Loading...
PC 2001 03 06CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 6, 2001 Chairman Burton called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Matt Burton, Uli Sacchet, Deb Kind, Alison Blackowiak, Rich Slagle, and Ladd Conrad MEMBERS ABSENT: LuAnn Sidney STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Julie Hoium, Planner I; and Matt Saam, Project Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOCATED AT 220 WEST 78TM STREET, JACK AND PAULA ATKINS. Julie Hoium presented the staff report on this item. Burtom Questions? Uli. Sacchet; Yeah, 2 questions. Actually 3. Your drawing that you have up right now, you say the green is the current stoop. So we really are not coming out further than the stoop already was coming out? Hoium; No. We would somehow have to come out an additional half' a foot where the green is just to meet building code requirements. The concrete stoop, the addition and the entryway wouldn't come out any further. Sacchet: Okay, so we're not really coming out further except it's going to be more massive. Hoium: Yes. Sacchet: That's what I want to clarify. Then in the report I had two questions. On page 3 in the middle you say there are you other alternatives available to the applicant and then you continue and say there are no alternative locations to construct an addition that would not also require a variance. Which one is it? Hoium: Kind of a typo. There's a typo. There are no alternatives. Basically that there's no other place on this lot to add an addition that would not require a variance. Sacchet: So there really are no alternatives. That the no is missing? Hoium: Yes. Sacchet: I just want to make sure about that. Hoium: That is correct. Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2001 Sacchet: And then on the bottom of that page, that Table 2. Variances for Old Town. I just want to clarify that I understand this correctly. It sounds like those 3 variances you're giving were actually given to like.., garage but much more massive. Hoium: Yes. Actually one was to construct a home. Sacchet: One was for a home, okay. So we, okay. I want to make sure I've got that straight. Thank you. Burton: Any other questions for staff? Blackowiak: Mr. Chair I have one clarification. If the east elevation, which is where the location, the addition is being proposed, if that was actually a side yard instead of being a front yard, would we be looking for a variance or would it just be a half foot? Or what would it? Hoium: If this was actually side yard it would be a 10 foot setback so a variance would not be required because it actually, actually wait. Blackowiak: It might even be a foot and a half now. Before I think it would have been just a half foot. Hoium: It's 9, it encroaches what, 9 feet so yeah. A foot. Foot and a half. Blackowiak: Okay. So just, it's more of a problem of having two front yards as opposed to a front and a side yard, is how I always look at it. Okay, thank you. Burton: Any other questions? Conrad: Sure. So the rationale for the variance is what? Hoium: This lot was platted back in 1987, prior to when the current ordinance and it's standards were adopted and this creates a hardship to fit a home of current size and standard. The ordinance requires 9,600 or approximately square foot for a rambler home. This, it would be difficult to fit this on a lot and in current subdivisions a 60 x 60 foot building pad is required. This would not fit on the lot. Conrad: But it's there. Hoium: But it's there and this is currently, and also there are several homes in this area that encroach into the setback and actually. Conrad: So there's a precedent is what you're saying but what is the rationale, and I understand that but what is the rationale? They have a reasonable use to the property. Hoium: They do have a reasonable use. Jack Atkins: Are you wondering what my hardship is? Conrad: That might help but I'll let staff take care of that, yeah. So is it the hardship that there's water seepage? What are we concerned about to allow the variance? Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2001 Hoium: According to the ordinance, a hardship is when the owner cannot make a reasonable use of the site. That is defined by the majority of comparable properties within this 500 feet of this property. Other properties do encroach. They do have this entryway which is an attractive feature I guess but, there's something. Basically I'm comparing it to the properties in the neighborhood. Conrad: And it's not exceeding what they have done already in the neighborhood? And it is an attractive addition. Hoium: It is going to add to the neighborhood. Conrad: So it does add something, so. Hoium: There's homes with porches. Conrad: Yeah, you always need that hook to say why are you doing that? Anyway so, and there's nobody here in attendance that is disputing this. If somebody was here disputing that, what would you say? If you had neighbors here. Would we be concerned? Or would we still feel that... Hoium: I would still feel the same way. Conrad: That's all Mr. Chair. Burton: Thank you. Would the applicant like to address the Planning Commission? Could you please stand up to the microphone and state your name and address please. Jack Atkins: Jack Atkins, 220 West 78th Street. I've got a lot of data here I guess. Rather than put a presentation on, I guess I could show you a couple of plan views if you'd like to see those. If you have any specific questions you'd like to ask me about this. Burton: Any questions for the applicant? I guess I'll ask. The hardships are basically detailed in your letter of the 9th, correct? When you're talking about water seepage in the basement and conflict between doorways and kitchen entry problems and weather problems. Those are the hardships that you're facing? Jack Atkins: Yes. Burton: And that's what you're trying to remedy with this request? Jack Atkins: That's correct. Burton: Okay. Any other questions? Sacchet: Yeah, I have one question for the applicant. How do you feel about having to make the stoop bigger? Like instead of, I think you asked originally for a smaller and the city's position is that according to the ordinance it needs a 3 foot stoop? Jack Atkins: Right. Yeah, I don't have any, my intent would be here to extend the stoop out and re-pour the steps further out so we have 36 inches required. Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2001 Sacchet: So you don't have a problem with that? Jack Atkins: No I don't. Sacchet: It's to your advantage mostly? Jack Atkins: Possibly. I might mm the steps and go the other way or something. I haven't thought about it but yes, it's not significant. I had to pour cement in there anyway. It's part of the project so. Sacchet: That's the only question I have. Jack Atkins: Okay. Burton: Any other questions? Okay, thank you. Kind: Mr. Chair, I do have one question of staff. The stoop currently is really what the setback should be measured from, so it's really not 14 feet. Hoium: The stoop is 9 feet from the property line. So it does encroach further than 14 feet but the house sits back. And yeah, they are 21 feet. Kind: And our ordinance says that you need to include stoops in setbacks. Hoium: They're a structure. Kind: They're a structure. Hoium: Yes. Kind: So the setback is really less, it's 9 feet. And basically what Mr. Atkins is asking for is another foot and a half? From what it currently is. Hoium: Yes. It's currently a non-conforming structure since it doesn't meet the 30 feet. It is the 21 feet, and the ordinance does say that setback is measured from a structure to property line. And that is 9 feet. Kind: So this request is for 1 ½ more feet? Hoium: They're adding another half foot. Kind: Half a foot. And the right-of-way you said is wider here than in a typical, modem subdivision. Was there a reason for that? Hoium: The right-of-way, including the street and the curbs is 66 feet in this neighborhood. Usually it's 60 feet, and that means there's usually a 10 foot between the curb and the property line. This has 14 feet between the curb and the property line. It's a little bit larger than in subdivisions that have been created. Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2001 Kind: So even though right now that stoop is only 9 feet off the property line, the perceived distance is 9 feet plus 14 feet. Hoium: Correct. Kind: And when I drove by today it just looks quite normal really. In fact I think it's the same distance from the street as my house so I just want to clarify that, thank you. Burton: Motion to open the public hearing? Sacchet moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Kind moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Burton: Any discussion? Sacchet: Yeah, I can make some comments. In looking at the findings I certainly believe that literal enforcement of the ordinance would create undue hardship on this circumstance. I do think that other properties within the same zoning are, they're much more encroachment variances. I don't think this is based just to increase the value of the property and I don't think it's a self created issue since it goes back into, more than 100 years ago. I don't think it's detrimental to the public welfare and I think it doesn't impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties and therefore I conclude you should grant this variance. Burton: Any other comments? Kind: I agree with Uli. Burton: I agree with Uli also. I think that the applicant has shown a hardship and met the variance requirements and this seems to make a lot of sense. It kind of makes the entry into Chanhassen a little nicer in that part of town. Can I have a motion please. Sacchet: I move that the Planning Commission approves the request for 21 1/2 foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback for the construction of a 14 square foot addition and a 35 square foot entryway overhang based upon the plans received February 9, 2001 and subject to the following condition. The landing outside the door shall be a minimum of 36 inches deep as required by building code. Conrad: I'd second that. Burton: Any discussion? Sacchet moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission approves the request for a 21 ½ foot variance from the 30 foot front yard setback for the construction of a 14 square foot addition and a 35 square foot entryway overhang based upon the plans dated received February 9, 2001, and subject to the following condition: 1. The landing outside the door shall be a minimum of 36 inches deep as required by building code. Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2001 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE CHAPTER 18~ SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND CHAPTER 20~ ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS: A. DIVISION 2~ SIGNS ALLOWED IN SPECIFIC DISTRICTS BY PERMIT~ SEC. 20-1301~ 20-1302 AND 20-1304. B. SEC. 20-109 AND 20-505~ TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS. C. SEC. 20-508~ PUD TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS. D. 1) SEC. 20-94, GRADING & EROSION CONTROL AND SEC. 18-62~ EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL. E. 2) SEC. 20-94~ GRADING & EROSION CONTROL. Aanenson: Based on your recommendation, these were broken down into separate motions. The first one is the sign ordinance. There are specifically four that relate to the sign ordinance. The first being agricultural district. Again we've allowed some uses. Amended the code to allow uses in the agricultural district. The first one provides a mechanism that they can have a low profile sign. I don't know if you wanted to go through all these or. Burton: I think it might make sense just to take them one by one and go down as we go. Aanenson: Okay, so that would be the first one. So the motion would be, that first one. Non-residential sign uses. One monument sign shall be permitted. We could do it one by one. Burton: Well we'll get to comment too. Aanenson: I was going to say, this is a public hearing so I don't know how you want to do that. Kind: I think we should do them one by one. Aanenson: Okay, that's fine. Burton; Yeah. Aanenson: So that would be the first one. The motion would be to allow one sign, 24 square feet. Again in the agricultural district, not exceeding 5 feet in height. Burton: Anybody have questions for staff on this one? Kind: I have just one question. Does this affect Rain, Snow or Shine? Are they A27 Aanenson: Correct. Kind: So this, so would this allow them to have a different kind of sign than what we approved earlier? Aanenson: No. As part of their Interim Use Permit? No. Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2001 Burton: Other questions for staff? May I have a motion to open the public hearing? Blackowiak moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Burton: Would anyone like to address the commission on this matter? Okay. Sacchet moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Burton: Discussion. Okay if not, can I have a motion? Blackowiak: I'll move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the ordinance amendment of Section 20-1301, Agricultural and Residential Districts, Sub. 3. Burton: Is there a second? Sacchet: I'll second. Burton: Any discussion? Kind: Discussion, just kind of a point of order here. You just said Sub. 3 so you don't want to talk about 2 and 3 below there? The other sections? Blackowiak: We're literally doing them one at a time. We're literally doing them one at a time. Literally. Kind: I thought a, b. Blackowiak: No, I think one at a time. I understood each section was going to be. Kind: Okay. Seems like a long way to go but, we can do it that way. Sacchet: Would it make.., recommendation, could we make the public hearing for the group though. I mean otherwise this is going to be a lot of. Aanenson: Well you can open them all up with the sign. If anyone has a question on the sign. That would take public hearing on the sign issues. Kind: That's what I think. Sacchet: Yeah, I'd prefer that. Aanenson: We can do it on the next one. Burton: Okay. Is there more than one motion in this? Kind: The motion was for the whole deal. For all the below there. Blackowiak: It's not for each section individually? I'm sorry. Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2001 Burton: I think you should make each, one page. Blackowiak: Okay I thought you, I'm sorry. I misunderstood. I thought you were talking specifically each section. Aanenson: That's what I thought too. Blackowiak: Okay. Well at least somebody. Aanenson: Well can I go back and, because I just explained to you the non-res, the agricultural one. The other one is the business highway one. Pylon signs. This sign may identify the name of the center and there's a typo. Of instead of or. If that's clear. Section 1303. Section 20-1304, industrial office parks. We're talking about ground, low profile signs. It needs to be clarified that not every tenant receives a monument sign but it's based on identifying the center so to clarify that we say shall be permitted for each street frontage, not individual tenant because otherwise it's for example Market Square there'd be a sign every 10 feet. The intent is they get a wall sign and then, the monument sign identifies the center. So that clarifies that and that's 20-1304, number 2. And number 3 would be each business would get a wall sign and that's depending on their frontage. That business and that's how we've used that again at Villages on the Pond and Market Square. Also the Byerly's is set up the same way. They have a pylon sign and individual tenant so with that, ... industrial. Where that falls in. The ground profile sign also appears in the office park section which is 1304 so. Kind: Mr. Chair? We had a motion and a second. Do we need to withdraw that? Burton: Yes, and what I was going to say is we kind of opened up briefly for public hearing but if anybody wants to comment again, we can give you another chance here on this one. Okay. So then I guess we could. Blackowiak: So what I will do is I will withdraw my first motion and then I will make another motion, which incorporates all three sections. So I will recommend that the Planning Commission approve ordinance amendment as follows: Division 2. Signs Allowed in Specific Districts by Permit, and this is per staff report dealing with Sections 20-1301(3); 20-1303; 20-1304(2) and (3). Kind: Second. Burton: Any additional discussion? Blackowiak moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the ordinance amendment as follows: DIVISION 2. SIGNS ALLOWED IN SPECIFIC DISTRICTS BY PERMIT. Sec. 20-1301. Agricultural and residential districts. (3) Non-residential uses. Only one (1) monument sign may be permitted on the site. The total sign area shall not exceed twenty-four (24) square feet of sign display area, nor be more than five (5) feet in height. Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2001 Sec. 20-13-1. Highway, general business districts and central business districts. (1) Pylon business sign .... This sign may identify the name of the center or the major tenants. Sec. 20-1304. Industrial office park signs. (2) Ground low profile business signs. One (1) ground low profile business sign shall be permitted per site for each street frontage. Such sign shall not exceed... (3) Wall business signs. Wall business signs shall be permitted on street frontage for each business occupant within a building only. The total of all wall mounted sign display areas for each business shall not exceed the square footage established in the following table... All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Burton: Kate, do you want to go to the next one? Aanenson: Sure. The next one is typo's. The first one, 20-109 would be on instead of of. And Section 20-505, require general standards. Or instead of for. They're pretty self explanatory regarding applications of general standards so. Burton: Are there questions? Kind: I do have a question. Last time we saw the visitor packet, there was also a duplicate in Section 20- 732 where it talked about business, central business district. Businesses that were allowed and I was wondering why that was. Aanenson: As a typo? Kind: Yeah, as a typo. They were listed twice. I'm sorry Kate, do you have your ordinance book? Aanenson: Yeah, it probably didn't get noticed so. Kind: So it wasn't deliberately left off. We'll catch it next time? Aanenson: Yes. Kind: Have you got the number? Aanenson: 20-732, right? Kind: Yeah. And what it was, just so you'll know. I'll just quick whip it out. It was page 1225 of the code book, and as my commissioners know I carry this everywhere I go. Aanenson: It was a use that was duplicated. Correct? Kind: Yeah. Aanenson: I know which one. Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2001 Kind: You know what it is? Okay. We'll catch that next time. Burton: May I have a motion to open it up for a public hearing on this? Sacchet moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Burton: Anybody want to address the Planning Commission on this matter? Sacchet moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Burton: Any additional discussion? Can I have a motion please? Sacchet: I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the ordinance amendment as follows: Section 20-109 and Section 20-505(f) as stated in the staff report. Conrad: Second. Sacchet moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the ordinance amendment as follows: Sec. 20-109 Applications. ... shall be made to the city planner on forms... Sec. 20-505(t) Require General Standards ... 50 feet from Railroad lines or collector or arterial streets... All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Aanenson: Okay the next one is regarding Section 20-508, minimum lot size in a PUD. Here again it's an instance where the two sentences clearly contradict each other and the one is that the minimum lot size should not be less than 5,000 square feet. The next sentence says there is no minimum lot size. We have not been requiring a minimum lot size but if you go into the R districts, there are districts that, uses that allow you to go smaller so you're being punitive in the PUD and it wasn't the intent so the staff's recommendation is that the minimum lot size be taken out. Burton: Any questions for staff? Sacchet: Yes Mr. Chair. So I just want to be really clear and understand this completely. You're saying that instead of specifying the minimum size, the minimum size is implied by the density specification? Aanenson: Correct. That's how it's been. Sacchet: And in addition, what I'm reading here, excuse me, is that this actually has been approved at some point but for some reason wasn't anchored into the zoning ordinance. Aanenson: The way it's been used, if you look at the R-12 district, it allows lots smaller than that. It's never been used that way. It wasn't used this way on Walnut Grove, North Bay. It's never been used as a 10 Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2001 minimum lot size of 5,000. The way it's been used is that there is no minimum lot size as long as you don't exceed the density standards. That's how it's been used. Sacchet: Okay. That's my question. Burton: Any other questions for staff? Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. Getting back to Uli's question though, the way I read the staff report is that, at the bottom of that page that in 1995 the council and Planning Commission at that time recommended approval and the language, let's see. Unfortunately in the codification of the code the change was made incorrectly. Aanenson: Correct. Kind: So this was intended to be done years ago. I just wanted to clarify that. Burton: Any other questions? Conrad: The only thing I would say Mr. Chair is that I think when this goes to council, you should put the, there should be some background or some support. Aanenson: For the 19957 Conrad: Yeah. Burton: May I have a motion to open the public hearing? Sacchet moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Burton: Anybody like to address the Planning Commission on this matter? Sacchet moved, Kind seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Burton: May I have a motion. Kind: Mr. Chair, I move the Planning Commission recommends approval of the ordinance amendment as follows. Section 20-508. Minimum lot size in PUD, (b) per the staff report dated February 28, 2000. Conrad: Second. Burton: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any other discussion? Kind moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the ordinance amendment as follows: Sec. 20-508 Minimum Lot Size in PUD (b). There shall be no minimum lot size, however in no case shall net density exceed guidelines established by the city. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2001 Aanenson: I'll mm the next one over to Matt but I just wanted to make a point of clarification. Revisions to Chapter 7 do not require a public hearing before this body but we just wanted to include that in this report so you could see how we're carrying these forward together. You have public hearings on Chapter 18 and 20 so we just wanted to show you, in Chapter 7 there are some requirements as far as building standards that follow through. Burton: Is there a public hearing at some point on this? Aanenson: It will go to the City Council for the change. I don't believe it requires a public hearing but it goes to them. I will let Matt go through the changes and then I'll handle the next one but this is engineering initiated. So what you're acting on tonight would just be the chapters that you would have jurisdiction over but I just included that for your edification so you could see how the two meet together. Burton: I'm a little lost. Kind: Mr. Chair? I think Kate's talking about 2(d), number 2. Do you want to do 2(d) number 1 first? Aanenson: I'm sorry. Jumping ahead. I'm sorry, okay. Okay, 2(d), number 1. I'll handle that one. 20- 94, grading and erosion control. This was something that we talked about a number of years ago regarding topsoil replacement. How do we ensure growth is established and so comparing what other cities are doing, under construction all disturbed areas, we want 4 inches