Loading...
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