Loading...
PC Minutes 12-6-05 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 22. The applicant shall resolve all property line disputes through legal verification with Carver County prior to Final Plat submittal. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O. PUBLIC HEARING: BLUFF CREEK TWIN HOMES: REQUEST FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION IN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT; AND SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LYMAN BOULEVARD AND HIGHWAY 101. APPLICANT MARTIN SCHUTROP, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-36. Public Present: Name Address Patty & Craig Mullen Heather & Derek Benson Martin Schutrop Chanhassen Chanhassen Chanhassen Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Who wants to start? Papke: I'll start. First I'll start with an easy one. Middle of page 4, right above the development design standards. Additionally the development provides an integrated, and integrated what? Okay, I'll let you think on that one a little bit. Next one. The construction entrance, if I understand things correctly, and maybe you can point out on a drawing exactly where it is, looks to be pretty close to the current 3 way stop with 101 and Lyman. Is that correct? Generous: Yes. Papke: So, are you anticipating any traffic problems with that? I mean it just, people have been driving through there for a long time and they're not used to seeing people turn in at that spot. You know I understand from one perspective that's where you want them, it will kind of turn into a 4 way stop. Is that the intent there? Oehme: I'm sorry, on Lyman? Papke: Yeah, the construction entrance where it intersects Lyman, that will basically take the current 101 and Lyman intersection from a 3 way to, it will kind of make it into a 4 way stop. Is it directly in line with the existing 101 or slightly off set or? Oehme: Yeah, actually in conjunction with the 212 project, that whole intersection's going to be shifted over approximately I think 60 feet from it's current center line alignment. There will be 19 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 turn lanes, both the left and right turn lanes associated with this development put in. There will not be a stop condition there at all. Papke: Okay, so you're suggesting that by the time construction starts on this, 101 will already be moved? Oehme: Well next year 101, well Lyman Boulevard will be upgraded next year already. Under construction. They're building the bridge at Lyman currently right now and Lyman Boulevard will be. Papke: And that project is behind schedule from the last thing we saw in the newspapers. I'm just concerned there's going to be some confusion with that entrance there that's all. It just, you know depending upon when they start. Oehme: That's fine. We could maybe entertain a condition that access from Lyman be put in by MnDot prior to any you know development building permits or something like that. Papke: Last, these buildings are pretty tightly packed, particularly along the southern border here and they're pretty much in a dead line. The units seem to be, especially on the southern side are kind of packed in and they're pretty much along a line here. There doesn't seem to be much visual variation with the fronts of these things. I'mjust concerned you're going to be driving up on 101. You're going to look out to the left and you're just going to see this solid row of these twin homes with zero space inbetween them with no variation. And maybe the developer can address some of the architectural variety here but just from a preliminary plat or conceptual plat perspective, this just looks like a solid wall of townhomes. Generous: Yeah, well it will look like. Papke: A solid wall of townhomes. Generous: Well you could have a solid wall of houses in there. The same set-up. These twin homes give the appearance of single family homes. That's part of the nice transition that they provide. They're not 6 units in a row or. Papke: Right. Right. Generous: Some of the architectural detailing they're providing is really internally. You see where they have the garages facing each other rather than the street. That's one of the architectural detail and that's part of their integrated development design. Papke: Ah, that's the, okay. Okay. Generous: Started to talk about it and didn't continue that thought on it but they're looking at, instead of welcome to my garage where every house having the garage facing forward, we have these units that have their garages to the side or the entrances to the garages to the side so they share the common driveway, and again that's part of the reason why there's a variance requested. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 Actually there's two of them. One was because they're sharing that driveway and technically it becomes a private street and so we have to give them a variance to do that, but we believe it's integral to the design of the entire project to give this alternation and roofs. Visual character. Papke: Okay. Okay, well I think I'll let the developer. Generous: And this, it does sort of stagger up so there is variation. Papke: Okay. Zorn: Two quick questions Bob. On the color scheme, is that literally color scheme or is that related to architectural design? I'm just thinking of some townhomes that are in my neighborhood that they are all the same color but they have different stone on the front. Generous: No, these will have different colors and we're looking at probably a green and maybe a yellow and I can't remember the third one. A tan or gray. Again maybe the applicant would be better, because he's also the builder which is unique for a lot of developments we see where you have a developer and then you