Loading...
PC Minutes 9-6-05 Planning Commission Meeting - September 6, 2005 McDonald: I'll second. Keefe moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the attached Registered Land Surveys referred to as Exhibits A and B as presented. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to O. REOUEST FOR SUBDIVISION OF LOT 2. BLOCK 1. SATHRE ADDITION (6605 HORSESHOE CURVE) INTO 3 LOTS WITH VARIANCES. HARVIEUX SUBDIVISION APPLICANT RONALD HARVIEUX. PLANNING CASE 05-26. Public Present: Name Ron & Leanne Harvieux Steve Wanek Don & Darlene Miller Maryevelyn Monty Joe Pfankuch Address 6605 Horseshoe Curve 6615 Horseshoe Curve 395 Pleasant View Road 370 Pleasant View Road 6611 Horseshoe Curve Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Bob. Questions from staff. Jerry. McDonald: I have a question for you. On this, on the driveway that serves the existing home, that is an existing driveway that's currently there, is that true? Generous: That's correct. McDonald: Okay, so it's currently a shared driveway between those two properties. Or the two houses. Generous: The two houses, correct. McDonald: Okay. It is existing and it's there, why are we requiring that now he add width to that if it's already there? Generous: It's not for the driveway per se. It's for the neck portion of the lot. Our ordinance defines a neck as being 30 feet wide. And so that's the only part that we have a problem with. McDonald: Okay. No further questions. Thanks Jerry. Any other questions? Keefe: Yeah. In regards to the neck lots, if they make the changes as you propose them to be made, do we still have a variance? Just to grant a variance for the neck. Generous: To use that configuration for lots who have to grant... 16 Planning Commission Meeting - September 6, 2005 Keefe: Even with the changes. Generous: Yeah, even with the changes. Just to have a flag lot with the neck access. Sacchet: Flag lot in every case. Generous: Yes, requires the variance. Keefe: Okay, and then just in regards to the discussion in regards to the impervious surface coverage on particularly Lot 2. Is the, does the proposed plan right now, is that just the building or does it include hard surface around the building? So the question I have is, are we going to be seeing these guys come back in right after it gets built because they want to put a sidewalk in or they want to put a driveway in or something like that. Or variance for a hard surface coverage because it's within the shoreland district. Generous: Right. What we requested that the applicant do is show us as big a house as they would put in there and what the maximum driveway that they would have, and so they did that and then they used thos~ numbers to calculate what the site coverage was. Is. Keefe: The site coverage includes the driveway. Generous: Driveway. All the impervious area. It wouldn't show a sidewalk yet because we're not down to that detail, but it does show, you can see the proposed hard cover on the side, what is it, Lot 2 has a 2,810 square foot footprint, which is a pretty big. Keefe: So in the back it slopes back pretty dramatically. Generous: Yeah, it goes down to the east it's pretty steep. Keefe: So likely have a patio going in there probably. Like it'd be more of like a second. Generous: A deck would be able to go onto the east side and then also to the south. Keefe: So in terms of additional hard surface coverage, the likelihood, and we don't know for sure because we don't know the actual plans but it could be that they would add a sidewalk from the driveway to the front entrance. Generous: Right, and they have, if you look at the way that driveway's configured as it comes to the back it widens up so that's usually where we can reduce impervious coverage. Keefe: Okay, because we're right up against the ordinance on that. Generous: Yeah, 24 Y2. Keefe: Okay. That's it. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - September 6, 2005 Sacchet: Any other questions? Jerry. McDonald: To follow up on that. Does the owner understand the limitations here? That if we grant this based upon this footprint, this is pretty much what he's got to work with and we won't see someone coming back in asking us to go to 25.4 or something like that? Generous: That was my understanding and I'll have him address that but I requested that he make Lot 2 as big as he could because the 25% impervious issue would come up and that's part of the reason that configuration's like it is. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Keefe: And just one further clarification. With the changes that you've proposed, are we going to be reducing the square footage on Lot 2 or are we going to be increasing it? So in other words are we going to, if they go with the changes that you're proposing in terms of adjusting for the neck lot, are we going to be bumping up against the impervious surface coverage? And maybe I just make that as a no. There's a potential for that. . . . Generous: There's a potential but we would recommend that he keep that square footage you know as it is. There's several ways that he can do it. He can extend the south lot line. Now if he's taking enough. Actually my concern for coverage was on Lot 1 because that's the smallest of all the lots in the development. Sacchet: Okay. I have another question. Additional question Bob. In addition to those two we already addressed. The staff report talks about this mysterious avenue, Balder A venue. Which one is Balder Avenue? Generous: It was a platted right-of-way on the west side of this parcel. Sacchet: So it's the part that turned into the technically private road. It's the driveway that serves the two. Generous: Yes, part of that and it also is the western, there's actually two parts of it. It was the western edge of this lot and then the eastern edge of the lot. Sacchet: Now I see it. It's actually, it was the whole length of the property there. Generous: Right. Keefe: Is that an access to the lake? Generous: No. It was dedicated as part of the original plat as public right-of-way but it was never used and as the history has shown, it was vacated over time. In pieces. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - September 6, 2005 Sacchet: Yeah, it looks like it dropped right into the lake. Alright. And so their rationale was because there was this Balder A venue and at the time that was vacated there was no issue. Generous: Yeah, it wasn't a variance to have either a private street or a flag lot. That came up later. Sacchet: And that kind of begs another question. I mean we're asking the applicant to make that neck area wider potentially you're suggesting it should be 30 foot wide. But it's a shared driveway. Why shouldn't some of the land on the other side, does that belong to the right-of- way? Generous: No, it belongs to the property owner to the west, because that was vacated also and the split was where it's shown. Sacchet: So, but since it's serving both properties, really the right-of-way should be on both properties potentially but then that's out of our control. Generous: Yeah, that's not this property doesn't have control of that. Sacchet: Okay. Generous: They could have, we could grant a variance for the width of that. He has 15 feet that he's showing currently. They could have, we could grant a variance for the width of that. He has 15 feet that he's showing currently. Sacchet: Because logically common sense wise it makes more sense to add land on the other side because there is this curve and there's room between the road and this driveway. You see what I'm saying? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: Okay. Alright. Understand where you're at with that. Any other questions? Jerry, go ahead. McDonald: You brought up an interesting point. How do we do something such as that? Sacchet: Well the thing is we have an applicant and they have to deal with what they own. And that's why I bring this up. I mean it's a sticky thing. If they want to do something on their property they have to accommodate the ordinance on their property. Like in this case it gets kind of hairy because it would make much more sense to have that dedication for that what eventually, in the terms of city context will be a private road because it accesses two lots. I mean this land, that's basically no man's land between the road and the driveway. And would much more make sense, common sense wise to have that be part of the dedication of what is considered the driveway or the private road. But we can't really deal with that because that's outside of what we have to play with right now. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - September 6, 2005 McDonald: And there's no mechanism for us to look at, at least within his property forcing what his share would be in leaving the other. . . Generous: You could always grant a variance for that neck width if you will. Sacchet: We can't make it conditional, something that's not in front of us you see. Then we imply, it's not really a condition but the implied thought is that then on the other side some of it would be calculated into that. McDonald: Well it's my understanding, we end up punishing him because it was his, he's got the land and the impact could be on Lot 1. I guess I just was wondering if it's something we could explore in terms of if we grant the variance on the neck and how we make sure that he gets put off on the other side. You know I wouldn't want to do one without the other. Sacchet: Yeah and you see that's out of our hands. That would be something the applicant would have to work out ahead of time. Generous: Mr. Chairman, you could only address it if that property owner later came in for a subdivision maybe. Sacchet: Alright. Dan go ahead. Keefe: Just one follow up question. Going back to Lot 2 and just to the east side of that. There is kind of a dotted line and it says erosion control. Is there a proposal to have a retaining wall of any sort on that east side? I mean because you've got about a 20 foot elevation change it looks like from the back of that house going down to the east. And just based on our events of the night before last, a couple of nights ago. Morris: Good point. There is, they do show a retaining wall on the east side. It shows up as 5 small circles on the east edge of the proposed driveway right at the garage, so they do identify the need because of the elevation differences to put a retaining wall in at that location. As far as putting in a retaining wall at the back of the house, they're not identifying it at this point because the builder's intent is to work with the land as much as possible to reduce the impact. Hence the custom graded lots that are shown in front of you tonight. So at this point they know they'll have to have a retaining wall at that location. They're not proposing a retaining wall at another location on Lot 2. On Lot 1, again there's 4 small dots. Audience: Excuse me, is it possible to see the plot while this discussion is going on? Sacchet: Yeah, we can put it up for you, certainly. It's very small so you probably won't see the little dots she's talking about but we can point out where they are. Can you zoom in a little Nann? Morris: At this location here is Lot 2. And the proposed driveway comes in at this location and they're proposing a retaining wall right here at the proposed garage. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - September 6, 2005 Sacchet: And it's not a very big retaining, at least not a very long retaining wall isn't it? Morris: No. It's shown as probably about 10 feet long. Sacchet: 10-15 feet. Something along that. Morris: Something. Sacchet: Wide, not high. Wide. Morris: Correct, and it's very preliminary because they don't have the house plan but they do show the need that, because of the driveway grades, because of the house, they do show a retaining wall required at that location and then over here on Lot 1, again adjacent to the garage, another retaining wall for Lot 1. Sacchet: Similar situation. Morris: Similar situation. Sacchet: Can you see it at all? Okay. Thanks Alyson. Appreciate it. Keefe: Can you, just as one quick follow up and I don't know, but can you speak just a little bit how the water would flow, the run off would go on that just to the east. Just given that elevation. Sacchet: You're prepared, wow. Morris: I'll answer that. What we looked at, what I looked at here is I wanted to make sure that the property to the east particularly of Lot 2 wouldn't be severely impacted by a proposed lot here, so what I show was existing drainage pattern at this location and proposed drainage pattern at this location, and the different basically there's 3 different drainage areas on the property shown in the respective colors and where this pink drains to the street. The blue drains to the lake. The green drains to the east. So that shows what the drainage patterns are doing currently and what they're proposed, so when I looked at Lot 2, there's not a significant increase in area draining to that existing house to the east. In fact the biggest change from existing to post development drainage patterns is the area draining to the street. To answer your question about specifically this drainage pattern to the east, what we looked at doing and we had it as a requirement for approval is that any lot, any lot, pardon me. Any house on Lot 2 here, that the roof drains be directed to the southwest comer here so that it wouldn't be going down this slope to the property to the east. That it'd be going to the treed area. Have a chance to dissipate the energy and go to the south. Sacchet: Great answer. Thank you Alyson. Any other questions from staff? Kurt? Papke: Ijust want to make sure I understand the recommendations that you're making Bob on changing the property lines there. Now it's really condition number 5 that you're using to make that happen. Is that correct? 21 Planning Commission Meeting - September 6, 2005 Generous: Yes. Papke: You're not really stipulating there how they're going to be moved. Generous: No, we're just saying that they need to comply with the 30 foot width and like I showed, there are several options that they can do. Papke: Okay. And on the preliminary plat it shows a shed on the north side of the house exactly 10 feet from the property line, so I assume that your proposal isn't going to. Generous: Would not go that far east. Papke: Okay. Sacchet: Alright. Okay, with that do we have an applicant here? If you want to come forward and if you have anything to add or. Ron Harvieux: .. . good stewards of the.1and and we intend to do that as we go forward with the, next two lots. Everything we've done here has been planned so that we minimize the impact. It's very beautiful land. It's a hill that we've been driving around for 26 years and it's going to change. I mean there's an issue there I think for all of us but we're trying to do that with minimal grading and so the 2 houses we're proposing, and we haven't gotten down the line far enough to answer some of the questions for the house design but we know we want to put them where they'd have minimum impact in terms of grading. And also tree preservation. We're trying to do everything we can, and there's some beautiful trees up there to hold onto them. I think in some ways the only reason we're here tonight, before the vacation of Horseshoe Curve and Balder Avenue, and I didn't want to complicate the issue earlier but Balder Avenue wasn't the only thing that was vacated. Back in 1992 there was a spur of Horseshoe Curve that came down and that's exactly where the driveway is today. That used to be called Horseshoe Curve. And Horseshoe Curve is a continuous street up above that as well, so why that was like that I don't know but at any rate when that existed we had 285 feet of frontage on public roadway. 3 houses, 90 feet apiece. 