Loading...
10-20-20-pcCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 20, 2020 Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Weick, Mark Randall, Michael McGonagill, Doug Reeder, Laura Skistad, Eric Noyes, and Mark Von Oven STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; George Bender, Assistant City Engineer; and Matt Unmacht, Water Resources Coordinator Weick: Just quickly reviewing the guidelines for this evening’s meeting. It is a Zoom meeting. I would ask that commission members not hold chats, text messages or discussions on the side. Everything needs to be vocalized and on the record for the public. There is one hearing this evening on tonight’s agenda. Staff will begin by presenting the item. When staff is finished commission members may ask questions. Get clarification on the item. The applicant will then be asked if they would like to make any additional comments or presentations and also would be open to questions at the conclusion of their presentation. After that we would open the public hearing. We will summarize all emails for the record. Anyone here in chambers in person will be welcome to come forward and speak their opinion on tonight’s matter and we will also offer a telephone number for anyone listening that would like to call in and have their opinion added to the record. When everyone has had a chance to be heard we will close the public hearing. One more chance for commissioners to discuss the item and then we will consider a motion and a vote as appropriate. Tonight’s item is item number, Case number 2019-13. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL TO CREATE THREE LOTS (BERROSPID ADDITION) WITH A VARIANCE FOR THE USE OF A PRIVATE STREET ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7406 FRONT TRAIL. Generous: Thank you Chairman, commissioners. As you stated this is a public hearing to review a subdivision request to create 3 lots with a variance for a flag lot and private street. The property is located at 7406 Frontier Trail. It’s zoned single family residential which means a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet with property served via private streets have to have 100 feet of lot width at the building setback line. These lots all comply with that and they need a minimum of 125 feet of depth and they all comply with that. The smallest lot is just over 15,000 square feet. The middle lot is about 18,000 square feet and the rear lot is 56,000 square feet. The site has about a 50 foot elevation drop from the west end of the property to the east end of the property. It’s currently 96 percent with canopy coverage on the property. Slide please. Again it’s a 3 lot subdivision. They’re dedicating right-of-way for Frontier Trail, the existing roadway encroaches onto this property and this puts it within, creates the public right-of-way so Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 20, 2020 2 that would be continued and memorialized. Access is via a private street. In conjunction with private streets and subdivisions they will have to record access and maintenance agreements with the subdivision documents. As part of the project they are extending public sewer and water lines into the development and they’re providing a stormwater treatment system for the site hard cover that’s going into the development. With that Steve will discuss the public improvements. Or George, I’m sorry. Bender: As Bob noted the site slopes from the western side to the eastern side towards Frontier Trail and there’s approximately about 50 feet of grade change across the site. You know due to the grade changes there was a need to design several retaining walls. They all are on individual lots so they can be private walls that are owned by the lots. And subsequently maintained by them. The private street itself is going to have the maximum allowed grade for about 100 feet of it which is 10 percent by code and then it will generally transition down to about a 2 percent grade as it accesses down to Frontier Trail. There will be some cut and fill within the 100 year floodplain. This was reviewed and approved by the watershed district. This is noted in the pink and the green on the slide that’s up currently. The retaining walls are in red. Matt Unmacht, our Water Resources Coordinator is going to discuss the wetland impacts. Unmacht: Good evening. Can everybody hear me? Aanenson: Yeah. Unmacht: So this property does have the potential to contain or to have wetlands, specifically on the south, or excuse me the east side of the property. Bob had mentioned it. It slopes west to east. A soils, a review of the wet soils survey shows, you can see in the orange area that’s considered a hydric soil and City staff including myself did stop out at the site this week and we did see some vegetation that is commonly found in wetlands in kind of a low depression right at the eastern portion of the parcel. So since staff believes that a delineation should be done at least to confirm or deny, or confirm whether or not there is a wetland present. It is marginal. It’s not most obvious site that I’ve seen but I think it warrants a delineation and then getting a delineation and then a MNRAM done would determine any, if a wetland exists on the property and if there’s any required buffers or setbacks. Bender: As far as stormwater goes, the applicant has done any design to establish volume, rate control and water quality treatment. They’ve provided for this through an underground system. There is an inlet control manhole that has a sump structure that will grab the initial heavier sediments and allow for fairly easy cleaning and then it will go into an underground infiltration chamber to allow the increased, the water from the increased hard cover to infiltrate as much as possible. The applicant has worked with the watershed district to the maximum extent possible to abstract or meet their abstraction requirements. In this case they were able through their geotechnical report to prove Type D soils exist which from the watershed district’s perspective reduce the abstraction by half from 1.1 inches to .55 and then through their rules they have a very strict and prescribed proof to reduce abstraction below that restricted amount and in this case the Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 20, 2020 3 applicant went through that with the watershed district and was able to get a restricted abstraction amount of .27 inches and you know that, per the watershed district that’s the deemed amount for the maximum extent practical. So this has been provided. This system will need to be maintained by the applicant. It will require an operation and maintenance plan be worked out with the City. And then the benefitting properties it will need to be, that plan will need to be recorded against. The City recommends that a homeowners association be created by the applicant so that the maintenance cost for the system can be split across the properties and be the responsibility of all the properties. This will require Lot 1’s low floor elevation as submitted to be adjusted to achieve an extra foot of free board from the high water level in the underground system. Regarding the public utilities, the blue line is the watermain extension from the right-of- way for Frontier Trail and the green line is where the applicant is proposing to connect to the sanit ary, public sanitary sewer system which comes up the easement along 7404 Frontier Trail’s property. The City will be requiring all services to, the services for sewer and water to all 3 lots to come off of the new extensions. There are existing services that cut across the lot where Lots 2, Lot 3 where Lots 1 and 2 are and the City is going to require that these be abandoned and then reserved off of the sewer lines that are being extended. There will be coordination required with the property owner to the north at 7404 Frontier Trail where the sanitary sewer and main extension will extend to meet the existing sanitary sewer main that’s within the easement. The area will need to be restored to either match or improve the existing condition as part of this and if any temporary construction easements are needed they will need to coordinate that with the 7404 Frontier Trail to be able to do the installation so that they remain within the easement. They will need to survey that easement so that it is known in the field when that work is being done. And with that I will turn it back over to Bob. Generous: Part of our subdivision review we review the amount of tree removal on the site. They have provided us with preliminary numbers for tree removal. As I stated originally there’s 96 percent canopy coverage on this property. The proposed plan estimates that they will have 55 percent canopy coverage after the development is done. City code uses that as a target amount of preservation so they do meet city code requirements. However we are requiring that they verify these numbers for us before it goes to final approval and do all the calculations so that we can determine whether any replacement plantings would be required. Right now the only condition is that they provide one tree for every front lot in the development. And then that they provide tree protection fencing prior to any on site construction activity. With that staff is recommending. Oh, we’ve got multiple. One call regarding, concerning this development, they wanted, well actually there were two. They are concerned about the construction traffic on Frontier Trail and that any construction would degrade the right-of-way. And the other thing, they were just concerned that there’s enough housing on Frontier Trail. They don’t need any more so. And then the second call was regarding the stormwater that’s generated on top of the hill off of Del Rio Drive and it comes, crosses this property and if you look at the topo’s you can see there’s like a swale system that comes down the hill and that’s one of the things that George had addressed. We had a second, an email tonight regarding the location of the manhole connection for the sanitary sewer on 7404 Frontier Trail. We did respond to it that it’s approximately 75 feet downstream from the existing manhole. And then also he had questions Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 20, 2020 4 about the natural drainage pattern which comes from the top of the hill down this property. Our response was that they are not creating any of that stormwater and they’re directing some of it onto their street system but it will follow the natural course that it has currently and so. Bender: You want me to expand on that? Generous: Yes if you could. Bender: So you’re in the mouse here on the slide. There’s a development to the west here that’s between Del Rio Drive and Cimarron Circle and the back yards from those properties have natural drainage that heads to the east and crossed the subject property and generally the water is following this topography. Ther e’s a small culvert here and then hitting the northeasterly property line. This is showing the grading that’s being done within the property’s limits. It is directing it onto the road and then it will, the road is actually sloped as shown here from north to south. And then the water will eventually cross the road, hit this curb line that’s right here and then be collected down in the stormwater collection basin. So this should improve it. Any water that gets off of the property as it’s coming down here, you know the applicant is not proposing and not really authorized to regrade the neighboring property to do this. If they wanted to work together you know they certainly could have discussions about that but as shown in these plans there is no regrading on the neighbor’s property. If there was some we would flagged that you know as part of this for remaining on the subject property unless there’s an agreement in place. So that’s about it. Generous: And then one other email, there was a gentleman quest ioning whether they met the variance requirements and I had to explain to him that the variance is for the use of a private street, not to have a 3 lot subdivision. We did look at this development originally providing a public street. It can be done. Ho wever it adds a significant amount of additional hard surface to this area and there’s no resulting benefit so we directed him to go through the variance process for that. He also requested information about the tree removal on the site. He says it looks like they’re taking out 70 trees. I estimated, I counted 65. Again the subdivision ordinance encourages the preservation of trees but it doesn’t prohibit it. Based on his, the calculations that were provided he is meeting city code requirements so. This person also expressed concerns about the drainage issues from the property to the west draining across this site. As George pointed out he is making some improvements but he can’t develop off site and so he can’t make any improvements to that and also t hat is beyond the purview of his requirements under our subdivision ordinance. He needs to treat and direct all the stormwater within his property that is generated by the development. And also he was concerned that with the removal of trees the City was allowing the elimination of a wildlife corridor that uses the existing lot. However that, we’re a merging community. He’s following the zoning ordinance requirements so we believe that he’s within his rights to propose it and again he’s meeting the City target for tree preservation and this person also had concern about construction traffic on Frontier Trail. Again that’s something that we try to minimize and require that we have weight limits and everything like that but it is a public road and it’s designed to carry traffic so. That’s it. And then I guess Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 20, 2020 5 the last thing is our, we’re recommending approval of the subdivision subject to the conditions in the staff report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. With that I’d be happy t o answer any questions. Weick: Thank you Bob and George for your presentation. I will give commission members a chance to collect their thoughts and perhaps ask a couple of questions that came up. Not only during your presentation but also as I was reading the report. One being the, did the existing drawings show an approved turn around for the fire truck? Bender: They do show one. There are requirements that it needs to be adjusted to meet Engine Number 1. That will need to be coordinated with the Fire Marshal when the final construction plans are done so it is a condition. Weick: Okay. But that could potentially make that area, that could add lot coverage to that area. Bender: It could make some minor adjustments, that is correct and it might adjust like their retaining wall and there’s another requirement that that area that’s supported by that retaining wall has to use the surcharge from the fire vehicle to make sure that when it’s designed that you know it can support it. Weick: Okay. The other question kind of also related to the road is the road included in the lot coverage calculation? Generous: The private street or the front? Weick: Private street. Generous: It’s not. The common portion is not included in the lot area calculation. But we don’t include the hard cover nor the area in that lot. The flag lot so. Weick: So it wouldn’t benefit or be a detraction from the lot coverage? Generous: No. Weick: It’s an area that’s just not included. Generous: Right it’s covered under the stormwater improvements that they’re providing but it’s not, we may come in if they wanted to expand the house it would not be added to. Weick: Okay. Generous: The fire truck turn around would but the rest of the private street would not. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 20, 2020 6 Weick: Okay. And then there was mention on, bear with me. Page 6. No, further. It was about the soil and I can just say it from memory because I can’t find it right now but there was a report that the soil wasn’t sufficient to support road foundation and other things and it would need to be replaced. I’m just not familiar with building. Is that like a normal thing or is that a difficult thing to do? Bender: Basically they’re going to have to meet the supportive requirements of burying for not only the road but the foundations associated with the residences so it’s not like they have to take out all of the soil or anything. They have to put back, they’re going to have to take out some soil that doesn’t have the right bearing capacity and replace it with probably what we call select granular material and compact that in place to increase the support of capacity of those areas. Weick: Okay. I think for right now that was all the questions I had for staff. I would open it up also for the commission members if you’ve had a chance to collect your thoughts. Any questions? Reeder: Mr. Chairman one question on the road. Do we require an agreement between the 3 property owners to maintain that road, A. And B, the actual construction of that road do we have some standard for that? Bender: Yes we do. Yes is the answer to both questions. Basically we are recommending a homeowners association be created by the developer in order to provide for the maintenance of that private street and equally share the costs associated with it’s maintenance. Ultimately that is up to the developer to determine whether an HOA is going to be created but at the same time they will have to have some sort of agreement in place in order to make sure that the road can be maintained and it just doesn’t fall upon the Lot 3 where it is because the private street is not shown on the preliminary plat in an outlot. There will also have to be access agreements provided for Lots 1 and 2 so that are essentially relative to ingress and egress along the private street. So and yes there are design standards. You know this has to be a 20 foot minimum wide road which the applicant has provided. It has to have a maximum of 10 percent grade which the applicant meets. It will also need to meet a 7 ton design which the, there is a condition that the applicant’s engineer will need to submit those calculations for our review. Weick: Thanks Commissioner Reeder. Other questions for staff at this time? McGonagill: Mr. Chairman this is Commissioner McGonagill. Weick: Hello, good evening. McGonagill: George I’ve got a couple questions for you. If I look on page 6 and I’m just really looking at the grading and drainage plan on the plot. I think I know the answer to this but I just want to be sure. On Lot 1, can Lot 1 down the road be subdivided again? Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 20, 2020 7 Generous: No it’s at the minimum requirement in the RSF district. McGonagill: Okay so there’s no potential that they could come into that… Generous: The one on top Lot 3 potentially if they could get the property over to the west, or to the south of them to grab the property there’s a potential. They could meet the minimum 15,000 and have 90 feet of. McGonagill: On Lot 3. Generous: Yeah the one on the top of the hill. McGonagill: Okay I call that Lot 1. I’m confused. So it’s the one to the west they could subdivide that one? Generous: If they got the property from the property to the south to have access onto Del Rio. McGonagill: Yeah that was really the question I was coming from. You know does that potential then does exist to do that if they could get access to Del Rio right? Generous: Yes. If that property owner would sell them enough land to do that. McGonagill: Okay and that’s why I assume that issue the property owner to the west is why the road, I think there’s two reasons that road doesn’t come in from Del Rio. One is you just answered is access. The other is there’s quite a bit of an elevation grade to come down into that house which I call house on Lot 3, is that correct? Bender: I’d add to that, that it’s an existing house that was constructed in 1969 and you know it’s currently served off of Frontier Trail so you know it’s kind of designed from a garage perspective and to face that way so to change it and have it come from the other way would have quite a few impacts. McGonagill: Yeah I understand. But I just think about the potential down the road. So if Lot, I guess you call it Lot 1. If Lot 1 gets subdivided then access, would the access have to come off of Del Rio or could it actually come off the private drive? What I’m hearing you say it cannot come off the private drive because when they extended the private drive into that new subdivided lot they would not meet lot cover minimums, is that correct? Generous: No. When you said Lot 1 I was thinking you meant the most easterly property which is only a little over 15,000 square feet. At the top of the hill. Aanenson: Can you put a map up so everybody can see? Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 20, 2020 8 McGonagill: Yeah and I’m sorry. I’m sorry. You know I had my numbers wrong. That’s my error. Weick: Commissioner McGonagill while we’re pulling that up can you just restate your question again? McGonagill: Okay it really is fairly simple. I’m trying to look at the next step of the larger lot. The lot to the west, can it be subdivided again and what that would require if that were to occur because then you’ve got plan, in my mind I’m planning for the next step that logically could come. Generous: Well the first part of it he could conceivably extend the private street up to service the most westerly part of the parcel. McGonagill: Okay. Generous: It would need to go through a public hearing process again and they’d have to revise the variance again to use a private street. However if you could get the right-of-way or the property to connect to Del Rio there then they could access that lot from the south and come in and have a lot there. It’s contingent on the property owner selling him the land. McGonagill: Correct. But if the property owner didn’t he still could let’s say when it’s, the gentleman that’s living to the west in the large parcel decides to leave he could subdivide this again and just extend the private drive and it would just be another variance. Aanenson: Wouldn’t it be over the 10 percent grade? Bender: Kate just mentioned that it would be over the, it may be over the 10 percent grade so for that to be extended yo u know it would still have to meet the code requirements of the maximum of 10 percent and the grade lines do tighten up as it goes up the hill so that would more than likely require regrading in order to extend the drive far enough to accommodate another lot. McGonagill: That’s a technically challenging issue when you get into that…is what you’re saying. Bender: Yeah. I mean if the property could be you know generated to access Del Rio Drive it’s likely that one driveway would come off of it for a house that would be placed further to the west and the house that’s currently located on Lot 3 or if it was a tear down and rebuild would access the private drive. McGonagill: Okay. And I realize that’s not what we’re talking about here tonight and it doesn’t really enter in. I’m just trying to think about what the next step would look like. That’s where I’m trying to come from. George next question I have is on the stormwater system. Could you Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 20, 2020 9 cover that drawing that had the underwater containment stuff that you showed? Please sir. It had the catch basin and then what I call the silos in your presentation. That one. Question I had, this water containment system, when it leaves the system, you know if it doesn’t go to infill, does it go into some sort of stormwater system into Lotus Lake? Bender: Well it would enter our stormwater system that’s out in Frontier Trail so there’s an overflow pipe shown in the control structure so that would essentially connect into our stormwater system in Frontier Trail and then if I can here, you know it would more than likely make it’s way right down to these ponds that are here. McGonagill: Okay. So and then ultimately that with the way the flow is going through ground filtration or whatever if it overflows it does end up in Lotus Lake, does it? Bender: Ultimately. McGonagill: Maybe not. Maybe that’s a question for Matt. Bender: Yeah Matt are you still here? Unmacht: Yeah I’m still here. I got the datalink pulled up here at home and best I can tell, I believe it ultimately does. Bender: I think it’s going to make it’s way through those ponds Matt and then this drainage channel. Unmacht: Yep, that red triangle that you’re, that right there. That’s outfall into that drainage channel into Lotus Lake is what I believe. McGonagill: Okay. So that’s if we stay right there, you said it would go through several systems like a pond which are containment basins. Settlement basins, etcetera before it gets into another outfall that would end up in Lotus Lake because I’m worried about Lotus Lake quality obviously. That’s