Loading...
PC Minutes 12-6-05 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 PUBLIC HEARING: STONEFIELD: REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT. A2 TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. RSF. SUBDIVISION REVIEW FOR 30 LOTS. 1 OUTLOT AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1601 LYMAN BOULEVARD. APPLICANT PLOWSHARES DEVELOPMENT. LLC. PLANNING CASE NO. 05-37. Public Present: Name Address Dave Hess Rick Dorsey 8682 Flamingo Drive 1551 Lyman Boulevard Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Papke: I'll start. Between the amendments to the city code we changed tonight and the huge number of conditions in here, I don't think I followed how we're handling the minimum 90 foot. We just amended the city, the ordinances tonight to go from a 90 foot lot width at frontage, correct? AI-Jaff: Correct. Papke: And there are lots in the proposal here that do not meet that, correct? AI-Jaff: Correct. Papke: And point me to the condition that makes these lots satisfy that or is there no such condition right now? AI-Jaff: There's no such condition right now. At the time when final plat appears before the city, if they meet current ordinance requirements. Papke: Then there's no issue. AI-Jaff: Then there is no issue. If the ordinances that you adopted were approved by the City Council and published, then that becomes the new ordinance that they need to meet, and the final plat would have to be adjusted accordingly. Papke: Just to minimize confusion, would there be any legal issues if we just added a condition to stipulate 90 foot lot widths tonight so that we don't have to re-visit this or what are. AI-Jaff: Your, the ordinance today. Papke: Yes, we have to. We have to follow the ordinance. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 Al-laff: Correct. Papke: Dang. That makes it very confusing. Al-laff: The setback from the pipeline is a zoning setback. That is something that they would need to comply with, whether everything gets approved today or a month from now. They would have to comply with that. Papke: Ijust have one other, it's probably pretty trivial question. On page 6 there was a mention of use of shredded wood should be considered. Okay. For what and again I didn't see anything in the conditions to stipulate that. I mean it's a nice wishful thinking statement but what do we do with that? What are you really proposing there? But then it starts talking about site exit pads so are we talking, what are we actually considering the shredded wood for use on? You know over what areas? You know I understand it's erosion control but where are you proposing to put it and where is it enforced within the conditions? Or is it not? Are you just suggesting that that's something we should chat about? Al-laff: lust a suggestion. And it's over...and I will make sure that I work with Lori Haak, our Water Resource Coordinator to clarify this further before it get to City Council. Papke: Okay. Zorn: Sharmeen, I've got a question in regards to the wetland. There are 6 that are identified. Can you just remind me and everyone here this evening what incidental refers to. 5 of the 6 are considered incidental and are exempt. Al-laff: Those are man made ponds. For instance there is an existing pond right now in this area. That's a storm pond. It's man made. Therefore it does not, it's exempt. Zorn: Okay, so if someone thinks that it's not a true wetland, even though it likely looks like a nice prairie wetland right now that.. . protected. Al-laff: Often when you look at ditches along highways you'll see cattails in them. Zorn: Okay. McDonald: Dan. Keefe: Keeping on the water theme. Can you just sort of describe, I mean we've got a lot of steep grades on this property. You even indicate in your report historical problems with erosion on this property. Can you just kind of give us an overview of how the water flows and what the water management plan is. Before I get into specifics I'd like to kind of. Al-laff: Sure. One of the problems that we have encountered deals with water and erosion problems in this area. One of the projects that are currently being undertaken by the city and going back to our Water Resource Coordinator, Lori Haak, she is working to try and expand this 41 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 pond. Stabilize grades. Minimize erosion. Currently, if you... there is a valley in this area. With the grading of this site, all of these grades will be changed and water redirected to flow into, this will become a regional pond. Keefe: Even the southern end? Al-laff: The southern end. Keefe: Where we've got real steep grades. Al-laff: The southern end will be maintained to the west. There is a swale that's being created along the southern portion of the site. And it should maintain the natural drainage pattern. Keefe: Currently the properties to the east, are they large lot or are they commercial or what is it? AI-laff: Property to the west? Keefe: East...and then to the west is, is it ag to the west side? AI-laff: We have city park out here. And then, well you have large lot in this area. Keefe: Okay, so in terms of where we're directing the water to get out, to drain off this property, it's going to be going into the large pond that is going to be expanded potentially to the northeast? AI-laff: Majority of the water will be draining in that direction. Keefe: Then on the