Loading...
PC 2016 06 07 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 7, 2016 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, John Tietz, Nancy Madsen, Steve Weick, and Mark Randall MEMBERS ABSENT: Maryam Yusuf STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Kris & Dawn Knox 3801 Leslee Curve th Dough & Paula Steen 701 West 96 Street Mike Howe 2169 Stone Creek Drive Dave & Jennie Melin 3627 Red Cedar Point Road Court & Jeanne MacFarlane 3800 Leslee Curve Ladd Conrad 6625 Horseshoe Curve Dawne Erhart 9611 Meadowlark Lane OATH OF OFFICE: Chairman Aller administered the Oath of Office to Mark Randall. PUBLIC HEARING: 3627 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD – REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR HARDCOVER AND SETBACK ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 3617 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD, LOT 13 AND LOT 12 EXCEPT THE EAST 10 THEREOF, BLOCK 4. APPLICANT: DAVE & JENNIE MELIN. OWNER: ILMARS & KATHLEEN DUNDURS. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. Planning Case 2016-11 is a variance request from Dave and Jennie Melin. They’re requesting variances so they can build a new home on this property which is located on Red Cedar Point. Red Cedar Point is an older subdivision area. A lot of the plats were done in the 1920’s, 30’s and 40’s and so a lot of the lots don’t meet ordinance requirements. A lot of the houses don’t meet the ordinance requirement. This house was built in 1927. It’s approximately 6 feet from it’s south property line. Existing conditions, it’s a non-conforming status. Under non-conformities you can maintain what’s there. Any expansion would have to comply with ordinance so instead of doing that, keeping what they had there they’re requesting, they want to tear down the existing house and build a new one on site. They’re actually improving the situation immensely from what is existing there. Here’s a Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016 picture of the house and as you can see to the south of it the house behind it is quite a bit taller. They’re proposing a two story building to go on there but it will be back more where that pine tree is in the middle of this picture. On the west side of the property there’s a deteriorating retaining wall. As part of this project they would also be rebuilding that so it will meet with the modern code requirements. I don’t believe it’s over 4 feet so it will just be a zoning permit. The actual request is for a 13.6 foot shoreland setback variance from the 75 foot requirement which is 61.4 feet. This is actually an improvement from the existing house which is 60.8 feet from the high water mark and the setback variance is actually for the patio portion of the house that they’re proposing rather than the house itself which would be meeting the 75 foot shoreland setback. Additionally they are requesting a 4.8 percent hard cover variance to permit 29.8 percent hard cover on this site. This is a reduction from 34 percent hard cover which currently exists so we’re improving the situation both from setback standards and from the hard cover standard. And again they are moving the new house 10 feet from the side property line so there will be a little separation between this house. This future proposed house and the house to the south. Again looking at the existing survey the orange highlighted area is the non-conforming setback on the west side of the property. Just outlined the existing building footprint. Underneath you can see the 75 foot setback cuts a third of the way into the house so they’re moving the future house back at least that far. This is a survey of their proposed development. The red line around it represents the building envelope that complies with all the setback requirements. As you can see their proposed house meets that with the exception of there’s a small window well for egress purposes and that encroaches slightly into the 75 foot setback. The side egress window wells are permitted to encroach into that side yard. However our ordinance does not specify that the lake setback is a required yard and so we’re including that as part of the variance application and review and approvals. This area is, there’s a lot of non-conformities in Red Cedar Point and the ones that show up in X are all the properties that don’t meet the shoreland setback requirements. The other ones have other variances or non-conforming issues that are involved in it. I can continue further to the west with this so it would almost completely be redden out so just to understand that setbacks from the lake haven’t been maintained as well in there because of the ages of a lot of the houses that went in so. Staff is recommending approval of the variance application and the hard cover variance subject to the plans that are included as part of the staff report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Decision and with that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: Anyone have any questions at this time? Weick: The deck. Aller: Commissioner Weick. Weick: The deck is included in the hard cover calculation? Generous: The patio yes. 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016 Weick: Or the patio. Generous: Yes. Weick: Okay. And it’s part of the setback variance? Generous: Correct. That is the setback variance. Weick: It is the setback. Generous: So we’re approving this 64 foot. Weick: Thank you. Aller: Okay. Any further questions at this point? Alright. Again Bob it’s a good report. I think that’s a tribute again to the staff. We don’t have to ask very many questions at this point because we understand what’s being presented and for those of you who are present or those of you who are at home that want to take a look at these plans and what’s been presented in packages, they’re on the City website and you can take a look at those certainly tonight or if this matter goes to the City Council before City Council if you wanted to come down at that point in time. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Welcome sir. Todd Simning: Commissioners good evening. Todd Simning with Kroiss Development. I think Bob did a good job explaining things. I think we really thoughtfully fit the house on pretty much what’s conforming and very little asking of a variance in a sense so I really don’t have a whole lot to say unless you guys have some questions to me but we, when we set out to design the house, when we platted out where it needed to be in the conforming sense we really tried to stay within that footprint. Aller: And I think it’s pretty clear from the plans and we appreciate that. Any other questions? Great, thank you. Todd Simning: Thank you. Aller: At this point in time I’ll open the public hearing. That’s an opportunity again for any individual present to speak either for or against the item before us. If you have a comment or question. Seeing no one come forward I’ll close the public hearing on this matter and open it up for commissioner comments. And further action. Okay well then I’ll entertain any motions that anyone would like to make. Undestad: I’ll make a motion. Aller: Mr. Undestad. 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016 Undestad: That the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the 13.6 foot shoreland setback variance and a 4.8 percent hard cover variance as shown on the survey prepared by Gregory R. Prasch dated April 20, 2016, revised April 27, 2016 to construct a two story house and patio subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Madsen: Second. Aller: Thank you. Having a motion and a second, any further discussion? Undestad moved, Madsen seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the 13.6 foot shoreland setback variance and a 4.8 percent hard cover variance as shown on the survey prepared by Gregory R. Prasch dated April 20, 2016, revised April 27, 2016 to construct a two story house and patio subject to the following conditions and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision: 1. Landscape materials must be installed to absorb additional runoff on the property. Such landscaping may be at the edge of the patio or on the landward side of the rip rap. A landscape plan shall be submitted in conjunction with the building permit application. 2. All trees to be preserved shall be protected with tree fencing located at the dripline or the furthest feasible distance from the trunk. Fencing shall be installed prior to any grading or construction and maintained until construction is finished. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Aanenson: Mr. Chairman I’d just like to remind anybody that might be tracking this item, because this was a super majority unless somebody appeals this decision within 4 days, at the end of 4 days then it would be deemed approved. Aller: Correct. Thank you for bringing that out. And so we’ll move onto item 2 on the agenda tonight. PUBLIC HEARING: 3801 LESLEE CURVE – REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN EXCESS OF 1,000 SQUARE FEET ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 3801 LESLEE CURVE, LOT 19, BLOCK 1, PLEASANT ACRES. APPLICANT/OWNER: KRIS KNOX. 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016 Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. Again we have a variance application before the commission. The applicant is Kris Knox and it’s a variance for accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet. This property is located on the west side of Lake Minnewashta just off of Minnewashta Parkway and it’s the northwest corner of Minnewashta Parkway and Glendale which is, and then on the front it’s Leslee Curve so that’s where it’s addressed off of. It’s an entire lot and a portion of another lot so that’s why it’s a little bigger than some in the neighborhood. The applicant is requesting a variance. Right now he has an existing accessory structure that’s 987 square feet. He came in to the City to request a zoning permit for a shed that’s 120 square feet and also to install some fencing to enclose part of his backyard. We approved the fence permit because that complied with ordinance but then we advised the applicant that he needed a variance to build the accessory structure because he exceeded the 1,000 square foot limitations in city ordinance. We have had several people have contacted the City opposed to us granting the variance application. We reviewed it based on what the 1,000 square foot ordinance application, or limitation was put in for in the past. Again it’s a variance for accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet. In 2014 we determined that the accessory structure was built in 2005 and they did come in for a permit for the process. The City, in May, 2007 the City adopted the ordinance limiting accessory structures to 1,000 square feet. At that time we were running into problems with accessory structures in agricultural districts being converted to business uses. Additionally we had without any limitations people would build accessory structures and they would often times turn it into some type of business operation which was prohibited under city code. Again the existing shed is 987 square feet. This is the survey application that came in as part of their permit application and we picked up the fencing and we said we can allow that. However it’s the shed that he was proposing in the corner. We said that would violate city ordinance and the only way to do that would be to come through a variance process so here we are tonight. We surveyed the neighborhood to see if there are any other large sheds within this immediate area and this is the property right here and this is basically their neighborhood and we couldn’t find any other large sheds within that whole area nor along the lake. We have some that probably don’t meet their hard cover requirements but again we run in, this is an older neighborhood within the city of Chanhassen so, but we cannot. What people who were calling us said that this really didn’t fit in the character of the neighborhood to continue to allow accessory, large accessory structures or large number of accessory structures and we concurred with that discussion that yes, it really large accessory structures are not fitting in this area. The applicant as part of his justification did point out that he could build something attached to his house but it’d be more expensive. However under the review procedures for variances economic considerations aren’t supposed to be a determination whether or not something should be approved or not so. Again we did not feel that granting of the variance would be consistent with the neighborhood standards or in compliance with city ordinance. Therefore staff is recommending that we deny the variance application. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: Any questions at this point in time? Commissioner Weick. 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016 Weick: I do have a couple just points for clarification. You mentioned the concern as we go over 1,000 square feet that there could be non-conforming uses on the property. Is there any concern right now that there are non-conforming uses on that property? That we know of. Generous: Not specifically. There is some, the site is non-conforming in itself since the house doesn’t meet setbacks but he was proposing in a location that would have complied with the setback requirements. Weick: Okay. Generous: As far as we know it’s, because of the. Weick: But no commercial or anything that we know of? Generous: Not that I’ve heard of and that I was aware of. Weick: And then this is a good picture because I think it shows it here as well. There is a, so there’s the house, which kind of runs the long way and then there’s a, I’m assuming that’s a garage in the back. Generous: That’s the existing. Weick: The existing 990 square foot. And then just I’m assuming it’s timing of the picture. I’m assuming that’s the actual mobile home next to it? Generous: Yes. Weick: That’s not a structure correct? Generous: No that’s a mobile home. Weick: Okay so if we were looking at this picture I mean technically that is not a permanent structure on the property? Generous: No. Weick: Just visually. I want to visually make sure I’m looking at the property correctly here. I mean that’s not a building? Generous:. No. Aanenson: No. Yeah we can show you the building. 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016 Weick: It’s there as well. Pretend that’s not there correct? Generous: Right. Weick: Okay. I just wanted to be sure I got everything square in my head here. Okay. That’s all. Aller: Great. Any additional questions? Hearing none if the applicant would like to come forward and give a presentation that would be great. Please state your name and address for the record. Kris Knox: Good evening commissioners and welcome new person. My name is Kris Knox. I live at 3801 Leslee Curve. You know I’ve got a lot of problems with this. One is that the comments, and there’s only one that was attached that I know of in writing from a neighbor that’s outside the 500 boundary that saw the gigantic proposed development sign that was put out without letting me know the night before we went on a week long vacation to Mexico so I had frantic neighbors. I already know because I called the front desk also and they had gotten so many calls because rightfully so the neighborhood freaked out when they see neighborhood development. Proposed development. It wasn’t. They finally, sometime later, a week later changed it to a smaller sign that said proposed variance but by then the neighborhood was frantic. As many comments that he, Mr. Generous has said that has called against it for whatever reason, I’m guessing is his comments clearly multiple times said that nobody wants a large structure. The large structure’s already there. I built it with permission. Spent $70,000. Made it conform to the neighborhood. I’ve been there for 22 years. We have a, we spent $20,000 on landscaping and my wife gets comments about every time she’s out there about people. We take pride in our house. We take pride in our property and what isn’t mentioned anywhere in here is the fact that we have an acre of land here. The context of this 1,000 square foot structure, I understand the meaning behind it and I’m a real estate broker. A commercial real estate broker. I understand all the reasons behind something and so I put on my logical Vulcan hat and say what was the intent for this thing because there’s usually a good one behind it. I can understand the intent of being aware of over 1,000 square feet, this, that and the other but the context of the size, what else is there. How much variance we’re getting. What really is in the neighborhood. Bob in his report, by the way never came out and asked me to visit my property and then walk through it. I do have photographs of where under this beautiful pine tree right about in the middle is where this little 120 square foot shed folks, purchased for $3,000 at Home Depot. Professionally made. Dropped on the spot. Beautiful. Shingled. It’s a nice structure. Fit nicely under there to hold my brand new garden tractor which helps me keep my yard up nicely, though my wife does 99 percent of the yard work so I can’t say me but us. And there’s a mention of an existing shed. First of I do want to clarify because you did mention, a 987 square feet a couple times and I think the thing said 997 square feet so I’m either 7 square feet over or I’m 17 square feet over by asking to put a 120 square foot shed in. The additional shed that he comments several times in here with this commentary which I think is, and this is my opinion and my opinion is about what he’s putting in his section which is called factuals and to me a fact is a fact 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016 and so when he starts the factual stuff and mentions, just taking the first thing at a time. That I have this additional shed. It’s not an additional shed. It’s a 4 foot by 4 foot by 4 foot high cedar playhouse that I built for my daughter 28 years ago in Burnsville and when we moved here 22 years ago I disassembled it and I rebuilt it in that spot and there it is. It’s not a shed by any means but the way that it’s implied in here just like someone calling up and saying hey what’s going on with that giant proposal and it says right here a variance request to build accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet. Bob’s not the only one who got barraged by people in the neighborhood. I did as well and they found out it was a shed. I wish I had a dollar for every time I saw the rolling of the eyes. It was crazy. Then when I told them that I had to pay $500 okay. $500 for the permission to go 100 square feet over the max on my one acre lot, that if you saw the other pictures that I can show you in addition I’ll point to where the shed would be, it’s just, it doesn’t make any sense and so when he talks about factual stuff and he mentions a 4 foot by 4, a 16 square foot play house as a shed that’s not true. He also mentions that it’s not reasonable. Again commentary. I mean he thinks it’s not reasonable. Well I think it’s reasonable. I can explain how I think it’s reasonable. If you saw my property and took a few minutes to come by and walk through it with me where I can show you. I can show all of you how it looks reasonable. The one letter that was put in, included in the packet that I saw was from somebody whose again outside the 500 who I know darn well by the looks of it drove by, because their commentary says about how they didn’t want this giant structure in the neighborhood because they didn’t want to see it as they drove by Minnewashta Parkway. Well that’s pretty nice that they have that expectation as neighbors driving by someone else’s property but quite honestly without a shed I have a brand new John Deere tractor that gets to sit out without a shed or I could put up one of those temporary structures. I’m talking to Bob about whether it’s temporary or not and this, that and the other thing. There’s all sorts of things that seem to me would look much worst than a wonderful, beautiful shed that I’m adding onto the rest of my nice property and I don’t understand the fact that between the, in my opinion. Excuse me I’ve got cotton mouth here. Misrepresentation, not disrespectfully with the fact of this giant proposed development sign, the barrage of people who called up and said oh it’s 1,000 square foot structure and not even realizing that my garage is already there. It’s all just fuzziness. In summary I think it’s sort of strange and I’m a commercial real estate broker so I deal with this all the time and I have horror stories that have gone on but the idea that they presumably well paid and gentleman with and the City thinks that $500 is still something that someone should pay to get permission to build something that quite honestly I was trying to follow the rules. I could have put the shed there and I’ll bet you nobody would have said anything. My neighbors don’t care. It would look good. Somebody here might care but I don’t know because either way we do follow the rules. We have followed the rules when I built that beautiful garage and I wish somebody would have come out and said hey, let’s look at this and see how it really fits in the neighborhood. I just think that when there’s comments that again I’ve used a few times of the over shed that he mentioned several times that are not normally structures to this neighborhood and I mean almost like I should be ashamed that I have this big monstrosity. It’s not a monstrosity. Bob Generous is the inspector ironically that was involved when I did it with permission and a permit 10 years ago. 11 years ago. I don’t understand the problem so I’m here asking to you to switch your opinion and approve essentially 100 square feet over the 1,000 foot 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016 maximum on a very reasonable situation on my 1 acre lot. My lot is the second largest in our entire neighborhood and is at least a third or 50 percent larger than most of the other lots in the neighborhood so the 1,000 square foot and how it looks in comparison, how it sits on my property and how things are really spread out and look nice, that should be considered. I do have photographs that were included in the packet. Didn’t end up in this that show the placement of the shed under my beautiful pine tree. That one that’s right next to, well actually it’s right there. That little red spot is where I was going to put it. Little closer tucked under the tree but that’s about it. So I guess respectfully my wife and I would ask that you, what I think put some common reasonable sense into the situation. The context being what it is and to allow me to put up my shed that I’ve paid for and is sitting on the lot of Home Depot wanting me to put it somewhere and I’d like to put it in my yard to protect my equipment. Thank you very much. Aller: Great, thank you. Kris Knox: If anybody has any questions. Aller: Is it possible for, what’s in the 997 square foot structure now? Kris Knox: Well 997 is my garage that I built for my RV. Aller: Okay but what’s in there now? Just the RV goes in? Kris Knox: RV and my boats and toys. Jet skis. Water, snowmobiles. I mean I, all licensed. Aller: Sure. Kris Knox: You know I’m a consumer. I have lots of nice things. Like to protect them. I bought a very, very expensive RV. I built a very expensive garage to put it in. I’m very serious about protecting my stuff. I don’t think the shed is misrepresenting the neighborhood at all. I don’t think the shed is offending anybody and it’s protecting my investment in the equipment that I buy to take care of my yard ironically enough so. Aller: Any other questions based on that? Weick: Just following up though. Aller: Mr. Weick. Weick: Does that, could that equipment fit in the garage? Kris Knox: No it can’t. Weick: Okay. 