Loading...
PC 2007 01 02 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 2, 2007 Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Kurt Papke, Kathleen Thomas, Debbie Larson, Dan Keefe, Kevin Dillon and Mark Undestad STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: OLD VILLAGE HALL: REQUEST FOR COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT FROM PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC TO COMMERCIAL; AND REZONING FROM OI, OFFICE AND INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT TO CBD, CENTRAL TH BUSINESS DISTRICT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 391 WEST 78 STREET, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS OUTLET B AND THE EASTERLY 66 FEET OF LOT 1, BLOCK 1, OLD VILLAGE HALL. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST IS TO MAKE THE ZONING AND LAND USE CONSISTENT WITH THE BALANCE OF THE PLAT FOR OLD VILLAGE HALL. APPLICANT, CITY OF CHANHASSEN, PLANNING CASE 07-01. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Mark, why don't we start down with you. Undestad: No questions. Dillon: Is there anything that's different? Nothing new is going to go into the spot if it's rezoned? Generous: Well there is a personal service use that will go into the property but there'll be no changes. The use of the site is limited by the parking agreement that we recorded with the plat. There are 4 parking stalls that are reserved for this use. This site, and that would permit, it could be a retail use. It could be office use but anything within the CBD, however it's very limited to building size. It's 500 square feet approximately. We don't see any change. The City's still going to maintain ownership of it and so we'll control who we lease this to. However it would permit the lease agreement to go forward that the City is negotiating right now. Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 Dillon: So what will this change in zoning do once, if it changes hands and the City doesn't own it anymore and some private party owns it? I take it, it will be tax value that the City could earn would go up a lot? Generous: Well yes, it would go onto the tax rolls but again the site is, it doesn't comply with the minimum standards so that's why it's an outlot. They can't change anything unless they come back and get a variance to the standards for a CBD lot. It doesn't meet the frontage requirements and it doesn't meet the area requirements. So it is very restrictive as to what the use, what someone could do on the property. Plus they have the limitation on the amount of parking. Dillon: And there's no other improvements or changes to infrastructure that are being contemplated? Generous: Nothing. Internally there'll be some modifications to the building but that's it. Dillon: That's all the questions I had. McDonald: Okay. Keefe: Does the City have a plan to convey the property though? Generous: No. Keefe: No. Okay. McDonald: Debbie. Larson: Don't have any. Thomas: No. McDonald: No? I have no questions or comments either. Is the, well I guess the City is the applicant, or is there someone else? Aanenson: No, we're the applicant. McDonald: Okay. Then in that case, what I would do is open it to the public. Anyone wishing to make comment on this, if you would please step to the podium and state your name and address. Okay, seeing no one come forward I will close the public meeting and bring it back up for the commission for comments. Kurt, we'll start with you. Papke: I have no concerns with this. It would seem to increase the City's flexibility with what they want to do with the property and that's kind of the bottom line. We know we still have control over what we do with it so I think it just increases the options the City has to work with. Thomas: I don't have any questions. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 McDonald: Okay. Debbie. Larson: Ditto. Keefe: No problem. Dillon: I'm fine with it. McDonald: Okay, I'm fine with it too. I guess Kurt said it quite eloquently for all of us. Does anyone wish to make a motion? Larson: I'll make a motion. Is it this one? Okay, the Planning Commission, the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the land use amendment from Public/Semi-Public to commercial Outlot B for the easterly 66 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Old Village Hall subject to Metropolitan Council review. And the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve rezoning from Office and Industrial District, OI, to Central Business District, CBD for Outlot B and the easterly 66 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Old Village Hall. McDonald: Thank you. Do I have a second? Thomas: Second. Larson moved, Thomas seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the land use amendment from Public/Semi-Public to commercial for Outlot B and the easterly 66 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Old Village Hall, subject to Metropolitan Council review. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Larson moved, Thomas seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the rezoning from Office and Institutional District, OI, to Central Business District, CBD for Outlot B and the easterly 66 feet of Lot 1, Block 1, Old Village Hall. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONING FROM RR, RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO RSF, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL; COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL-LARGE LOT TO RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY; SUBDIVISION OF 20 ACRES INTO 22 LOTS AND 3 OUTLOTS; VARIANCES AND VACATION OF EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 7537 AND 7570 DOGWOOD ROAD, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1, ST ZIMMERMAN FARM 1 ADDITION. APPLICANT, CARLSON CUSTOM HOMES, INC., PLANNING CASE 07-02. Public Present: 3 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 Name Address Peter Olin U of M Arboretum, 3675 Arboretum Drive Peter Moe 7161 Minnewashta Parkway, Excelsior Bruce Carlson 1440 Bavarian Shores Drive th Donald Peterson 15272 15 Place No, Plymouth Darlene & Dick Hanson 7750 Crimson Bay Road Janet M. Quist 7331 Dogwood Road Marjorie Getsch 7530 Dogwood Road John Getsch 5404 Glengarry Road, Edina Gretchen Starks 3301 Tanadoona Drive Dan Getsch 1069 Dorland Road, So, Maplewood Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Kurt, would you want to start us out? Papke: Sure. I've got a couple here. What's the proposed time table on the city utilities? You know in the staff report here it states without the city utilities the project is premature. What's our time table on that? Fauske: Commissioner Papke, right now staff is still meeting with the Westwood Church in the area and Camp Tanadoona to try to pin down the design specifics. To answer your question, we're looking at holding a public hearing and authorizing the preparation, pardon me, to accept the feasibility study and order the public hearing probably in February. If everything keeps going smoothly. Papke; So from a process perspective we're okay with that? This is not considered premature then? Fauske: We're on a parallel track. Papke: Okay. As part of putting in those utilities, I assume that the two existing properties that are currently large lot will be converted from septic to sewer. Fauske: That's correct. The city code requires that any existing lot that is currently served by septic system connect within one year. As far as their well, they could keep using their well until there is an issue, until they decided to connect to city water. Papke: Are those the only two that would convert or are there any more along that would. Fauske: There certainly would be some more along Dogwood Road that are not part of this plat. But we would be addressing those separately. Papke: What do you mean by addressing them separately? How would that. 4 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 Fauske: Well they would still be required to connect to the sanitary sewer within the year, consistent with the two lots on this, within this development. Papke: Okay. The plans are a little unclear as to, will Dogwood connect with Crimson Bay Road to the south or what's the intention with that? You didn't discuss that particular connection. Generous: That's ultimately what the city would like to have done is connect it. At a minimum we would get this right-of-way and they would extend the road to their property line, as well as the sewer and water services which could be further extended. We need additional right-of-way south of this property. There's only 25 feet now so we'd have to pick up at least another 25 feet of right-of-way and get the Crimson Bay people involved. But this would facilitate that. Papke: Facilitate it but it doesn't get us there. Generous: Not all the way. Papke: Okay. The trees to be added for the difference in canopy coverage, there's a condition that says, condition 5(b) says there'll be a 2 to 1 diameter inch compensation as opposed to the 1.2 multiplier used on page 10 of the staff report. Is that all consistent? Generous: The original calculations only counted the difference but because they removed trees that could have been used to meet the target, they got penalized 1.2 times so that's why their initial number is different. And then once they say they're going to preserve a tree, if they later take it out, then that's when we tell them to do a 2 to 1 caliper inch replacement. Papke: Okay. Okay. Let's see I had one other question on the conditions that I can't find it now at the moment. With the Arboretum to the south there, perhaps this is best left until the representatives from the Arboretum can speak to this but, if I recall it's apple trees and so on to the south of there. Any issues with pesticide drift during spraying? Aanenson: That's one of their concerns. Papke: That is one of their concerns? Okay. That would be one of my concerns as well. Okay, that's all. Thanks. McDonald: Okay. Kathleen. Thomas: I'm going to, I have actually some questions for the Arboretum so I will wait. Larson: I had some questions kind of regarding the impact on the lake. Adding another development here, is runoff or anything going to be an issue? I know that when we were looking at some other changes to, just further up the road to that launch, there was some environmental issues on this end of the lake so is this near to where that spot was or, do you know what I'm talking about? 