Loading...
PC 2000 10 03CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 3, 2000 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ladd Conrad, Alison Blackowiak, Deb Kind, Craig Pctcrson, Matt Burton, and Uli Sacchct MEMBERS ABSENT: LuAnn Sidney STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Cindy Kirchofl; Planner II PUBLIC HEARING: REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM THE 30' FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOCATED ON LOT 11, BLOCK 1, POINTE LAKE LUCY, 6715 LAKE LUCY, ROBERT H. MASON HOMES, INC. Public Present: Name Address Debbie Lloyd Linda Landsman Janet & Gerald Paulsen Thomas Keegan Douglas Houser Frank Gustafson Tom Mason 7302 Laredo Drive 7329 Frontier Drive 7305 Laredo Drive 1340 Heather Court 6714 Mulberry Circle 6250 Chaska Road 14201 Excelsior Blvd, Minnetonka Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Okay, and thank you. Questions of stafl~ Okay, would the applicant like to make a presentation? Tom Mason: Yeah, that is correct. All those things. Peterson: Name and address please if you would. Tom Mason: Oh, name Tom Mason. Mason Homes. Address, you mean the property or? Peterson: Your or the corporation's address. Tom Mason: The corporation address is 14201 Excelsior Boulevard in Minnetonka. That is correct. We were aware of the situation. However the developer itself was a former employee of Mason Homes, had disregarded what had happened in the situation of the lot. It happens to be the second biggest lot in the development. And also has an encroachment with the wetland setback that is well beyond the other lots that are lake lots. However, it's further away from the lake and that causes a push back. It also has a drainage easement on the easterly side of the property that is denoted as 15 feet. However on site review, Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 2000 when we went and staked the property, it tums out that it is well more than about 22-24 feet swallowing up the property. Also on site review we've discovered that to take the home, what we've done is taken and turned the garage at a 90 degree angle and to take the home and to keep it consistent with the actual proposed site. It does encroach on the wetland further and also eats up a bunch of tree space out there. The other home on Lot 12 is actually over 140 feet away. Consequently that 30 yard setback, or 30 foot setback really has no bearing on that lot. It has no bearing on the street. Our feeling is that what happened was there was a mistake actually when the development was put together. 30 foot setback is made for certain reasons. Get off`the street for safety. Snow removal. It also, if it is a flag lot, can keep it away from encroaching on the neighbors. However the neighbors are well divided by a pond and the actual road comes in straight into this lot. So trying to orchestrate it best with the environment and the neighbors, that's how we set it up. The one thing is definitely it does not cause any hardship to the neighbors. It doesn't affect them putting that 30 foot encroaching on that 30 foot setback. And also yes, indeed we could create a smaller home and fit it in that 60 x 80 but it's not in reality a 60 x 80. And even if it was 60 x 70, we could create a home that would fit that. However it would be dissimilar to the size of the homes that are on the lake and even off`the lake that are ranging from 6,000 square feet to about 5,200. Peterson: Okay. Any questions of the applicant? Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair, I have a question for the applicant. In the letter that was in our package from you, you list a number of reasons why you think this application should be granted. And you touch on this a little bit. There's one point that kind of peaked my interest. That's letter D. You claim this is not self created. That it was overlooked when the development agreement was drafted. That you believe this was an oversight, human error. And then you say the agreement infers a variance will more than likely be used on Lot 11 anyway. What do you mean that it would have to have a variance anyway? I mean it seems like there is an acceptable building pad of considerable size. Can you elaborate on that a little bit please? TomMason: Sure. First of all the agreement as it was drafted initially was drafted actually by the past president of Mason Homes who actually happens to be my brother in law. And as I have discussed with him the situation, he has declared that yes, he had no idea that that drainage was out there, and also the wetland injunctured up towards the north considerably compared to the other two lots. And the reason why he declared that he didn't notice that, for one is the drainage was at 15 feet. That's where it was set without actually going out there staking the site. You would notice that it was more like 24 feet. And also the actual lot, the lake curves out to the south. But the actual wetland barrier tums up to the north and he, you know logically would think that it would go with the water. Where it doesn't. There was a section that I questioned which was. Sacchet: So you couldn't really slide current constmct further south? Tom Mason: No. We're already right on the line. Sacchet: You're on the line? Tom Mason: Yeah, we are right on the line. That's correct. And if we do push it more south, all we really do is create the take down of more trees. The 2 trees we are taking now of considerable size that are marked on the survey, are actually both dying right at this point. That's why we did put it on those. There was an old fence that was wrapped around both of them and consequently all the bark is falling off`and they're both sick and dying so we didn't want to take those either but they're going to die anyway so we'll replant. Peterson: Thank you. Other questions? 2 Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 2000 Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. Uli asked about where the house is right now on the wetland setback and you said it's right on the line. Does that mean including the deck? Tom Mason: That does mean including the deck, yes. Kind: So the deck is what's right on the line. Tom Mason: The deck is what, yes touching the line. Right. Kind: Okay, thank you. Peterson: Other questions? Tom Mason: Thank you. Peterson: Motion and a second for public hearing please. Kind moved, Burton seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commissioners, please come forward and state your name and address please. Janet Paulsen: My name is Janet Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. I was interested in this lot because originally given to us as an example of a private street. And so when it came up for review I was, my interest was peaked further. This developer has already received variances. He received a variance for the public street from 60 feet to 50 feet right-of-way. However there's 31 feet of pavement. That's still the same drainage coming off`the street. They have a 20 foot front setback for 5 lots. They didn't meet a wetland setback for 2 lots. I think if you recall earlier in the spring they had a wetland problem with a deck. And also the shoreland rules weren't followed. The applicable regulations