Loading...
PC 2000 06 06CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 6, 2000 Chairman Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Deb Kind, Craig Peterson, Alison Blackowiak, Matt Burton, and Uli Sacchet MEMBERS ABSENT: Ladd Conrad and LuAnn Sidney STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Cindy Kirchofl; Planner I; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmin Al-Jarl; Senior Planner; and Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE 1.1 ACRE LAKESHORE PARCEL INTO 2 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH A VARIANCE FROM THE LAKESHORE WIDTH REQUIREMENT ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED ON LOT 11, BLOCK 1, SUNRISE HILLS 1sT ADDITION, 7303 LAREDO DRIVE, LUCAS IGEL ADDITION, DAVID IGEL. Public Present: Name Address Joshua Paulsen Emily Paulsen Steven & Teresa Berquist Eunice & Richard Peters Ron & Ann Kleve Debbie & Dick Lloyd Joel S. Jenkins Don Huseth Helen Bielski Jerry & Janet Paulsen Linda Landsman Fred Cuned David Wallin Robert & Susie Eastman Jim Waletski Carl Alexander Rachel & David Igel Bruce Malkerson Steven Chepokas 1500 St. Olaf Avenue, Northfield 7305 Laredo Drive 7207 Frontier Trail 7301 Laredo Drive 7307 Laredo Drive 7302 Laredo Drive 7305 Frontier Trail 7332 Frontier Trail 7209 Frontier Trail 7305 Laredo Drive 7329 Frontier Drive 7335 Frontier Trail 7303 Frontier Trail 26115 Shorewood Oaks Drive, Shorewood 7334 Frontier Trail 8447 Powers Place 6195 Strawberry Lane, Shorewood 901 Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis 7304 Laredo Drive Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Any questions of Bob from fellow commissioners? Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman I have a question. Run through our options again. The proposal before us is. Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 Generous: A subdivision with a variance for the lakeshore. Blackowiak: Okay, so that is actually the only thing that we are to know? You're shaking your head. Generous: To refresh, that's the one that the applicant has proposed. You can always recommend something that's lesser than that. So in this instance you could recommend approval of the plat with the variance. You could recommend denial of the plat with the variance. Or you could recommend that they need to comply with the ordinance and ask them to prove the altemative plat. Blackowiak: So are we, from what I understand you would be approving the altemative if we denied? Generous: No. Aanenson: No. Blackowiak: Okay. That's what, I just wanted to clarify that. Okay, thank you. Peterson: Other questions? Kind: Mr. Chair? Bob, could you tell me how you measure building height when it's a walkout? Generous: What we do is we take the average of the grade on the side of the house and so it'd probably be like the mid-point of the side and then we measure to the mid-point of the roof on gabled roofs. Kind: And oh, one question about on page 5 of the staff`report. I'm guessing that, on the compliance table there's two footnotes. The one that's with the pound sign. Should that line say, the second sentence say, the minimum state shoreland standards are 90 feet? Generous: No. Aanenson: It's a minimum of 75. DNR is 75. Generous: State standards are 75. The City has higher standards. Kind: Oh! Interesting. Okay, thank you. Peterson: Anybody else? Kind: That's it for now. Peterson: Anything Matt? Burton: No. Peterson: Would the applicant or designee wish to address the commission? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please. Bruce Malkerson: Good evening. My name is Bruce Malkerson and I'm the attomey for David and Rachel Igel. My address is 901 Marquette Avenue, Minneapolis, Minnesota. We reviewed the staff report. We think it's very thorough and I know this matter's been in front of you before so I think you 2 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 probably know all of the relevant facts so I'm not going to go through things that have already been set forth by city staff`and that you've seen before. We'd be glad to answer any questions that you have. We would like an opportunity to respond to any comments from the public relating to the application, if there are any. The only thing that I would like to stress to you is, as noted in my letter to you that's in the packet. I've been practicing land use law for 28 years and I've appeared in front of a lot of planning commissions and councils everywhere in the state, and I've represented a lot of planning commissions and councils. And I've been out in this city probably over 28 years, 15-20 times through the years. And I don't know how the Planning Commission has acted before on variances. What their understanding of the law is on variances. You may know it very, very well, but I just want to, in case you're not familiar with the Rowell Case and the Sagstetter Case which I cite in my memo to you. I just wanted to remind you that the courts have made it very clear that some of the old historical ways of viewing variances and undue hardship and that it was an impossibility to prove the need for a variance unless it would otherwise be an unconstitutional taking of the property, that that is not the law. A lot of people thought that in the 60's and 70's and the courts have made it clear through the years that is not the case. And I am sure that if your city attomey, Roger Knutson, who I am sure looked at a copy of my letter, believed that I was misstating the law, that he would have so informed stafl~ I mean the bottom line is, if you believe that the applicant has shown a sufficient basis for a variance, which the court has said is not that great. If it makes sense to do what is being proposed, then you have all the latitude under the law to grant the variances requested tonight. And if you have any questions as to any of the basis that we have set forth as to why we think that the variances should be granted, again we'd be glad to answer any questions that you have but otherwise I don't intend to take up any more of your time. Thank you. Peterson: Any questions? Kind: Yes Mr. Chair I have a question. On the plans that I call the compliant plan. All that complies that requires no variances. What is the reason that the building pads are so much different and bigger than the one shown on the plans requesting the variance? Bruce Malkerson: Well I think part, building pads can vary as we know no matter what as long as they're within the side yard setbacks and the rear yard setbacks and everything else. I think to a certain extent it is illustrative. If the Planning Commission feels it's important to limit the size of the building pads under one approval or another, I mean we'd be glad to talk to you about it but for the most part they were houses that we're trying to fit in to the site, and whether or not Rachel or David have, who worked more closely with the architect than I have, perhaps they have some thoughts on that. Yes Dave. David Igel: One of the things that we considered when we looked at building pad width or the actual width of the home, initially was we were limited in width on the original plat. Where we had the ability to go wider, we didn't have those restrictions and I think you can see the buildings pads are drawn in here. We were able to go wider. What we would propose is probably more of a rambler, sprawling rambler style house than a stacked 2 V2 story. That's just our preference because we can do the width on the other, on the original plat. That's what we'd do. Kind: That's what I was wondering. So the compliant plan is, it will have a lower profile. It will be walkout ramblers rather than. David Igel: That's right. That's what we would anticipate right now. Kind: And the variance plan, those footprints are for 2 stories plus a walkout, right? David Igel: Correct. Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 Kind: So 3 stories on the lake side. David Igel: Correct. Kind: Okay, just a minute. See ifI have another question for you. I think that's it. Thank you. Bruce Malkerson: IfI may, as to the plan that doesn't require a variance, of course if someone decided they wanted to do 2 stories, they would be able to do so but at least this is what the thinking is of the applicant but that doesn't mean that somebody who bought the lot to the rear wouldn't decide to put it, the full 2 V2 story, whatever is allowed under the code, house at that location. Which of course as noted in the materials, we think that whether it says the walkout there or the 2 story would block the view of the neighbor to the rear to the lake. And probably, as you probably also noted that the elevations on the plan that requires the variance are substantially below that that could be there otherwise and so I think that even with the 2 V2 story, 2 story house, that somebody to the rear would have a view not only through the view corridor but also over the house to a great extent. Thank you. Burton: Mr. Chair, one more question for counsel. Do you think that when we evaluate the reasonableness of the request that we should look at the restrictive covenants on the property? Bruce Malkerson: Good question. I analyzed the restrictive covenants when I first heard of them and Igel's did have an opinion of counsel which is a correct opinion, that after a certain time, which has now since past, that those restrictions as a matter of law have become void. The State legislature decided, in it's wisdom, right or wrong, to adopt a statute years ago that limited the length of the effectiveness of such restrictive covenants so they are not in effect today. Burton: So when it terminated in 1987, even though it says that it renews automatically for successive periods of 10 years, your position is that the legislature. Bruce Malkerson: My understanding is that it's void as of that date and that there's a legal opinion by an attomey to that effect, and I have no reason to doubt the validity of that and I haven't seen any legal analysis to the contrary. And by the way, although it's relevant, as your staff`has said, restrictive covenants are something between private parties in any event and is not relevant for decisions on land use, but putting that aside, my understanding is that it's void. If it weren't void, we wouldn't be taking up your time. Rachel Igel: Just to also underscore that, just so you know, it has been removed from the title of the property so there's no longer a restrictive covenant on the property. Bruce Malkerson: And that's torrens property too. And with torrens property, as you may know, we have two types of property. Abstract and torrens and the only restrictions of any sort, other than zoning, that can ever be valid on torrens are those that are actually showing on the Certificate of Title. That's why we have what's called the torrens system and so the courts in the torrens proceedings determined that it was no longer valid and removed it. Any other questions? Peterson: Thank you. Bruce Malkerson: Thank you. Peterson: Motion and a second for a public hearing please. 4 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 Blackowiak moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, 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 one of the many neighbors of the Igel's that live in Sunrise Hills. And it seems like only 3 months ago we were here discussing this same thing and during that time interval the applicant has had a chance to go through a series of preliminary plats. These are the fourth and fifth ones that you see before you, attempting to find something that they think will fit into this lot to justify the splitting into two parts. We're here to say that we think we have, we foresee problems with both plats and we'd like to raise those with you tonight. Let me just say one thing that, less you think we're being unneighborly, that we do have a personal involvement in this obviously because we're neighbors to the new property owners, but we do have, we hope that the Planning Commission considers two points. One which is, either one of these will have an impact on our property value and those of the surrounding neighbors I think. The one maybe a little more so than the other. And secondly I would urge you to uphold city code because we're setting a precedent here. This 90 foot thing hasn't been around for too long, that the city's aware of anyway. But it is a serious variance. It's not like adding a deck onto a home or something like that. It's a little different category I think. So let me call to your attention those of you, and maybe I did myself today. It's called D-Day and you've heard of that no doubt. It's when the Americans invaded France during World War II and one of the other events that comes to mind as a result of D-Day is something that came up later in about December of '44 called the Battle of the Bulge. And you're probably familiar with that if you study your history. And we have our own little Battle of the Bulge here tonight. If you refer to your packet, which is a fairly thick packet obviously, but in chronological order there's a series of letters attached there, one of which is dated May 8th. So if you go down and look chronologically, you'll see that there's a letter with an attachment to it and... These represent two different plats that the Igel's have submitted. The one on the left kind of outlined in yellow is the one that you saw on March 15th at your meeting. The one on the right is the most recent one. There was considerable amount of interest in this because originally they said they had easily 75 feet of lakeshore, which the city believed was necessary at that point. Subsequent to that obviously the city recognized that 90 feet was necessary according to their code, but the critical thing here is that they said they had 75 feet was at the survey point. And that's the survey line and that's about 12 to 14 feet back from the shore. If you look at the property lines they converged down towards the lake and we were very concemed about whether they really had 75 feet at the lake because the ordinary high water mark is right next to the lake, as you can see. And the question was whether they had 75 feet. So on the left one you can see that there's a dashed line. That's the contour line representing the high water line and that's determined by DNR because it's 2 feet above the lakeshore. The normal height of the water. Anyway, the one on the right is the way that came up later. As a matter of fact it was 5 weeks after the developer had been asked to submit the answer to what we really had for a high water line length there and it took them 5 weeks and he came back with a plat which is slightly different because as you can see it has a few bulges in it and the repercussion of that is a lengthening of the line. The more curve there is in that line, the more length the developer has to work with. Anyway, he came up with exactly 75 feet for each lot, which was very good from his standpoint, at least he could say he had 75 feet that way. So enough of this reminiscing of the war. I'll save my other war stories for the council meeting next time. But I'd like to go through with you a couple of series of items that we think are problems with primarily the first plat, which is the two lakeshore plats. And I think you have a copy, something that was just handed to you just to keep tabs on what's going on here. There's a series of items here I'd like to call to your attention to. First one, item number one. The code. Peterson: Can we get staffa copy of this? Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 Jerry Paulsen: What it is is a series of arguments with a little block of code, kind of a synopsis of the code thrown in there for you to back it up and take home and take a look at later. Basically the first one says they need 90 feet at the lakeshore. What we call the ordinary high water line, which is the contour line. But the code also says not only do they need that at the high water line, and so that would be...two lakeshore properties here. They don't, they need it not only at this high water line, the curved line here, but they also need 90 feet past the building line which does not occur on this plat. They don't have quite 90 feet the way it's arranged right now. If you read the code it says they need it at the building line, or at the high water line, ordinary high water line, and at the building line, which is more in here. If you take a ruler to that, that's from the 90 feet. Okay. The next item then is the code requires what we call, it was done by the building window or building pad. If you look at item 3, I've got a little template here that shows the code that's represented by Chapter 18 there. Section 18-61. That says you need a 60 x 60 pad in order to even think of putting up a building. You don't use it for the building necessarily, but you do need to require that pad as a minimum area. If you stick that pad on the plat and you have to allow for all setbacks. 