5 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 Generous: I remember when they were doing the launch and that but, when Lori reviewed this, our Water Resources Coordinator, that didn't come up as an issue. They are doing all the pre- treatment in their storm water ponds so we have that requirement is met and then it will discharge onto one of the lots, future lots west of Dogwood. And then sheet drain eventually into the lake and through the wetland but we will have the pretreatment. Larson: Okay. And then the other question I had is, the extension of whatever the road is called going through Westwood and then through there. Is that going to be the main road to this development most used? Generous: Yes. That will be because it will be to the 31 foot city design. The Dogwood upgrade I believe is 26 feet or 28. Fauske: The final width of Dogwood Road has not been determined. We're looking at two alternatives for that design. Larson: Is there any traffic issues with the church services and all that that goes on? I know that it gets pretty congested. Generous: This wouldn't create significant traffic for their peak hour. Larson: Well no but what I, okay. I just want to make sure there's no safety issues for the new people coming in because of all the traffic. th Generous: We believe that it would, ultimately that West 78 and 41 will be signalized. Larson: Okay. That's all I have. Keefe: A quick follow up on one of the questions Kurt brought up which is, when the utilities go in there, are we also going to be improving Dogwood Road at the same time? Do they go together or are they separate? Fauske: It's one project which includes sanitary sewer, watermain, storm sewer and street. Keefe: Okay. Fauske: And there will also be a lift station upgrade and forcemain also with the project. Keefe: Okay, so it's one project and not a separate decision? Fauske: No. That's correct. One project. Keefe: Thanks. th Dillon: Right now is 78 Street west of 41, is that a private street now just for the church? 6 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 Generous: No, it's a public street. Dillon: So then, how about Tanadoona Road? Will that have access to Dogwood or is that going to go, I mean because it does now. Generous: Yes, they would maintain that. And actually I believe there's some improvements proposed as part of the overall project. Dillon: Right, because that's, that's not a very wide road. Generous: No. Dillon: Okay. And then also, so one of the conditions in here is that the people that have the septic systems have to quit using them, right? But if those are closed off, are there ever latent problems or anything like that if they're not used and they're not maintained and they're just kind of like sitting there? Generous: As a part of abandonment of those septic, they do have to pump them and fill them and there's Minnesota Health Code requirements for all that so they have to comply with that and they'll get a permit for all that. Dillon: Okay. That's all I have. McDonald: Mark. Undestad: Just for analysis. You made a point about the church and. Aanenson: The camp? Undestad: To the north of, as far as utilities going in or out there. Are there some issues yet on whether or not that's? Fauske: We've been, mostly it's the discussion with Westwood Church, as far as their long range plans adjacent to Dogwood Road and looking at, you know the accessible areas through there, so we're in discussion with them. With Camp Tanadoona we're looking at the discussion is more if we can get a storm water pond easement. McDonald: Okay. The only question I've got is, I believe it's Block 3 but Lots 1, 2, and 3. The ones that are right now on the lake. As I understand this, and those would have to come back before us for any future development. Generous: No, they'd go to City Council. They're not, the intention to plat them all as one lot is part of the first phase of development. But if they want to separate them into the 3 lots as shown on the preliminary plat, they would have to final plat them and extend the road and utilities to the south property line there. To Crimson Bay if you will. 7 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 McDonald: Okay. Would that have to come back through the Planning Commission or, if we approve this, at that point it's just a final? Generous: Yeah, it would go to City Council for final plat approval. McDonald: Okay. That was the only clarification I really needed. Is the applicant here tonight? If you would like to address the commission. Donald Peterson: My name is Donald Peterson and I'll be the project manager for Carlson Custom Homes who is the developer of the new single family lot portion, and we're working with the Brandt's who own Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 3. They're going to retain ownership of those 3 lots. And then they will choose to come back at a future time to do the final plat on those 3 lots when they're ready to go. We have reviewed the staff report. We've been working with the staff for almost a year on this project. The engineering staff primarily trying to coordinate our development with the upgrading of Dogwood. Dogwood, as we had several meetings with the homeowners there and there are some of the people that you know want sewer because of the septic system situation. This will enable that to happen, and we will be participating in the assessment for the Dogwood Road portion, which will reduce the cost to the homeowners there. So we think they're a benefit for the existing homeowners. We originally, I came to you with 3 more lots but in reviewing the plat we decided to reduce the number of lots to make them larger because this is very desirable locations, sitting high on the hill with good views in all directions and so we made our lots larger. So we reduced the lots to 22, including the 3 that Brandt's would maintain would come in later on. The staff, they made some recommendations in the staff report which we received on Friday. We don't see any problem with complying with the recommendations that the staff, that they made. I have a drawing on the table here which shows how we would comply with those staff recommendations if you choose, if you want to see that. If not we will work with the staff to make the changes before the final plat is brought before the City Council. In fact we can probably have that done before this plat goes to the, or the preliminary plat goes to the City Council. So if you would like to see what we proposed to comply with those things I'd be happy to show it to you. Other than that we, I'd just be open for any questions you might have. McDonald: If you could show us then. Donald Peterson: There was one concern, there's a wetland right in this area and in dark green we're showing the actual wetland. And the buffer has to be determined yet but we show the 25 foot buffer around here which we anticipate being the right amount. We had on a previous platting when we had a long, narrow house in this area. It was quite deep but narrower. Because of the wetlands and the buffer required from the wetland, earlier drawings showed that it impacted the buffer area for the wetland. We're going to make a change in the lot area of that lot so we can use a wider…deep house in this area. We're moving the lot line over 20 feet to the south here and then we'll move this lot line 20 feet and move this lot line 20 feet. All of these are very large lots. This lot is over an acre so moving it over 20 feet's not really going to hurt anything. That way we'll angle the lot line here a little bit more. That will enable us to build a very you know sizeable…without impacting the wetland buffer. There was another recommendation in the staff report that said Lot 5 would need a walkout rather than a full lot. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 We talked that even before the staff report and that will be changed to a walkout. Another recommendation that the staff made was to increase the tree conservation area. We proposed, because this is a very natural, deep old woods, the original layouts for this area showed a creek running right through over to Dogwood. In order to accomplish that we would have to tear down the whole woods. There wouldn't be anything left so we modified our plans to bring the street over into this area. We have grading issues over here. We have another retaining wall to do that, but by doing that we can save all of this woods and we're going to use, we propose to put in a conservation, tree conservation easement in there. The City has now asked us to increase the size of this tree conservation area on Lots 7, 8 and 9 I believe. 