aren't mentioned. The one for the 90 foot width, which I am sure they have the 75 foot setback but also the 20 foot setback from the right-of-way of a private street. Also Lot 11 is not a flag lot. Technically Lot 10 is a flat lot. Lot 11 is approached by a private street. It isn't a flag lot because it's property doesn't go all the way to the public street. So I think our attention should also be focused on Lot 10. Since it's a flag lot, the front lot line should be the westerly line. And if that's a front lot line, they need a 30 foot setback and then a 30 foot back yard and where is there room for a home? They also need a 20 foot setback from the private street. You know it doesn't make me happy to bring these things up. It makes me kind of sad, but it's also applicable to our situation with the Lucas Igel property. I think that we should be following our shoreland code. I think if you notice the private street, the whole area of 30 feet of a private street is shown even though it's approaching 2 homes. Just as in the Lucas Igel property. And that setback has to be 20 feet the whole way along the property line of Lot 10. That's all I had to say. Peterson: Thank you. Jerry Paulsen: My name is Jerry Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. Jan and I were out at the lot this past weekend and trudging through the wetland area there. We came across a snapping turtle about 10 inches. Scared 2 pheasants. A hen and a rooster. It's a nice wild area. A nice lot. IfI may quote from your last item that's on the agenda tonight, it's a memorandum from Kate Aanenson in regards to code amendments. Lots comes in different sizes. The most frequent problem faced is homes that are too large for the lot. That's the statement in the report that you probably read. This is a monster house by any Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 2000 definition I believe and I think the developer should sell somebody less than a monster house. Excuse me, put a mini monster house on this lot if he'd like to. He might not be too close to the lot to the north but the one to the west is going to be very tight also and they will be very close neighbors I think so I think you should take those things into consideration. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Doug Houser: I just am curious as to. Peterson: Name and address please. Doug Houser: Doug Houser, 6714 Mulberry Circle. I live across the pond from this house. What is going to be the impact on the trees and so forth around that pond? Are you going to be taking down any of those trees? Tom Mason: No we won't. We're going to buffer with the same trees around there...and that's why we took that... There won't be one tree taken from the actual current garage which a variance is needed for. Doug Houser: And I'm not an expert on this but are there, what was the previous plans and also the existing plans here, I see with your plan, proposed house, what's the other option? Do you have that? Tom Mason: There is no other option. There's just one proposal...after a site review it's totally different Doug Houser: And you mentioned you're taking down 2 trees. Which were the 2 trees? It's not that large cottonwood that's out there. Tom Mason: These 2. Which are both very sick and dying. Doug Houser: Can you help me out for a second here? I'm sorry. Where about's, the pond comes how far, as you know I live over here in this area. There's that pond. How far is it. Tom Mason: The pond is here. Doug Houser: No, okay. The second pond. I'm back, there's another pond in here. I know there's a drainage pond that is right over here and this area there's another pond area and my house is right in here. And my concem is am I going to be all of a sudden be, you know where I have a nice view, we're all of a sudden going to be looking in somebody's back yard. Tom Mason: No, actually if we didn't get a variance then all of a sudden we'd have to tum this thing and put the garage over here and then we'd be pushing it further over into these trees. Then you're going to have more of a view. That's what we're staying away from. Doug Houser: Oh, so you're trying to go this way? Tom Mason: Right. Trying to push it this way. And because there is a drainage area in there, which is larger than actually the 15 feet. So consequently moving the house this way, even more of a buffer here and allowing the water to drain. Peterson: Anyone else? 4 Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 2000 Debbie Lloyd: Hi. I'm Debbie Lloyd. I live at 7302 Laredo Drive. And I, like Jan, have reviewed this because of the situation we're facing in our neighborhood and I'd like to point out that the prior plans which were approved by the City also did not adhere to the standards, 18-61, Section D which is going to be discussed tonight, point 4 in single family detached residential development, the applicant must demonstrate that suitable home sites exist on each lot by describing a 60 foot by 60 foot building pad, which includes deck area without intruding into a required setbacks and easements. And that was not done. If you look in the review file, through all the documentation. If you look at your plat tonight, it describes a 60 x 40 and I'm just pointing that out as another deficiency. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Linda Landsman: My name is Linda Landsman and I'm at 7329 Frontier Trail. I've stood before you before and talked about what constitutes a variance. And I still don't see in a case like this where we have a hardship and that's the whole basis of that particular chapter, and a very, you've got to have a hardship. I see perhaps a bad business action or somebody who didn't quite do their job right, but are we as residents of Chanhassen going to be held accountable for that? And I don't believe that our codes or our people should be. Peterson: For the record could you state your address? Linda Landsman: 7329 Frontier Trail. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Tom Keegan: I'm sort of new at this whole game. I live on 1340 Heather Court which backs up to this and my name is Tom Keegan. And I'm new to all these wetlands in Minnesota. Just a resident of this home since January, but one thing I've noticed, were there 2 additional ponds put in as a part of the Mason development? And see one of the things when we bought our home, we bought it in the winter time, and this wetlands in the back of our homes is completely dried up and it was kind of a joke when we moved in. They said oh, the kids can skate back there and it's a wonderful deal. And really it's been bone dry and like I say, I mean maybe that's a part of the deal but I can't help but, you know I hear these people making these statements and that modifications to land and to lots do make a different on the natural habitat and I think that's what's happened with this pond. And I don't know if there's anything you can do about it or if we just let it grow but I just, all these people have statements about their concems about the easements and land and this clearly seems to be an indication of something that's happened based on the development in the past of that area. So, for what's it worth. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Tom Keegan: My children won't be skating in that pond this year. Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Thank you. Commissioners, your thoughts on this one please. Kind: Sure Mr. Chair, I'll go. Just to clarify to people in the audience who might not have the staff`report in their hand. Staff`isrecommendingdenialofthevarianceandlagreewiththestaff`report. I think there is no hardship and this is definitely a precedent I don't want to set by allowing homes to encroach further on private drive lots. So I'm in support of the staff` report. Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 2000 Peterson: Okay, thank you. Other comments? Burton: Yeah Mr. Chairman, I agree with Deb. I agree with the staff`report. I don't think this qualifies for a variance and don't think we should allow it. Peterson: Okay, good. Thank you. Any others? Sacchet: Just a simple comment. There certainly would be enough space to put a slightly smaller house on there. I think whoever made that comment, it's very often you're onto an issue because the house is too big. I understand that this is a prime location and you want to put a real decent house there, but I'm hard pressed to consider that a hardship in our context. Peterson: Good, thank you. Any final comments? Conrad: Mr. Chair, I think I could have been sold. I wasn't. Peterson: For the reasons of? Conrad: I just don't think it was persuasive and I think that if you look at the reasons for some of the setbacks, and if you can over come those reasons and give the rationale, and maybe show some hardships if you do follow the rules, then I could see it but that was not done. So tonight I think the staff` report recommendation is appropriate. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Alison, any final comments? Blackowiak: No. I agree with the staff`report. Peterson: Okay. As do I. I think that if this is appealed, I think there is a potential for offering a more compelling reason to do it. So with that I'll entertain a motion. Kind: Mr. Chair, I move the Planning Commission denies the request for a 22 foot variance, #2000-12 from the required 30 foot front yard setback for the construction of a single family home on Lot 11, Block 1, Pointe Lake Lucy based on the following points, number 1 and 2. Peterson: Is there a second? Burton: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Kind moved, Burton seconded that the Planning Commission denies the request for a 22 foot variance (#2000-12) from the required 30 foot front yard setback for the construction of a single family home on Lot 11, Block 1, Pointe Lake Lucy based upon the following: 1. The applicant can construct a single family home without the required setbacks without a variance. 2. A hardship has not been demonstrated to warrant the granting of a variance. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. 6 Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 2000 Peterson: A City Council member or the applicant or any aggrieved person may appeal this decision to the City by filing an appeal with the Zoning Administrator within 4 days after the date of the Board's decision. The appeal will be placed on the next available City Council agenda. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL - MEDIUM DENSITY TO COMMERCIAL, 7 & 41 CROSSING CENTER, 2485 HIGHWAY 5 AND SUPERAMERICA, 2391 HIGHWAY 7, CITY OF CHANHASSEN. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Any questions of staff'? Conrad: Bob, we're going to zone it, you're going from medium density to commercial. But it is business neighborhood? Generous: Yes. Neighborhood business. Conrad: Okay. Thank you. Kind: Mr. Chair, I have a question. Bob, is the parcel fully developed right now? Generous: Yes. Kind: So there is a neighborhood business there right now? Generous: There's a strip center, a SuperAmerica and Video Update. Kind: Yeah, I know the parcel. It just wasn't clear to me if that was everything that was going to be there is there now or is there more potential? Generous: No. They would have to expand the commercial area. Separate item from anything we're proposing here. Kind: There's no opportunity for medium density housing on that parcel? Generous: No. They'd have to tear all the commercial down. Kind: Okay. I'm with you. Thank you. Sacchet: Mr. Chair. Along the same line of question. It'd be nice to have a map with the staff`report so, because the report doesn't have a map. It would help to actually put that in context with. I was trying to figure out where he identifies that Lot 2 is the one with the little strip mall and Lot 3 is the one with Super America. So I assume that Lot 1 is the one with the video store. That building. That same question, is there room for more and I would want to ask that, do you have a map? To at least see the extent of it so you answered there is no room really for anything further there. That was the main question I had. Thanks. 7 Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 2000 Generous: It does show up on the notice. There is a little map that we probably should have blown up in the staff report. Sacchet: Yeah, that's really small. Thank you for pointing that out. Peterson: Other questions of staff'? Thank you. Motion and a second for public hearing please. Kind moved, Conrad 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. Burton moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners, any thoughts before we vote on this one? Kind: Makes sense to me. Peterson: We'll go with that. I'll entertain a motion. Sacchet: Mr. Chair, I'll move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Land Use Map Amendment of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, Seven Forty One Crossing from Residential Medium Density to Commercial. Kind: Second. Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Land Use Map Amendment of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, Seven Forty One Crossing from Residential -Medium Density to Commercial. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE CHAPTER 20, ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS; ADDING NEW DEFINITIONS, STORAGE BUILDABLE AREAS, SHORELAND REGULATIONS (ADDITIONAL SETBACKS), WETLAND REGULATIONS (ACCESSORY), PUD LOT SIZES, LOT FRONTAGES IN A2 AND RR DISTRICTS, SIGN ORDINANCE (WALL SIGNS), PERMITTED USES IN IOP DISTRICT AND HOME OCCUPATIONS (SUBORDINATE USE). Public Present: Name Address Debbie Lloyd Linda Landsman Janet & Gerald Paulsen 7302 Laredo Drive 7329 Frontier Drive 7305 Laredo Drive Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of Bob? 8 Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 2000 Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. I have a few questions. Peterson: Please. Kind: Under buildable area, the square footage is changed to 2,800. On our last report it was 2,400. Why is that different? Generous: That, I'm unaware of. Kind: So I would think, it probably makes sense to not include that in our motion. And then we've got the new thing on the storage definition. Our motion does not include the wetland buffer strip and setback section that we need to change so we need to add that to the motion. That's Section 20-406. It needs to be added to the motion. And there's some language