Loading...
PC Minutes 5-21-19Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 28 The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER SUBDIVISION OF 1.17 ACRES INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NE INTERSECTION OF CARVER BEACH ROAD AND BIG WOODS BOULEVARD. Al-Jaff: Thank you Chairman Weick, members of the Planning Commission. The application before you is, my apologies. We don’t have a monitor here so George will be going to. The application before you is for a subdivision and a variance. The request is to subdivide a 1.17 acre into two lots for single family detached houses. The property is located northeast of the intersection of Big Woods Boulevard and Carver Beach Road. One of the things that we need to point out specifically dealing with existing conditions out there. There are two homes located east of this parcel. The addresses are 640 and 630 Carver Beach Road. Those two parcels share a cross access driveway that straddles the northerly property line of the subject site. And we will talk about that later in more detail. Just a brief background. So back in 2006 this parcel that extended from Carver Beach to Lotus Lake appeared before the City. It was subdivided into two parcels. The easterly portion which contained a single family home was sold and the remaining 1.17 acres is what remains vacant and is before the Planning Commission for further subdivision. So this is a fairly simple two lot subdivision. The parcels are both, the lot area width and depth all exceed the minimum requirements of the city code. The parcels are guided single family and this is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. As part of the subdivision the applicant is dedicating right-of-way and it is in compliance with all of the ordinances. Staff is recommending approval of this application with conditions. One of the things that we need to highlight is that the existing parcel is a high quality woodland typical of the Big Woods. A type of forest dominated by sugar maple and basswood. To preserve the existing woods and retain the wooded feel of the neighborhood staff recommends the easterly 140 feet of Lot 1 and the westerly 40 feet of Lot 2 be covered by a conservation easement. The Comprehensive Park Plan requires that homes be, a park be located within half a mile of residential subdivisions. In this Carver Beach Park serves this development and some of the amenities that can be found at the park are swimming beach, playground, fishing pier, trails and there’s also a parking area for individuals that wish to drive out to the park. At this point I need to turn it over to Assistant City Engineer George Bender to address access among other issues. Bender: So for Lot 1 the access is off of Carver Beach Road. It’s fairly normal and consistent. Not much to discuss there. The access for Lot 2 is a little bit different. Due to the grades that are out there this driveway is proposed to come off of the new right-of-way. There are in association with this driveway that’s along here and existing easements there is difficulties in carrying the road through the subdivision to the northerly lot line as would be a normal process. As such alternatives have been considered and the proposal is to serve the home off of the new right-of- way but allow the driveway to go through the right-of-way. The sewer and water mains would be extended beyond the driveway but not impact the existing easements that are in place to utilize the driveway by this lot and this lot. And at the time that further development occurs to Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 29 the north the driveway would be torn out within the right-of-way and replaced with a street that would be extended all the way over to the north to the Fox Path Road that’s to the north. The developer would be required to provide an escrow to pay for the extension of the street and the removal of the driveway. There is no knowing how long development will take to the north. If the, or if that escrow became not enough to build the road the differences would be as written in the staff report would be put on the future developer. The utilities as discussed would be, there’s already stubs out of Big Woods Boulevard that was recently reconstructed. They would be extended beyond the driveway to allow for and be sized for the future development but they would get beyond the driveway but yet not impact the existing easement. The watermain would become a dead end. It would have to have a fire hydrant on the end of it to facilitate flushing and other maintenance. The other thing to note about this from a maintenance perspective is the City would not plow the driveway or be responsible for the maintenance due to the driveway being within the right-of-way. That would be a condition. Another part of this slide discusses the drainage and utility easements along the south side of Lots 1 and 2. You’ll notice that they are abnormal. There has been future stormwater improvements designed. They’re not part of this two lot subdivision because it is a two lot subdivision. But in the future drainage and utility easement is being granted so that they could be added as necessary when the property to the north develops. It would become the responsibility of the City to do that. There are some concerns related to that existing driveway and how they will impact this two lot subdivision. Especially from a drainage perspective because the area to the north is higher in grade than the area to the south and everything generally is sloping towards Big Woods Boulevard. So the blue arrows that are shown are basically