have the builders come in separately. Zorn: And can you give me an example, you mentioned the Outlot B may be dedicated to the city and it would be permanent open space. .. .an example of an identical permanent space be in our city right now? Generous: You know 41 and West 78th Street on the north side there's those townhouse projects. Highlands on Bluff Creek is the name. The wooded land on the north side of the project was provided in an outlot and dedicated to the city. Another example is the, there's two outlots north of the Kwik Trip on the north side of West 78th Street. With the Kwik Trip property we got all the land adjacent on the north side of West 78th up to the creek, and then with the development of the four houses to the north of that, we got the north side of the creek there, so that became city property and we'll maintain it as permanent open space and that wildlife corridor as part of the Bluff Creek overlay district. Zorn: Okay, thanks. McDonald: Dan? Keefe: Yeah, I've got some. The entrance to the cul-de-sac is, did I hear turn off lanes into the street or are there going to be turn lanes for this? Oehme: Correct. Keefe: Okay. What is the speed limit on Lyman? It's 50 isn't it along there or is it slowed up? Oehme: It's 45 or 50. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 Keefe: Yeah. Okay, and what is the distance from the entrance there to the comer of 101 and where 10 1 is, you're saying that 10 l' s going to move a little bit east from there, correct. Oehme: Correct. Keefe: The distance of the entrance on this road to, I mean I recall looking at something on Lyman a while back that we didn't want to have the entrance onto Lyman. Oehme: MnDot and the County have looked at this access point and they have. Keefe: Okay... approval in terms of that access. Oehme: Well I mean MnDot will be putting the turn lanes under the 212 project. It will be providing that access point in this project, or under the 212 project. Keefe: Okay, and will this be across from, is this going to be a 4 way at? Oehme: Yeah. It will be 4 way into the new development to the north. Keefe: Okay. Into the new development, alright. The retaining wall to the west side, do we know what the height on that one is? It looks like they've got an 8 foot one on the south side. If it's out there, I didn't see any markings on. Do you see one? Zorn: Yeah. Keefe: I didn't see it on the plans at all. And then the depth of the flat part in the back of these town homes, I mean you've got a pretty steep grade on the south end which you know goes into Bluff Creek. You're looking at 10 feet off the back of these town homes til you start going up. Generous: Basically you're looking at a 20 foot area. Keefe: Okay. Generous: Actually the individual, while the development will put in some retaining walls, if a unit owner would come in later and decide that they want a little more area, it's possible they could add additional short retaining walls to make, give them a little more room in their rear yard. There is. Keefe: So we could go down the hill and... Generous: Yeah, go down the hill. Keefe: Terrace it or something. Generous: Exactly. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 Keefe: Because it's pretty, I mean you're looking at a drop off from what, 910 down to. Generous: You may want to ask the developer about... Keefe: It's probably 15, yeah. Generous: . ..I'm not sure that they're the type of people that want all that. Keefe: Yeah, okay. How does this, I didn't see sidewalks. Well I guess there was a request for a sidewalk on one side of the street. Generous: Yeah, we require one on the south side of the street. Keefe: Where does that tie into in terms of, you know where's the future. Generous: There's a trail on Lyman on the north side. Keefe: On the north side, so they would need to cross the. Generous: Yeah, at that intersection that's going to be created. Keefe: Okay, and is that going to be a signalized intersection do you know at this intersection or is it only at WI? Oehme: It's just at 101. Keefe: So how are they going get across at 50 miles an hour speed limit? Generous: Carefully. Keefe: Okay. And the park that services this is Bandimere, is that correct? Generous: That's correct. Keefe: And is there any cross now to, in that area? How would they get from here to Bandimere? Generous: They would go up to 101 and then there's a trail. Keefe: On the east side of 101, is that what the proposal is on the.. . trail on the east side? Oehme: Yeah, the trail will remain on the east side. Keefe: Okay. Alright. The private street, private streets, I presume that's an association maintained? 23 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 Generous: It would just be for the 2 units... Keefe: Okay. Generous: It's the way that we have the garages that are facing each other rather than off of the street. That will be a private street to access into them and it's on the 3, well the 6 units but 3 driveways. Keefe: The ones on the north side? Generous: Well they're all on the south side, but it'd be Lots 8 and 9, 12 and 13, and 16 and 17. Keefe: Okay. Generous: So then if you look at the elevations, then you don't have every garage pointing out towards the front. Keefe: So how do they do that? Do they tie those units together with a maintenance plan or is it an association would show that? Generous: No, we have for each of those lots we have a cross access and maintenance agreement that's recorded as part of the subdivision. Keefe: Alright, that's it. Papke: Mr. Chair, can I follow up? I'd just like to follow up on one question that Commissioner Keefe brought up. So just to make sure I understand for a child riding his or her bike to Bandimere Park, they have to cross Lyman Boulevard to get to the