of topsoil put back on and that's, we've talked about what can we do for preservation of water so we're not sprinkling as often and ensuring good growth so the recommendation was to require 4 inches of topsoil to go in and that would be something we'd be reviewing as far as inspections and then in the letter of credit to make sure that that's in place. So with that then I'd also, in that same one, 18-62. It falls in two places. One, under Chapter 20 and the other would be under design standards of subdivision regs so it falls in two places. Burton: Any questions for staff? Sacchet: Yeah two questions. Why 4 inches? Aanenson: That was the recommendation. Looking at other cities from engineering... Again we look at this under an individual basis as projects come in. Some people are able, some developers are able to spread good soil in a lot of circumstances and some of you may be aware of this. If you build a home or know people that have, they end up with clay and end up hauling their own in. Or don't do it and they're, just put sod on top and then they end up watering and watering and watering so we're trying to get away from that and that's kind of exasperated the need for additional sprinkling so that's what we're trying to curb. Sacchet: And 4 inches seems to be. Aanenson: That seems to be the recommendations, correct. Sacchet: Okay. Topsoil. Is that specific enough? I mean I'm amazed sometimes when I see builders... topsoil. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2001 Saam: Mr. Chair, Planning Commissioners. I know where you're coming from. You ask for 4. You might get 3 inches of black dirt. You might get 2. You know they call topsoil basically anything on top to spread a little black dirt around so. Sacchet: Whatever's on top... Saam: Yeah, exactly. What we mean is the black dirt. The nutrient rich soil to allow the grass, your plantings to grow in. Sacchet: So would it then be better to maybe even say black dirt. I mean I'm trying. Aanenson: Or add a definition of topsoil. Saam: That would be a good idea. Sacchet: Yeah. I think we need something a little bit more. Saam: Can this be approved and then we add the definition before it goes to council? Aanenson: Sure. Burton: Any other questions? May I have a motion to open up the public hearing? Sacchet moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Burton: Anybody like to address the Planning Commission on this matter? Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Burton: May I have a motion? Sacchet: Well, since I brought up this topsoil thing I'd move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the ordinance amendment as defined in this staff report dated February 28th for Article II, Administration and Enforcement Division 5, Section 20-94 and Chapter 18, Subdivisions, Article III, Design Standards, Section 18-62 and would like to ask that the definition of topsoil be added. Conrad: Second. Burton: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion? Sacchet moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the ordinance amendment, including a definition for topsoil, as follows: ARTICLE II. Administration and Enforcement Division 5 Sec 20-94. Grading and Erosion Control. (c) Every effort shall be made to minimize disturbance of existing ground cover. No grading or filling shall be permitted within forty (40) feet of the ordinary high water mark of a waterbody unless specifically 13 Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2001 approved by the city. All disturbed areas shall be replaced with a minimum of four (4) inches of topsoil. To minimize the erosion potential of exposed areas, restoration of ground cover shall be provided within five (5) days after completion of the grading operation. CHAPTER 18 SUBDIVISIONS ARTICLE III. Design Standards Sec. 18-62 Erosion and Sediment Control. (a) The development shall conform to the topography and soils to create the least potential for soil erosion. Four (4) inches of topsoil shall be replaced on all disturbed areas. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Burton: Okay now Kate, this is the one that... Aanenson: I'm sorry, and I'll let Matt handle that. Burton: Go ahead Matt. Saam: Well, simply what staff is asking for is some room, or leniency in the amount of cash escrow that we can ask for on building permits and/or developments. Every site is different. Some are bigger than others. Some have more natural features than others that we'd like to protect. That's the impetus for the raising of the cash escrow fee. It's simply every site is different. I'll be happy to take any questions if you have specific questions on any of the Chapter, well I guess we can't talk about Chapter 7 issues but Chapter 20 is only the grading and erosion control so. Burton: Any questions for staff on this? Uli, it looks like you have a question. Sacchet: Chapter 197 Aanenson: Well 7-19. Sacchet: So we're not talking about 7-197 Aanenson: No. Saam: It's only 20. Aanenson: It's only 20, correct. So that'd be the last page of the report. Conrad: At your discretion, Matt. What guides that? Aren't there ratios or should there be a grid or some formula? Saam: I'll give you an example. Size of the site. We simply take the lineal footage of the site that we would need silt fence over and as a figure for silt fence, a buck 50 a foot. You come up with an amount. That's one example. As I said, if there's other environmental features, a steep slope might want an erosion control blanket over that. And we have costs for those sorts of things. So the amount we come up with is 14 Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2001 the total of those costs. In essence the cost the city would be charged if we had to go in there. If somebody skipped town and we had to go in there and restore the site. That's what we're looking at. Conrad: Very site specific then? Saam: Exactly. Pretty much for every new lot 500 is fine, but there are a few. Conrad: So what will a developer say about that? How will they know what they might have to contribute? Would