10 foot on each side. For the one end, on the setback from the lake, which is 75 feet, the area here. The...setback overlaps by several feet at this point here. They'll probably...but that's another problem, for meeting code anyway. And next item. Item number 4. There seems to be, and I don't pretend to be a code expert because it's hard to read code at times and some of it's a little ambiguous but there is a discrepancy, the problem with understanding what private roads are, private streets. Private driveways. Private drives. Shared driveways. We're contending that they all mean the same thing and I think you had a position paper on this recently discussing the impact of private driveways because you were getting more involved in it recently I think. Anyway, it says in this section of the code that a private street provides access to 2 or more parcels of land but is owned by 1 or more private parties. So we're saying that what the developer has presented on any of these plats is in fact a private disagreement because it's shared with another home. On most of the homes or examples that we've seen, usually go along the perimeter of the property rather than cutting directly across it. So this is probably a unique situation staff than what we've seen before. The other part of the code there, item 4 under Section 18-60 it says all lots shall abut on a publicly dedicated street. In other words, normally you have a lot with a street on it, or on a private street. Those are the two options. In this case by definition it'd have to be a private street because it's not a public street. Okay. Item 5 says, any lot that is accessed by a private drive must have a lot width of 100 feet. If you look at the north lot, both lots are accessed by a private drive and that's in some of this.., lakeshore option here. That says they have to have a lot width of 100 feet, and if you look at the north lot, it shows a lot width of 90 feet at this line, instead of what should be 100 feet. They do have...on the south lot which is this line here. Okay, to give you an example. Looking back at the old, at the first plat that you saw, by definition this was a lot line and this drawing that came in here, which is called Lot 2, had a little asterisk next to it and...Lot accessed via a private drive must have a lot width of 100 feet. So they said, Lot 2, the south lot had to have 100 feet. In this case it didn't and the developer had to go back and revise the line a little bit to get that 100 feet here. Now they're saying the same thing on the current plat that if you look at it as your footnote to the...package that you got from the staff`in the staff report, and that where it says that this lot is being accessed by a private drive and requires the 100 feet. So what we're saying is that this is a private street. The lot line, it's more restrictive. You need a little more footage there. Point 6. The lot area must exclude the area defined as street right-of-way's. In other words, when you're figuring your total lot area, you're not supposed to be able to include a private street as a portion of that area to meet your minimums. Now they come very close, or they probably don't have a problem of meeting their minimums of 20,000 for a lakeshore and 15,000 for a non-lakeshore, or even for 20 and 20. But the implication is that it does impact their impervious surface requirement and if they subtract out that part of the street you'll see that their impervious surface coverage is within 10 to 15 feet and it's getting very critical. Not to go beyond that 25% of coverage. The purpose of which is to prevent erosion. You're not supposed to pave your whole lot it basically says. Okay, where are we here? We're on number 6. I finished that. 7 says normally you need a 10 foot setback from a property line when you have a driveway. If you look at the, or either one in this case. In other words the setback from this 20 foot 6 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 wide driveway here comes at least 10 feet on the north side, which is not... What they're doing is they're getting in a bind for their total property. They realize that if they start shifting things around that they're going to be in more trouble as far as making the minimums are concemed. Okay. One more definition here. Number 8. The last one under the word Findings. It says that a lot, definition of a lot states that an area, that's an area of land undivided by any public street for improved private road. Now we're interpreting this to be a private street or a private road and unless it's dividing the property, so we're looking whether that meets code. Some of these are kind of fine points and we'd like to, if it comes to we may need a decision from the City Attomey I think to clarify these things. Aanenson: IfI can make a point of order. That's your job and that's the City Council's job to make those clarifications. Peterson: I agree. Aanenson: They will make an interpretation and a recommendation. Jerry Paulsen: Okay, fine. So that basically takes a look at the two lakeshore options. Obviously we're not happy with either one necessarily, but the easiest way for anyone to avoid answering your question I guess is to, or if they don't know the answer is to avoid answering the question so if you have questions of either side, please ask them and we'll try to answer them. I hope that the Planning Commission draws a line in the sand and says this far and no further and in essence we're not supporting the variance by any means and we're not supporting either proposal obviously for those of us complying ourselves. The petition that we passed around last time now has 55 signatures on it. That's 55 residences represented with about 88 signatures, which is almost everyone signed it. That are not supporting and are in opposition to the splitting of this property. So what you see are some yellow ribbons, or orange ribbons being wom tonight. The, and I hesitate to call him a developer because it's probably kind of derogatory so we'll came him a mini-developer because he's doing a small...but he was good enough to put up, to define the location of the upper lot with poles...what I would like him to do actually is put one up 35 feet in the air also to show the extreme that can be built in there and how it would destroy our view. So in essence what I'm saying again is I hope the Planning Commission takes a view that we don't want our property values adversely affected and we don't believe they're going to be helped by going through with a plan like this. And the other point is that we hope you'll uphold city code because I think this is a good time to say this is far enough. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Kind: Mr. Chair, before he sits down I have a couple questions. Peterson: Sure. Kind: Mr. Paulsen? The impervious surface part of your discussion I didn't quite get. Will you explain it to me. If you take out, to me if you take out the driveway that improves their impervious surface. Jerry Paulsen: Well you have to, if the driveway takes up 6,000 square feet, you have to subtract that from the total area and then you figure out what the impervious surface is and apply it back into the total to see... Kind: I've been on the commission for a year now and the way we count impervious surface is it's included. The driveway's included in the impervious. 7 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 Jerry Paulsen: In counting the impervious surface, the house, the driveway, the deck. Kind: And the driveway. Jerry Paulsen: And the driveway, yes. Kind: It's all counted. Jerry Paulsen: It counts as an impervious surface and the DNR, we were talking about guidelines set up by the DNR. Chanhassen has adopted the code in '94 which kind of parallels it and is not quite as restrictive as the DNR looks for in some respects. I'm sorry, did I answer your question about impervious surface? Kind: So I'm supposed to take away the area of the driveway. To me it's a wash. Jerry Paulsen: The street right-of-way, take this block out of there for that, you're eliminating that from the total area that's eligible to be counted as part there. So if they have a total area of 20,000 square feet say on the property, and you subtract out 5,000 for the driveway in addition to the other impervious surface, that's not been done. The driveway has not been subtracted out for both properties here. Well, I think it has in this instance. Kind: Okay. And then the other question I have for you is, if your choice is between the proposal that complies, that requires no variances. They could go build it tomorrow and apply for a building permit and go do it, and if your choice is between that and, or giving this variance, which set up of homes would you prefer? Jerry Paulsen: Well we're proposing that they need a variance either way and I guess that's for you to decide how serious some of this other stuff`is. Kind: Because of the private drive? The private street? Jerry Paulsen: Well, the private street and the building pad. Building measures and the building layout. As a matter of fact, it doesn't make it on the outlot either. Kind: Okay. Jerry Paulsen: So I think there is some serious code questions here on either side. As I say, what I wonder is basically protecting property values in Sunrise Hills, but I also think it's very serious for the city to uphold their codes. Kind: Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? David Wallin: Yes, good evening. My name is David Wallin and I live at 7303 Frontier Trail. I was also up here at the previous meeting when your cameras and audio went faulty and you were unable to come up with a real deal here, like we're doing tonight. Alright. I'm opposed to this and I feel that my neighbor, Jerry Paulsen, has brought up some very pertinent questions to you, the city. I feel that you kind of already have made your decision by what you just said, which I'm sorry to hear Deb. You said the variance that complied. 8 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 Kind: No way of knowing. David Wallin: He's proving or is trying to prove. Peterson: ...make some assumptions here...if you would. David Wallin: I guess I was listening to what she was saying. Peterson: Okay. David Wallin: And if that's the case I guess I'm quite concemed because I don't have a lot of money behind me like a lot of these attomeys do coming in here trying to get some variances on lots that are already established. Alright. These lots were established quite some time ago by contractors that felt these are correct lots, right lots, right sizes for the families that were going into them. There's a lot of questions that have come up most recently in the last decade, for sure in the last 2 or 3 years from the City of Chanhassen in regards to Lake Lotus. And what's being done in regards to the runofl~ What's being done to preserve the shoreline. What's being done to preserve the city. Making it old Chanhassen. We're trying to bring back all these streets and cobblestones and things like that. And we want to try to, excuse me. And now there is a possibility of people that are going to be splitting their lots, which are going to make it uncomfortable for the people that actually moved in there quite some time back. If they are able to split this lot, you're going to have considerable runoff`from their driveways, the roof areas. Double what would be normally put into the lake, and that's a serious concem of the DNR. I know this for a fact by talking to the Mayor of Champlin most recently in regards to some lake areas there where people are looking at subdividing some lots. They did not pass it just because of, they want to keep that lake natural as much as they possibly can. I'm opposed to this also in regards to the additional dwellings that he said this is going to enhance Chanhassen by adding another family, what have you. Well he's packing them in. I don't know if any of you on the board have been there. It's worth while to go there and take a look around because it's in a very small cul-de-sac. It's not a cul-de-sac that they make these days for houses and multiple dwellings, which this person is trying to put in. Alright. It's very small. If somebody came in there, a 4 family in each one of those houses, you'd have an area down there of about 5 houses. That would be more than crowded. We already have a problem with that street area when it was opened up all the way through, Frontier Trail. And we've already had a serious accident that resulted in a death because of traffic just down the road from my house. And it's getting worse. They're small concems but they're concems that are going to come back to the city and possibly bite you. Especially with the DNR. And if they don't meet code. So I'm opposed to it and I think that you guys ought to really look at some of these things before you make a decision like this that could be strapping to you and have ramifications in a negative way to our city. We're here to make sure that, as a board, as a neighborhood, that things you know run smoothly. Run well. For someone to come in and try to just make things work for, it's tough for me to say but possibly greed. I'm not sure what else. I mean what else would he be selling it for. To improve Chanhassen? I beg your pardon. And I just want to let you know I'm opposed to this. Thank you very much. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Dick Lloyd: Hi. My name is Dick Lloyd. My family and I have lived in Chanhassen for 20 years now and our home is 7302 Laredo Drive, which is 2 blocks from the proposed development. We moved to this community because we, and have remained here, because we greatly appreciate the community's natural resources, specifically Lotus Lake. In light of the city planning stafl~s reluctant to do so, I would hope this commission feels that it's it's duty to protect these resources. You're being asked to approve 2 significant variances to a lakeshore frontage requirements. These variances represent a 20% deviation from code. 9 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 After reading the staff report it seems the Senior City Planner is recommending that you approve these two lakeshore variances because they supposedly represent the lesser of two evils. Mainly you increase the density on, and the environmental deterioration of Lotus Lake in order to preserve trees on the westem property line. It seems to me that these two proposals should be addressed independently of each other. As stated in the staff report regarding the proposal requiring the two lakeshore variances, there's been no hardship demonstrated by the applicant. As it relates to the alternative plat, despite the applicant's statement that the restrictive covenants expired in 1987, the issue has yet not been determined in a civil proceeding. Despite the city planner's statement in the staff report to the contrary, the city has, and in fact restricted development in violation of the covenants over the years in our neighborhood. The applicant should be aware that we intend to proceed with enforcing the covenants. I personally find the applicants attempt to blackmail this commission into approving the lakeshore frontage variance with an altemative plat disgusting. However it's not surprising given the applicants tactics to date. I for one am willing to deal with the consequences and let the applicant attempt to proceed with the altemative plan. It doesn't appear to be viable nor economical, or may even meet code. In summary I would suggest the applicant be content in owning a nice home on a beautiful lot in a wonderful neighborhood. If you're over your head financially, put the house up to for sale and cut your loses. After alienating over 50 of your perspective neighbors you probably wouldn't enjoy living here anyway. Peterson: Thank you. Ron Kleve: Hi. My name's Ron Kleve. I live on 7307 Laredo Drive. I don't know if you've had an opportunity to be on Lotus Lake. Fortunately I have. I personally think that Todd Hoffman should have some jurisdiction over the lake. It's a beautiful resource and I think it should be protected. I enjoy cruising the shoreline at sunset and on more than one occasion have had friends of family that, whoever we're entertaining, mention how unique Lotus Lake is. That the houses aren't that prevalent from the lake and everything is set back with mature trees coming out. You have a sense of being up north and I think you are the caretakers of this resource right now and I think you should consider that because you're setting a precedent here. This is only adding one more house, but you're aware of the 90 foot variance now and you're going to have to make more variances in the future and this is setting precedent. Thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? There's one more. Debbie Lloyd: Hi, I'm Debbie Lloyd. I live at 7302 Laredo Drive and I've been a resident of Chanhassen for over 20 years. At the last Planning Commission meeting addressing this development the neighborhood spoke out in many different ways against this proposal. Unfortunately we do not have a word by word transcript of that session, but to the best of my recollection, at that meeting Mr. Ladd Conrad was sitting there that evening and he addressed Mr. Generous and he said, Bob. Is there any reason that this should be stopped? Is there any reason this does not meet code? And Mr. Generous said no. This does meet code. And then Mr. Conrad said unfortunately, he looked at the neighborhood and said unfortunately then there's nothing we can do. But fortunately for the neighborhood, for the city and for the future generations who will enjoy Lotus Lake, that was not the case. Mr. Generous did indeed not know our code and tonight again he said he was under the impression it was 75 feet of lakeshore. A 90 foot lakeshore is the requirement. It's his job responsibility to know the code, and it's his lack of knowledge that is why we're back here tonight. Thankfully, thank you Bob. Yet Mr. Generous who did not know the city code then feels compelled to recommend approval of the lot split permitting two 75 foot, or less lakeshore lots. Two. We're talking two, not one. I want to ask why he is motivated to ignore code. Why is he so generous? Neither proposal meets code according to what Mr. Paulsen presented, and I'd like you to take a look at that. And I'm asking is this city ignorance again? Peterson: Thank you. 10 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 Steve Chepokas: Well I told my wife I wasn't going to do this. Hi Matt. I haven't seen you since grade school. I'm Steve Chepokas. I live at 7304... Burton: I saw your broken let. Steve Chepokas: I know. It's better. You know I feel bad for you people, I really do. I'm not coming up here, I'm not going to tell you anything you've already heard. You're big people. You know what to do. All I can say is I think the whole thing was handled wrong from day one. Anybody in Sunrise Hills, by the way we've only been here a year and I was bom and raised in Deephaven, as Matt can back me up. We're both Deephaven boys our entire life. And I was transferred out to Arizona and transferred back and I bought my house 13 years ago in Deephaven and I couldn't afford to live back in the neighborhood so. This is the same type of neighborhood which is what attracted me. It's got the Deephaven feel. It's got the small feel. It's got the lake community feel. It's got the big lots and the houses. That's why we're here. My house was built in 1958 and everybody in the association knows that I am married to Martha Vila. My wife is between Martha Stewart and Bob Vila, and we have more projects going than the Pope has Catholics. And I say that respectfully to all my St. Hubert's friends. My point being is we're fun people. We host, we weren't even here a few months and I volunteered, my wife and I, to host the whole party for the entire association. I just spent $28,000 on a deck, which you granted. Thank you. On a deck and a screened porch. I mean we live to have fun. I'm severely, horribly diabetic. On insulin 4 times a day, otherwise thank god I'd probably be drinking all the time. Because I love to party and have fun. But I don't need to do that. My point being is we've got a fun neighborhood. We've got fun people and the way this whole thing started, I'm sorry. I mean here's my biggest thing. I've got my son Mitchell who's 7 years old and Mitchell's best friend is Jesse Kleve. Ron was the guy up before me. I mean these kids should have been in the womb, they're so close. The thing I don't like is all the added cars. All the added traffic. Now the house is being rented. I understand they've got to do what they've got to do and they've got to pay their bills, and hey listen. I'm not going to stab anybody. But anyway, that's why I tend to slow down. But I'm concemed about the kids. I'm concemed about the traffic. I'm concemed about the noise. I'm concemed about, I mean I'm just concemed. I mean we didn't move here for this crap, you know. We've been here a year and now all we're hearing from our neighbors is yeah, it's a legitimate gripe but you know, quite frankly between you and I and the fence post, I moved out of Deephaven because of all the politics. You know it's not about money. It's not about what kind of car you drive. It's not what, you know I saw an interesting picture. It's called, by Successories. Priorities. And on the bottom it says, it doesn't matter what house you live in. It doesn't matter what your bank account reads. And I mean it doesn't matter who you're, what matters is touching the life of a child. And what matters if family and I'm a survivor of cancer. I've been in remission for 3, 2 V2 years. Prostate cancer and colon cancer. You guys think you know hell? You don't know hell. That's hell. And I'm alive. After 30 radiation treatments and 12 chemotherapy treatments, I've gained weight and I gave a lot of hair. And by the way celebrating it so, whatever's done I just want it to be the right thing. I think you know how I feel about it. I'm not going to say anymore. So make the right decision, please. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Closing comments. Oh, there's one more. Bruce Malkerson: Well while I'm up here ifI could. What we would like to do, new information's been submitted that we haven't had a chance to see since it was just passed out and we believe in doing our homework and being thorough. And we don't believe in asking planning commissions to act when some questions have been raised. I don't think that's fair to the neighbors or the applicant or the Planning Commission or to stafl~ So we would ask that, after you take your last comments, that perhaps if the Planning Commission were willing to just asking other questions that you might have or express any concems and then allow us to take a look at all this new information and analyze it and submit appropriate 11 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 response and have the matter taken up at the next meeting. And we would waive any of the requirements under the statutory 60 day rule so that you don't have to worry about timing. Thank you very much. Peterson: So noted. Other comments? Jerry Paulsen: Jerry Paulsen once more. My only comment is that we moved here in 1970, 30 years ago. It was the closest thing we could have to lakeshore. We don't have lakeshore. With the reason we moved in this house, Jan found a house. We didn't think we could afford it at the time, but it has access to lake shore and obviously that's a prime prerequisite for valuable properties in the metro area. Lake shore use. No doubt valuable property. But we don't have a lakeshore home in Minnetonka. We're going to retire here and we'd like to retire in a home that replicates lakeshore and we hope that we can keep it halfway close to lakeshore. Those people who can afford lakeshore at a very young age should...and enjoy it while they can. The other thing, the restrictive covenants which are said to be gone. There is a part of city code that says you can't obligate cities by a restrictive covenants. Bob and the city take the view that they're irrelevant but in fact they are relevant. The Igel's are the only ones that took this restrictive covenant, purged it from their title. I have not. It gives me access to the beachlot. We have the deeded beachlot. If I took that out of my title, I would lose that and nobody else is going to take that chance. Unfortunately the Igel's have chosen to go that route. I'm not sure why but thank you. Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else? Kind moved, Blackowiak seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Kate, we've got 8 different things and 2 or 3 of them are relatively self explanatory and we can interpret. Do you want to take on the challenge of trying to do that tonight or do you want some time to go through it and do it for next time? Or Bob, excuse me. Generous: If we can address them all at one time. If we could table. Aanenson: Yeah, put them in writing I think might be helpful. Peterson: Seems prudent. Commissioners, any thoughts? Blackowiak: I'll save my comments for the next time then if we're tabling. Kind: Yeah, I think it makes sense to table it. I think the private drive, lot width of 100 feet is a very good point and I'm interested in staff's opinion on that. Sacchet: Mr. Chair I have a comment. First of all I want to apologize that I was late. I was not here when you had this topic previously but I did read the transcripts so I have a little bit of an idea what transpired. And I want to respond to the last comment whether we're taking the covenants serious. It's not that we don't take them serious. It's just that it's my understanding the covenants are not relevant to the city. They're relevant to the neighborhood. It's something that is in your hands as a neighborhood to keep the covenants active and enforced. That's not something city enforces. I just want to clarify that. And I think that's important to understand. Peterson: I'll entertain a motion. Kind: I move that we table. 12 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 Sacchet: Second. Peterson: Any further discussion? Kate, in us tabling this now, do you have enough direction from us that you can move forth and work with the applicant? Aanenson: It's clarifying these issues. Obviously there's a difference in interpretation and I don't think we can resolve that here...but I think as the applicant's requested, we'll put it all in writing. Peterson: Okay, good enough. It's been moved and seconded, any further discussion? Kind moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission table for two weeks the request for preliminary plat to subdivide a 1.1 acre lakeshore parcel into 2 single family lots with a variance from the lakeshore width requirement on property zoned RSF and located on Lot 11, Block 1, Sunrise Hills 1st Addition, 7303 Laredo Drive, Lucas Igel Addition. All voted in favor and the motion carried. Peterson: So can we look for this at the next meeting potentially? Aanenson: Correct. We will not have a meeting that first meeting in July so it'd be my recommendation to try to keep that on track, two weeks from tonight. Peterson: That's a conunon goal? Aanenson: We don t have a meeting, the 4 of July will be in a month so what would be my recommendation to try to keep this item moving is June 20th. Peterson: Okay, thank you all. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW OF PHASE II, III, AND IV OF THREE 3-LEVEL APARTMENT BUILDINGS AND COMMUNITY BUILDING FOR A TOTAL OF 244 APARTMENTS ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF POWERS BLVD. AND LAKE DRIVE WEST, POWERS RIDGE APARTMENT HOMES, LAKE SUSAN HILLS PARTNERSHIP AND MILLER WESTERBECK BERGER, INC. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Any questions of staff'? Kind: Yes Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Sharmin, Building C, the really long snake building. Al-Jarl': Yes. Kind: What I can tell from the elevation has one entrance. Is that right? Al-Jarl': Correct. Kind: Does that seem kind of like a long building can only have one way in and out? 13 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 Aanenson: There's emergency exits. If you can go back to, to meet the concems of the neighbors to push the building in farther a couple things were compromised and that's one of the things that was compromised is a two way exiting because we pushed everything interior and it didn't allow for the exiting of both sides of the building. So that was eliminated to get the additional setback of the building. Kind: There's just one main entrance? Al-Jarl': There are two, what I'm going to call extra points. Kind: Where you can leave but you cannot enter? Linc Wilson: There's actually three...for automobiles? Those would be two. Kind: Actually I'm talking about people. Aanenson: Three. Kind: There's three, okay. And you can go in and out? Great. So like with a card or how does that work? Linc Wilson: With a key. Kind: Key, okay. Just being an apartment dweller I don't like to walk a long distance so concemed about that. What else? Oh Sharmin, I think last time on the master plan we talked about screening of utility meters and wall mounted and free standing ones. I did not see a condition in there for that. It's on the site plan itself? Okay. Linc Wilson: They're actually on the...elevations... Kind: Great. And then question about the landscaping. I noticed there's natural grasses on the perimeter and the sod is just on the interior. Is there any plan for reviewing that? I know that they tend to, if they're not reviewed annually or I don't know what the timing would be they get kind of looking like unkept weed areas. Al-Jarl': We have a preservation area over the southerly 137 feet and the intent is to have minimum maintenance in that area. These types of vegetations don't require maintenance and that's why they were chosen. They worked very closely with the City Forester too. Kind: If there's thistles or nettles growing in there, I mean how do you manage that? Aanenson: We do have a weed inspector. Kind: Weed inspector. Aanenson: And we do try to treat those, yes. Kind: Is that how it's handled? Aanenson: Right. 14 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 Kind: It's not put on an annual review or anything like that? Aanenson: No. It would handled by a complaint basis of the city and then we would contact the property owner to manage that. If it's our property... Kind: I like the idea of the naturalized areas but I sometimes they get kind of out of hand so, that's it. Peterson: Other questions? Sacchet: Yeah Mr. Chair, I have two questions. One thing I couldn't quite put together, and that might just be my own inability to read these plans and drawings correctly but it seems like where I saw the doors in the elevations and what I see on the plat the walkways going up doesn't necessarily match up. I would assume in reality you have, where you have to attach those to the house, that's where you have the doors, is that correct? Peterson: Why don't we wait for the questions for the applicant. Sacchet: Okay. We'll address that when it's your tum. And the other aspect from staff; or do you want to address that? No. We'll let them address it. The other question I have is about the parking spaces. It stood out to me that in the last phase, what's called the senior part, has only like 12 parking stalls in front of the building. And I'd like to hear how, I mean it makes a point in the report that since it's seniors there's less of a requirement of stalls. When I thought of this I still wondered. I mean the seniors, they like to have visitors so there needs to be parking stalls. Can you address that? A1-Jaff: There will be shared parking throughout the development. So there will be a portion that immediately in front of the senior building, probably this will be the most convenient area to park for visitors. But then there is plenty of surface parking around the area. Sacchet: Further away basically. A1-Jaff: For somebody to, who doesn't find a parking spot in that specific location, they can park in the parking further away. Sacchet: Okay. Just stunned me a little bit. It seems like, I mean the seniors that need to park closely and we even want to make it easy for the visitors too. But if you think it's not an issue, then that's fine. Peterson: Other questions? Would the applicant like to make a presentation? If so, please come forward. Linc Wilson: My name is Linc Wilson. I represent the applicant. I'm with Miller, Hanson, Westerbeck, Berger Architects and our office address is 1201 Hawthome in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Perhaps I can just begin by just answering questions. I know that really our plans have not changed at all really since we left your commission. So I can just really answer any questions that you might have at this time. Sacchet: Would you then mind addressing maybe my question about the match up of the walkways to the doors. Linc Wilson: IfI could just get clarification. Are you referring to the exterior elevations or for the site plan itself? Sacchet: The two together. I had a problem seeing how the two corresponded to each other. 15 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 Linc Wilson: Do you just want me to start with Building A? Sacchet: Well actually it's a...question. It's a yes/no question. I assume that where you have a walkway on the plat, going to the building, that that's where there's a door. It's a yes/no question. Linc Wilson: Yes. You are correct. Sacchet: Okay. So you can assure me that's the case? Linc Wilson: Yes. We will have sidewalks deliver you directly to the front entrance of each building. And each building does, just architecturally have, and this is block of lights and it's just the same.., but each one we feel has a large feature that distinguishes, we call it as an entry. In addition, as Deb had asked the question, there are also egress doors at ends of each building and.., in some of the larger buildings there are actually three egress ways which a person can enter with a security key or if building management decides, it certainly could be a card that then could get you into the building. Since the building that we're looking at here has two elevators within it that can get you up and down... Peterson: Other questions of the applicant? Kind: Yes Mr. Chair, I have a question. Building A has a nice, wonderful main entrance area. The rest of the buildings it's a little more subtle. I'm wondering what the rationale is for that or if there's something that could be done to say this is the main entrance. Linc Wilson: I mean they certainly are more subdued but, and this is just a design plan. We certainly have it platted here. Our intent really was for A to a certain extent to be a feature building. The main entry being here. The club house being in this location so as you enter the site here, you're looking down the site towards that main entrance. So really that was the rationale. This building also, it does go over the height restriction in very, very, very small portions. This has always been there. The tower that's lit at night which we think is a great architectural feature, but in a sense these are creating an axis towards that. Kind: I was just wondering, especially on Building C which is about the long building. If you would consider maybe raising that brick line up to the third story of just that part that comes out by that main entrance. Maybe to break up that long space a little bit more. I don't know. Linc Wilson: I think that's a good suggestion and I think for the overall cost of the development, doing something of that nature would be fairly insignificant. Kind: And then carry it through on the other buildings as well. Linc Wilson: Well I think Building B... Kind: Give me an inch you know. Linc Wilson: Is smaller. In our previous submittal there's really nothing that's changed in the Building B's entrances that I think that those entrances work quite well with the small nature of these two buildings. Burton: Mr. Chair, can I just direct a question while they've got this elevation up? Where are the doors on Building D? 16 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 Linc Wilson: Right there at the main entrance. And another component of this is that this piece right here comes out 3 dimensionally. It comes off`the face which you can't really see. It's in the 3 dimensionally drawings that were submitted which really have not changed. And then in addition it's flanked by a masonry wing wall which is what we had recommended be there to screen in the utilities. And that's the case on both the Building B's. Burton: Are there any other doors? Linc Wilson: There are. There are emergency egress doors out of the project. I did not bring architectural plans for this but we have two emergency egress doors at either end that's required by code. Burton: It just seems odd because I didn't see them in there. Linc Wilson: I think you're right. They are there. They will be there. Basically on the Building B, one ofthe elevations you can't see the door. The other one is right here. So as you look at this face, therewill be another egress door, and that's a nice entry. You know...windows and that since the entry is scaled down, but it still has an awning in front. Peterson: Other questions? Blackowiak: We can assume that, excuse me Mr. Chair, that the...that's on Bi, they are doors. They're not... Linc Wilson: There absolutely are. And Steve Terrell, the Building Inspector will make sure that there are because you can't have a 20 foot dead end corridors. Blackowiak: That was my thought. Peterson: Any further questions? Thank you. Motion and a second for a public hearing please. Burton moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened. Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission please come forward and state your name and address please. Lois Dyvik: Hi...Lois Dyvik from 1260 Lake Susan Hills Drive addressing some issues here and I'm sure if they're not all resolved, and that bay window... And what about the height, pitch of roof? Are those pitches on all the roofs down to 4:12 or? Linc Wilson: That's in the report. Lois Dyvik: Okay, I didn't see that. Okay. I didn't see that there. Now the berm elevation in that, behind that B2 building on the south end is 950? That's what that is? Okay. Then can you tell me what the elevation is, right at the ground level. Aanenson: The base level. Lois Dyvik: The base level, what is that elevation? Applicant: 940. 