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016 Kris Knox: And again, again my reading of this and a couple times that somehow that I, according to Bob that I should have enough space he’s decided and I don’t know that that’s in the realm of seriously the variance considerations of one paid city guy can do a one sided thing that says in his opinion he thinks it’s inappropriate and I don’t know that that’s a factual issue first of all and I would like to play it upon 1, 2, 3, 6 realistic people to say whether that is reasonable or not reasonable to have a smaller additional 100 square feet over the variance amount so I can park my nice equipment. Aller: Anything else? Thank you. Oh. Randall: Mr. Knox I totally understand your frustration at this you know. I totally understand your frustration with this. However you know I mean it’s the amount of structures that’s what the issue, and I know in your letter you mentioned if it was attached it would be a different story. Is that a possibility for you? Kris Knox: You know here’s the irony about the attachment and here’s the irony quite honestly in the, and I’m just saying this because it’s been brought up by the reality of it. The answer to your question is it’s very expensive to do that. Here’s the irony though. I get a 25 percent hard cover. I’ve got such a large lot that even with this new shed I’m only at 15 percent. According to the structure and math is math, according I could use the rest of my 5 or 4 percent or whatever and add 2,900 square feet to my house and then I could go 2 stories which the neighbors really love. I could also paint it pink with purple polka dots in tribute to Prince and the Vikings together. I mean all sorts of goofy things but when people think about what the neighborhood looks like they’re not going to complain about our house, unless someone brings up something I haven’t noticed and the neighbors haven’t been complimenting about for the last 10 years so it’s very expensive to add on and the irony is what I could do I’m thinking would be much worst than what I’m asking for. Randall: No and I understand. I understand that. I was just looking for a solution to the problem so everyone could be happy. Kris Knox: Well attachment would require you know that I have a concrete floor. That it’s frost footed. That it’s attached to the, I mean it’s 5 times as much money. I’ve already, $500 has already added 17 percent of the cost of my lowly shed. Randall: Understand, okay. Thank you. Kris Knox: Thank you for the opportunity to speak my piece. Aller: Okay at this point in time we’ll open up the public hearing portion of this item so any individual in the room would like to forward and speak either for or against the item can do so at this time. Come forward and state your name and address for the record please. 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016 Court MacFarlane: Okay my name is Court MacFarlane. I live at 3800 Leslee Curve which is directly across the street to the west. I’m actually here to speak in opposition to the variance request. Frankly I don’t see any particular compelling reason to grant it. I’ve lived in that house for 40 years. I was actually there before this house was even built and although I’m not, I don’t know Mr. Knox very well. Pardon? Aanenson: Can we have your house… Court MacFarlane: It’s across the street that way. Keep going. Yeah right there. You’re on top of it. That’s it. That’s my home there. Aller: Please continue. Court MacFarlane: Okay. My issue with this whole thing is that Mr. Knox does have that accessory shed and the camper that is supposed to be in there is not very often in there. I know he has a lot of other items that are parked, or stored in there. The house has a 2 car tuck under garage on the south end. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a car in there. I know it’s being used for storage. In the back of his house on the east side is another garage door and I believe that also is a storage area. He has at least 3 or 4 fenced areas in his yard where he does store other items outside and I just think this would be something that would add to the clutter on the property. I don’t know what else I can say. I just think it’s an over use of a particular property. By the way my business also happens to be commercial real estate. I was doing that for 35 years. I’m semi-retired. I’m still in the property management business. I manage, currently manage 7 different properties, or homeowners associations that have over, well the total’s probably about 600-700 units all together. Now each of those associations is a lot newer than our’s. Pleasant Acres is a very old association and when it was designed or when it was put together they didn’t write binding by-laws and declarations. Each of the 7 associations that I manage not only of them even permits accessory structures so I think we have to rely on the City for ordinances to keep that kind of thing under control. I’m surprised that, you know I’m not surprised that it’s permitted but there has to be a limit on what is permitted and I’m open to questions too if anybody would like to ask anything. Aller: Anyone? Thank you for your comments. Court MacFarlane: You’re welcome. Aller: Any other individual wishing to come forward can do so at this time. Speak either for or against. Seeing no one come forward, close the public hearing. Open up for commissioners discussion. Variances like this are always difficult. We’ve had a number of them in the past and have to go through and balance the zoning, the ordinances and the ability to use the property for a reasonable purpose. 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016 Madsen: Although I have sympathy with wanting to protect property and keep it out of the weather, when you look at the Findings of Fact in approving a variance I have difficulty in the practical difficulties area and that the variance is not based on economic conditions alone so I would not be in favor of the variance. Aller: Any additional comments at this point in time? Commissioner Weick comments? Weick: I don’t know I’d love some help. Aller: I know it’s tough. Weick: I really don’t know to be honest. Aller: What kind of information can we get you or assistance can we get you to make a decision because you have to vote on this. Weick: I know we do right? I mean I’m just trying to buy a little bit of time maybe for all of us but I mean in and of itself you know, I don’t consider it to be, I mean the shed itself is not a large structure right. Going in reverse if there had been a shed and then we were building out the back we would just say build the garage to 900 and whatever. 900 square feet and I think we’d be fine so. Honestly what I’m wrestling with, I do, you know I’ve seen in the pictures and the pictures that were provided in the packet but a homeowner as well as these pictures and obviously there’s a lot of things on the property. I’m honestly trying to struggle with, you know does adding a shed potentially improve that or does it just add to it. I don’t know. I mean I think if we honestly believed it would help store things out of sight then maybe in a better way. I don’t know that it doesn’t help the property. I could sure use some guidance if there’s other opinions. Aller: Well when in doubt I always look to the ordinances and to me that’s our guidance and we’re looking to find exceptions under the outlines of the ordinances that say that we have to find practical difficulties. We have to find that it’s not economic in nature. That it’s something that’s unique to the property and so I have difficulty in meeting those requirements that it’s unique to the property when you’ve got several structures already there so I will be voting against it. Anyone else? Comments. Questions. Concerns. Any information we can get from staff? Hearing none I’ll entertain any motions. Mr. Undestad. Undestad: Well yeah. Just before I do though I think I just want to make one more comment on again looking at everything that’s on the site and spread out around the site and the fact that the homeowner can add on things to his house on there. He can attach a structure on there that might take care of more things on the site. He has the space. He has the room for it. That might be something to look at so I guess that, I mean just for the small shed for the lawn tractor and the variance I don’t see that so, so I’ll make a motion here. That the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the variance request to build accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision. 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016 Aller: Having a motion do I have a second? Tietz: Second. Aller: I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Undestad moved, Tietz seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the variance request #2016-06 to build accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Aller: Because the item was denied an appeal should be filed on this matter within 4 days and it should be done in writing if you desire to do so. If the appeal is filed appropriately then the matter would go to the City Council on June 27, 2016 and again anyone that wishes at home to see these items and the packages that are before us when we’re making our decisions, they are on the website and available to you. PUBLIC HEARING: FOXWOOD, WILSON NURSERY SITE, 9150 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD: REQUEST FOR A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT (BCOD), REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT (A2) TO RESIDENTIAL LOW AND MEDIUM DENSITY (RLM), AND A 52 LOT SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES ON 43.55 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9150 AND 9250 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD. APPLICANT: PROVIDENCE 55, LLC. OWNER: JIM WILSON & PAUL PAULSON. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. The application before us, this is the th public hearing and it goes to council on June 27. Providence 55 Limited Liability Company is the applicant. Jim Wilson and Paul Paulson are current property owners of the two properties. The request includes a rezoning, a conditional use permit, a subdivision review with variances and a wetland alteration permit. The property’s located at 9150 and 9250 Great Plains Boulevard. This is south of Lyman Boulevard on the west side of 101 or Great Plains Boulevard. Currently the Wilson property, the northerly piece is accessed from a driveway directly across from the access to Bandimere Park. The two single family homes are accessed via a shared driveway just south on, but it’s on 101. Wilson’s property has historically been used as a wholesale nursery and if you go out there you see the rows of trees that are being held on site. That’s the open part of the property. The site has significant topographic challenges within it. It goes from a high of 932 feet approximately to a low of 888 feet. To the west the City has acquired the Fox property which is to be preserved as permanent open space. As part of this development they would be providing some pedestrian access into it and then the City within the park it’s more a nature preserve rather than an active park facility that they’re looking at. Across 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016 the street, across 101 to the east is Bandimere Community Park. Has playground facilities. Ballfields. Frisbee golf course is there also. The total site is 43 ½ acres. It consists of wooded areas and open space and lots of wetlands. It keeps turning itself off every time. So and as you can see, so these are the two properties involved in the subdivision. The existing Paulson house, they’re providing a little, taking some of the perimeter of his property to create properties that comply with ordinance within the majority of the development and then he will have one large lot around his property and the City will pick up, there’s a wetland on the south end of it so we’ll get that as part of the public open spaces within this project. Some of the site constraints are that this is in the Bluff Creek Overlay District. This wetland complex on the northwest corner of the property on the north side is contributory to Bluff Creek so it actually drainage flows to the west from there. It goes through the property to the south and then under Powers Boulevard and then eventually into Bluff Creek which is down on the west side of Powers and south of 212. The other constraint on the site besides the topography which can be altered are the wetlands that are on site and as part of this application there is one wetland alteration permit. However we’re having some issues with that so I’ll move to it. Their request includes a wetland alteration permit, a conditional use permit for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District, a rezoning of the property from agricultural estate district to residential low and medium density and a 46 lot subdivision with variances. The variances are for the use of a private street and we want to modify the setback to the Bluff Creek primary zone, and I’ll explain that a little later. First the wetland alteration permit. As this Road A goes down and, here I need to back up. Eventually we want this development to connect to the development of the land to the south and eventually get out to Powers Boulevard. It may not be one continuous street but we want people to be able to get to either Powers or to 101 through the development of this area. We also th believe that down to West 96 Street will be a connection and maybe down in the Homestead Lane area will be another connection so it will provide a little larger neighborhood for this development. The wetland alteration permit is for the road extension that crosses, and it’s called Wetland 4 and Wetland 3 and we were pointing out, and Nancy pointed this out to me. We had a typo in our report where we said Lot 4, Block 1 when it should have been Lot 4, Block 5 so we corrected that in the City version online and so I guess that I would thank her for bringing that to our attention. But as part of the wetland alteration permit we need to know the existing conditions and there’s still some dispute as to what exactly is wetland in this area and the technical advisory committees are still working on that. Preliminary reports say they believe these two wetlands are connected so the impacts would be greater than are shown on that. For that reason the Water Resources Coordinator and staff is recommending that we table that portion of this request and when we get the full information, the complete information that we come in and we can actually address what is the actual mitigation requirements that would be necessary with this wetland impact. Rezoning of the property. Agricultural estate district to residential low and medium density. Within the staff report under the land use guiding for this plan which is residential low density you’re permitted densities of 1.2 to 4 units per acre. To do that there are multiple zoning categories that would implement that. Our traditional zoning category for single family homes in Chanhassen is RSF which is single family residential. It has a standard 15,000 square foot lot. 90 feet of frontage. 