270. We had more than that. But back in 1992 when this issue came up, city staff was aware of what we were doing and the comment then was that we didn't need to have the public right-of-way. Everyone wanted to clean up this Horseshoe CurveIBalder Avenue thing and we knew that there was mechanism for variances, whatever to get access to these lots if and when we should decide to subdivide, which is what we're here for today. So the variances in question have nothing to do with lot sizes or anything like that. They have to do with this frontage on the road which is kind of a strange and little, you know strange issue that we vacated that access in 1992, but did so under the belief that we'd be able to come back and do what we're doing today which is get access through the variance method. Sacchet: And the staff report makes that very clear I think. Ron Harvieux: So with that I am going to try to answer any questions, and by the way to let you know about the hard cover. We are very, very aware. Staff has made us very aware of how 22 Planning Commission Meeting - September 6, 2005 close we are to the numbers and I think it's a positive thing for us because as we design the top homes, we know what we have to live within so the process has been very helpful and I think we understand the gravity of it and we'll live there. We know what the numbers are, so. Sacchet: But the concern is not so much what you initially. The concern is when somebody lives there and all of a sudden they want a bigger porch, more deck, more patio. That's the concern. Ron Harvieux: Well decks don't count, right? Is that correct? Generous: That's correct. Ron Harvieux: Yeah, I mean that's sort of something that we can, but the hard cover we think we understand. And I get what you're saying, yeah. We can control only as far as we keep it. Sacchet: Right. We may have some questions for you. Other questions for the applicant? Dan, you have something? Keefe: Just one thing. Y ou.know the runoff question from Lot 2, it looks like that's. going to be solved by putting gutters on. But then that water's going to be running off toward your house. Ron Harvieux: Yeah, we got it through the weekend. Keefe: But I mean you know, based on this it may not be any significant. Ron Harvieux: No, we understand that. We've, Lot number 3, the house that we have is at the bottom of the hill. I mean it's been that way for, you know ever since we've been there and before we got there so, either we've been lucky or it's been built correctly or whatever but we have been able to not be problemed by that. I don't believe we will be in the future. Sacchet: I've got a few questions for you. On the plat, it looks like you're only cutting down 4 of those significant trees. Is that accurate? Ron Harvieux: Well, as I mentioned to Bob, we didn't know about the 30 foot neck lot when we submitted the plans. And I'm meeting a surveyor tomorrow to try to figure out what happens after tonight you know and what we have to do if we get the chance to go forward. Given the issue that have been raised already with size of lots and coverage, one of the options we have is to push the north/south line. This line right here. Push it eastward because Lot 2 is a large lot and we have a lot of setback here. Sacchet: But also a lot of trees. Ron Harvieux: And a lot of trees, and we've been, believe me we want to keep the trees as well. But we're investigating how we gain back the land that that 30 foot neck lot serving Lot 3, where that comes from and again, what we are under the tree coverage canopy numbers at this point by some 11,000 feet. To the plus if you will. I don't want to lose any more trees. On the other 23 Planning Commission Meeting - September 6, 2005 hand we have to site house number 2. And there's plenty of room there. It's a question of trying to make a balance happen so in answer to your question.. .at this point we anticipate only taking 4 trees out. Sacchet: But it could change. Ron Harvieux: Well I don't know. Sacchet: I understand. It's a good answer. Ron Harvieux: But they'll come out only with pain on our part because we want to keep them. Sacchet: Yeah, and you basically don't want to come down further south because you have that shed and you want to keep that shed. Ron Harvieux: Well kind of do and yes, so we have to play around with some things. One of the things we talked about is making the neck lot 30 feet at the road. . . and 40 feet at the point where it meets the house. Staff has asked us to move the driveway south in this neck lot and w~'d like to do that. Our neighbors have asked us to do th~t as well. And we'd like to do that. South of... but if you cut that back to 30 feet, there's only so much. . . Sacchet: .. .how far you can go, right. Ron Harvieux: Yeah, we've added and we really want to protect the trees up in that neck lot. They're very beautiful and they've been there for a long time. So we're trying to find out how to affect all this and add the 30 feet to that neck lot. I think perhaps the way to do it is take this north/south line and move it a little bit east of there and when doing that. Sacchet: You move the setbacks. Ron Harvieux: We have to move the setbacks so we're pushing ourselves by the trees. I'd like not to do that and that's not the only option but that's one that kind of, since Lot 2 has a lot of land, it doesn't have a shed on it. The shed is, it sounds like it's something that should you know disappear but it's quite a significant little building so we're trying to hold on to that. Sacchet: The shed is pretty important to you I mean. Ron Harvieux: Well it is today. Tomorrow I might feel differently about it after looking at what's going on here but we'd really like to hold onto it yes. Keefe: And with movement, you also have Lot 1 has an area, potential area issue too. You know you're pretty much at the lower limit of lot size. Ron Harvieux: That's right, so we have to build it back. I mean we can't move, yeah. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - September 6, 2005 Sacchet: Now I'd like to stay on this topic just a little bit more because I mean the potential that moving that north/south lot line west, or is it east? Ron Harvieux: East. Sacchet: Cutting more trees would be for me a reason to actually ask you not to move that lot line. And then that would leave the north and south variables to try to accommodate, but you think that could be done too, right? But you haven't studied it so I don't... Ron Harvieux: ...land we're giving up to make that 30 foot neck lot happen. You know we'd like to take the land out of Lot 3, and we can't do that by...it becomes an angle. Sacchet: It's a little harder to manage. But on the other hand it would make Lot 1 a little bigger too because there isn't a constraint too with impervious. So you wouldn't feel that it couldn't be done if we can move this north/south line. Okay. Okay. I think that's all my questions for you. Any other questions for the applicant? No? Alright. Thank you very much. Now this is a public hearing. Anybody want to address this item, this is your chance. Please come forward. State your name and address for the record and let us know what you have to say. Don Miller: My name is Don Miller. I live at 395 Pleasant View Road. We're directly north of this proposed. The only, the biggest question I have is, there's 3 trees there.. . and we want to save those trees. Sacchet: So you're the house right above it there. Don Miller: I'm right there, yep. Our concern and we've talked to them about it and they're absolutely with us is we want to get this driveway as far apart from our house because we're very close to that side. In recent surveys we've lost another 3 feet so it's to our advantage to have their driveway moved. If you run the driveway between the 2 trees, I think it's these 2 right here, that's 23 feet. They're not parallel. They're kind of at an angle but if you use the perpendicular distance there's 23 feet. You can't get a 30 foot thing through there. You can't get 43 foot thing through there and you can't stay without being under the crown of the trees. Sacchet: We're not talking about the driveway being that wide. Don Miller: .. . construction traffic and whatever is necessary to build, it's going to kill those 2 trees. I think you should move the driveway, it's also right here there's a stop sign. So you're not going to be able to come out of the driveway and make a right turn onto Pleasant View. If you can move that farther, closer to Lot l's line, it will change this line and put the driveway maybe down here so that it comes because they're proposing to stay away from that big tree. These are the two important trees on the lot. This is another one. These are a couple small ones here. If you can get it down through there, it still doesn't obstruct this lot. It gives better access and keeps it away from the stop sign and it also keeps it away from our driveway. So you can camouflage it with some other trees and it compliments all 3 lots now. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - September 6, 2005 Sacchet: I would certainly like that too if I was where you are. Thank you. Appreciate it. Anybody else want to address this. This is your chance. Please state your name and address for the record. Joe Pfankuch: My name's Joe Pfankuch and I live at 6611 Horseshoe Curve. Two lots to the west and you know none of this directly affects me. My concern is, I'm not sure what the minimum lot sizes are but if you look at the general area, I would say these are the smallest lots that have been developed on this shore in a while. I don't know maybe you've gone through that Ron but I'm on the lake because someone subdivided their lot as well but I have an acre and they have .9 acres, and I guess I look at it and this is screaming subdivision, cramming houses together and that neighborhood really has it's charm because there's a lot of trees and you really can't see all the houses and so I look at this and say now we're going to have 3 driveways coming right out to where the stop sign is. Actually really 4 driveways because, 4 houses because there's the original lot. The lot, this lot and then the Jamison's lot there all coming to that notorious intersection of Pleasant View Road and Horseshoe Curve at the top of a two way hill. And someone proposing to develop across the street from that. I look at this and my only two issues, I don't have any trees near that they're going to cut down my house won't be affected is the safety issue. From where all that ends. And then also just the size of the lot because we can s~y now that those trees will stay, but I've been around 10l)g enough to see people on South Shore Drive cut down trees that was on park property. You know people just like to have views of a lake and so I get a little nervous that all of a sudden there's just going to be a little more clear cutting, and I don't know what regulations are involved in that but. So my question is I guess to Ron and Leanne are more why 3 lots. Why not 2? And is there a minimum size variance and does this truly accommodate it? Sacchet: We do have, the limit is 15,000 feet, or 15,000. Joe Pfankuch: And this is 14? Sacchet: And this, the whole lot here is, it's almost 2 acres. It's 1.99 acres. For the 1,2,3 together. And so in terms of the ordinance of the city, the applicant is totally within their rights to make it into 3 lots. Joe Pfankuch: What do the lots end up as? Roughly. Sacchet: The little more is a little more than 15,000. That's Lot 1. Lot 2 is almost 24,000 and Lot 3 is 47 so that's still over an acre. Joe Pfankuch: But is that consistent with the neighborhood or does that not come into effect? Sacchet: We can't, from the city side, we, the ordinance states it has to be a minimum of 15,000 so that's.. . Ron Harvieux: . . . the home on top of the hill. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - September 6, 2005 Sacchet: If maybe you want to come up afterwards, but let's finish with his comments. If you want to respond, that certainly will be appropriate. But the other aspect is the safety aspect and I think that is a question that we want to address with probably the city engineer. Joe Pfankuch: And then also the watershed. I noticed that Alyson's you know showed that Lot 1 kind of draining primarily towards the street. Anyone who lives on that street knows that that's where the big puddle is because there's a major drainage issue there and the city tried to rectify it with the sewer but still after days like last week, you know we get big puddles there. And so I'm wondering does that water add to that? Again at a stop sign. Really that driveway's a hill. You know are we creating something. Sacchet: So we have two aspects. One is the drainage and the other one is the safety in terms of traffic I believe. If you can address that. Joe Pfankuch: And I think Ron's point, the yellow house, the Santana house has been authorized to subdivide as well, so now all of a sudden you're going to have a lot of driveways converging at that point and a lot of watershed so maybe just explain to me how this all works out in the big picture. Sacchet: And that is the city responsibility to make sure those aspects are considered and mitigated. Joe Pfankuch: Because the two properties across from us, the old, I don't know what Betty's name was, house, and the Santana house, I mean those are now proposed subdivisions so we now go from 3 houses to about 9 very quickly and I want to know what the overall impact is to that intersection and to the safety there. If someone could respond to that. Sacchet: Appreciate your comment. You want to give that a shot Alyson? Morris: Thank you. First regarding the drainage. We do realize that there's increased drainage areas to that intersection. I did do some calculations. With the increased area, increased impervious, it's quite minimal. I was unaware that there was a ponding problem at that intersection. As everybody's aware with the storm that the city had recently here, drainage problems do come up. I can talk to the street superintendent. See what we can do in that area hopefully to increase the safety of that intersection and not exacerbate the problem. Secondly, with regards to the safety of the actual intersection, staff's recommendation was to shift that driveway to Lot 2, to the south for that very reason. When we did the site visit, looking at the location of that lot line, pardon me with the driveway, and with respect to where that stop sign was, it was quite apparent that that was not a good location for the driveway and that's why the recommendation came. To shift it south. Sacchet: So if it's shifted within that 40 foot, would that make enough of a different or if now we're even talking that maybe that would be reduced to a 30 foot at the opening up there. How does that play together? 27 Planning Commission Meeting - September 6, 2005 Morris: It would ideal to have a larger distance but looking at the location of the lot lines and it's one lot. We just asked him to move it as far south as possible to add to the safety. To help with safety at that intersection. As far as increased traffic at that intersection you're adding 2 lots. You typically will, that will add about 8 trips a day. Sacchet: Which is relatively trivial. Morris: Which is quite small. I believe that was, were the 3? Sacchet: That was the questions. Yeah, you can come back. Joe Pfankuch: That was two. My third question, again Joe Pfankuch is, what's the overall impact with the other two developments that you either are approving or have approved. Both on Pleasant View and I think Santana's address is Pleasant View as well because all ofthat is going to converge and so I want to know how those 9 houses are all going to, where the driveways are going to be and how it's going to end up. That also is a potential bus stop depending on where the houses, number of students are at the top of that hill as well for the Minnetonka school system. So I'm, now all of a sudden if we add these kids here, that's a bus stop and you hav~ 3 driveways, a dangerous intersection on top ofthe hillt Ijust you know, I want to have some long term vision as to how this is all going to play out. Sacchet: Thank you. Can you say anything about that? I mean 9 houses is still not going to be really a huge traffic impact is it. Morris: Unfortunately Planning Commission, I'm not familiar with the proposed developments that the neighbor is talking about. I wasn't actually employed at the city at the time that that came about and I'm having a difficulty visualizing where that, where those connections are. Generous: The Kenyon Bluff one's on the north side of Pleasant View I believe and that was a 3 lot subdivision that would access onto Pleasant View. I'm not aware of the other one. It might be a future. Sacchet: What I recall is that subdivisions were relatively small. I mean we're not talking about somebody bringing in a dozen new places. It's just like onsies and twosies. Generous: Yeah, one's and two's. That's what I remembered too. Sacchet: And from that angle I mean from a traffic engineering viewpoint, the impact would be quite minimal. If you look at those type of quantities of buildings. Joe Pfankuch: If we could zoom in, excuse me. Joe Pfankuch again. If we could zoom in on the subject site. As Pleasant View Road comes up and makes