17 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 Lois Dyvik: 940? Hempel: Correct. Lois Dyvik: Okay. And at the bottom of the berm then, that elevation is? ...we're the fourth lot in. I'm looking at, what is our elevation back there that I can get a, what was that? 926? Okay. Alright, those are my questions. Thank you. Peterson: Anyone else? Kind moved, Burton seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Public hearing is closed. Commissioners, any thoughts on this? Please. Kind: I can go. I think it looks good. There's nothing new. It's pretty straight forward. Staffdid a thorough job, as usual. I would like to add a condition that suggests that the applicant consider increasing the brick on the main entrances. But other than that I think it looks good. Burton: Mr. Chairman. Last time this was before us I voted against it based on the site plan consideration and at that time we were looking at Building A. And the reason I voted against it was because of, that Building A set the ground work for where Building B was going to be and so forth and I guess my view hasn't really changed on the site plan and I look at the elements that are listed in our staffreport and I think that there are a number of them that I don't think are complied with by this development. And the B buildings in particular still. One of the elements was that the site plan preserves the site in it's natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed or developing or developing areas and I don't think that this project is, matches up well with the existing developments. And the next element that we consider is whether it creates a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development. And I do not believe that this is. I think that there are, there's no harmony between this development and their existing properties. And the next element which I'll shorten because it's so lengthy would be, again harmonious design for structures with special attention to the general community and the general community or the neighbors in this case I don't think that they are protected by the site plan. And another element is protecting site buffers and preservation of views and light and air and those elements and again for the same reasons I don't think that they are preserved adequately by this site plan. And as I did the last time, I voted against this and I will again tonight. Peterson: Good. Other comments? I'll entertain a motion. Kind: Mr. Chair, I'll move the Planning Commission approve Site Plan #99-19 SPR for the construction of phases II, m and 1V of a three multi-family buildings (244 apartment units) and a community space as shown on the plans dated Received May 17, 2000 and subject to the following conditions 1 through 26. And I would like to add 27 that states, the applicant shall consider defining main entrances to buildings by increasing brick height to the third story. Peterson: Is there a second? Blackowiak: Well I guess I will second that. 18 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 Peterson: Any further discussion? Kind moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission approve Site Plan #99-19 SPR for the construction of phases II, III and IV of a three multi-family buildings (244 apartment units) and a community space as shown on the plans dated Received May 17, 2000 and subject to the following conditions: All areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched or wood fiber blanket or sod within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. All utility improvements shall be constructed in accordance with the latest edition of the City's Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction plans and specifications shall be submitted for staffreview and City Council approval. The construction plans and specifications will need to be submitted a minimum of three weeks prior to final consideration. All driveway access points shall incorporate the City's Industrial Driveway Apron Detail Plate No. 5207. 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 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. In addition, water quality ponding design calculations shall be based on Walker's Pondnet model. Emergency overflows from all storm water ponds and wetlands will also be required on the plans. The applicant shall enter into a site agreement with the City and provide the necessary financial security to guarantee compliance with the terms of site plan approval. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Watershed District, Minnesota Department of Health, and Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and comply with their conditions of approval. No berming shall be permitted within the city's right-of-way. A 2% boulevard grade must be maintained. Landscaping may be permitted subject to staffreview and approval. The utility improvements located within the main drive aisles and trunk storm drainage lines upon completion shall become City maintained and owned. The individual sewer and water services through each lot shall be privately owned and maintained. Building permits will be required from the City's Building Department for the private utility portion of the project. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over the public utility lines located outside of the right-of-way on the final plat. Depending on the depth of the utilities, the minimum drainage and utility easement width shall be 20 feet wide. Consideration for access routes to the ponds for maintenance proposes shall also be incorporated in the easement width. The drive aisles shall be a minimum of 24 feet wide and 26 feet wide when adjacent to parking stalls and built to a 7 ton per axle weight pursuant to Ordinance 18-57 o-1 and 20-1101. Parking 19 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. lots shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Section 20-1118. Cross-access easements will need to be prepared and recorded by the developer over the lots in favor of the property owners. The minimum easement width shall be 40 feet wide. The first floor and lowest floor elevations of the building need to be noted on the grading plan. All wetland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be re-seeded with MnDot seed mix 25 A, or a similar seed mix approved for wetland soil conditions. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated over all existing and proposed wetlands, ponds, and buffer strips. Wetland buffer areas shall be surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The City will install wetland buffer edge signs and will charge the applicant $20 per sign. The proposed development is responsible for SWMP fees of $3,682. This fee is due payable to the City prior to the City filing the final plat. Park and trail dedication fees shall be paid in lieu of parkland dedication. The PUD contract requires no trail fees and V2 park fees. The PUD agreement states that the applicant shall provide $500 of landscaping per multiple family unit. The applicant shall provide the city with a cost estimate for the required landscaping at the time of building permit application. Fire Marshal conditions: Fire hydrants: Additional fire hydrants will be required. Some proposed fire hydrants will be required to be relocated. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of new and relocation of proposed fire hydrants. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 903.2. Install post indicator valves (P.I.V's). Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location. A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, NSP, US West, cable TV, and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by fire fighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance 9-1. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding fire department notes to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department Policy #04-1991. Contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of fire lane signs and curbing to be painted yellow. Pursuant to Section 904-1, 1997 Uniform Fire Code. Required access. Fire apparatus access roads shall be installed pursuant to Section 902.2.1 of the 1997 Uniform Fire Code. In reviewing the plans, because access cannot meet fire code requirements, the following additional fire protection shall be required: 20 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 18. 19. 20. 21. · F-1. Attic spaces shall be sprinklered per NFPA 13 · F-2. Class I standpipes shall be installed in stair towers. · F-3. The exterior balconies shall be protected by the fire sprinkler system. Water supplies for fire protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to Uniform Fire Code Section 901.3. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all weather driving capabilities. These surfaces shall be provided for prior to construction. Pursuant to 1997 Uniform Fire Code Section 902.2.2.2. Comply with Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding premise identification. Submit plans to Fire Marshal for review of building identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed. Building Official conditions: a. The buildings must be protected with automatic fire sprinkler systems. An accessible route must be provided to all buildings, parking facilities, public transportation stops and all common use facilities. All parking areas, including parking garages, must be provided with accessible parking spaces dispersed among the various building entrances. Accessible dwelling units must be provided in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. The building owner and/or their representatives should meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. In particular the locations of the property lines must be reviewed prior to final plat to address allowable building area and exterior wall protection requirements. The bus stop location along Lake Drive West is subject to city review and approval. The drive aisles shall be a minimum of 24 feet wide and 26 feet wide when adjacent to parking stalls and built to 7 ton per axle weight pursuant to Ordinance 18-57 o-1 and 20-1101. Parking lots shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Section 20-1118. Cross access easements will need to be prepared and recorded by the developer over the lots in favor of the property owners. The minimum easement width shall be 40 feet wide. The applicant's engineer shall work with city staff in reviewing the tuming radiuses requirements over the entire site and make the necessary changes. The applicant shall review the decks on Building B, facing southwest, and replace them with bay windows. 21 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 22. The applicant shows the following specific materials on the buildings. The low maintenance siding must be flat, not ship lap. Asphalt shingles must be textured, not smooth. Balcony railings must be metal, not wood. 23. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement prior to issuance of the building permit. 24. Site plan approval is contingent upon final plat of Outlot A into lots and blocks approval. 25. Each phase of the development shall conform to the overall master plan. 26. All signs must receive a separate sign permit. 27. The applicant shall consider defining main entrances to buildings by increasing brick height to the third story. All voted in favor, except Burton who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Peterson: Motion carried. Goes now onto council the 26th of June. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONTRACTOR'S YARD TO OCCUPY 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF AN OFFICE WAREHOUSE BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK (lOP) AND LOCATED ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS PARK 7T}I ADDITION, BENIEK PROPERTY SERVICES, INC. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of staflk Blackowiak: Mr. Chair I have a couple questions. One of the general issuance standards Sharmin, number 7 talks about hours of operation. And I'm concemed that, especially with snow plowing, hours of operation are going to be when it snows. Which may or may not be during the general business hours. Do you feel that that is a concem at all to the neighbors directly to the south specifically? I'm looking more at the residential neighbors. Al-Jarl': There is a park that will separate them from this site. You have complete trees approximately 60 feet. The houses are located probably 200 feet to 300 feet from those buildings... Peterson: Motion for a public hearing. 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 commission, please come forward and state your name and address please. Motion to close. Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. Peterson: Commissioners, any thoughts? 22 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 Kind: I like the idea of it being totally enclosed. I think it's great. Sacchet: I went out there looking at it because it didn't show an elevation off`the back side of the building and how it looks like the loading dock and especially like a good size garage door all the way to the ground level. It won't accommodate any really huge equipment and it was pretty neat. I don't think it's an issue. Blackowiak: And as long as the snow plowing issue is addressed, and actually kept to the noise ordinance, then I'm comfortable. That's my big concem. Peterson: Actually most of those kinds of services, as it indicates with this one. The drivers take the vehicles home so they're not even at the site. They're in somebody's front yard. I'll entertain a motion please. Burton: Mr. Chairman, I'll move that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Conditional Use Permit #00-3 to allow a contractor's yard in an lOP district, Beniek Property Services Inc. to be located on Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Business Park 7th Addition as shown on the plans detailed received May 17, 2000 subject to the conditions 1 through 3 shown on the staff`report. Blackowiak: Second. Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Burton moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #00-3 to allow a contractor's yard in an IOP District, Beniek Property Services, Inc., to be located on Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7th Addition, as shown on the plans dated Received May 17, 2000, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into a conditional use permit agreement with the city. 2. Compliance with conditions of site plan and plat approval. 3. There shall be no outdoor storage of any equipment associated with the contractor's yard. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Peterson: Kate, I don't know if Sharmin's going to stick around for the flag lot presentation but if you are, I'd like to hold on the flat lot til Ladd's here. Aanenson: Yeah. I think there's other people here waiting for that. It does have a lengthy history in the city so I think you're probably right. It'd be important that we have everybody here. Peterson: And then the fact that Ladd was the number one person that had asked about it so I think it's important to do that so I apologize to those people that are here that are waiting for that, if there are. Aanenson: Did you hear that? They would like the full Planning Commission to be here so they're going to table the discussion later on on the flag lots. Audience: For how much later on? 23 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 Aanenson: Two weeks. Audience: So would the Igel Addition come before or after the flat lot discussion. Aanenson: IfI can interject. It would be moot because you'd have to go through an ordinance change. This is just a, there was a question on edification so if they were to recommend a change, it would still have to go through a public hearing process. So they wouldn't be tracking together. Peterson: Okay, thank you. Next item is Old Business. CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE TO ALLOW PETTING FARMS AS AN INTERIM USE IN THE A2, AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT AND REQUEST FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A PETTING FARM IN THE A2 DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 7461 HAZELTINE BOULEVARD, SUSAN MCALLISTER. Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item. Peterson: Questions of Cindy. Blackowiak: Mr. Chair. Cindy, I have just a quick question here. You have a note in the staff`report that talks about a termination date for interim use permits that typically are based on availability of municipal services. Do we normally follow that standard or do we, have we in the past specifically put the number of years into conditions? Aanenson: Generally in the past, interim use was put in place to allow reasonable use of the property until such time that sewer and water became available. For example, Swings was given the driving range here, to give a reasonable use to the property based on it's location. So now that sewer and water will be coming through, that use goes away. The reason we didn't want to put a conditional use on the property is that runs forever on the property so if this owner were to sell, somebody else would come in. We felt that was too intense. The interim use has a drop dead date. Generally it's tied to urban services. Could we put something in there? Some other mechanism. Possibly. I guess our concem was that there is some reviewal period and that it not be locked in forever on that piece of property because we're going on uncharted waters on this one and we have some apprehension. Blackowiak: I guess my question, maybe more specifically was. Aanenson: Can we force them to hook onto utilities? Blackowiak: Well it says, you know municipal water will be available soon. Is that, if we're not requiring the interim use to stop when services are available, is that running counter to our current code or rezoning? Aanenson: The ordinance says when it gets within so many feet we can require them to hook up. Blackowiak: Maybe you have the option. Aanenson: Right. But generally if there's assessments also then the clock is running on those too. I'll maybe let Dave speak a little bit on that. 24 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 Hempel: Mr. Chairman, Planning Commissioners. City ordinance, with regards to hook-up to utilities, I'll just reiterate what Kate was saying there. Water main, you have to hook up to it if it's a new dwelling within 150 feet. An existing dwelling and the well fails, then you would have to connect. Otherwise it's status quo. Sanitary sewer is basically the same. One exception, sanitary sewer you would have 12 months to hook up to it if you're on an existing septic system, even though the septic system is functioning properly. There's been variances in the past where somebody's put in a new septic system and then a year or two sanitary sewer comes by, the City Council can grant a variances to that. Assessments against the property as a result of extension of sewer and water will occur. Typically those sewer and water assessments will be deferred against a property if there's no development occurring in residential, commercial. But if like a green acres status or a farm, it will stay mostly likely deferred but the interest clock continues to run on those assessments. Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Aanenson: So it could be deferred. That's where the time clock, when maybe we put in when such time that that changes. It's no longer a farm use or whatever. Peterson: Other questions of staff'? Burton: Mr. Chairman I have a quick question. The proposed ordinance for the pet farms is one full time equivalent non-resident employee may be employed on the site per 5 acres. And based on another question, but in this case then she'd be allowed to have one full time employee? Aanenson: Or two part time. Burton: Okay. And I guess, I assume the term resident means living on that property? Kirchoff: Correct. Aanenson: Correct. Again, that's where we struggled with, if you look at the intent of the A2 district, you're living on the property and so how can you separate what someone else is trying to create similar that wasn't living on the property. Now it really becomes commercial. Most commercial property you don't live at the same residence so we're trying to make sure we're staying on that same track. Kind: Mr. Chair I have a question about animals. Currently the applicant has animals on the site. Does she have special permits for any of those or are they all just regular animals that you're allowed to have in a A2 district without permits? Kirchoff: She doesn't have any permits from the City. Sacchet: She doesn't need any. Kirchoff: Yes. Kind: Yes she does need some? Kirchoff: I'm sorry, I was answer his question. She doesn't have any permits from the city because we don't require any. Kind: Okay. So all the animals that are there are currently allowed in the A2 district? 25 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 Kirchoff: The animals that I saw are permitted in the A2 district. Kind: Okay, thank you. Sacchet: I have a lot of questions about this one so I apologize in advance. First of all, the staff report doesn't give a picture of the planned development next to it. It was my understanding that has not been approved. Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: But is being considered. And so that's to the south and to the east. Do we have any visual aid that would show that? Aanenson: No we don't. This Planning Commission had seen that before but it is, as proposed, around this area would be up to I believe, south of that property would be like four-plexes, eight-plexes. Adjacent further would be some duplexes so there will be. Sacchet: And they would be right adjacent? Aanenson: Exactly. That was our concern. Changing character and we're going to introduce some conflict. Peterson: Within 200 or 300 feet as I recall. Aanenson: Probably less than that. Peterson: So there is some buffer. Not very much buffer. Aanenson: Right. Sacchet: The interim use permit cannot be renewed? Aanenson: Yes it can. Sacchet: It can? Aanenson: Yes. Sacchet: How? Aanenson: You can ask for an extension. Sacchet: The interim permit expires, the applicant can come back and start a new interim use permit? How does that work? Aanenson: Part of the interim use is there's ongoing inspections too. Assuming that there is compliance and we haven't had complaints. Again, the intention, while we know this area is changing, again we know we're going to introduce conflict, we want to see what that is, and that's why we're saying we'd like to start with the lowest intensity and see where we go. 26 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 Sacchet: But we're willing to have it start and possibly grow into something if there is no complaints and so forth? Aanenson: Well I think, you can certainly come back and amend the ordinance, but I think you said it at the beginning. We'd rather start small and...and build on that and get out there where we, we don't do animal enforcement. So we do have peacocks. We do get, in the city. We do get complaints on those. So from our experience, and noise is a prevailing issue in this community, we're trying to prevent a problem. Sacchet: Well this is very encouraging. So the interim use permit is renewable. Questions. We're in the question part. Yeah, here's the big question. We really have two things in front of us. We have this petting farm set of rules on one hand, and we have the request of the applicant for the interim use permit. So that's two distinct separate things. We're discussing them both at the same time Mr. Chair? Peterson: Yes. Sacchet: Okay. Because I definitely have comments about both. When we set the limit of one full time equivalent non-resident employee, does that mean there's no limit of resident employees? Kirchoff: Yes. Sacchet: Thank you. When we say only customary farm animals, do we mean non-dangerous animals? That's a tough one. Because I really think in a lot of these instances here, we're not addressing what the real concem is and this is one of them. Aanenson: On the face of it, our intent is to have a zoo. The intent was to preserve agriculture. What was going on the property. When you would define petting, excuse me, not a zoo, at a farm. Okay, we've introduced animals that are not typically found on a farm so herein lies this issue. I mean this is intended to preserve Miss Rosie's Farm. found on a farm so herein lies this issue. I mean this is intended to preserve Miss Rosie's Farm. It's farm property so now we've got things that are partially... Sacchet: Well the reason why I bring this up, I mean in this proposed, what do we call it? The part about the petting farms. That's a standard. That's what you call it? Aanenson: Right. Sacchet: Set of Standard Rules. You're distinguishing between a petting farm and a zoo. And I have a hard time with that because we're defining a zoo as any park building, cage enclosure or other structure or premise in which live animal or animals are kept for public exhibition or viewing. Necessarily if we have a petting farm, there are going to be animals in a cage and so it's a zoo by definition. So we're trying to make it something in terms of what animals are allowed. I think that's, and that's why we're struggling with it. I think that's where we get into a bottomless pit. I mean how we can object to chinchilla? But it's an exotic animal. And ultimately I think if where we have a solid ground under our feet is if we say we don't want dangerous animals there. I think that is enforceable. I think we have a very hard time with saying well you can have a cow, sheep, and goats because there are ostrich farms, buffalo farms, a snake farm. There are you name it. They're out there on farms, and they're being farmed. Now you can say okay, that's not customary or just say well that's not United States historically. But is it our task to restrict it? I really thing it isn't, personally. My opinion is very strong about that. I think we're encroaching here. I'll say more about that when we get later to that. You see then I have a problem when you say well staff supports a petting farm but not a zoo. Well, by definition it's a zoo. It's just a, we're restricting it and I 27 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 think we're restricting it too far. Questions. We're in the questions part. A large wooded area will be removed. What's that based on? Because I went out there and there is a lot of space. I don't think there's that much that needs to be cut down. Aanenson: For the parking lot. Kirchoff': It's based on a site plan. Sacchet: The parking lot? When I was out there it seemed like there's about 3 trees, or how many? 1 tree? 2 trees? I mean is that a large wooded area? I don't quite get it. Kirchoff: The site plan shows canopy coverage and that was reviewed by the City Forester to determine if additional plantings needed to be. Sacchet: Okay, so that's Jill who makes that? Kirchoff: Yes. Sacchet: Access. The future extension of West 78th Street. When is that planned to come in? I guess that's one for you Dave. Hempel: Mr. Chairman, Planning Commissioners. It's kind of a moving target. The last I've heard is the end of June, or first week in August is the letting of the project. It's a two year long project for the upgrade of Highway 5, West 78th Street. I envision it will probably be sometime, summer of 2001 for access offof 78th Street, or even fall of 2001. Sacchet: So roughly a year from now? Hempel: Ayear fromnow, right. Sacchet: Okay, thankyou. Statement. Keeping abreast of all these issues once this use is operating will be burdensome to stafl~ In what way? Aanenson: We're not trained to do inspections on wildlife. We'd have to pay somebody outside to say are these animals housed the way they're supposed to be? That sort of thing. We don't have... Sacchet: Isn't the applicant having USDA, DNR, all these wonderful things that actually regulate exactly that? Isn't she certified and under a whole set of rules that go way beyond what we could ever think of? Aanenson: We haven't seen anything. Sacchet: Well, I'll ask the applicant when she comes up about that. I think that's, oh for signs. They cannot variance, right? Size ofvariances. Aanenson: You're developing the standards. You can give her whatever you want. What we tried to do was put something that we believe was reasonable and controllable. You're creating the ordinance. You can do, say whatever you want. Sacchet: I think that answers the question part. Thank you. 28 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 Peterson: Okay. Other questions? Would the applicant like to make a presentation? If so, please come forward. Susan McAllister: My name is Susan McAllister. I live at 7461 Hazeltine Boulevard and I really do want to make a presentation because I have more paper than I've ever had. Nothing changes. I just get more paper and my hair gets less blond. Okay. Number one, just to address, I would like to go through this but I just want to address some questions that were brought up. Uli asked if about, or there was a comment made that they don't manage animals and they don't get into that. I have got the USDA that comes two times unpredicted a year, okay. If there's one little complaint and they get it, they come back again. IfI don't, you know like make corrections or whatever, I cannot do business until I've made the correction. DNR, you know if I had animals specifically that related to them, they would make inspections unannounced. Carol with the stable permit makes inspections on the horses. So basically you know there's a lot of people that are involved that will mange what I'm doing. And I really am very confident that the city is more fearful than anything and I think that's what really is driving a lot of these rules. Is the fear of it and I can kind of see where they're coming from because years ago I had that happen to me when I, years and years ago when I tried to take on somebody's animals after I had a cesarean and I was taking care of her animals while she was on vacation. There was all this different types of feeds for different types of animals, and I almost had a heart attack. Going I don't know how to do this. This is too much, and then I liked it too much after that so that's how I got to where I'm at. Anyway, Uli asked for, he was asking about interim use and I'm still applying for a conditional use, not an interim use. If there's any types of complaints your nuisance ordinance and, nuisance ordinance and is it the noise ordinance? I can't remember but there's two. I've got them, do you want me to read them or show them to you? I mean they definitely will go way over and above what the problem could be, I can tell you. I mean they will definitely save this place from that. And the animals that, Cindy kind of answers questions in a very tricky way because actually the animals she said she saw are allowed. Well, she was only in the bam for like about 10 seconds and she ran out so. Peterson: Somebody bit her? Susan McAllister: No, so I mean I don't know ifI could really see many animals in 10 seconds but all the animals that I have are allowed. There is not one animal, including my little fox that I have, that is not allowed. I mean because I have read the ordinances and I have complied and I have registered my little fox with the city. And so every animal, including the peafowl are allowed. Okay. The definition of a zoo, just as Uli said, there is a problem. It's kind of hair splitting. It's absolutely ridiculous to a point that the real definition of a zoo is animals held in cages for public display. I mean that's what a zoo is. I mean that could be, you know if like I don't, if I have the farm and I don't want to put the animals in cages, they can be running around and that would be even worst but that is the definition of a zoo. As far as exotic animals. Many, many animals in the United States you know came from different countries. Chicken are actually could be considered exotic because they all derived from the jungle fowl from China. So actually you know like when you want to get into hair splitting, I could really split hairs with a lot of people and like I said before, Canadian geese are considered exotic because they migrate and they migrate to Mexico, a lot of them. So they actually are considered exotic. The th next problem is the West 78 Street. The th building of West 78 Street. I did contact, I can't remember him name at, what is it? I know you know. What's his last name? It starts with a Van something or other I believe. Well he gave me permission. He said he's writing me a letter. I have not received the letter which is really odd but that I can continue to use the driveway until that road comes in. You know that that's, that he said he mailed me the letter. I don't know where it went but I don't have it yet. Aanenson: That is a true statement. Did you ask him about the intensification of the use? 29 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 Susan McAllister: I told him. I showed him, I mailed him a copy of it. You know he said that he was surprised that they were making a big issue of it, but whatever. He said that you know really it's the way it is I guess. Okay, the trees. I'll show you some pictures of the trees that are going to be coming down. And also I'm going to be giving you some letters from somebody. And then here's some copies of the maps that show what I'm going to explain where everything basically is located. How far away it is. Here's, you're going to get copies. You have 7 there. This is the original and you don't need that? Okay. Here's some photographs and you can, well I'll explain to you when I run that. Okay, the trees. Number 8, if you want to look at the photographs show in the wintertime, this was when Alison showed up one day and I don't know, it was the beginning of April it could have been, or end of March. So these photographs are taken, A, B, C and D are taken when there's no leaves on the trees, okay. This is going to show the trees along West 78th Street and it's going to cover the parking I can assure you. It's going to cover the parking area. Okay. Then we've got E with a little circle in it shows one volunteer that was holding up a blue cloth. That was symbolizing a car, okay. And you can't really see that very much and that's in the dead of winter. Okay. N shows you know the way in basically as to where the parking's going to be from West 78th Street. O shows the one, well one tree for sure has to come down and then there's another large tree. That's the only thing that's coming down are those two trees, and yes it's true that the map shows canopy but the canopy comes from a lot of the other trees besides that line of trees along the woods so. And then do you have T anywhere? You don't have T? Peterson: We have some coffee in the hallway. Susan McAllister: I just got it. Alright. This T now is on the northem part where my manure area will be and it's very dense there also. You can, if anybody has T with the little circle in it, there's a pink horse trailer there that you can't really see at all, so. Okay. So what I'm trying to say to you is that I'm only taking down two trees and the trees that I'm taking down, one specifically only has about an eighth of the growth left on it because it's on it's last life cycle and ifI don't take it down, a storm's going to easily take it down. And it's right where the parking is going to be so I love trees and believe me, this is really hard for me to take two trees down so I just want to assure you of that. Okay... Okay, well basically I just, you know like, you know she was licensed as a person that did wildlife rehabilitation and I believe that I could you know not, you know I wouldn't have a problem with the DNR because I've already spoken to them about it you know like months ago and explained to them the entire situation so that's the only comment I want to make on this other than that. It's a really good one. Okay. I guess, was there any questions so far, anything or can I kind of go through this real quick? Because I have some comments. Okay. Then the zoning ordinance amendment. It talks about, the city has received numerous complaints regarding a small 5 acre farm. I don't know where it is and I don't know, you know like it doesn't pertain to me. I am a responsible person. I have not had any problems with my animals. There's been no complaints about any noise or anything like that and I am not going to allow myself to be used okay, because somebody had a problem and was not responsible. That's all it is. It's an example of someone you know that is being irresponsible. I know that every time you have a Planning Commission meeting, you know or City Council meetings, people are always up here talking about people next to them making noise, or people doing this or people doing that. There's tons of those complaints. This is me. I'm responsible. Okay. I don't know who the 5 acre guy is. I don't know. That's just the way it is so. Okay. Petting farms, Section 20-267. Okay, when we come, we did really, I really went up to the City Hall to try to work all this out so we wouldn't have to go through here but they wouldn't budge and I can't, I cannot not have this. I have to have what I have to have or I can't do business. Okay. Number 3. The applicant for the interim use permit shall reside on the site. You know only one full time equivalent non-resident employee, okay. I've got to have 4 to 5 and I'm going to explain to you why. Because according to this map, you've got the color copies of the maps. Okay. Now you've got the explanations of the duties that go along with each person. It shows the pony ring. You see the pink circle is the pony ring. It's 25 feet in diameter just because of the fact that that's you know, that's that I come up with. Okay, from the center of the pony ring 30 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 to the pond is 190 feet away