Loading...
PC Minutes 12-6-05 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 PUBLIC HEARING: ORCHARD GREEN: REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW FOR FOUR SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGEL F AMIL Y RESIDENTIAL (RSF). LOCA TED AT 2611 & 2621 ORCHARD LANE. APPLICANT PETER KNAEBLE. PLANNING CASE NO. 05-42. Public Present: Name Address Steve Lynch John Dragseth Matt Pavek Peter Knaeble Ralph & Edith Livingston Ken Lang Dan Rathman Linda Conner Minneapolis Chanhassen Golden Valley Golden Valley 2631 Orchard Lane, Excelsior 2631 Forest Circle Orchard Lane Orchard Lane Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Kurt. Papke: I'll start. The disputed area looks pretty small. Am I to assume that this would not materially affect any of the hard surface coverage calculations, setbacks, etc, etc.? Metzer: Right. From this survey that I have, I determined it's anywhere from 1,400 to 20 hundred square feet difference may on Lot 4. This would reduce it from 26,600 to 23,000 something. So stilI well over the minimum lot area. We're talking a width of, at most 14 feet wide along the length of the property, which would stilI allow Lot 4 to meet lot width requirements. Papke: Okay. Last question. We received an e-mail, I think it was on this case this afternoon where one of the neighbors had some concerns about these lots being smaller than the neighboring lots. Do you have any statistics or numbers or any metrics we can look at on that regard? Metzer: Not significantly. Maybe a couple of the lots surrounding, immediately surrounding but a majority of, especially a majority of lots surrounding the entire Lake Minnewashta, these lots are considerably larger. Papke: Okay. . Zorn: Just had one question. I wasn't able to drive the site. Is there a sidewalk in this area at all? 10 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 Metzer: No. Zorn: No sidewalk? Metzer: No. Zorn: Okay. And the proximity to the playground. Metzer: That is 300 feet south along Forest Avenue. Zorn: Okay. Metzer: Approximately. Rough guess. Zorn: Okay, thanks. Undestad: Just one. On the grading plan on there, it has a note about all lots will be custom graded by the builder. Is it, grading these one at a time and, or will they come in here and ask for any of these lots out here, I'm just wondering what that means. Metzer: That perhaps is a better question for the applicant. McDonald: And I guess with that if the applicant wants to come forward. Please state your name and address. Peter Knaeble: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. My name is Peter Knaeble with Terra Engineering. We're also the developers of the property. My address is 6001 Glenwood Avenue in Golden Valley is where our office is. I've got a rendering and plat I'd like to pass out to the Planning Commission. We've read through the staff report. Been working with the staff for a number of weeks on this project and we concur with recommendations in the staff report. Again the only issue that we see is the, on the south part of the property it's possible, a 10 to 12 foot overlap of the properties and our surveyor is working on that to try to come up with a resolution. We're also talking to the County to try to establish what exactly what the resolution with the issues are for that. That overlap issue and again our interpretation would match Josh's that even with the approximate overlap, that Lot 4 would still exceed the city's standards, both for lot width and for lot area. The question on the custom grading for the lots, based on the wooded nature of the property we are proposed to do the two building removals, for the two small existing homes that are on the property. We would do that but we would leave it up to the builders to custom grading each pad. Not all 4 pads at once. Other than that we're just here to answer any questions that the Planning Commission may have. Keefe: What type of houses are you looking at having built on here? Peter Knaeble: Well we're not the builders. ...builders and I would expect typical two story, upright kind of houses. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 Keefe: Three stall garage? Peter Knaeble: Correct. McDonald: Mark? Nothing? Deborah? No? Okay. Thank you. Okay, this is a public meeting and with this I will now throw it open to the floor, if anyone wishes to come up and make comments on this proposal, please do so. State your name and address please. John Dragseth: John Dragseth, 2600 Forest Avenue, which you see as the orange property. I think Josh stated for you the resolution and the problem properly for that. I'm not going to waste the public's time hearing about that. You do have my letter. I've been, and you can take a look at that. As far as resolving issues with the County, I think that's addressed in the letter too so we'll just leave that with you on that. I'll address somewhat on a more general issue for my neighbors who are here and hopefully will come up later and talk. And that's the job that you guys are tasked to do as a board here. It is an important job. It may seem like a disconnected job at times. You're dealing with plats. You're dealing with black and white plans. But you talk about driving the site. You're actually dealing with things in the real world and neighbors, and I get to see what kind of work you did. I looked at some of the transcripts and just this last September I think it was you had a vote where you had to vote on whether someone's going to be able to tear down the second oldest house in town. And that's an important decision. That's a real world decision and you have a very similar issue tonight. I'd refer you to the plat. The front plan on the plat and you'll see a little square in the middle of that property. That probably is now the second oldest house in the County. I encourage you to go out there and take a look at that house. It's the original farm house as I understand things. I hope one of my neighbors will come up and explain to you somewhat the history of that house. There's also a number of dots on that plat. Those aren't dots. They're trees. They're big trees. The dots aren't to scale. You see 32 inches next to them. These are big oaks. They're all coming down. If you guys vote that way. They will all come down. And they'll be replaced with 2 Yz inch trees because that's all that the statute requires. Take a look at the grading plan. I encourage you to look closely. Not one of those trees will stay. Now the plan doesn't do a couple of other things justice either. It doesn't show the wetland that's south of the 2600 Forest Avenue property. I encourage you to come out and drive down my driveway and take a look. You're welcome to come in and take a look at the wetland and see where all of this water is going to be draining when these houses go up. When these driveways go up, and where the runoff will be for it. I encourage you to come and take a look at that. It's an important job that you have and I encourage you to do that. It also doesn't show, and I understand you've received an e-mail from someone on this, that this plan doesn't fit. You've got sitting on the table here a view of the entire property in yellow. That's before subdivision. Next to the lot next door, which will now be well over 4 times as large as the subdivided property. I think, is Mr. Lang here? I think he's, Ken what do you have next door? Ken Lang: 2.6 acres. John Dragseth: 2.6 acres. That's across the street to the southwest. Dan, over an acre? Dan Rathman: 1.25. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 John Dragseth: 1.25. This does not fit. I don't know what you've heard but this doesn't fit. Who else here? They're big lots around here. Stacking these things in with 15 foot setbacks on the side doesn't fit. I encourage you to consider these points because when you come in to these meetings you often get one sided views. The preparation for these meetings is one sided. The developers who work with the city planners. You send out a notice 10 days before the meeting and you have people that try to rush to hurry up and come in and get their plans together and counter that point. Also I think you don't get the full other side of it because there's a sense of fatalism. I talked to one of the neighbors. Asked if they were coming. They said no, you know this never works out anyway. And so you're not getting the entire other side of each of these fences. There's this fatalism and from reading some of the transcripts I sense a similar fatalism from the board that your charter is limited. That there's only so much you can do, and I disagree. I don't think that's true. If you look, the setback requirements. The lot size requirements. All of those are minimums. Those are things best determined by the city staff. If that's all that you had to do is figure out is if these people meet the minimums, we wouldn't need the board. City staff could do that. We could send it right up to City Council. It'd be a waste to have this level of review. You do have discretion. There's a separate requirement that these plans have to meet the larger goals for the city and I suggest that this one does not. Given that what I've told you. Given hopefully what some of the other neighbors will tell you. Now you're basically here to provide reasonable limits. That's what you have to do. You do have power here. You're not powerless to come out and take a look at this plan and see what it's going to do. Take a look at those trees. Take a look at Ken Lang's property where the trees are staying up. You're not powerless to come out to look at the surrounding homes and see that these aren't going to fit. That the spacing doesn't match. That these things are stacked in here. That we're trying to turn an older neighborhood into a cookie cutter neighborhood. You're not powerless to come out and see that these aren't just dots on a plan. That they're trees that are going to be cut down. You're not powerless to come out and see how these additional houses are going to cause added runoff into the wetland. That doesn't show up on the plat that you've been provided. And you're not powerless to push this project back so that you have time to do that. There's an overlap problem here. It's been recognized. You can use that to give yourself a chance to figure out what this project is and what it will do and whether it makes sense. And I hope that you truly do understand that you do have this power. I know that you know that approval of the current plan is not the right thing to do, and I hope that some of my neighbors will come up and help explain further why it's not the right thing to do. Thank you. McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to make comment? Okay, seeing no one else come forward, we'll close the public meeting on this issue and we will bring it back to the council for deliberation. Kurt? Papke: No. McDonald: Mark? Undestad: Well...1 think one of the comments was made about everything is at minimums on there. It looks like lot sizes are above minimums. .. . above minimums. My question on the trees out there, I think the applicant answered on the grading issue. If they custom grade each lot, they don't have to go in there and mow all these trees down right away until they get a custom builder 13 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 to design something on that site. Which I believe is the plan for there. Yeah, it's another one of the new developments in the middle of the neighborhood again, which we've been seeing more and more of. It's all that's left out there. You know staff does spend a lot of time with the applicant directly, and you don't have a lot of time to bring it up here to argue your points on here. The comment about how much can we do up here? It is our job to see does this fit? Is it in the guidelines? And this seems, in my opinion it seems to be in the guidelines of meeting all the setbacks... That's it for me. McDonald: Okay. Dan. Keefe: Yeah, just in regards to the grading and what they're calling tree preservation plan. It isn't clear to me which trees are being saved. I mean there are, as the audience members aid, there are a number of dots on here but it does look like they are saving a number, or attempting to save a number of the trees. Is that a fair statement? Particularly it looks like you know 30 inch oak, 26 inch oak, 24 inch oak, 22 inch oak. On the south end of, you know Josh maybe you can sort of point out what's there. There will definitely be some that come out but. Undestad: ...if they custom grade the lots... Keefe: Right. Metzer: I believe anything outside of the dashed lines here will be saved. The City Forester is also requiring that 19 trees be planted in replacement of the trees that are being removed. City ordinance requires a minimum canopy coverage per lot on residential properties and determined on the amount of trees that are being removed, City Forester determined that 19 trees planted over the development is sufficient. Undestad: Josh real quick on the canopy coverage on there. We're losing 1,089 square feet of canopy coverage on this? Generous: If I may, that's just a way to calculate based on the area of canopy. You have to remember the trees. It was developed in the early to mid 90's. It's just a way to enumerate it. Undestad: You're taking out one big tree that has 3,000 square feet. Generous: Yeah, well we use that 3,000 square feet of area and then you divide that by 1,089 to tell you how many trees to replace that one tree there. That's right now. Now in the future when they come in to custom grade the lots, they take out trees that they're supposed to preserve, then there's a 2 to 1 replacement and that can be based on caliper inches so. And that could get, if they exceed what they're supposed to, you could get quite a few trees. Keefe: The way I look at this, it looks like a 26 inch maple would come down...probably a 36 inch white pine. It looks like it would come down. And it looks like, and a 26 inch maple. So you've got the 3 that are kind of towards the middle there, but what would be saved is a 30 inch oak, 24 inch oak, 22 inch oak. 26 inch oak. 20 inch spruce. Is that what that is? 20 inch spruce. So at least from what I can tell in terms of the really large significant trees, yes. You are going 14 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 to lose 2-3. But actually there's going to be an effort to save the both of them, at least from what I can tell on the plan. In terms of the lot size there, and they do exceed the minimum and yes they'll definitely be somewhat different if all of the lots adjacent to it are 1 plus acre lots. We're going to be going to smaller lot sizes. It does meet the ordinance so... McDonald: Deborah. Zorn: Bob and Josh, to what extent is the neighborhood sized lots, how were they considered against the ordinance? In this neighborhood it seems that the average seems to be around at least an acre and often times people move to a community, a neighborhood because of the lot size. And I can see why their neighbors that were quite concerned that this is really just changing the feel of the neighborhood. Metzer: Technically the reason they're permitted to subdivide to lower lots than surrounding properties happen to be, you know it's zoned single family residential. Minimum lot size 15,000 square feet. It's land use designation is residential low density. 1.2 to 4 units per acre. It's, they're permitted the right to subdivide down to, so if they meet the minimum requirements as said, you know staff recommends approval. Zorn: So as you're working with the developer, do you ask them to take into consideration characteristics of the neighborhood? Or do you simply advise them to seek the minimum? Generous: We do work with them. Actually they came in with Slots and so we did talk them down into the 4 lots. Unfortunately the zoning ordinance doesn't permit that per se. It gives you the standards. You try to build it in. We look more from health safety standards. Is the drainage going to work? Are they going to create, over shadowing, over dominance on the neighboring properties with this development. If you look just to the west across Forest, you have same lot size. Probably smaller lots in there within this proposed development so. Over time yes, people who bought a long time ago, that's the way their land was split up. It has, they retire or they have the same rights to come in through the process and if they comply with the ordinance, you can't stop them. Unless you purchase the property. Zorn: Okay, thanks. No other comments. McDonald: Kurt. Papke: I think the developer has actually done a pretty good job. I don't think we've seen one in a while that's had these dotted lines showing the saved tree area. This is actually a pretty nicely drawn up plan, although it is somewhat ambiguous as to which ones will be saved and which ones will be cut down. Some of them are obvious that they're going to go but would have been nice to have a table or something in here so we know exactly which ones stay and which ones go. It's unfortunate that we're going to lose another old house in the community. Unfortunately unless it's registered historical landmark, there's nothing much the Planning Commission can do about it so, it's a pity but that's the way it goes so I think this one seems to meet all the conditions. It really doesn't border on the, any of the setbacks or anything like that. I think it's a reasonable plan. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 McDonald: I guess the only comments I have is, I want to address the e-mail that was sent to us and also your comments about what powers we actually have and what we can actually do. You brought up the example of the home within this neighborhood that we went over about a month and a half ago. It really comes down to individual property rights. We can only look at certain limits and say that you can't go below these minimums. That is the only thing that we can really do as far as controlling how you use your land. Ordinance for nuisances and those types of things. Other than that, everyone within this neighborhood has the right, if they can meet the zoning requirements, to subdivide their land and you will probably see more of this. This is not the first one of these that we have seen. We're seeing them in most of the older sections of Chanhassen because when it was first put together the lot sizes were quite large and now what's happening is, as people retire, that becomes their more or less savings account and they want to cash in. They have the right to do that as long as they meet certain requirements. We cannot just arbitrarily as a Planning Commission stop a project such as this unless it does not meet the requirements that we have within the city ordinances. So we cannot just stop things in order for us to look at it and determine how does it fit within a neighborhood. The ordinances are not built around that. The ordinances are built lots and lot sizes and setbacks and those types of issues that at least within a community it stops someone from coming in and chopping these things up into say triple the size you have here. There are minimums you have to meet. That is all we can oversee in this. Our role is not exactly a rubber stamp as you would maybe think because we end up voting for this. Part of this is the public meeting. This is the public's opportunity to come forward and also question the judgment of staff. Staff comes to us and what the report tells us is, based upon city ordinances, this is what's met. These are the problems we're having or you know these are the concessions that are being made in this particular project. It was not an easy decision for this commission to agree to tear down the house that I think goes back to like 1820 or something, but as Kurt said, it's not our property. It is not on any kind of a register or rolls or anything such as that. It belonged to an individual and he had the right to do with his property as he wished as long as he met the conditions of city ordinances. It's the same situation here. What a developer has brought to us is a plan that is compliant with city ordinances. It meets the requirements. And I'm afraid we do not have a lot of discretion to stop that plan. If you feel strongly that this is wrong, then the next step is to go to City Council which at that point they have the wherewithal to change or to recommend and make changes to these plans. All we can do is go by what the ordinance says. And I think with that, then we'll bring it back. Anyone want to give me a recommendation on this? Papke: Mr. Chair, I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Planning Case 05-42, Orchard Green for 4 single family lots as shown on the plans prepared by Terra Engineering and stamped Received November 4, 2005, subject to conditions 1 through 22. McDonald: Do I have a second? Undestad: Second. Papke moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Planning Case 05-42, Orchard Green for 4 single family lots as 16 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 shown on the plans prepared by Terra Engineering and stamped "Received November 4, 2005", subject to the following conditions: 1. Applicant shall submit a landscaping plan showing 19 trees as replacement plantings. Plan shall specify size, species, and locations. 2. All areas outside of grading limits shall be protected by tree preservation fencing. Fencing shall be installed prior to grading and excavation for homes on each lot. Any trees shown as preserved that are removed or damaged shall be replaced at a rate of 2: 1 diameter inches. 3. The water and sanitary hook-ups for lot 2 must be moved to the driveway in order to preserve the 12" maple. 4. The developer must obtain all permits necessary to remove the existing homes. 5. The grading plan must be revised as follows: a. All proposed contours must tie in to existing contours, particularly the 992',990' and 988' contours on the west side of Lot 1; and the 996', 994' and 992' contours on the east side of Lot 3. b. Staff recommends that the low floor elevations for Lots 1 and 2 be lowered one foot to achieve an 8 foot walkout. Staff recommends that steps be installed in the garage on Lots 3 and 4 to achieve an 8 foot walkout. c. A drainage breakpoint elevation must be shown northeast of the building pad comer on Lot 3. 6. Hydrology calculations must be submitted and shall include pre- and post-development volume and peak discharge rates for the 2, 10 and 100 year rainfall events. 7. Any proposed retaining wall over four feet high requires a building permit and must be designed by a Professional Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 8. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with a detailed haul route and traffic control plan. 9. The developer must acquire a Work in Right of Way Permit from the Engineering Department before commencing work in the right of way and shall submit a financial security to ensure that Orchard Lane and Forest A venue are properly restored after the services have been installed. 10. The developer shall pay the $29,298.00 trunk and lateral water and sewer fees in cash with the final plat or assess them to the lots within the proposed development. The lateral connection charges can be assessed at 8% for 8 years. The trunk hookup charges can be assessed at 8% for 4 years. 11. Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans must be submitted with the building permit for each lot. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - December 6, 2005 12. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA and the Watershed District. 13. 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 (maximum time an area can remain unvegetated when area is not activelv beinl! worked) 7 Days 14 Days 21 Days 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. 14. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as-needed. 15. The plans shall be revised to show the location(s) of the rock construction entrance(s). 16. The plans shall be revised to expand the drainage and utility easement in a straight line from the point where the 978 elevation intersects the east lot line of Lot 4, Block 1, to where the 978 elevation intersects the 20' sanitary sewer easement at the southern edge of Lot 4, Block 1. Standard drainage & utility easements shall be dedicated in all other locations. 17. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 2.02 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $2,208; the water quantity fees are approximately $5,464. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $7,672. 18. In the absence of parkland dedication, it is recommended that Orchard Green pay full park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final platting. At today's rate, these fees would total $16,000 (4 lots x $4,000). 19. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any existing structures. 20. Provide a cleanout on the sewer service for Lot 3. 21. Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. 18 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 ofturn 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