showing drainage flow patterns that are aimed at the houses. There would be a requirement for the developer to provide an exhibit to show how drainage would not impact the home, selected home sites and you know primarily concerned with snow melt and plowing. How that would occur so that the two homes that are constructed would not be at the mercy essentially of being downhill of that. Staff is comfortable with the drainage as exhibited in the flow patterns for Lot number 1. We do have identified some concerns with Lot 2. We don’t feel that they are major concerns. We feel that with a little bit more detail that this could be easily correctable but it is noted. We’d also like to see a driveway exhibit be provided and that’s noted in the staff report to show how in the future when the road is extended, not only does it meet code for grades but how the driveway will tie into it and also meet the maximum of a 10 percent slope restriction. Regarding retaining walls. Three new retaining walls are proposed on this site. They do not have top of wall and bottom of wall elevations shown on the proposed plans. That would need to be added. It is a condition that is noted in the staff report. In addition any retaining wall that would be over 4 feet in height would be required to be designed by a professional engineer. Any retaining walls that would encroach on a drainage and utility easement would be required to file for an encroachment agreement and the existing retaining wall that’s along Big Woods Drive is within the property would be within the drainage and utility easement so that will have to be looked into from filing an encroachment agreement and looking at you know who owns that retaining wall. And that’s the end of my presentation at this time. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 30 Al-Jaff: So one of the things that I need to clarify just a little bit more. The driveway that is serving the two parcels east of the subject site. There is a cross access agreement. It has a life of 99 years. I know that the developer as well, or the owner of the property as well as their engineer and staff have communicated with the neighbors to explain to them the options and the neighbor to the north basically does not wish to have any development, doesn’t want to be part of development at this time so one of the questions you asked me Chairman Weick at the beginning was the date on this application. It was 2017 and that’s when we started working with Mr. Eidsness. He submitted his application then trying to resolve all of these issues. All of these matters has taken quite a while. With that said staff is recommending approval of this application and we will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Weick: Great, thank you very much. At this time if there’s any questions for staff from the commission speak up. Randall: I have none. Weick: None? Randall: None. Weick: Commissioner Reeder? Reeder: Mr. Chairman, trying to figure out why they are building two huge lots instead of, if you just look across the street on Big Woods Boulevard why wouldn’t they put 5 lots in there? Tell me about the conservation easement that you have. Al-Jaff: Sure. One of, when they appeared before the City these parcels, you can only fit two homes. If you look at the lot area, lot depth, lot width. Also there are some steep grades on these two parcels so first blush you look at it and you say it makes perfect sense to come off of Big Woods Boulevard. The fact is they’re depth will not work so they would have to come before you with variances. Reeder: What’s the? Al-Jaff: They would need 125 foot minimum. Reeder: Depth from Big Woods. And what do they have? Al-Jaff: It is less than, it’s 105. Reeder: 105? Al-Jaff: 106. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 31 Reeder: Okay my concern is that we’re setting ourselves up for a variance in the future if they come back in and try to subdivide these lots to get more lots on these houses. You talked about a conservation, how’s that work? Al-Jaff: So basically with a conservation easement they, and this is an area that they had not intended to grade. They won’t be able to remove the trees and it would preserve these, the overall area as wooded. If you look across the street with Big Woods we do have similar easements. They are not as wide and what we did is we allowed the, these parcels to have a reduced front yard setback in lieu of, so their front yard is 20 feet but their rear yard setback is 40 feet and within that 40 feet is where they have their conservation easement. Reeder: Okay so we have a conservation easement here that’s the City’s in control of and would not ever allow anything to happen? Al-Jaff: I’ve learned a long time ago to say, I never say never. But it is basically what happens is if there is a diseased tree for instance then they will go and meet, work with the City Forester and ensure that it is removed. If there are dead trees the same is true. But can they clear trees, clear cut trees out of that area? The answer is no. Reeder: And they can’t come in for a subdivision? Al-Jaff: No. You can only fit two lots into that area so no. They can. Reeder: Without a variance. Al-Jaff: Without a variance. Reeder: Because of the depth. Al-Jaff: Correct. Reeder: Clearly they have more lot area than you need for these two lots. Total area. What’s a normal lot size? Al-Jaff: 15,000 square feet. Reeder: 15,000 and these lots are? Al-Jaff: So one of them is 17,000 and the other one. Weick: 27.9. I think. On page 10 of 12. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 32 Al-Jaff: Yes. In addition to the lot depth that’s going to become an issue, or a problem. Again the grades on these parcels are not very conducive to accessing off of Big Woods Boulevard. Hence you will see retaining walls in multiple areas. There are fairly large drainage and utility easements and that’s where we will have potentially future drainage utilities. So between all of these things it’s unlikely that you will be able to fit another parcel. Reeder: Okay it’s beautiful. I love it just the way it is. That’s fine. Al-Jaff: Thank you. Weick: Any questions for the City? Skistad: I guess the only thing that confused me was the retaining wall that we don’t know who owns it? Does that have to be answered first? Bender: I don’t believe it has to. That can be worked out with the final plat. Reeder: Who built it? Bender: I couldn’t answer that question at this time. Weick: And it meets, other than the variance for the right-of-way this meets all of the. Al-Jaff: It exceeds everything. Weick: It meets and exceeds all of the requirements for a preliminary plat. Okay thank you. At this time I would invite the applicant to make a presentation if you would like. Just state your name. Paul Otto: I’m Paul Otto with Otto and Associates. I’m representing the applicant. If you have questions for him I can answer. I’ll be fairly brief on this. I think it is pretty straight forward. You’ve all realized that. A couple of the things. The retaining walls if we need to pull them out of the easements I think we can. What we did with the homes on this and the proposed grading as we wanted to give an idea of how that would look. These would be custom design as most of Chanhassen is but the easterly home, we actually have a dropped garage so that garage is dropped from the main floor farther than you normally would in a home and we are proposing to pull grade up on the north side of that home so we can get it to drain around there. We’ll certainly provide more detail on that and then as well the, why the garage is dropped is because we actually, there’s a lot of history in this. I first looked at this property and all the properties to the north in 2006. We laid it all out. I’ve got a design for the whole thing so this was the first part of it and that driveway there needs to be dropped to fit into the future road so we’ll certainly provide that to city staff as well. Other than that I think we’re onboard with everything. The retaining wall that’s at the intersection there was built with the project to the south. We Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 33 happened to have done that. The little piece there was an outlot of that project and then that got attached to the north so that’s how that got there. What easements are there or not I don’t know. We haven’t seen title work yet. Maybe that will have something in it. Maybe not so I don’t know if you have any questions for me. Weick: Certainly open it up if there’s any commissioner questions. Any questions? No, thank you very much. I’m sure it’s going to be beautiful. Lots of trees in there. At this time we will open up the public portion of the hearing if anyone would like to come forward and provide comment on this project you’re welcomed to do so now. You would go to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Yes please. David Igel: Good evening Chairman and commissioners. My name is David Igel. I live at 501 Big Woods Boulevard and my wife Rachel and I actually developed Big Woods Boulevard so I have a little bit of the history. Paul was our engineer of record and probably knows more of the details and I’ve known Mr. Eidsness and he’s been working on this for some time as well as city staff. You know I think overall we were hoping that the entire property would develop at the same time. I think it would make for a better flow. I think everybody probably feels that way but as it is I think done properly it’s going to be a nice addition to the neighborhood. I did just have a couple of questions on it and I think that this has changed a little bit in design since the last time I talked to city staff so I’ll try to be brief here but maybe if some of those questions could be answered. There’s not going to be stormwater ponding or anything added at the present time? Is that correct? It’s just planned for future? So does the existing stormwater system on Big Woods that flows both east and west, those calcs are done and that will handle the existing hard cover I presume? Bender: Yes. David Igel: Is that right? Okay. The one, let’s see. I just wondered if those trees are the final location. The additional trees that I think are required by the, to keep the canopy. Is that the final position for those to be planted or could they be, if not instead of trees being used to provide screening from the house into the trees that are going to be kept in the conservation easement, if those could be dropped on the lower side to provide screening from Big Woods ma be a consideration and that wouldn’t necessarily have to be put in but I haven’t had a chance to talk to the applicant to this point. That would be one comment I would have. With the retaining walls, the existing retaining walls which were put in when Big Woods was put in were all made of boulders and my thought on it, and perhaps the City and the engineers have a different feel for it. I think as a matter of consistency, and maybe the applicant would have a different feel for it as well but as a matter of consistency it’d be nice for those to be retaining walls as well. Made of boulders just as a matter of consistency coming across. I don’t know if that’s been considered. And then the one thing I would just like to add, and it’s probably not part of this process but because of the grade that does come down and I think it was touched on with the erosion control, that is going to be really important. The last house that was built on Big Woods at the end was uphill from the cul-de-sac and the retaining pond in my driveway that actually runs down into Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 34 my garage wasn’t properly maintained. There’s actually some weird water tables in there so the, a spring was kind of feeding the water behind. Contractors were in there. Did some work. They cut the retaining, or the silt fencing that was holding, we had several thousand gallons that ran down into the pond, into the driveway, into my garage so I would just say that special care be taken of that. I’m sure that that’s the intent of the applicant and engineer but that I think is going to be really critical because if a big storm comes down that’s going to silt up all of the catch basins. All of the underwater piping and then of course the new retaining pond or the new area to the west. The one variance which I think that’s probably the only thing that you have much discretion on here of being a 50 foot wide for the right-of-way for that future road I think is a great idea and if that could ever be made any more narrow so fewer trees could be taken out in this area. We had a 50 foot variance on our’s and I think that would have been better if that would have been more narrow because a lot of trees were taken out there. You come from a 20 foot wide cart path coming in there to what’s probably a larger boulevard than is necessary and the fewer trees and the fewer, the less excavating that needs to happen up there for that new road or for the driveway would I think be beneficial to the whole neighborhood. Thank you. Weick: Great, thank you. And as a note all the comments that are made become part of the public record so your comments and suggestions will be part of the public record for this case. Please. Mike Sweet: Thank you. My name is Mike Sweet. I live at 565 Big Woods Boulevard. Kind of right straight across from the easterly lot there and I was wondering if there’s any stipulation regarding the orientation of the two houses. Do they face Big Woods Boulevard or do they face you know the westerly one facing Carver Beach Road and the other one facing the other way? Because you know all the houses on the south side of Big Woods Boulevard face and it just seems odd to me if the other houses were facing east and west so that we’re looking at the side of that house and that it would maybe negatively impact the property values of the houses on the south side of Big Woods Boulevard. So is there any stipulation for that or is that not something you can stipulate? I mean you just kind of divide up the lots and let people build houses, whichever orientation they want. Weick: You know we’ll keep track of the questions and then we can certainly pose them to the applicant. Mike Sweet: Okay. And so that’s one concern that I had. And the other thing is just to reiterate to leave as many of those trees as possible. They’re just beautiful. Just full of maple trees and really a nice spot over there. I’d hate to see too many of those taken down. I don’t know if the conservation easements, if the size of those is cast in stone or why, how we came up with the size of those but if they could be as large as possible we’d appreciate it. Weick: Thank you. Anyone else? Yes please. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 35 Francesca Landon: Hi, my name is Francesca Landon and I live at 620 Fox Hill Drive so I’m actually north of the woods completely and our house looks out to the woods so I’m in favor and I appreciate that you guys try to keep as much of the trees as possible within that. I had a quick question because if I recall correctly I thought the original plat from years and years ago that I had talked to you on the phone about, I thought this area served as a holding pond, is that correct? About it because there was going to be like the wetland on the upper side and I thought that there was a holding pond on the south side of this entire wooded area. Al-Jaff: There was. Francesca Landon: To serve as like the storm but it was much bigger if I can recall. I was trying to track down any of the old paperwork but I couldn’t find it. My question with that is from that larger amount then to adding all the hard cover and everything like that is the proposed storm, sorry. I’m spacing here. Is that going to be enough for these two houses as well as what you guys are planning for in the future? Weick: Okay and we’ll pose it because there’s different people that have to answer certain questions so. Francesca Landon: Yeah. And then my other question is for I’m sorry I forgot your name. You had said that the second house, the Block 2 I think, that on the north side of the house you were going to be dropping the garage because of the upgrading needed on the north side of the house but how does that affect the driveway that’s currently there for the two houses? And I think that’s my other one. Oh actually I’m sorry, I do have one more. Because of the weird school district lines I was curious. Would those be Carver County schools or Minnetonka schools? It’s kind of off topic but I think that was jut it so yeah, thank you. Weick: Thank you. Would anyone else? Oh there you are. I wasn’t looking I’m sorry. Diane Carney: No problem. Diane Carney. I live at 549 Big Woods Boulevard. I won’t go into it. My questions are similar to what’s already been said by our