approximately, okay. Okay, I'll just keep going and I'll explain what everybody's chore would be. Number 2 person that I need, the retail store area is approximately, I mean these are approximates because they're all about 50 feet from the center of the pony ring and 50 feet from the summer kitchen so that's quite a ways away. I can't have people running back and forth, okay. It's just not possible. Number 3 person. The summer kitchen. It is 50 feet from the pond ring and 50 feet from the retail store. The number 4 person, the bam. That's 190 feet from the center of the pony ring. We don't even touch on the fifth person that I asked for originally which would be taking care of like the grounds or you know like the leading nature tours of the Bluff`Creek woods wetland area. Okay, but now I'm going to explain to you what the duties are and you try to imagine one person who's got this duty going to another duty and doing it. The pony rides. The responsibility is, that person takes the money from each rider. They mount and dismount the children. They have constant and close monitoring of each pony and child to avoid potential problems. A child crying or trying to jump off`the pony because of fear or being overwhelmed by this ride, okay. Starting and stopping the rides. That's their responsibility. General care and watering, feeding and hourly inspection of each pony in the ring. This is a constant thing. You have to lead these ponies...it's like somebody leaving a camival ride. Okay, so that person cannot leave that place. They can't go anywhere else. Number 2 person which runs the retail store. Duties. Taking admission money and money for purchases. Doing inventory updates. Restocking merchandise... Anybody that leaves the store is going to get, you know they're... The summer kitchen, it's duties. Taking food orders. Cooking and serving the food. Take the money for food purchases. Cleaning up after customers outside, and general housekeeping of entire kitchen. I mean they're going to be people that are going to be leaving stuff`around and I expect that place to be clean and that's what this person's job will be. Then person number 4, which is 190 feet from the other person down at the pony ring is going to be talking about each animal and farm life through the last 100 years with the people walking...talking about that. Making sure the children are not climbing in or around animals, because they do. Making sure no one is teasing or causing injury to any of the animals, because they will. General care, feeding, watering of each animals because they need it. General housekeeping of the bam area because that's going to be listed with USDA and I have to do that, plus they have to water and feed the animals, or I'll get in trouble if they show up, okay. And the last thing I'm asking, a cell phone for anybody who has a question about the place. That's what each person is doing at their location. They cannot go from one location to another. Okay, then the last person was the general grounds keeping. This is something I don't have to have all the time. I don't know about...but the Bluff`Creek nature walks because when they come out there, the kids get rambunctious. They're only there for like an hour. It's nice to have them do something else or whatever to make it a little longer you know experience for them so that's the, that's what has to be done there. Okay. And then when you talk about, well I know how you can limit the time frame is having me do all this stuff. I'll die is what's going to happen. I'll only being doing business for like 6 months so. Okay. I have a terrible sense of humor. Sacchet: Do you need a moment to catch your breath? Susan McAllister: No, I'm fine. Sacchet: Because I have a question. This one employee equivalent. How's it measured? I mean does it mean if you have 8 people working for one hour a day? That's one employee equivalent or does it mean if you have 16 people working one day for one hour and nobody the next day? Is that still within that? I mean what's the definition of this term? Kirchoff`: It'd be on a daily basis. Sacchet: Daily basis, okay. And it does not include residents. Now the second question to this. 31 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 Susan McAllister: Don't make me get married. I don't do well in that. Sacchet: You might need a family for this Sue. If you contract somebody for services, like somebody come mow your lawn. That's not your employee. You're buying a service. Correct? Aanenson: Well I'm sure there's ways. Our concem is that you can see by the description of that, you've got a lot happening on 5 acres. That's our concem. There's a lot happening. A lot of employees. 100 people up there on 5 acres and. Susan McAllister: 6. Aanenson: 6 acres. That's our concern. Sacchet: Okay, well yeah. I'm not trying to debate that. I'm just trying to see how we can balance. Aanenson: Could that be contracted out? Yes, but what's the difference between contracting out and then someone who comes for an hour or two. Sacchet: Well by definition it's not an employee. I mean ifyou look at legalities. Aanenson: Who's paying for that service? Sacchet: Still not employee. It's something you buy. Anyhow, I thought you needed a break. Susan McAllister: Okay, well that's good. I don't care. I'll take all the support. Okay. Well I'm just saying that I need that. I cannot do, and I will not do, I won't do it without it. At the expense of keeping animals and the entrance and everything, I have to have all these other things going on. There's zoos that are in the red all the time because they can't make ends meet. I need, I came up with a creative way to preserve the green space. To allow children to have fun in a non-threatening way. To have a very enriching experience and what my goal is is to you know preserve the essence of the farm you know by the activities and selling merchandise so that's the way it is. That's what I need. Number, okay so that was number 3. Number 4 is the only customary farm animals will be allowed on the site. Okay, so I know it's going to be hard. Wild or exotic animals shall be prohibited. I want to change it, I'm hoping that we can change it to, and I really know this is, I feel this is going to work. Take out the only and put customary farm animals shall be allowed on this site. Scratch out wild or exotic animals shall be prohibited and add, large camivorous animals such as lions, tigers, and bears shall be prohibited because I really think that the city is really afraid of that and they need to say that. Instead of all this other stuff, and we could be here splitting hairs forever because I can argue with you about exotic animals. And a wild animal, my 800 pound sow is more wild than my little fox will ever be. She's only going to be 14 pounds at full growth. Okay. An 800 pound sow is you know, crazy. I mean she'd knock over every chair ifI brought her in here and said hi. She would knock everything over. She'd jump in your lap besides. Okay. And this definition of a zoo, I think we should just drop it. I don't like the word zoo but like I just said, you know animals held in cages for public display are considered a zoo. Sometimes that could be government too, but whatever. We'll leave it for the animals. Okay. I want to do the wildlife rehabilitation. I don't want to do it right now. I have to say I need to put this together and keep it this way but I want the city to know, and I've tried to explain this, that it is not possible for the public to view wildlife being rehabilitated. It's against the rules. I could never do it. IfI had anybody even see it, it could only be me or somebody else that was like a veterinarian or whatever but it has to be in a private building away from people so. Number 5. Please explain to me what this means. All structures and storage areas must be set back 50 feet from public or private right-of-way's and 300 feet from an adjacent single family residential, or a minimum of 32 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 50 feet from a side lot line, whichever is greater. And I'll stop there and I'm not going to be done with that paragraph but I don't understand that. Could somebody explain, what's this 300 feet? Kirchoff: That is for noise purposes and also for smell. Susan McAllister: Okay, stop then please. Let me insert one thing. Isn't an industrial office park, you know that abuts up to a single family residential only required to have 150 foot buffer? Kirchoff: Well but you don't have number animals making noise and other people, the noise will be a factor. And just from experience, people. Susan McAllister: Cindy, you're not experienced. Not in the animal. Kirchoff: No, I'm just talking about noise in general. Noise in general. We receive numerous, numerous complaints about noise. Susan McAllister: From? Kirchoff: Vehicles. Susan McAllister: I'm not doing vehicles. Peterson: Let's not sit here and argue. Susan McAllister: Okay, well I'm just saying. I don't understand the 300. I think it should be 150. I mean I'm not any worse than an industrial office park or whatever. And I don't believe that a petting farm is as loud as a park. Somebody had mentioned that a while back. Kids run and scream and jump at parks and they're uncontrolled. They're out to have fun. These are guided tours. I mean kids do kind of like run around from one place to another but they're not screaming because I tell them they can't. The animals don't like it and it's not smart so, okay. Then we get to that paragraph, the City Council may require storage areas to be completely screened by 100% opaque fencing or berming. What's the storage area? What are you considering a storage area? Is that a manure pile? Kirchoff: Yes. Susan McAllister: Okay, well I can tell you if you completely screen or enclose a manure pile, the goal is to aerate manure and you aerate manure by allowing air to get to manure and that, I can, I probably should have brought a bag of my nice compost up here so you could smell it. It doesn't smell. So I'm just saying that you know I want you to come out there. I want somebody to come out there to take a look at what it looks like, you know, and then make that decision. Don't just arbitrarily make that rule because you have to know. Aanenson: These aren't arbitrary. We have other ordinances. We do have a large animal hospital in the city. We've contacted other cities. We're the only city that's going to have this in the metro area. The only city, and you can put whatever standards in here you want so I think you need to make the argument with the Planning Commission. Susan McAllister: Okay, well I'm asking if you would please just you know, if you have a question or concem or whatever, if you would come out. I don't know ifI can do that now because it might be too late. 33 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 Peterson: If you can raise your issues and we'll entertain those in our discussion. Susan McAllister: Okay. Okay, well I'm going on to say here that I've always taken really good care of my animals and okay. I'm asking for 10 years instead of 5 years with the sunset of being you know 5 years. Instead of that, having 10 years and for me to be allowed to reapply. But then it says I have to follow all new ordinances. Doesn't that kind of like ace me out right there? Any new ordinances that have come into play since I have applied before, don't I get just automatically eliminated because I'm sure there will probably be an ordinance that says no petting farms allowed in this city. Blackowiak: Not necessarily. Susan McAllister: What? Sacchet: I wouldn't count on it. It's not ideal but. Susan McAllister: I need more time. I just can't possibly do it in that short period of time. Okay. Alright, the West 78th Street, like I said. I've got to have, Highway 41, the driveway's that existing right now. The main driveway until that road comes in, whenever it comes in. I don't know when. Like I said, I'm only taking down 2 trees so I do not feel I need to add any more plantings. I will give you the daffodils and plant them myself. I guess there's one other thing that, when we get to the, oh boy. It's on page 14, one of the conditions. Okay. Like it says, number 4. I don't believe I would need to do that because I'm really protecting everything I can possibly protect. I don't even like taking down those two trees. Number 5 also. Okay, number 7. The th site shall only have access from West 78 Street. Okay, I want to keep my back driveway just for my own personal use and also in case there was ever a fire or whatever. I think that that would be something that anybody you know would like to have as a fire department. I have to have that back driveway to get my trailer out of there, and it's really, it's very dense and overgrown and I don't use it very often. When I use it, I need it. Okay. Number 12. The building officials conditions are as follows. (a). It says all buildings must meet code requirements as required for new buildings because of a change in occupancy classification. I would like to take out all and just add only buildings used by the public, which would be the bam and the retail store that the people would actually go into would meet code requirements because there's no, to me there's no point in all buildings. I'm not doing anything with the house yet. IfI were doing something with it in the future, I would say that would definitely be a given. Peterson: Is that the intent? Aanenson: That's the intent. My understanding from the building official. Peterson: Okay. Susan McAllister: Okay, because on (b) it just says all buildings and areas intended for use by the public, and then it says must be... Okay, well I was a little bit nervous. Okay. I guess you know, hang on. I'm almost done here. I've just got really quick. Okay, please keep in mind the 300 feet. Does that mean I can t, is my, when West 78 Street comes in, does that mean that right now I'm on Highway 41 as my West 78 Street comes in, does that mean that frontage. The front of my property is Highway 41. When th I'm going to be fronted on West 78th Street? Aanenson: Correct. 34 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 Susan McAllister: So then that will be the front. Aanenson: That's ultimately going to be your access. Susan McAllister: Oh! So then this 800, or the 300 feet. What exactly is that going to mean to me then? When you say the 300 foot. I keep referring to that because that makes me a little nervous. Kirchoff: That's measured from the bam to the dwelling. Not to the property line. It's not to the property line. Just to keep that 300 foot separation between the two uses. Susan McAllister: Between what? Between the bam and the property line or what? Kirchoff: Dwelling. Kind: Between the bam and a house. The physical house. Susan McAllister: There's not 300 feet between the bam and the house. Sacchet: Not your house. The new house. Kirchoff: Not your house. Susan McAllister: Oh a new house. Oh okay. Okay. Okay. Alright, well I guess you know does anybody have any questions because I don't, I can't think of anything more to say I don't think yet. Peterson: So what happens if you lose the USDA approval? Susan McAllister: I'll re-apply for it because the only way that I'll lose the USDA approval is if I'm not up to conform. Peterson: That wasn't, my question was, do you need it? Susan McAllister: Yeah I need it. Peterson: Why? Susan McAllister: I can't show one animal for pay, even ifI travel with my petting zoo, which I do by the way. I can't. If I'm not USDA approved so I have to have it. Sacchet: And the same with the DNR. You need that to do rehab. Susan McAllister: Oh yeah. Sacchet: And they enforce that those animals have to be totally out of the public's view. Susan McAllister: Right. The public absolutely can view it. I mean all I can do, and the only reason why I want to do it is because I believe in it and I believe I'm in a very good spot for it because I hear deer being shot all the time and I don't like that. And also because, the only thing I can do is just tell the children what I do and maybe show, you know I show photographs of other animals that have been 35 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 rehabilitated, including mine just photographs. That's all I can do. I mean it's not going to make it a higher use because it's not for them to see, so. Peterson: Other questions? Sacchet: Yes Mr. Chair. This aspect of meeting the building and fire safety inspection requirements. You believe that can be met? Susan McAllister: Right. I am of the. Sacchet: For the buildings that will be accessible to the public. I think that was being implied. It wasn't spelled out but it was implied of understanding. Susan McAllister: Excuse me? Sacchet: I think the implied understanding was that that rule applies to the parts of the farm that are accessible to the public, right? Susan McAllister: Okay, but are you asking me ifI feel that the bam is going to be able to meet the structural standards? Sacchet: Well yes. Susan McAllister: Yes. I believe it will, according to the structural engineer. Aanenson: That's the structural engineer out there. Sacchet: You have somebody working? Susan McAllister: I'm working with somebody right now. Sacchet: The same with the electric? Susan McAllister: I believe so too because it was added in 1983. It was all changed over. So it's recent. I can't imagine, you know I don't know what, you never know though. What entails things lately but I believe that I would not have a problem with either one. Sacchet: Okay, thank you. Peterson: Other questions? Kind: Yes Mr. Chairman. Sue, you did not speak to parking, or if you did I missed it. Susan McAllister: I didn't speak to it because. Kind: Because you're okay with 10 stalls? Susan McAllister: Well, at this time I believe I am. I don't want to have an over abundance of stalls because I don't, you know it's really hard for me to tum that area into a parking area because I like the green look. By the way, the map that I showed you in color, shows exactly where all the green space is. It 36 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 does, I mean my property line does abut with some of the Bluff, you know the wetland area like that but I just wanted to let you know that that's all green. Aanenson: But it's not all of her property. Susan McAllister: No. But it's all green. All my property. Another trick question. Peterson: Other questions? Alright, thank you. Susan McAllister: Can I add one other thing too, because I forgot about it. This livestock and poultry odor. I have gone to a workshop that shows exactly how to make your manure piles from curing into beautiful black dirt, okay. So I have, and it talks about measuring odor and it says that the nose can smell over 10,000 different smells, okay. And so they actually have contraptions because I don't know what other way to put it, but things that look like a box and you put it in your nostrils and you go to the smell and then you time it and it...and then you mark down what you smell for a period of time. It's all very technical and that's how the Department of B iosystems and Agriculture Engineering at the University of Minnesota deal with potential problems with people. And I would like to add one other thing. Uli, I don't think, well you weren't on the Planning Commission at the time but can I give you this copy? I don't think that you got that, or did you get it? Sacchet: Sure, you can give it to me. Susan McAllister: One other comment, and I'm going to be done. Is that when I was here the first time. Peterson; This is your third time before you were done. Susan McAllister: Wait a minute, I'm done, I'm done. I've got my folder closed up. When I was here this last time on April, whenever it was. 19th. The people that did speak in my favor were not anybody that I planned on. Vemelle is here. That's the only one I asked to come here and so the other ones were just spontaneous. Not anything I had to do with. Thanks. Peterson: Thank you. Kind: I'm sorry, I have one question for her. I hate to ask it though. Peterson: Then don't. Kind: I'll ask you guys. Peterson: Well commissioners, this is before us again. Blackowiak: Is this a public hearing? Do we need to? Peterson: No it's not. Blackowiak: It's not, okay. Peterson: That means you have to gather your thoughts more quickly than you had planned. 