north side here without a stop sign. Then they have to go down to 101 and cross Lyman a second time and then pick up the trail on the east side. So there's two crosses of Lyman that have to happen. Keefe: Three. It's Lyman twice and 101. Papke: Yeah, three street crossings but Lyman twice with no forward progress if you will. Generous: Yeah, you know as part of this looking should we make them come out to 101 there but then they're at mid block and there's no crossing there either. Papke: Which is what the kids will do. Keefe: Well eventually I wonder if there should be a sidewalk or something along the east side of this up to the comer of 101 and Lyman. Papke: This just seems, it seems problematic. You know exactly what the kids are going to do with that cul-de-sac backing right up to 101 there. They're just going to ride their bike right across that little strip. They're going to be right on 101. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 Generous: The only good thing is they will have a median that they can stop in. McDonald: Mark. Undestad: There's nothing farther down 101 to stop at. McDonald: Is that it? This thing about the path. I remember having this discussion before about this area, especially about the path being on the east side of 101 and I'm having a problem remembering how this is all going to be realigned because we've talked about this once before because now with the new 212 coming down, that cuts this neighborhood off from the one that currently exists, and I remember we had discussions about how these trails were all going to inter connect and there was some discussion about one of the overpasses down at this end. I thought we were looking at a trail there, and some kind of a system within here. Can you help me? I mean is this just a void as far as the trails and everything or was this something that wasn't considered at the time when we were looking at this area before? Generous: If I can remember correctly. They have to get to the north side of Lyman to get into my trail system and that will take them east and west and if you go west there will be a trail that they can connect onto. Once they go over one, or I think it's over 212 they'll be able to connect into the trail system and that Chanhassen Hills neighborhood, which they can go back or they can go up 101 where there will be a trail on the east side of the road. McDonald: And is this the correct alignment for the new 101 to the east of this? Is that where the new 101's also going to be? Generous: Yes. McDonald: Okay. Because you're looking at significant upgrades for 101. That's no longer going to be a back road's street anymore. There's going to be a lot of traffic on that. Undestad: Is there any way of getting a sidewalk or a trail on the north side of this project to go over that intersection? At least it keeps you from crossing Lyman two times. Generous: I don't know what the widths on, if they're anticipating a crosswalk on the south side of Lyman at 101. I'm not sure what MnDot's intentions are for there. McDonald: And who's controlling all of that? Is that MnDot is the one who will control trails or the whole road system through there? Oehme: Well I think the City requested that the trails be installed in these areas. The city wouldn't be paying for them. They wouldn't be put in at this time. So I think the parks department you know recommended the locations and how all the access points would be taken care of. At the intersection of 101 and Lyman I do believe there will be pedestrian crosswalks at all 4 legs of that intersection there. So if a sidewalk or a trail could potentially be installed, I would believe that the south side of Lyman or maybe the west side of 101. We really just need 25 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 to take a look at the topography and the setbacks and how that can fit into the existing right-of- way to see if it works. McDonald: Is there any possibility of using... Bandimere Park probably easier. Keefe: They'd be coming off the cul-de-sac. . . because that's going to be a signalized intersection right? So that's the place on the east side of Unit 6. McDonald: I think that that'd be a good suggestion to follow up on. Now the next question I've got, and this is a little bit of an education on my part but for twin homes, the lot size area can be less than for a single family? Generous: Yes. McDonald: Okay. And then as part of this compromise you're looking at getting 25% coverage throughout the development. I think for most lots that sounds fair and reasonable but what are we going to do if Lot 18 or Lot 7 or you know any of these others with, you know in excess of roughly 10,000 come back and want to have more things on their lots. They're probably still going to be within the compliance. What are we going to do to enforce the coverage? I mean you've got maximum site coverage per lot that on those lots you could easily exceed the 3,400 square feet. Generous: Well then they would need to come in for a variance. McDonald: But they shouldn't need a variance is my point because of the size of the lot. I mean what these are based upon is roughly a 7,000 square foot area and you've got 4 lots there. 