that's in the motion that shouldn't be in the motion and that has to do with staffs explanation. This is on page 18 of the motion. If anybody's trying to track what I'm talking about here. And then I do have questions about why we are back to having accessory structure setbacks that are different than the principle structure setback as our last discussion was that we were going to have them be the same. Generous: I wasn't around any discussion on that specific. Kind: So how we remove that from the motion as well. And then shoreland regulations. Language that we talked about deleting and adding what was to change it to be the following structure setbacks apply regardless of classification. I'm getting rid of the word additional structures. And I'm satisfied from the staff`report, I think it was Ceil, is that right? Generous: Ceil Strauss. Kind: Was contacted to ask the specific question whether it was supposed to be additional or inclusive, and I'm satisfied that it is inclusive. I'm assuming that's a woman. From her point of view. And then, Section 20-978 relating to subordinate use is missing on the motion so would need to be added to the motion at the end. And then on the last page, Section 20-1118. Needs to be deleted and, at least the first part of that needs to be deleted because that's just the explanation and then the italics below that is the only part that should stay in the motion. Peterson: Say that one again. Kind: Section 20-1118. That first part is staff`report stuff. Peterson: Yeah. Kind: And that's all I saw. So I think we need to take apart this motion a little bit and add some stuff back into it. Peterson: Other questions of Bob before we get to that point. Sacchet: Yes Mr. Chair. I also noted the 2,800. I agree that that's an issue. The part about the wetland buffer strip Bob. I'd just like to clarify the language that's being proposed is that accessory structures are allowed within the first half of the principle structure setback. And then we have this table with the setbacks like 100 feet for pristine. 50 feet for the setback. 40 and then there is 20. So we are actually 9 Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 2000 allowing a bigger proportion with a pristine wetland with the justification that the overall setback is bigger, correct? Generous: Yes. It was done strictly based on the initial number. So if you took half of 150, which is larger. Sacchet: Because it is, this code stuff`is still a little scary to me since I'm the most junior member here of this group. Looking at this, this doesn't really make sense to me that with a pristine wetland you would have, be allowed to encroach 50 feet into the buffer when with another one you're allowed to encroach 20 feet. It seems like the pristine, yes you have another 50 feet on the other side but, I mean coming from an environmental interest, I kind of wonder whether that's a good way to go. That's one concem I have there. Kind: Mr. Chair, may I interrupt for one second here? Maybe to help Uli out. This was our first presentation from staff`three times ago. Whenever this was brought and we decided that we weren't going to do this, and that's why I want to take it out of the motion. Because we, I think settled on that we were going to have principle and accessory stmcture setbacks be the same. Sacchet: So that's being already addressed? Kind: I believe this should not be in the motion at all and we want to do what we last discussed which was not to have different setbacks for accessory stmctures. Sacchet: Well I appreciate you bring that up because I wasn't aware of that. The setbacks being looked at. The other thing that I'm kind of, I don't know where it was jumping too much ahead into the comment thing but if there's something you can add from a staff`viewpoint, I'd like to hear that. This thing about the buildable area. It went really well as I read through it and then you really poked me. You took the example from my new neighborhood and the examples you took, one of them is an absolute sore spot for a lot of the neighbors because the prime example you took here, where the house is off` of the originally proposed pad. I've had several complaints from the neighborhood because I'm on the Board of the neighborhood association. So basically what we're saying, with what you're proposing is that anywhere within the setbacks they can put the house. So my question to you is, if we could just briefly look at that example that you gave us. Kind: What page are you on Uli? Sacchet: Well the trouble is it doesn't have numbers. If you look at, if you can find page 8. Which is a green page. Opposite of page 8 is the example on the bottom of the page. Where there's a significant amount of house off`the pad. It's a comer lot so it has front setback to the south and to the east, correct? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: Now what's the setback requirement on the north and west side of that? Generous: The front setbacks for the comer lot are 30 feet on the street sides and 10 on the other two. Sacchet: And 10 on the other. So in other words it could even have come further north, this house. Generous: Correct. 10 Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 2000 Sacchet: Because the way it is really jammed into those trees to the north, which was not very pleasant thing okay. But they could even have gotten further based on the setbacks situation? Generous: Correct. The only thing they'd run into was the tree preservation calculation. Sacchet: So they have to keep coverage, canopy coverage? Generous: Well yes. They have to maintain the trees or replace them. Sacchet: Okay. Okay, that answers that question. I think that's my questions. Thank you. Peterson: Any other questions of Bob? Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, I just have one quick question. We're trying to define a stoW and we've talked a little bit about being below grade in basement. Do we anywhere define a stoW above grade? Should we be? Example we have you know 12 feet or 3 stories or you know we'll have certain requirements. I'm just wondering do we need to define that further or is it not an issue above ground? Kind: Are you, I'm sorry. Alison, are you talking about for a home or for an office? Blackowiak: Non-residential. Kind: Non-residential, the first sentence attempts to define it as the space between any floor and any surface or floor next above it. Blackowiak: So if there is a, if it's 24 feet, that's a single stoW building? Kind: With one heck of a stoW. Blackowiak: Right. Well that's what I'm looking at. I don't know. I'mjust wondering ifyou wanted to limit in any way but that's I guess my question. Generous: As long as you have an overall cap, I don't know that it's. Blackowiak: That it's necessary. Okay. Generous: Because we have like 30 foot or in the highway... Blackowiak: 40 foot or 3 stories. Okay. Alrighty. And then, just a comment. I've had a really difficult time following the pages of the amendments and. Kind: It's a nightmare. Blackowiak: I don't know if we could have all had the code amendment changes all in one section and just referenced the back or something. There just has to be a better way because I'm really struggling jumping back and forth so. Conrad: Mr. Chair, I'm terribly confused. Seriously. I wouldn't know how to make a motion. I think the comments made are appropriate that I've heard tonight but I would feel real uncomfortable. I don't have a clue what we're doing. 