southern end it drains into, will drain into the adjacent property or where does that go? AI-laff: It will be, there is a ditch that is being created, a swale that's being created. Keefe: In terms of the runoff. Undestad: Does that take it down to that storm drain down here? That private storm? AI-laff: Can the engineer answer the question regarding the drainage pattern? Kurt: .. .how well it comes through. What we're looking at here is the drainage map. There is 6 ~ acres of drainage that will sheet flow into this existing swale that is the discharge for this, the pond up here. This water coming from the west and a majority of the hard surface will be redirected to the pond. lust a, give you something to compare that to, what is happening now and to get a feel for some of the issues and some of the drainage problems they've been experiencing. Currently this is a farm field and there is 26, 23 acres approximately that just sheet 42 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 flows into this same swale that we are now taking down 6 V2 acres. Greatly reducing the rate of erosion through that ravine and giving a mechanism for controlling that discharge rate. Keefe: So you're saying the water flows from the west property through this property to the pond. So how does your grading work? Undestad: How does the water get to the pond? Back to that creek. Keefe: Yeah. Kurt: This area is higher than our development and there are rear yard catch basins going along these lots to collect the drainage. Take it into the street storm sewer. And there's a low point in the road over here. This is coming up to match back into the existing grades. This starting to shed some light on it a little. Undestad: Then the lots on the other side. Keefe: Do they all slope, the lots on the east side. Kurt: The lots on this side, you know we are putting the rear yard drainage and some of the house drainage along the swale and it's going to be private storm sewer and simply discharge at the base of the slope so that it doesn't pick up a lot of momentum and pick up sediment. Keefe: And then the lots north of that. Kurt: These are just going to be sheet flowing, almost exactly as they are now. ...it will be maintained lawn versus a crop which is sometimes better. Keefe: Okay. Undestad: Is that pond then, does that get piped? Kurt: This pond apparently discharges. Undestad: Into that field at the bottom of the plat there. Kurt: And it flows over, through here and makes a new ravine and eventually gets to a culvert underlying. McDonald: Where are these private pipes that you were talking about that were not going to be maintained? Kurt: Right here in these rear yards. There's just one catch basin here. That's our man hole.. . here. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 Keefe: I guess in terms of comfort level the city has with, you know I mean just given the issues we've had with water this summer and the steep grades associated with this particular piece of property and how comfortable are we with the solution. That we aren't going to create issues when the property to the west develops. It doesn't look like, it looks like the west is even higher. It looks like the west flows into this property more than, because from my understanding is the property to the west is going to develop at some point single family more than likely. AI-Jaff: The storm pond would have to be sized to accommodate all of the water. And there is an expansion of the storm pond proposed. Engineering department were working with 100 year calc's. Drainage calc's. Keefe: So, we just have to meet the standards associated, alright. Thank you. Undestad: Wait a minute while we've got the engineer up there. One more question on the retaining walls that you show on there. The by others. Is that something that again, I mean I know that you have a comment in here that the custom grading doesn't make sense. The walls that you're going to propose on there, these have been lowered I understand from where they used to be and those may be kind of exhausted all options on even trying to get those down even smaller or. Kurt: Maximum wall height was originally 20 feet. Typically be graded in for a lot and we were able to lower that to a maximum height of 10 or 11 feet. We shifted this road connection point over 20 feet. Because of this hill here we had to come up and tie into existing grades and make sure that this connection would work in the future to extend this. By moving this over 20 feet, we were able to lower that 4 feet and make it, it will be a little more of a similar transition to extend this road over to Audubon. And because we're working with some custom builders of homes, we have some privileges to do a garage low which means the garage is going to low side and they just have to kind of do it, it just needs a little more attention. It's not going to be any sort of big drainage issue. And then staff brought down another 3 feet or so and then we pulled the wall in slightly and end up with our results going from 20 feet max height down to 11. Undestad: So when you moved that road that way, is that what moved the line? Or was it keeping 5 acres to the south? Kurt: Well our grades are being pinned by where we had to tie because we were, this is the maximum allowed grade. Slightly under, 6.9. I believe you guys allow 7 is your typical maximum so by moving that down it just shifted the