they walk into your office and say are there standards for silt fences at $1.50 a foot or can they just walk in and you say this is, these are the 12 criteria or the 12 things we look at and here's the cost per unit? Saam: From a development standpoint, the number we get for erosion control escrow, that number comes from the developer's engineer. It goes into our development contract. This is typically for builders. Sometimes the builder is the developer of each lot. Aanenson: Yeah, can I just comment on that? That's where the rug comes in. If you have individual builders, each individual lot's posting their own escrow. What we do to builders that are developers, it's a different scenario. That's where the 5,000 came in. We came up with that number quite a few years ago and depending on the scale, and if they've had a lot of permits out at once. For example, some builders may have 10 active lots or as Matt's saying, if they're doing quite a bit of for example, this is for erosion. This is separate than the other line of credit we have in place. I think Matt explained that. But for example when you've got a townhouse builder or somebody that has a large scale project going, where there is a steep slope or some other things, $5,000, if there's a heavy rainfall and we have to get out there and manage it, that's not going to cover it and we've had a few instances. And what we came up with that is when we originally came up with the erosion control ordinance we looked at the circumstances, you know each person is required $500 for that. But then we said well for the builder may or may not work so we tried to say how many active permits should they normally have and we came up with that $5,000. What we're saying is that in some circumstance it's just not enough so we want some flexibility. To make sure we're protecting the city's interest. In most cases it probably is but there's a few that we've had some problems with. Just because they've had a lot of things going. It's the $5,000 isn't enough. Burton: So you're saying if they have multiple sites, the most they could have escrowed is $5,000? In the past. Aanenson: Right, in the past. Burton: But you're striking that and saying each site can be greater than 500. Aanenson: Right. Sacchet: So there would really be no ceiling at all. Saam: Exactly. Aanenson: That's how the 10 came up. 5 times the 10 lots. That's 500 but we've had builders that have more than 10 lots going. Or acreage larger that would cover that. That lineal foot number. And that's how that came about. 5,000 and 10. Or 500, excuse me. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2001 Kind: Mr. Chair. I'm uncomfortable with not having a top, and I'm wondering if Matt could make a recommendation as to what would be the most that there would be. I mean is the sky's the limit here or? Saam: We could pick anything I guess. 10 grand. 15 grand. I guess if the ceiling issue is a problem, we could recommend something. But every site is different. As Kate said, if somebody has a ton of building permits out, you know 500 times 15 is more than the 5,000 so. Kind: My concern is I want a developer to have a quantifiable way of knowing what the price tag's going to be and the way it's written right now it's pretty squishy. And I'm just a little uncomfortable with that. I understand that there's no site's the same so. Aanenson: If you're looking at a ceiling, I guess what I'd like to do is come back. Between the two departments, sit down. Look at where some of the problems were. See, I just don't want to throw a number out. Is it 157 Is that enough? And maybe talk about some other objects. Again I'm trying to project on some of the other larger projects that we may be having coming in. Try to get a gauge of how much acreage or... and we can come back with some other examples. Kind: I'm sorry Mr. Chair. A ceiling may not be the solution. It might be more of a table that the developer could refer to with the linear foot versus silt fences and what kinds of things that they can refer to so they have some way of gauging what their costs are going to be to develop something in our city. Sacchet: It seems like one balance point that I see in this is that if we would have a ceiling per lot, because right now we're saying that the escrow amount, what we're proposing is the escrow amount can be greater than 500. Is that per lot, isn't it? Or how does this apply? Conrad: That's per building. Saam: Per building permit isn't it Kate? I believe so. Sacchet: Building permit is pretty much for one structure, right? Saam: Correct. Sacchet: So please help me through this because if... understand this if there comes a whole development, and there will be $500 for every building. Let's say this is a subdivision and there are 50 houses so it's 50 times 500. But now then that puts a ceiling on already that way, but then what we're dealing with, what I hear you say is that in some cases the 500 is not sufficient per lot. So if we would say well, is 1,000 sufficient? So we could say it could be more than 500 but maybe not exceeding $1,000 per lot? Then that way we keep the proportion to the size of the development. I don't know whether that is constructive but. Saam: I guess that's something that we should probably talk about and maybe come back because just as I read this before it did say the maximum any individual builder can have is 5,000. It didn't say per lot or get into any of that so that's an issue we should talk about and probably come back. Blackowiak: And I have just a couple things to clear up. An escrow amount gets returned to the builder upon completion so I think that we need to understand that it's not a fee that we're charging the builder. So I don't think we need to talk specifically about ceilings. If an escrow amount is just to protect the city in 16 Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2001 the result of a catastrophic event that the builder does not fix. So as long as the builder fixes, if there's something happening, as long as they fix it, it really shouldn't matter