Loading...
PC 2000 07 18CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING dULY 18, 2000 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, LuAnn Sidney, Alison Blackowiak, Deb Kind, Uli Sacchet, and Ladd Conrad MEMBERS ABSENT: Matt Burton STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Dave Hempel, Assistant City; Engineer; Sharmin Al-Jarl; Senior Planner; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Cindy Kirchofl; Planner I; and Lori Haak, Water Resource Coordinator REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE A 1.1 ACRE LAKESHORE PARCEL INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH A VARIANCE FROM THE LAKESHORE WIDTH REQUIREMENT ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED ON LOT 11, BLOCK 1, SUNRISE HILLS 1sT ADDITION, 7303 LAREDO DRIVE, LUCAS IGEL ADDITION, DAVID IGEL. Public Present: Name Address Steven & Becky Chepokas Don Huseth Linda Landsman Eunice Peters Ann & Alan Fox Tom Pzynski Jerry & Janet Paulsen Debbie Lloyd Ron & Ann Kleve Dana Muller Janet Holler Jim Waletski Arlis Bovy Connie Robertson for Fred Cunes Joel S. Jenkins Shirley Navratil Cathy Greeley Greg Larsen Rachel & David Igel Bruce Malkerson Robert Eastman Larry Couture 7304 Laredo Drive 7332 Frontier Trail 7329 Frontier Trail 7301 Laredo Drive 7300 Laredo Drive 7340 Frontier Trail 7305 Laredo Drive 7302 Laredo Drive 7307 Laredo Drive 500 Highland Drive 7206 Frontier Trail 7334 Frontier Trail 7339 Frontier Trail 7335 Frontier Trail 7305 Frontier Trail 7337 Frontier Trail 7341 Frontier Trail 229 Benton Avenue 6195 Strawberry Lane 901 Marquette 2115 Shorewood Oaks Drive 8713 Dayton Avenue So. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 Peterson: Questions of staflk Kind: Yes Mr. Chairman. Bob, we received a new proposed plat for two lakeshore lots that's dated 7/13/2000 and that addresses some of the width issues. All of the width issues with exception of the 75 foot width so right now we're looking at just the 75 foot width, which is a 15 foot variance on two lots. That's the only variance we're looking at right now. Generous: Correct. And also as part of we approve it does say revised. We should add this last revision date of this plat so we're aware of which copy we're working on. Kind: And then are we tonight considering the altemate plat? If we deny the two lakeshore lots, are we in effect approving the alternate plat? Aanenson: No. Kind: No. Generous: You would have to make a specific motion to recommend approval. Kind: And the altemate plat was not provided in this week's packet but I'm assuming it's the same as what we've seen before. Generous: Correct. Kind: And if we decide that that's the way to go, if there's revisions to that, then we'll deal with that. Aanenson: You'd go back through the process. Peterson: Other questions? Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair. I have a question about there is a driveway altemate option in the plat that was handed out. What's the status of that? Generous: The applicant is just showing a proposal that separates the driveways on the site. Staff`would not support that. Our position is we'd want them to stay together and we would preserve the area to the west of any easements. That would be created for those driveways. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Peterson: Other questions? Would the applicant like to make a presentation? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. Rachel Igel: Hi, my name is Rachel Igel and I live at 6195 Strawberry Lane in Shorewood. Just wanted to take a quick moment and re-introduce myself, our attomey and also the neighbors that will be moving in to the lot next to us. First off`my husband is David Igel and our attomey is Bruce Malkerson and we should have done this last time but I just wanted to take a quick moment to introduce the Eastmans. Bob Eastman is right there. Susie Eastman and their two children. They are our current neighbors in our current neighborhood and they're planning to move with us into the new neighborhood. The other thing I wanted to mention is as far as the plat goes, we were not asked or required by the city to change the plat. However we chose to go ahead and make different changes to keep this as simple as possible and be as cooperative 2 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 as possible in the process and at this point we agree that the only variance that is needed is for the width at the lakeshore. The other thing that I wanted to mention is that if there are any other comments that are made, if we could have an opportunity at the end to respond to those as well. Thank you. And if you have any questions, please let one of us will be happy to answer them. Peterson: Okay. Then I'll question to my fellow commissioners. Should we open this for public hearing? Conrad: Question Mr. Chairman, is this a public hearing? I thought that was closed. Peterson: That's correct. I'm just asking, should we open it up again. And I don't know whether we legally can. Kate, is that. Aanenson: You can always open it up for comments. You legally have had the public hearing. Peterson: Why don't we do that. I guess the caveat being that in lieu of everybody's consideration of time and for a lot of presentations are going to be made tonight so if we could limit those comments to anything that's additional or new, it would be greatly appreciated. So with that, any additional comments. Please come forward and state your name and address please. Debbie Lloyd: My name is Debbie Lloyd. I live at 7302 Laredo Drive. The first thing I'd like to present is signatures, a petition from 25 other lakeshore owners who are against the division of a lot on Lotus Lake. I have a lot of comments. I'll try to keep them simple. I'm just going to follow the staff`report tonight. So if you tum to page 2, paragraph 3. Interestingly, a lot in Sunrise Hills subdivision in which this property is located has a lot with a lakeshore width of 70 feet. I want to point out that was grandfathered in before there were city ordinances... It had established lot size, lakeshore frontage, everything before there were rules here in Chanhassen. Next I'd like to show. These are copies of just one page from the three lots that are next referenced. That says at three of the properties with less than 90 feet of lakeshore width have been subdivided since the City of Chanhassen adopted shoreland management regulations. And what I'd like to point out to you in each of these pages is that staff`overlooked the regulation. And you at the Planning Commission relied on staff`for accuracy as did the City Council. On the first one, frontage required by code. It refers to 90 feet. There is no identification there of lakeshore frontage. That's on the Hiscox plat. On Alicia Heights, the next page, again you'll see there's no notice of lakeshore and if you go through the files like I did, there's extreme documentation of every aspect of the lot, but they totally ignored what the lakeshore frontage requirement was. And the third shows the documentation of this one after by the way Mr. Paulson found that there was a different lakeshore requirement here in Chanhassen than was on the original staff`report. So I'm submitting these to you to show you that errors have occurred in the past and that we don't expect variances should set precedent for changing code. And that if you seriously consider changing these lots to 75 feet, I suggest you go through the entire process of exploring changing code regulations for lakeshore lots in the city of Chanhassen. Not set a precedent. There's no precedent set here because errors were made. The next point. The average lot area in this development is 18,992 square feet. Forgive me ifI don't know the technical term but this plat is where that information came from. They're documents from the city offices. It's the GIS which they showed Sunrise Hills and the lot size for every lot. Subsequent to this I have received an estimate of what the lakeshore frontage is. So if you go through the first two pages are going to come up with the average lot size in Sunrise Hills. The average lot size is 22,432 feet. The next two pages will show you the average lakeshore lot. That area is 36,353 feet and the average lakeshore width or lakeshore frontage is 126 feet. Another neighbor will be addressing downward, how can I say. Decrease in standards within the neighborhood and that's why I'm pointing this out to you. On page 3, second paragraph. Third statement. However the city does not enforce restrictive covenants. The city does not enforce restrictive covenants, although historically the city has taken historic covenants, any restrictive covenants into consideration. At the bottom of the page. The Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 zoning provisions. I just want to say that the DNR has substantiated the support of the regulations on the lake. They have agreed that that is what the regulation is. Next I'd like you to turn to page 9 but continue, hold your hand on page 4. Page 9. First paragraph. Last sentence. Referring to landscape and tree preservation. Assuming a 10 foot by 100 foot buffer yard, minimum requirements include 1 oversize tree, 2 understory trees and 3 shrubs. I'm pointing this out to you because this was the specific dimension in front of a buffer yard. It's implying if you look, it's saying a 10 by 100 foot buffer yard, which is 1,000 square feet. It is not saying a 5 foot by 200 foot buffer yard. It is not saying a 20 foot by 50 foot buffer yard. Now, if you go back to page 4, point 2. The city's response to Jerry Paulsen's question about a 60 by 60 foot buildable pad. It reads, a 60 by 60 building pad. Again, it's a 60 by 60 pad. It doesn't represent 3,600 square feet in by 40 by 90. Or by the next configuration, 20 by 180. That's not what it represents. It's an adjective to what the buffer yard is or it's an adjective to whatever the noun is you're to describe. And I have checked that out with other cities. I don't have it documented but it has been verified. Page 8. Background. Second paragraph. It says upon discovery of this error staff`notified the applicant. I want to point out Mr. Paulsen discovered the error. He and his wife Jan have diligently been working on it trying to interpret everything and I'm afraid that that's being misconstrued as not being good citizens or something. They are diligent. We don't have attomey representation. We're trying to define everything ourselves. Variance findings, page 12. Just points I want to make. Someone else again will be addressing these. Put to reasonable use. I think the property is reasonably used right now. It has been for 40 years. Single family home. On a lot that works well. Pre-existing standards in this neighborhood, without departing downward, and again we'll be addressing that. Mr. Malkerson's letter dated July 13th. I'm going to read a sentence in the introduction. We do not think it was beneficial use of your time, the staff`time or the neighborhood's time to debate those issues that were raised for the first time by Mr. Paulsen at that meeting without everyone having had an opportunity to read his written materials, itemize them and pursuant to the code, to respond to them. Well, we came to the first Planning Commission meeting that addressed this with a real emotional response. AS a neighborhood we were upset. We were very emotional. Since then we've leamed you need to look for the facts. I think the facts very well support our dislike of the subdivision. And it's not emotion. I mean it's emotional because it affects our lives and because of what it's become. But there's facts supporting it. Page 2 on the top of the page, and I've got to start from the previous page. Underline, the request for subdivision approval had received prior written approval by the Planning Commission on April 21st to create two lakeshore lots. This is a key word, it says with the variance to the lakeshore width requirement. That's wrong. Without. You didn't know a variance was needed. Again I want to point out, thereafter staff`found. No, Jerry Paulsen found. The second paragraph. AS when...by staff; and I believe by one or more members of the Planning Commission at the June 6th meeting, the altemate proposal of having one or more lots on the lake to the rear met all the requirements of the coding zone. I don't know if anyone really has conceded that the alternate plan meets code. I don't think we've come there yet. The last statement before paragraph 3. Again, this is the attomey's statement. Quite frankly not many people can afford to buy one large lot on the lake and pay the principal and interest on a mortgage relating thereto and the phenomenally high real estate taxes that are a result of ever increasing land values in the city generally and on Lotus Lake. I have to ask, we all take risks in investments. This is a risk. Do people over buy? Maybe so thinking they could divide but that's their risk. I'm holding back on some comments so. Page 4. Third paragraph. Last two sentences. The placement of the home. This is the altemate plan. The placement of the home is closer to the abutting home to the southwest. This alternate would stack the houses altering the pattern of development along the street. Finally the two proposed homes would eliminate almost all views of the lake vis a vis the applicant's preferred plan. Well, I think we've all tried to be sold on the altemate plan and I think that mistakenly people can be led to think that self interest is above public interest. But I have to tell you, the Paulsen's are people that care about the land. They care about public interest and if they were in this for themselves, they'd totally be adamant that yes, we want two lakeshore lots. Because that house wouldn't be butting up to their property. But they're not those kind of people. They're amazing people. They're taking the public interest ahead of their own personal interest and the risk that that house 4 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 could be built right in their back yard. And I think that's amazing. And repeatedly you know little comments, they're being put down. It's amazing to me that people are put down for seeking the truth. For trying to find the right. For analyzing everything. To come to a good decision, a right decision and I know that's been referred to in here. It's a right decision. I do want to correct one other thing here. My neighbor is the one who built the $28,000 porch. He sits right next to me. He didn't need a variance for that. It's alluding to the fact he needed a variance. He didn't. Findings of Fact. Page 17. Section 4.a. I want to clear up one thing here. The proposed subdivision is consistent within the zoning ordinance. That has to be inconsistent. If you vote for a variance on the lake, you can't put the word consistent. That's inconsistent and I think again, we'd have to explore city code. By the way, I did go up to the city and that's where I got some of this good stuff`and everyone, I have to say, is exceedingly helpful. I have to say staff`goes out of their way to help us. But I did ask for a file and that was the shoreland regulation file because another interested party in the city told me, you really need to look at the file and explore why the law was changed in '94 on the shoreland regulation. You need to know that. Guess what? The file's missing. They searched for two days. The last person that was known to have the file was Bob and he can't find it. I'd like to know where it is because I would really like to explore why the code was changed in 1994. Okay. On the JoAnne and Leonard Lipe letter to the Paulsen's. Paragraph 5. JoAnne states, Ms. Wellman never told us we couldn't subdivide the lot. Okay, that's a sound fact but the next statement is, she told us it would be unlikely that we would be able to subdivide. I'm getting more comfortable up here. I'm sorry I'm at the end of the report because the more I talk up here, I feel so much better. The first time I was nervous as all heck. I was like quivering. This has almost starting to be fun. Thank you for the opportunity. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else, please come forward. Jerry Paulsen: Good evening. I'm Jerry Paulsen. Live at 7305 Laredo Drive and we just happen to be the joy of being on vacation in Glacier National Park this past week and I wish you could all have the same opportunity some time. We raced back here to shorten our vacation a little bit so we wouldn't miss this exciting event. Sunday moming as I was lying in my sleeping bag, your thoughts so through various things obviously. Two topics came to my mind. One was a bear walking through the campground and secondly, being back here in time for this meeting. So sometimes I wake up early in the moming and think about those things. So after being away for 10 days, we may be not aware of some of the more recent information that's been presented as far as the staff`report is concemed. I apologize for that ifI interpret anything improperly. So it will be something of a review, if you allow me time to do that. It appears that the developer has yet another plat. I'm not sure if it's number 6 or 7 now, but it's kind of like a shell game where you lift one shell and the developer says no. That plat is not quite right. Will you revise that one and the next one the attomey says well, that's the right now but we're going to revise it a little bit more so we're still waiting for a final plat that the Planning Commission is going to be asked to approve I believe. First question I think the Planning Commission has to answer is, do any of these plats fulfill city code, and we believe that all of them are short in some respect. Admittedly, the plan for the two lakeshore ones need a variance as you know. 90 feet instead of the 75 feet. The second question you must answer is, should the city approve a plat with numerous variances in it? And the developer has admitted there are multiple variances as opposed to one variance, which was presented to in the staff`report on June 6th. Again, we believe the developer does not meet all of the city code, and admittedly you have the right to go ahead and recommend approval even if they don't meet city code, but our point here is that we hope you'll take this into consideration. As I said at the last Planning Commission meeting, our intent is not to be unfriendly with our new neighbors the Igel's. Rather it's our hope that the city will stand by it's code and especially the new interpretation of the code in regard to lakeshore property. Both from the standpoint of protecting the lake and protecting the character of the neighborhood. And in fact only through a series of variances that you can approve, we believe, the subdivision of this property. The most serious variance obviously is the 90 foot lakeshore, and I don't think it's anything like granting a 5 or 10 foot deck extension. It's Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 certainly more serious. Has more impact, both on the city and on the lake and on the neighborhood. It's not a routine variance that falls in this category. The city readily admits they made a mistaken in recognizing that 90 feet was required instead of 75 feet in the past here. Just as an aside, the developer and his attomey has stressed that it's unfortunate this issue has been prolonged, starting back in March and June and going to this meeting. They say, everything sailed through the first meeting properly and you approved it. And then we came upon the fact that the city should require 90 feet instead of 75 feet and that did throw kind of a monkey wrench into the procedure obviously at that point. The fact is that we walked into the Planning Commission meeting on March 15th cold, not knowing city code and it was an emotional issue as far as the people who spoke, saying we don't want the property split. Now we're on more solid ground certainly. Calling on code to be the decision factor. The developer on the other hand had several months in advance to get his ducks in line and through his staff of attomeys to make sure everything was fine. Oddly enough, through all these attomeys, you would think that one of them would have had at least the opportunity to look at code and realize that there was a deficiency in presenting this plat, these plats as presented. And my contention is any attomey worth their, his or her salt should have found these things instead of a private citizen finding them .... neighbors by revising a plat. The fact is I think he's acknowledging that one plat doesn't quite meet the code and therefore he goes onto the next plat to see if he can meet code with the next plat, and that's why you've gone through a series of plats here. Developer has also not responded to our question about whether or not there really is a full 150 feet of lakeshore available. We pointed out in the last meeting, and I called it the Battle of the Bulge. Why was the contour lines of the ordinary high water line changed on one subsequent plat to apparently be lengthened to a full 150 feet and allow 75 feet per lot? We don't think they have 75 feet for a lot at the high water line. Originally they were going on the fact that they had 75 feet at the survey line, but that was pointed out to be an error also. Another argument the developer says is this is at the 75 feet that the lakeshore requirement comes from the DNR. That's true. The DNR requires a minimum of 75 feet of lakeshore. Chanhassen chose in 1994 to say 90 feet is required. Other cities in the metro area have stricter regulations than what the DNR requires. I can name a neighboring city that requires 120 feet of lakeshore as opposed to 90 feet, which Chanhassen requires. So the DNR requires a minimum for many things and each city can go beyond that if they want to, or stick with it. Actually Chanhassen did not go with the DNR code that says what the maximum height of the lakeshore property should be, and we see that. And perhaps that's something that should be considered in the future as being no more restrictive. The most, I'm reading, we're going about 70 miles an hour down the interstate so I hope I can read my own writing here. In my quick skimming of the recent letter from Attomey Malkerson, I see a sprinkling of my name in it saying I'm responsible for this. I'm responsible for that. I should be, I'd like to give a little more credit to those people who actually have helped in this. My family, my neighbors and other friends. I am not certainly solely responsible for raising this issue and the people who have come to these meetings and are neighbors, if it hadn't been for them supporting us on this issue, I don't think we'd be here tonight arguing this issue. Attomey Malkerson in his letter of July 13th states that someone in the Planning Commission told him that I had made numerous calls to members of the City Council and possibly the Planning Commission. Yes, after the March 15th meeting I did in fact call several Planning Commission members with the intent of alerting them to the fact that we had discovered the 90 feet requirement and I wanted to see if they had signed off`on the approval, which would be passed onto the City Council, and I wanted to short cut that if possible. I would challenge anyone in the planning department to name a member of the City Council that I have initiated a phone call to. Which Attomey Malkerson alludes to. I have never initiated a phone call to a member of the City Council at this point. So I question the validity of that statement. If it's improper or sinister for me to call a Planning Commission member or a City Council member, then I plead guilty to that. I think any citizen has the right to do that and I don't think that the developer should complain about me or anyone of the citizens of Chanhassen expressing an opinion to the commissioners or to the City Council. And the fact that this sort of rhetoric has kind of polarized the issue a little bit more than it should be