11 Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 2000 Peterson: Well that's where I'm at. You know I read it and unfortunately I didn't allocate enough time to get through it. I needed 3 or 4 more hours yesterday than I had. Conrad: I think the intent is, even though it takes stafftime to make it clear and some of these are real simple. It's just that I don't get it. I can't pass it along, any of them. I thought the one that I could was the buildable area, and I can't do that tonight. It's things that are not in sync yet and I don't have a problem with some of the intent. In fact most of the intent here. I just don't get it. I need it really simple and maybe we're doing too many at one time but I really think we should table the whole thing again. It just has to be real simple for me. Kind: I'd be comfortable with breaking down the motion and maybe pass them one at a time or whatever so we can get some of these out of the hopper. Peterson: I don't know if there's a compelling reason to do that. I'm open for that certainly but is that more arduous than we need to take on? I would agree. I think we need to streamline this a little bit and have some more discussion on the open ended ones that we were confused on. I'd also certainly be open to, although this is not a public hearing, to hear any comments over and above what we've already chatted about tonight so, if you do have comments, please come forward and share them appropriately tonight. Blackowiak: Mr. Chair, I'd just like to make a suggestion. We are going to be having our work session in two weeks. Maybe we could somehow try to hammer out a format that would make sense so that when we get our next staffreport it would be easy to read and easy to connect the rationale with the ordinance. I think that would be very helpful for me. Peterson: That's a good point. I think we're going to have these on an ongoing basis and we'd just as well put some kind of system together that will make it flow a lot easier. For both the people who haven't had the opportunity to read the plan, and for those of us who have and are still confused. So again please, if you do have comments, come forward. Linda Landsman: Linda Landsman, 7329 Frontier Trail and I guess I have to apologize. I'd like some reasoning behind the change in the buildable area from 60 by 60 to 60 by 40. I don't understand why that's being adjusted or what the reasoning or logic behind it is. And I guess I would like to hear some of that discussion before that recommended change goes through. The original buildable lot in Chanhassen, as I understand, was 50 by 50 and they expanded it because of the size of houses that were coming out here. I don't see those houses getting any smaller. So why are we shortening or making the buildable lots smaller when we've got bigger houses coming out here? It doesn't make any sense. So I guess if you can tell me what that logic is I would greatly, greatly appreciate it. Conrad: Why don't you stay up there, let's talk about that. Linda Landsman: Okay. Conrad: But what is your point? You don't, seriously. Why do you care? If somebody can put a 2,000 square foot house in, they should be able to do that. And so they don't need 3,600 buildable feet. We don't need to encourage big houses here would be my point. Who cares? The point of the rule is just to make sure there is buildable space. Period. Unless you want to dictate the housing styles and types in Chanhassen, then you can start doing that. Then you can say that you've got to have a big pad because we only want big houses. I don't know that we want to do that. 12 Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 2000 Linda Landsman: And I guess I have to go back to, I know Uli made a statement earlier that he's got kind of a nightmare situation in his neighborhood, as do we in the Sunrise Hills neighborhood. The lot that the Igel's are trying to build on will not support a 60 by 60 pad. And personally I don't believe that it should be adjusted so that they are allowed to build what will be the same size house that they would have built on a smaller area on a lot that won't support it and I think right now that's my issue. Conrad: It's a one lot issue though and we're trying to make a community issue. I've been around for a while and I can't possibly think why I would care. We just want to make sure, and typically this is for subdivisions. It's typically to make sure when you bring in, and you may not have been around but sometimes we have 50, 100, 200 lot subdivisions. We want to make sure there's a spot for these houses and that's what we're trying to do and that they can be set back the appropriate distance from the neighbors. But why do we care? Why are we regulating that? It seems a little bit micro management, so you do have a single lot issue. I don't think this is going to impact that. It shouldn't. Because this is going to take a while to go through the system and I think, so I think you've got to cast that out. I'd like to take your input but I can't imagine why I would care. I do care that the setbacks can be met. I do care that all the other regulations or the things that we care about are met but in terms of me telling somebody how big a house they should build. Linda Landsman: I'm not necessarily as concemed about the size of house as I am about the size of lot. Conrad: But the pad has nothing to do with the lot. What you're going to do, the smaller the pad gives you more open space. Because we are 15,000 square foot minimums. So the smaller the pad, the smaller the house, the more green space, the more trees. I can't, if you can share some logic, if you can tell me why we should do something different, boy I'd sure be open to it but I can't think of it. Linda Landsman: Well I guess at this point in time I'm very concemed about adjusting pad size because if we, how we change the wording of that code can have a tremendous impact on what style of houses, you're right that are built. And if we open that up to 2,800 square feet, I mean is that 60 by 40 or is that 20 by 70 or whatever? I mean are they going to have the latitude to take a 30 foot lot and build on it as opposed to a 60 foot lot, but if they'd just make a much longer house, they're going to be just fine. You know tell me what the wording is going to do on that. Conrad: The lot size drives everything. I don't know how the pad is going to influence the lot size. The lot size impacts the neighbors I don't see, the pad impacts the person buying the land. The house. Linda Landsman: Bingo. You got it. Conrad: I tell you, I'm trying to figure this, and anybody else who has some input, I sure am curious but. Sacchet: Mr. Chair, ifI might just add a comment to clarify. It's my understanding, and that's why I brought up, asked these questions about the example that's in the report. Is that the people are not going to be bound by that pad anyhow. They're going to be free to put their building anywhere on the lot that is meeting the setbacks. So the pad is