whole road down and then by moving the garage to the lower side of the lot, shifting the house down with that. We also extended the basement from a 9 foot to a 10 foot and taken some liberties with a custom builder again that we can try to reduce some of those walls. Undestad: And the walls are boulder walls out there that they're proposing? Kurt: Yes. Undestad: Okay. 44 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 McDonald: I have a couple questions for you. The pond and Lot 3, I'm not quite sure I understand that. Are you saying that, at that point if the pond is extended, does that put restrictions on Lot 3 that it's not usable anymore? AI-Jaff: If I said Lot 3, then I mis-spoke. It should be Block 3. McDonald: Block 3. AI-Jaff: And this is Block 3. This entire area. The back of these lots can accommodate ponding. McDonald: Okay. So it's Block 3. AI-Jaff: Yes. McDonald: All the lots in Block 3 will get ponding. Okay, then the other question I've got, we planned for a connection to the west property. What about a connection to the south property? What's going to happen with that? Is that developable? AI-Jaff: It really isn't developable. It has extremely steep grades, bluffs. It's in the Bluff Creek Overlay District. There are too many issues... McDonald: Okay, so we don't have to worry about somebody coming in at some point and wanting an access into that. Generous: They could come from Audubon or Lyman. McDonald: But it's highly unlikely because of the land. AI-Jaff: That's what we believe. That it is highly unlikely. McDonald: Okay. That's all the questions I had. Anyone else? Would the applicant like to come forward and add anything else that we haven't already discussed? Nathan Franzen: Sure. Good evening Commissioners. My name is Nathan Franzen with Plowshares Development. We got into a few of the comments already but this is our fourth project since 2000 in Chanhassen and we're very pleased to be back servicing a new neighborhood. I just want to tell you a few of the general comments about the neighborhood that we find very attractive and appealing is just the good balance of the different types of lots. We have 17 walkouts, 2 lookouts and 11 full basements. We also have a nice variety of larger lots that can accommodate a pool or large play structures. We also have some that are wooded for people to have less lawn if they choose to. So overall for us it's a great project. We're talking to 3 custom builders. We're about 95% there getting our contracts done. I'd let you know who those are as soon as I'm able to. They are approximating their home prices, the lot and home prices to be starting in approximately the 550 range and going up to somewhere in the 900 range. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 Their typical home will be a 4 to 5 bedroom, 3 car, 2,500 square feet. You're pretty standard Chanhassen home that you see lately. And just, I want to go over a couple things that we've been working on with staff. This is our second submission. Our first submission we pulled, due to two staff concerns and that was primarily the retaining walls that we talked about, and the other one's the livability of the lots themselves. Staff had concerns that we didn't have enough rear, flat rear yard and we, and in conjunction with the, looking at the retaining wall issue we made sure that every lot had 20 feet of useable rear yard space. We also, I hope you all understand what happened with the retaining wall. It was a very teeter tottering effect between saving trees and reducing the height of the walls. If you have more questions about that, we can certainly get into that. We also did hold a neighborhood meeting. We had about 30 people attend. My opinion of what the neighborhood concerns primarily consisted upon some, there are some existing trees along this edge and along this edge. Between the proposed lots and existing lots. The neighbors had concern about those. Unfortunately most of those are going to be removed because of drainage creating some swales along property lines. We did commit to planting as many trees as possible. I think if you look at our landscape plan you'll see that we've taken as much liberty with the trees along the existing development so that we can buffer our proposed lots with the existing lots. And lastly on the ponding issue, I've been working directly with Lori on the pond and the city's consultant has been working directly with Kurt and we don't anticipate any problems incorporating a larger regional solution into the design of our project. And if you have any questions about that, any more specific we can get into it but that is the gist of my comments. If you have any questions. Keefe: I've got a couple questions. You know just looking at the tree inventory, I mean you guys are taking out a lot of trees. Even in the report it talks about that you exceed the recommended number. Can you speak to what you guy's strategy was in regards to that? Nathan Franzen: Sure. The existing property as proposed actually doesn't even meet your ordinance because it is mostly a farm field. So even if we came in with 0 removal we'd still be below ordinance and we'd be penalized in planting above and beyond. So I just want to start out there so that's where we started from. And the majority of the tree loss does happen on the southern end of the site where we're trying to make that road connection and it