PC Minutes 2-7-06Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006
control blanket shall be installed on any exposed soils south of the private drive within 24 hours
of final grade.
16.A seed mix for shaded, wooded areas shall be specified in the plan, along with the proposed rate
of application. A seed mix for the filtration area and slopes shall also be specified.
17.The rip rap at the flared-end section at the south end of the 24-inch pipe south of the private
drive shall be replaced.
18.Runoff from the storm sewer system from the school shall be controlled during construction.
The water shall be conveyed through a non-erosive means to the Highway 41 ditch through the
job site.
19.Erosion control blanket category 2 or 3 shall be installed within the filtration area within 24
hours of connecting the 18-inch PVC to the basin. The blanket shall be applied following a
seeding. Remaining exposed soils on site shall be mulched and seeded or sodded within 14
days of final grade.
20.The silt fence used shall be a City of Chanhassen type 1 silt fence; monofilament silt fence with
metal T-posts, 6 foot maximum spacing and 3 plastic zip ties in the top 8 inches of the fabric.
The silt fence specified for the filtration area shall be labeled as “Installed after drain tile
installation.”
21.A rock construction exit pad shall be installed from the bituminous edge 40 to 50 feet long into
the job site.
22.Street sweeping shall be completed within 24 hours should soil be tracked upon paved surfaces.
23.Catch basin inlet control shall be provided for the catch basins adjacent to the school building if
tracking of soil becomes a problem on the paved surfaces.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PINEHURST REPLAT:REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT
APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE APPROXIMATELY 28 ACRES WITH VARIANCES ON
PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) DISTRICT; AND THE
VACATION OF DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS LOCATED AT PINEHURST
DRIVE AND GALPIN BOULEVARD. APPLICANT: LENNAR CORPORATION
(LUNDGREN BROS. CONSTRUCTION, INC.) – PLANNING CASE NO. 06-07.
Public Present:
Name Address
Troy Bader 2244 Lake Lucy Road
9
Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006
Matt Goldstein Lundgren Bros. Construction
Nathan Franzen Plowshares Development
Robert Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Papke: Bob, on page 3 of the staff report, under grading and drainage, third and the fourth
paragraphs you make recommendations to not relocate the storm sewer pipe in Lot 22 and to not
relocate the storm sewer line through Lot 4, Block 2. Neither of those recommendations turn
into conditions in the staff report. Could you explain those two issues and why or why not they
were made conditions.
Fauske: I can answer that Chair. Staff wanted to go through in detail and discuss storm sewer
relocation. Currently the plans do not show relocating that and staff just intended to reiterate that
we actually support what they were showing in the drawing. So that’s why it didn’t show up in
the recommendations. Basically we agree with what they showed in the construction plans.
Zorn: Just to clarify, just so I understand. Vacation from drainage and utility easements. Is that
what you just referenced or how is that different?
Generous: As part of the original plat they have all the drainage and utility easements dedicated
as part of that. By changing the lot lines they’re changing where those easements should be. So
when you get to council they actually hold the public hearing to vacate all the existing easements
and as a part of this plat they’ll rededicate new easements on the property lines and cover those
pipes that are in place.
Zorn: Okay, thanks.
McDonald: Thanks for clearing that up.
Larson: I’ve got a question for you Bob. On page 7, item number 5. Is that typical that it says
the applicant shall create a homeowners association to take responsibility for the retaining walls
across property lines?
Generous: This is something that’s new we’ve come up with because, especially on this one that
we have large retaining walls that go along the back of an entire block and rather than having a
homeowner responsible for that, we believe that the developer and then the associations should
be responsible to maintain that As a matter of fact we’re looking at next planning commission to
have a discussion paper on putting that idea into an ordinance form.
Larson: Oh okay.
McDonald: Mark?
Undestad: Nothing to add.
McDonald: Dan?
10
Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006
Keefe: The request for private streets, was that approved before or is that new?
Generous: No, they have, they were approved before. It’s just because the replatting and we
wanted to show that they were continuing those because those have all been constructed.
Keefe: Okay, and then the curb on the street is, was in guidelines right? I mean it’s already
there isn’t it? I mean we already approved that cul-de-sac and yeah.
McDonald: Okay, is the applicant here to present their case?
