Loading...
PC 2000 09 05CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 5, 2000 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Matt Burton, LuAnn Sidney, Deb Kind, Alison Blackowiak, Uli Sacchet, and Ladd Conrad STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE A 1.1 ACRE LAKESHORE PARCEL INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED ON LOT 11, BLOCK 1, SUNRISE HILLS 1sT ADDITION, 7303 LAREDO DRIVE, LUCAS IGEL ADDITION, DAVID IGEL. Public Present: Name Address Jerry & Jan Paulsen Fred Cunco Arlis Bovy Shirley Navratil Don Huseth Helen Bielski Eunice Peters Joel & Wendy Wiers Ann & Ron Kleve Norbert Kerber Bob & Cathy Greeley Joel S. Jenkins Mary Ellen Kuhi 7305 Laredo Drive 7335 Frontier Trail 7339 Frontier Trail 7337 Frontier Trail 7332 Frontier Trail 7209 Frontier Trail 7301 Laredo Drive 7333 Frontier Trail 7307 Laredo Drive 7216 Frontier Trail 7341 Frontier Trail 7305 Frontier Trail 2703 Chesmar Farm Road, Excelsior Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Any questions of Bob? Kind: Yes Mr. Chairman, I have a question. The house pad that you discussed that would need to be shifted, does that need to appear on this plat at all for approval? Generous: No. Kind: Yeah so, I think maybe just get rid of any house footprint kind of information for council. And same with tree preservation or tree removal. That does not need to be identified either. Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2000 Generous: Well it would, if they shift the house pad it would change so we'd have to revise that. Some of the trees that they proposed removing may not have to be removed. Other ones may be moved. Kind: Right. But as far as approving this subdivision we do not need to see a tree removal plan. That would be something that when they're going to actually come in through the approval process for a particular home plan. Generous: Correct. Kind: Okay. That's all for now. Peterson: Uli. Sacchet: Mr. Chair. I just want to confirm, and you made comment in the report that both plats are going to be forwarded to the council meaning that the two lakeshore option as well as the two stacked lots, is that correct? Generous: That is correct. Sacchet: And then my second question is, there was a list of concems that were raised that were submitted to the city attomey and as far as I was able to understand the language from the city attomey, all these issues have been reasonably settled, correct? Generous: That's correct. It's the last attachment to the report are his responses to that. He summarized them rather than doing a point by point detail review of this. Sacchet: Okay. Generous: So and then the plat itself stands alone as complying with the ordinance. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Peterson: Other questions? Conrad: Yeah two quick ones, Bob or Dave. Drainage down the road. How do you prevent that from being, I know we were asking for more erosion. Or looking for erosion control but in terms of having a drive that's aimed at the lake. What, how do you prevent severe drainage coming down that incline? Hempel: Mr. Chairman, Planning Commissioners. The proposed development will not significantly increase the amount of runoff currently going down the driveway or has been over the past few years. One method to divert the drainage would be to overlay the driveway to shift the drainage to one side of the driveway or the other to have it filtered through the grasses of the yard or so forth. There is a pretty substantial distance between the end of the driveway and the lake, 75 feet. And given the amount of runoff`down the driveway, it's relatively small to be pre-treated. Staff`believes that the existing lawn and wooded area will address any runoff` concems to the lake. Conrad: So you haven't made your final recommendation on that Dave, or have you? In terms of how the driveway really gets, pushes the water oft~ 2 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2000 Hempel: We don't believe that the driveway as it exists today, it's created any real problems on the site. And what they're proposing really won't intensify the current driveway. Conrad: What's the angle of the drive? Is that a significant decline? Hempel: Not really. Again there's sufficient distance between the lake and the end of the driveway. The driveway in the staff report we're referring to is from the existing driveway to the proposed house pad. Wasn't relatively steep. 10% grade. By shifting the elevation of that house pad down 1 foot would resolve that. So even by relocating the house pad on the lot would also, we'd have to look at the driveway grades but we're comfortable and confident that the 10% or less can be achieved. Conrad: Okay, second question. Uli brought it up. I don't understand why we're sending two plats to the City Council. We're making a motion tonight and two is not what we're making a motion. Generous: The previous plat was reviewed and the Planning Commission recommended denial. That plat's going forward. This is a separate plat that they're coming through the process with so we're reviewing them both. Conrad: Okay. Peterson: Any further comments? Questions? Thank you Bob. Would the applicant or their designee wish to address the commission? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. Were they planning on coming or not, do you know? Generous: They were planning the last I knew. I haven't talked to them since last week though. Peterson: Okay. Motion and a second for public hearing please. Kind moved, Blackowiak seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commissioners please come forward and state your name and address please. Jerry Paulsen: Good evening, my name is Jerry Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. We're neighbors to the proposed subdivision, as you know. This evening I'd like to present you with a mission impossible. Your mission, should you choose to undertake it is to be convinced that the data on this plat is completely compliant with city's code. I've given you a sketch, and I'll label it Item A. Representing the upper non- lakeshore lot from this August 4th plat that you're reviewing tonight. It's a one page handout, and I don't know ifI need an overhead necessarily to explain it to you since you have a copy but just in case. The purpose is to demonstrate that the impervious surface represented on this sketch by the proposed building, the deck and the driveway exceeds the 25% limit on the property area. In fact the impervious surface figure given by the developer on the plat is understated by about 340 square feet. I'm talking about now the upper lot only. I didn't do any measurements on the lower lot but that has more property on it so it may not be a problem there. You look at the summary table that is in the lower left hand comer of this sketch you'll see that the proposed impervious surface that the developer says he has is 5,420 square feet and I have two columns there. One for the previous plat, the April 20th plat and the August 4th plat, so nothing has changed. The figures are identical. Likewise, the upper, the allowable coverage has not changed either which is 5438. He just squeaked in by 18 feet under the 25% according to his figures anyway. Of the allowable figure. Now if you look at the lower half of the table you'll see a section which I titled actual data, which is some rough calculations that I've done and I've rounded up to square figures on each Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2000 of these, on the house, the deck, and the proposed driveway here. And you'll see that there's a little bit of difference because I've calculated and figured the 5,780 square feet, which is about 340 square feet over what the developer says he has on the plat. I'm saying that he's understated it by about 340 square feet. If you looked at the upper right hand comer of the sketch you also see an area identified as Area 1, which is dotted in there. This slashed line is the old property line on the Inkle plat. The darker line is the new property line. They moved the property line over about 15, 14 or 15 feet to the east. So therefore the driveway has been extended by an additional 14 feet or whatever. 10 feet wide. That amounts to about 145 square feet I'm seeing. Likewise, he didn't have quite 20 feet but add 18 feet on the driveway entrance over on the cul-de-sac so I added another 70 square feet for that. And if you take the total of all those figures, I'm coming up with about 5,995 square feet or about 550 square feet over the 25% limit. So I'm saying that the plat is inaccurate in that respect and in fact the developer's exceeding the impervious surface by that 550 square feet or so. Personally I found it, I was unable to complete my mission of proving to myself that the developer met his impervious surface so you can judge for yourself I guess on that. Moving on to the issue which has come up before, is the mling on the 60 x 60 pad which the city attomey now says is not an actual 60 x 60. Rather it's an area, it's interpreted to be an area of 3,600 square feet and we were arguing previously that in reality it was an actual 60 x 60. The attomey mled in his mling, he said that staff has interpreted to mean this is not a literal 60 x 60, but rather 3,600 square feet of a reasonable shaped area. So the attomey says that this is a staff definition and I think he's kind of evading the issue himself. He's saying staff interprets this way and therefore that's the way it is. Furthermore there's no definition of what a reasonably shaped area is. Whether it's 20 x 180 or whatever. The city is saying that it doesn't necessarily have to be the 60 x 60. In your August 15th Planning Commission meeting you remember toward the end you were looking at some changes in code and one of the proposed changes was to eliminate the reference to the 60 x 60. And because staff thought that was not consistent with the other pads that were mentioned the 40 x 60 for the wetland. The 40 x 60 for the PUD. And so the staff's position was that the less restrictive choice was the way to go. And so staff told the Planning Commission that if they eliminated, if this 60 x 60 was eliminated from Chapter 18, it said the Planning Commission didn't have to give approval on it because it could be passed directly onto the City Council. And we asked the staff; is it they intended to propose this change to the City Council but, and what implications that might have as far as deciding this particular proposed split, and we didn't get a specific reply from that yet. And I did state it, I mean I thought it was rather unfair to change the mles in the middle of the game from the standpoint of eliminating a 60 x 60. The city attomey has stated that an ordinance amendment is being processed that it would codify this interpretation so he's saying the city is going ahead with this independent of what the council, or the Planning Commission might say. In the vemacular, the 60 x 60 pad is referred to by the staff as the glitch ordinance and it's a glitch because if applied properly it would require a variance in this case we believe. Our research shows that what is now a 60 x 60 pad was originally a 50 x 50 and it was in fact enlarged because of the implications of constmction on roots of trees and the impact of that to allow a buffer to permit, to eliminate possibly damage to the trees. So it was increased to a 60 x 60 at some point in the past history. The 60 x 60 pad is shown as being about 3 feet away from the private street on this plat where in fact we believe it should be at least, requires the stmctural setback of 20 feet according to 20-481 because it falls under the category of streets not classified. If you look at the definition of streets not classified, the DNR says that's the same as a private street and it falls under, all in the same category of private streets, private driveways, or railroad which is the case for this proposed development. And we don't believe that the plat allows for this setback at this point. The window is in error and in fact the 60 x 60 cannot appear where it does on the plat. The staff report also states that there's a question of whether the non-lakeshore must meet a 90 or a 100 width at the building setback line. It goes onto state that the plat could comply with the lot requirement, but it fails to say that the plat does not comply with the lot width requirement. Staff is saying, tmst me. That the 60 x 60 or the 90 foot, or 100 foot lot width could be accommodate a 60 x 60 pad even though you can't legally see it on the plat right now. One other fascinating aspect of the proposed lots is that they've evolved into a many sided polygon. The lower lot, or the upper lot is now a 6 sided lot, and the lakeshore 4 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2000 lot has gone to 7 sides. So there depends on whether you consider a point to be another line, there could be more property lines in this plot than we see of 6 or 7. And the choice of front, rear and side lots becomes somewhat arbitrary we believe. The choice of measuring lot width and depth becomes a little more obtuse and difficult to measure I think when you get into irregularly shaped lots like this. And the question is, does the city really want to encourage development of polygonal lots like this? Which leaves some space to come to different conclusions I think. So if the city needs some advice on whether to accept the, or reject the plat for this one lakeshore or not, I think I just refer you back to the words that were in the old, the previous staff`reports. It says the one up, one down does not continue the patter of lot and house placement that exists currently in Sunrise Hills. The altemate plan, which is the