has always been our desire to save as many trees as possible and that's why we came in with such large retaining walls at first, with the 20 foot walls which are very expensive for us to construct. But we feel it's worth building because it allows people to be closer to the trees and we saved more trees doing it that way. Working with staff we were able to come to a compromise which, you know there's always the age old question between engineers and trees and which is more important. The steep grades, the higher retaining walls, so this really went back and forth but I'm actually pretty happy with how it turned out because our tree line loss from our first proposal, which had a 20 foot wall, is almost in the same location and we were able to achieve that through what Kurt described in shifting the road slightly to the south. I guess the long and short of the question is, I think we've done it as best as we can on this site and that, I guess that's my comment. Keefe: The other question is in, I think it was mentioned a trail connector I think through Outlot A. Can you kind of direct me? Nathan Franzen: It's the blue line. 46 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 Keefe: Okay, to take you over to the park. And is there a sidewalk along the road or is there just? Nathan Franzen: There's a sidewalk on one side, yeah. Keefe: That's all I have. McDonald: Okay. Kurt, you have anything? Deborah? Mark? Undestad: I just had a couple quick ones here. Kind of goes back to that drainage and that pond and stuff. It's all at the bottom of that Power Hill Park over there. There's an outlet that doesn't really show on my utility plan here but there's an outlet out of that pond that comes out by. Nathan Franzen: You're talking about this outlet? Undestad: Yes. And that just surface drains along the back field there? Nathan Franzen: Correct, it currently does. As this is proposed, that's what happened, but in working with Lori, the city has already hired the consultant to accommodate some additional plans and some of the ideas the consultant is looking at is adding a second pond in this location and then actually doing a wetland bank for that water to even slow the water down. The big problem is that there's too much water going too fast through that ravine and when it gets down to the bottom it's totally washing out. Undestad: So if you leave it at the bottom of that field where it's washing out it's. Nathan Franzen: Correct. Undestad: Right now you can slide down there and it disappears. Nathan Franzen: It's somewhat of a safety hazard I know for people sliding. And the solution. Undestad: Is that going to change then when you do this? Nathan Franzen: Yes. When the city project that's being, basically what's happening is the city's coming in to fix the greater issue. It just so happens that we are developing at the same time so we're going to piggy back and work together when we have our SAD equipment out there, we'll be fixing it but the answer is, yes. We'll be addressing that, the start of that ravine, the water that flows into that ravine. Slowing it all down. Providing more storage. It's a big regional fix. Undestad: The other thing looking on your tree preservation plan back there, I noticed that about half of the trees that you're saving back there are the box elder and the elm trees, which all those big maples disappeared and the elm trees are hanging around which pretty much you can count those every year on how fast they die out and tip over back there. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 Nathan Franzen: Yeah and unfortunately since the tree survey was taken we even lost a few of the big maples to the wind storm but it's, again I think we've done is the best we can to accommodate saving as many trees as possible. Undestad: And that, Sharmeen you made a comment that all this was taken into the entire site. If no trees were cut down they still wouldn't. AI-Jaff: They would still need to do a replacement. A reforestation and that's what the reforestation ordinance looks for is to take farm fields and. Undestad: Put trees in them. AI-Jaff: Put trees in them. Undestad: Right. But the farm field part wouldn't have changed anyway. It's the wooded area on the other side that's kind of getting tore up in there. Okay. McDonald: Okay, is that it? Okay, at this point we have no further questions and this is a public meeting. I will throw it open to the floor. Anyone wishing to come forward to make comments, please do so. Just state your name and address and address the commission. Dave Hess: My name is Dave Hess. I live at 8682 Flamingo Drive. My property is against Power Hill Park. Four lots down a hill from the entrance to the park so I get a first hand view of the overland flooding that occurs when we have intense rainfall out there. It's a river and it goes into that gully and it erodes and it's a problem right now that needs to be fixed. I have to trust that the engineers will figure out a way to fix the drainage there. But I don't know that I'd want to own one of those lots down in that valley either once it gets developed but that's an engineering situation that I don't want to get into but just a couple ofthings that I wanted to talk about is Power Hill Park as you know is a sledding hill and the sledders go onto this private property now I believe and they sled all the way up to where that washed out area is. Now