really insignificant in the context of where the house is going to end up on the lot. Linda Landsman: It isn't insignificant if you have a lot that won't support the pad. Sacchet: Well, yes. I mean that's why we're trying to, it's my understanding that's why we're trying to rephrase it and say buildable area. Because it would include whatever is available. Not with the idea of that everything is being used. 13 Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 2000 Linda Landsman: I agree. The code doesn't state that now. The code doesn't state you have to fill a 60 by 60 foot pad. It says you have to have that much space with your setbacks to really accommodate the code. So it does have a bearing on where those setbacks are and what they have to have to build. Sacchet: Well it's a good idea. Where the house would be but the trouble, like in the example I looked at, is that the house ends up maybe halfway on the pad. So yeah, it's neither fish nor fowl when we're trying to kind of make it clear. Linda Landsman: Thank you. Kind: Mr. Chair, I just wanted to let Linda know. The language we're looking at has a minimum square footage, which we haven't agreed on what it's going to be, and it also has a minimum dimension and right now we're talking about 40 feet. So that you don't end up with some funky triangle that is not going to be buildable. Right now that's kind of the direction we're going. And if I'm understanding you right, and I just want to re-word it so I can make sure I'm tracking you. The reason you feel so strongly about the 60 by 60 foot pad is because it makes it more difficult to subdivide because it's just one more thing that they need to adhere to. Linda Landsman: No. What I'm saying is that when you've got a lot that will not support the building, a building that sits in our code right now that I assume was agreed upon for some reason. Why are we changing it? And I don't know the logic behind that because I don't see the logic in changing it. If there's logic in changing it, let's change it. Otherwise I have to assume that when that code was changed from 50 by 50 to 60 by 60 there was some logic behind it. What's the logic on changing it and where's that change coming from? Kind: I'll speak for myself. One of the things, reasons why I would like to see it changed is because of Uli's problem. When people see their neighborhoods with these little 60 by 60 foot pads on them, they think that's where the house is going to go and then they get upset when the house is totally off`the pad but still within the setbacks. And I would like to get to a point where we're not seeing those little squares on there anymore because I think it's misleading to future neighbors or current neighbors on what their future neighbors are going to be. So that's my rationale for wanting to get rid of it. Linda Landsman: Isn't that more of an education process as opposed to a code change? Kind: I think it's an intuitive process that any new person coming into this neighborhood sees the plat for their neighborhood and thinks that's where all the houses are going to be. And if we take those off`it's going to be clearer to them that their neighbors could put their house anywhere within those setback lines. Linda Landsman: Well I guess at this point in time their neighbors can put those houses anywhere within the setback lines now. Kind: Exactly but they're irritated. There's problems because they're off`of those building pads. Linda Landsman: So at this point the change in the code is going to change how neighbors perceive where the stakes are? I guess I don't follow. Kind: Yeah, we're working through it too and that's why I really agree with Alison's suggestion that we add it to our work session for next time and Craig would probably like to wrap this meeting up. 14 Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 2000 Peterson: I see your point though. As we discuss, we haven't encapsulated the rationale yet. That's why we're not ready to vote on it. Conrad: Craig, can I interrupt? Peterson: Please. Conrad: I have to go back to the logic in the past, and Bob you should speak up on this stuff. You're the planner and we're not, but again when we'd get a 50 lot subdivision in here we have to know that a house could go on a lot. If you create a lot, and then a house can't go on, the developer can say, well you've let me create the lot so I'm going to put one there anyway. So from a city standpoint we have to know that you could build a reasonable house on that lot. That was our intent. Our intent was, that was it, I think. Bob, anything. Generous: A suitable house on the site. Conrad: You just want to know. Otherwise you'll create a lot of record and maybe there's no way to put a house on there from setback standpoint. From whatever but the developer could come to us and say, you let me create that lot of record. I have my rights. Is that right Bob? Kind: And you have to grant a variance. Conrad: So you've got to grant me. We see this all the time. You're not here all the time...but that was the point. That's the intent. That was the intent. So we're saying, I'm saying, I'm not sure I care what the size is as long as I know they can build. Now if that was for a 50 lot subdivision, 100 lot subdivision. Your point could be well we're not going to see that many coming in, those big ones. Now we're looking at twosies and threesies so I'd like you to persuade me that we're wrong in changing it because again, now you know the intent. Now you've got to tell me why we should maintain that because on a 1 to 2, on a 2 lot subdivision you know and that's the challenge. Because right now I can't see why I'd want to maintain the old rule. It doesn't help me. Linda Landsman: And I guess I don't see where the new rule would help you. Conrad: The new rule will let me put a smaller house on there and I can get more open space. The new rule will let me put a, I don't have to build. I'm not here to create half million dollar lots in Chanhassen. I kind of am here to say, I think we should have a variety of housing styles. Linda Landsman: I agree. Conrad: So therefore ifI force people to build on a 3,600 square foot house, that probably means a $200 per square foot house which probably creates a 70, you know. Again... Linda Landsman: Again you're surmising that that's what it's going to be. Conrad: Again, there's my logic and I'm not trying to be offensive. I just, you know if you can come back and we're going to look at this again. If you can give us some logic beyond that. Linda Landsman: I guess I still don't see where changing that pad size is going to assist the city in avoiding variances if the homework is done up front where it should be. And if the developer's are up from where they should be. If one or the other is falling down on the job... 15 Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 2000 Peterson: Thank you. Generous: Mr. Chairman, ifI may. The specific for this change was the conflicts in the ordinance. We have 60 by 60 pads and 60 by 40 pads and that's one of the things that we wanted, as part of the drafting of the tree preservation ordinance and part of the subdivision, I know at least my intent at the time was to provide an area for calculating tree removal. Most developers come in, they don't know what house is going in there and so we said well let's provide a standard to let us know what the calculation was. Sacchet: If I might just clarify. Generous: But if you go with the entire building area, that would be even more tree removal so they either have to go with a smaller lots, or we get more tree replacement. Reforestation. Sacchet: So you're actually planning to keep using that 60 by 60 for the tree removal calculation? Generous: We would have them estimate what the removal is. The language change, no. We'd have to come up with another altemative. Usually we base it on the preliminary grading plan. That they go within, because we not only are definitions of what's a loss tree if so much of it's root zone is impacted. We can say that that's being taken out. If there's so much fill that's being taken out so we can calculate that pretty well. And we're starting, it's easiest to do the determination when the developer's actually the builder too such as Lundgren Bros or Centex because they know the home styles that they are. They may not need a 60 pad. They know that all their houses are 40 by 75. Or like on the White Oak Addition. They know that it's a 73 foot wide house and so they need to have 93 foot wide lots. In an infill development it's usually a little bit easier because you have someone who knows what the building pad is. Can they show a suitable building pad? Yes. If they know that the building is there. What building pad they want. Peterson: Good point. Debbie. Debbie Lloyd: I think the main thing that we're forgetting is where this 60 by 60 pad lies and it does lie in subdivision. It does lie in tree preservation and I think that's critical. If you read this chapter, it's extremely interesting what the intent was. And it's for the preservation of trees and this goes back to 60 by 40. We know that trees are impacted 10 to 20 feet, so if you take a 60 by 40 and you add 10 to 20 feet around it, 60 by 60 is a reasonable area. It's a reasonable area. It's not difficult to plat it on a map and I have to say, a map. A plat. I guess mark it on a plat. It's not a difficult thing for a builder to do and what I've seen, and I pointed out tonight earlier, is that it hasn't been adhered to and that's number one thing that bugs me. Some have been beautiful plats. You see 60 by 60. Others you see a variance on that. I don't know where they got the okay to vary from that. Now I feel the change may be because we have non-conforming lots. I have to be honest with you. I have to ask, is that the reason for the change. Now if we're talking prairie land, or there's no trees, obviously this section doesn't matter. Tree preservation is not an issue. But it is an issue here. Today I went to the library and I thought I need to know more about the comprehensive plan and this is what we talk about. My eyes are going bad. Land use. Development be consistent with preservation and enhancement of significant natural features and aesthetic amenities. They talk about the Highway 5 corridor with greater sensitivity to the environment and higher quality than might have occurred in the absence of specific guidelines created through the planning effort. And the purpose of the Highway 5 corridor is to protect corridors, wetlands, significant stands of mature trees. To promote high quality architectural and site designs. Create a unified, harmonious and high quality visual environment. This goes beyond our lot Ladd. There's a lot of preservation that we have to be concemed about in this city. We talk about in the comprehensive plan we talk about slopes. Protecting of slopes 16 Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 2000 because of the runoffinto the lakes and streams. Again, typically a treed lot in Chanhassen has a slope on it. There is a concem we should have an adequate site for development on those sloped, treed lots. The city will maintain a comprehensive and up to date set of ordinances to ensure that development is consistent with the plan while resulting in high quality, sensitively designed projects. Ordinances should be reviewed and modified as necessary to improve performance standards for new development. To ensure they incorporate high quality design, landscape, etc. It's in the landscape section to promote high quality to protect and preserve the trees. Again, sloped land can also have an impact. Preventing erosion in areas with steep grades and most susceptible to erosion. And I thought this under housing was particularly interesting. Development, whether commercial, industrial or residential is long term both economically and physically. Since development is permanent and usually irreversible, the effects of substandard or poorly located facilities will be evident for a long time. Therefore, both the developer and the city must be aware of natural, physical and social constraints and the potential long term effects of a project. Be it one home. Be it a PUD. Whatever it is. We must be aware of the long term effects of what the code says and changes that are made which will affect developments in the future. I could go on and on here. New residential development shall be discouraged from encroaching upon vital natural resources or physical features that perform essential protection functions in their natural sites. Trees have a profound performance effect and it says in here for livable air, for the aesthetics of the community, stands of trees wherever they are, however they are affected by development, affect our quality of life. Under natural resources. The City of Chanhassen recognizes the importance of it's natural environment to the quality of life for it's citizens and they need to protect and enhance these resources. This one. The City has already established, already established a series of protective measures for lakes. The current zoning ordinance establishes a shoreland overlay district that was consistent with guidelines established by the Minnesota DNR and some of those shoreland regulations you're talking about tonight were established by the DNR. Yet we find that we can improve that language. And this one particularly is a sensitive to me. The statement, the most recent proposals for development along lakes have come in the form of attempts to split existing lakeshore lots. Anyway, in summation the 60 by 60 bothers me because if we had not brought it to the forefront I question if this change would have been recommended to be made. And that I guess in one sense appalls me that wherever this change recommendation is coming from. If it's coming from us finding it, it appalls me that there'd be consideration to change it in light of the situation we're in number one. But that a change would be made that would affect everyone in the community. Not just us because it does effect everyone. And I guess I had a higher regard for the way things were done than that. And I think most likely it's because we have non-conforming lots because this hasn't been used on lots that have trees. It's been overlooked and I don't know why it's been overlooked. Probably I would say the work load. I read through that report like you said Alison. All you can do is read that and think their work load must