5, 7, 8 and 9. No, 5, 8 and 9. And what we showed here is increasing this 40 feet along here. What we have in light green, and in 30 feet in this area, but we'll work with the staff on that to find out exactly what they want. We think that'd make a nice increase in the conservation area. It won't impact the lots really. Another change was, I believe that was Lot 12. The back yard. The grade was flatter than recommended so staff recommended, we increased the back yard grade in that. We're going to do that by taking the cul-de-sac up. We're going to have some excess dirt anyway. We're going to raise the cul-de-sac from 5, I think it was 5.2 center down to 6%. That will raise this all about a foot and that will give us the right kind of back yard for this lot. At that same time that will benefit the property but we'll be able to make this flat lot into a lookout, which is a very, a benefit. And this lot will become a front walkout. We'll raise that up and that will allow us then to get a better grade in these back yards. So that's all the changes that we have anticipated. Our original landscape plan just showed the bare minimum landscaping because we plan to do quite a bit of landscaping in this house out here. In the outlot, in the center of the cul-de-sac. Those plans are not done yet. The city staff came back and said to increase our tree count from 60 to 72 and we agree with that. And in fact we'll be planting more than that so that's all the changes that we anticipate and we'll work with the staff to, if there's anything else that they need but that is what we propose to do at this point in time. So I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. McDonald: Mark, why don't you start. Undestad: No. No questions at this time. McDonald: Kevin. Dillon: What is going to be the price range for the lot and home? Donald Peterson: These are going to be fairly expensive homes. Our assessment on this project is horrendous. I mean improvements of Dogwood Road. Normally we would anticipate somewhere in the $20,000 range for sewer and water trunk assessment and maybe another $15,000 for, or another $5,000 for water, storm sewer. Our assessments are going to be well over $50,000 a lot here for doing Dogwood. On top of that we'll be having to do all of our own grading so our lot costs are going to be well over $200,000 a lot. I can't tell you right now what our sale prices will be but our costs are going to be well over $200,000 a lot so they're going to be expensive lots. That's one of the reasons we dropped 3 lots to make the lots larger than the lots in the surrounding areas so we have very good views. Roomy lots. Natural trees and some amenities that we think that a lot of other projects don't have. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 Dillon: So that's for the lots. So then what would the homes be? Donald Peterson: They'll be over a million dollars. McDonald: Debbie. Larson: Nothing. McDonald: Kathleen. Thomas: No, thank you. McDonald: Kurt. No? The only question I guess I have for you. You state that you've seen staff's new recommendations for the project and if I'm hearing you, you don't have any problems with these the way they're stated and most of what you've shown us I think addresses the issue that the city has recently brought up, is that correct? Donald Peterson: That's correct, yeah. What the staff, we received the staff report on Friday and reviewed it over the weekend and we don't see anything there we can't work out there so we're going to try to have that worked out by the time we go to City Council and to go through here nd tonight, we're on the City Council on the 22 of January. We will have something back to the staff before that time. And I don't anticipate any problems with that but who knows. McDonald: Okay. Well I have no further questions. I guess unless there's something else you want to add, I'll open it up for public comment. Donald Peterson: I have no other questions other than there's a representative of the Arboretum here and if he has any, that person has any questions I'd be happy to answer those. McDonald: Okay, we'll see what he has to say and we'll take it from there. At this point then I would open this up for public comment and again, I would ask you to come up to the podium. State your name and address and address your comments of the commissioners. Everybody's waiting for the Arboretum so why don't you go ahead and go first. Peter Olin: Thank you. My name is, excuse me. I'm getting over a cold. Peter Olin…I've also brought with me Peter Moe…because if there's perhaps some technical questions here. We have some concern for the development and it started back with our concerns with putting the roadway in along our property line. Mainly that had to do with excess runoff, salt and so on running down into our research area, and as, even though there's retention ponds for the church, they overflow. It does flood the lower section of that, what was very good land for our Azalea research, so it's becoming unuseful at this point. And we don't know what the runoff situation will be with the additional roads but that goes out behind our apple research and is the best piece of land we have for the apple research. Our concerns with the lots backing up to the boundary, our boundary has to do with several things. One is, this is a farming operation and we use sprays. Nothing unusual. Nothing experimental. We use whatever the orchards use to control diseases 10 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 and pests. We do those, when we do spray, we spray on quiet mornings. Sometimes before everyone, the light is out and everyone is up to cut down on any kind of drift because it does happen. We also have an electric fence along the edge which we use to keep the deer out. So there's two problems that we see when we start getting families right up next to it, or when the spray, and we've seen this across the country where people come in and they say oh yes, we know it's a farm and then they say, well you're spraying with these chemicals and ruining our lives and killing our kids and it ends up we have to abandon the whole area. And the other of course is the electric fence. If you grew up in the country you know electric fences give you a little shock, but when you move into a subdivision and your kids go out and get a shock, they call the police and we've done, having to take that out. So those are the main concerns we have and again, the runoff. We're not quite sure. On this scan I think it's Outlot C. Is that the one that's going to have a retention pond here? Off here. And maybe that will take care of that but it's, and runoff also then as well as salt, which is not good for our… So those are the main concerns. I talked with Mr. Generous this afternoon and he suggested some of that be mitigated and perhaps…fencing and so on but we wanted to express that concern. So I guess that's my. Keefe: I have a quick question for you. Is there an alternative use for the land? You know should it not be tillable for apple orchard or. Peter Olin: Well you know again, that's part of our mission is part of the University of Minnesota Horticulture Department is the apple research. We've been doing that since 1908 so that's a long term project and those trees go in, they can be in there for up to 20 to 25 years before they decide whether that's a good apple or not, so some of that is in there right now. It's slated to be here for… Really we don't need a lot of extra land, you know a lot of land so there's no particular use for that. McDonald: Can I ask you a question about the deer fence, because that seems to be an issue. Is there an alternative there for keeping the deer out besides an electrified fence? Peter Olin: Taller fence, yes. We've got, I think it's an 8 foot fence around…with barbed wire on top. Yes, that's possible. McDonald: Okay. So it would appear that the issue really comes down to the sprays and the salt become the biggest concerns that you're not sure can be mitigated. Peter Olin: I don't know if they can. I'll let Peter… We do minimal spraying. We follow…test management so we do as little as. Peter Moe: My name is Peter Moe. I live on 7161 Minnewashta Parkway but also the Director of Operations at the Arboretum. In regards to the deer fence, that fence was built in the mid 1980's and that was the standard DNR design. It's high tencel steel. High voltage, electric fence. It's not, you won't injure a healthy person but if someone has a heart condition, it could be a problem. The DNR now is recommending a high tencel steel woven wire fence that Peter mentioned. It's 8 feet high and that could even be extended with additional wire on top. We'd like to do that but it's a significant capital expense. It's not in our budget right now so. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 McDonald: Does anyone have any particular questions about any of this or? Aanenson: I'm not sure if we can really answer all their questions today regarding mitigation strategies. Also there's probably some legal issues here so I would suggest that the staff make sure we understand exactly what the issues are with the Arboretum. Work through the attorney's office and then back to the developer to see what we can do to mitigate. Obviously there's disclosure issues. If you look at the plat, there appears to be 2 lots that directly abut the Arboretum. The forested area. There's other lots that abut the part of Crimson Bay subdivision. Then Outlot C, so 2 lots that would directly abut that. Certainly the city ordinance prohibits electrical fences too. Obviously we don't have jurisdiction over the University of Minnesota, for whether they do that or not but there's some other legal issues that we'd want to look at too so, I think what we'd like to do is if for a condition, that you would direct staff to, if before this goes to City Council, have some clear direction of mitigation. Working with the parties involved to see what's a reasonable compromise and disclosure so we would be concerned too, people concerned about spraying so. McDonald: Because you've got a couple things running in parallel with all of this, is this something that we should maybe table and come back until you've got a suggestion going forward and we'll work with the developer or can this go forward and you think be resolved by the time it gets to City Council? Aanenson: Mr. Chair, whatever you're comfortable with on that. I think there's a clear understanding that if we can do some fencing, we'd be willing to work that. Obviously they have an issue, who's going to pay for that fence. There may not be an agreement of how, the length of the fence. There's a lot of things that I think you know, someone's going to have to mediate, whether it's the Planning Commission or the, making a recommendation but ultimately it would be the City Council. Keefe: I've got a question for you on the pesticides that you spray