it sounds as though they're proposing a drainage pond right where these sledders will be going and has there been talk about safety issues with sledders going onto this pond or is there a berm proposed that will stop the sledders or a wall that they can smash into or what, it hasn't been addressed yet tonight. I assume it's been addressed but... AI-Jaff: There will be, actually one of Commissioner Undestad asked the same question a few days ago and there will be a combination of plantings as well as a berm. Undestad: They want to try to slow you down with short grass, tall grass and tallest grass but again I mean that kind of came before potential pond down at the bottom of the hill too so I'm not sure where that was laid out in there. Dave Hess: Okay. My primary concern I guess is the steep grade. I think Dan has addressed that in his comments so. It's a difficult site with some hydraulic issues and some erosion problems. I have to trust that it's being looked into. Thank you. 48 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 McDonald: Thank you. Anyone else? Rick Dorsey: My name is Rick Dorsey. Property at 1551 Lyman Boulevard. I want to ask a question related to that drainage. The engineer suggested that the water flow eventually goes to underneath Lyman. Where is that? Can you tell me that. Nathan Franzen: It goes under Audubon. Rick Dorsey: So how does it get, can you show me on here, on the bigger map, the flow of the water. Undestad: Degler's. Goes down Degler's driveway. Kurt: It snakes down through the woods. Under the driveway back along this and then dissipates into this. ., Rick Dorsey: Then just another quick question in the subdivision where the southern part is being separated off. Are there any issues in doing that now with future plans to redevelop Lyman Boulevard as far as access points? That kind of thing. I'm aware they're trying to get rid of access points because they want to take mine so Ijust want to find out you know what, how that parcel fits into the whole thing too. Thank you. McDonald: I think that was the question that I asked where you assured no development. AI-Jaff: No development down in that area. Rick Dorsey: There's a house there now. AI-Jaff: Correct, but there is no additional proposed homes in that area and everything should stay status quo. McDonald: Anyone else? Okay, seeing no one else, we'll close the public meeting and I'll bring it back up to the commissioners for comments. Start with Mark this time. Undestad: Well, I think I got most of my questions answered in there. I guess you know still the draining issues around there are still, they finally answered it enough. Both on the bottom of the sliding hill and what washes into that creek down there. It all leads down to Lyman. Again I did talk with parks about, you know the bottom of the hill with how to control the sledders down there. There is a chunk of that creek, that ravine right now that just drops straight down in a hole and it's a fun place to hide for those... If we dump all this water into there and again surface drain it right across there, is there going to be a real problem down there once that starts going in. If we put another pond in down there, now we've got everybody sliding down a hill into a pond, which isn't bad in January when it's froze up but if it was a November snowfall, they're going to be sending them right down into a thin layer of ice in there. I think that's something that still needs to be looked at down there as far as drainage does. The overall plan, the design of the plan 49 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 I think is, they did a good job. He came back and changed retaining walls, explained all that and, yeah I think just still a little bit of an engineering to work on there. That's it. McDonald: Dan. Keefe: Yeah, this is what, the fourth, I think the fourth development Plowshares has come in and I think they really work well with the city and I commend them for really putting some effort in and working with the city to try to address the issues. I too am very concerned about the water and anything they can do to minimize the runoff, particularly in light of what we've experienced this past summer. Over design is probably the operative word now just because we're finding out that water, especially if we are getting heavier rain, more rains and you know 100 year events on a frequent basis. We need to start anticipating that. In addition to that I would like them to take another look at the, the trees that they're cutting to see if they might save you know a few extra, especially the more significant trees. I know you guys have really gone through and done a nice job of inventory but take another look at it and see if you might be able to save a couple more if at all possible so. Otherwise I think it's generally a good plan. McDonald: Deborah. Zorn: I think it is a, it looks to be a good plan this far as well and it's nice to see some variety in the home plans that you also included. On the tree note that Dan just mentioned, staff, you recommend on the bottom of page 10 for alternatives to be researched by the applicant and I didn't see that as part of the recommendations listed as one of the additional items so I guess I would be open to moving that perhaps to an amendment. And I guess I share some of the same drainage concerns as well. Those are my two comments. Papke: Nothing to