Loading...
PC 2002 06 18CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 18, 2002 Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Blackowiak, Steve Lillehaug, Bruce Feik, LuAnn Sidney, Uli Sacchet, and Rich Slagle MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Claybaugh STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner; Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer; and Mahmoud Sweidan, Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Jerry & Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR A 7 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR EXPANSION OF A GARAGE ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 3920 LESLEE CURVE (PAUL & LIBBY SCHEELE), KNIGHT CONSTRUCTION. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Commissioners, are there any questions of staff'? Uli, go ahead. Sacchet: One quick question. The staff report says that the applicant did propose some changes, and that there is a little bit of a reduction with the eave going in. But then it also makes a statement that the applicant did not consider, or discuss on the other side of the garage a stand alone or attach on the other side. Now there is enough room on the other side to have a stand alone? Is a stand alone unacceptable or? Aanenson: You're talking about on this side of the lot? Sacchet: On the opposite side, yes where there's room. Aanenson: On this side of the lot doing a stand alone. I'll let the applicant address whether or not that met their needs. Sacchet: But city wise, ordinance wise that would be acceptable? Aanenson: Yes, if they can the setbacks of 30 foot and 10 on the sides, correct. Sacchet: Thank you. That's my question. Blackowiak: Okay. Questions anyone? Lillehaug: I do have a question. You also reduced, or the eave was reduced from 18 inches to 12 inches. Does that meet, is that a reasonable overhang? Does it meet the current standard construction practices for that? Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Aanenson: Right. The reason we are concerned about that is we found in the past, the ordinance does allow for encroachment into the setback for certain architectural features such as eaves, bay windows and the like but what we found through our experiences when we granted variances, sometimes they have taken, you know the expectation of the neighbors that maybe we gave a 3 foot variance and then they added onto that, the bay window, so even took it to the next level so we amended the ordinance to say that with the variance that is the fine line. You can't encroach into it further so through the roof line, which they need to change the pitch of the roof. We wanted that as minimal as possible so you're causing a runoff onto the neighbor's property so they brought it back as far as they could make it work. Lillehaug: Okay, but is 12 inches, is that acceptable? Aanenson: It's still, it's part of that variance. It'd still be part of that. I mean that's the best that they can do. Lillehaug: Okay. Blackowiak: Thank you. At this time would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? If so, come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Paul Scheele: Thank you. I'm Paul Scheele, the owner of the property at 3920 Leslee Curve. I'd like to bring a couple of points to your attention in this project. Yes, we did look at the other side of the property to see if that was a possible use and it really, without demolishing the home in the process of attaching it. We did show that to Mr. Generous as one of the possible plans and what we're requesting is for the variance, in order to maintain the aesthetic of the home and more consistency with the neighborhood. The thing which really got me thinking based on our previous meeting was what exactly the whole thing about variance was. It was an education for me so I really dug into it with some relish and I really do appreciate what you're doing. More so I look back to 1957 to understand how this neighborhood was constructed originally and I was really impressed about Mr. Les Anderson, who developed this property back then was a very forward thinking man. In fact he designed this neighborhood with a minimum of 20 to 30 feet between each home for the very purposes that you're attempting to enforce by maintaining the codes at this time, so he was way ahead of his time before the incorporation of the city in fact. He was planning not only for his retirement but for the aesthetic of the community. I spoke with both his spouse. He's passed on but I spoke with his spouse and also with his son who was involved in the construction at the time and what he said to me was fascinating. He said that yes, in fact his father was concerned about houses were piling on top of each other in Minneapolis and he wanted to create a community where there's minimum distance between homes and something very interesting about this property, and I don't know that it meets the condition of a hardship, but I would like to read this note from Mrs. Anderson. At the time the house was staked, the house was placed too close to the lot line on the east side. This was not discovered until the house was completed in the fall of 1957 when the owner of that property wanted to create a fence between the two, so this was an unusual circumstance. It was not in the original plan of the community. Nevertheless, the distance between the existing structure and the other home, the adjacent home is over 40 feet right now which, 46 feet and with the proposed change to the plan that you had seen earlier with the angling away from the property lot line, there would be close to 54 feet between the two properties. And we've spoken with our neighbor and not only is Mr. Anderson delighted that something is happening to this house to change the look of the front of the home, but our neighbor is as well. He's very excited about the fact that this is going in. He just invested in the future of his home with the expectation, eye on the future of future property Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 owners. He's put quite an addition onto the side, the opposite east side of his home and the only thing on the west side of his property at this time is a garage and there is no intent to make any changes at that time. So looking into this, I feel that if you take a look at the aesthetic and I know you have come out and looked at the property. That it's a good plan. It's not cheap. It's also not a vain product. It's a product which is intended to enhance the look of the property, but also maintain the aesthetic of the community as Mr. Anderson had originally proposed. One final item ifI could show this. Maybe it's this way. This blue line here represents the original design of the plan, modified as we are proposing it to you now as you've asked us to come back with an additional plan. We've brought the new structure absolutely up to the limit that we can before we begin impinging on a lot of construction that's already been done to the front of the house. Very expensive, custom built Marvin window there and so we have squeezed it in as far as we can. And what we've got left, what we're asking you for is approximately a 3 foot request for you to consider granting us for a variance. Are there any other questions of me? Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, questions of the applicant? Slagle: I've got a couple. Blackowiak: Sure. Slagle: So ifI can ask. The gentleman who's house this would be is not here, right? Okay. I'd like to hear from him in just a minute. And so the blue lines that you just had, the one to the window is the new further, western most edge of your, versus the one before. Paul Scheele: Correct. Slagle: And in talking with staff, did they, did Mr. Generous or anybody give you feedback that that was more conducive to perhaps what we're looking for? Paul Scheele: Exactly, yes. He said the effort to pull back the existing eave on the side of the house, reducing the eave on the new addition, sloping the addition away from the property line. All of this he said is a very nice attempt to meet what you're all asking for. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. This item is open for a public hearing. So anyone liking to come up, step up to the microphone please, and I guess we want to hear from the neighbor. And your name and address for the record. Brad Vonruden: My name's Brad Vonruden. I'm 3910 Leslee Curve. The property directly adjacent to the east of the Scheele's, and our property, like you said is, it was a one bedroom rambler when we purchased it 6 years ago. Last year we invested about $100,000 into an addition and expanded it away on the opposite side, well within all the specs and we actually were going to go through a variance to try to put a grand entrance on the front, which would have been 2 feet encroaching towards the road, and with the expense of that and everything else it just didn't seem possible. So, in this whole aspect of things, with the 40 plus feet from our property line currently to my existing garage, there is a natural swale in the terrain between the two for runoff so that shouldn't be a problem. I'm more than, I'm ecstatic that they're doing an addition on the house. As far as a hardship to my property, I can't see it. I'm in the construction trade and I see zero lot line projects across the metropolitan area. Lots that are 5 feet apart, and these are 600 and 700,000 dollar homes going up on them so I just, as far as being a hardship for me, my wife and I personally don't feel as though it is and we are more than in favor of allowing them to do the project as originally planned or as you see fit. Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Rich, did you have a question of the neighbor? Slagle: No. Blackowiak: I have just a quick question. You have a 2 car garage right now? Brad Vonruden: Two car garage currently. Blackowiak: Okay. That was, I couldn't tell and I couldn't remember either so. Okay, thank you. Okay, is there anybody else that would like to speak on this issue? Seeing no one I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, comments please. Lillehaug: I guess I'll start here. I have a few comments. Staff indicates that there will be a 6.5 foot variance which would give a 3.5 foot setback. Now this would be for a minimal area right where we're connecting into the existing garage. I think for the majority of the area the variance would really only be 2 ½ foot. That's the way I see it because the edge of the, the majority of the garage would be set back 7 ½ foot from the property line. And my comments on having a separate garage to the west, I think the property would be limited to one driveway so that may not be feasible without moving the entire garage. I think that's how I understand a new code, correct? The applicant's willingness to lessen the existing non-conformity on the existing roof I think is a good trade-off to reducing the negative impact on the adjacent property also. Meeting with the applicants, their home, it definitely does need improvement in these areas that we're looking at. And I think that this home improvement does revitalize the house greatly and I think it'd be a good addition to the neighborhood there. The previous plan was just too close to the property line. It had too much of a negative impact. I think this is a good compromise. For these reason I feel that this is an area of latitude that should be given and I support the variance as resubmitted. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Bruce. Feik: I very much like the design, the style, all the improvements that are being made to the house. However, I do not see how I can support the hardship issue on this. I don't see where the necessity of adding a mud room or additional car stalls is necessarily a hardship and based upon that I cannot support it. Blackowiak: Okay thanks. LuAnn. Sidney: I agree with staff's analysis, although the non-conformity is decreased. The applicant does have reasonable use of the property. I think from last Planning Commission, at least my feeling was that we were looking for substantial changes and in this case I don't believe we've seen it in this revision. There could be other locations or configurations for the laundry room and mud room, so I think like I said, the applicant does have reasonable use of the property. And similar to Commissioner Feik, I just don't see a hardship here so I cannot support the variance. Blackowiak: Okay thanks. Uli, anything to add? Sacchet: Yes. Couple things. First of all I have another question of staff. Is this the only house in that neighborhood that has this distance to a lot line problem? Because I think that's a significant question considering what the applicant just presented. Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Aanenson: If you go to page 2 of the staff report. Bob says he reviewed the case files for variances within 500 feet. I'm under analysis on page 2. There's no side yard setback variances have been approved in this area. Sacchet: So nobody came and asked for them? Aanenson: Yeah, then he goes on to say on July 14th a 10 foot variance was approved for a twin home lot on Linden Circle. So that was what he found in his research. Sacchet: Okay. So for certain there isn't too many other cases where they staked them and they're... Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: The reason why I'm asking this is because I was struggling with this and basically, I still feel the same as last time. Our task is to give a variance as an exception. And yeah, I mean we'd like to have everybody do what they'd like to do but then we wouldn't need rules and the issue is, I asked this question about the stand alone garage. I think, the aspect with the drive is not necessarily prohibited. I mean you could have a garage kind of sideways and go through the same driveway. I don't think it's totally out of reach. However, I mean what your presentation was very impressive, I have to admit. My initial position on this was to send this on to council because it's a border line case and I feel that the latitude to grant this sort of a variance is more within the scope of the City Council rather than Planning Commission because our task is to look, does it fit with the rules. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to fit with the rules. However, based on your presentation, I actually swung a little bit the other way. It's still 40 feet away from the neighbor's garage. I mean the setback required is 10. It could be 20 feet away and be within ordinance if it happens to be 10 feet each way but in this case it's 4 feet one way and 36 the other. The fact that it was mistakenly staked when, it was actually not put where it was planned, I think that could be considered a hardship. Where the house is placed is something that, I mean we look at some other type of variances in town. Say well it's a hardship because the lot has a certain shape and stuff like that. Well, the way the house is placed, there is a hardship in view of trying to expand this garage, and it doesn't fit. I mean you don't want to have your door in the garage from the bedroom. I mean that's a hardship. I would think that qualifies as a hardship. Now in terms of, is this unique? I mean that's another question. Another criteria to look at and that's why I ask this question. Are there other buildings in that neighborhood that have this type of situation? If it's unique, then it's not applicable to that neighborhood if we give a variance here. So I think that's a significant question. So frankly I'm a little bit in the balance where to go with this. In either way, if it doesn't go through I would very much encourage the applicant to bring it to City Council. Blackowiak: Okay Rich, comments? Slagle: Quick comment. Since this is, has been presented to us the last time, my concerns if you remember were, were there options in the back of the house I think where you studio is just from an aesthetics standpoint. Trying to enlarge the garage that way. And as Commissioner Sacchet said, with the idea that if indeed it was built inadvertently too close to the property line, that could be a hardship. I have to say the most visible graphic I saw was the moving of the line, if you will. Quite honestly I think that's, that doesn't look good. I would almost, I'm going to vote to approve this, but also encourage you to check with City Council on the original plan, or some variation of the original plan because I saw that next to that window and I think that's going to be an awkward looking front view if you will. So I've sort of taken a full circle but the reason I'm Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 doing it lastly is when you look at this image and see this, the bushes, the foliage, and the distance to the other house, I mean literally these folks could extend this garage and it will not have any impact on this neighborhood. And then the only issue for me is, are we going against what we would call our ordinances but I think in this situation, given the uniqueness of this house, I'm going to have to tell my fellow commissioners that I would vote for the compromise that the applicant is looking for, and also recommend they go back more towards the original plan. Blackowiak: And I did miss the last meeting where this was initially discussed but I read the very entertaining minutes from that meeting. Yeah again, we always struggle with the hardship issue. We struggle with you know, what makes sense? How do we apply the rules fairly to everybody? At this point we're talking about the distance between the neighbor immediately, as you look at the house, to the left. My only question is, let's say that this neighbor says he doesn't plan on adding a garage stall but the next owner of the house or it potentially could happen so I think that we've got to consider that too. Not just what the conditions are existing at this point in time, but also what could happen and that neighbor could add another garage stall or two, and still be well within the setbacks for that house. That's what I'm worried about is not only what's happening now but what could happen in the future. So based on that, I don't believe that I could support the variance. The hardship requirement has to do with the land, not the building itself. It's not what is, that something was wrong with the building. The hardship is the building itself. It's more the topography of the land and that's kind of what I need to keep coming back to I guess in my analysis so I will need a motion. I don't know who's going to make it but. Slagle: Can I throw one comment out though? Blackowiak: Sure. Slagle: If you look at the photo that we have of these two parcels, again from an aesthetics' viewpoint. If the home to the east, this gentleman here or a future owner was to add an addition to that garage, I mean just from a common sense citizen standpoint, I do not think that that would be an unusual or a non-conforming, adding to a non-conforming situation. I mean he would be definitely building within. Blackowiak: Oh totally. Slagle: I think it would look normal. Blackowiak: I agree totally with you but what I'm saying is we're hearing the argument tonight that they're 40 feet, and there might not always be 40 feet. Slagle: Yeah the 40 feet to me isn't as much of a play into this. Blackowiak: Alright. I would appreciate a motion so. Feik: I'll make one. I'm not sure I'll be supported all the way around but I'll make one. I move that the Planning Commission deny the requested 6 ½ foot side yard setback for the expansion of a garage based on the negative variance findings (a) and (b) of the staff report. Blackowiak: Okay, is there a second? Sidney: Second. Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Feik moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission deny the requested 6 ½ foot side yard setback variance (3 ½ foot side yard setback) for the expansion of a garage based on the negative variance findings (a and b) of the staff report. All voted in favor, except Lillehaug and Slagle who opposed, Sacchet abstained. The motion carried with a vote of 3- 2-1. Blackowiak: Okay, the motion carries 3-2 with 1 abstention. Nay votes, any additional comments to make other than what you stated? Lillehaug: Based on previous comments. Slagle: Same. Blackowiak: Alright. And Uli, why are you abstaining? Sacchet: I'm happy that it goes to council. I could have gone either way so abstaining's right in the middle. Blackowiak: Okay, this item. Any aggrieved party may file with the planning department within 4 business days. Kate, is this correct? I'm sorry Kate. I always have to ask you. Aanenson: I'm sorry, the motion to deny did not pass. Blackowiak: The motion to deny passed 3 to 2 with 1 abstention. Okay, so that would be passing, correct? Aanenson: Correct. To approve you'd need a 4/5. Blackowiak: Correct. But the motion to deny passed. Alright. Now, the next step for them. Within 4 business days, is that correct? Or 3 business days? 4 business days? Aanenson: Yes. Blackowiak: You need to file written notice with the planning department if you wish to pursue this and have it go to City Council. So that's the next step, and I would certainly encourage you to do that, if you'd like to continue along this route. Alright, thank you. CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ON A NON-CONFORMING LOT OF RECORD ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY~ LOCATED AT 3628 HICKORY ROAD~ STEVEN GUNTHER. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, do you have any questions of staff? Sure. Slagle: Just a quick one Sharmin. I don't know if I understood completely your description of the conversation with the neighbor to the west and how did the 17 feet front, how did that come about? Something about parking. A1-Jaff: Maybe you can ask the applicant. Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Slagle: I can wait, yeah. I can wait. Sacchet: Yeah, I have a question too of staff. There is one point, I think it's in our forester's passage. It says the elevation of the garage wall closest to the trees must be at grade. This means that the opposing wall will either need a retaining wall or foundation wall. I'm not sure exactly I fully understand what that means. Do you? A1-Jaff: I had the same question to Jill Sinclair who is our City Forester. Basically a retaining wall would be required in this area to ensure that no impact to the root system is caused in this area. Sacchet: So in other words it would be at grade on the north side. And then would be filled and then have a retaining wall? Steve Gunther: At grade on the tree side and then I can show you a picture of that. Sacchet: If you want to explain it when you come up, that'd be fine yeah. Okay, I'll wait for you to explain it. I was.., it the other way too. That it would be at grade on the tree side. Steve Gunther: Grade tree side. Say no going upward... Sacchet: So you cut into the hill? Steve Gunther: ... retaining wall is... so part of the garage wall on the neighbor's side would be block walls. Sacchet: So the retaining wall would be. Blackowiak: Excuse me Uli, let's just save this for the applicant when he gets up, okay. We have questions of staff right now. Any other questions? Sidney: Well a comment. I guess I'd like to applaud your efforts on this variance. I've never seen so much work put into one and I really appreciate it. Blackowiak: Okay, any other questions? Feik: What are the dimensions of the existing garage? Steve Gunther: 13 feet by. Aanenson: He's asking the staff. Blackowiak: Yeah. Right now it's staff questions, or questions of staff right now. A1-Jaff: The total area is 276, which is 12 feet by. Blackowiak: 12 by 13 maybe. A1-Jaff: 12 by 13. Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Feik: Thank you. That's it. Blackowiak: Roughly. Lillehaug: I have one quick question. I asked this before but everyone's, I think everyone's struggling with this tree and I just want to ensure that there are no current guidelines or ordinances that would mandate that the owner cannot cut this tree down. You did answer yes, right? Aanenson: Yes. I'm sorry, yes. Blackowiak: Oh I'm sorry, I didn't hear that. So there is no current ordinance is what you're saying. Aanenson: No. Blackowiak: Okay. Okay, if there are any more questions of staff we'll move on to the applicant's presentation. So please come to the microphone and state your name and address. Steve Gunther: Good evening. I'm Steve Gunther, 3628 Hickory Road in Excelsior, or Chanhassen. I think Sharmin's done a nice job of recapping the situation from last meeting. Just one or two more reminders I guess. Here's the existing structure, the shed or garage I've got right now which I believe is about 12 feet wide by about 30 feet long. It's about 276 square feet. Here is Hickory Road coming down and here is Red Cedar Road in the other direction. Here's a recap of the lot structure that Sharmin shared with you. So here's the neighbor to the west of me. Again here's Hickory Road in this area. Here's where the existing structure is. You can see the existing size of the structure, and what I've drawn on the map, or on the survey here is dimensions allowed to me by ordinance of any structure I would like to build on the lot. So you can see that the 30 foot setback from the road, 10 foot from the side and 30 feet from Red Cedar Point really gives me a very constrained building size on that piece of property. In fact I couldn't even replace the structure that I have today if I followed exactly the rules of the ordinance, and that's why I'm here to request a variance. Okay. So what I've requested, we look back at the, consider the comments made by staff last week about the variance and the key feedback I got was that the size of the pad was larger than what you felt comfortable approving. There was also feedback that there was great interest on your part, as well as mine, to preserve the oak tree as best as we could. Give a chance for a 100 year old tree to survive, and then we got additional feedback from the town forester on how best to give the oak tree an opportunity to survive, and that was specifically, recommendations were specifically detailed in the staff report so what we're proposing at this point is to reduce the pad size of the structure by about 15 percent, so instead of a 24 foot wide by 28 foot wide structure, make it at 24 by 24 structure. Protect the tree as outlined by the forester, so accepting that recommendation of, and there were a number of items in the report that you can read through on that. And then conform to all the other staff recommendations on the report. The one thing that I got additional input on. Actually I'll answer a couple questions for you here that you raised earlier. One was on the feedback on the retaining wall. Here's an artistically drawn schematic of the property. The neighbor's garage is up in this area. It's coming down a hill basically, down Hickory Road. Here's the oak tree. Here's the separation between the oak tree and the foundation and basically I would build the garage at grade to where the oak tree grade is. In order to build that I'd have to cut into the hill and I would put a retaining wall. Really a concrete block in the construction of the garage, and then frame on top of that to prevent the, to support the structure properly. I may have not drawn it perfectly but that's the general concept that the garage would actually sit at grade to where the tree is graded Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 and the tree would be mulched all around obviously to provide water for the tree. Does that answer the question that was raised earlier? What that would look like and? Sacchet: Yeah. So the retaining wall was in the garage essentially? Sort of. Steve Gunther: The retaining wall is part of the garage. Sacchet: Yeah, part of what the garage. Steve Gunther: So it's part of the wall of the garage. Sacchet: That was my question indeed. Steve Gunther: And the other comment we had, I did speak with my neighbor and unfortunately they could not attend tonight but they were extremely supportive of the proposal I had. They wrote a letter for me, which I'll leave a copy with Sharmin for, but basically saying they feel this is a good use of the land. It does get rid of a pretty ugly looking structure that is a safety hazard on the lot. I mean the ancient garage I currently got that blocks the triangular sight line. And they are in agreement to the 5 foot setback from the property line. They feel they're happy or comfortable with that. The one comment that they made was, although they're supportive of the 13 foot setback from Hickory Road, they suggested I reconsider and actually push the garage further, deeper into the lot as Sharmin described and I think the picture kind of describes it. Here's, if you can focus a little bit deeper here. Here's their garage with a car parked on it, and that's 13 feet from, again they're, the road is 13 feet from their garage and you can see that if you park the car in that driveway there, you'd be running into some obvious problems. That car is actually sitting in the road. So the suggestion was that I reduce the size of the garage, but push it 4 feet deeper into the lot so that I have at least 4 feet of extra leeway to put a reasonable sized car on that driveway, if you will. The intent of the, so that was their comment and I would wholeheartedly support that. In fact I would strongly request that that be the variance I request today. We did look, as Sharmin described, this is the original ordinance that allows a 1,000 foot square foot structure. The existing structure at 276. The original proposal 2 weeks ago was a 672 foot structure. We did look at actually two options and a third option is what Sharmin and I are recommending today which is build a 24 by 24, set back from Hickory Road of 17 feet. Setback from Red Cedar Point, I think she did the geometry on it better than I did. It was probably 27 feet. And the other indications stay the same so it fixes the sight triangle problem and hard cover, hard surface coverage is about 10 percent and does our best to preserve the oak trees so I think we've done a pretty good job of responding to your comments from 2 weeks ago and again I would respectfully request your support of this request for variance. Blackowiak: Okay thank you. Commissioners, any questions of the applicants? Lillehaug: I have a couple questions. One, if you push that garage southerly, do you see the need of a retaining wall because the slope drops off significantly? Steve Gunther: Yeah, I think if you push it southerly and keep at the 24 feet, it doesn't require a retaining wall on the back side of the property. Again right now I'm apply for a variance. I have to get the actual building bid in to tell me that but it still sits on the flat part of the lot as far as I can tell with my limited measuring capability. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Lillehaug: Okay. And then if you'd put your hand sketch draft up there again. On the northwest comer of your garage, if that was maintained at 13 feet, do you see a feasible driveway that you could actually get to work in there? I just, I don't see a feasible driveway that would work. Steve Gunther: Actually I tried, this is my car that I tried to pull into their driveway and I struggled just to get it to park head on like that. Lillehaug: And I'm not talking lengthwise. I'm talking slope wise. Steve Gunther: Slope wise definitely because looking. They have a retaining wall on their side as well. On their north, western comer. Northwest corner of their garage. Lillehaug: It just seems that the elevation would be too much of a difference there. And I'm just not sure if it's feasible or not. Steve Gunther: You may be able to see it here but, see that? They have a retaining wall on that, right by that can there. About the same height of what I think I would probably need as well. I guess the last comment I'd make is, and one suggestion from last time was to build a one car garage with a pad next to it. And while that might meet my needs of storing boats, etc. I'm just looking at what kind of property, what kind of property beauty am I going to have with that kind of structure. If you walk through around the neighborhood and taking pictures of some of the other people who have limited storage for their stuff, and the neighborhood is filled with broken down snowmobiles and SUV's and motorhomes and you name it, and it's not my desire obviously to have a junk yard, but having additional inside storage I think would give me the opportunity to at least preserve the visual quality of the neighborhood, and I would like to work with my neighbors and see what I can do to help them clean up their mess frankly. Blackowiak: Commissioners, any more questions of the applicant before we open the public hearing? Uli? Sacchet: Yeah Madam Mayor, I have two quick questions. Blackowiak: Madam Mayor. Sacchet: Back to Madam Mayor. Sometime in the future. Understand the setback, sliding back would help for parking but I mean this is not your main garage. You have a sizeable driveway in your main garage. So do you really need that space there? Steve Gunther: To me it's more of a, there's no question that a visitor who would see a garage that belongs to me would try to park in that space. And I don't see any reason why not to push it back 5 feet. Sacchet: Right, and considering it's not going to create a problem... Steve Gunther: It's not going to create a problem in the back there. Sacchet: Now, and drainage wise you think? Steve Gunther: It should be no problem because the lot does slope from the neighbor's western side down so, I don't see that as a problem at all. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Blackowiak: Okay. Rich, any questions at all? Slagle: No. Blackowiak: Alright, thank you. This item is open for a public hearing so if anybody would like to speak on this item, come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, any quick comments before we vote on this? Sacchet: Not much new from last time. I think it's great that the applicant is willing to make an effort to preserve that tree because there's really nothing that prevents him from cutting that tree right down as far as I see it. I think the positives of giving the variance to save the tree outweigh the negatives. I would recommend that we put a, be a little more explicit what the forester asks in terms of slab on and also that it would be in fall or winter I think. There was a timing issue that the forester outlined. That's my comments. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. LuAnn. Sidney: Good analysis by staff and excellent presentation by the applicant. So I do think we're at a point where, you know, we should approve this variance. I would like to say for the record that in this case we do have a hardship issue and I believe that has to do with the configuration of the lot, that it's unique and very problematic because it's triangular and his double frontage, so in this case variances are needed for the construction of a garage. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Additional comments? Feik: Yes. My thoughts haven't changed from a couple weeks ago. I cannot support the variance for a variety of reasons. I do believe that it's fair and equitable that the applicant should assume that he can maintain and build, replace the structure that's on there. The tree is really a non-starter as far as I'm concerned. I believe it falls outside of the official building triangle anyway. If they were to build something that was fully conforming, the tree would not be inside of that. He's doubling the size of the garage. It strikes me a little bit different as well, now we want to push the garage back so now we're going for storage for 2 cars inside, 2 cars outside. Significant additional hard cover compared to where we were at. The applicant does have a full 2 car garage across the street. I can assume that when he bought the house, and he bought this lot, he bought this lot with the knowledge that he had a 1 car stall and that certainly wanted to keep that, so that's why I'm saying I don't think we would want to, even want to deny him the ability to rebuild what he's got but I cannot support the variance to build the size of the structure. The amount of variances and really for ultimately what comes down to the reason, and don't mean this with any disrespect sir. I got stuff too, but my stuff is stacked and I've kind of got to make do. And having stuff to me isn't the reason for hardship. Blackowiak: Okay, Steven. Lillehaug: I do have a couple comments. I struggle with this tree. I mean I wish there was a perfect balance to preserve this tree and I just don't see one. I think regardless of what option we would look at, this tree would have a good chance of likely dying and I stick with my original position that I wouldn't want to reposition the non-conformance from one side of the lot to the other side of the lot where there's an adjacent property owner. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. I guess I don't have too many comments. I like the tree. It's a gorgeous tree but again, you know at what cost are we, you know we have to think ahead a little bit. You know what is, ultimately what's going to happen and is this the best position for the garage? I'm not sure. I call this the neighbor option. I think we need now 3 variances, am I correct? A1-Jaff: Yes. Blackowiak: So we need a front yard and 2 side yard. A1-Jaff: No. One side yard, 2 front yard. Blackowiak: Okay. One side and 2 front. Okay. 2 front and 1 side. Okay, so we're looking at 3 variances. I don't know. I certainly can see the hardship. It's lot configuration. It's topographical. It's not, I mean that's fairly clear to me. The current 276 versus 576, I guess I'm not, I don't have a strong opinion either way on that but I understand where you're coming from Bruce so I would just ask for a motion and we'll see what happens. Sacchet: Madam Chair. I'd like to make the motion that the Planning Commission approves the Variance Request 2002-5 for a 13 foot setback from Hickory Lane and a 5 foot side yard setback for the construction of a 24 by 24 garage on Lot 41 of Red Cedar Point, Lake Minnewashta as shown on plans dated received May 7, 2002, with the following conditions, 1 through 9 plus condition 10. Mentioning that it's slab on. And condition 11. Mentioning the timing should be worked in accordance with the recommendation from the City Forester, which I understand it would have to happen in fall or winter. Not during the growing season. And yes, I did not misspeak. I stick with the 30 foot setback from Hickory Road because that creates only 2 variances instead of 3 variances and I think that's a reasonable balance in view of saving the tree to get this garage off of covering 50 percent of the tree. I don't know what the percentage is. Less than 50 percent. It's in excellent condition so it has a chance to live. Whether it lives, I don't know that for a fact either but at least we give it the best chance we can. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. There's been a motion. Is there a second? Sacchet: I withdraw my motion because there is no second. Blackowiak: There's no second, alright. Then let's try it again. Someone else. Feik: I'll make a motion. Blackowiak: Okay. Feik: I make a motion the Planning Commission deny the variance requested 2002-5 for a 13 foot setback from Hickory Lane and a 5 foot setback for the construction of a 24 by 24 garage on Lot 41 of Red Cedar Point, Lake Minnewashta as shown on plans dated received May 7, 2002. Blackowiak: Okay. There's been a motion. Is there a second? Okay, this is going to be a long evening. I got a feeling. Will you withdraw your motion? There's no second. Feik: I'll withdraw my motion. Blackowiak: Okay. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Sidney: I'll make a motion. Blackowiak: Alright LuAnn, you give it a shot. Sidney: Okay. Go down the row here. I make a motion the Planning Commission approves Variance Request #2002-5 for a 17 foot setback from Hickory Lane, and a 5 foot side yard setback for the construction of a 24 by 24 foot garage on Lot 41 of Red Cedar Point, Lake Minnewashta as shown on the plans dated, actually which will be revised with the following conditions. We have 1 through 9 and I guess a couple of other possible conditions. I'll leave it at that. 1 through 9. Slagle: I don't think I can vote on possible conditions. Sidney: Sacchet: Sidney: Yep. Blackowiak: Yeah, 1 through 9. Open to friendly amendments. Okay. Before we move on, Kate wouldn't the motion have to be for 3 variances? Aanenson: Right, that's what I was just asking. So it's for 2 variances. Blackowiak: Right, for 3. So it would be a 17 foot setback from Hickory. 5 yard side, 5 foot side yard. Sidney: And then a 27 foot setback from. Blackowiak: Red Cedar Point. So we've got those 3. So did you revise that, or accept that? Sidney: Yes. And 1 through 9 are the conditions. Blackowiak: Okay. So there's our motion. Is there a second to that motion? Slagle: Second. Sacchet: Friendly amendment. Sidney: Oh yes, please. Sacchet: Condition number 10. Slab on. Condition number 11. Fall and winter construction. Sidney: I accept it. Blackowiak: Okay. Moved and seconded. Sidney moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission approve Variance Request /12002-5 for a 17 foot setback from Hickory Lane, a 27 foot setback from Red Cedar Point, and a 5 foot side yard setback, for the construction of a 24 x 24 garage on Lot 41 of Red 14 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta, as shown on plans dated received May 7, 2002, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall apply for a demolition permit. 2. The variance must be recorded with Carver County. The applicant shall submit grading and drainage plans demonstrating no runoff/drainage impact on the property to the west. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the construction and extended completely around the tree at the greatest distance possible. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. To retain soil moisture in the remaining root area, woodchip mulch must be applied to a depth of 4 to 6 inches, but no deeper, over all the root area. Roots closest to the tree should be cut by hand or a vibratory plow to avoid ripping or tearing of the roots. The elevation of the garage wall closest to the tree must be at grade. This means the opposing wall will either need a retailing wall or a foundation wall due to the cut into the slope necessary to create a level floor. 8. No equipment or materials may be stored within the protected root area. 9. The tree will need to be watered during dry periods. 10. The garage shall be slab on grade construction. 11. Construction work shall be conducted during the fall and winter months as recommended by the City Forester. All voted in favor, except Lillehaug and Feik who opposed. The motion failed with a vote of 4to2. Blackowiak: Motion carries 4-2. Kate, is that the percentage? Aanenson: You would need 5. Blackowiak: We need 5. Okay. Although the carried we needed 5-1 on this so the variance is denied. You have the right to go to the planning department within 4 business days to file an appeal and that would mean that City Council will look at this and ultimately decides what happens. Thank you very much. Steve Gunther: Does it make any difference ifI leave...in anybody's opinion? Make it back to 10 foot? Blackowiak: Yeah, I guess that's. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Steve Gunther: I offered 3 options. You voted on 1. There are other options. Blackowiak: Right, I understand that. I think your best bet is just to go to City Council with what you want to do and they can decide. As I stated earlier item number 3 was removed from the agenda tonight at the applicant's request so we're moving onto item number 4. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST TO REVOKE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ALLOWING A WALKING EASEMENT TO LAKE MINNEWASHTA FOR OUTLOT A OF KELLYNNE, LOCATED WEST OF LAKE MINNEWASHTA AND EAST OF HAWTHORNE CIRCLE, ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, DAVID PETER JOHN. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, questions of staff. Feik: I just have a really quick one. The owner of Lot 4, Block 1, have they been consulted at all? A1-Jaff: Yes. Feik: And the response? A1-Jaff: They have no issue with it. In fact, and this is a fairly minor issue that can be handled administratively. If you look at the shape of that 20 by 20. 5 feet of this kind of flares out and one of the things that the owner of Lot 4 has discussed with Lot 3 was potentially extending this line straight so you don't have this jog, and of course staff prefers that option. And again this is something that we can handle administratively. Feik: Okay. And technically you said that the sole owner of that outlot was Lot 1, Block 1. Does the City also not, due to the forfeiture of the 2 lots, do we not also have parcel title to that? Aanenson: Yes we do. Sacchet: It's a city beach. Feik: In that we own the other two lots. Not we, the city owns the other two lots which this is attached to as a beachlot. A1-Jaff: There's an easement in favor of those two lots. Feik: I'm just point of clarification. Aanenson: Yes we do have an interest but we don't see any... Feik: I'm not disputing that a bit. It was just a statement made that the only interested party was Lot 1, Block 1 and I guess I just want a clarification of that. Aanenson: Yes. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Feik: Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay. Any other questions? Uli. Sacchet: Real quick. The Peterjohn's are just interested in that strip of land or are they actually the ones acquiring the Lot 1 I think that was, in Block 17 Do we know? Are the Peterjohn's actually acquiring Lot 1, Block 1 or are they just interested in that strip? Just for clarification because that wasn't clear in the report. A1-Jaff: They are, they're actually taking both the house as well as the outlot and then selling off the house separately. Sacchet: Okay, so Lot 1, Block 1 as well. Got it. Just want to clarify. Okay, that's it. Blackowiak: Okay Rich. Slagle: Say that again. I mean I just want to be clear. A1-Jaff: They are buying the outlot as well as Lot 1, Block 1. They intend to combine the outlot with their property, meaning the Peterjohn's Lot 3, Block 2. And then selling off Lot 1, Block 1 without Outlot A. Slagle: IfI can ask, with all due respect. You in essence have two lots the city owns, whether, however we use them currently. We use them. A1-Jaff: Storm pond purposes. Slagle: Okay. We have a, in essence a partial right to a beachlot, however small it may be. We're interested, at least the way the presentation is going, of giving title away to them to an owner who's then going to buy the other property that has in essence title to this. Sell it and then in essence own a larger lakefront lot. Aanenson: That's correct. Slagle: And is there any, I mean I don't know if we've talked to the attorney or what now. Is there any financial dealings here? I mean is the city, because and the only reason I ask this is Kate, the only reason I ask this is because in the past we've had discussions on other situations, especially Lotus with that path and there's been a, what's the word I want to say. An opinion that at least that's been presented that the city really take seriously any easements, any land that they own around lakes, water property because of it's value. Aanenson: Let me separate the two issues. That's a good question. And Sharmin said this but let me just clarify it again. The City's interest is the storm water pipe and the outlet. We, as a condition of approval are maintaining our interest in that. They will still have to dedicate easements so we have a right to go over it. It's a non-conforming access. It doesn't meet any of the beachlot standards. So in that respect we think we're reducing a non-conforming situation. We still have our interest to access our pipe to maintain it, which is the only thing we use it for, and we're just eliminating a non-conforming situation that only is providing access to one lot. So we're putting it on the tax roll by combining it with this other lot. So that's the balance that we went through to look at that. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Slagle: Okay. Blackowiak: Okay. My question is going to piggy back on Rich's. So the lot that we're looking at, Lot 3, Block 2 is now basically going to be a beachlot? Correct? A1-Jaff: No. Blackowiak: I mean they're not going to have direct access. Aren't they going to have access to the lake at all? I mean they're talking, I was looking, reading some of the old letters that there had been boats moored, etc. A1-Jaff: Okay. This is the Peterjohn's property. Blackowiak: Right. Show me where the water is. A1-Jaff: Here's the water. Blackowiak: So that's all water. A1-Jaff: They have access to the lake. There has been confusion regarding the use of this outlot. What they're doing right now is fee title to the outlot is with Lot 1, Block 1. Blackowiak: Right. Yeah, that I understand but I mean, I guess that was my question. Do they currently have access to the lake? Is there a dock? A1-Jaff: Yes they do. Blackowiak: We're not going to be adding anything more intensive? Aanenson: No. Blackowiak: So, and then the second question I would have is, what value is, you know when we were talking about prices, etc. What value is added to Peterjohn's property when they acquire the outlot and I think where Rich was getting at is, should the city be saying you know, there should be a price. A1-Jaff: Now remember that the city became a party to this because of tax forfeiture. Blackowiak: Right. A1-Jaff: I mean from the get go we had. Aanenson: Sharmin. The bottom line is, we made a decision no. We wanted the easement which we'd have to acquire anyway so it's a win for us by acquiring an easement which we don't have now so there's... Blackowiak: Okay, we don't have the easement. Okay, that's I mean so then. Aanenson: ... beachlot. Reducing it and putting it on the tax rolls so that's where we... Blackowiak: So you're figuring that there's a wash? 18 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Aanenson: Correct. Blackowiak: That basically we'd have to acquire an easement and by doing that, okay. Okay, that sounds better to me. I was just kind of worried about what the city was getting out of it but if you're comfortable I'm feeling better. Okay. Everybody. Okay, would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? If so, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Dave Peterjohn: My name is Dave Peterjohn. Excuse me, could I just get you to, move that. You're a little bit taller than our last speaker. Dave Peterjohn: My name is Dave Peterjohn. I own, my wife and I own Lot 3, Block 2. We've lived at this property for 13 years and Lot 1, Block 1 which has the fee title for the outlot, since we've been there, 5 people have owned that house. 3 of the 5 never saw the covenants on the property. It was sold as lakeshore property and we were the wonderful recipients to be able to provide people the covenants, which in essence say no boat. No permanent property and in essence you can walk down here and swim over a pipe. So for the last, the final owners, which are the Meyers here. The Meyers are transferring and they've been good neighbors for 3 years. They were 1 of the 3 that never saw the covenants prior to purchasing the property. We asked them would they be interested in selling the outlot so I can merge it into my property, in essence to take out an uncomfortable situation for the city. They said that they didn't want to really sell the property without selling the house. My goal is not to buy several houses. My goal is to buy a house, take this property and merge it in to mine with a corrected fee, resell the lot. Or resell the house. So I approached Sharmin and said, how can they do this? Gave her a set of the covenants. Both the original background of this was this lot, all 3 of these lots were owned by the owner here and he traded a couple of these lots to a builder to help him build his house. And when the builder dug a hole in this lot here, it filled with water. So he let it go back taxes. That's how the city became part of it. So in essence what we're trying to do is clear up a non-conforming situation. By having Mrs. Meyers here who can kind of attest to the situation and if you'd like to hear from her as well. Blackowiak: Okay. Any questions of the applicant while we've got you up here? Feik: I have a quick one. We've now heard that the property owner to the north side would like that 5 foot bump on the north side. Are you amenable to that? Dave Peterjohn: Oh yeah. Feik: Would you be really amenable to adding that as a condition? Dave Peterjohn: I don't see a problem with, my goal is not to get more lakeshore. My goal is. Feik: I understand that. My thought is, is I want to treat the neighbor's reasonably equitably if we can. The city does have some interest, albeit not very valuable, but we would like to make sure that you and your neighbor are treated equitably in this process given that the city does have some interest in this parcel. Dave Peterjohn: Right. I think, by purchasing this property. Taking it and merging it into mine, it's going to cost me a fair amount of money. It's going to cost me more than it's going to increase the value of my property. I know that. But what I'm trying to do is just, for neighbor 5, 19 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 6 and 7 not have to go up and say here's some covenants. Did you know about these? So that's in essence what I'm trying to do. So to answer your question would I be willing to give 5 feet to get a straight line, I'm the one that's putting out all the money and going through the process. I'm not sure I'd want to do that. That's the first time I've even heard that. But if it would make the deal, I don't think I'd have a problem. Feik: Okay, thank you. Very much, thank you. Blackowiak: Rich, question. Slagle: Madam Chair, ifI can. I would suggest Mr. Peterjohn if you could do that, that would be advantageous. The only reason I say that is because if you do eliminate that beachlot the way it's configured now, that others can use it, I would probably throw out for consideration that your property will really increase in value when that becomes just your's and folks can't walk down, literally your yard, and camp or whatever. Who knows what they do down there, so I would encourage you to consider that. Sidney: Do we have the, question Madam Chair. Do we have the owner of Lot 4, Block 1 here? I guess I would prefer to let staff handle any adjustment of the lot line administratively because I think that's a function we need the neighbor there to discuss it. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Did you want Mrs. Meyers to come up? Sure. Linda Meyers: My name's Linda Meyers and I reside at 3980 Hawthorne Circle. Blackowiak: Okay. Comments at all or, you're comfortable with it? Linda Meyers: I'm comfortable with the letter that I wrote that I think you've got in your packet. Blackowiak: Alright, thank you. Commissioners any questions of Mrs. Meyers. Lillehaug: No questions. Blackowiak: Alright, thank you. Alrighty, this item is open for a public hearing so if anybody would like to speak on this issue, please come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Seeing no one I will close public hearing. Commissioners, any final comments before we vote? Slagle: I just had one. I just want to be clear that the comment that was made about the neighbor and the 5 foot bump that Commissioner Feik and I are trying to get our hands around, that was, if I can ask, from them asking to have that straighten if you will. Is that correct? A1-Jaff: That was the conversation we had with Mr. Peterjohn and one of the issues that were discussed were creating a straight line and again yes, we can handle this administratively. Slagle: I understand, but I mean was Mr. Peterjohn in essence forwarding on a conversation that he had had with that neighbor? A1-Jaff: That's correct. Slagle: Okay, so it wasn't the neighbor calling you and saying hey I'd like to have this 5 foot. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 A1-Jaff: No it wasn't. Slagle: Okay. I guess I was confused. Sacchet: Just a quick comment, because I don't want to make it in a condition but I want to make a comment. I certainly think it's very desirable if that would be a straight line, but considering that the applicant bears all the burden of creating this, I think that's to be worked out between him and the neighbor. Blackowiak: So not necessarily a condition of approval is what you're saying. Sacchet: Yes, I would not make it a condition of approval. Blackowiak: Just a recommendation. Sacchet: But I want to have it on the record that that would be very desirable and encourage you to pursue that but that's between you and the neighbor and I don't think it should come in our conditions. Slagle: See I don't know ifI agree with that but. Blackowiak: Okay. LuAnn, any comments? Sidney: Looks straight forward to me. Blackowiak: Yeah, okay. Bruce, any other comments? Feik: I think Rich and I are kind of in tune with the same concern in that the city does have an interest in this, from a title perspective by inheriting the 2 lots and I would just like to make sure that the owner of Lot 4, Block 1, I would have liked to have him or her here tonight to speak for themselves to say what interest they did have in this lot, or what interest they didn't have in the lot. That certainly would have made things a lot easier for me. So my concern is treating them fairly and equitably and they're not here. Blackowiak: Sharmin, they don't have any interest in the outlot do they? Aanenson: No. Feik: Have we contacted them though? Aanenson: They were notified of the hearing. A1-Jaff: People within 500 feet. Blackowiak: Yeah, they have no interest and they've never been involved in that. Slagle: But let me, ifI can Madam Chair, let me throw out. The 500 feet mailing, and I'm sorry but I've got to say Sharmin, I'm seeing seed names on this list, okay and there is the potential for the applicants who send the mailings out to people within 500 feet, there are times where people come and say I never got a mailing. So what we've done is implemented a seeding process where 21 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 certain people within staff and maybe perhaps in the future certain ones of us will get mailings to ensure at least that people have gotten it. And that's not to say it doesn't go out, the mail is crazy. Aanenson: Just to be clear, we did speak to some of the people in Troll's Glen subdivision which is just south of this. They also have a beachlot. If you go to the site plan their beachlot is adjacent to this one. We did speak to some of those neighbors so. Slagle: I'm just saying, and I think Bruce is saying that the neighbor who's affected by this is not here, okay. And I think the city in trying to balance between the two lots, and I'm not saying that we won't approve it with direction to staff to say hey, work it out between these two. I just don't want to vote on something that ends up not being beneficial to the neighbor to the north at least fairness, and then having someone come back and say gosh. I'm sorry, it wasn't fair to you. You really didn't want that curve. Aanenson: Okay, well in deference to the neighbor, the curve's going to be there whether we vacate it or not...going to happen to him that we're going to vacate it and he would get some additional land so it's only going to be a win/win. Slagle: Only if we approve it. Aanenson: Right. But if you don't approve it, it would still be the same. Feik: Understood, but point of clarification. There's a note that I heard that the notice went out 6/10. It didn't go out 30 days ago. It hasn't been in their mailbox. If they've been at the cabin or who knows where, they certainly might not have gotten it. It's not that much notice. Sacchet: If I may Madam Chair. Blackowiak: Okay, I think we're splitting hairs here but let's go. Sacchet: Basically the position we have to take if they're not here, they're not interested in it ultimately. On the other hand, if we have a strong feeling that we want that line straighten we can make a condition that says we encourage that. Blackowiak: Right, and at this point it's really not before us tonight. That's not the issue so let's kind of focus on what the issue is. The issue is, do we vacate, do revoke the conditional use permit. That's the question. Lot line changes, separate issue. So I think we just need to take, I mean certainly we could recommend but let's just not make it a condition of approval because it doesn't affect what we're seeing before us tonight. Feik: Can I ask a quick question? Totally different from where I was before. If we revoke the conditional use permit tonight, what happens to the city's interest in that lot legally? Because I mean we do have one. Aanenson: We're re-securing our interest by requiring as a condition of approval that we have an easement over. Feik: Utility easement. Aanenson: Correct. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Feik: Okay, thank you. Aanenson: So we still would have access to the pipe and access to... Feik: In exchange for. Aanenson: Correct. Feik: Okay. Blackowiak: Steve. Lillehaug: I support revoking the conditional use permit and the owners of that Outlot A is the city and the Meyers, correct? Aanenson: Yes. Blackowiak: Okay, I don't even know where we are. We've made comments. I need a motion. Sacchet: Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends revoking the conditional use permit attached to Outlot A, Kellynne. How do you say that? Kellynne? Blackowiak: I said Kellynne like Kelly and Lynn or something. Sacchet: With the following conditions 1 through 2 with the addition, I'd like to be specific with, I guess that's condition number 2 that we specify that the adjacent property is Lot 3, Block 2. That's my motion. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? Lillehaug: I second. Sacchet moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommends revoking the Conditional Use Permit attached to Outlot A, Kellynne Addition, with the following conditions: 1. A drainage and utility easement shall be dedicated over Outlot A in favor of the city for maintenance purposes. 2. Outlot A shall be combined with the adjacent property, Lot 3, Block 2, under a single Parcel Identification Number. All voted in favor, except Feik and Slagle who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. Blackowiak: Kate, does that carry for revoking a conditional use we don't need. A1-Jaff: This goes to City Council. Blackowiak: It still goes to City Council. Okay, July 8th meeting for City Council. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR A ONE-STORY, 10,434 SQUARE FOOT DAY CARE CENTER WITH AN EXTERIOR PLAY AREA ON 1.81 ACRES ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LOCATED ON LOT 3, BLOCK ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK 4TM ADDITION, KINDERCARE LEARNING CENTER. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, questions of staff. Lillehaug: I have a couple quick ones. In site furnishing section, you indicated that you need to add a bicycle parking facility. Is there any specifics to that? A1-Jaff: That is a requirement of the site design. Lillehaug: So that'd be one of the conditions that that should be attached? Okay. You indicate that a sidewalk and ped ramp needs to be added to the parking lot landscape island. Which exact one are we talking about? Are we talking about the small island on the southerly end of the building? A1-Jaff: Right here. To connect with this future sidewalk. Lillehaug: Okay. And then you also addressed access on Century Boulevard. A1-Jaff: Correct. Lillehaug: Go ahead. A1-Jaff: Maybe Mack can expand on that. Sweidan: The whole development.., has been approved with the access from Century Boulevard. And in the northeastern property is actually the US Bank which is going to be also conditioned with that access. Lillehaug: Okay. Feik: I have nothing. Blackowiak: Nothing at this time? Sidney: Just a quick question. Again the site furnishings, I guess I don't understand community features. This stuff is accessible by the public or I guess I'm not quite sure why it's called community features such as landscaping, lighting, benches and tables. A1-Jaff: Under the site design, for any building within commercial or industrial zoning, buildings are required to provide public furniture, be it benches or bike racks or. Sidney: So there will be public? A1-Jaff: Yes. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Blackowiak: Uli, any questions? Sacchet: Yeah, real quick. I had my questions were very similar to Commissioner Lillehaug. I'd like a little more clarification about this right-in/right-out. In the staff report it says the access from Century Boulevard may be limited to right-in/right-out if the level of service standards for the access becomes unacceptable or if excessive accidents occurs. This sounds like it may be limited, but it's my recollection that when we looked at this subdivision originally that it was the other way around. That it must be right-in/right-out and that the applicant was trying to make a case that they would like a full access. Has it become a full access in the meantime? Sweidan: When this report came actual of the application with the traffic study, and they show that it will not affect much as it is like a full access. And we are recommending to keep it right- in/right-out. And when we say like may, it may go to a full access but if there's something in the future that happens like increasing accidents or cause more panic in that area, so I think we are going to put an island. Sacchet: See that's what I'm confused about. Right now you said it may be a full access or it may be right-in/right-out. Aanenson: Can I comment on that? Sacchet: Please. Aanenson: When this went to the City Council, you had a condition in that you did not want a full access. But you left it open for the applicant to prepare the traffic study. Sacchet: Exactly. Aanenson: At that point, the traffic study said that it could be a full access. If conditions warranted, it could be closed so we wanted to apprise Kindercare that if the city chose to ultimately we could restrict that to right-in/right-out only so we wanted that condition in here so they're on notice in the records of conditions that it could be closed and restricted to right- in/right-out only. That's why that condition was put in. Sacchet: So it could be either at this point? Aanenson: Correct. Right now it's being approved as a full. Sacchet: That's all, okay... Aanenson: But we may restrict it in the future as traffic warrants so we want to put that in there so they can't come back and say you can't close it on us. We're saying that the underlying subdivision has that condition and we just wanted to carry it forward with all the site plans so there are none. Sacchet: So as of right now it's being approved to be full, that was what I was asking. Aanenson: That's what the traffic study said at the City Council. Sacchet: Thank you. 25 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Blackowiak: Okay, questions. Slagle: If we can put up that diagram again. There we go. So that's going to be a full in and out. I've got a sidewalk going on the north end of the future development to the south of US Bank. If we can focus in a little bit more. Okay. And so basically I'm assuming that extends to the east. Now we're a little bit too far. Go to Century. It's going to hit that island and it's going to cross over and there's going to be a crosswalk. Aanenson: On Century there is a, not a crosswalk. Slagle: The sidewalk is going to be on the east side of Century, if I remember right. Aanenson: Correct. Slagle: So there will be a crosswalk or not? Aanenson: I don't know of one. Slagle: I'm just trying to understand how we take parcels at a time that we apply and approve... so you've got a sidewalk going on the east side of Century north and south. No, no. North and south. There you go. So it's on the other side and I'm assuming it connects over the crosswalk to that, and then carries over into Kindercare. Now you're getting to Kindercare and if I understood your point where that tree is, is there will be an island extending out with a sidewalk that they will then cross over to get to the sidewalk on that, okay. Aanenson: Correct. Slagle: Then you'll go down and then it continues over, okay. Again I'm just going out for consideration for. Blackowiak: Do we need a crosswalk is your question. Slagle: Yeah, exactly. And in my view that has nothing to do with this application. Blackowiak: Which is very true. Very true but it's a good point. Okay. Alright. I just have a quick question. Condition number 2 for the site plan. 23.16 feet. I'm assuming you mean square feet of windows and/or doors. And then it says the south elevation add one additional window. Is there a size specification on that? A1-Jaff: As long as they meet the 50 percent. Blackowiak: I just thought you were so exact in the first one that you maybe had a number that we were looking for in the second. Sacchet: At least 2 decimals. Blackowiak: Yeah, at least to 2 decimal places, exactly. No, that's okay. As long as we'll meet the 50 percent we're okay. Alright, would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? Lillehaug: I have one more quick question. 26 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Blackowiak: Oh, I'm sorry. Come on up and we'll. Lillehaug: Should the note be changed from a sanitary sewer, SDR 35 to SDR 26? Or materials for sanitary sewer. Isn't it a city standard that the services should be SDR 26 so that should probably be changed as a condition. Say again? Sheet 6. It's one of the notes. Sweidan: You are right. Blackowiak: SDR 26 you said? Lillehaug: Yes. Blackowiak: Okay. Alright, would the applicant, state your name and address for the record please. Gary Brown: My name is Gary Brown. I'm with RLK Kussisto. We're a consulting engineering and landscape firm and we are from Minnetonka, Minnesota and we're representing Kindercare who is also here. Mr. Curtis is here representing Kindercare. We really don't have anything to say. We agree with the staff. All of the conditions. The 21 conditions we fully intend to meet and it's a little scary when a planning commission member asks a question like he just did. Blackowiak: We aim to please, right. And does anybody have questions of the applicant at all? Sacchet: Yes. Yeah actually I have a question. Really not pertinent and I probably get beat up for it, but the bell tower, is that a real bell? Are you planning to ring it? Mr. Curtis: No we don't ring it. It's glass on the inside. It's only for show. Slagle: Nothing to do with lunches or supper. Lillehaug: And I have one quick question. The HVAC equipment on the top of the roof, do your pictures correctly show that all of the HVAC equipment will be hidden by the roof? Gary Brown: Yes. Actually there's a recessed pocket down from the peak. What you see under the extra peak there's a pocket in the center of the roof... So this is a very accurate portrayal. Lillehaug: Thanks. Sidney: Is this a standard design that, for Kindercare? Mr. Curtis: Well, standard the last 2 years, yes. Sidney: Okay, so you've built these. Mr. Curtis: Our standard building before we would put just a standard peak on it and then we put the air conditioning out in the parking lot. Right on the playground rather. Now we've just taken and put everything at the top.., but it is a standard. Sidney: Okay, and the windows are okay? Additional windows okay. Very good. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Sidney: Sacchet: thing. Mr. Curtis: i believe they're already drawn in. Sidney: Very good. Blackowiak: Okay. Thank you. At this point we'll open this item for public hearing, if anyone has comments on this, come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record. Seeing no one i will close the public hearing. Commissioner comments on this item please. Lillehaug: None. Feik: None. Straight forward again. I'm glad the staff made the comment about the windows. That's certainly the only Blackowiak: Okay, Rich anything? Alright. I'd like a motion please. Slagle: i'll recommend the Planning Commission adopt the following motion. Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #2002-5, shown on plans prepared by RLK dated May 17, 2002, subject to the following conditions. How do you want to throw the windows in? Sacchet: They're in already. Feik: Number 2. Slagle: Okay, so nothing else. That's it. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? Sacchet: Second and friendly amendment to make sure you say square feet instead of feet of windows. Slagle: i'll accept that. Feik: Additional friendly amendment to the same, and then on the second sentence. That the, shall add one window to meet the 50 percent guideline. Sacchet: Is it 50? Feik: Yes. Slagle: i'll accept. Lillehaug: Another friendly amendment? Change note from SDR 35 to SDR 26. Slagle: i'll really accept that. Sacchet: You'll have to explain afterwards what that is. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Slagle moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #2002-5 as shown on plans prepared by RLK, dated May 17, 2002, subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration, and landscaping. The northern elevation of the building shall add 23.16 square feet of windows and/or doors. The south elevation of the building shall add one additional window to meet the 50% guidelines. A sidewalk and pedestrian ramp shall be added at the parking lot landscape island to access a future sidewalk to the east. 4. A separate sign permit is required for all site signage. Wall mounted lighting units must be directed to the ground and may not be directly visible off-site. All lighting shall have a 90 degree cutoff angle. The lot must be final platted into a Lot and Block prior to the issuance of the building permit. The applicant shall fully screen parking lots from adjacent roadways through the use of berms. The applicant shall increase landscape plantings in west buffer yard to meet minimum requirements. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, bushes, shrubs, Qwest, Xcel Energy, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to City of Chanhassen Ordinance #9-1. 10. Fire Marshal conditions: When fire protection, including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1997 Minnesota Uniform Fire Code Section 901-3. On the utility plan, a wall mounted PIV is noted. The Chanhassen Fire Department uses yard PIV's in lieu of wall mounted PIV's. Please refer to Minnesota Uniform Fire Code Section 1208-Gates and Barriers for requirements for the playground fence to be installed around the building. Gates shall be installed in the fence to allow for evacuation from and around the building. Comply with the water service installation policy for commercial and industrial buildings. Pursuant to Inspections Division Water Service Installation Policy #34-1993. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding maximum allowable size of domestic water on a combination water sprinkler supply line. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #36-1994. Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #4-1991. 11 Building Official conditions: The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. b. The building is required to have an automatic fire sprinkler system. Polyethylene pipe cannot be used for the storm sewer as indicated on the plans; use a material approved by the Minnesota State Plumbing Code. A complete code review of the building cannot be done until complete plans are submitted. 12. The applicant will be required to submit storm sewer sizing design data for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event. 13. Type II silt fence be used. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. 14. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. 15. Add City Detail Plate Nos. 1004, 2110, 3102, 3106, 5203, 5300 and 5302. 16. The site has been previously assessed and each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hookup charges at the time of building permit issuance. The 2002 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,383 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,802 per unit for water. 17. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the Watershed District. 18. On the plan sheets revise the 20 foot public drainage and utility easement to a private drainage and utility easement. 19. On the utility plan: a. Show all the existing and proposed utility sewer type, size and class. b. Revise the existing sewer flow direction. 20. a. Add CBMH 4 rim elevation. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. c. Revise construction entrance note from 50 feet to 75 feet minimum. 21. Cross-access easements for the shared driveway access must be obtained and recorded against the lots. Access onto Century Boulevard shall be governed by the conditions of the development contract for Arboretum Business Park 4th Addition. 22. On Sheet 6 of the plans change the note SDR 35 to SDR 26. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Blackowiak: Item carries 6-0 and this item goes to City Council on July 8th. Thank you. At this point in the evening we are going to take about a 5 minute break before we move onto item number 6. So give people a chance to stretch their legs. Get something to drink, so 5 minute recess. We'll be back. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REQUEST TO REZONE 68.76 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED A-2~ AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD~ PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT~ RSF~ RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND R-2~ RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE~ PRELIMINARY PLAT TO CREATE 46 SINGLE FMAILY HOMES~ 38 TWINHOMES AND 1.94 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL; A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT TO ALTER A WETLAND~ AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ALTERATION IN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HWY 5 AND NORTHEAST OF CENTURY BOULEVARD~ VASSERMAN RIDGE~ LUNDGREN BROS CONSTRUCTION. Public Present: Name Address Steve & Susan Cohoon Cindy Weber Mike Burton Marc Anderson Ken Adolf 7525 Bent Bow Trail 935 East Wayzata Boulevard, Wayzata 935 East Wayzata Boulevard, Wayzata 935 East Wayzata Boulevard, Wayzata 10580 Wayzata Boulevard, Minnetonka Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Sidney: Madam Chair. I'm wondering Kate why this was, has this been before the Planning Commission as a concept plan? Aanenson: No. Sidney: Why? Aanenson: It's not a PUD. A PUD we generally do a concept. This is, we haven't done a lot. We've done twin homes but we haven't done on mixed R-4, but it's a straight subdivision. Except for that little piece that you're giving a different zoning to, so it's really a straight subdivision. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Sidney: Yeah, I can see where the commission may have lots of comments about trees and mix of single family homes, twin homes and road alignments. Blackowiak: Questions of staff. Steve, would you like to start? Lillehaug: Well, wow. This is a pretty good report. There's quite a bit of information here. Page 10 of the report. Since we were talking about, let's go to the compliance table first. Page 8. You had a couple of properties there where your front yard width, you had them circled. Shouldn't those properties also be in this, shouldn't they have the letter B on the compliance table because there are about, I mean I counted. There's probably about 10 more. Aanenson: What the literal interpretation of the ordinance said if you're on a curve or an elbow, you have to meet the 50 foot at the 30 foot setback line. They're pretty close. We just noted it to have them go back and just double check that. It's pretty close. Lillehaug: So that applies to the ones. Aanenson: These don't. These aren't on a curve or anything. It would be this lot, Lot 13. Lillehaug: How about 5, 6 and 7 of Block 2? The front yard. Aren't they also, they don't meet the minimum correct? Aanenson: I measured them at the setback line. I think they can make them work, sure. If you want to put that on there, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Lillehaug: Okay. How about on Lot 1, Block 2, that first property or parcel when you first enter into the subdivision there. Are we comfortable with noise abatement for that? Aanenson: Well the issue there was, we were trying to taper the sight line and MnDot had a comment on that too. This was attached. You have the access point going into the commercial piece here. You need a minimum of 300 feet which we have, but that was one of the comments when we met and this got tabled is we wanted to make sure we had clear sight lines based on the fact that this will be carrying quite a bit of traffic so Matt requested that that be tapered. Lillehaug: So we're sacrificing noise in trade-off for safety then, correct? Aanenson: Yes. Lillehaug: Okay. Alright, how about the, I've got to find my correct page here. It's on the northwest corner it shows clearing limits or construction limits I guess. And it really almost goes all the way out to the wetland and I'm seeing basically all them trees being wiped out. Aanenson: Are you up on Lots 24 and 25 where we asked for conservation? Yes, we asked for a conservation easement on the back of those. Again, going back to our project. Lillehaug: So I'm looking on Sheet 5. Lot 24 and Lot 25. Basically I see they're setting limits of clearing for future custom graded lots. The limits go all the way out to the wetland. Is that indicating that it's basically clear cutting? 32 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Aanenson: What this tree survey doesn't show either is that our project took those trees out. We have replanted along through there and 137 through here, but we still are recommending that a conservation easement be placed on the back of those lots. Lillehaug: ... construction limits also and it appears that they're just putting a trail in that area. Aanenson: Well the easement's already there for our sewer project. I'm not sure there's any grading through there except for our, to put our trail in. Lillehaug: I'm looking on 5. Saam: Yeah, I'm not following you. Those construction limits go, I mean those are all no grade lots up there so the construction limits end basically at the right-of-way line. I don't know which line you're looking at. Lillehaug: Well I'm looking on Sheet 5, and they have, in the legend they have the assumed limits of clearing for future custom graded lots and then I look on Outlot F and it has that line symbology around that entire outlot. And the only thing that's going in there is a trail. Aanenson: Right. Well I think if you wanted to add that as a condition, because that should be a no touch, and the only thing that'd be in there would be the trail on our easement. Saam: They'll have to submit a separate grading plan for each of those lots so we'll get a chance to comment on it, but you're right. It shouldn't be way out there. Aanenson: And that is a condition of approval, custom grading on those lots so if you want to modify that or make it stronger, that's fine, but that is a condition. Lillehaug: You addressed the high water level on a couple of the lots, and just fumbling through the pages here looking for that, but on that southerly pond, there's an emergency overflow through the bermed areas and it appears that it's, there's a half a foot difference from what I would see on the high water level to that emergency overflow and I would think that they would be at the same elevations possibly. So we're only talking like halfa foot but I would think that should match, unless some modeling maybe. Aanenson: Right, I think what we just talked about is moving the outlot over to between here. Between the berms, and then there was a condition that we raise the.., pad has to be 3 feet above that pond level, and there's a condition in the report. Somebody else asked me that too. But there was a condition that Matt put in the report that those have to be raised to make sure all homes are above that, so that is a condition. Saam: I'm not following your issue with that Steve. What is your issue with that overflow? Lillehaug: Well. Saam: You want us to match the high water level elevation, is that? Lillehaug: With the absence of modeling I guess. I mean I would assume that that high water level would match that emergency overflow elevation. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Saam: Not necessarily. The high water level is determined by, there is an outlet structure. Another pipe that will outlet the water. So using a 100 year storm, the amount of rain. The applicant has shown that the pond will reach an elevation of 962. So for storms above and beyond that, then it can get out on that emergency overflow of 62 ½ so. You don't always see the emergency overflows at the high water elevation. Aanenson: I was just going to make clarification on 23 then, Matt did have a condition in there regarding the house pads be bumped up. There was a couple that, yep. Lillehaug: Maybe you can come back to me... Blackowiak: Okay. Bruce. Feik: I'd like to follow up on a couple questions I had. I spoke with planning department earlier today. The park, the private park that would go in. When that goes in, would that necessarily come back between, come back to the planning department? Aanenson: We haven't in the past. We disclose what it's going to enclose. We still would check it. Engineering reviews them. So does planning for setbacks and they do, are required to get a building permit but as a general we haven't taken them back. We disclose to you what's going in, a swimming, a changing house and the like but. Feik: My concern with that is parking. We have parking both sides of the street with kids and strollers and things like that, I've a pretty strong concern about where that could go. Additionally, I guess where the flavor of this is more of a private community versus a public development or more general development. Would you please discuss, you talked briefly about it during your presentation, the difference between having them private streets versus public streets. Would you go into that a little bit deeper? Aanenson: Sure. Again, we have a number of subdivisions that have private pools, neighborhood parks. Longacres doesn't have a pool but they have a private park. Ashling Meadows, which you just recently approved is public streets with a pool that's under construction. Private park. Springfield has a pool, private park. Public streets. And on Kurvers Point also has a swimming pool. All those are abutting public streets. The ordinance that the council and you most recently made recommendations to change is that you can only have on a single family zone, now this doesn't apply to multi-family but in a single family zone, low density, that it has to be public streets. You can only have 4 homes off of a private street and that is only through a variance. That means there's some reason that it has to be, so this has to be based on the low density, has to be public streets. Unless you wanted to notice it and kind of, you know throw that on it's head but that's kind of the direction we've been going under the last year and frankly we don't have of this scale except for Hesse Farms, this larger subdivision with private streets. Saam: Kate if I could just add something to that. Even before last year, even before that ordinance was changed to make a private street a variance, even then if you want to go with a private street and single family homes. Aanenson: It's 4 homes. Saam: Yeah, well it's still limited to 4. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Aanenson: 4 homes, right. That's what, yeah. That's what I said, yep. Feik: You spoke about Outlot F that is going over to the park. Aanenson: Correct. Feik: Would you please discuss a little bit more in detail what the planning with that. Aanenson: Well I think in the early meetings with the applicant we discussed the transition with the trail back in here. There is a creek, water movement between the connection of those two wetlands, and as we move, the city took through dedication that property immediately to the west. To the Pulte, the city's going to have ultimately the control of that property and the development through a natural, so we wanted to make that transition. It wasn't connected to any lot so we recommended that it be preserved, just as open space. Feik: That's it for now, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay thanks. LuAnn. Sidney: Okay. I guess, well one question and this leads into I'm sure Uli's discussion. I guess my greatest concern, and I understand that the subdivision we have few tools at our disposal to really make a lot of modifications as long as the subdivision meets ordinances. However, you do mention in the report that there is a significant stand of trees, and the mentioning that Lots 29 through 34 in Block 1. Do you have any advice or guidance on how to save more of those trees? Aanenson: Right. I did mention a couple options. Again, if you look at what the low density, what this is guided and working with the applicants, looking at what they want to do to the north, which is the more traditional PUD. That only gives you as small as 11,000 square foot lots so you're not accomplishing anything. What we looked at with this type of home, when you have a twin home, typically you have a little bit different buyer. The lots are a little bit smaller. They're not as inclined to make as many, maybe modifications to the rear yard such as swing sets and the like so the only option that we saw is one, if the city chose to acquisition to say we'd like to buy 2 or 3 of the lots through the park fees, or if you were to look at taking the density in there and try to make some of these as twin homes so they wouldn't lose as many total units but it'd be a different type of product. Now I'm not sure how receptive the applicants are to that but there isn't the flexibility of a density transfer in this, in the low density. And again we pointed that out as the fatal flaw of the overlay district. Now again, they've got some approaches to raising the street to try to preserve some more of those trees but it's, I'm sure it's still... Sidney: So your suggestion is potentially increasing the number of twin homes? Aanenson: Well, that'd be one way to do it, right. But you'd have to, to really to preserve that you'd have to not. Sidney: Not do anything on the lot. Aanenson: Right. I mean they're going to do their best to try to work around the trees, but the best stewardship of that, because once you get a homeowner and not unless there's a conservation easement, their needs change over time. Whether they want to add on or put a swing set or put something else in there. There's a little bit of control. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Sidney: No road alignment that could be changed to help that? It doesn't seem to be the case necessarily. Aanenson: Well I think, you need the looping street to cut, to move through here. They are going to, they are looking at raising the street so, I'll leave that up to them. Sidney: Okay, that's it for now. Blackowiak: Okay. Sacchet: Alright, my turn. Blackowiak: You're timing yourself? I like that. Sacchet: I have a lot of questions.., department earlier today to not take excessive amount of time. Can you show us again clearly where the primary and the secondary Bluff Creek Overlay lies please? Aanenson: This is the subject property in the black and it runs through, what I'm not showing is all the property owners because the property lines on the Longacres go out into, abutting that so it runs through the middle of lot lines. So for the most part where the rub is, is in this, in the treed area. Sacchet: That's primary? So actually the whole property is either primary or secondary? Aanenson: No, no, no, no, no. No, this is the majority of the property. We're down here on the edge of that wetland, so what we said, now again as part of the overlay district, when this comes through, our job is to look at the delineation which Mr. Svoboda did with this project and we looked at that again and re-evaluated that line as looking at the fact that we've also put the interceptor through and looking at that so we designated the primary line as the wetland edge. Now some of those trees fall within that and the secondary zone is that buffer, but having said that. Sacchet: The wetland buffer. Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: Which is going to be the defined based on where the builder actually puts the buffer. Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: And it's variable between 10 and 30... Aanenson: Absolutely, right. Absolutely. And then, but also in the Bluff Creek Overlay District the goal is to preserve those stands of trees in that primary zone. Sacchet: Thank you for clarifying that. Now, in the staff report you make reference to the Bluff Creek plan making recommendations of the storm.., and restoring the big woods. Can you give us a little bit of an idea what that actually means and how that could possibly apply to this? 36 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Aanenson: Sure. That was a discussion point that came up at the Puke project. We had in the past tried to approach that. The problem with these, when this got approved, don't do that. This was done over 10 years ago. Put the lot lines out into the middle of the wetland. This subject property was done, the Longacres was done that way. We had approached the neighborhood about increasing the quality of that wetland. It was met with resistance so that was one of the recommendations of the creek. That we have moved away from that but the other one that we did feel strongly about that was recommended was the preservation of the trees, and we worked on that one with the Puke project. How we did the density transfer from on the other side of 41, and we preserved the woods along, the wetland and we also preserved some of the trees down here because that was again one of the recommendations. Sacchet: So in the Puke project we actually implemented that to some extent? Aanenson: Through density transfer, correct. Sacchet: While here, since we don't have the density transfer, we don't have a way to apply this transfer conclusion? Aanenson: The only other way you can is through acquisition. That's correct. Sacchet: The only way is through acquisition. Well that leads to my next question. When, in your discussion you talk about the wooded area. Concern about that it's desire to preserve them and you list 3 possibilities. You say, I'm talking specifically where we're talking about the lots 27 through 34 in Block 1 where we have.., the staff report about 25 or so significant trees other than.., oaks and basswood and I think there's some ash in there, between 30 and 40 inches. I mean they're huge. They're definitely a city treasure I would say. Now you say there are basically 3 options. Eliminate the lots. Basically does that mean we would declare that they can't build there? Aanenson: Well again, you'd have to either transfer the density or acquire them. Sacchet: We have a hard time doing something within this framework. Aanenson: Correct. Or, what we had suggested, and you know whether the applicants willing to do that is, if they were to make other twin homes in order to preserve... Sacchet: ... elsewhere but you say elsewhere. Where would they... Aanenson: Well, in another area where's there's not as many trees. Sacchet: But basically in the same area but maybe shift them a little bit? Aanenson: Right. So they're not losing so many. Sacchet: ...totally somewhere else. Aanenson: Within the project so they're not losing units but they're getting a different, more of a different type. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Sacchet: And convert these units to twin, that's basically saying that because elsewhere it doesn't really exist. Now, we heard from Commissioner Sidney about possibly swapping the park, the pool park over into the trees area.., staff doesn't think that's really feasible? Aanenson: Well my concern is, in the ones we have in place, if you were to go look at them, they're highly manicured. I think the expectation in those areas is that, you get sun and they're not. I think if you want a natural area, and even if you're just trying to grade to get a pool in there, you're not going to accomplish what you want to accomplish. I think you need to leave it natural. That's the goal. Not to try to get something in. Over time the homeowners association is going to want to make changes too, then it's a constant. Sacchet: Now since the framework doesn't really lend itself to shifting densities and all that, has there been any discussion or consideration to make it a different framework? Aanenson: Yeah, certainly. You could up zone it. I spent 2 years on the piece next door. I'm not sure I was willing to take that on. If you want to give me that direction, I'd be willing to take that. Sacchet: Can you explain... Aanenson: You'd have to re-guide it to a medium density to get the different types. Sacchet: You'd have to guide it medium density basically in order to have the flexibility you don't have. Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: Alright. A couple other quick questions. You mentioned a couple lots that don't have the right size. They're a little too small. Some are a little too narrow. In your conditions, you have conditions that say, just to clarify. It says all lots meet the standards of the R-4 zoning district, that takes care of all that? Aanenson: That should cover it. They have to meet all the requirements. Sacchet: Then interesting thing that peaks my interest is Outlot C. When you said.., did you point to Outlot C? Aanenson: Yes. I believe that's where they're also going to put a monument in this outlot. Sacchet: I will probably ask the applicant what that monument will say. Just for reference, coming back to the trees once more briefly. In the Puke project we manage to end up saving about how much percentage of the significant trees? 50? 60? Aanenson: In acreage it's probably closer to 15-20 acres as far as trees. You've got 12 across the street. On the north side of the wetlands. It's probably closer to 15 to 20 acres of trees. Sacchet: 15 to 20 acres of trees. Aanenson: Right, but even in that scenario, not all the density was achieved. They still were under, it was compressed down. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - June t 8, 2002 Sacchet: If my memory serves me right we had about close to 10 real significant trees and we were saving. Aanenson: Yeah, actually the significant trees on that one were actually just on the other side of this wetland. There were some right along the back side of this. Sacchet: Alright, that was the biggest one... Aanenson: We had to actually field check that trail. That went in. There were a couple of very nice trees right there. Sacchet: So there's certainly discrepancy here we say t0 percent and Puke say... Aanenson: Right. Sacchet: Real quick, yes I have a few more minutes. So you said there is no impact to the wetlands to the north and west basically. Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: ...basically eliminates that small impact... Aanenson: Yeah... where the one wetland. Sacchet: ... square feet of wetland, that's eliminated by putting that bridge in there. The staff report... Aanenson: This is the one wetland that will be impacted. Sacchet: That's the only impact? Nothing up on the north. Aanenson: Correct. That one is our intent to bridge that one and it should be impacted, and this is just over 2,000 square feet. If it was under, it would meet, the diminimus wouldn't require any mitigation but it's just over 2, tOO. Sacchet: ... mitigation plan is we have enough through there.., they bring the plan in eventually we'll be fine. Aanenson: Right, because it's so small. Correct. But there is wetland that they're managing around the total perimeter which adds the complexity to that when we talk about moving things around, following that correct. Sacchet: And another area I want to briefly touch on is the noise abatement. In the MnDot letter it makes a very strong statement I believe that the municipality, us in that case is responsible for that. And one recommendation is that the berm is a little wider or higher or something. Does the plan in front of us includes that? Aanenson: Yeah. The plan that went to MnDot was the original drawing that had the pond on the other side. If you look at this berm, when it originally came in, this was another.., got tabled. This pond was actually on this side of the berm. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Blackowiak: Oh tabled by you, okay. Aanenson: I'm sorry. We didn't bring it forward to you, excuse me. That we would, we held it back. We asked them to make some modifications. The berm was actually on the other, I mean the pond was actually on the other side of the berm which we recommended against. We wanted the pond on their property. Through that we talk about how to transition the berm to get it effective in the mitigation of the noise plus provide sight lines and through the landscaping and the like, and Mr. Braslow who also has done work for the city, in reading his recommendations, and the construction techniques and that was also the recommendation the same EA that Puke did regarding types of construction. The air conditioning units and the like, the construction techniques that are used today in a newer product can be built to mitigate that so. Sacchet: So I assume also the concern of MnDot about the access of the road has been taken care of also? Aanenson: Yeah. Actually they were concerned about the distance between this driveway and the access point over here. Matt and I did speak about that. Our requirements is a 300 foot minimum which that should meet. Sacchet: That is taken care of. And then the concern about the drainage on the commercial lot, that's something to be addressed when the commercial lot comes in? Aanenson: Yeah. What their goal is, is it can provide drainage into this lot. They'll have to provide calc's. When that comes back in through site plan review, those two lots, hopefully combining together will come in. If they can't use that, they'll have to manage it on site. There will be a process that goes through site plan review. You will see the project. They'll have to show us how they're going to manage it. IfMnDot does not give them approval, they'll have to manage it on site and we'll deal with it at that time. Sacchet: The wetland.., connects with existing trail which terminates at Lot 13 of the Meadows at Longacres. Could you just point out where that Lot 13 or trail to Longacres is so we know... Aanenson: Sure. Actually. That comes up through this lot right here and that trail goes around the back side so it comes up, if that makes sense. I'll go back to the plat and show you how that works but it doesn't show Lot 13 on... This is Lot 13 on the Longacres lot so it ties into the Puke project, and then it ties back up to the other subdivision. Sacchet: It goes across there, right? Aanenson: It goes across, correct. Yep. There's a trail right there. Sacchet: Okay. Alright. Running out of time I gave myself, however real quick. I mean, and I'll comment about that in comments more but I do have some fundamental question from your findings in the rezoning it says there's an elevation of site characteristics including mature trees. Do you think we're saving enough trees right now? Aanenson: It would certainly be desirable to save more. I'm not sure exactly how we can accomplish that. Again, the applicant does have suggestions to try to, you know we recommended another one. A couple more lots be custom graded and that would address that. Their response to that because they did see our report. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Sacchet: In the findings, you're not causing environmental damage. Another finding, it will not change or a condition that we have to look at, it will not change the essential character of the area. It will not result in the destruction of natural features. Help me out. Aanenson: Well, there is significant trees here. We're not impacting any wetland except for that one finger. Our project did come through and take these trees out. Sacchet: So if you look at wetland... I totally disagree with the trees. Aanenson: You're right. There is a component that we're having some difficulty trying to manage but in the overall scheme of, it is bordered on all sides by wetland and the highway that you're trying to mitigate the highway and push up against the wetlands so, is there some things that we can try to do a better job that we're working with them on, yes. But for the most part in the other wetland part they've done a good job on. Sacchet: Thanks Kate. Blackowiak: Rich. Slagle: Just a couple. As I listen to Commissioner Sacchet's comments Kate, and you've done a wonderful job on this, it strikes me as I see a project of this magnitude, how should I say this? Go back to other developments, I won't name them, that we have seen before us and typically there's questions about number of homes. The impact on trees. Wetlands, what not, and in some ways we start to question whether or not you should have this number of homes. And it ends up being a give and take over the timeframe of this project so I first of all see this and I say gosh, maybe we don't need this many home sites. I'm going to throw that out first. But my question to you is, I was, and I guess I'm surprised and maybe you can share with me, but what I've seen up until now, when I saw this Thursday was that the trail, and I don't know if you can put the trail map up again, but the trail went from 41 all the way to. Aanenson: No, she's just going to run up and get a trail map, that's fine. Slagle: Okay. Even if you have the overhead map, I'm sorry. That you have a trail going from 41, which would be north of Puke. In talking with the Park Director that 41 trail would actually connect northward on the east side of 41 by Mr. Olson's property, and connect to the Longacres trail system. It would then proceed going east to the north of Puke, which we see and it would connect up along this north western edge. Go down. Connect up north to Longacres and then continue along the wetland to where it would enter or approach Galpin along the creek. In fact we planted all those trees and my belief is that along those trees you're going to have a beautiful path that would go and provide our citizens with wetlands and what not to view. And now I see in this plan, not that path but instead of going down the middle of a neighborhood, joining a sidewalk in front of people's homes, passing a private park, and then continuing on to West 78th. So literally the entire northeastern section of what I considered to be a trail system has now been removed and so do you, can you help me why that's happened? Aanenson: The Park and Rec Commission, or the Park and Rec Director makes recommendations on this. He did meet with the applicant and that was his recommendations. I guess what I would suggest, if you feel strongly about a different direction to that, that you'd make that a condition that the council consider that. They're going to have the Park and Rec Director's recommendation but if you feel strongly about some other alignment that you just pass that forward for the council to consider. But as far as why. 41 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Slagle: Or possibly not vote for it. I mean it's an option that I as a commissioner. Aanenson: Well I'm not sure that we can usurp what, you know his recommendation is going to carry forward. I'm not sure you know. Slagle: But I mean, let me be clear with this. We receive a packet, and to the commissioners I address this, full of, I mean it's a huge project. And then to have some days to look at it and then not have the Park and Rec Director here to ask. I'll ask the applicant as to why this was redefined, but not have the ability to sort of further investigate and research why this was done and what could be done to change it, I don't know ifI feel comfortable and there's a couple other things I'll address later that I don't know that I'm comfortable with to vote yes and say, send it to council and have council go over it. I guess I'd be interested in looking into that, but I want to hear what happened in that conversation as to why that changed. That's all. Blackowiak: Steve, did you have any further questions? Lillehaug: I guess I'd like to hear from the applicant. Blackowiak: Okay. Well I just have a few quick questions. Page 4, talking again about the restoration of the shallow marsh. You said that it met with resistance before. Is this our chance now? I mean we're not getting any trees out of this deal. I mean that's kind of what, we have to just say that. So why, if it's a goal of the Bluff Creek plan, then is this our chance to move forward with it? I mean why would we ignore it? Aanenson: The problem is you've got property owners on the north side that run into this so you're going to have to get again, we don't do this anymore but we have property lines that run out. They've all been transferred, all the properties on this...go out into the wetland so it's virtually, unless you can buy them... I believe is not going to be possible. Blackowiak: So you can't work on any restoration anywhere? It's all or none is what you're telling me? Aanenson: Well you'd have to get all the property that interest along here.., and you won't be able to achieve that. Blackowiak: Why can't you do some? Why can't you do the northwest comer? And work out some of it. Aanenson: ... it affects everybody. If you increase what, that was the goal is to increase the quality of that wetland. Feik: So you're increasing the water level? Aanenson: ... little bit to get diversity of wildlife in that wetland, right. That was the recommendation of the study by the experts, right. And that was approached 5 years ago. Blackowiak: And so you've just dropped it is what you're telling me? Aanenson: Correct. Blackowiak: Okay. I'm just thinking this might be the time to reconsider that. On page 8, 42 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 compliance table. It talks about again we change Lots 11, 12, and 13, Block 2. How do we get around this no deck thing because it's going to come back. Somebody's going to complain that they didn't get a document and we want a deck. We're entitled to a deck. Aanenson: Right. What we talked about with the applicant is that, while they've shown oversized pads which are bigger than their typical and they're bigger than their 60 by 60 building pad that on those lots they'll be coming in with a little bit different product and then they'll also put those covenants with those lots. The 3 lots. Blackowiak: So they don't get decks is what you're telling me? Aanenson: No. They would have decks. It would be a little bit different type home. Custom built for that lot, right. Right. Blackowiak: I just don't want to run into, I don't want to see this 3 years from now. Aanenson: We don't either. That's why we talked about it. Again, they're oversized building pads, but so we would come back with a little bit different type, prototype of home that would, where they have an area to build out, the house is oriented... Blackowiak: ... all the trees removing, do we warranty, does the developer typically warranty trees for a year or something? Aanenson: Correct. Blackowiak: I didn't see a condition. Aanenson: There should be a landscaping escrow requirement. Blackowiak: Okay, is it a condition that I missed or where? Aanenson: If there's not we can get that. Blackowiak: Well it could be, it would be in the subdivision? Aanenson: Yeah, it should be with the subdivision. If it's not. Blackowiak: Okay, I'm not sure. I guess I didn't see it but. Aanenson: Generally it's done with final plat, with the development contract that we put the escrow in, but there would be an escrow requirement. Blackowiak: Okay. As long as that's in there. Page 16. Building inspections, Fire Marshal comments. Number 5 is blank and I couldn't find a letter or anything to substantiate what might number 5 have been. Or is there just maybe not a number 5? Okay, that's fine. And then you've got trail changes. That's another one of my biggies too. I thought too that it was going to be a green way trail based on all the discussions we had with, in the park and open space referendum and that was the whole goal. Along the primary corridor a green space. Focus on that so that'd be a big concern of mine. Sounds like we've taken up a lot of time with staff questions so let's move on to the applicants or their designee. Come to the microphone and state your name and address for the record please. 43 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Mike Burton: Good evening Madam Chair, members of the commission. My name is Mike Burton. I'm a Land Development Project Manager for Lundgren Brothers and with me this evening is Mark Anderson, Vice President of Lundgren Brothers. Cindy Weber, our Land Coordinator, and Ken Adolf our engineer from Schoell and Madsen. President of Schoell and Madsen. Just like to open by saying we really think staff did an excellent job, and that with their recommendations we are planning to bring everything into compliance that is being recommended. Just want to open by saying that. And so I can start, probably come out of the gates here. We've been talking about these 6 lots right in here, and the trees there. See what's going on here, you have about a 10 foot cut that we've been planning. This below drops off quite quickly right here so it's the age old question of woods or wetlands. I mean if you build this up and then all of a sudden you're dumping dirt back down into the wetlands so we tried to preserve that wetland area as best as we could. And so what we've done now is come up with a plan that would hopefully save more of these trees, and that is this plan which is blowing this area up. Here's the 6 lots. 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34. Do this way is that private park, so first we'd like to say that probably these homes will never build a swimming pool because there's a swimming pool in this private park. So, and hopefully they won't be inclined to build play equipment because we're going to have a really nice playground in this park as well. If you look at these trees, we went through this afternoon and highlighted all the different types of trees. We've got 99 boxelders in here. We've got 44 elms, 56 basswoods. If you look at this line right here, this dashed black line, inside of that line we're already intending on saving those trees, with the exception of the building pads. This line here is the 80 foot by 80 foot plus the front yard that we worked with Jill Sinclair and that's the building pad area. The back yards, this was always planned to be saved these trees. So what we've done to try to increase this area, which was the area you were going to be cutting down was, we're going to raise this row 3 feet. Right here, and what that will do is allow us to expand this line of saving out to this point out here where this new red line is. So all these new trees will be added in. In addition, we've got some nice oaks over here. That's the red line is what we're going to do is build some retaining walls in there, and save those. And so I think that's about the best plan we can do in that area. Additionally, Commissioner Slagle you mentioned that trail. Well, as Kate mentioned, we met with Todd and he wanted that. He wanted exactly what Kate was saying. Have the trail come here. Come down to a sidewalk. We started with a sidewalk coming down right here. We're actually having a sidewalk on this side as well. But that was what he recommended and so that's what we're doing. Slagle: Did he give a reason? Mike Burton: He did not give a reason. He just, that's what he wanted. So if we looked at the compliance sheet, the lot grid, we are going to bring all those lots into compliance. Every single one will be in the square foot. We're just going to, we've talked to Ken, our engineer. We can tweak everything and make it all work. And we will do that. I think you talked about the trees. The trees being sort of trashed back in here. Well a lot of those were already taken down as Kate said, by the sanitary line so we're planning to move trees out of here. Some of these trees out of here up into the first phase this summer. What we're planning to do is do this in 3 phases. The first phase we'd like to do this summer. 20 twin home and then the HOA park. And incidentally, this outlot right here is not a monument. That is a buffer. We're going to have a monument here and here on the side of the road, and this will be our twin home monument, and we'll have a single family home monument over here. And it's going to be called Vasserman Ridge, named after, well what we did is we like to name our communities after some historical event and we consulted with Chuck Dimler. I don't know if you know Chuck but his father knew the owner of the Gateway Group Home that this was the original farm, and evidently this was German who used to deliver water to the area farmers and so, they called him the Vasserman so, we're calling this Vasserman Ridge. What else? The bridge, the pedestrian bridge. We'll build that. We're 44 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 assuming that that will be part of the park dedication with the trail. That the city will pick that up and that that's part of the trail. It's a pedestrian bridge. And just for the record, the commercial, the use we're under the assumption that we can get gas pumps there. Blackowiak: Kate, neighborhood business does support gas. Aanenson: Yes. And convenience store. Blackowiak: Or what's? Aanenson: What the PUD ordinance says is that it referenced the comprehensive plan and when we did the comprehensive plan we wanted a more specific clarity. What's neighborhood oriented because in the BN district it does allow shopping centers which is too broad, so in putting the PUD together we said no single use can be bigger than 5,000 square feet. And again the intent is that we wouldn't have one large center but we'd have something that services the neighborhood. Whether it's a local pizza place, show repair, bagel shop, whatever, but it wouldn't be one large single tenant so anybody that would meet that criteria, and still be consistent with the neighborhood business district would be permitted. And that's the way the PUD ordinance reasons. Again, the architectural standards was the other concern that we had. That it be a pitched roof and match the flavor of both neighborhoods. Blackowiak: Okay. And one other question just for my clarification. Drive thru's allowed or not allowed? Aanenson: No drive thru's. Blackowiak: Not allowed. Okay, thank you. Mike Burton: I think one of the recommendations was the high water level mark be raised 3 feet. That's no problem so we'll be doing that. Matt, I know there was a concern about the storm sewer line coming through that 20 foot berm. What we're going to do is make that the emergency, is there a plan I can show that on Kate? Aanenson: Sure. Mike Burton: We'll make that the emergency overflow. That will take care of that, and then actually it will increase or it will improve the sound mitigation. Yeah, so right here is the proposed storm sewer line going through this berm and right here is the emergency overflow so we're just going to move that over to here, and now it won't be real deep and we'll just continue this berm right on through here and so that will be better sound wise for these twin homes and it will be a longer distance then to come up through here so we think it will improve the sound mitigation. These 3 lots up in through here, we looked at real hard as far as the distance from the buffer and he did do calculations on it and found that only in our estimation it was Lot 13 that we would need to apply some restrictions as far as porches and decks to the rear and, which is typical for almost all our projects. But this is the only lot in this subdivision that we've found that we need to restrict some of the floor plans from having decks or porches in the future, and it's typical for Lundgren to provide a matrix and disclosures and restriction statement and we're happy to provide the city with that and so that's just that Lot 13. I guess I don't have any other comments, if you want me to stand for questions. Blackowiak: Thank you, yes I would. Commissioners, questions of the applicant? Rich. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Slagle: My focus is initially at this meeting is going to be the trail, and I guess my question would be, even though it sounds like the Park Director, who's a wonderful park director, either gave you direction or suggested to go that way, my question would be is would you be against taking that trail along the back edge, and I do understand that you get down to the Lots 11, 12, 13, have some issues with setbacks. But my question is, on the north side and towards the west, you've got homes that in many ways it looks like it's the same depth as the homes that I'm asking for on the northeast.., east wetland. Would you be against having a trail go down? Mike Burton: Well I think we could certainly discuss it you know further with Todd. We'd have to kick it around I think in our office if that's something Todd would want, though I think we've been pretty cooperative with working with staff so. Slagle: I guess my question though would be, speaking by myself but potentially for other commissioners, if that is something that we would be interested in seeing. Because as we sit here, you either vote for it and ask that you go and talk to someone in staff and depending on how that discussion comes out, either it goes forward with some thoughts that we might have, or it doesn't. And it goes to council and gets approved, and so sometimes it's tough for us to say you know okay, you guys go talk and we keep our fingers crossed that something happens that we might like. And I guess my question is, this is a serious enough issue for me because of what I have seen proposed and the thoughts of getting the green way and the Highway 5 corridor, Bluff Creek Overlay that I sort of what to know the positions and so I'd like to know your position. Whether you're for that or against it, and are there concerns that you need to address, and if you want to go. Blackowiak: Name and address for the record please. Mark Anderson: My name is Mark Anderson. I'm with Lundgren Brothers, 935 East Wayzata Boulevard in Wayzata. Commissioner, I'm a little confused. I understand that there is some plan that allows the connection of a trail all the way to Galpin, is that what you're referring to? And you're trying. Slagle: Sure. Mark Anderson: Is there a park plan or? Slagle: We're talking for him to be able to go...but basically what's happening is, on the south side of Longacres, your development, you have that trail that runs along, and actually it goes up to whatever street that is. And then it continues on where it stops. Just before it stops is where the connector will be down to your's, I think it's, what's that circle up there? Aanenson: Bent Bow. Slagle: Bent Bow. You have that connection down, connector to your lot. What...are saying, if you follow your finger along the tree line going to the southeast right there, keep going. Keeping going. Keep going down the wetland. Works it's way. Okay. What we're saying, or I'm saying is that that's what I believed would happen. It would go behind our homes on the edge of the wetland. It would be a very nice public trail just like you have in Longacres. So now what I'm seeing for the first time this weekend is that the trail is actually not going to go along the wetland, but actually it's going to go in the middle of your neighborhood and continue down to West 78th and then they'll have to walk up on the north side of West 78th, a very busy road perhaps, to get to Galpin. I guess I'm just wondering, since you're amenable to the trail being in your back yards 46 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 on the homes to your north and west, would you be open to running a trail down along the east and southeast? Mark Anderson: Well the reason I ask the question, I'm trying to understand the big picture here and come up with the solution that may be alternative D or E, which is not quite either of what we're talking about here. The problem that I see is that we started with staff as to the trail system. They said this is where the trail system goes and then we designed the subdivision to kind of fit and work that in. I'm under the impression that the way it's designed right now, there's not sufficient room behind those homes for a trail without having serious impact on the back yards and the privacy of those people. So that's why I ask it. Now it is possible to perhaps come down the road for a while and then cross back in perhaps on Outlot C. But that's why I'm trying to figure out, where is it going you know. So we can work with you but we designed the subdivision with these parameters. We were basically dictated to, and to make that suggestion means we would have to redesign this whole thing. Slagle: I understand and I think for the commission and staff, the difficulty obviously is the park director's not here to present the thinking to us. So we are in a position where we either vote for it, don't vote for it, table it, what have you. And I'm just saying to the rest of my commissioners, although it's my comments. I'll make it quick but this is enough of a concern for me to get an answer as to why this went this way that I would, I really want some meat into what some future action so. Mark Anderson: And that's a way to connect the trail. Slagle: Exactly. That's all I have right now. Blackowiak: Alright. Sacchet: Yeah, I have a few questions of the applicant. As you might have gathered already, my big issue is the trees. I have a real problem with, and what I looked, I did a similar exercise by the way as you did. I took the plat that has the trees on them and I looked, one thing I was trying to filter out, well how much is boxelders and how much is good hardwoods, and in that area here that staff pointed out, Block 1, Lots 29 through 33, or 34 for that matter, according to the staff report there are 25, mostly all oaks and basswoods and one ash that are between 30 and 40 inches. Big trees. Huge trees as far as I'm concerned. And with the tree preservation that originally the grading limit that you originally suggested, once you have the custom lots going in, there will be 2, maybe 3 of those trees surviving. Now with the addition that you just presented to us with the extension of that tree preservation or no grading zone. No grading to the north west, there would be 3 at best, 4. No actually it's only 2, at best 3 trees in that group that will be added so it's commendable. You're doubling them from 2 to 3 to 5 to 6 of them that will be saved. However, I still struggle with it that from 25 or depending on how you count it. Actually depending where you delineate it, it's even more than 25 of those really huge trees, oaks, basswoods and ask, only between 10 and 20 percent would stand a chance to survive. From a city viewpoint those trees are a treasure, and so I wondered, I discussed that before with staff. There are these different options. Eliminate the lots. Replace them with twin homes. Maybe swap the park over. Maybe go a different route and a different framework. To me that's, as Commissioner Slagle pointed out, this is big enough an issue that goes deep enough to me that I feel it needs to be looked at before. Mike Burton: IfI may. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Sacchet: Yes it's your mm. Mike Burton: If you look at this plan real closely here. Again, this is the area that we were saving. This is what we're proposing now to add. Okay. Sacchet: Right. That's what I addressed. Mike Burton: So we just counted 33 trees inside this, between the new red line and the black line that we're saving. Sacchet: Clarification. I mean I wasn't counting trees. I was counting trees that are between 30 and bigger. 30 inch and bigger diameter. Mike Burton: Okay, well. What we would need to do is take the time here to count the trees that are remaining that we'd still be pulling down but remember these are. Sacchet: I counted them. Mike Burton: Okay, well these are building pads. These trees are going to go regardless because they're in a building site. Sacchet: Yeah, there aren't that many on that lot actually. 33 has 3 of them. Mike Burton: Well on this lot, this area would be the area that we'd, in any event, in building a home there, you'd be taking those trees. So these trees around here are trees we're looking at seeing if we can't save some of these trees actually, are we not Ken? We're looking at that area, but we are again saving these trees with retaining walls here. With building this, these trees would go. These trees would go. So it's these trees right in through here that we're talking about. I just don't see those as a great number of trees right there for a subdivision. I think we've saved a lot of trees. Sacchet: Yeah, well you sort of give me a framework. It doesn't really answer my question. I don't know whether it is going to answer my question to be honest with you, but let's move on to the other couple questions I have to keep this moving. Outlot C, you said it's not going to be a monument. It's just going to be a buffer. Buffering the higher density from the lower density. Mike Burton: Correct. Sacchet: You think that needs a designated buffer for that? Mike Burton: We thought it was a good idea. Sacchet: Okay, okay. Well I can accept that. Now real quick question, why did you spell Vasserman with a V? Because Vasserman in German is spelled with a W. Mike Burton: Well because we thought they'd call it Wasserman, like Wasserman Lake in Victoria. Sacchet: So you preferred the sound versus the spelling? Alright. That's a good answer. I believe that's my questions for you. Yeah, we talked enough about the trees. Thank you. 48 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Blackowiak: LuAnn, questions? Sidney: Well I guess Uli covered the tree issue. I'm still quite concerned about that. Anything you can do to take an accurate inventory of the significant trees as part of the application would be good. And then also, you know trying to save more trees if there would be possibilities. Mike Burton: Lundgren wants to save trees. We don't want to take trees. Trees add to value, you know. That's what we want to see on the lots. They add to value. Sidney: And I guess, I guess this is more comments but I am concerned about the berm that's being used for noise mitigation and I guess I'm wondering how the appearance of that could be improved. I'm thinking of, it's going to have more of a wall appearance to me because you're going along 5 and then all of a sudden boop, there's this huge berm. And I'm wondering how that could be sculptured. Mike Burton: Well we have put together a landscape plan. I could lay that up here. So this area we are planning, this is, under the buffer yard requirements we're already planning on planting that berm. Sidney: Okay. And I guess the other comment I'd like to make is that in the report we're talking about 60-70 db noises. Sound levels at certain times for Highway 5 noise, and I must say, I guess I'm concerned about the noise level in general in this neighborhood, knowing from experience that 60 db is enough to disrupt my sleep so I guess I'd like to just share that with you. That we... Mike Burton: Well that's why we thought we'd take that proactive approach and contact Mr. Braslow and have him do a study and we pretty much followed his recommendations and think it's as good as we can do with this site. Sidney: Yeah, so I guess questions about just the appearance of the berm and you certainly have more expertise than I about that, and then maybe just a heads up that there could be significant noise. Mike Burton: Yeah, you don't really want to undulate it up and down or you lose the noise mitigation. You have to have it up there and consistent so that's what we followed. Sidney: Okay. Blackowiak: Okay, Bruce questions. Feik: I've just got a quick one. Outlot C adjacent to Lot 10, Block 1. Why is that an outlot versus increasing the size of Lot 107 Lot 10's a very, very small lot. Mike Burton: We're going to have a homeowners association here that will be maintaining these outlots and we want to make sure that that buffer between the twin home and single family is maintained. And that it's maintained in a nice way. Feik: But there's not a buffer between 28 and 29 on the other side. Necessarily. Mike Burton: 28 and 29? Feik: Over on Block. 49 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Aanenson: Block 1. Feik: Block 1, yeah. There's no buffer between the twin and the single there. Mike Burton: Yeah, I think we have a different orientation. You're talking about right here? Feik: Yeah, there's no buffer there. Mike Burton: Yeah, we have a different orientation. See as you drive in, we're going to have a twin home entrance and a single family home entrance and as you drive in, we just want a little separation as you enter the single family on the road was the idea. Feik: And that couldn't be accomplished by just making the lot bigger? I'm just curious. Mike Burton: We just wanted to be able to have control over that area by making it an outlot that the HOA will control and then maintain that landscaping by having control. Feik: Alright. That was my only question, thanks. Blackowiak: Okay. Steve. Lillehaug: I have one quick question. First off I commend you on addressing all the conditions that staff has recommended there. Mike Burton: Thank you. Lillehaug: What, I've got to beat this tree issue to death here. The trees are very important here. I think Commissioner Sacchet addressed the trees in the center parcels there good. I'm looking at the Lots 24 and 25. What are your feelings towards dedicating a conservation easement on those lots for 24 and 25? Mike Burton: And we're talking Kate I think about that in that area. Aanenson: Correct. Mike Burton: Yeah, we didn't have a problem with that. Lillehaug: Okay. Good, thanks. Blackowiak: And I don't have any questions. Rich, go ahead. Slagle: I know we're debating it, and I don't know if this would work or not but in Settler's Ridge where we've got the fencing on the south side of Pioneer, would that help? I mean would that, or would that be too much? I'm just wondering how. Mike Burton: We talked to David Braslow about fencing and it was his, I think his opinion was, he doesn't like fencing. He likes plantings more than fencing. Sounds runs into fencing and he thinks it bounces over it and travels over it. He likes vegetation to absorb sound as opposed to the fences. 50 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Lillehaug: I have one more quick question. Blackowiak: Sure. You commented on the bridge. Actually this will be a question of staff. Do you have any comments on he addressed the issue of the bridge? Aanenson: We'll check with the Park and Rec Director. This kind of to go back to Rich's comments just for clarification. It may be moot to you but when park and trails are put in, that's credited towards their park and trail dedication. Sidewalks are put in at their expense. So however Todd negotiated that, but that's how it works. Park and trails are paid, so I don't know how Todd came about that. But if there's a trail...I'd have to ask Todd about how the compensation works and obviously they want to know. We'll check on that for you. Mike Burton: Yeah, Todd told us that the cost of the trail, we'd build it but we'd be reimbursed for it. The cost of building it. Aanenson: But our issue with the bridge is that's a way to mitigate any wetland impacts so I'm not sure if that nexus goes to the trail issue or if that goes to our issue of trying to preserve that wetland with impacts so I'm not sure. We'll have to strike a balance on that, if that makes sense. Lillehaug: How would you suggest addressing that right now I guess. Aanenson: Well our feeling was, instead of impacting the wetland bridge, it just so happens it makes a nice amenity for the trail. Should they be compensated for that? I don't know. I'm not sure. I think that's something I'd like to discuss with them so, and talk to Todd about and Lori. Try to look at what type of structure. You know we've just talked about it today, or yesterday for the first time... Lillehaug: Thank you. Blackowiak: Alright, this item is open for a public hearing. So if anybody would like to comment on this issue. Had a couple over there, I think they gave up on us. Seeing no one, I will close public hearing. And now's the time for comments. Rich, why don't you start. Slagle: I'll start. But before I start, I'll have one quick question and again, I've got to get better at writing my questions. I apologize Kate, but did you say to me that the applicant did have a meeting with Longacres? Aanenson: Yes. Slagle: The neighbors in Longacres and literally no one's here. Aanenson: I did talk to Councilman Steve Labatt. He was at that meeting. The Cohoon's who have left the meeting. Slagle: Live in Longacres, okay. Aanenson: Correct, they're Longacres. And spoke to them. Showed them the plans. They have seen it. They were here. Other than that they said that they didn't have a turn out, but Steve has talked to a number of his neighbors too. 51 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Slagle: Okay. Fair enough. Alright, my comments. This is the first proposal I have seen since I have been on this commission that is of this magnitude. I was not part of Ashling Meadows. I was not part of Puke. You can go on and on. And I have to tell you, as a commissioner, this is a lot to handle and there's a lot of questions that have come up today and I'm faced with one major issue and that is the trail, and obviously I'm sure Mr. Hoffman, knowing him like I do, has some good reasons why he suggested or discussed what they had discussed. But I would like to hear those and so I will share with you now that I am not prepared to vote one way or another on this. Not just because of the trail, but because of the trees. There's some questions on noise. It's not a huge issue on my end, but I think there's more that I would like to see staff get back to us with and then vote on it in a future meeting. Might be the next one, or the next one, but just being honest. There's a lot of here. It's a huge project and in the course of an hour and a half, 2 hours I don't know ifI could vote on it. So that's my thoughts. Blackowiak: Uli. Sacchet: Well you heard from my questions a little bit where I stand. My main issue is the trees. I considered this big trees, and I'm talking not about the boxelders. I'm talking about these oaks and basswoods and ashes between 30 and 40 inch caliper. That's big trees. I consider those a city treasure. There are very few areas, if any left in this city that has that amount of huge trees and even the ones between 20 and 30 inches are significant, and there are a lot of those that I didn't even look at at this point yet. I feel that, no I don't feel. That's a bad thing up here. I'm very clear that this has not been looked at sufficiently. There are options, as staff said in the staff report, to eliminate some of those lots and I'm talking about these 29 through 33, or at least 29 through 32 of Block 1. To remove the lots and replace the units with twin homes elsewhere. Well the elsewhere, we have a problem with the framework but we haven't really explored different frameworks. Convert these units to twin. I mean it's mentioned in the staff report but it hasn't really explored further. Swapping the neighborhood park. Well from where I'm coming from, those trees are more important than a swimming pool. I know that's just not the vision that you have with this development, but I think from a city viewpoint that could be a very defendable position to take. Whether PUD helps or part of it would have to be zoned dense or maybe that, I mean those are options to look at. Even with the addition, I appreciate your effort, and don't misunderstand me. I think this is a great project and I want to commend you for bringing such a good project in front of us but I do have to agree with Commissioner Slagle that I can't really support it with, these questions go too deep. The one with the tree. The one with the trail. They go too deep that I am inclined to support this project enough. Now the extension that you recommended off the no grading zone, does just about double the tree you save. I mean in terms of the ones I looked at. The ones that I counted. The 30 to 40 inch oaks, basswoods, and ashes in that particular area. It increases it from 2 to 3 to 4 to 6, so basically from 10 percent we go up to 20 percent of these major trees being saved, but I think it would be reasonable from a city viewpoint to ask that 2/3 of these trees get saved. And then if you have to do a give and take, I think certainly half of those trees should be preserved. In some way or other. Now based on that, to wrap up where I stand with my comments, in the rezoning finding, one of the things you have to look at is preservation of desirable site characteristics, protection of sensitive environmental features including mature trees and others. Well, we don't get enough of that. We do not get enough of that that I can support this rezoning application. With the preliminary plat we have finding number 3. The physical characteristics of the site, including several things including vegetation, are suitable for the proposed development. Well in general that's true. It's going to be a wonderful development. A great setting but we have not enough preservation of the significant feature of those trees. Then again, still under the preliminary plat findings number 5, the proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage. The finding of staff is the proposed subdivision indeed will not cause environmental damage, subject to conditions of this 52 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 report. While saving 10 or possibly 20 percent of those significant trees in that particular area where we have hardwoods, of that size, to me that's significant environmental damage so I can't support that. With the conditional use permit, it will not change the essential character of the area. Finding number 3. Well it totally changes the character, the essential character of the area. Now I have to commend you guys, meaning Lundgren Brothers Builders, you have a very smooth way to do this in phases so it doesn't get noticed all that much but in the end those trees are going to be gone, and so the end effect to me is not acceptable with that. It will not result in the destruction or loss or damage of several things including natural features of major significance. Those trees are of major significance to me for the city. And that is my comments. So at this point where I stand, I'd like to table this and have these issues furthered researched. Thank you. Sidney: Goodness, quite a list. Slagle: You need a drink of water? Sacchet: Deep breath will do. Sidney: Well I must say you said succinctly what I want to say, and I appreciate that so I don't have to say it. But it's unfortunate, I guess I feel like, you know I wish this had come in as a PUD. That we would have a concept plan to look at and maybe some of the issues that the commissioners are talking about, we would have had a chance to talk with Lundgren Brothers earlier on this. Of course that is not the scenario that we're dealing with here. But I think it is significant that we have some trees that we'd like to save that it's important to the community that we try to do that. We have issues with homes very close to a major highway and I think just dealing with the noise issue is going to be a concern. The trails, have we done the best job that we can with the trail system? What are the options in this development? Can we have more twin homes and increase lot sizes? And I just get the feeling like we're not quite there with this development. There are too many questions. We have a lot of impact to the wetlands. Or I shouldn't say that. We're dealing with wetland issues. We're dealing with significant trees. I think we need more information about that. I don't want to really try and create a, well wouldn't like to have a more density at the expense of trees and I see this to be the way that a lot of subdivisions go. I think if we can be more sensitive to some of the tree issues, I think we'd be better off. That's my comments. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Bruce. Feik: Sure. I'm not comfortable with it for some different reasons. Some the same, but some different as well so I'll only discuss the ones that differ from the comments currently out there. Part of it is, I'm not comfortable with the trail system in general. I would much, strongly prefer to have the trail coming down both the east, southeasterly direction as well as the west side as was targeted by the original Chanhassen trail goals. I would consider, I think Kate had said something about up-zoning it to accomplish some of the things I think the city would like. One of the concerns I have on this is, I don't think it is a very, I'm not sure how to say this. I'm not trying to say it in a discouraging manner at all. It's not a very welcoming development for the rest of Chanhassen. We stub a trail into it, but really not the feeling that the community can ride through it. I would normally have expected maybe a stubbed road going to the east to the Pryzmus property to allow that to be developed in concert with this, like we've seen in a number of other projects. That is not that large of a site over there and I think that would seemed to it would make more sense from what some of the other things we've seen. So I guess I'm not real comfortable with it today. As I sit here I keep asking myself more and more questions, and not getting them answered. 53 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Blackowiak: Steve. Lillehaug: I think you did a very good job on addressing all the wetland issues. I mean it's very commendable to throw a large development in like this and have to do minimal wetland mitigation and basically all the other issues, with an exception to the trees. I just don't think there's enough big tree preservation and it's a key concern. I also have concerns that you did follow guidelines from staff, as far as the alignment of this trail. But I don't want to, I want to try to streamline the review process here but I don't want to compromise the better for the development so I don't want to compromise anything on the development here. I'd like to streamline this but I agree with the fellow commissioners that this isn't what we want to see at this point. Blackowiak: Okay. My comments are, have pretty much all been taken. There are some major issues and I think you've heard them and I would certainly encourage you to check the minutes and look at our biggies but they would look to be trails, noise, trees. I mean and we need to see this back. We need to see how it's going to happen and I, Bruce thank you for bringing up the connection to the east because I never even thought of that. How do we stub in? How do we plan ahead because we try to pride ourselves in doing a good job and looking at the big picture and see how things are going to fit. I mean this commercial is a perfect example of that where we try to think okay, we've got the Puke commercial. We need to tie in this next parcel and check accesses and things like that. We usually do a pretty good job and until you said that I didn't realize that we'd kind of been forgetting what's to the east so good catch. I just think there are a lot of issues that need to be resolved and we do need to see this back so based on that I would like somebody to make a motion. Sacchet: Madam Chair, I make the motion that we table this. Blackowiak: Is there a second? Feik: Second. Sacchet moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission table the request for Vasserman Ridge, located on the north side of Highway 5 and northeast of Century Boulevard. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to 0. Blackowiak: This item is tabled. It will be put on the next available Planning Commission agenda after things are worked out. Okay, thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO INTERIM USE PERMIT #2000-2~ MISS ROSIE'S FARM~ REVISING THE SITE PLAN WITH A VARIANCE FOR A GRAVEL DRIVEWAY AND PARKING AREA AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT LOCATED AT 7461 HAZELTINE BOULEVARD ON PROPERTY ZONED A2~ AGRICULTURAL ESTATE, SUSAN MCALLISTER. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, in an effort to kind of move things along, if you'd like to speak just give me a signal. Uli, questions. 54 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Sacchet: Yes, a few quick questions. Blackowiak: Quick questions. Sacchet: The landscaping it talks about the applicant has not yet met two conditions of approval for interim use permit and it talks about a landscape plan and buffer yard plantings and then it goes on to talk about a windrow of trees along the south and east. Could you explain a little bit what that entails because that landscape plan, it's a farm. We don't want to landscape it. Buffer yard plantings. Where do we need to buffer and then this windrow, I'm not quite clear... A1-Jaff: That was a recommendation of the original approval. Typically within farms you have a row of trees that eventually mature to block off wind to open areas. That portion of the landscape plan has not been implemented. Sacchet: That would be Puke needs to buffer? I mean does Puke has to own the buffer then? I mean Puke is the one who comes in with a different use.., matter of opinion I guess. A1-Jaff: I believe the applicant has to provide the landscaping on. Sacchet: Did Puke provide any buffer plantings there? A1-Jaff: I don't know, but I can find out. Sacchet: That may be, we don't have to dig too deep. Now you're maintaining the thing of two buses is a matter of intense... A1-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: I'll make comments about that. And then you have a condition about handicap parking. That it needs to be commercial standards drive to the house. If it's by the house and if it's not by the house then it has to be an accessible trail. A1-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: Can you explain about that perhaps? A1-Jaff: A handicap parking is proposed within this area. If that is the case, this entire driveway will have to be upgraded versus if the applicant decides to keep the handicap parking within these areas, only portions that would need to meet state requirements is this driveway. Feik: Why? Sacchet: Walkway. A1-Jaff: Walkway. And eventually it will get to this area. Sacchet: The reason why I ask this is, it would seem like we have conflicting elements. On one hand we have the Historical Society says the driveway should be narrow and historic and gravel, but then this seems to say it needs to be wide and all this other stuff. 55 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 A1-Jaff: Only the pathway would need to. Sacchet: ... finish the driveway. So that kind of cancels out the possibility of the driveway, the handicap parking being by the house. A1-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: If it is on the southern side, then we need this trail to fulfill certain standards and are the standards specified? Do we know what they are? A1-Jaff: They would have to meet building code requirements as far as. Sacchet: The trail being flat enough and. A1-Jaff: Correct. Certain grade. Sacchet: ... and you wouldn't impact the historical, alright. That's my questions. Blackowiak: Okay. Feik: Sharmin, real quick. You state that if the handicap parking goes to the north side they have to upgrade the gravel road where it swings all the way around the property. Upgrade that to bituminous? Or why? It's 10 foot wide. Sweidan: Upgrade it the width of it. Feik: Just the width? Sweidan: We can go with the gravel but it has to be according to the conditions if it is gravel road. Feik: So you can drive a bus up there, but you can't drive a handicap van up there? I'm trying to understand the difference between why you have to upgrade it for handicap when you wouldn't have to upgrade otherwise. Sweidan: You have to upgrade the width of it. It has to meet 20 foot minimum and that's according to the marshal, Fire Marshal. He needs for the fire truck a path of 20 foot minimum. This is the minimum width he can go to. Now, if they need the handicap to be up north, up there, it doesn't matter what kind of pavement. If it is gravel, that's fine. We have a condition for gravel she has to maintain and supply us with. Feik: So in other words, if it's a private drive essentially it can be 20 feet wide? Sweidan: If it's private does mean handicap parking is not allowed. Feik: If the visitors are not driving on that, then it can be 10 feet wide. Sweidan: Exactly. Feik: Is that really the crux of this? 56 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Sweidan: 10 feet for the private use only. Not for the handicap or for the public. Feik: Okay, so it's really not just handicap driven? Sweidan: No. Feik: Okay, thank you very much. Blackowiak: Okay, LuAnn. Feik: Oh wait, you had something else. I'm sorry. A1-Jaff: Also, if you look at condition 6 on page 12, this is also handicap parking is addressed under that. 6 and 7. Blackowiak: LuAnn, question? Sidney: Why the windrow of trees? Where did that come from? Condition 9. For the interim use permit. Feik: And is it still relevant? Sidney: Well yeah. A1-Jaff: It is along the east property. Feik: Is it still relevant? A1-Jaff: It is still relevant. They haven't met this condition. Speaking to Jill, she. Sidney: So this was part of the original. A1-Jaff: This was part of her original plan. It had to do also with vegetation along Bluff Creek Overlay District. Sidney: Okay, so this is looking back at what was originally approved then. A1-Jaff: Correct. Sidney: So this isn't something new? A1-Jaff: No. Feik: In your opinion, it still is necessary? A1-Jaff: It is required. Feik: That's not exactly what I said. It's required for the previous stuff. A1-Jaff: Is it still necessary? 57 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Feik: Could it be eliminated is the question? Could the requirement to plant those be eliminated? I don't care how it got there. I want to know could it be eliminated and is it necessary? A1-Jaff: I believe landscaping is always necessary and it goes back to, if it's going to block wind, yes. It will be. Sidney: Well that's maybe just a question mark for City Council. Feik: Okay. Lillehaug: I had one quick question, and then I want to hear from the applicant. The initial plan addressed the driveway off of 41 to the north of the property and this new plan really doesn't address it, but I'm seeing a note on there that that driveway, it says only bus entrance and exit I think is what I'm reading. There's a letter in here where MnDot addresses it that that should only be used as a private entrance. And I don't think we addressed the condition here. Do you think there should be a condition attached here? Limiting that driveway to a private use only and no buses shall be. Sweidan: We can.., but we thought that you know once they are going with the new access from...they're going to have to use that northern part. Lillehaug: Okay, you think they will use it though? Sweidan: If they are...according to this access, yes they can use it. Yeah. Sacchet: One clarification Madam Chair. When we talk about this northern access, I mean that's the gate that stands next to the woods. I mean it's not exactly driveway. Is that what we're talking about? Because the access, the main access that looks like the driveway now is going to be closed, so we're talking about it's going to basically need a machete to get through, right? Sweidan: Yes. Sacchet: Okay, just want to be clear. Blackowiak: Okay. I just have one question Sharmin. I could not find in the letter dated July 25, 2000 mention of a windrow. I see mention of a buffer yard. I see mention of a landscape plan. I don't see anything about, specifically about a windrow and I'm just wondering if that's new based on. A1-Jaff: You are correct. On page 7, under landscaping. Blackowiak: This was just sort of a suggestion that was in one of the reports. So it wasn't, this is new is what I'm asking, or kind of telling you. So this windrow thing is new? A1-Jaff: Yes it is. Blackowiak: Okay, just to clarify that. Thank you. Well Susan, you've waited long enough. Come on up. Name and address for the record please. Susan McAllister: My name is Susan McAllister and I live in two, same spot but I have two different addresses. One is 7461 Hazeltine Boulevard, Excelsior and the other one is now 2930 58 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 West 78th Street in Chanhassen. Yeah, I keep trying to tell the post office it's the same place. I never get my mail though. Yes, my real address will become 2930 West 78th Street but right now that's where I am getting my mail so I think we'd better put that on for the record. I'm in a transition area. I think I was born in a transition area. So I'm here tonight because I have got some requests and that is to re-route my driveway due to some new historic information that was discovered by me in December of 2000. And I guess I'm just going to get to the point, like you know. The people that know me from before know I always get right to the point and I don't pull any punches. I just call it like it is so we'll just start that way and go from there. On July 24, 2000 the City Council approved my request for an IUP to operate a petting farm subject to 14 conditions. Condition number 5 specified the landscaping shall be the following: 2 overstory trees, 6 understory trees, 6 shrubs, and I figured out the cost would be about $2,300. Today I come before you and some how there's a windrow of trees that I figured out how many trees would have to be planted according to what the city's requirements is and that's $21,000. I think this is absolutely ridiculous. All I'm doing is coming before you, and I'm told I need to amend the IUP simply to allow me to re-route my driveway to preserve the historic integrity of the farmstead for nomination to the national historic registry, and some how now it has been determined by the planning department that I should, like I said, add trees along the east and south property lines around the pasture to help define the parameters of the farmstead and provide some screening from the development area, that is according to the bottom of page 7. Number 1. Point number 1. This is a working farm. It's been a working farm since 1983. It's not to become Camp Snoopy or the Pickled Parrot. The property lines are the pasture area. I will show them to you right now with some pictures that I have, just so we can clarify things. If somebody can get me the camera on these photographs. You can see here that these are close-up's. Am I upside down? Sacchet: You're upside down. Susan McAllister: Whoops. Okay, those are close-up's of the fence and as you can see there, this is when it gets to become farm country last year. This is the east property line right here and I think this is the south property line because the water tower, was built there. Actually this is a couple years ago. So then therefore you can see there is fencing all along there. Okay, therefore the pasture fencing which runs along those two sides will continue to find the east and south property lines. I am not going to put trees along any part of that area, and this is not even negotiable with me at all. It is to stay natural to preserve the farmstead's integrity and also to grow my pasture area. I need the sun in my pasture area. Right now I already have a farm in the middle of a forest. I will show you this photograph. This is just part of the, where the barn is and you know, this is the only part out there that doesn't have trees. Everything else absolutely... Feik: Excuse me. Would you orient me which is north and south on your aerial? Susan McAllister: Okay north is right here. South is here so my driveway will eventually be coming up here and then winding around, okay. Feik: Yep, thank you. Susan McAllister: And this is the pasture area on the east and south side so, okay. It is absolutely ridiculous to ask me to do anything like that when the landscaping was approved 2 years ago there was no mention of a windrow whatsoever. I'm simply re-routing my driveway due to the new information about the farm that was discovered by me in December, 2000. I just want to clarify that you know, I didn't feel I was going in for an amendment to the IUP but I was told I had to. I got my site plan approval like I said 2 years ago. I'm simply showing the official 59 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 driveway due to the newly discovered historic information. That's it simply. I don't know if this becomes somebody that doesn't want to look at a farm. I think it might be something like that. They don't want to see a barn. I'm not sure. I can't go there because I don't have that answer. I just want to say that it needs to stay natural and that's one of the, I mean one of the real important aspects of preserving something for the National Historic Registry is to keep it as close to the original as it was, alright. And just, actually I've already met some people from Arboretum Village that love looking at the barn and the pasture and they actually are hoping the additional units about to be added won't block their view. I know different but I'm not going to tell them. In fact they even want to help me paint the barn, you know all the out buildings this summer. Number 2. Regarding that tree line again. I, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the State Historic Preservation Office and the Corps of Engineers are still dealing specifically with the east and south property lines regarding the farmstead and if anybody has to screen anything it will fall on Pulte's shoulders due to the adverse affect, quote unquote, their development has had on a historic farm. We are still negotiating this so I can't even visit this issue at this time. So, I am asking you to remove condition number 9 of the IUP entirely as re-routing my driveway should have no bearing on what was approved 2 years ago. As for the bus situation, I simply am planning for 2 buses now, even though I only have permission for one now. I don't want necessarily to have 2 busloads of kids there at one time. It's basically a safety issue more than anything. One bus could go over their planned time at the farm, or one bus could arrive earlier than planned or both which could result in a possible liability issue for the city seeing they will be owning West 78th Street at the time I open. It's only, you know like I said, it's only for safety to allow them to park and wait instead of blocking West 78th Street with nowhere to go. Additionally the invisible structures, the way they're manufactured, they interlock and they need to be installed at the same time so I'm simply you know, in case 2 buses, 1 bus doesn't leave and another bus shows up, they have to have a place to go and that's what I'm building for. That's it. You know, ifI need to have 2 buses in 2 years or a year from now, I'm not ashamed to come up here and ask for it, believe me. Okay so condition number 4 of the IUP shouldn't be an issue at this time. Condition number 6 of the IUP is problematic. As I have spoken to Steve Terrell, the building official about the handicap van or car, or cars, coming up the 10 foot wide driveway, asking him is it going to make it commercial or is it going to be personal? And he felt that the small amount, the low usage that it would have would, was okay and that it would not cause my driveway to become commercial as a 26 foot wide. It's already going to have the 7 ton roadway design in it. So I'm asking if the 10 foot wide driveway can be the accessible trail. According to the engineering firm, they think that I should be friendly to handicap people. I want to be friendly to handicap people and allow them to come up towards the house, but it totally goes against what the intent is, is to keep the driveway a walking area. Actually the cars are going to pull in off of West 78th Street. They're going to park there and the kids are going to be able to walk up the driveway. That's what the intent is for this 10 foot wide driveway. I'm the only one going to use it and a fire truck will be using it, I hope not but I mean if they have to, I think they'll go straight. I'll give them permission to go straight across the yard. They don't have to go around the circle. And you know the handicap, I wanted them to be closer you know so I'm just saying that's a question mark. I mean I don't know what to do with that. You're going to have to come up with some answer for that. Condition number 17 of the IUP. The Interim Use shall terminate in 8 years by June 24, 2012 which really should read July 24th of 2012. Because it was given in July 24th instead of June. So if, okay the intent was to give me 10 years. Everybody knew at the time I applied for it I couldn't start at that time that I applied for the IUP because West 78th Street wasn't in yet and sewer and water was not available to me until actually last week. It's at the spot where it's at. And I don't know if it's officially available but it's in the spot it's supposed to be in. These were 2 of the conditions that I had to meet in order to operate so, and let's refer now, I'll refer to City Council comments. Let's see on, from Linda Jansen in July of 2000 and Nancy Mancino, and that would be on page 25. Okay, Councilwoman Jansen: And I'm assuming that 60 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 would be from the start day of the actual business since we discussed it may not be able to start until 78th Street comes through. Mayor Mancino: Yeah, that's the other part. Councilwoman Jansen: So it would be from once you have access from West 78th Street. And then I said I had a letter from MnDot that says I can use the driveway now. Or I can use that access now, but MnDot wanted me to take total personal responsibility for the safety problem that might occur there and I was not willing to go there. I am not so I decided I couldn't. Even if I wanted to, and I chose to, my driveway was missing half of last summer. It just didn't exist. It did not exist. Okay, then we come to Mayor Mancino: Well it's between you and MnDot so whenever you officially start, you know it's worked out with MnDot. If they allow you to, you'll need to notify us and then it will start from that start date. Okay, I have not started. So therefore, therefore I am asking condition number 17 to read, the interim use shall terminate in 10 years by July 24th of 2002. Sacchet: 2012. Susan McAllister: What? 2012 1 mean. That's what I meant. Oh my. I missed it again. Slagle: Have you addressed staff with these questions? Susan McAllister: No. Slagle: Is there a reason, may I ask? Susan McAllister: Well because, no. Not yet. I'm addressing them tonight. Slagle: Okay. Susan McAllister: I just saw these just a couple of days ago. Okay. Condition number 27. My engineering firm, which talks about that it has to be a 3 to 1 ratio, slope. My engineering firm thought it was a 3 to 1 slope so they're checking it out because they believed it was so I don't know what is going on there. It will be if it's not. As for the duck pond, it is not a new addition. Hang on, I will show you. I'm simply showing it in the same place it was 2 years ago. There it is right there. It's almost exactly in the same spot, wait a minute. Yeah. It's almost exactly in the same spot that it's going to be now. It actually is in the same spot, so therefore there's no specifications called out at that time when it was approved with my IUP in the context of my IUP in the year 2000. So I ask you to remove condition number 6 in the conditional use permit which asks for that 10 foot bench. Also, condition number 5 is worked, I just want to mention that condition number 5. Slagle: We're going back... Susan McAllister: We're backwards, yeah I'm sorry. Okay, condition number 5 of the conditional use permit. The stormwater runoff from the manure/compost area shall be buffered prior to discharge into the Bluff Creek Overlay District to protect water quality. The applicant shall work with the city staff to develop an appropriate buffer plan. I'm already working with the Carver County Environmental Services on this and they've given me their plan as to what to do about that so. The City did have a problem with you know policing from everything from other agencies so therefore I'm asking them to not deal with that. I will deal with the Environmental Services because they really oversee that. So I don't think that that should be in there either. So condition number 5 should be eliminated in my opinion. 61 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Blackowiak: Okay Susan, now if you're dealing with the County and you feel that they have an appropriate plan, then you really wouldn't have any problem with the City just taking a look at that would you? Susan McAllister: No. Blackowiak: Okay. Then we don't have to take it out. Susan McAllister: So finally I ask you, how did we go from 14 conditions to 30 conditions if I'm simply re-routing my driveway? Initially I said 2 years ago the driveway shown on my site plan, I stood here and said that, is not necessarily the route it's going to be. It simply shows the approximate stub in from West 78th Street because I had to show something in order to show you a plan and so MnDot just plunked it in there. They just you know, she put it in there. I used the plan and that's what I'm saying, and just so you know, I'm simply, I'm just, I'm not asking for anything new. I'm just showing the official driveway alignment. Well I'm asking for it to be gravel actually but I'm not adding everything and everything that's been discussed has been approved 2 years ago, except for the gravel with the IUP so I don't know what else to say. If you have any questions. I can show you the parking area actually and how that's going to look, a little bit. This is a meadow right here. Feik: You're upside down. Thank you. Susan McAllister: And the parking will be in here. It will be behind the tree area so you won't even, you won't see them because we're going to carve it right out of there so this is from, this is from, believe this or not, this is from the south side of my property which really is West 78th Street right here and so actually when you're coming in, you know you're going to go to one parking area there and then you're going to head towards the... This is going to be carved out in here. So it will be...and this is the other side when you're coming off of West 78th Street and you're park .... in here. So I tried to do it, you know I love protecting the environment and I'm trying to do everything I possibly can to protect it. I need to keep my farm eligible for the National Historic Registry application because if anybody that you've ever met in your life that would need that on their charm bracelet it's me. So therefore I, it's important to keep the farm as natural as it was originally. I have definitely lost, you know I mean the fields weren't mine to be had but that was part of the farmstead but that fence row or hedge row or whatever you want to call it is more than 1,200 feet away and to bring that close and try to say that I need to start like surrounding my entire farm, it's not going to work. It's not going to make me have a workable farm anymore. I'm going to block all the sun from my pasture. It's not going to work. It's not going to make me have a workable farm anymore. I'm going to block all the sun from my pasture, and I think it's simply because some people.., don't like the look of a barn so that's just my opinion. You got any questions, I'll be glad to answer them. Blackowiak: Commissioners, questions. Lillehaug: I have a question. What has changed from the original approval here that now we should approve 2 bus parking lots rather than 1 ? Susan McAllister: I'm asking for room to put 2 buses. Lillehaug: Has anything changed from the previous approval? Susan McAllister: Not that I know of. What do you mean? What kind, what do you mean? 62 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Lillehaug: Previously you wanted 1 bus parked and 10 parking... Susan McAllister: I haven't done anything since I was here actually 2 years ago today. I was here on June 18th. My anniversary date. Lillehaug: And that's why I'm asking. What has changed? Susan McAllister: Nothing. Lillehaug: To warrant 2 parking stalls. Susan McAllister: Nothing. I'm simply trying to tell you, I'm simply saying that if I'm going to put in the invisible structure, I need to put it in at the same time according to the people who designed it. Because it interlocks. Did you see the specs? Okay, it's under the grass, yeah. And I'm just saying if there's, I'm not saying I want space for 2. I don't want 2 buses at one time right now. Okay, I might work myself into it later but I don't want that now. I never really did ask for that. I just wanted 2 buses to park there in case they show up at the same time or one doesn't leave in time. There won't be any room to shuffle people around or buses or cars or anything. There's going to be a problem so I'm trying to eliminate a liability situation. Lillehaug: One more question. The gravel driveway. One of our tasks here tonight is to grant, to look at the variance for the gravel driveway. Is there anything else fueling it other than the National Historic Registry? I read their letters here and it didn't clearly, to me say that you have to have a gravel driveway. Otherwise you'd be excluded from the registry. I think the verbiage I read, it suggested maintaining gravel. I'm wondering if there's anything else fueling that as far as funding or. Susan McAllister: No. Lillehaug: Because we talked about cost of trees and I'm wondering if there may be a trade-off. Susan McAllister: No. I will not be willing to trade off. I'm sorry, I just can't do that. And you know there is a Dennis Demistat of the Compliance Office for the SHPO did fax a letter to the city I'm sure. Do you have it? Is it in there? Blackowiak: Yeah. Susan McAllister: Oh, I didn't get it. Okay well, I hope it met with what he recommended and he did physically visit the site. Even though it says on here without physically visiting the site, he did visit it. I mean it was kind of, that sort of sounds like he didn't visit but he did visit it. So on historically significant sites it's best to maintain the character of the site. It's best not to make changes to the site that are radically different from the historic patterns. The farm is a farm. There's no other farm in the middle of a city that I know of, because I've sure gone through heck trying to get it. So therefore it's got to have the driveway that was original to the farm which is gravel even though, see what happened is this is like a technical thing. Okay. A technicality. Two years ago when I got approved they didn't have a hard surface ordinance for a driveway, okay. It just said my driveway had to hold the weight of a fire truck, plain and simple. That's what it said. And I told them it was going to be gravel. I never said it was going to be blacktop or anything else. I specifically said gravel. I didn't even say that the parking area was going to be gravel. It was going to be grass at that point. But now I see that I have to at least put in gravel so that is what I'm asking for. Is to protect the integrity of the farmstead because it's different. It 63 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 can't be compared to anything else around here, and that is one of the intentions that the city did say years and years ago that we want to be different. We want to be different from other communities so therefore now's your chance. Lillehaug: Okay. Blackowiak: Other questions? Bruce? Feik: None for the applicant, thanks. Blackowiak: LuAnn? Sidney: Well a question for staffI guess. Interim Use Permit termination date. What is the date? As stated in the staff report or the date when it's granted by City Council and the clock starts ticking? A1-Jaff: Typically there's a drop dead date on an interim use permit. In all honesty I need to check the original file on this one. Bob Generous prepared the staff report. Blackowiak: Sharmin, I can help you a little bit. I was checking on that too. We got a copy of the Interim Use Permit and on page 20, well it's City Council meeting dated July 24, 2000, so that's the date of the City Council meeting. That's the date it was granted. So there was a lot of discussion as to whether it starts right today. Does it start when she starts working? And it's really unclear in here because it says a little bit, well we can start. We can start it when the actual operation begins. Then however, if you go to page 26, Roger Knutson says, it is from the date of approval. And then Councilman Senn says, from the date it's granted? Roger Knutson, yes. We have no way of tracking when she would start. And then Councilman Senn, so she waits 4 years to do it. That's not, and Roger Knutson says, it's her decision. And Kate says, also on the interim use you can come back and ask for an extension, so she can not get started, she can come back in and say I was going to be in. I mean interim use allows for extension so that's the whole, I mean page 26. Top third of the page. Sidney: So it's an accurate date? Blackowiak: July 24, 2000 is the date that it was started. It says June 24th in the staff report but it's actually July 24th. 2000 SO that's when it was granted. So if that helps at all. Sidney: Okay. That's it. A1-Jaff: Madam Chair. There is one thing that I failed to mention earlier. Since the historic preservation of the site is bringing this before you again, staff did wish to add a condition that says, the State Historic Preservation Office shall review and approve any alterations to the site. Blackowiak: And that would be in which, that would be in the. A1-Jaff: In the interim use permit. Blackowiak: Okay, that'd be number 31. Feik: So what if the SHPO disagrees with the modifications that you require and she loses her historic status? 64 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 A1-Jaff: Well it is before you.., historic status. Slagle: Can I ask when the historic status is going to be granted? Susan McAllister: When it's, the application is done. Slagle: Have you applied, formally applied? Susan McAllister: I have not formally applied because there is still an issue with the east and south property lines actually. The trees, okay. The SHPO won't even make a comment with that right now because of the fact they said it could be dangerous. Slagle: Well okay but, and not, I just had a question. The trees are in this application as a condition, correct. I go back to July of 2000, all that any type of plans refer to just a buffer. Parking area should be screened from public or private right-of-way adjacent single family residence. So my question is, since July of 2000, we, what's happened before we ran into this one? I mean it's almost 2 years of not applying or, I don't want to put words in your mouth but... Susan McAllister: Well I didn't know that it was eligible for the National Historic Registry until last May, even though the report was published by, Puke was supposed to do a report. Okay. And in order for them to come forward with their planned unit development they had to do a report because they were applying for federal money, okay to fill wetlands. So the Corps made them prepare a report. That report was only discovered by me about 6 months later. Slagle: I watched the TV so ifI can, I understand where you're going on that. Susan McAllister: I'm not going further with it. Slagle: Good. I'm sorry, I shouldn't say good. But basically, can I comment? Blackowiak: Please do. Slagle: I do have a concern that I want to direct to staff, how we go from 11 conditions on July 24, 2000 to now to 30. Susan McAllister: 31. Slagle: 31. That concerns me. But you know, I don't see any reason to change what the council and the commission did back then. I think we should vote on whether it's yea or nay and go on. Sacchet: More questions? Blackowiak: Go ahead. Sacchet: Okay, I've got a few questions for the applicant. The duck pond. Is there a problem with that, what's it called? Safety bench. Susan McAllister: I don't even, well first of all, I don't know what a safety bench is. 65 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Sacchet: It means that you can't just go down real deep. It has to go shallow so if a kid wanders out, he's not going to drown right away. He has to walk all the way to the middle of the pond. Susan McAllister: I thought the ducks needed a bench. I'm going okay. This is new to me. Sacchet: I think I'm interpreting this correctly Sharmin but it's my understanding that it has to be very shallow at the edge and then maybe can drop off a little more in depth. Is that correct? Sweidan: Essentially... shouldn't be a sharp steeper. Susan McAllister: I don't know. I mean I have to ask my engineer about this. I don't know but I just want, I don't want it to get so big because it's got to be so shallow before it gets deep, you know what I mean. I don't want that. I don't know how to answer that other than it wasn't addressed 2 years ago. They knew I was having a duck pond, only it was a swan pond then but I chose to do the duck this year, just because I'm more friendly and I could put you know like cattails or something around there to stop kids from wanting to go through it. You know what I mean? I just don't want it to get so wide, you know, in order to keep it at 10 to 1 so, whatever. I don't know. It was not addressed 2 years ago and it's in the same spot it was 2 years ago and it just got a duck pond instead of a swan so. Sacchet: Another question for you. Basically conditions right now prevent you from having the handicap parking by the house. Now having the handicap parking in the parking area, and whatever that means making the trail accessible. Susan McAllister: I don't know what that means. That little trail that I showed there was going to be mulch. It was a mulch trail for kids. Sacchet: Does it mean it must be hard surface or? The idea I guess is you have to be in a wheelchair. A1-Jaff: You have to be able to use a wheelchair. Sacchet: Now technically you can wheel a wheelchair up and down the stairs so you can wheel it over mulch but it might not be the ideal. Sweidan: Mulch is not a material that we can use for even for kids...pavement, asphalt or the concrete. Sacchet: So it has to be hard surface. Sweidan: It has to be hard surface even for a wheelchair. Sacchet: Then we clashing with the historical character. Susan McAllister: Well see if we do the hard surface, then what happens when we meet the gravel driveway to get, you know the rest of the farm is done all in gravel. It's all gravel. The whole farm is done in gravel. All those areas going to the buildings have been gravel for years. Sacchet: ... Susan McAllister: That's okay, I'm used to that. 66 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Sacchet: Alright, that's my question. Blackowiak: Okay. Anybody else have any questions? Okay. Thank you Susan. This item's open for a public hearing. I don't see anybody here so I'll open and close the public hearing. Sacchet: Before we, can I have one more question for staff? Blackowiak: Sure, quickly. Sacchet: Because there's another condition I just discovered looking at, it's condition 20 of the IUP. Revise driveway width to 26 feet and a maximum of 10 grade. Now, if it is not commercial it doesn't have to be... 10 feet or? Sweidan: Yes, there's a small portion by the farm...24 so it has to be at least 26. If they are not going to make the whole driveway a commercial, so that portion of the drive.., should be 26. Sacchet: So the car coming into the parking lot, this is not addressing the whole driveway? So we should be clear. Susan McAllister: I think he changed it to 26 feet already. A1-Jaff: If you look at this, right now it's shown at 24 feet. Sacchet: Oh, it's just that one piece. It's not the whole driveway. A1-Jaff: That's correct. Sacchet: Because it's a condition.., okay, thank you. Thanks. Blackowiak: Thank you. Alright, well let's try to get out of here before midnight. Slagle: We should be able to do that. Blackowiak: Well we have one more item after this. Oh yeah. So let's make comments. And I think what I'd like to do is just a little bit differently. Take a look at each of these, the conditional use permit. Interim use permit. Take a look at them separately and then kind of comment as we go along. So I mean let's talk conditional use permit first and get some consensus and then move on. So if anybody would like to comment on conditional use permit. Any proposed changes. Sidney: Looks fine to me. Feik: I'm fine. Blackowiak: Okay. Alright. Interim use permit. Aside from renumbering. We don't have a number 1 but. Sidney: I guess I would be in favor of removing condition 9. Blackowiak: Condition 9. That makes sense. Feik: I for one would be in favor of adding 2 bus stalls. 67 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Sidney: If it's gravel. I don't have a problem with that. Sacchet: ...it's the cement... Blackowiak: Which I think would actually be much more expensive than gravel but. Sacchet: It's a safety issue. Susan McAllister: And it's beautiful. Feik: Change too 17 to reflect June to July. Proper date. Sacchet: If I could comment on that. I think since this goes to council, I would want to say for the record that council may consider whether they want to make it 10 years.., but since it's reviewable. Blackowiak: To them? Okay. Any other comments you want to throw out here? Number 6. Sorry, I'm going backwards. Susan made mention that Steve Terrell said that you may not need to have, you might be able to have handicap parking up in a personal area or something to that effect, and I would be in favor tonight of leaving number 6 as is, but before you go to City Council Susan, have Steve Terrell show up at the meeting. Have him write you a letter or something like that so you can verify that, and you can present that at City Council. You know as it is tonight, I wouldn't change anything. Sacchet: Can I comment? Blackowiak: Sure. Sacchet: Actually I have comments for 6 and 7. What irks me is that it seems like the direction from city side is giving to the applicant is to some extent clashing with the intent to maintain the historic character of that site. But if you're asking for the driveway or for the trail for that matter to be hard surface, I see that as a conflict with maintaining historical character. I think since this is... some flexibility should be granted here. Sidney: Work with staff. Blackowiak: Yeah, I was going to say work with staff, but you know I don't think it's a city issue. I think we're talking a state law with accessibility so I don't think it's even in the city's, within their realm of saying anything about that. But I would say definitely work with staff to determine state requirements. Feik: I'd like to see the gravel stay. I think the bituminous is inconsistent with, and over kill. Sacchet: So the condition work with staff on the handicap parking and possibly access trail... Blackowiak: Yeah, and just to see how state laws, yeah. Sacchet: Work with staff... And then I'd like to specify condition 20 that it applies to the parking entrance and not the whole driveway. 68 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Blackowiak: Okay, good. Lillehaug: Condition 19. I mean does the Fire Marshal mandate the 20 foot goes all the way up to the residence? I mean I can't believe that'd be true. Sweidan: ... Blackowiak: Where's the 10 foot come in? Sweidan: The 10 foot? They apply to the 10 foot trail width. The Fire Marshal insists on 20 minimum even if they're handicap by the house. Lillehaug: Do you know what the existing driveway width is? Sweidan: The existing? Lillehaug: Yes. Sweidan: I think it's 10 feet because it's coming actually from Highway 41. It's...but it's ending with 10 feet. Feik: So is 20 feet a code or is it desired by the Fire Marshal? Sweidan: It's a code by the Fire Marshal. For the fire trucks. A1-Jaff: Fire code. Lillehaug: I guess I'd leave that as stands then. Feik: Unless there's another way to get them up there. Sacchet: Right now it's 10 feet though, is that correct? Blackowiak: It could be non-conforming. Lillehaug: So that'd be grandfathered in but when you modify it you have to upgrade it to 20 feet I guess is how I'd understand it. Feik: Yeah, but somebody's got to be the authority to give it back. Blackowiak: That might be City Council. Feik: I would recommend that it remain at 10 if at all possible. Blackowiak: Well I think we leave the condition as is and then contact the Fire Marshal because I don't think we have the, I don't want to start messing around with those conditions. Sacchet: Yeah, in... City Council that 10 foot as it is now is more character and that we would recommend the council consider that. 69 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Blackowiak: Sure. Okay. Anything else? I think we add number 31. That SHPO would review and approve alteration on site, because if it is going for historical, that makes sense. So we've walked our way through that one. So let's make a motion. Sidney: I'll make the motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #2002-3 to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District subject to the following conditions, 1 through 6. Blackowiak: Is there a second? Feik: Second. Sidney moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #2002-3 to permit development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District, subject to the following conditions: 1. No alterations or construction shall be permitted in the Primary Zone. 2. A 50 foot building setback shall be required from the northeast property line. Any trail development must be coordinated with the City's Parks & Recreation Department. All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood-fiber blanket or sodded within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The storm water runoff from the manure/compost area shall be buffered prior to discharge into the Bluff Creek Overlay District to protect water quality. The applicant shall work with city staff to develop and appropriate buffer plan. For safety purposes, the duck pond shall have a 10 foot wide safety bench at the normal water level. The slope of the safety bench shall not be steeper than 10:1. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Blackowiak: Motion carries 6-0. Another motion please. Sacchet: Madam Chair, I make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval for the amendment to the Interim Use Permit #2000-2 to permit revision of the petting farm plan with a variance for the use of gravel driveways or grass pave system, based on plans dated February 22, 2000, as revised December 27, 2001 and subject to the following conditions, 1. 2, yes. Conditions 2. There is no 1. To 30 with the following changes. Blackowiak: You know what, how about just go to the record. Yeah, as discussed. Sacchet: There's no point in rehashing it. Blackowiak: No. 70 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 Sacchet: As discussed. Actually there's going to be 31 conditions then plus the changes. Blackowiak: Okay, is there a second? Feik: Second. Sacchet moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to the Interim Use Permit #2000-2 to permit revision of the petting farm plan with a variance for the use of gravel driveways or grass pave system, based on plans dated February 22, 2000, as revised 12/27/01, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The site plan shall comply with Sec. 20-267. Petting Farms. Accumulation of feces shall be located at least 200 feet from any well. Accumulation of feces shall be removed at such periods as will ensure that no leaching or objectionable odors exist. The premise shall not be allowed to become unsightly. 3. Parking shall be limited to 10 stalls with the provision for one (1) bus. An eight-foot accessible parking space with an eight foot wide access must be provided. This space must be located as close to the business entrance as possible. Signage must be provided in accordance with the Minnesota Building Code. Handicap parking may not be located adjacent to the house unless the driveway from the southern parking area to the parking stalls and the parking stalls themselves are improved to commercial standards (26 foot wide drive aisles with seven ton roadway design). If the handicap parking is located in the southerly parking area, then an accessible trail must be provided from the parking area to the petting farm area. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan for the proposed development. The applicant shall show the location, size and species of proposed trees and shrubs. Tree protection fencing will be required at the edge of grading and shall be installed prior to construction. Landscaping shall be added to the area between the parking lot and West 78th Street to provide a buffer. Included in the plantings shall be 2 overstory trees, 6 understory trees, and 6 shrubs. Installation of buffer yard plantings or a landscaped escrow is required prior to beginning operation of the petting farm. 10. Landscaping may be required for the parking lot if it exceeds 6,000 square feet. 11 The site shall only have access from West 78th Street. The northerly access on Highway 41 shall not be used for public access. 12. A dead animal disposal plan shall be submitted to the city for review. 13. The permit shall be reviewed annually to determine compliance. 71 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21 22. 23. The applicant must apply and obtain all necessary permits from regulatory agencies such as Carver County, DNR, USDA, etc. The interim use shall terminate in eight (8) years (by July 24, 2010). The Building Officials conditions are as follows: All public buildings must meet code requirements as required for new buildings because of the change in occupancy classification. All buildings and areas intended for use by the public must be on an accessible route and accessible to people with disabilities. One accessible parking space must be provided. Accessible sanitation facilities must be provided. Portable facilities may be allowed with a seasonal use, if permitted by the building code. 1. The use proposed requires that permanent sanitation facilities be provided, two restrooms, one male and one female. 2. The property must connect to city sanitary sewer service. 3. The existing septic system, which is failing, must be abandoned. The food preparation facilities require approval from the Minnesota Department of Health. Structures intended for public use must be evaluated by a structural engineer to determine if the building is safe for occupancy. The Fire Marshal's conditions are as follows: f. g. h. A 20 foot wide fire lane shall be provided, but it is recommended that the City Council consider 10 feet. The Fire Marshal shall review the existing buildings to be utilized for the petting farm to determine code compliance. Smoking is prohibited in any building used in conjunction with the business. ~No Parking Fire Lane" signs shall be installed on the fire lane. Any new driveway must be designed to support the weight of a fire truck year round. Any new driveway must be installed prior to the removal of the existing driveway. The amount of combustible material (i.e. hay, straw, etc) on the floors of any buildings used in the business must meet fire code requirements. All electrical wiring must meet code. Revise the driveway width to 26 foot at the parking entrance and not the whole driveway, and a maximum 10% grade is allowed. The Handicap Park must be off the commercial portion of the driveway with appropriate signage. Add City Detail Plate No. 5300. Re-sod or re-seed any disturbed area. Add a benchmark to the plan. The applicant must get MnDot permit for right-of-way grading. 72 Planning Commission Meeting - June 18, 2002 24. Show parking stall width and length. 25. Revise the driveway side slope to a maximum 3:1 along the west side. 26. All plan sheets must be signed by a Registered Engineer. 27. The applicant needs to submit: a. A maintenance schedule for the gravel drive for review by the City. b. A letter of credit or escrow in the amount of 125% of the cost of the annual maintenance. 28. In addition, the applicant will be required to sign an agreement that: a. The property owner will submit an annual inspection report confirming that the driveway has been properly maintained to ensure the 7-ton design remains viable. That inspection to be performed by someone mutually agreeable to the property owner and the City of Chanhassen. b. If the maintenance schedule is not met, the City reserves the right to perform the maintenance and bill the property owner for actual cost plus 30% for administrative costs. c. Should it become apparent that the property owner is incapable or unwilling to maintain the 7 ton gravel road appropriately, the drive related parking areas would be closed for commercial use until such time as they are reconstructed to meet the then current city standards for commercial drives. 29. The State Historic Preservation Office shall review and approve any alterations to the site. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Bruce Feik noted the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 4, 2002 as presented. Blackowiak: Okay, I will adjourn. Is there any old or new business you'd like to talk to us about Sharmin? A1-Jaff: Not tonight. Blackowiak: Okay, not tonight. Okay, meeting is adjourned. Chairwoman Blackowiak adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 11:25 p.m. Open discussion on District 112 site location followed. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 73