what that escrow amount is. Because they'll get it back. The escrow amount is kind of like the city's insurance policy so they don't have to be out of pocket for anything so I don't think that a ceiling per se is that necessary because we don't want to put a ceiling on it. We don't want to say okay, you only have to pay $10,000 and what if something happens and a hill slides away and it costs the city $100,000 to clean it up? The city does not want to be paying $90,000 out of their pocket. I certainly as a taxpayer don't want to be paying $90,000 to clean up somebody else's mess. Burton: I guess the concern that I'd have though is if you come in with a huge project like with 50 lots, you don't have any idea what your total escrow would be coming into it. Blackowiak: But you would know prior to your, when you got your plans you would know your escrow amount, wouldn't you? Isn't that part of the plan process? Saam: Yeah. They could estimate how much erosion control fencing, manning will I need here, but ultimately it rests on how we come up with the figure. Sacchet: I'm hearing more to Alison, it's an escrow and probably get it back but I think in terms of how is this being perceived from the builder's viewpoint. I think it'd be perceived much more favorably if it's... Blackowiak: Well I like the idea of quantifying and saying x amount of dollars per linear feet. You know this is what you're paying for in a sense. But I don't feel that we need to have a ceiling and I think that might hurt the city in the long run by limiting the amount of money, the recourse the city has to having to go back and fix up any potential problem. Saam: If we would, ifI could just interject. If we would come up with say a per lineal foot amount as you've been talking about, that's something we'd have to update then every few years because silt fence today is going to be of course more expensive in 5 years or whatever so. Conrad: Mr. Chair, do we want an absolute amount? Do we want to just reference the current, you have to have standards. Saam: The per foot amount, you're saying? Conrad: Yeah, you have your standards. You know what it is. You come up with it every year. I don't know that I want to put hard dollars in an ordinance. Saam: Yeah, I really wouldn't want to but if you want us to we will. Conrad: We want to make sure that the ordinance references a standard someplace or a guide someplace so it's not a surprise. Saam: Current market values. Conrad: Yeah, so you've got to solve that for us. I don't even care if it's $500 if it references the standard that the city has. Another document but maybe you should bring that back and think about it. Dollars today doesn't help in 3 years or 5 years. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2001 Aanenson: That's why we're here right now. Kind: Mr. Chair, just to clear up my point. Alison brought up a good point and that the escrow money is returned but I think still for a developer that is perceived as an up front cost and they'd need to know what their cost of doing business is so I think we've given good direction and staff can come back. Burton: I agree so, do we have to table this then? Is that proper? Aanenson: Do you want to hold the public hearing now? You can do that. Kind: Just Section 20, which is. Blackowiak: But maybe we want to open a public hearing. Burton: Yeah, let's open a public hearing. Blackowiak: I was going to say, when we get the revised. Burton: Well maybe they have some extra comments... Sacchet moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Burton: Anybody like to address the Planning Commission on this matter? Blackowiak moved, Kind seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Burton: Can I have a motion? Blackowiak: Yeah I move that the Planning Commission table the recommended revision to City Code Chapter 20, Section 20-94 and ask staff to incorporate comments made by the Planning Commission and return to us with a new revision. Burton: Is there a second? Sacchet: Second. Burton: Any discussion? Blackowiak moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission table the recommended revision to City Code Chapter 20, Section 20-94 and ask staff to incorporate comments made by the Planning Commission and return with a new revision. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Kind: Mr. Chair I have one more comment on that. I noticed on the staff report that number (c) was included in our previous motion. So when you come back to us really we only need to look at 20-94(a). Is that right? Just a staff report note. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2001 NEW BUSINESS. Burton: That concludes the public hearings. Kate is there any new business? Aanenson: Yes. The library has been, the task force has been meeting. I was wondering if anyone on the Planning Commission was interested in attending, just to give you an update. They have met once already and they were meeting this Saturday at 9:00. I believe that's here is anyone on the Planning Commission was interested in attending. They will be presenting to you, the Planning Commission on the 20th, the consultant. Kind of what they're doing. Where they're at. Just give you a head's up. So if anyone was interested in being a liaison. I believe someone from the Park and Rec Commission has been attending and I believe Todd will also be at that meeting so. Kind: What was the date and time again? Aanenson: That would be the l0th. This Saturday at 9:00 a.m. and I believe that's here in this building. So if anybody's interested in attending that. Burton: I'm actually interested but I don't think I can that day. Aanenson: So I can report back. And then also then on the 20th, which is our next, March 20th, the next regular meeting, we will conclude hopefully this item we just heard. There's one variance so then there will be a presentation made by MS&R. Kind of where they're at to date. Again let you know how that. So someone can go, if they want to just let me know. Not that I would probably attend just to make sure there's someone there. Told you what else was on the 20th. Pulte was tabled and that's going back on the 12th. Monday night. Revisions so hopefully we'll get some concurrence and that will be approved. Your next, there isn't a lot coming forward as far as projects so that first meeting in April, it'd probably be some more glitch things through the process. We do not have any large subdivisions or commercial projects coming forward. So if there is some, we're working on some of those other things that we put in our work tasks so we'll be bringing some of those forth so we'll let you know on that. That's all I have. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Uli Sacchet noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 20, 2001 as presented. ONGOING ITEMS. Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. Kate alluded to the ongoing items that were in our packet tonight. The Planning Commission update purple sheet and I was wondering if this group should take a minute to prioritize what we'd like staff to work on and maybe run it by the City Council before staff invests any time. Make sure that these are things that are worthy of being worked on. And I have some ideas that I'll suggest and you guys let me know what you think. I would like to see the flag lot amendment, the design standards and the existing neighborhood standards, what we've been referring to as the blending ordinance brought to the front burner. And then also we had talked about lakeshore setbacks. Taking a look at how we can address it in our ordinance. What you do if neighboring properties are way far back, like 1,000 feet back because our ordinance doesn't really work in that situation. And another one to clarify in our ordinance that lot sizes can include only upland. Wetland cannot be used to calculate lot sizes and make sure that that's clear in our ordinance. One idea was to basically revise the definition of lot area, because it talks about how lakes are excluded and rivers are excluded, but it does not mention wetland so make just a simple addition 19 Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2001 of that word. Which is on page 1,149 in the ordinance book. Those are my priorities and I'm interested in what everybody else thinks. Sacchet: I certainly think that the blending will work. It's very high priority. And that's come up repeatedly in the last couple months and I would expect it's going to continue coming up more as the city is more built up. You're going to have more to deal with context issues and it's going to be an important element so I would think for me that's a top priority. Burton: Anybody else? I guess I don't disagree with the ones that Deb mentioned. I'd particularly like to see the design standards moved up and also if we can, I'd like to see the fertilizer ordinance be brought through before the spring. Aanenson: I think we might have a draft of that if we can do, if there's a light agenda. We're pretty close to having that done. Burton: And otherwise I don't have anything to add. Conrad: Mr. Chair, based on their time line Kate, you're working on all of these. Aanenson: Yes. They're all in different stages, correct. Conrad: So when you give us a time line and it says winter 2001, is that now? Aanenson: The flag lot one is pretty much done. We have to discuss it. We haven't, yeah. What we're waiting for is an agenda date. Just so you know, I'm also working on the housing forum. I'm also working on the library and trying to finish up Puke so. Kind: So don't put too many things on the front burner. Aanenson: Well what I'm saying is that when there's a break in the window, like I'm saying right now there's a development break which is a very unusual because this is typically our busiest time. You know that. It's when we have our latest meetings so this is the time to do some of the longer range things so that's great if that works out. Burton: Yeah, that'd be great. Sacchet: Just to clarify Ladd's question. So now is winter 2001. Next winter is 2002? Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: I just want to be real clear. Aanenson: Yes, Sharmin's doing the flag lot one and that's pretty close to being done, correct. And Lori just about has the other one done. The design standards is, we've had a lot of discussion on that. It's gelled so. Kind: Mr. Chair, my concern is that we have seen a lot of these things on this update for many, many meetings. In fact the flag lot amendment used to say fall 2000 and they just get pushed back and I guess I 20 Planning Commission Meeting - March 6, 2001 would like to see some more clear priority put on them and direct staff to check these off with City Council as to whether staff time should be invested on them and to request to see them in our two meetings from now on our Planning Commission agenda or put some sort of specific goal down. I just make up that day but. Slagle: Mr. Chair, would there be any wisdom to putting months as a guide for a time frame? October, obviously being able to adjust it when need be but. Burton: I think Kate you can address that but it seems that maybe, I think that would be tough because you don't know what's in the pipeline on other matters. Aanenson: Exactly. I mean if someone's in the process I have 60 days to address it. That's my priority. And that's what drives a lot of this. So we finished the comprehensive plan rezonings. The ones that were in conflict. So we're done with that. The glitch ordinance, you decided to break it down in bite size pieces. I had that, in my opinion, done. We struggled with that at the Planning Commission so we're breaking it into bite size pieces so yeah, we can put months on it. That's fine but again that's development driven. Burton: I guess my personal opinion, I think it's fine but the seasonal, and I think you've got the direction that we want to have it prioritized and have it run by the council. Keep it moving. I think that's our goal. Any other ongoing items? Chairman Burton adjourned the Planning Commission meeting. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 21