add. McDonald: Nothing to add. I guess the only comment I've got is that, as I understand the way all this is now draining, it looks as though we're fixing a problem here but what about downstream and the whole southern half of all this property? I guess I would feel better with a total comprehensive plan but what are we going to do with this water? The sledding hill is a big issue. A potential liability that we really don't want to get into. I mean as you point out a November snow, there's a pond down there, that, you've got to stop people from getting on the ice and I know that that's a continual problem. It's probably just as much of a hazard down there now but with the ravine and everything but I think that's got to be tied in as part of the solution to all of this. I'm a little hesitant, I realize we can't hold it up because of lack of a comprehensive plan and I guess I will trust staff and the developer to work together in that area but I think you've got a problem with the water and I don't see a solution. I really don't. I see it for this property but there's property downstream. There's other impact of a city park. There's more than just this development and I think you can't just look at fixing things here and everything else takes care of itself. So I think that needs to be looked at a little bit better so that we do solve the problems but other than that, with what's going on and you know we get this thing developed, yeah. You've done a good job. You've come forward with some good housing plans and some good I think marketable inventory for the city so I'm pleased with all of that. 50 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 The custom homes and those things will probably add a lot to those lots to the south. I guess that's all I've got to say on this. I'm done so can I get a motion. Keefe: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Case number 05-37 for rezoning from Agricultural Estate District, A2 to Single Family Residential for the Stonefield Subdivision as shown on plans stamped "Received November 18, 2005", and the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision Case number 05-37 for Stonefield for 30 lots and 1 outlot with a right-of-way width variance as shown on the plans stamped "Received November 18, 2005", subject to conditions 1 through 27. McDonald: Do I have a second? Papke: Second. Keefe moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Case #05-37 for Rezoning from Agricultural Estate District, A2 to Single Family Residential for the Stonefield Subdivision as shown on the plans stamped "Received November 18, 2005". All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O. Keefe moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision Case #05-37 for Stonefield for 30 lots and 1 outlot with a right-of-way width variance, as shown on the plans stamped 'Received November 18, 2005', subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant will be required to meet the existing site runoff rates for lO-year and 100-year, 24-hour storm events. The proposed enlargement of the existing stormwater pond must be designed to meet the City's minimum standards and coordinated and approved by the City Water Resources Coordinator. 2. The storm sewer must be designed for a lO-year, 24-hour storm event. Storm sewer sizing calculations and a full-size drainage map must be submitted with the final plat for staff review and approval. 3. Drainage and utility easements must be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100-year flood level. 4. Staff recommends that Type II silt fence, which is a heavy duty fence, be used adjacent to the existing wetland, existing creek area, and around the proposed pond. In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. Erosion control blankets are recommended for all of the steep 3: 1 slopes with an elevation change of eight feet or more. 5. All plans must be signed by a registered Civil Engineer in the State of Minnesota. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 6. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will have to be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, NPDES, Watershed District, MN Department of Health, Carver County and the Williams Pipe Line Company. 7. The developer must obtain written permission from the Williams Pipe Line Company to perform the proposed grading within the easement. The developer is responsible for complying with all conditions of the Williams Pipe Line Company and assumes full responsibility for work performed within this easement. 8. On the utility plan: a. Show all the proposed storm sewer pipe type, size and class. b. Show the sanitary sewer pipe slope and class. c. Show watermain pipe class (C900). d. Add a storm sewer schedule. e. Show the existing storm sewer between Lots 1 & 2, Block 1 within the center of the 20- foot utility easement. f. Show the stormwater manholes rim and invert elevations. g. Add a note to remove the temporary pond outlet control structure. h. The last street-accessible storm manhole discharging to the stormwater pond must be manhole with sump. 1. Add a note: any connection to an existing structure must be core drilled. J. Extend the storm sewer farther to the south along the proposed street. k. Remove Lots 7 and 8 backyard storm sewer and add a storm sewer along the property line between Lots 4 and 5 and between Lots 8 and 9 block 4. 