there. How far away is the spraying from the existing homes over on Crimson Bay? I mean are we substantially closer? Or is there any sort of buffer, because those homes have been there you know for some time. Peter Moe: I know there are some Crimson Bay residents here today to address that thought, and I think they're about the same. I'm not sure exactly where the…on these new lots. Those are big lots too on Crimson Bay so it'd be somewhat similar. We never want spray to drift. It's actually against state law to allow pesticide drift so we do all kinds of different things using anti-foaming agents and adjusting the pressure and adjusting the sprayer nozzles, depending on the size of the trees and things but sometimes, as Peter mentioned, you're out there at 6:00 in the morning when you start. You get to the top of the hill, well it's the highest spot in the whole research center and a gust of wind comes up and it can carry a small amount of chemical. Also some of the chemicals have a carrier that has an odor. It's not actually the pesticide itself but it's a carrier as a part of the chemical formulation and that you know can be very disturbing to people when you smell that and it's not necessarily the toxic but it would definitely raise concerns with people. Keefe: Does the Arboretum experience any issues with some of the neighbors associated with chemical spraying in that area or? 12 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 Peter Moe: We haven't in that area. It's only 4 or 5 homes there now. As I said, we do everything we can to avoid that. We have had some problems though on the Farm 1 as we call it, on Rolling Acres Road. The main part of the research area in Victoria. We also use some of the, Peter did mention it and I had forgot until recently. We do some, deer are, we love, or excuse me. Well deer are a big problem but also birds. We love birds at the Arboretum except during apple season because they sit on top of our Honeycrisp and Zestar trees. In fact…occasionally we'll use things like recording machines with loud speakers that broadcast hawk calls and rabbit distress calls and all kinds of things that, they're supposed to scare blackbirds away. They're somewhat effective but it also can disturb neighbors. Keefe: All in the name of research. McDonald: I guess Kate, getting back to the whole thing. If we vote on this and it goes forward and it sounds as though there's a number of unresolved issues that could impact the project, what happens? At that point the developer has the option to just pull it or to say that. Aanenson: That's correct. Right, it's too onerous. It may be, and again the issues are a little bit more complex because of jurisdiction over the University of Minnesota as, we really don't have jurisdiction so, but there's also some safety, legal issues so we need to get a clear understanding of that. And then if, we recommend some mitigation. Whether that's acceptable to both parties. And clearly it seems right now that fencing is the greatest one, and then just assuring of disclosure of that there's use of chemicals on the property and that's typical in subdivisions that we put disclosure statements on the surrounding uses so that I think we can address pretty straight forward. Peter Olin: The fence, again should cover those outlots because I understand those will be… Aanenson: Correct. Yeah, I understand the issue. That people just go around the area that's fenced, and the deer would also so. McDonald: I guess at that point I turn it back to the commissioners because one of the problems I guess I have with going forward is, we're going forward with something that deals with evidently some public safety issues that we don't have anything coming forward for us to recommend and we're going to recommend this go forward and then it can be worked by city staff before it gets to City Council, which is okay and I'm just wondering do the commissioners feel alright with doing that based upon we're going to have to do something with a trust me approach to this. Keefe: Well I think you put in you know, the issue, particularly the safety issue gets resolved you know and approved at City Council. Satisfactory to all parties. McDonald: Okay. Everybody okay then, let's go ahead and proceed then. Is that all you have to tell us about? That you need to say. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 Peter Olin: We understand the connection to Crimson Bay is not going to come up at this point but we would be concerned about that connection as well. Mainly because when the church gets out, people who live to the west, they're not going to go through 2 stop lights. They're going to go down that road and come right out across from the Arboretum and that could be a pretty messy situation right now. We have the turn lane in there. They don't want to put a stop light in, which of course is what we've asked for. That can also create quite a traffic mess at that point so if, even though that's not happening now, that we'd be concerned. McDonald: Okay. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to come forward then and address? Dillon: What are we going to do now? I mean what. McDonald: We're going to go ahead and go forward on this, and this whole issue between the Arboretum, yeah. Aanenson: Well until you vote. McDonald: Yeah, I mean we're going to vote on it. We may vote it down. I'm just saying that whatever we do, it goes forward from here to City Council with part of a hole in it as far as this interface to the Arboretum and what's going to happen is that staff is going to have to talk to the Arboretum. Gain some control over what the issues are and then they're going to have to go back and approach City Council for a final decision. Plus at that point they're also going to talk to the developer because if they come up with things that may impact him, he may decide to pull this, and that would be his option at that point. Or we could table it. Dillon: And have some discussion between the various parties and then come back to us. McDonald: And then come back to us. Dillon: So what's wrong with doing that? McDonald: There's nothing wrong with doing that. That's why, what I'm asking. How comfortable everybody feels going forward saying okay, what staff, Arboretum and the developer will do is work out the unknown, which is basically the interface to the Arboretum. That they will approach City Council with that and they will make the final decision based upon what they come up with. Dillon: Well I don't feel as though I'm going to have enough information tonight to make a vote one way or another. And I would like to see, personally, would like to see a little more definition as to you know what might be solutions here. And then, at least til now, I'll have a better feel that I could you know defend my vote one way or another if we're asked to do so. McDonald: Okay. That's why I'm asking is how comfortable you guys feel about that. In a second, I'll get to you. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 Undestad: Has anybody had discussions? I mean the developer and the Arboretum, did they have any discussions on any of this stuff yet? Aanenson: Not to my knowledge. This is the first we've heard of it. McDonald: I think this is a relatively new issue, isn't it? Aanenson: Correct. McDonald: Any other comments? How do the rest of the commissioners feel about this? Thomas: Well I kind of agree. That I don't know that I have enough information and I want to see it resolved with the Arboretum, especially with the fence because I do understand the fencing. It is electric and I mean, …concerns me but I understand the cost benefit. I mean if they're going to have to put a fence in, I just…something. McDonald: Okay. …before I call for a vote on this. Donald Peterson: I would just like to mention, we really haven't been aware of any real issues with the Arboretum until now. One thing I want to point out, we love having the Arboretum as a neighbor. We're sitting high on the hill looking down on an apple orchard and as far as our homeowners, I think it's going to be a very attractive thing for them. We've looked at this, we're locating an outlot right along our south property line as you enter into the project and we considered on the landscaping that would be done on this outlot, and we've already talked about the idea of possibly providing a wrought iron fence or something along the south property line in there just to keep them away from that electric fence. We could do that. We haven't talked about fencing the back yards on all except two of the yards, there's a big storm water pond so there's really not much danger of the kids walking over and touching the fence because it's across a big pond. Two of the lots would. As far as the spring goes, we're aware of the spring being down near, Bruce has owned this property for 8 years. He has no problems with it. We're sitting 30 or 40 feet above the Arboretum where the apple trees are so, for the spray to go uphill into our area, we don't think is much of an issue. So I don't know how this gets resolved. However we do have the one issue that we're working with the city on. We have about 20 homeowners involved in the Dogwood Road project and that has to proceed to be able to go to bids to get that done this year so we would like to have this move through as fast as possible because we're trying to keep the two projects running together. If Dogwood Road doesn't go, we don't go. And so there are a lot of issues that the City Council has to resolve or which might be this Arboretum thing but there's a lot of issues that the council has to address. And we have to address. We have to react to the council and that's a negotiating thing between the council and us as far as what these charges are going to be to us. We don't have any problem with any of the physical improvements that are going to be done. Just a matter of how is it going to be paid for. So I guess we would request that you consider moving it through and work on the, we'll be able to work these issues out with the, before the council takes action. McDonald: I guess, if I could interrupt. I understand, it looks as though we've got enough time because you tell me it's February. We meet again in 2 weeks and that would be enough time to 15 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 take care of everything so that you stay on track with Dogwood. One of our charters of this is to pass forward recommendations to the City Council and to do a lot of this type of work for the City Council. And that's where I feel a little uncomfortable is yeah, we're just passing the buck. It may not be a big deal but I have to tell you, you're making the case for me that we ought to look at this a little bit longer and give this thing. I'm going to ask everybody to vote. It's not just my choice but I feel that yes, we are somewhat passing the buck. This is kind of a late issue but it does have some importance and some impact upon the community and I think maybe it does need to be looked at a little bit more and kind of looked at because of the impact it has, both on the Arboretum, on you and on the community and on future homeowners. They probably will get upset with electrified fences and something needs to be looked at. I mean you brought up some issues about putting in some additional fencing to keep them out. I think that's a good idea but that needs to be looked at. Arboretum's got to say yeah, that will do it. I think staff needs to look and also look at these issues and then come back to us and say, this is what the plan is, and now I think we can vote and make a good recommendation to the council. But again that's just my feeling. What I would do is I would accept a motion from the commissioners, if someone wishes to table this? Papke: Mr. Chair. Dick Hanson: Can we have some more public statements? Aanenson: Yeah, I was going to say we didn't hold the public hearing yet. Papke: Before you move to the public, I have one question for city staff. Just a point of clarification of the last issue being debated here. If we, if this gets tabled or if whatever reason this, you know the developer does not get approval for this, because the developer is making a large financial contribution to this, to the water and sewer being brought through, would that on necessity delay that public works project? What are the consequences from a funding perspective and the progress of that engineering project? Fauske: Very good question. We would have to go back to the neighborhood and re-calculate what their assessment would be and find out their comfort level. If that would be an assessment. In the past they've been through this process 2 or 3 times before and the costs to do it, just with the neighborhood, mind you it was quite an aggressive plan, were cost prohibitive for the residents. nd Keefe: One more final question. This is scheduled for City Council on the 22, it says in our packet. Would this come back prior to that? Two weeks from. th Aanenson: Yes. It could come back on the 16. th Keefe: So it could come back on the 16 so it could still make the same City Council date that it's currently scheduled for. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 Aanenson: Typically we like to break inbetween. Right now, as of today, the project was nd scheduled for the 22. The call for the hearing. There might be some, as Alyson indicated, they're working through some of those changes that are being requested, so it may move back. Keefe: But not necessarily because of this issue. It could be because of. Aanenson: The sewer and water design issue, but I think we'd still be on track. And if you're more comfortable tabling it to try to get those resolved, we can, that's fine. We have time I think. We won't throw the project off. Undestad: You still can get it on City Council? Aanenson: It depends on the length of the discussion. I'm not sure we're all going to agree. We're going to give you some recommendations but all parties might not agree and we haven't heard all the issues yet. McDonald: And that's fine. I think that's the problem. We don't know what the issues are. So again, I would accept a motion from the commissioners to table this to allow city staff, the developer and the Arboretum to talk. Papke: Mr. Chair, I'd recommend we continue with the public hearing just because I'd hate to come back and then get the rest of the public input the next time around only to find out we've got another issue that we've got to go back around again on. McDonald: Okay. We'll put it off. Okay, at this point it is anyone from the public wishing to come forward and address this issue, please do so. Come up to the podium. State your name and address and address the commission. Darlene Hanson: I'm Darlene Hanson on Crimson Bay Road. Some things have been brought up this evening that I'd like to clarify. Someone talked about drying up the septic systems that we have on Crimson Bay. Is that, at who's expense does this happen? Fauske: We currently do not have any plans to extend the sewer and water down to Crimson Bay Road. What we are looking at doing is having the opportunity, by getting the right-of-way to the southern property line, then we have that corridor saved to get the sewer and water down through there. If the sewer and water project does go through at a later date, then it would be the homeowner's through a, would pay for it through assessments. Darlene Hanson: I see. And at that time is city water an option, since we already have our own well? Fauske: What we would do is, if there was an interest from the Crimson Bay residents to get sewer and water through the project, we would start to have a neighborhood meeting informally to see what comfort level. If we do sewer, we'd do water because to go ahead and dig up a street to just put in sewer is not cost effective. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 Darlene Hanson: Right, okay. So again, just to be clear on this. There are no plans at this point in time, nothing definite anyway with regard to connecting Dogwood and Crimson Bay. Fauske: For street or utilities, we do not have any plans in place, no. Darlene Hanson: Okay. Aanenson: Can I just clarify that, just to be clear. The goal with this plat that's going forward tonight is provide the opportunity in the future, because we see as a planning objective that over time it's going to be more and more difficult to get out of Crimson Bay. Right now MnDot's looking at an upgrade of Highway 5, studying that corridor, and we believe it's in the interest of the city to make sure that access, continued safe access can be provided 5 years, 10 years, 15 years down the road for Crimson Bay. And so what we're doing now is giving an opportunity for another option to provide access or sewer and water for those 4 or 5 homes. So that's all we're doing right now is giving you an option, and when that happens it will be a discussion with the neighborhood of how that comes about. Darlene Hanson: Okay. And then in closing, I live in, we've live on Crimson Bay for about 8 years with the electric fence is right next to us. Just a stone's throw away and the apple trees and so forth. So these are things that the Arboretum, it just isn't a problem. Thank you. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Next. Dick Hanson: I'm Dick Hanson. I'm the better half of the lady who just spoke up here. We've been up in Crimson Bay Road now for 5 or 6 years. She said 8 years. Maybe it seems that long, but since we've been there of course the talk is it come through. Now if you've been on Crimson Bay Road, that road is wide enough to land a 747 and we expect that the addition, if you ever go into Dogwood, would be as wide as, and as spacious as our road. I mean that was a requirement… The other thing is the sewer and water conditions. I spent over $15,000 on that septic system and if it's a year away, somebody's going to pay for it. We'll go through all kinds of legal ramifications here. If it's 15-20 years from now, then I won't be up here talking to you. But if it's only a year or two away, then we've got some serious legal problems. The other thing is of course Highway 5 access. We have been told by MnDot, until it kills more people down there, that we'll never get stop lights. So just in concurrence, if they let that come all the way around the church traffic, we're going to have some real problems unless we've got an agreement with MnDot. McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to come forward and make comment? Okay seeing no one else come forward, close the public meeting. Bring it back to the council and again I'll ask the question, do you want to go forward or do we want to put together a motion and table this and then discuss it again in 2 weeks? Papke: I recommend we table at this point. I think there's just, the problems with proceeding at this point with so many unanswered questions I think are too high and the consequences of not tabling are also too high. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 McDonald: Okay, I'm going to take that as a motion. Do I have a second? Dillon: Second. Papke moved, Dillon seconded that the Planning Commission table Planning Case 07-02 for The Arbors. All voted in favor, except Keefe, Undestad and Larson who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 3. Aanenson: Mr. Chair, just for those in the audience. This will be on in 2 weeks from tonight. We don't re-notice on a table so if you want to check with the City but it's intended right now to be on 2 weeks from tonight and they'd be the first item on the agenda. McDonald: I stand corrected. It was 4 to 3. And what will happen, if I understand this correctly is when it comes back, we will again open it up public comment on those issues that we bring forward at that time. Aanenson: That's up to you Mr. Chair, if you want to re-open the public hearing. McDonald: Okay, thank you. That's all I wanted to clarify. Okay, then at this point where this is at is that city staff, the developer and the Arboretum I think need to talk and flush out the issues with the two properties and any possible solutions and then come back to us with that. PUBLIC HEARING: FOX HILL: REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY INTO THREE (3) SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6570 CHANHASSEN ROAD AND ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY. APPLICANT, 10 SPRING HOMES, INC., PLANNING CASE 07-03. Public Present: Name Address Jeff & Ronda Seiler 6511 Gray Fox Curve Richard Herr 120 Fox Hollow Drive Debralynn Geary 19180 Duck Lake Trail, Eden Prairie Steve Brachman 19180 Duck Lake Trail, Eden Prairie Steven Petrie 6503 Gray Fox Curve Mary & Charles R. Klingelhutz 7146 Utica Lane Sheryl Deppa 4920 Sparrow Road, Minnetonka Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Fauske: Good evening Chairman McDonald and commissioners. We'll be real brief here. Couple questions, couple concerns that came up after the public notice was issued for this project. First was with respect to state aid, county state aid Highway 101. The question came up about securing right-of-way, additional right-of-way along 101. Currently plans show that, and I 19 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 apologize because this one's hard to see but it's 40 feet that this developer would be dedicating. The center line of Highway 101 being shown at approximately this location. We consulted with the city attorney regarding this issue and the city does not have the authority to require additional right-of-way. This is MnDot's jurisdiction. We did receive comments from MnDot. They do not have official mapping done within this corridor, therefore they have not requested additional right-of-way for this roadway. So that was the first issue that came up that we wanted to bring to the commission's attention. The second one, just real quick is, as we all know runoff becomes an issue more and more with development. What you see here is…that currently exists over here, a garage and accessory structure here. What this yellow line indicates is approximately the high point of the property. So from here to the north it drains, it sheet drains towards Fox Hollow Drive and from here south it drains to the south, essentially sheet draining all across through here, through these 3 homes, the back yard here. Under the proposed scenario, we keep a fairly similar runoff pattern. Again this yellow line indicating where the drainage area is. This part north. Again going to Fox Hollow Drive. We've ensured that the developer is keeping the post development discharge rate to this pond consistent so that we're not flooding that pond. What we looked at with this, this proposal here is in the southeast corner to provide some rate control. So that basically the area encompassed by the yellow line here will flow over land to this area here. We've been working with MnDot because MnDot right-of-way drainage permit is required for this project. The developer's engineer has been in discussion with them and they have verbally agreed to a design that shows a piped outlet. That will go to the southeast and discharge to the 101 right-of-way. Again keeping with, so that flows to the discharge rate…existing discharge rates. There's been some concerns of some properties to the south here with runoff. Under this scenario we're basically taking this whole area, which a majority of it currently drains to the south. Putting it in the southeastern area and discharging to MnDot right-of-way. So with that I would be happy to answer any questions regarding any of the rest of it…that came up. Keefe: What is the plans for 101? When is it scheduled to be widened? Fauske: MnDot currently does not have any plans. Keefe: No plans for it, okay. Undestad: The 40 foot that they're dedicating now provides an 80 foot total so that's. Fauske: Correct. Well since there's no plans to upgrade the road, we don't know what the right- of-way, ultimate right-of-way requirement will be. That's why we can't jurisdictionally require additional right-of-way. Keefe: When the water sheet drains, runs off into the right-of-way essentially, where does it go from there? Is there a storm sewer in line? Fauske: It's flows to the…wetland complex to the south and that would ultimately discharge. Keefe: So is there a channel to get there? It doesn't flow over the adjacent properties or? 20 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 Fauske: It depends. 101 is fairly inconsistent. Some points there is a definite ditch. Other times it does flatten out a little bit. Keefe: Okay. Fauske: Certainly with any upgrade, they would be looking at improving that but again without having a plan to upgrade 101. Larson: Wasn't there plans to upgrade it at one point? Fauske: There were discussions to upgrade 101. The City took a look at it. The city had a traffic consultant take a look at it from a very broad standpoint, looking at traffic volumes and what type of roadway would be required to handle those roadway volumes and it never proceeded from that point. Larson: But that's going to change though with all the, everybody else heading south… going south, being you know, just based on what I'm seeing you know 3 miles north of there on 101. Aanenson: Let me just add to that. There was a turn back proposal…two counties, Carver, Hennepin. Two cities. Eden Prairie, Chanhassen. There was no concurrence so that turn back did not occur. Since that time the city went forward and placed the trail… Larson: Did Eden Prairie deal with it? Aanenson: No. McDonald: Okay. I guess there's no further questions from us. Sharmeen, if you want to finish up. Al-Jaff: I left this with, staff is recommending the approval of this subdivision with a variance to allow a private street to serve these 3 homes and I'll be happy to answer any questions. McDonald: Okay, any questions concerning the design at this point. Papke: Sharmeen, could you briefly summarize for us what the down sides are of having a private street in general? What liabilities. What, you know, why would we not want to do this? Obviously you're recommending that we do it but there's always trade-off's involved and what are we giving up in order to achieve this? Al-Jaff: The way we look at it is, what are we gaining if we allow the private street versus a public street? We're going to minimize drainage. The amount of hard surface coverage. We are minimizing the number of trees that we remove there. There are a number of trees on this site. Those will remain. If you have a street that's not going to go anywhere, then that's not, it does not need to be extended in the future to serve other property, then you can opt to go with a private street. And in this case this street would go nowhere. It would just be a large bubble. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 Papke: But in terms of maintenance or having. Al-Jaff: It would be the responsibility of the homeowners. Papke: Because you know every time a proposal comes up for a private street, there's normally always some issues saying you know, sometimes we decide to do it. Sometimes we don't. But it's not a slam dunk. There's always, you always give up something. So one of them is maintenance. In this case we're entrusting that the property owners maintain the street, so that's, so there's some risk there. Perhaps small that they won't keep it up well enough or. Al-Jaff: And there are guidelines to how this street should be maintained. How wide it has to be. For instance it has to be 20 feet wide. It has to be located within a minimum of 30 feet of an easement. Has to be built up to a 7 ton design. So there are criteria for private streets, and we do expect homeowners to maintain it. Aanenson: …the other one that we discovered over time is, sometimes you back into other people's driveways. There's not enough parking and this street doesn't have that problem. Originally, Sharmeen is recommending that there be a public street…and we actually modeled this one after the one just recently off of Minnewashta Parkway. So there is adequate back up on all of these so that is the most common negative of a private street. That you maybe use somebody else's property… Papke: Or garbage pick-up, something like that. Aanenson: Exactly. And sometimes all of the garbage has to go out to the public street so those are things that we look at. But typically if you have a service delivery…this situation where there's adequate back up and that we're really careful on because that's the biggest problem… That big cul-de-sac. The visual for the neighbors and this provided, pushed the houses where it's actually… McDonald: Could you explain what you mean by a back-up? Is that as cars pull in, they've got a way to back out? Or to head back out to the street instead of backing onto the street? Al-Jaff: Basically when a car comes in and they need to come out, at some point they need to come, get out. What you will do with this one, I'm hoping that this will show. This is the shared portion of the private street so basically they will be able to back up in this turn around and then be able to get out again and onto the street. Aanenson: So that's not the private part of someone's driveway. It also provides additional guest parking that is sometimes… Al-Jaff: If we didn't have this portion as a shared portion, the…would have to back out in someone's driveway. McDonald: Okay. Anyone else have any questions? 22 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 Keefe: Just one question. The setback, I'm just going to…for the houses. Setback, I think it's, would be the southern most. What is the, this would be a side setback on that one right? With the corner. Al-Jaff: What staff is recommending or? Keefe: Well I'm just seeing where the placement is of that house and how close it appears to be to the property line. Al-Jaff: Correct. Keefe: That's to the west of it. Al-Jaff: Currently it's shown at 10 feet. Staff is recommending a 20 foot side yard setback. Keefe: Okay, so it would be, and then was there something else about berming along that side? I thought I read something about berming. Or was that along 101? Al-Jaff: The majority of the berm is along 101. Keefe: It is, okay. So really the separation for the new house to the existing homes, and it seems like that one would be the one of most concern. Appears to be the closest, at least from this plan, would be really through landscaping. Al-Jaff: There is existing landscaping on the other end. There is a fence but it's…with this plan, with the landscaping that they are adding, an improved buffer. Keefe: And it will also be a little bit further than what this is indicating because this is only showing 10 feet and you're saying it would need to go. Al-Jaff: Correct, it will be increased. Keefe: Okay. Aanenson: I just want to follow up on that too. Because they're asking for a variance, that was one of the mitigations that we asked for is that…private street for setback… Keefe: Yeah, okay. Good. McDonald: Any other questions? I guess we're done so thank you very much for that presentation. Is the applicant here? Scott Rosenlund: Yes, good evening. McDonald: Good afternoon. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 Scott Rosenlund: Scott Rosenlund. I'm the President of Ten Spring Homes, Inc., the applicant. And address any questions you have. I think staff pretty well covered most of the technical issues. One thing I think I'd just like to add, there is an opportunity for this property…to the neighbors here, and the drainage will increase…before we put trees back in there so that would increase any of the runoff, the water problems they may be having. McDonald: Okay. Any questions for the applicant? Keefe: I just have a quick. Are the homes that you propose to build here similar to the ones north of Fox Hollow or would they be different? Okay, same. Scott Rosenlund: Yeah, I have some pictures if you want to see some homes. You've probably seen. Dillon: I mean do you have any concerns about the 101 at some point being widened and you're building homes on these lots? I mean, and what might possibly happen to the back yards? Whatever, how do you feel about that? Scott Rosenlund: Well I have a little background with that. I live right on Highway 5 before they widened that. When I bought that property they had been under discussion for 20 years. We lived there for 8 years before that happened so, I don't know. I wouldn't have an opinion or concern. McDonald: Okay. At that point I guess we have nothing else, unless you have something you want to add that we should, okay. Well thank you very much for coming up. At this point then I would open it up for a public comment. I would ask that you come to the podium. Address, state your name and address and then address the commissioners with your comments. Jeff Seiler: Hi. I'm Jeff Seiler. I live at 6511 Gray Fox Curve in Chanhassen. I'm here because I have one of the properties that drainage goes through the back yard. I'm like 2 properties away from the property. I did have some concerns about the drainage that you kind of addressed. I did talk to Joe on the city staff. He's been the project, he's a project engineer on it and he, I just wanted to comment that he's very helpful. He answered a lot of the questions and stuff. There is a lot of drainage that runs off, ends up going through our back yard and he, the way he explained it to me is that with the holding pond…at least some of that so I just wanted to comment that I appreciated that. The next one is a question. There was…in regards to the expansion of 101. Back in '99 or so there was public hearings and there was talk of a lot of different scenarios and there was plans drawn up for all of them and one of which was the 4 lane road, so you all touched upon this before. The worst case scenario was making it a 4 lane road so, I guess my comment or question is, it seems like there was already plans drawn up so you kind of know what the worst case scenario would be. And you might ask, well what do I care if homes built that close to 101 or not? My only comment is, you're talking about putting an 800, 900 or a million dollar home and it ends up being too close to the road and you have to buy that home. Well, who pays for that? All the state taxpayers do so that would be my concern. And I guess it just seems to me it'd be a shame that if, since there have been plans already drawn up, you know the worst case scenarios. You could look at that and say, well would there be enough room or 24 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 not, but that's just me as a citizen. It just seems like a shame to waste all that… The next question I had was just, as regards to, with the trail that was added you know a few years ago. When that was originally put in there was a guardrail that was put in and that affected the sight lines when you're going from Fox Hollow Drive trying to, out on the road and we ended up having to take the guardrail out so my question is, is there anything in the development that would affect sight lines as far as leaving Fox Hollow? Trying to get out onto 101 when you're turning north. Because sometimes that is kind of hard, if anything does affect sight lines. It was a safety issue when the guardrail was put in and they had to take it out. So I know when that was put in, because I pulled out in front of a few cars that I never would have. From, by looking at it I don't see that there's anything there but I just want to raise that as a concern. Aanenson: We can check with the landscaping firm to make sure… Jeff Seiler: That's my only comments, thank you. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Does anyone else wish to come forward and comment. Steve Petrie: Steve Petrie, 6503 Gray Fox Curve. This is the first time I've seen the preliminary plat drawings and just had a few questions based on this presentation. Needs to be back up there or not but I noticed the trees that are sketched in as landscaping between the private drive and the existing lots that back up to this development and I'm curious, in looking at new trees that will be planted in that location or are some of those representative of existing foliage? Al-Jaff: It will be, the majority of them will be planted and outlot…the planting schedule with you. Steve Petrie: Another glance, what is the separation? Is that similar to the 20 feet that we're talking about with the southern most house? Would it be 20 feet of separation between the existing lots and the private drive? Al-Jaff: Actually it will, approximately 20 feet. And then it varies and then it goes up to 50 feet. Steve Petrie: Okay. I just had one more question. It was mentioned that there was talk about the grade of the current lot, and from my lot in the back yard, the existing grade, I'm at about where the peak is of the lot in question so it actually obstructs our view from Chanhassen Road. So if you're sitting on our deck you don't necessarily see the…on Chanhassen Road. I'm curious what the plans are for the overall grade of the lots? It sounds like it'd be maintained fairly consistently. Will the lot be taken up overall? Left about where it is? Flatten to a greater degree? I guess I'm just wondering what it will impact the view from the back yard for the existing residents of Chanhassen. Fauske: Mr. Chair, if I could answer that question. Generally speaking, just taking a quick look at the grading plan. Actually they're proposing to bring the house pad up, so the actual elevation of the garage floor will be higher than the existing grade. And if you'd like I'd be more than happy to go over, to find out which lot you're at and give you an idea of how much higher it would be at that specific location. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 Steve Petrie: Great, thank you. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Does anyone else wish to come forward and make comment? Seeing no one else get up and address the podium, close the public meeting. I'll bring it back before the commissioners for comment. Kurt, start with you. Papke: No questions. McDonald: Kathleen. Thomas: No. McDonald: Debbie. Larson: It looks pretty good actually. Keefe: I'm fine with it. McDonald: Kevin. Dillon: I think here, I am of the opinion that it's inevitable that Highway 101 is going to get widened to a much larger width than it is today. And I think that the, you know if any, I mean a homeowner that's going to be looking at a home, I don't know what the exact price range, but nice homes and they're going to be doing their due diligence here and they're going to kind of like you know come to that conclusion, and why would they want to be so close to such a busy road, unless there's going to be like a huge berm or something that's part of the deal here, which I didn't see, I think they're going to have a hard time marketing this project to anyone that is wise. I mean not that I don't, you know I mean that might be like their issue but it's, you know the point was made in the very facetious letter that one of the people wrote here about you know, the State taxpayers. You know we buy those homes back at some day and I don't think we should set ourselves up to be in a position to have to do that. We need to either think about bigger setbacks now, or berm or something like that to make the problem take care of it now. McDonald: Okay. Mark. Undestad: Well no, I don't have anything. I mean I think just on Kevin's side here, if you try to predict the future, and I think what they're providing is a 40 foot right-of-way from the center line now. The house isn't on that 40 foot setback so there's still more room to give in there. But you really can't predict what they're going to do anyway so again, not…I'm fine with it. McDonald: I guess Kevin, since you brought it up I will address it. I've lived there for 21 years. I've been through this 101 fiasco for 20 years. Went through the Town Line Road fiasco. I attended meetings at Minnetonka and Eden Prairie. It took them 25 years to decide what to do. It will take them