37 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 Kind: Mr. Chair, I'll start with the question I was going to ask Sue and maybe you guys can help me. The 300 feet between dwellings, is that an issue with this plan? Will she be at least 300 feet from a dwelling? Aanenson: Pulte Homes, I believe so. Kind: Yeah, so that's not even. That's not an issue for this particular plan. We need to put it in there for the standards. Aanenson: That's what we need to keep in mind. Thank you very much because whatever we do here, anybody else in the city that's equally zoned can do the exact same thing. Because we're now changing the zoning ordinance and that's part of what we're saying. And also a conditional use. It could be sold tomorrow and run by somebody else so you have to make sure that we look beyond the personal phase... anyone else that's in an equal situation. Kind: Okay. Peterson: Anybody want to take a stab at it? Sacchet: Yes. I do want to take a stab. First the standards. I have a problem with number 3, but I don't have a really good idea how to solve it except trying to work around it and you know having creative ways. ...but I don't have good solutions so if one of you has something about that issue, appreciate hearing it. I do have a solution to number 4. Proposed solution. Number 4 reads, only customary farm animals shall be allowed on the site. Wild or exotic animals shall be prohibited. I'd like to read, dangerous animals shall be prohibited. Animals creating nuisances will need to be removed after one waming. And not even go into the farm animal part. That's what I'd like to propose there. I do, just as a comment. I think wildlife rehab should be encouraged because it's very tightly regulated by the DNR and so it's a valiant effort. Number 10. Retail sales shall be limited to 300 square feet. I have a problem with that because it's a fixed number. I mean if we have somebody with a real huge farm and they want to have a petting farm added to it, would we want to limit that to 300 square feet? Should that be in relation to the size of the location? That's a question. Aanenson: That's a good question. You can make it a percentage but then let's think that through. If somebody had 23 acres, would you want to give them a 1,000 retail, you know Frank's Nursery, somebody that's competing? Again the intent of this ordinance is that you're providing something ancillary to the use so when you go to experience it, that there's something there that kind of compliments that experience. Not that you're going there just for the retail but the primary uses that you're going to... That's a good point and we could do a percentage but I guess I would... Sacchet: I'm alright with leaving that 300 but I want to state that as a concem for the public record that if we have ever somebody come back in this context that they have to be looked at. Number 11. I have a problem with animals on chains. I'd like to take out that middle sentence. If chains confine animals they must be attached in such a manner as to not become entangled with chains or other animals because the next sentence says animals must be in confined area with fencing. I don't like the idea about chains. I'd like that to go. Number 12. I'd like to have somehow reflected in there that an interim use permit is not a drop dead thing. If we could say, establish for an interim use permit that can be renewed. That may be re- applied for renewal or something like that. And I have a question. I'm not sure whether we are violating some legal framework by saying, city ordinance including any new ordinances after the original approval will apply. I'm not sure whether we're overstepping legally by doing that so that's, I don't know. Peterson: Where are you at on that one? 38 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 Sacchet: It's number 12. The last sentence. Do we have somebody here with legal knowledge? Matt? Burton: I'm not going to give a legal opinion but it seems to me you could probably do it. Aanenson: Yes. We've had that... Sacchet: We can do it, okay. Aanenson: It's up to you what you want to do. I think obviously there needs to be some sort of that's not burdensome but. Sacchet: I personally would strike it because it's really a thom inside I think. Because there is enough controls on this to deal with. Aanenson: Let me just say...but whether we put it in here or not, it still may be a requirement. Sacchet: It may be a requirement, okay. And then the last part of the standards, this section 20-1. Definitions. I'd like to read, a petting farm can be defined as any activity whereby non-dangerous animals are exhibited and allowed to closely interact with visitors regardless of compensation. And I'd like to cross out the whole part about the zoo because it's irrelevant. That's the standards. Do we want to deal with the standards and then do into the other parts? Peterson: Let's talk about everything in context. Sacchet: Want me to go on? Peterson: Yeah. Sacchet: Okay. Okay going on to the conditions are put on this. The recommendation and the conditions. Again I'd like to state when we talk about interim permit, where it says the Planning Commission recommends approval of interim use permit... 3. Parking shall be limited to 10 stalls with the provision for only 1 bus. I'd like to add the word initially. Number 9. The permit shall be reviewed bi-annually to determine compliance. I think once every other year is plenty of often enough and it's less burdensome to staff`because what are we really going to do. Number 11. The interim use shall, maybe it should say the in initial interim use shall terminate, I'd like to increase from 5 years to a little more and that's for debate. Is 10 years the right number? Is 7 years the right number? But I'd like to give her a little more. I'd like to spell out in 12(a), all buildings accessed by the public must meet and so forth. And that's what I propose here for further consumption. Peterson: Thank you. Other comments? Kind: Yes Mr. Chair. Uli, did you, you're going quickly. Did you address number 7 in. Sacchet: The Standards? Kind: Not the Standards. In the interim use permit request about the site access. Sacchet: No I did not. 39 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 Kind: I'm suggesting that that could be reworded to Highway 41 access must be abandoned upon the completion of West 78th Street. And get rid of the way number 7 reads. Peterson: We haven't got a motion so you can discuss your points. Sacchet: Yeah, we can use it for discussion. Kind: But anyway, that's an idea. I'm interested in other people's thoughts on that. Yeah, go ahead. Sacchet: It's my understanding we can't take access away until the new access is there so really the question is, what's the access for the petting farm. And that particular point I am worried about the access from 41. I mean seeing what's happening down at Bandimere Park entrance and that one doesn't have all the trees. I personally believe that it's not that much of a problem because I would think it's going to take about a year to put this together so I would not support your giving access for the operation from 41. Kind: Yeah, I think that's reasonable. Sacchet: Because it's a safety issue. Kind: And I too agree that I'd like to, I like the idea of it being interim use. I think that that's important so we can review it. But I think we need to extend the amount of time just to, this is a big investment for just 5 years so I'd like to see, 10 years I guess makes sense to me. I'll be interested in other people's comments on that. And then what else did I have? That Uli may not have, oh. A suggested way to think about number 4 under the petting farm conditions. This is the one that talks about animals. The way that I thought it could be worded would be something like, animals currently allowed in A2 districts may be publicly displayed. Animals that require special permits are allowed on site but shall not be publicly displayed. And the third sentence, wildlife rehab is allowed on site but may not be publicly displayed. Sacchet: I have real problems with that Deb because we're totally out of our jurisdiction with that. Based on that, they could have cobras. There's no restriction to have a poisonous snake in this place. There's no, and Sue was correct as far as there's no restriction to have dangerous animals. Kind: Yet a hard thing to define though is dangerous. Sacchet: Well yeah, but I think when we say dangerous I think that that is about the best definition that I feel we've found so far. Kind: I think the city requires a permit for a cobra. Sacchet: Do they? Susan McAllister: ...have to register them. You have to register them with the city. You have to have them on at least a 4 foot leash. You have to have a...bury the cage underground 2 feet and have a cover over the top.., on the property and that's it. Kind: So I'm suggesting that we make the distinction between animals that are currently under A2, without a permit and then animals that require a permit. Sacchet: Which you basically say dangerous... 40 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 Kind: Yeah. Sacchet: Basically the same thing. Kind: Yeah. But maybe easier to measure. Maybe. Big if. Aanenson: Just to be clear. Animal control does this section of the code. It's out of our element. Kind: Yes. I was assuming that. Let's see. Oh, the number of employees. I think if we really support the idea of a petting farm concept in A2 district, that we need to allow applicants to meet their regulatory agency requirements and that would require more employees so I think it would be reasonable for number 3, under the conditions to state that 3 full time equivalent non-resident employees may be employed on site per 5 acres. What else? And then of course that we clarify that it's public buildings that meet building official things. Overall I like the concept. I like how it encourages preservation of open space and I think Sue's come up with a creative way to keep her little oasis as we refer to it. And I think it does celebrate our rural history and keeps a little slice of that life. And the LuAnn stated in our last meeting, it's really very similar to a park as far as the intensity of the use and I like to think of it as a privately owned park. Peterson: Other comments? Blackowiak: Sure. I've had a really hard time keeping Sue the person separate from the Miss Rosie's Farm concept because to me they're one in the same and when I think of this petting farm permit, I think of her and I'm really trying hard to think of the city. In other words, what we want in the city for a petting farm. And if we want that in the city. We're getting into a lot of nit picking. You know how many employees, this and that. I think the number of employees is really irrelevant. If she can afford to have 40 employees, so be it. I mean I don't think she can. Just simply based on her size. And I don't think that we need to start limiting numbers of employees, and I don't know if that's a part of the ordinance if we do choose to go ahead with an ordinance. I think that's a little bit much. Peterson: What if it takes 40 employees to make money to sustain it? That would be my concern too. Negate that. Blackowiak: So what would your recommendation be? Have a limit or not have a limit? Peterson: Oh yeah. Have a limit. Yeah. Sacchet: I kind of like your idea of not having a limit because this is never going to make a lot of money. I think realistically this is just an effort for the love of it, not for the money of it. And I would agree that the cash flow will limit the number of employees very naturally personally. Blackowiak: Unless Sue opens up a boarding house and has you know, 10 residents there and technically they're a resident and they don't have to need any other apartment. You know there are ways around it. Sacchet: But then it's not a petting zoo anymore. Then it becomes a boarding house. Blackowiak: Yeah, that's it. That's what I'm saying. It's not just for her so I'm having a real hard time trying to really separate these two issues and I guess I don't really, I'm still not sure what I think. We're getting into a lot of specifics and I don't know if we need to be at that level yet. I guess that's my point. So let's hear what Matt has to say. 41 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 Burton: Okay l guess I'lljust take them in order again. Petting farm standards. At first l was thinking 1 employee for 3 acres but I think 3 per 5 is fine with me. Perhaps that and the phrase, after it says non- resident employee, put perhaps or contractor to avoid the loophole which we already developed. On the definition of animals, I'm still struggling with, on number 4 what we should put there. I had originally, one of my thoughts would be to say allow animals are limited to the following and then say, customary farm animals, and then come up with some definition of the other group and what I had come up with was non- camivorous, wild or exotic animals which pose no danger to the public safety, whether or not in captivity in a number not to exceed the number of customary farm animals on the property. That just, that was the intent of limiting a number of the others in relation to the farm animals. Was to try to keep it more of a agricultural, labor, petting zoo as opposed to some exotic zoo. Animal zoo. But I'm open to anything on that one. I like the rest of the petting zoo standards laid out by staff`and I wouldn't want to change any others. I guess I heard Uli's suggestion on the definition again, maybe adding a non, that would be fine but I didn't quite catch all of it but that might be one change that I'd be okay with. Going over to the recommendations. I don't agree with adding the word initially in number 3. I think that they can always come back and ask for changes regardless of whether the word initially is in there or not. I agree leaving number 7 the way it is. I like the annual review so I guess I'm different there. I think I would like to have the staff go out there annually. I agree that 5 years is probably not enough. I was thinking more of 6 or 7, but I could easily persuaded for more. I agree with the change to number 12. And I guess that's it. I think that it's a nice project to have in Chanhassen. I'd like to have it and I hope we can work through it. Peterson: Well. I guess I feel as though I'm kind of a broken record on this one. I think that, let me speak to the general issues and standards first of all. I think the ones that we've been discussing, I think that 5 acres is fine. I think the employees, 1 seemed not enough. I think that 3 per 5 acres would be the maximum I would want to go. You start getting more than that, then you start, I start worrying about the size and the activity. You're kind of defeating your purpose of having it be a small, intimate place. As Sue described it earlier, as she was describing the need to have all these people, I just pictured it as being much more active than not wanting it to be on 5 acres, and more importantly where it was residing. So my concems that were raised before are certainly there and if anything reinforce that I'm concemed about where this is. You know I love the concept but the question is, is it in the right space for Chanhassen's, where it is in Chanhassen right now. A couple more points on the overall issuance standards. I'm comfortable, I think we need the yearly review. I think that however we define customary farm animals, it's going to be an issue and I think that, you know I think that removing wild or exotic shall be prohibited. I think it's reasonable to delete that without an issue. You know at the end of the day, at the end of the day I'm losing my voice but this just doesn't fit. I think it's too close to other developments. I think it's going to, I don't think it has the intimacy that originally I had hoped for. I just don't think that 6 acres for what wants to be accomplished as is presented today is enough. Particularly this 6 acres and particularly where this 6 acres is at so, you know I'm comfortable approving the standards as set forth but as far as the specific ones, I won't be voting in approval of it as I had not prior to this point. With those comments, I'll entertain a motion. Sacchet: Do you want me to take a stab at it? Peterson: Sure. Sacchet: The Standards. Change number 3. Kind: Make your motion first. Peterson: Make your motion. 