PC Minutes 1-2-07Planning 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