21,000, 18,000. I mean they could come back and exceed the 3,400 and still be within the 25%. Generous: Theoretically yes. We could do that. I was trying to figure out a mechanism that was easily administrative. McDonald: Okay. Ijust see that as being a potential problem because you know we're going to get a homeowner that's going to come back with that size walk and they're going to want to put something, a swimming pool, a sport court, you know something such as that and they would still meet our variances but they would go beyond what it is that you've negotiated here. Okay, that's the only comments I've really got for staff. Do we have an applicant to come forward and present to us? Martin Schutrop: Good evening Planning Commission. My name is Martin Schutrop. I live at 540 Lakota Lane in Chanhassen and I'm here to answer your questions about the proposed development. If you have any questions. I think you addressed the line and I, you know we have, we worked very closely with the staff trying to come up with a plan for this site because there were so many restrictions with the overlay district and the wetland and then we had to deal with the pipeline you know which took up a big chunk of this land so there's so little useable land on this acreage. But we had to try to maximize the amount of units that we could get in there to make it affordable, and being a Chanhassen resident I mean there is no affordable 26 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 housing in Chanhassen anymore. I mean it's, everything that's single family, $600,000, $800,000 single family so there's no way to do that unless you find some of these and we've tried different street configurations and none of them fit within the restrictions that we had to deal with. So that's why we came up with the plan of alternating the garages and coming up with different color schemes that were just variate them and like you I drive by that site 5 times a day. You know I don't want to drive by it and have an eyesore either so that's, our intention is to make it very aesthetically pleasing when you drive by it and also to conform with what's going to be there in the future. I mean if you look at what's proposed for the north side of Lyman, it's going to be a lot of commercial properties over there so, I think this will actually fit better than single family homes on this site of course, but so that's what we're proposing and if you have any questions I can answer those. Papke: Back to that issue of kind of a linear appearance. Are your, your twin home plans, do you have any gables or any kind of variation on the south side of those, of Units 7 through 18 there that would prevent this from looking like a wall. Martin Schutrop: Well I don't think it will look like a wall unless you stand in one spot and look down at it. As you drive by and they're all going to be different heights because the road's actually going to come down slightly I think towards the east, and the roof lines are going to be varied. They're going to vary between the garages. We're going to switch them around and have one garage like Bob was saying. You know one end load, one end load. Try to vary those to make them look more single family residential. So our intention is we're not going to build something that's going to look lousy so we can't sell the units. Our market is to try to keep these under $500,000, which is hard in this market. So that's what we're trying to do with a lot of nice amenities and a lot of nice exteriors and that's why we're using different materials on the outside of the units. We're not going to have them all the same unit. All the same color. All the same stone. They're going to, we're going to try to vary it a little so as you look down there's going to be some variation just because of that. Papke: Okay. You heard the discussion about the trail access. What are your feelings about providing some kind of trail, foot path, whatever access to that southwest comer of Lyman and 101? However you could solve it. Martin Schutrop: Yeah, I think the end of the cul-de-sac is a natural way to come up to Lyman and have them cross there. Anything else that brings you farther south on 101 is going to be problematic anyway. And as far as having people cross right at the cul-de-sac, I think we're planning on putting quite a bit of tree barrier in there so that won't be an issue, and there's going to be a berm there too so. Papke: A kid on a mountain bike, that's just a challenge. Martin Schutrop: Well, and I think a lot of these units are probably going to be occupied by more empty nester type people. There won't be a lot of, I don't see this as a development where there will be a lot of children. I see it more as an empty nester type development. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 Papke: And they'll certainly want to access that walking trail down to Bandimere Park. I mean that trail is very heavily used along that so. Martin Schutrop: Yeah, I see this, I agree totally. Papke: So you'd be receptive to an amendment to a condition here to provide that kind of trail? Martin Schutrop: Yeah, just a walking path to that comer. Papke: Okay. Keefe: You mentioned berming and I kind of, I didn't see any on the grading plan. Give me a sense on where you're going to berm and what your screening is. Martin Schutrop: Yeah, the screening will be basically on the north side where the parkland is in line, there'll be a small berm. Kind of an overlay, as long as we don't cover the berm line, or the pipe line. Yeah, we can actually go into that easement and berm it as long as we don't cover it. Keefe: So what type of elevation can you get? Martin Schutrop: I think it's going to be probably 4 feet. You know 3 or 4, and then larger trees. We tried to get Magellan to move the pipeline to the north side but they don't want to spend the money so. Keefe: Yeah, how about on the east side? Martin Schutrop: There'll be a tree berm and some smaller berms on that side. I mean we can't go too high because of the drainage issues. We don't want that to drain into the units so. Keefe: On the south side you've got a fairly significant drop off onto the wetland area. What is the distance you're looking at from the back of these units? Are they going to have patios off the back? Martin Schutrop: Well they probably won't have patios. I mean we propose more of a retaining walls for bigger back yards. I mean the city came back and said they wanted less. They would rather have the grade just go down to the wetland naturally rather than have retaining walls. So we're proposing at least 20 to 25 feet behind each unit being fairly level and then gradually tapering down. Keefe: And then the retaining walls you're proposing are what, with some sort of boulder. Martin Schutrop: They'll be a boulder. They'll be natural boulder retaining walls. We don't put Keystones or timbers or anything. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 Keefe: Yeah, okay. The tie in, from your perspective where this ties in to Lyman and, you know in terms of sidewalk going in. I mean it's nice to have a sidewalk go in there but are people going to go across there? .. . given what your market is. Any thoughts on that? Martin Schutrop: In the cul-de-sac you mean? Keefe: No, the other part. Martin Schutrop: Have a sidewalk go out to that. Keefe: Yeah, because I mean 50 miles an hour. Martin Schutrop: Well they're going to be slowed down a bit coming to that intersection. Keefe: Right. Martin Schutrop: Because there's going to be turn lanes, and I'm assuming that they're not going to have 45 miles per hour speed limit all the way to that stop sign. They're going to have to slow down at some point and transition to the other side of Lyman. So I don't think they're going to be driving that quickly. Keefe: That's it. Thanks. McDonald: Mark. Undestad: Just to follow up on Jerry's question. You have an association or if somebody decided they wanted to need larger lots to put something in there. Martin Schutrop: Well that's not going to be, I mean all the units are going to be fairly the same, all going to be the same size and the same units. There won't be any kind of part of the association. You won't be able to put a pool in or sport court and things like that. That's going to be a restrictive covenants. Undestad: ... problems. Martin Schutrop: Oh yeah, because I don't think, most associations don't want sport courts and pools, so as a part of that, we're not proposing any, anything additional. If they'd like to add on a porch or a deck or something of that sort, they could do that. McDonald: Just to follow up on that then. What you're saying is there will be an association covenants for all this and within that you're going to maintain this 3,400 square feet maximum coverage. That that will be part of the covenant that anyone moves in with. Martin Schutrop: Yeah, I guess that's part of the PUD, right? Generous: It's part of the zoning for that. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 Martin Schutrop: Yeah, the zoning. We really don't have any say in that. Staff has dictated that to us. McDonald: I have no further questions. Martin Schutrop: And then the other thing too, the spacing between the units. We're more than the minimum because we didn't want, the minimum was 5 feet? Generous: 5 feet yeah. Martin Schutrop: 5 feet. I think we're 9 feet. McDonald: Okay, so it's 18 total from one side of the house to the other. What you're talking about is from the house to the property line. Martin Schutrop: Yes. McDonald: Okay, so it'd be a total of 18 feet. Generous: No, the drawing it shows 4 Vz foot to the property line. Martin Schutrop: 9 foot total. Generous: And I was recommending a 5 foot setback, side property line so it'd be a 10 foot total. Martin Schutrop: But what I understand is that we could have went closer. Generous: Yeah we, well the design standards are part of the process. This is my attempt at drawing something. You could have proposed, the building code permits you to go to within 3 feet. And then the fire code kicks in and opening, protection and all that. So this is, right now what we're proposing is a 5 foot side setback. If that doesn't.. . get that revised. If you want to go to 4 'h feet, that would be a change that would need to be done. McDonald: If no further questions then thank you. Martin Schutrop: At this point I will open up the meeting to the public. If anyone has comments or wish to ask questions, please come forward. Deb Lloyd: Good evening. Deb Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. You were asking some questions about the landscaping and I heard, there was a, it doesn't sound like there's a solid landscape plan. I don't know if you have one in front of you. But, you do? Just tree placement? Keefe: Retaining walls. There's a total landscape. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 Deb Lloyd: Okay. Ijust want to remind you that PUD's should have high quality design standards reflective of the architecture and the landscaping. In fact the code says they should reflect higher quality designs than found elsewhere in the community. And affordable housing is a component of this as well. I'm probably not really current with housing rates but $500,000 is like far from what I considerable affordable. I'd like to point out a deficiency in the staff report as well. Under setbacks on page 5, under interior public right-of-way. The 30 feet except Lots 1 and 2 which shall be 20 feet. There's no variance findings in the report for that setback deviation. The variance finding would be a requirement in the report. So that was I don't know, an oversight or over looked. There's another error in the report as well. If you look on page 3 on the findings of fact, start with street width. Point 6. a, b, c, d then you have point 7, a, b, c and then you start variance findings, private street. 