be absolutely tremendous. They're short staff'ed or whatever. Because the quality is missing. It's hard to decipher everything. I got an unusual headache from reading it and that would have been one of my recommendations just to break it up. But I don't think there's a general intent overall to not adhere to code but somehow we've been missing it here into code in some cases and I'm alarmed and I'm going to become more involved. Not in a political basis I can assure you that because that is not my direction. I do think, after attending these meetings that apathy is prevalent in the community and I do want to say Craig, I know you stood, in the newspaper it said that you were, you and others were instrumental in developing some of these regulations and I really hope that those that were instrumental in developing regulations help to uphold the regulations that you worked so hard to develop. I thank you for your time. Peterson: Thank you. Kind: Mr. Chair l have one question for Debbie or maybe for Bob. Some ofthe subdivisions she was talking about that have the smaller lot sizes, are those PUD's and therefore they have shorter setbacks or some agreements were made because they're PUD's? 17 Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 2000 Debbie Lloyd: I'm not referring at all in my lack of adherence to code citing PUD's. The subdivision we looked at tonight was RSF. It's not an PUD. Kind: That was unclear from the staff report whether it was because we were just looking at a variance and a setback so I wasn't sure if it was a PUD or not. Debbie Lloyd: No, it's not a PUD. It's RSF. And I've looked at mega ton piles and in some cases the 60 by 60 is used. A greater standard if you would call it is 75 by 55 is used. In many the 60 by 40 was used. So I mean it... Kind: Just a point of clarification. Debbie Lloyd: ...overlooked. And I think it's overlooked just like the 90 foot of lakeshore was overlooked. I mean I can't explain how that's overlooked except work load or whatever. But I can tell you, I purchased this book and it's not difficult to go into the code and find what you're looking for and I wrote a little. Kind: Oh I disagree. I think it's very difficult. Debbie Lloyd: Oh, I don't think it's difficult... Peterson: Would you consider doing a training session? Debbie Lloyd: Jan and I would be happy to offer our services. Kind: Mine looks like your's though. I've got a little post it notes in mine. Peterson: IthinkapartialresponseDebbie. Ithinkatleastspeakingonbehalfofmyself, certainly and I think for the rest of my commissioners, part of. Not part of it but the driving force behind this is making these ordinances better. Now at the end of the day we may not agree because it is to some degree interpretation but you know a driving force motivates us is to make it easier for staff and make it easier for residents to understand and make the right decisions. And again, that is our driving force and our desire and hopefully we can accomplish that and we'll do a better job because of you guys in offering feedback and support. Whether it's apathy. Whether it's just not knowing, not taking the interest, this kind of stuff is what we need and we need more of it. I mean you find ways to find more of it so, I think we all applaud the passion that you guys have brought for the last few months so. Other comments? Conrad: On the same issue, as this comes back, I think the valid point Bob on the lot size is the impact on environment and trees and in steep slope areas so I'd really like your input on that. I think those are the issues that could keep us from changing it down. Peterson: Okay. Other comments? Anybody? Sacchet: My comments are very simple. I'm not really comfortable with this stuff yet and I'm not quite sure to what extent it is that this is the first time I'm dealing with this labyrinth of language but hearing from you that you're not all that comfortable with this is somewhat reassuring. Peterson: If you're happy, we're happy. Motion please. Kind: Mr. Chair I move that we table the code amendments. 18 Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 2000 Conrad: I'd second that. Kind moved, Conrad seconded that the Planning Commission table consideration of the amendments to Chapter 20 of the Zoning Ordinance. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Peterson: Bob, do you have enough information to? Generous: I believe so. You want it easier to read. Simpler. Easier to follow. Conrad: Mr. Chair, one at a time and just one issue. It's just, let's just approach the lot size and support documentation and then I'd like a separate motion on each one versus clustering them together. Peterson: I agree with that. Conrad: That way we really. Blackowiak: Well if we want to pull something aside and discuss it further we can do that and those that we have very little discussion on, we pass and be done with. Peterson: And I think if we can advertise it as such that we are discussing 1, 2, 3, 4, somehow and I think that may generate more public feedback too. So we'll increase your advertising budget for the paper. NEW BUSINESS: Generous: I don't know if Kate e-mailed you. We do have our next meeting is the work session. The one after that is election so there's no meeting and so we'll have our next hearings on November 21st. And we have a cell tower on that and. Peterson: Where's it going to go? Generous: On Quattro Drive. They're talking about moving the tower on the Brown site. Blackowiak: But didn't council approve that? Generous: It's been approved but now they're looking at changing it and there's some discussion about making it with two antennas on it so we're working on it. Blackowiak: No co-locating. No, we wouldn't want to do that would we. Conrad: Who was the person that wrote the article in the paper that was about a five column article. It was just, it was a techie that cared? Generous: Someone who has a cell phone. Blackowiak: Well and the whole point of that, and I read it too. The whole point of it was, he's like of you must be anti-technology and I just wanted to say, no. We want to try to get. Conrad: It's where you want to call him up and say. 19 Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 2000 Blackowiak: Fewer towers and say, let's try to make this place look nice. I mean we don't want towers every block. Encourage co-location and I think he missed that whole point. Conrad: Wouldn't you have thought Craig would have written back in response. Generous: That's almost part of the altemative though. You'd want them to locate on our light standards instead of putting up new towers. Blackowiak: Well exactly. Peterson: I made a bigger statement. I threw away my cell phone. I bought three more. Conrad: And most of the bad area is in Eden Prairie. See that never came out so, let's put a big tower in downtown Chan so we can fill in Eden Prairie's service. But that's what gets you irritated about stuff. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. Alison Blackowiak noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 19, 2000 as presented. Peterson: Any other discussion? Chairman Peterson adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:25 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 20