a recreation lake. Is that right Matt? Unmacht: Yes that’s correct. It would go through at least those two basins along with the infiltration, or excuse me the underground stormwater treatment system that’s already proposed on the project. McGonagill: George on those underground infiltration systems you said there has to be a maintenance plan for them and you can just stay on this picture which would be fine. In that agreement is there any requirement for those systems to be annually inspected to be sure they’re not full of debris and that report provided to Matt or can we put that in there because again I want to be sure that those systems are working on an annual basis. You know you get a hard rain Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 20, 2020 10 or hard year those things can fill up full of junk and suddenly you don’t have anything that’s working anymore, you follow me? Unmacht: Yep. So yeah we are definitely going to have required inspections and maintenance done on a system like this so we’ll work with the applicant as to what the inspection and reporting details will be but they absolutely will have at the very least annual reporting and the most likely after a specific rainfall amount events. McGonagill: That’s perfect. Yeah that way you know if it’s still working properly and if you had that working and you’ve got the rest containment basin you’ve done just about everything you can. Unmacht: Correct, yep. McGonagill: Okay that’s quite helpful. Mr. Chairman that’s my questions. Bender: I’d add one part to that please if you don’t mind. Get it back to the right slide here. So as part of this structure that they’re putting in, in the control structure there is a 4 foot sump in it to collect the heavier solids before it ever gets to the infiltration chamber. In addition it’s kind of hard to see but they also have an energy dissipater that they’re putting in non the inlet pipe and then a skimmer on the outlet pipe to the infiltration chamber to keep as many solids as possible in the control structure so that’s as easy to maintain as possible. So over time they’ll learn you know how many solids they’re collecting and kind of at what type of timeframe that fills up that sump. Whether it ends up needing to be annually cleaned or maybe it could be you know every 2 years. That will be kind of a to be determined aspect associated with it but you know the easier that they can make the maintenance, you know the more often it will happen and be better for the overall Lotus Lake water quality. McGonagill: Well George that’s very helpful. I think the thing that’s going to be real important and I have to guess Matt this will be in your purview with inspectors is to insure they’ve got really good erosion control on there so you don’t load that whole structure up during construction because that could happen. It’s an underground. You’ve got an underground system. You really…load it up bad and you just wreck the thing and it never works, you follow me? Unmacht: Yep absolutely. They’ll be required to get an approved erosion and sediment control plan that needs to be approved by city staff before any grading can happen. We’ll make sure that they’re doing their due diligence when it comes to keeping erosion on site, especially around that inlet structure. McGonagill: Yeah, then you follow my point. Thank you very much. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 20, 2020 11 Bender: There’s inspection points associated with this underground system that allow our inspectors to you know insure that there is no sediment in the chamber system when it’s activated and the site work has been kind of completed. McGonagill: Yeah I’m just not too familiar with these and so I’m sorry for the rudimentary questions. I’m just not too, I haven’t seen too much how they work and so this is helping me so I appreciate it. Mr. Chairman I think that takes care of me. Weick: Thank you Commissioner McGonagill. Other commissioners with questions for staff? Von Oven: Yeah Mr. Chairman this is Commissioner Von Oven. Weick: Good evening. Von Oven: During the presentation I heard mention and I didn’t quite understand it. I heard mention of the potential of striking a deal on something with the neighbor to the north. 7404 with respect to was it grading? Bender: I’ll take it first. The neighbor to the north was one of the comments that we received. We received it you know just within an hour, hour and a half before the meeting and responded to it but essentially the concern was related to a stream of water that comes down you know especially in larger rainfall events between the two properties and he’s wondering whether that would be addressed to avoid any further damage in this area or potentially make it go away completely. And the response to that was, you know the water pattern as it crosses 7406, you know and this is water that’s essentially just crossing the property also drains in part onto the bordering area of 7404. And if this resident wants you know this problem to go away completely it may require regrading to help with t hat and at that point you know the two properties would have to have some sort of agreement if they’re trying to, you know as part of this development improve something that’s not on the property. Does that answer your question? Von Oven: Yes and so it actually leads to my second question which is, you’ve got an existing stream of water. It’s kind of directing itself near or at that property line and now there’s going to be a hard surface put in a private road. Based on all of these finds is there any chance that this situation is going to get worst for 7404 in terms of the amount of water floating onto his property? And if so is there any recourse for that resident? Bender: I don’t believe so because there’s no grading going on essentially on that drainage pathway across Lot 1 which is the western most lot. And then as the water hits where the private street is going to be constructed on the western end some of that water is going to find it’s way onto the street and then be collected, you know directed to the south curb line and then be collected in the stormwater basin so there will be less water but you know how that water actually directs itself at the point of where that water path hits the border between the two properties. You know there can be some on each side of that and you know because that’s pretty Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 20, 2020 12 much what the comment says is where it’s headed and that’s what the grade lines show that it is. So some of that water is going to kind of go a little more to the south via the private street. Does that answer your question? Von Oven: It does thank you. No further questions from me. Weick: Thanks Commissioner Von Oven. Other questions? Hearing none at this time from the commissioners. Hearing no other comments from the commissioners I would invite the applicant to either come forward and make their presentation thank you, and welcome this evening. Luis Berrospid: Hi. Thank you everybody. I don’t…I want to thank Bob and George for the great presentation. I’ve been on the property for over 2 years and I have….and I moved to Chanhassen back in January, 2018 and I’ve been working with Bob for probably over a year and a half on this project. My family and me we do love the community here and the Chanhassen area and I’m hoping that we can you know approve this project and move forward with it. Like I said I think you guys did a good presentation on it and I’m here to answer any questions that you guys might have on any additional questions so. Weick: Thank you and thank you for coming this evening. Stay up there just in case there’s, yeah. I will open it up for commissioners. If there are any questions of the applicant at this time. Give everybody a second. Are there any conditions? Generous: Your neighbor to the north? Luis Berrospid: My neighbor to the north? Generous: Yes. Luis Berrospid: I did talk to the neighbor to the north. Basically him yesterday and I, maybe that’s where the question arise but I went to his home and we talked about the center manhole that I’m going to be putting into his property. He did ask me about you know pretty much the grading that is coming down, sometimes erosion control it’s not running off right now from the property. The problem is that the existing road that is right now the driveway, somewhat like George was saying some of it comes into my property and some already goes into the line but today everything goes into what I call the kind of like a, whether it’s an RC pipe that goes across the road but I think he has been having issues with that erosion control problem and he was asking if maybe we can fix it and that’s something that I would probably like to fix too with him. Something that if I end up developing the project on my own I would probably end up working with him on how to get that problem solved for him and myself too. So that’s one thing. And then I did mention that I will encroach into the property into the easement so I can hook up to a sanitary line. It seems to me that he was fine and he said yep go ahead but I will definitely work with him during construction if I end up developing the project. You know to work with him on Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 20, 2020 13 coordination and things like that. I will definitely try to minimize, I don’t think I will open cut that. I would probably have a trench box to minimize the tree removal in that area because there is small trees in that area but hey I would probably do it with a trench box. That’s probably one of the contingencies with the not es that they ask me on how I’m going to connect to it. But I think it’s just minimizing you know with a 6 to 8 foot trench box to get into a connection for the sanitary line that we have. Weick: Okay thank you. One more opportunity for commissioners to ask any questions of our applicant this evening. And hearing none thank you very much for coming forward and thank you for the project. Luis Berrospid: Yeah. Weick: With that I will open up the public hearing portion of tonight’s item. If you are watching the number 952-227-1100 is on your screen. You may call that number and enter your opinion for the record. Anyone here this evening who would like to come forward and speak their opinion on this item may do so at this time. And we also did receive and will add to the record any and all calls or emails, and/or emails that came in this afternoon and thank you Bob and George for summarizing those for us. Appreciate it. Seeing nobody come forward this evening and seeing no phone calls I will close the public hearing portion of tonight’s item and move to commissioner discussion. Any thoughts? Skistad: This is Commissioner Skistad and I would just say that it looks like a great project and I think that mitigation with the drainage, I mean it seems like maybe with what’s being suggested it might actually help Lotus Lake with the drainage anyway so I don’t really have any questions but I expect to approve this. Weick: Thank you Commissioner Skistad. Appreciate your input. I can offer a few comme nts. I read this one several times actually and really tried to collect my thoughts on it. You know it’s two parts as you’re aware. There’s the plat and there’s the variance and the variance is for the road that has to be put on the property. The thing s that concern me about this project are the soil replacement was, I think that was answered pretty well. It sounds like something that isn’t you know any kind of deal breaker for the applicant. The idea of the wetland conservation sort of raises, it raises concern for me and it all relates back to what I would classify as poor, a poorly treated preservation plan and those that know me know that I often comment on this kind of thing but it’s disappointing to me to see all of the trees taken out on the front side of the property. It’s just an uneven solution to the problem and the trees that are taken out, it was taken down all the way down to the minimum coverage or canopy coverage which doesn’t give us a whole lot of leeway if there’s changes that need to be made either to the road or to the turn around or if something comes up over the wetland itself and so you know those, it’s just there’s a feeling to me that this is, this is a case where sometimes I call it, it just doesn’t feel like a great property to develop. I’m not sure that there’s enough, it meets all the regulations as far