Loading...
PC Minutes 05-05-20Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 5, 2020 7 Von Oven: Again no questions just that Paisley is a very special place in our community and I’m happy to vote in favor. Weick: Wonderful. So at this time we can consider a motion. It’s in your packet or on the screen. Randall: I’d like to make a motion. Can you hear me? Weick: Yep go ahead. Randall: Yeah I’d like to make a motion. Weick: Okay. Randall: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to Paisley Park’s Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance. Weick: Thank you Commissioner Randall. We have a valid motion. Do we have a second? McGonagill: I’ll second it. Weick: We have a second from Commissioner McGonagill and at this time I will take a roll call vote on the item. Randall moved, McGonagill seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to Paisley Park’s Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Weick: So we have a majority. 7-nothing unanimous vote in favor of amending the PUD for Paisley Park. Thank you Kate. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION OF 6.4 ACRES INTO TWO SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1641 WEST 63RD STREET (NYE ADDITION). Weick: This is Planning Case 2020-06. We will follow the same format and with that I will turn it over to Sharmeen for our staff presentation. Al-Jaff: Chairman Weick, members of the Planning Commission. The application before you is for. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 5, 2020 8 McGonagill: Chairman can Sharmeen speak up a little bit? She’s coming in very faint. Al-Jaff: Okay is this better? Skistad: Yes. Al-Jaff: Okay. The site is located north of Wood Duck Lane, south of West 63rd Street. West of Yosemite Avenue. The application before you is for a subdivision of 6.4 acres into two lots. Lot 1 contains a single family home as well as multiple accessory structures. Lot 2 is proposed to house a single family home, a future single family home. One of the things that we need to point out the parcels are zoned single family residential. Guided low density and one of the issues that we looked at with Lot 2 is the fact that the city code requires the construction of a primary structure before the construction of a secondary or an accessory use. With this subdivision there will be a small shed that will be located on the site and that will create a non-conforming use. Staff is recommending that the applicant provide the City with an escrow and guarantee that the structure, this accessory structure will be removed within 4 months after approval of this application. Both lots meet the minimum area, width and depth requirements of the zoning ordinance. The proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance and at this point I would like to turn it over to Erik Henricksen, the project engineer to address a few engineering issues. Henricksen: Thank you Sharmeen. Chairman and commissioners, as we have a few new commissioners I would like to introduce myself. My name’s Erik Henricksen. I’m the project engineer as Sharmeen said for the City’s engineering department. Tonight I will be reviewing with you access, right-of-way, utilities, and other engineering and public works related topics associated with the proposed Nye Addition beginning with access. The proposed subdivision has frontage on both 63rd Street to the north and Wood Duck Lane to the south. Lot 1 will maintain existing driveway connection to 63rd Street and the newly created Lot 2 will connect with a new driveway access to Wood Duck Lane. I would like to mention at this time that you will notice a majority of the slides focus on the area near Lot 2 as this is where all the improvements are proposed. Lot 1 has an existing structure with existing services and the preliminary plans provided, they have no improvements proposed on Lot 1 so with that we can move to the next slide. The proposed plat illustrates the dedication of public right-of-way for the potential future extension of Wood Duck Lane to Yosemite Avenue. The dedicated portion of public right-of- way will be adequate to achieve a consistent 50 foot wide right-of-way throughout the corridor which matches the right-of-way widths surrounding the streets such as 63rd Street and Wood Duck Lane. This corridor has been planned connection since the 1980’s since the construction of Wood Duck Lane’s cul-de-sac was built to be temporary. Thus this right-of-way dedication will help achieve the potential connection in the future as development occurs. Next slide Sharmeen. Thank you. Speaking of the cul-de-sac improvements the applicant is proposing to reconstruct the temporary cul-de-sac at the end of Wood Duck Lane. This will bring it into conformance with city standards and city ordinances. The temporary cul-de-sac standard requires the diameter Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 5, 2020 9 of 70 feet. Because the cul-de-sac is located in the area with significant grade change to the north and one existing driveway access to the south the applicant’s engineer did propose a modified temporary cul-de-sac. Now staff did review the modified design and based on the preliminary design the proposed modifications are acceptable because they do meet the intent of what city standards for a temp cul-de-sac is which is to allow emergency service vehicles more maneuverability and they’re designed also to maintain the existing driveway access alignment to the south for if the street is extended in the future. Yeah we can go to the next slide. Looking at services and utilities in the area the proposed subdivision has access to public sanitary sewer and water located in both the abutting rights-of-way. The existing home on Lot 1 currently as I mentioned has active sanitary sewer and water services. Those are had from 63rd Street to the north. Lot 2 however will require new services to be tapped from sanitary and watermains which would be had from Wood Duck Lane right-of-way to the south. While the existing watermain has adequate frontage for the service tap it does continue down the right-of-way loop. The sanitary sewer would require an extension of the existing. So as you can see from the table there the proposed sanitary sewer main is to be extended approximately 150 feet to the east to adequately serve the property. The applicant did show and their engineer’s came up with the design within the preliminary plans to show the feasibility of this extension and the general conformity to city standards and specifications and detail plates and the such. This extended public sanitary sewer main after it is accepted by City Council will be owned and maintained by the City so it will remain a public survey. To the next slide Sharmeen. Thank you. The wetland, there is a wetland. The wetland’s located on Lot 2. It was delineated by Alliant Engineering in the fall of 2019 but delineation and classification subsequently made approved by the City. The applicant has proposed the dedication of Outlot A to the City which encompasses the wetland in it’s entirety. Entire delineated wetland. Summarizing city code an outlot is defined as a platted lot that can’t be developed and in this case it is being dedicated to the City for the protection and preservation of the wetland. Staff does recommend extending the boundaries of Outlot A to incorporate the wetland buffer for additional protection as it won’t impact the constructability of the site. While there are additional wetlands within this subdivision on Lot 1, which is located on the western portion of Lot 1 but these wetlands have already been encumbered by drainage and utility easements back in 2006 and they are being maintained. From what the applicant is proposing impacts to the wetlands on either Lot 1 or 2. So with that I can hand it back to you Sharmeen. Al-Jaff: With this application the applicants submitted a landscape and tree preservation inventory of the site. As you can see the only area that will be disturbed is where the new house pad is going to be. As well as the segment that will bring the cul-de-sac into compliance with city ordinances. The City’s Comprehensive Park Plan calls for a neighborhood park to be located within half a mile of every residence within the city. The Nye Addition has access to both Pheasant Hill Park as well as Curry Farms Park. Staff is recommending approval of this application with conditions outlined in the staff report as well as adoption of the Findings of Fact and Decision Recommendation and we’ll be happy to answer any questions. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 5, 2020 10 Weick: Thank you Sharmeen and for this round of staff questions I think we will sort of, I’ll call on commissioners if you would like to ask questions of either Sharmeen or Erik, you can do so and just try and have those ready when you are called on. With that I would ask Commissioner McGonagill if you have questions or comments for City. McGonagill: Thanks Chairman. Sharmeen could you put up the map please or Erik, one of them so we can talk through it. Can you do that? Weick: I mean we’re going to try and do that. McGonagill: Okay. Weick: It’s hard to bounce those back and forth but yeah there we go. McGonagill: Back up the one you just had before that if you can. Yeah that’s fine. That one’s fine. So first question, Erik we’ve had this come up before on cul-de-sacs on some things. That cul-de-sac even though it’s kind of a modified plan that will allow the fire trucks to make the turn to come around. I mean the fire department has signed off on this is that correct? Henricksen: Eric has reviewed the plans. The modified cul-de-sac it does maintain that 70 foot radius which, you know for that maneuver so this as you can see what’s important to kind of note too is that from the previous temporary cul-de-sac which is highlighted in brown and then what they’re proposing, that extension I think gives that adequate movement so the short answer is yes but you can see it’s quite an up size from what’s currently there. McGonagill: Correct, yeah it just allows them to come around and make the turn and there’s nothing in the middle of that cul-de-sac. There’s no structure or flower plants or anything like that. Henricksen: Correct. McGonagill: On, and so how far is it, remind me from the main road to this? Is that a 1,900 foot cul-de-sac basically? Henricksen: That’s correct yes. McGonagill: And the city code allows how much? Henricksen: City code last was amended and I believe right now the temporary, or the longest a cul-de-sac can be I believe is 750 feet. I think it used to be 800 and then it went down to 750. McGonagill: Okay so this is quite a bit longer. This one’s quite a bit longer. It will still be quite a bit longer than the code. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 5, 2020 11 Henricksen: Correct. McGonagill: Where is, this is more of a technical question. I’m just curious from fire prevention again and then I’ll finish on the fire prevention piece. Where are the main fire hydrants up in here? Are they, is there one over on, go ahead. Can you show me? Henricksen: Yeah actually I’m going to try this. We were successfully able to do this before. I’m going to show you my screen so. McGonagill: I can see the red dots so you’re good. Henricksen: Can you see now our datalink? McGonagill: Yes. You’re muted Erik. Henricksen: Okay can you hear me now? McGonagill: Yes. Henricksen: So here is Lot 1 or the potential Lot 1. The existing structure. Right here is Wood Duck Lane so this is that undersized temporary cul-de-sac as it stands now. This symbol right here illustrates the hydrant for access to Lot, which would be utilized for Lot 2 if there was an emergency there. The hydrant over here by 63rd and Audubon Circle is also fairly close to Lot 1 so adequate spacing for fire hydrants per ordinance and fire code are available. McGonagill: So what that means is there’s a, which is good if there’s a fire on Wood Duck Lane or in those homes around those 3 cul-de-sacs, if in the winter the trucks won’t have to run lines that far. They can be there and do what they need to do. Henricksen: Correct and the spacing, the fire hydrant spacing is up to city ordinance and fire code, yep. Right. McGonagill: What size, I’m going to sewer now Erik. What size of sewer main are we running on the extension because there are, there is tracts of land to the, I’ll kind of try to do it. To the east that could at some time be subdivided. They’ll either, the sewer will either go to Yosemite or it will come this way so. Henricksen: The minimum sewer main diameter is 8 inch for the public mains and currently within Wood Duck Lane it is a 8 inch so it’d be an extension of the minimum. The 8 inch PVC sanitary sewer. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 5, 2020 12 McGonagill: And there’s no, we don’t need a left station or anything back up in there even though there’s a little bit of an undulation? Henricksen: The applicant’s engineer did provide us with preliminary construction plans for it and it is gravity fed at this time. McGonagill: Okay. And then if you can Erik talk about with me a little bit the other side of Wood Duck Lane and Yosemite, there’s a narrow right-of-way there. They’re dedicating a right-of-way south of the outlot and then take me through over to Yosemite. I believe that’s a private drive? Henricksen: That right-of-way is, that section of right-of-way that you’re describing past the Wood Duck Lane is encumbered by a private drive access. The dedication that the applicant is proposing for right-of-way would line up with and create a 50 foot wide right-of-way corridor. Now…is not our typical right-of-way width. 60 foot is and that’s what we maintain for any new subdivision coming in. When we experience these smaller right-of-way widths in these types of neighborhoods it’s better just to keep it consistent rather than trying to keep pushing it out. And 50 foot would be adequate to put in the street section. Required residential street section through our standard specs. McGonagill: So if I go from the right side of outlot A where that 50 foot easement now would be added in to Yosemite, how long is that distance? Henricksen: Could you repeat that question please? McGonagill: Okay if you go from right there to Yosemite down the Tacoma trail, that 50 foot, if it went how far is that? Roughly speaking. Aanenson: About 300 feet. Henricksen: 250 feet. McGonagill: 250 feet? Henricksen: Correct. McGonagill: Okay thank you. Outside of that there is no other non-conformances with this correct? Aanenson: Did you have a question? Can you repeat that? McGonagill: I just had a question Kate. Outside of this area of the right-of-way and the shed there’s really no other non-conformances with this. You know you’ll have the right kind of cul- Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 5, 2020 13 de-sac. You’ll have, there’s a narrow right-of-way here but outside of that everything else is, lines up with the Comprehensive Plan is that correct? Aanenson: Right I mean, it’s not, it’s meeting the requirements and so we’re taking additional right-of-way to provide for potential in the future which is what we always try to do. McGonagill: Okay thank you. That answers my questions. Mr. Chair I’m complete. Thank you. Weick: Sure thing and I will just sort of, once we go through everybody I will give you a chance is something pops back into your head. Commissioner Skistad, questions or comments for City. Skistad: I think Michael covered it. Weick: Okay. Skistad: So I don’t have anymore, thank you. Weick: Great thank you. Commissioner Von Oven? Von Oven: I do not have any additional questions. Weick: Thank you. Commissioner Randall? Randall: I would like to recuse myself from this discussion just because I, I live right next to that area so, is that a problem? Aanenson: You certainly can recuse yourself if you want to. Weick: I will not call on you again. Randall: Sorry about that. Weick: That’s okay. Commissioner Reeder? Reeder: Mr. Chairman a couple questions. What is the, does the Comprehensive Plan call for this road to go back out and connect as we’re allowing? Aanenson: Does it show on the Comprehensive Plan? They don’t show local streets like that. The connections. We only show areas where they’re deficient like a minor collector or something like that so. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 5, 2020 14 Reeder: Okay second thing when Pheasant Hill was platted was there a ghost plat created at that time to show how the property at 6480 Yosemite would be platted later? Al-Jaff: There wasn’t a plat for it. However over the last I want to say 15 or 20 years there was multiple sketches done, scenarios to look at how that site would develop in the future. Reeder: Can you show up on the screen that property and show me what those choices are? Al-Jaff: Well this is the site right. Aanenson: I think it’d be helpful if you put the datalink up. It’s really hard to see. Al-Jaff: Erik can you please put the datalink up? Henricksen: Sure yeah. You won’t be able to control it. To be honest I don’t have the knowledge of what the division would look like. If you want to guide me through it I’d be happy to. Aanenson: I just wanted to make sure everybody understands what piece of property we’re talking about. Henricksen: Okay yeah I’ll bring that up. Aanenson: Thank you. So where he’s drawing that’s one home with a long driveway that goes out to Yosemite. There you go. Thank you. Al-Jaff: So this parcel has the potential for, currently it contains a single family home but has the potential for 3 additional single family homes. Reeder: And where would they be? Al-Jaff: They would be located along the west portion of the site. Aanenson: Does that include a public street Sharmeen? Al-Jaff: That includes a public street. Reeder: Okay so my question is how does the plat that we’re looking at tonight affect the future development of that property? Al-Jaff: What this plat is doing is dedicating the right-of-way as well as extending sewer service to the site so that should that parcel ever subdivide they would be able to extend services and infrastructure to accommodate the development. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 5, 2020 15 Reeder: So what they’re meeting or doing this plat, this other property would be able to get water and sewer if it wanted to develop, is that what you’re saying? Al-Jaff: So water is available to the site at this time and maybe Erik if you, yes. Where Erik is pointing the arrow on the site. Sewer will be extended to the, from the cul-de-sac to the east and it will be brought all the way to the most westerly lot line of the parcel we are looking at. Reeder: What about access to those lots? I don’t think you have 50 feet of right-of-way there. You’ve only got 33 is that correct? Al-Jaff: You are correct in saying that and that is one of the things that would have to be secured by the owner of the property. To make the development viable. Reeder: In the email that we got from that owner he’s suggesting that with only limited right- of-way that he would need to have a private road in there constructed on their 33 feet that’s available. Is something we would allow? Aanenson: That would require a variance and then they have to go through their test. It’s hard to see because it’s moving around a lot so you know we’re dedicating right-of-way to the north so I think if we could go back to that slide. So there is some dedication to the north but if it was to development without a public street then it would be whether or not you would allow a private street and that, a private street does require a variance. Up to 4 homes. Reeder: Have we done that in other areas? Aanenson: Sure. Reeder: I mean I live on a street that’s far less than standard. Aanenson: Correct. So if you go back, unfortunately we don’t have it up but there’s pinch point coming out where the driveway goes now. Just someone has to buy some property from one of the homes that are abutting Yosemite and that’s, herein lies the problem to connect that street right now. Reeder: I’m sorry I didn’t understand. It’s not connected up to Yosemite? Aanenson: The driveway comes through there but it’s not a full right-of-way. 50 foot right-of- way. Reeder: It’s 33 right? Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 5, 2020 16 Al-Jaff: So right now there is a driveway over a 33 foot right-of-way that provides access to this parcel and you can see it if you look right here. This is the 33 feet. Reeder: Excuse me. Al-Jaff: And this portion is where we are going to be able to the additional right-of-way right here. And achieve the 50 foot to align. Reeder: If we proceed with this plat it’s logical that your, the only access to that other parcel for development would be off of Yosemite on either acquiring more right-of-way or on a private road with less right-of-way. Al-Jaff: Well. Reeder: Because you’re putting in a cul-de-sac and I suppose you could take that cul-de-sac out is that your theory? Al-Jaff: Correct. So should the need ever present itself in the future or if the City, if additional right-of-way was secured and the road was extended we know that everything has been prepared and put in place to accommodate the potential extension of Wood Duck Lane. And connect it to Yosemite. Reeder: In the event that that property does not develop the property owner in the letter we got suggested that the City might want to put some kind of a trail access heading out to Yosemite to allow that Pioneer Hills to have access Yosemite and that in fact would be used for emergency access on this terribly long cul-de-sac. Is that something that would be feasible? Al-Jaff: We would have to study this further. Anything is possible but we know that the recommendation has always been the connection of Wood Duck Lane to Yosemite and with this proposal and at this moment we are securing the right-of-way. There is no plan at this moment to make the connection but until an actual development or request comes in we really cannot, the connection at this moment is not feasible. We don’t have the proper right-of-way. Reeder: For a road. Is that what you’re saying? Al-Jaff: Correct. Reeder: But what I asked was about a trail. Aanenson: So I’ll address that. So the park looks at this and so their recommendation was not forwarded to put a trail through there. Could they revisit it? I’m not sure unless it’s an approved surfaced for a fire truck that would also be emergency access. Typically at a minimum for emergency access you want 30 foot right-of-way with a 7 ton design so that’s something that the Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 5, 2020 17 fire department would have to look at so. Neither one of those commented that they saw this as a needed issue at this time. Reeder: Well I think it’s an issue that we make sure that property owners can develop their property if they’ve got such a large piece like that but I don’t think that addresses a trail but it seems like the reason you’re providing more right-of-way here and you’re still saying you want to connect those roads is for the safety of the people living on that very long cul-de-sac, is that correct? Al-Jaff: We are asking for the additional right-of-way to ensure that should the City extend the road, should a developer come in to develop the site that we have met ordinance requirements and secured the right-of-way through the subdivision process. Aanenson: Also it’s two fold. The temporary cul-de-sac on there was, is there a lot longer than was ever anticipated. It’s substandard in the turnaround so it’s solving that problem to get to the end of there and turn around so that’s the other issue that it’s addressing. Reeder: If, I would say it’s not solving that problem. You’re simply making a cul-de-sac a little bigger but you still have a temporary cul-de-sac there. I mean the other way would be to approach would be to not allow any more land to be developed in this area until the property owners got together and the proper right-of-way was secured to put the road through in a manner that we would normally do. Aanenson: Sure, that was suggested and I’ll let the applicant discuss that. Reeder: Mr. Chairman that’s all I have for right now. Weick: Okay thank you Commissioner Reeder. Those were good questions to raise and a good conversation. Finally Commissioner Noyes. Noyes: Yes I do have a comment question. The plan calls for a buffer on the west and north sides of the Outlot A wetland. In the future will there be any requirements of the buffer on the south side of that wetland if the connection is made using that dedicated right-of-way? I mean do we have any concerns about encroaching that wetland if at some point this connection was made? Henricksen: The wetland is delineated and the wetland delineation does extend through the right-of-way so the wetland, because this is what we call a paper street, there’s not an actual physical road there, the delineation would continue through. If a road is extended and constructed there it would have to go through the WCA process for impacts to a wetland. The buffer does stop at the right-of-way as is platted and as it should on a plat. One of the, this is kind of getting into the weeds a