that staff, that we’ve been talking about is getting that model to accurately reflect what the soil condition would be after construction because as you mentioned you’re moving dirt around. You have equipment on there. It does get compacted. It has that higher potential for runoff and those are all components that can be added into a stormwater model. So as I mentioned we’re very close on the runoff discharge rates and volumes and we just want to be sure that we’re getting an accurate reflection of the soils after construction in that model. Tietz: Okay, good. Thanks. What’s the frequency of 10 and 100 year storms in the last 10 years? Fauske: They’ve recently updated those numbers so it used to be a 100 year event in Chanhassen was 6 inches and I know it’s increased. Each of the storm events have increased in the actual inches of rain based on what they’ve been monitoring in the area so that has changed and that’s been reflected in the applicant’s drainage calculations. Tietz: Okay. Yeah we see more frequency. All you have to do is look at Houston and look at Florida today. We’re getting 6, 10, 20 inch storms. I don’t think we’re immune and we have to be able to address that and deal with it on all of our construction. Aller: Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: I believe this is directed to Alyson. There’s a reference to a term that’s a bounce of water. Could you clarify exactly what that means? 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 Fauske: Certainly, I’d be happy to. I believe, is that with regards to, I know there was a resident that had some, had submitted a comment about the bounce. So that’s a terminology that we use when you have a water level and I apologize to those at home that might not be able to see this. If we normally have a water level here, if it fluctuates up to this level that’s what we call a bounce so as you’ve got runoff coming to that area you see a bounce or an increase elevation of that low area. That wetland. That pond and so that’s what we refer to as a bounce. Madsen: Okay, thank you. Fauske: You’re welcome. Aller: Additional questions at this time? Aanenson: Can I just add one other comment too. The reason why this wasn’t on your last Planning Commission meeting is the deep dive that was done on the storm, managing stormwater. It’s complex as Ms. Fauske just said. It’s complex so we did spend a lot of time making sure that we got it as close as we could before we brought it to you. Is there some minor tweaking? Yes and a lot of that included instead of having drainage on either side of Lot 12. Combining it. Making that a better drainage and in that we agreed to compromise and move Lot 11 over so there was just a lot of work done on that the last 2 or 3 weeks so. Tietz: Kate it may be hard to impose on development but you know we look at a lot of slow retention systems on all the commercial properties. How many times have we dealt with that in the last 6 months where something has come and we have a holding system that then releases or we have a system beneath a parking lot that slow release. You know if it’s appropriate at some point and it’s the only way to deal with downspout issues and driveway issues is it, it’s probably not practical but should we be considering some type of homeowner retention systems to reduce the flow rate? Aanenson: Don’t disagree. And then for this project you know it’s infill which makes it more complex because the existing things, the developments around them were not built to those same standards so it’s how do you balance, making this meet the standards where there’s maybe some surrounding developments that weren’t built to that standard so trying to make that work. We’ve talked about other ways to managing stormwater. Requiring that they keep it on site using it for potential re-use. Those are things that we’re looking at as we move to the future but again on this project we worked really hard, engineering staff did working with the applicant to get, to make sure we were had this right because it is a concern to the property to the south, we understand that. Generous: Chairman Aller to answer Commissioner Weick’s question, it’s about 190 foot centerline offset. 190. 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 Weick: Thank you. Madsen: I one more comment. Aller: Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: There’s a comment in the report about leading the staff to conclude that it’s unlikely that more water is not being directed south than is claimed. Can you tell me what you were able to study and what changes could be made to get you comfortable with the numbers so that water is not draining southward. Fauske: In the staff report I believe that’s around page 8. One of the assumptions that I believe is, or that’s discussed prior to that comment was with regards to getting the drain spouts on the building pads directed to the north and the challenge with that is now, is that we’re now dictating for the homeowners how they’re setting up their drain spouts. I think the applicant, if the applicant has some ideas to remedy the concern expressed in that comment. One of the things that you know I think they’ve talked about, and please correct me if I’m wrong, if there’s a way that they could connect that drain spout to a system that is forced to direct it towards the street so that it’s not just a drain pipe above ground but that there’s a way that it’s actually forced to go to the street but those are, that’s the question. The other thing that we could do is if it’s going to, if it’s going to go to the south that the feature here on the south side is just sized appropriately to accommodate that and I would like the developer’s engineer to be able to comment on that as he’s, he’s designed the site. Has the most knowledge of the site and can really speak to what some of the challenges are with regards to the drainage, specifically Lots 1 through 5. Madsen: Okay, thank you. Fauske: Thank you. Aller: Seeing no additional questions at this point in time for staff we’ll go ahead and ask the applicant to come forward and make it’s presentation at this time. Terry Forbord: Good evening Mr. Chair, members of the Chanhassen Planning Commission. My name is Terry Forbord. That’s F-o-r-b-o-r-d. It’s my privilege to be here this evening and representing a couple families that are long term Chanhassen residents of many decades. The Krueger family and the Claybaugh family. We were selected from a group of developers to represent them and to develop their property. I’d like to launch the power point if I can because I’ll use it as a reference. If you could put it in slide format I’d appreciate it. Thank you very much. I represent Forbord Land Company. I’m the owner and principle. Oops, it’s moving and I’m not touching anything. How do we do that? Okay there it is. I’ll handle it from here if that’s okay. Hemlock, excuse me. Yosemite Holdings is the Holding Company that we’re using for the development of this subject property. As I mentioned I’m the principle with Forbord Land Company. I’ve been doing this for 39 years. I’ve developed well over 5,000 home sites in 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 hundreds of subdivisions, primarily in Minnesota. Some in Colorado and some in Florida. I’m not going to go through a whole bunch of things about me because that really isn’t what’s important. There it goes again. It’s moving. How do we get this so it goes one at a time? Fauske: I was going here and I apologize. Terry Forbord: Oh that’s okay. So rather than talk about me and all the projects that we’ve done I’d like to focus just on the ones here in Chanhassen that some of you might be aware of. Some of you might live there. So if I could just get to that next page. And this is an exhibit that kind of displays those and those primarily I directed the development of these communities. Near Mountain, which is in the northeast corner of the city. Longacres which is on Highway 41. Willow Ridge. Willow Ridge is right down the street from this subject property. There’s Springfield down in the southeastern portion of the community and then Highlands at Lake St. Joe is over on the western boundary. That represents hundreds of home sites. Those were all frankly done in the 90’s and I was the President of a company called Lundgren Brothers Development at the time. Since that time I’ve developed, as I mentioned, thousands of other home sites around the metro area but what’s more important is the ones in Chanhassen. I’m very fortunate to have very fond memories of former mayors and city council members and planning commissioners and Carver County commissioners and Met Council representatives because we all worked very hard to extend urban services to this area. As Mr. Tietz was mentioning it was all corn field back in the day. I also had the privilege of working with many of your staff members that are still with the City at this time. This subject property, it was referenced a moment ago that it’s an infill site. Definitely this is an infill property. Being on the Planning Commission you’re probably quite experienced with the fact that infill sites are always much more complicated than green field development. I can say honestly in my entire career I have never worked a site as complicated as this site. Ever. That doesn’t mean that there were any particular individuals that were problematic or anything but there were on site and off site constraints. There were infrastructure constraints, et cetera, et cetera. The good news in that is, and it was just kind of touched upon a little bit but it’s appropriate for me to say that there was a very unique process that we went through and part of it is due to my style but a good part of it is due to the style of the staff in the City of Chanhassen. I rarely, I just don’t submit applications unless I’ve had countless meetings with the staff and we’ve all come to an agreement generally on what needs to be done in order for a development to proceed so we started that process in January and we’ve gone through probably no less than 20 reiterations of just the site plan for 12 lots. You’ve heard about the challenges about access. Ideally from a pure development point of view, pure development coming off Lake Lucy Road would have been the most efficient and effective way to do that. However it’s I believe a minor arterial within the city and from that standpoint it wouldn’t have made any sense. The next best pure development entrance would have come off of Yosemite from the north and that would have gone inbetween those 2 wetland complexes and from an efficiency and a development scenario that would have been the second best but what it amounted to though we would have had to clear cut a bunch of the trees in that wetland area which is now one large outlot and it would have forever changed the way that that piece of property would have looked from the streetscape so just like every other step of the way 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 we got together with staff and we started drawing various reiterations of how is the best way to do that. And like I said 20 concept plans later the most efficient and effective way to do that was what you’re seeing this evening. Just a couple things that are still in play. We agree with everything in the staff report by and large except for maybe 4 things and tonight I’m not here to debate those with you and debate those with the staff. We’ve worked very closely on that. We just gave you a handout to make it part of the record. What we’re going to do just like the staff has recommended approval there’s all these conditions and in that report it says they’re going to continue to work with the applicant prior to final plat to come to a conclusion on all those things and I’m confident that that will happen and so we’re okay with that. Those 4 items that we put in front of you were just put in there for the record. We haven’t had a chance to finalize all those discussions with the city staff but it’s been a very interactive productive process and I’m grateful that we have a city staff that we can do that with. One thing that Alyson pointed out very well was that if we could get up the site plan if you have it easily in front of you. That area where she was talking about the biofilters. Could you point to that area? Now that area right there, about 3 or 4 reiterations ago there were 4 of those pre-treatment ponds on the site. Well we all know from a practical application to maintain those and repair them, whatever needs to be done if there’s 4 small ones it’s highly inefficient so we spent some time. How do we merge all those into one? Now ordinances are very important because they kind of create a framework for development to occur but sometimes when you look at environmental concerns or things like that you say you know what, the smartest thing we could do was to put all those biofilters into one outlot. That way it would be more efficient. It would be more effective and if we have to maintain it we have one access to it and they’re just a far better way to do it so she talked about part of that process and it includes shifting Lot 11 and Lot 12 to the west. That space between there and the cul-de-sac bubble will shrink and they did that by putting like a 5 foot variance on the setback but what it’s going to do from an environmental standpoint and efficiency standpoint, stormwater management is the right thing to do so that’s the way this whole process has been and it’s been very constructive. So I’m not going to go into a lot of detail about everything that has been accomplished to date because I believe it’s actually been summarized quite well and memorialized quite well in the city staff report and we agree with it. The last thing that we’ll do prior to addressing any questions that anybody might have is that Roger Humphrey my senior project engineer with Stantec who’s with me this evening is just going to go over the handout with you just briefly but we would like to get into the public hearing component of this and address any questions. That’s probably the most efficient use of our time but prior to me handing this over to Roger just to have him touch base on that handout is there any questions that the Planning Commission has of me? Aller: Anyone at this point in time? I’ll just quickly address that. For purposes of the neighborhood what is your expected price point on these homes? What’s the valuation that you’re looking at? Do you think that this is going to have a good or bad negative impact on the pricing for the neighborhood? Terry Forbord: That what would have a negative impact? 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 Aller: I’m saying the fact that we’re infilling the neighborhood, if you can. Terry Forbord: Yeah I’m very familiar with this area. I live 3 minutes away in Shorewood so I’m in this area all the time and have been for 35 years. I’ve watched all the development patterns and as you can see by the slide I’ve developed a lot of the home sites in the area. That’s just in Chanhassen. I can see that the target market for new homes on this particular site will be in that $750,000 to $1.2 million. That’s the range that will be there and I’m meeting with a number of builders. I’m close to selecting one builder which I’d much prefer to do. It’s much easier for all parties to have one builder on a site like this but I think by, if you’re familiar with the existing condition on the property vis a vis what we intend to do with it, I think it’s a fair statement that it will be similar to the other new communities that have developed along Lake Lucy Road over the last 10 to 15 years. Aller: Alright. Terry Forbord: Any other questions? Tietz: Yeah I have a question. How did you arrive at the number of lots and what was the minimum number of lots and the maximum number of lots that you considered during this study period? Terry Forbord: Well frankly if you look at the Met Council requirements of the City of Chanhassen on the amount of units that are supposed to be in these various districts, from a pure math calculator standpoint there should be about 22 home sites on this site. However when you start, one thing that I learned a long time ago is that dirt is never in the right place. The roads are never in the right place. The trees are never in the right place. The wetlands are never in the right place and the pipe is never in the right place so once you take a site and even though your calculator tells you X, that you should be able to get 22 home sites, the shape and all the other aforementioned items change the developability of the property and so we had reiterations that went from I believe it was 11 to like 18 and we settled at 12 working through this process with the city staff. Tietz: And what were the critical site factors that influenced the design? Terry Forbord: The primary, there’s two primary ones apart from trees, wetlands, those type of things. One is the sanitary sewer invert depth which completely was, is a huge factor. Secondly is the stormwater management limitations and so those items became very prevalent apart from trees, wetlands, topography, shape of the property, et cetera. Any other questions? Tietz: One more. Since you’re the developer and not the contractor correct? You’re going to select a contractor for the homes? Terry Forbord: Are you talking about the home builder? 