one lakeshore, one non- lakeshore has significant visual impact on the neighborhood. The altemate plan significantly impacts the amount of tree removal, increasing the canopy loss from 8 to 22% of the canopy coverage. Assuming the percentage figures are correct in this case, which I haven't looked at. The altemate plan would stack the houses altering the pattem of development and the altemate plan would also eliminate almost all the views of the lake and be detrimental to the adjacent property owners. The altemate plat is not the best for the city and the neighborhood. Those are the city's words and the developer's words as a matter of fact so, they're not our words. The developer is now saying, don't take me seriously about all these bad things I said about the last time around because this is a good plan he's saying. In conclusion then I'd say that the developer has kind of tacitly admitted by going through multiple revisions of the plat that he's attempting to meet code but is still having trouble doing it. He has come up with short in complying with the code as far as we're concemed, and either way you cut it, building two large homes in the place of one would be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood and we believe this plat being reviewed this evening does not meet code and we would encourage you to deny the application. Thank you. Peterson: Okay. Any questions of Mr. Paulsen? Thank you. Anyone else? Janet Paulsen: My name is Janet Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. I've been drawing pictures too. Now two different owners have tried to split this lot up and down and there are three ways to split it by code. In Section 18-60 it says all lots shall abut their full requiring minimum frontage on a publicly dedicated street as required by the zoning ordinance, or on a private street or flag lot. Now the minimum frontage for a publicly dedicated streetis foundin Section20-615 anditis 90 feet. So obviously this lot does not front. Let me get to the... It doesn't front on a street so that can't be divided that way. So the remaining two are either a flag lot or a private street. The owners have chosen the private street route. So this is the private street here. And this is the paved area marked with the stripes. The city has admitted that this is a private street. Not driveway but a private street. It says in the code, Section 18-57. It must be located within a strip of property at least 30 feet wide and extending out to the public right-of-way or covered by a 30 foot wide easement that is permanently recorded for all benefited impacted parcels. As the private street again. Now, there are shoreland regulations about private streets and driveways. In Section 20-484 the Shoreland Code, it says roads, driveways and parking areas shall meet structured setbacks and shall not be placed within bluff and shore impact zones when other reasonable and feasible placement altematives exist. If no altematives exist, they may be placed within these areas and shall be designed to minimize adverse impacts. The structure setback is 10 feet from the property line. So the private street must be 10 feet from the property line, and I have that marked here. In Section 20-481, additional structure setbacks, the following structure setbacks apply. The setbacks from the right-of-way line of a town road public streets or other roads or streets not classified. As the DNR has said, that's a private street. 20 feet. Here's the 30 feet for the private road and here's 20 feet. Here's the 100 foot frontage which we maintain you must have since both of these lots are as specified a private road. Not a driveway, but a private road. A driveways come off`the private road. This is his buildable area. It doesn't meet the 60 x 60 feet. The 60 x 60 feet was set up for woodland areas specifically. It's important. There are beautiful trees in there and they should be protected. The other way to divide the lot, ifI take the flag lot. They didn't choose the flag lot route but I think this is what the previous owners, the Baird's children Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2000 had asked about. On a flag lot they have specific directions on the prevailing develop, planning and so forth, but a neck lot, flag lot means that a lot does not provide the full required frontage on the public right-of-way but rather is served by a narrow neck of land that extends to the street. To meet the definition the neck must be at least 30 feet wide. So here it is, 30 feet wide. The striped area is the driveway. This is the lot line. This is the flag. They can't include this property as part of their lot area according to code. If this fellow wanted to have his own driveway, it would look like that. And it has to separate itself because of the shoreland rules from this property by 10 feet. Which leaves him with this buildable area right here since the 90 foot frontage for his property... It doesn't meet the 60 x 60. 60 x 60's important. The city lawyers admitted, it's in the code now. He says you changed the law to make it codified according to how the planning department is interpreting it, or has been using it. But it's not accurate. In conclusion I'd like to say the city has picked a favorite. First of all, why weren't the Baird children told of the private road easement option? They were told they needed a serious variance to build a... serious variance according to the real estate agent, which I talked to. She said that they didn't meet the 90 foot requirement. As you can see the 90 feet is right up there with no real buildable area. It was such a serious variance she didn't recommend that they really go ahead with it. In May while we were waiting for the latest city report on the up and down lot, the Igel's called us and asked for a meeting saying they had the report and could they discuss the situation. They had the report but we couldn't get the report. They arrived and asked us, what do you want? And I said, we want you to live on the lot in a single house and join our association. Be part of our neighborhood as full members. May I add now, we wanted them to enjoy their lakeshore and raise their boy to enjoy his trees and his wild area with the owls and the woodpeckers. The little boy birthday parties running through the woods. That's what we want. She said it's not going to happen. We bought the lot to split it. I asked for the city report. She finally gave it to me and I started to read it and she said I didn't like the way this conversation was going and she snatched it away. It was my neighbor who went and got the city report for us to read. Otherwise we would have had to wait for several days before the meeting. Why is my city behaving this way? We've lived here for 30 years. We've been good citizens in good standing. I don't think this is fair and now when we prove they need a variance, they want to change the code. They want to change shoreland code. They want to change the 60 x 60 and I think it's outrageous. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Mary Ellen Kuhi: My name is Mary Ellen Kuhi and I live at 2703 Chesmar Farm Road in Chanhassen and when I read the notice I was absolutely outraged that the Planning Commission may allow this. That is such a beautiful piece of property with so much wildlife and so many beautiful trees. We don't have access on 5 or 41 for that many people. When I came home from work tonight, I came home at 6:30 and it was absolutely impossible. The traffic on Highway 5. We are tuming, I've been here for 5 years and you are tuming the city of Chanhassen into suburban sprawl, very much like I've seen in Arizona and in parts of Califomia. And it just seems like any builder who comes out here and wants to build gets the permit to build. And I'm really sick of it. I have seen it in the last 5 years, the population almost triple out here. And we moved out here to have some peace and country. The wildlife don't have anyplace to go anymore and I am simply sick of it. I don't know what's going on at city hall. I'm very naive politically but I just can't see why you continue to allow the incredible growth without really thinking about the wetlands, the wildlife, the trees and the ecological ramifications of this kind of rapid, rapid growth in Chanhassen. Debbie Lloyd: Hello. My name's Debbie Lloyd and I live at 7302 Laredo Drive. I'm going to give you a handout first. I wish the Igel's were here this evening and I hope that we don't find that we're like not in proper order by addressing this without them here. Could that be the case? Peterson: They don't need to be here. 6 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2000 Debbie Lloyd: Okay. What I handed you is a 3 page letter that Rachel Igel walked around our neighborhood on July 17th, the night before the last meeting we had with you. And the second part of that is a letter that she had attached and brought with this letter through our neighborhood. And there was a neighbor who addressed this and made a comment about it, that she didn't like the tactic being used but I'm going to use this letter tonight to point out a few things. In paragraph 2, the first bullet point. It says after a major investment in time and money we closed on the property in January of 2000 with the understanding from the Chanhassen planning department that the property could be subdivided within the constraints of the city code. I'm asking why the planning department would agree to this for the Igel's when compared to the comments in the attached letter from JoAnn Leitby, and I'm not sure if that's how you pronounce her name, but in paragraph 4. Ms. Wellman by the way is the realtor. Also Ms. Wellman never told us we couldn't subdivide the lot. She told us it would be unlikely that we'd be able to subdivide. However, she told us that if we wanted to put the time and effort into the project, we could pursue obtaining a variance from the city of Chanhassen and then sell the lot as subdividable, if and when we obtained city approval. There's a profound difference between the manner in which the planning department handled the question by different parties. It's profound. Two different answers for the same question. I want to know why. I really want to know why. Referring back to the Igel letter of July 18th, on page 2. I want to point out some more misleading statements. Bullet point 2. Although we will be subdividing the property, the average size of the lots will still be 30% larger than the average lot in the surrounding neighborhood. Lot area on the plats presented are, and you know we differ with the plat. We're not convinced that the plats are accurate. I think you've seen that in the discussion from the Paulsen's. But the lot area presented is 21,752 feet for Lot 1, 25,749 feet for Lot 2. If these calculations are accurate, Lot 1 meets the average lot size. However Lot 2 is a lakeshore lot and lakeshore lots average 36,353 feet. So the lot they're proposing on the lakeshore is 29% less than the average lakeshore lot in the neighborhood, and if you look with, if you look on the lot averages that I included in your packet for tonight you'll see lots within Sunrise Hills. Lots within 500 feet. And you'll see what those averages are. Furthermore, if Lot 1 were represented as a flag lot, which indeed it really is, then the lot area of the upper lot actually comes down to about 17,000 square feet. And that's 22% less than the average lot within the neighborhood and within 500 square feet. That's what I wanted to point out this evening. I still want to make it on record, and I still want an acceptable answer why the shoreline regulation file is missing from the city. It's still missing. I questioned it when I went and picked up the packets. I think it's unacceptable that a vital file like that. We're so proud of our lakeshore and our regulations, and all the history is gone. I think that's terrible. I don't know what kind of record keeping goes on up there. I don't know what Bob did with the file. He's the last one who had it. I think it should be produced. Thank you. Don Huseth: My name is Don Huseth. I live on 7332 Frontier Trail. I've been there since 1966. We love the neighborhood. The kids all grew up there. And now I'm there alone. I have a beautiful lot on Laredo Drive and Frontier Trail. And if this baby goes through I want to split that lot in 3. I can put 3 houses on that lot. Won't have much grass to mow, but if you can afford this and go through these ordinances, throw them out, take some new ones, then I'd like to put 3 houses on my lot and you should be very agreeable to that. You'd have a lot more tax money. So I have been following along with this and I'm very disappointed that it was agreed on to let them do this without having a little more information, or at least looking over the ordinances that were in effect. And I think we should stick with the old ordinances, or maybe we should throw out the Constitution of the United States and then we could start all from scratch again. And that's about all I've got to say tonight. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. 7 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2000 Peterson: The public hearing is closed. Bob or Kate, any response to any of the issues or should we go onto discussion? Aanenson: Just to be clear, it's our opinion that the 60 x 60 pad can be met. They have a different interpretation of the DNR rules but it's our opinion that the 60 x 60 pad can be met. And as Commissioner Kind pointed out, I think if you take that house out, that may resolve some of that. We can show the 100 foot line. Have the architect do that. Or the engineer, excuse me, but it can meet the 60. Obviously there's a different interpretation of that DNR and where we believe the common driveway stops and the rest of the private driveway, there is no setback. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Kind: Mr. Chairman, I have a question for stafl~ Will you speak to the 100 foot line versus the 90 foot line as far as your interpretation as where that needs to be, I'm talking about their lot frontage width. Should it be 90 feet back or 100 feet? Or not back. At the width I mean. Generous: The attorney's interpretation for the front lot, it's the 90 foot lot width is required. Aanenson: But we're showing that it can meet the 100 foot, just to be sure. Same with the 60. That it can meet. Kind: And the plat that's before us has 60 x 60 foot pads on them that do meet all the setbacks? Aanenson: Correct. That's our opinion. Sidney: Mr. Chair? Question for stafl~ Is it appropriate to go forward or can we go forward without the applicant being present? What's your recommendation? Aanenson: It's our preference before the meeting started if the applicant wasn't here that we not. Peterson: I don't think legally we have any reason to withhold it. Aanenson: Sure, that's fine. Peterson: It's their option to make a presentation anyway so. Kind: Mr. Chairman, one other question. I think it was Mrs. Paulsen who brought up the point about the building pad setback needs to be 20 feet from a driveway. Let's not even call it a private drive. Just from a driveway. Could you speak to that? Generous: It's within the shoreland regulations it states that from a private street there's a 20 foot building setback. The private street is the paved portion of that. Aanenson: The common portion. Kind: Not the easement? Generous: Not the easement. 8 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2000 Aanenson: Correct. That's our interpretation and I think that's where the 60 foot, their interpretation of the 60 foot. Kind: So right now the way the building pad is drawn it's not 20 feet from the driveway? Generous: Right, but that front house needs to slide back anyway because it doesn't meet. Kind: I'm not talking about the house. I'm talking about the 60 x 60 foot pad. Because right now it's like 3 feet from the driveway. Generous: Yes, but it still could slide over. Kind: I did a little tracing. I think it could still fit. Aanenson: It does. Kind: Yeah. Generous: 15 feet on the south side. Kind: But there's 20 feet from there. Generous: But again you lose the private, that's a driveway there. It's not a private street. Kind: Right. It's 20 feet from the street itself. Just like we measure setbacks on public streets. Aanenson: Right, this isn't a public street. The common portion of the two driveways would be that part. The 20 foot. This is just a singular driveway. One driveway so there is no setback. Kind: And then, just to clarify the flag lot question. What's before us is not a flag lot so there's none of those issues are before us. Would you speak to Debbie's questions about why the two different answers. Aanenson: This was brought up before. Nobody in this office recalls speaking to the Baird's. There's all kinds of rumors and speculations. There was also several people that looked in the file. Bob is not the last person that had that file, you know. Kind: You're answering the question about where the shoreland regulation is? Aanenson: Right. Right. Kind: And is that a document that can be recreated? Aanenson: I'm sure DNR has some of them, sure. Sure. Kind: And the lakeshore lot size minimum, what's our requirement for that? 20,000? Generous: That's correct. Kind: I think that touches on the points that were brought up by the public. 9 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2000 Peterson: Okay. Commissioners, who wants to tackle this one first? Volunteers going once. Going twice before I choose. Sacchet: Alright. I'll give it a shot. Well first of all I'm very disappointed that the applicant isn't here. Because at the bottom of this whole dilemma we have in front of us with this particular application is that apparently the applicant has found a way to weasel themselves out of the covenants, which is really fundamental. It doesn't go into the part that we deal with from the city but I really feel I need to state this. I mean what good is covenants if somebody can buy a lot and register the title and erase the covenants? I don't know. Legally there must be some sort of a mechanism when that happens that the neighborhood gets notified or something like that. I don't know how that works, and I really wanted to ask that question to the applicant. Unfortunately that's not possible here because that is really where it's at. I mean the neighborhood is very clearly defined. It has it's pattem. It's incredibly closely knit and here comes somebody and they can just sneak in and erase that from the title and here we have this mess in front of us. Sorry to call it that but it's pretty messy in my terms. I don't like this at all. I don't agree with one of the findings from stafl~ Finding number 5. The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental damage. I do believe that this subdivision creates very significant environmental damage and it does that either way around. That's why at our previous meeting dealing with this we denied the variance to make it two lakeshore lots because we didn't want the environmental impact on the lake, and at that point I actually was hesitant to go that route personally because I felt that the second option, which is now in front of us, has in terms of the neighborhood an even bigger environmental impact. So they're between a rock and a hard place. Either we sacrifice some of the lake or we sacrifice the trees and the feel of the neighborhood so this is a tough choice to make. However, Debbie are you, your lot sizes this time because last time you didn't like my saying about lot sizes. And I still feel that from a city side it's very hard, certainly based on lot size to make a case. I mean using your figures, which is a total of 61 lots, the lot that's being subdivided is the third largest. And the two resulting lots will be the l0th largest and 21st largest out of 61 so on that basis it still is very subdividable. I would be, I would want to be sensitive to the issue Mr. Paulsen raised that impervious surface is beyond what's acceptable. I mean if they were obviously close before, and I don't have a calculator but I was tempted to start calculating this with my cell phone but I would have made too much noise. If it is really over, then that's certainly a reason why this should be denied. Aanenson: Letmejustclarifythat. They're not getting a house plan. I think Deb pointed that out earlier. When the house plan comes in, that has to be on the survey, okay? Sacchet: So that comes in when the house plan comes in? Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: That's not something that goes with the plat? Aanenson: Right. And that's what we're saying, we'll agree the 60 x 60 pad fits on there but the house pad at this point will come in when they're ready to build. And they have to show on the survey the impervious surface percentage. That's a requirement. Sacchet: Okay. So what do we do with this at this point? Aanenson: I think Commissioner Kind's recommendation was to take the proposed building pad ofl~ The house pad. Leave the 60 x 60 on there but take that house ofl~ We're not approving a house plan with this subdivision. All we're doing is recommending to the City Council at this point whether or not you're going to recommend on the subdivision. We're not approving any building plan at this point. 10 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2000 Sacchet: And in order to not recommend subdivision we need to have a good reason. Which this impervious surface could be a reason. Aanenson: Plus I'm saying, they're not approving the house plan. It would be the recommendation to take that ofl~ They have to meet the impervious surface. They can get a house on there would need to confirm this. Sacchet: Okay. Peterson: So it's not a reason to deny it because we're taking it oflk Sacchet: Right, okay. Okay, well I'm curious to listen to you guys. Peterson: Ladd, you're close to next. Conrad: Thanks. I think when the neighbors were in before I said I didn't like the previous subdivision and I don't like this one but it looks, you know if they can meet the ordinance, they can do it. And it's really that simple and I think our obligation, and I'm kind of offended by a few, what a few of you said. It's as if we're trying to cram more population into town. Come on. You know that's not why we're here. There's some other things that are offensive and I've been around a while so you know, that's not why I'm here. I'm here to try to protect some of the things that you care about. Usually it's an ordinance that does it and I think you're applying your leverage on the ordinance, and it's our job to make sure it's interpreted right. And we'll continue to do that but the previous subdivision didn't do it and you challenged that but I think Mr. Paulsen, I also forecast the fact that what I'm seeing today is not that unusual from other subdivisions in Chanhassen and if you don't like it, that's when we change ordinances. Now I think, if you don't like how we're interpreting things or like our ordinances, that's when you've got to get involved to make sure we change them. That's where we have control. Plus the fact, it's legal. We've got the ground on what the attomeys say is right and you would want that right too. You're talking about the people buying the lot. The people selling the lot have a chance to control the destiny of this lot. They didn't. They just didn't. These subdivisions are going on in my neighborhood and I don't like them and we're talking to staff`about how to control them. And we're talking to staff; how do you do it and it's hard to make rules. It's just, every situation's a little bit different. Anyway, absolutely the impervious surface has to be met. Bottom line, I think it's legal if they meet the ordinance. And I think I forecast that if they meet the letter of the law, you've got to keep challenging to make sure everybody's doing the right thing here. Staff`has not reason to ram another lot in Chanhassen. Theydon't. Just trying to interpret what's there. They have no reason to deceive or to do anything, at least in my view, so I would, you know my obligation here is to make sure that staff`and our attomey is interpreting it as fairly as we can. And if they meet the regulations, I think they can do this. But they've got to meet the regs and it looks like, based on staff; based on the city attomey, it looks like they can do it. Peterson: Okay, thank you Ladd. Other comments? Kind: Mr. Chair I'll make a couple. I'm comfortable with our city attomey's interpretation of the city code and the questions that were brought before him by the Paulsen's. And I really appreciate them pushing us to take that extra step. I think that that was a worth while because this is a sensitive area. I would like, always have preferred to not have fictitious house pads on subdivisions. I'm adding a condition to take that off` of there and also any fictitious trees that may or may not go. I want those x's gone as well. The 60 x 60 foot building pad is all we need to see to make sure there's a buildable, sufficient area. Sufficient buildable area. Construct my sentence here. And I believe that the 20 foot 11 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2000 setback from the driveway is reasonable. I also believe that the 60 foot by 60 foot pad still fits with that on there so I would add a condition that says, that that 60 x 60 pad needs to be moved away from that driveway before it goes to council. I guess those are my comments. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Any others? Sidney: Yeah Mr. Chair, I'll make just a few comments. I agree with Commissioner Conrad's comments and really could see how the staff report has become more concise and there is a lot of work put into this whole subdivision issue. I appreciate staff's work on this. And I do agree with their recommendation. As long as they meet the ordinance requirements, I see no reason to not recommend this. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Others? Burton: Yeah Mr. Chairman. I agree with Commissioner Conrad's comments. And I'll make a few other points I guess. I don't think that restrictive covenants are an issue for the Planning Commission. Those are private legal matters and we haven't considered that in the past and I don't think it's appropriate in this case for us to consider those. And it is my understanding in any event, that the restrictive covenant was removed from the property. I haven't seen the actual papers but it was represented to us at one point that that did occur. I have friends in the neighborhood so this next point is a little tough for me to say but I think there have been a lot of attacks on the staff in this case and I for one didn't particularly appreciate it and as a decision maker, those type of attacks aren't helpful at all in making a decision and doesn't carry any weigh with me. In fact the attacks tend to make you lose ground. My personal opinion is that the staff and the Planning Commission are very respectful to the community and try to be as responsive as we can be, and I don't think that a number of people who are in opposition to this have given the staff the appropriate respect and consideration that they deserve and that has disappointed me. I want to comment on one comment that somebody, I'm sorry. I can't remember the neighbor's name that had the letters saying that they had been given two different positions. You know as I read the letters it's just not supported by the evidence. There's a comment that says that the commission mentioned that they could be subdivided and then there's a comment from a realtor and that cannot be attributed to the stafl~ As the impervious surface issue, I think it's a valid concem and one that we'll watch out for when we see a site plan but I don't think this is the right time to look at that. In the end analysis is whether the subdivision meets the standards and I think it does with the conditions as the staff has put on it and I agree with their interpretation of the city code and with the city attomey's interpretation and I think that they're both consistent with our past practice and I think that this subdivision does meet the standards. Blackowiak: Mr. Chair I would say, I agree with what my fellow commissioners have said this evening. This brings me to something I've said before. There are times that I want to approve something but I can't because it doesn't meet the standards and there are times that I don't want to approve something but I have to because it does meet standards and this is definitely one of the later times. It appears it meets the standards. I believe even if the lot lines had to be shifted to potentially address the 555 foot impervious surface issue, that that could even happen to make it work. So I see really no reason or no legal reason that we can deny, in my opinion at this point in time. It seems to meet all the city codes that we need to consider for this type of a request and I agree with staff's conclusions. Peterson: Okay, thank you. In closing, I would like to vote against this but as you heard the continuing theme, you know that's not why we're here to necessarily voice our personal opinions and vote that way. We're here to vote as we interpret the ordinances and assure that the ordinances are being interpreted properly as Commissioner Conrad has said earlier. I think that clearly what tonight and over the past few months that this has been before us is, we need to work on the subdivision ordinance and as Ladd also said, I think we need to focus on that. It's going to get worse as time goes on and we will be again working on 12 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2000 that. And one thing that I will miss with this project is the sincerity that all of the people and the public have offered and their sense of passion and their sense of cause. That I think is truly commendable and I for one, and I think my fellow commissioners will miss that too so. With those closing comments I will call for a motion. Conrad: Oh I should do that Mr. Chairman so everybody knows who they should not like up here. And again I think you really as a neighborhood, you've done an outstanding job. You've got to stay with this and make sure we're still treating this properly from a legal standpoint. You should do that. But there's one more step and it's a pain to come to these things and you think we don't care. We kind of do but, stay with it one more step and see what City Council. The Mayor's here tonight listening so you may have her ear. So I'd make the motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat subdivision #00-2 for the Lucas Igel Addition shown on the plans prepared by Carlson and Carlson dated as per the staff`report March t5th. At least that's where this motion goes on. Per the conditions, the 14 conditions of the staff`report with a few additions. They're probably not real significant additions but there the things that I'd staff`to do. I want to make sure that the runoff`issue as we put in a private drive and street, the runoff` issue is totally taken care of and that the engineering department gives their total assurance that we have not increased at all any runoff`into the lake. That'd be condition number 15. Condition number 16 would be to relocate the 60 x 60 foot pad to make sure that it's totally legal. It's totally defensible on the subdivision as submitted. I'd like staff; condition number 17. To review all the input that they've heard tonight and there's more documents and we don't get to read them now when they come in here and hand them to us. We don't really understand them but make sure that you, the city staff has read that and responds appropriately in time for the City Council meeting. Those would be my additional points. Peterson: Is there a second? Burton: Second. Peterson: So moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Kind: Yes Mr. Chair, one friendly amendment. What number are we up to Ladd? Conrad: I went through 17. Kind: Okay, 18. The applicant shall delete house footprints and tree removal information from preliminary plat. From the preliminary plat before presenting to City Council. Conrad: I would buy that Deb. And a comment. We all buy the 100 foot setback. Is there anything, for the tee foot lot width. Do we need any further definition from staff`on that? They meet the 90. They could meet the tee. Is there proof that the City Council has to see? Kind: Maybe direct staff`to show, or direct the applicant to show both the 100 and 90 foot width on the next? Conrad: Do you want to keep that in the same? Kind: That sounds like a 19 doesn't it? Or is it changing one of them that's already in there? Number 1. The front setback for Lot t, Block t shall be at the line where the lot meets 90 feet. Applicant shall also show the front setback line at the tee foot width. 13 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2000 Conrad: Yeah, I would buy that amendment. Peterson: Okay, it's been moved and seconded. Any other discussion? Conrad moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat, Subdivision #00-2 for Lucas Igel Addition, as shown on the plans prepared by Carlson & Carlson, Inc., dated February 11, 2000, revised March 8, 2000, revised March 30, 2000, revised April 20, 2000 and revised August 4, 2000, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The front setback for Lot 1, Block 1 shall be at the line where the lot width meets 90 feet. The applicant shall also show the front setback line where the lot width meets the 100 feet. 2. All existing utilities must be abandoned and inspected as required by the appropriate department or agency. 3. Final reports must be provided for any soil correction work before building permits will be issued. 4. Sanitary sewer services must be installed in accordance with the Minnesota State Plumbing Code. 5. The developer shall submit a landscape plan showing minimum buffer yard requirements including one overstory tree, two understory trees and two shrubs. The buffer yard plantings shall be located directly north of the proposed home on Lot 2. 6. The developer shall pay full park and trail fees for one additional lot. One-third of the fees will be payable at the time of final plat recording. The balance of the fees will be payable with the first building permit for a home in this development. 7. The proposed residential development of 1.09 net developable acres is responsible for a water quality connection charge of $872. 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 $2,158.20. These fees are payable to the city at the time of final plat recording. 8. A demolition permit must be obtained before demolishing the existing building. The existing building must be demolished prior to recording the final plat. 9. All existing utilities must be abandoned and inspected as required by the City's Building Department. All sanitary sewer services must be installed in accordance with the Minnesota State Plumbing Code and/or the City of Chanhassen's standard utility specifications. 10. A detailed grading, drainage, erosion control and tree removal plan along with a utility plan will be required prior to final plat consideration for city staffto review and approve. Tree protection fencing must be installed prior to site grading. 11. The applicant and staff shall work together in determining the paths for the sanitary sewer and water services that creates the least disruption to existing vegetation. The City, at the applicant's expense, will extend a water service for Lot 1 from Laredo Lane to the property line of Lot 1. The applicant shall be responsible for extending the water and sanitary sewer services to Lot 1. The applicant shall escrow with the City $4,500 to guarantee the water and sanitary sewer service extensions. A sanitary sewer and water hookup fee and connection charge will be applied at time 14 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2000 of building permit issuance on Lot 1. The cost of extending the water service to Lot 1 from Laredo Lane shall be deducted from the watermain connection charge for Lot 1. The applicant shall prepare and record a cross access easement agreement for the water and sanitary sewer lines that encroach upon the lots. 12. The typical 5 foot and 10 foot wide side, front and rear yard drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the final plat. In addition, a 20 foot wide utility and drainage easement shall be dedicated over the existing sanitary sewer line that runs through Lot 2. 13. The developer shall be responsible for all city attomey fees associated with the review and recording of the final plat documents, park and trail fees, Surface Water Management Fees, and GIS fees pursuant to city ordinances. These fees are due at time of final plat recording. 14. All driveways shall be paved with an all weather surface such as asphalt or concrete. Both lots must be accessed via a common curb cut as shown on the plans. The location of the driveway is to be reviewed by the applicant and staff`to minimize tree removal. The common portion of the driveway must be 20 feet wide and built to a 7 ton axle weight design. Cross access easements and maintenance agreements shall be prepared by the applicant and recorded against both lots. The driveway access easement shall be 30 feet wide. 15. The engineering department will review to make sure that there is no increased runoff into the lake from the construction of the private street and driveways. 16. Relocate the 60 x 60 foot pad to make sure that it's totally legal and defensible on the subdivision as submitted. 17. Staffwill review all the information and documents received at the Planning Commission meeting and respond appropriately in time for the City Council meeting. 18. The applicant will delete the house foot prints and tree removal information from the preliminary plat before going to City Council. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 3.4 ACRE PARCEL INTO 5 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND TWO OUTLOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 6900 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY, YVHITE OAK ADDITION, COFFMAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of Bob. Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair, I have two questions. Just to clarify when this was in front of us last time there was an issue about a variance for that garage. The way it's drawn now there is sufficient setback? Generous: Correct. 15 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2000 Sacchet: Okay. And then the second question, one thing that I don't think the current report touches on, the previous one did but didn't really suggest what's going to happen but there was a well on one of the lots. Is that something that we would usually address in this context? Generous: It should be addressed as a part of this, that it be properly abandoned. Sacchet: Will be abandoned, okay. Good, that's my two questions. Thanks. Peterson: Any other? Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman I have a question. On page 6 of the report. The section on streets, about two thirds of the way down it says although these conditions compromise the city's subdivision standards somewhat, etc. Can you explain that to me please? Generous: I'm not sure if the Assistant City Engineer could address that for you. Hempel: Chairman, Planning Commissioners. There is a stipulation in the subdivision ordinance that prohibits half street dedication in subdivisions. I asked for a legal opinion on that from the city attomey's office. The intention of that was to prohibit premature development where the adjacent parcels in the future would be burdened with constructing an entire city street. Dedicating additional right-of-way and some future property owner would have to do that. With the idea that some future property owner envisioned that he's got a street in front of him that he can subdivide off of but yet in fact it was inadequate street width, right-of-way width and so forth. The plan before you this evening we required the applicant to dedicate the entire right-of-way up to the cul-de-sac and approximately 2/3 of the cul-de-sac right-of-way with this proposal. In addition, they're proposing and we're requiring that the entire street width be built up to the cul-de-sac and then 2/3 of the cul-de-sac be constructed with this proposal with the understanding in the future when the property to the north, the Headla parcel subdivides, they would be responsible for dedicating the remaining portion of the cul-de-sac right-of-way and complete construction of a full cul-de-sac. It's our belief that currently out there there's really no tum around at the end of White Oak Lane. Before something would happen out there it would take both parcel owners to get together to subdivide and given the time line, that probably just won't happen for a number of years. This allows for development of the property to the south to develop with a full city street with the exception of a full cul- de-sac. It does allow future potential subdivision of the property to the north with full city street in place with minor inconvenience