7 again, a, b, etc.. Something is not reading correctly and definitely the findings of fact and/or any documentation in the report supporting why you should have a different setback requirement for Lots 1 and 2 have not been discussed or written about. Thank you. McDonald: Thank you. Keefe: Want to address it sometime? Generous: Yes, as part of a PUD you establish the standards as part of the design standards so there are no variance findings for that. It would be the proposed design standards. The proposed, this is, the PUD is the zoning for the property so. Papke: To clarify. .. this is a preliminary plat so we see this one again, yes or no? Generous: You won't see it again, no. Papke: Okay, so this is our last chance. Generous: Right. Papke: They're doing both concept and preliminary at the same stage. Usually you get concept where they don't have this much detail and then the preliminary comes in. McDonald: Does anyone else wish to come forward and make a comment? Okay, seeing no one come forward, I'll close the public meeting on this application and I'll bring it back up to the commissioners. Why don't we start with Mark. Undestad: Well I think overall it's a nice fit up there in that comer. It is a tough site to work with. You've got a couple of main roads on both sides of you and wetlands on the other end there so. You know I like the idea the applicant's willing to look at putting that sidewalk in and I know that will be an issue whether the people that live there use it or those who come to visit. They may want to find their way over to that park, so. McDonald: Okay. Dan. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 Keefe: How do I deal with the variance? I mean in terms of no variance findings in the report. I don't think I've ever encountered that before. Generous: My contention is because it's a PUD it's not a variance. You're establishing these standards. The setback as part of the design standards. Keefe: Okay, I see what you're saying. Generous: Now I agree with the, you have to have the findings for the private street and the street width. Keefe: Right. So what are we doing right now? Generous: She is correct. 6 should be, Variance Findings (Private Street) and 7 is Variance Findings, Street Width. McDonald: Okay, just clarify where are you at? Generous: It's in the attachment. It's for private streets you have, there's two criteria that you have for plan one that it meets these standards and also that it meets the variance standards. So it's just labeling them. It's page 3 of the findings of fact. Keefe: 6 Variance Findings street width is correct? Generous: The sixth variance finding should be private street. Keefe: And then the other one should be street width? Generous: Right. Keefe: And the numbering should be what? Generous: Well the numbering is fine. Keefe: Well it goes 6, 7 and then 7, 8. Should be 8, 9? Generous: Or you could make it d, e, f, g you know. Instead of saying 7 say e and then sub that a, b,c, d. Keefe: Okay. Generous: I can correct the numerations. Keefe: Yeah, if you will correct those. You know, just to revisit my comments. I generally support this plan. I think it's, I think it's a difficult comer and I think it certainly is the appropriate use for that comer. So I'll leave it at that. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 Zorn: I guess I just had two discussion points, and I too think it's a good plan. I have a concern with the closeness of the units and right now, just to clarify, that the units are going to be too close at 9 feet? Generous: Yes. Zorn: To the wetland. Generous: They had it at 4 IIz foot setback. That would not comply with the design standards that I drafted. Zorn: So would we need to add that as an amendment? Generous: Well you could change the design standards if you go to 411z feet or change to 5 or you could go to 3. This is one step where your input is you know what you want to see there. Zorn: Okay, well I would say I'd want the minimum at least and I can make an amendment for it to be at 4 1Iz. So that would be my first comment. And second. Papke: It's currently at 5 right? Generous: Yes. The drawing is at 4 Y2. McDonald: Do you want to leave it at 4 Y2? Zorn: No, no. I would not be in favor of leaving it as is. Yeah, correct. So making a recommendation that that needs to be addressed. And then in addition to the side lots discussion, making sure that there is access from the cul-de-sac to the sidewalk along the west side of 101. To put one in. The developer was open to. Papke: No, hook it in up here. That's where the crossing is. There's no crossing right there. There's no sidewalk. Zorn: The discussion was to add sidewalk along. Papke: Or something up to that. Zorn: Okay, so that would complete my in favor of adding then. McDonald: Okay. Kurt. Papke: Nothing to add. McDonald: I guess at that point, the only comments I have is that, I think this is a difficult comer. You come up with a fairly good use for it. My concerns again are the task. I think 33 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 people need access to points along through here but we've had this discussion before about this particular area. I understand some of the restrictions but if we're going to do developments such as this, I think we have to solve that problem. The issues about the intersection, I have to say I'm confused. I agree that's going to be a 4 way stop. I don't see where that can be a pedestrian crossing but I think you've got to come up with something there. You've got a problem there. I'm not sure it's the developer's problem. It's probably city's more than his but I appreciate the fact that you're willing to add a path over to the east side because that will help to alleviate some of the problems we're coming up with. Other than that, that's all the comments I reall y have. And at this point I guess I would ask for a motion. Papke: Alright, I make a motion that the, A, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the