a good 25 years or better to decide what to do with 101. When the 4 lane project came up, there was so much opposition between homeowners and Eden Prairie, that's 26 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 why this did not go forward. And any time you get two municipalities together, we don't know what's going to happen and that's the problem here is we cannot anticipate something that is out of our control. The City does not control this. That road at the center line, half of that belongs to Eden Prairie. We're only getting 40 feet. Right now you're going to have to condemn more than 2 or 3 houses to build a 4 lane road down through there, and that's going to upset a lot of people, both in Chanhassen and Eden Prairie. I think it's short sighted of us to try to stop all development until the State and two municipalities plus everybody can make up their mind as to what they want to do so, and again we've got a legal opinion about this. The City cannot take land in anticipation of what might happen. That is not within the statute for the City to do. Only the State can do a taking, and only for certain reasons. If they decide a 4 lane road is the best approach, then a 4 lane road will get put in. Whether it is 10 years from now or 20 years from now, it will get put in. But only after it's been through a lot of grinding because Town Line Road was a problem and there were homes on that street that also thought they were buying something with a lot more front yard than what they ended up with. So I think it is short sighted at this point to try to say that the City needs to anticipate something that we have no control over and that we cannot do anything about. But that's my opinion. Based upon that I'd be willing to accept a motion. Keefe: I'll make a motion. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Planning Case 07-03 for Fox Hills Subdivision for 3 lots with variances to allow a private street as shown on the plans dated Received December 1, 2006, subject to the conditions, 1 through 33. Papke: Second. Keefe moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Planning Case 07-03 for Fox Hill Subdivision for 3 lots with variances to allow a private street as shown on the plans dated received December 1, 2006, subject to the following conditions: 1.A minimum of two 2½-inch deciduous, overstory trees shall be required in the front yard of each lot. 2.No more than one-third of the required trees may be from any one species. 3.Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits around all trees proposed to be preserved prior to any grading. 4.Any trees proposed for preservation that are lost due to grading and construction activities will be replaced at a rate of 2:1 diameter inches. 5.The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be provided to the City so it can be reviewed by the Carver Soil and Water Conservation District. 6.The plans shall be revised to incorporate Chanhassen’s standard details for erosion and sediment control, including 5300, 5301, 5302A and 5302D. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 7.In order to ensure that the proposed infiltration area functions properly, the contractor shall minimize the number of equipment trips across this part of the site. Additionally, the lightest equipment appropriate for the job shall be used. Once the infiltration area is graded, the easement area shall be fenced off so no further compaction occurs. The applicant may want to consider planting native shrubs, grasses and wildflowers within the infiltration area instead of sod to promote volume reduction through infiltration and evapotranspiration. 8.A stable emergency overflow (EOF) for the infiltration area shall be provided. The EOF could consist of riprap and geotextile fabric or a turf re-enforcement mat (a permanent erosion control blanket). A typical detail shall be included in the plan. 9.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. 10.The plans shall be revised to show a rock construction entrance (minimum 75 feet in length) off Fox Hollow Drive. The rock construction entrance shall be constructed in accordance with Chanhassen’s Standard Detail 5301. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. 11.At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $8,450. 12.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Site Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Carver County, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Department of Health) and comply with their conditions of approval. 13.Full park fees in lieu of parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. 14.Building Official Conditions: 28 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 a.A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. b.Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site. c.Retaining walls more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction. d.Separate sewer and water services must be provided to each lot. e.Any existing wells and on-site sewage treatment systems on the site must be abandoned in accordance with State Law and City Code. 15.Fire Marshal conditions: a.Add an additional fire hydrant at the intersection of Fox Hollow Drive and Fox Hollow Court. b.A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. c.Temporary street signs shall be installed at street intersections once construction of the new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota fire Code Section 501.4. d.Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. e.No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. 16.All existing buildings, driveways and accessory structures must be removed before grading commences. 17.Submit calculations of storm sewer and NURP showing that the development meets the requirements of the City and the MPCA. Determine the new HWL for the existing pond and show it on the plan along with the NWL. 18.The swales on the eastern side of Lot 2, between Lots 2 and 3, and the swale west of Lot 3 must have a 2% minimum slope. Also, the swales in the northwest corner of the house of Lot 1, back yard of Lot 2, and side yard of Lot 3 should be moved away from the foundations of the structures. Plantings shall be placed outside the swales to promote drainage. Add spot elevations at the building corners of Lot 1. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 19.A valley gutter shall be installed at the intersection of Fox Hollow Drive and the private street to convey water through the intersection. Also, provide spot elevations on the curb to ensure curb line has a minimum slope of 0.5%. 20.The proposed storm line connecting to the existing storm sewer shows a bend without a structure. A structure will be required at all bends of storm sewer. Maintain 18 inches of separation between the sanitary sewer and drain tile. 21.On the Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan, show: a)Private street and driveway grades shall not exceed 10%. b)Ground (i.e. non-paved) surface grades shall not be less than 2%. c)Emergency overflow locations and elevations must be shown on the plan. d)Add bottom elevations to the retaining walls. 22.An easement is required from the appropriate property owner for any off-site grading. 23.If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes. 24.Building permits are required for all retaining walls four feet tall or higher and must be designed by a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 25.All sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer within this site shall be publicly owned and maintained. 26.The watermain extension from Fox Hollow Drive must be wet-tapped. Due to the alignment of the watermain in Fox Hollow Drive, it appears that this connection cannot be done under traffic. The sanitary sewer connection on Fox Hollow Drive connecting to an existing stub shall also be completed under traffic. 27.Utility plans shall show both plan view and profiles of all utilities (sanitary sewer, water, and storm sewer lines. The actual elevations of existing utilities shall be determined. 28.Install cleanout for the sewer service for Lot 2 due to length. 29.Each new lot is subject to the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. The 2006 trunk hookup charge is $1,669 for sanitary sewer and $4,485 for watermain. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council and are due at the time of building permit issuance. 30.The utilities will need to be adjusted to allow a minimum of 10 feet horizontal separation between the easement and the proposed utilities. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - January 2, 2007 31.A 10-foot drainage and utility easement will be required for the front of Lots 2 and 3. 32.The private street entrance must connect to Fox Hollow drive at a 90-degree angle. 33.Lot 3, Block 1, must maintain a 20-foot side yard setback along the westerly property line.” All voted in favor, except for Dillon who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Larson noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated December 5, 2006 as presented. Aanenson: Just for the public record, we have set up a meeting with School District 112. I just wanted to make this notice for those that may be watching. District 112, they're having a th meeting at the Rec Center, January 18. 7:00 p.m. to discuss the high school site. We want them to meet with the community before, they have not submitted to be on the Planning Commission yet but we want to give an opportunity for the public to get their comments, th concerns addressed prior to a submittal to you so that is set again for Thursday, January 18 at the Chanhassen Rec Center at 7:00 p.m.. McDonald: Okay, will that be a showing of the design for the high school? Aanenson: Yes, the layout. Any questions that you have regarding that. So we'll be there. Representatives of the city staff to answer questions and also the school district. Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:33 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 31