or minor cost to complete the cul-de-sac to make the properties comply with the subdivision ordinance. So it's true we are maybe compromising a little bit but it's our interpretation and the city attomey's interpretation that this type of proposal would be a benefit or is in line with the subdivision intent when it comes to constructing a full city street for accessing both properties. Blackowiak: Okay, that leads me to two more questions. Number one, what if the property to the north doesn't want to subdivide and put a complete cul-de-sac there? And number two, is public works, the fire department, are they comfortable with having 2/3 of a cul-de-sac to work in? Hempel: To answer the first question. It is a sufficient tum around right now for typical residential use. It's not a heavily traveled road. You have less than I believe 15 homes on it. It's not highly traveled. It does permit tum around for snowplow equipment, fire apparatus would take additional tuming movements to make the tum. Again the amount of households on the street as well as the location of Minnewashta Parkway for access to the other two lots that abut Minnewashta Parkway, they did not have concem with inferior size or reduced size cul-de-sac. I think I answered both questions. Blackowiak: Yeah, and so to the north, if they choose not to do that, we're comfortable with that? 16 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2000 Hempel: That's correct. Blackowiak: Alright, thanks. Peterson: Other questions of staff'? Would the applicant like to make a presentation? If so, please come forward. Bill Coif`man: Mr. Chairman, members of the commission, my name is Bill Coif`man with Coif`man Development. With me tonight I have Larry and Nancy Wenzel, the owner of the property. They've lived on the property for about 30 years or so and we also have Dave Headla, the property owner to the north. And also with me I have Kara Otto with Otto and Associates, our consulting engineer. First off`I would like to thank staff`for helping me along in this process and coming up with a design that hopefully meets the city's needs better than the first application. We're very pleased with this design and I hope you guys are too. We are in concurrence with stafl~s conditions for approval. Basically we'd be willing to answer any questions that you might have. Peterson: Any questions of the applicant? Thank you. Motion and a second for public hearing please. Kind moved, Sidney seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commissioners, please come forward. Sacchet moved, Kind seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Conrad: Before we do that, Mr. Headla. You're not going to make any comments? Dave Headla: I fully support the whole... Conrad: That's what I wanted to hear. Okay. Dave Headla: I think it's...had engineering and the design group working on the problem... Conrad: Weren't you on the Planning Commission some time ago? Dave Headla: I was. Conrad: I thought so Dave. Peterson: After tonight we may have a few openings. Commissioners, your thoughts on this one. Conrad: I think it's good. It's sort of a neat solution. I think we stood up to something that didn't make some sense a couple weeks ago and staff`worked it out with the applicant and the Headla's are not forced to do something before they want to. Maybe I'm naive but it looks kind of neat. Peterson: Okay. Any other comments? I'll entertain a motion. Burton: Mr. Chairman, I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of preliminary plat for Subdivision #2000-9, White Oak Addition creating five lots and two outlots, plans prepared by Otto Associates dated June 30, 2000, stamped received 8/15/00 subject to conditions 1 through 25. 17 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2000 Conrad: I'd second that. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Burton moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of preliminary plat for Subdivision #2000-9, White Oak Addition creating five lots and two outlots, plans prepared by Otto Associates, dated 6/30/00, stamped received 8/15/00, subject to the following conditions: The two outlots must be combined with the corresponding lots across Minnewashta Parkway. They shall not be considered as separate parcels for development purposes. These outlots may not be used as an association beachlot. 2. The front yard setback for Lot 1, Block 1 shall be at the point where the lot width is 100 feet. Demolition permits must be obtained from the Inspections Division before demolishing any structures on the property. A final grading plan and soil report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before building permits will be issued. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around the fire hydrant, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, Cable TV, and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. If any trees or shrubs are to be removed, they must be either chipped or hauled off site due to close proximity of neighboring homes. No buming permits will be issued. Additional premise identification numbers will be required for Lot 1. Because it set off of the cul- de-sac, numbers will not be visible from the edge of White Oak Lane, thereby requiring additional numbers and/or signage at the driveway entrance. Submit plans to Chanhassen Fire Marshal and Chanhassen Building Official for review and approval. Plans for additional address numbers must be submitted prior to any building permits being issued. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/ Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992. Regarding the existing house within the White Oak Lane right-of-way, if the house is to be removed, please contact Fire Inspector Greg Hayes for the possibility of fire training prior to demolition. The proposed residential development of 3.07 net developable acres is responsible for a water quality connection charge of $2,456. 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 $6,078.60. These fees are payable to the City at the time of final plat recording. 10. Applicant shall submit a landscape plan to the city before final approval of the development. Included in the plan shall be reforestation and buffer yard plantings. 18 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2000 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. The 15 trees required for reforestation shall be distributed to Lots 1 and 3 through 5 as follows: Lots 1, 3, 4 3 trees required, Lot 5 4 trees required. Trees shall be deciduous and 2 V2 inch diameter. The developer shall pay full park and trail fees for the four additional lots pursuant to city ordinance. If the exporting or importing of earthwork material is required, the developer shall supply staff with a haul route and traffic control plan for review and approval. The appropriate drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated to the City on the final plat for all utilities lying outside the right-of-way. The minimum easement width shall be 20 feet wide. The applicant shall dedicate the necessary street right-of-way on the final plat to provide a 60 foot wide strip of right-of-way centered upon the existing Minnewashta Parkway street alignment, a 60 foot wide street right-of-way for White Oak Lane up to the cul-de-sac, and the portion of the cul- de-sac with a 60 foot radius located in the White Oak Addition as shown on the plans dated June 20, 2000 with the understanding that the property owner to the north will be responsible for completing the cul-de-sac in the future when the property subdivides. This would include removal of the existing home within the cul-de-sac right-of-way when the property (Headla) subdivides. The applicant will need to develop a sediment and erosion control plan in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook and the Surface Water Management Plan requirements for new developments. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and formal approval in conjunction with final plat submittal. 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. The developer shall construct White Oak Lane in accordance with the City's urban street standards. All utility and street improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed street and utility plans and specifications shall be submitted three weeks prior to final plat consideration for staff review and City Council approval. The applicant shall provide detailed storm sewer calculations for 10 year and 100 year storm events and provide ponding calculations for storm water quality/quantity ponds in accordance with the City's Surface Water Management Plan for the City Engineer to review and approve. The plan review shall account for present and future drainage from the parcel to the north (Headla) as well. The applicant shall provide detailed pre-developed and post-developed storm water calculations for 100 year storm events and normal water level and high water level calculations in existing basins, created basins, and/or creeks. Individual storm sewer calculations between each catch basin segment will also be required to determine if sufficient catch basins are being utilized. The applicant shall enter into a Development Contract with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of the development contract. 19 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2000 21. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Environmental Service Commission, Health Department and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 22. The existing gravel driveway to the house on Lot 1 shall be removed and restored with vegetation. In addition, the driveway apron to Lot 1 from Minnewashta Parkway will need to be removed and restored with B-618 concrete curb and gutter. All lots except Lot 2, Block 1 shall access the internal street system and not Minnewashta Parkway. 23. The developer will also be required to install drain tile behind the curbs in White Oak Lane to convey household sump pump discharge and address subsurface drainage in the street. 24. The sewer and water lines to the existing home located within the proposed street will need to be disconnected in accordance with City requirements. 25. The plans shall provide an emergence overflow swale along the west line of Lot 5. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Peterson: It goes onto council on the 25th. Good job staff`and applicant. Thank you. 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). Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Kate, with regard to the buildable area, and with what's going on with the Igel Addition, is it appropriate for us just to pass on that one? Aanenson: Absolutely. We would recommend you leave the 60 x 60 on that. I guess the one concem that we have is that you know, it's interpreted that a house has to fit in that box. We've showed you that when we approve those plans they don't stay, and that was our concern is that everyone said that that's going to define where the house is going to go. We want to be clear, that does not define. We're just showing that's big enough to build. That doesn't mean that the house is going to stay in that box, and that's where we were concemed that there was a different understanding of that and we wanted to clarify that. And the other approach was that there's two different standards on the code. But I'd be happy to leave the 60 x 60 and the Igel, exempt that plat. Again, the one that you approved tonight. You showed the 60 x 60. That's fine. Leave that in there. Peterson: Yeah and I think that's appropriate. Aanenson: Sure, no problem. Peterson: If that is the oppositions of that addition's hook, then let's give them that hook and let them pursue at will so. 20 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2000 Aanenson: This application brought to light, again we hadn't interpreted it that way but it raised the issue that we needed to clarify. Peterson: Yeah, I understand. Okay. Kind: Mr. Chairman I have a question along those same lines. 60 x 60 equals 3,600 square feet which is similar to. Aanenson: Minnetonka's. Kind: Minnetonka's buildable area. Aanenson: They have a much bigger lot minimum. Kind: Their lot minimum is what? Aanenson: 20, at least 20. It might be 22,000. It's a bigger minimum lot size. Is it 187 It's 22. Yeah, 22. I live in Minnetonka. It's 22. Kind: And that's a half acre roughly. Now help me with the math. Aanenson: Is it proportional? Kind: Yeah. Aanenson: Well again their minimum was the 40. Kind: Right, that's true. So that is true. But what I'm getting at is, I don't like seeing house pads when we're looking at subdivisions. I just want to make sure there's sufficient buildable area and buildable area needs to be bigger than 2,400 square feet. The buildable area. The bigger area... Aanenson: Right, and that's one of the other approaches we wanted to show you is that when they come in, that they show everything exclusive, anything that's exclusive of an easement or setback requirement is the buildable area. Kind: Exactly. Aanenson: They're much larger than that. Kind: So I want it to be bigger than 2,400. Conrad: If you saw a subdivision of 50 units coming in, you'd want to see how they forecast where they're going to put them. Aanenson: Right. So each application is different. Conrad: So you can see how they relate to each other. Again, when you look at a two lot deal, it's not the same as the big ones that we've seen. 21 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2000 Aanenson: But most subdivisions that do come in show the easements on the lots. When they come in for final plat, they have all the easements on them. They have to to get recorded. So that's all shown on there so anything exclusive of that is the buildable area. Kind: So if we have the buildable area, have a minimum. I like the idea of putting a minimum width and depth like Minnetonka has with the 40 foot. So you don't end up with a triangle or some goofy shape. And for sure accommodate a garage and a deck or whatever. So adding some language about that to ensure that each lot has a reasonable area for house, garage and deck or patio, the buildable area must be a minimum of 40 wide and 40 feet deep. Something along those lines. Peterson: Other comments? Conrad: Is a deck impervious surface? Aanenson: No. If it's a patio, it is. If it's deck, it's not. We've gone through that. Kind: But porches are because you've got a roof. Aanenson: Yes. Right, because generally undemeath a patio sometimes it's landscaped. Sometimes it's just rock so we have to look at each circumstance. Kind: We talked about maybe making paver patios a percentage of impervious because you can get a little bit of water through there. Peterson: Other comments to what we have before us? Kind: I'll keep going. Peterson: Please. Kind: In the motion the language that's being changed on the second story is covered up by that graphic so just wanted to point that out. And then let's talk about temporary play structures just a bit. I'd kind of like to have that in there because people seem to be unsure as to whether they can have a swing set back in the setback area and the answer is yes. Is there some place in the code that says that? Or is the appropriate place to put it? Aanenson: Well we would look at the definition of impervious surface and the type of structure. When you put play structure in there, we had one that was put in a wetland recently and that we just had to go out on. That someone put a batting cage so, on top of all. Kind: In the setback area or in the wetland? Aanenson: Both. We tried to get them to move it off; right. So when you put play structure, it has a lot of different meanings. Kind: So you'd rather just leave it out of there altogether? Aanenson: Yeah. Plat structures is interpreted differently. Tennis court. Sport Court. They get interpreted a lot of difl'erent ways so again we intemally, we're leaming. People interpret a lot of difl'erent 22 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2000 ways so we thought it'd be best not to put it in there. There is a question of interpretation, they have a right to come in. Kind: Okay. Okay. The Section 20-481 on page 5. It talks about shoreland regulations and you've deleted the word additional, which I agree with. The second sentence, don't you think the word additional should be deleted there as well for clarity? Page 5 of the staff`report. Peterson: Which one are you saying deleting? Kind: Section 20-481 at the bottom. In the second sentence. I guess it's the second sentence. The following. I think that word additional should be scratched out as well. Aanenson: Yeah, I think additional should have been struck out and structures should have been left in. Kind: Oh following structures setbacks. Burton: Structure. Kind: Structure setbacks. Scratch additional. Leave structure in. I'll just keep going if you don't mind. Then on page 7. The second paragraph by the top, shouldn't that be totally deleted from the motion? Because that's your argument for it. Not the what's going to be changed. Aanenson: Correct, that should have been taken out. Kind: Okay. So totally delete that. Aanenson: That was kind of the findings, sure. Kind: Yep. And then the next paragraph, probably the words Section 20 added in front of it to clarify it. Moving down on that page, Section 20-1304. That's what was discussed in the, oh what's the date. August lst sheet is missing from here. As far as what you're recommending and what's there only is your argument for it. And both 2 and 3 are missing. So just pick up that language from, am I missing something? Aanenson: No. I was off`last week...report went out. Unless it was in Chapter 18. I'm looking. I'm just trying to double check. Peterson: I don't think it was. Aanenson: Pardon me? You don't think it was? Peterson: I don't think it was. Kind: Okay. The old one, I'll tell you what page it was on the old one. Section 20...see two there. No, that's size. This is industrial office park size. Maybe it was earlier in here. I'm looking for it here. Aanenson: Are you on the recommendations starting on page 8 and then I suppose it got left out, because that's where the recommendations were. 23 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2000 Kind: It's on page 7 of the old staffreport. Do you have that one in front of you? So at the bottom of the page it says, for industrial office park signs, number 2. Ground low profile business signs. A new sentence one. Ground low profile business signs shall be permitted per site for each street frontage and we're striking out the words for each individual tenant. Aanenson: Correct. Kind: Such signs shall not exceed, etc, etc. That should be added to the motion. Aanenson: Correct. Kind: Number 2. And then number 3, which I think is on the next page of this old staff`report. It's on page 8 at the very top. That number 3 language should be added to the motion as well. About wall business signs shall be permitted on street frontage for each business occupant within a building only. The total of all wall mounted signs display areas for each business shall not exceed the square footage established in the following table. Aanenson: What got put in there was the justification, not the language. Kind: Exactly. So those two need to be added to the motion. Aanenson: Right. And you understand the reason for that is so each individual tenant doesn't think they've got the monument signs. Kind: Yep. Aanenson: Which we've had requests for. Kind: Oh and then there was one other typographical error that, so we don't have to fix this again in the future. And that is on page 4 of the new staff`report. First paragraph. Let's see, it's the second to last sentence towards the, let me read it. If the height (H) of the basement is more than 12 feet at any point, or if the height (h) is more than 6 feet, that's a small h, for more than 50% of the perimeter of the building then. Then. T H E N. It is, is that right guys? Yeah. Okay. That was all I found. Peterson: Any other comments? Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman ljust have a couple questions here. SoKate, how are we defining a story? Are we defining it as 12 feet for both residential and also non-residential? Aanenson: This is for non-residential. What we're proposing is additional language. I'm on page 2, that we put in bold there. That this definition refers to non-residential properties. And that's where the question has come up. As a matter of fact we'll probably be coming back with another code amendment because we had districts in, the definition in some of the business districts say there's no height requirement. And also, you could have a one story building, according to building code, that could be 40 feet tall. Blackowiak: Right. That's exactly what I'm thinking of because I thought that I saw something recently where it was a two story, 37 foot building which is inconsistent with this. 24 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2000 Aanenson: Right. Well this will solve part of that but we also need to cap a height. Either a height or a story in those districts. Defining that a height cap, which we do in the residential districts. So either this high or 3 stories. We need to do that in a couple of the commercial districts too. Blackowiak: What do we say for residential? What is a story? Aanenson: Generally the residential is 40 feet or 3 stories. Blackowiak: And how many feet is a story in residential? Aanenson: I don't think we. Blackowiak: So can we have three 20 foot stories? Aanenson: It can't exceed 40 feet. Blackowiak: It can't exceed 40. Aanenson: So that's the cap and that's what we don't have in the commercial districts. Those couple districts will probably be coming back with another one. Generous: One story building or two story building but no height. Blackowiak: Okay. Aanenson: Actually there's a couple districts that don't even have a story. Kind: Is this an opportunity in this definition to put the cap on it? For the height. Aanenson: Well you have to give the specific district. There's 2 or 3 of them and they weren't noticed so I just... Kind: That's to come. Aanenson: We've got other ones. There's another one starting. Kind: Okay. Blackowiak: Thank you, I'm done. Peterson: Other comments? Conrad: Kate? The impetus for taking off`the 5,000 minimum in a PUD is from staff'? Aanenson: Well yes. Because the two conflicted with each other. It says there's no minimum square footage in the PUD but then it says, but in no case shall it be less than 5,000 square feet. Well we've violated that in several PUD's including North Bay and Walnut Grove where we've got lots that are 3,000 so. We've always used the first language and it goes onto say the 5,000 so I think we need to take that out so. There is no. 25 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2000 Conrad: And is that, what is that? Aanenson: That would be zero lot line. Again that's Mission Hills, North Bay, Walnut Grove. The patio type homes or the zero lot lines. Autunm Ridge. Conrad: It's not putting us in a position where we have to, right? You haven't opened up the door have you? Aanenson: Well you still have to approve the rezoning and you can put whatever minimum you want, but what we're saying is, why put the 5,000 in there? You might want to approve that at 4, 3. You might want to approve it at 7. Conrad: Okay. Aanenson: North Bay I believe is closer to 3,000 square feet. Those lots. Generous: 3,500. Aanenson: 3,500 and those are the zero lot lines off of Lyman. So when you approved that PUD, you set those standards in place. What I'm saying, there's something in here that has the minimum that conflicts with the no minimum. Blackowiak: We could just take out the no minimum though couldn't we? And just say minimum down to 5,000. Conrad: We could go that route too. Blackowiak: And then take out the no minimum language and then. Kind: That's what she's proposing to add. Generous: No. That language was in there already. Aanenson: Yeah, there's no minimum in there. You could say 5,000. Generous: We said both of those would make sense. Kind: Oh, one or the other's got to go. Blackowiak: Right. So I'm saying leave the 5,000. Delete the no minimum. Aanenson: Sure. Then we wouldn't do any more PUD's. Blackowiak: No, we could. Aanenson: How? Blackowiak: With the variance, couldn't we? Aanenson: How would you justify a variance that way? 26 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2000 Blackowiak: I don't know. I mean how do we do it right now if it says 5,000 or no minimum? Conrad: We do have control. Instead of having 5, which is totally arbitrary, if we take it out, then when that PUD comes in, we have total control. Aanenson: Which is the way you've done it in the past. Conrad: Which is probably the way we'd like to do it. Kind: To leave it in? Conrad: No, take out. I think we should take out the 5,000. Then we have total control, and that's a true PUD. And I'm just wanting to make sure we're not stupid by doing that. You know if somebody comes in and says, well you have no minimum and therefore I can do this. We still have control. We can tum the PUD, we don't have to grant a PUD. They can come in under the subdivision ordinance and come in at 15,000 or whatever. I think it's okay. Aanenson: Well it's in the medium density. First of all it has to be guided medium density or they have to rezone so that's a first criteria. It has to be consistent with the comp plan or you have to process a comp plan amendment. There's a point where you're going to be challenged the other way. The two conflict and you've been approving lots, subdivisions with less than 5,000. I think that. Kind: But they would be grandfathered in. We won't make them tear down their houses. Aanenson: ...before I started there was a year or two process, there was a lot of different numbers that were tossed around. I don't know. Conrad: Well it's a comfort level. Going to a throwback to where you don't want real small lots. So if you feel there is a minimum, then that's just totally unacceptable going below that, then you should leave it in. You still have, in a PUD, you still have total control. Now when you're gone somebody else will have control. Kind: So I kind of like the minimum. But that requires changing it. Conrad: It's totally arbitrary and if there's any glimmer for affordable housing, you know lot size is one of those. Aanenson: Well let me raise another point. There's different ways to get at it and you have to line them all. Instead of having common open space, which we do on a lot of the PUD's, you'd make the lots larger. Would be one approach. Or basically you've got a standard that allows you to do certain density, and no tool to achieve it. Basically what it comes back to. There's no way you can accomplish that. You can have this many units an acre but we have no zoning to give you to get there. Conrad: Literally, yeah. That's totally true. If you wanted to move land from individual ownership to common land, this is one tool to do it. You can have a lot size that's smaller and then you may have more open space in that subdivision or that PUD. You literally now have more area to play with for parks. Kind: With a no minimum? 27 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2000 Conrad: With a no minimum. Yeah, you take the 5,000 out. They go down to whatever we feel acceptable and all of a sudden you may have just opened up more land for common use in that PUD. Not necessarily. The developer may not want to do it but you can negotiate a little bit. Kind: We've heard some criticism tonight and other nights about too much density and our roads are too busy already and are we trying to cram a bunch of houses in as much as we can. So maybe having a minimum would address some of those concems. Conrad: That's true. I don't think that will be solved by this thing. This, one of the things Deb that really is cool is to have open space. The things we've seen recently haven't gone that way but clustering. You know that's been the buzz word for a long time. We've never, as Kate said, we've really never had the tools to do it. We kind of talk the word. Talk the talk but man, we don't have the tools to really grant and make things happen that might be a little bit unique. And I don't want to over sell it either. I'm not, this is not a real cause right now. But it'd be interesting to let, see how City Council reacts to this. You could just sort of, driven by. I'm comfortable taking it out because I think I have control over the PUD if I'm around I think, which won't be a whole lot. Aanenson: Otherwise what's going to happen, well they're going to come under the straight subdivision. Conrad: Yeah. Aanenson: Which would be an R-4, R-8 and R-12, which would be different. So you're not going to get some of the density transfers. Some of the other things that that tool that we find is there so... Kind: But do we have minimum lot sizes for those kinds of densities? That they're coming in as a straight. Aanenson: For example it wouldn't work on Walnut Grove. It wouldn't have worked on North Bay. It just doesn't work on that type of product so it just depends on the goal you're trying to achieve. I was just going to give you the minimum lot sizes in the R-4 and the R 8. Kind: Just for example. Aanenson: Sure. Okay, in the R-16 it would be 2,700. In the R-12, 7,500. Yeah, same with R-8. 7,500. So you're not going to get the kind. Kind: So the 5,000 doesn't even make sense if it's high density. Aanenson: That's what I'm saying. So you wouldn't, you'd get a straight subdivision and you wouldn't get some of the transfers, the open space and some of the other things that we were trying to achieve. It's a tool to you to in reviewing that. Kind: I'm comfortable with the no minimum. Conrad: A couple other questions. In the home occupation deal, 20-978. The garage or accessory building can't be used as a, was that always there? Kate or Bob. Aanenson: That was amended to my understanding, we had a request for someone that wanted to do their business out of their garage. A sign business. So that was exempt and what's happened is, we have a proliferation of agricultural bams that are being used for home occupations and even though the bams are 28 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2000 in existence, it says you can run it for a business. Clearly the home occupation ordinance says you cannot run a garage and accessory structures, although it's been interpreted by some people to say this garage has been in existence prior to 1987, therefore I can do it. That's not the intent. The ordinance still supercedes that so we just want to make sure there's no ambiguity that even though you have a bam, it's not to be used for home occupation business. Conrad: So, but this doesn't say what district. Aanenson: It doesn't matter. There's some in the RR and there's some in the A2. These subordinate uses apply to, if you look in the sections and codes, they follow the residential. Anything in the residential district. So it could apply to any residential. Conrad: So, ifI have a 3 car stall garage in residential district, literally when you're running a home occupation, you are probably storing stuff in the third stall. Probably. Aanenson: Yes. We did follow up on that recently. Conrad: Now, and I guess I don't have a real problem with that. Switching to, you know. If you're a home occupation, you probably have materials. Aanenson: Right. If you're selling Girl Scout cookies or Tupperware, they're probably being stored in there. We don't go looking for those. If someone's continually running, doing cabinet making, automobile repair out of their garage, that's running a business out of the garage. Kind: When it becomes a nuisance to the neighborhood. Aanenson: Right. Conrad: I buy what Kate just said but on the other hand, if I've got a guy selling computer parts that he brings in 4 Macintosh, 4 computers and puts them on a shelf, I'm really not wild about kicking...just tum him in and we say well you can't use a garage period for storage. Aanenson: No, what we've done, if you look back. Again we're looking at this in snippets but we just amended the home occupation ordinance a few months ago and if you remember we tried to make that standard driven. Because before we had this little laundry list that was very antiquated. You know piano, dress making, so what we said is, if you're exceeding so many UPS trips a day. We try to make it standard driven so that's how we're trying to regulate it now. If your circuit or your Tupperware delivery is you know, 3-4 times a day... Conrad: And I buy that. I buy that...how does this impact that home occupation deal so it's saying you cannot use your garage. And I buy that you're trying to control. Aanenson: It's always said that. It's always said you cannot use your garage. It's always been there. What the ambiguity comes in is that you have, I'm not using my garage. I'm using the out building, the bam in the back. And that's where we have the problem. Conrad: So does the home occupation, is this, does the home occupation subordinate this clause? Which takes control Kate? Of a garage that has a rack in it. That has some stuff, Girl Scout cookies. I don't want to hear a resident saying they're storing Girl Scout cookies in the third stall of their garage. I don't want to hear that. I think that's, I'd want that to happen. I don't want this to be used to kick out a minimal 29 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2000 use of a garage. Minimal. If somebody called and said they're using, they've got a shelf out there, what are you going to do? Aanenson: I'm trying to be delicate and say that we are prosecuting three of them right now where they are doing significant home occupations in a garage that I know you wouldn't support. I don't think we've gotten too many complaints about cookies or people that do storage of containers for delivery because they do a home business of some sort. Whether it's stamps or whatever, that's not generally the complaint we get. We get complaints when there's people working in a bam. That need restrooms. That are bringing in materials. Making noise. It's not a storage issue. The only thing I could think of is if we did get complaints on that is if someone's entire garage was used for storage and all their vehicles were outside. Conrad: That's if you get a complaint. I'm talking about how you have to interpret this. Aanenson: Okay, right now the ordinance says you can't use your garage. That's in place today. That's there right now. The only thing this ordinance is addressing is a bam, or accessory out building. That's the only thing we're changing. The garage has been there since, I don't know. Whenever the first ordinance was put together in the 80's. 1987. That's been in there. You can use your garage since 1987. So the only thing we're changing is the bams. The accessory structures. Conrad: So this is in the A2 and RR residential districts, is that what? Aanenson: That's where we have most of the bams or the out buildings. There are some people that have sheds that may be doing something again. We haven't had problems with those. Conrad: I'm okay. Third thing. Signs allowed in specific districts by permit. Agricultural and residential districts. Aanenson: That one arose because we had Miss Rosie's Farm and we had no mechanism to give her a sign. So we have some, the home occupation ordinance allows a 2 x 2, if you're teaching piano and said you want to put a sign up, but this would allow for someone that's got an interim use or a conditional use to put up something larger. And non-residential signs, one monument sign may be permitted on site. Conrad: I guess I'm, 4 x 6 feet basically, which I think is, that's consistent with some other signage sizes. But this is in agricultural and residential districts. And the residential district, now you just said you allow 2 x 2 in a residential district. Aanenson: It also came up on the golf, the Rain, Snow, Shine golf, RSS Golf. It also came up. That is zoned A2. They came in and asked for a variance because there was again, no mechanism besides a 2 x 2. We also have wholesale nurseries that are permitted in A2 so there are a list of uses that are conditional... that allow that. Sacchet: Where's residential then? Kind: Yeah, where's residential? Is it in the residential section? I should whip out my book here. Conrad: That's what I'm questioning. Aanenson: Oh we'd be adding that because right now it gives signs allowed in the agricultural district so it does allow for institutional so if there's a school in that district, or an entrance monument sign. So this 30 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2000 would be adding another section to that so it shouldn't say non-residential sign. We should have a different is what you're struggling with there. Kind: Yeah. Conrad: Okay. Aanenson: So it should reflect. Kind: Just Ag only. Aanenson: Well again, well not it would be any use that would be like, such as the golf course or Miss Rosie's Farm so I don't know what we would call those. Kind: Well zoned A, are those zoned A27 The A2 districts only? Aanenson: It's signs allowed in an agricultural residential district. If you look at the heading above that. Kind: Right. Aanenson: Right. That's the district. So it shouldn't say non-residential. That's wrong. Kind: Oh, the heading's wrong. We found another glitch. Aanenson: 13. Kind: 01. Aanenson: Is right. We're looking at number 3. Yeah, number 1 refers to public institutional signs. If there's a school in a residential district, they're allowed a sign. It also addresses entrance features in a residential district. So what we're adding now is. Kind: Is number 3. Aanenson: Number 3. That's wrong. It shouldn't say non-residential. Kind: It should or should not? Aanenson: It should not. Kind: It should. Peterson: Should not. Kind: Yes. It should say non-residential signs are allowed. Is that what? Aanenson: Well I guess Miss Rosie's Farm is a, it's non-residential. Kind: It's non-residential. 31 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2000 Aanenson: I don't know. Kind: Because we don't want monument signs, I don't want a monument sign on my neighbor's property in a residential area. So I think what we're talking about is for. Blackowiak: How about non-residential districts? Peterson: Yeah. Aanenson: Uses is what it's for. Kind: Okay. Aanenson: Good catch. Kind: Thank you Ladd. Aanenson: It was confusing. Kind: Yes. I wish I would have found it. Conrad: Deb you should have. Peterson: And we're disappointed in you that you didn't. Let the record show. Other comments? Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, I just have one kind of general comment. You often say that the intent of the ordinance is this or so and so. Is there any file on intent? I mean how do we, if we have a history of the ordinances so that in the future when somebody looks and says, what is the intent of this you know taking out these 5,000 minimums in the PUD ordinance? Aanenson: I think in ordinances that we've adopted recently, and the city attomey has always put a purpose in there. For example if you go to the sign ordinance, that's something that Mr. Knutson has requested that we always try to put in. And all the new, like the home occupation is a new ordinance. That has, but because these are glitches so to speak, where we found some ambiguity, they don't have an individual intent statement. But that's a good point and that is something we try to do so there is that in place. What is the purpose or the intent? Blackowiak: So when we're cleaning this up, is that something that maybe should be included? Aanenson: Well if you go to the PUD there is an intent section. If you go to the Highway 5 overlay district or the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Kind: There is an intent statement? Aanenson: Yes. Burton: Well the intent is also in our minutes from our meetings. 32 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2000 Blackowiak: Right, but I'm saying let's say someone can't find the minutes of September 5, 2000. Or they don't know to look at that date for reference to a specific. Aanenson: When they're added to the code and they're codified, a date is always attached to that. When it was modified. A date's always attached with the codification ofthe code. So that's a good question too. But I was going to quickly show you like in the Bluff`Creek Overlay District, there is a purpose statement and there is an intent statement on both of those so that's something that we do on all ordinances. The same with the new tower one too. We also put one in there. And the Highway 5 Overlay District too. But they are given a date when they were revised so you can track, go back to these minutes and this file to file that. Blackowiak: To find out what the intent. Aanenson: And the minutes and all that discussion. Blackowiak: Yeah, I was just thinking about that you know because like Ladd was saying. What's the intent you know and maybe we need to be a little more specific and say we intend to do this so that we can create open space you know, and the example of the no long minimum in PUD's. You know so we be a little more clear. This is what we're thinking and, so I'm just curious if that should be in there somewhere. Aanenson: That's something we can put forward to the City Council ifyou wanted to. Someofthat, the intent. I guess that was part of what we put in that first part of the report. Why we felt there was a problem. Try to give you that background. Blackowiak: Right, but I'm saying within the ordinance itself. Kind of you know, as we're cleaning it out say this is the intent. If it's not already in there. Aanenson: For each change? Blackowiak: Not necessarily. I'm not just saying if it's appropriate. Conrad: What would you like staff`to do? Blackowiak: I would like them to take a look at it and see if that would, you know if it would make sense to put that in somewhere to clarify our thinking at this point in time and make it easier for people to look back and say okay, this is what they were thinking. This is the direction they were going. This is why they did this. Instead of somebody 10 years down the road looking at it and saying, you know, I think this is what their intent was and maybe missing totally what our point was. Conrad: I liked to ask for the, when we eliminate the minimum lot size. I think that's real valid. Aanenson: Sure. Peterson: Final comments? Motion please. Kind: I can make the motion Mr. Chair. I move the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council the following code amendments as outlined in the staff`report dated August 30, 2000, and then Kate, should I go through all the things that I went through earlier? Aanenson: I've got them all down if you want to. 33 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2000 Peterson: As noted. Kind: As noted with prior discussion. Except what? Sacchet: Wasn't a public hearing supposed to be with this? Kind: Oh, except 20-1. Let's table that item for a future date. That's the buildable area thing. Peterson: We don't need to table it. We can just make an exception. Aanenson: We were going to exempt that. Any plats in process, that's fine. Peterson: Put that as a condition. Just say. Kind: Oh, a condition to exempt any plats in process. Aanenson: Sure. Kind: As a condition of approval. Mr. Chair, I hear some rumblings, if this open for a public hearing? Peterson: It doesn't need to be but if you guys are waiting around to make comments, you're more than welcome to do so. Kind: So I'll leave that motion on the floor. Janet Paulsen: First of all...if you look in your code book it says any material that substantially reduces or prevents the infiltration of storm water, it shall include but not be limited to gravel driveways, parking areas, building and structures. And then you look under structures. Anything manufactured, constructed or erected which is normally attached to or positioned on land, whether temporary or permanent in character, including but not limited to buildings, fences, sheds, signs, dog kennels, hard surface parking areas, boardwalks, which can mean a deck, playground equipment and concrete slabs. Now, about the shoreland changes. Don't touch it. Do you know how we got them to recognize that they needed 90 feet? It was because it was the DNR language, and we could go to the DNR and they e-mailed us back on what those additional provisions were and it said each sentence stood alone. And that's how we got the 90 feet. ...feet at the lakeshore ordinary high water line. The other one definitely affects what we're talking about when it talks about structure setbacks. That's DNR language. It's regs from the DNR. Don't touch it because then nobody can go back and prove them that they're wrong. It's 20 feet from the road right-of- way. Not from the pavement. 20 feet from the road right-of-way. Peterson: What we can do is, we can exempt all of these from plats under. Aanenson: We're not changing any of those so. Janet Paulsen: You're changing the language. Don't change the language. It's from the DNR. Conrad: We're not. Aanenson: No, I don't know. 34 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2000 Janet Paulsen: Yes she's changing. They're taking off`additional. Kind: Shoreland regulations on page 5. Aanenson: The word additional, right. Kind: Section 20-481. Aanenson: They interpreted that to mean, if there's a 30 foot setback and you have a 10 foot easement now it's you know, 50 or 40. You don't add them cumulatively. They're encumbered in the same easement. Janet Paulsen: You don't need to do anything to it. Aanenson: There's ambiguity obviously so we have to clarify it. Janet Paulsen: It's not ambiguous at all. It says 20 feet from a road right-of-way. There's nothing ambiguous about it. And the other one says, driveways and roads must meet structure setbacks. The structure setback for the side of a lot line is 10 feet. So they have to meet the 10 feet. Just leave it alone. Peterson: Other comments? Debbie Lloyd: This 60 x 60, we've never considered it to be a square. Ever. Staff; Kate. You're the one that says it's a square. We've never said it should be a square. The problem is, it has not always been on every plat. You showed me one that was 55 x 75 and justified that as 60 x 60. If you change the standard, okay if you change the standard down from 60 x 40, you know the Igel's are here. Maybe we should pay attention to the Igel's. They're here finally. Peterson: State your comments please. Debbie Lloyd: 60 x 40 is 2,400 square feet. That's the requirement you've been using all along. If you change it to 40 x 40, it's 1,600 square feet. That's a downward standard. The reason for a 60 x 60 is not for a square. The old standard was 50 x 50. That was the old tool used. I found this out from an old planning director. They used 50 x 50 to kind of define an area. So that was like 2,500 square feet. 60 x 40 is 2,400 square feet. It's about the same. But you take that into a treed lot and your standard goes up because of the impact on the trees. Trees are impacted 10 feet from a building. Some say as much as 15. So let's even say, I'm just going to use the 50 x 50. It went around that area and became a 60 x 60 because of the tree impact. Now if you take that out, all that, whatever you gained to help tree preservation in the city is going to be gone, and I'm not just speaking about this situation. I'm speaking about a downward trend in the city and that's the same concem I have for getting rid of a lot size in a PUD-R. I think you have to put a lot more thought into it than what I've seen so far. Maybe a lot of thought has gone in work sessions or whatever, and I think Ladd you have some very valid points but before going from a 5,000 minimum lot area to zero, I think you really ought to consider it more heavily. Maybe you should have some examples. Not because you passed once before without it. That's not a reason. It's non-conforming lots. I'm trying to think. The story in that example, I think it's very important to clear it up and show that it is a business story because it has confused me every time I've read it. That it only applies to business buildings or commercial buildings or whatever. I'm trying to remember what I was thinking. Nothing that I said tonight was intended to be derogatory. My comment about the missing file actually came from a staff`member who said that Bob was the last one who had the file. And in fact I think Bob admitted to me he was the last one under the file. So there was nothing derogatory but after months of 35 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2000 asking where's that file, where's that file, I sure what to know where that file is and tonight you're changing codes that can affect shoreland. Don't you want to read the history on the file? Thank you. Peterson: Other comments? So we have a motion in front of us. Should we discuss that motion further? Conrad: Mr. Chair, do you want to talk about some...brought up or what's your preference? Peterson: Well my perspectives goes back to interpretation again. What we're trying to do tonight is to clear up some of those issues. What I heard in those comments, if we exempt this Igel Addition from any of these changes is my biggest concem. I think the discussion points earlier that we made as a group will better the ordinances and make them I think cleaner and more understandable so my humble opinion is that, I think the changes we talked about and are before us right now, do clarify and I guess I'd look for other comments on that. Kind: Mr. Chair, the only question I had is the one that Debbie brought up about, and I think Mrs. Paulsen brought it up about the shoreland management. What the intent is of that shoreland regulations? Is the intent that they are additional setbacks? Or is the intent that they be inclusive and that's not clear to me so I'm a little nervous about that particular change. Conrad: Yeah, I'd like to review that more. Just to get clarification. Not tonight but in the, I'd like to bring that back so we understand what... Kind: Yeah, and we're not in any hurry here so I withdraw my motion and what I'd like to do is table it because there's a lot of things that I talked about that need to be changed here anyway. There's enough revisions here that I'd like to see it again. Blackowiak: Glutton for punishment. Kind: Yes I am a glutton. And I really, direct staff`to report back on that shoreland regulation and what the history is on that, whether it really needs additional, above and beyond what the regular setbacks are. Or not. What the history of that is. Aanenson: Just for your edification, the city attomey did review all these too. Just, whether there was ambiguity and now we've interpreted it in the past. But I'd be happy to do. Kind: Just kind of highlight that one a little bit, yeah. Sacchet: So did you make a motion to table? Kind: I withdrew and now I'll make a motion to table so staff`can respond to the discussion and include them in the next staff`report. Conrad: I'd second that. Peterson: Moved and seconded. Any discussion? Kind moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission table action on amendments to Chapter 20, Zoning Ordinance regarding the following sections for further staffreview: new definitions, storage buildable areas, board of adjustments, shoreland regulations, wetland regulations, PUD lot 36 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2000 sizes, lot frontages in A2 and RR districts, sign ordinance permitted uses in the IOP district and home occupations. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. NEW BUSINESS: Aanenson: I'll just kind of touch on this with the ongoing items. September lffh, I just want to go through this with you, is a regular meeting. We do have items for that. October 3rd is a regular meeting. We originally talked about that as a work session .... move that work session to October 17th. Right now on the October 3rd We have no items in so we might end up making that also a work session. Some discussion items. November 7th, no meeting because that is election day. We have a conflict... Then November 21st will be a regular meeting and December 5th would be our last regular meeting. We did show you the Perkins and the Target plan. Again that was for your edification so you could see. That was approved administratively and they're both progressing. If you've been downtown. So is Office Max and the retail building. We're hoping to bring back the design for the sign that they proposed. Kind oftumed into an entrance monument, the Office Max. So hopefully we'll have that available. It may not be on for the 19th but maybe in October. Show you what that looks like. Kind of a... Kind: Does it look good? Aanenson: Yeah. I think so. Kind: I'm anxious to see that. Aanenson: We may have different opinions. But so then the next meeting, again we'll have CSM on and then there's a wetland alteration permit so that's all that's, and Pulte I'm not sure yet. We'll let you know when that. Peterson: Are you going to have a meeting on Halloween? Aanenson: No. That would be the third meeting. Kind: We hate those third meetings. Peterson: We must have a meeting. My Palm Pilot says we've got a meeting on the 3 1st. Kind: Only lst and 3rd, not every other. Just a note. I liked having the print out with the stats. You've done that in the last couple and it was not in this packet so I just want to give you kudos for including those and encourage you to include them in the future. I liked having a printed version. So we note the minutes? Because I can do it. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Deb Kind noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 15, 2000 as presented. Peterson: Any other points Kate? Aanenson: No. Peterson: Does anybody else? Conrad: The City Council hasn't met? 37 Planning Commission Meeting September 5, 2000 Aanenson: Oh, I was just going to say. They tabled Eckankar, legal opinion on that. That will be on for next Monday. That was just regarding some assessments on the frontage road that was put in a few years ago. Then the other item that was one. Conrad: Lake Riley. Aanenson: That's on next Monday. There was the Arvidson subdivision and that was tabled, regarding that they wanted staff`to come back with three other alternatives to that street. That was up on Melody Hill. By the water tower. So that was... Kind: And do you know the reason why number 2 was withdrawn? Aanenson: Because the staff`had recommended denial. I believe it was their feeling that they would see if they could make it fit. Burton: Did that US West tower go to the council? Aanenson: That goes next Monday. That's the one on Brown, correct. That's on Monday night. Peterson: Motion to adjoum. Burton moved, Kind seconded to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 38