perhaps. The developer says now the city has two choices. Two lakeshore or one lakeshore and one non-lakeshore lot. Both of which we believe require 6 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 variances. Staff says the second choice of one up, one down is not, would be a lousy idea, and we agree. We also don't think that the two lakeshore ones, plan is a valid, a good way to go either. Either one of them is going to destroy a bunch of trees and let me just give you a couple pictures that show a view of the mature trees that are involved with our property. I think we've been spoiled with our...forests there for years since the bears lived there since 1970 when we moved in, This is just to show the fact that there are a lot of mature trees. Many of which would go if the plan is approved. I guess I say the same thing I did last time. The motive, prime motive is to preserve the integrity of the neighborhood and not to change the character of the neighborhood by allowing a subdivision and two large houses to go into this property, whether it's on the lake or up and down. Either way it would have an impact on the lake and on the adjacent properties and the character of the neighborhood. Finally, let me make one suggestion. The 10 day notice is really a, cuts things pretty short for allowing people to react. I've come to other Planning Commission meetings since then and I see people up here saying, what can we do to stop this and they don't really have time to do it. Maybe a 20 day notice would be more proper. In this case admittedly we've had a little bit more time since the early March meeting and prolonged because the developer has asked for delays at times to work out a few problems here. But the more time you have obviously the more possibility that you might have of answering questions, as far as the citizens are concemed I think. So thank you and I hope you all have the opportunity to go to Glacier National park some day. I enjoyed the beauty of the park out there. Peterson: Excluding the bears, right. Anyone else? Linda Landsman: Hi. My name is Linda Landsman and I live at 7329 Frontier Trail. And I guess the question that I'd like to bring before you is the city ordinances around what constitutes a variance and when it should be granted. According to Section 18-22, which is your subdivision code, when I go through and read this it basically says that the council, and i.e. in preparing for this the Planning Commission, can grant a variance from the regulations contained in this chapter as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist. The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the land. The condition or conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to any other property. And the granting a variance will not substantially be detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of the chapter on subdivision, the zoning ordinances and the comprehensive plan. First I guess I would like a definition of hardship. I don't feel that the Igel's are in hardship here. I feel that they made a decision financially that they came into the property. Saw dollars. Bought and probably looked around and saw well, it's kind of a sleepy little neighborhood. Kind of sleepy little town. Sleepy little Planning Commission and Council. This should be pretty easy. We're not a sleepy little neighborhood, and I don't live in a sleepy little town. I hope you are fully awake and engaged in the process of determining if they should even be looking at a variance based on your code. You need to make the Igel's and anyone else present here understand that code is passed and law is passed for good reason. We and you are stewards of this community, of our natural resources, and of our neighborhoods. Please keep that in mind when you make your decision. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Janet Holler: My name's Janet Holler. I live at 7206 Frontier Trail. Just a couple brief comments. First of all I do hope you take into account the character of the neighborhood and the size of the lots at the lakeshore. I think it's very important. Many of us signed a petition and we agreed to the covenants. The Igel's have had them removed legally. We think they're very important. The character of the neighborhood is very important and we would like you to preserve that. Also, I hope that you enforce this restrictions. I think you saw the petition. How many people signed the petition? How many was it, like 60 or so? 7 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 Audience: 55. Janet Holler: 55. Our request is that you follow and keep those regulations. We are behind you. We support you in following those regulations that you've set up. The Igel's put a note in some of our mailboxes today. It was with my mail, and the first point that they say is that they've invested a major investment in time and money. That was their first point. I hope that that is not a factor in your determining what you do on this lot. I can give you names of people that looked at that lot before the Igel's. Knew that this was probably not a lot that could be subdivided and he stopped at that point. The fact that they're looking back on it now, I hope is not a determining factor in your decision. Their time and money, that was their decision. I also think that, in this letter it was stated that if we understood more we would agree with them and I just want you to know that we do understand. As you can tell many people have done quite a bit of homework. It's not that we don't understand. It's that we disagree. And lastly on a personal note, these letters that were sent around to the neighbors that personally, I thought were pretty derogatory to the Paulsen's and I think the Igel's owe the Paulsen's an apology by sending these around to the neighbors. I thought it was very inappropriate and had nothing to do with building a house on a piece of land by slandering someone's name. Peterson: Anyone else? Bruce Malkerson: Good evening. I'm Attomey Malkerson, 901 Marquette, Minneapolis. First of all, the last comments. The Igel's sent a letter to the neighbors saying we are to talk about anything you want. We're trying to communicate. We're trying to find out what your concems are. If you've got any questions, anything you want to discuss with us, we'd love to discuss it with you to see whether or not we can address the questions that you have. The concems that you have. There is in the city's files, there is letters relating to what may or may not have been communicated by others to the prior owners that are in the file and I think you've got them. And I think you got them a month ago. We just found out the other day that indeed they were filed and we couldn't let them sit there and the ones that were filed with you, paint a story that's totally different from what the sellers to us are saying in writing, which we didn't even ask them for. But they found out about it and they said, wait a minute. What was being filed by others with the city was not correct and we want the record clear. So it was our affirmative duty to make sure that people understood not what we asked for, but what the sellers to the Igel's thought was appropriate to make sure that people understood were the facts so that they weren't being painted incorrectly. We're not painting anybody anything. As we said in the letter, we're just trying to answer questions. We're an open book. We'll provide all the facts to you and that's what we've tried to do. Now at the end of the last meeting a lot of facts came in at the meeting and we did ask for a continuance and you were gracious enough to grant one, because I think that's important to make sure we have that chance. Everyone has a chance to respond to new information. Now again this evening, all sorts of new information was submitted. I don't even know what it was. Copies weren't offered to us. They were submitted to everybody for the first time tonight. I guess we could ask for another continuance so that we could review those things. But out deference to you and to the neighbors so they don't have to come out again another night, I guess it's time to proceed on. Because I certainly think, and you've been on the Planning Commission. You understand these things. You understand there are always conflicts of facts and different interpretations of the law. There always are and you have to weigh the facts. You've got to decide what weight you're going to give the staffs recommendations. And staffs interpretation of the law. And I'm sure if stafl~s interpretation of your law was wrong the city attomey would have said staff; you're wrong. I'm not really hearing a whole lot of statements that there's proof that there's any misinterpretation of the law that the staff`has presented to you. Staff`has recommended repeatedly approval. We are down to under anyone's interpretation, one variance for each lot. The lot width. Yeah, we've made some changes. We've made some changes to try to address stafl~s concems. Your concems. Neighbors concems. We've made 8 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 changes that we don't think are required by code. Staff`doesn't think is required by code but my god, if there's any way we can make people feel more comfortable, that's what we're doing, so we did it. And so you have in front of you a plat that requires the one variance for each lot and no others. If somebody thinks it really requires another variance, I'd love to talk about it because I don't think staff`thinks it requires anything. But again, if there's something else we can do, we'll be glad to address it and do it. So it probably is time to go ahead and make a recommendation, unless you have some information you need from us. We'll be glad to provide it or answer any questions that you've got and if that requires us to ask for another continuance so we can get some more information to you, we'd be glad to do it. But again, I think everybody's been pretty well stated and re-stated and we've just been trying to address concems that are raised, whether they were valid or not. We're trying to address them. Thank you very much. Peterson: Thank you. Jerry Paulsen: Jerry Paulsen again. One thing I forgot before was, just before we went on vacation we provided the Planning Commission and the staff with a list of deficiencies for the one lakeshore and one non-lakeshore plat. We haven't seen a response to those and therefore we still believe that that altemate plat does not meet code also. We haven't seen a response to that. If there is a response, we'd like to see that. I was asked by a Planning Commission member at the last meeting whether I had a choice between one and two, which would I take? The multiple choice should be extended to three choices I believe. Keep the one lakeshore lot as is and allow another large house to go up there at the prerogative of the purchaser. Thank you. Peterson: Any final comments? Joel Jenkins: I'll keep my comments brief. My name is Joel Jenkins. I live at 7305 Frontier Trail and I've been at two meetings. Now this evening and the briefly for the meeting on June 6th and I had to leave early. And the bottom line I think comes down to, do we want Chanhassen to have increased density? Or do we not? Is it not the Planning Commission's responsibility to determine what is increased density. We as a neighborhood bought, 19 years ago I bought my home there and then purchased a second home across the street because of the neighborhood. We have multiple people who have moved from our neighborhood and retumed to that neighborhood because of the size of the lots. Of the neighborhood itself. And if you allow this variance to go through and these two houses to be built, you are setting a precedent that Chanhassen wants increased density. Now a few years ago I stood here in front of Mayor Tom Hamilton and a few other people and said that we are a citizenry of people who live here. We are not developers who are coming in to build the community and then be gone. I'm thankful that people who are here tonight are planning on living there because if they weren't I would be much more upset. Because at that Planning Commission, and I don't think any of you were on that, we had a development at the end of Frontier Trail that started out with I think 121 lots. They were told to reduce it by 8. And when it was finalized, I think there were 132 lots. Just because of pushing and shoving, etc. Increased density. Planning around the rules that were set up to maintain the integrity of this community. Now attomeys can give you emotional pleas, and Mr. Malkerson certainly having his last say hopefully did that this evening. I hope that my comments to you about let's keep Chanhassen a community for the people who live here and not increase the density any more. Thank you. Debbie Lloyd: I just have one more quick comment. I forgot the paperwork at home. My table was full of things and I was scrambling. I realized afterwards, I had gone up to the City to get the minutes from the last planning meeting and at that meeting, for those of you that were present, you discussed a subdivision that had been granted adjacent to a wetland and a mistake had been made. Mistakes are made and that's why we have to review the plats and I know that upper lot, there's some issues there as well and I don't want that to be overlooked. I know mistakes are made but people have to be accountable. I know in my 9 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 position, ifI don't do my job, ifI don't run down my checklist to make sure I've done everything related to my contracts, I wouldn't be working where I am. Thank you again. Peterson: Any other comments? Janet Paulsen: My name is Janet Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. And I do have an issue with the present plat and now they've changed the lines a little bit. But thanks to Mr. Malkerson's delay we looked at that. What is the front of that lot? Lot number 2. And we decided, I'll tum it around. This is the front of the lot according to code. And this would have to be the back of the lot according to code. And a lot like this is not accessed by the street. It's accessed by a private road. It has to have 125 foot depth and this lot does not have 125 feet depth. It's not adequate. This is the front. This is the back. It's a multi sided lot. The way you measure that according to code is to run out a 20 foot line parallel to the front line, which would be about down here. You extend that out, I left my ruler back there. That's not 125 feet. This isn't the front. This isn't the back. This is the front and back. And it's not wide enough. Not deep enough. There's no room for the building pad. There's no room for the 30 feet for the front yard and there's no room for the 30 feet for the back yard. So thank you Mr. Malkerson for the extra time. Peterson: Any other comments? Bruce Malkerson: Bruce Malkerson. I do believe in extra time. Make sure that everyone has a chance to analyze everything. Having heard that comment for the first time, I would note to you and perhaps your staff is aware of it, the Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that when it comes to lakeshore lots, as a matter of law in the State of Minnesota, the portion of the lot that fronts on the lake is the front of the lot. And the portion that doesn't is the back of the lot. And I don't even quite understand the comment but no matter what, I mean that's the law of the State. If it's at all relevant but again it's just another whatever, I think if staff thought that they were wrong in their interpretation, they would have pointed that out too but I don't think there is validity to that. Thank you very much. JeffMortenson: I'm here this evening. I own a property that's on the lake and I have similar circumstances to this and I'm curious of our property and it's possibilities of subdividing it and that sort of thing. It's a similar sized property. I don't know. I just want to, for the record I want the same considerations ifI decide to look at some of these types of options in the future. You know this type of planning and that. I believe I have the same square footages and density. I don't know if that's a consideration but most certainly I'd like the same consideration as these people if I wish to approach this type of situation with my property at 7199. Thank you. Peterson: Ifyou could for the record, state your name too please. Jeff Mortenson: Jeff Mortenson. Peterson: Thank you. Commissioners. I don't know. Conrad: Public hearing closed? I move to close the public hearing. Peterson: It's not a public hearing so. Conrad: I thought it was. Just comments? Peterson: Comments, yeah. For those of you who have seen the movie Groundhog Day, I kind of feel like Bill Murray to some degree. We are challenged tonight with obviously an emotional one full of interesting 10 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 facts and I think our task tonight is to both interpret the intent of city code and ordinances, along with the interpretation of what's in front of us tonight so with those opening comments, any follow-up comments by my fellow commissioners? Kind: Mr. Chairman, I have a quick question for staff`before we get into comments. Just for clarification. If the Igel's decide to pursue the altemate plat, plat approval does need to come through City Council? Or Planning Commission and City Council? Aanenson: Correct. Kind: So it will come before us again. Aanenson: Correct. With a new staff`report. Kind: And is there a public hearing for such a thing? So it's not entirely true that they could just subdivide and go ahead without any public input. Okay. Sacchet: Mr. Chair, I guess somebody has to start from up here. I'm really tom with this. I mean my personal opinion, I really feel for the neighborhood and personally I don't like to subdivide lots. But I don't feel that our responsibility is where we can, our control is not the density of the people living in this city. Our task, the way I understand is to see how does this fit with the ordinances and the zoning. And we as a commission work based on the research and the effort that city staff`puts into this. Now granted, everybody makes mistakes and we leam from them. Looking at the facts here, it appears to me on that basis what's I front of us is the request to approve or deny the variance... In terms of subdividing the lots, you know personally I really don't like the idea of subdividing it. IfI look at the mathematics of how this works, we have two tables in our packet. One shows the lot sizes of properties within 500 feet. The other one shows the lot sizes for the Sunrise Hills lst Addition. In either case, there are lots that is under consideration to be subdivided is clearly the largest lot in both groups. In the list that we have. Now I know it's being questioned tonight the accuracy of those lists. I have to work with what is in front of me. I have a hard time believing that these lists are so inaccurate that we cannot draw conclusions from them. Based on those lists, subdividing those two lots, that lot into two, in the Sunrise Hills lst Addition, the resulting lots are the 4th largest and 6th largest out of 28 lots. If we look at the properties within 500 feet, we have 35 lots. The resulting lots is the 7th largest and 14th largest. On that basis, mathematically, and I would think ultimately legally, I feel very hard pressed opposing that on the basis that it does meet the zoning in terms of the size and all the other aspects. You know it's tricky. Personally I'd like to say this lot cannot be subdivided. But Chanhassen has a reputation as being a city that's relatively hard to work with because there's a lot of restrictions and all that, and here I find myself on a hunting expedition trying to find things that can prevent this from happening, and I don't think that's quite fair. I'll stop at this point. I want to hear from some other people but at least trying to break the ice here a little bit. Peterson: Sure. Consider it broken, please. Sidney: Mr. Chair. I didn't attend and I wasn't present at, well I wasn't present at the June 6th meeting and so this is the first time I've seen this packet of information and I believe a lot of the comments probably that came up in the first meeting tonight. And I think I'd like to restate what Uli stated, and if you look at the staff`report, it says the city's discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the subdivision regulations and zoning ordinance and that's what we're looking at. And we have two choices here in terms of a subdivision. We have the first one which requires a variance, and we have a second which does not. It meets ordinance as it stands. And unfortunately that one is not the most desirable of these subdivisions. 11 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 And with that I do agree with staff's analysis, especially on page 13 when it's stated that granting a variance is more desirable than requiring the applicant to meet all the requirements of the zoning ordinance. And I also agree with staff's condition 13, and that a conservation easement be placed over the property to the west of the access easement in the report, so I'll leave it at that. Peterson: Thank you. Any other comments? Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. I'll continue down the line here. The first time this project came before the Planning Commission, Ladd I believe made the comment toward the end of the meeting that unfortunately there's nothing we can do because the subdivision meets code. And as we all know that it tumed out that it didn't. And so now there is something we can do to stop the two lakeshore lots, which I guess I'm inclined to do. I'm not convinced that two 75 foot lakeshore lots are more desirable than the altemate plat. The altemate plat has drawbacks as well, but I think there's some positive aspects about it and one being that the building heights would be lower because the setbacks allow for a larger footprints and the possibility for walkout ramblers instead of two stories on the lakeshore. And I think as far as lake quality, aesthetics has a lot to do with that and having three stories on the lake side is a lot to look at and a walkout rambler is a nicer lake home. I think that's a positive of the altemate plat. I think the altemate plat allows for the lakeshore lot to be more in keeping with the neighboring lots as far as the length of the lakeshore, or yeah. Of the lakeshore. There's only one other lot that's less than 75 feet. All the others have quite a bit more than 75 feet of lakeshore, and when you're measuring lakeshore it's the amount of beach that counts. I think that it protects the lake by limiting dock and boat access. And also protects the lake by limiting the opening up of views for one home rather than two homes. Lake owners have the right to clear trees so that they can create a view for themselves and one home which would lessen that amount that would be taken away from the shoreline itself. So I guess I'm not convinced that the two 75 foot lakeshore lots are more desirable than the altemate plat and I'll be interested to hear what Alison and Ladd have to say. Convince me otherwise. Blackowiak: Okay. Well the question before us tonight is does this plan, this proposal, meet the requirements or not? And as I look at it, the code states 90 feet. Cities have the right to require more strict standards, but cannot depart downward from State law. State law says 75 feet, but Chanhassen has chosen 90 foot for their lakeshore frontage. So the city has every right to do that. I don't see a problem with that at all and that in and of itself is not a reason to grant a variance, just because a state has chosen a lower number. We have a deck variance ahead of us, coming up this evening and I'd like to rephrase, staff`has recommended denial of that variance because it doesn't meet requirements and I wanted to sort of rephrase some of the possible responses to the Igel variance request using what, the verbiage that's used on the deck response. For example. Literal enforcement would cause undue hardship. The deck response is, a single family home exists on the site so the applicant has reasonable use of the property. Applies here. B. Conditions upon which petition for a variance are based are not applicable generally to other properties within the same zoning classification. The deck response is, there are many properties located, and I'll paraphrase here, on lakes that are required to meet required setbacks. It applies here. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self created hardship. The response to the deck people is well the fact that the applicant is proposing a design that does not meet ordinance requirements is creating the hardship. I think that applies here too. They're proposing a design that does not meet the requirements and that is not something that the city is asking to do or the neighbors are asking to do or anything. It's their choice. Therefore self created. Granting of a variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. The response to the deck variance is, it will permit a, and I'll say lakeshore width here, that is less than those within 500 feet. I mean as I look at the response that we're giving to a deck request, I can easily apply to this. I think the applicant has reasonable use of the property. There's a home on the property right now. I think that there are other properties in the area that are required to meet the setbacks. I feel that it is the design that is 12 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 driving the variance, nothing else. And finally I think that others in the neighborhood, lakeshore widths specifically are equal to or greater than the 90 foot requirement by the city, therefore I don't really feel that the applicant has met the burden and I don't find any of those facts. Finally I can't comment as to whether or not any other proposal may or may not meet our variance requirements, but I can say that I do not believe that the proposal before us tonight does. Peterson: Thank you. Anything Ladd? Conrad: Sure. Joel, I was around when that subdivision came in. That's really sad. I really think it's pretty clear. It's not, I'm not waivering here and maybe it's too much history. It's probably too much history. The reason we have 90 feet shoreline ordinance is for a couple reasons. One, we set the, we are sort of a leader in the State of Minnesota in terms of wetland preservation, water quality, caring about the environment. We really are. Whether that's sort of hype in our literature that we put out in newsletters but we've set the way. The committees that we formed 20 years ago sort of put the movement in. The 90 foot lot lines are not a mistake. They're not. They were there for a reason so, because and I've got to tell you because some of you haven't been here that long. It affects water quality. It affects intensity of use on the lake. Now 15 feet doesn't matter much. You know it's not really going to, and if you were on Lotus Lake last weekend you would say well, it's packed anyway so who cares? Another couple boats doesn't matter, but that's the intent and that's what we're kind of doing here. We're playing with the intent of the ordinance. And you can probably doubt me because my memory's going a little bit but I do remember Joel back a few years ago. It is for water quality and water intensification. You just have to stop it. And this is one reason that you, one leverage tool that you have. So to overcome this one thing tonight we have to say there's a reason to allow that. There's a better purpose there, and that's what I was kind of waiting. And neighbors, I think they probably have rights to put two homes there. I think based on what we've seen in the past, there's a good chance they're going to be able to put a second lot there. I'd be hard pressed, and again we haven't looked at it very seriously but you've got to know, we've allowed things like that in the past. They have enough square footage. We allow private drives. They're probably going to be able to do it. That's a different issue however. Totally different issue. The issue we're looking at right now is do we allow a variance? Well yeah, I could make a case for it. Well one lot has to be the right size but then, because they've got enough feet for one. You've got to make one the right footage. You've got to. Split the difference. Anyway, so you look at the code and the code says something and specifically you look at theplat. Youlookat Sunrise Hills. The subdivision doesn't fit. Itjustvisuallydoesn'tfit. So you look at that. You look at the covenants. Their intent, which shame on you to let them expire. Well whatever happened, again much better if you have control over it than letting us have control. The covenants said something. Look at that. Look at the 34 foot elevation drop on the property. That's what lakeshore footage is trying to do. This is not a 2% grade. This is a different deal. This is what the ordinance was set up to really monitor. Look at the community involvement. Look at the two variances when really they should only be applying for one. One can meet the 90 foot. The rest, we should be looking at one variance. A lot that's 30 foot short. So I looked at the positives. The positives are, they're probably going to get. The positive's allowing the variance. They'll probably get the second house. They're probably going to impact the Paulsen's a lot more with that second house. They'll be right in your front yard. The tree coverage, they're going to reduce the tree coverage but even at the tree coverage elimination, and I looked at it, it's not that bad. I can't find, if Mr. Paulsen came up here, you know he's the one that's going to be impacted when the second house goes in. If he was, he's the one that's going to be impacted and he would have been the chip that I would have played one way or another on this. And even if that was the chip, I don't think I could do it because I know what the purpose of the 90 foot frontage was. That's all. Peterson: Okay. Thank you Ladd. My comments are not dissimilar to the last few that you've heard. Every time I do a variance I look for a compelling reason to do the variance and tonight I don't see that I have a compelling reason for the variance. My only caveat to that is, I believe ifI had a choice I would 13 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 prefer to grant this variance versus the one that will probably be here in a few weeks, and that is the only thing that doesn't set well with me tonight ifI vote to deny this variance. The one I get in a few weeks as far as a subdivision where I don't have a choice, will not be as good of a community integration. So that's my concem but based upon what I have tonight, and that really is the only reason that I would vote against it is I don't see a compelling reason to grant the variance. The other issues brought up tonight I don't see as being that relevant in it's interpretation of the facts and I think that facts present themselves I think pretty clearly tonight that this is the only variance that is required. So with those final comments I would entertain a motion. Conrad: I would make the motion that the Planning Commission denies the preliminary plat and the variance to the shoreland width requirement of the subdivision #00-2 for the Lucas Igel Addition as shown on the plans in the staff`report dated February 11th per the staff`report. Peterson: Is there a second? Blackowiak: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair. My other concern about what was presented at the last meeting as the alternate plat. And personally I believe that altemate plat is far less desirable than the plat that requires the variance. I'm looking quite a bit at tree impact and looking at the plat, and having looked at the property out there, I'm quite convinced that it will have a great impact on the neighborhood, the look of the neighborhood, the character of the neighborhood with another house being stacked above the lower one. Personally I think that it will be more detrimental to the neighborhood than splitting it into two lakeshore homes. So I'm tom. So at this point I'm really hard pressed to make a decision personally one or the other on that basis. Peterson: Understand. That was the issue I brought earlier so any further discussion? Sidney: I guess one comment. Thanks Ladd for the history on lakeshore and I guess when I'm thinking about it here that really I am tom, like Uli, and I had a chance to look over some of the materials but not all of them necessarily. But I do think that we should go through the process in this case and I guess I'm changing my views as I'm sitting here with having listened to the other commissioners and would not support the variance at this point and continue the process. Conrad: Mr. Chairman? Just a quick comment. It could end up worse. Could. We're only look at one thing tonight. So that's what you've got to review. We're not playing a game of cards where we can, you know as we're looking at one thing in the site plan. You're looking at it the right way. It could be worse. But, and not I'm making, not for the lake. Maybe for the neighbors but not for the lake and that was the intent of the ordinance that is really managing our discussion. Kind: Mr. Chair? Also on the altemate plat what we've been shown to date I believe is a worst case scenario. I think there probably are other ways to position the buildings on the site and ifI was the applicant I would have presented the worst case scenario also so, I guess I agree with LuAnn. I'd like to have the process continue and just look at the variance tonight. Peterson: With that in mind, all those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. 14 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of the preliminary plat with a variance to the shoreland width requirement, Subdivision #00-2 for Lucas Igel Addition as shown on the plans prepared by Carlson & Carlson, Inc., dated February 11, 2000, revised March 8, 2000, revised March 30, 2000 and revised April 20,2000. All voted in favor, except Sacchet who abstained, and the motion carried. Peterson: This goes onto the City Council on the 19th of August, is that right? Generous: No, that was mistaken. It's the 14th. Peterson: Of August? Generous: Yes. Peterson: Thank everybody for coming. PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUEST FOR A 100,000 SQ. FT. OFFICE WAREHOUSE BUILDING (DATA LINK CORPORATION) TO BE LOCATED ON LOT 5, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN TH LAKES BUSINESS PARK 7 ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED IOP, OFFICE INDUSTRIAL PARK AND LOCATED WEST OF UPLAND DRIVE AND NORTH OF LAKE DRIVE WEST, EDEN TRACE CORPORATION. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Any questions of staff'? Conrad: Just one Sharmin. On your recommendation number 6, the sign display area shall not exceed 3%. Al-Jarl': It depends on the size of the building and based upon this building. Aanenson: It's supposed to be proportional to the building size. Peterson: Sharmin refresh my memory. Help me refresh my memory on the parking ratio for office industrial, I see you've got warehouse and office. Is it? A1-Jaff: If it's under 49,000 square feet then it's 4 ~2 per 1,000. Peterson: Per 1,000 of? Al-Jarl': Per 1,000 square feet gross floor area of office. If it goes above the 49, then it's 4 spaces. And then it goes down again, and then it's 1 per 20,000. Anything above. Aanenson: So it's related to a proportion related to the size ofthe building. The bigger the building, the less parking. Peterson: But the warehouse office ratio is really what I'm asking, or isn't that relevant? It has to be. So you've got 100,000 square foot warehouse with 10,000. 15 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 Al-Jaff: It's 80,000 office, 20,000 warehouse. Peterson: Okay. So that's 4 V2 to 1 of the 80,000. Or is it the 400,000? A1-Jaff: Repeat your question one more time please. Peterson: I'm just curious as to what the ratio is based upon. Is it based upon the total square footage of the building or is it just the square footage of the office and not the warehouse? Al-Jaff: It's square footage of office and then warehouse separately. Aanenson: Two different formulas. Based on the use. Peterson: Okay. Got it. Other questions? Blackowiak: Mr Chair, can we go through that again? Then what's your office formula? 4 per 1,0007 Al-Jaff: It's 4 per 1,000. Blackowiak: So that's 320. And then your warehouse is? Al-Jarl': Warehouse is 1. Aanenson: Are we checking our math? Peterson: No, I was just curious. I was just checking my curiosity. Al-Jaff: 1 space for each 1,000 square foot of gross floor area up to 10,000 and then 1 additional space for each additional 2,000 square feet. Blackowiak: 5. Okay, so you have 335. They're right on. Peterson: I'd like the record to show that I wasn't asking to check the math. Aanenson: I want the record to show we were right. Peterson: Sonoted. Any other questions of staff outside the parking? Blackowiak: Mr. Chair I do have one question. The tiers, the entrance tiers. Each tier, 1.5 inches, four of them makes 6 inches. Is that enough? I mean is it going to make a difference when you're standing on the street? Are you going to see any variation or do they need to be bigger? Aanenson: I'm just trying to give you a similar building that you can look at that. Al-Jaff: Someoftheexistingbuildingsoutthereshoweachtierprojects3/4ofaninch. These are going to be double. So I believe you will have some... Blackowiak: Some interest. Al-Jaff: You will be able to see them. 16 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 Blackowiak: Okay. It just didn't sound like a lot on such a big building so. Peterson: Thanks. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. How many more times do we get to see you Mark? Mark Undestad: Three more after this. Mark Undestad with Eden Trace. We're at 8800 Sunset Trail in Chanhassen. And I guess really I'm just kind of if you have any questions. Peterson: Thank you for the color rendering the last couple days. It's helpful. Kind: Personal delivery besides. Mr. Chair, I have just one question of the applicant. You've read the conditions and I assume are happy with all of them? Willing to comply? Mark Undestad: Yep. Kind: Good. I expected that was the case. And then I just want to tell you I think it's a great looking building and I really like the high windows. I drove out by there and this will be the first building that has the windows on the second floor and I think that's really going to be nice. That's all. Peterson: Mark, knowing that I guess, part of the reason why I brought up the parking is, when you start getting into this large of a building. Two story, you know call center parking, if that building does tum into a call center, 4 V2 is edging on not being enough. I don't know what the tenant is going to have in there but. Mark Undestad: We also have Lot 6 in this, they own Lot 6 too so. They bought Lot 6 just in case. What they may do is build another 20,000 foot office building or something over on Lot 6 if they need overflow. Right now they can bring in about 135 employees with the 300 and some parking stalls. Peterson: Good, thanks. Any other questions? Thank you. Motion and a second for a public hearing please. Kind moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commissioners, please come forward and state your name and address please. Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners, any thoughts on this one? I echo Deb's comments. I think it's a great looking building. It will be a nice accent to break up both the height and the structure and the glass enhances it dramatically so I'm very pleased with it. Entertain a motion please. Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair, I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #2000-8 for a 100,000 square foot office/warehouse building to be located on Lot 5, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th Addition as shown on the plans dated received June 2, 2000, subject to the stated long list of conditions. 25 ofthem. Astheyare. Peterson: Is there a second? 17 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 Sidney: One comment? Friendly amendment? Peterson: Why don't we get. Kind: I'll second it. Peterson: Yeah. Any discussion? Sidney: Yes. I'd just like to comment about condition 10. If we could just reword that slightly because we have redundancy there. A detailed lighting plan shall be submitted to the city which includes photometrics and then only shielded fixtures are allowed as required by ordinance. Sacchet: Yeah. Peterson: So moved and seconded and amendment made. Any further discussion to that? Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #2000-8 for a 100,000 square foot office warehouse building to be located on Lot 5, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th Addition as shown on the plans dated Received June 2, 2000, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall increase the number of trees and islands/peninsulas in the parking lot to meet minimum landscape requirements. A revised landscape plan shall be submitted to the city. 2. The designation of the southernmost wetland basin shall be changed on both the preliminary plans and the architectural drawings from "pond" to "wetland" to reflect the basin's regulatory standing. 3. All wetland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be re-seeded with MnDot seed mix 25 A, or a similar seed mix approval for wetland soil conditions. 4. A wetland buffer area shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. In addition, the applicant shall provide a vegetative barrier to define the buffer edge. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs (one buffer sign per 300 feet of wetland edge) under the direction of city staff`prior to construction and shall pay the city $20 per sign. 5. Full park and trail dedication fees shall be paid in accordance with ordinance requirements. 6. One wall mounted sign per business shall be permitted per street frontage. The total display area shall not exceed 3% of the total area of the building wall upon which the signs are mounted. No sign may exceed 240 square feet. Staff`is reconunending the following criteria be adopted: a. All businesses shall share one monument sign per lot. Monument signage shall be subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance. b. Wall signs are permitted on one elevation only. c. All signs require a separate permit. d. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and add an architectural accent to the building. 18 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 11. e. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights. No illuminated signs within the development may be viewed from the residential section south of the site. g. Back-lit individual letter signs are permitted. h. Only the name and logo of the business occupying the unit will be permitted on the sign. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting the signs on site. A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting, acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a building permit. Building Official Conditions: a. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. Eight accessible parking spots must be provided and they must be dispersed among the various building entrances as close to the entrances as possible. The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. Fire Marshal conditions: A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. Submit radius tum plans to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs and yellow curbing will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of signage and curbing to be painted yellow. Pursuant to Section 904-1 1997 Uniform Fire Code and Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #06-1991. Copy enclosed. Comply with Inspection Division Water Service Installation Policy #34-1993. Copy enclosed. A detailed lighting plan shall be submitted to the city which shall include photometrics. Only shielded fixtures are allowed as required by ordinance. A detailed lighting plan should be submitted. Current state statutes require that recycling space be provided for all new buildings. The area of the recycling space must be dedicated at the rate specified in Minnesota State Building Code 19 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. (MSBC) 1300.4700 Subp. 5. The applicant should demonstrate the required area would be provided in addition to the space required for other solid waste collection space. Recycling space and other solid waste collection space should be contained within the same enclosure. Rooftop equipment and mechanical equipment are not shown on the plans. All equipment must be screened from views. The applicant shall enter into a site plan contract with the city and provide the necessary financial securities as required for landscaping. The grading and site plans shall be revised to provide data required by Section 20-109(5) of the city code, i.e. show the wetland boundaries as shown on the approved grading and drainage plans for CLBP 7th, actual remaining trees and/or tree canopy, correct drawing scale, building setbacks, property line dimensions, and existing storm sewer lines on the parcel. Construction activities adjacent to wetlands shall be protected with Type m erosion control fence. The applicant shall enter into an encroachment agreement with the City to construct a parking lot and landscaping improvements within the City's drainage and utility easement. Detailed storm drainage calculations for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event shall be submitted to the city for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Installation of the public utilities throughout the site will require building permits and inspections through the City's Building Department. The applicant will need to provide financial security in the amount of $5,000 to guarantee boulevard restoration and erosion control measures. Security may be in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow, which will be retumed upon satisfactorily completing the project. All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc mulch or wood fiber blanket or sod in accordance with the approved plans within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. All private streets/driveways shall be constructed to support a minimum of 7 ton per axle design weight in accordance with City Code 20-1118. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agency, i.e. Watershed District. The lowest floor or opening elevation of the building shall be a minimum of two feet above the flood elevation, the adjacent wetland or stormwater ponding area. The storm sewer outlet pipe into the pond shall be relocated further away from the pond outlet control structure to provide more time for settlement of suspended solids. 20 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A DECK LOCATED AT 6900 LOTUS TRAIL, PAT AND DEBBIE MCRAITH. Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Any questions of staff'? Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair. I have a question. This Broken Arrow Drive, if that's it's name. Can you, yeah Broken Arrow Drive. Can you give an idea what that is and what the plans are for it at least? Kirchoff: I'd like Mr. Hempel to address that question, thank you. Peterson: Mr. Hempel. Hempel: Putting me on the spot Mr. Chairman and commissioners. Peterson: That's why you're here. Hempel: Broken Arrow is a paper street. It was platted back in the, I'm going to take a guess at the 1920's. We have no immediate plans for constructing a roadway. I believe there may be some utility lines in that right-of-way area that service adjacent parcels. Dealing with the map, there are some adjacent parcels to the paper street that may be further subdivided at some future point and require a road to be built at Broke Arrow. That's the only reason I believe that it hasn't been vacated at this point. To the best of my knowledge. Thank you. Peterson: Does that answer your question Uli? Sacchet: Yes, thank you. Peterson: Other ones? Sacchet: That's my big question. Thanks. Peterson: Any others? Thank you. Would the applicant like to address the commission? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. Pat McGraith: My name is Pat McGraith and I live at 6900 Lotus Trail. And my first point was going to be the Broken Arrow Drive. If you look on that map it doesn't even show the road going through. Basically it's just a utility easement. There's my property and the property adjaceut and if you said maybe they would need to get to other properties. Well those would be the only two and they can both be accessed from the front or the back of Broken Arrow where it stops now. So that's one point and I have a couple pictures what Broken Arrow Drive looks like. Also the design of the deck. The way it's designed has no steps involved and they can just come out the driveway to the side and it will come around so there's no steps. And my wife works with disabled adults and that is an issue because we have people over with wheelchairs going offthere so they could just roll right onto the deck. And as staff said it's an 8 foot, we're encroaching 8 feet into the setback and actually it's, we're only adding 4 foot walkway to the house 21 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 so it's not like we're adding 8 feet. We're only adding 4 feet. And there's no neighborhood opposition to the plan. And that's about it. I really can't see any reason to deny it but you guys can make the call. Peterson: We don't have quite the opposition as the last one. We can call them back. Pat McGraith: I also was going to say that, if you look at the front of the house, you know at the picture of the front, I mean that's just the way, it fits best in the house and fits the property. Takes out the least amount of bushes and plants. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Motion and a second for a public hearing please. Kind moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commissioners please come forward. Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Thank you. Commissioners your thoughts on this. Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. I went and looked at the site in the rain today. Left it to the last minute so that was not a smart idea but the front door is, I suppose 6 feet off`the ground and right now there's no access to it but I assume at one point there were stairs going up to it. And it seems reasonable to me that from the driveway, just to add a 4 foot walkway around so you can get in the front door, that seems like a reasonable thing to do to me. And that since the house was positioned on the lot prior to our current ordinance, that that creates a hardship for them because it's already encroaching into the setback so no matter what they do, it would be an encroachment and that the position of the house creates the hardship. So I think what they're asking for is reasonable. Peterson: Other comments? Sacchet: Yes Mr. Chair. I actually went out there and I took there's a little looking around what I'll say will determine which thing, I'm calling it a thing at this point, that was Broken Arrow Drive. It's two stops of driveways. One up a hill and one down on a hill going to their house. And inbetween there is a path probably about a foot to two feet wide going through the bushes. And not only is it that narrow going through the bushes. It's a little wider than a deer trail but hardly. It goes actually pretty steep up the hill. I'm from Switzerland so I have a different sense of steepness than Minnesota but for Minnesota this was a steep hill. So I have very hard time seeing that that would be developed into actually a road and therefore justify the 30 foot setback. If the back part of their parcel would be subdivided and developed, it would be accessed most likely from up on the knoll with that stub of Broken Arrow Drive. It's very unlikely for me to envision that there would actually be a road built up that steep hill. So on that basis I feel that their request for this variance is justified and that it would be unreasonable to insist on the 30 foot setback from the road that most likely will never be there. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Any other comments? I'll entertain a motion. Kind: Mr. Chair, I'll move the Planning Commission approves Variance #2000-10 to permit a deck to encroach 8 feet into a 25 foot required front yard setback period. Peterson: Is there a second? 22 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 Sacchet: I second that. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Conrad: Yeah. Should we look into vacating that Dave? Has that, I guess that would be what I'd like to know. I don't know what we're doing here. There's some comments that kind of make some sense here. If we're not going to use the road, then what do you recommend? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. We did discuss that a little bit in preparation of the staff`report. I believe at one time in the years, probably 8-9 years ago there was an individual in looking at subdividing one of the parcels up there as was discussed earlier by one of the commissioners. The access to that probably would be from the west or from the upper level...vacation, survey work, title work and the county for recording and then including that vacated piece into your title work, it gets to be kind of an involved process. But that certainly is another avenue to proceed. Typically what. Conrad: That's what I'd be doing but anyway, that's worth the money I would think. Pat McGraith: Actually I have one more question. They've credited me on the allocation. They credited me with that square footage and the acreage. The 34,000 square feet actually of $25,000 so wherever they got their numbers, they gave me exactly the.., square footage that's on there. Aanenson: They would be the County. Peterson: Alright, any further discussion? Sacchet: A question Ladd, Mr. Chair. Are you saying that you would envision a condition on granting this? Conrad: It's pretty much up to the applicant to do that. If we would like him to pursue the vacation first. Or vacating that property. That would have been my preference. Then we wouldn't have an issue. Now there's nothing forcing that to happen. But I kind of agree that enforcing the ordinance on that piece is, I'm not sure why I want to do that so I guess I'm probably in favor of the motion but I guess I would have liked to have seen that, something happen with that paper street. And if we're committed to it, then that's good. Sacchet: It would be cleaner... Conrad: I don't know what to do. I guess I'11, I guess I'll vote, or I'll support the motion as stated. Peterson: Okay. Kind moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission approve Variance #2000-10 to permit a deck to encroach 8 feet into a 25 foot required front yard setback. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO INSTALL A COMMUNICATION ANTENNA ON THE CITY WATER TOWER AND A 17' X 17' EQUIPMENT BUILDING ON 23 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 PROPERTY ZONED PUD AND LOCATED ON OUTLOT A, ARBORETUM BUSINESS PARK 2~ ADDITION, 2953 WATER TOWER PLACE, SPRINT PCS. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Bob, I was trying to figure out how visible this building is going to be. Generous: It's a 12 foot antenna on top of the tower. Peterson: Yeah, I'm not talking about the antenna as much as the building. How visible is the building going to be? Aanenson: Oh, the building that's sitting on the ground? Peterson: I mean can you see it from road? My concem is that we're going to plop a god awful looking building and try to hide it with some conifers. Generous: Well actually it may be visible from the south because it is up on the hill but then we're going nd to put in an office building or something to the south yet as that West 82 Street develops. Peterson: Are you comfortable that the building will be hidden well enough once the landscaping gets in there and permanent? Generous: That can be a condition of approval. If we use conifers that's 100, 365 days of screening. Peterson: Depending upon the size. Generous: Well if they're 8 foot conifers, that's as tall as the building. Peterson: Okay. Other questions of staff'? Blackowiak: Yes Mr. Chairman. Bob, I talked to Kate earlier today and she said that there was going to be a map of the cellular towers and I was concemed about any opportunities for co-location. I was curious as to where we have cell towers now and are we making use of what we already have in place, or is this an area which is under served? Aanenson: Let me address that. It's hard to see in this map but what we've done is we put all the uses that are on this map, the heights and locations. This is a different circumstance in the fact that we try to locate them on existing facilities, whether it be a building or one of the city services. We've had some requests for some of the well sites which we think is inappropriate because most of those are in residential areas and because of the scale of this property, it's in an industrial park, we feel this is where it should go. As Bob indicated this one, when we put together the PUD they did recommend the council that they be a conditional use. Blackowiak: Could other users go on this? Aanenson: Yes. And that's where we'd want it to be first. Similarly, the one that we did at Holy Cross has an opportunity for another provider. They're all out there looking. You're going to see another one that's looking out there shortly. We are tracking where they are. Who's got co-location capabilities, but our first choice is try to put them in an existing facility. For example one you won't be seeing is going to 24 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 Bandimere Park. That's on for the City Council. They're relocating the existing siren. They're moving the siren back. Putting the siren on top of the monopole so accomplishing two objectives. So some of those you won't see. Again if they're in a city park or on a city utility services, those are done by lease agreement that goes strictly through the City Council. But we are still tracking where those are. So in this, to answer your question, in this circumstance there is co-location abilities on the tower. And sometimes they'll go on top. Sometimes they're panels around the side. Again that's an aesthetic thing and that may be part of the reason why they're a conditional use on this with the sensitivity to the Arboretum. So there could be other users on this facility. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. And Kate, could you pass that map around so we could just get a better look at it. Peterson: Other questions of staff'? Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commissioners? Please come forward if you do. Paul Harrington: Good evening. My name is Paul Harrington. I'm with Carlson & Harrington Commercial Real Estate Services and I'm here representing Sprint PCS. I think Bob has captured the intent of our request and that's certainly to locate on the city's water tower. As it was alluded to we, Sprint at least tries to make every effort that they can to locate on existing structures in communities when they come in. The differences in height, the question referring to co-location opportunities existing after Sprint goes on the facility. Carriers would go on any height that they feel that they can propagate their signal from to meet the demands of the area. In this particular case Sprint RF's engineers determined that they need to be on the top of the tank in order to propagate the signal to cover the area that they wanted to cover. But certainly numerous towers within the Metro area have multiple users on them. So other than that I can certainly answer any questions you may have of me. Peterson: Any questions of applicant? Sacchet: Yes Mr. Chair. I don't know whether that's a question that's fair to ask him but if you have an answer, I'd like to get an answer. Peterson: Certainly. Sacchet: Little further south on Highway 41 there's another water tower. Just across the border in Chaska. And that water tower has next to it a tower for the PCS antennas and I'm just curious about two things. Why aren't those other ones not on the tower and does it need that close one or is that a different carrier? Different source provider that that pole is for. Do you know anything about that? Paul Harrington: Number one, I know it's a different service provider. Number two. I probably wouldn't want to comment on why the pole is there. I know there's other instances, down in Rosemount there's a similar situation. Some communities want it done that way. Others have set the ordinance where carriers are almost forced to do it that way. Rather than go on the water tower, it's an easier lane to travel just building a tower on the city property so there's a couple of different factors that might enter into it and I really haven't investigated that one so I don't know. Sacchet: Well you answered my main question. It's a different carrier. That was the main part of the question. Thank you. Peterson: Other questions of the applicant? Thank you. Motion and a second for public hearing please. 25 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 Aanenson: I just have one comment Mr. Chairman. You asked a question earlier about...by these towers and we do have that in our ordinance. What our ordinance says is any unused tower or associated facility that...or abandoned has to be removed within 12 months so we do have that in the ordinance. Peterson: Good, thanks. Motion and a second for public hearing please. Sacchet moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commissioners, please come forward. Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners, your thoughts on this please. Kind: I think it's a great location. That's my comments. Peterson: Enough for me. Is there a motion? Blackowiak: I'll make the motion. I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #2000-4 to permit the installation of a communication antenna on the city water tower and a 17 x 17 foot equipment building in the southwest comer of the site subject to the following conditions, and these would be conditions 1 through 10 and I would like to, I just want to make sure I'm getting this one. Modify condition number 7 or add to condition number 7 that the equipment building be screened with appropriate materials to hide it from surrounding uses or surrounding neighbors and I'd like to add condition 11. That the applicant must provide opportunities for co-location. Aanenson: That's us. Blackowiak: Well, I'd like to put that in there please. Peterson: Is there a second? Sacchet: I'll second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Blackowiak moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #2000-4 to permit the installation of a communication antenna on the city water tower and a 17 x 17 foot equipment building in the southwest corner of the site subject to the following conditions: 1. The antennas must be painted the same color as the water tower. 2. The applicant must notify the City of Chanhassen Utility Department at least 24 hours prior to needing access to schedule an appointment to enter the water tower. 3. The applicant must enter into a lease agreement with the City of Chanhassen for use of the site. 4. The west and south walls of the building must be of one-hour fire resistive constmction if located less than 20 feet to the adjacent property lines. 26 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 The antennas and their attachment must be designed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota. The applicant and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division prior to applying for a building permit to discuss plan review and permit procedures. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan for City of Chanhassen approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. The equipment building shall be screened with appropriate materials to hide it from surrounding uses or surrounding neighbors. A bituminous parking area 10-12 feet wide shall be paved along both the west and east sides of the proposed building to provide parking areas. The plans will need to be revised to address this parking and drive aisle expansion requirement. The contractor and all sub-contractors should be aware access to the water tower site will be restricted. It will be necessary to contact the City's Utility Supt. A minimum of 24 hours in advance to access the tower. In addition, the city will require the engineering firm of AEC to inspect and supply a written report to the city of all welding/construction activities involved with installation of the antennas at the cost of the applicant. 10. The city has a private driveway agreement with these property owners, which should be reviewed by the City Attomey's Office to see if the easement permits access rights to other parties. 11. That the applicant must provide opportunities for co-location. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 12' X 28' EQUIPMENT BUILDING AND AN 80 FOOT MONOPOLE TO BE LOCATED AT 275 WEST 79TM STREET, AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES. Public Present: Name Address Warren Dunlap AT&T Wireless Christopher & Dee Cox 222 West 78th Street Paul Hume 7727 Frontier Trail Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this issue. Peterson: Cindy what, me being color blind and all. What color are the NSP power towers? Kirchoff: Grayish bluish. The sky. Peterson: What do we do about ongoing maintenance for the monopoles? Kate, you've got the policy there. The ordinance. But like the NSP towers are generally pretty crappy looking. 27 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 Aanenson: Yeah. My understanding is through the, they do have an ongoing corporate agreement with NSP for them using that and they are painting those as far as when we negotiate service agreement. Franchise. That's the word I was looking for. Thank you. Franchise agreements. With this, it'd be the same thing. It'd just be having to monitor those. Generally we get calls with that kind of issue but it will take some maintenance. Ongoing. Peterson: So I guess to clarify my color question, are they the same color? If they are the same color, why wouldn't we want them the same exact color? Aanenson: Well I'm not sure of the water tower. They're the exact same color either. They are in close proximity. Can you discriminate? You can check with the applicant to see if that's something you'd like to do. Peterson: I'm just thinking, the monopole looks more like a NSP tower than it does a water tower so. Aanenson: We can recommend that they use a similar color. I don't think that would be a problem. Peterson: I mean it's one perspective. Other questions? Kind: Mr. Chair, along those same lines. The brand, I can't pronounce it. Tnemac. Is that a galvanized material so we won't have that rusting problem that the NSP towers seem to have? Kirchoff: It's my understanding no. That paint lasts for 8 to 10 years. Kind: Is there an advantage to specifying that it should be a galvanized material? Aanenson: I'm not sure as far as reflectivity. I mean that's what we have on the pedestrian bridge. It's non peeling, is that what you're looking at? Kind: Yeah. Aanenson: That's an option. Kind: I feel like there's a pole in town, and I couldn't come up with where it was located, that is out of that material. And it seems to blend, be pretty light colored. Seems to blend pretty well. Aanenson: I'm not sure if the one down on Park Drive, if that's painted. Kind: That's the one. Is it on a public works? Aanenson: Correct, it's behind there. Kind: I was not crazy. Aanenson: Well we could research that for you. That's some issues that you have as far as color and maintenance between now and council and give them some good rational reasons for what it should be. Kind: Personally I think that was pretty invisible and looks to me like that's going to be maintenance free. 28 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 Aanenson: Well that's a decision we made on the bridge too. It does tend to disappear. Based on the proximity, like Craig was saying, is it going to stand out more or less and that's something I guess we could look at. Get some other color renderings for the council to review. Peterson: Okay. Blackowiak: Mr. Chair I have just one other quick question. How are you measuring the tower height and why is the variation between 80 and 77? I was confused. Kirchoff`: Okay. The ordinance says the height of a tower shall be measured from the ground to the top of the antennas. And in the staff`report it says the 77 feet, it should be actually 79. After talking with the applicant today, and what was in the staff`report was that the antennas are 4 feet in height. Essentially they're 2 feet. Blackowiak: 2 feet up, you know. Yeah. Kirchoff`: Right. Standing above. Blackowiak: Okay. Alright. And that's all I have here I guess, thank you. Peterson: Other questions of staff'? Conrad: Yeah Mr. Chair. Cindy, this picture, are there more poles sticking out from the main poles than just what we see? Kirchoff`: Yes. There's 3. There's 3 arms. Conrad: So do I see 2? Kirchoff`: Yes. Conrad: And so how many more do I get? 4 more? Kirchoff`: Well but the design of the pole, and maybe the applicant can address this more but the design of the pole can hole 3 more arms. Conrad: So there's, the report I like. I like all the pictures in there. That's pretty neat. I'll wait for the applicant. Peterson: Other final questions for staff'? Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair. Tell me about the same picture that Ladd just brought up. This is not proportionate to the rest. It's the height, or is it? I have a hard time believing that that's a 80 feet height there. Peterson: I think the applicant can probably. Sacchet: Maybe the applicant can address that. It's the height of the photograph I believe and how that's out of proportion size. 29 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 Peterson: Would the applicant like to make a presentation? If so, please come forward. Warren Dunlap: My name is Warren Dunlap. I consult AT&T Wireless services. I'd like to explain why we need something here. AT&T does not have a presence in your community. Currently it has a very weak signal which tries, we're attempting to cover your community. I don't know hopefully somebody here is a customer of AT&T's. But the Engineers feel that we need to locate something in this community to give it a stronger signal and be sure we can reach into our other sectors or other sites that we have in the area, in the adjacent communities. To answer some of the questions that were brought out, first of all the photo, to my knowledge is not to scale. I believe that building, the owner said was almost 30 feet in height. To the peak of that roof. The other question regarding the arms. There is in the packet, I'm not sure if you have it here. There's this drawing. This is looking down on it. We initially start out with 3 arms on the top. We have 3 arms and at the end of each of these arms are, would be 3 antennas. Currently in our older system we have 2 antennas on there and we're going around replacing, putting up a third one. AT&T plans for future expansion in their system. They would either put in this type of arm coming off at the same level, or else they would expand this cross arm and put all 4 antennas so we'd have 12 antennas as a future loading. Again, referring back to the staff`report, this is the same type of scenario which we would allow co-location down below. Not everybody uses the type of arms. Some of them use, what we call a crow's nest or a platform. But in either case co-location would be allowed. I don't have any other comments but I'd be happy to answer some questions. The only other comment I wanted to address is I believe the pole is set back. I'll have to check with the surveyor on this, but the property line on this particular property is the same as the right-of-way line for Highway 5. And I believe that would be 40 feet. I will check that though and provide that information to the stafl~ If there's any other questions? Peterson: Questions of the applicant? Sacchet: Mr. Chair I have a question of the applicant. One of the conditions that we have in front of us, that staff put on this is that instead of constructing the building with prefabricated concrete, that's a little more aesthetic. Is that an issue for you? Warren Dunlap: No sir. No, we can do that. Sacchet: Thanks. Peterson: Other questions? Sidney: I guess a request. I really like the rendering, the photos. Wondering if you could provide City Council with some longer views because immediately when I thought oh, monopole and I was thinking of where I live and where I drive into Chanhassen. I was thinking about how it might look in terms of the whole downtown area and particularly old St. Hubert's and steeple. And if we could have a photo that would show how that would relate to the downtown like from 5 and Powers and maybe from the other side entering Chanhassen from the east at 101 and 5 for example. Warren Dunlap: I think that'd be possible. I was with the person when he took these photos. We went to the west side of the town up on that rise I guess where the railroad goes under. I think he has to have a special lens. This was used with a digital camera. We'll have to get a 35 nun out and get a wide angle to do that, but I think that can be done. Peterson: Ladd. 30 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 Conrad: One more Mr. Chairman. On one of our, the pieces in the packet there were some specifications from Valmont and I just, are you familiar with? Warren Dunlap: I'm familiar with Valmont, yes. Conrad: Okay. Halfway down it says proposed antenna loading scenario. I'm trying to understand if that's what you just said a few minutes ago. There are three 13 foot wide curved T-arms. Is that what you said? Warren Dunlap: Yes. Conrad: You said there might be 6. They start with 3 at the top. Warren Dunlap: Well we start with the 3 arms and off`the ends of those arms is a pipe mount and that's what we mount our antennas to. Conrad: And those are the 12 antenna mounts? Warren Dunlap: That's where we can mount off`the 3. We'd have 4 on each of those arms. Conrad: Okay. The proposed, there are 3, this document says three 13 foot wide cured T-arms at the top of the pole which would be at the 80 foot level, or whatever. Then three 13 foot wide curved arms again mounted at the 55 foot elevation. Is that what you're applying for? Is that it's capability? Warren Dunlap: No sir. Well, the staff`is saying that we need to have the pole for co-location purposes at our height and then at a 55 foot height also allow for another carrier to come in. Whether they use the arms or not, that's up to them. We use those arms as I said, where they arc out from the pole. There would be 3 of them. And we've stuck with that design and we've been able to put all the antennas we need at the ends of those arms. In this particular drawing here that came with the packet, it shows 3 other arms. That would be an option to hold the 12, the total of 12 antennas. Conrad: So from the center park, are these arms 6 feet out or are they 13 feet out? Warren Dunlap: I believe they'd be 6 feet out. We do have to keep certain separation between our sectors so they're not, the signal is not cross talking. That's part of how we do that. I don't believe the arm from the pole to the end of the pole would be 13 feet. I don't believe they're that long. I've seen them on the ground and they're more like the 6 foot length. Conrad: Okay. Peterson: Do you have any idea, or can you prognosticate, how many of your monopoles now are co- located? Warren Dunlap: Actually AT&T, I've had a little bit of history with the company in this market. AT&T was purchased by McCaw. This type of pole which we're talking about here and those type of arms, was first done here in this market. It was designed here in this market. And the poles were always, always overly designed for loading purposes. So what happened was, other carriers did come to us when the communities decided to co-locate and we were the only carrier. There were only two cellular carriers and we were the only carrier at that time who could put them on there. So when we designed our system we designed it for our loads and in this case we'll also say we need for another 12 antennas at this area .... 31 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 And then they always put in a safety factor and all of that is put into the pole as it's designed at the manufacturer. Peterson: So you're saying you have a number of them that are already co-located? Warren Dunlap: Yes sir. Peterson: Other questions? Blackowiak: Mr. Chair I have a couple questions. First, will this ever get any taller than 77 plus 2 for the Warren Dunlap: No. We don't need it any taller. Now you may find somebody coming in here that would request, they want to go above our antennas. They want to put 20 feet onto it. The pole will not be designed for expansion. If that came about, they would have to come to us and say, can this be done? We would say, go do a tower analysis. Here's all the loading criteria. The manufacturer would have to give AT&T assurances that it can be done before we would even allow it and then they'd have to get permission from you folks. Blackowiak: Okay. Kate, would that ever happen? Aanenson: Well, if they couldn't find another site and they wanted to go on that site, they would have to work out something because they've got the primary position to accommodate both. There's another issue too I think and that's the setback from Highway 5 to go higher. I think we're getting close to the 40 foot. They have to have half the distance and at 80, they're almost there now .... variance, if they want to to keep it on one site or something like that but what he's saying is structurally they're not building it to go higher so. Blackowiak: Okay. I just want to make sure it's not really, really tall. And then the second thing is, there's currently a water tower site approximately half a mile as the crow flies from this site you're proposing on West 76th. Did you look at that for co-location opportunities? Warren Dunlap: Is this the water tower? Blackowiak: No. This is a different one. Not the one we just talked about. Warren Dunlap: No, no. I mean it's the one right back up...houses? Blackowiak: Yeah. Warren Dunlap: Yeah, I did. And it wouldn't accommodate what we need to do. It looks pretty loaded to me on the ground. You know you have a number of buildings already, it appeared to me to be in their back yards so I did go look at it but it was not in the area that I was instructed to search at. My search area is basically right there along the Interstate. Or excuse me, along the highway. From about the area around the dinner theater to just past where I'm at. So I had very limited area to work in. Blackowiak: Yeah, I was just curious if you even tried that because. Warren Dunlap: I did go look at it. 32 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 Blackowiak: Oh I meant just to do a search. Put your equipment up there and check signal strength or. Warren Dunlap: We look at it for, you know I take the coordinate readings on it and then I tum that into the RF person and he runs it with his, in his computer to see how it works with the rest of the surrounding area and if we can't make a connection to another cell site. That's one of his criteria to throw it out. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Kind: Mr. Chair, along those lines. When you co-locate you share the tower but you have to have your own equipment building? You don't really co-locate in each other's buildings? Warren Dunlap: No. That' s a no-no. They don't even do that. They have a paging company and the paging company was bought by another company and they have kicked them out of buildings. Kind: Because I know it's a site that Alison was talking about that there is a building down below that's I think probably... Warren Dunlap: The cellular and the PCS, one of the differences the cellular carriers have a lot more band width and therefore it takes more radios, therefore their buildings at bigger. PCS people, a lot of times have smaller buildings or just platforms with outside cabinets. In this market, AT&T has opted not to go to outdoor cabinets because if you do that in the winter time you may have one radio that failed and when you go to fix it and you open the outdoor cabinets, you may have 4 or 5 racks of radios that fail so, because of the temperature. So that's why they like that, and the technicians like to be indoors in the winter. Peterson: Alright, any last questions of the applicant? Kind: Oh yes Mr. Chair, I have one more. I'm interested in your opinion about material for the pole itself. Galvanized versus... Warren Dunlap: They are galvanized and we normally paint them what we call an artic ice. It's a very light blue but you know, I overheard what you were saying. We'd be happy to contact that carrier and find out if that color. Kind: So the material itself is galvanized and, I supposed it doesn't guarantee anything but it's not likely to rust like those NSP towers did? Warren Dunlap: Yeah, I don't believe I talked to the man at NSP right before they had the crew out to paint it and I don't know why they don't use galvanized poles but he did say, you know they were going to paint this particular pole and he said it takes 30 days to cure because of some real heavy paint that whatever, but the pole can be galvanized and painted. That doesn't cause a problem. Kind: Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Motion and a motion for a public hearing please. Sacchet moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: Anyone wishing to address the commission please come forward. 33 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 Christopher Cox: My name is Christopher Cox.. I live at 222 West 78th Street in Chanhassen. I've been a Chanhassen old town resident for roughly 8 years. I have seen 78th Street come through. We tore down all the telephone poles. We ran all the electricity underground. Everything west of 101 is underground. Everything north of Highway 5 is underground. This pole, I've seen the diagrams that they have here, it's very, very close to the current pedestrian bridge that crosses Highway 5. You can't see it in the picture I don't believe. This is, when we say 77 feet, I think 8 stories. This is 8 stories. Now yeah, right across the highway, right on the other side of Highway 5 we have NSP poles running down. There's our electricity coming right in. Can you see those poles as you drive eastbound on 78th Street? No you cannot. The highest thing in downtown and in old town Chanhassen is the church tower. I stood in front of the Chanhassen Dinner Theater right in front of, right at the entrance and I tumed around and I saw the church, then I saw Brown's Tire and Auto and I could picture 8 stories. I would implore you to think, if you're familiar with the area, east of 494 and County Road 6 in Plymouth. There are 3, 2 or 3 radio towers. They're different. They look like erector sets. They're not a pretty little monopole like what we've got going on here. But there's 3 of them. How do you know when you're at County Road 6? You know you're at County Road because you can see those poles. They are a landmark. Anywhere you've ever seen one of these poles, it's a landmark right there in front of you. You know when to tum right, it's Chanhassen. There's the pole. I do not want to hear that in the future. I don't want to hear people say, take Highway 5 til you see the pole and hang a right. I don't want that there. It's probably going to be right out my bedroom window. You're going to see it. I think it's going to over stand the highest landmark that's been there since the 1800's. We've rebuilt the old town area. We've made a lot of it more beautiful. We've taken down the ugly construction so that we can see the trees. So that we can put this pole up and see it instead? I disagree with the location. There's another water tower. It's not in Chanhassen. It's in Eden Prairie. It's less than a halfa mile from where this present location is. It's just on the other side of the railroad tracks. It would be another opportunity for co-location. I feel that this would be a poor location to have an 8 story tower. Thank you very much. Peterson: Thank you. Paul Hume: Chair, I'm Paul Hume. I live at 7727 Frontier Trail. I had a few questions for the contractor. The diameter of the antenna, you're only talking about 13 feet wide antennas. What is, is it going to be something that's 20 feet wide, 80 feet up in the air? That's one of the questions I had. And as far as the location, wouldn't it be better to have a location in a business district, perhaps on south of Highway 5, West of 17 where there's already a lot of businesses located and it's a half mile from where the current site is? Another question I had is, they had mentioned a 55 foot height for a carrier coming in. Why couldn't they use the 55 foot height instead of the 80 foot height? IfI could get those questions answered. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Mrs. Cox: Hi. My husband just gave all the factual things here. I'm Dee Cox. I live at 222 West 78th Street and more or less I would just like to reiterate the plea that we have put so much effort into trying to keep old town old and pretty and then to see this come along, you know I think it would dwarf everything and I think it would detract from that. My husband did some photography with the digital camera from different sites in the city and I'd just like to show you them. This red line in there, we don't know height wise...but that gives you an idea of what you're going to see. Also we have AT&T Wireless Services and they do work out here so we're not hurting. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Christopher Cox: I'd just like to add one additional comment pertaining to the photograph that I submitted to you. That is from westbound Highway 5. It's about in the nature of Lotus Lawn and Garden, 34 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 as you're looking towards Chanhassen. I also took additional photographs from 78th Street, from the Dinner Theater. As you heard earlier tonight, 10 days isn't a heck of a lot of time. I didn't have enough time to really go through the photographs that I captured and to really try and, all I can do is guesstimate with the tools I have. I can't survey this stuff. I don't have all the tools available to truly say you know, here I am driving down 78th Street and that's almost where that's going to be, isn't it? This is a guesstimate. It's not factual. I do have some other photographs. I do believe that we are all going to be staring at this thing every day. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Would the contractor like to comment on the size, to answer one of the questions? Warren Dunlap: The antennas that go on there will be approximately 4 to maybe 5 feet in height. 1 foot width, 6 inches in depth. You may see bigger ones in other areas but what we're trying to do here is to serve an area in height. Determines how far these go. And the location is critical so we can make the connection within the system. If you move too far away you don't have as strong of a signal so that's basically how areas are located. The only other comment I have, it's 80 feet in height. The power lines that are there are about 100 feet in height. We didn't locate on the power lines. It's a safety issue for AT&T and for NSP and the other point there is the property that would allow us to get access to the highest location is currently owned by Northcott and they are not interested in leasing anything because they have their own plans for development. If it was something that AT&T was interested in, but as I said, it's a safety factor. Safety issue for them. I think that's what I had written down. If there's other questions. Peterson: Thank you. Motion to close public hearing. Kind moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Kate are we already co-located on the one offofDell Road, on the city property? Aanenson: You mean the one in Eden Prairie? Peterson: Yeah. Aanenson: Yes. We tried to. Just so you know, there is another user looking in the Quattro area. We did contact Eden Prairie and I did meet with their zoning officer who works for the police department. They will not be allowing any other users, even through their own negotiations on that so that's not an acceptable option. As the applicant just said, we looked at trying to use Northcott. It's got the high visibility. We could put the panels on. They wouldn't give a lease agreement. They searched this area. We've worked with them over several months trying to find the acceptable, trying to mitigate the impact of, it's going to be visible from somewhere. I don't know how you can resolve that. Certainly when you're in this corridor of the downtown. It's the same issue. We're looking to see one in a couple weeks on Quattro. Peterson: My concem, and we had the same concem the last couple of the ones we had is, we've got this person sitting back in headquarters with a PC saying you've got to have, it's got to be in this block. They don't test anything outside of that block and how accurate is that analysis? Aanenson: Well if you want to table this for their RF study, you can certainly recommend that. Peterson: For the what? 35 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 Aanenson: For their RF study to see exactly what they studied and where their zones. What the gap they're trying to cover. That's acceptable from additional information. You can look at the study and see where their gap is. Peterson: It's important enough where I don't feel overly comfortable unless you make us feel comfortable, particularly me comfortable that the due diligence has been done versus just saying this is where it has to be and they haven't looked at. Aanenson: Sure. Let me just go back to the previous one at Holy Cross. We're not capable of reading that. I'm not an electrical engineer. We had to hire a consultant before. We can look at that and give as best information as we can but no one on this staff is qualified to read that. Peterson: Well that's what I'm saying but, and I don't know whether or not the city wants to hire a consultant every time to do this but it may be an important enough issue that we should consider it so I'm not asking you as a staff`to do that but get the information that you feel comfortable. Aanenson: No, what I'm saying is, we can get that and give it to you in layman's terms as best we can. Give you some other information to see where they're at. Give you some additional information. That's fine. Then the council will have it too. Peterson: If you told me that, if we move it a halfa mile at a 1% degradation of signal, than I haven't got a real problem at all doing that. But if it's 50% in a half mile, I just feel under informed to make a decision like this. That's my problem. And I don't know whether you can inform me. Blackowiak: I'd like to add Mr. Chair too that since we're seeing one on Quattro Drive, which is again less than a half a mile from this proposed site, I think it would be smart for us to wait and make sure that we're not just plopping them in along Highway 5 to suit whichever applicant. I mean we should have some method to our madness and take a look and see if we can't consolidate that are coming in at the same time. Aanenson: We had talked about that. I think additional information would be helpful. Kind: Mr. Chair I have one more request. Could you also review whether the 55 foot height would be acceptable and maybe in this particular downtown sensitive location we do not allow for co-location. Your opinion on that I guess. Because I think 55 feet would be quite a bit better. That roof is pretty tall. Aanenson: That's going to come back as part of their study, what height they need to get that, as Craig was saying, their distribution so we can look at that. Because your gap is going to be less if you're higher up, but we'll look at all of that. I think those are good questions. That's the same process we went through with Holy Cross. If you're at different heights, what's your gaps. Kind: And then if 55 feet is no good, then it really isn't co-locating. It's not offering co-location. Aanenson: It doesn't meet their needs. It may meet somebody else's. Kind: Okay, I get you. Sacchet: Mr. Chair, would it also be possible to be very clear, assuming we would stay with this location, to have the height of those NSP poles as a reference point? 36 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 Aanenson: Right. I think that was an issue we got before that you want at least, even before it got to the City Council you want better clarity as far as the siting of this from different perspectives. Sacchet: I think that would be an important context. IfNSP poles are 100 feet high and they're dotted along the highway, they're not to me certainly nearly as aesthetic as a monopole. So I think that would be a good reference point. Peterson: Okay. I'll entertain a motion. Kind: Mr. Chair, I move the Planning Commission tables the application for Conditional Use Permit #2000-5. Conrad: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? If we do table this, the next one is coming up at the next meeting? Just for the applicant's? Aanenson: As soon as they can turn it around. I'm not sure what their timeframe is. They may not be on. Peterson: Well we need to give the applicant some direction so I assume you'll meet with the applicant and discuss in detail what. Aanenson: Right. The RF study. The better pictures. The colors, altematives. Peterson: Then offer the right timing. Aanenson: Yes. Peterson: Okay. Kind moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission table the Conditional Use Permit #2000- 5 application. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL FROM BRINN AND BOB WITT TO STAFF'S INTERPRETATION OF A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF A LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCE, 9247 LAKE RILEY BLVD. Cindy Kirchoff and Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of staff'? Conrad: Mr. Chair just a clarification. Didn't we tum this down the first time? Kirchoff: That's correct. Conrad: So what is our role? Because we told the City Council not to do this. 37 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 Aanenson: Well technically they're asking for an appeal an interpretation or appeal the interpretation of stafl~s, how we interpreted the City Council ordinance. That's one approach. The other approach would have been, and this Cindy put in the report, would be to have this condition removed from the variance, but until it's removed then we're obligated to enforce it. So that was the approach they took was to appeal the interpretation of what was meant by the buffer. Peterson: Other questions? Kind: Yes Mr. Chair I do have a question. I was being polite. Lori, could you speak to the kind of contaminants that we're trying to avoid and where they come from and how much is coming through this property. Haak: Okay, and I'll let Dave speak to drainage. We talked about that on the phone a little bit earlier. I'll let Dave speak to that in just a minute because he can do a much better job than I can. Basically the contaminants that we're looking at any sort of sediment that would come across the property and then any fertilizers, nutrients, grass clippings, leaves, any sort of thing like that. What the buffer would do is catch that material and just basically, it would fill in to the buffer. Become sediment for the buffer materials to grow in. So you would be removing those materials. In addition, I think a big part of this buffer would be shoreline stabilization and just making sure that those rocks stay where they are because I haven't seen any documentation on how that retaining wall was put in. So I'm not certain that it meets DNR standards. That's a completely different issue but I would like to see those plantings just so we are certain that we're not ending up with some fairly large boulders in the lake in the future, because as lake levels do rise and fall, you could end up with some erosion along the shoreline. So then I guess I'll tum it over to Dave and let him talk about drainage. Hempel: Thanks Lori. It's best at the podium for this one. To try to give you an overview of the drainage in the neighborhood, and if we could take, look over here Nann. The property is located here at the end of Lake Riley Boulevard. In conjunction with Lundgren Brothers development, the Springfield neighborhood, prior to it I should say, this was all agricultural field and most of the runoff from the ag fields went down through the Deerfoot Trail subdivision. Right on down to the lake. Additional runoff comes from the properties off of Kiowa Trail down through behind this property and goes into the cul-de- sac and down Lake Riley Boulevard. And prior to the Witt's home being built, there went through the lot and also down two more doors to the east. Since the Springfield development was constructed, stormwater management has been implemented and rectified the drainage problem that's been occurring down there over the past years. Divided up the drainage. Some going north. Some going south into a retention pond and the storm sewer line has been constructed through Deerfoot Trail on down to the lake, approximately two doors east of the Witt property. We still do have overland runoff coming from the properties on Kiowa down through the cul-de-sac. The street was reconstructed or overlaid a couple years ago to address some of the drainage issues that we had in the area. Storm water does now go down and is conveyed through storm sewer and catch basins in this location to a small... In conjunction with the property being built upon, the detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan was to be submitted in the building process. However that was not done and we did through field investigation work with the applicant to create or have constructed some swales along the property lines. Both to convey the runoff from the property to maintain the neighborhood drainage pattem on the property and not push it off onto the adjacent properties. On the east side of the property that still gets some runoff from Lake Riley Boulevard along the property line and a swale has been constructed there. However that still needs to be verified if it's been completed all the way down to the lake. So the inclusion, the amount of runoff that goes through the property today is significantly less than what was there probably 4 years ago, 5 years ago prior to the Springfield development going in. With that I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. 38 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 Sidney: One question, runoflk Would that be fertilizer and do you have sediments really coming through the property enough to manage them? Hempel: Still some storm water runoff`from the street. Snow melt from snow storage at the end of the cul- de-sac. The properties to the northwest off` of Kiowa maintain lawns through there that may have some fertilizer. Chemicals. But I'd have to say the drainage overall through the area that used to go through the property has been significantly reduced. Sacchet: Mr. Chair, I have a question and I don't know if it's for you or Lori but, this lot is like 24 feet wide. On both sides of that property there are probably hundreds of feet that have very little or not buffer plantings through it. How do you justify having buffer planting insisted upon on this 24 feet? In the context of there being hundreds of feet on both sides that have very little or not buffer plantings? Could you address that please? Haak: I guess primarily the first thing that I would remind you of is that this is a council condition and so while we think it's a good idea, it wasn't recommended by stafl~ So with that little caveat, we think it's a good idea and actually Cindy and I have talked about potentially pursuing it in lakeshore areas in the future. That has little bearing on this case. I guess the main argument for this is that this condition was a part of the variance request. It is directly related to the variance. Because they have encroached in that 75 foot setback, there is a more intense use of that shoreline. There is less shoreline. That shoreline will be more intensively used. If you have less of anything, if you have sheep crowded into a pasture or something likethat. Kind of a crazy analogy but I'll use it. So l guess l would go with that perspective and certainly it is intensively used and if it was, if it didn't make sense, I don't think you'd have the staff support for it certainly but it does relate so, I think I had one other thing. It doesn't matter. Does that answer your question? Sacchet: Yes, thank you. Hempel: IfI could just add a little bit onto that. The property still does receive some storm water runoff` from the road. The other properties along Lake Riley Boulevard, most of that storm water runoff`is conveyed down along the gutter line, down the storm sewer is where then it is put into a storm water basin and treated prior to discharging into the lake. The situation we still will have street runofl~ Runoff`from upstream properties that may go through the property and drainage swale so. As an added little caveat I guess. Peterson: Is that also, would that raise an issue like with, would solve another thing going through that property? Going through the, if we build it up and put, as recommended vegetation in there, will not their runoff` kill it? Haak: I don't think you'll see massive. It's a rural road. I guess I wouldn't have a lot of concem about that. I couldn't say. I haven't looked at native plants and how they fare under salt conditions but my guess would be that they would do alright. We're not talking about a whole lot. If we were talking about, as Dave said earlier, the entire area of Springfield, all those roads. That sort of thing, I would have more hesitation about how native plants would be able to do there. As it stands I don't see a problem. Peterson: Okay. Other questions of staff'? Would the applicant like to make a presentation? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. Bob Witt: Hello. My name's Bob Witt and this is my wife Brinn Witt. We're at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard. And the reason we're here today is really we went to council to get approval for the variances 39 Planning Commission Meeting July t 8, 2000 for this property to build the home. At the very end of the comments and everything that was made at that council meeting, it was late. It was probably oh, almost midnight. It was one of those all nighter's I guess you would call it. And at the very end, after everybody had basically made their comments and it seemed like everything was being approved, Congresswoman Jansen made the statement that she would like to. Peterson: Who? Kind: You said Congress. Bob Witt: Did you know who I meant? Kind: Yes. Bob Witt: Okay, then we're doing okay. Peterson: Actually I was wondering but. Bob Witt: Made the statement you know as just a friendly suggestion for us to work with staff` on lakeshore plantings. But there was really no opportunity at that point for any clarification on what this might be and what type of thing we could expect or, you know and we just basically, we weren't thinking about it and didn't really, and nobody really asked for any clarification on what she really meant there. When we bought this lot at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard it was pretty much a mess and I guess you know Cindy and some of the others on staff can attest to it probably being one of the biggest files here with different opportunities or projects being tried to being built at this property so, and it was a mess. All the neighbors were saying, boy they're just excited to see something being built there finally because it's been such a mess. And some of you had a chance to come out and see it, and we appreciate that you had a chance to see it and you can see that it's a, we built, we put a building there and we were able to build something that everybody thinks looks great. It fits in with the whole lake concept. You know it's fieldstone and shakes. You know it really does, it looks like a lake property you know. Unlike a lot of the lake properties around there. And so we feel like we've done a really nice job with the place. One of the things that concems us is, as we were looking through some of the different variances that were given on Lake Riley Boulevard in specific and we didn't really look into all the different lots on Lake Riley totally but just on Lake Riley Boulevard, there are variances up and down the lake. And there are a lot of them where they encroach on that 75 foot setback to the lake. There is a lot of them. Up and down there. And in none of those did we find that staff`recommended that there would be lakeshore plantings. Or that as a part of those variances that there would be lakeshore plantings. And a very recent one was the Sitter's just to our west. West of us and they have a tee, a little over tee feet of lakeshore I believe. Somewhere in that area. And they were just granted a variance for their garage which is down by the lake. And they don't have any, they weren't required to do any lakeshore plantings and it would seem to me that if this is a good idea and supported by staff and by the city, that it would have been required there. And draw your own conclusions on that but we just kind of feel it's a little funny that again that we have such a small lot and are required to do it, and I think it's because of the statement by Ms. Jansen that we do it. Brinn Witt: In that picture you can see that the garage is closer to the lake than the house is and runoff` from that, since we were just, there's no lakeshore protection off`their tee feet there. And then kind of consistent through the neighborhood there. That there is no protection. Bob Witt: I just want to, just give you kind of a little bit of a background of what we've actually done to the lot for improvement up til now. We didn't remove any, we haven't moved any trees or anything from the lot to put this home on the lot, but when we went in there we found a lot of, actually when we started to 40 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 build the house we found you know a $15,000 addition to our project in that as they started to dig they couldn't find anything to, solid enough to build on. So they had to dig down, I believe it was something like about 8 feet, all the way around the whole lot basically and pull out. I won't say what the construction workers call it but they call it loon stuff. We'll call it that. Kind of a sludge. Kind of a dark, mucky kind of a sludge stuff. We pulled out 68 truckloads of that to the tune of $15,000 and refilled it with sand which is of course a fantastic filter for any kind of runoff that you would have. It's going to filter that very well. What we have done as well is we built three boulder walls. We took a lot of boulders out of, there was just a truckload of boulders that were just dumped in the lake by the previous owner with no erosion cloth or anything. They just basically took a whole truck load and dumped these boulders in the water. We spent over $6,000 to remove the boulders from the water to clean that up. And then we put a double layer of erosion cloth in to protect the, from erosion going into the lake. And then built up a wall. We not only built our 24 feet, but also while we're doing it we had the heavy equipment in there. Mr. Sitter asked if we would, you know if he could use some of the rocks and at a cost of $1,600 to me, I built another 20 feet into his area with the erosion cloth and with the boulders that we pulled out. And we've done it, and it's only just a two course wall and it's only just a two course wall but it's enough to hold back the water and then to hold back any of the erosion from the, that might come through the lot. The other two boulder walls that we built were around either side of the house, and those were built up basically so we wouldn't have a steep grade on the side of the house where there'd be a fast, quick runoff`from this side of the house. We also put in a gutter system all the way around the house to protect from just water rushing off` of the house and being able to direct the water from coming off`of the house that way. We've installed 5 pine trees. We've installed 3 of them on the east side and 2 on the west side of the house. 5 dogwoods and a number of, if you look at the house and if you've been out there you can see that we've got a lot of perennials around the house as well too. That can assist in that as well. And to answer one of the concems that staff`had about the, some of the runoff`and the things that might go into the lake. When we do fertilize we use all natural fertilizers and when we do mow our lawn we mow and bag everything. It's very small so I mean it only, we only have to go over it basically once and that's all we get is one bag off` of it so it's very, so we're not going to have any of that. Whereas most of our other neighbors, you know they'll have lawn services or the neighbors of our's to the west, they just mow and their clippings go right into the lake actually. Let's see, what else can we say? Brinn Witt: I'd just like to point out one other thing. This was dropped off`by Councilwoman Jansen. Landscaping for Wildlife and Water Control. Very good book and I certainly understand the concept and support it. In the back of the book it says protect an eroding shoreline and it basically says if you have ongoing erosion problems which cannot be solved by the use of vegetation, placing large rocks or boulders, rip rap with filter material undemeath the shore is also an effective solution. And when that was brought up at the variance meeting, one of the last ones, that's what went through my mind when that was brought up. Bob Witt: And I think one of the last things I'd like to say is that, when we purchased the lot, you know we were excited to live in Chanhassen. We were excited to live on the lake. And if you look at the amount, and you've seen the lot and the size of it, we just don't have a lot of space there to use the lake. You know there's only, again there's only 24 feet of lakeshore there and if you're going to play a yard game and you've got, you might even have sent around the picture. Brinn Witt: Yeah I did. Bob Witt: You know we're doing some yard games. There's not, and then if you start putting plantings all the way up in there, it's going to make it almost impossible to get down there and use the lake or to even do yard games you know. And we don't do a ton of that but, Brinn and I are very conscience of the environment. We go to the Boundary Waters a lot. And we're going to do whatever we can to protect the 41 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 natural resource there. And would like to even see things like, that we feel are maybe even more detrimental to the lake like the amount of boat traffic that's on that lake. I mean there's some times on Pioneer Trail we see boat trailers going all the way up past Bearpath and those are all boats that are on our lake and those are all the little guys. What are those things? Jet skis. You know the jet skis, those types of things. And there is a ton of gas getting poured into that lake and I would think that that would probably be one of our biggest concems really on there as well, but again we'd just like to use the lot for what we bought it for and we're going to protect the resources but we just want to be able to have the back yard that we can use and so we'd like to see this removed from the variance request if that's possible. And again, as we look at all the other variances that have been given along Lake Riley Boulevard, we don't see any in there where they've been required to do lakeshore plantings. Did you have anything else that you wanted to say? Brinn Witt: I have spent Monday momings picking up beer cans and cigarette butts and everything from the weekend before from all the activity on the lake and I don't mind. I mean I guess I mind that they're there but you know we like to see a clean lake as well. Sacchet: Mr. Chair, I have a question for the applicants. My main question for you is, why wouldn't you want to plant anything there? Now you had touched a little bit in terms of the space constraints. I'd like you to focus on that a little more. I mean you see all the benefits and trying to take care of the environment and you don't want any plantings there? I mean what, why don't you tell me a little bit about that. Bob Witt: Yeah, we'd like not to see any plantings down there other than what we've got right now. We've got 2 trees on the east side of the lot that have been there for a long time. Those are deciduous trees that have been there for a lot, I'm guessing probably at least 10 years I would assume with the size of the trees. But it's just as we look at it and we started to kind of map it out and we drew the lines and we just basically put down some stakes and then ran some lines up the side of the yard. And as we started kind of looking at how we would lay this out, it takes up all of our ability to use the lake. I mean and to use the yard for anything else other than it being basically a garden back there and not being able to use it for any yard games or have the access, because we've got a canoe that comes in and out of the lake. Brinn Witt: There's a fire pit down there. 3 foot fire pit. Bob Witt: Right. And then of course we've got a Golden Retriever that's. Brinn Witt: Thinks she's in heaven. Bob Witt: Yeah, she's in heaven and she does a lot of laps in there. Sacchet: So what you're saying is like that, I believe some of the options that were proposed were leaving space for canoe access and that sort of stufflike maybe one side of the dock. One more planted and spread it out. You don't see like there's any space for plantings for what you've done? Bob Witt: Really we don't. And as we look at it, you know of course we're comparing a lot to you know if we had 100 feet of lakeshore out there like either one of our neighbors or some of the other neighbors on the lake have, we could see where it would, you know we could design something and it would look right and it would fit. But you know when we look at, again the neighbors to our east who just got a variance and they've got 100 feet, yet they don't have any plantings down. They have zero plantings down there right now. And weren't required to do any plantings but there you could see where you know you could design something and it would fit and it would look nice, and they've got the same exact drainage that we 42 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 have. Our lot lines are right next to each other. And so they've got a lot more ability to use their yard and now they don't have to do any plantings as well too. Sacchet: So you're basically saying, there's two more things here and one is the faimess versus the other ones. And the other one is the benefit of the planting by itself. Bob Witt: Well you know, and I don't know that, I guess one of the things that we're hearing with the plantings is that it's supposed to catch some of the different things that are, like lawn clippings and leaves and things of that nature. We're bagging all that. Fertilizer, we're using natural fertilizer. You know we're using the things that are going to be a benefit and they're not going to hinder the quality of the lake. So we're not going to be putting anything in there that's going to be hindering the quality of the water. And so we just don't see where it's going to, you know we want to be able to use what yard we have there. I mean along the sides of the house and those types of things and the swales, those types of things we're going to do whatever we can to comply and make those work the best that we can for what's required. For what you ask us to do. We'd be more than happy to do what we can there. But we'd just like to be able to have, we might even have the smallest yard in Chanhassen. I don't know. I mean it's tiny. It is really small and I think anybody who'd live on that lot would like to at least have a little bit of yard to move around on and not feel like we're just totally... Sacchet: Yeah, one last question. When you got all the variances to be able to build that beautiful house you have there, one view to look at this thing is that in order to balance the granting of some of the variances, this condition was put onto it. And but you're saying at the time you didn't really understand that condition? I mean because one approach would be that I could see taking with this is well, this is basically something you agree to in the context of getting the variances you needed. And then you find out that it's really not so convenient to do your part. And I'm not saying that I'm taking that position but it's one possible position I could be taking. Bob Witt: Sure, I understand. Sacchet: What would you reply to that? Bob Witt: Well I would say this. Again, it was a late meeting and I think that if you look back on, as we look back on the meeting, all the people that were present on the council that evening were in support of it. We had each one of them come out to the lot. Show them what we were planning on doing and what we were planning on building. And a lot of the requests had the deck was really what was going over which really isn't impervious surface anyway. And as we looked at that and we showed that to them, how it kind of lined up with the other houses and the other variances that were given on the lake, each of them, none of them really had a problem with it. They said it looks great. It looks like it's in line and that was what was said in the meeting too. I mean you could sense that in the meeting that each person was in favor of the building project as it stood. And it was just one of those things where Ms. Jansen made the comment at the end and I don't know if anybody was really even listening to it. I'm not sure, you know in the clarification of it was it really, if there was some clarification to it, maybe there would have been maybe some more objection to it. Or whatever but we thought maybe it was in building our boulder wall, which we did, which we felt was a big thing and that we cleaned up the lakeshore there. And then as we put the other plantings around the side of the house, you know we thought that but we really wanted to have what little back yard we could have. We wanted to see it. Sacchet: Thank you. Peterson: Other questions of the applicant? Thank you. Motion and a second for public hearing please. 43 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 Sacchet moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anybody wishing to address the commissioners, please come forward. Kind moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners, what do you think about this one? Ladd what do you think about it? Conrad: They don't want me to talk first. Just a couple things. Grass and boulders are absolutely no filter on the property so they are, they stabilize the shoreline with boulders but in terms of runoff; which is really the intent of what I think staff and City Council is trying to do, there's zip. Grass is probably the least filtration plat you can have, especially, yeah it is leached. Maybe purple loosestrife is worse but. I think my interpretation is that council had a point. I think they gave in on some things and trying to get lessen the impact on the lake so I don't know that I could change the staff interpretation right now. I certainly could change it. You know you want to have reasonable use of the lake and I don't think we want to tum it into a wildemess area down there. When I look at your neighbors, shame on them. They're all doing a bad job. But they're there and you're coming in but they're all doing an awful job when I look at the pictures there. I think, and I do live on a lake and we kind of preach how to care for it and some people listen and some people don't. But the point is they should have some, you know I don't think we want to tum it into a natural. It should fit into the character of the neighborhood. Yet on the other hand I think the City Council had a point when they granted a variance and this is a condition that was tied to it. I'm not sure which is the right thing to do for plantings down there. I think there's some common sense that has to be applied here but something has to be done there because it's not meeting the intent. They'd like to have it out. I think there's a tie to the variance and I can't eliminate that so, I'm not sure what the actual planting configuration should be but I think there should be something there. There should be something there. Peterson: Other comments? Anything? Blackowiak: Well Mr. Chairman, I agree with Ladd. It was tied to the conditions of approval. There were several variances granted and this was just one of the conditions so, to me I certainly understand the intent of the City Council in doing that. And it's not uncommon to say to staff; you know work with staff to determine what's going to be best and the reason that we do that is because we don't always know what's best and so we're looking for their expertise and their guidance as to what could work in that area. But we just, we say we intend to do this. We want to do this and you guys figure out the nitty gritty but just understand what we're trying to say and I think that's exactly what council is trying to do. Is to say you know, we need to start somewhere and we need to try to mitigate the runoff into the lake. Not necessarily erosion with boulders but the runofl~ And I don't necessarily agree with 6 foot plants. I don't think that's going to wreck their view but I would certainly think that there'd be something that would be a little less tall that could go in there that would serve the same purpose. I mean it's a cute house. There's great landscaping out in front and it could be really nice down there but yet still giving access to the dock, thecanoe. That type ofthing. So l really think that we need to, I agree with stafl~s interpretation as well. And I also think this might be a great time for us to look into a lakeshore buffer ordinance because it just, it just dovetails right in. And if this is what we're going to do, I mean if this is something we're going to start requiring, then maybe we need an ordinance to say you know, this is our intent. This is what we're trying to accomplish and kind of formalize it so there aren't any questions. But again, it was a condition of approval. They knew it going in. If they didn't understand it, the time to ask questions was a year ago before this all started. And I just feel that it was a reasonable request by City Council. 44 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 Kind: Continuing on down the line .... was worded. I'm not sure ifI agree with the condition and I don't know how to handle that. I'm wondering if, I don't know. If we can meddle with the wording of the condition. I don't think that's our place but I think stafl~s interpreting the condition correctly. I keep coming back to the consistency point and also the fact that we're talking about 24 feet of lakeshore and an idea of having 6 foot plantings on such a narrow little swath when the neighbors to either side aren't doing anything. With lakeshore I think aesthetics are really important and how it looks from the lake and to me it's just going to look kind of silly. And I don't know, that's kind of petty little response I guess but that's kind of how I feel. I can't get by how goofy it's going to look and I think it's going to look unkept and I also think that the point about the Sitter property just receiving a variance after this and it not being attached to that, and they are definitely encroaching more than 75 feet and there was no such condition attached and I think we really need to be consistent on that. And it wasn't attached to that so. I guess I'm in favor of taking it ofl~ I don't know how we go about that. Peterson: Okay, other comments? Sidney: Yes Mr. Chair. I went out to the property this moming and viewed it and I do agree with Deb that you know trying to make this a natural area as proposed would look out of context and actually a little goofy when you're looking at that. But I was thinking one thing we don't know, we're saying when we have runoff and you know fertilizer and maybe no particulates but we don't know how much we're trying to treat and we don't have the idea of what scale of plantings we even need. We're just, unless I'm missing something, we don't have the data showing that this particular piece of property requires plantings of X square feet to treat X gallons of water for something. So we're just kind of saying we need something. We don't know what we need and then we have people who would like to enjoy their property at the same time so I guess my gut feel is, it's not the right place to really implement this type of condition. You know if it were 1,000 feet of lakeshore, yes. That makes a lot of sense but not in this case. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Sacchet: Mr. Chair. I think this is a situation that calls for compromise. I do believe that the 3 options, which is really more like 2 options of potential plantings that were given to the applicant, are not feasible because they're like two half bubbles that don't go along. I mean it doesn't fit. It doesn't make sense. But neither does it make sense to me that we should totally remove the request of doing some plantings. I really would like to see some plantings there. A reasonable amount. I mean we don't want to have to be an all again or nothing. It may be on one side of their deck you could plant something. It wouldn't have to come quite as far in. Maybe have some plantings in the lake on one side of the dock so on the other side you have the use for canoeing. Not having it all that much come into your yard so you have reasonable use of your yard without being really impacted. I would like to see something rather than just strike it out of existence. Then on the other hand I do think that the way this is laid out here, besides that it's not fair in terms of the context of what's happening around and I do think, I don't think it's going to look silly Deb because the property next to the Sitter's actually does have little plantings so it's not going to be out of context to have a little bit something. But I think it's out of context to go to the extent that staff`is recommending. Now I would recommend on that basis that staff`would work with the applicant to see how some thing between the two can be done that is agreeable to the applicant and that makes sense from a viewpoint of looking at the erosion, of the runoff; of all those aspects. That we're interested from a city viewpoint in terms of the lake preservation as far as that's possible within such a small context. That's basically where I'm at with this. Peterson: Good, thank you. I'll make my comments and then you can add to that if you would. I think that, as I've read this thing a half dozen times and I looked at the site briefly. I kept thinking, it just doesn't seem logical to put the condition in the first place. You know we all have to start somewhere but 45 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 this doesn't seem to be a logical starting point from my perspective of taking care of the lake. And I think, I agree a little bit with Uli but I can't picture what, if we put 3 feet of plantings in there, if that's going to really make any difference. I mean I don't want to compromise and then have it provide any value. We're just compromising for the sake of compromising versus just say cutting loose and not having to deal with it. So I'm at a loss there but I'm leaning towards cutting it loose more than I am compromising and that's based on naivety perhaps but I'm concemed that if we compromise, are we really gaining anything. So that's a question I think yet to be determined. Kate what if we, does this go onto the Council? Aanenson: Thank you, I was going to bring that up as a point of order. Just for clarity, what you're asked to do tonight is to give an interpretation of the stafl~s, their interpretation of the stafl~s opinion of this. So that's what you're here to do. If you want to take the variance off; that's a whole other process. In order to expedite this you can make another interpretation. I'm kind of waiting to see where you go. Also on this, it does need 4/5 votes. Otherwise it goes up to the council. So the condition was to do some landscaping. Okay. They said they believe they've accomplished that. Just for argument sake, you could say that's an interpretation. That met the interpretation. The rock scape. We're saying that it needs something more than that. That's our interpretation. Okay so that's where you're at. If you want to take the condition off completely, we have to go back through a process to take the condition ofl~ Peterson: So if we said that we agree with staff's interpretation, would it go onto the council? Aanenson: If there's 4/5 vote, they have a right to appeal that still further. Right. No matter what. To answer your question, yes. Peterson: Okay. So hearing that. Kind: I have a question for stafl~ Just to clarify one more time. So I agree with your interpretation of the condition and you're saying that the time to remove the condition would at the City Council level? Aanenson: No. That's a whole other process. What you're deciding, we gave them an altemative. They're appealing the interpretation of how we're applying. They believe that the rock meets that. We're saying it doesn't. So that's what they're appealing. That interpretation. There's a whole separate process to have a condition of approval taken ofl~ So that would have to come back through. Right. Kind: We can't handle that right here? Aanenson: Right. Peterson: So if we unanimously agree with staff; it wouldn't go onto council? Aanenson: I'm certain they would probably appeal it. Peterson: Okay. That's what I'm saying. They have the choice. Aanenson: Correct. Peterson: Okay. Sacchet: May I ask a question? Now we would go with, could we ask staff`to strike a compromise over the 2 or 3 options I should say, altemative A, B and C that are currently attached to that condition? Is that within our range to ask that to be relaxed a little bit? 46 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 Aanenson: Right. The condition reads, the applicant shall install lakeshore planting. Sacchet: It doesn't say specifically these? Aanenson: Right. Lori's giving you her direction on what that means but. Haak: And I was just going to add as kind of a couple little side points here. There's some concem about the height of the plantings. These are my interpretations. My renditions. I use the same book that Brinn brought up. I took a look through it. Just thought you know, this is a place to start so certainly I won't take offense. I'm not landscape architect. I won't take offense if you would recommend shorter plants. If like Uli said you would narrow the strip a little bit. Traditionally, buffer strips to be effective are recommended to be 15 to 16 feet wide. That's just kind of a standard practice. On this lot, I did the math after I talked to you. Commissioner Deb. Sorry, I'm still leaming. Kind: You're doing great. Haak: And it's about, if you include all of the area, the 25 x 25 feet 625 square feet is what you're talking. And then if you take out the 5 feet for the middle and then the little bit on the one side, it ends up being less than that. So just some other things that I kind of heard you getting around so if you have any other questions as far as the. Sacchet: One more question Mr. Chair ifI may. Craig's concem was that if we reduce the amount, like what I was proposing like going about halfway, would it actually lose it's benefit in terms of what it's going to do? Haak: Well that kind of ties into the 16 feet that I was playing around with. I recommended a little wider because it is such a narrow, a little bit deeper because it is a narrow area, but I think 15 or 16 feet would still accomplish your goals. Certainly I would say, if you're looking at erosion, the most critical points would be right around the wall. And you know getting a couple plantings right in front of the rocks and right behind the rocks. Just to stabilize that a little bit more because that's what I see is potentially the biggest erosion issue. Peterson: Thank you. Well does anyone want to tackle on a motion? Blackowiak: Well I will. I'll move that the Planning Commission affirms staff`interpretation of the condition of approval for the lakeshore setback variance, Brinn and Bob Witt, 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard. Sacchet: Mr. Chair, could we consider an amendment? Peterson: Let me get a second to that. Conrad: I second that. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Sacchet: I would like to propose an amendment to, how would we word that. To allow staff`to work with the applicant to find a planting solution other than what is being proposed. 47 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 Brinn Witt: That's what we have. Blackowiak: Yeah I was going to say Mr. Chair, I wouldn't. Brinn Witt: We have three plans, I don't care for any of them. Sacchet: I'm saying other than those. Bob Witt: Can I ask... Peterson: No, let's get our vote done. Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, I wouldn't accept that amendment because it's a yes or no. Either we affirm that it's a lakeshore buffer planting. Is it a correct condition? Does the condition, do we agree with stafl~s interpretation of the condition, yes or no? And I don't think it's our place to start putting other conditions on it, like Kate said. That's City Council and if we want to start changing, that's a totally different issue. So my motion tonight is, my motion is the Planning Commission affirms stafl~s interpretation period. Peterson: My only concem with that is that we're just passing it off to City Council saying you deal with it then. Blackowiak: Well they're the ones. Peterson: Well regardless, I just don't see the appropriateness of that. Blackowiak: But I agree with stafl~s, I do agree with their interpretation that boulders are not lakeshore buffer plantings. Peterson: I agree but what we're trying to do is trying to find a creative solution to address both the issues but Kate do you think there's a way to do that or not? Aanenson: Well, just what Lori said. I think that the critical spot is in front of the boulder walls. Does that mean 3, 6 feet? Now we'll go look at that. Certainly what we heard tonight from the applicant is that they don't think the 25's going to work. I've heard from some of you that may be excessive. Lori said 15 feet's minimum so we're trying to find a critical area that we can put some lakeshore, meet the intent and still do some due diligence to get that intent. I guess I leave it up to the applicant to say what, you know if they're not going to do anything, then I'm not sure there's any point to it. Back to where Alison's at so. Bob Witt: Can I ask a question at this point? The question that I would have would be, do those plantings need to be next to the lake? Is it something, because what we're trying to do is we're trying to be able to enjoy what little piece of property that we have down there. If there were some plantings or something along the, what you would call the swale area or the drainage area along the two lots. If maybe we did something on that but not going past the side of the house basically. You know that, so that we could at least enjoy the little piece of, little postage stamp piece of a lot that we have. Now the erosion on, this is what's blowing me away, is erosion on the boulder wall that's there. Nothing's going to erode from there. We've got all the erosion cloth in there and everything. If there's erosion, I think if you look next to like the Sitter's for instance, they've got nothing put up there. They've got creosol soaked ties in the water. None of this was looked at in their variance and I'm just, it just drives me nuts you know seeing this. And we're feeling honestly extremely picked on you know. And I think if you were in our position you'd feel the same way. You know and I'm trying to, we're trying to do what we can here and we'll be more than 48 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 happy to work with you on something like that but we've got to be able to keep the lakeshore that we've got. We can't give up... Peterson: Alright, alright. Alright. This is going to be 11:30 before, we'll have another negative vote on 11:30 like what the council did. Alright so. Conrad: Mr. Chair, just a comment. Dave, swales by the lake, is there any benefit to sculpting out a little bit, just to stop the water from going straight in? Because that's what, again I don't think you heard what I said. Boulders don't stop the, anything from going in the water. It stabilizes the lakeshore but it doesn't stop. Brinn Witt: Curb and gutters do and that's what Dave was saying was corrected from the runoff`from the... Conrad: Okay. Boulders don't solve the problem, that's probably why we're believing the staff`report, or confirming it but in terms of the swale down there Dave, instead of plantings you create a swale, which is a little dip. What do we think about that? Hempel: That was one of the requirements along the side of the home. Contain the water on the property so it wouldn't go onto the adjacent properties. However as we get back towards the lakeshore, the idea is to let that swale dissipate and sheet drainage the flow over the property so we don't have the direct impact that will force an erosion problem at the beach area. So actually the swales do kind of go away as you get back towards the lake. Now maybe Lori can add something to that as far as plantings specific areas make more sense on the sides or. Haak: Well, it's a unique situation, I'll give it that. To catch some of the sediment and debris and nutrients that may come off`the road, plantings in the swale may be effective. I haven't seen it used. I don't know what kind of design the applicant would be proposing. Certainly I would encourage them to seek a landscape architect or something like that if they wish to pursue that and I would be more than happy to sit down with them to do that. As well as any sort of lakeshore plantings we might arrive at at any point in the future. I couldn't say right offhand. I could check some literature. Check with some people in the field. See kind ofwhat their recommendation would be for this area because it is a challenge. It'sa small piece of property, but the thing I keep coming back to is, it was a year. It was a year before we heard from the Witt's after that condition was put on and they have expressed to me while I was on site that they're just, they're not interested in planting their piece of lakeshore and so the proposals that I worked up were kind of pie in the sky ideas because what I was hearing from the Witt's was that they just weren't interested in that so I guess at this point, you know before we start hashing out all those arguments, it's whether or not they are willing to do the plantings and I guess the issue in front of us today is just staff interpretations. Sidney: You know Mr. Chairman, I guess when I'm listening here I'm still, I want to know how much runoff`we really have to treat in this case and I can't imagine it's a lot at all that's really going to mitigate the whole debate here. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners let me. That is a very valid point. I mean the drainage area to that location has been reduced. So maybe there is more investigation to be done to determine that may assist us in determining actually how much buffer is actually needed. Peterson: I mean is your sense that this lot is any different than if you take 25 feet of the neighbors lot on either side, is there going to be substantially more or less or the same? 49 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 Hempel: This lot is different than the Sitter's to the west. This does take runoff from the road. Sitter's runoff`basically falls on the yard or falls on the rooftop and goes to the lake. This property takes the street runoff`and additional upstream properties as well under larger rainfall events and snow melt. That's the difference. Peterson: Alright. Other comments to the motion and a second? Blackowiak moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission affirm staff's interpretation of the condition of approval for lakeshore buffer plantings for Bob and Brinn Witt at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard. All voted in favor, except Sacchet who abstained, and the motion carried. Sacchet: I abstain. Peterson: For reasons being? Sacchet: For reasons as stated before that I feel a compromise would be better. I don't question that this is the correct interpretation of staff; but I would like to build in some flexibility for staff to work beyond just what's in front of us. Kind: And Mr. Chair I'd like to add a comment too. I agree with stafl~s interpretation that a boulder wall and Kentucky blue grass is not plantings for filtering but, and that's what I'm affirming by my yes vote. But I do question the condition and encourage the applicant to seek whatever means they need to with the City Council to revise that because it just, for consistency and for 24 foot lots, it just seems out of place to me. Peterson: Agree, as do I. With that in mind a City Council member or the applicant or any aggrieved person may appeal this decision to the City Council by filing an appeal with the Zoning Administrator within four days after the date of this board's decision. It will be placed on the next available City Council agenda which would be? Aanenson: I'm not sure if it would be the 14th or the one thereafter. Peterson: Okay. So it will be the next month. So appeal to staff`within four days and then make your respective plea with the council. Okay? Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUEST FOR A 70' X 120' PARK MAINTENANCE BUILDING TO BE LOCATED IN THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE PARK NEAR THE ENTRANCE, CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. JeffWyant: My name's Jeff Wyant. I'm with Engelhardt Associates and we worked on the civil portion of these plans. HTG Architects did the building design and Hoisington-Koegler did the landscape plans so if you have any questions on the engineering portion, I can surely answer it and I can try to answer anything on the building. 