Matt Goldstein: good evening Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Staff and guests I
suppose. My name is Matt Goldstein. I’m a planner with Lundgren. We’re part of the Lennar
Family of Builders. I’m also joined by Plowshares and Westwood. The reason we’re here is to
request permission essentially to remove home sites from this community. Since we first started
talking with Plowshares we had an idea for one particular series of homes to go here. Since that
time it’s been a few years, we’ve designed a new series of homes called Masterpiece Series
which is a bit larger and under the old configuration causes some conflicts with the impervious
surface regulations. In talking with staff at length and originally considering requesting a
variance from the impervious surface regulations, the direction was that our best bet was to
request a replat. Reduce the density. Create home sites that are appropriately sized based upon
existing regulations and move forward from that direction. So to reiterate Bob’s or his action
we’re basically moving some lot lines and we’re going to be reconfiguring a couple of building
pads. Some other things that had not changed are the street configuration and the public versus
the private streets. The tree preservation aspect of the plans have not changed at all either.
Every single tree that is approved to be preserved has essentially been preserved since all the
grading is done. And this new configuration does conform to the new minimum lot width
standard that was recently approved. So we’ve gone through the process of re-engineering the
entire site to confirm with staff that everything does comply to the minimum standards and in
many respects exceeds that standard. To address the question about the homeowners association,
we do have a draft declaration that will be filed with the County that does in fact place that
burden of maintaining those walls on the association. During build out the association is
managed by Lundgren. We take all those tasks on internally. We pay for those. As part of that
we file a whole series of documents with the County, including various descriptions in both
script form and map form to ensure that it’s clear that the association is responsible for those
things. That will also be in our disclosure. We have a 15 to 17 page disclosure that provides
each of our buyers, so that item should be clearly addressed. With that I have Plowshares and
Westwood here also available to address any questions if you have any concerns about the
history of the project. And I’m available to address any concerns as well. Thank you.
McDonald: Okay. Any questions for the applicant from commissioners?
Keefe: I just have one curiosity question. You said that your home type has changed. Can you
give us a flavor on what’s different and what you were planning to what you plan now?
11
Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006
Matt Goldstein: Certainly. They’re bigger and better. Deeper into the upper bracket, if you
want to go pretty far. If you were to take our traditional series, which is in Ashling Meadows
and a few other communities, they take that to the next level. That’s what you’ll see in our
Masterpiece Series. The footprints are a bit larger in size. There you will see more architectural
detail in the facades. More side loaded garages. A bit higher level of exterior finishing. You’ll
see more masonry. A bit more detail in the roof lines, so Pinehurst will be unique relative to
other neighborhoods in Chanhassen, even that we’ve built. We’re really trying to ramp it up and
what we’ve seen in the past is we would set over to the lower standard in terms of what would be
your base package, even though you’re in an upper bracket custom single family home type of
market. We found that rather than ask people to spend a lot of money on upgrades to meet their
needs, we’ve taken most of what we’ve seen in terms of market feedback over the past several
years and increase that standard to a point where we don’t expect as many upgrades because
people will generally feel more happy with the package that they’ve given.
Keefe: Is that something that would be like in Settlers West or?
Matt Goldstein: The Traditional Series is what’s in Settlers West and we missed the opportunity
to put Masterpiece there for very similar reasons. The impervious surface concerns. So we’re
going to be rolling out Masterpiece in Chanhassen.
McDonald: Mark? Deb? I have no questions either. At this point I will open up the meeting to
the general public. Anyone wishing to come forward to make comment, please come up to the
lectern. Give us your name and address and state your case.
Troy Bader: My name is Troy Bader. The address is 2244 Lake Lucy Road. ...show you here I
guess where we are. Pan in here. Our home would be right at the edge of where the city, what is
the parcel I guess that’s been dedicated back to the city. We’re right on the corner. And the
riverine that is referenced throughout the documents that came through, it discharges on the very
end of our property. The city property then continues on in this stretch that runs adjacent to Lake
Lucy Road. You know outside of the developer and is also city property. The, in connection
with this development we have had problems. There have been problems I understand with the
Manchester section but we’ve also had problems down in this section. When this first came up, I
just want to give you a little background. It will obviously lead to some questions here and there
will be more questions than anything else. When this first came about, one of the questions that
we had and concerns that we raised was what is going to be done in terms of erosion control as
all of this grading. As you folks probably know there were a lot of trees removed. There was a
lot of grading done and there was a lot of dirt brought in. One of our concerns, and probably the
biggest concern is what’s going to be done to control the erosion on this area as it comes down
the hill to the riverine and then discharges on the end of our property. Yes, we’ve had a lot of
rain this fall. In September we had a big one, and what happened as we understand it, and I
don’t know that we have all the details because we’ve just had a heck of a time getting good
details, but what was explained to us by Plowshares at the time, who by the way were, did a good
job stepping up to the plate in assisting us and working with us on the problems that we had.