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 Tietz: The home builder yeah. So you’re not the contractor for the homes? Terry Forbord: I’m a real estate developer and I work with home builders, correct. Tietz: So how do you, all the conditions that have been presented to you, how will those conditions be handed off to the home builder? And who’s going to control that process? Terry Forbord: Well there’s a couple ways to do that. I tend to like to do both ways. One is I memorialize those conditions in the purchase and sale agreement with the builder. It should be pointed out that I’m meeting with the builder now and I’ve gone over the staff report with the builder this week. We’re very close. We do a lot of business together. We’re friends so there’s, they have a 45 day feasibility period in their agreement with me so they get a chance to go through all of that and they know as much about the project today as I know so, but we added as exhibits the conditions of approval are added as an exhibit to the purchase and sale agreement. In addition to that there will be a homeowners association for this property and items that are of importance become part of the CC&R’s of the homeowners association. Items related to easements as Alyson mentioned, they become deed restrictions on the title so it’s good to have multiple ways of memorializing important things to make sure that nobody says later on well nobody told me or nobody mentioned it. Even when you memorialize things like this 1,000 percent sometimes people say well nobody told me. I didn’t read my title or I didn’t read my purchase agreement. Those things happen but the best way you can do it is have as many ways as possible so nobody can say nobody gave me anything. So I hope that answers your question. Tietz: Thank you. Aanenson: If I could just add to that too. We did spend some time talking about that at staff. I mean it’s not uncommon. That’s a lot of how development’s done these days. You have a developer then a builder so in this circumstance we talked in detail on some of these unique attributes to each lot and hard cover and all that so the person looking at that lot may know a certain type of home. How that hard cover, drainage issues, so those will all be spelled out by lot. We talked about that would be part of the final documents so we have tried to think through that issue too. Tietz: Okay, thanks Kate. Terry Forbord: And these issues that you brought up Commissioner Tietz are actually quite common these days. Sophisticated builders want to know very much all the detail about that. It’s always important to, I personally I identify the builder as the conduit to the consumer and so it’s important that the builder really understands those things and the builders that I work with do. They live and breathe this every single day. Tietz: Okay, thanks. 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 Fauske: Chairman Aller? Aller: Yes. Fauske: If I may add onto that. In addition to Mr. Forbord’s due diligence with the information he provides to the builder, the conditions of approval from a final plat are included in a development contract which is recorded against each lot within the subdivision so there again there’s another way that a property or builder would be able to know all the conditions required with regards to this subdivision and that’s true with other subdivisions that is brought forth to the Planning Commission as well. Aller: Thank you for the clarification. Terry Forbord: Thank you. At this time I’d like to turn the podium over to Mr. Humphrey, our project engineer. Aller: Welcome Mr. Humphrey. Roger Humphrey: My name’s Roger Humphrey. I’ve been doing land development engineering for over 20 years. I have my own company for much of that. I joined Stantec somewhat recently as their senior land development engineer and been working closely with Terry and staff all the way back, I think we started designing this project in December and worked closely with staff through January, February and all the way through to where we are today and we, we’re not showing you everything because there’s a lot of information that went through in that design. Terry’s right, I think we have 15 different concepts that we reviewed from various access points and we were initially settling on the access north of, in the north end of Yosemite between the two wetlands and I’m really glad to say that we were able to sit down with staff and actually work through that issue of doing a queuing design on the intersection and going down to less than the 300 foot offset. We had a neighborhood meeting back, I forget. April and we had a really good turnout and we listened to all the comments and one of the biggest comments was how beautiful the property looks coming from the north on Yosemite between the two wetlands and primarily that’s the area we ended up saving and so we in our demolition plans and the building plans and everything that goes into the design we are able to create basically a protection zone all through that area and connect into two wetlands in terms of an environmental corridor between the two areas and I think that’s a project success in the collaboration that we did working together. I’m going to touch a little bit on I guess our responses and comments, not too much. I think they’re more intended to just kind of say that between us and staff I think we’re working together very closely. I don’t see any of these issues that’s hard items. It’s just that it’s good for us to be able to communicate how we want to proceed and move forward on several of these items. I actually also think when we go through this process we often get a lot of conditions and we have 80 conditions through the thing and 76 of them in my opinion are and we’re indicating it here are conditions that are standard and typical to final plats and we consider 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 those are moving forward points in terms of advancing the project and advancing the design. In my experience I’ve never seen that ratio as high as saying we agree 76 out of 80 percent of the, or 80 times out of the whole condition and the remaining 4 items are generally minor in detail. What I would like to address because I’ve heard the concerns and I’ll probably hear some more of it tonight as far as the drainage going to the south. The existing drainage area, and I’m wondering if you could pull up maybe not our stuff but the drainage plan that you guys had up previously. The drainage divide is really kind of from the southeast to the northwest and the area that’s existing that goes to the south is 3.7 acres. And the proposed area that’s going to the south is 2.44 acres and those are primarily just back yards of that development. I’m sorry probably the one that shows our plan. So it’s only part of the lots from 1 through 5 that are actually going through there and the other kind of question or issue with, or discussion that’s been having is we show building pads at I think 75 to 70 to, 70 by 70 as an average building pad out there. That’s the maximum extent as a building zone and so the houses aren’t that big and we have to meet the impervious surface requirements and we provided a chart to do so so that it’s very clear on how big they can build on that but that can fit anywhere in that zone. And along with the developer’s agreement that’s recorded and all the conditions that are memorialized through the process, in addition to that one of the conditions on the building portion, item 4 of the building condition plans requires that to get a building permit they have to submit a final grading plan and that will show the dimensions. How it fits in relationship to all the other concerns that are addressed and that and I think that’s a very important condition that we want to see happen as much as the City because that insures a quality and good project. The only other thing that might not have been touched about in the drainage aspect is that we have two wetlands on the north and primarily most of the water coming off the roadway is coming into the wetland to the east and we’re putting a pipe under Yosemite Road that will allow the conveyance of any additional waters and items of that to provide lower high water marks and items of that nature and the City has a lot more capacity easements and other controls downstream in that area. Bob I wonder if you could go to the landscaping plan on your’s too. And again I’m just trying to correlate some of the things that how we looked at our design and how we tried to accomplish these things. The buffer trees that we show along Yosemite and Lake Lucy down on the bottom of that screen, we understand that we need to plant more overstory trees and we need to accomplish that but just in our approach on the design is that that line is a series of overstory and understory trees so we have a tree here and a tree here and a tree here and so the idea is to create the screening that goes through in that process and that was basically our design approach and so we’d like to keep the integrity of some of those items as we go through and of course in this process of we design. We hand it off. We receive comments and back and forth, that communication process is I just wanted the Planning Commission to understand the background of what we were proposing. The last item and it is one of our conditions that we wanted the Planning Commission to be aware of is the requirement of removing all the trees from within the right-of-way that we’re planting and we understand the concerns in terms of maintenance and things that go along with that process. We have from the front yard setback we have 30 feet and then we have a 15 foot boulevard so that gives about 45 feet of planting area in the front yards. If we take 10 feet away from the building side just because we can’t build a, plant a tree really much closer than that and we take the 15 feet off the right-of-way all of a sudden we’re down to about 20 feet which is less 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 than half that zone and these will all become yard trees but it just seems in an aesthetic aspect that, whether we can take a consideration of having some of those trees be planted in the boulevard obviously set back from curbs and sidewalks in an appropriate manner but it just gives us more of an aesthetic aspect in the design of how the subdivision looks and is approached from that standpoint. But from that standpoint I’d like to thank everyone and if you have any questions for me I’m happy to answer them. Aller: Any questions at this time? Commissioner. Tietz: I have a question about the trees. Since that is a big concern and I’m not so, I shouldn’t say I. I think screening a residential development from Lake Lucy may not be as important as providing canopy trees back into the development that you’re creating and I’m just you know questioning staff and questioning the City whether there’s a way to escrow or bank trees and as the development is constructed of putting trees back into those front yards and along that street so that you’re recreating a canopy in an area that had canopy for many, many years as opposed to stuffing them along Lake Lucy. But it would, you know the site grading, you’re grading, you’re mass grading almost 70 percent of that site so putting trees in before construction starts I think they soon would become twigs and splinters but if there’s a way and this may be a concept that’s inappropriate but to consider banking those trees and having the developer put trees in after the fact. Aanenson: Just to be clear on the condition that we have, they’re still short 45 trees. Tietz: I’m talking about the 110 trees you know. Aanenson: Sure, yeah. Right so what I’m saying the landscaping plan doesn’t show the shortage of the trees so that’s something that’s not that uncommon that we’ve done in the past after the house gets placed so that’s something we can run past the Forester. That’s an issue the Planning Commission wants to look at. Tietz: It may be a way of dealing with the canopy issue and the understory issue and creating a more inviting neighborhood and increase the value of the neighborhood. Aller: It will also help the stormwater. Tietz: Pardon? Aller: It will also help with the stormwater. Tietz: Potentially yeah. Roger Humphrey: We spent a lot of time identifying the trees. Specifically a lot of the perimeter trees and one of the things we heard from the Planning Commission and I went out and 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 looked at the site to, or after sorry. Our neighborhood meeting I went out after the site to just evaluate and look at the site as is from a standpoint of where these are and how the trees look and part of that was the entry coming in on the corner of Yosemite and Lake Lucy and as you turn that corner going north on Yosemite, straight ahead is a group of trees. They’re fairly set back from the right-of-way and there’s a fair amount of trees along Lake Lucy that as we kind of redid this new design I think those trees are being preserved through the process and we take our business very seriously and we are experienced in the design and layout and construction of these things and so I’m the guy that’s out there with Terry. That’s why when we had the neighborhood meeting and I heard what we heard it’s an opportunity for us to get to know the neighbors and at the same time we can save trees potentially but also when they’re in certain areas you know it’s a risk factor to save them or not save them and I think we’ll do our best in terms of preserving those as best as possible. In that corner intersection where we moved the watermain over. We moved some of the utilities out of the way. That gives us a better opportunity to save those trees as well. Thank you. Aller: Commissioner Madsen. Oh Mr. Humphrey, we have one more question Mr. Humphrey. Madsen: One of the conditions is that the runoff rates and volumes cannot be increased to the south. Could you just touch on how that will be accomplished? Roger Humphrey: Sure. Again that’s why I kind of wanted to mention that. The primary means to that is limiting the area that goes to the south and we felt we did that. I think staff is, wanted to insure how we do that and I think as we move forward through the final plan portion of that. You know I see that as a very easy thing to do or to document that that water goes and where that dividing line happens to be. In addition to that the area that does go south is primarily the back yards of the homes and there’s, these are longer, deeper lots and with our newer design there are areas that are undisturbed down in that lower area and we also have room to create stormwater ponding and devices that help control the rates and volumes of that and we believe that’s appropriately sized and I think staff would agree with that size. I think the concern that staff has, or at least has put in their comment list is whether we can document the dividing line between that stormwater and I think we can do that so. Madsen: Okay, thank you. Roger Humphrey: Thank you. Aller: Alright, thank you. With that I will open the public hearing portion of the meeting and what will happen at this point in time is anyone wishing to speak either for or against the item before us, or has a comment to make can do so at this time. You would come up to the podium. State your name and address for the record and then let us know how you feel about the project. Any individual with us tonight wishing to come forward? 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 Kim McReavy: Hi. I’m Kim McReavy. I live on Heather Court in Chanhassen. I was at the neighborhood meeting too because I’m concerned. I live near this area, although I’m not abutting it so I wasn’t noticed or anything but I have a lot of friends who live in the area who are very concerned as well and they would have been here. They were supposed to come to the meeting 2 weeks ago and for some reason it was put off and I missed the beginning of the meeting. Maybe you explained why it was moved but they’ll be at the council meeting so I walk by this area every day and there’s a ton of wildlife on it. It’s lovely. There’s, I know they’re going to take out 200 trees on it and I’m concerned with that and mainly because of what has happened across the street and I’m sure you’ve all noticed what’s happened on, with the Weekley development on the corner of Yosemite and Lake Lucy. I think it’s a travesty and the houses there I feel like really are cheapening the feel of Chanhassen in general. They look out of place. They’re extremely close to the street. I really don’t know how they’re going to sell them but I guess that’s not my problem but on a bigger issue for the City I’m concerned with this infill development that’s happening. I don’t think we need to fill in every single area in Chanhassen and as I drive down Lake Lucy and as I drive down Powers Road I just see lots of opportunities for this type of infill development where, and just because you can do it I don’t think means you should so. For this development in particular I’m concerned about the loss of 200 trees. I know the developer was talking about nothing’s ever in the right place. The wetlands aren’t in the right place. The streets aren’t in the right place. Well maybe if it’s not in the right place then it’s not the right place for this type of development and that’s probably why it hasn’t been developed yet so that is my concern too. I know that they were talking at one point about possibly tonight saving possibly some of the trees on the corner and I hope that if nothing else that can be accomplished, although at the neighborhood meeting they had pretty much said they were going to clear cut most of the property except for around the wetland which is delineated so that is my concern as a Chanhassen resident. I love living here. I know the developer has said that he loves Chanhassen too and has concerns with this area. Well I like Shorewood a lot too but I’m not really concerned as much as to what development is going on in there, you know as I’m sure the residents of Shorewood that live in the area are so as a resident that lives near that area and walks by it all the time I’m not in favor of this particular development so thank you very much. Aller: Thank you Ms. McReavy. Sir you said you want to come forward? Come on up and give your name and address for the record and let us know how you feel about the project. Andrew Hebert: My name is Andrew Hebert. The last name is spelled H-e-b-e-r-t and I live at 6566 Shadow Lane which is directly adjacent to that Glaccum Highlands development and it’s because of that development I can said some things that I was going to that I wanted to attend here tonight. We just bought our house there here in Chanhassen just about a year ago and we knew the development was taking place. We had looked at plans and did a lot of research before buying the home. You know however what we’ve seen over the past year has really given me very little confidence that the plans will be followed and that the City or the developer or the builder really has the best interest in mind, you know the community’s interest and the current residents interest in mind when they’re making these decisions. You know the situation with my home is just one example but now I have a house literally right in the middle of my back yard 18 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 view. You know maybe it’s 10 feet from the property line. It’s a different direction, layout entirely than what was on the drawing and so I’ve come to find out that a lot of these things that are talked about here at this stage they don’t always get passed down to the builder and you know once it gets to that point it’s just concerning that there’s no controls in place to make sure you know we’re looking for the interest of the people that already live here and so you know just watching everything take place from my back window, the destruction of all the trees. The impact on animals. Like Kim was saying, you know there’s deer walking through there all the time. I used to see them. I never do anymore. And so that were some of the main things. I know with that development there were things like retaining walls and things like that that have not come to fruition as they were promised and I think they look bad. One thing I like about the area is the maturity of the trees and the homes and as someone coming from Eden Prairie that really appealed to me and so I feel like to just totally clear it out and regrade and do all these things is very risky and I don’t think it’s just a given that people are going to come and want to pay for that because it’s, you know it’s not the same place that you think of when you think of this area and so I think one of the problems as I’ve learned about the Glaccum Highlands development is that the builder is non-vocal and so I really wish I could have been you know more involved and the other, in that property because I think that maybe had something to do with it. I agree with Kim, I think the houses they look out of place. They look cheap you know and I just have not been happy with how it’s gone and so I’m not opposed to development in general. I just think maybe there could be fewer homes and less of an environmental impact to help preserve the integrity of the community so thank you for the chance to say that. Aller: Thank you Mr. Hebert and welcome to the community. Andrew Hebert: Thank you. Aller: Any other individuals wishing to come forward? Please ma’am. Betsy Randall: Hello, my name is Betsy Randall. I’m at 1571 Lake Lucy Road. Directly across from this development. First of all I know the City has worked hard. The staff has worked great on this. I mean being really concerned about the water runoff and everything but I still have some concerns. There was a mention earlier in regards to if the ponding along Lake Lucy Road got to be too much that they might pump water or something onto Lake Lucy. Well there’s nowhere for it to go. It goes right back down into my property or my neighbor’s property and back through the cycle so I’m not sure how that would work. As I said the concern is the water issue and yes, looking at the 4 houses across Yosemite is not nice. I have been here 20 years. I moved all the way from Deephaven where I grew up. Love the area and as I said the City, the staff has worked hard on this I know. The rest of it I mean if they could cut down more houses that would be fine or fewer lots but I’m not sure that that’s going to happen so that’s my little piece. Aller: Thank you very much Ms. Randall. 19 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 Betsy Randall: Thank you. Aller: Any other individuals at this time wishing to come forward? Sir come on up. Craig Claybaugh: My name’s Craig Claybaugh. We live at 1630 Lake Lucy Road. Aller: Welcome sir. Craig Claybaugh: I served on the Planning Commission myself for 2 terms. I got used to people being resistant to change. Everybody is. The one constant is change. Al he moved in 1980. We’ve been here just about 25 years. I think Betsy I would guess she was there for 40 plus years. That home was built in 1910. Just want to provide a little context. I understand it’s change for everyone but when we moved in it was a dirt road. There was horses, 200 of them at the end of Lake Lucy Road. One by one they came in. Centex. Lundgren. And it was Robert Mason and Lecy so a lot of the properties we’re talking about on Lake Lucy Road weren’t here when we moved in so we’ve endured change. Mrs. Claybaugh: And we had horses. Craig Claybaugh: And we had horses. All those things needed to be forfeit over time to make room for the community to grow so it doesn’t carry anymore weight than anything else. It just provides context so like I said we haven’t been here 5 or 10 years. We’ve been 25 years. The reason the property wasn’t developed is we raised our kids here. Our kids graduated from college. Al retired in December and it was time to make a life change. We selected Terry because far and away he’s the best developer we could find. I worked with Kate for many years. I know her degree of due diligence. When they say they’ve done their work, they’ve done their work so just like that to be part of the record. Aller: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forward? Speak for or against. Yes ma’am. Charlotte Frerichs: I’m Charlotte Frerichs. I live at 6648 Lakeway Drive and I walk by this property every day and of course I’m grieving because I’m going to really miss the turkeys and the deer and the beautiful trees but I was very encouraged tonight to hear that the really the lovely trees right on the corner may actually be preserved but of course they have to be really careful that they don’t damage the roots and there is a little retaining wall. There’s a hillside that goes in that direction and I don’t know exactly what they’re going to do with that but if they take all that down I’m afraid it will damage the roots of those trees. And I might add also that that David Weekley property is really hideous and we’re all really upset about it and I think that those retaining walls that are supposed to go by the wetland are so high, I don’t know if any of you have driven by there but honestly if a child would fall they would be killed and they just put up a little teeny split rail fence there and I really think that the City should take a look at that. Thank you. 20 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 Aller: Thank you for your comments. Roger Frerichs: I’m Roger Frerichs. The other half and also on Lakeway Drive and I just, we had a little question about this drainage. There will be more drainage I imagine than what there is right now down on the south, towards the south. There is you say a storm sewer down there already? Culvert going under Lake Lucy. Is that right? Fauske: Thank you Mr. Chair. Yes there’s currently an outlet underneath Lake Lucy Road to the south. Roger Frerichs: And I just, the drawing shows a pond down there on the north side of Lake Lucy Road and that would be right adjacent to where the walking path is and is that a pond or is that just something that would pick up water in a rain storm? And then be drained out the next day. Because I think it would be a danger to have a pond of catchment of water down right on the south end of that. Aller: So are you talking about the water on the other side of Lake Lucy? Roger Frerichs: No right there where the pointer is. Aller: Oh up north. Roger Frerichs: And if that is, because the walking path is immediately between there and the road and you know people, kids go by all the time on bikes and people walk and I don’t think we want any more water standing than we can avoid and so I didn’t quite understand what that is. If that’s a catchment basin that would drain immediately within the next 24 hours after a rain. Aller: Right. Roger Frerichs: So there’s no standing water anticipated there. And I agree about the trees, that it’s nice that there’s some talk about probably being able to keep some of those trees but you know, and the comment about the roads, about everything being in the wrong place when development is being put in and I think we’ve got things kind of backward. I think we ought to try to fit the homes into the topography and that’s not the current way developments are done. I mean more or less the development is regrading everything and everybody wants a lookout or a walkout so they grade it up in the front and they grade it down the back and you have no topsoil except what’s put back but there ought to be more thought about putting homes in the right place for the land rather than changing the land so that it will fit as many homes as possible. Thank you. Aller: I appreciate your comments, thank you. Any other individual wishing to come forward at this time? 21 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 Al Krueger: Hi. My name’s Al Krueger. I’m part of this and I really bought my property in 1976. Moved in in the 80’s or early 80’s and yeah Craig’s right. We used to go play with the horses that walked by so change is inevitable but the only thing I did want to mention, or that I wanted to bring up is the trees that are on the corner there are very dirty trees. Very, very dirty trees. They’re dropping branches all the time. The roots are coming up and they’re sprouting all the time and they’re a tree that I think it looks beautiful in some sense. It’s not an aspen tree as some people have called it so. And the trees, there’s a couple nice trees that are on the property but 85 percent of them in 10 years, 5 years they’re, it’s going to look a whole lot better, let me tell you. As a single home resident who is not extremely wealthy I have to work very hard to try to keep those up and if you walk by there, as some of these people have noticed, there’s trees falling down. They grow to the light and they’re just going down all over the place but I too love the trees so thank you. Any other individuals wishing to come forward? Seeing no one, you sure? No one, I’ll close the public hearing at this point in time and open it up for, based upon public comment. Any additional questions or comments of the commissioners? Can we just, Alyson could you just talk about that water drainage system on the south side again just so that we’re clear and what the jump was. That higher elevation and the impact on Lake Lucy Road if any. Fauske: Certainly. So with regards to, so the drainage pattern is, as you can see here, this is approximately the area where the biofilter basin would be. That takes that southern drainage area that we’ve been discussing. It would discharge into the existing storm sewer underneath Lake Lucy Road which is shown here in green to the south and from there the drainage pattern is shown here. It goes underneath a driveway. Winds back down. Goes underneath a driveway again. Through a low area here and then ultimately to the lake. I believe the area where we’re speaking of the bounce is in this vicinity. I apologize I’m not exactly clear where that is but the bounce that they’re referring to and hence the reason for not only requiring the post development discharge rate to be less than existing but the volume to be less than existing is that due to the grades in this area south of Lake Lucy Road where it would discharge to, is that there’s no way for the area to outlet and therefore there would be a pooling of up to 5 feet of water before it would find an overland route to continue south and so hence the reason for no additional volume to the south. Aller: So with no additional volume you wouldn’t have the bounce? Fauske: Correct. Aller: Or less bounce than we do today. Fauske: Correct, and so the staff report had that in there to again to memorialize how we’ve come about to the plan that’s being presented and the reasons why and also to have, to memorialize that we’ve looked at the downstream impacts to the development. 