little I guess but on our kind of preliminary construction plan review we are going to have that wetland buffer actually extend into the right-of-way to maintain Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 5, 2020 18 a continuous buffer strip on this property. There’s a landscaping plan wherein buffers you have to install native vegetation. You know the purpose of a buffer is to kind of to buffer the wetland to create that…so that would extend into the right-of-way although it’s not technically defined as the buffer so we did take that into account looking at the preliminary plat but that’s more on the kind of construction plan review that would continue onto final plat stage. Noyes: Well there’s no, but the City doesn’t have any risks or future considerations that they need to be concerned about as it relates to that buffer should the road go through? But we have to think about different ways to approving this today? Henricksen: Not to plat no. It’s again if during the construction of the road that delineation depending on when it happens it have to re-delineated. If there are impacts to the wetland because the wetland does extend into the right-of-way. In fact the wetland goes beyond the property because it kind of looks like sort of pie shaped essentially so the wetland is a lot larger than that from what. Noyes: Okay. Henricksen: It would have to go through regulatory processes just like the wetland impact. Noyes: Okay thank you, that was very helpful. Weick: Any other questions Commissioner Noyes? Noyes: I do not, I’m good. Thank you. Weick: Okay and I will just open it up in general if someone thought of something you can certainly speak up right now. Hearing no commissioners right now we will move on to an applicant presentation. Aanenson: Yes you’re online. Did you want, who’s speaking for the applicant? Al-Jaff: Woody is speaking. Woody Love. Weick: Great thank you. Woody Love: Yes Mr. Chair and commissioners. My name is Woody Love and I represent Ann Nye at 1641 West 63rd. She has made the decision to sell her property. We looked at a 5 lot entitlement to that area but discovered that the simplest solution and to keep the character of the original Koehnen homestead this simple subdivision would accomplish it. It would be the less, least intense used land in the area and only have two residences. With that we do have a staff member from Alliant with us and my only intent would be to stand for questions so thank you. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 5, 2020 19 Weick: Great thank you very much and appreciate you opening yourself up for questions. With that I would open it up for the commissioners and again I’ll just walk through each commissioner. If you do have a question of the applicant you may ask at this time. I will start with Commissioner Reeder. Any questions for the applicant? Reeder: I think I’m pretty good on questions right now. I may come back later if there’s something that comes up but I’m good now. Weick: Okay thank you. Commissioner Noyes? Noyes: I’m good as well, thank you. Weick: Thank you. Commissioner McGonagill? McGonagill: No questions for the applicant Mr. Chairman. Weick: Okay. Commissioner Skistad? Skistad: No questions Mr. Chairman. Weick: Thank you. And Commissioner Von Oven. Von Oven: No questions Mr. Chairman. Weick: Okay well thank you again Mr. Love for opening yourself up for questions. At this time we will open the public hearing portion of this case. Aanenson: Mr. Chair if we may, I think we’d like to read in, we’ve received some emails and then we’ll also let people know that they can call in and then there are a couple people here that also want to speak so we’ll start with just maybe summarizing the emails. Weick: Thank you. Al-Jaff: So one of the issues that we began working on this application over a year ago and one of the topics that continuously presented itself was extending Wood Duck Lane and connecting it to Yosemite. Quite a few of the individuals actually lived on Wood Duck did not want to see this connection happen for the purpose of they don’t want to see the through traffic and the intent was to keep the neighborhood as is. There were some that wanted to see the connection specifically neighbors who lived on 63rd Street and their reasoning was 63rd carried a lot of heavy traffic and they were hoping this would be their opportunity to see the traffic reduced by having a second access point up that would get individuals outside of this neighborhood other than 63rd. Since the staff report went out we did receive an email this afternoon from a resident in our community that basically wanted to point out they were in support of the development as it Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 5, 2020 20 stands and as proposed by the applicant. They also wanted to let the Planning Commission know that quite a few of the signatures on the petition to save Wood Duck Lane were from individuals that lived out of town. It’s not, they’re not community members. Those were the issues pointed out in the emails. Weick: Do we need to summarize, is that sufficient? Okay. Aanenson: As I said there were some in the packet so those are all public too so. Weick: And those are all part of the record. Aanenson: Yep so all of these will go forward to the City Council. They’ll all be part of the record correct, as will the people that want to speak. Weick: Great thank you Sharmeen. At this time I would invite anyone here in chambers that would like to comment? Oh both ways, yeah. Jay Meyer: Do you want me to come up to the mic? Weick: Yes and state your name and your address for the record please. Jay Meyer: Hi My name’s Jay Meyer. I’m on the east side of this proposed development. If you put up the map I can show you where we’re at. Reeder: Can’t hear. Jay Meyer: I’m sorry I’ll get closer. Can you hear me now? Is this good? Is this mic on? Aanenson: It’s on. It’s on… Reeder: That was better yes. Jay Meyer: Okay. I live on the east side at 1611 West 63rd. Been neighbors with Ann for 7 years or so. I just have some questions regarding this proposal and if we could put up the map that we’ve been looking at. I just want to get some things clarified but otherwise I think I’m basically okay with everything. Just want to, if you put up the one that shows the right-of-way. Weick: And while we’re pulling that up I just will say I’ll kind of note all your questions just the way this is set up and then we’ll kind of ask the appropriate people after. Jay Meyer: Okay, yeah and I want to point out that a lot of my questions have already been answered. I appreciate all the commissioners, especially Commissioner Reeder addressed many of my concerns already. So we’re on the east side so that Outlot A butts up against our property Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 5, 2020 21 and our property goes from north to 63rd south to Tacoma. Is that what that is? I didn’t know the name of that street. Anyway so if my understanding is correct this Outlot A is going to be designated as a wetlands and nothing’s going to change in it? Weick: We’ll get clarification on that yep. Jay Meyer: Okay, alright. So that’s my first question. The second question is the right-of-way that extends to the south of that wetlands would, comes up to a, you know the east edge of our property. Yeah okay. So go back to that right-of-way picture if you would. That’s fine. So that south edge of the Outlot A butts up against our’s so if, and we’re talking about a street in, which I don’t really want and I think our neighbors agree with everyone there that we don’t really want a street going through there. I’m not opposed to this path. I think what Commissioner Reeder put in I think that’s a good idea to put a trail through there to connect to Wood Duck but the question I have is, so that right-of-way in the future if either 6480 to the south or our property to the east were to develop that, we’d have to, that right-of-way would extend east right at that point? All the way to Yosemite, correct? Or that’s the question I’m asking. Weick: Yeah. Jay Meyer: Okay. So that’s my basically two questions. Does anything happen to that Outlot A once it gets designated and does that right-of-way extend straight east from there. And I guess the only other question I would have is that wetlands it’s, there’s standing water in there. Is there going to be, you know this is sub question of my first one, if there’s anything going to happen to it is there any kind of pond or lake going to be put in there or is it just going to be left alone because when it rains it drains into our property and it’s not been too big of an issue but if we could something about that I’d like to see that done so that’s all I have. Weick: Great and thank you very much for coming tonight. I really appreciate it. Kate the first question is I think about the delineation of Outlot A. Aanenson: Yeah, so it will stay an outlot but I’ll let Erik talk about where the drainage is going. I think that’s the bigger yeah, yeah. Weick: And how would it be maintained. Aanenson: Correct. So Erik if you could address that. Henricksen: Dedication of the, I’m sorry. Dedication of the outlot to the City and it being a wetland ensures that there would be no development. There would be no improvement whatsoever. The idea being we want to maintain that natural resource of a wetland so it’s an older practice to take wetlands and try to turn them into ponds. That is not consistent with our local water management plan or WCA or any other kind of regulations so the idea here being it’s a wetland. It’s covered by an outlot defined by code as something we don’t develop and the Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 5, 2020 22 intent being we would not do any improvements to that outlot so. And the City is aware of that, you know the drainage pattern of the wetland. It does, the emergency overflow essentially goes to the northeast and it kind of cuts between the properties and then flows through it’s natural drainage patter so there are no plans right now for that improvement so, and if that doesn’t answer the question just let me know. Jay Meyer: No that’s good. Weick: I think that’s good, thank you. And then the intention I guess is for that right-of-way to extend due east. Aanenson: Correct and that would only happen if somebody wanted to subdivide that lot. Weick: Correct. Aanenson: And there might have to be a delineation on that piece too if there’s wetland. I’m assuming it’s not following a straight line right there. That that would have to be delineated too. Jay Meyer: And I don’t know if that would be two wetlands. I guess it could be. Weick: But for clarification any extension beyond what was shown in the dedication, the right- of-way dedication, any extension further east would be part of a future planning case. Aanenson: That’s correct. That’s correct. Weick: Okay and would have to, we’d have to then consider wetlands and things like that that it might cross through as well. Okay. Did that and I’ll sort of go off record, script a little bit but did that answer your questions? I just want to be sure you’re covered. Jay Meyer: It did. I just want to reiterate I think this trail’s a good idea. Weick: Okay thank you. Anyone present who would like to come forward? Please do so. State your name for the record and your address. Ken Ashfeld: Thank you Mr. Chair and members of the Planning Commission. My name is Ken Ashfeld and I reside at 6480 Yosemite so I, on that larger parcel to the south that has been discussed to some extent this evening. Weick: Sure. McGonagill: Can you lean forward please, it’s hard to hear you. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 5, 2020 23 Ken Ashfeld: I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you tonight relative to the Nye Addition. I have provided written comments to your packet and I appreciate staff getting that into your packet this evening and trying to be sensitive to your time I will try not to repeat all of that. Our property is 2.84 acres lying south of what would be the extension of Wood Duck Lane to Yosemite. My wife and I are relatively new to the community so please bear with me if my facts aren’t totally accurate but I will state them as I know them. Firstly it’s been my understanding since the development of the Pheasant Hills neighborhood that it’s been the City’s objective to extend Wood Duck Lane to Yosemite. It’s been my experience that that’s normal planning. That extraordinary long cul-de-sacs on a temporary nature are normal or common if it’s within a master plan of being extended in the future. That was 30 years ago or more and not necessarily everything has turned out that we thought would turn out that we planned 30 years ago. That further development has not occurred. When I look at the Nye Addition as it’s laid out and it’s being developed just into two parcels and actually it is the eastern parcel that would be the additional lot, I do not believe that extension of Wood Duck Lane is very viable from a number of reasons. Extending Wood Duck Lane would be pretty expensive. It’s I think 250 feet just to get to the Nye property and then it’s another 300-400 feet and that just makes the connection and then it’s about another 300 feet or so that would have to be built on my property to, in order to develop those 3 lots that were spoken of. So we‘re talking you know 1,000 feet of road that would normally provide direct access benefit to somewhere on the order of 12 lots that could share in that cost and now with the Nye Addition just coming off of the cul-de-sac I do not see the property owners there having any interest in paying for another road that doesn’t really benefit them any further. So at the end of the day unless my property absorbs all the cost of extending Wood Duck Lane plus the utilities and streets into my property it’s not going to happen in my mind. I could be wrong. I’m just taking a shot at it here. Like I said it’s pretty expensive to build. It would be my belief that if we were, if you could turn back time 30 years and you realized the difficulties of extending Wood Duck Lane at this particular point, my property would have been master planned into the Pheasant Hill development and we wouldn’t even be needing to talk about this. At the current point in time I really don’t see the ability to develop my property unless there is an alternative plan for a private drive. I made mention of that in my written comments to the Planning Commission. I don’t need to dwell into that any further unless any members of questions of myself. The one other issue that concerns me that in the absence of developing my property and putting an extension of sewer to the sewer line that was spoken of for the Nye Addition and a connection to a watermain, my existing sewer and water service line that kind of snakes through between two properties on Pintail Circle. There’s a narrow easement that was negotiated back in 1994 for that, for those sewer and water lines to my house. I don’t think those property owners really know that they’re even there and without the ability to develop and hence put in a normal water and sewer system to serve those 3 lots that we had talked about it’s going to be like that forever and at some point in time those lines will need some maintenance and digging up and it’s going to be, going to be ending up digging up those two properties to get at them. Whether that’s going to happen in my lifetime but we know it’s going to happen at some point in time and it would be, it would be ideal to have a permanent sewer and water solution for that. I believe it was intended to be temporary from the beginning but perhaps your planning staff has a better idea on that. I’m not sure about that. So that Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 5, 2020 24 concludes my remarks. You know as a vibrant city and all that you have to deal with in the city of Chanhassen these issues may seem pretty small when we’re talking just a couple few lots but this, the approval of this development as it’s shown has a profound effect on my property because for all practical purposes it’s not economically feasible to develop if the condition of development is the extension of Wood Duck Lane. So at the end of the day Wood Duck Lane remains the same and the proposal that I presented to you in my written comments, essentially it’s a private drive on a 33 foot right-of-way today serving one parcel. The only difference would be serving 4 parcels by a private drive that would be updated to city standards and my read of the PUD standards would be a 20 foot road which could reside in the 33 foot right-of- way. I think the PUD standards call for a 30 foot. It refers to just a swap of land or a corridor. So with that Mr. Chairman I would stand for any questions that you or commissioners may have. Weick: Thank you and as we go around we’ll certainly see if there are questions or clarification that anyone would need but thank you very much for coming tonight and I do promise you on behalf of all of the commissioners that there is no, there’s nothing we hear that is too, that is small. That we consider small anyway. Every issue and every case that we hear is the most important thing to somebody and we do treat them all that way. So thanks to everyone who came tonight. We also have had the phone number up for a little bit of time now. I’m not sure if anyone has called in. We do. Aanenson: No. Weick: We do not have anyone who called in, I’m sorry. So with that I will close the public hearing portion of tonight’s item. With the public hearing closed at this time I’ll let the commissioners sort of gather their thoughts here as I talk but we will go around and call on each commissioner if you do have comments or you’ve thought of something you’d like clarified, now is the time to do that. I will start with Commissioner Von Oven. Von Oven: I knew at the exact moment… Weick: You’re welcomed. That’s alright. Von Oven: Yeah so alright I’m new so I don’t know who ends up answering this or if this is just thrown out there into the ether and then maybe somebody jumps on it but I will say number one, Mr. Ashfeld’s voices the same kind of concern that I’ve had through all of this which is that 30 years ago there was a temporary solution put in place and now it feels like we’re putting another temporary solution in place so is it the position of staff that this solution is okay and that something else is to come or is Mr. Ashfeld looking for a more holistic solution that addresses his ability to do things to his property in the future. That that seems to be the case from me so I guess maybe the question is for Mr. Ashfeld and I don’t know if that’s allowed but what I got a sense of from your letter was that this was kind of sprung upon you and if there were more time that you or others or a collective may end up putting forth a solution that actually solves this 30 year temporary problem. Is that truly the case? I guess is my question. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 5, 2020 25 Ken Ashfeld: Mr. Chair if I could answer. Weick: Sure. Ken Ashfeld: When I bought the property commissioner I was of the impression from anecdotal stories that I had heard that the City was going to push Wood Duck Lane to Yosemite and that there would be a higher density development, I think was like 5 or 6 lots that Mr. Love spoke of and that then it would be just a short cul-de-sac serving my property off of Wood Duck Lane extension to Yosemite. At that particular point assuming that there were no right-of-way issues and equitable distribution of the costs of that roadway, that all made kind of sense to me. At this particular point then I think a, and Mr. Love could probably speak to that, that a previous potential buyer ran into a roadblock of acquiring that right-of-way from property owners along Yosemite. Whether it’s myself or the Nye’s we don’t have right of eminent domain to require someone to sell us right-of-way. Only the City has that so if that property owner doesn’t wish to sell right-of-way there is really no way of acquiring it and then under the current plan there really is no benefit or motivation for the Nye property to seek an extension of Wood Duck Lane. So what I was basically saying is the, to take on that cost it is just not feasible to carry that cost on 3 lots. I would just remain on the property as it is and it would remain that way forever so unless the City decided on it’s own initiative or motivation to extend Wood Duck Lane it would never happen. Weick: Okay thank you. Aanenson: I think it’s important that we bring, maybe bring Woody Love in to speak because there is some history on that and I would concur with what he just said. There’s no motivation for the City to do a local street like that so the other thing you have, I think the other gentleman who spoke earlier also, you’d have to have all parties working together and I’ll let Mr. Love speak to that because I do believe there was another application that sought to, or another developer that sought to do that. Weick: Mr. Love if you’re still on if you could comment. Woody Love: Mr. Chair, commissioners. Yes when we, when I was contacted by Ann Nye to look at selling her property. She is really the last remnant of the Koehnen Farm. We realized it was a 5, up to 5 lots that it was entitled to but it is simply was not practical to consider the extension, much less the neighborhood reaction to that so we’ve looked at the most minimal impact way of being able to turn the land into use that can be marketed. So we viewed this as a least impacted this property first with it’s easement for drainage in the Riley-Purgatory district. This is actually kind of a glacial divide that the house is on the crest of so to the west that land was sold as an easement to the City for water quality and now the pasture to the east will be, we delineated the wetland at a great expense and realize this area has drainage issues so it’s our hope that, and I know the City’s planning if that can help address any volume or water quality control Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 5, 2020 26 issues in the future. Equally while there was, we didn’t see any incentive or possibility of dividing the land and paying for a project of that size and I think Mr. Ashfeld explained it very well. Anywhere from the raw expense the need for a private individual doesn’t have the ability to use eminent domain if it is a public question. We never had the intent of putting in the road. Right now we’re looking as a minimum impact simple subdivision and Mr. Chairman did I answer your question? Weick: Okay I’ll defer to you. Does that, are we getting clarity? Aanenson: Yes. Yeah so I guess there’s two issues here. So when the first project came through there was a lot of angst on the people on Wood Duck Lane and 63rd Street and I say a lot of angst times 100. There was a lot of it so I think they chose to take the path of least resistance and do one lot and solve the problem with the cul-de-sac. Is it solving all the problems? Is it creating future problems? But then you have to say well do they wait until 6480’s ready to go and the gentleman on 1611 are ready to go and who’s going to pay for the condemnation on the piece to the south because typically that’s development driven so otherwise everybody wait until that happened. So that’s kind of, you know we went around and round as Mr. Love stated, around and around trying to figure out the best way and this was a collective staff position on the best approach. Weick: And I’ll turn back to Commissioner Von Oven to see if you’re getting clarity on your question or not. Von Oven: I am and actually just answered my second question so thank you. Weick: Perfect. Anything else Mark? Von Oven: No. No further questions. Weick: Okay. Working up. Commissioner Skistad? Do we have you Commissioner Skistad? There you are, alright. Skistad: I’m here. I guess I don’t have any questions other than one that probably can’t be answered which is you know why wasn’t he, Mr. Ashcroft incorporated in that other development but it doesn’t apply really to this. A question for us I guess. Weick: Okay. Thank you Commissioner Skistad. Commissioner McGonagill? McGonagill: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I guess a couple clarifications to staff. And I guess we’ll come back Mr. Chairman and give our comments, is that what right now we’re going through clarification questions? Weick: And comment would be fine at this time. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 5, 2020 27 McGonagill: Okay thank you. Kind of following up with Commissioner Reeder’s point. You could for Mr. Ashfeld’s property, right now it’s accessed off Yosemite via a private drive. That is correct staff? Al-Jaff: Yes. McGonagill: So you could also do that if you had to, if you were to come down the right-of-way off of Wood Duck Lane too. I mean there’s a couple different ways to access through there even though there’s no private today it would take some sort of a variance down the road but there’s a couple different ways to get in there down the road whenever Mr. Ashfeld would develop that. Yes it would take, require a private drive but we’ve done that before, is that correct? Al-Jaff: Yes it won’t be recommended because that means extending the length of an already very long cul-de-sac. McGonagill: Correct I understand you know and that’s the last that we want to avoid because I am all about fixing that cul-de-sac and getting the right kind of access in there and that’s not the, it’s not for sure the preferred way. However by, go ahead. Aanenson: Could I just add? I was just going to add if the property at 1611 puts a lot on that private drive and 3 on 6480 and then one on the Nye property now you’re at 5 so, and even a variance you know there’s a test for that and so, so. Al-Jaff: And you’re limited to 4 homes via private street. McGonagill: So what your point there Kate? Aanenson: You’re only allowed 4 homes via a private street so somebody’s going to get out of that opportunity unless you grant a variance and then you still haven’t solved the end of that cul- de-sac because now we’ve kind of permanently kind of notched as a non-conforming situation for the end for safety purposes so again that recommendation came from the fire department. McGonagill: It’s your point which I think is correct. That is why you’re wanting to get the easement through the future extension of Wood Duck Trail so you have the easement on Outlot A. You’re keeping all the options open so that at such time that if these people do get together and we start dividing things up even further, you’ve got future Planning Commissions have all the options in front of them to consider what they need to do. Would that be correct? Aanenson: That’s correct. McGonagill: And you know I appreciate the Nye’s effort to take the minimal lot, take the minimalized approach but we know that Chanhassen’s building out. We know that down the Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 5, 2020 28 road things are going to continue to subdivide and continue to grow and so I think we have my comment on this, we have to be very consistent and that we keep, continue to keep the options on the table for future commissions, to commissioners to take the decisions they need to take. So my position on it is, as you proposed it, as staff has proposed it with the modified but revised cul-de-sac with picking up the easement on Outlot A. Bringing it across even though Wood Duck Lane is not extended yet, you’ve given the option to as other people build down the road, other new ideas, you haven’t put yourself in a box if you understand my point Chairman. Jay Meyer: Can I just ask a clarification, is that possible? Weick: We’ve closed the public hearing. Jay Meyer: I just want to know if that private lane could come into my, if I was to subdivide would a private lane come? Aanenson: That’s what I just pointed out. There’s too many homes on it. Jay Meyer: No different one. The one original one that’s already there? From the east. Weick: Yeah I think you’ll have to do that after and I apologize unless you understood. Okay. Sorry about that Commissioner McGonagill. Did you have final comments? McGonagill: That’s it. Just my, I guess my comment would be or my position I’ll be voting in favor of staff’s recommendation. Weick: Okay thank you Commissioner McGonagill. I would move to Commissioner Noyes. Noyes: At this point I do not have any additional comments or questions, thank you. Weick: Thank you. And finally Commissioner Reeder. Reeder: Thank you Mr. Chairman. My concern is that we’re picking one development over another one to some extent. It seems like we’re saying that we’re going to amplify the original mistake of making a very long cul-de-sac which I’m sure there was a lot of discussion on at that time and they did it for some reason but now we’re adding another house on that even though I understand we are gaining a little bit larger cul-de-sac but it doesn’t seen like we’re heading toward a solution. In fact we’re maybe heading away from actually ever getting the so called temporary cul-de-sac extended as I assume staff has always been recommending. So my concern is, does it make sense to add one more house to a cul-de-sac? I’m sure it does. Does it make sense to make it maybe more difficult or not provide an avenue for the other properties in there to subdivide their property also so my thought is that I would probably be willing to vote for the proposal with the addition that we add on there some statement that indicates that it would be our, Planning Commission recommendation that consideration that future considerations for the Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 5, 2020 29 development of the other properties there would possibly include a private road to serve those properties if necessary. Weick: Okay thank you for your comments. I’m processing quite a bit right now. I do want to circle back around. After some of the commissioners that spoke earlier, I want to give you a chance if something else has come to your mind so I’ll just open it up in general. We won’t go through everybody but if somebody wanted to follow up on anything that they’ve heard now would be the opportunity to do that. Noyes: Chairman, Commissioner Noyes. Weick: Yeah. Noyes: I just think we can’t predict the future and what, who’s going to kind of go forward with the next proposal as it relates to this situation and I think while we’ve got to be cognizant of all of the options here, I don’t know that we can really try to put a solution in place that will best predict what’s going to happen in the future and I think our focus now really has to be on the proposal that’s in front of us and not and really I guess be too concerned. It’s got to be in the back of our mind but I mean it can’t be our decision can’t be solely based on what we think could happen because I don’t think we know. Weick: Thank you. I do appreciate your perspective on that. Other comments? Reeder: Mr. Chairman. Weick: Yes. Reeder: In response to that I think you can’t predict what’s going to happen but you should not prevent things from happening by dealing with one piece of property and not necessarily considering the others. Weick: Thank you. All very good points. And I do appreciate everybody putting a lot of thought into this. It is a difficult situation. We often do hear situations like this when we have to consider what might be happening around a property and are we putting ourselves in the best position to try and plan for a future contingencies and what could happen in the future. With that I would say that we could entertain a motion at this time and certainly Commissioner Reeder if you wanted it to propose a motion with some type of addition to it you are certainly free to do that as well. Reeder: Thank you Mr. Chairman I will. Weick: Okay. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 5, 2020 30 Reeder: I move that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of preliminary plat to subdivide 6.4 acres into two lots and one outlot as shown in plans dated March 27, 2020 subject to conditions and adopting of the Findings of Fact and Decision Recommendation. And recommend that future considerations of developing adjacent properties are given the option of a private road as an alternative to consider. McGonagill: Mr. Chairman? Weick: One moment. Hold on. Can you repeat that Kate? Aanenson: If I’m clear on that Commissioner Reeder you want to make sure there was future consideration of access to service those other properties via this same cul-de-sac? Reeder: I’m sorry could you say that again, I couldn’t quite hear you. Aanenson: Yep. So your additional recommendation is that future consideration of access to that temporary cul-de-sac to other properties be considered. That’s something the council will have to weigh in on but that’s what you wanted to add. That’s what I understood. Reeder: I didn’t hear the word private road in what you just said. What did you say? Aanenson: Access via private road. Just to be clear on that, you can’t bind a future council but for consideration and discussion we’ll put that in there as your concern. That’s what you wanted in. Reeder: Yeah I’m just, I just want to be able to raise the issue as part of a recommendation. I understand clearly that we cannot bind the council or future Planning Commissions or councils. Aanenson: Sure got it. Weick: So is this added as part of the motion or as a note? Aanenson: Well we’re not going to edit his comments. I think it was… McGonagill: Kate we can’t hear you. Aanenson: I also understood that there was a trail connection comment for consideration too so we’ll just pass those on as additional comments that the Planning Commission had if that’s okay with you Commissioner Reeder that’s as part of your motion. Reeder: No, no, I added it as part of the motion. Aanenson: Okay. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 5, 2020 31 Weick: But is it okay to have discussion about that? Aanenson: Sure. Weick: I’m just, I’m not sure when you’re talking about a private road is that connecting to the east to Yosemite or to the west to the cul-de-sac? Reeder: As I think was said just a minute ago you could probably go either way. Weick: I’m just concerned that the stipulations on this motion are, the issue I’m having is it’s burdening, it’s burdening the existing case with unknown future development. That’s, I’m a little hung up on how the potential future development of property affects this motion specifically. McGonagill: Yeah Mr. Chairman I agree with you in that regard that the options of private drives and the way you want to develop it are always available to people to approach the Planning Commission to do the things that Commissioner Reeder’s talking about and so I do agree with you it’s an undue burden to the motion and I don’t think it’s required. We don’t know what’s going to be developed and if people want to develop with a private drive or a public drive, or public street they’ll have those avenues available to them at that point in time. You follow me Mr. Chairman? Aanenson: No I was just going to say so what I would say is there’s a motion on the floor so there can be a second or not be a second but then you can decide whether or not to forward a different motion but there is a motion on the floor so someone would have to second it to move forward. Weick: Okay. McGonagill: And Kate that motion includes the amendment to the motion? Aanenson: Correct. That’s our understanding Commissioner Reeder right? Weick: Yes. And kind of loosely worded it recommends that future considerations of developing a private road are considered. So we have a valid motion. Do we have a second? Aanenson: So that would say seeing none. Then you could ask for another motion. Weick: Yeah hearing no seconds I would entertain an amended motion or another motion. McGonagill: Mr. Chairman I’ll propose the motion as stated in the staff report. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 5, 2020 32 Weick: If you could restate it please. McGonagill: Could you show that please? Thank you. Weick: We’ll get there. McGonagill: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat to subdivide 6.4 acres into two lots and one outlot as shown on plans dated March 27, 2020, subject to conditions and adopting of the Findings of Fact and Decision Recommendations. Weick: We have a valid motion. Do we have a second? Noyes: Chairman I will second it. Weick: Commissioner Noyes seconds the motion. Before we vote I would just comment that Commissioner Reeder your motions and your version of the motion that you amended is part of the record now. It is and Kate’s made special note to include it in the special comments that are forwarded to the City Council as well and so those comments will be prioritized in that way. Reeder: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. Weick: You are welcome. I’m just making some notes here. Other comments before we vote? I again thank you for your attention and detail in this matter and we will now have a roll call vote on this motion that is on the table. McGonagill moved, Noyes seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat to subdivide 6.4 acres into two lots and one outlot as shown on plans dated March 27, 2020, subject to the following conditions and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Decision Recommendations: Engineering: 1. Private fencing extending into the public right-of-way or into the proposed subdivision shall be removed. Continued coordination with all affected property owners shall be the responsibility of the developer. 2. The developer shall abandon all existing wells in accordance with all federal, state and local regulatory agencies’ standards, and obtain all necessary permits for said abandonments prior to building permits being issued. Prior to commencement of abandonment activities, a copy of all required permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies shall be provided to the city. 3. The applicant shall dedicate public right-of-way adequate for a 50-foot wide corridor for the possible future extension of Wood Duck Lane prior to recording of final plat. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 5, 2020 33 4. Outlot A shall encompass the delineated wetland and also encompass the appropriate buffer determined by the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed prior to recording of final plat. 5. The developer shall reconstruct the temporary cul-de-sac located at the end of Wood Duck Lane in accordance with city Standard Specifications and Detail Plates, subject to review and approval by the city. The extension shall be owned and maintained by the city after acceptance of the public improvements by the City Council. 6. All retaining walls exceeding 4’ in height shall have plans and details prepared by a registered engineer prior to issuance of a Notice to Proceed. 7. The developer shall extend the existing public sanitary sewer main within Wood Duck Lane right-of-way. All extended sanitary sewer mains shall be public sanitary sewer mains, owned and maintained by the city after acceptance of the public improvements by the City Council. 8. The developer or their contractor shall schedule an inspection of the existing manhole in which the extension is to be had from (MH 04-110) to ensure it is in good condition and meets city standards. Any required repairs will be the responsibility of the developer. 9. The developer’s contractor shall schedule a preconstruction meeting with Engineering and Public Works Utilities prior to the commencement of any work to the sanitary sewer main extension. 10. All conditions, comments, and applicable permits required by the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District shall be adhered to. Parks: 1. Full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction are collected. The Park fees shall be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. At today’s rate, these fees would total $5,800 (1 lot x $5,800 per lot) for the one new lot without an existing home. Environmental Resources Coordinator: 1. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the edge of grading limits prior to any construction activities. Building Official: 1. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site. 2. A building permit/plans must be submitted and approved prior to construction. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 5, 2020 34 3. Retaining walls (if present) more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction. 4. Separate sewer and water services must be provided for each lot. Planning: 1. An escrow of 110% of the estimated removal cost of the existing accessory structure on Lot 2 shall be posted with the city prior to recording of the final plat. The accessory structure must be removed within four months of the approval of the final plat. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Commissioner Randall recused himself from this item. Woody Love: Mr. Chairman on behalf of Ms. Nye we want to thank you the commissioners and staff for your careful consideration. Weick: Thank you and we appreciate your time this evening as well. Give me a moment to collect my thoughts here and take a couple notes. We still have some business to take care of as a Planning Commission but that was the final item in front of us this evening for voting. Again thank you to everybody really for your detail and your attention on this matter. It’s an important one. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR. Weick: The next item on the agenda this evening is new business in which we will elect a Chairman and a Vice Chairman for the upcoming session. With that I would entertain nominations. McGonagill: Mr. Chairman I’d like to nominate Steven Weick for Chairman. Weick: That’s me. McGonagill: That is you. Randall: I’d like to second the nomination. Aanenson: There you go, first and seconded it. Weick: There we have it. You guys are fast. I can’t take notes that fast. Aanenson: I got it.