Loading...
PC 2001 06 19CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 19, 2001 Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Alison Blackowiak, LuAnn Sidney, Uli Sacchet and Rich Slagle MEMBERS ABSENT: Craig Claybaugh, Bruce Feik, and Deb Kind STAFF PRESENT: Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner and Matt Saam, Project Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Deb Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TWO ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND A HORSE RING WITHIN THE SECONDARY BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT 1560 BLUFF CREEK DRIVE, JOHN KLINGELHUTZ. Sharmin AI-Jaff and Matt Saam presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Thank you. Are there any questions of staff? Sacchet: Yeah, I do have some questions Madam Chair. Blackowiak: Sure, go ahead. Sacchet: First of all, I like clarification of on the blueprint, there is one line labeled Bluff Creek 200 foot primary zone, and then there's another line labeled Bluff Creek Overlay primary. A1-Jaff: The 200 foot was a line that the applicant, this is the line you're referring to. Sacchet: Yep. A1-Jaff: You can disregard it. The applicant just wanted to demonstrate that they are 200 feet away from Bluff Creek. Sacchet: So the relevant one is the overlay primary line. A1-Jaff: That's correct. Sacchet: That is the one that by ordinance is relevant? A1-Jaff: That's correct. Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 Sacchet: Okay, okay. That's one of my questions. Then when you said, you made a point that the grading should not be more than 25% slope. A1-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: Do we know for a fact that I guess the grade just southwest of the horse ring is where potentially we have 25% or more. Did they ever actually, with the current plan are we exceeding the 25%? A1-Jaff: We tried to measure it. We think it's borderline. The applicant is going to submit detailed surveys showing the exact slope of that area. Sacchet: It is pretty steep around there, but it seems to get even more steep through the grade so that's something that you're very fine. A1-Jaff: We're working with the applicant on it. Sacchet: And when you said it will be shifting to the south, that would be to avoid that 25%? A1-Jaff: That's correct. Sacchet: Now shifting to the south, that would be shifting down so there'd be a little more room, okay. Would then also the barn shift with it or? A1-Jaff: I think they would have to do that to accommodate the horse ring. Sacchet: ... do you have in your recommendation do you have an idea much it would need to shift? A1-Jaff: We think that it will be approximately outside the tree line that's shown on the plans, and I'll point that out. Here's the tree line. It might be a little bit within the tree line. Or maybe completely outside it. Sacchet: So that will be an additional benefit potentially that it would be less cut into the trees. Okay. Okay. In terms of the grading, this amount of grading is acceptable within the secondary Bluff Creek watershed? I mean it's, when I looked at the amount of grading it seems pretty significant. I mean in some cases like 10 feet or certainly approximately 10 feet. And it's basically taking one hill and moving it around. Is that within the tolerance of the second Bluff Creek framework? A1-Jaff: As long as the grades are below 25%. Sacchet: That's the criteria on that ordinance determines? A1-Jaff: That's the criteria. Sacchet: Okay. Do we know whether, maybe that's more a question for the applicant. Whether there is enough fill between the hill and all the areas that get built up. That's probably more of a question for you Matt. Saam: Yeah, Uli I have not received any soil quantity information from the applicant's engineer as of yet so we can't really answer that question as to the amount of fill required or how it will affect the city. Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 Sacchet: Okay. Is there, it seems it appears on the blueprint that there's a little bit of overlap with the grading into the septic area. Is that significant enough to be an issue or? Saam: Yeah, I just mentioned it in the staff report. It's a good idea not to drive any construction equipment over the septic area. Those pipes are plastic and they're not meant to take loads over them so that's why it was brought up in the staff report. I would recommend no grading in the septic area. Sacchet: Is it something that from a city point is required or is it up to the applicant? Saam: Oh no, no. Sacchet: If his pipes break it's his responsibility? Saam: Yep, exactly. Sacchet: Okay. The drainage swale that flows to the north, I assume that's that area that gets kind of filled in where it's a little bit of a valley shape. Saam: That area to the south there? South of the small building? Sacchet: Yes, south of the small building. And that's the part that you were referring to that you want to understand more the drainage patterns? Saam: Yep. Sacchet: Whether it drains north there or more to the northeast I guess that would be. Saam: Exactly. Upon visiting the site I had just some questions as to how it will drain after, or with this proposed grading so that's something I'll have to work out with the engineer and it is a condition in the staff report. Sacchet: And then the silt fence, I'm not quite sure where it starts and where it ends. It seems to be kind of coinciding. Saam: That's another good point. That's why we put a condition in there to put a legend on the plan explaining all these different lines. It's confusing to us too. If you look just off the eastern low line of the proposed grading off of that horse ring, there is some silt fence called out there and I think it's supposed to be that one of those pink lines in there, but we'll need a little more definition. Sacchet: Actually there it's relatively understandable. It's probably that line that curves up and goes pretty much on grade. Yeah, I think we could clarify where those silt fence lines are. Let's see, no that's the questions I have. Just one more question. On the blueprint, I don't know if you can answer that or the applicant. On the blueprint there are those parallel lines between the two structures. Two barns. Like one line goes through the middle of the big barn south and then there's 3 parallel lines going north. Saam: The black colored lines? Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 Sacchet: They're all black on my blueprint so the color coding. Saam: Yeah, again that's something I'm not sure what that is. Maybe the applicant. Sacchet: Ask the applicant? Saam: Yeah. Sacchet: Okay, that's my questions. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Commissioners, just a moment. I'd like to tell our newest audience members. We are on item number 3 for the public hearing of the Klingelhutz conditional use permit. Items 1 and 2 have been rescheduled to July 17th SO if you're here for either of those items, you'll have to go and come back on the 17th. Otherwise you're here for the right now. So I'm sorry, go ahead. Do you want to go LuAnn? Questions? Sidney: Yes. I guess just maybe a comment. Uli asked all the questions that I had which is just fine. But I guess I would like to make a comment and I guess one of my questions had to do with giving more direction to the applicant about the location of the horse ring and you answered that about it should be brought south past the, by the tree line further away and I guess I would like to make a comment that in doing so with the applicant that the intent of the ordinance is that within the secondary zone areas with average slopes exceeding 25% shall be preserved and the natural state maintained as permanent open space, and I guess I'm concerned that we don't grade too close. We need to have a good buffer between any disturbed areas of grading and whatever the secondary zone is to minimize that so, if we can understand how much may be needed outside of the horse ring, it's proper. You know what might be disturbed in the grading to work with the applicant to minimize that. Blackowiak: Rich, questions? No. I think I have just a couple questions of staff. Maybe just one. The 25% average slope figure has been talked about. Do any of these slopes near the 30%? I know that's our bluff ordinance. Is that correct, 30% on bluff? A1-Jaff: 30% is bluff. Blackowiak: Okay, so we're not even close to that. We don't have to worry about that at this point. We're very close to 25, is that what I'm hearing? A1-Jaff: Yes. Blackowiak: Okay. Alright, well I just wanted to clarify that. Stating that, will the applicant or their designee like to come forward and make a presentation? Please state your name and address for the record. John Klingelhutz: John Klingelhutz, 1560 Bluff Creek Road. This afternoon, because of this 25%, I had my surveyor or engineer actually give me a grade of what is actually out there when he did the topographical map and it's 22.2%. So I don't believe that we need to move that ring. I mean it's within the ordinance at 22.2%. Blackowiak: Yeah, if it's at 22.2, yes. Okay, well that would be something that you could discuss with staff after this meeting but I think it's just a concern. Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 John Klingelhutz: The other thing that I want to comment on, and that is the type of grasses to be planted. I want to have it a yard. I want to be able to manicure it. I don't want prickly ash and all those things in there. I want to plan good trees. I want to get rid of all the elms and the boxelders and the weeds. I don't want that. Blackowiak: Okay. John Klingelhutz: I mean if you come and look at my yard you see that it's manicured and that's what we want this to be too. Blackowiak: Okay. Well I understand that. Are there any trees on the list of the approved tree list that would work for you or, I mean have you looked at that a little bit or are you just? John Klingelhutz: Well the oaks and all that, that's fine but I'm talking about the other things that are in this list that it's the wild stuff. I don't want it to be wild. Blackowiak: Right. Well I think that that's something that you could work with staff on to address issues that you have with that and find something that's going to work for you both because I think these are suggestions. I don't think you are, Sharmin correct me if I'm wrong, he doesn't have to put all of these in. These are some suggested options that would be encouraged in that area. A1-Jaff: We wanted to stay with native species to the Bluff Creek Overlay District and those are the options that are available to the applicant. Blackowiak: So is there anything that it has a more manicured look that he's looking for? I mean I guess I don't know the types of trees and grasses that well but. A1-Jaff: We can work with the applicant to find. Blackowiak: Find something that would be acceptable to both parties. A1-Jaff: Within the list. John Klingelhutz: The other thing in terms of the grading and the water runoff, after a rain right now there's, in the pasture there's probably 3 feet of water at times until the tile system takes it away. It doesn't really run this way. It actually runs more to the south. Blackowiak: Okay, could you show us on the maps? She's zooming in on that so. John Klingelhutz: I need to get my bearings here. The water actually comes, it sets in here and it actually runs this way after... Blackowiak: Okay, so kind of up to the east is what you're showing? Would that be to the east? John Klingelhutz: Yeah, to the east. See at one point I would have liked to have it going that way but, I mean that's not impossible. We have to...but I'm not sure we want it to go that way. Because now it Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 comes off of this, this is a large hill right here. And it runs down this way and it ponds here and after a while it soaks away in a day and it actually ends up here. Blackowiak: Okay. I think that's again something that you can work with staff on and it sounds like that's not totally defined yet either. Is that correct Matt? Saam: Yep, we'll be able to work with him. We're fine with that. Blackowiak: Alrighty. John Klingelhutz: Okay. Sacchet: Can I ask some questions from the applicant? Blackowiak: Certainly. Do you have anything else you'd like to add right now or? John Klingelhutz: Not really other than there's a lot of dirt to take and there's 120 acres. Blackowiak: Yeah, that's a big spot. John Klingelhutz: And this hill right here, I mean that can come down 20 feet. Sacchet: So you, that's actually one of the questions I have. So you think you have enough dirt by taking that hill down and you can move, shift things around so you. John Klingelhutz: I'm not saying we can't move things around. I'm just saying that I'd like to keep it as close to what I have here as possible because it's close to the house and at that point when my little kids are riding horses, somebody can be keeping an eye on them. Sacchet: Yeah my question is, in terms of moving dirt to fill, like you take the hill down. Is the idea that you have the dirt from the hill pretty much still left to fill where you need fill? John Klingelhutz: Right. Sacchet: That's your general approach? John Klingelhutz: Right. And I'd like to take this hill down because it's too high. I mean right now I have a tough time even cutting grass on it and part of it's in the pasture and you can't even drive a tractor on it. Sacchet: Because it's so steep. John Klingelhutz: Because it's so steep. Sacchet: Okay, okay. The idea of cutting less into the trees, what it looks like with the grade, it sounds like you're okay based on your latest finding. The idea of cutting less into the trees is not something attractive to you. John Klingelhutz: I want to replace the trees that are there. Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 Sacchet: Yeah, I'm sure you're going to build it up and make it look real nice. Those lines that I didn't understand between the two barns, like there's one line going through the center of the big barn. It goes outside of the barn to the south. I mean of these three parallel lines coming out of the small barn, do you know what those are? John Klingelhutz: No I don't. Sacchet: Okay. And then there was the recommendation from staff to try to maintain like a 2% slope. Making sure it's sloped every little bit. Is that something that makes sense to you? John Klingelhutz: I want that too. Sacchet: You don't have an issue with that? John Klingelhutz: No. Sacchet: Okay. I think that's all the questions I have from you, thank you. John Klingelhutz: Okay. Blackowiak: Commissioners, any other questions of the applicant? Rich? No? I don't have anything either. Thank you. John Klingelhutz: Thank you. Blackowiak: This item is open for public hearing so if there's anybody who would like to ask questions or comment on this item, please come up to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Okay, seeing no one we will. Oh, Debbie would you? I don't think so. Debbie Lloyd: I don't know what item we're on. Blackowiak: Okay, I'm sorry. We're on item number 3. Debbie Lloyd: I left. Thank you. Blackowiak: Alrighty. Did you want to say anything about this item? Debbie Lloyd: No thanks. Blackowiak: Okay. Just checking. Alright, so then I will close the public hearing. Commissioners, it's time to make any comments that you have. Rich, would you like to start this evening? Slagle: Sure. First of all you have a beautiful property. We drive by all the time and just think the world of it. I had a concern but I think John has addressed it regarding the trees. When I first saw this my thought was, you know why isn't it a little bit further south to avoid the trees but now hearing from him I understand why. The grading, if it's 22.2, which I'm sure engineering and staff will confirm, I don't have on that slope, I don't have a problem with that. I really don't have any issues with this. Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 Btackowiak: Okay. Uti, any comments? Sacchet: A few comments. I do think this is a great project overall. I'm envious of you. I do believe that it's important to make sure that we minimize the slope of the grading and try to preserve trees but that can be done in different ways and that's basically your responsibility it looks like in terms of the city framework once we confirm that it's a bit less than the 25%. It's basically in your hands. And you're the steward of that place so that's where it's at. I do have two comments. One is to finding number 9 in the staff report. It says the development of this site will not result in the loss of any features which incorporation of staff's condition. I would like that reworded to say, the development of this site will result in loss of some features even with incorporation of staff conditions because I think introducing that steeper slope and cutting into the trees is having some impact. I don't think it's prohibitive. Again that's in the applicant's hands. And then I would also like to be affirmative in the condition number 1 where it says the applicant adjust the grading limits by shifting the horse ring to the south so there will be no slopes with grades that exceed 25%. Apparently that's already the case but avoiding the slope of 25% seems not quite specific enough. That's my two comments. Blackowiak: Okay. LuAnn, any comments? Sidney: Well, you discussed the points I think that need fine tuning and I think it's a very nice project and make for a lovely piece of property when it's finished. Blackowiak: Okay, and I pretty much agree with what my fellow commissioners have said. I believe that with the conditions that staff has incorporated, that we will be really kind of making sure that we get what is best for the site. That the grades don't exceed 25% so that re-vegetation can be worked out with the applicant and staff so there's a nice mix and he can kind of get what he's looking for. The only condition that I would add, and this may not even be necessary if he does have enough fill on site but I think that we should add that, and I don't want to say standard but the engineering. Any import/export of fill requires appropriate permits. So if and when that happens, if there has to be fill brought in or taken off site, that the applicant would be required to get any appropriate permits and that's just a fairly standard condition so with the addition of that, and I agree with your finding number 9 Uti. That we can just say that it will result in the loss of some features. And that is, or maybe minimal loss. I don't know. I understand what you're saying but. Sacchet: I mean it's also the grading aspect which is fairly significant. Blackowiak: Right. But again I think that this fits within what is there, and I agree with what you're saying so. With that I would like to have somebody make a motion please. Sacchet: Madam Chair I would like to make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval to Conditional Use Permit #01-4 to allow construction within the secondary Bluff Creek Overlay District in an A2 District for a barn, shed and a horse ring, as shown on the plans dated Received May 21,2001, subject to the following conditions 1 through 13. And I'd like to reword condition number 1 to read, the applicant shall adjust the grading limits if exceeding, if they exceed 25% by shifting the horse ring to the south so that there will be no slopes that exceed 25%. And add a condition number 14 with the standard language of permits being required for importing/exporting fill. Blackowiak: Alright. Okay, we have a motion. Is there a second? Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 Sidney: Second. Blackowiak: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Sacchet moved, Sidney seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit/t01-4 to allow construction within the Secondary Zone of the Bluff Creek Overlay District in an A-2 District for a barn, shed, and a horse ring, as shown on the plans dated Received May 21, 2001, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall adjust the grading limits, if they exceed 25%, by shifting the horse ring to the south and avoiding slopes with grades that exceed 25%. 2. The applicant enters into a conditional use permit agreement with the city. 3. All disturbed areas shall be revegetated with a combination of the native vegetation listed in the Maple-Basswood Forest and Mesic Oak Forest communities of Appendix C of the Bluff Creek Natural Resources Management Plan ("Bluff Creek Environmental Corridor Common Plant Species of Natural Communities"). 4. The applicant shall apply for a stable permit. 5. Show the existing tree line that enters the site from the east. 6. Add a legend to the plan that defines the many different colored lines. 7. Add the benchmark to the plan that was used for the site survey. 8. Show the location of the existing culvert and nearby curb cut off of Bluff Creek Drive. 9. Show the proposed finished floor elevation for the small building. 10. Revise the proposed grading within the existing swale to eliminate the ponding of water. 11. Show a proposed drainage swale along the east side of the large building. 12. All disturbed drainage swale areas on the site shall maintain a minimum 2% slope. 13. A wood fiber blanket will be required over the steep slope on the east side of the proposed horse ring. 14. All appropriate permits shall be obtained regarding the importing and exporting of fill material on site. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0. NEW BUSINESS: None. Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 CONSIDER AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE CHAPTERS 18 AND 20~ REGARDING THE USE OF PRIVATE DRIVES AND FLAG LOTS. Public Present: Name Address Teresa Meier 1060 Lake Lucy Road. Blackowiak: I'd like to make two comments on this before we start. First, Commissioners when we do go ahead and go through these items, I think that the simplest way might be going section by section and if we have any comments on a section we'll all kind of make our comments and then move onto the next section. So that way we're kind of all on the same page and it will make it easier for Sharmin to make any comments. Sacchet: Point of clarification. Are we getting input? Blackowiak: That was my second item. It's technically not a public hearing but if anybody has comments that they would like to make tonight, we will take comments in person tonight or you could make comments in writing. They may be submitted in writing as well so with that, Sharmin would you like to give us your report please. A1-Jaff: Sure. You've been working on this ordinance for. Sacchet: More than a year. A1-Jaff: More than a year. And over this time period what we've done is basically taken your input and incorporated it into ordinances. As well as clarified definitions. The model that we chose is basically similar to that that's followed by the flood plain ordinance. You have flood plain, flood way, flood fringe. That was, it's an established model that works for the entire nation. So that's what we tried to model this ordinance after and briefly I will go, this is an illustration, I would like to make that clear. It is not to scale. It's just to basically show what each definition is. This area is a public right-of-way or street. What you see in yellow is a roadway. It's the paved portion. It includes the shoulder on a street. What you see in green is a boulevard. Within that area you could have utilities, you can have sidewalks. This portion is a private street serving more than one home. It is the shared portion that is also highlighted in yellow. What you see in gray is individual driveways. Again, another scenario for private drive or private street, sorry. And these are individual driveways. These are just individual driveways serving individual properties, and this is a flag lot with a private driveway. The individual private driveway. So with that we began amending the ordinance. Basically the intent is to go through the entire city code and unify the definitions. What you see before you is only Chapters 18 and 20. Assuming that you approve this, we will then go before the City Council with Chapters 1 through 20, so all definitions read the same throughout the ordinance. We struck out certain words. We added new ones. What you see highlighted is added definitions that are used within the ordinance yet not clearly defined and in other areas we have taken out words that we thought are not needed for the definition. How would you like me to proceed with this? Do you want me to go one by one or? Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 Blackowiak: Well I think that maybe what might be most effective is if we just went through section by section and started with 18-1, if you have anything that you'd like to point out to us. Sacchet: Can I ask a question as it relates to the whole thing? Blackowiak: Certainly. Go ahead. Sacchet: First before we go to specific. I just want to clarify two things. One is, this has all been reviewed with the city attorney? The definitions because like last time when Kate presented these things, her point was that the city attorney had found that these definitions weren't in place yet so I just want to clarify that we're clear on the legal side with all these definitions. A1-Jaff: We had a meeting with the city attorney, staff and the city attorney approximately 2 weeks ago and these definitions are at his direction. Sacchet: Okay. That's what I wanted to confirm. Okay, so then the other thing on the other side we had a lot of input from residents, the Paulsen's and Debbie Lloyd specifically to all these different definitions. Did they have some input at this point? A1-Jaff: No. Sacchet: That's what happens tonight basically? A1-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. Okay, I just wanted that, I just want to clarify that for the whole thing. Thank you. Blackowiak: Okay. Well I think it might just be easiest, I mean if anybody's got a different idea, jump in but I'm thinking that if we just go section by section. We'll let staff make any comments they have. We can ask questions. Make comments and kind of close out a section and then move onto the next one so we aren't jumping back and forth too much. A1-Jaff: Okay. Blackowiak: So why don't we start with 18-1. Definitions. And if you have anything Sharmin that you think we need to specifically look at, go ahead. Otherwise we'll just start with questions or comments. A1-Jaff: Okay. The only thing I wanted to point out is that the definitions that we've added are used within Chapter 18. Only there wasn't a definition of them here. Within Chapter 18. Although Chapter 18 does reference Chapter 20. That if you can't find a definition within Chapter 18, you can reference Chapter 20. We pulled them in for. Blackowiak: So it's just basically to clarify and to make it a little simpler to find it. A1-Jaff: Correct. Blackowiak: Okay. Well, Rich, anybody have questions or comments? I'll just start with Rich this time. We'll kind of go back and forth I guess. No? Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 Slagle: No I don't. Blackowiak: Uli. Sacchet: 18-1, I have no comments. This looks really nice to me. Blackowiak: Okay. LuAnn? Sidney: Yes Madam Chair. I was just wondering if you were, where you were going to include the illustration, if at all, because I think up front it might be useful. Does it make sense to include it in the? A1-Jaff: We can do that. Sidney: I think right when you're talking about the definitions, it would be good to have the illustrations. A1-Jaff: We can do that. Blackowiak: And maybe in both 18-1 and 20-1, definitions. Again, just to simplify and make it easy to find. A1-Jaff: Okay. Blackowiak: I just have one, are you done? I'm sorry. Go ahead. Sidney: And I guess right-of-way, is this the legal definition that Roger wishes to use? A1-Jaff: Again, this was at Roger's direction. He has not commented on the final draft. Sacchet: To clarify right-of-way could mean different things than the road, correct? A1-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. A1-Jaff: You can have utilities within a right-of-way. A roadway. A sidewalk. Sacchet: Right-of-way. A1-Jaff: Right-of-way. Blackowiak: Alrighty. Well I just have one comment on this and Sharmin I told you this a little, right before the meeting started. In the definition of street and this ties me into Uli's comment. It means a public right-of-way or private right-of-way, and then I'd like to add occupied by a roadway. Because you pointed out street, or the right-of-way can be different things so I think you need to just specify that it's the right- of-way occupied by a roadway. Sacchet: That's a good comment. Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 Blackowiak: Alrighty so, we'll just move on from Section 18-1 and go to 18-2. Compliance. There's not much there. You must comply. 18-3. Commissioners, just sort of jump in if you want to say anything otherwise I'll just keep going through. 18-4. Any questions? Comments? Okay, let's go to Article II, Section 18-21. Building Permits. Okay, 18-22. Variances. Okay, 18-23 through 35 are reserved. 18-36. Okay, Section 18-37. I just have a couple questions here. A couple comments. Sharmin, we're talking about in the first sentence, minimum requirements of the zoning ordinance for a buildable lot and are on an existing public street or, are we talking about existing private streets? A1-Jaff: Yes. Yes we are. Blackowiak: Okay. Could we add existing there? And also on the next page, in the definition that abut an existing public or an existing private. So we clarify that it's not something new coming in. Okay, Section 18-38. Section 18-39. A1-Jaff: We don't require transparencies. Blackowiak: Okay. I see that. Section 18-40. Slagle: I have a question ifI can on 18-39. Blackowiak: Oh sure. Slagle: Are we okay in the 500 feet? Blackowiak: The notification? Slagle: Yeah. Is that not raise any issues? A1-Jaff: State statute requires 300. We already go 200 feet beyond that and if directed by Planning Commission or City Council, in the past on special projects we've gone beyond that. Slagle: Sure, okay. Blackowiak: Okay, good. It's good to hear. Okay, Section 18-40. Okay, 18-41. Oh I have a question. Talking about the final plat application, kind of the second paragraph. If the final plat is not filed within this period, which is one year, preliminary plat will be considered void unless for good cause showing an extension as requested in writing by the subdivider and granted by City Council. Now can that extension be requested at any point in time or do you need to have it be requested before the one year anniversary? In other words, before the final plat becomes void. Or I mean excuse me, the preliminary plat becomes void. A1-Jaff: Typically what we do is 30 days prior to it expiring, we talk to the applicant and let them know that we need to bring this back before the City Council. Blackowiak: Before the one year anniversary? A1-Jaff: Correct. Okay. Well then maybe could we please add some language at the end, after an extension is requested in writing by the subdivider and granted by the City Council prior to the one year Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 anniversary date of preliminary plat approval. So we really specify that they've got that one year and if they don't act within that one year, either to do something or to request an extension, that it becomes void. Okay, Section 18-42. Questions? Okay, Article III. Section 18-56. Section 18-57. Sacchet: Now we're getting into it. Sidney: It includes the flag lots? I believe it does. Blackowiak: It does. Sidney: Madam Chair, one question for staff about that? And we went over this many times about adding the criteria on variance section blah, blah, blah should be met. Now would it be appropriate to list the criteria for a variance at this point or do you always refer back? A1-Jaff: We always refer back to that section. Sidney: Okay. I guess I'm just concerned that if, like individual property owners you know would mm to this. It might be good to write here. A1-Jaff: Repeat? Sidney: Repeat the variance language. A1-Jaff: We hope that they would meet with us prior to such application coming forward. It is a requirement of the ordinance and that would be the time to. Sidney: To go through the requirements. A1-Jaff: Go through all of that. Sidney: Okay. Blackowiak: Any other questions? No? Uli. Sacchet: Yes I have a few things too. First I want to clarify that in section (o), private streets may be permitted in business, industrial, office, R-8, R-12 and R-16. So they don't need a variance there? A1-Jaff: They don't need a variance, no. Sacchet: But then the continuation is we crossed out the other districts but then we say districts might be served by the private street. I think we have a little bit of a language issue there, don't we? We have twice with may and twice words but only one sentence. See what I mean Sharmin? Private streets may be permitted in business, industrial districts. A1-Jaff: Yes. Sacchet: May be served, and I think the language. I don't know whether, I'm not a native English speaker but it seems like English doesn't quite work in there. Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 A1-Jaff: Okay. I think we need to take and R-16 districts. Private streets may be permitted in business, industrial, office, R-8, R-12, and R-16 districts. Sacchet: Period? A1-Jaff: Yes. Sacchet: And cross out the rest? Or do we want to say, if the city finds... A1-Jaff: If the city finds, so we're taking out may be served by. Sacchet: Okay, by private street because we already said. So we said private streets may be permitted in business, industrial, office, R-8, R-12, and R-16 districts if the city finds the following conditions to exist. A1-Jaff: That's correct. Sacchet: Okay that's, I wanted to clarify that. And then I'm so happy to have number 6. That added thing in there about specific building orientation, increased setback. That was really one of the key things I believe that we're shooting for for this whole year. Now in letter (q), that's really the heart of this here. We're talking about flag lots or private streets, should that be plural? Is there an s missing or should we just say a private street? A1-Jaff: Yes. Sacchet: We want the s? A1-Jaff: Yes you do. Q? Sacchet: In (q). A1-Jaff: Flag lots or private streets. Sacchet: Okay. And then you already said that by referring back to Section 18-22, if the criteria in there on Section 18-22 is met, criteria is plural. It probably should say are met. I didn't even notice that until now so excuse me. So that is, I bring in where the variance is and I think LuAnn your comment was certainly appropriate. But then on the other hand, 18-22 is not that far away for people to look it up. My concern was just to make sure that it's clearly anchored in that the variance is needed. Now I'd like to ask, that's sort of my key question here. Why did we put the private street and the flag lot together? I think up til the last meeting where we worked through this, we already had it on two separate tracks like parallel so to speak. And here we merge it together and I'd like to know why. What is the benefit or what's the process that led to merging the two into one thing? A1-Jaff: Two things. Number one, the criteria for flag lots, as well as private streets is identical. Sacchet: One doesn't go without the other basically? A1-Jaff: No. They have to meet the same criteria. 1 through 3. Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 Sacchet: Because one could go without the other? A1-Jaff: One could go without the other, absolutely. Sacchet: Actually in your example you have the flag lot, which I believe was a driveway. Not a private street. A1-Jaff: Correct. With a flag lot you're only serving one parcel only. Sacchet: Right, right. A1-Jaff: That has a neck to a public street. Sacchet: So we're saying because it has the same requirements... A1-Jaff: We put them together and we wanted to make sure that both of them go under the variance procedure. Sacchet: Let me take it one step further, and that should answer my question. Because when we look at the following condition exists as required, you have those three conditions. It appears to me only number 3 applies to flag lots specifically. If we look at the prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible and inappropriate to construct a public. That should say public.., cross out private. We don't want private in there, do we? That's another thing I wondered. On the condition 1 Sharmin. It's unfeasible and inappropriate to construct a public street, then we allow a private street? Or are we saying public/private street really clash of images? Saam: If I could. It also applies to flag lots though. I think so you could have possibly a private street where a flag lot comes off of that. A1-Jaff: Well we haven't had such, I can't think of such a scenario. Saam: Yeah. I'm just saying though, you could have that so then you may need to keep that private in there. At least that's the way I read it. Sacchet: Public/private street. I don't think we have defined. Blackowiak: Maybe an or instead of the slash. Sacchet: I think the, yeah that maybe should say or. Sorry I'm picky here but this is the time to try to get clear about these things. Okay. To construct a public or private street. The prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public or private street. In making this determination the city may consider location of existing property lines, homes, local or geographic condition and the existence of wetlands. So this applies, does this apply to both flag lots and private streets? A1-Jaff: It should. Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 Sacchet: It actually does. Once we untangle that public/private, it does apply to both, okay. A1-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: I'm happy with that one. Number 2. After reviewing the surrounding area, bear with me please. It is concluded that an extension of the public or private street system is not required to serve the other houses in the area, improve access. A1-Jaff: This one means you don't automatically get a flag lot. That you need to investigate the other options which include public street, private street. Your third option is. Sacchet: So it does address both, okay. A1-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. Alright. Now that answers my question really well. And then of course the last one addresses both and that's clear. Good, thank you. Thanks for bearing with me. Blackowiak: Okay. Rich, any comments or questions? No. I have just a little question here Sharmin. Uli started with Section (o) 1, 2 and 3 and you struck out the up to the 4 lots in the A-2, RR, RSF, and R-4 districts. Then we go back to a number 1 and we're bringing those districts back in. I'm not quite following. I need a little help here. A1-Jaff: We're allowing. Blackowiak: We're allowing them in business, industrial, etc. A1-Jaff: Without a variance. Blackowiak: Without a variance. Okay, and then we get down to the number 1. Do we need to talk about when they're allowed in these A-2, RR, RSF, and R-4 districts or how do we get there from? A1-Jaff: In number, I see. Sacchet: It's the second number 1. Blackowiak: Right. The second number 1. Almost the middle of the page. A1-Jaff: So it's sequencing? Blackowiak: I think so. I'm not quite sure. I was just a little confused because it above in the letter (o) it struck out those specific districts and then in the number 1 below that, the second number 1 below that it added them back and I'm just kind of curious, do we need to explain why they're back there? And I don't have an answer for that. It's more of a question then an answer or a comment. A1-Jaff: These are the specifications for a private driveway. Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 Blackowiak: Where we need to say that they would be possible in these districts with a variance or, I mean what do we need to say because it just doesn't flow well to me. And I guess I don't need to belabor it right now but maybe some word smithing between the time that we see it and it goes to council. Uli, do you have a suggestion? Sacchet: Yes, but go ahead Sharmin. Do you have something? A1-Jaff: I was going to suggest that you add it under (q) that they would meet the specifications outlined in. Sacchet: That's what I was going to say. I mean since the letter (o) does not relate anymore to this districts, while (q) does. It should be going under (q). Blackowiak: Okay, I'm happy with that. I just want to make sure that we're kind of tying it all together. A1-Jaff: We can do that. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Alright, any more comments or questions on Section 18-577 If not, we'll move onto 18-58. Alleys. 18-59. Blocks. Sacchet: Are we at 60? Blackowiak: Rightnow. 18-60. Sacchet: Yes. (a). Lower case a. All lots shall abut for their full required minimum frontage on a publicly dedicated street as required by the zoning ordinance or be accessed. Should there be a be in there? Or be accessed via private street or flag lot which shall have minimum. I think the be is missing. Instead of that crossed out on. Does that make sense? Is that English? Blackowiak: All lots shall abut their full required minimum frontage on a publicly dedicated street as required by the zoning ordinance or on a private. Well. Sacchet: Or be accessed. Blackowiak: You could say or be accessed or you could even take accessed via out of there and say or on, just how it was kind of. Or on a public.., full required minimum frontage, whether it be a private street or public street. Correct? That's what we're looking for. Sacchet: Right, and they need to be accessed or it's one of the options they be accessed via a private street. Blackowiak: Right. Okay. Well Sharmin we can kind of, Section (a) just clarify in some way, shape or form, all lots shall abut their full required minimum frontage on a publicly dedicated street as required by the zoning ordinance. Sidney: Or on a private street. Blackowiak: Or on a private street, because that's, to me that makes a little more sense. Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 Sacchet: If you go back to all lots shall, number 1... Number 2, be accessed via. I mean if you go linguistically, it all goes back to the all lots shall. A1-Jaff: May I point something out? Blackowiak: Please. A1-Jaff: This parcel. Here is your property line. Here is the front property line on this parcel. It is not on. Blackowiak: The private street, yeah. A1-Jaff: ...via. Blackowiak: The private drive. A1-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: Let's say be accessed then. Not on. Yeah, that's a good reason why not to say on. Blackowiak: I agree. I'm convinced. Sacchet: So we add the word be. Be accessed. Blackowiak: Okay. I'm happy. Any other questions on 18-607 I have one. The lot remnants. Could we further define that? I mean a lot remnant is what? I mean just a little. A1-Jaff: You'll see a. Blackowiak: An outlot or what? A1-Jaff: Let me use the, the road came through. Now granted, these are substantially larger than, this is a fairly small scale. Blackowiak: Right. A1-Jaff: But if it would have created a parcel that was 100 feet long and 20 feet deep, it doesn't meet any of the standards of the ordinance. It's unbuildable. I would consider that to be a remnant lot. Blackowiak: Okay. Well maybe we could just, remnants that are. Sidney: Remnant lots are prohibited. Blackowiak: Remnant lots? Yeah, remnant lots. Yeah, just switch them around. That's good. Remnant lots. Okay, that's simple enough. Sacchet: Should we say unusable remnant lots? I mean do you want to validate... ? Blackowiak: I think by definition a remnant lot is unusable. Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 Sacchet: Okay, because I was thinking if you have a development of lots and then all except one, that's a lot. Blackowiak: Not if, not if it's platted as a lot. It would be. Sacchet: It's the one that remains. Remnant lot. I mean it's logical thinking. That's why I'm saying, if we imply it's unusable, maybe it'd help to be... Blackowiak: But the owner would still own it, or the developer would still own it. I don't know. Sacchet: It doesn't make that much of a difference. I think if we want to be real clear. Blackowiak: Well think about it Sharmin. Come to a decision before City Council. Decide if you want to deal with that or not. Okay. 18-61. Landscaping and tree preservation requirements. Do you have any comments on 18-61 ? I have one little comment on number 7 near the end. It talks about conservation easements. Generally Sharmin, conservation easements are recorded. A1-Jaff: Again the property. Blackowiak: Again the property. Do we need to mention that? I mean maybe just say that they should be recorded? I mean I guess as a matter of course they are. Is that, is it information that would be helpful? I don't know. I don't have an answer to that. I'm just kind of throwing. A1-Jaff: I'm reading it but. Saam: Madam Chair, if I could just add typically easements are recorded so in my mind by definition an easement is recorded. Blackowiak: It's just redundant? Saam: Yeah. Blackowiak: Okay, that's fine. I'm fine with that. I just wanted to make sure that I was looking into that. Rich, did you have a question on this section? Slagle: Yeah, on 61. Sacchet: Which one? Slagle: 18-61. Are we on 61 yet? Blackowiak: Yes we are. Slagle: Okay. All the way to the very end, 11. Financial guarantees acceptable to the city shall be required, and I don't know if this area, this sub-point talks to the concern that I know I've addressed. Uli's addressed. Craig's addressed, is to how do we guarantee that people adhere to for any damage to trees to whatever, natural resources and I guess my question is, what is an acceptable financial guarantee? I mean Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 what is the folks, the one right next to the church. The old church. What are they putting down as a financial guarantee that those large trees will not be damaged? Is it 50 bucks? Is it 1,0007 A1-Jaff: We receive a bid from the contractor and then we take 110% of whatever that value is. Slagle: So additional 10% to protect. Okay. A1-Jaff: Correct. And if the requirement is to preserve trees before any grading takes place, we require the fencing to go up. Jill Sinclair, our City Forester would go out there. Make sure that all the trees that are supposed to be saved are tagged and fenced. Slagle: Well let me ask this. One of my first meetings, and Matt I think you addressed it, we voted on what to provide as an escrow or protective amount and we ended up with a minimum, and I apologize for not remembering what it was, but is that what we're talking about here or is that a totally separate, in essence an escrow account? Saam: That was by definition for erosion control. Sometimes those areas cross together when you're talking slopes, trees. You know we want silt fence around the trees so little bit of a gray area but we do have, I think what Sharmin was referring to was landscape escrows. That's just for trees so. A1-Jaff: It's been a while since I looked at the figures but typically it's approximately $250 for a tree. And then you take that at 110%. Slagle: Okay. So, I mean ifI can summarize and what I think I hear is $250. 110% so 275. A1-Jaff: Per tree. Slagle: Per tree. A1-Jaff: And it depends on the species of the tree as well. Slagle: Sure. And 275 will get you in essence a starter tree. A1-Jaff: Correct. Slagle: Okay. So in essence you know one of these 30 some inch trees that we talked about preserving could unfortunately get damaged, die and what will replace it will be a starter tree. In essence. Worst case scenario. A1-Jaff: If it's a 30 inch that was proposed to be saved, then you replace it with 30 inch calipers, 2 ½ inch minimum each so you will have 30 divided by 2 ½. Slagle: Okay. And the feeling is we're pretty tight on that? Okay. A1-Jaff: It's been working. Slagle: Fair enough. Okay. Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 Blackowiak: Okay. Any more on 18-617 Let's go to 18-62. 18-63. Surface water management. I have one comment on the second page on the right hand page Sharmin. Second line down. Subdivision will be given a credit for any on-site storm. That should be two words. A1-Jaff: Yes. Blackowiak: Just clean it up a little bit. 18-76. Any questions? Easements. This is Article IV. 18-77. 18-78. Okay, 18-79. Parkland dedication requirements. Okay Sharmin, I have a question on that. On the second page there's a table of the calculations. The population calculations. I remember Kate saying that the 2000 census numbers came in and she was really surprised by some of the numbers that she had seen. Based on those numbers and that information, are we comfortable with the numbers that we have in here or should we be updating those as well? A1-Jaff: Single family was at. Blackowiak: 3.7 or something like that. Slagle: I thought it was higher. Blackowiak: Yeah, I remember them being a little higher so I'm just wondering if we shouldn't be, you know if it's 3.7, 7.4, you know what I mean? Whatever it is. I think we should look into at least adjusting this for a current census data. A1-Jaff: I will make a point. Blackowiak: I mean since we're going through this. A1-Jaff: I will make a point of that. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Okay, that's my comment for 18-79. Now we're into Section 20. A1-Jaff: And before you go over Section 20. Everybody got a copy of. Blackowiak: Adding the (q). A1-Jaff: Again with Section 20, there was no definition of boulevard yet it's a term that's used in the zoning ordinance. Clarifying the meaning of driveway. The only addition that you received to date was street. The definition of street. Blackowiak: And I guess Sharmin we could add occupied by a roadway or whatever that verbiage was. A1-Jaff: Yes. Blackowiak: From the earlier section. Thank you. A1-Jaff: And then Section. Blackowiak: Section 20-1103, which refers back to the requirements. Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 A1-Jaff: Of the variance. Blackowiak: Right, okay. Okay, any questions on those? Sacchet: Yeah. On the definition of the setback. A1-Jaff: Yes. Sacchet: Setback means the minimum horizontal distance between a structure and the nearest property line or right-of-way. A1-Jaff: And I have an answer for you. Sacchet: And within shoreland areas. I'm still thrown by that within shoreline areas. I know there are setbacks within the shoreline area but the way it's worded here is, I felt very. A1-Jaff: Okay, within shoreland areas comma, and put in a small s for setback. Sacchet: Comma setbacks. A1-Jaff: So and, within shoreland areas setbacks also means the minimum horizontal distance between a structure or sanitary facility and the OHW. Sacchet: Okay. That does make sense. Excellent. I love it. Thanks Sharmin. Slagle: You thought you had her, didn't you? A1-Jaff: He did have me when he called. Sacchet: I gave her forewarning of this one. Good job. Blackowiak: Okay, any other questions or comments on this section? Okay, well. As I said I will open this item up for comments. So if you'd like to come up and comment on any of these fun and exciting amendments to Chapters 18 and 20, please feel free to do so. I would just ask that you state your name and address for the record and if you could go through numerically, similar to what we did, that would be very helpful for us to follow. So if anybody would like to make any comments. Teresa Meier: I'm Teresa Meier and I'm at 1060 Lake Lucy Road. I want to go back to, let's see. It is 18-57. And it goes back to the (q) which I know was brought up before with flag lots or private streets. If you read it and you read the conditions below, I think you would want to take the private street out because if you say flag lots or private streets serving up to 4 lots may be permitted if the criteria on Variance 18-22 are met and if the city finds the following conditions, the prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. I don't know why, if you put private street you're really being redundant there because you're saying that you're private flag lot or private street may be permitted if the development pattern is unfeasible to construct a public street. But then you're using private in there again. See what I'm trying to say? Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 Blackowiak: Yeah I think, I understand what you're saying. Sharmin, is this the discussion about the driveway. The private drive versus private street or what are we, when we're talking. Teresa Meier: Private streets on the top and in that condition. Blackowiak: Right. No, I understand that. What do you think Sharmin? A1-Jaff: I know why it's there. Your first option is a public street. Second option is a private street. Your third option is a flag lot. Blackowiak: Okay, I understand what you're saying too. So then maybe in (q) we need to separate flag lots and private streets. And I'm not sure, you know what I'm saying. Just to take that private street out of there. Sacchet: I personally think it would be safer to have it separate, the flag lot from the private street. Just avoid this type of confusion. Blackowiak: In other words, let me just offer a suggestion. Read, flag lots may be permitted in the A-2, RSF, blah, blah, blah district, if the city finds the following conditions exist, 1, 2 and 3. Leave those as it is and then maybe add a condition R. Private streets serving up to 4 lots may be permitted in the A-2, RR, RSF, etc. And then in condition 1, take out the word private. So in other words, then we have conditions 1, 2 and 3 but then condition 1 would read only, the prevailing development pattern makes it unfeasible or inappropriate to construct a public street. So in other words flag lots is addressing both the public and private street issue, whereas the private street is only addressed by the public street issue. Does that make sense? Sacchet: The same would hold true for number 2, because there we also say private or. Blackowiak: Or public. Sacchet: So the private would come up there as well. Blackowiak: Okay, so then when we talk about flag lots we talk about public and private streets. And then when we go to condition, what would be condition r or Section r, we would talk about private streets serving up to 4 lots. The same 3 sub-conditions, 1, 2 and 3 but take out the mention of private streets on those 3. Would that all mesh together? Is that what you're trying to get at? Okay. Teresa Meier: Yeah. Sacchet: It applies to number 3 also. It applies to all 3 of them, yeah. Teresa Meier: Okay, so we just have to take out the private street mention when we talk about private streets but if we just kept r separate and broke it out, I think that's what you were talking about earlier. Sacchet: Right. I prefer to go that route. That's why I was trying to understand why staff in discussion with the attorney found it beneficial to merge them. I personally think it'd be better to keep them separate. A1-Jaff: Okay. We can do that. Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 Blackowiak: Okay, great. Good comment. Anything else? Teresa Meier: No. Blackowiak: No? Okay. Debbie. Debbie Lloyd: Hi. My name's Debbie Lloyd. I live at 7302 Laredo Drive, and just first offI want to say I'm really disappointed I didn't have a chance to review this until I walked in here tonight. I couldn't, unless I missed something and the Paulsen's missed something, I didn't see it published as an agenda item in the Villager for the last 2 weeks. It was also not on the web site today, and as you all know you asked if we could review this beforehand. We've put in about a year's worth on all of this and there's just a lot of fine detail that I can't even recollect. Blackowiak: Yeah. Okay, just so. Debbie Lloyd: I do know I can address it in writing but I did want to state that because I think that is a real problem with the city is informing citizens and if we've been on top of things, and we don't even know. Blackowiak: Right. Well this item is not technically open for public hearing. I just thought that you know I would like to open it up tonight and I certainly encourage you to do any comments in writing and also Sharmin, correct me if I'm wrong. This was in the packet that went out Thursday so it would have been available up in City Hall on Thursday. Okay. So this was in the packet on Thursday, which is when we all get. Debbie Lloyd: It wasn't noticed. There wasn't notice in the paper and as far as I know there should be notice in the paper. Blackowiak: Not if it's not a public hearing. Sacchet: The agenda was published. Blackowiak: This isn't, the agenda was published. Yeah. Debbie Lloyd: Was this in the agenda? Sacchet: Yeah I'm pretty sure. Debbie Lloyd: Published in the paper? Blackowiak: As far as I know. You know again. Sacchet: I believe it was, but I'm not 100% sure. I usually look in the paper because I look there before I get the package. Blackowiak: Well regardless. Like I said, it was available on Thursday so if you have comments. If you could just go through section by section. Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 Debbie Lloyd: Well I do have. I think we'll probably be addressing most everything in writing. Section 18-37(a). Basically you're exempting lots from having to go through the platting procedure if they're on an existing public street or private street. That does not clarify private streets with up to 4 lots so I think that could be misconstrued because all the way along we say there can only be a maximum of 4 lots there by a private street. So that little clarification is not in that section. Blackowiak: Okay, Sharmin can you look into that? Okay. Debbie Lloyd: Your comments on 18-41 about the 30 day notification. This is just an off the wall comment. I'm surprised the city would want to have the burden of needing to notify the citizens because that is a burden. I think the citizen should be on top of their own, what they want to do with their own property and lot. If they brought it for approval to the city, if they've let it expire I think it's their burden. Not staff to have to follow. Blackowiak: That's a good point and you know I wish that everybody was really on top of things. Sharmin, is this a state law that we're following or where did this come from? Do you know? Sacchet: Service oriented. A1-Jaff: It is a city ordinance. Blackowiak: Okay. I'm just wondering if we're following state law on something or if it's just. A1-Jaff: We don't want, what we don't want to see happen is a preliminary plat comes in. It's approved and it sits and ordinances change and nothing happens with them without a deadline. Blackowiak: Okay. Debbie Lloyd: I mean there's a year deadline I believe for preliminary plat approval. A1-Jaff: Yes. Debbie Lloyd: Also then, Section 18-57 under (b). Blackowiak: B as in boy? Debbie Lloyd: Yes. We take the effort here of defining the width of the streets. Private street has a defined width. It's 30 feet. It's a private street easement of 30 feet. There's requirements in the code, I could dig them up but I'll just leave that as a comment. Blackowiak: Sharmin, any comment on that? A1-Jaff: We can add it. Blackowiak: It could be added to the table, okay. Debbie Lloyd: Under the same 18-57(o). I don't know if it's good to strike up to 4 lots there. That's just only a comment because again carrying that through might be a wise thing to do. Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 Blackowiak: Yeah, I think this whole area has a little more word smithing to do before it reaches council that's for sure. Sharmin, any comments? A1-Jaff: What we did was we struck out the up to 4 lots in (o) but then we moved it actually to (q). Blackowiak: Okay, that's right. So it has not been eliminated entirely. Sacchet: That's where it really applies is in (q). Blackowiak: Is in (q), okay. A1-Jaff: Correct. Because densities that are higher than R-4. Blackowiak: Are addressed. A1-Jaff: Are addressed and there are more than 4 units being served via a driveway. Sacchet: It's a different. A1-Jaff: It just has different classifications. Debbie Lloyd: I'm mostly concerned about the RSF. A1-Jaff: And that is under (q). Blackowiak: Under (q), okay. Thanks Sharmin. A1-Jaff: Sure. Debbie Lloyd: I have a problem with 18-60(a). The original intent of private streets, and I can provide all the lingo back years from when it was approved by Planning Commission and City Council, was not to create the opportunity for anyone to just cut a driveway through their neighbor's lot. Now if there's a 30 foot width, 30 foot easement or right-of-way that helps with the setback, and that's really one of our concerns because you could have indiscriminate driveways, as you'd call them, going through parcels of land and I think we're going to have to write that up a little bit more. Blackowiak: Okay. Debbie Lloyd: Indeed this could be a flag lot ideally. Blackowiak: Could you flip it up the other way. There we go. Now which one are you referring to? Sacchet: The one with the long driveway? Debbie Lloyd: This is a private street easement as it would be called.., or a private drive or a driveway. In order to subdivide the original intent was, there has to be, it has to be, each lot has to meet the minimum frontage requirement. Like you said before, 30 feet is the minimum would be a flag lot and that was Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 designed originally a private street. If you go back to 1990, that's what the council at that time approved as a quote, ;;private street". I have to tell you that we researched how many private streets there actually are. There were like 4 private residential streets I think that were approved that were never even built on. Most of the private streets, if you look on the city plats, are not really RSF private streets. They're in PUD's and I think that's very different than RSF situation. Sacchet: Just to clarify the example you showed on the drawing Debbie. Basically what were you trying to show Sharmin, the idea of flag lot versus having just an easement to get across, because I know there are situations where people just have an easement and not necessarily own the land, but the have a right-of-way easement. A1-Jaff: State law permits them. We want to stay consistent with the state law. Sacchet: So it's anchored beyond our grasp. Our reach anyhow, okay. Debbie Lloyd: But in order to subdivide you have to have a minimum requirement of frontage. So that's where it gets sticky. Sacchet: Right, right. Debbie Lloyd: I think there was one other little, yeah back to Section 20-1. Definitions. Lot line means a line of record bounding a lot which divides one lot from another from a roadway right-of-way or other public space. I had a big question there. I can't, I know in my mind it's pertaining to setback. Blackowiak: Or even, roadway right-of-way or other lot. I mean it maybe needs to be expanded a little bit because those aren't the only two possible dividing roadway and public space are not the only two possible neighbors for a lot let's say. We could have another lot. We could have a private space that isn't, you know what I'm saying? Yeah, so I agree. We need to maybe expand that just a little bit Sharmin to. A1-Jaff: If you look at the definition of lot, because.., we decided to leave it as is. Blackowiak: To leave it separate because you've expanded in the definition of lot. A1-Jaff: Because definition of lot, plats, metes and bounds, subdivision, occupied or intended to be occupied by a principle building, group of such buildings, accessory buildings. It really covers. Blackowiak: Okay. So then you're comfortable just leaving it there because it's defined right above? A1-Jaff: Correct. Blackowiak: Okay. I understand. Sacchet: Understand Debbie? Debbie Lloyd: Yeah. Okay, that's it. Thank you very much. I know you're tired... Sacchet Thank you Debbie. Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 Blackowiak: Rich, did you have a comment? Slagle: Yeah, and I can address them Debbie as you sit down. First of all it was, Debbie, in the paper. Upper left page 10, so I just wanted to let you know but my point of making a comment is this. Wonderful job on this, and I know time and effort plus, plus, plus has been put into this. But I have to share to the city staff as a whole my disappointment in what appears to be some serious and sincere efforts by residents who are our customers, point blank. That is who we serve and to hear with their energy and their time they've put into this and I'll be honest, more well versed than I on this commission, and to hear that we didn't even invite them to participate from a month or two ago when I asked that they be involved. I know they gave input, and I would just think we would look at them as an additional resource to further assist us. Now I know that they're not the ones to make these decisions. That's our role and the council's, but I would just again ask for your consideration that they be brought in, in some form of discussion because we've already come up with 3 or 4 points that are raised that at least raise a question for us that we're not directing back to staff and I hope it's nothing that they're doing that's causing us not to seek their input. And again I just, this time I really want to strongly ask that we seek their input. Why not? So, that's all I wanted to say. Blackowiak: And I think we did a really good job of going through this tonight, because it was pretty, not the most scintillating reading at times but it is nice to go through and get comments and that's one reason I wanted to make sure we opened it up for public hearing tonight. And also you know written comments are always appreciated and I think that's maybe even more appropriate than specific meetings which are often not well attended. And then we get charged with not including people and those types of things but I mean written comments I think are always a very good way and it's easy to refer and you've got your comments and if we can go down section by section, I think it really makes it easier and very helpful for all of us because this is not a very easy thing to go through. Not terribly exciting at times. Anyway, I think what we need to do is, do we need, we don't need to make a motion do we? Sacchet: I think we do need to make a motion. Blackowiak: Do we need to make a motion? Sacchet: I'm anxious to make a motion. Blackowiak: With comments and changes and public input and then any other written comments that may come in, you know and just kind of send that all to council. Sacchet: Do you want me to comment on this? Blackowiak: Sure, go ahead. Sacchet: I mean I was prepared last time when this came up just for our information, I felt very clear that I would like to pass this through to council so we have something in place for the flag lot and private street aspect. And really the heart of that is two things. One is that we are requiring a variance for flag lots and private streets. We are requiring a variance. And then the other thing is that we specify what type of conditions that could possibly be attached, which we expressed by saying specific building orientation, increased setbacks, so we set an expectation of what we would possibly attach as conditions. That's at the heart of it. But in order to put that in place, I was told at the previous meeting that we have to have all the definitions lined up. I do believe that we lined up our definitions very well. I think it's a tremendous job Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 and it was done in very short time. I think it's extremely commendable. I believe that it's very appropriate to make a motion to pass the heart of what we were trying to accomplish, and at the same time we accomplished a ton more. We put definitions in place. We lined up some of the wordings and some of the way this is understood in the rest of the context. And I certainly invite, if there are residents that have comments to make, to make those in writing and I do regret that you didn't have a chance to look at that a little bit beforehand. That is unfortunate. But I do believe that a lot of what we see in front of us is a direct result of your input Debbie and the Paulsen's and I think you have been heard. It's unfortunate that in this last stage you weren't included a little more proactively. I regret that personally but I'm sure you have a chance to give your input still in writing into this process as it is going onto council. And I do think we would want to make a motion from the Planning Commission to pass it on as we discussed tonight with emphasis on those points that we want a variance as private. Blackowiak: Well be my guest. Sacchet: So yes. So my motion, if you want me to make a motion, I do make a motion. Slagle: Now you know you can, ifI can just point of clarification. From what we learned by the City Council, you can make a motion as discussed tonight, as included in here and that really is it. Sacchet: That's it. Slagle: That's right. Sacchet: That's it. I mean the motion basically that we recommend approval of the attached amendments to Chapter 18 and 20 as shown in the report and as further discussed tonight with, and I would like to say with emphasis of introducing the variance procedure to the flag lot and private street environment, and by defining or giving the indication what type of conditions could be attached, because that's at the heart of it. That's my motion. Blackowiak: Alrighty. And do we have a second? Slagle: Second. Blackowiak: Okay, it's been and seconded. Sacchet moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission of the attached amendments to Chapter 18 and 20 as shown in the report and as further discussed, with emphasis on introducing the variance procedure to the flag lot and private street by defining or giving the indication of what type of conditions could be attached. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 4 to 0. Blackowiak: This goes to City Council what date Sharmin? Do you have a date for this yet or not? A1-Jaff: I shall do my best. Blackowiak: Okay, but it will be in the paper like it was last time? Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 A1-Jaff: It will be in the paper. Bear in mind that what I'm working on now is going through the rest of the chapters, so at that point 20 chapters will go before the City Council. Kate and I talked about it, whether we should have a work session with them first because. Blackowiak: That would probably be really good to get them up to speed because this is something that unless you spend a lot of time looking at it, it's very formidable. A1-Jaff: Yes. Blackowiak: Okay. So you'll just keep us apprised of when it's going to council and we would appreciate that I think. Alright. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: LuAnn Sidney noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 5,2001 as presented. ONGOING ITEMS. A1-Jaff: Actually I have one, I've heard a comment often from Planning Commission regarding the last CSM building that was built. It's brick with gray block on top. Slagle: CSM? Blackowiak: CSM on East Lake Drive. Or Lake Drive East. A1-Jaff: Right next to Abra. Slagle: Okay. A1-Jaff: And it faces Highway 5. That it looks like it's unfinished. So gave them a call and they came visited the site and they agreed. They're not required to but they're doing it and there are two options. And they were separating today some of the parking lot.., painting the existing block with warmer colors. Down below the windows it would be a shade of brown. Up on top it would be a shade of beige. The other option to go with the same color both on top and the bottom. Staff prefers the darker under the windows, lighter up on top. Blackowiak: Boy either way I think we're gaining something so I would certainly encourage them to do whatever works. I think it's great that you made the phone call and. A1-Jaff: They're wonderful to work with. Blackowiak: Great. That's nice to hear. A1-Jaff: Very responsive. Sidney: We had a discussion about painted block before and are they going to, indicated that they'll repaint it when necessary? Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 A1-Jaff: That's one of the things we're waiting on right now. We're going to ask for a guarantee on the paint. Typically they last 10 years, the type of paint that the city will approve. And CSM is pretty committed to their building. I mean they always keep them up. Sidney: Well it has to look good on Highway 5, otherwise they're not... Blackowiak: Great. Well that's nice to hear. Okay, any other ongoing items Sharmin? A1-Jaff: Kate listed all the items that staff is working on. Really your next session is going to be full. Blackowiak: I heard that and Kate mentioned that she would try to maybe get the packet out a day earlier or something so we'd have a little extra time to go over things because it sounds like it is a full agenda so, it would be nice to have it early I think. OPEN DISCUSSION. Blackowiak: Okay, open discussion. I know LuAnn you had something you wanted to talk about. Sidney: A couple things I guess, since the next meetings going to be really long, it sounds like and a full agenda. I'm thinking maybe either the Chair or Vice-Chair might put out a notice and encourage commissioners to call ahead and discuss things with staff. Maybe that could expedite things. So I think maybe the commission should take that on. Blackowiak: Certainly, I will do that. Sacchet: E-mail. Blackowiak: E-mail. Sidney: And then also I guess listening to the discussion following the discussion about the ordinance amendments to chapter, well additions to Chapters 18 and 20, I guess I'm wondering if we have in place an understanding of what is the process for making or suggesting ordinance amendments and I'm wondering if that should be clarified because I was kind of surprised that everything came a public hearing right away, or at least that was my experience and maybe if we talk about dealing with that maybe on a workshop level or a work session level first. And I really think that's the point where we get the most citizen and resident input because I believe the intent of the commission is to be the interface with the residents. We are the representatives of City Council and I think at that point that's where we should have the most impact and the most contact with people in the community. And in that forum that we can bring forth the things that are of concern. Then you move to the next level which might be involvement with staff. Staff will have input and then we move into the public hearing format, and at that point everything should be worked out and it should go smoothly but I think we were dealing, like tonight, you know more in a work session format than really necessary. And I guess I'd like to make a comment too that I was surprised, even though this seems to be an important type activity and we've had numerous discussions about the amendments, I still as a commissioner have received no calls from residents about the amendments to the ordinance and I guess I'm a little surprised about that. Usually in public hearings or anything of that nature, development issues, citizens will call so I'd just like to make that comment. So I guess to wrap up all that blabbering, I'd make a suggestion as to how we approach these in the future and maybe step back and not go right to the public hearing is the first step. Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 Blackowiak: That's a good thought. I mean I think we got a lot done tonight but yeah. Maybe it is more of a work session interfacing and discussing. Sacchet: Well we were lucky that we didn't have a very full agenda. It kind of lend itself tonight for this but it was more workshop than anything. Sidney: And I think, you know what I view our role is, is like I said, to interface and be a direct contact with the residents and then really take the burden off of staff and off of City Council in these kinds of discussions, so anything we can do to help staff and City Council I think we should do. Blackowiak: Good point. Okay. Any other discussion? Rich? Slagle: Go ahead. Sacchet: Yeah, I do have one thing. And just to add to LuAnn's comment. We're representing the citizens on one hand and on the other hand to council. It works both ways. The discussion I have is, I already mentioned this to Kate and I want to bring it up here for the record that I think it's something we could consider as a city, it'd be nice to have a historic preservation ordinance of sorts. I don't think we have anything along those lines at this point in our city. I don't think it's a really high priority but I would like to add it to the action items that we are working on that eventually address. I do have, and this was brought up to me by a resident and I do have some copies here that were collected for, actually it is on there already. Wow! Blackowiak: Yeah, I was going to say, it is on there already. Sacchet: Well I don't know it might have been put on based on my comments. Blackowiak: So is that for staff then to look at? Sacchet: I'd like to throw that at staff. It's some examples. Apparently Chaska has quite extensive framework for it. There is something for Bloomington. There is Eden Prairie also has something, and I think it would be a nice, overall addition to our city so I'll pass that on. Blackowiak: Well it's on the list so just keep checking these off. Sacchet: I've been heard before I even said it here. That's really encouraging, thank you. Blackowiak: Okay, Rich. Did you want to? Slagle: Sure, just two things that I wanted to discuss briefly, and they're both I guess sort of again reminders of what I brought up but I haven't seen it come back yet. And the one is a discussion I made in open discussion, oh 3 meetings ago or so about sidewalks. And I noticed in Section 18-59 1 almost stopped us and asked, but it says pedestrian ways may be required on blocks longer than 900 feet, or in other areas to provide access to schools, parks and other destination points. And I guess I just want to, not tonight but I want to hear in a work session format what staff's position on sidewalks is because I have yet to see any requirements for a sidewalk and it's again, something that I'm interested in. And then the last thing is, is the idea of a training session and that could coincide with a work session, because I think it's Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 absolutely critical that myself and new folks here get an introduction to the city, to what staff's complete role is. Their objectives. How they see things and I laughed with Uli and I laughed with this earlier but a flag lot, I thought they had flag poles initially and you know that could be I'm really ignorant but my guess is most residents when you say a flag lot would be like, you know something to do with flags. And so I really, and to me when I look on these lists, I think training or an introduction is as critical as some of these so I don't know how I go about making a case to get a training session. I'll just keep bringing it up until we get one. Blackowiak: Well I think one good thing is that there are other training sessions offered by GTS. Government Training Service. And I've attended one. Slagle: And I know the benefits but I really want to know. Blackowiak: Specifics, right. And I was going to say Sharmin, do you know if we have any kind of a work session on the books? I mean normally we have 2 a year. A1-Jaff: Kate is working on that. Blackowiak: Okay, because that would certainly be something that I think we all could benefit from, whether we've been on the commission for you know a couple few years or not. Sidney: Yeah, and I think to have Roger there... Blackowiak: Exactly. Slagle: Absolutely. Sidney: Ask Roger those burning questions. Blackowiak: Because I remember before when we did the presentation of the pyramid and discretionary power and what you can and cannot do and levels of decision making. That's very good. I mean that's something we could all, or I certainly could use a refresher course on and I think that that would be good. Slagle: And one more just slide it into that. And that is, from my own experience, which is my own experience in Woodbury, the City Council and the Planning Commission, and I want to use the word often but often, I can't tell you whether that was twice, every 6 months or whatever the number was. They got together in work sessions and talked and I'm hoping that we get a chance to do that, because right now I think there's, in my opinion, there's an unfamiliarity at least in my role as to council's thoughts and objectives and what not. Blackowiak: And that would be nice for the council liaison to give some feedback to us and maybe at the open discussion at the end of every meeting, where have things gone. You know is there feedback? I mean that might be an appropriate time to talk about it too. Slagle: I'm done, thank you. Sacchet: Question. Are we still getting little summaries from council meetings? Or did we abandon that? Planning Commission Meeting - June 19, 2001 Blackowiak: Well I went to the council meeting that was less than an hour long that had to be adjourned because there wasn't a quorum. So that was not, there was not much to talk about. A couple things happened. They did the consent agenda. They did some visitor presentations and that was it. That was basically the meeting so there really wasn't much to report on. That was the meeting I attended which was maybe a month ago. I don't know who went to the last meeting. Sidney: It might have been me I guess. Slagle: I think you and I. Sidney: Yeah, you were there. I guess the only thing I remember was a lot of trail about trail easements and things like that and utility easements. And then also we had the Holiday Station came up and I guess there's going to be improvements and additions... Slagle: You know I should throw out to the group, and LuAnn I think was amazed as I was, and I did call Todd Hoffman afterwards and asked him just from my own position in trying to gain some background. How a house could have a trail easement literally to the wall and you know what his comment was, he goes, they're out there. He says it isn't just this house and I said, I'm just amazed that this just appeared and he said yeah, I mean there's a lot to the story but he said Rich, there are homes out there that the easements go right up, almost to the wall. I mean if that trail was built, here's the wall and literally here's the trail. Right next to their house. It's amazing. Blackowiak: Alrighty. Well any other discussion items? No? We are adjourned. Chairwoman Blackowiak adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:50 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim