Loading...
PC 2000 08 15CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 15, 2000 Chairman Petnrson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Pctcrson, LuAnn Sidney, Matt Burton, Alison Blackowiak, Deb Kind, and Ladd Conrad MEMBERS ABSENT: Uli Sacchct STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aancnson, Community Development Director; Cindy Kirchofl; Planner I; Sharmin Al-Jarl; Senior Planner; Bob Generous, Senior Planner and Dave Hcmp¢l, Assistant City Engineer REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A 12' X 28' EQUIPMENT BUILDING AND A 79.5 FOOT MONOPOLE TO BE LOCATED AT 275 WEST 79T~I STREET, AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES. Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. (Taping of the meeting began at this point in the discussion.) Peterson: ...degradation are we talking about. Are we talking about 1%? Are we talking 50? Just to give us some sense of the difference in the locations. Peter Beck: Well it's not really talked about in the sense of degradation. The two issues that they're trying to address in the location of these facilities throughout the metro area and incidentally the question came up about co-locations and we couldn't think of one in Chanhassen yet that is co-located. But as there becomes, well I'm going to back up. The two issues are coverage and capacity. You have to cover the whole area. You want the whole service area to be in red there, and you have to within that coverage area you have to have enough capacity. Each one of these sites can only handle so many calls at a time. So what you see in the heavily urbanized area is you need more sites closer together Bob for capacity issues as opposed to coverage issues. And that's when you start getting the co-locations. And there are sites in downtown area where there's 3 and 4 providers on a single pole so again, it's not an issue where, it's not that we don't want to co-locate. That we're rejecting workable co-location sites. We just haven't reached the point yet where the usage in this community is heavy enough that there's the demand for that many sites that they're intersecting, if you follow that. Each company is designing it's own system and when they have intersection points, where one company's needs are in a location where another company already has a facility, then they will co-locate. It just hasn't happened here yet but it will and this pole for instance is designed so that when that happens a second user can get on there and it will be fairly low but at that point it might be on some of the major transportation thoroughfares closer in. There are sites going in at 55 and 60 feet so sometime in the next few years there may well be a provider that will be able to use this facility at that lower height. At this point in the development of our system, that height won't work so we'll be up at the 79 feet. So to get back to your question, it's not degradation it's coverage in this case and I don't know, from the map I'm guessing that we're losing maybe 40-50% of the coverage area that the site is being designed to address if we were to move to that Sprint location for instance. But that's just eye balling it. It's way beyond the point at which they would make the investment in the site. This is Warren Dunlap with AT&T. Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2000 Warren Dunlap: We did check, I don't know where Quattro is and when I checked with the Sprint representative he did not identify his site by any name. He gives me the coordinates. We tum that in so if this is the site on Quattro, it is far enough from this one that it would do us absolutely no good. Blackowiak: Do you know for sure Kate? Aanenson: Yes, they spoke to each other. Blackowiak: It is Quattro? Is the Sprint the Quattro site? Aanenson: They have not submitted an application. All we have is this plan tonight. He contacted them. They exchanged information. What they can and that's all. Kind: It's reasonable to assume that that's the site? Aanenson: We've spoken to the person. They communicated with each other. They haven't submitted. Peter Beck: You didn't have a third site in mind. That was the one you meant where the other provider was? Blackowiak: I believe that's the one we're talking about. I guess we haven't been told officially. Peter Beck: As far as we know there was just the two that we were asked to. Aanenson: Right, we had an inquiry so we had talked to Steve to see if there was a way if either one could go on the other site. We did pursue that based on your recommendations. Peter Beck: And those types of inquiries back and forth are fairly routine and providers all have agreements, co-location agreements between them and where it works it's done because it's more cost efficient, as well as better public relations if you will. The fewer the better. Peterson: Any other questions? Kind: Yeah Mr. Chairman. Do you ever do a joint ventures with your competition, for instance to make the Quattro taller? Tower taller. If it was taller would it meet your needs? What I'm getting at is, I think I would prefer to see one 100 foot tower versus two 80 foot towers. Peter Beck: There's two questions there. Let me answer the first one. These companies are all competitors and you have 6 now of these wireless providers that are competing in this marketplace and they cannot, unfortunately cooperate if you will on anything that affects their pricing or service and the location of these towers directly impacts service so they can't get together and design a joint system that will work for everybody. In a lot of ways that'd be more efficient but that was not what congress decided to do with respect to wireless phone. That's, the wire line as you know is a 100 year old monopoly and that was the way that went but this time around they decided for better or worst that the consumer would be better served by competition and so these providers are all subject to the anti trust laws of the country. So they can't do that. So what they can do is respond on site by site inquiries. So for instance ifa provider comes in and asks Kate or her staff`you know, they're looking at a particular location and they're aware of something nearby, then we go look at it. And if we're over a certain height, we're required to go identify the co-locatable facilities and if there is one that is close, then you contact that provider. You get the 2 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2000 coordinates which is what all this computer stuff is generated off of and you do the study and you see if it can happen. The second part of your question is, you know I think is, if that went higher could we both fit on it? And as you saw from with the engineer, we have not only a problem with the separation from where we need to be but also there's a ground elevation difference. So we would need to be at a height in that location in order to serve the area that we need to serve that would be too tall and if that sounds confusing, as you know, as you might know with this technology it goes cell by cell. Alright. And now we're over tOO cells, or 150 maybe in the metro area in that neighborhood. And not only do they have to be tall enough, but they can't be too tall because if they are than that signal, it's a line of sight. That signal will go too far and it will intrude on cells, you know 2 or 3 levels away where the same frequencies are being used. The other, the two magic things that make this technology work is hand off from cell to cell and frequency re-use so each company is licensed with a certain number of frequencies and they re-use those repeatedly throughout their system. And they have to keep enough separation between cells on the same frequencies otherwise you get what in the, for those who had analog phones, you would occasionally get cross talk. Be in the middle of someone else's conversation. Digitally it just cuts and drops you. But that's one of the other complications in siting these things. If you put it up too high, it's just as bad as being too low because you're over shooting the area that you need to cover and interfering with other cells. And I think, but the bigger problem here is the combination of the separation and the ground elevation differences that it would be at a height much higher than tOO feet, and which I don't think would be politically acceptable at that location. And again, you know we're still in the fairly early stages of the build out of this system. There will be more facilities. There will be co-locations on these facilities and I think the ordinance that you have, which we worked with Kate and her staff in developing, is the maximum height notwithstanding, is I think a fairly good approach to it. In other words, encouraging these lower facilities but still wanting to get them at a height where co-location is feasible. For instance a 50 foot height limit would not be very sensible because then you don't, then you lose any co-location opportunity. The one big constraint with this technology is it doesn't go through trees very well so you've got to get up, in most cases above the tree canopy. Now the site that we have here, again we're hopeful that it will work for someone at 55 feet because you don't have a lot of deciduous trees on that highway side there. They're the evergreens that are going to be below that so hopefully somebody that doesn't need to cover a lot of distance can get a clear line of site to Highway 5 and the surrounding area from this facility in the future, and I think it's almost certain you'll see that. Kind: Thank you. Peterson: Okay, any other questions? Sidney: Yes Mr. Chair. I was having a hard time understanding the coverage diagram that you're showing. Can you demonstrate, do you have something more on a t to 2 mile scale rather than the whole metropolitan area because I wasn't, it wasn't clear to me that one of the white squares is actually you know dead center right on Brown's Tire. Peter Beck: Yeah, let me take, this is the one that's at the largest scale so maybe it will show up the best. This is not the...area. What we have here is 494 1 think and 5 and this must be tOt. And here's our site. And then what is showing is, the propagation that we're getting from other sites here, here, here, and here and how this new site is filling in. Now this particular one happens to be the 55 feet and you'll see the... The one that is the pole that's proposed is right here. We're still getting some areas, some problem areas and it relates to, again as I mentioned, this is a line of sight technology so. Sidney: So where is the pole? The proposed pole. That one, okay. Well it looks like you could move that maybe closer to 494 and beef up that area and still get coverage? Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2000 Peter Beck: Here's Highway 5 and here's the next site which I believe, is that... I call it Edenese. That's not what it is anymore. It's just west of Mitchell Road. So again, we're about, well we are as close, you know hundreds of feet anyway to this as we can be probably. Sidney: But what you're showing there is you're still not getting the coverage that you'd like? Peter Beck: Well down here, it's south of 5 where we still have an area that will be a problem and it's probably related to what's happening topographically down there. And I'm not sure again moving this west is even going to address that. It probably wants to be slightly higher but we have held it at the 80 feet that your ordinance is directing us towards. Peterson: Okay, thank you for your comments. Peter Beck: Thank you. Peterson: This item has already been through a public hearing but I will entertain some brief comments from any of the public if they wish to do so now please. Okay. Commissioners, your thoughts on this one. I'll entertain a motion. Can nobody hear me or something? Kind: Nobody wants to go. Conrad: Nobody wants to do that Craig. Peterson: Are there any comments? Kind: Yes Mr. Chair, I have a comment. I am not wild, I'm sensing nobody's wild about making a motion to put a monopole in, near downtown Chanhassen. I'm struggling with whether we want to have the applicant explore co-locating with the Sprint-Quattro tower and making it a little taller so we can have just one pole in that area or if we want to pass this with the conditions. And I am vacillating between those routes. Peterson: Any other comments? Sidney: Mr. Chair I'll make a few comments. I guess I still don't feel comfortable that we have the data that supports that this is absolutely the site that's necessary and I guess that's really a burden on the applicant to maybe show us you know other sites and why they won't work. I guess I don't feel comfortable with the aesthetics that we're facing in this situation. And I think that's a big concem for us, especially I don't feel that the photos really were representative of what we had asked for in terms of the visual impact relative to the St. Hubert's steeple. So I'd like to see photos that are more close-up of that. So I don't really feel comfortable moving this forward as it stands. Peterson: On what basis? I mean other than, they are meeting the code. Sidney: Well I guess if, I guess Commissioner Burton have some comments about that but I guess I just don't feel comfortable based on the aesthetics if you look at what's in the city code conceming towers and antennas. It just doesn't in my opinion pass the test. Peterson: Matt, any comments? 4 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2000 Burton: Yeah, I'm struggling with this a bit too. We have some different elements that we're told to look at here and deciding whether this can be approved and the first one is whether the tower will have a direct impact on the image of the community, and I think it has a negative impact on that element. The next element would be how it affects the public health, safety, welfare and aesthetics of the community and again I think it would fail that test. The next one is a reasonable opportunity for the establishment of wireless telecommunication must be provided to serve the residential and business needs and I think, I'm not convinced that this is necessary. I think I mirror LuAnn's concems there. And then the other one is the uncontrolled and unlimited towers and antennas adversely impact the image and aesthetics of the community and thereby undermine economic value and growth. And the applicant was saying how the different companies don't cooperate and they're all kind of forced to go on their own and put in their own towers and if that's the case then it is virtually uncontrolled and you have multiple towers where maybe they could co-locate. So maybe this might be an opportunity to take a bit of a stand and try to force them to co-locate. So I'm more inclined to vote no, or to table it and have them come back and make more of a demonstration as to why it's absolutely necessary. Peterson: Okay. Any other commissioner's thoughts? Blackowiak: I'll just make a quick comment. I really too would like to see some co-location. It kind of shocked me when you said that we wouldn't be seeing anything for a few years because although there are opportunities for co-location around the city, it's only on water towers that it's happening right now so we keep putting tower after tower after tower up and we don't get anything out of it. And I seem to recall that the last time this came through that we were talking about the fact that this technology would be obsolete in you know the next decade or whatever so it's like, so are we going to have all these towers that are going to be sprouting up all over and then nobody ever co-locating before they're obsolete? I don't know. I'm a little, I have a little problem with the 80 foot requirement. We're approving that there are no co- location requirements. I really feel this isn't an issue I guess with the ordinance itself but I think all applicants should be required to prove that they cannot be accommodated within a 1 mile search radius regardless of the height of their proposed tower because I heard the applicant himself tonight say he'd prefer to go a little higher than 80 feet. It might even be better but I think that they're at 79.5 so they can meet that. I'm sorry, I'm being cynical maybe but 79.5 is awfully close to 80 and if he's telling me he'd like to be higher than 80, I have to question you know why that number was chosen and I guess I'll leave it at that. So again, I certainly agree with what Matt said about the findings that we need to consider before we move ahead with this and I don't know. I'm not really comfortable right now I guess. Peterson: Okay. My closing thoughts. I think that we sent them back once. There's a certain amount of technologies involved here and we are not certainly technologist in this area to make some of those determinations. My feelings are that we would, I'd recommend moving it onto council with the caveat that they present some more detailed and further documentation that this is the most prudent place for more statistical reasons than have been offered tonight. So I'll entertain a motion. Burton: Well if we deny it, it moves on so Mr. Chairman I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend denial of Conditional Use Permit #2000-5, and I'm not going to read the rest but just whatever it states there. Peterson: Okay, is there a second? Kind: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2000 Burton moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of Conditional Use Permit #2000-5 to construct a 12' x 28' equipment building and a 79.5 foot monopole to be located at 275 West 79th Street, AT&T Wireless Services. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST TO AMEND A CONDITION OF APPROVAL OF A 7 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 75' LAKESHORE SETBACK, 9247 LAKE RILEY BLVD., BRINN AND BOB WITT. Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of staft'? Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Name and address please. Bob Witt: Hi, I'm Bob Witt and this is my wife Brinn Witt. We're at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard. Last, well maybe it was a little bit more than about a year ago now one of the council members had added a friendly suggestion that we work with staff to put lakeshore plantings as a buffer between us and the lake. But there really was no discussion actually open at that point nor was there really any clarification to what was to be done. Again it's pretty important, and some of you have come out and seen the lot. There is only 24 feet of lakeshore there, which is a very small amount, and if you were to come over and look at it you can see that there's access to the dock and there's room for basically a couple of chairs. Yeah you can show that. One of the big issues that we have is that no other variance on Lake Riley Boulevard and basically every home on that lake on Lake Riley Boulevard has variances. Some are extremely close to the lake. A lot closer than us and none of them have had to do any lakeshore plantings as a requirement to the approval of their variances. Also there is no city ordinance that would require lakeshore plantings. Now the things that we have done, and a lot of the things we've done we feel really have improved this lakeshore. Of course we removed over 60 truckloads of dirt of kind of a sludgy black dirt that was, that came out was replaced with sand for filtration and that was what we needed to do to build the, to actually build the house. We took two truckloads of boulders out of the wall. The previous owner, Jim Jeppson had basically backed the trucks and just dumped the boulders into the lake with no erosion cloth or anything like that so we went and paid the money to pull all that back out of the lake, and what we did do is we built a two course boulder wall with double erosion cloth to protect from erosion going into the lake. And with those boulders that came out of it, what we did was build boulder walls around both sides of the home to protect against erosion because we have a pretty decent slope on both sides of the home so...have there as well. We did put gutters on the house as well. And then as far as plantings go, we put pines around the home up in front on either side. The east and west side of the home in the areas where there might be drainage. We also put a lot of dogwoods and a lot of dift'erent plantings around each side of those boulder walls to help with runoftk Lots of perennials. The one thing that I would point out too is if you take a look at our lots, there's two maples that are about 25 feet and those are the actually, if you look on either side of either one of our neighbors, even 150 feet down, those are the only pieces of any kind of planting that's actually on the lake and they're on our property. So there's two of those. Let's see. Again, one of the biggest things that we have as an issue here is that no other variance before or after us has been required to do lakeshore plantings as a requirement to their getting approval for their variance. I'm going to bring up the latest one which is our neighbors to the west of us which are the Sitter's at 9249. They just got a variance that was approved for their garage. They expanded the size of their garage. Their garage is actually closer to the lake than our home is. They don't have any erosion protection on the lake. It's all just dirt and they're getting quite a bit of erosion into the lake. They have Creole soaked ties that are sitting in the lake as well. And they have 100 feet of lakeshore. If there should be a position where somebody would be required to do lakeshore plantings, that would be certainly one that would be, that I feel would be required to and that variance was approved after our's was approved. So we're just asking, 6 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2000 you know we really don't have a lot of room down there. We've done a lot to improve the quality of the lot and of the lakeshore there. We mow and we bag. We don't put any chemicals on the lawn. One of the things that was brought up last time was that there would be leaves and things of that nature was basically what this, what these buffers were to take care of and we just don't see that as an issue. We can run over that with a mower in 5 minutes it's so small. And this is the smallest lot on Lake Riley. Did you want to say something? Brinn Witt: Yeah, I would just like to go over again what the City had proposed. This is Altemate A. Basically extending in front here...over 7 feet tall. It doesn't even leave room here to put in, take in or take out or put in a canoe. Here is Altemate B. I'm not sure where it is now. Also a couple of, a lot of the neighbors agree with us and have...Planning Commission has come up with and this is from Joy and Herbert Smith at 9243 Lake Riley Boulevard. To whom it may concem. On proposal to amend condition of variance approval submitted by Brinn and Bob Witt at 9247 Lake Riley Boulevard. My wife and I would like to express our wholehearted agreement with this request. We see no valid reason why they should be held to a condition on the lakeshore that none of their neighbors have on the property. This would be a gross injustice to the Witt's in our opinion and we see absolutely no reason why this hasn't been settled in the Witt's favor a long time ago. And then I believe all of you have from Fred Pothoffwho is also a neighbor. I won't read that. I believe you've already gone over that. Also one other thing, a book was provided to me and suggestions as to what they were looking for. The book here and very interesting. Very good. But it also says in the back that if you have ongoing erosion problems that cannot be solved by the use of vegetation, placing of large rock or boulders, rip rap with filter material undemeath along the shore is often an effective solution. Peterson: Any questions of the applicant? Kind moved, Burton seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come forward and state your name and address please. Kind moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Public hearing is closed. Commissioner comments please. Kind: Mr. Chair I have a quick question for stafl~ Dave, is there any new information about the quantity of contaminants that would be entering the lake via the 24 feet of the Witt's property? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. I have no additional information to provide you with this evening. Kind: The other question is, at our last meeting Uli, who's not here tonight, brought up the concept of compromise and Craig asked the question of whether a compromise would be effective or not and I was wondering if staffhad a chance to review that or not. I know Lori's not here so. Aanenson: We've always suggested that. That's always been our recommendation. Kind: That compromise might be effective? 7 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2000 Aanenson: Those were strictly suggestions. We're willing to listen to anything. It's our understanding that their position was that they had done their requirement by the rocks. The placing of the rocks had met the requirement. Kind: Okay. With that I'll continue on with my comments. Peterson: Please. Kind: I'm stuck on the consistency factor and feel that we need to be consistent with what we make neighbors do. And the variance that was granted recently to the Sitter property was granted after the Witt's and there was no such condition attached to their's and their encroachment is as much or further, closer to the lakeshore as the Witt's so I want to be consistent and there was no such condition attached to that so I would agree with removing the condition for that reason. Also, the other reason is, while I agree with the idea of lakeshore plantings and being a good buffer, I'm not sure that requiring it on this 24 foot width property is a good place to start our acting on that concept and I would really like staff`to explore our lakeshore buffer ordinance which I saw was on our list so I'm excited about that. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Any other comments? Conrad: Mr. Chair, yeah. I think the situation that's, it's interesting because you can use numbers a couple different ways. Because it's only 24-25 feet of lakeshore you think well there's not a big deal but the point is, ordinance says it should be 90 feet of lakeshore. So literally you've got 3 times as much stuff falling over. So that was the intent of the City Council when that went in, and again it's not for leaves. I don't give a crack about leaves. I think we've talking about other rocks here. So I don't want, the leaves are not the issue. Grass clippings are not the issue. It's stuff`that's, sheet flow over. Sheet flow typically you want 90 feet. It separates things. When City Council, in their great wisdom, decided to grant the variance, I think there was a condition attached. And that condition, it was attempting to, because there was more impervious surface because of the variance. There was a condition to say now you've got to control a little bit more. So it's sort of late in the game to say no I don't want to do that. And it didn't look unclear to me what the City Council was asking for. The Planning Commission didn't vote for the variance. It was real clear what our intent was. My preference is to let the City Council deal with this but at this point in time it's our job and we're part of the process to say what is our direction. I think it's just too late to say it doesn't make sense. I might have said that a year ago. I might have said, yeah. It looks out of context but right now to put more impervious surface on than what we thought was going to go there and not to attempt to do something, and I don't think it's the boulders. I think it's something so again at this point in time I don't think that we should try to, put a forest in front of them. Try to make this an unusable or unfriendly lot. Yet on the other hand, and I don't think we have to make it so odd from the neighbors that it doesn't fit it but I would like to hear an offer. I think the City Council would listen to something from the applicant saying here's what we'll do. I'm not convinced that the grading plan was followed. I'm not convinced that we have the right controls on this property right now. They could, the applicant could persuade us otherwise but what I've heard is not persuasive at this point in time so, I think the condition should stay. I think the applicant should be encouraged to talk with staff and see what, again this is not a big deal but it is an important, it's the principle of the thing. It's the principle that we were trying to control the water quality and it's the principle that we granted a variance on top of 6 or whatever other variances that we started with. I don't want to make an example of this. I just want to be, you know Deb made the point of being consistent. I want to be consistent too. We have a philosophy of trying to protect the lakes and here's a case where I can't let that go. I can't let increased impervious surface variance go without something that's attached to it so, you know again I don't need 50 feet or 20 feet, I need something. Something that says the quality of Lake Riley which I'm not sure what the quality is. We're trying to improve it. If that happens to be, and I don't think we can do this in this case but I think a 8 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2000 non-phosphorus fertilizer ordinance would solve some of the problems. But again, Dave doesn't have time to get in and say what, does it run off from neighboring land is this property. But again I'm not totally convinced that we really challenged the, or runoff calculations. I'm not sure that the grading plans were followed again. So bottom line is, without making it a bigger issue, I think the applicant probably could get some relief from this ordinance but the applicant should do something. Otherwise I feel real, I think the city is to compromise one thing and then, which is our ordinance. Which is our impervious surface. Which is our variance and then just say well, it really doesn't matter. I would not feel very good about that Mr. Chairman. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Any other comments? Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman I was going to say I totally agree with what Ladd has said. I mean it was not just a variance. It was 7 variances and to mitigate the effect of those variances this was something that council directed staff to work with the applicant. I feel it's fair. I feel it's reasonable. I feel it's something that was known ahead of time and I feel that we should, like Ladd said, be consistent and follow what council recommended because I do believe it's a fitting recommendation in this case. Peterson: Okay. Any additional comments? Sidney: Yes Mr. Chair. I guess I have quite a few different types of feelings about this request. I think the major one I'm concemed about is that the city, I think the city needs to demonstrate that the runoff actually flows through the Witt's property and that the volume is of a magnitude that requires the extent of buffering that we're talking about because I think there's room to compromise in this case. That we could get some plantings based on the amount, the volume of runofl~ And I think it's a reasonable request but I guess I don't feel comfortable with what the Witt's have done given as the plan. That that's really necessary to that extent. So l feel we're missing some data in that respect. I think the idea ofhaving lakeshore plantings is a good idea but I think it does need to be addressed more thoroughly or investigated on the ordinance level. That's where I would like to see this kind of thing start rather than in terms of a variance so. I think I'm inclined to let the condition stand at this point and I think there's room for compromise between the city and the applicant. Peterson: Okay. Any closing comments Matt? Burton: Yeah, pretty short. I think that ifI was in the Witt's shoes I might be doing the same thing they're doing is looking to have it more the way I'd want it. But I think our job as a Planning Commission is to advise the City Council and to make recommendations based upon the ordinances and the policies and the City Council's guidelines and with that as the background. With our marching orders, the City Council pretty clearly spoke and put just the one condition on there and so I think knowing that that's what they want, I don't know how we could change it. I think it's up to the City Council to make the call here so I would deny the request and let them go to the Council and address it there. Peterson: And I would concur with that. I think the important thing, as I mentioned last time is, I'm not real comfortable with the altematives that were presented for us today. If it was solely based upon the altematives presented today I would probably feel differently. I don't think they're reasonable. I don't think they're appropriate. Now the question is, if we back away from those and have more minimal plantings, will that provide any value. If that doesn't then I think it should be removed. So I think that's, I guess that's my feedback going on to council. Aanenson: Mr Chair, can I make a point of clarification. It wasn't spelled out in your staff report based on this format. Because this is an appeal of a variance, it's similar voting as a variance so you need 5 of the 6 9 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2000 votes. Otherwise it would, to overturn... Otherwise it's not going to go up to City Council. Just a point of clarification. It's not a regular amendment. You're appealing the variance portion of it so it would be treated similar like voting on a variance. Peterson: It's not 5 of 6 then. I can't remember, it was, isn't it? Aanenson: 75% of members present. Conrad: Point of clarification, sayit againKate. Aanenson: It'd be similar, because this is a variance. It was to begin with and it's a condition of the variance. It would be handled similar. While it says an amendment, they're appealing the condition. That's handled similarly as a variance so you're acting as a quasi-judicial so you would need that 75%. Conrad: To repeal. Aanenson: Correct. Conrad: And if we don't? Aanenson: Right, then they would, they have a right to still appeal and go up to the City Council. I just want to make sure because that wasn't spelled out in the report. Peterson: Okay. With that in mind I'll entertain a motion. Conrad: Yeah I would make one Mr. Chair. That the Planning Commission denies the request for an amendment to the condition of approval of Variance #98-12. But with some directions to staff`and the applicant if this does go to City Council. To the applicant, that they consider some sort of mitigating factor in terms of runoff` and they present that to the City Council. If they need the advice from staff; they're welcome to do that but I think they should go in and present a plan. To the staff; I think Mr. Chair your comment is appropriate. If there is not, level of planting that can prevent what we're trying to prevent, the condition should be withdrawn. I would also like staff`to inform the City Council whether the grading plan on this lot was followed. Peterson: Okay. Is there a second? Burton: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Conrad moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission denies the request for an amendment to the condition of approval of Variance #98-12. All voted in favor, except Peterson and Kind who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. Peterson: Two people say nay. It goes onto council when? Kirchoff`: They have to request to appeal it. Peterson: Oh you're right. Hey my job is not complete yet. Wait, wait, wait. Appeals from the decision of this board may be made by a City Council member, the applicant or any aggrieved person who may do 10 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2000 so by filing to the City Council an appeal with the Zoning Administrator within four days after the date of the board's decision. This will be placed on the next available City Council agenda. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE HIDDEN VALLEY PUD TO ALLOW CHURCH FACILITIES AS A PERMITTED USE ON LOT 1, BLOCK 7, HIDDEN VALLEY ON PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF LAKE DRIVE EAST AND EAST OF HIDDEN COURT, 275 LAKE DRIVE EAST, FAMILY OF CHRIST LUTHERAN CHURCH. Public Present: Name Address Jim Sulerud 730 Vogelsberg Trail Mary & Lee Kaufman 300 Hidden Lane Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this issue. Peterson: Any questions of staff'? Kind: Yes Mr. Chairman. Just to be clear, if we change the language of the PUD, are there any other uses that could go on that site besides a church? Kirchoff`: No. As long as it complies with the definition of church which is on page 2 of the staff`report. That's all that's permitted there. Kind: Thank you. Peterson: Other questions of staff'? Would the applicant like to make a presentation? Jim Sulerud: Not necessary. Peterson: Motion for a public hearing please. Conrad moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: Anyone wishing to address the commissioners please come forward and state your name and address please. Kind moved, Sidney seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners, your thoughts on this please. Kind: Makes sense to me. Burton: Same Peterson: Motion please. 11 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2000 Blackowiak: I'll move the Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to PUD #85-1 to allow a church as a permitted use on Lot 1, Block 7, Hidden Valley. Kind: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Blackowiak moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to PUD #85-1 to allow a church as a permitted use on Lot 1, Block 7, Hidden Valley. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONCEPTUAL AND PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL TO REZONE FIVE ACRES FROM A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE TO PUD-R, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT RESIDENTIAL AND PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY INTO 8 LOTS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR SUMMERFIELD DRIVE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 421 LYMAN BLVD., SPRINGFIELD STM ADDITION, MERIDIAN DEVELOPMENT. Public Present: Name Address Beth Andrews Sara Worre David Sommers Debbie Lloyd Meridian Development 300 Shoreview Court 396 Summerfield Drive 7302 Laredo Drive Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Any questions of staff'? Kind: Yes Mr. Chairman. Bob, the staffreport, what page is it? Talked about having a wetland delineator review. Let me see ifI can find it. Page 3 under Wetland. Staffrecommends that a wetland delineator assess the site to verify the city's planning map. There was not a condition to that effect. Do you think that that would be appropriate? Generous: That would be a clarify. Yes, we don't believe there's one there but. Kind: And then the driveway, the single driveway that would be accessing the two properties that are on Lyman Boulevard. Is there a condition in here that requires that? Number 16 talked about the shared driveway but there's really no requirement that they share. Generous: That's correct. It doesn't specifically state that and that could be included as part of that document. Hempel: Mr. Chairman. The plans do show a shared driveway so we assume that it will be shared. If we approve the plans as they are shown, it's a shared driveway. 12 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2000 Kind: Right. And does that leave it open that they could come back and say oh, we each want our own driveway? Hempel: No. Kind: Okay. So as long as the site plan shows it that way we're covered. And Bob, would you talk about the remnant triangles and why this doesn't line up very well with the neighboring lots? Generous: Well I actually have a concept plan for the adjacent property. At one time Lundgren Brothers anticipated that they would acquire this property and they would continue their development. On the plans it shows portions of those triangular area would be included and lots that would use parts of this property. That never came to fruition and so this development had to stand on it's own. As part of the final plat for the 7th Addition they actually combined the triangular areas into the abutting lots so those are all one lot on either side of the roadway. Kind: One thing looking at this plan, one thing that I really like about it is the property line, side property lines are radial with that curved street. They kind of pie out and on the plans that's before us tonight they're all just straight from there so they don't really curve around that curvy street. Could you speak to that at all? Generous: Well what they, unfortunately they had to start with the side property line that was at an angle and to meet all the ordinance requirements, that's how it worked out. It's pretty efficiently laid out but it was very strict. They're right at the 90 feet for all of them. Kind: Thank you. Peterson: Other questions of Bob? Sidney: Yes Mr. Chair. Bob, on the first page, well I guess it's page 2 it states how access from a collector road is normally prohibited. Why aren't we permitting that in this case? Generous: The one benefit of this PUD was that the preservation of the few trees that are on this site. And so that's why we supported both the PUD and allowing those two lots to access it. We don't believe the two homes that, that that roadway will be heavily impacted. Sidney: Okay, so the city is gaining something in doing that? Generous: Correct. We'll preserve existing mature trees. Sidney: Okay. And then question about on Lyman, berming or trees. Have you had a discussion with the applicant about whether or not landscaping could be added in place of a berm or? Generous: We haven't had that discussion. We were hoping that as part, one of the conditions is a revised landscaping plan. Sidney: And that would be included in that discussion? Generous: Yes. Burton: Mr. Chairman? 13 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2000 Peterson: Please. Burton: Bob, on the preliminary plat on the west side there's a line that runs along. I'm just trying to figure out what that is. Generous: That's just a measurement line I believe. Burton: This thing. It kind of swoops in. Generous: This one? Burton: No. Generous: Or this? Burton: That one. Sorry. Generous: That's erosion control. Burton: Okay. I just couldn't figure out what it was. Peterson: Okay, other questions? Burton: I guess one more. We got the letter from Doug and Megan Koch and they're concemed about their fence and I was just curious where their fence is and if there is an issue there or are you pretty comfortable that they're taken care of? Generous: The fence is located on their property. The grading plans don't cross that line. They'll match up at that point and that's one of the issues that they've had is to verify that all the grading and drainage... Blackowiak: ...I've got a couple questions of Bob. What is the city getting out of this making a PUD? You said saving trees. What are the benefits? Generous: Reduced impervious surface. And then it fits in with the surrounding PUD. The appropriate zoning under low density, residential low density designation are either RSF which is a traditional single family zoning category. R-4 which permits single family homes or twin homes or planned unit development. This is the option that they took. They were sort of forced into this design by our approvals of the PUD around it. Had this been part of that larger plat, it would have gone forward. Blackowiak: Okay. So then in the PUD the average lot size is 15,000, is that correct? Generous: Yes. Blackowiak: That's the average. And minimum is 11. Generous: Correct. Blackowiak: Okay. Because I was just using a calculator, as I look at the two northem most lots, I don't really feel that they're part of this. You know what I'm saying? I mean technically this is the same point 14 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2000 but to me it's almost like a different, I mean it's accessed off Lyman. You're not going to be on Springfield or Summerfield Drive going through. So I'm just, I was just trying to do some calculations figuring out if we pretended those didn't exist, if the numbers would make it for this many houses in that area and it wouldn't. It seems like we're packing them in awfully closely. Do you have any feel for that? Generous: It's consistent with that whole street. The interior of the PUD had the 11,000, 12-13,000 square foot lots. At the perimeter we have 30,000, 40,000 square foot lots and they act as a buffer for the entire development. Aanenson: IfI could just comment on that. I looked at this plat originally. It's on two major collectors and that was the reason it was given the PUD. It's adjacent to 101, which will be the main thoroughfare when 212 is updated. And Lyman Boulevard. It was our issue back then that those larger lots be on the perimeter of the development and that's how we perceived it. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Peterson: Okay, thank you Bob. Would the applicant like to make a presentation? If so, please come forward. Beth Andrews: I'm Beth Andrews. I'm here on behalf of Meridian Development tonight. He was called out of town in an emergency. We are in complete agreement with all these requirements made by stafl~ We just received this letter from the neighbor but we don't have any problems with buffering or doing whatever we have to do to save the landscaping and the fence. I think some of the other issues were changing the name of the development and we're open to whatever you have for changing the name. We don't need to leave it Springfield 8th. So, all the issues that were addressed in the staff report, we're in agreement with. Peterson: Okay. Any questions of the applicant? Thank you. Motion and a second for public hearing please. Kind moved, Burton 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. David Sommers: David Sommers, 396 Summerfield Drive. As a neighbor adjacent to this we just had some questions about the covenants. Whether or not the homes in this area will be consistent with the rest of Springfield. We do pay homeowners association fees. Whether or not they would be included. There is quite a big slope from my house. There's probably an 8 foot drop into this area so I had some questions about grading. Peterson: Grading. Do you want to take that one on Dave? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. If Mr. Sommers would show us in the map where he resides, I'd be happy to take a closer look at it. David Sommers: This is my house right there. Hempel: You do have some drop ofl~ Mr. Chairman, commissioners. They are proposing to grade, to be compatible with the wall. There's currently, it must be a 6 to 8 foot high wall if I'm not mistaken along 15 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2000 the westerly property line of Mr. Sommers. The grading plan does propose contours to tie into the wall to lessen the height of the wall at the southerly part or the front yard area of the lot. As you go towards the rear of the property, the wall will mostly maintain the 6 to 8 foot drop at the very northerly end of the wall. And I believe the wall does taper down.., so it will line up fairly well with the neighboring property. Peterson: Okay, thank you Dave. As it relates to the covenants. It's my understanding it's a whole different development and it would not be relative to any covenants set forth to your current area now. David Sommers: Okay...that we have 8 lots. I mean I think it's disturbing that you have 8 to 10 lots in the middle of a large subdivision that might look and feel totally different. It affects property values, aesthetics. Not to mention the issues around the homeowner association. Access to the pool and the parks and everything else that the neighboring people pay for. I think that if that's not worked in good faith to try to fix than you're asking for trouble that doesn't have to be there. Peterson: I understand. Thank you. Beth Andrews: I would be happy to address those issues for you. The price homes that we're planning to meet here, when Meridian originally bought this land we did approach Lundgren in case they wanted to buy it and they were not interested in doing this. We're looking at probably a price point from 300 to 350. We have a builder that entered into a tentative contract to purchase this land local with the developer and asked the price point that they will be in. We would love to be a part of your association. We would love to join in and pay dues and amend whatever we need to do to be a part of that. We have no problems with that at all. Peterson: If you could direct your questions up here. We're the ones. Beth Andrews: We would love to make that work. I assume that we need to address whoever it is in control of their association to work something out. We would not have a problem with making that price a recommendation. Peterson: Thank you for your comments. Any additional comments from the public? Dean Paxton: I don't have anything directly. My name's Dean Paxton. I live at 2611 Orchard Lane and I'm just curious as to the city's overall perspective on density and housing. And maybe we'll get into that in the situation in the next item also but just in general it seems that there are PUD requirements that you can set maximum density within an area and does that mean that every buildable lot in the city as long as it meets that PUD requirement will then meet that maximum density within the city itself. Is there an overall view of the city in which we say that this area is going to have so much housing and can get an association and not? If the city has sort of from the planning area, have an opinion or philosophy on this and a direction. Where you're going from then. You know I've kind of had an interest in that. Not that would drive neighbors there but it's the Highway 5 corridor and will 101 end up another corridor with dense housing and those kind of concems so you know, not frustrating problems. Just kind of inquiring as to the philosophy of the city. Peterson: Kate you get paid more than we do. Do you want to answer that one? Aanenson: It's a pretty complex question. It would take quite a while to try to answer it. I think the best answer is the city has a comprehensive plan that we are following. The city's goal is to provide a variety of housing types. We have large lot developments. 10 acres. 5 acres. That we intend on keeping. We have very small lots. We have apartments. We have senior housing and that's our goal to provide a 16 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2000 diversity of different types of housing. While we have a comprehensive plan and a guiding, there are market forces that take place. When land develops and how it develops, while it follows the comprehensive plan, each developer has unique circumstances and requests and we review those as they come in. But I would recommend if this gentleman is interested, that he review the comprehensive plan to get a little bit more background on it. Peterson: Okay. So noted. Thank you. Other comments? Debbie Lloyd: Hi. My name's Debbie Lloyd and I live at 7302 Laredo Drive. And I've taken an interest in looking at a wide array of different items that's brought to the Planning Commission and I just wanted to point out a couple of things I found in the staff`report. One is on the front page, acreage. And you may call me picky but the acreage is not 5 acres. It's 4.99 and I think that should be explicit on here. Now it can be a PUD-R because there are exceptions in the code. And I think that should just be written in the report what the exception is. If it's in the code that the property is adjacent to and across a right-of-way from property which has previously been designated as a PUD-R. I just think that's just... The other comments that I have is on the height of the building. It says maximum building height is 3 stories and 40 feet. If the code that I read is correct and updated, than the height of the building has to relate to the setback. So the setback on these lots is 30 feet so the height of the building must be 30 feet. For the height of the building to be 40 feet, it must be setback 40 feet. Also, Alison worked up the numbers for the average lot. I did the same thing because when I worked at it, you know we're really involved at looking at the private driveway issue and I looked at that. I drove around the property. It really has a different feel than the rest of the new development around it. And we talk about tree preservation. I think it'd be interesting for everyone to see what kind of trees we're talking about. There's a lot of shrub trees. Scrubby trees and I don't know if that is enough reason to allow a driveway onto a major feeder. When you see what these lots are like over here, there's a lot of lots accessing Lyman and the traffic on that road is going to get very strong as time goes on and all those lots are filled up. And it just seems, it seems like it's awkward. And with 212 coming through there eventually, I think it's going to be very busy. So those are my feelings, thanks. Peterson: Thank you. Other comments? Okay, motion to close please. Kind moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Alison, any comments on this one? Blackowiak: Sure. Let me collect my thoughts for a moment. Kind: Mr. Chairman, I'll ask Kate a quick staff`question. Debbie's comments about building heights made me look at condition number 3 a little bit more closely and it talks about maximum building height is 3 stories and 40 feet. This 3 stories thing kind of dovetails into our discussion later on this evening. We're talking about 2 story homes that would have a walkout. We're not talking about 3 story homes on the front. Aanenson: Or 40 feet in height. That's what it says, 3 stories or 40 feet in height and height is measured by average grade. Kind: When you talk about a 3 story home though you're including a walkout. Aanenson: Basement. Yeah. Right, and we have a lot of those. 17 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2000 Kind: But the 40 foot height would limit it. I'm just. Aanenson: Right, or capped to 40 feet, right. Kind: And the point that she brought up about we're lessening the front setback to 30 feet so should that decrease the building height. Is that a PUD restriction or? Aanenson: There's no correlation between the two. The setback's 30 feet. Whether it's 40 or height, 3 stories. Kind: The 40 foot height is city wide? Aanenson: Correct. Peterson: Okay, Alison. Blackowiak: Okay, I'm ready I think. Just a few general comments. I do feel that it's a little small. The lot sizes are a little small. I understand that if you take a look at the Springfield development that the larger lots in the perimeter, that makes sense. Smaller lots in the interior. I understand that. Itjustseems really tight and I don't know, it's my feeling. I don't consider that two of...lots really part of this because they're accessed separately and there's one existing house. There's going to be one new house and because they don't front this development at all and because they are accessed totally in a different direction, I just don't even. I kind of tried to put those out of my mind and look at the 8 lots that were left and it just, it seemed small. But I guess if it meets requirements. If you look at the whole thing together it meets the square footage but by itself, itjustseemslikeit'skindofsandwichedinthere. A few things. I have a problem with sticking it right in the middle of Springfield. I think that's going to be a big, big problem with the existing neighbors since there is a pool. There are walking paths. There's a lot of stuff's that happening there already and to, you know drop in 9 new houses and say, we've got a great pool but guess what you guys, you can't use it. This is our park and we paid for it and I just worry. You don't want to start out a new neighborhood that way. By just dropping it into a potentially bad situation so I would strongly encourage the developer to talk with Springfield and to get together and work something out because otherwise I just think that we're going to have problems down the road. I don't see a walking path on the plan and I believe there are paths on either side of the proposed development and I think that that needs to be part of any new development. I think one is concrete, if I'm not mistaken, and one is asphalt so I don't really care which one it is but I didn't see a condition in there. Deb, correct me if I'm wrong. Kind: I'm looking for it. Peterson: It was on the plan though wasn't it? Kind: I thought I saw it. Generous: It's condition number 9. Peterson: I read it somewhere. Blackowiak: A 5 foot wide concrete. Okay. But is it 5 foot? What's there on both sides. Hempel: Mr. Chair, commissioners. The bituminous on the south side, by the pool, is actually the parking lot for the pool which is going to, stafl~s going to have to research the parking requirements that were 18 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2000 associated with that pool play area there so. It should be concrete on both sides of this development. 5 foot wide concrete which will be connected through this development. Kind: So we know the condition number 9 says on the south side. Should it say north and south side? It's actually on page 13. The very top. Hempel: We will have to clarify which side of the road that this should go on. The 7th Addition sidewalk I don't believe is quite in yet. It's going to be constructed this year. That's on the west end. On the east end is Summerfield. Or Springfield lst. We'll have to verify where that's at. Blackowiak: Okay. Building heights, again I don't know that 30 foot setback equates 30 feet but. Aanenson: We haven't done that... Blackowiak: I know. That's kind of new to me but that's alright. I've been surprised before. And oh, the driveway offLyman Boulevard. Again, it's one of those things where I just don't know that, I don't think our intent is to increase access and increase the number of traffic going directly onto a major road like that. With this plan there's no other way to do it. I'm wondering if this is the best plan. I don't know if it is. Let's see here. And the trees. I agree. I don't think that many of the trees there are really considered, I would consider them significant. I don't know if our forester's been out there to take a look at it or anything but you know we're talking about saving trees and that's what the city's going to get in exchange for a PUD and I don't know that we're getting an awful lot in that part of the deal. They didn't look that great to me. I could be wrong but, they're not that pretty. I like trees. Don't get me wrong but they're not great. And finally, I think I just want to reiterate the same, the idea of putting the neighborhood right in Summerfield, I really worry about that. I really think that we have to think this through because like you know, we're going to have a pool and you guys can't use it. I just think that that's. Aanenson: You know Lundgren could have bought it... Peterson: So noted but. Blackowiak: I know. But I'm saying, I'm just trying to think long term and what do I like about this. What don't I like about it and I'm trying to get through this. Some of the things that I don't like about it, and that's one my big sticking points right now is that it's just plops in the middle and it doesn't feel right, SO. Peterson: Other comments? Burton: Can I ask a question of staffreal quick? Peterson: Sure. Burton: The northem drive, that could be further subdivided, is that right? Aanenson: Under the PUD, they'd have to rezone it. Under a PUD you're approving this site plan so they would have to come back for a rezoning. Generous: ...with the average. 19 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2000 Aanenson: Right. They use that for the average so they cannot subdivide unless they come back and ask for an amendment. That's the other beauty of the PUD, which we've talked about with lot sizes. Let me just make one other comment that we talked about with blending and that we've spent some time discussing that but you've given us direction on trying to blend house types and lots and that was again the consideration given for this. To try to make it. Well it's going to be stuck in another one. It wasn't our choice. We tried to make it so at least it's consistent and compatible. It doesn't have a completely different feel or look to it. Burton: I actually liked the lots. I want to preserve those lots. Aanenson: And that was the existing homes with the existing driveway that's going to kind of. Peterson: So it's got to come back, to answer his question. Aanenson: Yes. They can't change the density or subdivide. Peterson: Any comments on it overall? Burton: I agree with, really everything Alison was saying and I have some minor concems. Each one by themselves is kind of small but there are a few things. I think it is a nice subdivision and I think it is basically consistent with the neighborhood surrounding it and we can address some of the issues Alison brought up and I think it's a nice project. Peterson: Any additional comments? Kind: One more that I'll add to Alison's list is the comment about keeping the lot lines a little bit more radial to the curve of the street. I don't know if it's possible to make them more radial or not but it seems that the house orientation is a little awkward compared to the side lot lines. And I would like to see a plan that gets rid of that Lyman access, and I don't know if dare I say private drive or cul-de-sac solution or not. Or it's not possible at all. Aanenson: Well they have an existing driveway. We can't take a driveway away from them so that's the issue. I mean they have the right to the one driveway. It'd just be the second driveway or the combined driveway that's the issue. Hempel: Mr. Chairman can I just piggy back on that? This site was reviewed by the applicant, and I think Lundgren also put that a cul-de-sac to try and service the existing house and that northerly lot. The other lot to the newly created one. You get a double fronted lot. Significant grading, filling was going to be needed to make that cul-de-sac work and I think the lot sizes, in fact Bob has a picture of it here. Do you want to show that up on the overhead for us please. It has been kind of reviewed in the past. Kind: And staff's opinion of this was? Aanenson: Well that was one that was yielded with the Lundgren subdivision because those lots have now been reconfigured because they couldn't come to terms. It doesn't work because you don't have the depth or the width of that narrow piece. The configuration that Bob indicated is driving the design. We wish the Pruitt's and Lundgren Brothers would have worked something out. Blackowiak: Excuse me Kate. Now why doesn't this one work? Let's go back to that plan. Can you walk me through it please. 20 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2000 Aanenson: The lot lines, that triangular shape, how they split, they reconfigured those lots. Blackowiak: Okay, so what we're seeing in that rectangle, the dark lines is not what we see on this rectangle on our plat right now? Hempel: It is. Aanenson: It is. Blackowiak: It is? Okay. Hempel: However this street configuration and the lots surrounding this are different than what's actually be plotted and constructed out there today. That's why this configuration really doesn't work. Blackowiak: So where is the street today then for example? Hempel: The street today is more. Blackowiak: Little more northerly? Hempel: Then straight down to a T more or less. Aanenson: Again, when a plat comes in we always require that they look at surrounding property and how they can make that work and so they did show this as an option if they could acquire the property and since they didn't come to terms, they went their separate ways. And they were still providing access, which they have to do. But changed their own lot configuration. But again, the shape of that was driving at the time and the cul-de-sac didn't work. You can't get the width. The depth of the lot, excuse me. The depth of the lots. The 125 with the 60. Kind: With the PUD though we can change the depth of the lots. As long as they meet the square footage. Aanenson: They'd be tough lots to get the depth. You still have depth of front yard, rear yard. Kind: The setbacks and stuff`is, they're too shallow. Okay. Thanks, that was helpful. Nice hip pocket work there. Peterson: My closing comments are, I think it's a reasonable but not ideal development but I'd recommend personally approving it so. With that I'll be happy to entertain a motion. I'd be very happy to entertain a motion. Burton: I think the motion is the staff's motion. Mr. Chairman I'll move that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council conceptual and preliminary plat, excuse me, preliminary approval of PUD #2000-3 and preliminary plat approval subject to conditions 1 through 23. Peterson: Is there a second? Kind: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? 21 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2000 Kind: I have a couple of friendly amendments. On page 13, the sidewalk bullet point. Add a sentence that says, staff`will verify location of sidewalk. 24. Applicant shall consult with wetland expert to verify that there are no wetlands on site. And then I'm not sure if, I'd be interested in other people's comments on whether we need to add a condition to address the Koch's concems about the fence and the drainage. Peterson: I think they've addressed it. Kind: They're covered with what we have. That's it. Peterson: I'd also put a number 25 in there perhaps just to urge the applicant to work with the existing neighborhood to work out some association. Are all those amendments accepted? Burton: Yes. Burton moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council conceptual and preliminary approval of PUD #2000-3 and preliminary plat approval subject to the following conditions: The applicant shall submit a revised landscape plan. Changes to the plan include an additional 14 trees. The trees must be overstory, deciduous 2 Y2" diameter and no more than 20 percent may be represented by a single species. The rear yard of each lot must contain a minimum of two (2) overstory trees. Lots less than 15,000 square feet in lot area (Lots 3 and 6 of the northerly block and Lots 2, 3 and 4 of the southerly block) shall be limited to a two car garage. The following setbacks shall apply: Front, 30 feet (Summerfield Drive), 50 feet (Lyman Boulevard); Side, 10 feet; and Rear, 30 feet. Lot coverage is limited to 25 percent impervious surface. Maximum building height is 3 stories and 40 feet. Uses shall be those permitted in the RSF, Single Family Residential District. The developer shall pay full park and trail fees for the nine additional lots created as part of the development pursuant to City of Chanhassen ordinance. The developer shall revise the name of the subdivision to differentiate it from the Springfield project. 6. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any existing structures. Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. The proposed residential development of 4.55 net developable acres is responsible for a water quality connection charge of $3,640. If the applicant demonstrates that ponding provided on site meets the City's water quality goals, all or a portion of this fee may be waived. The applicant is also responsible for a water quantity fee of $9,009. These fees are payable to the City at the time of final plat recording. 9. The plans shall be revised to incorporate the following items. 22 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2000 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. · Show proposed filling and building elevations on Lot 2. The lowest floor elevation shall be a minimum of 898.5. · Show proposed house type and garage floor elevations on all lots. · Show lowest floor and walkout elevation on existing home on Lot 1. · Provide emergency overflow swales along the south line of Lots 1 and 2 between ponds. · Provide emergency overflow swale along the rear yards of Lots 1, 2, and 3 and between Lots 3 and 4 out to Summerfield Drive. · Show existing well/s and septic site on property. · Add erosion control measures silt fence on downstream side of grading limits, protect existing/proposed catch basins and add rock construction entrances. · Add 5 foot wide concrete sidewalk along south side of Summerfield Drive. Staff will verify the location of the sidewalk. · Removal of existing driveway access. The existing home at 421 Lyman Boulevard shall be connected to municipal sewer within 30 days after the final plat has been recorded. Only one of the nine unit assessments was levied in conjunction with the Lake Riley trunk. The remaining eight were deferred. Since the applicant is creating more lots than previously was assessed, the additional lots will be subject to city sanitary sewer and water hookup and connection charges as well as a road connection charge at time of building permit issuance. The 2000 trunk utility hookup connection charges per lot for sanitary sewer and water are as follows: $1,000 Sanitary Sewer Hookup $1,694 Watermain Hookup $4,075 Sanitary Sewer Connection $4,075 Watermain Connection $1,814 Street Reconstruction Lyman Boulevard The deferred assessments against the property should be re-spread against the property and certified to the County at time of final plat recording. Staff encourages the applicant's engineer to review previous street grades proposed for this property and make the necessary connections to provide for adequate grade on the sewer to serve the lots via gravity and provide back to front yard drainage over Lots 1 through 4 of the southerly block. The developer of this site will need to expand the existing storm water pond located just west of Lot 2, northerly block. Staff`will be working with the applicant's engineer to determine the amount of expansion necessary to accommodate runoff` from this development. The development's storm sewer system shall be designed in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. Ponding calculations including pre and post development drainage maps for a 10 year and 100 year, 24 hour storm event will need to be submitted to city staff`for review and approval prior to final plat consideration. Staff` is also requiring a detailed storm sewer analysis of the individual storm sewer to determine that there are sufficient catch basins to accommodate proposed runofl~ Drainage and utility easements will need to be dedicated on the final plat over the storm drainage system 23 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2000 including ponds and emergency overflows. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet. Maintenance access to the pond should also be a consideration in the easement width and location. 15. Additional erosion control fence shall be installed along Lots 5 and 6 at the grading limits as well as rock construction entrances on Summerfield Drive. Existing and proposed catch basins outside of the street right-of-way should also have erosion control measures employed accordingly. 16. The common portion of the shared driveway will need to be 20 feet wide and constructed to a 7 ton per axle weight design. A cross access easement and maintenance agreement will need to be prepared and recorded by the developer over the lots which access the private driveway. The minimum driveway width shall be 20 feet within a 30 foot wide driveway easement. 17. 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. 18. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for staff`review and City Council approval. The construction plans and specifications will need to be submitted to a minimum of three weeks prior to final consideration. 19. The applicant shall enter into a Development Contract/PUD Agreement with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 20. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Metropolitan Environmental Service Commission, Minnesota Department of Health, and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and comply with their conditions of approval. 21. No berming or landscaping shall be permitted within the City's right-of-way. A 2% boulevard grade must be maintained along the City's right-of-way. 22. The applicant shall report to the City Engineer the location of any drain tiles found during construction and shall relocate or abandon the drain tile as directed by the City Engineer. 23. Utility and drainage easements over all utilities and storm water ponds outside of the right-of-way. The minimum easement width over the utilities shall be 20 feet wide depending on the depth of the utility. Drainage easements over all ponds and wetlands shall be up to the 100 year flood level. 24. Applicant shall consult with wetland expert to verify that there are no wetlands on site. 25. The Planning Commission would urge the applicant to work with the existing neighborhood regarding joining their homeowners association. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: 24 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2000 CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE CHAPTER 20 ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS; ADDING NEW DEFINITIONS, STORAGE BUILDABLE AREAS, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, SHORELAND REGULATIONS (ADDITIONAL SETBACKS), WETLAND REGULATIONS (ACCESSORY), PUD LOT SIZES, LOT FRONTAGES IN A2 AND RR DISTRICTS, SIGN ORDINANCE (WALL SIGNS) PERMITTED USES IN IOP DISTRICT, AND HOME OCCUPATIONS (SUBORDINATE USE). Public Present: Name Address Dean Paxton Sandra Johnson Jerry & Jan Paulsen 2611 Orchard Lane 2621 Orchard Lane 7305 Laredo Drive Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item and asked if there were any questions from the Planning Commission. Kind: Kate, do you think there's any advantage to having just the setback lines be required to be on these plats? Or do you think it's important to show building orientation? Aanenson: We display them on the survey. We check each one as they come in before you look at them. We look and see if it's a legitimate, buildable lot. That's part of the process. What we look at on this is to give us an elevation. Again what the top of the, the grade of the garage is and that's to get your flow down from the garage to the street. The other elevation we get with this is the back of the lot. So however that configures, they still have to maintain that drainage flow and that's what we look at. But the survey, each individual survey is what we match up with and then detail all the setbacks. All required easements have to be on the survey and that goes with the building permit and that's what we match up. Kind: Sometimes when I'm looking at a site plan like this last Meridian one, it kind of goofs me up almost to see the home orientation and that's kind of what was bugging me about those lines not being radial because they showed these houses on there kind of funky and that's probably not how the houses are going to be built. Aanenson: Absolutely. Absolutely, and that's what I'm saying it depends. Kind: In some ways I wish they weren't even on there. The house. Aanenson: Right. That's what I'm saying. Really for us it's to give us an elevation and style of home because the style of home again is going to drive some of the grading, which we look at to say how much grading is needed for that type of home and how's it going to work with the lot next door because we've had past experiences, 10 years ago, where the grading didn't match up. We have less problem now because we have less lots that are the multi builders. We have got one individual builder, although we've had problems with that too because what happens when you get a buyer that wants a certain house. Generally the builder will try to make it happen. That's a problem. You've got a sale and that's where we have to stick to the plan that was approved. Kind: And when you say type of house you're saying a walkout versus a look out versus a full basement. 25 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2000 Aanenson: Right, and some of those minor changes, we have worked. We have worked on that. If they can bring us in a survey, we do allow some of that flexibility like the stages in the grading on an individual basis. Right, that has happened. Again, they'd have to demonstrate that on the survey and they've worked with engineering. And that's something also that the inspectors check when they go up for inspection on the footings. They also have to have that grade checked to make sure it's consistent with what was shown on the survey so there's 2 or 3 places for checks for that. Kind: Another question. What do you think about the idea of in addition to this 2,400 square foot designation for a building pad including a minimum depth for that building pad area? Aanenson: I think, how we came up with the 2,400 square feet is, we have a place in the ordinance that requires a certain square footage of home, whether it be rambler or two story or a split and if you add a garage, you know the different configurations even with the deck. We came up with the 2,400 square feet because that seems like a reasonable square footage for the house. Again, most of the houses, right now the trend's to push the garage towards the front and maybe set it out 10 feet or something like that. I wouldn't have a problem with that. I guess we attempted to get that with it, that allows for adequate building pad because we do have the requirement for certain square footage. That they have to have, our ordinance does require a 2 car garage. And we do require minimum square footage so it's covered there. Could you put a trailer style home on the lot, is that your question? Kind: Yeah. Aanenson: I guess you could. Even if you look at the depth of a garage, I mean you're looking at a minimum maybe 25 feet with that. Are you looking at what. Kind: 30 feet or you know, maybe it's covered by our requirement for a garage. Aanenson: I can give that some thought. I guess I'd like to run that past the attomey as far as pros or cons or flexibility. Yeah, I mean certainly something is, what's going to raise your comfort level, right. I mean it could be either way. Minimum. But I think it's our job too when we look at these to say that they can get something, something on them which is what we try to do too. Kind: Right. And I think a requirement for a garage probably satisfies the minimum depth. Aanenson: Right. And most people again the trend seems, they're pushing the garage out forward and then the house sets back and then if you put the deck on, you're already getting a good maybe 40 I'd say is pretty minimum for most people. And it's not a requirement. We've bounce that around to a deck. Do we want more people on a deck? I'm not sure. Then if you don't have a deck, do you have a right to a variance? Right, so good point. We can look at that. Kind: Maybe it's the garage width plus a typical deck width, which probably puts it at the 40. Aanenson: Yeah, 30 or 40, sure. Kind: I don't know. I like the idea of doing something like that. Okay. Aanenson: Moving along with story. Since you've got that and there seems to be some ambiguity in what we were attempting there. I think certainly we have residential height which we talked about earlier. This really refers to the kind of the commercial/industrial and that's where the question came when the Legion was looking at building their site. They had a walkout and that caused us some constemation because now 26 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2000 if it's a walkout it changes the parking dimensions and we were looking at the UBC, or the State Building Code which had a definition and that's what we tried to attempt to put in here and I think there's some ambiguity. Let me go through. What we're attempting to do here is to say, if it's over, at 12 feet of height which makes up a story. If 50% of that is exposed, it's a story under the commercial office and maybe we should clarify that because residential has it's own definition and I don't want to confuse the two because we have that a separate. So if we look at that, that would constitute a story. So ifa commercial business, and we had one like this. If you look at, if you remember Mr. Gorra's building that walked out. Blackowiak: On Coulter and Stone Creek? Aanenson: Correct. Okay, but he did provide parking and all that. That was included. But that would give us the better definition of story. And then if it was less than 12 feet in height, less than 50% underground, then it wouldn't constitute a story so I think what we do is give you better graphics there. Try to clean that up a little bit but that was our attempt to qualify what is meant by a commercial/office definition of story. Okay? The next one is standing seam siding and that's not defined in the code. We've had this question come up on, it's applied in roofs quite a bit but we did not have a definition so hopefully that definition will clarify that and that would be that standing seam roof is a deck roof consisting of flat metal joined by vertical overlapping seams so there is some rib to it. It's not straight sheet metal. Again our ordinance already restricts how much metal applied to industrial buildings. It can only be used as accent detail. Okay, a body shop. This came up and a permitted use of some of the commercial definitions and there's a lot of different interpretations of body shops. So what we're saying is a body shop is primarily engaged in repair of automobiles. We've had a lot of different interpretations or opinions on that. Burton: Why the word primarily because doesn't that lead to argument? Aanenson: Well some people do and they do other businesses there and that may be ancillary to what they're doing. So if that's your primary business, then it becomes a body shop. You know we have questions, is muffler, is painting part of that. Okay. Under the PUD. Again, this PUD section has the 60 x 40 which conflicts with the tree preservation area which we looked at...60 x 40. So again we're trying to resolve a conflict. So we would eliminate that language as proposed in the staff report that would say, the applicant must demonstrate that each lot is able to accommodate the buildable area as defined in the definition. The next one under PUD. 2508. Talks about minimum lot size. It says there is no minimum lot size but then it qualifies it to say, it can't be smaller than 5,000 square feet which would invalidate all of North Bay and Walnut Grove. So it hasn't been interpreted that way but just to make sure there's no ambiguity, we're striking that out. Wetland protection. Blackowiak: Excuse me Kate. Would you go back to that minimum lot size? Aanenson: That's in multi-family. Blackowiak: Okay. I'm sorry. Aanenson: We're in the multi-family... Blackowiak: Because we just looked at residential at 11,000 at, you know 11,000 minimum. Average. Aanenson: Exactly. That's for single family. This would be for anything that's guided medium density or high density, which was North Bay was guided, at the time was guided high density. We rezoned it to 27 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2000 medium density and similar with Walnut Grove. So they were, both of those have projects that have lot sizes under 5 certainly. Closer to 3,000 square feet. Blackowiak: Okay. Aanenson: The wetland buffer setback. This has come up on a couple of industrial projects where we had the setback from the wetlands but you've got interpretations of what constitutes an accessory structure. We had to get a legal opinion on one. Is a parking lot accessory structure? You know. Blackowiak: Is it? Aanenson: Yes. The legal opinion. Blackowiak: Tennis court? Aanenson: Yes. Right. Well we got in discussion, but that also has impervious surface requirements. Where we got into the gray area is when you've got a setback and mom and dad want to put a swing set in the back, or a dog run. We don't care about that. We've got to find a way to make that happen without, because that's not really affecting the impervious surface to the same extent that a tennis court or parking lot would. So Lori looked at this and came up with some language and this is the existing ordinance and so what we have proposed in the staff report is new language that says, that first 20 feet of what would be proposed is this first 20 feet would be, you can't have any accessory structure. Beyond that, of the 40 foot required, so this is the area where you could put the accessory structures, swing set, etc. Play fort. Those sort of things so you can use that portion of the back yard for accessory structures. Again, it's not clearly defined what the accessory structures and how they can be applied and it comes up consistently. There's no question. Kind: Do you want to try and define accessory structures in definitions? Aanenson: Well I think, the ordinance does define accessory structure. Kind: Okay. Aanenson: But it's the setback and how it plays in with the wetland, correct. Kind: Do you have a question Alison? Blackowiak: I do. Actually I have a couple of things. First we're talking about like commercial and then we switch to residential. Aanenson: Well the wetland buffer applies to anything. Blackowiak: Okay. Aanenson: Okay, I was just giving it as a... Blackowiak: So if parking lot is an accessory structure, it could be in that second 20 feet of the wetland buffer? Aanenson: It could be in this portion, right. 28 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2000 Blackowiak: Isn't that kind of defeating the entire purpose of a wetland buffer? Aanenson: Right, but they're still bound by the impervious surface too so. Blackowiak: Well let's say they meet the impervious, they could stick it back there if they wanted to. Is that what the intent is? Aanenson: No. Blackowiak: So why are we even allowing any accessory structure in that area if our intent is not to have things back there? Aanenson: Well I think if you want to exclude certain things, I would recommend that because I don't think it's fair to tell someone they can't put a swing set up there. They can't put a play fort up there. Some of that stuff`really is pretty nominal. But if you want to exclude certain types of things, again this is our first blush at it. Blackowiak: Yeah, because I'm just saying, I can't imagine that anybody would want to stick a parking lot back there, but let's say they do for some aesthetics or because the way the building is oriented or you know, whatever reason. I don't think that's what we want. I don't think that's our intent and I think that if we say that we can put things back there, accessory structures, we're just opening up a potential can of Aanenson: Right. Again... Blackowiak: So let's find a way to exclude. Aanenson: StaWs interpretation was on that, the Gorra site plan that had to meet the setback. He had requested. . . and we looked at that. But we've had other requests. So ifyou want to exclude. Blackowiak: I think that that might be a better way to do it. You know just especially since you're talking about parking lots. Aanenson: If you try to list, you're not going to list everything that's permitted but if you want to exclude certain things, I think that might be easier. Blackowiak: You know you could exclude parking lots. You could exclude tennis courts. I mean because those are, you know they have a high impervious surface area. Now a swing set doesn't, I mean so I don't know. Do you exclude things that are impervious? Peterson: You can exclude things that are not appropriate to the area. Have something generic like that. So they can decide what's appropriate. Blackowiak: Yeah, like I say. Aanenson: It gets really tough. Blackowiak: Oh I'm sure it does. 29 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2000 Aanenson: A sandbox. A dog run that's concrete. Peterson: Well you aren't going to be able to list everything so uses might as well be generic so. Aanenson: Right. Well that's why I'm saying, it has to be exclusive. Blackowiak: We could exclude parking lots. I mean you could at least list a few things impervious and then say, and other similar impervious surfaces or, I don't know. I just think you want to get... Aanenson: I guess that's how we've been interpreting up to this point is looking at the impervious surface. If it's a solid surface, then we would say no. Just like we would say if it was a deck or patio, then it would be no. Blackowiak: Okay. Aanenson: So it's the accessory structure. Blackowiak: Okay. Kind: Oh Kate, in that area. For clarity I'd like to remove the back edge of language in the example. Aanenson: Sure. It reads better that way. Kind: I had to read it 3 times to get through it. Aanenson: Again, I pointed this out in the report but I didn't speak to it. The public hearing or amendments to Chapter 20 are required to have a public hearing in front of the Planning Commission. We showed amendments to Chapter 18 just so you see how they're weaving together but technically in your motion they aren't included because only the City Council addresses those but we wanted to show you those that we're carrying forward just for your edification. So 18-61. Landscaping D(4) which is this one. Talking about the 60 x 60 pad, which we've always interpreted as a tree removal pad. Obviously there's another interpretation to that. It says in a single family home this would be our recommendation. Detached residential development, the applicant must demonstrate that single home sites exist on each lot by describing the buildable area. Without intruding into the required setbacks. Okay. The shoreland manager one. That falls in, the ordinance reads, additional structure setbacks and our intent on that again is to clarify some ambiguity. If you have a setback, for example if you have a 20 foot drainage easement in your yard and you have a 10 foot side yard setback, well you obviously have to stay at least 20 feet ahead of that utility easement. You've already met the 10 feet because you're well beyond it with the 20 so you can go right up to the edge of that. So the intent of this is, that if you already have the setback 75 feet from the edge of the lakeshore and there happens to be. Blackowiak: Or on a bluff. Aanenson: Which is further back, that's the one we follow. Exactly, you don't add them up, right and we haven't... Most of these, lot frontages in the A2 and RR. If you read the first one, the minimum lot frontage is 200 feet except at the minimum lot frontage on a cul-de-sac shall be 200 feet. Well, then if you read the next one down, the minimum lot depth is 200 feet except lots fronting. It repeats the same language. It talks about frontage again so it's our recommendation that on number 3 you just strike out that last sentence that's talking about frontage. Frontage on a cul-de-sac. You know there's exceptions that are involved and again it's repeated in the A2 and the RR District and somehow that got. 30 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2000 Blackowiak: Okay Kate, can you explain to me then. I would say that's two different things. I read it as, you've got a lot of 200 feet deep, except that if you have a cul-de-sac, your 200 feet starts at the... Yeah, this is what they're talking about. Minimum lot. Aanenson: But like 200, there's no way you could make under you know. Blackowiak: Well I understand but I read that as two different numbers. I don't see those as the same number. Generous: Right, because it's already addressed previously on lot frontage. Aanenson: Right, but the same sentence is the 1 and number 2. It repeats itself. Generous: So you're making this part of the ordinance specifically to lot depth. Aanenson: Yeah, there's one on lot depth and one on lot frontage. Lot frontage says except for 200 feet on frontage. But I don't know why you'd want it again on lot depth. Peterson: I don't get it. Kind: I think it was copy and paste. Aanenson: That was our opinion. Kind: That's what it looks like to me. Aanenson: Yeah, and it happened in both sections. Kind: Because it's the exact same language. Blackowiak: I see it differently, I don't know. I'm just maybe tired. I see lot frontage as being. Aanenson: How much you need at the street. Blackowiak: Right. At the street. So you need 200 feet at the street, okay. And the A2 and R. Aanenson: Except if you're in a cul-de-sac. Blackowiak: If you've got a cul-de-sac you need at the building setback line. Well see your building setback is 30 feet. You need 200 at your 30 foot line. Okay. Kind: See it pies to the street. Blackowiak: Yeah, exactly. So that makes sense to me. And then you're talking lot depth is more. Aanenson: Right, the opposite way. Blackowiak: Right. So you need a 200 foot lot depth, help me walk through this, except that if you're on 31 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2000 a cul-de-sac you're going to need a deeper lot. That's what that says to me. In other words you've got your buildable. Kind: 230. Blackowiak: You need 230. Aanenson: No, you need in the RR or the A2 you need a 50 foot setback. It's completely different. Blackowiak: Whatever the building setback is. Aanenson: We don't do that in the RSF though. It's not consistent with the rest of the code. Blackowiak: Okay. Well I'm just saying that I read this as two different things. And I come up with two different... Peterson: Note the difference and let's move on. Aanenson: No, if you want to leave it in, that's fine. Blackowiak: No, I'm not saying I want to leave it in there. I'm just saying that I see that there's a difference and is there a reason for the difference? If not. Aanenson: We didn't see one. I mean it's never been. Kind: It wasn't the intent... Aanenson: Right. That's our opinion...other zoning districts. Kind: And if that's the intent, it needs to be clearer. Because obviously it's not. Aanenson: Right. Again there's, with the A2 and the RR we did allow, we still have to maintain the 1 per 10 outside the MUSA area. Recently we had one that was done up on Deerbrook? Kind: That's not Deerbrook. Aanenson: Lakota. Where we had someone come in and they did the 1 per 10. As it ended up they did a 7 Y2 acre split instead of the 15,000. They could go smaller. Again, that was to provide for further subdivision and more efficiency. They could go small...to the septic site. The problem is when you look at the standards of the A2 and RR, you have to have a 200 x 200 so therefore you had to have a 40,000 square foot lot. So you couldn't meet the 15. So it was a conflict there which we did approve lots under this. But that's why it since has been vacated. But so, this resolves that and what this will say is, under the altemative lot size, 90 feet of frontage and 10 foot side yards and 30 foot rear yards. Again that's consistent with the RSF which... 15,000. We go ahead, one person make use of that minimum lot size but again it needs to be consistent. Subordinate use. Thisisan°ng°ingc°deenf°rcementissueand'"h°me occupation ordinance which we redid just recently within the last year. We probably should have caught this. We missed it. We have a lot of in the ag area, A2 and the RR District we have large bams, accessory structures. In that district you can go 30% of your lot size so we have some that are in excess of a thousand square feet. These end up being wonderful places for businesses to run out of which our ordinance says a home occupation has to be in the principle structure. If someone comes in for a new permit we can write it 32 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2000 on the permit, cannot be used. The problem is we have, because we don't have a business license requirement, we can't be tracking all those down. Our intent here is that when this ordinance was put in place a number of years ago, there was an exception made if you had an accessory structure you could use it. If it was in place prior to 1987. Well it just so happens a lot of these were built prior to 1987 so what we're trying to say is again, to be consistent with the rest of the home occupations or not, we have a lot of code enforcement problems on this that no garage or agricultural building, I don't care when it was built, you can't use that for any home occupation. Now this does not affect anybody that has a legal non- conforming use because there are some of those out there too. If they have a legal non-conforming use, as long as they don't expand it, they can continue to operate that way. Kind: What makes them legal Kate? Do they have a permit that says that they can have a contractor's yard? Aanenson: Well maybe Cindy can help me a little bit but we did at one time allow contractor's yards in the ag district and we have some of those still operating. Kind: Are they interim use permits or what are they? They were conditional use? Aanenson: And they run forever with the property. As this community's grown, they've been a problem. Unfortunately some of them weren't documented to the level of use. Similarly what we did with the beachlot ordinance. When we put the beachlot ordinance in place, we went through and we documented what the level of all those beachlots, those non-conforming beachlots so we know how many slips each beachlot can have. That wasn't done on these. The non-conforming ones. We know which ones through time have but. Kind: So if there's somebody that's had a contractor's yard since 1980 and it's been hidden away in their garage and they don't have a conditional use permit for it, and we find out about it, they're out of business? Aanenson: Well we send them a letter and ask them. We work with people. We find out about all kinds of things through the neighbors. We try to work with people. Give them time to find another spot. Kind: Do we know of anybody that this affects? Aanenson: As far as has got a business? No, anybody that's doing that right now, we do send them a letter because you can't do a business anyways. This is just to clarify because some people misunderstand that because they've got an agricultural building, it clearly states above it, you can't do it in your garage. I guess what we're saying is that it may meet, well I've got an agricultural building therefore I can do it because people are seeking those out to run their auto repairs. To do contractor's business so, and clearly above it it says you can't use an accessory structure. So we just want to make sure that even if it's in the ag, because he'll be surrounding in the not too close sort of thing. Kind: Got it. Aanenson: Okay. Topsoil requirement. This came out of a discussion with the City Council. Engineering uses the Best Management Practices and that talks about 3 inches of topsoil being prepared. You know it needs to be graded or applied for soil. Kind: She's talking as far as she can. I can barely understand her. 33 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2000 Aanenson: But what's the council's direction on this was, they wanted 4 inches. They asked us to recommend this ordinance to come back with 4 inches so it's in two places. One in the grading and erosion control section of the code and then again under the design standards and the erosion and sediment. Again requiring 4 inches. It's also in the development contract. Parking and loading. Two places we're changing there. There's a handicap requirement of 1 per 50. The State Building Code says 1 per 25. Just to make sure in case it changes again, we're just going to say it has to be consistent with the State Building Code. Whatever that number is, that's what it's going to be and actually the building official enforces that anyway when we do the plan check. Computing requirement. There's a conflict between minimum drive aisle width. There's an asterisk that allows 26. Asterisk that says, they can go 22 feet wide. It doesn't work with the vehicles we have out there today. Most people aren't using it but we just want to take it out so it's not an option. Generous: Additionally this is in conflict with another section of the code. Aanenson: So it resolves that. Unless there's questions I'll go through some of the signs. Again, non- residential for Miss Rosie's Farm. We don't have a place for her. She was limited to very small signage. We do have some legitimate home occupations. Some of those quasi interim use sort of things that again this would give some signage. Again, there's been misinterpretation of ifa wall sign can be used collectively or frontage can we collectively use it with the intent not for each business to get a monument signbut for each building. Not ifthey have 6 tenants. It's per building. So again that gives some clarity to that. Again for the wall signs. Then the rest of those are just typo errors that we put in there. So the recommendation again, I just put the recommendations that refer to Chapter 20 and I just put the language in there. I didn't give you the background so anything you want to modify, certainly story would be one that we would recommend we give some more clarity. And then again, if the A2 or RR, any of those that you're comfortable with or want modified, we'd be happy to take any input. Kind: Mr. Chairman, just a question. Should l be moving for a public hearing on this for Chapter 20? Peterson: If you don't have any further questions of our Planning Director. Kind: I just wasn't sure, is it just Chapter 20 or 18 or? Peterson: 20. No other questions of Kate? Motion and a second for public hearing please. Kind moved, Burton 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. Sandra Johnson: My name is Sandra Johnson. I live at 2621 Orchard Lane. Your definition on the wetland buffer there, I wanted to say specifically that that area is protected. You can put a swing set in but you can't drive pilings. Cement pilings down in that buffer to hold the swing set. Swimming pools. No... drive down into the ground because you will destroy that buffer and then you've lost that wetlands so I want it clearly defined. Thank you. Dean Paxton: Dean Paxton, 2611 Orchard Lane. Just to piggy back on that maybe a little bit. I think the language and how you define the wetlands, excuse me, the wetland setback area and what is used in that location... 40 feet, I think is, you want to allow people to put a swing set but yet you don't want to open up potentially something, allowing them to build something in there so I don't know what that language would be but if you guys would give that some consideration, I think that would be a really good idea. And 34 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2000 maybe potentially the percentage of their land used within that area. The swing set takes up 10 to 15 square feet. A parking lot takes up x percentage so maybe something, that would be language to that effect but if you could clarify. One of the things that I saw that you had percent buildable area of these lots and that you're taking the 60 x 40 and saying well, we're not going to hold to 60 x 40 and I totally understand that but they, my assumption is that you're still maintaining the 25% of a single floor of the lot for the buildings not to take up more than 25%. Aanenson: Correct. Right. Dean Paxton: On the accessory stmctures, when it's being said I note an inconsistency that you probably hadn't thought about is that the other neighbor who had an attached garage and then decided then to build another garage which was detached, thus taking advantage of as much accessory stmcture as possible to build within that. You now have quite a bit of the land being used as garage and I don't think that there's any definition within the code which, you know it tums out it's a nice stmcture but I think that there's some inconsistency there as to what that accessory stmcture is used for and if they already have space for, that they're using for this for, do you allow that sort of thing or not? Aanenson: That's a good question. We studied that a couple of years ago. St. Louis Park did a big study because they were finding people putting 4 and 5 stall garages that were actually bigger than the homes. I know we studied that a while ago and we looked at capping and something. We do allow accessory stmctures in the side yards. Some communities don't allow that. Dean Paxton: Yeah again I think there's some inconsistency there. Aanenson: I guess the way to cap it, which we talked at that time, we haven't as far as problems or issues that we have, that hasn't been a large one out here. We do have a high preponderance of 3 car garage but you raise a good point and that's something that, that would be maybe covered with a percentage of how much the garage can be compared to the house. What a lot of people do, if they have a boat, an RV, they like to put that in... Dean Paxton: Right, and another thing to be either too conservative...I think that's an area that's very gray. Aanenson: Again what's driving that, I was just going to comment on that. Again is the impervious surface which you brought up. Dean Paxton: And then on that same note, I think it's also the inconsistent to say that a person can or cannot use an accessory building for a home business when they can use it within their house itself. So is a person who has an older home built in the 1800's who is forced to do a detached garage and throws in a wood shop, or something like that, wouldn't be allowed to actually maintain that business whereas if it was attached to their house they could. Aanenson: What the ordinance says is 25% of the principle stmcture and that's being, I mean if you want to set up a hair cutting. Dean Paxton: Oh, that's accessory beyond 25%? Aanenson: No, you can put it inside your house. If you want to cut hair and have a chair or if you wanted to do accounting, that's allowed for. As a matter of fact Cindy just redid the home occupation ordinance and what we did is we took out specific uses because it was pretty antiquated and we did performance base 35 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2000 based on the traffic. How much UPS, those sort of things. How much is that there, but it's supposed to be, and the reason for that is, if you start using garages, you tend to get different types of home occupation which is mechanical or...and that's the noise element and that's what tends to disturb the neighbors. Dean Paxton: And then I had just one other on the, personally I'm very glad that you're clarifying we wanted to...I think it saves a lot of grief. But one of the things that it was interesting I think, I believe that one of the first, when you were showing the 60 x 40 lot sizes, some of the things that people have done in the past. The interesting thing is that, what you say people can do and what they actually do, I don't sense that there's any sense of enforcement. For example on one of these very first slide that you showed there's a building which has a tree preservation area and because they have... And so there's signs up there. You know if it's outside of their lot area, and to this day I don't think anybody, the city or anybody else has gone out there to see the size of the initial building. So I don't think there's really on the conservation end of it, that there's really, you have the plans initially and the builders say yeah but there's a little bit of area where they just do what they want at some point. But that's just a side note. Aanenson: Sure. Well I'd be happy to show to you how we do that because we are inspected each lot. So as far as the tree removal plan and everything. Dean Paxton: And then one other thing that still seems gray to me is the grading. It seems like we're not concemed about grading around lakeshore property but not necessary a lot of areas that are around lakeshore and unless...in that you know, you can put in, maintain the topsoil. But other restrictions bounce around persons bringing in tons of fill and where you had that example of 50% below grade and... 1 or 2 story, it just seems to me that was enough dirt brought in...take advantage of those requirements. I'm wondering if there's any sort of definition around that. Aanenson: Yep. As a part of each subdivision the grading is reviewed. We try and minimize that. Also anybody that's doing an amount of grading, I believe it's 5,000 cubic yards, has to get, even if it's part of your house, which has been an approved plan. You have to get a grading permit. You have to show exactly what you're going to do. We don't allow that. Dean Paxton: Okay. And again, just.., criticize or anything but there's another lot right by our house which is not really sold yet. It's up for sale and so there's no plans for the lot and the guys... He just waits around and if somebody says to him well you know you shouldn't do that, then he waits 6 months and dumps some more fill in there so it seems like again, I don't know if there is a, how the planning and any requirements with the planning on how to enforce... I'm just bringing that up as a sort of a... Aanenson: We get calls on that regularly. They're enforced... I don't know about fill on that. I'd have to talk to someone in engineering. They're the ones that enforce that but we get calls out on illegal grading on a regular basis. Dean Paxton: Thank you very much. Peterson: Thank you. Dean Paxton: Oh I'm sorry, I did have one more. Peterson: It's too late. Dean Paxton: On the private, are there definitions on a private drive? 36 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2000 Aancnson: Yes. Dean Paxton: So I could just come to you and see what the requirements for that, because you mentioned width of a drive. Is that what you're talking about with that 22 foot? Kind: Parking lot. Aanenson: Outside of a parking lot. Yeah, parking lot. We require 26 feet. There was a place in the ordinance allows 22. It's not big enough for the SUV's that are out there today to back up. Jerry Paulsen: Good evening. My name is Jerry Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive. We recognize that there are good reasons to change code and you're getting feedback from a lot of other people here. Tweaking the code is certainly proper. I have comments on a couple items that are being proposed here. The changes, if enacted, would directly affect the Igel application to split one lakeshore into two lots in Sunrise Hills on Lotus Lake. The Planning Commission has discussed this at three previous meetings and you're scheduled to get it again on September 5th. Some of the proposed changes would make code less restrictive. If the Planning Commission approves these changes, there's likely enough time for the council to approve them and theoretically could have some impact on the Igel application specifically. We are questioning both the timing of these proposed changes and whether it's even wise to downgrade some of this code. The memo states that the proposed change to Chapter 18 does not require a public hearing so I should squeeze in a few comments here, even though it's not a public hearing. Because it can go directly to the council as opposed to Chapter 20 changes. The proposed change to Section 18-61 is to eliminate the reference to the 60 x 60 pad. The other proposed changes include eliminating references to the 60 x 40 pad in the wetland and the PUD sections. The specific dimensions would be replaced by a requirement for 2,400 square feet instead of 3,600 square feet as is now in the code. We think it's fair to ask why is the staff changing the ground rules in the middle of the game for us? On July 31st we requested the City Attomey give an opinion on three code items relating to the Igel application. The City Manager agreed to pass those onto the City Attomey. One of them was clarification on the 60 x 60. We were still waiting on a reading on that. But we hope to find out something from the City Attomey. The memo also says that the proposed changes are necessary because code is ambiguous. Changing code to clear up ambiguity is reasonable. But changing code to lower restrictions is not necessarily reasonable. The 60 x 60 pad still serves a good purpose we believe. You might think that we object to the change because our neighbors are having a problem trying to shoe hom this 60 x 60 into their two lots, which is true. In our zeal to protect the lake and to keep intact the character of Sunrise Hills we've asked the City to do what the code prescribes. The 60 x 60 pad serves as a deterrent for our particular subdivision and other developments because it restricts structures being placed too close to each other. But again here it's a minimum area 60 x 60. Nothing to do with what might end up on the lot. They can certainly serve a 70 x 80 house if that comes along but we look upon it as a minimum and it is important that, from our standpoint, that it be still on the books. But the whole solution to what the city calls ambiguous code is to purge these references in regard to a building pad. We don't think that having a different pad requirements for different environments is inherently bad to leave on the books. Looking at the proposed change to Section 20-481, there's language in there for additional shoreline building setbacks and was taken directly from what the DNR guidelines prescribe. We're not sure that there's good reason to make a change there if the DNR is happy with what's in there. So I would, as a general rule of thumb urge the commissioners to consider seriously the portions that potentially downgrade the code from our standpoint and I see another term in here that's referred to as open space. I don't see a definition for it. That might just of general interest. Lastly I'd like to mention that in our ever ending quest to improve our city and demonstrate that we don't really have objections to change. I'd like to propose three changes to code and give you a copy of a letter that I prepared. I know this is short notice so I don't expect you to act on it tonight but I'd like you to take 37 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2000 a look at it if you would. Two of them are kind of, this is cleaning up what you might call glitches I suppose but the other one is different. Peterson: Why don't you summarize, you said three issues. One is the building pad. What was the other? Jerry Paulsen: Retaining, I think retaining the building pad as such in the code is still important. From the standpoint. Peterson: I'm not asking you to go through the whole thing but I'm just saying, just to summarize the three points it was the wetland, building area around the wetland, the 60 x 60 pad. Jerry Paulsen: That is mentioned in wetland PUD and under the woodland. Kind: Tree preservation. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Jerry Paulsen: Thank you. Debbie Lloyd: I guess I'm a stickler for details. We've got to start with details. Page 1 on Kate's memo. The 1, 2, 3, fourth reference to numbers. The wetland ordinance. It's written down there 60 x 60. The wetlands ordinance is actually 60 x 40. The third page under wetland protection, Section 20-406. The second line again the reference there is 60 x 60. It should read 60 x 40. And I'm just going to assume that those changes will be made in the back recommendation section as well. According to city records, these codes have existed since at February of 1994, if not back to 1988. Other aspects of these codes have been changed during this time but the requirements of the past have not. I know I'm not supposed to address Section 18 but I hope you'll listen to this statement here. Chapter 18, Section 18-61 reads, in single family detached residential developments the applicant must demonstrate that suitable home sites exist on each lot by describing a 60 x 60 foot building pad which includes deck area without intruding into required setbacks and easements. The purpose of the building pad is to determine the adequacy of the building site, not only for the original house being built but to include room for future expansion or additions. A 60 x 60 foot pad is commensurate or you know, we can even say a 60 x 40 is commensurate with...lot size of 15,000 square feet in an area of large homes with large lots. The 60 x 60 foot or 40 foot does not define the dimensions of an actual house. It's purpose is not to build a square house as Kate had suggested, but to provide for an adequate building site. And I had also brought a plat of Olivewood and really Kate talks. Aanenson: Those aren't 60 x 60 either. They're 55 by. Debbie Lloyd: Well this lot in Olivewood is. Aanenson: No it's not. Debbie Lloyd: Okay, well in that case let me point out that this plat does not, well yes Olivewood... Aanenson: Oh 60 x 60, yes. The other one is 55 x 60. You're right. The other one isn't, and that's a wooded lot too. Debbie Lloyd: And then 60 by...right here. So Olivewood is 60 x 60. They use the code and they put it on the plat. It doesn't define the house. It's not a square house. It's just as Kate shows, the house ends up 38 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2000 being something different. But what it does on a plat is show the suitable adequate building site. When they present these plans, you don't know what the home is going to be until later through the process. I did this little drawing here and excuse my...60 x 60 but then here's a 60 x 40 showing that a 60 x 40 fits into a 60 x 60 and another part that's important about the 60 x 40 pad, it restricts a deck area. A 12 x 12 deck area. So in actuality the square foot represented by 60 x 40 is 2,400 but it's also 144 square feet for the deck which is 2,544 square feet and if you just kind of look at this and think of the 60 x 60 on a treed lot, you understand why it's showing room for additional expansion. It's just a mental thing but it just kind of gives you a picture. So in other words, a rectangular home would fit in here. Not just a square home. A rectangular home would fit in here. A round dome home would fit in here. It allows you to do anything with that buildable area that you choose. Consumers today generally want large homes and a 60 x 60 foot pad allows some room for future expansion and should ultimately reduce the demand for lot variances. One thing I've been in the few planning commissions I've recently attended are the variance requests. Well if you establish from the start an adequate building site hopefully you'll see less of those variances come through. And Pointe Lake Lucy is a good example of a 60 x 40 that was not shown on the plat with the wetlands. They came in for the deck and you have your problem. You had to grant the variance on a wetland because it wasn't properly documented on the plat. Just so you know, I've gone to City Hall and I've looked at a lot of plats during my lunch hour. At the end of the day today I scrambled up there for an hour trying to figure out how do I attack this. Another thing I want to say, kind of maybe out of order with this is, announcements are put in the paper 10 days before the meeting. We can't review what the staff`is going to present really until Thursday like at 4:30. We grab this paper. We have Friday, Monday and Tuesday to deal with this. It's just, it puts a lot of pressure on the public to present anything at these meetings and I've leamed a lot through this whole process and that's one thing I would recommend a change on. Enabling people to have enough time to present a case for or against an issue. One thing today that I realized is, I'm unclear about at what stage the owner, builder, developer must document a house pad on a plat. I examined over 8 develops today looking for a standard and there doesn't seem to be one which has been uniformly applied. Either whether it's 60 x 40 or the 60 x 60. Another example of that is tonight with this Springfield Addition. Although it's still in the code, the evidence of 60 x 40, it wasn't on the plat. Housing plans were on the plat but the 60 x 40 wasn't there. Code currently does not define the building pad in terms of the square feet. That's been staWs interpretation of the code. That the code defines it in terms of area. At the July 18th planning meeting I had my little hand things on a little square grid block and I showed you a 10 x 100 or 1,000 square foot or whatever. Well the same thing holds true for this. 2,400 square feet and...adequate building site any configuration of a long, skinny... It could still fit into the site. Last time I told you I get less nervous the more I spoke. No, tonight it's the worst. There's no rhyme or reason. Thank you for listening again. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Kind moved, Burton seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Any comments that we haven't already went through? Blackowiak: I guess a question Mr. Chair. Kate, when does this go to City Council? Aanenson: They would move through, I think if you want to table it, that's fine. There's no rush. If people want to take additional time. I think we got some good input tonight. Blackowiak: So we're not in any? Aanenson: No. 39 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2000 Blackowiak: Okay. Aanenson: No rush. I just want to bring up something. If we're all in agreement that the 60 x 60 pad doesn't define the buildable area, then what are we using it for? Because we're agreeing that it doesn't reflect... Peterson: I agree. Aanenson: And we have interpreted it differently and that's what I'm saying. That's where the problem is. I mean we'd be happy to sit down. The Igel's can meet the 60 x 60 on the one subdivision so if we want to leave that in place, that's fine. They can meet the 60 x 60 but it's not a perfect square and that's the problem that we're saying. They are buildable. They can meet that. It's not a square so we'd be happy to meet with these folks and if they have a good definition, but even the City Attomey said that they're in conflict. Because technically on this subdivision here, this is a woodland subdivision. There's no variances up here. It's a...lot of difl'erent builders. These pads here are not 60 x 60. And again, while it shows this, there's really no correlation so I think we need to go back and discuss what was the purpose because the tree removal, and these are heavily wooded lots also. So we'd be happy to sit down if they want to try to come up with some language that... Peterson: I haven't read Mr. Paulsen's letter in there but if we can kill more birds with one stone, do that too so. Aanenson: Sure, be happy to do that. Peterson: Motion please. Kind: Mr. Chairman, a question before a motion. Kate, I was looking at this wetland structure and setback. The first speaker spoke about being really clear. I'm wondering if we are better off`saying what's allowed instead of. Aanenson: Yeah, I thought those were some good comments. I agree. Kind: Instead of what's excluded. If our intent is mostly for swing sets, how about having Section 20-406, wetland structure and setback read, free standing play structures are allowed within the first half of the principle structure setback and then talk about play structures instead of accessory structures? Aanenson: Well let me give it some thought because we've had a wide gamut of things. We've had people that want to do batting cages where they're using the ground, so as soon as we try to put a list together, we've left something out so I think that gentleman's comment about impervious surface and some of, you know pilings. S°me °f th°se c°mments Y°U kn°w kind °f' ' ' °ur thinking that maybe we can c°me back with something taking that into consideration. Maybe come back with something that works. Blackowiak: And also Kate, excuse me Mr. Chair. I'd like to add structures not to exceed, you know X square feet. Aanenson: Yeah, that was another good comment. What becomes accessory and then... Blackowiak: And like giving the performance standards. You know how they have to meet those standards. And that I think is going to be self limiting in many of the cases. 40 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2000 Kind: And then you were going to look at minimum depth for this buildable area because I think we want to avoid the totally tubular things. Aanenson: This is what we're trying to say too is to avoid the square. I mean how do we work that out. We'd be happy to work with these folks and try to come up with... Kind: I like the idea, I'm coming down to 40 feet just because I think that would allow for a garage and a deck. A reasonable amount of space. And then we have to define how you measure it. Aanenson: I mean this subdivision's a lot different than Stone Creek. Than Lake Susan. I mean every subdivision in Rice Marsh. They're all different in meeting the character of this. Kind: And then whatever we do on this does not affect the Igel application. Aanenson: No. The one lakeshore lot can meet the definition. It's not a perfect 60 x 60 square on one of the lakeshore lots. And that's our issue. But I'm saying, it can be a huge house. It just can't meet their definition of a 60 x 60. Kind: But even if we changed this, doesn't the Igel application go with what the ordinance was when they came in? Okay, so to me I'd rather table this and just let this not affect that. Aanenson: That's fine. Peterson: Well I wouldn't table because of that. Kind: But there's no reason to rush it through either. Peterson: No, to get more information. I'll entertain a motion please. Burton: Mr. Chairman, I move that we table the amendments to Chapter 20. Peterson: Is there a second? Blackowiak: Second. Peterson: Further discussion? Burton moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission table amendments to Chapter 20. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Peterson: Thank you all for your feedback. Good feedback. ELECT CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR. Peterson: In order for expediency I'll throw out, off'er my humble offerings for a chair for another year and for lack of anybody else coming forward, Matt has volunteered to be Vice Chair, if that's, and I'll certainly entertain more individuals for Chair or Vice Chair in case we offered. Burton: Anybody else would like it they can do it but I'll do it. 41 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2000 Kind: Sounds good to me. Blackowiak: Seeing Ladd and LuAnn and Uli are all gone. Ifyou'reinterested. Burton: It doesn't matter. Peterson: Let's make a motion and move on. Blackowiak: Well I'll move that we elect Mr. Peterson our Chair for the next year, and I don't even know what the, is actually April 1 through March 31,2001 and Mr. Burton for Vice Chair. Kind: I'll second that. Peterson: Any further discussion? Kind: Can we pass it with two votes? Blackowiak moved, Kind seconded to elect Craig Peterson as Chairman and Matt Burton as Vice Chairman for a term from April 1, 2000 to March 31, 2001. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Matt Burton noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 1, 2000 as presented. ONGOING ITEMS. UPDATE ON FAMILY OF CHRIST LUTHERAN CHURCH (COULTER BOULEVARD AND STONE CREEK DRIVE), ARCHITECTURAL CHANGES. Generous: For your information they're revising the building elevation. As part of the original proposal they have this huge asphalt roof that was an issue for everyone. And it was approved. However they've come back and now they're putting in a flat roof and they're adding some additional architectural detail to the project. We think this is an improvement on the building elevations and it will be more consistent with the rest of the development that goes in there. This is going through administratively for approval but we wanted to give you the heads up and if you had any comments we'd be happy to accept them. Peterson: I think it's an exceptional improvement. Burton: Yeah, looks very nice. Aanenson: That's what we thought. We just wanted to make sure you were comfortable with it. Kind: My only question is, because I wasn't here. This is the first time it came through. What's up with the large area on the north elevation that doesn't have windows? Peterson: Future growth. Aanenson: Yeah, it's expansion area. Peterson We already went through that, trust me. 42 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2000 Kind: Okay, you guys got it covered. Peterson: We didn't like it either but it was, it's practical. Kind: Couldn't they put a fake window in there for now? Peterson: Do you know how expensive a window it is? Kind: Fake expensive windows. Okay, that's all. Peterson: Kate just a feature. I like seeing this stuff`again like this. It's great. Target would have been an excellent thing to do that with. Aanenson: Okay. Actually I'll bring it on the next agenda. What the outcome's going to be. Same with Perkins. They're on their way. Kind: Perkins is looking good. Aanenson: It's very nice. We're really excited about it. I'll show you both of those. I think you'll be just as pleased with Target too. Not only the pharmacy area but the face on West 78th. Thank you for the feedback. PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE. Aanenson: Planning Commission update. I put that in your packet. I didn't last time because we didn't have a quorum. Just to kind of let you know which projects. We talked about the lakeshore project ongoing. That list, that we were to add that. Some of the ones we have completed. Some of the ones we talked about under the flag lot during a work session. We thought of even more applications such as Lake Lucy where we put the common driveways all along Lake Lucy. So we're going to take pictures of the different applications that we have so if you have any particularly, we talked about this. Some of the stuff we haven't put timeframes on. Pulte Homes did come in. That will be on your September 5th agenda. We have a 3 week break and that will be a big hearing that night. So looking at the first part of the fall, we probably won't get to a lot of these until maybe after our, or push them onto our work session in October. Just to let you know. And then I also updated kind of projects that are ongoing on the back too. I hope you've been by some of those. Office Max and... Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, Kate. I have a comment. Earlier this evening when AT&T was before us and there was some issue as to whether or not landscaping made sense. Right on that little island. But yet we do have a landscaping requirement and my thought is, could we have some type of a landscaping fund? In other words, in lieu of landscaping, you know just like the parks do. Aanenson: I can check with the attomey. Obviously you can attach any condition reasonable. I think another approach would have been, they're next to that ped bridge there. They could have done other things on the other side to enhance that.., same property. Blackowiak: Right. I mean kind of transfer that landscaping. You know if it doesn't make sense right where it is, can we still use it somewhere where it's going to make sense? So can we just put that on kind of a work session? 43 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2000 Aanenson: Yep. I'll get the attomey's opinion. See what kind oflanguage we can do. Blackowiak: Yeah, because I mean we do it in the parks you know in lieu of parkland you take park fees. So in lieu of landscaping can you take landscaping fees? I would think we could. Aanenson: Or actually, I mean that would go to any of the conditions that they may not be able to, that we could transfer somewhere else. Sure. Blackowiak: Okay. That's it. Thanks. Kind: Mr. Chairman, one more question on the topic that came up tonight and related to public notice timing and when meeting packets are available compared to when they're discussed. That's the first time that's come up. Is that something you could take a look at or how we could improve that. Have we looked at it a million times and this is the best we can do? Aanenson: This is how it's done universally. Every community does it this way. You know we try to get them out as soon as we can. We try to give them information. People are certainly welcome to come in, meet with us. We're trying to write reports. We're inundated with phone calls. That's why they're going out so late. We spend a lot of time meeting with people. We like to do that. That's our job. Answer questions for people. We can pull the maps out. It's a tough question. Certainly if you're not comfortable making a decision, we have 60 days. If we ask for additional time, 120. If you don't have enough information at the meeting, we recommend that you table it. Peterson: Plus there's an equal opportunity to go in front of the council. So it's not just a 10 day period. It's 3 or 4 weeks. Aanenson: Right, and that's a good comment. But the other point is, until you get to the public hearing, we don't always know all the issues. I mean we can have it in our office and give them another, but until we get into this public arena and the dialogue begins, that's where, you know we got some creative ideas tonight as part of our review on all these applications so that's kind of the process. We rely on your collective wisdom. People that get up and speak have good ideas. So that's really the process. Unfortunately, timing is a pressure but if you don't feel like you have enough information, or if someone does have an idea and you want some help, then table it. Or like Craig said, can it be resolved before it goes to council? Kind: It's an issue that's come up and suggested before and I thought especially since Debbie was still here that it'd be helpful to her a little bit. Aanenson: Right, I understand it. Burton: It's also the same amount of time we have too. Aanenson: Trust me. We're under the same amount of pressure. We're meeting with people, with projects that are 2 weeks out trying to get projects written. I mean we're under the same pressure. We'd like to have them done sooner but it's the way it goes. Peterson: Anything else? Chairman Peterson adjourned the Planning Commission meeting. 44 Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2000 Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 45