22 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 Aller: And the, just a quick follow up with the retaining walls. Retaining walls have been mentioned. All our retaining walls over 4 feet have to engineered. Fauske: Correct. Aller: And so any retaining walls here, those are conditions that are in the report and would be required of the developer. Fauske: That’s correct. Any retaining wall over 4 feet has to be engineered and requires a building permit. Aller: Any additional questions? I think it was 4 wasn’t it? Fauske: They’ve eliminated some from the time we first met with some of the plan iterations I think that’s important to point out that we’ve had some benefit for example with having this drainage feature as Terry Forbord had mentioned combined into one system here. We actually, there was originally a retaining wall in this area so that one was eliminated. The other areas where there’s retaining walls is proposed here between Lots 9 and 10 and then at the back here of Lot 9, at the back of Lot 8. Around here at Lot 6 and Lot 5 and that’s, as you can appreciate with an infill development where you’re meeting up to the grades of the adjacent properties, often times you do see retaining walls in the area. Tietz: I think it was stated that that Lots 1 through 5 will drain to the south but actually 7 and 6 drain around a 90 degree corner to the south too so you know there’s, these retaining walls, you know hard edges are created because of the property boundary and it’s not necessarily compatible with the adjacent property or the where the topography comes together. It’s, you know there’s several areas here that just seems to be really forced onto the site and I know that they studied 22 alternatives but you know it’d be a much more pleasing, if I were going to buy a three quarter of a million to a million two house, if you reduce those and put, you know look at 7, 6 and 7 together and 4 and 5 together you can mitigate retaining walls and change drainage and end up with 9 lots instead of 12 lots and up in the upper corner you can eliminate flag driveways. Three flag driveways you can eliminate. You can eliminate potentially reduce or minimize retaining walls and maintain your drainage patterns but reduce the number of lots and have a better merging of property lines. We have no idea what’s going to happen to the west in the future. Aanenson: We did look at that. We provided access to those property to the north. There’s 2 lots there. There’s one is under 15 so it can’t be further subdivided and the other one could potentially be subdivided. Probably just like in this process they’d have to, efficiency would be if they combine together. Likelihood of that because they’re smaller you only get one additional lot. Less likely because you don’t get the lot when you have the value of 2 homes to try to get one additional lot. Could the one lot come in and try to do a flag lot? That would also require a variance on that circumstance. We did look at that. 23 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 Tietz: Did you look at, seriously look at eliminate flag lots? Aanenson: That’s always an option. Tietz: Pardon? Aanenson: That’s an option. Tietz: No but did you in the studies, were those studied to eliminate flag lots? There’s 3. Aanenson: Correct. Correct. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair? Aller: Yes please. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission. Thank you. There’s a lot of good dialogue and good questions happening from both the residents and on the Planning Commission. Eliminating home sites sometimes seems like a nonchalant cure in solving something but it would destroy the development. It wouldn’t happen because of the economics. Notwithstanding all the very positive things that happen in a process like this, at the end of the day it’s no different than the City’s budget that they operate in day in and day out. They have to remain economically feasible and with a neighborhood community that we’re creating here it also has to be economically feasible. The development cost per unit on this property is extraordinarily higher than a like kind green fill development in Chanhassen so elimination of any home sites would kill the deal. Aller: Thank you. Aanenson: Can I just go back to that point? Certainly the Planning Commission has discretion on how you want to respond to variance requests, whether you approve them or deny them. The staff had supported recommending approval but you certainly have discretion on that. Aller: Comments, questions? Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: There was mention of monitoring the water that might move southward after the development is completed. Who would be responsible for doing that and who would pay for it and how often would it occur if there was a suspicion that the volume had changed? Fauske: After a development is installed, I’ll just back track one moment. I apologize. Through the development contract which we previously discussed at this meeting, the City takes a security for all the improvements installed with the development. Included in that is stormwater 24 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 and after the developer’s installed all the improvements the financial security that the City collects to insure that the project is installed per the approved plan, we release a portion, the majority of that security but we hold on to a portion of the storm sewer security for that very reason so for a 3 year period we’re able to monitor the storm sewer system and insure that it’s functioning so we do have, and I would, the reason we’ve chosen 3 years is you can, any anomalies in a dry year you can hopefully get through the next year and it will be an average year so that we can have a monitoring period to insure that it’s installed per the plan and is functioning properly and hold the security to insure that any changes necessary to that system are completed. Madsen: Thank you. Fauske: You’re welcome. Hokkanen: Can we talk about trees? Aller: Let’s talk about trees. Overstory or understory? Hokkanen: The landscape plan is short 45 trees. Does the developer think they can place 45 more trees on there? Can we require them if it was to approve 2 front yard trees? I mean instead of 1. It doesn’t even look like there’s 1 front yard tree per lot. I mean that would help with stormwater management with the canopy. Anything? Aanenson: Alyson can you go over to the landscaping plan? Thank you. Yes, so one of the things we talked about is there’s an Outlot A putting, excuse me Outlot 1. Putting some additional trees there and looking at that. That’s something that we’d have our Forester look at. Best placement it was her recommendation to take them out of the right-of-way area so that would be something that we could look at just as was brought up before. We could look at placement once the house is, again you’re looking at a box so that doesn’t, we don’t know what that plan’s going to be because the consumer, the buyer is going to pick the house plan that they want and so when they’re represented it gives people a false impression. We require a 60 by 60. These are substantially larger because what they’re showing is the building envelope so that’s the envelope they can build within to meet all the setback requirements so depending on how that sits on the lot, yeah there would be opportunities for trees and I think that’s something we could look at as we, if this plan was to move forward that’s something that we would come back with the Forester’s recommendation on that. Where those would go. Hokkanen: Because some developments we have requirements of 2 trees in the front instead of 1. Aanenson: Exactly, yep. 25 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 Weick: In fairness though to that statement, there’s 66 trees shown here. To get, we would need 45 more trees. I mean we’re not talking about adding 10 trees. I mean this is, I don’t even see regardless of how big or small the houses are on those pads, there isn’t room for 45 more trees. There just isn’t and so, okay. You could stuff them in Outlot 1 just like you stuffed them along Lake Lucy and I’m not sure that does what we, what the true intent of that canopy coverage is. That’s my opinion. Hokkanen: I’m not a lover of flag lots. Not my favorite. I don’t think it’s, if there was a way around it I would like to see a way around it but it’s not my favorite. Aller: Well let’s talk about if the variance is not then granted because the flag lots don’t meet the requirements what. Hokkanen: Just my opinion. Weick: Yeah but I’m not sure. Aller: But we need to discuss it because we have to decide on it. Weick: Right. I mean whether it’s our preference or not for flag lots, I don’t know. I mean I’m trying to think of the, to Commissioner Tietz’s point the, if eliminating the flag lots helps place lots better, or more efficiently help with drainage or something to that effect you know I can see denying that portion of the variance but if it’s simply you know our preference I don’t think, I don’t know that whether we should do that. Hokkanen: Because if you remove them, as he stated it’s going to kill the project because they need that many lots. Aanenson: Can I just give you a little bit of our justification in looking at this? All those lots are significantly over the 15,000 and so we looked at kind of in the surrounding area. The Shadowmere subdivision just across on Lake Lucy has flag lots because they were permitted at that time. The main reason why we put the flag lot as a variance request is we wanted to make sure how the houses were oriented because we had people that were, just like we talked about, that lot to the left. If you put a house behind then it doesn’t seem right so this way they’re facing, really more facing the cul-de-sac so it’s more traditional a look. It’s just that the area is already larger kind of pinched up in that corner so that was our basis on whether that’s right or wrong that’s the stance we took on that. Aller: Any other comments at this point in time? Sir yes. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission, Terry Forbord. I want to just comment briefly on flag lots. I’m guessing as residents within this community many of you have lived here a long time or perhaps even in the west metro. Flag lots are all over the city of 26 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 Minnetonka. All over the city of Wayzata and they’re very common in the development patterns that exist and when you drive through most of those communities today you can’t tell whether there’s a flag lot or not. You see houses within tree canopies and streetscapes that are beautiful. And as was pointed out by staff until the last probably 10-15 years ago they were quite common in Chanhassen so I could take you on a tour all around the Lake Minnetonka area and there are thousands and thousands of them and there are many situations that create a better streetscape by doing it. The particular variance that Kate was referring to allows to be able to turn the house so the house is facing the streetscape which is very important purely from a marketing and merchandising and historic look into the future, or a future look so when you drive through the neighborhood you don’t go why is that house kiddy whampus and turned sidewalks? So I encourage all cities, and I do consulting for cities. I’m working in Prior Lake right now helping them on this very issue so otherwise you do not end up with what I refer to as an articulated lotting pattern. Having an articulated lotting pattern is better than tunnel vision on a street and when those are built and the canopies and the landscaping develops you go through and they’re beautiful. I’m sure everybody here has seen projects that I call, what are plagiarized all the time by large national developers where the streets are straight. Everything’s a postage stamp. Everything is in a grid pattern. There’s no articulation in any of the lots. What we’re doing here is adding articulation in a very critical point not only from the topography but from the land form that is there and I, regardless of our site I would strongly encourage the City to continue to promote flag lots because they’re an asset and they make for a better neighborhood community. Aller: Thank you. Any additional comments or discussion on the matter before us? We’ve got several things. With regard to infill I think we have to balance the infill and the difficulty of infill with the fact that a property owner has the right to try and attempt to get the value of his property and we as a city have to represent them as well as the neighbors that were there before and I think that balancing is what we’re looking for. At least that’s what I’m looking for and I’m seeing that so far in the ability to work with the City and the efforts that have been made in going through the process. The fact that our denial or granting would kill the project really doesn’t have an impact on me. I’m looking at the project to see whether it’s beneficial for the neighborhood and what do we get by granting the variance as opposed to looking for a reason to deny it and I think we gain the opportunity to have a better water rate and flow and stormwater system and as a result of that I’m easily swayed by the fact that I think it’s a reasonable use of the property and I think that’s what we should look at in making our determination so I’ll be voting in favor. Weick: If I could ask for clarification on what we are, what we will be voting on? It feels like there’s 3 things. So there’s the rezoning. Aanenson: Correct. Hokkanen: Right. Weick: And we do have a, that’s something that we’re voting on. 27 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 Aanenson: Correct. Weick: There’s the variances. Aanenson: Correct. Weick: And then there’s the actual preliminary plat approval for 12 lots. Aanenson: Correct. Weick: Okay. Aller: Did you want to discuss any of those 3 issues? Weick: I would. You know I guess, and I appreciate your comments. I would, this is very difficult. I’m very sensitive, like you are to the ability to, for homeowners to develop their land. That’s absolutely, you know we should be supporting that. I don’t have any issue with any of the variances actually. I don’t have an issue with rezoning the property to single family residential. I do, as a matter of what I’m trying to do is figure out how the preliminary plat for the 12 lots, and I can’t reconcile some of the significant issues that I see with the approval. So the approval of the preliminary plat and sorry for jumping around but you know it has to meet the subdivision regulations and the zoning ordinance so I read that and I tried to find, I tried to make sure that we meet the zoning ordinance and the subdivision regulations. To me there’s 3 significant issues that this property is dealing with. One is the canopy or the tree coverage. It’s significant to me. I don’t think it can be remedied. I don’t think that should necessarily stop the subdivision but to, we can’t correct that to the point of getting to the city regulation I don’t think. I think we’re too far off there so I think that’s a significant issue. I think the hard cover, and I know that’s something that I guess deal with further, further through the process but based on flag lots and based on the way things are configured I’m significantly concerned about hard cover and I have not been, although attempts to reassure us that the mitigation of the drainage will be easy, I don’t see that and I certainly don’t see it in the report. It feels anything but easy so I think there’s 3 issues that we’re really dealing with and that the residents around are dealing with and so when you look at the conditions of the zoning ordinance, for instance condition on page, well it’s 1 but, you know number 4, letter e. The proposed use can be accommodated with existing public services and will not over burden the city service capacity. I think we heard about sewage being an issue. We heard about drainage being an issue. In 5(c), the physical characteristics of the site including but not limited to topography, soil, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion siltation, susceptibility to flooding and stormwater drainage are suitable for the proposed development. I am not convinced of that. 5(d), the proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm basins, same kind of thing. I’m not convinced. And then G(1) is the same. It deals with drainage so, and then you know we can overcome that if you follow in 6. I don’t believe the hardship is a mere inconvenience so I don’t think that’s met and I don’t believe that 28 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 the granting of a variance of the plat would, would not be substantially detrimental to the neighborhood basically paraphrasing what 6(d) says. So when I really try and take some of the emotion out of it and what people are trying to do with their land and what neighbors I think what I’m hearing are trying to accomplish as well, based on the facts that I see here, I don’t think we meet the conditions for the preliminary plat and for that reason I would not vote for this. That’s my, thank you. Aller: Okay, any other comments? Hokkanen: I want to thank Steve for kind of breaking that down because I similarly agree with almost everything you know without getting into details. Some of the conditions. If they could be met or they will be met that’s different and we assume that they will because it’d be a condition but I’m a little torn on this as well. Weick: And we’ve dealt with these issues before but they’ve been more singular. Just as these start to add up to me, we have big issues on this property and I’m not sure we’re ready with the current plan. I really appreciate that we’ve gone through multiple plans but just because we tried hard in my opinion doesn’t mean we necessarily got there. Hokkanen: Close. Aller: Anything? Tietz: I just comment on the tree thing. I think that can be dealt with Steve. I think the 45 plus or minus trees after the fact, kind of like my comment earlier about banking trees and then the developer’s responsible for bringing them as the development evolves I think could be very appropriately done and really add great value to the neighborhood if they’re placed strategically and give homeowners an option of the type of tree and where they want them placed and then planted appropriately so I’m not as concerned about that. I think the big issue is just confirming the stormwater and the drainage. You know the number of lots does bother me but I understand the situation and obviously economics come into play. I’d like to see 9 foot retaining walls eliminated instead of hard 90 degree edges at the corner of the property that you know somehow kind of fits better. I can’t change that so. Weick: One of the, you know in sitting through a lot of these we talk about after the fact like with hard cover or with trees. You know we look at the lot and we say well, the house is there and you can’t put a tree within 10 feet of the house and the street is 15 feet from that and so the area to put a tree is very small and to that I would say that’s our fault because there was a tree there and we decided to put a house there. A big house, right? A three quarter to a million dollar house or whatever it is and we built it in such a way, we approved it in such a way that the only area to put a tree was 6 square feet and we put a tree there and so I would argue to say that could it be done? Yes but we create a condition that makes it so difficult that I just question creating that condition. That’s where I’m hung up and yeah. 29 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 Aller: I look at this as an ongoing process because even though we’re making decisions today it’s to the preliminary plat. It’s not to a final plat. It’s not to the building permit. It’s not to the contracts that are going to be entered into with the City so I look at the direction that we’re going and as you know I’m a water guy. I want to know where it’s going and how much is going there and I want to preserve it as well as the trees to the extent possible but I think when we’re looking at the process here we’re looking at conditions that are being placed upon them if we move this forward that we have to rely on the fact that we’re going to follow through and get them done, and if they don’t meet the requirements for hard cover then it’s not going to be built. Weick: True. Hokkanen: Correct. I think this discussion is good to bring up these points. That they are important to us so moving forward the conditions can be met. Aller: And that it’s not the final decision. Hokkanen: Correct. Aller: And that they, when I look at these things I also look at the extent to which the developer has been working with the staff and working with the community, not just because it goes through iterations of plans. I would think everybody would be happy if we could hit the mark on the first plan every time but the fact that they go through that process in making the sausage so to speak, you’re going to come out with a better product and the fact that they go through it again and again and we have these discussions again and again and they listen to the community and to the impact that the community statements had on them is something that I take into consideration and I feel more comfortable with when I look at are our conditions going to be met. And with the number of trees versus houses I just, it’s a difficult thing because how are we to determine how many trees a person should have on it’s lot? Weick: Agreed. Aller: And where do you replace the house, the home that somebody wants to build on a lot versus the fact that they may not want trees. They want a house so we try to balance that the best we can. And the fact that we require it and that it goes through the process with the requirement we’ll end up with I believe a better product in the end, and they might be smaller trees. They might not be huge oaks but they’ll be overstory and they’ll help again my thing with water is that overstory trees are the best thing that we can do. It’s our initial defense to runoff. Weick: I would say if we believe this iteration provides the room down the road you know to make the changes necessary to meet some of the requirements then I can see where, I can see approving it. 30 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 Aller: And I think, but I think that that’s what you need to decide. Weick: Right. Aller: How you’re going to vote on it. Weick: I agree. Yeah. Aller: Personal viewpoint and whether or not, you know I’m not here to sell you. If you have any other questions for staff or anything let’s get it out in the open and build a record. Aanenson: And I don’t know if you saw it but part of our discussion in going back to the retaining walls is you know having a walkout versus a rambler on some of those lots would also change whether or not you need a retaining wall so there are other choices which we’ve pointed out in our staff report too. Generous: …stormwater runoff. Aanenson: Some of it, yes. Tietz: And those lots, what 7 and 8 or those two, they have to come around an 80 degree bend. Aanenson: Right, that’s true. Aller: And that’s also grading and elevation. Tietz: Right. Aanenson: They’re changing the elevation for a lookout right. Tietz: Bring those up? Aanenson: Right. So we pointed that out in the staff report. Tietz: Yeah I noticed that. Aller: Sir. Terry Forbord: Commissioner Aller, members of the Planning Commission, Terry Forbord. Those are excellent questions that both Commissioner, is it Weick? Weick: Weick. 31 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 Terry Forbord: Weick and Hokkanen brought up. Here’s the saving grace. Number one, on the record I give you my utmost commitment to continue working with the staff and a best in class professional scenario that we have enjoyed over the last 5 months. But here’s the saving grace for the City. All the issues that you brought up mean that you have to have an incredible staff to take care of each and every one of those and the good news is you do and you’ve witnessed it before. As Commissioner Aller just, you took the words out of my mouth moments ago. Advancing this forward as recommended by the staff, the city staff, to the City Council and working through to the final design and ultimately the final approval at the City Council where all the rubber ends at meeting the road including the developer’s agreement and everything else, all those issues that were just brought up by you I am absolutely confident that your city staff and city attorney will take care of those issues and you need not worry about them. I’m glad that you bring them up because they’re very critical and I give you my commitment that we will work with the staff to accomplish all of those criteria. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Any other comments or? Hokkanen: No, ready for a motion. Aller: I’ll entertain a motion as anyone deems fit. It could be any motion. It can be to table. It can be to deny. It can be to grant. Yusuf: Can I just ask one question? Where do we stand on this one? The remaining 4 conditions of approval that were. Aanenson: That’s just their comments to our, those conditions are, they’re refuting those or have some additional comments on it. We’re sticking by our conditions in the staff report. Yusuf: Okay that’s what I just didn’t hear the staff’s feedback on that. Aanenson: Correct. We’re not in concurrence on those. Aller: We haven’t heard a motion to change or modify those conditions. Yusuf: Just want to confirm since the motion that we’ll be making will be the original conditions of approval. Aanenson: Right or the Chair says, we forward those as part of the record as this goes up to City Council. Yusuf: Okay. Aller: Were you about to make a motion? 32 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 Yusuf: I can very well do it. Aller: Thank you. Yusuf: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve rezoning of the property from Rural Residential (RR) to Single Family Residential (RSF) and preliminary plat approval for 12 lots, one outlot and public right-of-way with variances for the use of flag lots, cul-de-sac bubble size, and the local street centerline offset of less than 300 feet and a building setback variance from the cul-de-sac bubble for Lot 11 subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: So I have a motion by Commissioner Yusuf. Do I have a second? Madsen: Second. Aller: Having a motion by Commissioner Yusuf and seconded by Commissioner Madsen, any further discussion? Yusuf moved, Madsen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve rezoning of the property from Rural Residential (RR) to Single Family Residential (RSF) and preliminary plat approval for 12 lots, one outlot and public right-of-way with variances for the use of flag lots, cul-de-sac bubble size, and the local street centerline offset of less than 300 feet and a building setback variance from the cul-de- sac bubble for Lot 11, plans prepared by Stantec dated 5/6/2016, subject to the following conditions of approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation: Building: 1. Provide a 1:200 “clean” plat drawing. 2. Demolition permits required for the removal of any existing structures. 3. Buildings may be required to be designed by an architect and/or engineer as determined by the Building Official. 4. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. 5. Retaining walls over four feet high require a permit and must be designed by a professional engineer. 6. Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services. 33 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 7. The applicant and or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. Engineering: 1.The applicant shall include a chart with the maximum hardcover allowed on each lot. 2.The lots shall be graded to drain away from proposed building locations. 3.Spot elevations shall be shown on the plans to verify that water will drain away from buildings at the following locations: Lot 6 backyard, Lot 7 backyard, the east side of Lot 1, the highpoint of the side yard of Lot 10. 4.The grading plan shall be revised to show a spot elevation at the centerline of each driveway where it meets Street A. 5.Draintile is required for all lots where stormwater runoff will flow from the back to the front of the property. Draintile shall be shown on the plans for Lots 6, 7, 8, and 9. 6.The applicant shall identify the discharge point of the culvert shown on the existing topography near the existing driveway of 1600 Lake Lucy Road. If it is a driveway culvert, the applicant shall have it removed or bulkhead and abandoned. 7.The plans shall identify the areas intended for stockpiling materials on site during construction. 8.Top and bottom wall elevations shall be shown for the retaining wall on the eastern property line of Lot 9. 9.Any retaining wall that crosses lot lines shall be owned and maintained by a Homeowners Association (HOA). 10.The development plans shall call out the material of the retaining wall. The following materials are prohibited for retaining wall construction: smooth face, poured in place concrete (stamped or patterned is acceptable), masonry, railroad ties and timber. 11.Boulder walls shall not be taller than six feet. 12.The applicant shall have their surveyor confirm all easements and right of way shown with a recent title survey before final plat. 34 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 13.Easements over drainage swales, basins and storm water pipes shall be called out as “Drainage and Utility” easements. 14.Retaining walls and an entry monument are proposed within City easements. These elements shall be relocated outside of the standard perimeter drainage and utility easement boundaries, expecting the retaining wall on Lots 5 and 6. 15.The retaining wall on Lots 5 and 6 requires an encroachment agreement. 16.The preliminary plat shows a signage easement on Lot 1. This shall be a paper easement between Lot 1 and the development’s HOA. 17.The applicant shall name Street A with coordination with the Fire Marshall prior to submittal for final plat review. 18.The applicant shall include the horizontal alignment tabulation for Street A in the plans. 19.The developer shall show construction limits for utility work below Yosemite Ave and submit a staging and restoration plan with their final plat submittal. 20.A street light shall be installed at the intersection of Street A and Yosemite Avenue. 21.Driveways shall be shown on the plan in the final plat submittal. 22.Driveways shall be designed to meet all standards in City Code §20-1122. 23.The sidewalk does not continue north of Street A, therefore the pedestrian ramp shall not be constructed at the intersection of Street A and Yosemite Avenue. 24.The pedestrian ramp on the northwest corner of the intersection of Lake Lucy Road and Yosemite Avenue shall be replaced per City of Chanhassen Standard Detail Plates. 25.The sanitary sewer pipe shall be insulated wherever it is less than 6 feet deep. T 26.The portion of the sanitary services that lies within the right-of-way shall be gravity-flowing. 27.The sanitary sewer/water main crossing on Lot 1 may be in conflict. The applicant’s engineer shall verify this when the utility profiles are drafted. 28.SMH 5 shall be moved to be centered between the building pads for Lots 5 and 6. 29.The sanitary services within the cul-de-sac bubble shall be revised to eliminate bends and cleanouts within the right-of-way. 35 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 30.The utility plan sheet shall be revised to call out the City of Chanhassen as the local authority in Note 13. 31.The plans shall call out C900 material for the water main pipe. 32.The sanitary sewer/water main crossing on Lot 1 may be in conflict. The applicant’s engineer shall verify this when the utility profiles are drafted. 33.Two additional hydrants shall be installed, one at the intersection of Street A and Yosemite Avenue and one at Station 3+00 of Street A. 34.Water and sewer partial hook-ups are due at the time of final plat. The partial hook-up fees will be assessed at the rate in effect at that time. Environmental Resources: 1.A revised tree preservation plan and calculations must be submitted to the city prior to final approval. 