that corner, this is the Kenyon lot. This is the Santana lot. This is going to 3. This is now 3 off the shared driveway with that one, off the Miller's driveway which comes out right there. I don't know where that development is. The house that's for sale and I would guess is going to get split into at least 2 lots. Just my concern is the long term plan as to how all that intersects because this is a blind corner coming 28 Planning Commission Meeting - September 6, 2005 up this hill. It's a blind corner coming up that hill, and I don't care if it's one driveway or two houses or three houses but we have 9, and they all come at a very dangerous place. So we're not setting something up that if they have any children, it's an even more dangerous intersection. I'mjust saying where's the big picture on all of this and I have small children so I'm concerned from that aspect. Sacchet: Yeah you may definitely. Ron Harvieux: My first comment, it's a busy road there at Pleasant View and Horseshoe Curve is stopped at Pleasant View. Horseshoe Curve is a feeder road. Both of the driveways we're proposing here would exit onto Horseshoe Curve, the small, it's not a freeway. It's a blind intersection. When people enter Horseshoe Curve they haven't dealt with a blind intersection. There's truth that that intersection's tough but that's a whole different issue. These driveways will exit onto a relatively benign road called Horseshoe Curve. Yes, they'll have a stop sign in when they try to enter Pleasant View but so do 40 other houses that come up Horseshoe Curve. We're just not pushing people onto the Pleasant View. Sacchet: And certainly it's a very valid point that we have to look at the context but ultimately we can'~ keep one property owner hostage to something that affycts the whole neighborhood. But then you could say on the other hand, well that's how problem rise because everybody does something and it adds up and adds up and adds up but I mean we have no legal foundation to hold that against one proposal in front of us. So even we try to consider that and be sensitive to that to the full extent possible, but there's so far we can go with that. It's public hearing is still open. Anybody else want to address this. Please come forward. Yes you can come back if you want. Don Miller: Is there any reason that, Don Miller again. 395 Pleasant View. Lot 1 and 2, that you can't run a driveway so you only have one entrance there. Sacchet: Why don't you put it so we see it. Okay. Don Miller: I'm not trying to re-engineer everything that everybody's done.. .so you propose keep it as far south as you can and away from this intersection. You know how you've made that one or maybe one wide driveway or something where you both converge together. Sacchet: Can it be done? I mean just about anything can be done. Don Miller: That makes it easier for the Harvieux' s to develop too because. . . Sacchet: Right, no I see your point. Alright. Anybody else want to address this item? Yep, there's somebody more. If you please state your name and address for the record. Let us know what you have to say please. Steve Wanek: My name is Steve Wanek. I live at 6615 Horseshoe Curve. Just down the street and I just have one question regarding the need for a variance for this proposal. I was kind of under the understanding that it's more of an administrative issue. But they're asking for 29 Planning Commission Meeting - September 6, 2005 variances. Why, what, where are variances being granted on this property I guess and why are they being granted? Sacchet: Can you clarify that please Bob? Thank you. Generous: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The variances are for access via a neck lot rather than having a full frontage on the public street. Our ordinance says you can have neck lots but they have to comply with standards and to approve them as part of a subdivision process you have to grant the variance. So a lot of times the variances for house orientation and things like that are setbacks or compromises if you wanted to make it specific conditions to mitigate it so. Sacchet: So the variance is how the lots are being accessed basically. Generous: Correct. Sacchet: And that's a function of those vacated right-of-way's and so forth. Alright. Do we have anybody else? Yes we do. Please come forward and share your wisdom. Debbie Lloyd: De.bbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. You answered a lot of the questions I had. I only had about an hour to look at this tonight and I had a lot of questions from the staff report, but the predominant thing hanging out in my mind here remains the fact that the easement was vacated in 1992 with the premise that a private street could be put in. And the private street had a different name as private drive but basically the premise is the same. That a private street could access 3 to 4 homes. Our private street ordinances are there so that you can put in the private street instead of a public street, and that should help alleviate environmental concerns. Now the flag lot is a different issue but you know for large subdivisions we always look at what would the private street look like versus the public street and I think in this instance we're cutting ourselves short by not looking at what would the private street look like here, versus the flag lot. The access to the existing home though is a shared driveway. Now you're changing positions. You're splitting a lot. That shared driveway should become a private street. Sacchet: Technically it is a private street, yeah. Debbie Lloyd: It is but it probably doesn't have today's standards of a private street. It probably doesn't have the same width. The 30 foot is essentially. Now when they gave up the easement, they did gain land, correct? I mean that easement. Sacchet: Well actually it looks like the easement was beyond the property line if I read this plat correctly. Is that accurate Bob? Generous: They did get a little bit of land. The property to the west kept the majority of it. Debbie Lloyd: But they did get you know some property with the dedication. With that easement being abandoned. And so I think that has to be looked at. There may be an opportunity, I'm not, you guys know, I'm not into slope of land and all this stuff other than I think the driveway issues and the slope of the land is important. That can't be overlooked. What 30 Planning Commission Meeting - September 6, 2005 is the slope of the driveway here? That hasn't been assessed but could not the driveway, the private street come in and serve all lots? Have one access. Alleviate some of the stress on that road. Granted there's 3 trees we're talking about saving up here. It may impact a tree or 2 in another area but I think there's some alternatives that need to be addressed. Sacchet: I think that one of the issues we.. .look at is grading. Is that something you could address Alyson? I mean how possible is it to feed Lot 2 into that driveway? Just hypothetically. Is it at all possible? Morris: Onto the common driveway? Sacchet: Yeah. With those grade changes I kind of wonder. Debbie Lloyd: It's called a private street. We don't have common driveway in our code anymore, just it's one of those irksome things I keep hearing different names for what our code says and it's private street. So I'm sorry I'm not. Sacchet: It's alright. You want to say something to that Alyson please. . . Morris: It's a question of moving this driveway through here or this driveway through here? Debbie Lloyd: I wonder if there's anyway that you could bring it, like I said. It's.. .the private street to somehow share all access on the street. Morris: So looking at the two proposals of having the private street right here, currently this driveway is proposed at 9.8% maximum lot by ordinance is 10%. Bringing this driveway, that proposed retaining wall that we discussed earlier, the grades to go from this garage to this private street would be in excess of 10%. Would not meet our ordinance. As far as accessing it for Lot 2 onto here, the reason staff didn't push for that is the environmental impact. There's some trees, some oak trees, a hickory tree. Didn't meet the significant tree requirements but some shrubs through here that staff just felt it was preferable to maintain the treed area through here and have access through here than to use this as a shared driveway location. It was a judgment call that staff made at this point and we just felt that in the name of tree preservation, that Lot 2 would access off Horseshoe Curve. Should access. We recommend that that is accessed off Horseshoe Curve. Sacchet: Good answer. Thank you. Anything else you want to add? Debbie Lloyd: I highly recommend this be 30 foot as code. I mean it should meet code requirements. It should be a private street because it is, and when you subdivide I would think that you have to maintain what the present code. The other thing, condition 5. You know I can understand that all these things are up in the air but you know I just saw Lake Harrison go through. You saw what has happened on Lake Harrison today, you'd probably flip out. Sacchet: I live there Debbie. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - September 6, 2005 Debbie Lloyd: Okay. So you are flipping out. Sacchet: Well it's not just Lake Harrison. It's also the other ones around there. There's 3 of them happening. Debbie Lloyd: You know I think perhaps this should go back to the drawing table with what all of these if's are. Let's put in the right, let's put in where it's going to be. Let's make sure the retaining walls are where they're going to be. Let's make sure the impervious surface is right. Sacchet: This is a subdivision. I mean we're not quite there yet are we? Generous: We're not building a house on a lot, no. Debbie Lloyd: But the preliminary plat. Sacchet: All that we have, and please correct me if this is not accurate Bob. We have a subdivision in front of us so the pads, the idea of where the building is is totally hypothetical at this point just to show us what it could be and as Bob pointed out for Lot 2, they purposely asked to show a very large house that Il).ost likely will be smaller so that we can see. Debbie Lloyd: I'm not asking for the house pad. Sacchet: Okay. Debbie Lloyd: I'm asking for the streets to be in the right, the driveways to be in the correct place. The retaining walls to be in the proper place. I mean condition 5 is a huge condition. The move, it says in the report here that the movement of that 30, let's see. The applicant shall revise the plat to incorporate a 30 foot neck for Lot 3. Well back here in the report itself it says, the applicant shall revise the plat to incorporate the 30 foot neck for Lot 3. This will result in the reconfiguration of Lot 1. Lot 1 which is already 15,152 feet. I mean that's close to the minimum. This will result, and possibly on Lot 2. So you know Ijust think there's a lot of questions. I've just seen these go on to council and without all the details being attended to, things get passed that maybe aren't really ready. That's my, I think that's the, that's really the short of it tonight, thank you. Sacchet: Thanks Debbie. Appreciate your comments. Anybody else wants to address this. Seeing nobody get up, I'll close the public hearing. Bring it back to commission. Comments. Kurt, looks like you're ready. Papke: Yeah. I think there's the applicant here has gone through a number of permutations with staff. I think it's in reasonably good shape. The only issue I have is with condition number 32, and this gets to the safety issue with the access for Lot 2 and the proximity to Pleasant View. I think we need to tighten that up a little bit. It just says to relocate it to the south. I think that needs to be nailed down a little bit. To Debbie's point so we know exactly what that's going to be, but other than that I think it's in pretty reasonable shape. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - September 6, 2005 Sacchet: Thanks Kurt. Anything from you Debbie? Larson: Well you know, it looks, as Kurt said...and they've been working with staff and trying to keep the... That's very important today. So I am willing to go with it at this point. Sacchet: Okay. Deborah. Zorn: I share some of the same comments that have been mentioned. My only concern is that driveway getting to Lot 2 and knowing that Pleasant View Road, it is very difficult to see up around the bend as you're driving, yet alone just trying to get out of a driveway so I would hope that the applicant would look at that in greater detail and placement of that driveway. Sacchet: Okay. Zorn: But otherwise I would support it. Sacchet: Jerry. McDonald: Well I gue~s in looking at this, there has been quite a bit of work thllt'S gone into it. On the issue of the driveway, you know we're looking at 30 feet. It's only a 40 foot wide swath through there and to move it to the south then I guess we have to give up that one tree. It possibly could be worth it. That's something that I think the applicant needs to look at and he's kind of given indications to us that he would. His driveway again that's going to fall upon him to meet the 30 foot requirement again for the private street. When this is subdivided it has to meet requirements and it will. It's just it will all fall upon his property. I feel it should be shared but I understand that that can't be done so I think the applicant also understands that. I also had some issues about the hard surface coverage and I guess from what I've heard from the applicant, he understands what those numbers are. He'll work with those. I don't expect to see him back here when we're re-doing these houses and everything and asking for a half a percent or even a percentage variance for anything such as that. And yeah, I guess to address the issue of detail. This is a subdivision. There is no detail so that's part of why we do this and then ask the applicant to come back and you've got to live within certain criteria which are the codes and everything for these lots. There are setback requirements. Those will all have to be met. You know he understands all of that. So I don't have any problem approving this. I guess I live in that area also. I'm very familiar with that curve. Where we're talking about where the stop sign is, the majority of the traffic is on Pleasant View Road. Yeah, Pleasant View Road and that is a problem that the city's going to have to address sooner or later. It's not really for the applicant at this point to have to do that but that is a problem area and it's been that way for 20 years. Yes, it's going to get a lot worst because of all the development that's happening down there and at some point the city will have to do something about that roadway, but for right now what we're looking at before us, again everybody will come out onto Horseshoe Curve. There is a stop sign there. They will have to make the same adjustments everyone else who lives on Horseshoe Curve has to make. So from that standpoint I don't see a big issue there with the traffic that can't be managed that isn't already being managed. Beyond that, yeah I'd be interested to see what the compromises are knowing what you've heard today as far as the neck lot. What's going to happen there because there is some concern on Lot 1. You're going to have to push 33 Planning Commission Meeting - September 6, 2005 something there and at that point you may go below the minimums or you may all of a sudden find yourself up against some of the setbacks so that's going to be a balancing act there. But yeah, I would agree with what staff's put forward and I'd be in favor of this. Sacchet: Okay, thanks Jerry. Dan. Keefe: Just in a little bit of clarification in regards to what exactly we're approving. We're approving a preliminary plat. I mean what exactly does the preliminary plat do? Sacchet: Do you want to explain that Bob? Generous: A preliminary plat provides standing for the applicant. They can go forward and do the final subdivision, provided they comply with the conditions of approval within the preliminary plat. Shifting the lot lines or whatever. And provided that the final plat complies with ordinance. Keefe: Okay so for them, and in terms of process, does the preliminary plat go to the City Council or does the final? Generous: Preliminary plat goes to City Council. Final plat also goes to City Council. Keefe: Okay, but it won't come back here right? Generous: It won't come back here, no. Keefe: Okay. You know generally like the layout of this. I'm curious a little bit about private street but I'm, you know I know you guys considered that and looked at that so I'm going to go with the thought that you guys have put a lot of effort into this and with your recommendation. I do like the fact that the driveways go out on Horseshoe Curve versus impacting Pleasant View Road because as one of the residents said, I do think there's a potential hazard on that particular comer, particularly with the new developments coming in. In regards to preliminary plat with the conditions, I guess I'd be in favor of them. Sacchet: Okay. You know, I keep emphasizing that the role of the Planning Commission is to see, does this fit with the ordinances and regulations of the city and it really does. I mean this fits well. The one thing we have a little bit of a conflict is the area where they need a variance which is with that driveway access aspect, but other than that we really don't have jurisdiction to tell them where they should route their driveways or whether they should make their lots bigger if they meet the minimum, which they do. However, if we could I would certainly suggest to the applicant that I would think the shed is less important than the trees and having those lots so close to the impervious surface, but that's not my judgment. I mean I'm out of my context by saying that, but just to give you the example in terms of where our focus is as a Planning Commission. This meets the regulations and I think the variance is very appropriate, especially looking at the history of how this came about. I think the applicant is totally within their right to do this configuration. I would like to add a little more of the specifics, like you started doing that Kurt and then Debbie you certainly hit on that. The condition number 5 about the 30 foot neck 34 Planning Commission Meeting - September 6, 2005 requirement and how that needs a little more land. I would want to be very specific and ask that the north/south property line. That eastern property line of Lot 1 is not pushed further west, if at all possible. Work with staff on that because it's going to push it further into the slope and into the trees. But again we have to be careful how far we can go with that because we don't want to infringe on the rights of the property owner to configure this, how it may be a work with staff would be appropriate rather than make it a firm condition. I think that would certainly be within our rights into how we express ourselves from the city. Similar I would suggest that we say something like staff, or applicant will work with staff and it will investigate or look at the safety issues of the access onto the road there. I do have a question with the recommendation, it's number 32 that the driveway to Lot 2 be shifted as far south as possible. That doesn't necessarily mean that another tree needs to be cut. That's just, I mean the driveway can curve around the tree and so I want to be clear about that. And then the question also that came up that we have not touched on, I think one of the neighbors brought that up, in terms of the construction traffic going onto Lot 2, weaving around those oaks. I mean what's going to happen to those roots? I mean they're going to be damaged. Is that something that needs to be looked at? Has the City Forester had any input on that or, do we, I mean I assume that the construction traffic will go where the driveway will be. And that means you're driving around those oaks and I think that's a very valid comment that the neighbor brought up, that we're basically killing those by doing that. Or at le~st hurting. So that's maybe another, an aspect where I would say work with staff and maybe that the City Forester could get their recommendation and then see whether there's any way that can be mitigated to the point that these trees have a realistic chance to survive, which is in everybody's interest. Property owner and most. I think that's all the comments I have so unless there is any other comments, Kurt. Do you want to comment or make a motion? Papke: Make a motion. Sacchet: Go for the motion then please. Joe Pfankuch: Mr. Chairman? Sacchet: Yes. Joe Pfankuch: Is there a statute about the distance a driveway from a stop sign? Sacchet: Is there? Is that something you could address Alyson? Joe Pfankuch: And what is the distance? In this case and for these... I know you can't park within 10-15 feet so I've got to believe you can't have a driveway. Isn't it 30 feet? Morris: As far as state statute, I'm not aware if there is a limit or not. Sacchet: Yeah, I don't know the exact answer without researching it but there are different requirements based on what the road is classified as. Like if it's an arterial road, I'm sure there are restrictions. If it's a neighborhood type road like that I would think that it's much more relaxed so I don't know what the specifics are but I want to point out it's important to see the 35 Planning Commission Meeting - September 6, 2005 context. I mean it's a busy road. I'm sure there are all kinds of restrictions with the neighborhood, and that's, and I don't know what Pleasant View is classified. Is that a collector? Generous: Pleasant View, yes. Sacchet: It's a collector so there is probably more restrictive while Horseshoe Curve has a neighborhood type of road, is probably relatively small, if any restriction in that context. Joe Pfankuch: Well as Jerry pointed out that this problem, this intersection has a problem. That point is we concur so the really simple question is, is this adding or deleting risk from that? From that area and so Ijust don't want, because think about people have parties and they park in the street. I mean I've lived there only 6 years but long enough to see what happened and it's a very narrow road to begin with, and so I look at an intersection that we've already admitted by City Council we're going to have to improve at some point, are we...that stop sign thing a little bit and everything. Sacchet: Yeah, I appreciate your comment and the public hearing has been closed. And I think we touched on that before. Really that it's an issue in a larger context. I mean it's an issue for the neighborhood, and yes, this development has .an impact on it but it's one of multiple things that impact that so, and we can't really solve a neighborhood issue here. We're looking at a subdivision and how it applies to the ordinances so I don't mean to shirk the issue but we have to kind of stay on task at the same time, so Kurt you were going to make a motion. Papke: Yes. Mr. Chair, I'd like to recommend approval of the preliminary plat for Harvieux Addition with a variance for the use of flag lots, plans prepared by Demars-Gabriel Land Surveyors, Inc. dated 8/04/05, based on the findings of fact attached to this report and subject to conditions 1 through 34 with two changes in wording. Condition number 5. The applicant shall revise the plat to incorporate a 30 foot neck lot for Lot 3 and to work with staff to minimize western movement of the east lot line for Lot number 1. And an alteration to condition number 32. To relocate Lot 2 driveway access to the south as much as feasible without loss of the western most 34 inch oak tree. Sacchet: Do we have a second? McDonald: I'll second. Sacchet: We have a second. Let me try a friendly amendment to see whether we're still within our rights. If we expand another little quirk to condition 32. Applicant shall work with staff to mitigate as much as possible the construction traffic access around those trees. I mean does that do anything? I mean I'm wondering whether, what do you think Alyson? Morris: We could put a recommendation in there Chair. It's called... plowing and it's a system where you go in and they cut a root system of a tree out to an extent so that you're not driving on the root system of the tree and that's something that we can look in, in an instance such as this where you've cut the roots of the trees so that the traffic over it would not damage that root system. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - September 6, 2005 Sacchet: So there are things that could be investigated. I wouldn't go as far as want to say you have to do this or that, but go ahead Bob. Generous: Mr. Chairman there is also a bridging mechanism that they can incorporate it over root zones. Sacchet: So indeed there would be something to work with staff. Papke: Okay, so your friendly amendment is to work with staff to take actions to minimize root damage to the historically significant trees there? Sacchet: Yes, specifically by the construction traffic. Papke: Okay, I accept that. Sacchet: Okay. Alright. Yes Bob, you want to add something to that? Generous: Mr. Chair a point of clarification on that condition 5. Sacchet: Yep. Generous: You said minimize, was it eastern movement of the easterly lot line? Sacchet: The eastern lot line of Lot 1. Generous: Correct. We don't want it to go any further east. Sacchet: We don't want it further east. We want to minimize that. I mean we don't want to go as far as say it can't be moved but we would definitely want to minimize it. Generous: Thank you. Sacchet: Alright. Alright, we have a motion and a second. We have some friendly amendments. Papke moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the preliminary plat for Harvieux Addition with a variance for the use of flag lots, plans prepared by Demars-Gabriel Land Surveyors, Inc. dated 8/04/05, based on the findings of fact attached to this report and subject to the following conditions: 1. Only trees shown on the preliminary plat as being removed shall be allowed. No trees are to be removed on Lot 1. Four trees are allowed to be removed on Lot 2. Any other trees removed shall be replaced at a rate of 2: 1 diameter inches. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - September 6, 2005 2. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the grading/clearing limits prior to any construction activities and shall remain in place until construction is complete. 3. Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal, and erosion control plans will be required for Lots 1 and 2 at the time of building permit application. 4. The front lot lines for Lots 2 and 3 are the westerly lot lines. 5. Neck/flag lots must, by definition, be a minimum of 30 feet wide. The applicant shall revise the plat to incorporate a 30 foot neck for Lot 3 and to work with staff to minimize western movement of the east lot line for Lot number 1. 6. If grading will be done, a final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. 7. Separate water and sewer services must be provided for each lot. 8. Addresses for each home must be posted on Horseshoe Curve and on each home. 9. No burning permits will be issued. Trees must either be chipped or removed from site. 10. Builder/developer must comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #29-1991 regarding premise identification. 11. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3: 1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Type of Slope Steeper than 3:1 10:1 to 3:1 Flatter than 10: 1 Time 7 days 14 days 21 days (Maximum time an area can remain open when the area is not actively being worked.) 12. The existing erosion control fence drawing shall be replaced with City of Chanhassen detail plate 5300. 13. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. 14. Any hard surfaces (e.g. retaining walls, patios, decks, sidewalks) that may be needed shall be illustrated on the proposed subdivision plan to ensure maximum impervious coverage is not exceeded. 15. The plans shall show the ordinary high water level (OHW) of Lotus Lake (896.3) and the required 75 foot setback. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - September 6, 2005 16. The applicant shall pay for the total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording. At this time the estimated fee is $7,558.00. 17. The developer shall pay full park fees for the two new lots at the time of final plat recording. 18. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, MN Department of Health, MCES, and Watershed District. 19. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. 20. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. 21. Extend the silt fence to the north along the west side. 22. Add a note to the plan: All sanitary services must be 6 inch PVC-SDR26 and water service 1 inch copper. 23. If importing or exporting material f01: development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the city with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan. 24. The sanitary sewer and water hookup charges are applicable for each of the new lots. The 2005 truck hookup charge is $1,458 for sanitary sewer and $2,955 for watermain. 25. All disturbed areas as a result of construction must be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to minimize erosion. 26. Add the following City detail plates to the plans: 2001,5200,5300, and 5301. 27. Gutters must be installed on the house on Lot 2 and must discharge to the southwest corner. 28. Submit a security to ensure that the street cuts are properly restored to city standards. 29. The applicant should be aware that any retaining wall more than 4 feet in height must be designed by a structural engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. Also, it will require a building permit through the City's Building Department. 30. Maximum side slope is 3:1, adjust 956' contour north of proposed house on Lot 2 accordingly. 31. Cleanouts are required at all bends of the sanitary sewer service or every 90 feet, whichever is less. 32. Relocate Lot 2 driveway access to the south along Lot 1 northerly property line as much as feasible without loss of the western most 34 inch oak tree. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - September 6, 2005 33. Standard drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over the front, side and rear yards within the subdivision. 34. A cross access and maintenance agreement shall be recorded over Lot 3 for the benefit of Lot 46, Pleasant View Addition for the existing driveway. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to O. Sacchet: We wish you luck with this. This goes to the City Council, it's scheduled for the 26th of September so if the neighbors want to follow it through the process, I don't know whether City Council does take comments or not. Sometimes they do. But basically the public hearing is what we do here at the Planning Commission and then City Council reviews that and depending on what the situation is, they mayor may not take further comments. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR OFFICEIW AREHOUSE BUILDING ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON LOT 4. BLOCK 2. CHANHASSEN WEST BUSINESS PARK. APPLICANT MINGER CONSTRUCTION. PLANNING CASE 05-27. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thank you Bob. Questions from staff. Any questions? Not really. I do have a few questions. So I want to be real clear because I wasn't here when the overall thing was looked at, and when I first looked at this particular design I was a little bit concerned about how many trees we're actually cutting here. I mean I went out there and they're fantastic trees. I mean there's not a sick tree that I could spot. They're all in really good shape. It's a beautiful, beautiful grove of trees here. We're cutting most of them here that are on this lot. I mean we have a few token trees maybe so basically in terms of the overall development we balanced that by that, it's an outlot that remains wooded and that. Generous: That is correct. It will be a conservation easement dedicated over this. If Nann you could go to the overhead. I don't know it's difficult to see but if you look at this site, the significant band of trees in existing conditions run through here. The applicant is actually putting the shared, the private street on the property to the north so that they're able to preserve this area. Then the building will be located back over where it's more open. There may be some shrub trees back there but nothing that showed up as significant on the survey, so they are doing a good job on this lot of preserving the significant trees out there now. Sacchet: Yeah but my point is actually different from that Bob. I mean what I'm saying is that I feel they're cutting a lot there. Yes they're saving a little sliver there but there's this outlot on the north of this whole development that's going to be preserved, right? What you pointed out before. I want to be very clear about that because that's important in terms of balance of this whole thing. Generous: Correct. 40