Loading...
4 Variance Approval/Witt CITY OF CHANHASSEN '0 City Cmter Drive, PO Box 147 Chanhassm, Minnesota 55317 Phone 612.9311900 Gmtral Fax 612.937.5739 ,ngint/ring Fax 612.937.9152 ~blic Safety Fax 612.934.2524 wtb www.ci.chanhaJ$en.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Scott Botcher, City Manager þ, I I (~i I -- t FROM: Cynthia Kirchoff, AICP, Planner II " 'c ,,- ~1 " City of Challhasstll, A I!!owin[ community with clean Úlkes, auality schools, a charminy downtown, thrivi.. businesses, and beautiM Parks. A mat olace to live. work. and via, REPORT DATE: PC DATE: CCDATE: September 6, 2000 August 15,2000 September 11, 2000 RE: Request For An Amendment to Condition of Approval of Variance #98-12, Bob & Brinn Witt, 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is seeking relief from a lakeshore variance condition of approval that required lakeshore plantings to be installed to act as a buffer. The zoning ordinance requires an amendment to a variance to proceed through the same process as the original variance request. Staff recommends denial of the amendment. BACKGROUND On January 12,1999, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approved the requests for a 12,515 sq. ft. variance from the 20,000 sq. ft. minimum lot area requirement for a riparian lot on a recreational development lake, a 12.5 foot variance from the 90 foot lot width requirement, a 51 foot variance from the 75 foot lot width requirement for riparian lots on recreational development lakes for lake access, a 10 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback, a 3 foot variance from the 10 side yard setback and a 4 foot variance from the 75 foot shoreland setback for the construction of a single family home subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall submit a survey completed by a licensed surveyor. 2. A detailed grading, drainage, and erosion control plan with 2-foot contours shall be submitted at time of building permit application for review and approval by the City. 3. The basement of the home must be 3 feet above the ordinary high water mark of the lake. 4. Type III erosion control must be maintained until all vegetation has been restored. 5. The applicant shall maintain the 10 foot required dock setbacks. Six months later, the applicant requested a 14 foot variance from the required 75 foot shoreland setback because the house did not fit within the buildable area o ~ Planning Commission Witt-Amendment to Variance #98-12 September II, 2000 Page 2 permitted by the Board of Adjustments and Appeals. The Planning Commission reviewed this application and denied it based upon staffs recommendation. The applicant appealed the decision to the City Council. On June 28, 1999, the City Council approved a 13 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback and a 7 foot variance from the 75 foot lakeshore setback for the construction of a single family home with an enclosed porch and deck, with the following condition: I. The applicant shall installlakeshore plantings to act as a buffer. The DNR was notified for both of the variance requests and recommended the City deny the proposals because they felt the applicant did not demonstrate a hardship. Section 20-57 of the zoning ordinance states that a violation of any written condition of a variance shall constitute a violation of the zoning ordinance, which is a misdemeanor. It is staff's responsibility to enforce conditions of approval. Staff believes that lakeshore plantings consist of natural vegetation. Recently, the applicant appealed staff's interpretation of the condition of approval. On July 18, 2000, the Planning Commission affirmed staff's interpretation. The property owners feel as though the condition was unfairly implemented and the existing lakeshore buffer consisting of a boulder retaining wall is sufficient, thus they would like the condition eliminated. DISCUSSION The planning staff did not propose this condition, however, there is merit in the condition. The 75 foot lakeshore setback is directly related to the lake's water quality and a variance from such a requirement should require mitigating actions. The impervious surface within the required 75 foot lake shore setback justifies the establishment of a buffer between the yard and lake. The function of this buffer is to remove nutrients from runoff prior to entering the lake and to slow the rate of storm water runoff into the lake. The zoning ordinance allows conditions to be imposed in conjunction with the approval of a variance "to ensure substantial compliance with this chapter and to protect adjacent property" (Section 20-58). Since the property only has 24 feet oflakeshore this frontage will be intensively used. A buffer will restore ecological functions that are reduced or eliminated by traditional lawns. The applicant has full enjoyment and use of the lakeshore property. The requirement that lakeshore plantings be installed does not interfere with this enjoyment and, more important, it is directly related to the quality of the lake on which they live. Planning Commission Witt-Amendment to Variance #98-12 September 11,2000 Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE On August 15,2000, the Planning Commission reviewed this request. The motion to deny the request for the amendment was approved by a vote of 4 to 2; however, a 75 percent affurnative vote of the members present is required by the zoning ordinance. Therefore, their decision serves only as a recommendation to the City Council. The Commissioners recommended that additional information on grading and runoff be submitted prior to this item being submitted to the City Council for review. Staff addressed these issues in the following sections. (Note: On Tuesday, August 29, 2000, staff met with Mr. Witt on-site to review neighborhood drainage patterns and discuss lakeshore plantings.) Drainage Over the last couple of years with the development of the Springfield properties to the north, the amount of runoff has been significantly reduced to the Lake Riley Boulevard area. There is still; however, a large area upstream that contributes runoff to the Lake Riley Boulevard cul-de-sac adjacent to the Witt's property. Prior to the construction of the Witt's home, the runoff from this area sheet drained down through the Witt's lot to the lake. Now with construction of the Witt home, drainage is diverted to the Witt's easterly property line. Some drainage also continues easterly along Lake Riley Boulevard into a storm water sediment basin and storm sewer collection system. It was staffs intent to review the drainage pattern through the Witt's property after a significant rainfall event (I" or more). However, since Mother Nature has not been cooperative, staff has not been able to visit the site during a significant rainfall event to determine exactly how much runoff is conveyed through the Witt's property. Staff continues to believe some runoff still is conveyed along the easterly property line. Location and Width of Plantings An inspection of the site during the August 29, 2000 meeting revealed that an insignificant amount of storm water, if any, is conveyed from the Lake Riley Boulevard cul-de-sac to Lake Riley along the westerly property line. Therefore, staff has modified the original options provided to the applicant. Staff presented Mr. Witt with the option of maintaining lake shore plantings along 10 feet of lakeshore, extending from the easterly property line across the required 10-foot side yard setback. Staff believes this is a reasonable requirement. This change in recommendation would allow the Witt's use of over half of the lakeshore on the parcel. Depth of Plantings Documents that address buffer strip depths typically recommend buffer strips no less than 25 feet deep. The original options provided to the Witts by staff reflected these recommendations. However, the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420) employs a 16.5 foot minimum buffer strip depth. This is the lowest standard (outside of the City's own wetland buffer Planning Commission Witt-Amendment to Variance #98-12 September II, 2000 Page 4 standards) that staff has discovered. Therefore, staff recommends the establishment of a lakeshore buffer no less than 16.5 feet deep. Drainage Swales Back on May 3, 2000, staff reviewed the site with the Witts to determine if drainage swales were established along the property lines. Attached is a copy of a letter regarding that issue. To date, staff has not been back out to revisit the site pursuant to the letter. Staff Recommendation for Plantings At this time, staff would like to wait until we have a significant rainfall event to determine the exact amount of runoff concentrating through the Witt's property. This would allow staff to determine the extent of lakeshore plantings necessary to mitigate the effects of the additional storm water. In lieu of additional information on the amount of runoff crossing the Witt's property, the City Council's condition regarding the installation oflakeshore plantings to act as buffer would be fulfilled by meeting at least the following: I. The area of lakeshore plantings be installed along the easterly property line; 2. The lakeshore plantings encompass an area of 10 feet wide by 16.5 feet deep; and 3. The lakeshore plantings be comprised of no fewer than 5 species of native vegetation (including grasses, forbs and shrubs). The applicant submitted a sketch on September 7,2000, that indicates approximately 70 square feet oflakeshore plantings (see Attachment 7). Staff does not believe that this proposal meets the intent of the condition. With this proposal, storm water flowing down the easterly property line will take the path of least resistance and enter the lake between the edge of the plantings and the dock, thereby limiting the effectiveness of the buffer. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council adopt the following motion; "The City Council denies the request for an amendment to the condition of approval of Variance #98-12." Attachments I. Application and Letter 2. Planning Commission minutes from July 18, 2000 3. Public Hearing Notice 4. Letters from Neighbors 5. Planning Commission Minutes from August IS, 2000 Planning Commission Witt-Amendment to Variance #98-12 September 11,2000 Page 5 6. Memo from Lori Haak and David Hempel dated September 6, 2000 7. Sketch Prepared by the Applicant g:\plan\ck\boa\witt var amend..doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN . . 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937·1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION 'PLlCANT: fN~h() 4-lßòb /JJ~+f- ~WNER: "AESS~·7 A.m R¡;""f t;w£ . ADDRESS _VµJ¡12C;S~ ~~3t7 LEPHONE(Daytime) q5?- ~5 - ç¡"2/2-- TELEPHONE: CITY OF CHÞ.NHASSEIW RECEIVED rJUl25 2000 CHAI'Inf1';¡vl;.,'ó ""L.""~ ~JI~U ucPT 5~ _ Comprehensive Plan Amendment _ Temporary Sales Permit - Conditional Use Permit _ Vacation of ROWIEasements - Interim Use Perm~ .:..L.. Variance ''Þ7~'CO _ Non-conforming Use Permit - Wetland Alteration Permit _ Planned Unit Development· _ Zoning Appeal _ Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment _ Sign Permits _ Sign Plan Review _ Notification Sign Site Plan Review· --X.. Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost·' < - ($50 CUP/SPRlV ACN AR/W AP/Metes . and Bounds, $409 Minor SUB) - Subdivision· TOTALFEE$ -¡ 1:3 . 0::!- A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be Included with the application. Building ma\er1al "alllpl_t-be-submJtteå.wlth-5ite.pla~ev.iew.s.... ~enty-si (-fIlIl-5ize.folded1:Oples-of-the..plans-must..be-submltted,Jncludlng'8n·'8'12'"X-11"Teduced 'copy-of- tr:ansp'...·ncy for each p'ao..sheet / - EScrow will b",equire<Hor-ßther-applicatieRS-through.!he.developm8At..coAtract )TE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. ~!f r r t w, Ík PROJECT NAME LOCATION J LEGAL DESCRIPTION 10j ;f;;¿ ~ó¡t.¿. aC.(e-~ TOTAL ACREAGE WETIANDS PRESENT PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT lAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION J REASON FOR THIS REQUEST -+-0 YES NO ¿IÚYYlM~ (!,Ó}\ d ¡ -h oý)" ó)1 VtL¡/n~ This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that 1 am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. 1 have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or 1 am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signeä this application. 1 will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. 1 further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of ~~~ . The city hereb qtifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements nd ,agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension fo deelopment review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensio e prov d by the applicant - Appfication Received on The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meetIng. Jf not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. July 24, 2000 CITY OF C "Fr,~A,\NHASSEN I!:O 'JUL 25 2000 CHA/vnf1':¡'.)CIIlr- I.r1'YI~'lhJ Utpr City of Chanhassen 690 City Center Dr. P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear, City of Chanhassen & Planning Commission; Weare requesting the removal of the condition of the variance that was placed on our property at 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. We feel that the condition was placed UN-fairly given at the time of the city council meeting last year, it was not open to discussion or clarification. The condition the city council applied is not a city ordinance nor has it been applied to any other variance request or building permit that was granted up to this time on Lake Riley. We feel that we have met the quality lakeshore buffer above and beyond what is consistent with the neighboring properties. Should you or any of the neighboring properties have any questions, feel ftee to contact us at 445-9212. &Y~o~t{ tJ;¡J# Planning Commission Meeting-July 18,2000 Sacchet: Mr. Chair, would it also be possible to be very clear, assuming we would stay with this location, to have the height of those NSP poles as a reference point? Aanenson: Right. I think that was an issue we got before that you want at least, even before it got to the City Council you want better clarity as far as the siting of this from different perspectives. Sacchet: I think that would be an important context. IfNSP poles are 100 feet high and they're dotted along the highway, they're not to me certainly nearly as aesthetic as a monopole. So I think that would be a good reference point. Peterson: Okay. I'll entertain a motion. Kind: Mr. Chair, I move the Planning Commission tables the application for Conditional Use Permit #2000-5. Conrad: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Ifwe do table this, the next one is coming up at the next meeting? Just for the applicant's? Aanenson: As soon as they can turn it around. I'm not sure what their timeframe is. They may not be on. Peterson: Well we need to give the applicant some direction so I assume you'll meet with the applicant and discuss in detail what. Aanenson: Right. The RF study. The better pictures. The colors, alternatives. Peterson: Then offer the right timing. Aanenson: Yes. Peterson: Okay. Kind moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission table the Conditional Use Permit #2000-5 application. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL FROM BRINN AND BOB WITT TO STAFF'S INTERPRETATION OF A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF A LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE. 9247 LAKE RILEY BL YD. Cindy Kirchoff and Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of staff'? Conrad: Mr. Chair just a clarification. Didn't we turn this down the first time? 38 Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2000 Kirchoff: That's correct. Conrad: So what is our role? Because we told the City Council not to do this. Aanenson: Well technically they're asking for an appeal an interpretation or appeal the interpretation of staff s, how we interpreted the City Council ordinance. That's one approach. The other approach would have been, and this Cindy put in the report, would be to have this condition removed from the variance, but until it's removed then we're obligated to enforce it. So that was the approach they took was to appeal the interpretation of what was meant by the buffer. Peterson: Other questions? Kind: Yes Mr. Chair I do have a question. I was being polite. Lori, could you speak to the kind of contaminants that we're trying to avoid and where they come from and how much is coming through this property. Haak: Okay, and I'll let Dave speak to drainage. We talked about that on the phone a little bit earlier. I'll let Dave speak to that in just a minute because he can do a much better job than I can. Basically the contaminants that we're looking at any sort of sediment that would come across the property and then any fertilizers, nutrients, grass clippings, leaves, any sort of thing like that. What the buffer would do is catch that material and just basically, it would fill in to the buffer. Become sediment for the buffer materials to grow in. So you would be removing those materials. In addition, I think a big part of this buffer would be shoreline stabilization and just making sure that those rocks stay where they are because I haven't seen any documentation on how that retaining wall was put in. So I'm not certain that it meets DNR standards. That's a completely different issue but I would like to see those plantings just so we are certain that we're not ending up with some fairly large boulders in the lake in the future, because as lake levels do rise and fall, you could end up with some erosion along the shoreline. So then I guess I'll turn it over to Dave and let him talk about drainage. Hempel: Thanks Lori. It's best at the podium for this one. To try to give you an overview of the drainage in the neighborhood, and if we could take, look over here Nann. The property is located here at the end of Lake Riley Boulevard. In conjunction with Lundgren Brothers development, the Springfield neighborhood, prior to it I should say, this was all agricultural field and most of the runofffrom the ag fields went down through the Deerfoot Trail subdivision. Right on down to the lake. Additional runoff comes from the properties off of Kiowa Trail down through behind this property and goes into the cul- de-sac and down Lake Riley Boulevard. And prior to the Witt's home being built, there went through the lot and also down two more doors to the east. Since the Springfield development was constructed, stormwater management has been implemented and rectified the drainage problem that's been occurring down there over the past years. Divided up the drainage. Some going north. Some going south into a retention pond and the storm sewer line has been constructed through Deerfoot Trail on down to the lake, approximately two doors east of the Witt property. We still do have overland runoff coming from the properties on Kiowa down through the cul-de-sac. The street was reconstructed or overlaid a couple years ago to address some of the drainage issues that we had in the area. Storm water does now go down and is conveyed through storm sewer and catch basins in this location to a small... In conjunction with the property being built upon, the detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan was to be submitted in the building process. However that was not done and we did through field investigation work with the applicant to create or have constructed some swales along the property lines. Both to convey the runoff from the property to maintain the neighborhood drainage pattern on the property and not push it off onto 39 Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2000 the adjacent properties. On the east side of the property that still gets some runoff from Lake Riley Boulevard along the property line and a swale has been constructed there. However that still needs to be verified if it's been completed all the way down to the lake. So the inclusion, the amount of runoff that goes through the property today is significantly less than what was there probably 4 years ago, 5 years ago prior to the Springfield development going in. With that I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Sidney: One question, runoff. Would that be fertilizer and do you have sediments really coming through the property enough to manage them? Hempel: Still some stonn water runoff from the street. Snow melt from snow storage at the end of the cul-de-sac. The properties to the northwest off of Kiowa maintain lawns through there that may have some fertilizer. Chemicals. But I'd have to say the drainage overall through the area that used to go through the property has been significantly reduced. Sacchet: Mr. Chair, I have a question and I don't know if it's for you or Lori but, this lot is like 24 feet wide. On both sides of that property there are probably hundreds of feet that have very little or not buffer plantings through it. How do you justify having buffer planting insisted upon on this 24 feet? In the context of there being hundreds of feet on both sides that have very little or not buffer plantings? Could you address that please? Haak: I guess primarily the first thing that I would remind you of is that this is a council condition and so while we think it's a good idea, it wasn't recommended by staff. So with that little caveat, we think it's a good idea and actually Cindy and I have talked about potentially pursuing it in lakeshore areas in the future. That has little bearing on this case. I guess the main argument for this is that this condition was a part of the variance request. It is directly related to the variance. Because they have encroached in that 75 foot setback, there is a more intense use of that shoreline. There is less shoreline. That shoreline will be more intensively used. If you have less of anything, if you have sheep crowded into a pasture or something like that. Kind of a crazy analogy but I'll use it. So I guess I would go with that perspective and certainly it is intensively used and if it was, if it didn't make sense, I don't think you'd have the staff support for it certainly but it does relate so, I think I had one other thing. It doesn't matter. Does that answer your question? Sacchet: Yes, thank you. Hempel: If I could just add a little bit onto that. The property still does receive some storm water runoff from the road. The other properties along Lake Riley Boulevard, most of that storm water runoff is conveyed down along the gutter line, down the storm sewer is where then it is put into a storm water basin and treated prior to discharging into the lake. The situation we still will have street runoff. Runoff rrom upstream properties that may go through the property and drainage swale so. As an added little caveat I guess. Peterson: Is that also, would that raise an issue like with, would solve another thing going through that property? Going through the, if we build it up and put, as recommended vegetation in there, will not their runoff kill it? Haak: I don't think you'll see massive. It's a rural road. I guess I wouldn't have a lot of concern about that. I couldn't say. I haven't looked at native plants and how they fare under salt conditions but my guess would be that they would do alright. We're not talking about a whole lot. Ifwe were talking 40 Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2000 about, as Dave said earlier, the entire area of Springfield, all those roads. That sort of thing, I would have more hesitation about how native plants would be able to do there. As it stands I don't see a problem. Peterson: Okay. Other questions of staff? Would the applicant like to make a presentation? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. Bob Witt: Hello. My name's Bob Witt and this is my wife Brinn Witt. We're at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard. And the reason we're here today is really we went to council to get approval for the variances for this property to build the home. At the very end of the comments and everything that was made at that council meeting, it was late. It was probably oh, almost midnight. It was one of those all nighter's I guess you would call it. And at the very end, after everybody had basically made their comments and it seemed like everything was being approved, Congresswoman Jansen made the statement that she would like to. Peterson: Who? Kind: You said Congress. Bob Witt: Did you know who I meant? Kind: Yes. Bob Witt: Okay, then we're doing okay. Peterson: Actually I was wondering but. Bob Witt: Made the statement you know as just a friendly suggestion for us to work with staff on lakeshore plantings. But there was really no opportunity at that point for any clarification on what this might be and what type of thing we could expect or, you know and we just basically, we weren't thinking about it and didn't really, and nobody really asked for any clarification on what she really meant there. When we bought this lot at 9247 lake Riley Boulevard it was pretty much a mess and I guess you know Cindy and some of the others on staff can attest to it probably being one of the biggest files here with different opportunities or projects being tried to being built at this property so, and it was a mess. All the neighbors were saying, boy they're just excited to see something being built there finally because it's been such a mess. And some of you had a chance to come out and see it, and we appreciate that you had a chance to see it and you can see that it's a, we built, we put a building there and we were able to build something that everybody thinks looks great. It fits in with the whole lake concept. You know it's fieldstone and shakes. You know it really does, it looks like a lake property you know. Unlike a lot of the lake properties around there. And so we feel like we've done a really nice job with the place. One of the things that concerns us is, as we were looking through some of the different variances that were given on Lake Riley Boulevard in specific and we didn't really look into all the different lots on lake Riley totally but just on Lake Riley Boulevard, there are variances up and down the lake. And there are a lot of them where they encroach on that 75 foot setback to the lake. There is a lot ofthem. Up and down there. And in none of those did we find that staff recommended that there would be lakeshore plantings. Or that as a part of those variances that there would be lakeshore plantings. And a very recent one was the Sitter's just to our west. West of us and they have a 100, a little over 100 feet oflakeshore I believe. Somewhere in that area. And they were just granted a variance for their garage which is down by the lake. And they don't have any, they weren't required to do any lakeshore plantings and it would seem to 41 I Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2000 me that if this is a good idea and supported by staff and by the city, that it would have been required there. And draw your own conclusions on that but we just kind of feel it's a little funny that again that we have such a small lot and are required to do it, and I think it's because of the statement by Ms. Jansen that we do it. Brinn Witt: In that picture you can see that the garage is closer to the lake than the house is and runoff from that, since we were just, there's no lakeshore protection off their 100 feet there. And then kind of consistent through the neighborhood there. That there is no protection. Bob Witt: Ijust want to, just give you kind ofa little bit ofa background of what we've actually done to the lot for improvement up til now. We didn't remove any, we haven't moved any trees or anything from the lot to put this home on the lot, but when we went in there we found a lot of, actually when we started to build the house we found you know a $] 5,000 addition to our project in that as they started to dig they couldn't find anything to, solid enough to build on. So they had to dig down, I believe it was something like about 8 feet, all the way around the whole lot basically and pull out. I won't say what the construction workers call it but they call it loon stuff. We'll call it that. Kind of a sludge. Kind of a dark, mucky kind ofa sludge stuff. We pulled out 68 truckloads of that to the tune of$15,000 and refilled it with sand which is of course a fantastic filter for any kind of runoff that you would have. It's going to filter that very well. What we have done as well is we built three boulder walls. We took a lot of boulders out of, there was just a truckload of boulders that were just dumped in the lake by the previous owner with no erosion cloth or anything. They just basically took a whole truck load and dumped these boulders in the water. We spent over $6,000 to remove the boulders from the water to clean that up. And then we put a double layer of erosion cloth in to protect the, from erosion going into the lake. And then built up a wall. We not only built our 24 feet, but also while we're doing it we had the heavy equipment in there. Mr. Sitter asked if we would, you know ifhe could use some of the rocks and at a cost of $1 ,600 to me, I built another 20 feet into his area with the erosion cloth and with the boulders that we pulled out. And we've done it, and it's only just a two course wall and it's only just a two course wall but it's enough to hold back the water and then to hold back any of the erosion from the, that might corne through the lot. The other two boulder walls that we built were around either side of the house, and those were built up basically so we wouldn't have a steep grade on the side of the house where there'd be a fast, quick runoff from this side of the house. We also put in a gutter system all the way around the house to protect from just water rushing off of the house and being able to direct the water from corning off of the house that way. We've installed 5 pine trees. We've installed 3 of them on the east side and 2 on the west side ofthe house. 5 dogwoods and a number of, if you look at the house and if you've been out there you can see that we've got a lot of perennials around the house as well too. That can assist in that as well. And to answer one of the concerns that staff had about the, some of the runoff and the things that might go into the lake. When we do fertilize we use all natural fertilizers and when we do mow our lawn we mow and bag everything. It's very small so I mean it only, we only have to go over it basically once and that's all we get is one bag off of it so it's very, so we're not going to have any of that. Whereas most of our other neighbors, you know they'll have lawn services or the neighbors of our's to the west, they just mow and their clippings go right into the lake actually. Let's see, what else can we say? Brinn Witt: I'd just like to point out one other thing. This was dropped offby Councilwoman Jansen. Landscaping for Wildlife and Water Control. Very good book and I certainly understand the concept and support it. In the back of the book it says protect an eroding shoreline and it basically says if you have ongoing erosion problems which cannot be solved by the use of vegetation, placing large rocks or boulders, rip rap with filter material underneath the shore is also an effective solution. And when that 42 Planning Commission Meeting-July 18,2000 was brought up at the variance meeting, one of the last ones, that's what went through my mind when that was brought up. Bob Witt And I think one of the last things I'd like to say is that, when we purchased the lot, you know we were excited to live in Chanhassen. We were excited to live on the lake. And if you look at the amount, and you've seen the lot and the size of it, we just don't have a lot of space there to use the lake. You know there's only, again there's only 24 feet oflakeshore there and if you're going to playa yard game and you've got, you might even have sent around the picture. Brinn Witt: Yeah I did. Bob Witt You know we're doing some yard games. There's not, and then if you start putting plantings all the way up in there, it's going to make it almost impossible to get down there and use the lake or to even do yard games you know. And we don't do a ton of that but, Brinn and I are very conscience of the environment. We go to the Boundary Waters a lot. And we're going to do whatever we can to protect the natural resource there. And would like to even see things like, that we feel are maybe even more detrimental to the lake like the amount of boat traffic that's on that lake, I mean there's some times on Pioneer Trail we see boat trailers going all the way up past Bearpath and those are all boats that are on our lake and those are all the little guys. What are those things? Jet skis. You know the jet skis, those types of things. And there is a ton of gas getting poured into that lake and I would think that that would probably be one of our biggest concerns really on there as well, but again we'djust like to use the lot for what we bought it for and we're going to protect the resources but we just want to be able to have the back yard that we can use and so we'd like to see this removed from the variance request if that's possible. And again, as we look at all the other variances that have been given along Lake Riley Boulevard, we don't see any in there where they've been required to do lakeshore plantings. Did you have anything else that you wanted to say? Brinn Witt: I have spent Monday mornings picking up beer cans and cigarette butts and everything from the weekend before from all the activity on the lake and I don't mind. I mean I guess I mind that they're there but you know we like to see a clean lake as well. Sacchet Mr. Chair, I have a question for the applicants. My main question for you is, why wouldn't you want to plant anything there? Now you had touched a little bit in terms of the space constraints. I'd like you to focus on that a little more. I mean you see all the benefits and trying to take care of the environment and you don't want any plantings there? I mean what, why don't you tell me a little bit about that. Bob Witt: Yeah, we'd like not to see any plantings down there other than what we've got right now. We've got 2 trees on the east side of the lot that have been there for a long time. Those are deciduous trees that have been there for a lot, I'm guessing probably at least 10 years I would assume with the size of the trees. But it's just as we look at it and we started to kind of map it out and we drew the lines and we just basically put down some stakes and then ran some lines up the side of the yard. And as we started kind of looking at how we would lay this out, it takes up all of our ability to use the lake. I mean and to use the yard for anything else other than it being basically a garden back there and not being able to use it for any yard games or have the access, because we've got a canoe that comes in and out of the lake. Brinn Witt There's a fire pit down there. 3 foot fire pit. 43 f í:: Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2000 Bob Witt: Right. And then of course we've got a Golden Retriever that's. Brinn Witt: Thinks she's in heaven. Bob Witt: Yeah, she's in heaven and she does a lot oflaps in there. Sacchet: So what you're saying is like that, I believe some of the options that were proposed were leaving space for canoe access and that sort of stuff like maybe one side of the dock. One more planted and spread it out. You don't see like there's any space for plantings for what you've done? Bob Witt: Really we don't. And as we look at it, you know of course we're comparing a lot to you know if we had 100 feet oflakeshore out there like either one of our neighbors or some of the other neighbors on the lake have, we could see where it would, you know we could design something and it would look right and it would fit. But you know when we look at, again the neighbors to our east who just got a variance and they've got 100 feet, yet they don't have any plantings down. They have zero plantings down there right now. And weren't required to do any plantings but there you could see where you know you could design something and it would fit and it would look nice, and they've got the same exact drainage that we have. Our lot lines are right next to each other. And so they've got a lot more ability to use their yard and now they don't have to do any plantings as well too. Sacchet: So you're basically saying, there's two more things here and one is the fairness versus the other ones. And the other one is the benefit of the planting by itself. Bob Witt: Well you know, and I don't know that, I guess one of the things that we're hearing with the plantings is that it's supposed to catch some of the different things that are, like lawn clippings and leaves and things of that nature. We're bagging all that. Fertilizer, we're using natural fertilizer. You know we're using the things that are going to be a benefit and they're not going to hinder the quality of the lake. So we're not going to be putting anything in there that's going to be hindering the quality of the water. And so we just don't see where it's going to, you know we want to be able to use what yard we have there. I mean along the sides of the house and those types of things and the swales, those types of things we're going to do whatever we can to comply and make those work the best that we can for what's required. For what you ask us to do. We'd be more than happy to do what we can there. But we'd just like to be able to have, we might even have the smallest yard in Chanhassen. I don't know. I mean it's tiny. It is really small and I think anybody who'd live on that lot would like to at least have a little bit of yard to move around on and not feel like we're just totally... Sacchet: Yeah, one last question. When you got all the variances to be able to build that beautiful house you have there, one view to look at this thing is that in order to balance the granting of some of the variances, this condition was put onto it. And but you're saying at the time you didn't really understand that condition? I mean because one approach would be that I could see taking with this is well, this is basically something you agree to in the context of getting the variances you needed. And then you find out that it's really not so convenient to do your part. And I'm not saying that I'm taking that position but it's one possible position I could be taking. Bob Witt: Sure, I understand. Sacchet: What would you reply to that? 44 Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2000 Bob Witt: Well I would say this. Again, it was a late meeting and I think that if you look back on, as we look back on the meeting, all the people that were present on the council that evening were in support of it. We had each one of them come out to the lot. Show them what we were planning on doing and what we were planning on building. And a lot of the requests had the deck was really what was going over which really isn't impervious surface anyway. And as we looked at that and we showed that to them, how it kind oflined up with the other houses and the other variances that were given on the lake, each of them, none of them really had a problem with it. They said it looks great. It looks like it's in line and that was what was said in the meeting too. I mean you could sense that in the meeting that each person was in favor of the building project as it stood. And it was just one of those things where Ms. Jansen made the comment at the end and I don't know if anybody was really even listening to it. I'm not sure, you know in the clarification of it was it really, if there was some clarification to it, maybe there would have been maybe some more objection to it. Or whatever but we thought maybe it was in building our boulder wall, which we did, which we felt was a big thing and that we cleaned up the lakeshore there. And then as we put the other plantings around the side of the house, you know we thought that but we really wanted to have what little back yard we could have. We wanted to see it. Sacchet: Thank you. Peterson: Other questions of the applicant? Thank you. Motion and a second for public hearing please. Sacchet moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anybody wishing to address the commissioners, please come forward. Kind moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners, what do you think about this one? Ladd what do you think about it? Conrad: They don't want me to talk first. Just a couple things. Grass and boulders are absolutely no filter on the property so they are, they stabilize the shoreline with boulders but in terms of runoff, which is really the intent of what I think staff and City Council is trying to do, there's zip. Grass is probably the least filtration plat you can have, especially, yeah it is leached. Maybe purple loosestrife is worse but. I think my interpretation is that council had a point. I think they gave in on some things and trying to get ]c,sen the impact on the lake so I don't know that I could change the staff interpretation right now. I certainly could change it. You know you want to have reasonable use of the lake and I don't think we want to turn it into a wilderness area down there. When I look at your neighbors, shame on them. They're all doing a bad job. But they're there and you're coming in but they're all doing an awful job when I look at the pictures there. I think, and I do live on a lake and we kind of preach how to care for it and some people listen and some people don't. But the point is they should have some, you know I don't think we want to turn it into a natural. It should fit into the character ofthe neighborhood. Yet on the other hand I think the City Council had a point when they granted a variance and this is a condition that was tied to it. I'm not sure which is the right thing to do for plantings down there. I think there's some common sense that has to be applied here but something has to be done there because it's not meeting the intent. They'd like to have it out. I think there's a tie to the variance and I can't eliminate that so, I'm not sure what the actual planting configuration should be but I think there should be something there. There should be something there. Peterson: Other comments? Anything? 45 I Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2000 Blackowiak: Well Mr. Chairman, I agree with Ladd. It was tied to the conditions of approval. There were several variances granted and this was just one of the conditions so, to me I certainly understand the intent of the City Council in doing that. And it's not uncommon to say to staff, you know work with staff to determine what's going to be best and the reason that we do that is because we don't always know what's best and so we're looking for their expertise and their guidance as to what could work in that area. But we just, we say we intend to do this. We want to do this and you guys figure out the nitty gritty but just understand what we're trying to say and I think that's exactly what council is trying to do. Is to say you know, we need to start somewhere and we need to try to mitigate the runoff into the lake. Not necessarily erosion with boulders but the runoff. And I don't necessarily agree with 6 foot plants. I don't think that's going to wreck their view but I would certainly think that there'd be something that would be a little less tall that could go in there that would serve the same purpose. I mean it's a cute house. There's great landscaping out in front and it could be really nice down there but yet still giving access to the dock, the canoe. That type of thing. So I really think that we need to, I agree with staffs interpretation as well. And I also think this might be a great time for us to look into a lakeshore buffer ordinance because it just, it just dovetails right in. And if this is what we're going to do, I mean if this is something we're going to start requiring, then maybe we need an ordinance to say you know, this is our intent. This is what we're trying to accomplish and kind of formalize it so there aren't any questions. But again, it was a condition of approval. They knew it going in. If they didn't understand it, the time to ask questions was a year ago before this all started. And I just feel that it was a reasonable request by City Council. Kind: Continuing on down the line. .. .was worded. I'm not sure if I agree with the condition and I don't know how to handle that. I'm wondering if, I don't know. If we can meddle with the wording of the condition. I don't think that's our place but I think staffs interpreting the condition correctly. I keep coming back to the consistency point and also the fact that we're talking about 24 feet oflakeshore and an idea of having 6 foot plantings on such a narrow Jittle swath when the neighbors to either side aren't doing anything. With lakeshore I think aesthetics are really important and how it looks from the lake and to me it's just going to look kind of silly. And I don't know, that's kind of petty little response I guess but that's kind of how I feel. I can't get by how goofy it's going to look and I think it's going to look unkept and I also think that the point about the Sitter property just receiving a variance after this and it not being attached to that, and they are definitely encroaching more than 75 feet and there was no such condition attached and I think we really need to be consistent on that. And it wasn't attached to that so. I guess I'm in favor of taking it off. I don't know how we go about that. Peterson: Okay, other comments? Sidney: Yes Mr. Chair. I went out to the property this morning and viewed it and I do agree with Deb that you know trying to make this a natural area as proposed would look out of context and actually a little goofy when you're looking at that. But I was thinking one thing we don't know, we're saying when we have runoff and you know fertilizer and maybe no particulates but we don't know how much we're trying to treat and we don't have the idea of what scale ofplantings we even need. We're just, unless I'm missing something, we don't have the data showing that this particular piece of property requires plantings of X square feet to treat X gallons of water for something. So we're just kind of saying we need something. We don't know what we need and then we have people who would like to enjoy their property at the same time so I guess my gut feel is, it's not the right place to really implement this type of condition. You know if it were 1,000 feet oflakeshore, yes. That makes a lot of sense but not in this case. 46 Planning Commission Meeting - July 18,2000 Peterson: Okay, thank you. Sacchet: Mr. Chair. I think this is a situation that calls for compromise. I do believe that the 3 options, which is really more like 2 options of potential plantings that were given to the applicant, are not feasible because they're like two half bubbles that don't go along. I mean it doesn't fit. It doesn't make sense. But neither does it make sense to me that we should totally remove the request of doing some plantings. I really would like to see some plantings there. A reasonable amount. I mean we don't want to have to be an all again or nothing. It may be on one side of their deck you could plant something. It wouldn't have to come quite as far in. Maybe have some plantings in the lake on one side of the dock so on the other side you have the use for canoeing. Not having it all that much come into your yard so you have reasonable use of your yard without being really impacted. I would like to see something rather than just strike it out of existence. Then on the other hand I do think that the way this is laid out here, besides that it's not fair in terms of the context of what's happening around and I do think, I don't think it's going to look silly Deb because the property next to the Sitter's actually does have little plantings so it's not going to be out of context to have a little bit something. But I think it's out of context to go to the extent that staff is recommending. Now I would recommend on that basis that staff would work with the applicant to see how some thing between the two can be done that is agreeable to the applicant and that makes sense from a viewpoint of looking at the erosion, of the runoff, of all those aspects. That we're interested from a city viewpoint in terms of the lake preservation as far as that's possible within such a small context. That's basically where I'm at with this. Peterson: Good, thank you. I'll make my comments and then you can add to that if you would. I think that, as I've read this thing a half dozen times and I looked at the site briefly. I kept thinking, it just doesn't seem logical to put the condition in the first place. You know we all have to start somewhere but this doesn't seem to be a logical starting point from my perspective of taking care of the lake. And I think, I agree a little bit with Uli but I can't picture what, if we put 3 feet ofplantings in there, if that's going to really make any difference. I mean I don't want to compromise and then have it provide any value. We're just compromising for the sake of compromising versus just say cutting loose and not having to deal with it. So I'm at a loss there but I'm leaning towards cutting it loose more than I am compromising and that's based on naivety perhaps but I'm concerned that if we compromise, are we really gaining anything. So that's a question I think yet to be determined. Kate what if we, does this go onto the Council? Aanenson: Thank you, I was going to bring that up as a point of order. Just for clarity, what you're asked to do tonight is to give an interpretation of the staffs, their interpretation of the staffs opinion of this. So that's what you're here to do. If you want to take the variance off, that's a whole other process. In order to expedite this you can make another interpretation. I'm kind of waiting to see where you go. Also on this, it does need 4/5 votes. Otherwise it goes up to the council. So the condition was to do some landscaping. Okay. They said they believe they've accomplished that. Just for argument sake, you could say that's an interpretation. That met the interpretation. The rock scape. We're saying that it needs something more than that. That's our interpretation. Okay so that's where you're at. If you want to take the condition off completely, we have to go back through a process to take the condition off. Peterson: So if we said that we agree with staffs interpretation, would it go onto the council? Aanenson: Ifthere's 4/5 vote, they have a right to appeal that still further. Right. No matter what. To answer your question, yes. Peterson: Okay. So hearing that. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2000 Kind: I have a question for staff. Just to clarify one more time. So I agree with your interpretation of the condition and you're saying that the time to remove the condition would at the City Council level? Aanenson: No. That's a whole other process. What you're deciding, we gave them an alternative. They're appealing the interpretation of how we're applying. They believe that the rock meets that. We're saying it doesn't. So that's what they're appealing. That interpretation. There's a whole separate process to have a condition of approval taken off. So that would have to come back through. Right. Kind: We can't handle that right here? Aanenson: Right. Peterson: So if we unanimously agree with staff, it wouldn't go onto council? Aanenson: I'm certain they would probably appeal it. Peterson: Okay. That's what I'm saying. They have the choice. Aanenson: Correct. Peterson: Okay. Sacchet: May I ask a question? Now we would go with, could we ask staff to strike a compromise over the 2 or 3 options I should say, alternative A, Band C that are currently attached to that condition? Is that within our range to ask that to be relaxed a little bit? Aanenson: Right. The condition reads, the applicant shall installlakeshore planting. Sacchet: It doesn't say specifically these? Aanenson: Right. Lori's giving you her direction on what that means but. Haak: And I was just going to add as kind of a couple little side points here. There's some concern a!oout the height of the plantings. These are my interpretations. My renditions. I use the same book that Brinn brought up. I took a look through it. Just thought you know, this is a place to start so certainly I won't take offense. I'm not landscape architect. I won't take offense if you would recommend shorter plants. If like Uli said you would narrow the strip a little bit. Traditionally, buffer strips to be effective are recommended to be 15 to 16 feet wide. That's just kind ofa standard practice. On this lot, I did the math after I talked to you. Commissioner Deb. Sorry, I'm still learning. Kind: You're doing great. Haak: And it's about, if you include all of the area, the 25 x 25 feet 625 square feet is what you're talking. And then if you take out the 5 feet for the middle and then the little bit on the one side, it ends up being less than that. So just some other things that I kind of heard you getting around so if you have any other questions as far as the. 48 Planning Commission Meeting - July 18,2000 Sacchet: One more question Mr. Chair if! may. Craig's concern was that if we reduce the amount, like what I was proposing like going about halfway, would it actually lose it's benefit in terms of what it's going to do? Haak: Well that kind of ties into the 16 feet that I was playing around with. I recommended a little wider because it is such a narrow, a little bit deeper because it is a narrow area, but I think 15 or 16 feet would still accomplish your goals. Certainly I would say, if you're looking at erosion, the most critical points would be right around the wall. And you know getting a couple plantings right in front of the rocks and right behind the rocks. Just to stabilize that a little bit more because that's what I see is potentially the biggest erosion issue. Peterson: Thank you. Well does anyone want to tackle on a motion? Blackowiak: Well I will. I'll move that the Planning Commission affirms staff interpretation of the condition of approval for the lakeshore setback variance, Brinn and Bob Witt, 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard. Sacchet: Mr. Chair, could we consider an amendment? Peterson: Let me get a second to that. Conrad: I second that. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Sacchet: I would like to propose an amendment to, how would we word that. To allow staff to work with the applicant to find a planting solution other than what is being proposed. Brinn Witt: That's what we have. Blackowiak: Yeah I was going to say Mr. Chair, I wouldn't. Brinn Witt: We have three plans, I don't care for any of them. Sacchet: I'm saying other than those. Bob Witt: Can I ask... Peterson: No, let's get our vote done. Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, I wouldn't accept that amendment because it's a yes or no. Either we affirm that it's a lakeshore buffer planting. Is it a correct condition? Does the condition, do we agree with staffs interpretation of the condition, yes or no? And I don't think it's our place to start putting other conditions on it, like Kate said. That's City Council and if we want to start changing, that's a totally different issue. So my motion tonight is, my motion is the Planning Commission affirms staff s interpretation period. Peterson: My only concern with that is that we're just passing it off to City Council saying you deal with it then. 49 Planning Commission Meeting - July 18,2000 Blackowiak: Well they're the ones. Peterson: Well regardless, Ijust don't see the appropriateness of that. Blackowiak: But I agree with staffs, I do agree with their interpretation that boulders are not lakeshore buffer plantings. Peterson: I agree but what we're trying to do is trying to find a creative solution to address both the issues but Kate do you think there's a way to do that or not? Aanenson: Well, just what Lori said. I think that the critical spot is in front of the boulder walls. Does that mean 3, 6 feet? Now we'll go look at that. Certainly what we heard tonight from the applicant is that they don't think the 25's going to work. I've heard from some of you that may be excessive. Lori said 15 feet's minimum so we're trying to find a critical area that we can put some lakeshore, meet the intent and still do some due diligence to get that intent. I guess I leave it up to the applicant to say what, you know ifthey're not going to do anything, then I'm not sure there's any point to it. Back to where Alison's at so. Bob Witt: Can I ask a question at this point? The question that I would have would be, do those plantings need to be next to the lake? Is it something, because what we're trying to do is we're trying to be able to enjoy what little piece of property that we have down there. If there were some plantings or something along the, what you would call the swale area or the drainage area along the two lots. If maybe we did something on that but not going past the side of the house basically. You know that, so that we could at least enjoy the little piece of, little postage stamp piece of a lot that we have. Now the erosion on, this is what's blowing me away, is erosion on the boulder wall that's there. Nothing's going to erode from there. We've got all the erosion cloth in there and everything. If there's erosion, I think if you look next to like the Sitter's for instance, they've got nothing put up there. They've got creosol soaked ties in the water. None of this was looked at in their variance and I'mjust, it just drives me nuts you know seeing this. And we're feeling honestly extremely picked on you know. And I think if you were in our position you'd feel the same way. You know and I'm trying to, we're trying to do what we can here and we'll be more than happy to work with you on something like that but we've got to be able to keep the lakeshore that we've got. We can't give up... Peterson: Alright, alright. Alright. This is going to be II :30 before, we'll have another negative vote on II :30 like what the council did. Alright so. Conrad: Mr. Chair, just a comment. Dave, swales by the lake, is there any benefit to sculpting out a little bit, just to stop the water from going straight in? Because that's what, again I don't think you heard what I said. Boulders don't stop the, anything from going in the water. It stabilizes the lakeshore but it doesn't stop. Brinn Witt: Curb and gutters do and that's what Dave was saying was corrected from the runoff from the... Conrad: Okay. Boulders don't solve the problem, that's probably why we're believing the staff report, or confirming it but in terms of the swale down there Dave, instead of plantings you create a swale, which is a little dip. What do we think about that? 50 Planning Commission Meeting - July 18,2000 Hempel: That was one of the requirements along the side of the home. Contain the water on the property so it wouldn't go onto the adjacent properties. However as we get back towards the lakeshore, the idea is to let that swale dissipate and sheet drainage the flow over the property so we don't have the direct impact that will force an erosion problem at the beach area. So actually the swales do kind of go away as you get back towards the lake. Now maybe Lori can add something to that as far as plantings specific areas make more sense on the sides or. Haak: Well, it's a unique situation, I'll give it that. To catch some of the sediment and debris and nutrients that may come off the road, plantings in the swale may be effective. I haven't seen it used. I don't know what kind of design the applicant would be proposing. Certainly I would encourage them to seek a landscape architect or something like that if they wish to pursue that and I would be more than happy to sit down with them to do that. As well as any sort of lakeshore plantings we might arrive at at any point in the future. I couldn't say right off hand. I could check some literature. Check with some people in the field. See kind of what their recommendation would be for this area because it is a challenge. It's a small piece of property, but the thing I keep coming back to is, it was a year. It was a year before we heard from the Witt's after that condition was put on and they have expressed to me while I was on site that they're just, they're not interested in planting their piece of lakeshore and so the proposals that I worked up were kind of pie in the sky ideas because what I was hearing from the Witt's was that they just weren't interested in that so I guess at this point, you know before we start hashing out all those arguments, it's whether or not they are willing to do the plantings and I guess the issue in front of us today isjust staff interpretations. Sidney: You know Mr. Chairman, I guess when I'm listening here I'm still, I want to know how much runoff we really have to treat in this case and I can't imagine it's a lot at all that's really going to mitigate the whole debate here. Hempel: Mr. Chaim1an, commissioners let me. That is a very valid point. I mean the drainage area to that location has been reduced. So maybe there is more investigation to be done to determine that may assist us in determining actually hòw much buffer is actually needed. Peterson: I mean is your sense that this lot is any different than if you take 25 feet of the neighbors lot on either side, is there going to be substantially more or less or the same? Hempel: This lot is different than the Sitter's to the west. This does take runoff from the road. Sitter's runoff basically falls on the yard or falls on the rooftop and goes to the lake. This property takes the street runoff and additional upstream properties as well under larger rainfall events and snow melt. That's the difference. Peterson: Alright. Other comments to the motion and a second? BIackowiak moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission affirm staff's interpretation of the condition of approval for lakeshore buffer plantings for Bob and Brinn Witt at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard. All voted in favor, except Sacchet who abstained, and the motion carried. Sacchet: I abstain. Peterson: For reasons being? 51 Planning Commission Meeting - July 18, 2000 Sacchet: For reasons as stated before that I feel a compromise would be better. I don't question that this is the correct interpretation of staff, but I would like to build in some flexibility for staff to work beyond just what's in /Tont of us. Kind: And Mr. Chair I'd like to add a comment too. I agree with staffs interpretation that a boulder waU and Kentucky blue grass is not plantings for filtering but, and that's what I'm affirming by my yes vote. But I do question the condition and encourage the applicant to seek whatever means they need to with the City Council to revise that because it just, for consistency and for 24 foot lots, it just seems out of place to me. Peterson: Agree, as do L With that in mind a City Council member or the applicant or any aggrieved person may appeal this decision to the City Council by filing an appeal with the Zoning Administrator within four days after the date of this board's decision, It will be placed on the next available City Council agenda which would be? Aanenson: I'm not sure ifit would be the 14'10 or the one thereafter. Peterson: Okay. So it wiU be the next month. So appeal to staff within four days and then make your respective plea with the council. Okay? Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUEST FOR A 70' X 120' PARK MAINTENANCE BUILDING TO BE LOCATED IN THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE PARK NEAR THE ENTRANCE, CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Jeff Wyant: My name's Jeff Wyant. I'm with Engelhardt Associates and we worked on the civil portion of these plans. HTG Architects did the building design and Hoisington-Koegler did the landscape plans so if you have any questions on the engineering portion, I can surely answer it and I can try to answer anything on the building. Peterson: If you were to speculate. Ifwe said you had 20% more money to spend, would the architect still design a building, do you think these would substantiaUy change? How much of the building design do you think was driven by just pure, this is the money we have to spend? Jeff Wyant: I would say it was driven by just meeting the ordinances. I don't think the money was an issue at all. Aanenson: Substantial change was made through the whole process from what originaUy came in so. I believe the original estimate was closer to $400 or $500,000. It will be closer to $750-800,000 now. And again that was the fencing issues. The block. Adding the brick. AU those were add on's. Peterson: I guess the reason for my question, and part of this is maybe a speech. I guess even today after those changes Kate, if this was a commercial building, you know I would request and not approve if architecturaUy it didn't have more interest. You know I think that this is an opportunity that we as a city to make a statement about who we are and how we want to be perceived by the community and if this building is evidence of how we want to be perceived, then my perspective is we're woefuUy lacking. So 52 r~' /.~ L /..., "'''-v' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, AUGUST 15, 2000 AT 7:00. P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 690 CITY CENTER DRIVE PROPOSAL:: Amend Condition of Variance Approval APPUCANT: Brinn and Bob Witt LOCATION: 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. ~OTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal In your area. The applicants, Brinn and Bob Witt, request to amend a condition of approval of a variance from the 75' lakeshore setback, 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to Inform you about the developer's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The Developer will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing Is closed and the Commission discusses project. Questions and Comments: if you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during oft1ce hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Cindy at 937-1900 ext. 118. If you choose to submit written comments, It is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen VIllager on August 3, 2000. "'" o Smooth Feed Sheets™ TODD W & JILL PORTER 9261 KIOWA TRL CHANHASSEN MN 553 I 7 DONALD W & KATHRYN N SITTER 9249 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 553 I 7 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 CITY C~ENTER DR PO BOX 147 CH.t.NIMS N MN 55317 BARRY A & HARRIET F BERSHOW 9271 KIOWA TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 PETER PEMRICK JR & 9251 KIOWA TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CRAIG W & KATHRYN HALVERSO 9283 KIOWA TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CRAIG W & KATHRYN HALVERSO 9283 KIOWA TRL CHANHAS MN 55317 STEVEN A & RENEE A WILLIAMS 9291 KIOWA TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SCOTT A & SUSAN M BABCOCK 9351 KIOWA TRL CHANHASSEN MN 553 I 7 RONALD J FRIGST AD 9270 KIOWA TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 - JAMIE & STEPHANIE HEILlCHER 9280 KIOWA TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 CITY CENTER ~ POBOX ]47_______ CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ~- DANG VAN & FONG-YUN NGUYEN 9260 KIOWA TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 TODD T & KRISTI LYNN WODEK 295 SHOREVIEW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JOHN K & LESLIE G CADLE 30 I SHOREVIEW CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 GARY D & DANISE L MCMILLEN 9151 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 HAESEOK CHO & 9170 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THEODORE J & ANN L SMITH 9166 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 MARK A & SUSAN E FROMMELT 9 I 62 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LUNDGREN BROS CONSTRUCTIO 935 WAYZATA BLVD E WAYZATA MN 55391 Use template for 5160@ RONALD P LlLEK & 9155 SUNNYVALE DR . CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT G & SUSAN L DAUB 9159 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT W & LISA K BORN 9163 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 JACK J & LAUREL A SCHNABEL 9167 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DAVID W & LAURA L BEISE 9171 SUNNYVALE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THOMAS J & SUE A SUTER 11397 WELTERS WAY EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55347 GORDON L ALEXANDER JR 9225 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 RONALD YTZEN 9227 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 FREDERICK POTTHOFF III & 9231 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DEAN SCOTT JOHNSON 9235 LAKE RILEY BLVD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 imooth Feed Sheets™ JL KENT OLSON 9 LAKE RILEY BLVD ANHASSEN MN 55317 NNYSLOPE HOMEOWNERS ASS I DEERFOOT TRL ANHASSEN MN 55317 Y A & HILBERT F SMITH 13 LAKE RILEY BLVD ANHASSEN MN 55317 CILLE LOUISE REMUS 15 LAKE RILEY BLVD .ANHASSEN MN 55317 'BERT F & BRINN M WITT !7 LAKE RILEY BLVD iANHASSEN MN 55317 IBERT D & KRISTIN S REBERTU ) DEERFOOT TRL IANHASSEN MN 55317 ,MELA N GUYER o DEERFOOT TRL IANHASSEN MN 55317 )BERT M & NORA J MURRAY o DEERFOOT TRL 1ANHASSEN MN 55317 ~VIN M & LINDA P SHARKEY o DEERFOOT TRL 1ANHASSEN MN 55317 ARK J RAMSEY & 10 DEERFOOT TRL nANHASSEN MN 55317 Use template for 5160@ RICHARD R & JILL M MADORE 381 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SCOTT ALAN WIRTH 361 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN A & PATRICIA A SEKEL Y 341 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ROBERT J & LAURA BEVANS 33 I DEER FOOT TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 VALERIE D DAHLER 321 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 DALE B & DIANE KUTTER 301 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 SUNNYSLOPE HOMEOWNERS ASS 340 DEERFOOT TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 from: Don Sitter To: Cindy IClrcholf Date: 8/1.../100 ßme: 23:30:53 rage 1 of 1 August 14,2000 City of Chanhassen Planning Commission c/o Cindy Kirchoff Fax # 937-5739 Dear Planning Commission Members: We are involved in a community service project and will not be able to attend the August 15 Commission meeting. As an adjoining neighbor to the 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. property, I wish to express my opinion regarding the amendment request. I agree with the staff report and recommendation. Please keep in mind that tonight's point of discussion is not where and what lakeshore plantings should be done, but rather should a condition be removed that was put in place by Council to mitigate a variance allowing the building to be erected as desired. The building was erected; therefore it seems a responsible action that the condition should be adhered to. This is why I agree with the amendment denial. The questions of the previous hearing regarding generallakeshore planting would seem to invite future public discussion between government leaders and citizens. The City might even take a leading role in the metro area in forming lakeshore compatible planting plans that will protect water resources, as they did in wetland protection and water management a few years ago. I trust you will make a decision based on true facts and based on long range vision. Thank you for allowing my opinion. Sincerely, Kathryn Sitter 9249 Lake Riley Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 18/14/00 23:54 FAX 6122771010 ANDERSEN CONSULTING --.---.------..- ~001 To: FAX: .A!:tn: City of Chanhassen Planning Commission 952-937-5739 Cindy Kirchoff From: Fred Potthoff Address: 9231 Lake Riley Blvd Chanhassen Phone: 952-445-0176 Please make sure the Planning Commission receives this letter for the Tuesday Aug J.5th meeting at 7pm Subject: Comment with regard to Proposal to Amend Condition of Variance Approwl for Brinn and Bob Witt at 9247 Lake Riley Blvd I am submitting this written co=ent to say that I am in favor of Brinn and Bob Witt obtaining their request for an amendment of a condition of approval of a variance from the 75' lakeshore setback at their house, 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. I understand from talking to both CIndy Kirchoff and Brinn Witt that the issue involves an interpretation of a variance that was granted to build the Witt's house. The stipulation was that there had to be lakeshore plantings along the lake. The city has Interpreted this to mean planting certain plants that grow up to 4 or 5 feet tall across the width of the lot and as much as 25 feet deep into the lot from the lake. The Witts have done the followlng: placed boulders along the lakefront (consistent with what their neighbors have done), created swails (or depressions) on their lawn on the lakeside to catch the majority of the water that would flow toward the lake on their lakeshore lawn, elevated the lot at the street-side to ensure the water running down the street goes into the storm sewer, and planted grass on the lot. I believe that what the Witts have done adequately protects the environment and the lake. I a1so believe that the condition of the variance (requiring lakeshore plantings) is unfair because it has not been required of any other variances or building pernûts given on the lake, and it not a city ordinance. Therefore, please remove any requirement that the Witts must add lakeshore plantings. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Yours truly, ~~~ Fred Potthoff To Whom It May Concern.... On the proposal to amend condition of variance approval submitted by Brinn and Bob Witt of 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard, my wife and I would like to express our wholehearted agreement with this request. We see no valid reason why they should be held to a condition on their lake shore that none of their neighbors have on their property. This would be a gross injustice to the Witts, in our opinion, and we see absolutely no reason why this hasn't been settled in the Witt's favor a long time ago. ~cerely, A/:.dcd- ¿f ~~th Hilbert F. Smith /'1 '\ .j¿ ~' t\ L-¡ \ "-- __ '0- \,j~f"- ~~ .--- (Joy!\. ~th\ 9243 Lake Riley Boulevard Planning Commission Meeting - August IS, 2000 Burton: Well if we deny it, it moves on so Mr. Chairman I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend denial of Conditional Use Permit #2000-5, and I'm not going to read the rest but just whatever it states there. Peterson: Okay, is there a second? Kind: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Burton moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of Conditional Use Permit #2000-5 to construct a 12' x 28' equipment building and a 79.5 foot monopole to be located at 275 West 79'h Street, AT&T Wireless Services. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: REOUEST TO AMEND A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF A 7 FOOT V AffiANCE FROM THE 75' LAKE SHORE SETBACK. 9247 LAKE RILEY BLVD.. BRINN AND BOB WITT. Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of staff? Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Name and address please. Bob Witt: Hi, I'm Bob Witt and this is my wife Brinn Witt. We're at 9247 lake Riley Boulevard. Last, well maybe it was a little bit more than about a year ago now one of the council members had added a friendly suggestion that we work with staffto put lakeshore plantings as a buffer between us and the lake. But there really was no discussion actually open at that point nor was there really any clarification to what was to be done. Again it's pretty important, and some of you have come out and seen the lot. There is only 24 feet oflakeshore there, which is a very small amount, and if you were to come over and look at it you can see that there,'s access to the dock and there's room for basically a couple of chairs. Yeah you can show that. One of the big issues that we have is that no other variance on Lake Riley Boulevard and basically every home on that lake on Lake Riley Boulevard has variances. Some are extremely close to the lake. A lot closer than us and none of them have had to do any lakeshore plantings as a requirement to the approval of their variances, Also there is no city ordinance that would require lakeshore plantings. Now the things that we have done, and a lot of the things we've done we feel really have improved this lakeshore. Of course we removed over 60 truckloads of dirt of kind of a sludgy black dirt that was, that came out was replaced with sand for filtration and that was what we needed to do to build the, to actually build the house. We took two truckloads of boulders out of the wall, The previous owner, Jim Jeppson had basically backed the trucks and just dumped the boulders into the lake with no erosion cloth or anything like that so we went and paid the money to pull all that back out of the lake, and what we did do is we built a two course boulder wall with double erosion cloth to protect from erosion going into the lake. And with those boulders that came out of it, what we did was build boulder walls around both sides ofthe home to protect against erosion because we have a pretty decent slope on both sides of the home so.. .have there as well. We did put gutters on the house as well. And then as far as plantings go, we put pines around the home up in front on either side. The east and west side of the home in the areas where there might be drainage. We also put a lot of dogwoods and a lot of different plantings around each side of those boulder walls to help with runoff. Lots of perennials. The one thing 6 Planning Commission Meeting - August 15,2000 that I would point out too is if you take a look at our lots, there's two maples that are about 25 feet and those are the actually, if you look on either side of either one of our neighbors, even 150 feet down, those are the only pieces of any kind of planting that's actually on the lake and they're on our property. So there's two ofthose. Let's see. Again, one of the biggest things that we have as an issue here is that no other variance before or after us has been required to do lakeshore plantings as a requirement to their getting approval for their variance. I'm going to bring up the latest one which is our neighbors to the west of us which are the Sitter's at 9249. They just got a variance that was approved for their garage. They expanded the size of their garage. Their garage is actually closer to the lake than our home is. They don't have any erosion protection on the lake. It's all just dirt and they're getting quite a bit of erosion into the lake. They have Creole soaked ties that are sitting in the lake as well. And they have 100 feet of lakeshore. If there should be a position where somebody would be required to do lakeshore plantings, that would be certainly one that would be, that I feel would be required to and that variance was approved after our's was approved. So we're just asking, you know we really don't have a lot of room down there. We've done a lot to improve the quality of the lot and ofthe lakeshore there. We mow and we bag. We don't put any chemicals on the lawn. One of the things that was brought up last time was that there would be leaves and things of that nature was basically what this, what these buffers were to take care of and we just don't see that as an issue. We can run over that with a mower in 5 minutes it's so small. And this is the smallest lot on Lake Riley. Did you want to say something? Brinn Witt: Yeah, I would just like to go over again what the City had proposed. This is Alternate A. Basically extending in rront here.. . over 7 feet tall. It doesn't even leave room here to put in, take in or take out or put in a canoe. Here is Alternate B. I'm not sure where it is now. Also a couple of, a lot of the neighbors agree with us and have.. . Planning Commission has come up with and this is rrom Joy and Herbert Smith at 9243 Lake Riley Boulevard. To whom it may concern. On proposal to amend condition of variance approval submitted by Brinn and Bob Witt at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard. My wife and I would like to express our wholehearted agreement with this request. We see no valid reason why they should be held to a condition on the lakeshore that none of their neighbors have on the property. This would be a gross injustice to the Witt's in our opinion and we see absolutely no reason why this hasn't been settled in the Witt's favor a long time ago. And then I believe all of you have rrom Fred Pothoffwho is also a neighbor. I won't read that. I believe you've already gone over that. Also one other thing, a book was provided to me and suggestions as to what they were looking for. The book here and very interesting. Very good. But it also says in the back that if you have ongoing erosion problems that cannot be solved by the use of vegetation, placing of large rock or boulders, rip rap with filter material underneath along the shore is often an effective solution. Peterson: Any questions of the applicant? Kind moved, Burton seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come forward and state your name and address please. Kind moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The publlc hearing was closed. Peterson: Public hearing is closed. Commissioner comments please. Kind: Mr. Chair I have a quick question for staff. Dave, is there any new information about the quantity of contaminants that would be entering the lake via the 24 feet of the Witt's property? 7 Planning Commission Meeting-August 15,2000 Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. I have no additional information to provide you with this evening. Kind: The other question is, at our last meeting VIi, who's not here tonight, brought up the concept of compromise and Craig asked the question of whether a compromise would be effective or not and I was wondering if staff had a chance to review that or not. I know Lori's not here so. Aanenson: We've always suggested that. That's always been our recommendation. Kind: That compromise might be effective? Aanenson: Those were strictly suggestions. We're willing to listen to anything. It's our understanding that their position was that they had done their requirement by the rocks. The placing of the rocks had met the requirement. Kind: Okay. With that I'll continue on with my comments. Peterson: Please. Kind: I'm stuck on the consistency factor and feel that we need to be consistent with what we make neighbors do. And the variance that was granted recently to the Sitter property was granted after the Witt's and there was no such condition attached to their's and their encroachment is as much or further, closer to the lake shore as the Witt's so I want to be consistent and there was no such condition attached to that so I would agree with removing the condition for that reason. Also, the other reason is, while I agree with the idea oflakeshore plantings and being a good buffer, I'm not sure that requiring it on this 24 foot width property is a good place to start our acting on that concept and I would really like staff to explore our lakeshore buffer ordinance which I saw was on our list so I'm excited about that. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Any other comments? Conrad: Mr. Chair, yeah. I think the situation that's, it's interesting because you can use numbers a couple different ways. Because it's only 24-25 feet oflakeshore you think well there's not a big deal but the point is, ordinance says it should be 90 feet oflakeshore. So literally you've got 3 times as much stuff falling over. So that was the intent of the City Council when that went in, and again it's not for leaves. I don't give a crack about leaves. I think we've talking about other rocks here. So I don't want, the leaves are not the issue. Grass clippings are not the issue. It's stuff that's, sheet flow over. Sheet flow typically you want 90 feet. It separates things. When City Council, in their great wisdom, decided to grant the variance, I think there was a condition attached. And that condition, it was attempting to, because there was more impervious surface because of the variance. There was a condition to say now you've got to control a little bit more. So it's sort oflate in the game to say no I don't want to do that. And it didn't look unclear to me what the City Council was asking for. The Planning Commission didn't vote for the variance. It was real clear what our intent was. My preference is to let the City Council deal with this but at this point in time it's our job and we're part of the process to say what is our direction. I think it's just too late to say it doesn't make sense. I might have said that a year ago. I might have said, yeah. It looks out of context but right now to put more impervious surface on than what we thought was going to go there and not to attempt to do something, and I don't think it's the boulders. I think it's something so again at this point in time I don't think that we should try to, put a forest in front of them. Try to make this an unusable or unfriendly lot. Yet on the other hand, and I don't think we have to make it so odd from the neighbors that it doesn't fit it but I would like to hear an offer, I think the City Council 8 Planning Commission Meeting - August 15,2000 would listen to something from the applicant saying here's what we'll do. I'm not convinced that the grading plan was followed. I'm not convinced that we have the right controls on this property right now. They could, the applicant could persuade us otherwise but what I've heard is not persuasive at this point in time so, I think the condition should stay. I think the applicant should be encouraged to talk with staff and see what, again this is not a big deal but it is an important, it's the principle of the thing. It's the principle that we were trying to control the water quality and it's the principle that we granted a variance on top of 6 or whatever other variances that we started with. I don't want to make an example of this. I just want to be, you know Deb made the point of being consistent. I want to be consistent too. We have a philosophy of trying to protect the lakes and here's a case where I can't let that go. I can't let increased impervious surface variance go without something that's attached to it so, you know again I don't need 50 feet or 20 feet, I need something. Something that says the quality of Lake Riley which I'm not sure what the quality is. We're trying to improve it. If that happens to be, and I don't think we can do this in this case but I think a non-phosphorus fertilizer ordinance would solve some of the problems. But again, Dave doesn't have time to get in and say what, does it run off from neighboring land is this property. But again I'm not totally convinced that we really challenged the, or runoff calculations. I'm not sure that the grading plans were followed again. So bottom line is, without making it a bigger issue, I think the applicant probably could get some relief from this ordinance but the applicant should do something. Otherwise I feel real, I think the city is to compromise one thing and then, which is our ordinance. Which is our impervious surface. Which is our variance and then just say well, it really doesn't matter. I would not feel very good about that Mr. Chairman. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Any other comments? Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman I was going to say I totally agree with what Ladd has said. I mean it was not just a variance. It was 7 variances and to mitigate the effect of those variances this was something that council directed staff to work with the applicant. I feel it's fair. I feel it's reasonable. I feel it's something that was known ahead of time and I feel that we should, like Ladd said, be consistent and follow what council recommended because I do believe it's a fitting recommendation in this case. Peterson: Okay. Any additional comments? Sidney: Yes Mr. Chair. I guess I have quite a few different types offeelings about this request. I think the major one I'm concerned about is that the city, I think the city needs to demonstrate that the runoff actually flows through the Witt's property and that the volume is of a magnitude that requires the extent of buffering that we're talking about because I think there's room to compromise in this case. That we could get some plantings based on the amount, the volume of runoff. And I think it's a reasonable request but I guess I don't feel comfortable with what the Witt's have done given as the plan. That that's really necessary to that extent. So I feel we're missing some data in that respect. I think the idea of having lakeshore plantings is a good idea but I think it does need to be addressed more thoroughly or investigated on the ordinance level. That's where I would like to see this kind of thing start rather than in terms of a variance so. I think I'm inclined to let the condition stand at this point and I think there's room for compromise between the city and the applicant. Peterson: Okay. Any closing comments Matt? Burton: Yeah, pretty short. I think that if! was in the Witt's shoes I might be doing the same thing they're doing is looking to have it more the way I'd want it. But I think our job as a Planning Commission is to advise the City Council and to make recommendations based upon the ordinances and the policies and the City Council's guidelines and with that as the background. With our marching 9 Planning Commission Meeting-August 15,2000 orders, the City Council pretty clearly spoke and put just the one condition on there and so I think knowing that that's what they want, I don't know how we could change it. I think it's up to the City Council to make the call here so I would deny the request and let them go to the Council and address it there. Peterson: And I would concur with that. I think the important thing, as I mentioned last time is, I'm not real comfortable with the alternatives that were presented for us today. If it was solely based upon the alternatives presented today I would probably feel differently. I don't think they're reasonable. I don't think they're appropriate. Now the question is, if we back away from those and have more minimal plantings, will that provide any value. If that doesn't then I think it should be removed. So I think that's, I guess that's my feedback going on to council. Aanenson: Mr Chair, can I make a point of clarification. It wasn't spelled out in your staff report based on this format. Because this is an appeal of a variance, it's similar voting as a variance so you need 5 of the 6 votes. Otherwise it would, to overturn... Otherwise it's not going to go up to City Council. Just a point of clarification. It's not a regular amendment. You're appealing the variance portion of it so it would be treated similar like voting on a variance. Peterson: It's not 5 of6 then. I can't remember, it was, isn't it? Aanenson: 75% of members present. Conrad: Point of clarification, say it again Kate. Aanenson: It'd be similar, because this is a variance. It was to begin with and it's a condition of the variance. It would be handled similar. While it says an amendment, they're appealing the condition. That's handled similarly as a variance so you're acting as a quasi-judicial so you would need that 75%. Conrad: To repeal. Aanenson: Correct. Conrad: And if we don't? Aanenson: Right, then they would, they have a right to still appeal and go up to the City Council. I just want to make sure because that wasn't spelled out in the report. Peterson: Okay. With that in mind I'll entertain a motion. Conrad: Yeah I would make one Mr. Chair. That the Planning Commission denies the request for an amendment to the condition of approval of Variance #98-12. But with some directions to staff and the applicant if this does go to City Council. To the applicant, that they consider some sort of mitigating factor in terms of runoff and they present that to the City Council. If they need the advice from staff, they're welcome to do that but I think they should go in and present a plan. To the staff, I think Mr. Chair your comment is appropriate. Ifthere is not, level of planting that can prevent what we're trying to prevent, the condition should be withdrawn. I would also like staff to inform the City Council whether the grading plan on this lot was followed. Peterson: Okay. Is there a second? 10 Planning Commission Meeting - August 15,2000 Burton: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Conrad moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission denies the request for an amendment to the condition of approval of Variance #98-12. All voted In favor, except Peterson and Kind who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. Peterson: Two people say nay. It goes onto council when? Kirchoff: They have to request to appeal it. Peterson: Oh you're right. Hey my job is not complete yet. Wait, wait, wait. Appeals from the decision ofthis board may be made by a City Council member, the applicant or any aggrieved person who may do so by filing to the City Council an appeal with the Zoning Administrator within four days after the date of the board's decision. This will be placed on the next available City Council agenda. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: REOUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE HIDDEN VALLEY PUD TO ALLOW CHURCH FACILITIES AS A PERMITTED USE ON LOT 1. BLOCK 7. HIDDEN VALLEY ON PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF LAKE DRIVE EAST AND EAST OF HIDDEN COURT. 275 LAKE DRIVE EAST. FAMILY OF CHRIST LUTHERAN CHURCH. Public Present: Name Address Jim Sulerud Mary & lee Kaufman 730 Vogelsberg Trail 300 Hidden Lane Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this Issue. Peterson: Any questions of staff? Kind: Yes Mr. Chairman. Just to be clear, if we change the language of the PUD, are there any other uses that could go on that site besides a church? Kirchoff: No. As long as it complies with the definition of church which is on page 2 of the staff report. That's all that's permitted there. Kind: Thank you. Peterson: Other questions of staff? Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Jim Sulerud: Not necessary. Peterson: Motion for a public hearing please. II CITY OF CHANHASSEN ) City Cmt/r Drive, PO Box 147 'hanhtlii/n, Minllesoti1 55317 Phone 612.937.1900 Cmeral Fax 612.937.5739 ,gineering Fax 612.937.9152 blic Safety Fax 612.934.2524 1eb www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Cynthia Kirchoff, Planner II FROM: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinato¢...t DATE: September 6, 2000 SUBJ: Lakeshore Setback Variance - Witt Property 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard Grading and Drainage Issues On Tuesday, August 29, 2000, staff met with Mr. Witt on-site to review neighborhood drainage patterns and discuss lakeshore plantings. Drainage Over the last couple of years with the development of the Springfield properties to the north, the amount of runoff has been significantly reduced to the Lake Riley Boulevard area. There is still; however, a large area upstream that contributes runoff to the Lake Riley Boulevard cul-de-sac adjacent to the Witt's property. Prior to the construction of the Witt's home, the runoff from this area sheet drained down through the Witt's lot to the lake. Now, with construction of the Witt home, drainage is diverted to the Witt's easterly property line. Some drainage also continues easterly along Lake Riley Boulevard into a storm water sediment basin and storm sewer collection system. It was staff's intent to review the drainage pattern through the Witt's property after a significant rainfall event (I" or more). However, since Mother Nature has not been cooperative, staff has not been able to visit the site during a significant rainfall event to determine exactly how much runoff is conveyed through the Witt's property. Staff continues to believe some runoff still is conveyed along the easterly property line. Location and Width of Plantings An inspection of the site during the August 29, 2000 meeting revealed that an insignificant amount of storm water, if any, is conveyed from the Lake Riley Boulevard cul-de-sac to Lake Riley along the westerly property line. Therefore, staff has modified the original options provided to the Witts. Staff presented Mr. Witt with the option of maintaining lakeshore plantings along 10 feet of lakeshore, extending from the easterly property line across the required 10- foot side yard setback. Staff believes this is a reasonable requirement. This change in recommendation would allow the Witts use of over half ofthe lakeshore on the parcel. Depth of Plantings Documents that address buffer strip depths typically recommend buffer strips no less than 25 feet deep. The original options provided to the Witts by staff City of C"a"hasseIl, A f!!Owin[ communit¡ with clean lakes, qualit¡ schools, a charmillY downtown, thriviny busillesses, and beautifùl Darks. A rrreat .lace to live. work. alld òIa. reflected these recommendations. However, the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420) employs a 16.5 foot minimum buffer strip depth. This is the lowest standard (outside of the City's own wetland buffer standards) that staff has discovered. Therefore, staff recommends the establishment ofa lakeshore buffer no less than 16.5 feet deep. Drainage Swales Back on May 3,2000, staff reviewed the site with the Witts to determine if drainage swales were established along the property lines. Attached is a copy of a letter regarding that issue. To date, staff has not been back out to revisit the site pursuant to the letter. Staff Recommendation At this time, staff would like to wait until we have a significant rainfall event to determine the exact amount of runoff concentrating through the Witt's property. This would allow staff to determine the extent of lakeshore plantings necessary to mitigate the effects of the additional storm water. In lieu of additional information on the amount of runoff crossing the Witt's property, the City Council's condition regarding the installation of lakeshore plantings to act as buffer would be fulfilled by meeting at least the following: I. The area oflakeshore plantings be installed along the easterly property line; 2. The lakeshore plantings encompass an area of 10 feet wide by 16.5 feet deep; and 3. The lakeshore plantings be comprised of no fewer than 5 species of native vegetation (including grasses, forbs and shrubs). Attachments: May 3, 2000 letter regarding drainage swales Diagram of recommended location for lakeshore plantings g:\eng\dave\memos\witt drainage.doc I N , j":.ZiL CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 CiJy Cm/(r Drive, PO Box 147 Chanhassm, Minl/tsota 55317 Phone 612.937.1900 General Fax 612.937.5739 Engineering Fax 612.937.9152 Public Safety Fax 612.934.2524 Wib www.ci.chanhassm.mn.us "----. May 3, 2000 :t.'f.." Mr. & Mrs. Bob Witt 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Landscaping and Final Grade Inspection Dear Mr. & Mrs. Witt: This letter is a follow up to our meeting today regarding grading issues and front yard tree placement in conjunction with home building. As discussed, the boulders along Lake Riley Boulevard need to be relocated back to the property line which is approximately two feet from the current position. In addition, the drainage swale along the easterly property line neàr the lake needs to be regraded to extend the swale along the property line to the lake. Currently, the swale ends approximately 25 feet from the lake and discharges into the neighboring property to the east. Along the west side of the property, the drainage swale also needs to be extended up along the garage side to convey the runoff along your property to the lake and not the adjacent property to the west. Once this work has been completed and front yard tree planted, please contact us for a final inspectiqn. Upon compliance we will release the landscape escrow and erosion control escrow. If you have any questions in this matter, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, CITY OF CHANHASSEN ~/,/" ¡/ David C. Hempel Assistant City Engineer r f;,";"_:./1;,, C' DCH:jms c: Teresa Burgess, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resource Specialist Daniel R. Remer, Engineering Technician II Steve Torell, Building Official g:\eng\dave\letters\witt landscaping.doc 9-07-200 12,49PM FROM LTC INSURANCE ADV. 612 403 0636 P.l UUlA.,.,a:.J.' ~UULI vu't Post-It" Fax Note To 7671 Dale fI CO.JDepl. Co, Fax # ___n .... -....--.... _.- ..__._- \:'i6'îI.Ub VE&E..TAíIDN " rß:~~,L ...:5 :=- .5 ~ Y n"cj' T _ 3VÞ. ~- '-fEe -- . / / - ..- ',¡' ~ . : i;.?,:~ t~~ ,~..~ J':::?_O~ AlJf'Ib.¡. bElL U''''flbÙ'