42 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 Sacchet: Okay. I make a motion to adopt Section 20-267, Petting Farms as is plus the following changes. Number 3 be changed to, the applicant for the interim use permit shall reside on the site. Only three (3) full time equivalent non-resident employees may be employed on the site per five (5) acres. Number 4 should be changed to read, dangerous animals shall be prohibited. Animals creating nuisances or complaints will need to be removed after one waming. Number 11. The middle sentence, if chains confine animals should be struck out. Number 12. A termination date shall be established for the interim use permit for which, how can we word this? For which application for renewal is possible. Something to that effect? It's not really good words but that's the meaning. Section20-1. Definitions to read, apetting farm can be defined as any activity whereby non-dangerous animals are exhibited and allowed to closely interact with visitors regardless of compensation. And strike the zoo paragraph. That's the standards. Do we want to make this a separation motion? That's my motion for the standards. Kind: Second. With a couple friendly amendments possibly. Number 12 1 think could stay exactly the way staff`had it and delete the last sentence because in there it says prior to the permit expiring the applicant may request an extension to the interim use. Sacchet: Oh there it is already. Okay. Kind: By submitting a new application. So number 12 with deleting the last sentence. And then number 3, I liked Matt's suggestion to reword it to state 3 full time equivalent non-resident or contracted employees may be employed on the site per 5 acres. And then I'm wondering about number 4. If we would like it Uli's way or the permit versus non-permit way. Sacchet: The reason why I didn't change... It seemed like the permit part is also based on the term dangerous so I might as well use the same term and then we have it the same way. Aanenson: And that term is defined in the city code... Kind: Okay. Groovy. I just wanted to get groovy in the Minutes. Okay, and that's it for my friendly amendments. Sacchet: They sound good. Peterson: Any further discussion? Blackowiak: I would just like to make a comment, I'm not sure what number you put it under but destructive animals removed after one waming. I don't like that. I think that you get somebody who doesn't like you. They make a phone call and they say, well they had a waming. And I don't think that that's the intent. I think the intent is more, if there's a problem that somebody can apply the ordinance existing and let's not make it a vendetta type of thing potentially. Sacchet: Well how would we express that? Substantiated. Blackowiak: Don't even say it. Aanenson: It's in the animal section. It's defined...so I think that, as Alison said. Sacchet: So we don't need to state that at all? Good. Blackowiak: Yeah, I would take it out. 43 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 Sacchet: So the only thing that 4 would say is dangerous animals shall be prohibited. Aanenson: Correct. Unless you wanted to add something. Kind: And then I had one thing that I kind of wanted to add but I forgot about it. It was wildlife rehabilitation is allowed on site, but may not be publicly displayed as an additional sentence to number 4. Aanenson: That's a requirement of the DNR. Sacchet: It's a DNR requirement that they cannot be displayed. Kind: Okay, how about wildlife rehab is allowed on site? Sacchet: It's allowed anywhere in the city. Aanenson: Well when you're doing an interim use, you can attach any conditions you want. You can prohibit other uses. This is not...there may be too much on the site so you can make that a condition. Kind: But we're not prohibiting it right now so why. Burton: Put in the other conditions and not in the petting farm. Kind: Okay. Peterson: Other discussion? It's been moved and seconded. Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Zoning Ordinance Amendment #00-1 to allow petting farms as an interim use in the A-2, Agricultural Estate District, to read as follows: SECTION 1. Section 20-1 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended by adding the following definition: Petting Farm any activity whereby non-dangerous animals are exhibited and allowed to closely interact with visitors, regardless of compensation. SECTION 2. Division 2, Conditional Use Permits, of the Chanhassen City Code is hereby amended by adding the following section: Sec. 20-267. Petting Farms. The following conditions will apply to petting farms: 1. The site must be on and have access to a collector or minor arterial as identified in the comprehensive plan. 2. The minimum lot size shall be five (5) acres. 44 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 The applicant for the interim use permit shall reside on the site. Only three (3) full time equivalent non-resident or contracted employees shall be employed on the site per five (5) acres. 4. Dangerous animals shall be prohibited. All structures and storage areas must be set back fifty (50) feet from public or private rights-of- way, and three hundred (300) feet from an adjacent single family residence or a minimum of fifty (50) feet from a side lot line, whichever is greater. The City Council may require storage areas to be completely screened by one hundred percent (100%) opaque fencing or berming. Parking areas shall be screened from public or private rights-of-way and adjacent single family residences. Hours of operation shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. The City Council may further restrict hours of operation if the use is located adjacent to property guided residential as identified in the comprehensive plan. 8. No outdoor speaker systems shall be allowed. 9. Signage shall comply with Article XXVI of the Zoning Ordinance. 10. Retail sales shall be limited to three hundred (300) square feet in area. Retail sales shall be limited to petting farm related items. 11. Animals kept outside must have continual access to shelter to protect them from the elements and must be in a confined area with fencing. 12. A termination date shall be established for the interim use permit. The use shall be permitted until a particular date, until the occurrence of a particular event, or until zoning regulations no longer permit it. Prior to the permit expiring, the applicant may request an extension to the interim use permit by submitted a new application. The renewal application will be subject to all city ordinances including any new ordinances enacted after the original approval. Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Peterson: I would entertain another motion this evening. Kind: Mr. Chair I'll make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of Interim Use Permit #00-2 subject to the plans dated February 22, 2000 for the operation of a petting farm, with the following conditions 1 through 13. And change 12(a) to say, all public buildings must meet code requirements as required for new buildings because of the change of occupancy classification. And I think that's it unless we want to add a wildlife rehab thing here. I'll leave it at that. That's my motion. Peterson: Is there a second? Sacchet: A question. You're leaving the 5 year limit with the idea. Aanenson: They can ask for an extension. 45 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 Sacchet: With the idea that it can be extended? Aanenson: Correct. Kind: Actually I meant to change that. I'm sorry. Change number 11 to read the interim use shall terminate in la years. Peterson: Is there a second? Sacchet: I second this. Peterson: Any discussion? Burton: I'm starting to think that la is too long because you have to come back. Kind: I'm open to a friendly amendment. Burton: I'd make a friendly amendment that it be changed to 6 years. Kind: How about 7? Burton: That's fine. Peterson: 7 Kind: 7? 7. I'm in a compromising mood. Number 11. The interim use shall terminate in 7 years. Peterson: Any further discussion? Kind moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Interim Use Permit #00-2, subject to the plans dated February 22, 2000 for the operation of a petting farm, with the following conditions: 1. The site plan shall comply with Section 20-267. Petting Farms. 2. Accumulation of feces shall be located at least 200 feet from any well. Accumulation of feces shall be removed at such periods as will ensure that no leaching or objectionable odors exist. The premise shall not be allowed to become unsightly. 3. Parking shall be limited to ten (la) stalls with the provision for only one (1) bus. 4. The applicant shall submit a landscape plan for the proposed development. The applicant shall show the location, size and species of proposed trees and shrubs. 5. Landscaping shall be added to the area between the parking lot th and West 78 Street to provide a buffer. Included in the plantings shall be overstory trees, evergreens and shrubs. 6. Landscaping may be required for the parking lot if it exceeds 6,000 square feet. 46 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 7. The site shall only have access from West 78th Street. 8. A dead animal disposal plan shall be submitted to the city for review. 9. The permit shall be reviewed annually to determine compliance. 10. The applicant must apply and obtain all necessary permits from regulatory agencies such as Carver County, DNR, USDA, etc. 11. The interim use permit shall terminate in seven (7) years. 12. The Building Official's conditions are as follows: a. All public buildings must meet code requirements as required for new buildings because of the change in occupancy classifications. b. All buildings and areas intended for use by the public must be on an accessible route and accessible to people with disabilities. c. Two accessible parking spaces must be provided. d. Accessible sanitation facilities must be provided. The number of fixtures required will be determined after specific use information is provided. If this farm is intended to be used on a short term, seasonal basis, portable facilities may be provided, any other use would require permanent facilities. If permanent facilities are required, two acceptable septic sites must be evaluated and located by a licensed designer. e. The food preparation facilities require approval from the Minnesota Department of Health. f. Structures intended for public use must be evaluated by a structural engineer to determine if the building is safe for occupancy. 13. The Fire Marshal's conditions are as follows: a. A 20 foot wide fire lane shall be provided. b. The Fire Marshal shall review the existing buildings to be utilized for the petting farm to determine code compliance. c. Smoking is prohibited in any building used in conjunction with the business. d. "No Parking Fire Lane" signs shall be installed on the fire lane. e. Any new driveway must be designed to support the weight of a fire truck year round. f. Any new driveway must be installed prior to the removal of the existing driveway. g. The amount of combustible material (i.e. hay, straw, etc.) on the floors of any buildings used in the business must meet fire code requirements. 47 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 h. All electrical wiring must meet code. All voted in favor, except Peterson who opposed, and Blackowiak abstained. The motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Peterson: Nay. For the reasons mentioned earlier. This goes onto council on the 26th. Did you vote or... NEW BUSINESS: ESTABLISHMENT OF MEMORIAL PROGRAM COMMITTEE AND APPOINT REPRESENTATIVE. Aanenson: There's two items under that. I just put one on the agenda. The report from Todd looking for somebody on this memorial program. Just to clarify that. We've had people that wanted to donate, whether it's a bench or improve a park, and they wanted someone from the Planning Commission to be on that. They're trying to formulate a policy. Sacchet: Question. Do they want somebody from Planning Commission because it doesn't read it that they do. Aanenson: Yes. They do. They would like it for that so I'm looking for a volunteer. And before you volunteer, there's another task force or committee that they're looking for input on and that's the library task force and that would be a short frame too. I think they're looking at 2 to 3 months on that and that's the studying of the library needs. So I'm looking for volunteers. If anybody's interested in either the memorial or the library. If you're not prepared to say now, you want to e-mail me, that's fine. Kind: How many meeting are we talking about here? Aanenson: The memorial one, I can't imagine that would be too many. The task force the library I believe is, they're looking at doing a referendum this fall so that would be fast track. I'd say 3 months. Burton: Same compensation? Peterson: Double. Aanenson: Pop once in a while. Maybe even dinner. The best I can do. Peterson: We haven't gotten pop in like a long time. Blackowiak: I bring my own. Aanenson: I'm sorry. I'll get the key. So, if someone wants to get back to me on that if you're interested. Sacchet: I'm not. I want to learn this first. Aanenson: Okay. Ladd may be interested in one of these two so. I've got ongoing items if you'd like to approve the minutes and go onto ongoing items. 48 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 Blackowiak: Excuse me Kate. I need to make a comment. I would like to officially abstain from the last vote. I didn't say anything and from the, I just didn't vote either way. Aanenson: On the? Blackowiak: On the second. Kind: Miss Rosie's Farm. Aanenson: Okay. Blackowiak: So I was just. Kind: She just didn't say anything. Blackowiak: I just didn't say anything. Aanenson: So that was on the, you voted on the standards but not the interim use? Blackowiak: Yes for the standards, no for the, or abstained for the. Aanenson: Gotch ya. Thank you for the record. If you want to do the minutes, I've got some ongoing items. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Alison Blackowiak noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 17, 2000 as presented. ONGOING ITEMS. Aanenson: Okay, for our meeting on the 20th. Obviously we have some continuation and the flag lot discussion. The Igel Subdivision. Then we also have Minnewashta Oaks Subdivision. Blackowiak: Minnewashta what? Aanenson: Oaks. It's an existing lot that's be replatted. About 3 or 4 lots being replatted. Buffer yard ordinance. We talked about making changes in our work session so that will come back. We talked about the A, B and the C buffer. Pointe Lake Lucy variance. We're doing a blanket variance up there regarding wetland setback. We're also doing an amendment to the rural policy. We have a large subdivision that was approved in 1987. It's all, it's got one owner on three different lots. The person is trying to sell those lots. We have a quirk in the ordinance that says you not go back under the 1 per 10, which we think is burdensome so we're going to go back and change that policy that if you were platted in 1987, you can stick with those rules. Then we also have a variance. So and that will be for a garage. It's up in the Minnewashta area. Then we will not have a meeting on the 4th of July. If you want to do fireworks or something. Kind: And what's the status on building materials? Aanenson: Hopefully we're going back to the Planning Commission on that. Excuse me, the City Council just to give them an update on that. 49 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 Kind: So that goes to them. Process wise goes to them first and then. Aanenson: Yep. Kind: Do we see it or no? Aanenson: You should, yep. It should be a public hearing if we're going to change any ordinances, yes. And I did get your comments from. Kind: The work session ideas. Aanenson: Yeah, from the council work session. Kind: I bet you wish you were there. Aanenson: Some ofthose things are ongoing. For example the flag lot was raised. We're working on that. The design standards, we're working on that. Help me out with the. Kind: The Village on the Ponds pond. We should have talked about this earlier. Vemelle was here. Aanenson: The compliance issue. Sometimes when we talk about that before we do the building. When they do a remodel there is not necessarily a check on those because a remodel, we have no business license requirement. We don't always see those. Since that went in, which was a little over a year ago, even on any remodel we'd ask that that be routed around to planning review because what happens is the HVAC was significantly larger for that restaurant than we anticipated. Lighting ordinance. We're working on doing that too. Based on the discussion. Working with engineers so we can do some ofthose. Solwould say a lot of these are different phases of the works. To give you a more specific report, kind of go back over some of this as we get into our next work session will be in October time where we were at today. Kind: So we don't have a scheduled work session until October? Aanenson: Correct. Unless we have a lean meeting where we can try to accomplish some of that, which... Summer is also sometimes hard to get all seven here. I think that's important for open discussions. Because people are traveling some. Sacchet: I have a question. Do we ever get involved with stuff`that should be addressed like, specifically what I'm talking about is I keep going to Bandimere Park and I see accidents happening at that entrance. Is that something that we can... Aanenson: Those would go, they are working on that. Those go to either Todd or to engineering, correct. Right, they are working to redesign the entrance to that. Sacchet: So that's in motion. Aanenson: Right. Sacchet: That's good to hear. Kind: I didn't know that that was a problem. 50 Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2000 Aanenson: And I had mentioned that before. Sacchet: There's been four accidents at least there. Real accidents. Not little ones. There's a dip and when you tum early, don't see down in the dip and the cars come pretty fast. I mean it's major accidents already. Aanenson: We did meet with the city attomey, Cindy and myself regarding noise. That's kind of an ongoing complaint in this community as we're changing and evolving. So we're looking at, we're bringing that up to City Council for us to get some direction and then if that's the way, kind of get it reworded where they want to go. There's a couple different options. It will come back...very hard to, again we don't do the noise aspect... Sheriff's department, it's difficult to enforce but we want to be able to try to do something for... Kind: I think noise is very interesting because there's nothing louder than the frogs in our pond. And I can't call the city to complain about the frogs in my pond. It's kind of funny to me. Aanenson: It had to do with some non-conforming uses we had too which is a whole other problem. Peterson; Bring in some King Cobra snakes. Kind: I kind of like them. I kind of like the frogs myself but they are loud. I can't imagine, anybody raising anything louder to listen to at night than I do. Aanenson; That's all I have. Peterson: Motion to adjoum. Kind moved, Burton seconded to adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 10:05 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 51