comprehensive plan amendment incorporating the property into the current MUSA. B, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the concept and preliminary PUD rezoning the property from A2 to PUD-R, Residential, incorporating the development design standards contained in this staff report. And C, the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat creating 18 lots, 2 outlots and right-of-way for public streets with variances for the public street right-of-way width and the use of private streets to access Lots 8,9, 12, 13, 16 and 17. Plans prepared by Ryan Engineering dated October 28, 2005, subject to conditions 1 through 46 as stated in the staff report. I'd like to add two additional conditions. I'd like to add condition number 47. That the developer provides trail access to the southwest comer of 101 and Lyman. Condition number 48. That the developer revises drawings to adhere to the 5 foot setback requirements. And then motion D, the Planning Commission recommends approval of a conditional use permit to develop within the Bluff Creek Overlay District subject to conditions 1 and 2 as listed in the staff report. McDonald: Okay, do I have a second? Keefe: Just a brief amendment to your first additional amendment which would be trail access from the bubble of the cul-de-sac to the southwest comer. Papke: .. .go to the bubble or just say provide an access to the southwest comer. McDonald: Well first of all we have to vote on what you proposed and if you want to propose a friendly amendment or an adversarial amendment, then you have to bring that forward. Keefe: Yeah, right. McDonald: I believe that's the way it has to go. We have to vote on it. Generous: I think the Robert's Rules of Order you actually have to move the amendment first and then you move the rest. Papke: If you remove it, you don't go. Keefe: I'm willing to drop that. Understand your argument. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 McDonald: Then do I have a second? Undestad: Second. Papke moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment incorporating the property in the current Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA). All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to o. Papke moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Concept and Preliminary Planned Unit Development rezoning the property from A2, Agricultural Estate District to PUD-R, Planned Unit Development-Residential incorporating the development design standards contained in the staff report. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O. Papke moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat creating 18 lots, two outlots and right-of-way for public streets with a variances for the public street right-of-way width and the use of private streets to access lots 8, 9, 12, 13, 16 and 17, plans prepared by Ryan Engineering, dated October 28, 2005, subject to the following conditions: 1. A sidewalk connection on the south side of the street from the internal street cul-de-sac to the intersection of Lyman Boulevard shall be provided. 2. The development shall pay full park fees in effect at the time of final plat approval. 3. Applicant shall resubmit for city approval a landscaping plan that includes 84 trees. At least one tree is required in each front yard. Common areas must be sodded and provided with irrigation. Native plantings will be required along the southern edge of the development parallel to the wetland. These plantings shall be species selected from the Bluff Creek Management Plan planting list. 4. Applicant shall meet the minimum number and types of plantings required for the bufferyards. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 8. Fire apparatus access roads 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. 9. No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. 10. Submit street names to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. 11. Two additional fire hydrants will be required; one at the intersection of Lyman Boulevard and the new proposed road, and one in the area of Lot 13/14. 12. A minimum 16.5 foot buffer strip shall be maintained from the delineated edge of the wetland. 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. 13. A drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated over all of Outlot B. The developer may dedicate Outlot B to the City. 14. All structures shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. 15. All structures shall meet a 40 foot structural setback from the Primary Corridor boundary of the Bluff Creek Overlay District as required by Chanhassen City Code. In addition, no grading shall occur within the first 20 feet of the Primary Corridor. The plans shall be revised to eliminate grading within 20 feet of the Primary Corridor. 16. The plans shall be revised to include the City of Chanhassen's standard detail 5300 for silt fence. Type 2 silt fence shall be used along the southern grading limits and at the normal water level of the pond. Type 1 silt fence shall be used elsewhere. Silt fence shall be installed around the storm water pond at the pond's normal water level until surrounding areas have adequate vegetative erosion control established. 17. The plans shall be revised to include City of Chanhassen standard detail 5302A for Wimco or similar catch basin inlet protection. 18. 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 t03:1 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.) 36 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 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. 19. All erosion and sediment control measures shall be installed and maintained in accordance with City, Carver County Water Resource Management Area and MPCA permit requirements. 