125 feet of depth. Or the perfect lot is 100 by 150 if you want to do rectangles all over the place. However that works on a very flat 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016 piece of property. This site had some very unique environmental considerations to it. Another one would be the R-4 which permits same development as RSF but it also permits twin homes on it. Again it wasn’t appropriate for this because they didn’t propose twin homes and it would have standard lot layouts required for all of it. Another zoning would be the PUD-R. Planned Unit Development Residential but for planned developments you want to try to get some type of development that is unique. Through the use of flexible site design you’re allowed to get some benefits to the community. Often times it’s affordable housing but it might be a mix of housing types within one project. And then finally we developed the RLM zoning district for development primarily within the Bluff Creek corridor because as part of this development, while it’s guided, you can do either single family attached or detached housing, but it also requires the preservation of significant areas of upland open space in exchange for smaller lot sizes and higher, slightly higher hard cover considerations. As part of this development they are actually preserving almost half the site as permanent open space. About 47.9 percent to be exact. Of the preserved amount of the entire site, 16 percent of that preserved open space is upland areas. Buffer areas around the wetlands or along the Bluff Creek primary zone so we believe that this zoning was most appropriate and meet all the criteria and therefore we’re recommending approval of the RLM zoning. The conditional use permit. City code requires prior to any development within the Bluff Creek corridor, and as we see the northwest corner of this property is in the corridor, you need to go through a conditional use permit review. The Bluff Creek corridor requires a 40 foot setback from the Bluff Creek corridor for structures. The first 20 feet of which is supposed to be a buffer area or protected open space so no alterations. We’ve shown on this one, in our comp plan we designate it as these red lines that show the corridor and that’s just to let people make them aware that there is a Bluff Creek corridor in there. This doesn’t show the final alignment. As the applicant came forward this green line represented what he estimated the primary corridor was. You can see how it goes in and out and it’s very difficult to propose. As a part of this process we’re recommending that Outlot A and Outlot C, the perimeters of that be determined as the primary corridor boundary and so it becomes easier to administer we preserve all the required open space that was in the Bluff Creek corridor. However in conjunction with that we’re looking at a variance to permit the development of these lots that are either surrounded or encapsuled by the Bluff Creek corridor that aren’t consumed within the setback area so with that we’re looking at dedication of this area to the City as permanent open space. We’re recommending approval of the conditional use permits. I’ll get you those criteria. The preliminary plat is for 46 lots and 6 outlots. Again one of those lots is Lot 5 which is the existing house on the site that will be remaining. Outlot B will serve as the private street to access these 2 existing homes and then the driveway off of 101 will go away and they will just, they’d come in off of this local street and we’d have one access point for this whole development. The rest of the lots, all the lots exceed the minimum requirements of the RLM district. They exceed it significantly. I believe the smallest lot is 11,200 square feet and the RLM district they’re permitted to go down to 9,000 square feet. It’s a lot of the lot frontages. This Outlot F is the location of a wetland and it created some difficulties in trying to lay out lots as you come around this corner. The high point of the site was approximately in this area of 932. If you look at the staff report in the attachments there some road profiles and you’ll see coming down this hill you have a 7 percent slope after they correct elevations that are out there through 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016 the development of the site. This road will have a temporary turn around at the end. Again we’re looking with the development of the property to the south to continue this road and eventually connect some way all the way over to Powers Boulevard. Public street is all the public right-of-way within the development. There may a little bit of Highway 101 I believe has to come into this. Private street again would be Outlot B which provides access to the two existing houses that will remain and we’re looking at the, in conjunction with the subdivision the Bluff Creek Overlay District setback variance to require only a 20 foot setback and it’s really from the property line here rather than, and we think it’s an incidental consideration that that’s where their primary zone boundary because it really goes in and out so. They will be mass grading the site. Again they’re making, they’ll make the building pads within that. Put in all the infrastructure improvements. The street, sewer, water. There is some question about this final turn around area where that will be but that’s an issue that we’ll be working out as we go forward with the construction plans. They are preserving again the perimeter areas. There’s a lot of grading on site. It will be change for people to see. Utilities, they will be providing city sewer, water and storm sewer improvements and if I can I’d like Alyson to explain a little bit about the sanitary sewer that’s going in here. Fauske: Thank you Bob. If we can go back to the slide that shows the overall location of this site just to give the Planning Commission a little bit of perspective as far as what is the ultimate plan for this site. Under this development scenario at the terminus of the street, the temporary terminus of this street there would be, the applicant is proposing a temporary lift station and force main which would then bring, lift the sanitary sewer again through that road, through the project to Highway 101 and then north and then west on Lyman and then up to gravity system at Crossroads Boulevard. As I mentioned this is a temporary lift station. The ultimate plan for servicing this development with gravity sanitary sewer would be when the property to the south develops and at that time when the road goes through the gravity sanitary sewer would continue to Powers Boulevard at approximately this location here where Lift Station 32 would be constructed and the permanent force main would go from Lift Station 32 up along the Highway 212 corridor to Lyman and to Crossroads Boulevard. So we’re working with the applicant’s information as far as their invert. The invert elevation of their sanitary sewer here to insure that what we anticipate would be the highest elevation of the sanitary sewer through this future development would be able to facilitate the flow. I haven’t seen any issues with that. I need to check a couple more numbers but so far we’re looking good as far as meeting the minimum requirements for sanitary sewer connection through the project. Generous: So they will be served by city services. Tree preservation. The dark area is the canopy that’s being preserved as part of this development. This hatched area is the tree canopy coverage that will be removed. Basically it follows the road and the building pads, public streets that come out here. They are, oh the next one shows it. As part of their landscaping plan they’re providing 124 trees to help revegetate the site. Most of them are along the street corridor but they are providing buffer plantings. And I have to point out, Jill was pleasantly surprised because this is one of the few plans that came through and she didn’t have to make all kinds of corrections to it so she was afraid that something was wrong. As part of parks and trail plan, the 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016 development will be paying park fees. However they will be providing a sidewalk and trail system within the development and they’re working on, well this is a connection to the underpass that goes over to Bandimere Park. As part of their project they would also be required to do some 101 trail connections. Things that aren’t in place and then they’re providing connections to the Fox Wood Preserve which is the permanent open space that the City has to the west of this site. As I stated the variances within the subdivision are for the private street which will provide access to the two existing homes. That removes a driveway access off of Highway 101 and providing a public street to those two homes was not necessary because we’re not going to access any more land. It’s a wetland to the south of the existing houses and in the future if they wanted to come in under a private street you can have up to 4 single family homes on a private street so theoretically they can each get one out of that. We believe that is appropriate and necessary as part of this development and it solves some problems that the City has 101 so. And the County really likes that too. The Bluff Creek Overlay District, we’re providing, the applicant’s providing most of the buffer area within the existing Outlot A and C so we didn’t believe that having the property line as being the primary zone boundary with only a 20 foot setback, we were able to analyze that and looked at, they still had sufficient area to build houses but we believe we would have protection of the Bluff Creek corridor with the variance and so we are recommending approval. Again the actual boundary of the corridor is very circuitous and it’d be difficult, almost impossible to describe in a legal document so going with the property lines is, makes it easier to administer and for people to understand what they can do with their property in the future. With that staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit, the rezoning, the preliminary plat with variances and tabling of the wetland alteration permit and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Tietz: Bob? Bob could you pull up that park and trail map again because I was going to ask a question about linkages and it looks like, would that route, the blue route on the south, would that be provided. It’s in the plan but would it be provided with easements or is it just an idea for the future that has no connection to reality? Generous: It would not be provided as part of this project. We’re still looking at that as part of the development of the property to the south. Tietz: But it looks like it could hit, it hits the south end of the property. Generous: Yeah right in this corner and at that alignment could change it depends, we’ll look at that in more detail when the property south of it comes in. Tietz: But if the property to the south, let’s say there’s no timeline on that. It could be 10 years. It could be 30 years. Generous: Then we have. 