2.All required plantings must be located on private property outside of public right-of-way. The landscape plan shall be changed to reflect this requirement. 3.Ash trees shall be removed within the proposed tree preservation area. Removals shall be directed by the city. 4.A revised landscape plan with a detailed plant schedule listing quantities for each individual species shall be submitted to the city before final approval. 5.The proposed tree preservation area in the northeast corner of the development shall be incorporated into outlot including wetlands. Fire: 1.Proposed street name will be submitted by the applicant to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. 2.Two addition fire hydrants will be required: one at the south/west corner of Yosemite and Street “A” and the second one on the south side of street “A” by Sta.3+00. 3.A three-foot clear space shall be maintained around fire hydrants. 4.Street sign(s) (temporary allowed) shall be installed prior to building permits being issued. Fire Marshal must approve signage. 36 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 5.Prior to combustible home construction fire apparatus access roads capable of supporting the weight of fire apparatus shall be made serviceable. 6.An addition address number will be required for lot #9. Its location shall be at the entrance of the private driveway. Sign location and size must be approved by the Fire Marshal. 7.Prior to combustible construction fire hydrants shall be made serviceable. 8.No burning permits will be issued for tree/ brush removal. Parks: 1.Full park dedication fees for 10 lots shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of requiring parkland dedication. 2.Dedication of a 20-foot wide trail and a utility and drainage easement between lot 7 and lot 8. 3.Planning, engineering, and construction per city standards of an 8-foot wide bituminous trail within this easement connecting public Street “A” and Pheasant Hill Park. 4.Relocation of the public sidewalk to the south side of Street “A”. Planning: 1.The front lot lines for lots 5 shall be the north property line, for lots 8 and 9 the east lot lines. 2.The entry monument may not be located within the right-of-way and must be located outside of the sight triangle. A sign easement shall be dedicated where the monument sign will be located. Water Resources: 1.Runoff rates and volumes cannot be increased to the south. 2.Curve numbers and drainage areas shall accurately reflect pre and post-construction conditions. 3.The stormwater management practices shall achieve a new overall reduction of at least 90% for total suspended solids and 60% for total phosphorous using industry accepted removal rates. This includes manipulation of the NURP50 Particle Distribution. 37 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 4.The sump manhole and SAFL Baffle shall not be included in the P8 model as the P8 model already assumes pretreatment. 5.All sumps with SAFL baffles shall be a minimum of 3 feet in depth. 6.The applicant shall prepare and submit a Surface Water Pollution Prevention Plan that contains all required elements from Parts III and IV of the NPDES/SDS Construction Permit. This shall be a standalone document. 7.Any disturbance of the buffer areas shall be restored with native vegetation appropriate to the area and the plans shall note this and the seed mix to be used. 8.A plan shall be prepared showing the placement of wetland buffer monuments. 9.All buffer monuments shall be installed prior to the sale of any lots. 10.All stormwater practices shall be place into a drainage and utility easement if not included in an outlot. 11.All drainage swales shall be included in drainage and utility easements and the development shall make any future builder and homeowner aware that these may not be altered without submittal of a revised grading plan to the city and subsequent approval of that revised plan. 12.The development contract shall include language indicating that the Homeowners’ Association shall be responsible for any landscaping work associated with the biofiltration feature and the city shall maintain the associated infrastructure including the underdrain, the filtration media and the piped storm sewer conveyance system. 13.The south biofiltration feature shall have a skimmer emergency overflow structure designed and installed. 14.A detailed plan of the filtration basins, consistent with the MN Stormwater Manual shall be submitted with the final plat submittal for review and approval by city staff. It shall include, at a minimum, a plan view, a profile view, all necessary elevations, any in situ soil preparation, methodologies to be employed to protect from construction traffic, soil filter media specifications, any plantings and any appurtenant work to be done. 15.Underdrains and drain tile shall have tracer wire and cleanouts. 16.Pretreatment shall be required for all filtration basins receiving piped discharge. 17.A forebay, surge basin or other approved energy dissipation device shall be provided for the inlet into the biofiltration feature included in the outlot. The selected practice must not create undue maintenance burdens. The end result shall be non-erosive velocities into the basin. 18.Efforts shall be made to raise the elevations of Lots 2 through 5 to assure positive flow towards the street and ultimately to the treatment devices. 38 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 19.The applicant, their consultant and city staff shall collaborate to minimize drainage concerns in the back and side yards of lots 6 through 10. 20.Storm Water Utility Connection charges due at the final plat are estimated to be $58,880.00. All voted in favor except for Commissioner Weick who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Aanenson: Just for clarification again this item does go to the City Council and that’s scheduled th for June 13 if anybody’s tracking this item. Aller: Correct and so any individual at home or present that wants to see the materials that we’ve been looking at again they’re on the website in the City. Please feel free to investigate them. Pull them up. We’ve tried to build a good record of the comments before us for the City Council to look at and contemplate on June 13, 2016. Thank you. Terry Forbord: Mr. Chair, members of the Planning Commission. Thank you very much for your time, your commitment, and your service to the community and your review of this complicated application. We greatly appreciate it. Aller: Thank you sir. Okay we’ll move onto the second item on the agenda tonight. PUBLIC HEARING: 4060 LAKERIDGE ROAD, WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT: REQUEST FOR INSTALLATION OF TEMPORARY DOCK AT 4060 LAKERIDGE ROAD, EXCELSIOR (LOT 4, BLOCK 1, HIGHLANDS ON LAKE ST. JOE). APPLICANT/ OWNER: BRIAN LANG. Spreiter: Thank you Chairman Aller and commissioners. As stated this is the public hearing for the wetland alteration permit at 4060 Lakeridge Road. 4060 Lakeridge Road is located on the south side of Lake St. Joe within the, sorry I’m blanking on the neighborhood. Within the Highlands of Lake St. Joe neighborhood. The applicant is requesting a wetland alteration permit to construct a temporary dock on Lake St. Joe to utilize the lake for recreational purposes. This is the existing site and the location of the proposed dock overlooking Lake St. Joe. The applicant is requesting a wetland alteration permit in order construct a 3 ½ wide wood dock extending approximately 95 feet into the wetland to an accessible lake depth of approximately 4 feet. This is the approximate dock location in relation to the wetland boundary. The dock would be mainly located where it is primarily cattails and in a semi-permanent or permanently floodedarea. The wetland boundary is over here. There’s a slight slope that goes, well probably a 3 to 1 slope actually that goes down from the property to the wetland boundary. The dock that is constructed or would be constructed would have to allow water to free flow underneath it. The approximate impact as a result of the dock is approximately 19 square feet. That’s a result of the posts that are to be installed with the dock. This is, this meets the no loss criteria under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. The De Minimis criteria. Within there are certain maximum impacts 39 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 depending on where it is located for an area within the shoreland setback. The maximum in this case, the maximum is 20 square feet. Per city code and state shoreland rules, a dock is an allowable use on a single family residential lot. This wetland alteration permit application has been submitted in order to determine if impacts are allowable under city code and the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act. The decision made on the wetland alteration permit would not play any role in the administration of the Highlands on Lake St. Joe HOA covenants and restrictions or usurp any decision that they made on the matter. I believe right now that docks are restricted or not allowed within the HOA covenants and restrictions. One of the conditions of approval that was made was that the applicant must notify the HOA if the wetland alteration permit is approved before installing a dock. Staff is recommending approval with conditions for this application. In summary the impacts in this case do not require replacement plan under the Wetland Conservation Act. The dock is an allowable use under Minnesota state rules and city code. However it does require a wetland alteration permit and the issue remains to be worked out between the HOA and the homeowner. That’s all I have tonight. I’ll take any questions. Aller: Thank you. It’s pretty straight forward. Our understanding is that this is just basically granting or permission so should the HOA allow for the dock to be constructed and utilized then they already have that permission. Spreiter: Right so the dock is already allowed under our city code and state rules. Our city code and our wetland ordinance just requires a wetland alteration permit because of it so that’s the decision that you’re making tonight. Tietz: It’s just administrative but would we require a letter from the homeowners association notifying us and the owner of approvals since they currently don’t allow that to occur? Spreiter: So that was not a condition of approval because legally, as I understand it we don’t, we can’t… Aanenson: I don’t think it would hurt to let the HOA know that it’s been approved so they’re aware of it but right, we have no… Tietz: Okay. I just wouldn’t want the HOA to find out after the fact and then they object and then will come back to the City even though we don’t have any authority over it. It’s just, I think it’s more of a courtesy than anything else. Aanenson: Correct. Spreiter: Sure and we could ask to be copied on that notification letter. Aller: Well the other thing is we don’t have much discretion in listening to their objection. Tietz: No. 40 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 Aanenson: I think you’re just saying letting them know that they got approval, is that what? Tietz: I just want, yeah. Aanenson: Yes. Tietz: Yeah I mean a lot of things happen then after the fact you ask for forgiveness you know. Aanenson: Right. Tietz: We might approve it but someone else might have an opinion. Aanenson: Yeah I don’t think it hurts to send the HOA a letter so they’re aware of it. Tietz: Yeah. Aller: And I think it’s a courtesy but as far as our decision I just want to. Tietz: No, it’s independent of. Aller: Right decision based on the criteria that’s before us and that’s a question of whether or not there’s a reason to deny it. Tietz: Agreed. Aller: Any additional questions? Alright, the applicant like to come forward and state your name and address for the record. Brian Lang: Brian Lang, 4060 Lakeridge Road. Aller: Okay Mr. Lang, tell us about the project. You’re obviously thinking about putting this in. Brian Lang: Sure, sure. So I’ve lived in the property for a couple of years and I’ve always wanted to put a dock in and so I’ve explored that numerous times and I’ve talked to the entire neighborhood for the most part. There’s been some transition in the neighborhood and what not and I’ve gotten push back maybe from like 4 or 5 people. Most of them came back and said if it’s okay under state law, city code we’re fine with it so that’s why I pursued this and I have spent a lot of time thinking about, because it seems like the biggest concern for people, because I don’t want, I want to avoid like just saying like oh he can’t put a dock in just because it’s in the covenants. I wanted to understand the reasoning behind it and based on the Minutes from ’93- ’95 as far as how that ended up in the covenants, there was concerns regarding the wetland and I’m not sure why they chose a mechanism to enforce that through the covenants but they did. So 41 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 I think really what I make sure that people understand is that I’ve taken time to think about that and that through obviously the staff’s research they’ve determined that it’s such a small amount of dockage that it’s really immaterial. It wouldn’t cause any impact to the wetland of significance and so I’ve decided that I’d go forward with this or what not. And actually I was standing on my property, you saw the picture of it. Like I have an acre. My property is an acre and I would say 50 percent or higher is probably wetland. If you take my property along with the other 4 potential I believe, potential docks that could go in and that cross a span of that entire wetland area, I would guess it’s probably like 2 acres. Approximately. Just looking at my property I know it’s an acre. There’s at least half of that if not more is wetland and I just looked up what how many, or how many square feet are in an acre. There’s 87,000, or there’s 43,000 square feet in 1 acre. 87,000 square feet in 2 acres. Assuming that the 4 people that have shoreland property decide to move forward with putting in a dock, that would be around 1,600 square feet, assuming it’s the same size as mine. That’s less than 2 percent of that entire area so based on that I felt, I don’t think there’s going to be any material impact along with what the staff was saying so I moved forward with filling out this application and trying to get permission. I understand the homeowners association and the fact that there is a covenant in there for no docks. Like I said I’m not sure exactly other than the wetland impact why it ended up in there because there’s 2 other docks in the lake already outside of our homeowners association. Just as a comparison one of the docks is, the dock that I would install is probably one-third, no more than one-third the size of a dock that’s currently in the lake. On the one end of the lake. So I just feel like it’s appropriate that I’d be able to put a dock in rather than the homeowners association just saying just because it’s in there. I just want to say that based on my interpretation the reason why it’s in there is concerns over the wetlands and I feel like, like I said through the staff report and through like math it’s not a significant portion of dock that could possibly go in the footprint of that area. And so like I said I have talked to a majority of the homeowners association, the actually members and there’s a handful of people that are opposed and they probably sent in emails. There’s probably a couple people here and I understand that but you know overall I just think it’s appropriate. I looked up on the DNR website. There is just shy of a mile of shore length around the inside of Lake St. Joe and adding 4 additional docks at the most I feel like is appropriate. Aller: Well we’re only going to deal with your application. Brian Lang: Sure, sure. Aller: Your particular, this particular dock that you made your request for so. Brian Lang: Yeah, yeah, sure. Sorry. I’m