20. A SWPPP should be developed by Ryan Engineering for the site which would encompass an erosion and sediment control plan. The SWPPP is needed prior to applying for the NPDES permit. 21. Erosion control blanket is needed for the slopes NE of lot 18 and the southern slopes from about the 912 / 910 proposed contours to the bottom of the slope within 14 days of final grade. 22. Energy dissipation at the PES inlet to the permanent storm water pond is needed. A detail is needed. 23. The proposed storm water basin must be used as a temporary sediment trap during construction and must be excavated in the initial construction phases of the development. A temporary diversion berm should be constructed to divert runoff from lots 18 to 11 into the pond. This should be included in the SWPPP. 24. A temporary outlet and / or a temporary stabilized EOF for the temporary basin is needed. 25. Inlet controls are needed for the CB' s within 24 hours of installation. A detail is needed; Chanhassen city specifications are Wimco type inlet control or equal. 26. The silt fence as proposed is running up and down the slope along the west and east boundaries of the site. The silt fence must be installed with I-hooks to effectively provide sediment control and not concentrate runoff to the south. 27. A concrete washout area is needed in the SWPPP; silt fence, sump area and rock driveway should be used and could be located in Outlot A. 28. A permanent outlet structure is needed for the permanent storm water basin in the southwest comer of the pond. Detail is needed. 29. A stable emergency over flow (EOF) is needed for the permanent storm water basin. Riprap or a turf reinforcement mate (TRM) could be used and specifications and detail area needed. 30. The contractor shall inspect daily all erosion control measures and perform maintenance on BMPs as needed or required. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 31. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $21,857. 32. The final plans must include the following revisions: a. Existing contours within 100 feet of the proposed development must be shown on the plan. b. Note the top and bottom of wall elevations for all retaining walls. c. Note the location and elevation of the emergency overflow on the east end of the cuI de sac. d. A full-size drainage area map must be submitted. e. A five-foot wide concrete sidewalk must be constructed on one side of the street. f. Show the proposed street light layout. g. A stop sign must be installed at the intersection at Lyman Boulevard. h. All plan sheets must be signed by an Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 33. If import or export of material is required for the development of this property, the applicant must submit a detailed haul route to the City. 34. The existing well and septic system must be properly removed/abandoned. 35. The developer must field verify the sewer and watermain stub locations and elevations. If the stubs have not been installed the developer shall directional bore the utilities under Lyman Boulevard. All costs and permits associated with this work would be the developer's responsibility. 36. Public utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications must be submitted at time of final plat and shall include all required information. 37. The applicant is 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. 38. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Site Permit), Department of Health, MCES, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Army Corps of Engineers, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Department of Health) and comply with their conditions of approval. 39. Access and maintenance agreements shall be recorded against the benefiting properties for the private streets. 40. Buildings over 8,500 sq. ft. in size must be protected with an automatic fire protection system. The State of Minnesota is in the process of revising Chapter 1306 of the Minnesota State Building Code regarding fire protection systems. It is not yet entirely clear how these changes will affect residential construction. It is important that the developer meet with the 38 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 Inspections Division prior to final design to determine what ramifications, if any, the new requirements will have on the project. 41. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures on the site. Existing utilities and on-site sewage treatment systems must be abandoned in accordance applicable regulations. 42. A final grading plan and soils report must be to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. 43. Retaining walls over four high must be designed by a professional engineer and cannot be constructed until a building permit is obtained. 44. The applicant shall create a Homeowners Association to take responsibility of the retaining walls and maintain them. 45. Walls and projections within 3 feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire- resistive construction. 46. The buildings will be required to be designed by an architect and engineer as determined by the Building Official." 47. That the developer provides trail access to the southwest corner of 101 and Lyman. 48. That the developer revises drawings to adhere to the 5 foot setback requirements. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O. Papke moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit to develop within the Bluff Creek Overlay District subject to the following conditions: 1. No grading is allowed within the first 20 feet of the Primary Corridor boundary. 2. All structures must meet a 40 foot structural setback from the Primary Corridor boundary. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to O. 39