Loading...
PC 2007 09 04 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 4, 2007 Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Kurt Papke, Kevin Dillon, Debbie Larson, Mark Undestad and Dan Keefe MEMBERS ABSENT: Kathleen Thomas STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Angie Auseth, Planner I; and Joe Shamla, Project Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: PAISLEY PARK PARKING LOT: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR AN AUXILLARY PARKING LOT ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF COULTER BOULEVARD AND AUDUBON ROAD. APPLICANT, PAISLEY PARK ENTERPRISES, PLANNING CASE 07-18. Public Present: Name Address th Fred Farr 5888 45 Street S.E. Alan Kretman 7200 Hudson Boulevard, Oakdale 55119 Rick Pecoquin 2069 Manitou Avenue, St. Paul James Lundstrom 5334 Highland Road, Minnetonka 55345 Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Okay. Mark, you want to start? Dan? Keefe: Yeah. One in particular that, and it may go back a little bit to the previous approval on this parcel but in regards to lighting we had a discussion around operational hours in terms of the lighting and because this is just an auxiliary parking lot, I presume it's only going to be used on just a periodic basis to support activities at Paisley Park. You know what do we do in terms of lighting when it's, is this thing going to be lit every night when it's not being used? Generous: That would be up to the applicant. I thought about that when I was writing the staff report, whether we should limit it to the nights of operation and putting a time limit on but unfortunately limiting the operations would be good but time limit may not be because of the way Prince and Paisley Park Studios work. Sometimes they have late evening activities so you'd want them to have that security lighting. But yeah, we could provide a condition of approval that it could be, it's limit to only times that they are actually, have an event that is using this facility. Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 Keefe: And there is going to be a gated parking lot, or. Generous: Originally, the plan show that it's going to be fenced and gated. However the applicant has advised me that that's not their intention to do that so it will be an open facility. Keefe: Yeah. And I mean, do you have to have permits to use it or can anybody that's going park there or is it you know? Generous: Well it's like any private property. Keefe: Right. So it's limited to the use of patrons or whoever Paisley Park wants to use it. Generous: Unless they did a lease agreement with someone that wanted it. Keefe So restricting the hours or requiring the hours might make some sense since it's really only intended to be used for periods of time associated with Paisley Park facility. Okay. That's my question. McDonald: Kevin. Dillon: 193 spots seems like a lot of parking spots. How does that number, how did you get to that number or did, or maybe is that a question best left for the applicant? Generous: I think it's better for the applicant. They were looking at I think the area that they intended to use and that's the result. I don't know if it's specifically related to what their anticipated needs were. Dillon: Okay. I have a couple other questions that are probably best left for the applicant. McDonald: Okay. No questions? Papke: Yeah I've got a couple. On the landscaping plan, this one's a little unusual. Normally you're pretty rigorous about insisting on meeting the requirements. In this particular case you state that the intent of the ordinance has been met yet we're allowing some to be over. Some to be under, etc.. Could you provide a little color behind it? For instance they're substantially under the under story requirement for trees. So what was your rationale behind you know saying that, you know obviously in some categories they grossly exceed. I mean there's a bazillion shrubs going in here. But they are under some of the other requirements so could you explain a little bit the rationale. Generous: Yeah and I think it's, going from under story to over story, that's always a trade off that the city's willing to make. You get a larger volume of trees eventually and more shading for the parking lot and that's what the whole idea is for a parking lot landscaping. So I believe Jill just felt that that was an adequate amount to put in there rather than going with the strict... numbers. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 Papke: Okay. The other question I had was on the last condition. Where would the handicap ramps be? It wasn't clear to me what requirement would be there. Generous: They showed on the plan, there has to be some ramps in this area and it just allows for handicap accessibility. It can't be a curb that someone in a wheelchair would have to overcome. Papke: So that goes down, would go down to Audubon or. Generous: No. It would just go from the parking lot to that sidewalk system and then on the sidewalk they don't have anything that would impede their progress. It's just from the parking lot to the sidewalk. Papke: Okay. I got you. That's all. McDonald: Well I've got a couple questions to follow up on the lighting. Now across the street is, well is it Pillsbury or General Mills now? Generous: General Mills. McDonald: And that's lit 24/7 with the big arc lights and everything, right? Generous: Right. McDonald: The lights that would go here, would those be more the type where we would require the spotlights? I mean it isn't the glare that's similar to the lights that are in that parking lot. It would be more focused down so that we wouldn't have the over brightness of the area. This wouldn't add to that. Generous: No, that's correct. They would have to follow our standards which limit the height of the structure and require that it be the shoebox fixtures. McDonald: Right, okay. So we would be able to contain some of the light pollution that way. Generous: And also through design you can do that by entering, or directing it towards the interior. McDonald: Okay. Generous: You help with the spillover. McDonald: Okay. That's really all the questions I had right now for staff and is the applicant present? Ryan Lundstrom: Yes. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 McDonald: Okay. If you would come forward and if you have anything to add to any of this. We have some questions for you also. Ryan Lundstrom: Okay, thanks for hearing us. Appreciate that. Would you like me to. McDonald: Yeah, please state your name and who you represent and all of those things. Ryan Lundstrom: Ryan Lundstrom. I'm with Paisley Park Enterprises that Prince Roger Nelson owns. Rick Pecoquin: And I'm Rick Pecoquin. Also a Paisley Park employee. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Ryan Lundstrom: Okay, I made some notes about some of your questions. Yes, as far as we're concerned about partial use lighting. Whether it makes sense with us because like was explained by one of them, this would not be continually used like every weekend. It'd be on a limited use basis and I'll just remove some of the mystery what we're accomplishing here. The parking lot is for different shows, not unlike what you've granted us temporary permits on over the last several years, and again that's only been well once every year type of thing. If that. Well this would be more frequently than that but not on an every weekend basis. Nothing of that nature. Other entertainers would come into town, playing at the Target Center or Xcel Energy Center. Prince might invite them to do an additional show out here. Of course much smaller venue. And too, we're looking at offering some tours during the day, and again this would be on a limited basis is what we're working on, so that's the nature of the parking lot. And so going back to the lighting issue, from our standpoint, no. We wouldn't have to have it lit every night of the week. Just when we have events going on. We'd be more than happy. It'd save us money too as far as that goes. Let's see. Oh parking spaces. How we came up with that number. Well as you know at Paisley Park we currently have quite a few spaces as it is already. The city's been very nice in recommending different, other businesses to allow us to use their parking lots on a temporary basis. Well this would hopefully eliminate even most of that. Even in the future they're more than happy to do business with us. We have a nice relationship with them. So that's, as far as the number goes. Based on what the fire marshal and the sheriff's department put upon the amount of attendance we can have. I think what is it, 999 in the sound stage and then 201 in the auxiliary stage area. So it comes, it's about 1,200. We're happy to do too, to accommodate all this is to put in additional fire doors. The fire marshal met with us here in July and walked through and mentioned about the double doors. In addition to that we're even to put up an additional entrance in the back, double doors going to the outside so it will be well within the compliance of the city and be safe. In addition to what we're looking at doing, again to accommodate the city's request, we're adding quite a few additional bathrooms, both women's room and men's room along with adequate handicap and that will be all within the interior of the building. It will not impact the exterior whatsoever. We're trying to show to you we're trying to comply with all that you desire us to do. So that's a brief introduction. Be glad to entertain your questions. Anything you'd like to add Rick at this point? 4 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 Rick Pecoquin: Just the additional parking lot on the site right next to the building also does have handicaps right next to the building itself so. So that's handicap accessible. Ryan Lundstrom: So any questions you might have, we'd be happy to address. McDonald: Why don't we start down to my right. Any? No questions? Larson: No. McDonald: Kevin. Dillon: You answered my questions I was going to pose to you. Ryan Lundstrom: Okay. Keefe: Just a quick question. I mean when you have these events and you're going to have this parking lot full you know and you have traffic to deal with. I mean how do you typically operate that? I mean you bring in people to help people cross or do you depend on the light to do that or? Ryan Lundstrom: No. Keefe: What are you intentions? Ryan Lundstrom: We've hired the sheriff's department. They've been very helpful. I think even 2, even 3 of them possibly. Rick Pecoquin: For the most part. Fire Marshal. Two fire marshals and the highway patrol. Ryan Lundstrom: Yeah. Keefe: See that they do assistance to help people cross? Ryan Lundstrom: Yeah, and let you know too, just from part of this mystery. If you're familiar with the location, if you come from Highway 5 coming from Minneapolis and you take a left on Audubon, then you take an immediate left into Paisley. Well the people, if we allowed that, you'd have a major parking jam going past Powers and Market Boulevard and so what we did, we have signs to have people go, it's down by the city, what's that road you have property on? Park Place? So they'd come up from the south up to Paisley and that way we eliminate any congestion up at the stop light because it's such a major intersection. So we've done that in the past most successfully, and that now with this additional parking lot, that's the whole thing too. They'd come from Park Place, over to the parking lot and then eliminate any congestion we might have up there. Keefe: Okay. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 Dillon: So the events that are planned, I'm sorry. McDonald: Go ahead with your question. Dillon: So the events that you have there like you know just private events and not open to the public? You might do some tours but besides that. Ryan Lundstrom: Yeah, this is open to the public but of course it's, it's not like the Target Center which has 19,000 people. This is limited to 1,200 at this point. What we'd probably get up to is probably more like 1,500 with the additional fire doors and so on. Rick Pecoquin: Whatever the fire marshal will allow. Ryan Lundstrom: Yeah. Dillon: How is awareness created about these events? Ryan Lundstrom: Awareness? Dillon: Yeah. I mean is it just. Rick Pecoquin: Usually it's a last minute deal where the artist Prince would perform and then they would make an announcement over the PA and tell the people would drive up afterwards. Ryan Lundstrom: Obviously we'd have everything arranged with you people ahead of time. Weeks in advance. So we're not springing a new one on you at the last minute. You know what's happening. That's usually the way he, that's the way he's performed down in Las Vegas and well even in London where he's at right now doing, what is it 21 performances? I think we've added a few extra. Rick Pecoquin: 7 more. Ryan Lundstrom: 7 more? There's like 480,000 tickets sold. It's enormous and he does like an after show type thing. You know he did that in Vegas and for those who like to stop at his restaurant next door, this is in Las Vegas now, you could go in and I think, I was there, that seats like a few hundred people. So he likes to do those type of things. But again at a very reasonable cost too. McDonald: Mark, you have any questions? Undestad: I just had a question on the location. Why you picked that side of the site, and you may have answered that by routing traffic up Park Road. Ryan Lundstrom: Correct. Yes. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 McDonald: Okay. Well the questions I have were brought up as far as lighting in this area. I understand it's advantageous for you as far as being able to control the lighting and it would help. It only needs to be on whenever you've got something but you've taken out of the plans the fencing to keep it private. The concern I have is that all of a sudden now we have a parking lot there that's open to anyone. How do we restrict anyone from coming in there and if they do come in there and park and the lights aren't on, what happens as far as if something happens within the parking lot? Ryan Lundstrom: Yeah, good question. Well the, well the existing businesses that are there really don't have any need for, I know McGlynn's Bakery, or. McDonald: Yeah, I don't believe that they'll need any of the parking. Ryan Lundstrom: Right, and even the daycare center. Actually the only viable business, and they don't really have events that would require the use of a parking lot. In fact that street, that dead end street, what's that called? Is that McGlynn? Yeah, McGlynn Drive. Yeah, there's more than adequate parking right along the streets to accommodate the daycare center so we don't see any reason, we would be the only people who would have an interest in actually using this parking lot. McDonald: Okay. Now I'm just you know kind of a posing the question that yeah, you've got a parking lot. People will want to park there and if something were to happen in it and because there was no lighting or something on the off day, and you're not going to have it on that much because you're right, these things are rather few and far between so it's not as though it's going to be an every week occurrence or anything. That's the only question I'm posing about this is, how do you control all of that? And I guess you can't answer it and that's fine. I just wanted to raise the issue. Other than that, I have no further questions unless anyone else does. I thank you very much for presenting this to us. Ryan Lundstrom: Okay, thank you. McDonald: Thank you. At this point I will open up the meeting to the public. Anyone wishing to come forward and make comment, please come up to the podium. State your name and address and then address your comments to the commissioners. Seeing no one come forward, I will close the public meeting and I will bring it back before the commissioners for deliberation and we will take a vote. Mark, you want to start with anything? Undestad: No. Keefe: I'm fine too. Dillon: No comments. Larson: The only comment I would make is kind of expanding on what your question is and it appears to me that it's not a real obvious entrance into this parking lot and then if there's going to 7 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 be trees and shrubs all the way around it, it's not like it's going to be completely visible that anybody would encroach on Audubon or Coulter. I don't know, in my mind it's an issue I guess. McDonald: Okay. nd Papke: I guess I'd be in favor of a 22 condition here which would be to allow the applicant to conditionally light it on the basis of gating the entrance. As long as, I think they control the entrance to the parking lot, I think that would, with all the shrubbery and so on, I think that would be sufficient to allow them to light it at their option. I guess that's what I'd put out for them. McDonald: Okay. Keefe: And just in regards to the lighting, I mean we've got McGlynn across the street. We've got the daycare which I think already casts off some light at night anyway, so and if somebody wanted to go in there right now, maybe they could presumably drive their car into the field right now if they wanted but you know, police do go by. They'd kick them off there. The same thing I think would be if you know. Papke: I'd just be concerned with you know during the winter, kids doing donuts there or something. If there's no lighting at all. And there was no controlled access. McDonald: Yeah, and an empty parking lot's an invitation for that kind of stuff. You know, and the big reason I raise the issue is what's the liability to the City. If there is none, then it's all upon Paisley. It's not our problem. Keefe: So they would need to decide whether they wanted. McDonald: Right. I only raise it from an issue of liability in case some kids go in there and decide to do donuts or whatever, but empty parking lots with no lights are an invitation for people to go and gather. You know, well never mind. We all were young once. So yeah I mean that was the only reason I raised the issue. Right, it's their liability. Okay, then in that case I'm willing to accept a motion from the commission. Papke: Mr. Chair, I make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends Site Plan approval of Planning Case #07-18 for a parking lot, plans prepared by Proterra Design Associates, Inc. dated 08/07/07, subject to conditions 1 through 21 as stated in staff report with an additional condition number 22 that the applicant be granted the ability to conditionally light the parking lot as long as they gate the entrance to the parking lot. They control the entrance. McDonald: Okay, do I have a second? Larson: I'll second it. McDonald: Any discussion? I hear a little bit of a moaning over here. 8 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 Keefe: Well my problem is just, you know I don't know why we need to regulate a gate. They can decide, it's their liability as to whether they need it gated or not. Papke: In terms of city regulations with lighting a parking lot, any, what's the bottom line? Does the city require lighting? Generous: We require that parking lots have lighting. Papke: So all I'm, all we're really saying here is we're relaxing the restrictions slightly by controlling access. Dillon: How so? Papke: With a gate. Undestad: They have to leave lights on all the time or they can… Papke: Or they've got to close the gate. Dillon: So is that the ruling? I mean is that. Keefe: That's what he suggested. Papke: That's what I'm suggesting. Keefe: My counter point is, is let them have lights to save energy and lighting the city and it's their liability if someone gets hurt there. You know they have, they can gate it but it's their's. It's their responsibility. Undestad: So does the city require parking lot lighting? Generous: When, well I should. Keefe: Public lighting. Generous: Yeah, you have to light it if people are using it. That's the end result. Undestad: So if Jerry's in there doing donuts at night… Generous: He's also trespassing I believe. Dillon: But the city doesn't require a gate. Generous: No. It's like any other parking lot in downtown. We only require it if a facility's open and people are invited, or using that facility. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 Keefe: So let me ask you this. I mean if it's, if we require lighting, does it necessarily have to be on per ordinance? Or does it just have to have the lights there? Generous: Well they have to have the lights and it has to be on if there's an operation going. Keefe: So in a sense I mean it's…if there isn't anything going on then they don't have to light it. Generous: They're not technically required to have. McDonald: Okay, I guess what we have, we have a motion with an additional recommendation. You can also put forward a motion that would go with just this recommendation and the 21 and we'll vote on both. Would that be acceptable Bob? Generous: Yeah. McDonald: I thought it would be. We have a second on the first motion. Keefe: Then we need to vote on that. Generous: You can vote on the motion, the amendment and then. McDonald: Okay, all in favor of the recommendation that we adopt the recommendation for the nd site plan with the addition of a 22 recommendation granting conditional use, granting intermittent use of the light based upon controlling access to the parking lot say aye. Papke moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommend an amendment to the motion adding the following condition: 22. The applicant be granted the ability to conditionally light the parking lot as long as they gate the entrance to the parking lot. Papke voted in favor, the remainder of the commission voted in opposition. The motion failed with a vote of 1 to 5. McDonald: Okay, the motion fails. Do I have a second motion? nd Larson: The motion to approve it without the 22? nd McDonald: No, with the 22 in. Larson: Are we going to do another one without it? Keefe: Yeah, I'll make a motion. McDonald: Yeah, we would do another one without it. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 Keefe: And I guess point of clarification. Just revisit this one thing. They have to put in lights. They don't necessarily have to be on except when they're using it. Generous: Right. Keefe: That's the ordinance. Generous: Interpretation of the ordinance. It's only necessary. Keefe: Alright. I'll make a recommendation Planning Commission recommends Site Plan approval of Planning Case #07-18 for parking lot plans prepared by Proterra Design Associates th dated August 7 subject to conditions 1 through 21. McDonald: Okay, do I have a second? Dillon: Second. Keefe moved, Dillon seconded that the Planning Commission recommends Site Plan approval of Planning Case #07-18 for a parking lot, plans prepared by Proterra Design Associates, Inc., dated 08/07/07, subject to the following conditions: 1.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. 2.The applicant shall submit a lighting plan for City review and approval prior to beginning site improvements. 3.The perimeter landscaping on the south and east sides of the parking lot shall be located such that it is between site fencing, if installed, and the roadway. 4.Replace red oak plantings in islands with elm cultivars, Autumn Blaze maple, or ginkgo. 5.All city boulevard trees shall be protected during construction. Any trees lost due to construction shall be replaced by the applicant. 6.The applicant shall add one tree to the landscaping along the west property line for a total of 10 trees. 7.Increase the minimum inside width of all islands to 10 feet. 8.A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the city for approval prior to beginning site improvements. 9.Site landscaping shall be irrigated. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 10.Field verify existing conditions prior to construction. Submit existing conditions plan with next submittal. 11.Submit revised stormwater management plan. Current calculations show that catch basin #7 does not have enough inlet capacity, the velocity between catch basin #8 and catch basin #1 is over 10 fps, and the existing storm in Coulter Boulevard does not have sufficient capacity. There is a 15” storm stub in McGlynn Road to help resolve these issues. 12.Additional spot elevations shall be added at the intersection of McGlynn Road and the proposed drive to ensure that drainage is conveyed through the intersection and the curb line maintains a .5% minimum slope. Also, add spot elevations to the high points in the parking lot. 13.Paved surface grades shall not be less than 1%. Curb line grades shall not be less than .5%. Emergency overflow locations and elevations must be shown on the plan. 14.An easement is required from the appropriate property owner for any off-site grading. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes. 15.Add top and bottom elevations to the retaining walls. Building permits are required for all retaining walls four feet tall or higher and must be designed by a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 16.The watermain must be revised to meet city specifications. The hydrant must be installed according to Detail 1004 with a valve and a plastic wrapped CL 52 DIP lead. Watermain fittings shall be wrapped ductile iron. 17.All watermain and storm sewer within this site shall be privately owned and maintained. An irrigation meter will need to be installed. 18.Utility plans shall show both plan view and profiles of all utilities (water and storm sewer lines). Storm drainage arrows need to be corrected on the plans. 19.All of the utility improvements are required to be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The city specifications shall replace the technical portion of the specification. The applicant is also required to provide a cash escrow to guarantee restoration of the boulevards. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies will be required, including the MPCA, Dept. of Health, Carver County and the Watershed District. 20.Show the cross-section of the parking lot on the plans. Provide a turnaround near the entrance to the parking lot if a gate is installed. Upon completion of the project, the applicant shall submit a set of “as-built” plans signed by a professional civil engineer. 21.Handicap ramps must be installed according to City Detail Plate 5215. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 All voted in favor, except Papke who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. PAPEDIS VARIANCE: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO HARD SURFACE COVERAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2101 PINEHURST DRIVE. APPLICANT, SOUTHVIEW DESIGN, PLANNING CASE 07-19. Public Present: Name Address th Tim Johnson, Southview Design 1875 E. 50 Street, Inver Grove Heights Scott Boeddeker 6710 Manchester Drive Angie Auseth presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: We'll start to my left this time. Kurt. Papke: What are the lower, there's a table on page 5 that shows the differences from what, the issues with the building permit and there's two items on there I couldn't quite make out from the plan. They're the lower wall and upper wall. Are these the retaining walls? The boulder retaining walls in place. Auseth: Yes, those are the retaining walls. Papke: That's all. Larson: Okay. I have a question. McDonald: Go right ahead. Larson: If they had used a different material rather than brick pavers. Something that was, what do you call it? McDonald: Permeable? Larson: That will accept water, would this have been an issue? Auseth: Yes. Currently we don't give any credit to any other types of material. Things that are pervious, and we appreciate the fact that people are putting those in but at this time we don't give any credit for those. Larson: What if it had been grass as opposed to brick pavers or you know something that was maybe harder surface however you know something, an example would be like a putting green type of grass surface where it would accept water. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 Auseth: The difference would be. Larson: Well because that to me, it's, it will accept water. Generous: A grass surface would have been acceptable but. Larson: It would have? Okay. Generous: It's just the council has resolved the issue about pervious pavers and that. It's still part of the discussion that they're having at the council level. Larson: I see. Papke: Is pervious, these pavers? Auseth: When we were at the site the contractor was showing us how the water went through, telling us that they're pervious but there again we don't have any way of gauging that at this point. It's what we would give credit for. Larson: Because typically the brick pavers, if they are pervious they're put on sand and they do drain quite well. I don't know, that's all I had. McDonald: Kevin. Dillon: So in the table on page 5, all of those items you know besides the house and the driveway that are proposed, are they all done? Or are they still proposed? Auseth: I believe just about everything is already done. The deck wasn't quite finished when I was out there. And as far as the patios, they're done and the fire pit's done. The retaining walls are in. The front sidewalk is in. Dillon: Alright. And so, so the staff informed the developer of the hard cover issues during the subdivision process so Lennar was fully aware of all of this? Auseth: Correct. Dillon: And was the company that was doing these proposed improvements, were they aware? Auseth: I'm not sure if they were aware or not. Dillon: Okay. And was the homeowner aware? Auseth: There again I'm not sure. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 Dillon: Alright. So again, what was their reaction when they were told to stop the improvements? Auseth: I believe they were upset and came in to City Hall with their proposal going for a variance. Dillon: Okay. Alright and so, I expect the applicants will be up so I'll save the rest of my questions for them. McDonald: Dan. Keefe: Do you require in our development agreements any sort of disclosure from the builder and/or the developer in terms of the limited amount of additional, the available hard surface coverage because we knew that this was going to be an issue on this. In this development. Of we had a pretty good idea because we talked at length about it. Generous: We have in the past but not specifically on this one. However even with that when 340 some square feet of additional impervious surface after they built their house and put the driveway and sidewalk seemed like a sufficient amount. Keefe: Right. Well and I just wondered about, you know how did it get from…to Lennar, you know landscaping to the homeowner and the homeowner's, I don't know who's at risk in this one. It remains to be seen but what we did on this one… Generous: On the city code there's 25% site coverage. McDonald: Mark. Undestad: With only a handful of homes built out there now, …did they look at what they did the first time in changing some lots around or is there an opportunity to add onto the outlots somewhere or…buy a park lot out there or something? Generous: Well, not a park lot per se. The City owns an outlot behind them. There's always that opportunity to acquire additional land from your neighbor but then that makes that lot smaller and if they took the same size house, it just pushes it down. You know where the variance would come in. Again when we looked at the expansion we though this would accommodate them. And it did. It accommodated the house and the basic house and driveway and sidewalk and it allows for 300 some square feet of expansion for the homeowner to come in. So you know if they reduce it a hair, they could have made it up there. Lots of trade off's that people have to make. Keefe: One additional question. On the decking, you noted in the report that this particular decking seemed to be more impervious the way that it is. I mean is cedar decking we allow or? 15 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 Auseth: Typically the slated decking that has the full length open inbetween each slate is, by policy is pervious. This one has the tiny holes which I've seen in other cases…pond pretty much on the decking. McDonald: I kind of remember when all this came in. What kind of discussions, I mean I know that that was one of the reasons why they expanded what, decreased the lots so we had bigger lot sizes because that was one of the issues that we brought up because of the type of homes that were being built on the smaller lots. What discussions did you have with the developer to get that point across that okay we have an ordinance of 25% and you take the home, the footprint, the property, 25% can be covered. Did they fully understand that? How did this get passed on? We have this problem consistently and I know that was the reason for the ordinance, a lot of the things that we've got now because we have, we had people tear things out so was this fully communicated? Generous: I believe it was and at one time the developer actually wanted to do a variance, a blanket variance for the development and we said no, we wouldn't support that and that's when the larger lots came into play. However as you, the house plan worked. The site worked when they came in for their building permit. It's when they started to create this extensive outdoor space with pavers. Now if they had the fire pit on grass with just the pit, we wouldn't have counted any of that as hard cover. So there's ways that they could utilize it. It would have been the retaining wall and they could have had a paved patio or brick patio up next to the house if they wanted a harder surface. But by expanding it out that they sort of ate up their green area. McDonald: Have you had discussions with the homeowner about the rationale for this and why it is the way it is and suggestions for alternatives? Generous: I haven't had personally. I don't know if they talked to our Water Resources Coordinator and she left that position so it's kind of open. McDonald: Okay. Larson: I've got a comment if I may. I was just noticing in here that the map you've got a couple of dry wells. It's got drain tile and all sorts of ways to help ward off the, a flood situation so it seems, I mean is there any way that those can be credited I suppose towards sort of the other stuff that they've got and then the brick pavers question too is, how does the city determine how pervious or impervious a brick paver is? Generous: Well the current policy is any time they put in a paver system, it's considered impervious. Because there's, even with those pervious systems there's maintenance responsibility. Over time they do become, unless you clean them out and keep them working, it becomes clogged and then it's just like. Larson: Even if it's like a sand or gravel underneath there? Generous: Yeah, because you're going to get fine particles that eventually go into those hole systems and clog them up. And so, but again that's part of the discussion that council's working 16 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 on is, if they go along with these different pervious systems, how do we, how are we going to administer them? Larson: It looks to me like they made effort to help offset that and so that's why I didn't know if there was any way to give them some consideration as far as that goes but. McDonald: Okay, is the applicant present? Okay, if you'd like to come up and address the commissioners. Tim Johnson: Hi. I'm Tim Johnson and I am a landscape design contractor with Southview Design and I am the applicant obviously for the first property and actually the applicant for the second property as well so I will apologize ahead of schedule if I do comment back and forth on both properties because they are kind of similar applications where we have a hard cover issue that we are obviously here tonight to talk about. So first I'd like to just begin by thanking you all for the opportunity to speak on behalf of my clients. My goal tonight is obviously to work with the Planning Commission, the City Council and my clients to make the results of the circumstances that we're under this evening, work for all of us. And obviously I've worked with Angie and getting her some of the information and kind of discussed with her some of the findings that was basically brought up to us during the construction phase. You'll find that my goal obviously tonight is to put in place, I believe Debbie was commenting on the drainage application that I've spent some time with and you'll find that I've got a few recommendations from engineers and other applications that we've actually used in similar systems in place where we needed to control drainage and water quality in other cities and developments. But before I begin with the drainage concept I just would like you to get up to date as far as the history of where I've kind of come into on this project at 2101. The hard cover code, as Angie mentioned was basically to our finding after construction began. This is definitely something new to a 30 year old company that does not exist on a non-lake property. A non-waterfront property. Typically we do understand that there is hard cover issues on application where there's a lake or river, but where there is a typical standard lot not fronting, not including you know drainage ponds or retention ponds, these applications typically don't arise on other situations. Landscaping in the state of Minnesota is a non-licensed trade which means that we basically don't need to pull any permits for any installations that we do as far as landscaping and patio work. Most of the hardscapes Angie mentioned are installed. The only application, just as a review is the patio underneath the current deck, which is this patio here. All of the hardscapes, including the retaining wall is in place as per the plan you see in front of you this evening. This was not installed due to the recommendation by the building department when they brought us up to speed as far as the current code or you know restrictions that the City had for the amount of hard cover, especially on this development. We cooperated by stopping all construction and cleaned the site as best to our ability during the construction site and we have not been back since in compliance with the request from the city building department. My clients has expressed the interest that we had in multiple areas to entertain and has a goal of improving his property along with the entire community, as you can see with his goals and ideas as far as the landscaping. They, like I are very discouraged of where we're at today and as I mentioned earlier are willing to work with you to get this corrected. Actually I received a stoppage of work. We were then informed on the current decking system that was approved, or excuse me, I can't speak on what decking system was approved because that wasn't contracted by me but that was to our 17 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 knowledge, that the decking system that's installed is non-permeable which was already approved by the city well after the case, which was well after we started. We started the construction of our hardscapes prior to the deck construction. So the deck permit and all of that was accepted during the time of our construction, which then means that the hard cover issue, which is stated here at 23.2% I believe on this site before any improvements are made. If that's the case we already are over with the construction at that time so just to review that at 23.2% basically we have about 172 square feet, if my math is correct, before we hit the 25%. The deck is 406 square feet as it stands today and I believe, and Angie might need to comment on this but I think it's the main decking because the quantities I have on the specific plan in front of you just consist of the main decking part, not the landing and the steps because at that time Angie explained that the decking was a non-pervious surface because of the weep holes that are in the decking system. The steps and landing have the gaps inbetween the decking so we didn't include that as a hard cover quantity so I believe the 406 square feet is only the decking space itself. So after this was brought to our attention, that obviously made the rest of the hardscaping and the landscape plan that was put forth to this point even more difficult to succeed with. Since then I just wanted to you know just confirm that we've been under cooperation with the request at the City of Chanhassen of not doing any work. The concept that I would like to talk about, both properties now, and I'll try to stay specific here at 2101 is a concept that we've used before. What we've done and when we've opened up. I think I've got to apologize. I've got a larger scale drawing that we can put down. What we would do at each. Auseth: Upside down. Tim Johnson: At each downspout on each home, I believe there is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 downspouts that currently handle all the water that runs off the current foundation footprint. What we would do is take the water from the downspouts and collect those into 12 or 14 inch catch basins. Run those into a French drain. A French drain consists of drain tile with holes in it. I would recommend putting a sock around it to prevent any soil or any other debris to fill or clog those weep holes, but this would allow the water to get into the catch basins. Run into the drain tile and allow the water to come out of the drain tile slowly at it's current pace, depending upon the amount of rainfall. Around the rocks, or excuse me, around the drain tile you would have a gravel. Typically it's 12 inches in space around it. Around the actual drain tile. And then from there the drain tile would run the whole distance of the side of the home, I believe back to this one, but here's a catch basin that would go out into the property. Staying out of utility and drainage easements and running within the property boundaries and they would connect and then run into dry wells. The dry wells we're proposing right now are two dry wells, one here and one here. And then this would collect the one side of the home, and this would collect the other side of the home. The drain tile application would run into the dry well. They are 5 feet in width right now, and then they're going to be about 6 feet in depth. Basically this will allow us to get below frost line which will allow for any of those freezing rains or freezing conditions to allow us to handle that under grade. The property, if you haven't visited it has a walkout so there's at least a 9 foot drop from the front foundation of the home to the back foundation of the home. Therefore reducing the chance of these pipes freezing in the winter months. The drain tile applications would be sized per the requirements from an engineer firm. I had a letter of recommendation, and I have individual copies if you all want but I can put that up for you to see. I don't know if you want a copy of that. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 McDonald: If you could go ahead and pass those out while you're talking so we can read those. Tim Johnson: This is from Chris Merrill at Westwood Companies. I'm not sure if you're familiar. Chris is, worked with Pinehurst development and is familiar with the exact development that we're talking about this evening and he is in favor of the recommendation that I have in front of you this evening. There are several extra steps which will cost several thousands of dollars of getting their approval and their time to get this approved as far as sizing the pipes and then also determining the size of the dry wells. That is something that we are willing to get nailed down for you in the next week or so. However that does cost several thousand of dollars that both my client and I and Chris feel that we need to present this concept before we take that next step as far as getting that put in place. It doesn't make sense to do that you know if this isn't going to work but this is an application that he feels very strongly about that he's used in the past. I also have copies of another project similar to this that we have installed, and I've got copies for each of you. This is a project that we've worked with that we've got an engineering firm that was basically presented to us and a developer had to present as part of another. So we've had a drainage concern. It wasn't a hard cover concern. This is basically a drainage catch area to reduce the amount of stress on a bluff line in the city of Minnetonka. This application has been used through that whole entire development and this is one of the last homes that is being installed as we currently speak and it's a similar drainage system in most the lots that overlook this bluff line. This is a very similar situation where we've got a drain tile application here and a drainage area around that drain tile. This application is calling for a 3 by 3 area. The length of the back of the home and these are tied in with the catch basins from the gutters, boxes at the corners of the home. This example is going to be put in place and it's available to be used seasonally so the winter months is not a concern as far as you know any freezing and thawing. This I see as a similar concept that Chris has talked to me about and would recommend for the 2101 residence. We basically would base it off a 1 inch rain storm per Angie's comments a few weeks ago as far as how we would calculate the amount of rainfall that these basins and drain tile systems would be able to afford to handle. The system that we would put in place would be obviously finalized and reviewed and we could present that at that time if need be. Otherwise we could just ask for Chris' recommendations to be approved once those pass your desk. Those concepts along with, I've got another concept that I can keep going on about but I don't want to waste your time, but these are other concepts that we have used in similar applications. The other thing that we want to talk about is, obviously on both properties we are installing retaining walls. These properties are very steep as far as grade in the back yard so the water that you currently have, whether we do improvements or not are going to get down to that retention pond faster than what they would today. The retaining walls that are in place actually level off the back yard which slows the water runoff from getting to the pond and actually makes the back yard that my clients have purchased more usable for their entertaining sizes of their families and their property needs. Along with the retaining walls and the dry wells, we also are installing several key plantings opportunities with other plantings. Over story trees and shrubs. I believe on this property we've got roughly about 13 trees going in, which is a major upgrade from the development trees that are approved by the city, as well as several under story plantings as per the plan. Along with this as mentioned by another city official that sometimes sod is considered a non-permeable application because of the compaction of the traffic, as far as equipment traffic under construction. So if we design the standard sod and soil installation, we'll work up the 19 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 ground and put in the minimum 3 to 4 inches of good, pulverized top soil below the sod…but also allow for saturation for any rain runoff. The improvements that I have in front of you, we'll take roughly 3,200 square feet of water runoff from the foundation and capture that below ground instead of having that run to the retention pond, whether there's sod there or not. That basically means that I'm actually reducing the amount of runoff from the current property as the plan sits today with all the hard surfaces, i.e. meaning the driveway, the walkway, the patio, the decking system, and the fire pit application and the lower deck application because we basically will take 3,200 square feet of runoff and I believe my quick calculations were that all the hard runoff was roughly about 1,600 square feet. We believe that the 3, a couple examples that I've provided you tonight as far as similar concepts, in the future landscaping is our goal to support better runoff plan than most lots in the current development. The drainage examples are a great way to help support the proposed landscape and hardscape plans that are have been proposed this evening. These concepts come recommended by the city officials and engineers for the letter of recommendations that I have in front of you. And then I strongly believe that with good engineering and patience we can all come to some compromise to help develop a good community for all to enjoy. I, like most of you in this room don't want to have any great fight over this development with future projects. I'm going to be in this development hopefully working with other plans and I want to be able to start off a relationship with you on good circumstances. Finally I ask for your consideration of this concept with the recommendations by Westwood to help build a good drainage plan for my clients to have their exterior dreams be fulfilled. I'm eager to work with you on coming up with a good plan to help us today so with that, and these projects that are in front of us tonight can go forward to keep all happy. McDonald: Okay, thank you very much. Any questions? Undestad: Your letter from Westwood here, did they, have they used this? And actually have these installed and provide these for runoff areas? Tim Johnson: Yes. Yep. Undestad: And do these, it's another way of them, instead of rather than putting in their own… retention pond with these, does this work for that too? Tim Johnson: I can't comment on it working for retention ponds, but I do know that, I can comment on it actually collecting the actual runoff from the lot areas and reducing the amount of runoff in those specific areas that we want to prevent it from happening. Undestad: And then they ask your, and again all this is kind of concepts and ideas. Tim Johnson: Yep. Undestad: …referring to on here but the overflows on the end, is that potential failure in the system…? Tim Johnson: Well the overflow is basically to handle, let's say you get more than a 1 inch rain storm that you know if it did fill up for whatever reason, there is a way for it to exit. But the 20 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 system that he would have in place that it would handle a 1 inch rain storm and then some for the areas of drain tile and the dry well areas. The 1 inch overflow we typically put in just because if it does, the water's going to seep up one way or the other but that's where it sizes it according to the lot, the hard cover that we have in place. Undestad: How did you pick a 1 inch rainfall, just out of curiosity. Tim Johnson: Well I spoke with Angie, I don't recall, I believe it was you know in the last month as far as how we would calculate that. That was one question that they wanted to know, you know was it a 5 year rainfall? Was it a 24 hour rainfall? You know there's different limitations that they can follow to determine that and whatever the city would require, that's what they would follow basically. Undestad: You mentioned were you, or did somebody else pull the permit for the deck? A contractor of your's in this? Tim Johnson: It's a contractor that the homeowner. He's contracted with another decking company. We don't do the deck work in-house. Undestad: You don't coordinate any of that? You had nothing to do with that? Tim Johnson: Well I'll give them a couple names and we kind of worked with the decking company you know and this is actually the first city this decking system's been installed in several other cities. I've been in this for over 10 plus years and you know we're, I'm doing projects like this several of these a month and this is the first application where we found out that this kind of decking system is a concern to any city that we work on. Undestad: You've never come across the zoning ordinances…anywhere else? Tim Johnson: Other than working on an application, for instance like the City of Minnetonka, their health codes cover…is 30%. So that's what, we do check in with the city in river situations where we come across that. But not on a standard lot where you know retention ponds or NURP ponds, whatever you know the drainage system is in a specific development. Those are typically handled and one of the things that you know has brought up from another engineer is how has the 25% come up? Has it, you know where is the drainage report to support that? Is it a 25%? Is that where we want to start out at? Can the development handle 30%? You know those are some concerns. We all believe that you know, we all come into this at the wrong time. You know whether it was communicated, you know my clients all state that they were not communicated, that this was not communicated to them so we're standing here today you know the next property we have not started any construction on. We're basically following the steps. We're willing to work with you, you know as a planning commission that the city council of how we can you know get this to be better. We could basically walk in here and just ask for a hey, can we get this done the way it stands but we're willing to be realistic and say okay, we're willing to do some extra steps and measures to correct the runoff, concerns that have been brought up in front of us. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 Keefe: The problem is you can't stop 5 inch rains and the mud that comes sliding down the hill into people's houses and that type of thing. That's you know, I think we could do something to mitigate some of that but, yeah. I mean we came out a couple years ago pretty tough rain situation and runoff situations here and that's sort of, you know that's…people and developers all you know, there's all sorts of you know situations because of the amount of rain we had… Two of them back to back, it's. Tim Johnson: It's been very unique the last couple years with the amount of rainfall so, and you know can do the rain gardens, which a lot of people propose but as a contractor I'm not a big fan of those because you take the last year or two where there hasn't been any rain. You put the plants in there that are supposed to be able to saturate the water. Plants don't live because we don't have rain. You know therefore that's system, exactly. Now I guess my only comment on how do you, you've got to calculate for the 5 year rain storm. Currently the rain system that we would put in place is going to handle the water better whether this client has nothing that's proposed on this property and walks away and just puts sod in. He could walk away and then all that water's getting down there faster. At least we're taking that water and we're walking away from it. Putting it in the ground and we're still having less runoff. Hard cover concerns, if you take the 3,200 square feet that we're taking of the house…and still handle about 1,600 square feet of hard cover. You know with the patios and so forth. Keefe: You know I guess kind of what I was just going to ask you a couple questions just in relation to how this slipped through the cracks. You know I mean, it's surprising to me because I'm…some other cities too and they also have hard surface coverage. I mean it's pretty normal for a lot of cities and so I'm a little surprised to hear you say you've never run into it before but setting that aside, you know it seems to me that if you're working with Westwood or you're working with Lennar, you're working with anybody else you would have somehow come across that particularly given the work that you guys do and so I'm, and at some point you've got to come to the city. I mean I think, and maybe you don't. Tim Johnson: We're basically a landscaper of choice by Lennar. We do base packages that I'm typically not involved with. I do more extensive projects, but these packages are rock and poly and a few plants around the house and sod and irrigate it and walk away from it. Now clients typically can have a choice of improving their properties and taking the next step on the front side of their actual construction of their landscaping and the two clients that I'm representing this evening have chose to do so. Therefore they're the first two clients that have come across this but you can kind of walk around that development and see some other work that's been done and kind of question the amount of hard cover that's actually in the development. So those are some concerns. This is the first, this is really the first time that we've ever run across a situation where the 25% is a situation. Keefe: Yeah. Tim Johnson: City of Minnetonka, as I mentioned earlier, is 30% and they're on a lake so. Keefe: Yeah. So in working close with Lennar, they never indicated to you guys I mean that it was you know. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 Tim Johnson: No. We have not basically you know, this is something that's been, it's on the surveys. I'll admit to that. That's something that after going through all this, you know Angie and Bob here, this is obviously a situation we don't want to be in but we're here. Keefe: It's in the code, and yeah. Tim Johnson: But you know as I mentioned earlier, we don't need to pull any permits so the question you know not to come across in the wrong way is how can we communicate this to our industry better? You know if we don't as an industry don't have to come into you know the city hall to pull a deck permit, to pull a patio permit, you know like we do with a deck permit, how do we do that for a retaining wall? Keefe: Every city is different. I mean every city. Tim Johnson: Well when you're working from Minnetonka to Big Lake to Elk River you know to Chanhassen it's… Keefe: It's different, right. Tim Johnson: Every city has got their own codes and their own recommendations so. Keefe: I don't have any questions. McDonald: Kevin. Dillon: Yeah, I mean Dan stole my questions. I mean I was, I'm still a little surprised that it did slip through the cracks like this, and this is a question maybe for the staff. So if this variance is, we go along with your recommendation not to grant it and then at the end of the day you know we're not over ruled or whatever by the City Council, what then happens to the work that's been done? Generous: It would need to be removed. They would have to bring it into compliance with the 25% coverage. Dillon: Okay. And I. Tim Johnson: Can I make one comment on that? The investment that my, obviously it goes back to trying to find out all this out now but the investment that's in place right now is over $40,000 of my client's hard earnings so there. Dillon: That's a lot of money. Someone should have done a little more due diligence on this thing. That's like you know kind of the bottom line on this. You or the customer or both. McDonald: Okay. Debbie? 23 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 Larson: I'm going to save my comments for discussion. McDonald: Okay. Kurt? I've got a couple of questions. You made some statements about yeah, you're a non-licensed professional and you don't pull permits and everything. Did you do the overall design for all this landscaping which would have included the decking and all that? Did you put that together or what part of the overall design did you do? Tim Johnson: I worked on the overall design of this specific project. This project was handled by another sales representative prior to me taking over, so it was already contracted over the winter months I believe back in January and December. Then that individual, for a couple reasons it was turned over to me so everything was basically in place and I just basically, the deck design was a concept and the deck contractor said okay, this is what the client's looking for. McDonald: Do he ended up doing the details of it and selects the material. Tim Johnson: Exactly. McDonald: Well you know again as you say you've got $40,000 at this point tied into this. With all this money, why don't you check with city ordinances because I do know that there are a number of cities that do have restrictions. Maybe more or less than our 25% but there are restrictions within these cities and I have to tell you, $40,000 I don't think sets the record for what we've made people correct so don't tell us how much it costs. That's not going to get at our hearts on any of this. Why don't you check with city ordinances? Tim Johnson: I'll, it's definitely going to be one of the things that we do from here on out so, especially in, you know newer developments where this is obviously becoming more of a concern. Some of the older developments, you know the drainage and some of that other reports aren't as available because of the surveying at the time wasn't as adequate as it is today so. McDonald: Okay. The other thing that I'm intrigued about is the dry well concept. I mean you mentioned all that. What studies or you know scientific data do you have to back all that up that you present to the city engineering and maybe persuade them to change our ordinances? Tim Johnson: We've got several sites. I mean you could start with the sites that we've actually installed these applications on and you know some that are a year old and some that are 5 to 6 years old. They work, especially when you get down below the frost line. You get down to you know some of the better soils that we can get into where the water can actually basically seep into the ground. The development that I showed you, well these aren't just drawings that we put into place here. This is recommendations from construction, you know Schoell and Madsen engineering service you know pioneers just like Westwood is. And they've got you know the knowledge and the test studies to be able to determine the void in the rock for the amount of rainfall. You know all the drain tiles. They're the ones that you know the ones that are educated to make those decisions. McDonald: Okay. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 Shamla: Chairman McDonald, may I make a comment? McDonald: Yeah, please do. Shamla: I'm Joe with the City of Chanhassen engineering department and the soils in the city of Chanhassen are a lot different than other communities so something…quarter inch of sandy soil, this is probably, could be a good way to mitigate some of this water but in the city of Chanhassen having clay soils, the infiltration isn't good here and that's why the City Council is undetermined on whether permeable pavers are a good alternative. McDonald: Well that's where my comment was. I know the soils are different and that's why I'm asking for what studies have been done. What works good in one area may not work in another and again all of our stuff, you ask where 25% comes from. It comes from these studies. It comes from the U.S. Hydrology Guide for the State of Minnesota you know looking at soils and permeability. This was not just a number we picked out out of the blue sky. You talk about other city officials and engineers who I guess have adapted all this and seen great. Who are they? What cities? What engineers? Is there a list of people besides Minnetonka that have adopted this because again I'm intrigued by it but I haven't heard that much about it. Tim Johnson: Well Westwood would have to do a soils test which they probably have all the documentations since they did all the actual development work. They would, and you know that's why I'm closely working with them because they do know the development. There's got to be some comfort level for you know any department with the city of Chanhassen, obviously the Planning Commission and the City Council to make those decisions with the right people making the right recommendations for this application. I do understand the soil conditions are definitely different here. They're heavier soils but what we would do is require their testing as far as the soil types to make those decisions as far as that goes. I do have another project that I could show you where in the City of Inver Grove Heights where we had to do a permeable paver driveway application and I do have an email from. McDonald: Well okay, let me stop you right there because you're talking to the wrong people. We're not engineers and anything you would tell us, it sounds great but you know, I would defer everything to the city engineering staff anyway. What I'm trying to get at is, yes this is probably information that needs to be shared. It needs to be shared with the engineering group and then it percolates up to us. They will explain it to us and we'll all feel great about it. I mean the other comment that I would ask you about, you say this is designed around a 1 inch rain storm. How typical is that around here? Where did you come up with the 1 inch rain storm? Tim Johnson: That was you know, I kind of presented a concept to Angie a month or so ago, or right after this was stopped. Kind of asked her, you know some of our thoughts that we came up with in talking with Westwood and that's where you know I got the 1 inch rain storm from as far as okay what calculations I come up with. What would you require as far as me determining the size of these basins or tiles and so forth and that's where I got that information from. McDonald: Okay. I don't mean to give you such a maybe rude reception and everything but a couple years ago in that general area where you're at, we had a very bad event and it wasn't just 25 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 that. We've had a couple of them in that area and people get rather upset and then they get upset with us and they get real upset whenever their property floods and it is a big concern within this city. Soil probably plays a big part in it and so yeah, you're going to get a lot of questions and there's going to be a lot of issues. The whole thing that I am surprised about is how this slipped through the cracks. I mean this was a big deal a couple years ago. We put a number of things in place about you know stopping this before people invest a lot of money and stuff in and then we come along and tell them, sorry you've got to tear it out. I would like the staff to find out what went wrong because these things should not be happening. Keefe: Jerry can I ask one more question? McDonald: Sure. Keefe: Just in passing I just wanted to revisit it for me. You said that Lennar is selling a couple different landscaping packages along with the custom or recommending a couple of different ones which is a real limited approach and one is more of a custom approach and that's who it ended up getting to you. Is that kind of how that works? Tim Johnson: The single package, yeah the base package that is put in front of them is just basically green goods. You know sod. No. Keefe: A couple shrubs. The shrubbery. Tim Johnson: A couple trees, sod and irrigation and if the client says well you know we want to expand upon that. They want to basically, they want this to be you know the Bearpath application and that's where I do get involved. I'm not contracted with Lennar. We're basically contracting directly with the homeowner of the specific properties so the package. Keefe: You get a referral from them essentially is what happens and… Tim Johnson: Exactly, yep. Keefe: Okay. Alright. McDonald: Actually that was all my questions. Does anyone else have anything they want to add or okay. I guess unless you have someone else who wants to speak first. Tim Johnson: We'll just wait til the next one I guess. McDonald: Then I guess we'll open it up for the public meeting at this point. We thank you for your comments and everything. At this point I would open it up for the public to come up and make comments. Again I ask you to come to the podium. State your name and address and address the commissioners. Sir. Scott Boeddeker: Good evening. Scott Boeddeker, 6710 Manchester Drive. Downstream. I'm on the south side of that pond. I would recommend you agree with the staff, that you don't do 26 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 anything over 25%. My property's been flooded twice during the construction of this housing development. The first time was in June of 2005. Second time was Labor Day weekend of 2005. I had to take Plowshares to court because they failed to stand behind their subcontractor. They would stand behind the 5 inches of rain application for 100 year storm. Totally bogus statistics I believe. I was able to convince a judge of that. That the granite is flat and if 5 inches of rain happens way too often, this has happened 5 times, or 3 times in the last 5 years. I've got concerns about this pond every time it rains. In the spring when it's going to be frozen and the spring runoff and everything. I've got big concerns with this. You setting a precedence here. Allowing this to continue throughout the 41 lots. These lots are way too small for the houses they're building and I'm not surprised these homeowners don't know the situation. I'm disappointed in Plowshares and Lennar for letting this get like this but I would strongly urge you not to allow anything over the 25%. That would increase your liability of that pond overflowing into my property for the third time. McDonald: Thank you sir. Does anyone else wish to come forward and make comment? Well, seeing no one come forward. Scott Boeddeker: Just to add to that. That pond is full of springs already so the water level never goes down. I've told people this millions of times. I've told city staff. I've told developers. That pond is not going to hold a 100 year storm when it happens. McDonald: Seeing no one else come forward, I'll close the public meeting again and I'll bring it back before the commissioners for discussion. Start down here. Papke: Okay. I think we've been pretty consistent as a planning commission on these sorts of items. We've had other remediation efforts like you know rain gardens and so on that have been proposed in the past and I think we've been pretty good as a planning commission about not re- writing city code on the fly here. This one is way, way over the top in terms of the variance that they're looking for. The brick pavers, I have a brick paver driveway and it is impervious when it rains and the low spots, the puddles stay there until they evaporate so, you know it's only my one data point and that's certainly not an engineering study but I certainly am convinced that a brick paver patio or driveway is not a permeable surface so I really wouldn't support using that particular argument to give any leeway to the homeowner here. I guess the only, there's a couple things where they do go over the limit here that I would support. I think you could make a case for leaving the boulder retaining walls there. You know those are pretty small quantities. We're only talking 200 square feet. 150 square feet of boulder wall and that is making the ground quite a bit more level and should help the infiltration across the board. And the decking one is, that's the first time I've seen decking come up as being a permeable. I walked underneath it today and you look up, you don't see any daylight so I understand city staff's position on it, but you know it is a new one from my perspective so I guess I would be in favor of pretty much going with the city staff with leaving a little bit of leeway for the boulder walls. McDonald: Okay. Debbie. Larson: Okay. Well, on the other side of the fence. I truly believe that the work was done innocently and I don't think that they, I think that it is a lack of due diligence. I really think it 27 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 should have been checked out either by the contractor or developer or the owner before $40,000 was spent just because that would be smart. However, the work has been done. It looks like it's a very beautiful job. They've taken some steps to do French drains and drain tile and I mean they've gone over and above what you normally see around here. The landscaping I think is all around the house, it really adds, first of all the homes in this area really make a nice statement about Chanhassen. I like to see homes that are done well and I like to see landscaping that's done beautifully. What I would also like to see, and I don't know if the city wouldn't consider this but maybe they do need to relook at impervious 25% if it can be offset and I'd like to find out you know maybe it's an engineering thing again. You know if they did drain tile and dry wells that can handle a 5 inch event as opposed to a 1 inch event like they were designed. Maybe that's something that could be looked at or discussed. But I think neighborhoods like this are an asset to the city and I like that people really do want to take pride and ownership in their homes and put in these sort of things. I didn't know that the rain gardens don't work. That was news to me so like you said if it's dry, I guess the plants that are in there obviously aren't going to live. So maybe the dry wells are better and perhaps maybe this property could be considered, I hate to see all of the, all the landscaping pulled out if we don't have to do it. If there's some way to get around it, I'd like to see the city try. McDonald: Okay. Kevin. Dillon: I think it's an unfortunate situation but one that could have been easily avoided you know with a phone call. It's just you know unfortunate that it got this far but that's the way it goes and so. I agree with everything Debbie said. You know it's a nice neighborhood and it's, but that's not to say it couldn't be just as nice and still live within the guidelines that are set forth. They're freely available for anyone to ask and learn about. McDonald: Okay. Keefe: You know I just know too many incidences personally of people who have had issues with runoff in this city and I've got an issue and that's part of the reason why the ordinance is as it is. We let these through then we've got 39 other ones that we have to deal with up at the top of this hill where the water will run off of and it's not only here. It's in other locations in the city and I agree with Kevin that it's an unfortunate situation. My understanding Lennar needs to sell homes and they're going to recommend some things but at the same time there's a reason why we've got this thing in place and I think we've got to… McDonald: Mark. Undestad: Yeah I think, I mean again it is a very nice design on it but we have to go back to what we're here for again and that is what, why we allow certain things and why we don't allow certain things. I guess my only comment would be if the applicant and engineering and that, I mean if there was some way they could come back and find some way to contain their storm water runoff within that site, you know be it a pond or if they could convince engineering, and obviously the council…but again looking at what it is right now, no. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 McDonald: I guess the only comments I have is that I was here a couple years ago when this development was put together and it was a very big deal about the number of lots. It was a very big deal about the runoff. It was a very big deal about the 25% and we went through that in great detail. I am sorry that the homeowner doesn't know about it. It is not the city's fault. There is a duty I feel upon whoever goes in there and as a contractor there is a duty upon a homeowner to know. You live within a city. We have ordinances. It's in the paper. It is everywhere. We have made people go in and tear out works that are worth more than $40,000. We have gone through this repeatedly. We have got areas within the city that cause big problems. This is one of them. Another area was Lake Riley where we fought over this. The whole thing about giving credits for certain pavers and certain ways of doing landscape to offset the 25% has been looked at. I will defer to city staff. That is one of the things that they have been tasked to do to come up with some relief for all of this. I like the plans. I like the whole thing about what you're coming up with here about this dry well concept but again as has been stated, I don't know if that's sufficient for this area and that's where I would defer to city staff. That's why I asked what research do you have on that because we need to have ordinances that basically say for this amount of runoff to negate it you need this type of a dry well. I don't know if a 1 inch rainfall is a sufficient model to design to. Again, that needs to be stated within the ordinance if we're going to start giving leeway to the 25%. It's just we have been through too much within the past few years about flooding as Mr. Boeddeker brought up. He's not the only one. I am sorry as I can be that the homeowners have spent $40,000 and again I am sure that they will go through this and fight it all the way up but good luck on that. Again it's just I think the way to do this as an industry, if you want to do further work in this area you need to basically lobby our city staff. Bring them up to speed on other ideas and ways to do things and we will be more than willing I think to address this issue because we don't want people spending all this money and then we tell them, you've got to be in compliance. Tear it out. Sorry about the $40,000 but either you tear it up or we'll tear it up and we'll charge you for it. That's not the position this city wants to be in. That's why I'm a little upset about the fact this fell through the cracks because a couple years ago I made a big issue out of this. We have been through this. We have gone through a couple of ordinances to make sure this doesn't happen and I am very surprised that it is happening again. I'd like to know why. You know what do we need to plug up because I don't like voting against these variances but there's a reason why they're there and I will continue to vote again them. That's just, you know there's just too much that's happened within the city to just be granting these things. So I guess at that point, and the only reason I make such a big deal about this again, and I'm sorry to pick on you as the developer and the landscaper but a couple years ago whenever I became Chairman, this was a big issue for me because I've got a lot of friends, a lot of neighbors who have had a lot of damage because of this and I'm just determined we're going to solve this problem. Whatever we have to do, I'm not against giving credits for the 25%. I'm not against offsets but that's not my job to determine that this is sufficient. That's city staff's job and that's where this needs to be done. My recommendation to you all would be to ask us to table this and basically work with city staff and see if you can't come up with something. Otherwise I don't think this is going anywhere. But based upon that I am ready to accept a motion from the council. Undestad: I'll make a motion Planning Commission deny Variance #07-19 for a 7.4% hard nd surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage in Pinehurst 2 Addition with condition 1. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 McDonald: Can I have a second? Dillon: Second. Undestad moved, Dillon seconded that the Planning Commission denies Variance #07-19 for a 7.4% hard surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage nd in Pinehurst 2 Addition with the following condition: 1. The hard surface coverage of the site shall not exceed 25%. All voted in favor except Larson who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. McDonald: And again, you do have the right of appeal to take this up to City Council and present the issue there. City Council does have the ability to waive our city ordinances as they see fit. So okay. PUBLIC HEARING: SCHROEDER VARIANCE: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO HARD SURFACE COVERAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2081 PINEHURST DRIVE. APPLICANT, SOUTHVIEW DESIGN, PLANNING CASE 07-20. Public Present: Name Address th Tim Johnson, Southview Design 1875 E. 50 Street, Inver Grove Heights Scott Schroeder 2081 Pinehurst Drive Scott Boeddeker 6710 Manchester Drive Angie Auseth presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Mark. Undestad: No questions. McDonald: Dan. Keefe: Well in this case anything hasn't been built yet, is that correct? Auseth: Correct, it's not installed. Keefe: Yeah. McDonald: Kevin. 30 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 Dillon: And so then the only thing is just the house and the driveway. Auseth: And the sidewalk. The sidewalk that was proposed with the building plan which was 120 square feet as opposed to 316 square feet. Dillon: That's it. McDonald: Kurt. Papke: No questions. McDonald: Debbie. Larson: I was just wondering if the city has talked to the homeowner about possibly using different materials. Auseth: We have not. We've only been working with the landscape architect. Larson: Okay. Auseth: But there again we don't give credit at this time for other materials as far as hardscape. Larson: No, no. I mean if they were to do something that was permeable. Auseth: Right, we don't give credit for permeable. Larson: Explain credit. Auseth: If somebody does a permeable paver, giving them a percentage of their overall square footage. They wouldn’t get a 100% credit for 100 square foot surface. You'd give 25% credit. Larson: Okay. So 25% is something. That's a fourth. Auseth: Right, but at this time it's also the exception hasn't been determined by council. Larson: So say they did 3 different porches and they got 25% credit on each one of those, if they used a different material, it might offset, what are we 4%? Auseth: Right, but council hasn't determined a percentage at this point. Larson: I see, okay. McDonald: 25% and that's it. Larson: Okay. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 Papke: Has the driveway already been poured? Is the driveway in place? Because, the reason I ask is, in this particular case, unlike the previous case, the driveway looks to be 3 car wide all the way to the streets so if the driveway hadn't been poured yet, they would have the option of maybe saving a little bit by pulling in the driveway. Auseth: Correct, and I'm not positive if it has or has not. McDonald: Really I've asked all my questions and said all my comments so I have no more for you, thank you. You want to come back up and address this again? We're really a friendly bunch. Tim Johnson: Alright. The driveway is in as the plan. The front walkway, the current development walkway we'll call it is in but does not look like the current plan. That, in speaking with my client, obviously we're trying to be, you know this is something that we're hoping, we're leaning for but after following the previous presentation, we're trying to be hopeful here. We've already got, any time you do a wall over 4 feet, particularly after…so phase 1 we're looking to really do is put the wall in to level off the back yard so you've got more green space, like we did at the other property. Put the staircase in. The patio, the fire pit patio is not going to happen so we're taking. Excuse me? Larson: Is there a fire pit? Tim Johnson: The fire pit's right here. Larson: Okay, we don't have one on our's. Tim Johnson: The fire pit is, well 242 square feet so we're willing to take that out of the picture. The walkway, the front walkway, we're going to keep the current development walkway. The driveway's in place. The deck plan that you see here are outlined in this area right here. And then this area right here is a proposed screen porch that they are looking to add in this space here. In my conversations with Angie, we were looking to start the retaining wall, the deck construction, the screened porch construction and we would still stay under compliance under the 25% just so we could you know kind of begin some construction here so my clients that moved from California can maybe get a yard sooner than later. After last week the wall….I understand the building department. The deck cannot pass through. They cannot supply the deck permit because we were instructed last week of the other code that assumed 100 square foot patio had to be assumed for any door that wasn't connecting to any walkway, which if I'm correct puts us 20 square feet over the 25%. Auseth: Right, and that's for the screen porch, not the deck. Tim Johnson: Correct. There's the decking here, I'm learning from the previous project, we are going to use a different decking system. That was communicated and instructed immediately to anyone that we're going to be working with the client, that the decking would have spaces between the deck so they weren't permeable. Just another way of us trying to do it right and finding out where we were on the previous job but our goal is to do the wall of the deck, the 32 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 screen porch and we'd love to be able to do the back patio that's on this drawing here. There's a permeable concern given the pavers underneath the screen porch if the screen porch was ever being considered a permeable structure. It would just be the square footage under the deck and then the deck, or excuse me, the patio from the steps back to the lower patio door. So Angie correct me if I'm wrong, the only area that we would be requesting is the patio application on this lower area. That is above the 25% mark. Other than the extra 20 square feet that the city has to enforce, assuming that there's a patio installed of 100 square feet, which again we just found that out last week. Angie explained that, because there's no patio in place so I had to make that assumption and add that 100 square feet toward what we're representing. McDonald: So is this changing from what we have from city staff which says your proposed square footage was at 29.8 and you're now talking about scaling a lot of this back. Tim Johnson: Well we're trying to be realistic here with what we have in front of us. My client's very eager to get some green space in this year and…now that we have easy access of equipment and we're trying to be sensible you know from the city wants so that we can begin some type of construction. The wall and the decking could begin any time. Other than that extra 20 square feet that we're over. The wall has nothing to do with that. It's just the screen porch. McDonald: Okay. City, or staff. At that point are we over the 25% of what he's talking about? Is that within what you would be allowed to do or are we still looking at a variance situation? Auseth: If the patio door is not underneath the 3 season screened in porch, then we have to assume the 100 square foot unless they propose something else. If it's underneath the screened porch, we don't double count. McDonald: Okay, so at that point is he under the 25% with what he's now saying he wants to do? Auseth: 26.8. McDonald: 1.8 percent. Tim Johnson: For my reference so you just want to say what the, where you came up with that just so we're all on the same page. Auseth: Sure. I added the house, garage, driveway, front porch. Oh, I didn't add in the front sidewalk. Tim Johnson: What did you have for that front sidewalk again? Auseth: 120. Tim Johnson: Yep. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 Auseth: I added the retaining walls. The screen porch, the patio. Retaining walls and then the steps. McDonald: Okay, and that puts them over by 1.8% then? Auseth: That's 27.4 including that front sidewalk. McDonald: Okay. Any suggestions for, I really, I'm not sure it's worth everybody's effort to go through here and argue through this without going back to staff. There's got to be a way to take care of this 2.4% and not be asking for a variance because I'm not going to vote for a variance, and I think there's a majority here, I'm speaking out of turn but we don't want to set a precedence in this neighborhood. There's too many houses and there's too much trouble here. Tim Johnson: For the material considerations as far as you know, yeah the retaining wall basically you know the water, obviously the top boulder, it hits the top boulder. I've got you know a drainage system behind that. I mean we're considering 216 square feet of boulder retaining wall. McDonald: Well again that's a discussion you need to have with staff and if they agree with all that. Tim Johnson: That's you know, and we're using all mulch materials here. We're not going to put rock and poly down. Some cities require rock and poly to be impervious. McDonald: Okay, well let me ask you this. Are you willing to withdraw this? Go back to city staff and get it to 25%. Work on the other issues because I know you want to do all of this other stuff at this point too but at least you'd be able to move forward on this project if you could get it down to 25% and then we don't need to look at doing a variance. Tim Johnson: Well I believe we'd be willing to, we would like to just do the wall, the deck and screened porch. We're 20 square feet over, correct? Papke: Mr. Chair, I don't think we can modify what we're voting for on the fly here. McDonald: Well I'm not trying. I'm just trying to get them to withdraw it and then there's nothing for us to vote on. Papke: I agree. McDonald: Yeah, but that's what I'm asking is if we're that close to 25% and you're object is you want to get started on something, what are you willing to give to stay at the 25%? The other issues need to be worked out as you already heard and then at that point you would have to either reapply for a variance based upon what staff tells us, or maybe they come up with some way that you know you make it through this. But at this point if the object on your side is to get to work, then you need to stay at 25%. We don't need to vote on anything and as long as staff agrees that you're within the limits, then there shouldn't be a problem. Am I correct? 34 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 Auseth: Correct. McDonald: I mean there's got to be some give and take here. 2.4% is not that much. Tim Johnson: Well I guess we, I mean we could sit here and say I gave this up. I mean I'm not going to get in that game. McDonald: Well I'm not asking you to. Tim Johnson: I don't think you want that either so. McDonald: I guess in fairness then fine, we'll go ahead and we'll vote on this. Tim Johnson: I guess one of the considerations that we would request so that we could at least begin with the lengthy part of this project is build the retaining walls and steps and the deck and the upper porch because of the assumptions you know, I had a conversation with Angie and she said as long as we're under 25%, and then we find out last week that we could begin the deck and the porch and the retaining wall until this meeting, but then we couldn't get the permit now which was something that was just thrown in front of us that we had to assume that there had to be 100 square foot patio as soon as the packet came out. You know for 20 square feet. We're talking about 20 square feet and we're trying to work with the city and I'm trying to you know do my job, that's keep my clients happy and try to do our due diligence to keep this going so, because every day that that sits out there, the concern of there's no erosion control. Concern of water running off there. I mean it's everybody's concern. McDonald: Well I agree with you and that's why I'm offering you is an opportunity to start work. Otherwise this gets voted down. Potential's there. Now you're waiting to go up to City Council. You've got to go through a process there. You're going to be you know a couple weeks trying to make the argument there. Nothing's going to happen. If you're willing to stay within the 25% and give, as far as what city engineering says, you've got enough here you can start work. The rest of these issues are bigger than this anyway. You're going to need to work with staff on that. Keefe: Well you know it's only 20 feet. I mean put a foot off the porch… Is it 20 square feet or is it, what is it? Undestad: It's just in the portion that they want to start now. Keefe: That's what I'm saying. If they just came for a variance for 20 feet, right? Undestad: 4 point, almost 5%. Keefe: I thought he said, I thought what he was saying you're 20 feet over the 25%. 35 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 Tim Johnson: When you count in our wall, our deck, or excuse me, doesn't include here. But our screen porch, we're under the 25%. But because we have to make that assumption of the 100 square feet of a patio, that is. We wouldn't install anyways because our goal with the client is to come up with a patio application that's installed here so we wouldn't start that construction until we would get something in place with either the engineering department, or were able to get something in front of City Council or you to have a drainage system that would be accommodating to everybody's concerns and questions here. So we're not going to put a 100 square foot patio in because it's not, 100 square feet does nobody any good. Larson: Where is this supposedly assumed that it would be? Tim Johnson: It's supposed to be off the back patio door. Larson: And it's obviously not there so why is it an issue? It's out of the plan… Tim Johnson: We have to allow for it because the door is not adjoining to any walkway, but there is you know, there's no reason for us to develop something like that. McDonald: Okay, then in that case what it sounds like everybody's hands are tied and we will have to take this application as it is and we'll take it from there and then you would be able to go back to city staff and work out whatever you can but at this point the magic number is 25%. Undestad: I still have a question for you. Did you design this plan? Tim Johnson: Yeah. Undestad: But not the other one? Tim Johnson: I redesigned. It actually had a lot more hard cover. Undestad: When you submit these, when you picked your boulder wall guys, did they submit their plans for just a picture of that boulder wall on there? Or when your client chooses a deck contractor that you recommend. Tim Johnson: We're doing everything but the actual deck and screened porch construction. It's all in-house. Undestad: So when you submit your plans or whatever portion of these projects you're doing, you're submitting this entire plan? Tim Johnson: Correct. Undestad: Unlike the last project, your decking contractor just submitted his picture of his deck he was putting onto that. Tim Johnson: Correct. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 McDonald: Anyone else have any questions then? Tim Johnson: You know we tried to design, we designed it once to be you know in compliance with the 25% until last week on the assumption of the 100 square feet which put us over so. Keefe: Would you consider tabling it and coming back in 2 weeks or whatever to revisit it? Undestad: Or working it out. Keefe: Yeah, working it out… Tim Johnson: Well I guess on both applications, I mean help me out with this. McDonald: Well on the first one you've got a bigger problem. On this one you're closer to the 25% and if you're saying you want to start work, I think there's enough compromise here, you can start work. If we vote this down, then what you're faced with is again going through the appeal process. No work will start until this works through the City Council and at that point again they're very sensitive to the 25% right now also and they're very sensitive to the flooding in this area. I don't think you have a very good chance of getting this through. Then where are you at? I mean you're 4 or 5 weeks out. I'm offering you a chance to compromise the 25%. You can start some work. You can continue to lobby because you're got 40 something lots in this area. They all have the same problem. This has got to be solved. It's solved by people such as you coming forward and presenting the city with new information and asking that ordinances be changed. Undestad: Can I ask one thing of Angie? If they table it tonight and meet with you guys, try to work it out but say in a couple days it doesn't look like it's going to happen, can he get back on here in 2 weeks so it's like a 2 week delay for the entire process or how does that work? If we table it would he come right back. Generous: We'd table it to the next meeting to review it and come back with any updates. Tim Johnson: Could we begin the, obviously the deck has nothing to do with this. Could we begin the deck construction and not construct the screened porch maybe at this time so at least the decking can begin and the whole structure… McDonald: That's a discussion you can have with them and that's what I'm saying is that if you're willing to table this, go talk to them. You get within the 25%, if they say that's okay, then this is done. This project is done. It doesn't have to come back here unless you want to add all the rest of this. And in the meantime as you saw the first project, you've got some issues as far as these offsets. You need to spend some time talking to city staff and city engineering and making them aware of what's going on and getting some information up to City Council and see about getting these ordinances changed. We can't help you there. We go by what's written on the ordinance. We make recommendations and we've made this before that, yeah there probably needs to be some offset but you know how do we go about that? 37 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 Tim Johnson: To save everybody time, if I came with for instance a Westwood plan… McDonald: You can talk to city staff. It's not going to do any good to come here. Keefe: …but we'll table it so you don't have to go through a whole…be a lot faster for you. McDonald: Yeah, and at least on this one what you're trying to do is start something for your clients, I think you can do it. Keefe: And if you still need a variance, it will be back on in a couple of weeks… McDonald: My suggestion would be you don't want a variance. Tim Johnson: I already know that much. Keefe: Does that take a motion? McDonald: I don't think it takes a motion to table. I think, it does take a motion to table? Okay. Well at this point we're. Okay, if we table it, is there a need for a public hearing? Generous: You would just open the public hearing. McDonald: They would open it up if he brings it back. Keefe: Motion to table. Larson: Second. Keefe moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission table Variance #07-20 for a 4.8% hard surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage in nd Pinehurst 2 Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 18, SUBDIVISIONS AND CHAPTER 20, ZONING. Generous: Very briefly. There's 5 amendments being proposed. The first two deal with the subdivision ordinance. There are 3 trees that the city wants to restrict the use of. While we don't want to prohibit it outright, we would like to put a note that if you're going to use these trees, they have to get specific approval. They're ash, Amur maple and the Colorado spruce, and so we're proposing a change to Section 18-61, subsection (a)(1) to incorporate those changes. The second one is in the calculation of tree coverage and that on a lot or a property as part of the subdivision process. We also, while we currently exclude wetlands from trees, from the area that they calculate the tree total with, they also want to add the bluff area which are also areas that are 38 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 not developable under city ordinance. And while it's repeating itself, we're adding dedicated parkland areas because those areas aren't…developers to use anymore and so we would exclude that from both the calculation of total area and any tree cover within that area. So those are the two subdivision changes. Chapter 20, The Freedom to Breathe Act requires that bars not allow smoking inside and we're getting people that are discussing how they can provide outdoor facilities. We looked at developing standards for that and actually shows up on page 5 and 6 of the memo. Papke: They used Bloomington's verbatim on that? Generous: Pretty close. Yeah, we did use a standard and I thought this was 75%. So we're recommending that change to Section 20-904(d). And then we're finding out we don't have any standards for employment signs out there but we're getting a lot of people that are putting them up. We don't want it to make it a permit thing that they have to… We think these are more than reasonable sign display areas to get people for higher information out, so we're recommending that change to Section 20-1255, Subsection 12. And then finally the last one is when this came, we brought this through before for industrial office park signs. When we presented the ordinance to council, while the cover memo addressed it, the ordinance itself missed the language and so this is one. Papke: Oops. Generous: Yeah this is an oops that we didn't have the language correct to prevent the larger signage in industrial parks that are adjacent to a state highway system and that was something that the Planning Commission had directed us to do so we're correcting that now. With that we're, we also just for your information we are making, bringing some changes to Chapter 1 of the definitions and that's on page 8. And they really relate to clarifying the Freedom to Breathe ordinance and so we wanted to be, advise you that we will be recommending that these definitions be included in Chapter 1. And because they're similarly related we wanted to bring it out as part of this hearing process. And then in Chapter 7. Papke: Before you charge through there. Could you explain the indoor area? You know I stared at that one for a while and scratched my head. I couldn't figure out what the heck you were saying with that one. Generous: I'll let Angie. Auseth: We talked to, I believe she's with the State and she had done a presentation for another city, or I believe it was a county, and these were the definitions that they're using with the Freedom to Breathe Act. Let me read it. Papke: So if I have a three sided structure, I've got one wall open, what percent do I have open with that? Auseth: Depends on the size of the wall. It needs to be 50% open so. 39 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 Papke: So if I had two walls missing, half my walls and they're both, and half are there. That's 50%? Larson: Or is 50% of the last wall? Undestad: No, I think the area. Auseth: The area. Undestad: So if you had two 100 foot walls and two 20 foot openings, you're not 50% of your area. Papke: Okay, so it's actually the wall area? Auseth: Area of the structure. McDonald: I'm not sure it said that. Papke: Yeah. Yeah. That would be one recommendation…take a look at that language and find some way so that you know, because when these things come up and we have to figure out whether or not somebody is meeting the standard or not, it really helps if we can interpret it. Auseth: Okay. Papke: That one's just a head scratcher. Or am I the only one? Keefe: No. Papke: Okay. McDonald: Okay. Take charge. Generous: Okay, we'll look at that before we take it to council. And then finally in Chapter 7, we have a landscaping escrow that we require for new homes when they're not going to complete their landscaping prior to Certificate of Occupancy and we want, if they put, we've had problems with our auditors that kept these escrows for years on end and they want us to clean up our accounting system and so we're adding language that the city, to amend it to say that if they don't do this improvement, we're going to put this money into our tree fund and we'll use it for putting trees in the community. Larson: If it goes 8 years, do they even know it's there? I mean really. Generous: But the City does because we have to set up a separate account. Larson: Well I know but maybe the city ought to say hey, you've got $3,000 bucks sitting here, what do you want us to do with it, you know. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 Generous: Well most of the time, that amount they do contact us but the 750, most people forget. McDonald: Okay, and then what else? Generous: So that's it. So we're recommending that the Planning Commission recommend adoption of the changes to the ordinance amending Chapters 18 and 20 of the Chanhassen City Code. McDonald: Okay. Anyone have any questions of staff? Keefe: I can think of one question. This is in regards to the Chapter 20, smoking shelter. Were any of the local restaurants and bars consulted as to whether that's a reasonable solution for them given what they're faced with? McDonald: That was a State legislature and there were a number of hearings that really has nothing to do with the city and no, they probably were not consulted the way they wanted to be consulted. Keefe: Well not the Freedom to Breathe Act itself. I'm talking about the accessory shelters themselves that we're proposing to change in our ordinance. McDonald: Yeah, where did the idea for that come from? You mentioned Bloomington. Is that something that they've come up with? Papke: It was mentioned in the text there that they. Auseth: Yeah, they used Bloomington and then also the women that we talked to from the State to try and come up with those. Papke: Now we're not requiring these shelters. These are just the standards and so if the Chan Legion wants to put one in, these are the standards they have to follow but we're not saying you've got to build one. Auseth: Correct. McDonald: And then to your point, were they. Keefe: Well I mean they're going to get smoking eliminated inside. In their facility on October st 1 and so will they want, or will they want to build something. I'm just wondering if, is this something that they had any input in. I supposed they could be here for it if they wanted some input into that. I don't know. Papke: Provided they were notified. 41 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 McDonald: Yeah. But that's a good question. Generous: At least the Legion was, I'm aware of. They're the one that actually initiated this process on our part. Papke: They just wanted to know what the rules are? Generous: What the rules the city had and so we said we were going to look into it and we were going to take it to the public hearing process to adopt standards. Keefe: So they could be here, and they've been notified… Generous: Not specifically for tonight but that the city was addressing it and it would be a near term thing. Keefe: I can't speak to the adequacy of it. I'm just concerned you know because there are businesses which I think a number of their patrons smoke so they probably would want… McDonald: Yeah, it's been a big deal in the city. Okay. This is a public meeting so at this point I would open the floor up to anyone from the public who wishes to come forward and make comment. Seeing no one get up, I will close the public meeting and bring it back before the council for any final comments or a motion to move forward. Dillon: I move that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the attached ordinances amending Chapter 18 and Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code. Papke: Second. Dillon moved, Papke seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the attached ordinances amending Chapter 18 and Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Generous: Mr. Chairman, a point of clarification. In the staff write-up it says, well for the Freedom of Smoke, or Freedom to Breathe, that it's 50% enclosed and in the ordinance it actually says 75%. We believe that we should incorporate the 50% that was discussed and we want to make that change and make it clear that that's what you moved. McDonald: They should be consistent, yes. Generous: Okay, thank you. McDonald: Any objection from the commissioners about that? Then you're good to go. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - September 4, 2007 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Larson noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 7, 2007 as presented. Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 9:05 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 43