neighbors here which is retaining the trees. They’re so beautiful and they’re in full bloom and as many as can be retained as possible. And I live directly on that Lot 4 directly across from that new road and just to reiterate Dave’s point on keeping that as narrow as possible to try and preserve. There’s some really big trees right on that corner so that’s all I have. Thank you. Weick: Thank you. Seeing no one else come forward, would you be willing to answer some of the questions? That’d be great. I kept track of some of them but to just kind of rattle them off. One is the trees that will be added. Would there be consideration to adding trees to screen on Big Woods Boulevard? Paul Otto: Yeah and one thing that I wanted to point out and I didn’t right away which I should have is that these, the homes and the lots themselves will be sold and those will be custom Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 36 designed by whoever buys them so the City will have to handle reviewing the building permits to be in accordance with that so it’s probably going to be more up to those owners because one of the last things we want to do is come in there and clear cut these trees and plant these new ones and it doesn’t work into their home or somebody says, I mean I’ve seen people do a lot of different things and they say I want to see something completely different and design around maybe some of those trees so that will happen with the actual owners who frankly I mean I work for developers. It’s a business. They will probably have more sensitivity to that as well. Weick: Which could then also affect the materials you would use for retaining walls I would imagine. Paul Otto: Correct. That would be the same thing. That would really be up to the homeowner. They will be all on private property so. Weick: Yeah. Obviously if they could consider what some of the neighbors are saying to keep some of the consistency that’s always something to keep in the back of our mind. I think there was some, a request for care during construction especially for the runoff. Paul Otto: Yeah so for the construction portion of it what we will be responsible for is the utilities and that access and probably will be building that driveway up there just to help salability out so we will, staff has commented we need a little more erosion control on that. Weick: Okay. And then orientation of the homes. Again it’s probably up to the person who owns. Paul Otto: Yes. Why they’re in there like this is because that grade is coming down to the road. We could come off of Big Woods Boulevard but you’re going to be looking at a tuck under type garage home and that’s not as desirable at least in this area and probably you know it can be done and that’s not to say they couldn’t do it on these lots but this is a little bit easier for a buyer to see and visualize. Weick: Okay and then I think the last one for you was a question around dropping the driveway and if that, how that would affect I think the long driveway. Paul Otto: Yeah I didn’t really explain that correctly. So we’re going to, so we’ve got our house foundation and you’ve got trusses above that but you’ve got your house foundation and your outside grade is set by that. We’re going to drop the garage down I think, I can’t remember what it is. It’s a foot or foot and a half from that. And then on the north side of that we’re, what we show on our plan is that would actually be block on that north wall in the garage so that we can keep the grade of the north wall higher than the half a foot below the garage floor is what I’m trying to, what I tried to explain. Weick: Yep. Perfect. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 37 Paul Otto: Your stormwater pond question. Weick: Yes. Paul Otto: I can help with that because we did that design. We can only work with the properties that we have. When we did that design we, all of these property owners in this whole block were in agreement at that time and had hired us to look at that and the place that made the most sense was at that intersection because it’s the lowest on the property. We don’t have that now. What we have done is we’ve shown city staff that if you look at this development as a whole we can accommodate this new road in those easements but it will not handle the rest of the water to the north so the property owners to the north are going to need a pond on their own property. We ponded on our site for that road and extension for the future but we haven’t accounted for anybody else’s water. Weick: Okay. Paul Otto: Just to be clear. Weick: Okay. Great, well thank you. Paul Otto: Thank you. Weick: Appreciate it. And then I think the one last one was do we know the school district? Al-Jaff: I will check that information and make sure it’s available at the, when we update the report to the City Council. Weick: Great. I’m not sure if I closed the public hearing but I will. Public hearing is now closed and I will open this up. Oh did you want to? Yeah come on. We’ll open it back up. I have to do things semi-officially so. Francesca Landon: No and I, and maybe it’s just not clear for me. Weick: Yeah. Francesca Landon: From everything that I’m hearing it sounds like in the future regardless of what I would like, is that this area is going to be constructed. Personally I’d love it to just be trees forever. I know that’s not going to happen so knowing that information where are we going to be putting that extra pond that you had just talked about? Where is that going to go if this isn’t an option anymore? Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 38 Weick: I think that would be the responsibility of whoever is developing the property to the north. Is that a fair? Bender: I would agree with your statement. Maybe to add a little bit to that. Weick: Please. Bender: And Paul correct me if I’m wrong but there’s a low area and it’s kind of shown in some of the grade lines here that was previously going to be a pond and would likely be considered as a future pond site and that’s about as far as I can go with it. Weick: Okay. Francesca Landon: I’m just going to comment on that. Weick: Yeah go ahead. Francesca Landon: Because that pond is directly across from my house and I look at it every day. Currently that pond, especially with all the rain and the snow that we’ve had has kind of made it’s own trail and has started going down to the fire hydrant so that’s actually a spot that’s already low but it fills up very quickly, especially in the spring and it doesn’t have anywhere to go. It just trails down to Fox Hill and Carver Beach corners so just to keep that in mind. Weick: Thank you. I think that’s good information. Mike Sweet: One more quick comment regarding orientation. Weick: Sure. We’re going to get it all in. Mike Sweet: The orientation of the houses. I understand that it doesn’t make sense because of the grade the driveways really can’t come off of Big Woods Boulevard. They need to come in from the sides but if the houses could still be oriented to face Big Woods Boulevard. I realize this will be determined by the developer and the homeowners and stuff but if they could face Big Woods Boulevard it would seem more like a neighborhood so that all of our houses aren’t looking at the side of a house across the street then it seems like kind of a hodge podge you know put together thing. It’d be nice if they faced Big Woods. Weick: No that’s great feedback. I’m going to pause because I have rushed it too much. But this is really good conversation and important to get on the record for the development. So seeing nobody else come forward I am going to close the public hearing and I can open it up for commissioner discussion at this point. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 39 Randall: I just had one thing. MacKenzie did we talk about the facing of the homes? Didn’t we change something with that recently where you know because there’s these lots like that where they determined where the front of the house was going to be. Walters: Yep that was an ordinance amendment for a private streets and while it allowed the establishment of a front yard setback, the front yard setback does not dictate how the house is oriented design wise. Randall: Okay. Walters: It was just a you know a structural thing for driveways, etcetera and that was mostly targeted towards dealing with pre-existing development patterns and existing houses as they were built. Randall: Okay. Now does the one house on the west is that going to have a Carver Beach road address or is that going to have a Big Woods Boulevard address? Al-Jaff: It will have, if accessing off of Carver Beach it will have a Carver Beach address. Randall: Alright. Al-Jaff: Both of those parcels are corner lots. They would need to maintain a 30 foot setback from the right-of-way for Big Woods and Carver Beach as well as the future extension. Randall: Okay. That was all I had. Weick: Okay. Reeder: Quick question looking at this new road heading down toward Lot 4. …in a situation with the headlights going in the Lot 4? And I know that’s already situated there. Bender: Could you say that one more time? Reeder: If we’re going to put a road through directly across from Lot 4 here, we’ve got headlights heading right toward that guy’s house which sometimes people are concerned about. Bender: I see where you’re coming from. I don’t believe I understand completely which house you’re, are you talking the house that’s going to be at the end on. Reeder: No I’m talking about the Big Woods lot number 4 directly across the street from, yeah. Bender: Oh right here, okay. Eventually yes there would be headlights going at that house with that street platted through there. Best I can tell ya. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 40 Reeder: Looks like we’re setting up a problem. I don’t know what the solution would possibly be though because you’ve, you actually had that street entrance already established there right. So you assume that Lot number 4 knew it when they bought it. Bender: That is correct. We were, to talk about headlights a little bit. And it is addressed in the staff report a little bit in relation to the driveway that’s along here. We were thinking that the new houses on Lots 1 and 2 may also see headlights coming in and it is discussed in there as part of the drainage concerns of maybe using some sort of a privacy fence to help address that concern for as long as that driveway is there. Sharmeen correct me if I’m wrong but I believe that that cross access agreement went into effect in 1971. Al-Jaff: Correct. Bender: So it will be 99 years later or 2070 so approximately 51 years from now that that will expire if new agreements aren’t reached. Al-Jaff: The other thing that could potentially happen is the property to the north actually comes in for subdivision and at that time we would vacate that easement. Reeder: Okay. Weick: Comments, questions? Certainly entertain a motion if you feel like moving in that direction. Anything? Randall: I did the last one. Weick: Thank you. Skistad: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat to subdivide 1.17 acres into two lots and a variance to allow a 50 foot public right-of-way as shown in plans stamped Received