as I can see so it’s difficult for me to say that I couldn’t vote for this but it is, it just doesn’t feel right to me and it Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 20, 2020 14 doesn’t, it really comes down to kind of that wetland question. The soil question and the fact that so many of those trees have to be taken out on the front half of that property. Those are just my thoughts on that. I’d certainly welcome feedback from commissioners or you know helping me manage through those thoughts. Or a motion. It’s quiet. It is a quiet group tonight and that is rare. Randall: I’ll make a motion. Weick: Commissioner Randall, please go ahead. Randall: The motion is for the Chan Planning Commission, I was reading it off the screen here. Recommends the City Council approve a 3 lot subdivision with a variance for the use of a flag lot and private street subject to the conditions of the staff report and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Weick: I’m sorry, caught me daydreaming there for a second. We have a valid motion from Commissioner Randall. Do we have a second? McGonagill: I’ll second it Mr. Chair. Weick: I’ll give that second to Commissioner McGonagill. Any comment prior to a vote? Reeder: Mr. Chairman? Weick: Yeah. Reeder: I agree with your concern about the trees in this particular case but I think because the proposal meets most of our requirements. Weick: Understood. Reeder: That we need to move forward with it. That’s unfortunate. Weick: Yeah I, and I think the only thing I would say is there’s something to me about the private road and if that were a driveway it would be included in your lot coverage and it’s certainly bigger than a driveway and has more impact on the area than a driveway so you know that was kind of my concern. But thank you for your comments and with that I will take a roll call vote. Randall moved, McGonagill seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve a three-lot subdivision with a variance for the use of a flag lot and private street subject to the following conditions and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation: Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 20, 2020 15 Building 1. A building permit must be obtain prior to beginning work at the property. Engineering 1. All driveways shall have direct access only to the proposed private street. 2. Calculations supporting the 7-ton private street design shall be submitted by a professional engineer for review and approval prior to grading operations. 3. The applicant shall submit updated designs for the private street utilizing either a crowned street or a uniform and continuous cross-sloped street to adequately direct stormwater to the proposed stormwater conveyance system prior to grading operations. 4. The final plat shall be updated prior to recording to include public drainage and utility easements as follows: a 10’ wide D&U on the west property line of Lot 2 and 10’ wide D&Us centered over all newly proposed public utilities including stormwater, sanitary sewer, and water mains. 5. An updated existing condition survey shall be submitted prior to grading operations that includes all existing utilities within and surrounding the property. 6. An encroachment agreement for all existing structures within public drainage and ut ility easements shall be filed concurrently with the recording of the final plat. 7. Updated grading plans shall be submitted that illustrate drainage arrows and adequate grading to drain stormwater away from structures, specifically the proposed home on Lot 1, prior to grading operations. 8. Updated utility plans shall be submitted illustrating draintile locations for Lot 1. 9. Updated grading plans shall illustrate the location, width, and grades of the driveway to Lot 1. 10. The applicant shall conduct a soil boring near the proposed structure on Lot 1 to ensure groundwater elevations are a minimum of 3 feet below the lowest floor elevation. 11. An erosion and sediment control plan, a stand-alone document (separate sheet), in accordance with CCO Sec. 19-145 shall be included with updated plan submittals prior to grading operations. 12. All newly installed sanitary sewer, water, and stormwater mains and appurtenances shall be publicly owned and maintained by the city after acceptance of the public improvements by the City Council. 13. Construction plans shall be updated to show the 25’ D&U located on 7404 Frontier Trail, the means of how utility work in the D&U will not encroach onto private property, and a note prescribing restoration methods of the disturbed areas within the D&U. 14. All applicable permits required by Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District shall be obtained and adhered to. CONSTRUCTION PLANS 1. On sheet 1.0, Title Sheet: show hydrant symbol at end of leader for benchmark call-outs; update contact information for City Engineer to “Jason Wedel”. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 20, 2020 16 2. On sheet 2.0, Grading Plan: all references to “shared driveway” or “driveway”, as it pertains to the private street, shall be updated to read “private street”; show tree protection methodology on plans; show stockpile locations, including required topsoil; reference detail plate #5202A for street patching where Frontier Trail and private street meet; update the symbol for “proposed silt fence” as it closely resembles “existing retaining wall”, for clarity; on the private street profile section call-out 10% grade as “maximum”. 3. On sheet 3.0, Utility Plan: provide profile views for all public utilities; call-out detail plate #2204 for insulated pipe section; relocate sanitary MH-2 within the private drive hard surface area; relocate curb box for Lot 2 to be and within the drainage and utility easement over the water main; update material type for public water main to be C900; call-out for “ex. curb stop damaged” shall add note to remove and abandon service and lateral; call-out for FES-1 should note that no guard shall be installed; all sanitary service sewer laterals shall be updated to be 6”; extents of removal of existing services shall be illustrated to go from where the new sanitary service and water service are being co nnected to Lot 2 down to the curb stop for Lot 1’s water service and the property line for Lot 1’s sewer service; use a darkened line type for proposed storm sewer within the “Legend”; add a note regarding coordination with Public Works 48-hours prior to any work on public utilities; add a note that the governing specifications for utility work shall be the City Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. 