Loading...
PC 2002 03 19CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 19, 2002 Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Blackowiak, Rich Slagle, LuAnn Sidney, Craig Claybaugh, and Uli Sacchet. Deb Kind and Bruce Feik arriving during discussion of item 3. STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Julie Grove, Planner I; and Mahmoud Sweidan, Project Engineer CONSIDER REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR NINE LOTS, TWO OUTLOTS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY ON 7.59 ACRES OF LAND ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, RSF, LOCATED AT THE END OF KNOB HILL LANE, METRO AREA PROPERTIES, KNOB HILL 2N~ ADDITION. Public Present: Name Address Deb Hegeman Meta McKenna Vanessa Slotten Mark & Pat Ruhland Chad Haasken David Smith Mark Scholle Mary Prosser Barb Johnson Sharon Knoblauch Everett Jonge 1459 Knob Hill 1459 Knob Hill 6401 Teton Lane 6275 Yosemite Avenue 1376 Ithilien 1341 Ashton Court RLK-Kuusisto Ltd 1475 Knob Hill Lane 1512 Knob Hill Lane 1450 Knob Hill Lane 6650 Vernon, Edina Blackowiak: The first item was erroneously noticed as being a public hearing. It is not technically a public hearing. However, since we did send out the notice saying it was a public hearing, we will allow about 10 minutes for each side to update and comment on any issues that have changed since the last meeting that we saw this. Given that, we'll start with that first item. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Thank you Bob. Commissioners, do you have any questions of this new plat? Sidney: Madam Chair, well one question for staff. Lot 4, I guess differs in terms of the rear easement. It's 55. Why is that slightly different? Generous: To accommodate the 60 by 60 building pad. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Uli, any quick questions? Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 2002 Sacchet: Yes, I try to make them quick. To stay fashionable. Since the road was moved a little bit, those streets in the center of the property are close to the pond. There's some really big trees. It looks like we are able to preserve most of them? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: There's like one that has to go but ones further up, they can stay you said. Generous: That's part of the reason of the alignment for the road there. They were trying to curve around that area. Sacchet: Okay. But it cuts into it a little bit. So staff will make sure the ones can be saved? Generous: Yes and we'll have tree protection fencing. Sacchet: In terms of that radius for the cul-de-sac, what are, I guess it basically looks like there's several options here. I mean we're cutting either into the tree preservation easement or we're cutting in the cul-de- sac radius, or we're cutting into the pad. The building pad, correct? So what's, why don't we want to cut into the cul-de-sac radius? I guess that's Matt, that's for your question. Sweidan: When the radius by standard is 60 feet and we mainly use it as a fixed ordinance. Now we are going to 55 feet. It could be done. I'm not saying that it can't be done, but usually we fix our ordinance according to the 60 feet. And you know if you want to push it like for 55 or 50, we look for like you know some strong reason like tree preservation or something that it's not like it can be applicable to it. But as long as we can see that it can be done with the 60 feet, we like to maintain. Sacchet: Do you have anything to add Bob in terms of those 3 options? Why it is recommended the way it is? Because I think that's a valid question. Generous: Well we were trying to maintain no variances as part of this. And so to do that and get the full cul-de-sac we had to give on easement. Now we had noticed that previously to going less than a 60 by 60 pad. There's a huge building envelope there. It's just putting that square into the site sets it back down the hill. It can go wider, and that's generally what we'll see. Sacchet: And the same holds true for the width of the street? Generous: Right. Sacchet: I would assume. Now another question, I'm a little confused when we say custom graded. I was under the impression that means that basically lots will not get graded except for where the road goes in and the sewer and water stub comes in, but the rest would not be touched. However, when I look at the blueprint I see a significant area that is labeled tree canopy removal area, which includes not just the building pad because basically they can cruise that whole area that the building pads are on, and so I'm confused. I mean is my understanding correct that custom graded means you're not grading and cutting trees til actually you have a house plan that goes? And then why would there be a tree removal area outlined like that? Can you explain that to me please. Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 2002 Generous: It's two things. Customer grading, at the time of building permit they'd actually come in with a specific grading plan for this site. What we told them initially as part of the tree preservation ordinance, basically is what's the worst case scenario and show us that on the plans, and then we work backwards from that. That's where the tree replacement and reforestation calculations are all done based on that. But generally you're right. When you do the individual grading, they don't have to take out as big an area as they would show on the mass grading. Sacchet: So in this case are they actually planning to take all, that whole area, basically cut that area that's called tree removal area or? Generous: No. Sacchet: No. That's not the intent, okay. That's important. Now I have one more question from Deb, since she is not here. She was concerned about buffer plantings towards the neighbors to the, that would be the east. Now I noticed that there was a lot of trees moved to make a buffer along the road. Does that fulfill sufficient buffering? Generous: Yes. We anticipate that will be a pine curtain if you will. They're relocating the existing pines on site, or some of them, and moving them up. Plus they're planting an additional 13 evergreens immediately towards the cul-de-sac bubble. Sacchet: I guess we'll hear from the applicant and the neighborhood on that more. I believe that's my questions. Yes indeed. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Any other commission questions? No? I have one more question I guess. It's kind of building on the 28 foot street width versus the 31. Could we do a 28 foot street width and a 55 foot cul-de-sac without a variance? Sweidan: You can a 28 feet without a variance, but the existing Knob Hill Lane, if you notice it's 31 feet so we would like to maintain it all to keep it to the existing one. And if we are going to reduce it to 28, that means there's going to be like a knick...transition part. Blackowiak: It will be tapered 3 feet. Sweidan: It can be done. Blackowiak: Okay, and 55 foot cul-de-sac, could that do without variances as well? Sweidan: No, the 55 with a variance. Blackowiak: 55 with a variance. Sweidan: Yeah, the cul-de-sac, yep. Blackowiak: Okay. Okay, that's it. Thank you. At this point would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? If so, please come to the podium, state your name and address for the record. Again we're going to try to limit each side to about 10 minutes and discuss the changes in the plan that we've seen Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 2002 since the last time we've seen it, and also if you could address any concerns you may have with the conditions that are attached to this subdivision. John Knoblauch: I'm John Knoblauch. I live at 1450 Knob Hill Lane. I'm President of Metro Area Properties. Don't really have too many comments in regards to the new drawing other than, as far as the pad. I'm concerned about the setbacks on these 3 pads being pushed any farther back than they are now. I'd like to see this 50 foot stay the way they've got it drawn. As far as the things that I'm not happy with, I guess it doesn't much matter but I'm not real fired up about this house pad here being a lot closer to this property line. This variance because we shifted, I didn't get the private drive. These lots shifted over which makes this lot less valuable because it's closer to these property lines which of course those people don't enjoy either. I've also lost about 40 feet of property here that would have been included in these lots which obviously would have made them more valuable, so a couple things that I mentioned over the phone is that, to staff is, we kind of feel that, I've tried to make this thing work for everybody as best I can and I'm kind of running out of gas with everybody wanting to tweak the plan here and there. I just basically want it to work for everyone and that's ultimately probably not going to be doable for everyone to be happy like I mentioned before. I think this plan, the 50 foot radius at the end will work great. We have not had that many problems with our, I believe it's a 40 foot radius here as the temporary so I feel that the 50 feet is adequate. The 60 foot tree preservation is a good deal as far as I'm concerned for the lots and that. I appreciate wanting to preserve that area. The other thing I'm not too fired up about is obviously giving up this 20 feet here. This lot already has lost some value obviously with the 20 foot trail easement, but I understand where Park and Rec's come from on that, but they've got to take what they need. The only other request I would have is that staff would look at alleviating any silt fence or any work bordering Clason Lake and down around the existing home. I'd prefer to stay out of that area and do silt fencing up along the road and then individually silt fence each house pad. To run around down in there with the bobcat and equipment and stuff, I think will do more harm than good. And also it will probably dig up more, create more erosion than we need to down there for the underbrush that's there. Also definitely along the existing home along here. Since basically there's going to be no work done on this acre and a half, we're not doing silt fencing down on that lot. I think that was about it. I guess the movement of the trees is a concern of mine. It's been basically requested to transplant trees as needed from this lot, and also in this area. I'd like to keep obviously some of those along the property line and I can't remember the number of trees that we've got right now. The requirement, if it's 30 or, 27 or 30, something like that. But I'd like to just basically border the street here with the trees. Plant the trees and do as little movement as I can on this, on the existing ones. Just because it's likely those are going to be moved and the time of the year where they're susceptible to lose them, if we could move them obviously when they're dormant we'd have better luck but some of them are pretty big and they wouldn't do very well, especially considering this will probably get graded in the summer time. That's about all my concerns. Any questions? Blackowiak: Well thank you. Bob, before we go on. Any comment about the individual silt fences and also transplanting trees versus just buying new? I mean that's an option too, isn't it? Generous: Well I'll start with the trees. We only anticipate that he relocate the trees that had to be moved due to grading. Especially for the storm water pond and maybe that first house pad on Lot 3. John Knoblauch: The plan kind of shows it kind of all, that's what kind of made me a little nervous is, and I know Mark talked about that. That probably we would be just removing trees that would have to be moved, but the plan would just kind of always makes me nervous because when I go into the engineering department, they kind of hold these as gospel a lot of times and that's, you know it says I'm basically going to remove all those and don't really have the plan to remove them all so. Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 2002 Generous: And then as far as the silt fence, that's only put up just downstream of where the actual grading will take place, so and then on the west side, the silt fence would have to be Type III but it doesn't have to be at the property line. It just has to be between the grading and the downstream side. John Knoblauch: Okay, so it wouldn't necessarily have to be down that close to the lake? It could be just on the kind of the west side? The west side of those lots. Generous: Before the trees even. Double the tree protection fencing. Blackowiak: So as long as there's a silt fence between those two areas you're fine? Generous: Yes. Blackowiak: Okay, good. Commissioners, any questions of the applicant? Sidney: Yes, I share your concern about the transplanting of trees and moving them around and I guess would you be willing to work with staff to come up with a more detailed plan of like which trees exactly could be moved and wouldn't move? John Knoblauch: I'm sure that will probably be, it might have to be done on site. I'm sure the pre-staking, possibly construction staking might be able to get a grip on what ones could be left. The issue of the drop- off of the pond is going to be a lot of times it's the topographical. If they drew on there might be offa little bit so I definitely wouldn't want to jump on it you know, and that's kind of the problem. I'd almost, you know I wish we could move them in April when evergreens are better suited for transplant but that's a good question. I don't know. Sidney: I guess I'm leaning towards adding a condition that you do that. John Knoblauch: Absolutely. Sidney: At an appropriate time. Blackowiak: Okay. Is that it? Sidney: Yes. Blackowiak: Craig, go ahead. Claybaugh: Yeah you commented on some of the radius on cul-de-sac and the width of the road. There was 3 conditions addressed in there by staff with respect to elevations on the pond. Catch basin number 2, manhole 3, I'd just like you to comment briefly on those. John Knoblauch: Well are you talking about dropping the road, lowering the road here? Claybaugh: Specifically the, on page number 4. The high water level of the proposed pond shown on the grading plan as 1003.9. Must be lowered to a maximum elevation of 1002. Then back in, back on page number 9, item number 8. Catch basin manhole 2 shall be a catch basin with a sump to remove grit from Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 2002 the storm water prior to discharge. That was something I believe that was new. And on sheet number 11, item 25, let's see. Lower manhole number 3 to be lowered by approximately 3 feet in order to serve the basement of Lot 5, Block 1. Something that hadn't been touched on so I was just wondering if you could comment on those 3 conditions. John Knoblauch: Well I'm not really aware, I didn't discuss those with Mark. I just got the staff report yesterday and to be honest I've been pretty busy so I didn't have a chance to analyze it. Unfortunately we don't get those very early on so. But I'm sure I'll take a look at it and I can't comment on it right now. The sump, I'm not familiar with, we didn't have any sumps on the first catch basins. Claybaugh: Right, that's why I wanted you to comment on it. Those are. John Knoblauch: That's a, that doesn't really sound very practical to me as far as doing some kind of storm lift there. I don't know. Claybaugh: Okay, well they're in front of us as a condition for approval so that's why I was hoping to get a comment on it. John Knoblauch: Can you comment on that Bob? Sweidan: The second catch basin has to be sump. Any catch basin before the storm water pond has to be a sump. Blackowiak: So that's a city requirement? Sweidan: Yes. Blackowiak: Okay. Sweidan: And usually we...the request that would catch any you know depressed actually with the storm water system. Before discharging to the storm pond. Claybaugh: Did the elevation on that catch basin number 2, or catch basin manhole number 2 change at all from the first plan or was that something that was always in place there and just wasn't identified with a sump pump the first go around? Sweidan: It changed a little bit due to the location of the, if you remember the Lot 3. That was pushed to the east so it was between Lot 2 and Lot 3 so we have to push the catch basin prior to it. But overall it didn't change the system. John Knoblauch: Yeah, we didn't have that in the first addition. That must be a newer item that's been added as far as, because normally at the 2 year date we're cleaning those out. That's what I've seen done in most incidences is that basically we've got you know a company that comes out and vacuums those storm drains out so that would be news to me as far as what would be required there, but I'm sure we can work with staff on it. Claybaugh: Okay, that's all I have. Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 2002 Blackowiak: Any other questions? Sacchet: Yeah, real quick question. One thing I'm a little perplexed by is where you put the house pads for Lots 2, 3, 4 in relationship to where the existing house is on Lot 1. It seems like you have Lot 1 there and then all of a sudden you jump in front of it with the next one. Wouldn't it be better to line them up a little bit or was there a reason behind that? John Knoblauch: The reason I wanted the engineers to show them back farther is to take advantage of lookout possibilities on that first lot because the topographical doesn't fall until that. Sacchet: So actually it's a walkout or lookout? John Knoblauch: The first lot is shown a half a lookout where the existing shed is. And that's really the number one reason is just, it's much more difficult to market flat lots. Sacchet It's more valuable that way, okay. John Knoblauch: And there doesn't seem to be really any setback issues or anything that, so we decided to show it back there. A person could, if a person wanted to move it up, they could. Sacchet: It kind of impacts the existing building, but I guess that's less... John Knoblauch: Yes and no. The existing home when it's leafed out, you can't see Mark Bastiansen's house here. It's pretty heavily wooded in this area so we planned, we even talked about this, we plan to leave as best you know a buffer here as best as possible. And yeah, I mean I basically am going to own that house so yeah I'm concerned about it too. I've got to be able to sell that house so, but I don't think that will be a problem. Not on an acre and a half in Chanhassen. Sacchet: I was just curious what the thinking was, thank you. Blackowiak: Thanks. Rich, any questions? No? Okay. Thank you very much. John Knoblauch: Yep, you bet. Blackowiak: This item was noticed to be a public hearing so I will open the public hearing. Again, let's try to limit our comments total to 10 minutes and the issue before us is the subdivision and changes since we have last seen it. So with that direction, anybody wishing to speak to the Planning Commission, step up to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Chad Haasken: My name is Chad Haasken. I live at 1376 Ithilien, which is Lot 8. The one right there. My main concern is for resale value of my property, and I don't know, I think these do not, both these lots need a variance which I don't see the use for them. They don't? Oh they don't. Blackowiak: No. Chad Haasken: Well then my only concern is Lot 3 being so close to my property. I think that's going to devalue, I probably won't be able to sell it as much. And like I said in the first meeting, I still have concern on drainage. We've done, I've done numerous, numerous developments and I talked to Cal Haasken and he Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 2002 even feels that there's a strong possibility for that and he's done developments in the Carver County area a lot so those are about my main concerns about this development. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Bob, can we take a quick comment on those? The side setback on Lot 3, no variance. Meets. Generous: It meets the ordinance request. Blackowiak: It meets ordinance, okay. And drainage, Matt? Sweidan: Drainage as before the neighbors they were requesting that street to be shifted toward the west. Blackowiak: Correct. Sweidan: Now with this buffer it shouldn't affect much, even though the previous proposal which was the street toward the east, that wasn't much help for them. This new proposal. Blackowiak: So you feel that there won't be an affect on the drainage? Sweidan: It shouldn't be affected, no. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Uli, comment? Sacchet: If I might just ask a quick question from engineering about this particular topic. Since that storm pond is pretty much next to where there is that natural dip in the terrain, would it be a possibility to drain that dip into the storm water pond? See what I'm saying? We have that area where it goes down to about 1002 ½ feet in the person's back yard. On the property line there. And then we have this little hill and then it goes down on the other side into the storm pond. Would it be possible to drain that dip? Sweidan: If the pond will not drain toward the east. It will drain toward the north. Sacchet: Right. Blackowiak: Your question is, could the dip drain to the west? Claybaugh: Could it be made to drain to the west is the question. Sweidan: The existing? Blackowiak: Yes. Sweidan: I don't think so because there's existing catch basin or you can see like an L-lift that's taking the storm water system toward the east from that dip. So there's a drainage existing already there. Sacchet: There is a drainage in that dip already? Sweidan: Exist, yep. Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 2002 Sacchet: Okay, okay. Well then it's not an issue. Thank you. Generous: I should point out though that this plan is actually reducing the area of storm water draining into that back yard. This project's picking up a lot of the existing storm water and will re-direct it towards the ponds so they'll have less water coming. Blackowiak: Good. Okay, thank you. Would anybody else like to get up and speak on this item tonight? Dave Smith: Dave Smith, 1341 Ashton Court. And I think it's everybody would be in everybody's best interest to minimize the amount of asphalt and maximize the amount of green so I think we should promote narrowing the road to 28 and the cul-de-sac radius to 50. That's it. Blackowiak: Thank you. Debra Hegeman: Debra Hegeman, 1459 Knob Hill Lane. I'm short here. I recognize the concerns of all the neighbors and I have to admit that probably my property is least affected by the proposal because I don't live near it. But I do have concerns about the builder, Metro Properties. I understand that the documents that I included probably have not been read by everybody, but I feel it's extremely critical that this Board and the people attending and future people should know that Metro Properties, through their representative William Engelhardt, when they got approval for the private road that is part of my property, submitted false as-built drawings for approval to the city commission. Blackowiak: Okay, excuse me ma'am. I have to keep this on track tonight to this specific proposal that's before us. Debra Hegeman: Then I'd like to address the concern about the radius for the road. Blackowiak: Thank you. Debra Hegeman: To reduce it, I know it would increase everybody's property value. It would make you happier, but it creates a safety hazard for the vehicles that will be using that road. And I have personal experience with that. I live on a 600 foot private drive that vehicles cannot turn around on. If you have 30 to 40 foot box trucks.., delivers, UPS, everybody's ordering over the internet now, they're not going to be able to turn around. They're going to be forced with inexperienced drivers to attempt to back up possibly. That's what I worry about every day on my private drive. There are too many children in this neighborhood to have this type of liability exist. I know the home values will go down so my solution is, why do we have to put so many houses into this 7 acres? Reduce it to 3 or 4 homes. Make the lot sizes more palatable to all of the people. Why does it have to, why can't the land be developed so that it's better, not just more crowded. This is what you get when you have Mr. Knoblauch build you a house on a half acre of land. That's these people's front yard. This is .47 acres that these people live on. That's my next door neighbor. That's his driveway pad. When cars park on his driveway pad, no one can get there and turn around. It's a half acre of land. Was it used wisely? I don't think so. Do you think so? Can you turn a car around there? Blackowiak: Okay ma'am, if we can just direct your comments to the commission. And I understand your frustration but I'm trying to keep us on task tonight for the subdivision before us. Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 2002 Debra Hegeman: All I can say is that I recognize what everybody wants. I hope the commission does the safe thing. That's all I want to say. Blackowiak: Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak on this proposal? Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, any final comments before our vote? LuAnn? Sidney: I'd just like to say that I'm comfortable. I was going to say fairly comfortable with the proposal now that it's variance free and it meets ordinance requirements. I guess I would suggest that we add a condition to state that the applicant should work with staff to come up with a detailed evergreen buffer plan and I'd like to see that include the number and height of the trees to be moved and where they'll be moved to and also the height and location of any trees. Those are my comments. Blackowiak: Okay. Great, thank you. Further comments? Claybaugh: No additional comments, no. Blackowiak: Rich? No? Okay. Sacchet: Yes I do have comments. I really have a problem with cutting into that tree preservation easement. The tree preservation easement is a delicate thing to start with, and it tends to not necessarily be taken all that serious in the first place, and if you already start cutting into it at this stage, we take all credibility away from it. And by having it 60 foot in one place and 50 or 55 in another place and then again 60, we make it, it doesn't stand up the way I see it. It doesn't fulfill what I think it should be fulfilling. That means to have a consistent sense of these trees being preserved and have the nature aspect maintained that way. Now I would much rather have the cul-de-sac right-of-way reduced personally. To me that would be totally justified to give a variance for that, on that basis. Or for that matter give him a variance to have the building pads slightly smaller, but I really oppose to cut into that tree preservation buffer. That to me is not acceptable. Other than that I think it's a pretty good proposal. It's certainly there was an effort made to accommodate all our concerns we had last time. I don't have really an issue whether the street is 28 or 31 feet wide. I mean if there is a benefit by having it 28, I don't think it's a big deal if it changes from 31 to 28 when it enters that particular development. But it appears that there's enough room to actually make a 31 foot, and it doesn't seem to make that much of an impact to that. However, the cul-de-sac thing does have an impact. I do believe that it does create either way some environmental damage so I would like to propose that we don't say this does not cause environmental damage but that we say does not cause unreasonable environmental damage. That's on page 8 and page 13, finding number 5. I'm not quite sure where to go with this condition number 17 that states the cul-de- sac right-of-way has to be 60 foot radius because we do not have variance findings in front of us, and in order to not require that we need a variance situation. Blackowiak: Well maybe you need to make the motion and then direct staff to explore options before it goes onto council. Sacchet: Okay. I don't have an issue with the concern of the applicant that the, actually I think it's a good idea not to have that silt fence on the western and southern edge of the property because it just creates that more damage than it ever will solve. I would like to ask to be explicit with the custom graded lots that the trees are not touched til there's actually a plan for building. Blackowiak: Okay, why don't you make the motion and just include all that information in your motion. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 2002 Sacchet: Okay. You don't want to hear it ahead of time? Blackowiak: No, I don't think we need to. Sacchet: Okay, that's fine with me. Blackowiak: I mean if you're going to make the motion, then it's. Sacchet: Okay, so do you want me to make a motion? Blackowiak: After I make my comments. Sacchet: Okay, please. Blackowiak: I'll ask for a motion, okay. My comments are similar. I can certainly understand the frustrations of some of the neighbors. Specifically this is a variance free request and if the plan meets the requirements set forth by the city then we need to approve it, whether we like it or not. And that's any plan before us. So we have very little leeway there in terms of how we like it or whether think it should be more dense or less dense or, that really can't play into our final decision in terms of does this meet the requirements set forth by the city. And if so, then we need to approve it. So I'd just like to preface our motion with that because I think I get the feeling that some neighbors would like to see less density or smaller lots or I should say excuse me, larger setbacks so keep it away from the neighbors a little bit more, but we're limited in what we can do in terms of our own personal feelings. We have to go by the standards the city has set. Saying that I'll ask for a motion. Uli. Sacchet: Yes, I'd like to make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Knob Hill 2nd Addition, plans prepared by RLK-Kuusisto Limited dated January 17, 2002 and revised February 6, 2002, creating 9 lots, 2 outlots and right-of-way for Knob Hill Lane, subject to the following conditions. 1 through 30. And I'd like to change condition number 1 for Lot 4, Block 1 to read, rear 60 feet to be consistent there. I'd like to do something with 17. Now that's a challenge. I'd like to propose that we strike 17. Blackowiak: Or maybe just to work with staffto. Sacchet: Or if we would say, direct the applicant to work with staff to address the 60 foot radius requirement of the cul-de-sac. Blackowiak: And how it relates to the rear 55 foot set. Sacchet: The rear 60 foot tree preservation. Blackowiak: Tree preservation easement. Sacchet: Okay, that works. That works for me. And I'd like to do a similar thing with condition 19. Direct the applicant to work with staff to explore alternatives to putting silt fence on the western and southern edge. Help me out. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 2002 Blackowiak: I thought staff was going to, they could put it up above the tree line. Sacchet: They put it, okay. We ask that the silt fence will be put above the tree line. That's fine with me. Then I'd like to add condition 31. Custom graded lots will not have any trees cut in the building pad area until there is a plan for the building. Then I'd like to add a condition 32. Vegetation, the applicant will work with staff regarding vegetation in and around the storm water pond. I'd like to add a condition 34. Applicant will work with staff to maximize the preservation of mature trees on site in general, and in particular in the area of south of the current pond. And then a condition 30, where are we? Blackowiak: Actually I think that was 33. This will be 34. Sacchet: That was 33 and this is condition 34. Applicant will submit a detailed landscape buffer plan for the eastern edge of the development and indicate, well how can we put this concern in there for not all trees will be. Blackowiak: Work with staff to. Sacchet: Just work with staff to establish a plan for that and that gives the flexibility to which trees will actually be transplanted. Blackowiak: Right. Sacchet: That's my motion guys. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? I need a second if there is one. Sacchet: It doesn't look like we got one. So motion doesn't fly. Blackowiak: So will you withdraw your motion? Sacchet: I withdraw the motion because it didn't go anywhere. Blackowiak: Okay, I need somebody else to make a motion then. Sidney: I'll make the motion. Blackowiak: Okay. Sidney: Give it a shot here. Blackowiak: Thank you. Sidney: Make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Knob Hill 2nd Addition as indicated in the staff report. We have conditions 1 through 30 and I'd like to add one additional condition 31. The applicant shall work with staff to develop a detailed evergreen buffer plan along the eastern property line. The plan will include number and height of trees to be moved and specific location where trees will be transplanted. And also the height and location of new evergreens to be planted. Not the best stated but I hope you get the drift. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 2002 Blackowiak: Get the drift. Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second for this motion? Claybaugh: I'll second it. Sidney moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat for Knob Hill 2"a Addition, plans prepared by RLK Kuusisto, Ltd., dated January 17, 2002, revised February 6, 2002, creating nine lots, two outlots and right-of-way for Knob Hill Lane, subject to the following conditions: 1. Lots 1-6, Block 1 shall contain tree preservation easements in the rear yards as follows: 11. Lot 1, Block 1 Rear 60' Lot 2, Block 1 Rear 60' Lot 3, Block 1 Rear 60' Lot 4, Block 1 Rear 55' Lot 5, Block 1 Southerly 60' and the westerly 60' Lot 6, Block 1 Rear 60' Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to site grading. Demolition permits must e obtained from the Inspections Division before demolishing any structures on the property. The shed on Lot 2, Block 1 must either be moved to Lot 1, Block 1, or demolished. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. Separate sewer and water services must be provided for each lot. An exemption or wetland replacement plan shall be approved prior to any alterations to the wetland on-site. Storm water calculations shall be submitted to ensure the proposed storm water pond is sized adequately for the proposed development. CBMH 2 shall be a catch basin with a sump to remove grit from the storm water prior to discharge into the proposed pond. The proposed pond shall outlet into a public drainage system capable of handing the discharge. Silt fence shall be provided immediately down slope of all proposed custom graded areas. Silt fence shall be removed upon completion of site grading and re-establishment of vegetation. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3:1. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 2002 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 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. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 7.05 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $5,640; the water quantity fees are approximately $13,959. The applicant will be credited for water quality where NURP basins are provided to treat runoff from the site. This will be determined upon review of the ponding and storm sewer calculations. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording is $19,599. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval. Detailed grading, drainage, tree removal and erosion control plans will be required for each of the custom graded lots at the time of building permit application. Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. Revise the cul-de-sac right-of-way to a 60 foot radius and the street pavement width to 31 feet. The applicant will be required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the 10 year and 100 year, 24 hour storm events. The proposed pond must be designed to National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) standards. The high water level (HWL) of the proposed pond, shown on the grading plan as 1003.9, must be lowered to a maximum elevation of 1002. This new HWL will provide the required 3 foot vertical separation between the walkout elevations (1005) of the existing homes at 1368 and 1376 Ithilien and the pond's HWL in accordance with the City's SWMP. The storm sewer must be designed for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat over the public storm drainage system including ponds, drainage swales, and wetlands up to the 100 year flood level. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Staff recommends that Type III silt fence be used along the western property line of the site adjacent to Clasen Lake. In addition, tree preservation fencing must be installed at the limits of tree removal. A 75 foot minimum rock construction entrance should be added to the entrance that will be accessed during construction. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. The pad elevation of Lot 1, Block 2 shall be raised to 1012 to better facilitate drainage on the west side of the lot. Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 2002 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 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. Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the city's latest editions of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, Carver County, etc. Add the following City of Chanhassen Detail Plate Numbers: 1002, 1003, 1005, 1006, 2001, 2109, 2110, 2201, 2202, 2203, 2004, 2205, 3104, 3106, 3107, 5301, 5302, 5232, and 5234. Lower MH-3 be lowered by approximately 3 feet in order to serve the basement of Lot 5, Block 1. On the utility plan: a. Show all the existing and proposed utility easements. b. Add a legend. c. Show the proposed storm sewer length, slope and type. d. Show sanitary sewer pipe class, length and slope. On the grading plan: a. Show all existing and proposed utility and pond easements. b. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. c. Add a note for removing existing bituminous driveway and restore with vegetation. d. Show the storm sewer pipe, slope and length. e. Show a minimum of 75 foot rock construction entrance. f. Add a legend which describes the existing and proposed contours, Type II silt fence, property lines, etc. g. Show typical house pad with definitions. On the preliminary plat: a. Side and rear lot line easements should be shown as 5 feet wide. b. Show all existing and proposed drainage and utility easements. A minimum 20 foot wide public easement is required for the pond outlet which extends outside the site property lines. The developer shall dedicate a 20-foot wide trail easement along the eastern property line of Lot 6, Block 1. The applicant shall work with staff to develop a detailed evergreen buffer plan along the eastern property line. The plan will include number and height of trees to be moved and specific location where trees will be transplanted and also the height and location of new evergreens to be planted. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 2002 All voted in favor, except Sacchet who opposed, and motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Blackowiak: And the reasons Uli? Sacchet: To me it's unacceptable to cut into the tree preservation easement and I do think we should be specific about cutting trees in those custom graded lots so it cannot be misunderstood how it says on the plan, tree canopy will be removed. That's... Blackowiak: Okay. Motion carries 4 to 1. It will go before the City Council on April 8th. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF~ RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 7615 LAREDO DRIVE~ JESSE SCHNEIDER. Julie Grove presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Okay commissioners, questions of staff. Rich. Slagle: Quick question Julie. The existing garage right now is obviously not within conformity. Who built that garage? Is it the applicant? Grove: No, it's not the applicant. It was probably built when the house was built in 1961, prior to the ordinance. Slagle: Okay. And so your opinion is the 6 foot is okay? I mean bottom line. Grove: Staff supports it, yes. Slagle: Okay. Blackowiak: Any other questions? Uli. Sacchet: Staff recommends in the report that the size of the driveway be decreased to the width of the garage door. Would that need to be a condition? Because it's not at this point. Grove: Most likely. Sacchet: Could be. And then the other question I had, your finding number B. The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to many properties in the RSF zoning district. In what way are they applicable to many? Grove: There's always the most single family residential structures have setbacks at 30 feet. Sacchet: Okay, in that sense. Okay. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 2002 Grove: In that sense. Sacchet: Okay, alright. That's all my questions. Blackowiak: Thank you. Any questions on this? Claybaugh: No questions for staff. Blackowiak: LuAnn. Sidney: No. Blackowiak: Okay. Would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? If so, step to the podium, state your name and address for the record please. Jesse Schneider: Jesse Schneider, 7615 Laredo. As stated in my letter I just, due to the fact that it's a 20 by 20 garage, which is pretty small, I have storage issues on my property. And I have recreational vehicles, lawn mowers, snow blowers, like most people. Right now I can't even fit a car in my garage, so I have at any given time you know 4 cars. I have a personal vehicle, a work vehicle, and two room mates so at any given time there's up to 4 vehicles in my driveway so we're playing musical cars all the time. And also, when I was today before I came I went and re-measured everything. In order to have a foot and a half eaves I need, well I applied for the 5 foot variance and I didn't realize that that included the eaves so I in mm reduced the garage by half a foot and applied, or she told me to state that I wanted a 6 foot variance, which I still come up with a half foot short. So in order to have foot and a half eaves I would need a 6 ½ foot variance, but that does not fit with the rest of the house. The house has 2 foot eaves, so in order to make it all the same, 2 feet, I would need a 7 foot variance. Or a 6 ½ foot variance to have foot and a half eaves. Otherwise I'd have to reduce it to a foot ifI only get a 6 foot variance. So it wouldn't really fit with the rest of the house. Blackowiak: So you're telling me you'd like a 7 foot variance for 2 foot eaves, is that what you're saying? Jesse Schneider: That's what it would be, correct. Blackowiak: Okay. Julie, does that math work out for you? What he's saying, does that make sense? Grove: Would it work with a 6 ½ foot variance? Jesse Schneider: Then I'd have foot and a half eaves. See when I originally applied for the 5 foot, and I knew that I had 2 foot eaves, but I didn't realize that that included the eaves so. Grove: Yeah, a 7 foot would give him a 2 foot eave. Blackowiak: Okay, so a 7 foot variance would give him a 2 foot eave and with that change would staff still support the variance request? Grove: The non-conformity would still be decreased so yeah. Blackowiak: So yes, they would still support it. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 2002 Jesse Schneider: It would decrease by 6 feet I think is what, because in here it says it's 11 foot infringement. It's actually 12 because there is another foot of eaves and I didn't even take that into consideration when I, so it's still decreased by I think it was 6 feet that I came up with. Blackowiak: Okay. Alright, thanks. Commissioners, any questions of the applicant? Slagle: Yes, I have one. Blackowiak: Sure. Slagle: When do you intend to do this? Jesse Schneider: As soon as possible. If it gets approved, I'm going to go ahead and have plans drawn up and submit them to some contractors. Blackowiak: Okay, other questions? Claybaugh: No questions. Blackowiak: Okay I just have, I just want to kind of clarify and make sure you understand on the record that even though you have a second garage door on the back, that you're never going to get another driveway or another curb cut or anything, you understand that so? Jesse Schneider: That's not my intention. Blackowiak: Okay. Well I just want to make sure it's clear and on the record that that's not misunderstood at this point. Jesse Schneider: I actually want to keep the driveway off Laredo. That's when I was applying they asked me if there was any other way I could do it, and there isn't, but I want to keep the driveway off Laredo anyways so. Blackowiak: Okay great, thank you. Alright, this item is open for a public hearing so if anybody would like to speak to this issue, step up to the podium and state your name and address please. Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. Commissioners, comments. Sidney: I'll start off. I agree with staff's analysis. We do have hardship present here because of the topography, size and physical surroundings of the property. And also as stated in our discussion that non- conformity is being reduced by this addition to the house so I'd be in favor of supporting a recommendation to approve the variance as stated. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Any other comments? Claybaugh: At this point I'm going to support the application. I didn't hear the applicant comment on the staff's recommendation for the driveway width matching the overhead doors. Jesse Schneider: Yeah, the driveway will be just two cars wide from the garage out to Laredo. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 2002 Blackowiak: Alright, thank you. Claybaugh: That's all I have. Blackowiak: Any other comments? Sacchet: Yeah, I'm a little torn about whether in order to match it needs the eave on the garage as his own building but I guess that's a matter of taste, but it seems like it doesn't, the way I see it would fit in, it doesn't have to have a 2 foot eaves because the house has a 2 foot eaves. Because a smaller house could be smaller. I basically support this variance. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Rich, no comment? I guess I don't have much to add. I just want to say as long as staff still supports the 7 foot variance with 2 foot eaves, I can get on board with that. It's an improvement and I believe that we have met all the findings that we're required to, so with that I'll take a motion please. Slagle: I make a motion that the Planning Commission approves Variance number 02-3 for a 7 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback for the construction of an attached two-stall garage including a home addition with the following conditions as shown 1 through 4. Blackowiak: Okay, there's been a motion. Is there a second? Claybaugh: Second with a friendly amendment. Blackowiak: Thank you. Claybaugh: That would address the staff's recommendation for the driveway width to match the width of the overhead door. Blackowiak: Okay, do you accept that amendment? Okay. Moved and seconded. Slagle moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission approves Variance #02-3 for a 7 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback for the construction of an attached two-stall garage including a home addition with the following conditions: 1. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction. 2. Contact the Building Department for demolition permit requirements. 3. No more than one driveway access is permitted on the property. 4. The setback must be measured from the eave to the property line. 5. The driveway width shall match the width of the garage doors. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 2002 Blackowiak: This is a variance. Any person aggrieved with this decision may file a written protest with the city within 5 business. Generous: 4 business days. Blackowiak: 4 business days, okay. Thank you very much. (Deb Kind and Bruce Feik arrived during discussion of the this item.) PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE LIGHTING STANDARDS BY FAMILY OF CHRIST LUTHERAN CHURCH. Public Present: Name Address Nate Castens Randy Koepsell 7605 Erie 1110 Dove Court Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Okay commissioners, questions of staff. Craig, no? Claybaugh: I've got some questions. The St. Hubert's slide there showed some light into the night sky but it is a diffused light and driving up on West 78th, I took a look at the Family of Christ light. The spot light when both of them were on and it seemed very excessive. Is there any way to quantify the degree of excessiveness? You commented that St. Hubert's yes, has some penetration of the night sky but to me that's diffused light and it isn't in the same category as an open spot light. Generous: And I think it's partially the result of the design. St. Hubert's has the light right on the building and this one has, Family of Christ has one behind the steeple, but they also have one shining from the parking lot lighting standard towards the building and that's the one that's really intrusive into the night sky. It has to be more powerful. It has more light value. Claybaugh: I just felt it was important to make the distinction between the degree that that's infringing. That's all I have. Blackowiak: Thank you. Any other questions? Slagle: I have a couple. Have there been discussions with the applicant about different types of lighting? Different positions of the lighting, so forth and so forth. Generous: We did as part of the building permit process but it was a little late for them to do it. That's a solid structure and so our suggestion was something mounted on top and shining down. I did do some research in, there's a Luminating Society in North America and they have standards and there are like lighting that you can position above flags and things like that to eliminate this glow into the evening sky. But for this particular one it was too late to get them to change their plans. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 2002 Slagle: So since you saw, or found out about the light pollution, my question is, have there been any discussions since that point of sort of basically what I asked, positions. When you say it's very difficult to position another light, in some sense, on one side of my brain I understand... Generous: Well we did suggest some alternatives with the architect but it didn't go any farther than that. Slagle: Okay. So when the applicant comes up, I'll ask him why. Okay. Blackowiak: Uli, questions? Sacchet: Yeah, two questions. First of all, I mean we have other lights that people point skyward. Not at crosses necessarily but at landscaping. At flags. How does that fit together? I mean if generally the city ordinance says no lights going skyward, correct? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: It seems like there's a fair amount of landscaping lights that go into the trees. There's a fair amount of lightings that go up into flags. Is that something that as a city we're trying to get rid of or how are we working that? Generous: Over time, yes and with each new development we're more cognizant of lighting. Wall pack units are a big issue with us now. We make sure that the design are shielded design so you don't have the glare shining off site, but rather direct those downward. Sacchet: I'm not necessarily asking so much in the context of developments. I mean it's residents that put out landscaping lights that go up into the trees. It's residents that put up a flag and have a light shining. It's also businesses for that matter. But our intent, from the city side with this ordinance, is to turn this around. Just want to be real clear about this. Okay. Now my second question, somewhat in line of the other aspect that has come up. I mean right now there's a tremendous amount of glare depending on the humidity of the air and what have you, and what I saw with the glare, when you drive on Highway 5 you see very clearly, or it's West 78th actually. Not Highway 5 right now, is that if the glare is about this big, the cross is actually at the edge of the glare. It's not even in the middle of it. And it seems like, if you look at lighting, how it's used like in theaters, on stages, you have these tubes on it and you have to like go very specifically just in one point. And I wonder, that's not something that has been explored at all? Whether that thing could be maybe with a lot lesser intensity bulb, could that certainly focus to just really light where that cross is, because right now the lighting is a far multiple of what the cross size is, and the cross is not even in the main body of the glare. Has anything like that been explored or? Generous: Not really. They did talk about having louvered the spotlight for this and so that reduces some of the intensity and focuses it somewhat. The problem you have is lights expands as it shines outward and they didn't, the architect hasn't been forthcoming on doing anything with that and our position was, whether it's small or large, it's still directed skyward and it's in violation of the ordinance and there are alternatives that they could have followed and didn't. Sacchet: That's my question. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 2002 Blackowiak: Okay. And I just want to kind of follow up on that. So basically it's in violation of the ordinance. Currently the churches or other businesses that do have lights and they're doing skyward lighting, they would just be non, what would their status be right now? Non-compliant, non-conforming use. So when that use discontinues or when that business goes away, then we would enforce current standards at that time so we will be decreasing them as these businesses change or the use changes. Generous: That's the intent, yes. Blackowiak: Okay. Alright, thank you. This item is open, oh excuse me. Before that we'll let the applicant come on up. Come to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Nate Castens: Yes, thank you. I apologize in advance for my voice. It doesn't hurt nearly as badly as it sounds. My name is Nate Castens. I'm the Senior Pastor at Family of Christ and my address in town is 7605 Erie. And representing Family of Christ, we come as happy campers. We're glad that our relationship with city staff and the Planning Commission has been cordial and non-adversarial, as we've built this new project on Coulter Boulevard. Every building project of course is a matter of some negotiation and some compromise over that period. We appreciate that we've gotten to this point. We're just about complete and both our good humor and our good will are still intact. We're quite happy and we've, to our satisfaction and I think to our satisfaction as citizens and as city. And when it's all balanced out, I think we have a better final project than when we first began. 2-3 years ago we had a rough line that has subsequently been changed due to the advice of city staff and Planning Commission and others. We come asking for this variance tonight, and the architect who's provided the additional information that's in your report, chose to be in warmer climates and to have bought an airplane ticket months ago I guess and so I will try to speak for us and to include any information, some of which you've already asked. A couple of questions and issues that we might address right away, and first is that we knew when we started that this kind of lighting was not allowed. I guess my response is that we did and that we didn't. Our site plan approval and the lighting ordinance both were passed about the same time in early 1999. And we weren't frankly concentrating on lighting at that time. There were larger issues. The shape and the appearance of the building outside and on the inside obviously were some of that. I guess we surmised that because all other churches had some kind of outdoor lighting, that this would be something that we would develop. This would not be an issue. The particulars would be worked out as we got closer and closer. I'm honestly not familiar enough with the conversations between our architect, Pepe Kryzda and Bob or the planning staff to be able to answer a great deal of regarding the alternatives that were or were not examined. There is, I know information in the information that you've received which tries to address some of that but you're talking to the wrong person. I'm not the technical person and Pepe is. So I guess we felt that this was a yellow flag, not a red flag as we were continuing and we're certainly willing to continue our conversation and maybe would ask for some more time to be able to do that. On the other hand, we are asking for some special consideration to be granted this variance. Not as a church individually, but as churches for churches generally in the community. And we can continue to discuss just how to light in this way, but we are asking for this variance not because of economic or commercial reasons. Quote, a desire to increase the income potential of a parcel of land. That's not our purpose. We see it important to be able to light this symbol of religious faith, not even for aesthetic reasons really but because we think it's important in the community to have a symbol of this presence that points us beyond ourselves. Points beyond the natural self centeredness that we all individually and as families and as community have point beyond us to something greater. To the community of mankind and in this way we're not talking about a church, I think we're talking about any kind of religious institution that helps us as a community to expand our horizons. So on behalf of every other congregation now and in the future I guess I would say that we're asking for this variance on the grounds that our community is more than simply commercial or civic 22 Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 2002 or public entities. We are also a community of individuals and persons and families who live and share and pray and learn to share and pray and help one another. Along these lines we are asking for what we would perceive to be equal treatment with other churches and I would disagree a bit with what Bob has written and what we have seen on the photos. Colonial, the old historic St. Hubert's does in fact have some flood lights pointing skyward. They're mounted on the ground and they definitely light the front, the faCade of that building. It is more than just a star. Clearly the front of that building is lit by flood lights that go up. St. Hubert's, if I'm not mistaken, has not one but two roof mounted flood lights and while they're, the lights are diffused from within the steeple, there are also flood lights on the outside that clearly must point up into the sky. Discovery United Methodist in our old building clearly has flood lights that show up there and likewise Living Christ. All of these churches also benefit from the lighting that is in the surrounding neighborhood as well. Whether it's from the commercial area from street lighting or something like that, so that even if they were not to have those spot lights, their buildings, their crosses and steeples would be more visible than our's would be. If this does in fact set a precedent, we don't think that this is a dangerous precedent to set in addition. Variance would only apply to churches. Churches as a conditional use or by their definition. Something unique and therefore would be treated differently in the first place, and realistically, and we're not talking about large numbers of such variance requests coming your way from churches. We don't have that many churches that relocate in our city. Five presently. One on it's way. Finally we also believe that the ordinance could be reasonably interpreted to allow for this variance without stretching either the letter or the spirit of the law. It's in the architect's response on page 2 in your folders here. It would be oh about the third, fourth page in. Letter to Bob Generous. January 15th. Where he quotes that, 9(a). The intent of this provision is not to allow proliferation of variances but to recognize that in developed neighborhoods pre-existing standards exist. Variance that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing from them meet this criteria. And we would submit that there are neighboring standards. Pre-existing standards. In the wider neighborhood to the west of us, near Bluff Creek School there's some bright lighting. Other churches as conditional use offer some pre-existing standards and finally, there is one final point that I would like to offer. We don't believe that the spillage or the effect of lighting has created a major or even any nuisance for the neighbors around us. To the south of the building, south of Coulter, the lights that light the steeple coming from the north are not visible at all in any way. The lights are partially visible across Highway 5 in the neighborhood, the townhouses across the highway. One of our people drove up to a house that faces immediately faces our building. Knocked on the door and asked, is this obtrusive? They had not noticed this before. The woman offered to go upstairs, look out her bedroom window. She said yes, I can see it but we've never noticed it before. It's not an issue for us. We subsequently mailed a letter explaining our interest in our neighbors reactions to about 40, maybe 50 people in that neighborhood, among the homes that immediately face Highway 5 and would be visible to us, about 40 that we mailed, we got 7 responses back. One said, the lights were obtrusive and suggested turning them off at 10:00. 2 said they were visible, but it's not a big deal and not worth making a fuss over was the choice that they had. It's visible but it's not a big deal. And 1 person said the cross lighting was not a nuisance but your church members are if they're speeding and tailgating. All the rest of them said, their choice was and they marked no, your steeple and cross lighting is not a nuisance to us. All of which is to say that certainly we are willing to continue talking with staff about alternatives but we feel that the spillage effect or the light that does spread out is fairly negligible. It's not unreasonable to see or to say that this is a variance that would be granted and we would request that. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Commissioners, do you have any questions of the applicant? Rich, go ahead. Slagle: A couple. Last night we had a meeting here in this building and I think it ended about 9:30. And I drove, I live in the Longacres neighborhood off Galpin, and I drove down 5 and prior to last night, if 23 Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 2002 anybody had asked me, aside from the ordinance if I thought a spot light on a cross would cause any concern to me, personally I would say no. But when I drove last night and I think there might have been a little mist in the air or something, I mean it was quite, quite bright traveling West 78th or 5 to get to Galpin. So when I got in today and I'll ask a question as to your thoughts to my comments, when I got in today I called staff and I said, to another staff member, have there been discussions about an alternative lighting source because I will share with this commission, I am prepared to okay that on my end of things if there is, if you will a much more uniform light that fits the cross. I mean lights being closer to the cross. As you said Uli, some type of a, some fleer or something that just lights the cross and I guess I'm just interested in your thoughts as to why we're not closer to that versus staying with what's there now. Nate Castens: Why we're not closer to that discussion? Slagle: Yeah, or another solution, a compromise of lighting equipment because again, I think the intent and what not I approve of. I just think it's a little bright. And why? I mean why not have the lights closer to the cross? Nate Castens: Couldn't put them closer because of the where it's mounted on the parking lot lighting. That's about as close as we could get it. Slagle: Okay well, you know I'm just throwing this out. Maybe there's other positions around the building rooftop that, or any part of the grounds. I guess I'm just saying, you know are we exhausting all options for this or is it really this lighting is what we're going to stand by and you vote yea or nay? So I want your thoughts as to what we can be doing to. Nate Castens: Well here's where if the architect were here but I guess my answer would be that in order for this not to shine from ground level up, not to be more directed vertically but more horizontally, it would have to be mounted on one of the light standards in the parking lot and this is the closest one to that. Now as to whether or not there are fixtures available that would really focus that much more, I really don't know. Slagle: And I'm certainly not a lighting person either but it would just seem to me is what commented that there are stadiums, arenas what not that appear to have lights that travel a far distance and don't angle out at whatever degree so I just really want to feel that you guys are willing to work with staff to get to that point. Nate Castens: Well sure, absolutely. I guess my question we'd have in this whole process is, obviously if you have a light here and a cross here, that the range, kind of the semi-circle around it is going to affect how you see that light if it's not a kind of tube. In other words, there is going to be some range of vision I guess. Slagle: Sure, I understand. And I'm not thinking it's dead on. You know on the cross and nothing else but certainly, I mean I just, I fee when I drove home I'm like wow, that's a pretty big spot light and this is coming from someone who truly 100 percent before this drive would have thought this is crazy we're even questioning other than the ordinance, you know. Nate Castens: Sure. And I'm responding yes. We're definitely willing and able to continue working with staff on this, sure. Sure. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 2002 Blackowiak: Any other questions of the applicant? Craig. Claybaugh: You made the comment about the people down at Creekside or, not being as noticeable to the south. I was just looking up the layout for the lights and the, what's identified as SP-1 on what was submitted to the city here is just a 100 watt high pressure sodium and evidently the distance that was required to set the second light back in the parking lot pole required a 400 watt high pressure sodium. That's what we're seeing from 78th. I think as I get focused more on trying to position that second light through alternative methods closer to the building, that's the one that caught my attention again. Not driving up past Creekside but up on West 78th so. Nate Castens: Right, right. Yeah, I think we're all agreed that if there's a problem it's from the north looking south at our building rather than south looking north. Claybaugh: And that comes back to what I initially raised the question with Bob is quantifying the degree of intensity. 400 watt high pressure sodium, that's why you're seeing it. So if they could somehow concentrate on trying to find alternative means to mount that light to a closer proximity and get that intensity around 100 watts like the first position light, that might be a solution that would work. That I could support. Blackowiak: Any other questions? Claybaugh: No. Blackowiak: No? No? Okay, thank you. Okay, this item is open for a public hearing. So if anybody would like to speak on this topic, come to the podium. State your name and address for the record. Randy Koepsell: Randy Koepsell, 1110 Dove Court, Chanhassen, and I'm a member of the congregation so just to make that clear. Generally the problem with the cross is it's typically the highest point on the church, and crosses are generally lit by spot lights and so just to light a cross with spots pointing down is almost impossible, unless you have a pole higher than the cross. So just from a logical standpoint, it's going to be very difficult to do. I understand the issue and if you look at the church, the south side of that cross is on a bell tower. On a metal framework sitting in front of the church. There isn't really anything inbetween there and the parking lot and that's why it's on that pole in the parking lot. There may be a way to light it from, I don't know if you could light it right from the bell tower or not. The one facing north is right behind the cross facing upwards, that's why you get less glare so anyway, I would again request that you consider the variance. Blackowiak: Thank you. Seeing no one else I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, any comments you'd like to make? Sidney: I'll start off. Blackowiak: Go ahead. Thank you. Sidney: Yeah, I agree with staff's report. Excellent, concise discussion of the ordinance issues and I think the main thing is that we have a spot light that is directed skyward to light up the cross and really that type of lighting was something that we discussed with the revisions to the lighting ordinance and we wish to get away from that and I really can't see suggesting approval of this variance because of that. The church does 25 Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 2002 have reasonable use and I believe there are other means to light the cross that are less obtrusive so I agree with staff's analysis. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Any comments Bruce? Feik: Yes, and I apologize to the applicant for being late. And the rest of the commission and I will be abstaining from the vote because I did not hear the entire presentation. But after reviewing the staff report, I would prefer to see the applicant seek other means of lighting the cross, specifically maybe back lighting. Lighting the steeple in a very different manner versus the long range lights which are currently being employed. So had I gotten on time tonight I would have voted to disapprove the variance. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Craig, any comments? Claybaugh: I can appreciate the church's position and, however I think there's a more creative solution out there that hasn't been tapped yet and as such I would be against approving it at this time. Blackowiak: Okay Deb, comment? Kind: I will be abstaining so I will not comment. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Uli. Sacchet: Yeah, I do believe this item deserves some discussion so if you bear with me just a few points I definitely want to touch on because I think it, this topic deserves that. First of all, I think the applicant made a very astute comment that the lighting ordinance is relatively new, so that plays into the picture. And obviously the fact that we did create a lighting ordinance for the city of Chanhassen means that there are enough people that give that sort of thing importance. That there are enough people that do consider lights pointing skyward a nuisance because the effect is you won't be able to see the stars for instance and so forth, so just to balance the two aspects there a little bit. Now, there is definitely a lot of glare I would say excessive amount of glare as I explained when I pointed out that it's a very wide range of light and the cross is not even in the middle of it. It's actually at the periphery of where it's pointed. It's not pointed very well and it's not focused either. Now the applicant, you made a comment that all other churches have this type of thing and generally get equal treatment. Well I do feel compelled to point out that my church had an explicit condition put on it by the City of Chanhassen not to have any flood lights and that was long before the light ordinance was even implemented. So I just, in order to be really fair I want to point that out. Now, in terms of what do we do with this is really a challenge. Somebody would come and ask that from the start, it'd be a clear case. So well, there's no hardship. There it is. Now in this case somebody did it and they come back and say well we, do we have to take it down and you know, I deal a lot with that with my kids. I mean they come and I accidentally broke something or I accidentally hit my brother or, and so now we have this accidentally a light there that points skyward, and so is it reasonable to have that. If they come and ask from the start we'd probably say no. But now we have to look at it. Is it reasonable to ask them to take it down? You know, is it reasonable? It's that type of thing, and I thought of what was very hard. I'm glad this was pulled from the last meeting when it was because I came full circle with this, and I feel from our body here, the Planning Commission, I really don't think it's within our range to approve this variance because our role as a Planning Commission is to look at the ordinance and see how do things that come in front of us match up with the ordinances. Now this thing doesn't meet 3 of the findings. It's not a hardship. It's self created. And in the context of city ordinances it does infringe on others. Usually if one of these conditions is not met we feel compelled not to approve a variance so I feel 26 Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 2002 as this body we cannot approve variance. But I would very much want to encourage the applicant to bring this up with the council, with the City Council and I would very much want to encourage the applicant to explore the possibility of masking that light and very specifically focusing it in addition have a slightly less wattage on it, because if this light would be really well focused just on the cross, I think it is a balance that can be found but I would consider that within the scope of the City Council, and not within the scope of the Planning Commission so therefore I will vote against granting this variance tonight. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Rich, any comments? Slagle: A couple. Madam Chair, I have a question regarding our options here. Can we table this or ask for tabling? Blackowiak: The review deadline is April 14th. Slagle: Let me ask this, a second question. Blackowiak: I suppose we could. However tonight if we act on it, yea or nay the applicant has the option to go forward with an appeal within 4 days so I would kind of encourage us moving it along. Slagle: Okay. But if the applicant was willing to extend, grant an extension? Here's what I'm getting at, and I'm directing it to the commission here but anybody is welcome to listen. It just seems to me that it's a simple issue, if one does not agree with staff, which some could, that it's just a simple solution of coming up with a... Blackowiak: Well it sounds like staff has explored these options with the applicant and we've come to this point. So I think it's fair that we just act on it this evening and just let the chips fall where they may. Slagle: Okay. Blackowiak: Bob, I mean correct me if I'm wrong, you have been working with the applicant and it's been discussed. Generous: They said they wanted to go forward with this option. Blackowiak: Okay, well then I think that it's only fair then we act on it this evening. Generous: Until they know yes or no on this then they don't have an incentive really to. Blackowiak: Okay, good point. So Rich, do you have anything else? Slagle: No. Blackowiak: Okay. Yeah, I agree. I think we really need to act on this tonight. I think that the applicant has requested it. We pulled before. They polled the neighbors. They've done what they feel they need to. Looking at the findings, I do not feel that they meet the requirements to grant a variance and that's really in a nutshell where we are as a commission. If it does not meet those criteria, then we cannot grant the variance. And that's kind of where I'm at so, I'd like a motion and understand that Commissioners Kind and Feik are abstaining so, somebody else would need to chime in please. 27 Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 2002 Sacchet: Madam Chair, I make the motion that the Planning Commission denies the variance request by Family of Christ Lutheran Church to permit the use of spot lights directed skyward to illuminate the cross based on the findings in the staff report. Blackowiak: There's been a motion, is there a second? Sidney: Second. Sacchet moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission denies the variance request by Family of Christ Lutheran Church to permit the use of spot lights directed skyward to illuminate the cross based on the findings in the staff report. All voted in favor, except Feik and Kind who abstained, and the motion carries 5 to 0, 2 abstaining. Blackowiak: Any person wishing to appeal the outcome of this variance request may do so within 4 business days in writing to the city. Thank you. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Rich Slagle noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated March 5, 2002 as presented. ONGOING ITEMS. Generous: Just to let you know that there will be no meeting on April 2nd. There was one item and we didn't get it noticed properly so it can't go forward. So we'll have I believe it's 3 items on the April 16th meeting. Maybe 4. Blackowiak: Can you give us a little clue as to what we may be seeing on that meeting? Generous: Well Powers Place, it's the office building on Powers and Highway 5. And then two subdivisions. Small residential. One's on Lake Minnewashta and the other one is on, both of them are Lake Minnewashta as a matter of fact. Kind: Bob, do you have addresses so we can drive by? Generous: I don't have addresses. It's the Boyer property is the one. It's that little finger of canal on the north side of the lake. I could show you on the map. Blackowiak: Okay, or else you could e-mail that out maybe. Generous: Yeah, Kate will be sending out an e-mail on the agenda also. And then the other one's on the end of Dogwood. Blackowiak: Alrighty. Generous: And then Kate and I for the 2nd meeting in April will be in Chicago at a conference so Sharmin will be watching the fort I guess with Julie. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - March 19, 2002 Slagle: If I can, I'd recommend then, and I'm sure you will, that anything you guys can do to give this more information, especially with the two of you gone for that meeting would be helpful. Generous: Okay. Blackowiak: Alrighty. Anything else? Meeting is adjourned. Chairwoman Blackowiak adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:35 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 29