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016 Tietz: So how do you have a connection without just going through the neighborhood from Bandimere Park to the Preserve? Generous: That’s exactly what we would do. We’d follow this trail alignment and come up here. Tietz: So the parking would be in Bandimere or else parking in the neighborhood? Aanenson: Well it’s not, this is anticipated to be a local connection. For people that live in the neighborhood to walk through. If someone’s going to walk through this neighborhood and go over to Powers Boulevard, we don’t anticipate them really parking in the neighborhood to use that. Tietz: I’m just questioning if it’s a preserve and if it’s attractive it may be attractive to folks that don’t reside in the 46 homes that are being constructed and thus you’ll have a potential demand for traffic through that area. Aanenson: Correct and that’s what we’re anticipating that those would be queued to park at Bandimere and come under the access. Tietz: And that gets what signed that you park at Bandimere? Aanenson: Sure and we’d put it out on our documents that we would provide that’s how you would get there. Whether we have to sign in the neighborhood or something like that. We talked about that early on as far as trying to look at some trail head but it’s really difficult to try to put something into a cul-de-sac and have someone walking in late at night or early morning to hike or something like that so we really felt it’d be better to be at Bandimere Park. Tietz: Yeah but in looking at Wetland 4, Outlot D which is in that lower 20 percent of the property to the west Bob. Right there. If you made a trail connector on that red line to 101 and Bandimere would there be a way to get to the Preserve by dropping down at that point and coming through that, getting easements in that next adjacent to that outlot? Aanenson: Sure. Generous: We did look at that alignment. We had the consultant look at that but then the topography there is really. Tietz: Well it appears to be steeper but you know it’s just a matter of. Aanenson: No we did have a consultant look at that. Park and Rec Director did have a consultant look at kind of be the best. I think we’re really careful of trying to balance grades, topography. The entire site and that’s the first one in gets you know because we do anticipate 18 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016 th additional trail connections. As we mentioned earlier there’s the neighborhood on West 96 Street that would give better access to also. Homestead area that we would want to tie into this also for that trail access too so they did have a consultant look at kind of what would be the best connections on those. Tietz: Yeah ideally it’d be nice to have that blue, the blue dashed line immediately because it provides a logical. Aanenson: Right agreed and we talked about that. Tietz: A logical connection without going directly through a neighborhood. Aanenson: Sure. And that doesn’t mean it still can’t come in in the future but again looking at where would be the best place, I mean actually if you go between one of the other places anticipated was actually between the wetlands. Yeah. It’s actually a little bit further south on that so. Tietz: Cleaning crew is here. Aanenson: Pardon me? Tietz: The cleaning crew is here. Aanenson: Yeah, yeah. So it’s a little bit further south on that so there’s a lot of different alternatives of coming through there because the experience kind of coming between the wetlands, whether you do a boardwalk. There’s a lot of options. Again trying to balance this saying the first one is going to put all the trail system on that property and the second property is just going to be a sidewalk connecting so we’re just trying to balance all that and I would rely on Hoisington-Koegler who looked at that who’s done a lot of work for the City on our trail systems. Tietz: Okay, looks like it could require a little bit more study for the connection. If the wetland issue is unresolvable, if it is the classification of the wetlands is classified as one wetland, how would that be bridged or would those last 2 lots be considered outlots and developed in the future? Fauske: Commissioner Tietz I’d be happy to answer that question for you. Through the wetland alteration permit the discussion with staff is just, is more to due with the delineation boundaries. As mentioned previously this site presents a lot of challenges and truth be told the location of that, of the street alignment through there they really are threading a needle so to speak between those two wetlands. They are doing their due diligence to minimize the impact to the wetlands so my understanding is, is at this point it’s simply a matter of where the wetland delineation boundary is. I don’t, I’m not aware of anybody that thinks that the sequencing is out of place. I 19 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016 mean in order to avoid the wetlands you simply would not be able have the road go through there so it’s more a matter of the amount of impact rather than whether or not the impact is justifiable or supported if that makes sense. Tietz: So the jury’s out on that one? Fauske: Again it’s getting the delineation completed so that they know the actual square footage of impact. As far as I know they’re not, it’s not necessarily a question of is this an appropriate, can we support the impact? It’s more conveying to find out if the wetland conditions exist from this wetland here to this wetland. Tietz: The east to west. Fauske: Correct. Tietz: Okay, thanks. Fauske: Thank you. Aller: Real quick Alyson while we’ve got you up to bat. Would the delineations in any way change the buffer situation because it’s internal? Fauske: I don’t know that it changes the buffer because that has to do with the functions and values of the wetland so it, I’m not certain what the value of the wetland was from west to east so that’s a little independent of the actual boundary of the wetland. They’ve been able to determine the quality of the wetland which thereby tells you what the buffer widths are. It’s just, it’s now a matter of pin pointing the boundary of the wetland. Aller: Okay. Commissioner Weick. Weick: What happens to the, is it called a pumping station? Is that the right term? Fauske: The lift station. Weick: Lift station, that’s what it does though right? Fauske: It pumps, you’re correct. Weick: What happens, you said there’s a temporary one. Fauske: Correct. Weick: Is that city owned then or operated? 20 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016 Fauske: That’s an excellent question. The City would be responsible for operating it. It would be part of our system. It would be part of our telemetry system to insure that it’s functioning so it would be built to our minimum standards as far as insuring that we can keep our eye on the equipment. Make sure the lift station is running if there’s a power outage that alarms would be going off and the applicant’s engineer has been in contact with our utility department to insure that the panels in the lift station would be compatible with the system that we have in place. Aller: And then as a follow-up, would it just be capped then later on or would we be using it as an alternate source? Fauske: So the panels would be removed from the lift station and then the lift station well would be abandoned and the sanitary sewer then connected to the gravity system when the property to the south develops. Tietz: Alyson how many homes are going to be serviced by the lift station? Is it just those south sites? The half a dozen or 8 homes from the high point south? Fauske: The permanent lift station? Tietz: No the, well the lift station that’s required for development yeah. Fauske: For this, the temporary lift station would serve this development only. The permanent lift station over on Powers would serve this development, the Erhart property, the property to the south as well as a significant area to the south along the Highway 101 corridor including the Bluff Creek golf course when that ultimately goes through for development. It’s a very large area. It’s a large lift station. Tietz: Okay thanks. Madsen: And I understand that the cost of the temporary lift station will be paid through this development. Fauske: Correct. Madsen: Then when the permanent lift station is built will they also have to pay a portion of the permanent lift station? Fauske: That’s an excellent question. At the time that this development came through with a proposal and the applicant had discussions with the department heads as far as getting sewer service to this property and proposing a temporary lift station. Staff has responded not only for this property but the other properties to the south taking a look at what would it cost to get service to these properties so we are looking at getting, establishing whether it be an area charge 21 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016 or an assessment of some sort to pay for the lift station improvements. The trunk sewer improvements that would be required so that’s why in the staff report we list it. We’ve talked to the development team about that and as they move forward with their final plat at that time staff anticipates that we would have the fee structure in place and that would be applied to this development. Madsen: For the permanent lift station? Fauske: Correct. Madsen: Okay thank you. Fauske: You’re welcome. Aller: Any additional questions of staff at this point? Seeing none we’ll let the applicant come forward and make a presentation if he chooses to do so. Welcome sir. If you could state your name and address and representational capacity. Bill Coffman: Yes Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Bill Coffman. I’m with Providence 55, LLC and just so you know that is a development arm of Gonyea Homes. Our office address is 1000 Boone Avenue North in Golden Valley. Aller: Welcome. Bill Coffman: As you can tell we’ve worked hard with staff to hopefully put forth a very nice plat that meets or exceeds many of the requirements of the City. That being said I mean we concur with staff’s recommendations and we’d be available for any questions. With me tonight I do have Mark Kjolhaug with Kjolhaug Environmental Services to answer any wetland questions you might have as well as Clark Wickland from Alliant Engineering. So we’re available. Aller: Just real quick, have you had an opportunity to read the report that we’ve gotten? Bill Coffman: Yep. Aller: And again I encourage anybody that’s in the room or at home to get a hold of these reports and take a look at them. There’s a number of conditions that are in here that we never get to discuss. Bill Coffman: Yep. Aller: But that are a part of this process. Are there any of these conditions that you foresee at this point? 22 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016 Bill Coffman: No, no. Aller: That you’d have problems with. Bill Coffman: We do not have any problems with any of the conditions in the report. Aller: Okay, thank you. Any additional questions of the applicant at this point? Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: You bet. This goes back to a recent project that we reviewed too and I don’t know if it’s for staff or Kate and Bob and Alyson. I’m always concerned when mass grading occurs and then trees, 100 plus trees will be planted on this site and I don’t know what your sequencing will be and how fast things will occur but I don’t know if it’s an appropriate proposal but if we can consider some way of banking trees and putting them in at the time of the completion of the homes as opposed to putting them in conjunction with construction which always is, there’s always potential subject to damage and not being watered and a lot of things that can happen during construction. Is that, I don’t know if that’s an appropriate request but this with such extensive mass grading and then going back and planting trees after the improvements are made before the homes are in. I’m just wondering if that’s something to consider. Bill Coffman: Yeah we typically phase in some of the trees. We’ll do the buffering along 101 and some of the trees along the boulevard but after the houses are built then typically we’ll plant a couple of trees in the front yards too to get up to our required tree count and that’s a minimum tree count too. Quite frankly we’ll probably well exceed that number of trees. Aanenson: I would say Mr. Coffman has done a couple other subdivisions in the city, some larger ones so we’ve a pretty good track record in working with that and some of them were in wooded areas so I understand your concern. I think we always want to make sure that we’re not backing over nor do they want to have somebody be working on a house next door so you’re right you kind of do them in blocks but I think we’ve got a pretty good, have good experience working with them so. Tietz: Yeah well as we all know our soils are pretty heavy out here and as soon as you mass grade you’re going to get down to soils that are, haven’t seen the light of day for maybe 10,000 years. Bill Coffman: Or more. Tietz: Or more and so we’ve got a lot of compaction and a lot of tough site to work with and when it’s opened up and then we try to stick trees in it, it can be very difficult. Aanenson: And we’ve had those problems too. 23 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016 Tietz: Yeah thanks. Aller: Thank you. Any other questions at this point? Seeing none thank you. Bill Coffman: Thank you. Aller: Would either one of the other representatives like to come forward and just give a brief overview of what’s going on with the site? Your perspective. Alright. Mark Kjolhaug: Came I come up? Aller: Sure, come on forward. Mark Kjolhaug: Hello, I’m Mark Kjolhaug of Kjolhaug Environmental Services Company and we completed the wetland delineation on the project and just to address the area at the south. It was delineated originally where there was a separation between what is identified as Wetland 4 and Wetland 3 to the east and we completed the TEP meeting. The review with the TEP and the core and there was a connection made between those wetlands. In the end it was a minor addition of the wetlands in the total wetland impact in that area with the plan that’s shown. It’s about 2,500 square feet so the additional wetland probably added a couple hundred square feet to the total impacts. We’re working on the wetland replacement plan application and that will be submitted within a week. Aller: Thank you, any questions? Thank you very much. Mark Kjolhaug: Thank you. Aller: Okay we’ll open the public hearing portion of this item. Again this is an opportunity on this item for any individual in the room to come forward, speak either for or against or ask questions. State a comment or concern so they can be addressed. Ladd Conrad: Mr. Chairman, hi. Ladd Conrad, 6625 Horseshoe Curve. Aller: Welcome sir. Ladd Conrad: I don’t live anywhere close to this property but I walk it all the time and I hope you all get out there. Not necessarily this property but the Erhart property to the south and I probably trespass on a few properties too but take the dog there and work him and it’s probably, to the Erhart property to the south will probably be where the Chanhassen cross country ski team practices this winter so it’s a phenomenal property. Tim and I, Tim Erhart and I were on the Planning Commission years ago and he asked me to come and talk to you for a few seconds. I don’t understand, there’s a lot of complex stuff here and I don’t pretend to know what the park and rec has thought about and I don’t know the alternatives that they have but I want to make 24 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016 sure that you guys and women have thought about access for the trail system. This is a marvelous site. Boy you know the staff report says we care about parks and trails in Chan. You talk to the residents, that’s one of their top 5 things of moving here so this site, yeah the whole site. Not just this property, is a big deal in my world. It’s huge. It keeps Chanhassen, the community that we all like, right. It’s really neat. Again you’ve got to go back and walk it so it’s your chance to make sure you have all the easements right now. It won’t come back to you so make sure you’re comfortable with the easements that staff has recommended and I can’t challenge what they’re recommending a whole lot but I see some issues that myself as a person who uses it and Dawne Erhart lets me come in on the west side of the property which more than likely won’t be developed for a long time but they could do it next year but more than likely, and she can speak for the Erhart group but you’re not going to, you’re probably not going to have access to the west for the community. This is not a neighborhood park. This is a community park. Difference. This says community and they get access so you, think about it. You park in Bandimere and you walk through the cul-de-sac and then you walk north on 101 and then you walk through the development and then you walk through another cul-de-sac and then maybe you’re at the trail. Huh. Do you really think that people are going to do that? Are you making this an active park? A park that people can get to or are you pretending that in the future we’re going to have access on the west side. Or some kind of access on the south through the Erhart property. I wouldn’t do that and I’m the type of person that would do that. I like the nature type parks so take a look at that. Park in Bandimere? You walk under a cul-de-sac. Then you go north on Highway 101 and then you swing through the neighborhood and then you swing back south again. Now there is a shortcut that they have in red lines there that goes through 2 parcels that they don’t own but you know you can get easements when they develop but I just want to make sure that you’ve thought that the access to the south, way south. If you take the blue line south and again as Mr. Tietz said, that could be 20 years apart. Away so I guess the deal is if you kind of like the connections that you’ve got and you kind of want the folks to walk the way they will, which they won’t and you can, I think on the cul-de-sac to the south you, people will park there and you possibly and probably could have parking area on that cul-de-sac for real people, people out of the neighborhood. It’s designed as a, right now I see this as designed as a neighborhood access and it’s not really a community access so challenge that. If you don’t like that you can, and if you don’t believe. If you believe that the Erhart property to the south is going to be developed soon well you might have some access there but again there you swing south and you walk around, it’s strange to me and I haven’t talked to the park and rec and there’s some folks here that used to be there. Court were you, what commission were you on? Court MacFarlane: Environmental. Ladd Conrad: Environmental okay, so you can’t even talk about this. Anyway I’m talking too long but you know if you thought the connection from that cul-de-sac going through the red line southwest and you continue on you’d need an easement on, I don’t know what block it is but Lot 8 and 9 you’d need an easement there. That would protect you for the future. You don’t need to use it but you’d have an easement to get into the system, okay. You’d have an easement. You’d have a way. I don’t know if it’s good. Apparently a consultant said it’s not good or there’s a 25 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016 problem with it but you could get there and you have a way that’s at least a little bit better for people parking in Bandimere. Little bit better but just think, take a look at that diagram. You park in Bandimere. You swing, you go under the tunnel. You go north. You go west. If you go south. You go west again. You’re still in the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you all for your service. Aller: Thank you. Thank you for your prior service. Your continued service in coming to speak. Aanenson: I’d just like to add a little bit more to this discussion. You know Mr. Erhart did have a commercial property. You can see the trail going to the east. I can’t point to the, there you go. So there is a connection there too. That’s a commercial piece right there. Again this is a piece of property that the City bought. It’s heavily wooded. There’s no anticipated formalized trails or anything in that going through there so I think we need to keep that in mind is how we see this property being used. The main purpose of it was to protect a large wooded area. At that time when they did the referendum that was one of the missions of the commission to say let’s preserve a big woods so I think we have to compare how that’s being used and how we anticipate that. There’s no formalized trails being proposed in there. It’s just an experience you can have so how do we intend to use, how was it intended to be used and will be used in the future? Can people walk through there? Of course. Are we expecting maybe a classroom to walk in there sometime? That could happen too but I don’t know if we’re anticipating a cross country ski team going through there or biking class. I don’t know if it was developed at that level so that’s something I think as this goes to City Council we should maybe get some more input formalization of the park and rec’s direction on how they see that because at this point we’re taking their input. Their recommendations and the conditions are much more enumerated in detail if you go to your staff report on page 15 and 16. I know Mr. Erhart had strong feelings about how those trails should be affecting his property. Whether his property comes forward or not is side. We have to look at this piece and how we see the park being used. We’re not making decisions on that. I know himself would like to see those, as he’s communicated with us, those trails to go in now but again we’re going by the recommendation we got from Park and Rec Director on that so. So if anybody had any questions on those conditions on page 15 and 16 I’d be happy to answer those. Weick: Where does the, where the laser is right now, where does that path go if you follow it? Aller: South through the woods. Weick: But if it were but like, does that go out to Powers? Aanenson: Yes. Eventually out to Powers correct. Generous: This would be where the connection. 26 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016 Weick: Kind of down, is that, are we down near Pioneer? Generous: Not that far. Aanenson: Just a little above that. Weick: Okay. But in that area. Aanenson: Yeah because there’ll be a lift station down there and a pond so that lift station could be the parking spot also for access in and we talked about that too. Provide additional parking at the lift station and that could be a place to park and then work your way in as that project goes forward, and we don’t know when that lift station’s going to go forward either so those are some of the other things that we talked about and we talked about that with Mr. Erhart too. Aller: Because this lift station is dependent upon further development. Aanenson: That’s correct. Aller: So there’s just a lot in the future that we’re trying to anticipate in our planning processes. The public hearing is still open so individuals wishing to come forward can do so. Please state your name and address for the record. Michael Howe: Thank you Mr. Chairman, commissioners. Michael Howe, 2169 Stone Creek Drive. Aller: Welcome. Michael Howe: I’m not sure there’s a lot more to say but I just wanted to encourage this board to really look into the trails. This is a tremendous piece of property. The Fox property and the Erhart property below it. I was on the park board, must have been 16 or 18 years ago when we bought the Fox property and I know the Erharts and I spend an awful lot of time, as does my family on all this land. Running and picnicking and with the dog and we keep a beehive on the property with a bunch of couples from the Rotary Club so we’re there 3 or 4 days a week and it is a gem and I don’t know that there are a lot of other properties combined like it in Chanhassen right now so just take undue care and I know the park commission will do that and the park board but if there’s a way to make the trail as far as you’ve got that outlet at Bandimere right now that’s under 101, it would seem to be a natural to me to somehow extend that instead of having to go south or go north and I do recall from my park board days a little different land use but Greenwood Shores there were people parking in the neighborhood at Greenwood Shores to swim there at the beach at Lake Ann and they had to put up no parking signs so it does happen but it’s a tremendous piece of property and I like what I hear in how it seems to be developed but I think nobody really knows about it. I mean I hardly every see anybody here and we’re there for 27 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016 hours at a time and it’s pretty rare so I do think it would catch on and just take undue care in how you plan it so thank you. Aller: Thank you for your comments. Aanenson: I just want to point out too you know the existing property that’s along 101, we don’t have control of that property to make some of those connections at this time too so you know that’s not part of the subdivision application. That’s the one that’s immediately adjacent to 101. Yeah this property right there. We’re providing access for the driveway, yeah. So that’s some of the challenges. Aller: And that’s intended to be a private road? Aanenson: Correct, to get access but the rest of that property is not being subdivided so the extraction would come when there’d be subdivision and you could take the additional right-of- way because we don’t have that at this time whose burden is it? It might be a public process that the City would say while this is being built it’d be a good time now for the City to do and that’s something the Park and Rec Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council on that. I did talk to Park Director on that because taking the extraction now when that’s not part of the subdivision would be difficult but the City could work on that as part of the project and work with the property owner to see if we could make that additional trail happen now so that’s in the works of the talking about that. Aller: Thanks for that clarification. Any other individual wishing to come forward? Please come, state your name and address for the record. Dawne Erhart: I’m Dawne Erhart and we’re the owners south of this development and I do want to go on record to say that we do not have any future, near future plans to develop this and this would be a good opportunity to continue this and have a very nice trail through a wilderness and that the whole community could enjoy. Thank you. Aller: Great, thank you very much for coming down. Any other individuals present wishing to come forward? Seeing no one come forward I will close the public hearing and open it up for discussion. Looking like you want to say something. Commissioner Randall. Randall: One thing I was a little concerned about was we didn’t hear about the traffic at all. I mean you’re going to have 43, 46 homes in there. I was a little bit concerned about cars trying to make a left turn to go north on 101 to get access to 212 so just a concern of mine, especially with a development that potentially could happen south of there. 101 and 61. Don’t know if that’s going to be a concern or not but. Aller: Before we go further maybe we could ask Alyson to address that a little bit and get the information. 28 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016 Fauske: Certainly I’d be happy to. This portion of 101 was improved a couple years ago. With that they provide, they take a look at the design of 101 along with existing and forecasted traffic volumes and turning movements and at that time the planning department had a master plan if you will showing that collector road from 101 to Powers with an estimated number of units that would be feeding onto that system with the traffic engineers then making some assumptions as far as turning movements. So an excellent question as far as the traffic movements. Making that connection so that it T’s in at the same location of Bandimere Park certainly helps from a safety standpoint but all those things were taken into consideration when the 101 improvements were constructed. Aller: Okay, thank you. Any other comments? Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: I have a question about the location of the future lift station. Is that property that the City already has access to and owns it? Fauske: The future lift station would be located at that location there at the pointer. We do not have fee title to any property there. That’s a location that we’ve identified. As far as getting the lift station in at that location I believe we have a vault in at that location so we can fit some of the pertinences of the lift station within the existing right-of-way. I don’t have the actual footprint that would be required for that lift station and whether or not it could accommodate, whether the existing right-of-way could accommodate it at this time. Madsen: Okay because my follow up question would be if the City could access that or get a hold of that fee title property sooner rather than later and put a parking lot there, could you access the park then without having the property to the south develop? Fauske: The lift station, as far as lift stations go for access you need access off of a road in order to get a Vactor truck and other service vehicles to it. It certainly doesn’t need a large parking area. I think what the idea was would be to ultimately use the lift station access as a parking area but the lift station in and of itself does not require a large paved surface. Does that answer your question? Aanenson: Maybe I can because I’ve been involved to have the city engineer and some of the underlying property owner on that. There’s an ongoing kind of understanding on when that property develops what the City needs. What the property owner desires so I think that when that time comes there’s, that should all fall into place. Obviously there’s expectations on both parties how that will come about but financially and timing and that sort of thing so it’s identified on the Comprehensive Plan. Actually when we were looking at doing the Fairview Hospital, that lift station needed to go in in order for that hospital to go forward so those plans were all put on hold because that project did not go forward. 29 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016 Madsen: Okay. Geographically would you be able to access the park from that location? I’m not sure where the outline of that is. Aanenson: Well there was actually a stub street and I think when this goes to City Council it will be better to show the entire property and I apologize we didn’t have that map in there but actually that street would extend as we pointed out that the goal is to connect the access onto 101 and tie it back into Powers Boulevard. I believe Bob mentioned that too but again it’s circuitous. You know we talked, we met with Mr. Erhart and said would you want to do it now but we don’t know what the development’s going to be. You don’t know what the alignment’s going to be. It’s very deep sewer through that area so it wouldn’t be a good decision to do that now so because there’s no pending project, as Mrs. Erhart stated, there’s really no reason to put it in place. Just that we thought about it. It’s in our plans and I think we, and we had it identified already so I believe we can mobilize on that when the time comes. Madsen: Thank you. Aller: Additionally comments. Mr. Undestad. Undestad: Two questions. One for Alyson and I don’t know maybe this is your’s or you can answer but the wetland mitigation, is it on site? Is it remaining on site? Fauske: I believe the developer’s consultant could correct me if I’m wrong. I believe they’re doing a banking. They’re purchasing from a wetland bank. Undestad: Banking okay. And then Kate, on the park again can you pull that little trail system up one more time. Aanenson: Sure. Undestad: So the red alternate that everybody’s talking about coming down there, obviously the first 2 lots you know you have no control over. Aanenson: Correct. Because again because those properties aren’t being included in the plat we can’t force the trail. Undestad: Right, no, no I understand that. Whenever they do develop then we’ll look at that but as their discussion is to bring that trail down through the lower maybe above the wetland down there, is the developer willing to put some easements in place now for the future to have that? Aanenson: Well that’s something that we’d have to talk about. We have to look at the preferred alignment. Again there’s a lot of negotiations going on and they’re still going on. With the property to the south and this property of what’s the best place and then the City would also be a participant because again if someone’s not included in the subdivision it’s hard to go in and say 30 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016 well you have to give us some of your land so I think as this moves forward in the process that’s, and we try to drill down on where the best location and timing. I think when this goes to City Council we’ll definitely try to have a little bit more specifics on that. Undestad: Thank you. Aller: Any additional comments or questions? Okay I’ll entertain. Yes, Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: I just want to piggy back on Mark’s comment too is that anything that we can do I think now to preserve the most direct route for a linkage between Bandimere and the preserve in the way of easements and protect it now I think it’s, the staff should look closely at the most direct route. Not the most circuitous route and anticipate that that red line would be appropriate and then work from there west. I think that would be in everyone’s best interest for the users of Bandimere. For those who want to wander into the preserve and just to protect it for the future. Aanenson: Again that means doing condemnation or something so as the property to the south says I’m not ready to go, nor are they so it’s just a discussion of right. It’s not that simple but I think the park commission is concerned about that too. Or the Park Director so that’s something we’ll certainly get more clarity as we move through the process. Tietz: Yeah because the blue line is the blue line. Aanenson: And the red line’s the red line. Tietz: But the blue line, but portions of the red line can be purchased now and protected and the blue line it’s just, it’s on the plan. It’s like the comp plan and anything can change in the future. Aanenson: Sure. Tietz: I have one of those blue lines through our yard too. Aanenson: Right, right. Right. Well again someone’s got to pay for it and build it on someone else’s property and there’s a risk on that and the other one’s also on somebody else’s property so that’s the challenge. Understood your comment. Aller: Based on that discussion any further questions, comments, concerns? Hearing none I think. Undestad: I think a lot of people are going to have a lot of beautiful back yards on that development. Weick: It’s a cool area. 31 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016 Aller: Yeah it is a big property. I’ll entertain a motion and any individual wishing to tack on to that motion or request that park and recs take a look at this or that the City discuss with park and recs the best way to move forward and reassert their position at City Council should probably do so would be a good idea. Tietz: I’ll make a motion. Aller: Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approves the Conditional Use Permit for development in the Bluff Creek Overlay District, zoning from Agricultural Estate District (A2) to Residential Low and Medium Density (RLM); and a 46 lot, 6 outlot and public right-of-way preliminary plat with variances for the use of a private street and a 20 foot setback from the Bluff Creek primary zone subject to the conditions of approval. Table the Wetland Alteration Permit and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: Having a motion do I have a second? Weick: Second. Aller: I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Tietz moved, Weick seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approves the Conditional Use Permit for development in the Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD), zoning from Agricultural Estate District (A2) to Residential Low and Medium Density (RLM), a 46 lot, 6 outlot and public right-of-way preliminary plat with variances for the use of a private street and a 20 foot setback from the Bluff Creek primary zone, plans prepared by Alliant Engineering Inc. dated 5-6-16, table the Wetland Alteration Permit, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation: Rezoning: 1.Contingent on final plat approval. Subdivision : Building: 1.Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. 2.Buildings may be required to be designed by an architect and/or engineer as determined by the Building Official. 3.Engineered design and building permits are required for retaining walls exceeding four feet in height. 32 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016 4.Each lot must be provided with a separate sewer and water service. 5.Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures. 6.Proper removal, abandonment or sealing of storage tanks, on-site septic systems, wells, etc. is required. Permits are required, as applicable. 7.If applicable, existing home(s) affected by the new street will require address changes. 8.Provide a 1:200 “clean” plat drawing. Engineering: 1.The 16.5’ wide telephone easement must be vacated before the City Council considers final plat approval. 2.The well on the property must be properly abandoned. 3.Label the contours on Sheet 2 of the Existing Conditions Survey. 4.The grading plan must be revised to eliminate the 3H:1V slope within the temporary cul-de- sac. 5.The developer shall dedicate an easement over the temporary cul-de-sac; the easement exhibit shall be submitted with the final plat application. 6.The private street within Outlot B and must be built to a 7-ton design. 7.Pedestrian curb ramps from the sidewalks to the street are required must be ADA-compliant. 8.The developer will install shallow monitoring wells or piezometers in the area of Lots 1-4, Block 5 and Lot 18, Block 1. Water elevations shall be monitored for a minimum of four weeks during a time when seasonally high water table would be expected. 9.An oversized drainage and utility easement is required at the back of Lot 1, Block 6 as this area conveys drainage from the adjacent parcel. Staff recommends that the 916’ contour extend into the drainageway to create a swale versus the sheet drainage pattern that is currently shown; it has been staff’s experience that landscaping/hardscaping/etc. on the downstream parcel tends to impede sheet drainage. 10.Per Section 18-40 (4) d. 2. v. a drain tile service is required for Lots 1-4 Block 5, Lot 6 Block 5; and Lots 1-3 Block 6 as these lots are proposed to drain from the back of the lot towards the street. 11.The developer’s engineer shall ensure that the maximum driveway grades shown on the plan are calculated such that a 10’ landing is provided where the driveway connects to the street and a five to 10-foot landing is provided at the garage. 12.On the grading plan label the existing contours. 13.The retaining wall on Lot 2, Block 4 must be outside of the drainage and utility easement. 14.The temporary lift station must be located outside of the temporary cul-de-sac. 15.The developer must work with staff to ensure that the invert elevation is at or higher than the invert elevation established during the concept planning of the undeveloped parcel to the south. 16.On Sheet 18 modify Note 2 to state that 10’ horizontal separation is required between water and sewer lines and modify Note 11 to state that sanitary sewer services shall be 6” diameter. 33 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016 Environmental Resources: 1.Prior to any grading, the applicant shall install tree preservation fencing using metal stakes. The fencing shall be placed fencing at the grading limits. Tree #2524 shall be included in the fencing area rather than fenced separately. These protections shall remain in effect until construction is completed. 2.Signage identifying outlot natural areas will be posted at property corners on lots 1, 3-6, 8-9, 17, 18, block 1 and lots 1, 2, block 2 and lots 8, 9, block 3 and lot 1-2, block 4. Fire: 1.A 3-foot clear space shall be maintained around fire hydrants. 2.Submit propose street names to Chanhassen Fire Marshal and Chanhassen Building Official for review and approval. 3.Street signs (temporary allowed) shall be installed prior to building permits being issued. Fire Marshal must approve signage. 4.Prior to combustible construction fire hydrants shall be made serviceable. 5.No burning permits will be issued for tree/brush removal. 6.Prior to combustible home construction fire apparatus access roads capable of supporting the weight of fire apparatus shall be made serviceable. 7.Additional fire hydrants will be required or relocated. Parks: 1.Full park dedication fees shall be collected per city ordinance in lieu of requiring parkland dedication; and 2.Dedication of an outlot adjacent to Lot 12, Block 5 and across the southern portion of Lot 5, Block 5 to accommodate future construction of a trail. 3.Planning, engineering and construction of two planned 10-foot wide trail connections leading from two cul-de-sacs into the Fox Woods Preserve. 4.Planning, engineering and construction of a planned 10-foot wide Highway 101 trail connection between the current trail terminus at the Bandimere Park Pedestrian Underpass and the northern terminus of the plat adjacent to and along Highway 101. 5.Trail right of ways within the subdivision shall be provided within outlots as a condition of the plat. Acquisition of trail easements outside of the plat shall be the responsibility of the City of Chanhassen. 6.The Developer shall be responsible for the installation and payment of the two planned 10- foot wide trail connections leading from two cul-de-sacs into the Fox Woods Preserve. 34 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016 7.For those sections of the Hwy 101 trail situated north and south of their property boundaries, the Developer shall be reimbursed by the City of Chanhassen for the full cost of planning, engineering and construction of a planned 10-foot wide Highway 101 trail connection between the current trail terminus at the Bandimere Park Pedestrian Underpass and the northern terminus of the plat along Highway 101. 8.For that section of the Highway 101 trail located within or adjacent to the Developer’s project boundary, the applicant shall be reimbursed by the City for the cost of the aggregate base, trail surfacing, retaining walls and storm water systems utilized to construct the trail. This reimbursement payment shall be made upon completion and acceptance of the trail and receipt of an invoice documenting the actual costs for the construction materials noted. Labor and installation for the trail surface and design, and engineering and testing services for all components of the Developers section, are not reimbursable expenses. 9.All trails shall be 10 feet in width, surfaced with asphalt and constructed to meet city specifications. Water Resources Coordinator: 1.The model shall be modified to reflect the fact that current soil conditions and vegetative cover will have a lower bulk density and a higher infiltration rate than fully developed conditions. 2.The model must be modified to accurately reflect times of concentration for each drainage area. 3.In the absence of measured infiltration rates, the site should be modeled with conditions similar to what is anticipated given the soil survey and the proposed construction methodologies. 4.The wetlands cannot be used to meet rate control. Rate control must be achieved prior to discharge to any of the wetlands, MN DOT right-of-way or adjoining properties. 5.The infiltration basin areas shall be protected from construction traffic and other construction related activities throughout the duration of the project. This shall be noted on the grading plan, in the SWPPP and shown with pre-construction silt fence location. 6.The infiltration areas shall be graded last. The tributary area shall be graded and stabilized prior to excavation of the infiltration basins. 7.The mass grade phasing schedule shall include stripping and stockpiling of top soil material. 8.The grading and erosion plan shall include stockpile locations. 9.The SWPPP and erosion plan shall include topsoil quantities necessary to place six inches (6”) on all disturbed areas to be re-vegetated. 10.A detailed planting schedule and plan shall be included for each infiltration basin. 11.Redundant perimeter controls are required for all disturbs soils draining to wetlands. This may be silt fence, biologs, wind-rows of salvaged and stockpiled topsoil or other as approved by the city. 12.The developer shall be responsible for procuring the NPDES construction permit and providing proof to the city prior to any land disturbing activities. 35 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016 13.The developer must meet the requirements of MN Rules Chapter 8420 and the Federal Clean Water Act. 14.The development shall meet the CUP conditions for the Bluff Creek Overlay District. 15.Signage will be required at every lot corner and angle point along the private lots adjacent to the wetlands not bound by the BCOD. These must be installed prior to selling the lot. 16.Any grading within wetland buffers must be restored with native vegetation. A planting schedule and vegetation maintenance plan of at least 3 years shall be provided to the city for review and approval. 17.The Storm Water Utility Connection Charge due at final plat is estimated to be $218,662.84 Conditional Use Permit: 1.Infiltration basin IB1 located north of Lots 10, 11, 16 and 17 of block 1 shall be evaluated for methods to reduce tree loss. 2.The Bluff Creek Overlay District Boundaries shall be shown to be incidental with the boundaries of Outlots A and C. 3.Any grading within the Bluff Creek Overlay District must be restored with native vegetation. A planting schedule and vegetation maintenance plan of at least 3 years shall be provided to the city for review and approval. 4.Signage will be required at every lot corner and angle point along the private lots adjacent to the BCOD. The sign language shall be provided by the city and the signs shall be at the developer’s expense. These signs shall be placed by the developer prior to selling any of the lots. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Aller: And again I think as a whole the Planning Commission would thank the individuals who made their comments. I think they should be forwarded to the City Council with the Minutes and it would be our request that City Council and City staff take a look at this with the Park and Rec Commission for the best routes available. (The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting.) APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Madsen noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 17, 2016 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Aanenson: If you want to close the meeting we can close to that part. Aller: City Council action update. I understand there was nothing before the City Council and we can move to the future agenda items. 36 Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 7, 2016 Aanenson: If you want to go through that really quick. I’ll go through the future agenda items really quick. I apologize. Aller: That’s okay. st Aanenson: So on June 21 then we’ve got the Moon Valley IUP so that’s, if you look at what we did on the 61 corridor part of that was looking at the reclamation, how that would look like in the future and so this Interim Use Permit will provide the grading plan. Kind of the, they submitted an overall grading plan but the continuation of how they’re re-establishing that. I don’t know if any of you have been by there but there’s been, Jill Sinclair, our Forester has been working with a group. They’ve been planting along that slope on that upper part of the Moon Valley site. There’s trees going in up there to help maintain that up there so things are in good shape there. Carver Beach Road, another variance. That was actually a lot of record. That one they just want to move the house a little bit, a 5 foot variance from the street setback so they can meet the wetland setbacks so there’s no house on there right now. And then Bandimere Park some grading out there in excess of our minimum administrative which I believe is 2,000 Alyson for grading permit? Over 1,000 for a grading permit? Fauske: 1,000. th Aanenson: 1,000 so it’s over 1,000 in that one. So that’s what we have. July 5 we do not have th a meeting because it’s after the 4 of July and some people are traveling. It’s hard to get a th quorum and we’re on clean up duty from the 4 of July. Aller: Awesome. I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. Aanenson: And we’ll do the admin after that. Undestad moved, Madsen 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 8:40 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 37