Loading...
PC Minutes 8-2-05 Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY FROM A2 TO PUD-R, SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES OF APPROXIMATELY 36.01 ACRES INTO 30 LOTS, 1 OUTLOT AND PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GRADING IN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT; AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 138 TOWNHOUSES. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF AUDUBON ROAD AND NORTH OF PIONEER TRAIL (1500 PIONEER TRAIL), LIBERTY AT CREEKSIDE, TOWN AND COUNTRY HOMES, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-24. Public Present: Name Address Kevin Clark Town & Country Homes Rick Janssen Town & Country Homes Ed Hasek Westwood Professional Services Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thank you Kate. Do we have questions from staff? No? Yes Kurt. Papke: Could you, I’m not quite sure I understand the sight lines from the Peterson Bluff properties. Just to the west and I guess to the south of here. I believe those are single family homes on the Peterson Bluff property. Aanenson: Yes. Papke: What are the elevations here? Are those single family people in Peterson Bluff going to be looking up? Down? What’s the topography across? Aanenson: I believe they’ll be looking up. If you’re on this side. Kevin Clark: I think they’re looking down. Actually if they keep that hill, that slope there. Remember how high it comes? Aanenson: Yeah. Kevin Clark: They fall down on the other side. It acts like a natural mound between us. Aanenson: Well it depends because you’re also, this is like I say a 75 foot change in grade from the back. If you go to the back of that tree line down to that last portion here, then we also have, we looked at that. We’ve got about 300-400 foot of separation based on the creek itself and the flood plain and the primary district so that’s the buffer. Papke: So we’ll have single family homes that look out on a slope of quads basically. Is that what we’re really talking about? 14 Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 Aanenson: Yeah, what you’d be seeing is this portion right here. You’d be seeing this portion here. The primary district. You can see this line so you’d be looking across here. And down here, yeah same thing. Probably pretty much that portion. And those are some of the areas we looked at talking about some of that public space. Some of that view shed because that’s you know, especially after we re-establish and we’re kind of excited about this bigger piece that we’re doing the re-establishing and taking out the crop land and doing the wetland banking and our Water Resource Coordinator’s met on site with the BWSR and worked through those issues and we’re excited to take that and make it a little amenity, which was the goal of this whole area. So there’s some new wildlife corridor to make it a plus, and incorporate that into this plan itself. I think that’s one of the missing elements. McDonald: Can I ask you a question about. Aanenson: Just, can I just, would you like to see an elevation change? When we come back with the next iteration we can show that. What you’d be looking at. Papke: Yeah. One of my main concerns here, every time we look at one of these developments we often too long, too often look at them in isolation, okay. And in this particular case we’re doing this whole AUAR so we have a holistic look here and I’d really like to understand you know what, I think the Peterson Bluffs development, they’re going to great lengths to put in nicer homes and I’m just concerned, are we transitioning? What are the sight lines? How are we handling that so I’d like to have a look at that. When we look at this the next go around I’d like to understand better what the transition process is from the Peterson Bluff’s property to this one. Aanenson: I think that’s a good point. Sacchet: Jerry. McDonald: Well the questions I’ve got, again the next time it come through I’d like to know more about these roads. The one to the north. What’s the impact on the property there? What are we looking as far as going in there for development? The one on the west, which then begins to impact I think the Peterson Bluff, how does that tie in with the plan that they gave us? Aanenson: It doesn’t tie into the Peterson Bluff. Actually there’s, if we can zoom in on this map. We’re meeting with a group of the property owners this week to finalize the road design and that’s part of what we’re doing on your work session, review all that. Presenting that to the th City Council on their meeting on the 8. Actually there will be a road that comes through here to provide access to that property, so these are completely disconnected, and that’s the difference on this piece. It’s really it’s own little island and while it’s topographically separated, we still would like Commissioner Papke said, you still want it to blend and how it, the views still, are they between the different properties. McDonald: Okay, because one of the other things I’d look at, we talk a lot about neighborhoods inner connecting and that’s been a real big discussion, so what you’re saying with Liberty. With Peterson’s Bluff, these are going to be isolated communities? 15 Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 Aanenson: No. This road will tie, the road between Liberty will tie in here. There will be a connection to this road at the round about. There’ll be a road here. What this board is only showing you is that collector road. There’s also the primary trail that’s kind of really the common thread of the whole thing is the trail that follows Bluff Creek and it goes underneath the creek itself. That…structure that we talked about at the last meeting. Similar to what we have th on West 78. So it has the trail underneath and that’s really the unifying theme is the creek itself, so no pun intended but all roads lead to Rome. So all the trails, all those connectivity things actually bring you back either to this or to the trail, so they have internal sidewalks and trails that bring you back to that point, as does Peterson. And to get you to the park, whether it’s underneath or via the street trails. McDonald: Okay, because I guess one of the problems I’m having, we did a big discussion last week about the round about and about under utilizing the round about, and it looks like this is an opportunity, maybe the road to the west could utilize that better. Aanenson: There will be a road that, as part of the AUAR that’s development driven. This is just showing the common east/west that will connect between this round about and tie back down onto Pioneer Trail, and that will be decided. Now conceptually, because we move the road, the Peterson plan doesn’t blend any of this yet because they had a different configuration. Also there’ll be another round about which we’re working, we met with the Degler’s today so somewhere in this area where the other round about is, depending on where the park lands and we’re still working through all that. So you’re right, and that was a comment that was made before. The more legs to that round about the better, and that’s the goal also to reduce those infrastructure points, and points of contact. McDonald: Okay because you know, it doesn’t seem to be to our advantage after going through all this to end up creating a spider web of roads. Aanenson: Right. Well the other, the recommendation we saw that tied in with this round about to go down to Pioneer. The other one was to go from this road up to Lyman, and that would be where the other round about lands and that’s where we’re still working with the property owners. So I didn’t want to put that on to confuse anybody else but those will be the other legs. McDonald: Okay, and all those are reasons again to kind of put this on hold then isn’t it? Aanenson: Well, obviously they can’t proceed until we order the road project. It’s land locked. I think they’re just trying to do their due diligence. Trying to stay on a time frame. Obviously we would like to see some of those, there’s some poor soils in here and do some winter construction. So the goal is to keep the road project on track and they’re trying to do a design. It’s kind of a chicken and egg. They can do design to get the round abouts in the correct places that match their development, so we’ve asked them to proceed with some projects so we can get the road designed that best meets all the property owners. Undestad: Mr. Chairman. 16 Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 Sacchet: Yeah, go ahead. Undestad: Just one quick question. Are there any other, you say you’re getting together property owners. Are any of them bringing in ideas at this point? Aanenson: Yes. Yes. Sacchet: In terms of the grading. So it would definitely need some retaining walls but you want to minimize them? Aanenson: That’s correct. Yeah. Sacchet: Okay. Aanenson: 30 feet. Sacchet: That’s huge. Aanenson: Well you know when you turn it over to a homeowners association, you know that was our concern is long term. That’s a big liability for them to take on and. Sacchet: Then in terms of the housing types. I mean right now we have, according to the drawing we have a red version and a beige version. We’d like to have a distinct different, I mean do we have, do we give them some guidance or do we just send them off? Aanenson: Yep. Yeah, we met with the and they actually have hired an outside consultant and we’ve seen some of their early versions and we’re pleased we’re moving in a different direction. Sacchet: And we believe two types will be sufficient? Aanenson: That was our recommendation. They still want to have the one type so they’re up for the challenge to show you that they can make it, with different stylistic changes, that they can make that work. Sacchet: Then there was in the report there was an issue that kind of peaked my interest, is the access to the wetland mitigation areas, which are they on the other side of the creek? Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: So they would have to come in from somewhere else. Aanenson: To get to this? Sacchet: Yeah. Aanenson: Was that one of the Water Resource’s comments? 17 Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 Sacchet: Well it said it’s unclear how the contractor will gain access to wetland mitigation areas. A temporary creek crossing may be needed unless access can be gained from the west or south. Aanenson: Correct, and they’re working on that. Ed Hasek: Just as a comment, we still maintain access to Pioneer Trail. If you look at the lower right hand corner, you can see there’s, we’ve got an access down there. Sacchet: Oh, that would still connect to. So you’re thinking to make a connection? Ed Hasek: ...remain there until the… Sacchet: Alright. Would that be using like the existing driveway type of thing? Okay. But it will be temporary in that sense. Ed Hasek: Yes. Sacchet: Okay. Aanenson: That’s Outlot A. Sacchet: And this is probably a question for the applicant. On the tree inventory it has notes and it says X to a lot of the trees. Do we know what the X means? Sort of specific, but it’s my interest in trees that are definitely. Well I’ll ask the applicant Kate. Aanenson: Are you on page 9? Sacchet: I’m on the big piece of paper. Aanenson: Aah. Well actually the submittal, originally there was some problems with the submittal so I don’t think that matches this. What’s in the text is correct. The Forester looking at that realized there were some problems with the numbers that were submitted with the plat, so the plat numbers I would ignore and go with the text in the report. Sacchet: Okay, okay. Alright. Aanenson: Those numbers are wrong in the plat and we caught it. Sacchet: I’ll ask the applicant anyhow when he comes up. Alright, thank you very much. Any other questions from staff? Kurt, you have one more? Papke: Just to make sure I’m reading the parking diagrams right. In our standards, design standards for this area we were looking for a little bit more variety in the parking. It looks like all of the parking right now is proposed to be on street with no. 18 Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 Aanenson: Or, yeah because it does have a longer driveway or it would be guest parking in the driveway. There is some guest parking if we look at this map. There is some here, and those are some of the changes through the design they would have to make. There’s limited. You can see with the retaining walls, there’s limited. Sacchet: That’s the only point place? Aanenson: Yes. So we talked about, they looked at this. What this becomes so we talked to them about that. Kind of the orientation and some of those tweaking. It just needs a little bit more work. Papke: And it looks like buildings 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9. There’s no parking right in the immediate vicinity there. Do we have any. On street parking. Aanenson: On street, yep. Papke: No, there’s no on street parking very close to. Are there any standards or codes that we have to follow that there has to be on street parking within a certain distance of the home or anything, or? Aanenson: There is a requirement for the guest parking. There is within the driveway that would meet that but obviously if you have additional, it would be more convenient to have it, and you’re talking about like in this area here or over here? Papke: Basically up in the upper right hand corner there. A little bit to your left. Right there. Those immediate 6 buildings. It looks like there’s no on street parking anywhere in front of those buildings at all. Aanenson: You’ll have to challenge that, yep. It’s going to go in the changes. Sacchet: Alright, thank you Kate. With that I’d like to invite the applicant. If you want to come forward and present additional highlights and context. Please state your name and address for the record. Kevin Clark: Good evening. Chair, other commissioners. My name’s Kevin Clark, Director of Land Development for Town and Country Homes. A K. Hovnanian Company. And also with me tonight is Rick Janssen, our V.P. of Acquisition and Ed Hasek, Senior Landscape Architect with Westwood Professional Services. Before you this evening is really our second proposal for the Liberty neighborhood located just east of the other community that’s being considered by the City, Liberty at Bluff Creek. This neighborhood proposes 138 townhomes in 4 and 6 unit building configurations. We have a few of these planned in the Liberty on Bluff Creek project as it’s noted. As mentioned by staff, we are in the process of creating additional elevations which we visited with Kate on earlier this week, and have also, as she mentioned, we’re working with a design consultant to put together a more, an elevated color palette. I think at this point we’re looking at anywhere from 3 to 4 different color variations for that sort of elements and materials with that also. We certainly want to make sure that this neighborhood is a step above and intend 19 Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 to elevate our streetscape to accomplish that goal. We will be working with staff to put together a very attractive variety of elevations and color palettes. As Kate mentioned, understandably with the location of the main collector road having just recently been determined, as she mentioned there’s going to be a meeting scheduled for Thursday to share the final design with all interested parties. This has been an element that’s been moving in relationship to the whole area, and we’ve been working and very collaborative with staff and the other parties to move this process forward, not only from the prior to the AUAR and variety of meetings. I think we’re onto, this has to be just under our fifth or sixth meeting on the road in the last really less than 3 months. So there has been a lot of effort on all parties, ourselves included to make sure that we’re all planning and working in concert. But now with this information our team will be better prepared to address both the road access and the grading issues mentioned in the staff’s report. It is our objective to minimize the need for retaining walls, eliminate the condition of having buildings surrounded by roadways and other items mentioned in there. And restore the previously farmed areas and maximize the opportunity to focus as many homes as possible to take advantage of the surrounding views and natural amenities. I want to mention too that the product that we’re proposing with this type of construction within the medium density zoning area is probably the most adaptable to the grade to minimize the impact of any grading and yet with the grade, as Kate mentioned, we still will be challenged to not have some walls and in certain cases to have some that are going to be potentially tall. We are working to minimize that but that will be a condition or a challenge that we have and we’re ready for that to work with, but again this product because it has full basements, walkout capabilities and things like that to allow us to blend that with the environment much easier. We’ll also be planning a neighborhood gathering area to again take advantage of the beautiful surroundings. The creek. The hillside and the forest and create a neighborhood focal point for the site. Certainly the areas as Kate mentioned along this area are prime opportunities for us to create that focal point. At this point I kind of envisioned that will take the form of either a gazebo, as she mentioned, or a pergola. Something a little bit more you know of natural wood product fitting into that hillside. Benches, pedestrian connections. An area for that to fit together within there. This neighborhood is uniquely located as mentioned and because of it’s unique location, it’s not really identified with other areas and part of it’s identity is I think that. The fact that it has these view sheds of not only the woods, of the creek and the varying terrain as it looks out both to the south, to the west, back to the north. The future park up to the northwest. So a lot of that is the character and the interest that this community will make. Commissioner McDonald when you mentioned the road, because of the MnDot alignment, really that’s the only opportunity to have connectivity through this neighborhood is to provide roads, both at that northeast corner and then subsequently where it’s shown there on the east side of the project. And again we walked this well over a year ago and identified potential locations for this. In earlier discussions well over 2 years ago when we met we were discussing and seeing what the viability was of having a crossing and looking at how to get across the creek. And at that point it was determined that you know that area was maybe better served to leave in it’s natural state and then we are now working towards not only creating additional, improving the wetlands there, but also the restoration of that currently farmed area. So I guess, the fact that it’s uniquely located. This is not a drawback but rather a positive characteristic that will allow us to create a very private, quiet and attractive neighborhood. We understand that there are a number of items to be more thoroughly thought out and for those reasons make it impractical for you to take any action this evening. We are actively working with staff, as Kate mentioned, to address these issues and look forward to 20 Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 returning to this forum in early September as I think you have a workshop at mid month, to complete the review. We agree with staff’s recommendations to the commission for the stated reasons and objectives in the report and I thank you for your consideration of our proposal. I look forward to coming back to you in early September and we can address any questions you may have. Sacchet: Thank you. Questions from the applicant. Just quick question. From your, what you just presented I gather you’re looking at variation of elevation and colors. Not necessarily in housing types. Did I hear that right? Kevin Clark: Correct. Sacchet: So you’d, what’s your reasoning why you’d want to stay with one type of housing? I’d like to understand that a little better. Kevin Clark: Well probably part of it is the market and also the density in this area. The fact that then to try to introduce a second product in here to be able to market an additional product in this area would be a challenge. So we feel that this design for probably the primary reason, if we come in with a single level or something like that, then we’ll really be lending more towards a different zoning characteristic and we’re, as we started out looking at this we were looking at from a medium density standpoint and this product really lends itself most appropriately to that in this configuration and we figure with the different housing types or the different foundation types, having both full basements, walkout, daylight type situations, and then adding the punch of having a variety of elevations in the different color palettes, I think we’ll be able to not only meet but exceed the subdivision guidelines that were put together in the last 6 months. Sacchet: Okay. And then my detail question about the tree survey. The notes that say X. I don’t know whether we need the landscape specialist to explain that. I was just curious because I figure it said Note: X. It would be explained somewhere what X means but it was hiding. Kevin Clark: Just as a quick aside, while looking at that. I’m going to put this up. What this reflects is, there’s 276 parking spaces with 2 in the garage, 2 in the parking. And the driveway area and then there are 92 throughout the site on street parking and then there are 5 in more of an off street visitor parking area. So there is quite a bit of additional. We’re at about 2.5 plus parking areas. Sacchet: So from your experience you would say that is adequate? Kevin Clark: Certainly I think that this is something we’re going to be forced to come back and look at because they’re looking at doing some other adjustments in the site plan but I guess I just wanted to show that that isn’t something that was an over sight. That we are looking at that and we’ll look to improve that as we make adjustments to the plan based on the grading where the roads land and a variety of those other items that have come up in the staff report. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Well if we don’t know what the X means, just make sure we know what it means when it comes back. 21 Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 Ed Hasek: It means there…but we’ll get you a key. D by the way means diseased… Sacchet: I suspected that. Alright. Kevin Clark: All set? Sacchet: That’s it. Thank you very much. Now this is a public hearing. I’d like to invite anybody who’d like to address this item to come forward. State your name and address. Let us know what you have to hear. What we have to hear from you. What you have to say. Bear with me. It’s almost 3:00 in the morning for me. Anybody? No takers? Yes, Janet. Janet Paulsen: My name is Janet Paulsen and I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. I just had one question and it said in the front of the report and in the newspaper ad that there are variances and I don’t see any reference to variances in the report. So what are they? Sacchet: Is the variances addressed in the staff report? Aanenson: No they don’t. We notice it with variances just in case as we’re reviewing sometimes we may have missed it in the early review. When we publish it because as they’re developing the staff report we may find some. At this point we don’t believe there’s any variances. Sacchet: So at this point there are no variances. Janet Paulsen: No, but the report on the front says there’s variances so I was wondering what’s going on. Aanenson: I’ll correct that in the next review. Sacchet: Okay. Janet Paulsen: So there are no? Sacchet: There are not apparently. Janet Paulsen: Okay. And then on the developer’s report, I don’t have a page number but it’s talking about street, roadways and drives. I just had a question, it lists public street and private streets and private drives, so I didn’t know there were private drives. Is that a driveway? Is that what they mean by private drive? Sacchet: You want to address that? Sure, go ahead. Ed Hasek: We have private streets. The private street is the loop in the lower right hand corner built to public standard. But it’s private. There are 2 or 3. Public street. Or I’m sorry, public street. Private street. Private drive. Private drive, private drive, private drive. 22 Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 Sacchet: So you call those private drives because they’re like a driveway to a multiple unit. Yeah the reason, oh telephone. The reason why this was brought, we had some go around’s in the past trying to figure out what terminology we want to use and according to our city definition there is no such thing as a private drive. Aanenson: Just to be clear, that wasn’t the staff’s use of terminology. It was the applicant’s terminology and so… Sacchet: Yep. Yeah, we just got that clear, correct. Okay. Janet Paulsen: That’s all, thank you. Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else? Want to address this item. Seeing nobody get up, I close the public hearing. Bring it back to the commission for comment with a note that staff recommends tabling and the applicant seems to be in agreement with that. Is there any additional aspects we want to mention to give some guidance and direction? Papke: Yeah I have one. One other thing I’d, for staff to take a look at the next time we look at this and that’s where the trail will go through here. I couldn’t see it indicated on any of the drawings. Is it on this side? Is it on the other side of Bluff Creek? Because one of the important things in designing this parkway here will be what the views will be from the trail. So it would be good to have some idea of what, even if it’s tentative, where that trail might be and how that will fit in. You know what the people from the trail will see when they walk or ride their bicycle along there. Zorn: …to see perhaps this neighborhood gathering area might be a little bit more than a gazebo. Perhaps a playground or something a little more conducive for family living in your units. So just something to think about. Kevin Clark: Okay. Zorn: And I too would favor perhaps another product within this development for a different look. Sacchet: Okay, thanks Deborah. Any comments Mark? Undestad: I guess I’d look for a couple different products out there too from a variety side, or with facades, if you could change those a little bit. Then I always have this parking, street parking. I know in the first round we looked at changing driveways to try to get more of the parking off the streets and things and here we’ve pretty much got all the streets lined up with cars out there and I don’t know if that will ever be that way but if there was any possibility of getting some other parking areas or something in there to try to get some of these off the street. Sacchet: Thanks Mark. Debbie? No? Jerry? 23 Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 McDonald: Well I guess the biggest comment I’ve got, at this point there probably isn’t enough detail in it and part of what you’re going to do as far as coming up with planning but I do have concerns about the parking also, especially in certain areas. We discussed this before with the other development and I believe that you’ve found some good solutions for that. And my concern about parking is again when you have visitors. At certain times of the year or something, in a couple of those areas I don’t know where they’re going to park and you know we’re going to end up probably creating problems at other points so I would just say I’d like to see something that addresses that so that we don’t create problems within those particular areas. That’s probably, that’s all I’ve got. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Yeah, I think we pretty much covered all the things. I don’t have much to add so with that I’d like to ask for a motion. It’s on page 17. Zorn: I’d like to make a motion that the Planning Commission to recommend tabling the request for rezoning A2 to PUD-R, site plan review and subdivision for the following reasons, 1 through. Sacchet: As stated in the report. Zorn: As stated, yeah. Sacchet: We have a motion. Is there a second? Larson: Second. Zorn moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends tabling the request for rezoning from A2 to PUD-R, site plan review with subdivision for the following reasons: 1. Allow staff the opportunity to work with the developer’s engineer to attempt to reduce the number and height of the proposed retaining walls; and 2. Significant changes to the grading plan that may result from #1 may change the site plan; and 3. Work to create greater neighborhood identity and housing design. The applicant shall work with staff to incorporate the following conditions prior to the next submittal: Park and Recreation Recommended Conditions of Approval. 1. Park fees in lieu of land dedication as a condition of this subdivision. 2. Additional pedestrian trails, sidewalks and trail connectors also need to be incorporated into the project as required. The planning and construction and financing of these pedestrian improvements are the responsibility of the applicant. The City will reimburse Town and 24 Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 Country Homes the cost of construction materials only for the ten-foot wide Bluff Creek trail. Water Resources Subdivision Recommended Conditions of Approval. 1. The applicant shall work with staff to address comments on Liberty on Bluff Creek’s wetland mitigation that are received from the reviewing agencies. The wetland mitigation for Liberty on Bluff Creek shall be constructed prior to or concurrent with wetland impacts on the Liberty on Bluff Creek project. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420) and the conditions of the Wetland Alteration Permit for Liberty on Bluff Creek. 2. Wetland buffers 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average of 16.5 feet) shall be maintained around Wetlands A and B and the constructed wetland mitigation areas. 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 must pay the City $20 per sign. 3. All structures shall maintain a minimum 40 foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. 4. The plans shall be revised to show bluff areas (i.e. slope greater than or equal to 30% and a rise in slope of at least 25 feet above the toe). All bluff areas shall be preserved. In addition, all structures shall maintain a minimum 30 foot setback from the bluff and no grading shall occur within the bluff impact zone (i.e. the bluff and land located within 20 feet from the top of the bluff). 5. All structures shall maintain a minimum 40 foot setback from the primary corridor. No alterations shall occur within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of the setback from the primary corridor. The grading plan shall be revised to eliminate alterations within the primary corridor or within the first 20 feet of the setback from the primary corridor. 6. The applicant shall submit a plan for the revegetation of the area south of Bluff Creek that incorporates native plants and is consistent with the City’s Bluff Creek Natural Resources Management Plan. Special attention shall be paid to areas with steep slopes (greater than 3:1). 7. The applicant shall determine whether impacts are proposed within the mapped FEMA Unnumbered A Zone and shall either submit a Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) showing that this area is not floodplain or obtain a conditional use permit for alterations within the floodplain if impacts are proposed. 8. A storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) is needed for the development and shall be completed prior to applying for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. The SWPPP shall be submitted to the City and the Carver Soil and Water Conservation District (CSWCD) for review prior to final approval. 25 Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 9. A stable emergency overflow (EOF) for the proposed pond shall be shown on the plans. A typical detail shall be included with the plan. 10. The plans shall show paths of access to both wetland mitigation areas as well as all erosion controls and restoration practices. 11. Additional erosion control notes shall be provided on the plan to address the extension of storm sewer outside the perimeter controls; erosion control blanket shall be installed as needed in this area within 24 hours of storm sewer installation. 12. 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 Time (Maximum time an area can Steeper than 3:1 7 days remain open when the area 10:1 to 3:1 14 days is not actively being worked.) Flatter than 10:1 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. 13. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. 14. The silt fence proposed for the north side of the property shall be moved to be consistent with the Bluff Creek Overlay District Grading Limit Line, as shown on Sheet 5 of 10. 15. Wimco-type inlet controls shall be used along curbs and installed within 24 hours of installation. 16. Typical building lot controls shall be shown on the plan. These controls shall include perimeter controls (silt fence), rock driveways, street sweeping, inlet control and temporary mulch after final grade and prior to issuing the certificates of occupancy. 17. The proposed storm water pond shall be used as a temporary sediment basin during mass grading. The pond shall be excavated prior to disturbing up gradient areas. Diversion berms or ditches shall be used to divert water to the pond and a temporary pond outlet should be installed. A detail shall be provided for the temporary pond outlet. Additional temporary sediment basins shall be constructed if necessary during construction. 18. The ultimate outlet from the site to Bluff Creek shall be adjusted to discharge water parallel to the creek flow. The outlet shall be turned to the southeast to align with the creek. 26 Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 19. Storm sewer plans shall be revised in two locations so storm sewer is not located beneath retaining walls. Plans for the storm sewer shall be submitted. 20. Drainage and utility easements (minimum 20 feet in width) shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigations areas, buffer areas used as Public Value Credit (PVC) and storm water ponds. An easement adequate to provide access to the pond for maintenance purposes is needed and shall be shown on the plan. 21. At this time the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plan recording, is $221,678.00. 22. 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), Army Corps of Engineers, Minnesota Department of Health, Minnesota Department of Transportation, and comply with their conditions of approval. Forestry Recommended Conditions of Approval. 1. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to construction around all areas designated for preservation. 2. Silt fence or tree protection fencing shall be installed at the edge of grading around both wetland mitigation areas. 3. A fenced access road will lead from the east mitigation area to the west mitigation area. This will be the only access allowed to the western site. Fencing shall be placed on either side of the access lane. 4. Additional landscaping will be required behind the units on Lot 7, Block 1 to increase privacy and minimize headlight glare. A minimum of 6 evergreens and 3 ornamentals shall be strategically located behind the units. 5. A walk through inspection of the silt/tree preservation fence shall be required prior to construction. Fire Marshal Recommended Conditions of Approval. 1. No burning permits will be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from the site or chipped. 2. 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. 27 Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 3. A fire apparatus access road shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to Minnesota Fire Code Section 503.2.3. 4. Fire apparatus access road and water supplies 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. Building Recommended Conditions of Approval. 1. Accessibility will have to be provided to all portions of the development and a percentage of the units may also be required to be accessible or adaptable in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. Further information is needed to determine these requirements. 2. The buildings are required to be protected with an automatic sprinkler system if they are over 8,500 square feet in floor area. For the purposes of this requirement property lines do not constitute separate buildings and the area of basements and garages is included in the floor area threshold. 3. The buildings will be required to be designed by an architect and engineer as determined by the Building Official. 4. The developer must submit a list of proposed street names and an addressing plan for review and approval prior to final plat of the property. 5. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures on the site. 6. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. 7. Walls and projections within three feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire resistive construction. 8. Retaining walls over four feet high require a permit and must be designed by a professional engineer. 9. Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services. 10. The developer and/or their agent shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Sacchet: You want to add something? 28 Planning Commission Meeting – August 2, 2005 Ed Hasek: A real quick question Mr. Chairman. You closed the public hearing. Is that going to re-open again when we bring it back? Sacchet: Yes. I will re-open again with, should we technically have left it open? Aanenson: That’s fine. Sacchet: Either way’s fine, right? Okay. Alright, thank you very much. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R LOCATED AT 6560 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, MINNEWASHTA CREEK HILLS, APPLICANT ROBERT RICK (FOR PROPERTY OWNERS TIM & MARY COLLERAN), PLANNING CASE NO. 05-25. Public Present: Name Address Steve Larson 3861 Leslee Curve Tim Colleran 6560 Minnewashta Parkway Kevin Mattson 8566 Drake Court Robert Rick 4700 Otter Lake Road, White Bear Lake Connie Villari 1257 Winslow, West St. Paul Mr. & Mrs. Gil Laurent 24760 Cedar Point Road Ruth Menten 6630 Minnewashta Parkway Mary Knutson Rogers 3851 Leslee Curve Julie Ann Terpstra 6581 Joshua Circle Marcia Ortner 3920 Linden Circle Michael J. Barnes 3840 Linden Circle Brian L. Windschitl 6591 Joshua Circle Jim Markham 6500 Kirkwood Circle Greg Greenwood 6501 Kirkwood Circle R.W. Hueffmeier 6551 Kirkwood Circle Anthony Farina 6590 Joshua Circle Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Sharmeen. Do we have questions for staff? Jerry. McDonald: I have a question. On the lot itself, where the private road is starting, right now there’s a retaining wall at that point that’s roughly 5 feet, 6 feet tall and you’ve got quite a variance there on the front. The whole thing is held back right now by a retaining wall. The road to come in there, is that going to go up on a grade or are we talking about leveling out all that area and bringing it down to street level? 29