9. On the grading plan: a. Show Type II silt fence adjacent to wetland, pond, creeks, etc. b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. c. Use class 5 storm sewer in the roadway; revise the note under general grading and drainage notes accordingly. d. Extend the swale between Lots 1 and 2, Block 4 farther to the east. 10. Any retaining wall over four feet in height must be designed by a registered civil engineer and a permit from the City's Building Department must be obtained. In addition, encroachment agreements will be required for any retaining wall within a public easement. 11. The underlying property has not been assessed for sewer or water improvements. The 2005 trunk hookup charge is $1,458.00 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,955.00 per unit for watermain and the SAC fee is $1,525.00 per unit. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Metropolitan Council. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees will be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit Issuance. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 12. All disturbed areas must be seeded and mulched or sodded immediately after grading to . .. . mInImIZe erOSIOn. 13. Any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. 14. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes. 15. The developer is responsible for 100% of the cost and construction of the lift station and forcemain and any associated costs. 16. All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant is also required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. 17. Add a "dead-end road" sign at the cul-de-sac. 18. On the plat, show all existing and proposed street names. 19. Add City Detail Plate Nos. 1001, 1002, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1009,2001,2101,2109,2110, 2201,2204,3101,3102,3104,3106,3107,3108,3109,5200,5203,5204,5206,5214,5215, 5216,5217,5221,5232,5234,5240,5241,5300,5301, 5302, 5302A and 5313. 20. Show the street lights and a stop sign on the plans. 21. Submit public utility plans and profile for staff review. 22. City Forester's Conditions: a. A minimum of two overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of each lot. b. The developer shall be responsible for installing all landscape materials proposed in rear and side yard areas. c. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to any construction. d. Tree preservation on site shall be according to tree preservation plans dated 10/14/05. Any trees removed in excess of proposed tree preservation plans will be replaced at a ratio of 2: 1 diameter inches. 23. In the absence of parkland dedication, it is recommended that Stonefield pay full park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final platting. At today's rate, these fees would total $120,000 (30 lots x $4,000). Additionally, the applicant is required to construct the 53 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 neighborhood asphalt trail connector to the property line as depicted on their preliminary plan submittals. 24. Water Resource Coordinator's Conditions: a. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be maintained around Wetland D. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. b. All structures shall maintain a setback of at least 40 feet from the wetland buffer edge. c. The applicant shall work with the City's consultant to accommodate regional and site- specific storm water needs. d. The approximate location and extent of drain tile shall be shown on the plans. The applicant shall provide details as to whether the tile line will be removed, abandoned in place or remain. If the tile is to remain, the flow from the tile shall be accommodated in the design of the storm water management plan. e. The applicant shall provide rate control and storm water treatment to reduce off-site impacts. To provide a low-gradient means for controlling rate and volume, the applicant shall consider cooperating with the City to construct a wetland in the rear portions of any number of Lots 1-8, Block 3. In the event that the applicant is interested in pursuing wetland construction for banking purposes, this planning shall be integrated with the City's consultant's storm water infrastructure planning. f. Drainage and utility easements (minimum 20 feet in width) shall be provided over all existing wetlands, storm water infrastructure and storm water ponds. g. The developer asserts that, due to the steep grade in the southern portion of the property, custom grading would not save any additional trees. In addition, the developer maintains that the slope of the road and. the location of the retaining\VaU make custom grading lots impractical. If the developer. demonstrates to.the satisfaction of staff that custom grading for their typical house pad would not result in additional significant tree preservation, mass grading of this area may be approved. h. The existing outlet structure of Pond A shall be removed and replaced in accordance with the City's standard detail. A stable emergency overflow (EOF) shall be provided for the pond. 1. The portion of the silt fence that runs from the pipeline easement through Lot 7, Block 3 shall be moved upslope to the west by 30 to 60 feet to more clearly define the grading limits. The area of property between the silt fence and the gully and property line shall 54 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 