April 22, 2019 subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision Recommendation. Weick: We have a motion. Do we have a second? Randall: Second. Weick: Second from Commissioner Randall. Any further comment on this case before we vote? Skistad moved, Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat to subdivide 1.17 acres into two lots and a variance to allow a 50 foot public right-of-way as shown in plans stamped Received April 22, 2019 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 41 subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision Recommendation: SUBDIVISION Engineering: 1. The applicant shall submit an ALTA survey illustrating the existing conditions including all existing easements on, and abutting, the subdivision prior to the recording of the final plat. 2. The applicant shall add drainage arrows to the grading plan to sufficiently illustrate the route drainage will take around the buildings and throughout the site for review and approval by the city prior to grading. 3. The applicant shall provide an exhibit demonstrating how snow removal operations from the existing driveway providing access to 630 and 640 Carver Beach Road will be performed without conflict or nuisance to the proposed subdivision prior to recording of final plat. 4. A copy of the executed construction easement shall be provided to the city prior to grading. 5. Updated plans illustrating retaining wall elevations shall be provided prior to grading. 6. The applicant will be required to dedicate 50 feet of right-of-way (ROW) to the east abutting Lot 2, as shown on the preliminary plat as “Lotus Woods Drive”. 7. The developer shall put into escrow the cost for construction (see condition 14) of the future street construction of “Lotus Woods Drive” abutting Lot 2 prior to recording of final plat. The construction of the street will occur when the property to the north of Lotus Woods Subdivision is developed, or when the city determines it is appropriate to construct the street, whichever occurs first. 8. Lot 2’s driveway elevations and grades shall align with the future street improvement of “Lotus Woods Drive”. A detail showing the elevations and conformity of future street grades and driveway grades shall be submitted prior to grading. 9. A sign approved by the city shall be placed in the ROW at the corner of “Lotus Woods Drive” and Big Woods Boulevard indicating a future street will be constructed. 10. Updated plans illustrating the location and connection methodologies of sanitary and water services for Lot 1 will be required prior to the issuance of building permits. From as-built information, it appears there was water and sanitary laterals stubbed to the property in 1975. If these services are currently in use by an existing property, the developer shall relocate those services to avoid having private service lines running through the subdivision. If these services are not in use, the developer shall field verify their locations and serviceability prior to connecting services to the laterals. 11. A fire hydrant shall be constructed on the end of the water main extension in “Lotus Woods Drive”. 12. The applicant shall provide an estimate of cost for the proposed public water main and sanitary sewer main extensions prior to the recording of the final plat. 13. The applicant shall provide an estimate of cost for the grading and construction of the future street “Lotus Woods Drive”, abutting Lot 2, prior to the recording of the final plat. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 42 14. All newly constructed public utilities shall adhere to the city’s most recent Standard Specifications and Detail Plates, and city review and approval of all construction plans shall be completed prior to issuance of building and/or grading permits. 15. All required permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies shall be required prior to construction, including but not limited to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Department of Health, and the City of Chanhassen. 16. The development of Lots 1 and 2 will be required to pay all required city WAC and SAC fees associated with service connections for the rate in force at the time of building permit applications. 17. The applicant shall enter into a Development Contract. Water Resources: 1. Provide an erosion and sediment control plan in accordance with Sec. 19-145 of city ordinances upon submittal of building permits for individual lot development. 2. Provide drainage and stormwater management plans as prescribed in Chapter 18, Sec. 18- 40 and Section 19-143. Parks: 1. Full park fees in lieu of additional parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected as a condition of approval for the two lots. The park fees will be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. Based upon the current single- family park fee rate of $5,800 per dwelling, the total park fees would be $5,800. Environmental Resources Coordinator: 1. The easterly 140 feet of Lot 1 and the westerly 40 feet of Lot 2 shall be covered by a Conservation Easement. 2. Tree preservation fencing will be required on each lot. Fencing must be installed at the edge of grading limits prior to the start of any construction activities. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Randall noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 16, 2019 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. Weick: You all are doing a great job. That’s my presentation for you. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Weick: Any administrative presentations or City Council action update?