not…but anyway and I understand the I believe there’s a condition to get the homeowners association’s approval or that something coming back to the City regarding that. Like we had talked about I feel like the differences between myself and the homeowners association resides outside of the actual wetland alteration permit approval and I think you can be assured that if a majority of the association disapproves of it, I won’t be allowed to put that dock in there. They won’t allow that to happen so I just feel like putting that 42 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 condition in there is unnecessary and that’s my standpoint on that. And I’m just asking you to consider that. If you end up leaving it in there I’m still obviously going to pursue it because I know I’ve talken to like a majority of the neighborhood and I’m not concerned about that but it’s just another thing that 4 or 5 people can focus on and obstruct and change that I believe is appropriate and I’m free to answer any questions. Aller: Anyone have questions at this point? Aanenson: Can I give a little bit more background onto that subdivision since I worked on it. So those lots abutting Lake St. Joe are over, are approximately an acre because the shoreland district those had to be larger lots because that is a more pristine wetland. There were 2 existing docks at the time. Those are significantly older so when this subdivision went in that was something that we talked about. The pristine nature of it and that’s how it got put into the HOA requirements. Yes there were existing docks but they weren’t, so when we add, as we change just as we talked about tonight things change over time. Regulations and so this is something that we had looked at and that homeowners association put into their covenants to restrict it that way so that was the thought given behind that at the time. They were larger lots and to keep the lake pristine, that was the thought behind it. Brian Lang: Just as another comparable I was just, I drive around obviously Chanhassen a lot and I see docks all over the lakes and ponds and I was just, last week I was driving by actually Highway 41 and Lake Lucy Road and I noticed in Brendon Pond, and I’m not sure of the size but there’s literally 11 docks in there. In Brendon Pond and I don’t know the acreage of it but if something like that is appropriate I feel like adding 4 docks to a 15 acre lake seems appropriate in my estimation as well so that’s another standpoint. Aller: Great, thankyou. Brian Lang: And I can sit down if anybody has any questions or wants to come up I’ll respond to any questions. Thank you. Aller: Wonderful thanks. Aanenson: I’m just going to clarify a couple more things. So we’re talking a couple different things here. We only have so many natural environment lakes in the city. That’s why this is a different classification so we’re talking about ponds versus some other you know. There’s different criteria for different lakes. We have general recreational lakes. I think we have 3 classifications. Natural environment. Which one am I missing? So anyways so they have different classifications. We have some that you can use motorized. Some you can’t use a motorized on the lake so there’s different classifications so that’s how the ordinance came about. I’m not talking about the merits of the wetland alteration permit. I’m just talking about how we got to this place and what the conditions, what our thought process was because I’ve had a 43 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 couple of residents send my quotations from when we did the subdivision and that’s how we looked at that time because it was a natural environment lake and it was of good quality. Brian Lang: Can I respond? Aller: One second. We’re going to go ahead and open up the public hearing portion so we can hear and then if you want to respond we can see whether or not there’s any responses at that point in time so I’ll open up the public hearing portion of this matter before and if someone wishes to come forward and speak either for or against the application can do so at this time. Please come forward. State your name and address for the record ma’am. Sue Morgan: Yes, my name is Sue Morgan and I live at 4031 Kings Road which is directly across from this property and we’re 1 of the 2 grandfathered in docks on the property. It’s the longest one that Mr. Lang was talking about. We moved onto this property, well we owned the property since 1985. When we purchased the property we were informed by the City, and also I did some investigating to find out what kind of lake Lake St. Joe was and I found out that it’s a natural environment lake and what that meant was that access on Lake St. Joe was supposed to be restricted but there is a public access on Lake St. Joe so that’s questionable. Also the area, size of the lake. The depth of the lake and also the just the overall nature of the lake defines it as such and the access to the lake is supposed to be limited. When the Highlands was being built I did some additional research and actually tried to limit the development of the Highlands because of the nature of the lake. If you look through the Met Council, Linda and I have been kind of keepers of the lake since we’ve lived on the lake so we do lake monitoring for clarity and for consistency and quality overall and what’s important is not just the wetlands but also the lake itself. If you look on that website you’ll find that Lake St. Joe is Chanhassen’s only grade A lake which means it’s the highest grade lake in Chanhassen. That is up until 2009 when the quality has dropped to a B and part of that is the impact that all the development and all these houses in the Highlands have had on Lake St. Joe. So my concern is that, our concern when the Highlands was built was that access would be limited to the lake and it wasn’t just because we wanted to be the only guys on the block with a dock. There’s also another dock that’s grandfathered in but we were told when we purchased the property in 1985 that our dock was grandfathered in. If we took our dock out we could not put another dock in so we’ve maintained that dock since 1985 and we’ve been under the auspices that we could not build another dock so when the Highlands came in it was important to us that they were limited in how many docks they could put on Lake St. Joe and we were told that they couldn’t build any docks onto St. Joe which was fine. Now it seems as though I guess the quality of the lake isn’t important anymore and the wetlands aren’t important anymore and we just continue to build and build more and more on it and allow more access so you know we’re talking originally about 1 dock and then 4 docks keep being thrown into the conversation so it seems like perhaps the tides have turned and now Highlands want more than just 1 dock on the lake. My concern would be if this is approved then we have 8 acres on Lake St. Joe which is the last large parcel as far as I know on Lake St. Joe so if we decide to subdivide that and put 3-4 houses on it, then are we setting precedence that we can ask for additional docks for those properties if subdivided? So again my concern is that we kind of look 44 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 at long term, water quality is important. The only grade A lake in Chanhassen is now becoming a grade B because of access. Not to say that one more dock on Lake St. Joe is going to be an issue but if it gets passed and the HOA regulations get changed then that kind of opens the door and who knows what happens with the water quality on Lake St. Joe. So that’s it for me, thank you. Aller: Thank you Ms. Morgan. Any other individual wishing to come forward at this time please do so. Cathy McKenna: My name is Cathy McKenna. I live at 4150 Lakeridge Road in the Highlands on Lake St. Joe property. I’m one of the original owners of the property there and when we purchased the house we were given covenants. Covenants that we’ve had for 18 years that say no docks. When we bought the house we knew we could not build a dock on Lake St. Joe. Everyone who has lived there for the last 18 years and buys a house there knows that it says no dock, wharf and where it should be built or installed on or from any adjacent to any part of the lot that adjoins Lake St. Joe so that was a given. So we have a homeowners association and we also have a method in that association on how to amend these covenants and there is a process. You need two-thirds of the owners to vote and if it’s not the owners I believe it’s the bank that owns the property and you can change that and I think if we want to change that, that’s the way it should be done by the process that is here. We did have one homeowners association meeting when Mr. Lang was talking about the dock and there is resistance to changing our covenants because if we change the docks what do we change next? And if we don’t enforce the dock we can’t enforce anything. I feel if this wetland permit is granted and a dock attempts to go in that our homeowners association will be unfairly burdened with enforcing this and how we do that I’m really not sure. We’re 33 homes. We don’t have a legal fund. I don’t know what we would do but there is a principle I think and a process here. And Lake St. Joe as they talked about in 1995 they mentioned, and if you could bear with me they said that staff felt that based on the extensive all the wetlands that it really wasn’t appropriate to have additional docks there. Certainly they could try to get through the wetland alteration permit you know to try to get a common dock but there is a public access there. We felt based on the sensitivity of the area that it shouldn’t be allowed and Lundgren Brothers indicated to us that they would put it in their restrictive covenants that no docks be permitted. That was our original position. When it went to the Planning Commission most recently the Planning Commission wanted to say that if the covenants did change, which they certainly have the control to do outside of the City Council, then they would just be on notice that they would have to be required to have a wetland alteration permit. I guess my preference would be they try to keep the covenants to prohibit docks based on the sensitivity of that area. That really they shouldn’t have docks and there is a public access to use that. The Mayor said Lake St. Joe as it is is sort of a pristine lake in itself and they answered yes, correct. It is a natural lake. And I think there is a majority of homeowners in our association that do just want to keep it like it is. It’s beautiful. It’s been that way for 18 years and as you’ve already mentioned we’re trying to maintain that. So I don’t know where 4 docks came from but you know we were trying to keep our covenants in effect and I feel that if this 45 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 permit is granted that we would be unduly forced to try to make that happen. Thank you very much. Aller: Thank you Ms. McKenna. Any additional individuals wishing to come forward at this time? Yes sir, state your name and address for the record please. Mark Malinowski: My name is Mark Malinowski. I live on 7250 Minnewashta Parkway. I guess Brian you did have, say we could address you with questions? Brian Lang: Sure. Mark Malinowski: Were you aware. Aller: Sir, sir. Why don’t you just talk to me first because we’re. Mark Malinowski: Is this a court sir? Aller: It is not a court. That’s why I want you to just. Mark Malinowski: It’s just with respect that I speak to the individual that I’m addressing. Aller: Well but the process is you talk to us. Yeah. So you address the question. We’ll get it answered by him or by staff, okay? Mark Malinowski: Yes Andrew. Aller: Thank you. Mark Malinowski: Brian were you aware in the homeowners association that docks were prohibited? Brian Lang: Yes. Mark Malinowski: Thank you. I have another question. Kate you had mentioned that there were, at the time 2 docks on Lake St. Joe when Highlands went in. There were actually 3. Aanenson: Yeah I said 2 or 3. I can’t remember. Mark Malinowski: Well let me I do. Aanenson: Okay, thank you. 46 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 Aller: Sir I want you to continue to address me. State your position please and keep it to about 2 to 3 minutes. Mark Malinowski: I don’t think I can sir. 2 or 3 minutes won’t cover it. Aller: We’re going to try. Mark Malinowski: Okay, thank you. As the, a question came up regarding the other development and Terry I think Forbord, and I believe Terry Forbord also was a representative from Lundgren Brothers that had said to the Planning Commission I will handle that in a covenant or homeowners association that we will not have docks okay and I caught him out here. He has no recollection of it but I believe the Minutes of the meetings will show that. The City Council I understand, Planning Commission probably has no say in whether this alteration can be done or not because it meets a state statutes, et cetera. However I think that when developers come in and they assure Planning Commission, City Council that these will be covered in the homeowners association the same individual that covered it Terry is here addressing the other sub-development to take caution because he has no recollection of that when I spoke to him in the hall. Now I have another question about 4 docks possibly added to the, 4 docks added to the lake in addition to this 1 that’s proposed by Brian. I guess I’m not sure why it’s going to be much more than 4 because if the land, it doesn’t necessarily matter I don’t think if the land because I believe some of these lots actually go into the wetland right to the shoreland so there could be possibly much more than only the 4 docks. Again my position is I don’t own the land. You know all I know is what we were told as citizens when we came here in 1993 and were concerned. One thing too that I would say, I’m pretty much done Andrew but with the exception of there are beaver on the lake and my dog got bit by a beaver about 14 days ago and they can be pretty nasty and as far as, can I say one thing about trees as long as I’m up here. Aller: Sure. Mark Malinowski: Trees are very important. I own a farm in Wisconsin. I protect a forest. I have a lot of trees on my property but when it comes to a tree as a Planning Commission, there’s something in inventory. Now I do have a question on the inventory of a lot. Do they state the type of tree that it is? Aanenson: Yes. Mark Malinowski: Okay. So I guess the quality of trees, whether they’re cottonwood, aspen or whatever, when you replace a tree perhaps 1 red oak or 1 beautiful maple is worth more than several cottonwoods or trees that are possibly decimated by ash borer, thank you. Aller: Thank you for your comments. Any last individuals coming forward? There we go. Come on up. State your name and address for the record. 47 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 Maren Jecha: Hi my name is Maren Jecha. Last name is spelled J-e-c-h-a. I live at 4080 Lakeridge Road, adjacent to Brian’s property. Aller: Welcome. Maren Jecha: We are the second homeowners of our place and when we purchased the property we enjoyed the idea of having to look out onto a lake, onto a wetland area without restrictions. The idea of listening to the deer as they walk through the wetland area. To the raccoons that come up to eat off my birdfeeders. To the pheasants that are in the backyard. To the coyotes that have been in the back yard. A lot of that has been disappearing as I’ve noticed as development has taken place through this area and we’ve lived here for 16 years now. My other concern is to, even though my property is not actually attached to the lake but the idea of looking out onto the lake without the restriction of a dock to look at of people going out onto the dock. The restriction of the animals walking through this wetland. Having to encounter this dock in the night time as they walk through the wetland areas to get to their feeding or to hunt or to escape as prey. My also other concern is the children in the neighborhood and Brian’s children too in that they are young. I’ve had, I have 5 children of my own. I lived on lake property. I’ve lived, I have a lake cabin with marsh areas and tall grasses to restrict kids from getting into the lake and falling in and my concern is safety. My concern is safety that way not only for his but for other children in the development because this is a development for children. The houses are big for large families. And my other concern is the idea of allowing a dock when the covenants and homeowners association says that there are no docks. This is what we looked at. We were given the covenants before purchasing the property knowing that docks are not allowed along with other things like clotheslines and things like that which would deteriorate our home values. That’s all, thank you. Aller: Thank you. Any other public comments? Sue Morgan: I just have one added. Sue Morgan from 4031 Kings Road. Aller: Welcome back. Sue Morgan: Thanks. Just wanted to add that it’s not, for Brian it’s not an easy lake to have a dock on. It’s a muck bottom lake so you need mud feet about this big because your poles sink and because of the last 2 years the rain events we’ve had, and we have a very busy beaver, our dock resides under water three-quarters of the summer so you know it sounds like a grand idea but it’s not an easy lake to have a dock on so that’s it. Brian Lang: I just wanted to. Aller: Keep it to 1-2 minutes. Brian Lang: Oh yeah sure. 48 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 Aller: And respond to just issues that have presented. Brian Lang: Okay. I just wanted to respond to a couple items. I’ve been told that a number of times as far as when people have moved in they purchase their home based on the homeowners association covenants and I understand that but they also purchase a home under the understanding that the homeowners association covenants also say that if two-thirds a majority of the community agrees to change a covenant then that’s a possibility. So I just wanted to make a comment on that. And then the second thing as far as, I think there was a reference as far as how the process goes as far as getting approval and the mention the fact that you have to contact your, the way the language is written and that’s up to subject because it’s, some folks in the association making the assumption of that’s what it means without having the appropriate credentials to determine that and using that as an obstruction saying that you know we’re not even going to try because everyone’s got to go to the bank to get approval to have a covenant changed and that might be the case. I’m just saying that I don’t believe the people saying that have the credentials to determine the language in the covenants to assume that. And the second thing is we actually looked up, and I guess this is even, this part doesn’t matter so I won’t even say it. And then the last thing was as far as, oh the 4 docks. I was just saying that. There was no intention as far as my knowledge of the way I’m looking at the property lines and how the shoreline ends up being. That’s the way I determined that that I believe there’s a maximum potential for 4 more docks. That’s all I was saying. I wasn’t saying that anybody told me they were going to put docks in. I realize that potential is there. I just wanted to call that out. That the people, the other 3 households didn’t say you know what if you get this permit approved or what not and we get the covenants changed I’m putting in a dock too. I just wanted to make that clear because folks were getting kind of worked up about the 4 dock thing. And then lastly I understand the impacts that docks can cause. I read a lot about it. We all clearly know there is, you couldn’t even count the amount of docks on lakes in the state and what I have proposed is the most limited amount of dock that I would need in order to actually access the water. There’d be a small amount of dockage actually in the water and the actual proposed length of the dock is what I need to just get through the cattails part and honestly I was out there on Sunday walking through and I can actually walk through probably like 70 percent of that so I probably wouldn’t even need even that much dock and the reality is what I’m trying to do is just to be able to access the lake without going to the public access which is on the far northeast corner of the lake and you’d have to take the road to get there. I’m just trying to put the minimal amount of dock in in order to use non-engine propelled watercrafts for example canoes, kayaks and what not and I feel like as a shoreline property owner regardless of the covenants I have just as much of a right as someone on the, any other part of the lake to put a dock in. If they’re okay with having a dock and they don’t feel like there’s a concern with their dock and an impact to the lake, the wildlife, what have you, then I don’t think I should have any moral or I shouldn’t feel guilt because I want to put a dock in and that’s my stance on that. If others were that passionate about it they would also take their docks regardless if they’re grandfathered in. Regardless or not the reality is we’re both shoreline property owners of this lake and the both, everybody who is should have the equal 49 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 amount of rights regardless if you’ve been there 20 years before a wetland ordinance or not. Thank you. Aller: Thank you. Mark Malinowski: I have one more comment. Aller: Sir just. Mark Malinowski: One minute. Aller: One minute, alright. Mark Malinowski: When Lundgren Brothers built Lake St. Joe another stipulation is they were to remove the third dock that was on the Boley property. That dock has not been removed yet and it is right, there’s poles left there. All they did was cut off the top of it and I propose that the City go to Lundgren Brothers or whoever and have them remove the rest of that dock as he promised they would do. Done. Aller: Thank you. Any additional comments from the gallery? None. We’re going to close the public hearing at this point in time and open it up for discussion. Interesting situation. Madsen: Are there rules about dock availability for different types of lakes that the City has? Aller: So Lake St. Joe in particularly, are there rules and regulations which would restrict the use of? Spreiter: Our ordinances follow the state shoreland ordinances which for each of the different classifications it has more to do with the land use and the development around the lake than it does the actual use. That includes motors, docks so to in short to answer your question no. There’s no different, it doesn’t differentiate between this lake and any other lake in regards to docks. Aanenson: Could I just add to that a little bit. So Lake St. Joe is, because it’s a natural environment lake. It doesn’t have, different lakes have different restrictions on it so this is a 15 miles an hour or less for boats, for speed on the lake. Madsen: Okay. Aller: Any additional comments? The question is putting, in my eyes is it putting the cart before the horse but is it up to me to decide that? I have reviewed the conditions and I would be hard pressed to find a reason to deny the permit and, but I do agree now with condition 1 which would say that he would have to have permission because there’s enough there for me to say let’s move 50 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 forward with this because I think we have to but I think we’re putting a reasonable condition on it to say or at least take it to the City Council for final action. Let the City Attorney look at it and he can make a request that that condition be removed at that time but that way we’re not interfering or interlocking with the potential for the homeowners association to have it’s rights enforced. Aanenson: Chairman Aller I did ask the City Attorney that question today. I think clearly you can kind of see the direction this is going. The homeowners association feels like if a dock goes up they’re left to forced to sue which puts them in a tough situation but we have no jurisdiction over the association so we really wanted to soft peddle that. Just say I think other requests that we, we certainly would send out a letter to the association’s president to say that the City, if that’s the way the City goes was to approve a wetland alteration. Just put them on notice on that. Aller: So that would be altering then condition number 1. Aanenson: Yeah I think Krista did say that instead of the word was we notify them. Not to get approval from. Spreiter: So I’m sorry, that condition was changed actually today after we spoke with the city attorney and I, maybe Kate can elaborate a little bit but basically the message was we can’t legally put that condition in there because we do not have jurisdiction over HOA’s. Aanenson: …we’d just say notification. Aller: Notification and that’s fine because that was my first blush indication but I would rather leave it to him at council but if we’re getting that information already. Aanenson: Yeah. Aller: Then that’s fine. And I would ask staff to look into that extra dock. Aanenson: Yeah. Aller: The existence violation, lack of violation, whatever. So any other comments? Questions. Yusuf: I have a question. Aller: Yes, Commissioner Yusuf. Yusuf: Please can you guys educate me on the Grade A versus Grade B difference in the lake and just kind of talk about the impact that one dock would have on the pristineness of the lake I guess. 51 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 Spreiter: Sure I don’t know if I can answer all that but she was referring to, we participate in the Met Council’s camp program. It’s a citizen monitoring program. We have citizens on almost every lake in Chanhassen. They provide data on a bi-weekly basis and then the data is compiled and then the lakes are given a grade based on water quality. So I didn’t know that one of, and correct me if I’m wrong but she was saying that it was a grade A lake and since the increased development around the lake it has dropped to a grade B. As far as the impact of docks themselves I would say it would be more use and use on the lake and land use that would be an impact but I guess I don’t have the research so I can’t answer accurately. Yusuf: Thank you. Just one more question on that. When you’re looking at the grading what parameters are taken into account? Are they testing for different mineral contents or something or is it just the clarity? Spreiter: It’s a combination of things but they send in samples to a lab and then they also measure yes water clarity. They take some just objective observations but then they also test for chlorophyll A, phosphorus, total phosphorus and total nitrogen and those 3 parameters kind of make up the overall water quality of the lake. Yusuf: Thank you. Aller: Additional comments, questions. I’ll entertain a motion if someone would like to make one. Yusuf: I’ll make the motion. Aller: Commissioner Yusuf. Yusuf: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the wetland alteration permit based on the conditions of the staff report. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Hokkanen: Can you note the change of the. Yusuf: Oh I’m sorry. Aller: As amended. Yusuf: Yes please. As amended please. Hokkanen: Thank you. Second. 52 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 Aller: Having a motion and having a second. Commissioner Yusuf made a motion which has been seconded by Commissioner Hokkanen on her last official night. Any further discussion? Yusuf moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the wetland alteration permit for 4060 Lakeridge Road subject to the following conditions: 1.No dock shall be placed without notification to the Highlands on Lake St. Joe Homeowners’ Association. 2.The dock must be installed in the shortest straight line distance through the wetland. 3.The dock and any associated watercraft must be located entirely outside of the 10-foot dock setback areas. 4.No fill shall be placed anywhere within the wetland beyond the allowed 20 square foot de minimis exemption. 5.No emergent vegetation shall be removed without appropriate permits from the MN Department of Natural Resources. 6.The dock shall otherwise comply with Chanhassen City Code. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Aller: Moving onto administrative presentations. th Aanenson: This item, can we just clarify this item 2 also goes to the City Council on the 13. Aller: Yes it does. Aanenson: So if anybody’s following this item. Anything presented, we did receive some emails, those will be also included in the packet. th Aller: Yes Monday, June 13. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Hokkanen noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 19, 2016 as presented. 53 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. th Aanenson: Thank you Chairman. On the April 25 the City Council approved Mr. Randall’s appointment to the Planning Commission. He has sat through the meeting. He is observing. And also I just want to acknowledge that this is Lisa Hokkanen’s, Commissioner Hokkanen’s th last meeting so round of applause, thank you. On Monday, May 9 the City Council did approve Chick-fil-A so that one’s still working through some stormwater issues too. The underground tank there. That one actually goes, does that go south underneath Highway 5. Aller: It crosses over right? Aanenson: Yeah so we’re trying to manage that still. We’re still working through that but they’re getting ready. Would hopefully be open this fall but got to work through their site plans. Again just to be clear on that the site plan we don’t approve any construction until every plan meets the requirements so that’s kind of the, and the site plan agreement or the development contract so that’s where that sits. I would like to go through with you schedule then for th upcoming meetings. We do have on the June 7 meeting we do have the Wilson Nursery subdivision. That’s also going to be an interesting subdivision. Challenging topography so I will say you know we’ve brought in subdivisions, the last 2 subdivisions we’ve brought in are larger lots so you know we’ve been doing a lot of smaller lots so we could have done smaller lots on that one too but we’re really trying to accommodate what, you know there’s different markets. Trying to hit the different market points on that so we also have a variance on Red Cedar Point. Just removal and reconstruction of a home which is actually improving stormwater issues and some sight lines so I think that’s a very positive one. We’ll give the oath of office to Mr. Randall when he’s here and then we have another variance on Leslee Curve and that’s for an additional shed over the 1,000 square feet. And then finally I’m going to do a summary of the visioning that you did. I’m presenting that to the Park and Rec on Tuesday but your next meeting I’ll just share with you some of the findings and then kind of look at the analytics as we look at our population growth. How many jobs in what sectors and how that, you know how we think about that as we move forward in some of our recommendations in the Comprehensive Plan so with that Chairman that’s all I had. Aller: Great. Alright I think that’s it for our agenda tonight. So with that I would just say Lisa I personally have enjoyed working with you and the vibrancy that you brought here and the professionalism that you brought to the commission and especially your passion to serve the residents of Chanhassen and just making it what could be a tedious process a little bit more fun. Hokkanen: Tried to. Aller: So thank you and I also look forward to Mr. Randall joining us at the next meeting and getting his unique perspective as we move forward. With that I’ll make a motion to adjourn or entertain a motion to adjourn. Would you like to? 54 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 17, 2016 Hokkanen: Motion to adjourn for the last time. Yusuf: Second. Hokkanen moved, Yusuf seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 9:55 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 55