be seeded and mulched to control weeds and get a desirable cover crop in areas that were recently farmed. J. A temporary basin shall be constructed in the vicinity of Lots 6 and 7, Block 3. The temporary sediment basin shall be installed prior to disturbing upslope area. A temporary perforated riser and stable emergency overflow (EOF) for the basin shall be installed; details shall be included in the plan. The basin shall be properly sized for the watershed area, according to NPDES requirements (i.e. The basins must provide storage below the outlet pipe for a calculated volume of runoff from a 2-year, 24-hour storm from each acre drained to the basin, except that in no case shall the basin provide less than 1,800 cubic feet of storage below the outlet pipe from each acre drained to the basin). k. Chanhassen Type 2 silt fence shall be provided for the perimeter of the site up to Lot 10, Block 3. From there, Type 1 may be used. Silt fence shall be shown on the plans around Lots 1 and 2, Block 1. 1. Curbside inlet controls are needed; Wimco type or ESS type (or approved similar protection) inlet controls shall be used. Curbside inlet protection shall be provided for existing inlets adjacent to the site exit on Osprey Lane. City standard inlet protection details 5302 and 5302A shall be included in the plans. The proposed rear yard catch basin protection shall be revised; Wimco type, ESS type or equal must be used. The proposed silt fence shall be installed with additional rock around Chanhassen type 1 silt fence. m. The plans shall be revised to show energy dissipation for the flared end section on Lot 7, Block 3. n. 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.) These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, and any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a storm water conveyance system, such as a curb and gutter system, storm sewer inlet, temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man made systems that discharge to a surface water. o. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as-needed. 55 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 p. In order to fund the maintenance andexpansionoftheBC-P4.10storm water pond and construction of additional capacity , the costs will be allocated among . the benefiting properties.. The total cost of materials and construction will be divided by the number of acres in the resulting subwatershed. .... The. City will be responsible for the acres contributing from land already developed, parkland andland to be developed in the future (e.g., the Bongard parcel). The developer will be responsible for the acres contributing from their development~]f, for any. reason; the regional storm water facility is not constructed, the developer will be responsible for providing storm water quality and quantity management on the subject property and paying Surface Water Managementconnection charges in accordance .with City Cod.e. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $65,364. q. In conjunction with the BC-P4.10 storm water.ponding project, landin addition to the land shown in Outlot Amay be required. Atthistime,the estimated amount of land is approximately 0.5 acres. The developer and the City will seek to. agree upon the terms of the use of land for ponding should additional land i>e required. The developer, if required, shall provide additionallandfor ponding~ 25. Fire Marshall Conditions: a. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must be either removed from site or chipped. b. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. A fire apparatus access road shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to Minnesota Fire Code Section 503.2.3. c. Temporary street signs shall be installed on street intersections once construction of the new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire Code Section 501.4. d. A lO-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. e. Fire hydrant spacing is acceptable. f. Submit proposed street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. 56 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 26. Building Official Conditions: a. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. b. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site. c. The developer must submit a list of proposed street names for review and approval prior to final plat of the property. d. Retaining walls more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction. e. Separate sewer and water services must be provided each lot. f. Existing wells and on-site sewage treatment systems on the site must be abandoned in accordance with State Law and City Code. 27. The retaining walls shall be maintained by a Homeowners Association. 28. The City shall not be responsibleforlllaintenance of storm \Vater infrastructure on Lots 7,8, and 9, Block 3." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O. AI-Jaff: Mr. Chairman? McDonald: Yes. AI-Jaff: There are 28 conditions. Keefe: Oh, you added one didn't you. 1 through 28. McDonald: The handout sheet you gave us. Could I get a correction then. Keefe: Yes. Conditions 1 through 28. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Papke noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 15, 2005 as presented. Acting Chair McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:45 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 57