4. On sheet 4.1, Construction Details; remove detail plate #3101 and replace with detail plate #3102; add a note to detail plate #3108 that no trash guard shall be installed on FES-1 (outlet). 5. On sheet 4.2, Construction Details; Add detail for tree protection, street patching detail plate #5202A, and pipe crossing insulation detail plate #2204. Fire 1. Private road will need to follow City of Chanhassen Code for Private Roads – including a turnaround for emergency vehicles. Parks 1. Full park fees in lieu of additional parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. Planning 1. The front lot line for Lot 1 shall be the northerly property line. 2. The front setback for Lot 1 shall be from the point at which the lot measures 100 feet. 3. An access and maintenance agreement for the private street shall be recorded with the plat. All voted in favor except for Chairman Weick who opposed. The motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 20, 2020 17 Weick: With that the item passes 6 approval, one opposed. The item will be moved forward. Generous: It’s going to City Council on November 9th. Weick: Thank you to the applicant for coming this evening. All of the public input as well as the staff report. Very thorough and very good as always. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Noyes noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 6, 2020. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Weick: And I will turn it back over for city presentation. I think we do have a couple presentations this evening. Aanenson: First I’m going to give you an update and then we’ll go into adjournment. McGonagill: Can’t hear. Aanenson: First we’re going to do the City Council update and also then just some Planning Commission business. So at the City Council update, there was a discussion for TIF for the last building at the Powers Ridge Apartment buildings because in order to get the density bonus they needed to do some affordable so there was tacit approval on that so that project will go back. They need to do a PUD amendment because. McGonagill: Kate can you speak into the microphone. Aanenson: Yes I apologize. McGonagill: There you go, thank you. Aanenson: So they need to do a PUD amendment and a site plan approval so we’ll be seeing that project probably after the first of the year. Secondly the council did approve the two code amendments. One is for the, excuse me for one and that was for the certain constructions in outlots. As you recall we did do a variance for somebody that wanted to do a shed. That’s typically associated with a beachlot but this was concerned an outlot. They did have a lot of discussion on this, the zoning permits. I think that was a split vote and so they wanted to remand that back to the Planning Commission but we’re going to do a little bit more work on that before you see that again. And then finally they approved the development contract for the, the development contract was approved for the Bluffs at Lake Lucy. It was being held up at the County for recording. They were backlogged and so they wanted to proceed with the grading to keep things moving so they went forward and broke off the grading development contract from the rest of the development contract. So that grading contract was approved except on the north Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 20, 2020 18 end where the hours were limited to no Saturdays. The developer’s probably coming back to the next City Council meeting to talk about that. Meanwhile we also just, we did receive the 3rd Addition for Lennar so that will just be going to City Council. So anyway that project’s underway. That projects been…The Bluffs, the northern part, The Bluffs at Lake Lucy which is Gonyea Homes so they are grading right now so they do have permission for that. As it turns out they’ll probably get the entire development contract maybe in, to get recorded yet this week so they’re trying to as they say make hay when the sun shines so we’ll see how the weather cooperates there. So I also just wanted to remind the rest of the Planning Commission that we do not have a meeting in 2 weeks because that is election day so hopefully everybody’s voting but we do have a meeting on the 17th of November and we do have a subdivision. As it turns out it’s Deerwood so that’s actually Mr. Ashfeld who spoke, the other project that he spoke on coming off Yosemite. I think I talked about this before and Mr. Randall may recuse himself but it’s up in that area off Yosemite coming in off of a private drive so you’ll see another example of a private drive in the application of that so I just wanted to let you know kind of our schedule. We do have a couple things that are floating out there. We were expecting an amendment to the PUD down at 101 and Lyman. That building. Sharmeen did a very good job on the architecture on that and I think they want to kind of go back, we had some suggestions on that and I think they want to rethink it before you see that so we have a couple things that are floating out there. I’m not sure they’ll all land before, we just have one meeting in December so after this there’s just a couple more meetings and then we’re into the new year. So with that Chairman you could adjourn. McGonagill: Mr. Chair just for Kate your information. I will be out of town on the 17th. November 17th. Aanenson: Okay thank you. So just an FYI everybody else then if Commissioner Randall chooses to then we’re down to 5 so if somebody can’t make it they’d give us a heads up on that, that would be great. So with that Chairman you can adjourn the meeting and then we’ll just go into open discussion which we won’t be broadcast live. It’s just kind of really for education for the Planning Commission. Weick: Okay, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Von Oven moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim