PC Minutes 11-6-07
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 6, 2007
Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Jerry McDonald, Kurt Papke, Kevin Dillon, Kathleen Thomas,
Debbie Larson, Mark Undestad and Dan Keefe
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and Sharmeen AI-
Jaff, Senior Planner
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Debbie Lloyd
Janet Paulsen
7302 Laredo Drive
7305 Laredo Drive
PUBLIC HEARING:
LAKESIDE: REQUEST FOR MINOR PUD AMENDMENT TO ADJUST INTERNAL
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FROM 20 FEET TO 15 FEET AND ADJUST THE
WETLAND SETBACK CONSISTENT WITH CURRENT WETLAND SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS. APPLICANT: SIENNA CORPORATION. PLANNING CASE 07-23.
Public Present:
Name
Address
John Vogelbacher
4940 Viking Drive, #608, Edina
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: Kevin, you want to start?
Dillon: So just so I'm clear then, from the edge of the building to the edge of the wetland now
is?
Aanenson: 50.
Dillon: 50.
Aanenson: Correct. And that's consistent with the new classification that we go to Manage 1,
Manage 2. We used to have the Ag Preserve and Natural so this is consistent with the new
wetland regulations.
Dillon: Okay. And so then the 15 feet that's changing inbetween the building, I mean the city
doesn't really care about that?
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
Aanenson: No. We see that as a minor issue. They are 20 foot on the, the twin homes on the
north side, those are all 15 feet inbetween. So they'll be more with 20. We could have shifted
them all forward and maybe picked it up on this end but that building was already put in place
because they did as part of the first phase so it wasn't you know, otherwise we could have
probably kept that inbetween. But we certainly didn't want to give a variance to the wetland
setback. We had talked about that originally and that was one... didn't want to do that so since it
was an internal amendment for the PUD, not a variance, we thought that was the best way to go.
Dillon: Okay.
McDonald: Kurt?
Papke: I don't have anything.
McDonald: I don't have any questions either. Is the applicant here? Or representative. Do you
want to come up and address the commissioners? Is there anything you would like to add?
John Vogelbacher: My name is John Vogelbacher. I'm the Project Manager. I'm with Sienna
Corporation. I don't have really anything to add other than you know we had kind of a glitch in
our planning and that's unfortunate but I think in terms of result here we're not significantly
asking for any variances. It fits the project that we have in terms of building setbacks between
buildings and certainly meets the current ordinance for the wetland setback as well so we're
fortunate in that regard. Engineering staff and land planning so appreciate the opportunity to be
in the community. We're very happy with our project. As all things go we'd like things to be a
little bit better but it's been good so far so we're pleased with that.
McDonald: Okay. Does anyone, commissioners have any questions? Thank you very much.
Then at this point I would open up the podium for anyone wishing to make comment. To come
forward and as I said, please address the commissioners. State your name and address.
Deb Lloyd: Good evening. Deb Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I spoke up about this development
before and there are some items here I'd like to add for your consideration this evening. This
development, as you are aware, the final plat went to the city on October 23,2006. I don't know
if any of you have taken the time to read what went to the city then for approval, but I'm going to
read a little excerpt on it today. This development is gorgeous. You know there's no doubt
about that. It's going to be a beautiful addition to our city, but we did grant variances already for
this development. For the height of the structure and also there are people that live outside of
what we call the normal boundaries to use the beachlot. We granted that to them as well. I don't
quite understand what an amendment is. I look at it as another variance to allow something that
wasn't originally approved. To get approved for this. Condition number 4 on the final plat, a
minimum buffer of 16.5 to 20 feet shall be preserved around the perimeter of the wetland. All
structure, including parking lot, shall maintain a 40 foot setback from the wetland buffer. The
plans shall be revised to reflect the required wetland buffer and wetland buffer setback. It was a
condition. . .
2
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
McDonald: Excuse me Deb, could I interrupt you for a second because I'm not sure what the
relevance is and Kate, could you, I mean I understand the final plat went forward but if all this is
we're looking at adopting what is currently the setback requirements, how is the final plat that
went before the City Council relevant to any of this?
Aanenson: I believe the point that is trying to be made is that, because it was given relief before,
that maybe some additional relief shouldn't be given in the future, but.
Deb Lloyd: The point is the point I'm trying to make is that it was stated in here that it was a
condition that they have, that they apply that setback. And they didn't do it. It was a condition
of approval. In the staff report for this evening on page 2, towards the second to last paragraph
reads, the developer did not review the implications of the townhouse separation requirement
relative to the wetland setback. I mean this is a national builder. I think you have to have some
responsibility here as a builder. I mean I, Sienna Corporation's been around since 1977. They're
in Minneapolis, Palm Springs, Lake Havasu. They have developments everywhere. Oversight,
whatever. Where's the responsibility? So now it says we have to create essentially another
variance to allow this to occur. In my opinion you go over the variance findings. Another
interesting fact. The wetland buffer before was 16.5. Now it's 20. The buffer setback was 40
before. This is on your report. Now it's 30. So the setback was 56.5 in total before. Now it's
less. It's 50. So it's not only the fact that they're meeting the new standards. The new standard is
less. Additionally they're asking for a reduction in setbacks. The week that this was on the
agenda before at planning there was another gentleman that was described as a, really Jerry
described him as a really friendly kind of guy and he had built up, he had built a structure on the
side of his garage to house a motorcycle. And some different points were brought up there. Dan
brought up, do we end up with a potential issue with the fire being able to get to emergency
vehicles if you change the setback there? Setbacks are there for a reason Jerry said. Mr. Thomas
said, I can totally understand setbacks. Ifwe grant them like this it creates a slippery slope. I'm
sorry, Kathleen. Sorry. But setbacks are there for a reason. We have setbacks to ensure there's
open space and adequate light and air. Setbacks promote fire safety by spacing buildings. And
the other impact of this parcel is shoreland. So you're putting the buildings tighter together.
Once they let, that has never been actually done even on a final plat with the actual impervious
surface of this development. There's emails between the Paulsen's and City Council and Kate
and Todd that the impervious surface went from like 41.5, growing, growing, growing. Yeah it
may be under the 50% but do we really know what it is? And you're moving these buildings
together and tighter together. Do we know the effect of the runoff? I mean I just think that this
decision rests with the City Council. This is a political decision, in my opinion. If you go to
what your variance findings should be, you have to assure that, that you're really needing them.
The condition. The purpose is not based upon a desire to increase the value or the income
potential of the property. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self created hardship. It is
self created. Someone didn't do their job or someone thought oh we'll get this through. I mean
we already lowered the standards of the wetland setbacks. We already gave them that amount of
footage and now if you guys rubber stamp this, anyway thank you for listening.
McDonald: Okay, thank you.
Aanenson: Can I respond or comment or?
3
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
McDonald: Yeah, if you wouldn't mind.
Aanenson: Sure. A variance, a PUD is, there is no internal setback. That's something that we
established. So it is a different criteria for a variance as opposed to a side yard setback on a
residential district that has a standard that's not part of the PUD. That's standard. If you wanted
to say that they had to stay within that extra 5 1/2 feet, could you make all of the buildings
inbetween 15 feet? You can make that. I mean it's 15 across the street on the other side. That
continue the setback. And really the council was actually looking at going less on the, when they
were discussing the setback buffer, the staff felt strongly about keeping the buffer requirements
so we're talking about the 5 1/2 foot differential on that. And to go back and look at the original
variances, you have to put it in context of when we were discussing the merits of this project as
opposed to that it was already zoned residential high density. There was a lot of things that
could have gone in there. It was the desire, because it already had the entitlement on it, which
meant that they could come forward and advance the project. The city's goal was to get highly,
higher architecture and to do a PUD. They did not want to do a PUD. We suggested the PUD in
order to get the higher architecture. Instead of just a standard project which didn't need that
requirement, so we suggested the PUD. We also wanted to mix the product type in there. Not to
have all of one type, so in order to do the condominium projects that we don't have anything in
that market price point right now, there was a variance given to the height of those buildings.
That was the only variance. As a matter of fact if it would have gone in under the existing
standards, those buildings would be closer to all property lines because that underlying ordinance
allowed much closer setbacks. This PUD requires greater buffers around the perimeter of the
property line, so there's benefits we believe in doing the PUD and that's what was discussed at
the time that the PUD so those variances were given for the height. I'm not sure about the dock.
That dock is for the association members themselves. I'm not aware of anybody that this opened
up to except for association members. So with that we still feel that the best way to handle this is
an amendment which has a different criteria than the variance.
McDonald: Okay, because as I understand you're not asking us to vote on a variance. You made
that very clear up front so you're presenting an amendment to the PUD.
Aanenson: Correct.
Keefe: What is the difference between an amendment to the PUD and a variance?
Aanenson: Sure. The PUD is the design standards you put in place. And at that time they were
negotiated. There is no requirement between the buildings there so we at that time it was felt 20
foot seemed like appropriate. That's what they wanted and as it moved forward we put on the
condition, the wetland buffer setback had been put in place, and then with the retaining walls and
the like, recognized that it probably wouldn't work after we had the first building. Had that not
been done, they would have all slipped forward as I mentioned.
Keefe: There's a variance for setback between buildings because it's a PUD right?
Aanenson: Right.
4
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
Keefe: Okay. So that's allowed to have that smaller distance than we would require in another
zoning?
Aanenson: Correct.
Keefe: Okay. But it does say there's a variance for the wetland setback which was denied, but
then this is coming back really as an amendment to the setback...
Aanenson: Right, right. Right, so again what I'm saying is if you felt uncomfortable doing that,
right. Then you could make all the buildings, the 5 foot inbetween. Then you could make that.
So right now we're just suggesting the 2.
Keefe: In terms of the hard surface coverage, I mean this change wouldn't result in any
incremental would it necessarily?
Aanenson: I don't believe so. I can check. I'll verify that.
Keefe: ... they're not adding anything right?
Aanenson: No.
Keefe: They're just closer together.
Aanenson: Correct. But I could verify that for City Council. The percentage.
Dillon: So is the 50 foot setback from the edge of the wetland, is that applied to all projects of
this genre?
Aanenson: All of them, it depends upon the classification of the wetland. This one is classified
as a Manage 2 which has a 20 foot buffer requirement and a 30 foot setback from that.
Dillon: So there's nothing special being given or.
Aanenson: No. I guess the argument that was being made is when it came in it was under a
different, it had a different zoning. We've changed the setback requirement from the wetland.
That's the point of contention.
Keefe: And that's where the variance really comes into play because the variance was related to
that setback requirement, right?
Aanenson: Except you can make the same argument between the buildings. Correct.
McDonald: Does anyone else have any questions or need clarification?
5
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
Larson: Just one thing. Kate, just towards the. . . could they put the buildings 1 foot apart if they
wanted to within this district?
Aanenson: You'd have to give the amendment, correct. Correct.
Larson: But they could.
Aanenson: They could. Right.
Larson: Gotch ya.
McDonald: Does anyone else wish to come up and make comment.
Mary Borenson: I'm Mary Borenson. I'm here to support and agree with some of the things that
were presented by Deborah Lloyd regarding the impervious surfaces and modified setbacks.
And I have this copy from the DNR web site, which is not a very good copy but it shows that, it
shows the 12 lakes in the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek watershed district. I live on Frontier Trail
but I'm a member of the advisory committee for the Watershed District and it shows color coded
that the light, that the yellow lakes are 1.5 to 3 feet of clarity and they're all on the impaired list
so that includes Lake Riley, Mitchell, Lotus Lake, Red Rock, and Lucy. And it shows only 2
lakes in the watershed district are worst and those would be Rice Lake Marsh, which really is a
marsh, and Lake Susan. It shows a couple of lakes that are better in clarity but the 1.5 to 3 feet
of clarity puts it on the Minnesota 303 impaired list so the City is trying to make, is mandated to
make efforts to improve the water quality on that lake and do projects towards making it better.
And at this time Lake Riley is considered a recreational lake to support swimming and fishing
and according to these statistics it's marginally supporting swimming and it's possibly impaired.
And given this data any increase in phosphorous contribution could degrade or impair support
for swimming and any increase in phosphorous could further impede phosphorous reductions
needed to address downstream impairments in Riley Creek. So Riley Lake flows into Riley
Creek which is also on the same list. Storm water runoff is one of the most significant sources of
water pollution in the nation. At times it's comparable to if not greater than contamination from
industrial and sewage sources.
Dillon: Time out. What are we, are we getting off track here a little bit?
Mary Borenson: And maybe we are. My concern is for the lake itself and effects of the
impervious surface and changing the setbacks and. . .
Dillon: We just heard that the impervious surface isn't going to change. Or we'll verify that.
Mary Borenson: So the phosphorous and the runoff would, with the buildings being closer to the
lake will lead to more runoff.
Aanenson: They're not moving closer to the lake. We're moving 2 buildings closer to each
other. And actually this project puts storm water in there that wasn't being treated before.
Previously it was running right into the lake. This is the... that was approved. The... are over
6
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
here. This is the condominium building that hasn't been built yet. So these are the two projects
that are moving closer to each other. 5 feet closer to each other. So if you look at these, it'd be
these buildings right here moving closer to each other. So nothing's moving closer to the lake.
Papke: And those drain to the drainage pond?
Aanenson: They're all being pre-treated which wasn't happening under the previous project,
which again is one of the benefits when we looked at advancing this project, that it would clean
up an area that wasn't being treated before...
McDonald: Okay, before you go on. I'm getting very confused about all of this and I guess the
problem is, this seems to be, it was a pretty straight forward, simple thing coming in. This
development had a lot of controversy when it came up. This is being used as an opportunity to
re-open basically old wounds, then I'm not going to allow anyone else to come up forward and
speak about this. If you can't get to why this amendment should not be passed, then the rest of it
is beyond our capability. This development has already been approved. It is already being built.
The project is going forward. We have discussed the issue about water quality. The whole thing
about wetlands. There was a big discussion about that. That is in place. The developer has to
meet those standards. I don't see anything in here that's saying we're going to be changing those
standards. I don't see where that's up for issue at this so unless we can get back to issues that
deal with this amendment, I'm not sure what everybody's talking about and I think the
commissioners would share that feeling that we're talking about things that are beyond the scope
of anything that we can do with this amendment. So if there's not a point to this that leads back
to this, I would ask that you sit down.
Mary Borenson: Thank you for your time.
McDonald: Okay, thank you. Does anyone else wish to come forward and to address the issue
of this amendment and of basically just moving these buildings closer together so that it meets
the overall goals of what the city wants? Okay, at that point the public meeting is closed and I
would bring it back up for the commissioners for discussion and we would start with Mark.
Undestad: No. It's pretty straight forward to me. I mean we're not changing anything. Just by
the PUD, by creating the PUD that's where we correct, create all the issues we want to take care
of with the developer. That's why we created the PUD so, all that's been handled here. I don't
see an issue with this.
Larson: I agree. You know they're just shuffling things around within the PUD. It doesn't affect
anything else that's been approved. I don't see any problem with it.
McDonald: Kathy.
Thomas: Ditto.
Keefe: I'm a little bit troubled just in regards to the, now whether it's you know an amendment to
the PUD or whether we need to look at it in terms of it's an amendment to a variance. ... sort of
7
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
crystal clear on that. It isn't really clear in my mind. I guess regards to the issues, setbacks
between buildings, I think we need to think about all, you know and it probably isn't in context
with this, but to think about you know for arguing you know about setbacks between residential
houses and we're allowing this, to get this narrow between buildings. I think we may have a
potential consistency issue there. The runoff, I don't see any issue with the runoff because I don't
believe that it's, we're not adding additional hardscape. I don't believe. I think it's a net zero in
regards to the hardscape issue. I guess I'm kind of on the fence. I haven't resolved it in my mind
in regards to whether this amendment, I mean it doesn't, it seems like a pretty innocuous
amendment but that's my comment.
McDonald: Kevin.
Dillon: I think that the internal setbacks of 15 feet, I mean that is the issue for the developer.
You know it might have the effect of making the property a little bit less marketable just because
it's not as spacious but that's you know their issue. I hear what Dan's saying but I mean it's,
nothing is different than between two adjacent properties that are owned by different people.
Different families or whatever and so I am as well, you know keeping the 50 feet from the edge
of the wetland, I think that's fine. I want to thank the commissioner for bringing us back on task
here for this one too.
McDonald: Okay. I would just re-emphasize everything that you had said at this point. You
know I think I've already said I'm not seeing what the issue really is. The PUD has been settled.
At that point they have agreed to certain standards. What they do internal, I don't see where it's
covered by anything that we've got so I guess I just don't see this as being a big issue. If anyone
wishes to make a recommendation.
Papke: Mr. Chair, I make a motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the
City Council approve the amendment to the Planned Unit Development, PUD 06-26,
development design standards section c. Setbacks to read as stated in the staff report.
McDonald: Second?
Larson: Second.
Papke moved, Larson seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
that the City Council approve the amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD 06-
26) development design standards, section c. Setbacks, to read as follows:
c. Setbacks
The PUD ordinance requires setbacks from roadways and exterior property lines. The following
table displays those setbacks.
Setback Standards
Highway 212 50 feet
East(Perimeter) Lot Line 50 feet -townhouses/twin
8
Planning Commission Meeting - November 6,2007
Setback Standards
homes;
Building Height -
Condominiums with a
minimum of30 feet
Lyman Boulevard 50 feet/30 feet for beach lot
West(Perimeter) Lot Line 50 feet
Twin Home separation between buildings 15 feet
Townhouse separation between buildings 15 feet
Minimum Driveway length (to back of curb, trail or sidewalk) 25 feet
Hard Surface Coverage 50 % *
Wetland: Buffer and buffer setback 20 feet and 30 feet
Lake Riley 75 feet
# Decks, patios, porches, and stoops may project up to seven (7) feet in to the required yard.
* The entire development, including the public and private streets and Outlots, may not exceed
50 percent hard coverage. Individual lots will exceed the 50 percent site coverage.
All voted in favor, except Keefe who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1.
PUBLIC HEARING:
T-MOBILE: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN
REVIEW AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW A 145 FOOT TELECOMMUNICATION
TOWER WITH A 4-FOOT LIGHTNING ROD AND A 6 FOOT PRIVACY FENCE.
LOCATED WEST OF GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD. NORTH OF CREEKWOOD
DRIVE. SOUTH OF HALLA NURSERY. AND EAST OF BLUFF CREEK GOLF
COURSE (OUTLOT A. HALLA MARYANNE ADDITION). APPLICANT: T-MOBILE
USA. PLANNING CASE 07-04.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Steve Edwards
John Landwehr
Wendy Biorn
Jim Sabinske
Gary Anderson
Walter G. & Chrisann Arndt
501 50th Street West
22016 East Bethel Boulevard
555 West 1st Street, Waconia
775 Creekwood
725 Creekwood
10151 Great Plains
Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
McDonald: Mark.
Undestad: Yeah, just to help me out here but this all was approved and council went through the
whole thing.
9