Loading...
PC 2004 01 20CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 20, 2004 Chairman Sacchet called thc meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Steve Lillehaug, Bruce ?elk, Kurt Papke, and Craig Claybaugh MEMBERS ABSENT: Rich Slagle and Bethany Tjornhom STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and Bob Generous, Senior Planner PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet & Jerry Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 18 OF CITY CODE; SUBDIVISION. Generous: Thank you Mr. Chairman, commissioners. We've had this several times before you in the past. I did hand out tonight a couple revised sheets and I'll just quickly run through those for you. They're both the strike through bold format so you can see the change and also then it would be the revised ordinance. But in discussions with the city attorney's office, under Section 18.37 we have exemptions from the platting requirements. The attorney's office felt that this section of the code was confusing and redundant. If a lot change, which is sections 1 and 2 lot line changes are not considered subdivision so they are not required by state statute to go through the process and so he said take it out. The second part is for areas outside the urban service area, that you could subdivide property without going through the platting process. Sacchet: Which one is that? Generous: Page 2, it's subsection 3. Right at the top. Sacchet: Okay, yep. Yep. Generous: We're proposing that that be deleted. Section 18-4 has a criteria for when the creation of lots does not create a subdivision and that's for commercial and industrial properties where you create 5 acre or larger parcels, or for residential or agricultural properties that create 20 acre parcels or larger. So we're going to rely on that section and just take it all out here, so anytime, otherwise if you don't meet those criteria you have to go through a subdivision process. The only exemption is if it's a, they want to plat a lot on, or parcel into 2 lots and both lots meet the requirements, then they can skip the Planning Commission review and just have the public hearing at City Council. Those are very you know standard subdivisions. There's no variances involved. Generally there's Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004 no public improvements involved and so we thought a public hearing would be adequate at the council level, so that's what Section B would do. It would take out the word platted and then, in areas outside the urban service area. And then the other change that shows up on page 18 of the strike through bold format, which are on the new sheets that I gave you, is one of the commissioners said that we should provide, maybe some criteria that based on either the intensity or density of development, that that would be another area that we would look at having sidewalks involved so we came up with the wording and under D, sidewalks that are located in residential areas with long blocks or many units on the streets or commercial industrial uses. Sacchet: Do you have another one of these for Craig please? Claybaugh: Thank you very much. Generous: So that's the only additional changes that we've made to the ordinance. And then of course we've amended the ordinance to correspond with that and that's what I just recently reprinted the entire ordinance for everyone because there's some...questions. Previously in our review the issues that came up was the tree removal, tree protection portion of the ordinance and we looked at some other communities, what they had. Our Forester actually compared our existing ordinance with requirements that we have these ordinances in places. The net result is that our ordinance required more tree planting. It's not necessarily protection. A lot of the other ordinances permit a percentage of the total trees on site to be removed, and so we believe staying with our target is a good way to do it. It's been working. We've actually expanded the tree removal area. Previously it was a 3,600 square foot building envelope. Now we're saying the first 105 feet of the lot, just estimate that all of that will be removed. If they can save the trees at the time of building permit, then we would be able to credit them for those actually those trees that are actually saved rather than having a blanket thing up front so we'll have all the plantings for the subdivision calculated with the final plat, but not, they wouldn't get any credit for saving anything in front until they actually came into construct an individual lot and at that time you say, yes you saved 3 trees up here so you're credited against your 3 or 4 trees that are shown in the landscaping plan. Aanenson: ...you're not saving trees up front. Papke: Are we going to run through the whole thing and then ask questions or do you want questions as we go? Sacchet: Let's interrupt when you have questions because. Papke: Okay. I do have a question or comment on the 105 width restriction. One question and one concern. How do we know it states that it's 105 feet of each lot within the removal area of the development. Is the removal area of the development, is the width and the placement of that 105 foot strip well defined in your mind? If you have a very wide lot, do we know what that piece is? Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004 Generous: Well it would be the front 105 feet. Papke: But what if it's a 200 foot wide lot? Generous: Well it's be 105 by 205 would be the removal. Papke: And you really want to specify that as the removal? Generous: That's just what we're calculating for removal. Now they could, there's other ways they can show that they're going to preserve that and then we can credit that. Papke: Okay. The other. Generous: Because generally we don't get 200 foot wide lots. Papke: Right, but every once in a while you know you might get one like that. The other question or concern I had with that one is kind of the law of unintended consequences here. In that this, does this remove incentive to preserve any trees in that 105 foot strip? Okay, if they're going to get dinged for 105 foot strip, you know as a developer I might say well heck of it. I'll just mow down everything there. I don't have to be careful to preserve trees. Generous: Well they're still credited with those trees from the platting so they, when they come in. Here's where as part of a subdivision we'll have them plant the buffer areas. The perimeter of the site. Areas that we know won't be impacted by site construction. That they're actually saving the trees in the front or side yards that they we said they were moving out, then we would credit that against their total tree requirement. Papke: But is that going to be clear to a developer up front? Aanenson: Right, I think what the goal is is that they're obligated, if there's tree lost, to replace so much. If they can save other trees, that's to their benefit because that would go, and we're looking at it in a holistic, not whether it's an individual. They have to come back with a plan so if they do save those trees that are on those lots, and that should be the incentive that would be less replacement of trees. They're still obligated for that. Feik: I have another question on that. We still don't make any distinction between what I'll call a favorable tree and a, you know an 80 year old cottonwood that's hollow that's going to fall down by itself, or some scrubby box elders that you know they're volunteers. There's not a neighbor in town that would want those. Papke: Versus the 24 inch maple and beautiful tree. Feik: Right. Right, there's no distinction between trees. Do you guys have any concerns? I mean there seems to be, I think there should be some fairness in that there's some desire quite frankly to have some of those trees removed. I mean when you've got 3 Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004 a big old cottonwood like I had at my old house, you know that literally was hollow and it shed branches and you just knew sooner or later it's going to fall on either something or somebody. Generous: Well the ordinance does permit you to exclude if they're hazard trees or sick trees from the calculations. Claybaugh: What about between deciduous and... Just classification of trees. Aanenson: I think what you're looking at is a credit for higher value tree and the question of value, at some point we looked at how we did wetlands. It would add another layer of complexity so let's say you preserve something that's of higher value, then maybe your replacement would even be greater. The replacement requirement might be ever greater because you saved a higher value. I guess we can take a spin at looking at that. Claybaugh: Well as an example in the last development that came in, I forget the name of the developer but the. Feik: Where the wetland, needed to replace the wetland. Claybaugh: Yeah, a lot of less desirable trees in the area and the developer as part of making the presentation made no distinction between some of the more desirable trees and the less desirous trees. With respect to the placement of the retention pond and other things. And to me that would be a substantial factor in considering specifically which type trees are being taken out and what value are they to the community. Aanenson: I'm just trying to make it administratively less complex because we need to work through it, so does the applicant. Certainly we've called out replacement trees that are in the ordinance so somehow you need to get. Claybaugh: But with respect to tree surveys that we've seen. They identify the species of the tree. It wouldn't seem to be that great a stretch to determine by the forester hardwood, softwoods and through a walk through on say trees larger diameter than say 15-16 trunk inches. Aanenson: Those are generally all spelled out and the City Forester does review those but. Claybaugh: But with respect with the health of the tree. Aanenson: Right, that's the one thing that might be missing. I think that's typically why they are walked as part of the tree. We've got one going up that's already been walked as part of the... 4 Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004 Claybaugh: To dovetail that comment, the developers on numerous occasions have identified when we've pointed out a tree on a tree survey, that tree's going to die anyways. Well I'd like to know definitively from our staff if they concur with that assessment or if that's a justified statement or not. Feik: Or one of my thoughts was, could we give the City Forester some discretion. Aanenson: That's where I was going. Feik: You know to say you know, so whoever that person may be at the time, to be able to go out and say okay, this group of trees is not only inconsequential, but if we get rid of the canopy we're going to get more light and we're going to allow these other trees that are more valuable. They're trying to get going a better shot and quite frankly it might be a better deal in the long run. Aanenson: I think that would probably be a good way to do it and make it less complex, but put a caveat in there that's something, the plan will be replaced. We'll put some language in there. Evaluated based on function or value of the trees with the goal trying to save higher value. Have some findings in there which the city attorney would appreciate and so we're qualifying it in some way. Let the City Forester just indicate, I think that'd be... Claybaugh: Well even if it's a commentary from the City Forester. Say I went through. These particular trees caught my eye as being one foot in the grave so to speak or highly desirable, whatever the case may be but any trees that strike her that need further clarification. Aanenson: Sure, and I think we've done that and we've tried to maybe put a tree wall or a retaining wall and we say it's not going to survive you know, but I think that would be an easy way to solve that problem. Claybaugh: Mr. Chair I have another question on a little different vein. Sacchet: Go ahead. Claybaugh: With respect to the 105 foot area that you're identifying, when they submit our landscape plan in conjunction with their application, how is that going to work out with respect. They're going to show us where their new trees are going to be and if any of these existing trees are factored in, what comes out? What is the final plan going to look like when it comes in front of us? You know obviously it would strike me that there'd be things that are subject to change. If you've already excluded that 105 foot strip, and they show plantings here A, B and C, now all of a sudden they're able to save half a dozen trees in that 105 foot setback area, what happened to the landscaping plan that we approved? Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004 Generous: In place of some of the trees they're proposing, the existing trees would take their place. Claybaugh: Now let's put that into context of a buffer. Perhaps there's a lot of discussion about a buffer area. Neighbors have some up and it's important to the commissioners that that buffer is well vegetated. Now, how do we know that if they say trees X, Y and Z over here, that some of those trees that were very important, discussed at length aren't going to be subject to removal because they were able to save some of the trees that were excluded in the 105 foot setback area. Generous: Well a lot of times those specific areas would be designated as part of our review, as part of a preservation area. Aanenson: I think we can add some clarity by that by saying there'd be a priority ranking on the subdivision that came in. Certainly if it seems to be critical a certain buffer, that that would be the last place that tree replacement would be reduced, and like Bob said, it's a conservation easement so I think it's our job as part of the forester section in the report to clarify to you if additional trees can be saved, this is where they would come out, the replacement would come out. Claybaugh: Again the least desirous area, working backwards to. Aanenson: Yep, we can put that ranking kind of in there so you know, and I think that's a good point that the neighbors know that if they save more trees then I'm going to lose my buffer because they might be asking for additional buffer as part of the process. Sacchet: I'm not sure how far you got into this Bob. Generous: Well just to the tree preservation. That was a big change. Sacchet: That was a big piece of it, yeah. Generous: And that, most of it and then as far as the listing of trees, we're trying to combine them and make them flow a little easier in reviewing it. Tree removal. Page 10. Of the strike through bold format. Sacchet: Yeah, if we can go back on page 6. It talks about the required landscaping. 18- 61(a)(1). And I'm not sure whether what we're saying is clear enough. We say it requires I deciduous tree. Generous: A minimum yes. Sacchet: But then it goes down and starts talking about coniferous trees. So are we saying a coniferous tree would not fulfill the requirement? That part is not really clear to me in that section. You see what I mean? Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004 Aanenson: Yeah, there's a conflict. Sacchet: There is a conflict isn't it, so I was wondering whether I was stumbling over the language. So if we could line that up because it's my understanding that a coniferous tree could fill it too. It doesn't actually have to be a deciduous, right? Aanenson: Yeah. Sacchet: That's one thing. Okay, so you're on page 10 now? Generous: So if we just added one deciduous or coniferous. Sacchet: Something like that, yeah. So it's not conflicting. Generous: Then we've got to keep going through the 6, 7, 8, 9 is the list. 10 is the removal of trees. We're trying to come up with language that explains what happens if they remove the trees and when they remove the trees. And also this is a time that they, and this is what they'll call the developer removing trees or the part of our ordinance, how we can stop the process and it says if after you have start this process you go in and change the conditions, we want to know what the changed conditions are so that we can count that into our tree removal requirement. And so there's two parts. If you don't know what, if they have, the trees haven't been surveyed, we can estimate the area, canopy area. If they are surveyed then we can use the caliper inches. So that's what that Section C talks about. Sacchet: The comment below that talks about the review deadline may be exceeded. I wasn't quite sure exactly what the context of that was. Generous: Well this, at one time we were talking about just, they stopped the process and they can start... We had to bring them through the process. We have. Sacchet: Because of the 60 day type of thing? Generous: Right, and under statute we have a total of 120 days to get a preliminary plat done so we want to try to figure out a way to keep it going forward but let developers know that if they change the game as that process is going forward, that we're going to have to get new information. Sacchet: Then they have to start over potentially? Generous: Basically. Feik: Do they start over or does the clock just stop? Does the clock stop or does it start over? 7 Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004 Aanenson: Well you've got a couple options. One, you can say we're going to make a motion based on information, or you can give us a letter saying I'll give you as many days as necessary to get the data that I need to get through the process, which we've done on other applications. Figure out that information. You can ask for more than the 60 days. Say we don't think you can get it done with an additional 60 days and you have a right to say, you know if you don't want to get it done, we're going to make a recommendation now because we have to, or if you want to wait and put your best foot forward, and you need another 100 days let's say, then they can give you a letter extending that for whatever length they want to give you. Generous: You know a lot of the information they can turn around rather quickly so you can keep them on track. Feik: But our only choice of recommendation would be recommend to deny, which would still allow them to go to council and to keep the process going. Aanenson: Correct. Correct, you have to do something. You can send it forward with an unfavorable recommendation or request that they, if they want to put a better light on it, then to ask for additional time. Feik: You can determine that the application is null and void. Aanenson: That's a 10 days when we get an application... Feik: Okay. And you can't say that the process would be suspended until such time? Aanenson: I don't believe so. Once they're... Generous: Submittal date has been found complete, we can find that they don't have enough data and that's where the tabling comes in. We need more information or whatever, and that's legitimate. Sacchet: But that's within the limit of the...that's the issue. We can't table forever. Aanenson: Right, and we may have let them go thinking we had enough and then when we get to this level we find something out that we need more information on, and I would think going through to the council, I don't want to speak for the council but I think that would be high enough level that they would want to send it back, and we've had that. Recommend that it come back to the Planning Commission. Generous: On page 11, that change just defines what a DBH means. 12, we found out that the woodland management plans don't really work. No one follows them once the homeowners are in, so they have professional landscape people that are working on these and they have staff that come in and when we get good plans and hopefully people will come to our forester if they want to plant additional trees. So just take all that out. Page 13, Section 4. This is that one where we had the 60 by 60 building pad and then we came Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004 in with the square footage and then finally, and I didn't get that change to this section. We came up with that 105 foot, that depth of the lot. The front 105 foot, and this is just as a means for calculating initially what the tree removal would be as part of the subdivision. Sacchet: So explain how this 105 and 8,500 square feet relate. Generous: Well it's based partially on our survey of our average building envelopes and we have that as the background data. If you took 10 different house plans within the community and got an average of their rectangular building area, we took you know if the garage is up here and the house is back here, we just sort of squared everything up and we got an average. Actually we raised it a little bit so a 65 feet house, so you have 30 and 65 and then a deck on the back and then the removal area back there, and so we figured with. Sacchet: Isn't there a danger if we use an average here? I mean the ones that will come in with a small house, they pay the price for the ones that come with the big house, and ones that come with a big house, they don't really, see what I'm saying? I mean if we would want to, we should be higher than the average to really represent the interest of the city, shouldn't we? Generous: Yes, it was based on all these. Sacchet: Because, hum. This is tricky. Lillehaug: Can we get a little revised point of clarification. Where are you showing the revised? Generous: It's in the ordinance. It's in that same section. Aanenson: In the front part. Lillehaug: In this that was handed out? Generous: No. Welt it's in where we have the entire ordinance, it would be section 18. 61, whatever the number. It's easier when I have the whole book open. It's a little harder when they're broken out. So for this we took, yes you're right. If they have a deeper house that would be built on it, that's more than 105 feet back...take out more trees. So these are fairly significant. There's a range from like 1,800 to 2,900 square foot building area and so after doing all the math, an average and I don't know what other number we can use. You know you don't want to plan for the worst case and you don't want to plan for the least case so we were someplace in the middle. What's a reasonable expectation. Feik: We're talking single family home still so. Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004 Generous: Yeah, just for single family house. Other developments have site plans that there are attached units, you'll see more grading plans and you'll have more specificity on the final plan or final building. But on these it could be a range of things so we tried an average range. That's a big house area. Aanenson: And the variable is you never know what the home is until some, a buyer picks that plan to go on that lot. So that's where we need flexibility. Generous: So we did Lundgren was a lot only because they have the bigger houses, or historically they have. In Stone Creek. Lillehaug: What was the average for the houses you used there? That range from 56 to 79 feet, isn't that right? Generous: 66 to 80 feet in length and 31 to 55, and that's what the average, 68 by 47. And that would just be the total building area, including you know some of the yard. And Jill's very pleased with the number that we have. She says that's reasonable. That's what she has seen historically. Basically everything on the front gets moved out to where they build the house and then like 15 feet beyond that. Feik: And this covers where they're going to stockpile the dirt for back filling and you're comfortable it covers all the different. Generous: Right, because generally that has been in the front yard also. The contractor's have put their materials up there. Now we still the case they can come in and they'll have to do the tree preservation if they want to get credit for saving trees there. Sacchet: We have to put a stake in somewhere. That's just the nature of it. Claybaugh: Would there have been a scenario if there was a substantial tree in the front of some of these areas, these lots, that would be reasonable to expect that could be saved that I understand that the builder or the developer has a stake in saving that tree but is there anything the city would do from our perspective to further the survival of that trees, rather than just saying if there's anything left in that first 105 feet, we'll credit it back. Generous: Well you can always make a condition of approval that they try to save a tree but you know. Aanenson: We've gone down the slippery slope with that where we tried to save the tree. We've made these such and through whatever, we're not aware of construction techniques or negligence, you're down the road and the homeowner gets in there. The tree's dying. You've made them save it. Now they come back to the city, you made us save this. It's going to cost us X number of dollars to take it down so I think one thing we've learned over time is to be better stewards of the trees that we're trying to save. Is it reasonable, that's why we changed our calculations to say typically we found the problems...as Bob indicated where there's loading and unloading of material. That 10 Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004 expectation is if they can and you've got a manager out there that's watching all the time. Otherwise it causes hard feelings. Really hard feelings. Claybaugh: We certainly don't want hard feelings. Aanenson: No, well you know, how about... Claybaugh: No, I understand what you're saying Kate. I just, there's a part of me that I understand specifically where you're coming from but there's also a part of me that has the feeling that once you identify that 105 feet, that anything within that, whether it's worth saving or not, isn't necessarily treated with the degree of weight that maybe should be assigned to it. Aanenson: I agree and I think the one thing that we have learned over time is, as our iteration of these ordinances has gone on, the first when we tried, the very first tree ordinance is we tried to save individual trees and we learned that was a nightmare. The best way to do it is in kind of conservation easements and bigger groups. Claybaugh: I understand you're the ones left with administering these different codes and trying to. Aanenson: Well I think you know we raised everybody's expectations of can this tree really be saved and how close is it to the house and you know we tried to do a better job of evaluating how much damage is going to be through grading, and while we may think a tree in the front can be saved, somehow the house placement gets in there and guess what? Now we put the sewer line connection too close to it, you know and we just found that's a tough area to try to save. Certainly we always want to save a significant tree. Builders see the value of that too. It's just a tough call. Claybaugh: Most of them do. We'd like to think most of them do, that's the problem is that it's the ones who don't but, understood. Aanenson: Right. Lillehaug: One question on that? So really in essence this is going to save larger stands of trees. It's going to maybe drive developments to maybe have lesser lots because you're trying to get a, you're still trying to maintain the same tree canopy coverage. Generous: Yeah, the same targets are in place. Lillehaug: But you're clearing out the whole front of the lot and they still have to meet that. Generous: For calculating their tree removal. Aanenson: Just for removal and replacement. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004 Litlehaug: Okay. Aanenson: ...developers are willing to just replace trees. Claybaugh: So this is kind of hope for the best plan for the worst scenario? Aanenson: Again I think we've always, but that's how we've done this and I think for the most part we've been successful. Again looking at comparing ourselves to how other ordinances are administrated in surrounding communities. Claybaugh: At least this way going in you know what you have. Aanenson: Right, and again this is just fine tuning...pretty close to what we're doing is fixing a few things that weren't working and we're having some problems with. Sacchet: Okay. Generous: Page 14 of the strike through bold. Number 6, this is the, once they said they're going to protect something, this goes back to your issue. We finally designate trees that are supposed to be saved and then they start taking them out. This is one of the penalties that we're proposing. $100 per diameter inch. If it's a big tree, you know it's some additional cost for them. I don't know what's the best. $500 council felt was too much. You know $100 we have other communities that are doing it. Sacchet: For the $1007 Excuse me Craig, go ahead. Claybaugh: I'm sorry. Whether it's a conservation easement or whether it's saving trees on a building lot, I think the greatest thing that the city can do, and I don't know that we do it, is get the signage out to inform the people that come beyond these meetings. The excavators that are out there on site. The materials delivery people. I don't know if there's any requirement that, or if staff feels it makes sense that as part of the permit process that there is some signage that's placed out there, that there is a fine in place. And like we talked about before with people going to conservation easements and put in fire pits and such, I know that we had talked about this, both in public and private about possibly having signage put in place at that conservation line. Putting those owners specifically on notice, just like when you go by a utility. You know there's a power line here. There's a gas line here. Everybody's aware of it and I don't know if this would be a good case for that to identify, require the builder, developer to put just a simple sign up on site identifying that as part of the tree preservation there are fines in place so when a truss company comes to deliver a load of trusses, they have an opportunity to see that sign and rather than dropping it right at the trunk of a substantial tree, that maybe they'll exercise a little more care. Aanenson: Well I think there's a couple different areas of control points. One is during construction, and before any, they're authorized to begin construction the sites are walked 12 Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004 by the city engineer, or engineering staff and the City Forester, maybe the wetlands and it has to be fenced. Everything has to be fenced so there's a pretty good control point there, but that doesn't mean someone doesn't ignore a fence or whatever. But the biggest control point is once the homeowner's in and sometimes you have 2 or 3 homeowners down the road and that's where the education component comes in. Typically those are discovered through neighbors who did buy a wooded lot and are concerned about it and call us on that but they all know through the transaction but once it's moved down the road, that's where it's a little bit harder to prevent people from trimming. That's an ongoing, typically when that happens then the letter goes out to kind of that association just a reminder, FYI there might have been new people moved in. That's a big part of Jill's job, the City Forester's job is education. Just to remind people of what the goals are, whether it's a fence or fire pit or what you can and cannot do, but that's ongoing. That's a good point but it's not always at the construction end. Feik: I want to talk about the fine amount for just a moment. I know City Council thought $500 was a bit punitive but if you've got 12 foot, or 12 inch tree and it's a $1,200 penalty, that's not very much. I don't think, and I know I voiced my opinion on this before but I think it should be punitive. I think that's the whole idea. It's supposed to be a penalty. Not just the cost of the board feet. Claybaugh: Yeah, it's liquidated damages. Feik: Yeah, so I mean granted if council is really uncomfortable with the $500, I would really like to see $300-350. I want to see something more than a slap. That's my personal opinion here. Sacchet: Yeah I support that. I think $100's not enough. You made a statement Bob that other cities have $100. Generous: No, that's what we found in the ones that we could find that have financial penalties. Feik: Which cities? Generous: Well it was Plymouth is one for sure and then there was one other and I don't remember. Feik: Because my thought, if you don't mind just for a moment. You know we don't have that many trees. You like if it was Minnetonka, I used to live in Minnetonka. There's trees everywhere and quite frankly honestly if you lose a couple trees here or there, it's not a big deal. But with our developments and what we've got on, where we're developing primarily ex-agricultural land, the trees we've got I see that are left are significant. Assuming they're a quality tree. And so I would just tike to see, I'd like to see the fine have some teeth to it. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004 Sacchet: How does everybody else feel? I think $100 is way too low. Now I can understand $500 is considered too high. Somewhere inbetween. Claybaugh: At least $400. Somewhere inbetween there. I'd settle for half of that myself. Generous: Our discussion before is the intent of it, are they doing this maliciously or is it an accidental and then trying to figure that out was a nightmare so. Lillehaug: It doesn't really matter though. Does it matter? Generous: Well yes. Sacchet: Tree dies, tree dies. Generous: But that was sort of the discussion that people had. There should be a difference. Claybaugh: But see a lot of those accidents are due to lack of education. Lack of communication with subcontractors, material suppliers, so on, so on and so forth. And without that accountability up front, and the people coming behind knowing that there's something at stake, that there's a penalty in force, I don't think they're going to treat it with the due diligence that they would if they see a sign or they're made aware that it's $200 or $250 a diameter inch. Papke: I think there is an argument that we are different than Minnetonka but we're actually, from my observations, pretty close to Plymouth. If you look at how Plymouth is developing, it's pretty similar and I think we would be hard pressed to justify saying we are in that much of a different situation than the City of Plymouth. Now one can argue that Plymouth is not being punitive enough. Feik: I'll argue that. Papke: But I think the council, we will have to deal with that argument. That this is not dissimilar to Chanhassen and that is what they're using so there's a precedent there. Feik: You know I'm envisioning a commercial lot. We save a couple of trees. Next thing you know we've got trucks parked on the grass and over the curb and other stuff going on and it's a multi-tenant deal. The tenants don't own it. They don't care. They come and go. Ultimately the trees die. I don't know, I think $100 is just way too light. Papke: Different approach. Rather than a fine I think I've been pretty consistent in arguing for a more aggressive replacement policy. That all trees are not equal, both in kind and in size. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004 Feik: Well I think the fine should go to a city fund for forestation. I think it should go to earmarked city fund to be used in the discretion of the city forester and wherever, as to where it would make most sense to spend those dollars. Papke: Perhaps I'm making an assumption but I suspect that the City Council is concerned with the reputation of Chanhassle, okay from a contractor's perspective. Sacchet: There's nothing wrong with the reputation that we value the trees. Papke: But my point is, is rather than a punitive fine, if we're more aggressive from a replacement policy standpoint, it doesn't appear to be punitive but would we get the net effect that we're looking for by doing that? Claybaugh: I personally don't feel we're going to get the effect on any penalty that was in place, replacement and the rest of it until the message trickles down to all the parties involved. Whatever vehicle communicates from the builder to developer to subcontractors to suppliers, that's where you're going to get the greatest bang for your buck. No matter what policy's in place, if they're not aware of it and they don't assign the property weight to the policy that we've established, it's going to have no bearing. To me communication is key. Feik: ...for signs. For paper signs that could go up during construction to be posted that the City provides... Aanenson: I personally think we do all that. I mean for some people if you're trying to get something, it's... Claybaugh: Then if we've done all that, then I think the punitive aspect is more than justified. Aanenson: In my opinion, we've done all that. You've got some guy that's going to unload some trusses and the sup's not sitting out there, who you going to blame? They're going to go back and then it's finger pointing and we've been through that so I think what we were trying to say is, either the replacement policy, so we're not trying to discern who is at fault here. It's the property owner, whoever's got the letter of credit in place. Either it's a replacement policy or it's a fine. Sacchet: I really think it's good to put some teeth in it. Do the replace, we do have replacement policy and I think it will get more complicated than to put like a dollar figure on it is probably simpler, in my opinion. And yeah, because $500 would be a little bit of a stretch, but somewhere inbetween $100 and $500. $3007 Aanenson: I think what we can do is just communicate up to the council that your feeling was it should be closer to the 5 than the 1. That wasn't enough. Sacchet: I mean $300 would be something to settle but it's only $100. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004 Feik: I think we should recommend a dollar figure myself. They'll say you guys, take you out of the hot seat to say Planning Commission recommends X. And then you don't have to. Sacchet: 300? How much Bruce? Feik: I say $350 myself. Sacchet: Steve? Lillehaug: $300 minimum. Sacchet: Craig. Claybaugh: I'm satisfied with $250. Sacchet: So I guess the average is $300. We've got $350's. We have $250's. Papke: But there were two votes for $250's. Generous: So we'll present that they...with the $300 in there. Page 15, this is the caliper versus diameter. We had financial guarantees in their place. Changing that out. Fees are in another spot, and then finally in 18-78, I know one time we were all recommending that sidewalks should be automatic. Council was hesitant. They directed us to come up with some criteria that we look at. Still make it permissive, and then up to the city to make that determination. And so we came up with these three and then tonight I gave you that fourth one depending on, and it was trying to be open language about it really depends on the density or intensity of development without coming up with a specific number. What do we mean by many? Is that more than 20 units or more than 107 Is a few under 7 you know, it's all in semantics. Feik: Same thing with long blocks. Generous: Yes, long block. Feik: What's a long block? Sacchet: Yeah, I'm not quite sure I understand actually then...that image. Papke: I have a question on (c) here, and maybe this is what's confusing. If you look at page 11 of the first section where it's complete and page 16 of the strike through, and Section (c) you have sidewalks that connect neighborhoods to existing. In the first one on page 11 you just have sidewalks that connect neighborhoods to existing. Existing what? You know it's incomplete whereas in the strike through section it says existing and proposed trails. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004 Aanenson: That's what it should be. Papke: So there seems to be a discrepancy between the two copies. Generous: Yeah, thank you for catching that. Papke: So which one's right? Generous: The what you said. Feik: Existing and proposed trails? Generous: Right, between existing and proposed trails. Papke: I don't know if that was related to your question Uli. Sacchet: Yeah it does because I don't see the whole picture yet. I'm still not sure whether I see the picture that the condition (d) that was added. I mean I understand you want to have some flexibility so it's a little bit fuzzy math but. Aanenson: Well I think, you know actually this comment came from Rich and I think it's a good comment because depending on the lot size, you could have a long block that, if it's a cul-de-sac there's not a lot of traffic. Depending on that, but if you had a street that was higher density, and had more traffic. More people living on it, you might want to provide a sidewalk on that for people to get to the bus. To get to a bus stop. To get out to the trail. So you know a lot of that you look at is setting. And you're see an example of a long cul-de-sac in the next subdivision that comes forward. It will be a good example of does that merit, based on the, you know kind of the surrounding, you know what's around it. Whether the connections are there. What's the flavor of that kind of neighborhood, and that's what we're trying to put some kind of flags to consider a criteria and this was one that we had looked at. Because we do have some that are going to be long cul-de-sacs. Generous: And you didn't want to base it on land use because would you exclude all low density? Well no, that's not the idea and is it a specific number of units? Aanenson: Maybe, maybe not. Feik: Let me ask you a question regarding the verbiage on the beginning of Section 5 where we strike shall and put in may. In my opinion once you put in may it leaves it way up to the discretion of the developer whereas if you leave shall, then they're always asking for a favor not to have to put it in. If you say shall, you got to do it and then they come back and say well you know this block doesn't really warrant it, then you've got some discretion. But if you say may, then they're going to come in with no sidewalks and we've got to fight tooth and nail for every sidewalk going forward. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004 Generous: Then the city may require it. You know it's really the city's discretion whether or not a sidewalk goes in. Aanenson: I understand what you're saying. If we can just maybe get a legal opinion on that because since we built the criteria. Feik: Yeah, but it's easier to give them some leeway versus to ask them to conform to what is maybe in their mind gray. Aanenson: Because ultimately you're still going through the same criteria to find out if it's a shall, so if you don't meet any of those criteria, then we can make the assumption that you probably wouldn't put it in. But we can get a legal opinion on that... Sacchet: That'd be good. And we're not going into the width of sidewalks anymore. We took that out. Aanenson: Yeah. Yep, I think that's, depending if it's a trail or sidewalk and in some. Generous: If it's a sidewalk you know. Lillehaug: I have a question. Looking at (a), (b) and (c), with exception to the width of the sidewalk, was it at the direction of the Planning Commission that we strike (a), (b) and (c) out? The original (a), (b) and (c) that are struck out. Well, not the original but the bold. The bold strike out, because in my opinion I would prefer to have the (a), (b) and (c) that are bold and struck out in there because it is specific. It tells us we want a sidewalk basically on every street. And then we deviate downward from there. We see exceptions from there. Aanenson: That was actually the City Council that wanted the criteria built in. You reviewed this once. It went back up and now it's coming back down. So that was kind of their direction. Kind of just put that, and that's where we're struggling with shall, may, kind of get some guidance. Lillehaug: That's why in my opinion I think we go back with the (a), (b) and (c) that are struck out. I mean it's clear. If there's certain cases out there where we want to deviate downward from not having a sidewalk, then that's when staff uses their judgment or the review procedure process will delete a sidewalk. Feik: Well (b) is the same, correct? There's no change in (b). Is that correct? And (c), minor so I'm trying to find what the difference. Really only (a) is shorten, right? Aanenson: I think he's talking about the (a) above, correct? Feik: Oh, you're talking about the paragraph. I thought you were talking about, I apologize. I see. I thought you were talking about the adjustment. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004 Sacchet: Well you say council didn't like that wording? Is that basically what I hear you saying? Aanenson: Yeah. I don't think they're really required on a collector street, sidewalk on both sides. Now. Depending on the type of development that came in, you might make that a requirement based on the uniqueness of that development pattern. Whether it might be a commercial subdivision that you think this merits a sidewalk. We had that discussion on both sides, but as a general statement that shall be on both sides, they felt that was maybe onerous. Sacchet: Too strong. Aanenson: Correct. Feik: So for example, let me put it into a framework here. If Lyman were rebuilt next year, it would need a sidewalk on both sides under what we had recommended, even though one side's strictly agricultural, and one side. Generous: It's getting a trail on. Feik: Yeah, you would have to do it on both, okay. Aanenson: Right, so that's incorporated already. Feik: Yeah, I can see that. Aanenson: We're not saying, there might be a development pattern that it might fit that it ends up on both sides, but having a carte blanche, it's going to be on both sides, they said that probably wouldn't work. And some side you might want it 8 foot tying into a trail. Like I say, Lyman is going to be a trail. And more likely be 8 or 10 feet. So we don't want to eliminate it. We want to put people on notice that as each project comes in, depending on how it merits, where it fits in. What's around it? What is an easy connect to? What's the development pattern, and we kind of put our best judgment together with your guidance to say what should those sidewalks be. Actually it kind of gives you carte blanche to do what you want to recommend up to the council. Sacchet: I can see some value in, because if it's too literal it becomes restrictive on everybody's side, including our's. Claybaugh: Right, we just want enough of a foundation so it's not a stretch for us to be requesting it. Aanenson: Right, because there's a park next to you or there's a school. We think it's important to put a sidewalk there. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004 Sacchet: It should go somewhere. There's no point to build a sidewalk/'or sidewalk's sake. I mean like you just said, if you have something along an agricultural field, what's the point. Claybaugh: When, if a developer comes in and you look over the developer and the preliminary stuff to get ready for their application. The developer's going to, or the builder's going to take their cue from staff because you're going to identify in your opinion if there's a sidewalk required or not. So by the time it gets to us, it's kind of the decision's already been made. Aanenson: No, I think we're relying on you to also give input on that because sometimes we may see a different development pattern and you may be closer to a neighborhood or see something a little bit different. And also the park commission's also looking at this and they may have a different, they'll make a recommendation. They have a little bit different twist on it too depending on some things that they see. Sacchet: Well then that's another caveat here too. I mean how much agricultural land are we going to have in this city before too long? It's all going to be gone. Aanenson: Right. I guess what we're saying on the other side of Lyman, as I understood what you're saying Bruce, is probably more large lot you know. But ultimately if there's a school on that side. Feik: Well you want it on one side. You wouldn't necessarily want it on both sides. Aanenson: Correct. Feik: The way we had it was both sides and you've got sidewalks on both sides and one would never be used. Aanenson: Right. Sacchet: Well the more the better with sidewalks. Aanenson: Right, but I would bet that that still gives you a lot of, you know as part of your comments, whether they all make it through, just like when we put some pieces in, sometimes you take... I think it's important if you feel strongly about a development pattern that you add that. Claybaugh: Yeah, that was my concern about the perception and the mind set of the developer or the builder when they came in front of us. How it had all been approached up to that point and it left at least a certain degree of open mindedness with respect to the developer's prepared to hear that maybe staff doesn't feel strongly about it and there's a possibility that the commission will. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004 Aanenson: No, I think the subdivision you tabled last time is going to actually add a sidewalk. Sometimes in commercial ones you see a development pattern a little bit different. I don't think we've had too much reluctance on that. One that felt strongly about not doing it... Papke: I have concern with the verbiage that we... It's kind of swung from the initial verbiage was extremely specific. And now we have something that's very much open to interpretation. Sidewalks that connect to existing sidewalks. What existing sidewalks? Where? On the other side of the city'? I mean one could. Sacchet: There's always one if you only go far enough. Papke: It's so vague that if I put myself in the role of you know, in the seat of a developer and I look at this and I go, what do they mean? What's it going to take to make these people happy? So I think we may have introduced a little too much. Aanenson: If you go back to the original one Bob did clarify that. If you go back to 11. Generous: Within adjacent developed areas. If you look at the ordinance, I tried to pick up all of those. I didn't get all the strike through's. Sacchet: Maybe you should say sidewalk that connect to existing or planned sidewalks. Otherwise we're never going to be able to start in an area where we want sidewalks because there are no existing ones. Claybaugh: That was my concern. Sacchet: So if we say existing or planned, then we have that covered. Aanenson: Right, and that would be in our official street map...or something, that's a good point. That's a good clarification. Claybaugh: Yeah, because if you have leapfrog developments and you've got pockets undeveloped inbetween. It's reasonable to expect that they'll get sidewalks in the future. Generous: And we would add that language under (c), proposed trails and the (d) as. Aanenson: A perfect example is that we know there will be a park over here but that subdivision hasn't gone in but we still want to connect a sidewalk to get to that, right. I think those are good comments. Claybaugh: That provides a greater degree of comfort. Lillehaug: Now if I could ask a question. Sacchet: Go ahead Steve. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004 Lillehaug: You threw this at us at the final hour here. Your handout here and it's way back at the beginning. Section 18-37. I disagree with crossing out what you're doing there. Aanenson: Which one? Sacchet: Steve, which page is it? Lillehaug: Very first one on the handout that they gave us. Section 18-37. And my question would be, is if you get rid of Section (a), (a)(1) and (a)(2), then in essence the ordinance does not cover in anywhere that I know of, divide a platted lots to add a portion of a lot to an abutting lot. This is the only area in the ordinance that covers that. Generous: Under the definitions of a subdivision, that's where that exemption comes from. Aanenson: So if you sell a portion of your lot to somebody else, that can be done administratively. It's not considered a subdivision. Subdivision is only when you create a new lot. If you're just moving a property line, it doesn't meet the definition of a subdivision and that's why the city attorney provides a solution... Generous: It's confusing. Feik: Because it's administrative anyway. Aanenson: Correct. Claybaugh: Where's that addressed? Generous: It's under the definition of what a subdivision is, and it's under state statute. Claybaugh: Right, I understand this is in there but is administratively what Kate just spoke to, where is that located? Aanenson: I think it's just a definition of a subdivision. Lillehaug: Okay, I think you're missing the point of my question though is, if you take this out referencing if you're trying to split a lot and add a portion of that lot to another lot, that's not covered anywhere. You don't cover it under Section (b) in your revised. You simply don't have it covered under definition or anything. So then what is it covered under? If it's nowhere addressed in the ordinance is what I'm saying. When you take this out it's not addressed in the ordinances. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004 Generous: Well the splitting is, it's addressed by the one that's a definition of a subdivision and under state statute. If you look under the definition of subdivision it would say adding a portion of a lot to, or changing a lot line is what it actually is. Claybaugh: If I can interject. 18-37, you're speaking in context of the subdivision codes. Generous: Right. Claybaugh: Now what Kate's speaking to is an individual lot if someone wanted to expand the boundary line, that doesn't meet the criteria or the definition of subdivision. What I was asking is on an individual parcel, not as part of a subdivision, why that was addressed. I understand that you're speaking about 18-37 in the context of subdivision, but what you're commenting on is an individual lot, not defined as a subdivision wanting to adjust the boundary. Aanenson: Right. Just to be clear on how this happens. If someone wants to sell a portion of their lot to the neighboring property, they would go down to the county and record it. The county won't record it until the City of Chanhassen's reviewed it. What I stamp on there, or someone in the planning office that says, it says this is exempt from the subdivision ordinance. That means nobody reviewed it because it's exempt. If you're just moving a property line. You can create a non-conforming lot. Claybaugh: I'll re-state my question. Where is the exemption stated? Anywhere in our, I'm just curious. Aanenson: I don't know that it is. Claybaugh: Okay. Aanenson: Currently at Section 18-37? Is there somewhere else in the code? Claybaugh: Right. How would someone know that that would be exempt. Feik: Or legal. Claybaugh: Right. And that that would be the follow-up question. And legal. Generous: Well except for knowing the definition of a subdivision which is defined. Claybaugh: So what I'm saying is if Kate got, heaven forbid but hit by a bus, okay. She was the only one that knew that that existed, okay, what happens? What I'm asking is where do we find that? How does someone become aware of that, that that is in fact exempt. Aanenson: People come every day and do it so, I mean realtors. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004 Claybaugh: So word of mouth. Aanenson: Yeah. Generous: Or reading state statute. That's where. Claybaugh: Okay, so it's a state statute. Generous: It's in the state statute. Claybaugh: Okay, alright. There we go. That's all I was asking. I'm just looking to be educated. Aanenson: Sure, sure. It has come up before where we've had people file that create a non-conforming situation where it gives us a lot of consternation but legally someone can do that. Now it may affect their mortgage on their property, but usually we advise people that that may cause them, because if they're going to refinance, typically we get a letter that says is this lot in conformance and then we advise them if they needed that if it was not. Generous: And it's a self-created hardship if you give away the property and create that situation too so, you don't meet the criteria for granting. Aanenson: are exempt. We would advise on that but if someone wants to move a property line, they Claybaugh: Okay. Commissioner Lillehaug, are you satisfied? Lillehaug: I'm not because. Feik: What's your concern? Lillehaug: Where is the city verifying that it meets all the requirements of the current subdivision codes? Under the current PUD codes. Aanenson: We don't have the authority. That's what I'm trying to say, we do not have the authority. Lillehaug: Generous: Aanenson: Certainly we have the authority. Certainly you do. On a lot line change, no. On a lot line change, no we don't. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004 Lillehaug: You're telling me that if you have a city PUD and you change a lot line on a parcel in that PUD that the city doesn't have any backbone to reinforce any of the zones that apply to that PUD'? Generous: We have no legal authority to stop that change of lot line. Lillehaug: You have no enforcement of enforcing the PUD is what you're telling me then. Aanenson: On moving a lot line. We have enforcement of a PUD but no. This question has come up several times and we do not. If you would like something from the city attorney to come and talk to you about that... That says it's exempt from the subdivision, we always try to advise the person that you're creating a non-conforming situation. It's a self created hardship. There's notes in the file... Sacchet: So you do look at it and you would inform the people that they're creating a problem but you can't tell them they're not allowed to do it. Aanenson: We can't stop them, right. It's a lot line. Sacchet: But you can make them aware. Is it, you try to make them aware of it. I mean that's kind of your responsibility. Aanenson: ...subdivision is creating a new lot. They're just moving the lot line. There's not a new lot being created. It's conveyance of property which they are exempt from so, again the stop gap measure of control is that the county wants us to see that it's happening, so we put something in the file. We inform the property owner. This may cause problems. You see it when variances come up when people want to say can I buy 3 feet from my property. They find out that the property owner next door is right at the margin and it would cause a setback problem or a square footage requirement problem so they may not want, but it happens when they have the excess, they're willing to work it out and they just do that. Lillehaug: I'm still confused about, you have a PUD, a subdivision that is not fully developed yet. It's not fully complete. Not a house, not every house is on one of these parcels. You're telling me that the city cannot enforce. Generous: The lot lines. Lillehaug: The lot lines. Aanenson: The lot lines, correct. Lillehaug: Even though it's not fully developed. Aanenson: Correct. Even if it was fully developed. They move a lot line. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004 Generous: Well if it's undeveloped and they create a non-conforming lot... Claybaugh: So then that lot to be developed can no longer be developed. Generous: ...need a variance, and then you don't have to approve the variance. That's what we're saying, we try to inform them that this problem is going to come up. But we can't, we've been advised by the attorney's office, we can't stop it. Lillehaug: How come this wasn't in the original discussion that we started back whenever we started it? I mean this is coming in at us right when we get this. Generous: Because recently there was a change of lot line and the question could they do this and the attorney's office says yes and we said, we tried to show them the ordinance. Claybaugh: So you struggled with it at one point in time as well. Aanenson: Right...take it out because it's confusing because when we were citing this, he said that doesn't apply so we think it's confusing and he recommended we take it out. Claybaugh: I'm still struggling with what. I believe I understand what you told me but I still on a personal level are struggling with it. Aanenson: It doesn't seem right. Claybaugh: No, it does not. Aanenson: I would agree with you. We would agree, and it just doesn't seem right that someone could just move a lot line. But I also want to say, it's a rare exception that somebody creates a problem like that. It's pretty rare. We've had I or 2. Lillehaug: It happens though, right? Aanenson: It happens. It always happens but it's, is it less than 1 percent? Yeah. Feik: Makes sense to me. Sacchet: Okay, thanks for explaining that. Generous: Staff is requesting that the Planning Commission move this forward to City Council. We believe that the changes are, will improve our subdivision review. Sacchet: Well, are there any comments? Do we have want to invite our visitors if they have a comment. Are with us. Any comments from the Paulsen's? It's not a public hearing but if you want to say something, you're certainly very familiar with the code. I think it'd be appropriate. If you want to speak up. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004 Jerry Paulsen: Jerry Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive. Just the recent discussion here. I guess our concern was if there is no administrative subdivision, if there's no need to go through the Planning Commission, there's also no need to notify neighbors, and that's one of our concerns that the neighbors may not be aware of this property change line is occurring, which may affect them. One other comment that, using Plymouth as a benchmark, they have the same attorney as we do so it might be fair to go out to other cities when you're doing comparisons. They have the same firm. Sacchet: Thank you Jerry. Comments here from the commission. Any comments? Claybaugh: No further comments then what previously stated. Feik: No further comments from me. Lillehaug: My comments, I wouldn't be supporting modifying Section 18-37 as proposed. I'm not totally clear on it and I don't support it until I guess I'd be fully versed on the true meaning and intent of it and really the city's position on reviewing PUD's. It seems like there is no enforcement if this is deleted, in my mind. Aanenson: Can I answer Mr. Paulsen's question? Sacchet: Yes, please. Aanenson: Typically if you're moving a lot line, there's two parties involved. So the two properties affected, it'd just be two new descriptions. Those are verified internally by the city staff to make sure that they both still close. When they go down to the county, they also have to be verified with two new legal descriptions so those are evaluated so whoever's involved, the neighborhood would be notified in that process. So to say that the neighbor wouldn't know. Sacchet: How would they, how do we notify them? Generous: Anyone outside is not because it's already under the existing ordinance it's exempted from the subdivision requirements. Feik: Right, so if [ want to convey 2 feet to my neighbor, big deal. Generous: Yeah, you come in and we stamp the deed. It gets recorded at the county. Lillehaug: How about 10 feet and then it leaves only a 35 foot lot. Claybaugh: Non-conforming lot. Sacchet: It's non-conforming. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004 Claybaugh: It's not a function for you to deny it...correct? Generous: It's a lot line change. Claybaugh: It's an acknowledgement. Aanenson: Right.,.non-conforming. Anything you come back... Claybaugh: Okay, it's an administrative acknowledgement is what it is. Aanenson: So let's say these are the two homes. They currently both meet the setback. This person decides to sell off 3 feet over here, okay so now both parties would be involved in a new legal description. They have to do that so somebody needs to review before it goes down to the county. So that would be part of the review process. We'd also advise the other person that they're creating a non-conforming situation. That will be in the records. Also if you're going for a re-financing, typically we're called to see if the house is in compliance and that show up and stuff like that. Sometimes you have a mortgage...mortgage company tends to sign off on those too. That's another catch. So that's why I say it's very, very rare that... We have administrative all the time. We do maybe 10-15 of those a year. As far as creating a non-conforming situation, for all the years I've been here, maybe 2. At best. Claybaugh: But the process that we've been discussing is dictated by state statute. Generous: Correct. Aanenson: That's how it's done, right. Sacchet: It seems like the framework is relatively crisp. What I'm hearing you explain to us, it's not... Aanenson: I think there's ...would you be notified? No because you're exempt from the subdivision you're not creating. Sacchet: So yeah, isn't it a requirement for the city, we don't have jurisdiction so we can't really have a notification requirement either. Claybaugh: No other questions or comments. Sacchet: Alright, I'd like a motion. On the inside of the cover. Feik: I move that the Planning Commission approve the following motion. The Planning Commission recommend the approval of the ordinance amending Chapter 18 of the Chanhassen City Code as presented and discussed tonight. Claybaugh: Second. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - January 20, 2004 Sacchet: We have a motion and we have a second. Feik moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the ordinance amending Chapter 18 of the Chanhassen City Code as presented and discussed. All voted in favor, except Lillehaug who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Sacchet: Do you want to elaborate on your nay Steve'? Lillehaug: Yes I do. Section 18-37, the justification to revise this is because it's confusing and redundant. I disagree with that. I don't think it's confusing and redundant and I think it's a necessary measure that the city enforce this and keep it in. Sacchet: Okay. And in summary for council. We struggled with a couple of things. One thing that Steve just highlighted. We had some agreement that we want a higher penalty for killing trees that were not supposed to be killed. And we would definitely want to see a higher monetary penalty than $100. ! think we said $300. Claybaugh: Yeah, Mr. Chair also with respect to the expanded language regarding the sidewalks. Feik: And giving the forester some discretion regarding determining what is a valuable tree and what isn't. Sacchet: And then I think the rest was more detailed the comments that you gave. Is that about accurate? Alright, thank you very much. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Feik noted the summary and verbatim minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 6, 2004 as presented. Sacchet: Do we adjourn before open discussion? Aanenson: Yes. Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:05 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 29