What happened though as we understand it is that the construction drainage ponds didn’t hold, so
there was a tremendous discharge of water on or about Labor Day. What happened is, as that
water came down, the riverine, the culvert did not, it became clogged. There were debris.
12
Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006
We’ve got photos of logs that came down, plus all the straw. Everything else that came down as
a result of the construction and the erosion control efforts came down. Blocked the culvert and
everything flooded all the way back. Fortunately, knock on wood we didn’t have water in the
house but the yard was flooded. The riverine as I stand in the bottom by the culvert, the top of
the riverine is above my shoulders. We had water above that and all the way up to our home.
Okay? Fortunately we have a poured concrete foundation and didn’t have water. The problem
is, when this all occurred there was a weir. There’s a concrete weir about midway back in that
riverine. I don’t know when it was put in or what the situation was, but what happened is that
when this came down, what the weir is, it’s a concrete structure between the two natural hillsides
I guess as you come through the riverine, and what it did was, from what we can tell, is to
control the water flow. Just as you were talking about in the earlier case. That failed. So what
has happened is you go to the end toward I guess it would be toward the east side of the weir and
the riverine. All of that caved in. Probably about a good 8 to 10 feet over. It has all caved in,
probably down about 6 feet, maybe more. As a result when water comes down now, it’s rushing
through. There’s absolutely no control. So since that’s happened I have been out there on two
occasions since then clearing debris out, continuing to clear out logs. Continuing to clear out all
these other problems. The most recent time was New Year’s Day, believe it or not. So it’s not
just when we have a rain now. Now it’s a thaw, so we have a very significant problem there and
you know, I don’t want to have to worry about when the yard’s going to flood the next time. To
compound it, there is no emergency exit from that property. That culvert is the only exit that we
have. We had the city engineers out to take some grades and they said don’t worry, you won’t
have water coming into your windows. I said can I see the grades so I can understand it. Well I
apologize we threw those away. I don’t know where we stand. I don’t know where we’re going
with this thing. It’s been very frustrating because since that, since this development, all the
grading and I understand that once yards are put in and everything else, hopefully this is going to
slow down but what we don’t know is how much more water is being put into that riverine and
unfortunately we now have a damaged riverine that is not flowing and handling the water as it
did previously, and nobody has come to us in response to our request and has advised us that
there will be any work done on this riverine to rectify those situations and better control the
water. So that is background of what causes me concerns as I see additional items. Now when
Mr. Generous was up and showed the lots that are being changed, what I don’t know are really a
couple things. First of all, is there more or less water as a result of this being drained into the
riverine? That would be number one. Number two, where are these discharge pipes going into
the riverine? And third, as I indicated before, I really still and maybe beyond this commission’s
authority but I’d like some guidance, what is going to be done to assure that this riverine, which
is now on city property after the dedication, what is going to be done to rectify the condition of
that riverine which is causing the problem. There are solutions. There are a lot of solutions. We
just need someone to help us with those solutions and put something in place. So those are the
primary concerns. The other piece is I know the applicant has now changed with Lundgren.
Plowshares would get our calls when there was a problem, and they were good about coming
out. We don’t know who to call now. We don’t know who is responsible for this and the reality
is we just don’t want another run around. Again this can be solved. We’re willing to do what we
can to help solve this thing. It wasn’t a problem before this. It shouldn’t be a problem again
going forward, but what I am seeing is a significantly increased flow of water already through
that area and really no solution in sight. So I’d like to understand what is the flow, what is going
to happen? Is there more or less water going into this? Has there been a study done whether the
13
Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006
riverine in it’s current condition can in fact handle all of this water because we’re talking of any
time there’s an improvement, any time you start changing a piece of ground to the degree that
this has been changed, you’re playing with fire. There will be changes in the flow and based
upon what we’ve seen today, I have a great deal of discomfort that in fact everything has been
done that can be done to make sure that this is still going to flow properly and we’re not going to
have problems. So that’s really what I’d like addressed in some way, shape or form if we can.
The final thing would be to make sure that if there is additional grading, and I understand it’s not
going to be significant grading at this point but if there will be additional grading, I really want
to have an understanding that everything that can be done will be done. When we raised this
when this first came through we were assured that everything that can be done will be done. We
will have silt fence. We’ll have all this stuff. Well they started. Started the work before all that
was done and unfortunately with the rain nothing held, and since then there have been dual silt
fences and everything else. I don’t know if it’s going to hold. I’m not an expert in that regard.
Hopefully you’ll help us. Thank you.
McDonald: Okay. Anyone else?
Janet Paulsen: My name is Janet Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. I just have a few
questions on the private streets. I was wondering if Bob could explain exactly, are those streets
have been approved and the lots surrounding then have been approved.
Generous: As part of the previous plat, yes it was approved to use the private streets and platted
with the private streets.
Janet Paulsen: Well this is after a fact but I’d like to point out a few errors and maybe more
variances that should have been asked for. The lots in yellow are on the private streets?
Generous: Yes.
Janet Paulsen: Well according to code the front lot line of lots that are served by a private street
have to be measured from the lot line that’s closest to the public street that serves those lots.
And I think that the front lot line is in the wrong place to serve those lots. I don’t know what can
be done after the fact.
Generous: These two, we treated the north lot line as the front because of the tilt in the property.
It seem to make sense.
Janet Paulsen: Was a variance asked for?
Generous: For the private street?
Janet Paulsen: For the change in the lot line from front to side.
Generous: That’s a matter of interpretation. You want to treat, which edge do you want to treat
closest and we figured that the north edge was contiguous with that line of that private street.
14
Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006
McDonald: Well I guess before we get into this, if I could interrupt, I’m not sure what the
relevance is. I understand that we’re looking at private streets but this is a plan that’s already
been approved. The streets are already there and what’s before us is not the issue of the streets
themselves. It’s the fact that the applicant would like to reduce the lots in the development.
Janet Paulsen: I’m aware of that and it just said in the report variances for a private street, and I
think it should have had more variances than the one listed in the report. Thank you.
McDonald: Okay, so noted. Thank you. Would anyone else care to come forward and
comment? Okay, seeing no one else I will close the public meeting portion of this and we’ll
bring it back to the commissioners for their comments. Kurt, we’ll start with you.
Papke: I’d like to give my kudo’s to the developers for taking this action. My recollection from
when this was in front of the Planning Commission last time is the drainage area that you’ve now
made into an outlot was one of the biggest bones of contention that we had at that point. That
was really one of the most troublesome aspects of approving this so I appreciate you resolving
that issue. And also we get more than our fair share of requests for variances for hard surface
coverage and I also appreciate you taking the proactive stance and resolving that as opposed to
asking for a variance. So I appreciate what, your proposal tonight. That’s it.
Zorn: No comment.
McDonald: Deborah.
Larson: Well I, I have my concerns also regarding this drainage thing. Who was.
Papke: Could I make a suggestion? Is there a possibility we could take, the drainage issue really
isn’t in front of us tonight. Could we take that off, but I think it’s a serious issue. Is there an
opportunity for city staff to meet with the fellow who has the issues here to find out what the
plan of attack is from the city’s perspective? Or has that already been done or?
Fauske: Yes, after the storms this past September and October of this year, staff has had
basically a long laundry list of drainage problems in the city, this being one of them.
Papke: Okay.
Larson: Okay, so it’s already been basically addressed. Alright.
Fauske: On the list.
Larson: It’s on the list? Okay. I guess that’s all then.
McDonald: Mark? I guess the only comments that I would have is, I would re-emphasize the
thing about the water issues. Unfortunately that is not an issue before us. We were not the only
city in September to have water problems. The only answer that I can give to the gentleman that
raised the question is that, it is being addressed by city staff. It is being addressed by the
15
Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006
engineering. I would suggest at this point that you address all of your comments and you know
help to the city staff. This seems to be a little bit maybe beyond where the development at this
point is at and again as you pointed out, it looks like most of the problems is on city property
anyway. So what I would suggest you do to find your answer is just to go back to the city and
have them address them. There are certain remedies that are available for you. Having said that,
do I have a motion?
Fauske: Mr. Chair?
McDonald: Yes.
Fauske: I apologize for interrupting. After putting out these reports we had a recommendation
from the city engineer regarding the sewer and water services for the two lots that are now being
removed essentially from the plat. That we remove the curb stop and install spot liners at those
two utility locations just to put them out of service and remove any liability if something hit the
curb stop and had been damaged. So if any…recommend an additional condition 16.
McDonald: Go right ahead.
Fauske: Okay. Remove curb stops and install spot liners at Manchester Drive services and the
services between Lots 5 and 6, Block 4.
McDonald: Bob, since this is your report, would you agree with that?
Generous: That’s fine. I just put in what they handed me.
McDonald: Okay, that’s fine. Do I have a motion from the commission?
Zorn: I make a motion to recommend to adopt the Planning Commission recommends approval
of the preliminary plat creating 41 lots with variances for the use of two private streets, plans
prepared by Westwood Engineering Services, revised January 5, 2006. Conditions 1 through 16
with 16 so noted.
McDonald: Do I have a second?
Larson: I second that.
Zorn moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the
preliminary plat creating 41 lots with variances for the use of two private streets, plans prepared by
Westwood Engineering Services, Inc., dated revised January 5, 2006, subject to the following
conditions:
nd
1.Revise the Final Plat to label Outlot C as Outlot A, Pinehurst 2 Addition.
16
Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006
2.A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
building permits will be issued. The soils report must have a lot conversion table identifying
how the test results from the original subdivision correlate to the new lot descriptions.
3.Separate water and sewer services must be provided for each lot.
4.Permits are required for retaining walls. Walls over four feet high must be designed by a
professional engineer.
5.The applicant shall create a Homeowners Association to take responsibility for the retaining
walls that cross property lines and maintain them.
6.The developer must ensure that the soils under all revised building pads meet the required
densities.
7.The construction plans must be revised to reflect the new lot and block numbers.
8.Wetland buffer widths of 16.5 feet to 20.0 feet shall be maintained around all wetlands on-site.
9.All structures shall maintain a 40-foot setback from wetland buffer edges.
10.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.
11.Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. All exposed
soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to
the following table of slopes and time frames:
Time
(maximum time an area can remain unvegetated
Type of Slope
when area is not actively being worked)
Steeper than 3:1 7 Days
10:1 to 3:1 14 Days
Flatter than 10:1 21 Days
These areas include constructed storm water management pond side slopes, 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 man made systems
that discharge to a surface water.
12.Daily scraping and sweeping of public streets shall be completed any time construction site soil,
mud, silt or rock is tracked or washed onto paved surface or street that would allow tracked
materials or residuals of that material to enter the storm water conveyance system.
17
Planning Commission Meeting – February 7, 2006
13.Construction site access points shall be minimized to controlled access points with rock entrance
and exit pads installed and maintained throughout construction.
14.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 Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering))
and comply with their conditions of approval.
15.The easement width shall be reduced to approximately 24 feet wide on Lot 22, Block 1, so that
the easement lies only 10-feet east of the storm sewer.”
16. Remove curb stops and install spot liners at Manchester Drive services and the services
between Lots 5 and 6, Block 4.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Troy Bader: Mr. Chair, if I might. There was the one question…is there more or less area being
drained into this, into the riverine in regards to this change? We’re not…we need to know if
there’s more less going in. Have they answered?
McDonald: Well again, we don’t have the answer for you and what I suggest is that you talk to
city staff and that’s where you’ll have to get the answer.
Troy Bader: I understand. I think that is the point that was relevant just for the record, or for off
the record but again that is a question that is relevant in terms of what’s going…but have a great
day. We’ll do our best.
McDonald: Okay, thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING:
DAVE BANGASSER:REQUEST FOR HARD SURFACE COVERAGE AND TWO
FRONT-YARD SETBACK VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A THREE-
STALL GARAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3633 SOUTH CEDAR – PLANNING
CASE NO. 06-04:
Public Present:
Name Address
Dave & Mary Jo Bangasser 3633 South Cedar
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: Kurt, would you like to start? Okay, Dan.
18