50 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 Peterson: If you were to speculate. If we said you had 20% more money to spend, would the architect still design a building, do you think these would substantially change? How much of the building design do you think was driven by just pure, this is the money we have to spend? Jeff Wyant: I would say it was driven by just meeting the ordinances. I don't think the money was an issue at all. Aanenson: Substantial change was made through the whole process from what originally came in so. I believe the original estimate was closer to $400 or $500,000. It will be closer to $750-800,000 now. And again that was the fencing issues. The block. Adding the brick. All those were add on's. Peterson: I guess the reason for my question, and part of this is maybe a speech. I guess even today after those changes Kate, if this was a commercial building, you know I would request and not approve if architecturally it didn't have more interest. You know I think that this is an opportunity that we as a city to make a statement about who we are and how we want to be perceived by the community and if this building is evidence of how we want to be perceived, then my perspective is we're woefully lacking. So it just doesn't do it. I think that the City should have higher standards of architectural design and quality than the commercial side because it is a statement of who we are and how we want to be perceived. As I go over now and I've been traveling a lot the last couple years and obviously I take notice of what the cities are doing and there's a lot of neat buildings that are being designed across the country that have character to them that speak to who their state. And this statement I don't want to repeat this statement. So that was my speech so anyway. Sorry to take up your quality time. Questions of the applicant? Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair. I have a question. It speaks a little bit of the same thing. Just express, how far is it away from Lake Ann Park Road or Drive, whatever it is? Aanenson: It's in the report. I think it's 50 feet. Sacchet: 50 feet from the drive. Blackowiak: I thought it was 60. Sacchet: ...right around 60. The reason why I ask is, do we need all that maintenance yard space behind it? Aanenson: Yes. Sacchet: Because when I went out there I realized it was a significant setback from the road, but then also felt it was close to the road because this is a park. And I felt that if we want to maintain the character of the park and get it further away, which apparently you can't. Aanenson: In the site plans you can see where the existing building was and where it sits in proximity. ...plan shows the existing building. Sacchet: There are some stakes out there...one of the front ones. Aanenson: ...frontage road but it's in that approximate. But it is increasing in size significantly. Sacchet: Right. It's going to be much bigger than the shed that's currently there. And it's quite a bit closer to the road. So that use is...for basically the trees? Because the trees are all on the maps we got 51 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 and the trees are obviously there and they're pretty easily identifiable. So basically my concem is, is that the statement you want to make to have like the building so prominent I mean in the park setting? Aanenson: Two points. It is the access issue. Getting in and out. To get the equipment to plow the sidewalks. A lot of that is housed out of this building. For proximity. To get it close to the entrance. Do they want to go into the park for all that? Security reasons. Again with the ambulatory service, you want it closer to the perimeter of the park, and it's in the approximate location it was before without tree loss or greater intrusion into the park. In that approximate area. Working with the trail and the structure going on undemeath. There isn't a lot of flexibility. We looked at a couple different orientations. Trying to preserve a tennis court. Looking at taking the tennis courts out. All those options were explored and meeting with all the staff; departments. Building, engineering, we felt that this was probably the best location as far as minimizing impact to the area. And again, all the parking for the employees, everything else will be behind the building. Even the people using the ambulance service. Their parking will be behind the building so when they come in, you shouldn't see...which doesn't show up on the building. We're trying to give a nice look to the front of the building and have all the other activity coming to the rear in the parking. Sacchet: I do believe that that concem can be mitigated to a large extent through the plantings but I wanted to hear what you had to say. Kind: Kate, will you speak to the ambulance service and how that works. Is there a person that's there that responds to calls? Aanenson: Yes. Kind: So this facility will basically have personnel. I can't even construct a sentence anymore. Aanenson: I don't know if they're there 24 hours a day. I thought they were. There's someone that's housed there for dispatch. Kind: So that might address some of the security issues with the glass block. I have kind of an issue with how that looks. I think real glass would look better. Aanenson: We talked about the spandrow. The thing is is that they're in there lifting things back and forth. Kind: And they're not real careful? Yeah, it's more durable than security maybe. Aanenson: Yeah. And there's kids up there. Activity. It is isolated. Even though the ambulance is next door. I'm not sure if they're in the back part of the building, which they will be because the ambulance is up front. They're in the back part of the building. Kind: Now how does that work? This is probably not related to this proceedings but does Ridgeview pay us for use of a certain amount of square footage? Oh sorry, it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. I was just curious. Sacchet: There is another concem Mr. Chair. Are we going to have ambulances speeding out of our Lake Ann Park then? Aanenson: Yes. 52 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 Sacchet: With lights flashing. Aanenson: Yes. Sacchet: Is that not a security issue? Peterson: Or safety. Sacchet: Safety issue, I mean safety issue. We have kids going in and out ofthe park... Aanenson: I'm not sure it's any different than the fire trucks here by the school. Sacchet: That's true. Peterson: Other questions of the applicant? Blackowiak: Mr. Chair I have a couple quick questions here. The first, is there going to be any outdoor non fenced storage like there is now? Aanenson: No. That was a condition that they, the planning staff said that would be large enough to accommodate all outdoor storage and it be, the original plans called for chain link and we said it had to be wood. Opaque. Blackowiak: Okay. And then secondly, I didn't see any condition about cleaning up what's there. There's a lot of stuff. Aanenson: Outdoors right now? Blackowiak: Well actually the, last time I really walked down there I think the boats were still up but just junk. Aanenson: Right, and that's the stuff that's stored outdoors... Blackowiak: Yeah. Aanenson: And that's all going to be moved in there. That building is down. They sold the building. And that building is removed so it's the pole bam is not there. So everything is outdoors right now. Blackowiak: Right, so we won't see anything outdoors? Aanenson: It will all be in storage. Blackowiak: Because as you go to the west of the building I guess it is a little bit right now, you know in the back where they store all the stuff. As you go down the hill and, there's just a bunch of stuff. I mean like old concrete blocks and parking curb things you know with the yellow paint. Aanenson: I guess I would ask that you make an additional recommendation to insure that. Blackowiak: That it's all cleaned up. 53 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 Aanenson: Yep. Blackowiak: And it may well have been, I didn't really trapse down there too far but I did last year. Aanenson: Again, let me go back to one of the plans... Again some of this is being driven by the frontage road and the grading. Some ofthat's already being set in place. Some ofthat impact for the frontage road and the trail. So this is kind of following that same, I mean setting in place some other motions of what that elevation will be and the siting so again that's kind of how we...should it be, remove the tennis courts. Should it be going here? How does that work with the existing grades? Peterson: Any other questions? Okay. Thanks for sticking around. Jeff Wyant: No problem. Peterson: For all those questions you got answered right. Jeff Wyant: I knew that's how it would be but that's the way it goes. Peterson: Motion and a second for a public hearing. Blackowiak moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Blackowiak moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Any volunteers for this quick summary? Kind: Mr. Chair I'll take a stab at it. I agree with your comments that I think the city should be setting the example of the kind of architecture that we want to see. Especially, I consider this the Highway 5 corridor and we're talking about coming up with some material standards and, I just don't see this as being a fine example of what we want other people to do so I'd really like to improve the look of the building. Otherwise I'm fine with the conditions. I like Alison's idea of adding a clean-up. I don't know what we do. Do we table it and look at it again? Aanenson: I believe the council ultimately will make a decision on this so I would recommend that you, if you want to talk about the architecture, that it be improved, you just put that condition. Peterson: Other comments? Sacchet: Yes Mr. Chair. So we have the clean-up and we have the more architectural interest like cupola and all that stuff. And should we add something about that little more front planting? Or do we think there is enough there to mitigate that it's. Peterson: I think it depends upon the architecture. If your architecture is more. Sacchet: Then you want to see the building. Okay. I would agree with that, okay. Peterson: Other comments? 54 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 Conrad: I agree with your's. It's a boring building and it's sort of welcoming to the park. The entrance which you find in any kind of development. It's the entrance that counts. And this entrance doesn't count. Kind: This should be as nice as the Snyder building. Conrad: I think, it is a maintenance and so it's hard to put a lot of money into something that's just holding stuff. But it's not, we shouldn't do it. Peterson: If that's the case, then you take it out of the public eye. Conrad: Yeah. Totally agree. Totally agree. Peterson: I just, with as much emotion as I can generate I will be extremely sadden if this goes through because it's just totally inappropriate I think for the image that I have heard passionately council members articulate on who we want to be and more importantly what we are. So if this goes through it will change my view of really how we want as a city to develop. Sacchet: It's light years beyond what's currently there. But that doesn't mean that it's sufficient. Peterson: So, a motion and a second please. Kind: Mr. Chairman I would move the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #2000-9 for Lake Ann Park maintenance building as shown on the plans prepared by William R. Engelhardt Associates Inc. dated June 11, 2000 and subject to the following conditions 1 through 9. With a condition number 10. That the applicant shall clean up the site. Number 11. Applicant will work with staff`to improve architecture to make a great first impression into Lake Ann Park. Awesome? Peterson: It's not that late. Is there a second? Blackowiak: I'll second that. Peterson: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Kind moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan #2000-9 for Lake Ann Park Maintenance Building as shown on the plans prepared by William R. Engelhardt Associates, Inc. dated June 11, 2000 and subject to the following conditions: All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Council Environmental Service Commission, Health Department and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The storm water runoff` from the maintenance yard shall be pretreated prior to discharging into Bluff`Creek. A sump catch basin with a skimming device shall be installed to collect sediment 55 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 and prevent oils or other chemicals from being discharged off`site. The location and design of the storm sewer shall also be modified to discharge at the creek to minimize erosion at the end of the pipe. 5. The applicant shall change the chain link fence around maintenance yard to wood privacy fence. The applicant shall change Autumn Purple white ash to American linden and Pin oak to Red oak in the plant schedule. A lighting plan shall be limited to security lighting only and shall be consistent with city ordinances. 8. Signs shall be limited to monument sign only. 9. The Fire Department has the following conditions: a. PIV (Post Indicator Valve) will be required on the six inch water main coming into the building. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around the fire hydrant, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operation by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department regarding premise identification. The building is required to be assigned an address number and numbers should be displayed per Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed. The Fire Department sprinkler connection will be required to be located on the east comer of the building. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exactly location. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs will be required at the ambulance entrance. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for the exact location of signs and curbing to be painted yellow. Pursuant to Section 904-1, 1997 Uniform Fire Code. 10. The applicant shall clean up the site. 11. Applicant will work with staff to improve architecture to make a great first impression into Lake Ann Park. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. NEW, OLD BUSINESS, ONGOING ITEMS. Aanenson: I'm passing out an update. I put that together. I just wanted to let you know on the August 1st we do have a subdivision up in Minnewashta. I gave you an update, the other one has withdrawn. Minnewashta overlook. Going for 3 and they needed the 90 foot frontage. That one has withdrawn. This is another subdivision down, closer to Kings Road. Chapel Hill came back in for architectural review. We got a glitch ordinance clean-up. Flag lot amendment discussion and then another large addition for...more than double the size of their building. And then the tower may be back on if they get that one done. I put 56 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 together this Planning Commission update. Kind of broke it into a couple of categories. Just to let you know. The biggest thing we needed to finish up here is the comprehensive plan rezoning. It's a lot of work. We are just over loaded managing applications and projects but we need to try to get that done this fall. The glitch ordinance we also, the 60 x 40 versus 60 x 60. We're getting challenged on everything. Everything that's not black and white so things start getting challenged, we're going to add pictures. It was never our intent to say it had to be a perfect square. We have very few square houses in the community. We'll address that. Clear it up. And then there's a few other ones. The one that was on tonight, Mark Undestad's. There was a wetland setback question we did talk to Roger on as far as accessory structures. He interpreted the parking lot as an accessory structure. Did have to meet the setback. That kind of wasn't out intent so we'll go back and fix that too. So as things come up, so you'll see that next week. As a staff`we kind of have a list of things. Flag lots, that was an issue paper. That's coming to you next week. At your next meeting, excuse me. Landscape escrow, just as an FYI based on the fact that we are painting the water tower. It was my recommendation that we're not taking escrow. What I'm going to tell people if they can't plant it and I'm holding their money so hopefully that's not going to come back to haunt us. I'm assuming most people are going to be good stewards, whether they're industrial, commercial and get their landscaping in. Nuisance ordinance. I think I did mention this before. We had met with the City Attomey. While we're not in charge of Chapter 13, which is all the complaints, some of the nuisance does wrap into Chapter 20. There's a lot of ambiguity in enforcement there and we don't have the tools or the time so they're going to work on trying to clarify noise and by specific type and quantify so there's a better handle on that. Sidney: Who on staff`is working on that? Cindy? Aanenson: No. It's going to the sheriWs department. Chapter 13 is not our's so, I put that in there. Sidney: So you're, have met and you want clarification then of, okay. Aanenson: Yeah, we. Sidney: You're out of the picture at this point. Aanenson: At this point. If it's just Chapter 13, you may not even see it. If it affects Chapter 20, the zoning ordinance where it talks about industrial noise, if it affects that but this is just general noise noise that there's some ambiguity. And again that's through just the nuisance ordinance but I wanted to let you know that because that's a code enforcement thing that we sometimes handle. Generally it is handled by the sheriWs department. Design standards. Not to editorialize here but you know the council's kind of moved a little bit on the 50-75% brick. We brought in an all brick building, they beat it up bloody. It was very painful. So I don't know where to go with that so I'm kind of in a holding pattem trying to figure out some more things. Kind: Which one was that? Aanenson: Office Max. So even though it's all brick, that's not always the point which goes back to my thing, it's design. A lot of it is design. And then there were some sign issues on that one, even though it was all brick. So I don't think that's always the remedy. So where it got left is we were supposed to take some pictures. I have those. They've gone back to not doing work sessions, or just on twice a month meetings so it's hard to get a time on that. It probably won't happen until later this fall. But that did alter the 70%. And we are working hard to ensure high quality design. I don't know if any of you heard, Jasper Development did hold a neighborhood meeting up on Pipewood Curve. There's property up there that has some significant wetlands. They were contemplating doing a twin home project up there. Relocating the 57 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 access. Wasn't well received by the neighbors. They're still working on that. It hasn't come forward yet. Lots of times they'll meet with them first and then decide whether or not they want to pursue it based on how they test with the water but I just wanted to let you know that was out there. Code enforcement. We're going a lot of home occupation violations and reviewing conditional use standards for compliance. Just wanted to let you know what we're working on. Project management. I told you Target's remodeling. Adding out, going out front. Perkins is remodeling. Both will be starting shortly. Super Value I think I told you is remodeling. The old Data Serv building and Berquist Engineering is in the old Redmond, both doing significant remodeling. Then final occupancy, or just some other ongoing. Northcott has occupied the building. We talked about that tonight looking at the cell. Minnewashta Overlook has been withdrawn. Building #4 at the Villages, I think I told you, Quizno's and Starbuck's and...all have been approved for occupancy. Some of them have their signs. If you haven't been out that, check it out. Met Council just this week approved the code amendment or the land use amendment for Eckankar so that goes back on the council on the 14th. Marsh Glen's in for final plat. Petting farm was tabled at the last City Council meeting. They only had 3 people. Code amendments take 4 votes so there were some things that were back logged. Chan Lakes Business Park, this is Mark Undestad, has three buildings that have been approved for occupancy. They have multiple tenants. We don't know always who all the tenants are. Chan Lakes Business Park 7 has been approved for, that should say 8th. Has been approved. Lot 3 has been approved for occupancy and that includes Scott's Associates and a daycare. You approved that conditional use on the daycare. CSM, Buildings 1 and 2, Southwest Tech have been occupied. I don't know if you've been over there at all to look what's going on and then the Dover Building in the Chan Business Center has also been approved. There's one occupant in that building. And then just under construction, have you been by Lake Susan Apartments? They got the footings in place. Peterson: The wall's coming now. Kind: But no movement on Powers Ridge. Aanenson: They're, they met with the Senior Commission today. They're waiting to see, there is a pent up demand for apartments. They may wait til the first of the year to actually pull a permit so they will begin construction. Peterson: You said there is a pent up demand. Aanenson: For apartments. They want to move ahead but they may wait until the first of the year. Peterson: If there's a pent up demand, why would they wait? Aanenson: I think they're just trying to figure out what price point they want to be in. Maybe start the senior first. They just met with the Senior Commission today so I think they're just trying to get their strategy. Have you been by Office Max? That's under way. The grading. All that. And the other office retail building. Also CSM Building 3 and 4 on Lake Drive, Southwest Tech. The cell tower. Been out there doing some code enforcement on that quite a bit. Citgo gas station. 82nd and 41. Have you been by there at all? That's under construction too. And then the CSM north of Lake Drive, that multi tenant is also under construction. If you're interested in who's tenants, I can do some homework on that to find out. Sometimes when there's 3 or 4 incubator kind of companies, they don't always you know, there's two different types of occupancies. The first one is they get a shell building done. Then they'll do individual tenants so I'm trying to break them down into those kind of classifications. So we have...two process. One where they do the shell finished and then we take the landscaping into place. Then we do the occupancy with the new tenant then they would call to make sure it's a permitted use in the district. If it's 58 Planning Commission Meeting July 18, 2000 just a change from the existing building, because we don't... So that's an update of kind of where we are to date. I'll try to give you a little bit more on that. Kind: So this would not be a good time to add Alison's idea of looking into a lakeshore buffer ordinance. Aanenson: We already wrote that down... Kind: Okay, it's helpful to see this. I appreciate it. Aanenson: This isn't everything we're doing, trust me. Conrad: Ladd led me to believe you were doing nothing. Peterson: Yeah Ladd. Conrad: I never said that. Aanenson: We also had talked about a chair person and I neglected to put it on the agenda. I don't know if you want to put it on the next one. Talk about chair person and vice chair? I don't know if Matt told me he wasn't going to be here, I forgot. But we should put that on... Peterson: Put it on the next one. Blackowiak: I will not be here the next meeting, August 2nd. I will be at my annual Girl Scout camp. Aanenson: So you'll be elected chair. Blackowiak: Thanks guys. And I have a sleep over this year too. Aanenson: I appreciate your feedback on the e-mails. Those of you that e-mailed me back. It was a tough meeting but we got through it. Sacchet: I won't be here on the 15th. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Deb Kind noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 20, 2000 as presented. Chairman Peterson adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 11:15 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 59