Loading...
Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 21, 2003 Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich Slagle, Uli Sacchet, Alison Blackowiak, and Steve Lillehaug MEMBERS ABSENT: LuAnn Sidney, Bruce Feik and Craig Claybaugh STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive Deb Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR A SECOND DRIVEWAY ON PROPERTY ZONED RR~ RURAL RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED At 9450 FOXFORD ROAD~ RON SAATZER. Matt Saam presented the staff report on this item. Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions of staff right now? Uli, go ahead. Sacchet: I have one quick question Matt. In the recommendation where you recommend that this request would be denied, you state that the applicant will also be ordered to re-vegetate the area. Saam: Yeah, I'm sorry I didn't mention that. If the variance is denied, since it's for the second driveway, we would additionally ask that the second driveway, since it's already been constructed, be removed and that the area be re-vegetated. Sacchet: And you're asking that that would be done by April 30th? Saam: Yeah, we wanted to give them a timeframe because right now with snow and frozen ground, obviously vegetation can't be coming up until the spring thaw. Sacchet: Is April 30th a reasonable time? Saam: We could extend that if you wanted. Sacchet: I just wonder what the rationale was. Saam: That was all the date was set for was to wait til spring til seed could start germinating, taking hold. That sort of thing. Sacchet: Okay, thanks. Planning Commission Meeting - January 21, 2003 ' Blackowiak: Thank you. Slagle: I just had a quick question Matt. If the variance is not approved by City Council, what enforcement do you have, the tools to, and again I'm not, ! don't want anybody to think that that's where I'm going right now with this but I'm asking the question of what tools do we have and how is it enforced only because I drove by a house, and I don't mean to mention which house it was that we just had a series of meetings, 2-3 months ago where we denied a variance for a fence and the fence is up, and it in fact in my opinion looks like it's been added to. What is the enforcement? Saam: Yeah, that's a good question. I've asked that question myself too. I believe our only enforcement measures to turn it over to the city attorney's office for legal prosecution by whatever means they use. You know we don't employ anybody to go out and remove like say this driveway if the applicant doesn't comply. All we can do is go through legal means. Slagle: Okay. That's all. Saam: Is that your understanding Bob, what would be done? Generous: Yes. Technically violation of the city code is a misdemeanor, and so you could cite them. Slagle: Just wondering. Councilman Lundquist: Steve, any questions? Lillehaug: Yes I do. We, enclosed in bur packet we have a letter from the applicant and my question with that letter would be to the, he indicated that there was contact made with the city and that someone at the city said they were allowed two entrances. To your knowledge, or to your's Bob, have you guys logged anything as far as this call? Saam: I haven't, and I asked, and Ron will probably get up after this. I asked him about that. He couldn't remember the name of the person he spoke with. Now it's possible, this has only been on the city code books for about a year and a half now. Prior to this we didn't allow second driveways but it wasn't part of the city code, so if somebody would have called say 3 years ago, then maybe somebody would have said no, it's not on the books but he constructed it last fall and that was a code then. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Alright, this item is open for public hearing. Before we do that, would the applicant or their designee like to make a presentation? Please come up to the microphone. State your name and address for the record. Ron Saatzer: Hi. My name is Ron Saatzer and my wife Denise. Good evening you guys that roughed the cold weather here. I do have some pictures that I wanted, first I wanted to let you guys know that had I known there would have been any requirements for this added addition to this driveway, I would have come in and did this the proper way. So we apologize. We just moved into the neighborhood in May, and we were busy doing our remodeling and doing landscaping and what have you and when I did make a phone call to the city, I had been doing some stuff with Sharmeen and some other business development in the city of Chan, and I don't recall who I spoke to at the city but I think it was a miscommunication that further knowledge that you can have two accesses on Foxford Road, because there's, I've got probably almost 10 2 Planning Commission Meeting - January 21, 2003 people that have two entrances on Foxford so I think there was a miscommunication that yeah, you can have two but this one in this circumstances, one on Foxford and one on East Court so. I did drive around the neighborhood and saw that there's, like I said, many that have circle driveways. Tumarounds. Two entrances onto Foxford, and when we did the landscaping, we have 4 little girls and backing things out and being at the comer of Foxford right here, this is kind of a downhill road coming this way and we have a tendency to be backing out here and people don't really see us so for security measures and what have you, we found that this would be an easier way for us to kind of pull in and pull right out. There's only what, 3 neighbors down here and a dead end cul-de-sac that we're not really causing much problems to. And aesthetically I did do it so it blended in with the neighborhood and was very cautious with the guy that helped me do it is a landscape architect and designer and made sure that things were going to flow properly with the water drainage and what have you. And I guess you guys probably have a copy of the letter that I wrote. I know that there's possibilities that you can do lighting and what have you. I think it's a lot easier for us to be able to do that and we were trying to make something of kind of the rugged brush, pretty nasty area that was there that all the neighbors in the area have applauded us and have come over and said that we've done a really good job with it so I just wanted you guys to know that and we do, I do apologize for not doing it the proper way so. If my wife has anything to add, she can add something. Denise Saatzer: Not really except that just looking at it, I think it was for me kind of a safety issue for the kids, and if you see where the road goes, it just makes it simpler and safer for us to come out on Eastwood Court which is not as, it's not a thoroughfare way. It doesn't you know, it's just a cul-de-sac. We did not take down any mature, big trees. It was all kind of prickly brush and looked like nobody had done anything with you know this whole area that we've kind of brought up to good landscaping as much as we could before the fall came, and we did have some intentions of you know we're doing some more plantings and what not. And again I just would like to say that Ronnie did make a phone call and I think it was a misunderstanding of how, what we could have and being that we had just purchased the home, not understanding maybe the covenants in the neighborhood. But I think if you look at the photos and if you were to go and look and see what we have done, you'd see that it's not really a detriment to anyone, and it actually looks very nice and we kept it, we're very nature people and we have kept it looking very natural. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. If you'd like to send around the photos so we could just take a quick look at them, that would be appreciated. Before you step down, commissioners any questions? Uli, go ahead. Sacchet: Yeah, I do have a few questions for you. First, the alternatives that staff is looking at like either a loop around or a turn around. Wouldn't that accommodate the safety issue as well? Denise Saatzer: Well I'd like to say, yeah it would have. One of the things we were trying not to do was take out bigger trees, and if you were to go out onto the property and I don't know if the pictures show, but what I can remember is there are a couple bigger trees in there, and I really didn't want to take those out. Where we went through, it was just brush and you know, some of the thorny. Ron Saatzer: Buckthom... Denise Saatzer: Stuff and it just made more sense to do it this way and not knowing that we maybe weren't supposed to do this, we made the choice based on the trees. Planning Commission Meeting - January 21, 2003 Sacchet: So you're saying it could potentially hurt some of the mature trees to do like a loop around or, even enlarging the. Ron Saatzer: We would have to take some bigger, mature trees. Denise Saatzer: By what he was showing, the way that it, if you can see that there is a cluster of trees and what not there. If we were to do the loop the way he was saying to do it, we' d have to. Sacchet: How about a turnaround like, actually that was a pretty strong point Matt made that, you have to back out and then go out so if you back out the other way and go out, you could almost use the initial stretch of the new driveway that's in question as the turnaround and head out. Would that accommodate the safety concern? Denise Saatzer: I think it, I guess it, it's hard to tell. Do you think it would be? Ron Saatzer: I don't know if we'd have to. Denise Saatzer: You almost have to look and see. Sacchet: Yeah, it's hard. Ron Saatzer: ...look and see if it's something. Sacchet: Without knowing exactly where the trees are, it's probably an unfair question. Ron Saatzer: ...before we just did it but any more...reasonable thing just to kind of exit it out that way where it wouldn't be so busy. Sacchet: Now I have one more question now. By the way these pictures really help. You said you moved in about a year, year and a half ago. Ron Saatzer: No, we just moved in this spring. Denise Saatzer: May. Sacchet: May. Ron Saatzer: May. Sacchet: So the call to city would definitely not have been more than a year and a half ago. Ron Saatzer: No, we just moved in there in May so...in the fall. Sacchet: In the fall sometime. Ron Saatzer: Yeah, right before we did it. Sacchet: Okay. Okay, that's my questions. Thank you. Blackowiak: Any other questions? 4 Planning Commission Meeting - January 21, 2003 Lillehaug: I do have a question, and it would be on the two driveways on Foxford. And maybe if I can direct this question to Bob. Is that allowed, two driveways on Foxford? I don't think that's correct, is it? Or Matt. Saam: No. No. One driveway access per lot. Well per residential lot is allowed in town. Whether it's Foxford or Eastwood or 101. It's one driveway access onto a public street. Lillehaug: Okay. Ron Saatzer: But those were granted in before the rest of us? Saam: Yeah, I'm assuming if they're there, they were grandfathered in... Ron Saatzer: But there's 10 people on Foxford that have either their entrance or a circular coming onto Foxford or another road going down to a storage shed or, so there' s, you know. Blackowiak: I have a question for you, to follow up on that. So you mean that they have two actual physical cuts onto Foxford? I didn't see those. Ron Saatzer: Correct. Blackowiak: I saw maybe a loop but still back to the single entrance. Ron Saatzer: Yeah, I've got the addresses of. Blackowiak: Oh, that would be helpful because I. Ron Saatzer: Actually Eastwood Court, address 240 has a driveway plus they have an entrance going back to the lake per se maybe. So they have a second cut. 9471 Foxford has a circle driveway, so they actually have two cuts going down to Foxford. 9550 has a turnaround driveway, so somehow they did a turnaround within their lot. Blackowiak: Right, so single access on that one? Ron Saatzer: Single access, yep. 9511, I'm just kind of giving you a run down of what. Blackowiak: Right, because I went through and I really didn't see any that I thought had two driveways per se. Denise Saatzer: I think it's a lot of them, they're there and this time of year maybe, some of the brush, they haven't maintained them. Ron Saatzer: Blackowiak: Ron Saatzer: 9630 has two entrances. mean. Kind of like our' s. So, but existing, is that what? Yeah. 9511 has a turnaround. 9570 has two entrances. 9610 has two entrances. So there, I don't know if you guys didn't see them but they're there. I Planning Commission Meeting - January 21, 2003 Denise Saatzer: A lot of them are to separate like another garage or a shed back you know by the house or just a little past the house. Blackowiak: Okay. Ron Saatzer: And that was my other concern too was, in talking to Matt about it. If this wasn't granted, if these people have that you know, I do like to store some stuff too. It's my understanding that I could maybe even have another entrance. I have 3 acres out there that I would just put an entrance somewhere else and put a shed back like everybody else seems to have so I was just concerned about that and that would maybe be another option of having that right there so. You know aesthetically we have to look at all options. I don't want to disrupt anything with the neighbors. Blackowiak: So Matt, do you know timing on any of these others? Were they pre-existing before? Saam: Yeah, I'm assuming all of those were pre-existing. If I could just clarify what we looked at when I mentioned 1 of 18. Of course we only looked at properties within 500 feet of Ron's property. A lot of the addresses he mentioned I don't have on my list of being within 500 feet. The other thing is with the snowfall, if it's not a paved driveway, maybe it's a field entrance where it's going over grass and we couldn't see it then. I guess there's possible there could be a couple more but we really looked for them out there so. Ron Saatzer: And you looked, I think you pulled up addresses in Meadowlark which is really not part of our neighborhood. Meadowlark's like on the other side. Blackowiak: Right, but if it's still within the 500 feet, that's what you have to, I mean legally we have to look at specific areas that are prescribed. Ron Saatzer: Right. Blackowiak: Okay. Rich, any questions? Slagle: No. Blackowiak: No? Okay. Thank you. Ron Saatzer: Okay, thank you. Blackowiak: This item is open for a public heating, so if anybody would like to speak on this issue, please step to the microphone. State your name and address. No? I'll close the public hearing. Commissioners, any comments please. Slagle: I can start. Matt, I have a question, and I don't know if I'm going to get an answer tonight but, you know how we have these 500 feet, which this is a good example where sometimes it doesn't encompass in it's entirety the neighborhood. It goes to other areas that might not be quite as much of an interest in determining what to do here tonight. My question is this, the ones that are on Foxford, if in the case of what Ron is saying are true. That there are two, you know all of those, and those were prior to this restriction or this piece of information being put on the code books, but nonetheless the city had a policy against it, and yet they're on Planning Commission Meeting - January 21, 2003 there, would it be in your opinion that some of those were just put on and we just didn't know as a city? Saam: Exactly. People not coming in to get a permit maybe for a shed or, you know who knows what you were doing there but a lot of that stuff unfortunately goes on so I'm assuming that's how they got put in. Slagle: Okay. And I apologize if I know this already but, how did we find out that Ron and his wife were putting a driveway in? Saam: I thought you'd ask that. Ron Saatzer: We'd like to know that too. Saam: Actually one of the building inspectors, and I don't know how he found out about it, alerted me to it. tie was out there for another reason. I think Ron's applying for a building permit or something but he noticed the second driveway and notified our department of it and then we, I think we sent Ron a letter and gave him a call and it went from there. Slagle: Sure. Well I'll close my comments with just this thought. You know to the applicants, obviously it's not just this house, it's all homes that we have to try and adhere to our codes because what you've done tastefully, someone might not do so tastefully and be in a situation where wow, what do you do? So, but I will say this. I think right now that I'm leaning towards granting the variance only because one, I think there was innocence in what happened. I think two, with the neighborhood having multiple, let's just say, houses that have done this and maybe didn't do it quite as up front as these folks are here doing. And I only can go back to all the decks in that one development off to the east of Powers. Remember those discussions and people were there to apply for variances and neighbors had them all over the place and I just think we either have to go back to those people who have those and never asked for a permit and do something with it. Whether it be charge them or something, because I don't know how much credibility we have with these folks if we say no and yet we'll allow and see people with double driveways who based upon our records show no indication that they came in and asked for it. A variance. So I'm going to have to say that I'm going to grant the variance. Blackowiak: Uli. Sacchet: Yeah. Well, it's tricky. I mean basically what we're looking at here is, is it applicable in that neighborhood or not? And if we grant this variance, we're pretty much making a statement that it's okay in that neighborhood. Now if you make a statement that it's okay in that neighborhood, are we making a statement it's alright in another place besides the neighborhood and that's where it gets sticky from our side. So I'm going to vote against granting this variance and I would think it has to go to City Council to deal with it in that scope. I mean it' s, we have a set of criteria that we have to look at. One, is it a hardship? Well, there is pretty high likeliness, it's actually pretty clear that there are alternatives that would accomplish the same thing. The hardship would be to undo what you've already done. That is a hardship in itself, but that's not the hardship you're considering. The hardship you have to consider here is what's the justification for this driveway. And in that context, what we have to look at is how is it applicable to our properties? Now, ! think that would be a City Council decision to decide it's okay in that neighborhood, and I don't know exactly what the framework would be to anchor something like that in, but in terms of the framework that I understand that we have as a planning commission, by looking at the criteria we have, I do believe I need to vote for denying the Planning Commission Meeting - January 21, 2003 variance at this point and would say you can certainly bring it to council and see what they do with it. However, I do think we need, I would not want to have that April 30 date in there. That seems awfully harsh in order to ask for re-vegetating and all that. That would have to be a reasonable amount of time. A good chunk of summer, half summer or something like that. Several months. I mean April we would have barely a month to really work on it. I don't think that's reasonable. It's, I mean the pre-existing type of element is, it seems like there was a miscommunication and certainly no fault of your's that, where this ended up. But obviously this ordinance has been on the books for a year and a half so there was definitely miscommunication. It's not like you would have started this when it was still okay. So that's my comments. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. Steve. Lillehaug: One more question before my comments. The applicant indicated that since he has a larger lot, can he have another driveway because it's a 3 acre lot? When I read the codes that's still not how I understood it. Saam: No. Not if it's a residential lot. If it's, and I'd have to look up the code but I think if it's not classified as like rural residential. If it's like agricultural district, then they're allowed. That was one of the discussion points when the code was being adopted. When this part of the code was being adopted. The driveway, so no. Because it's a residential lot, one access. Lillehaug: Okay, thanks. Well comments. Seeing that the code was just completed, this specific code to limit access control points directly to city streets to a single driveway. And I think this code is reasonable and I do agree with it. ! think that the intent of the city code is pretty clear in this case by limiting this access control. And if this case were allowed, I think there would be a proliferation of a continued variances in this case. Specifically I have a comer lot. I would like to do this too, but I don't think I would get a variance granted in my neighborhood, and I think I can safely say that. And actually I would deny my own. variance in this case also. So really based on that, I think there are other reasonable options in lieu of this second driveway. They might not be ideal, but there are other options. I don't see any extenuating circumstances why this should be allowed so I do agree with staff and I do support their findings. Blackowiak: Okay, thank you. And I agree with both Uli and Steve that it's pretty clear when we have a variance request that we have certain requirements that have to be met, and I do believe that there are other options available, and there's not an undue hardship. Similar to the item that we saw at our last meeting regarding the city requesting a variance for a lot that they own. City Council if they choose to go ahead and grant a variance, that's within their realm of granting it. They have different issues that they have to take a look at. We as a Planning Commission have to look at specifically city code and whether or not a request meets the requirements, and in this case I don't think it does. I would saying that however, just recommend that you go ahead to City Council. You have 4 business days to appeal so I would certainly, if that' s something you choose to do, go ahead and appeal this and talk to City Council because they may, they have a little more leeway in saying yes or no than we as a commission do. And Uli, I agree with you on your date. April 30th seems unreasonable and I would suggest June 30t~, just based on the uncertainty of the weather. With that, I'd like to have a motion. Lillehaug: I'1l make a motion, that the Planning Commission denies the variance/)2003-1 to allow a second driveway on the property located at 9450 Foxford Road based on the Findings of Fact in the staff report and orders the removal of the second driveway, to re-vegetate the area by June 30, 2003. Planning Commission Meeting - January 21, 2003 Blackowiak: A motion. Is there a second? Sacchet: I second. Lillehaug moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission denies the variance g2003-1 to allow a second driveway on the property located at 9450 Foxford Road based on the Findings of Fact in the staff report and orders the removal of the second driveway, to re-vegetate the area by June 30, 2003. All voted in favor, except Slagle who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. Blackowiak: And again, talk to Bob specifically about how to appeal if you choose to do so. Okay? Thank you. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None. Blackowiak: The ones that we were submitted were not contemporaneous. We had already approved those so we're just going to sort of go right past that item. And I'm going to skip down to the open discussion, City ,Code update. Because we only have 4 of 7 commissioners this evening, we have decided to postpone the City Code update discussion until our work session on February 4m. That work session begins at 6:00. It's going to be in the Senior Center. And because we only have 4 of 7 commissioners we felt it was important to have more input for such a very important discussion. So that City Code update will be postponed until the February 4th meeting. That being said we'll go back to the administrative approval section. ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL: MINOR SITE PLAN AMENDMENT LOCATED ON LOT 8, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINES PARK 7TM ADDITION, EDEN TRACE CORPORATION. Generous: Thank you. There's not really a staff report. Unfortunately the heading for this gave a misconception of what we were trying to do. The code allows staff to work with developers and do administrative approvals on changes to site plans. What we wanted to do was provide you with the information to let you know what was happening out in the community so that you're aware if someone would talk to you, well I know what that building is and so you're not sort of surprised when it finally goes forward. This site plan was actually approved quite a while ago. It's more an update for you rather than requesting any approval. There's no motions involved. We think it will be a nice building. It's nice to see office industrial development starting to come back in the community. We've had discussions with several developers. Could get a little busy this year. Blackowiak: That's good. Before I ask any commissioners if they have questions, Bob. This item then is kind of a more or less a courtesy to the Planning Commission just to kind of give us a heads up of what's going to happen or what has happened administratively so that if there are minor changes that have taken place, that we' 11 kind of know ahead of time. Generous: Right. We want to keep you in the communication. Blackowiak: So it's not really an approval. I mean we don't have to give any approval. We're just sort of, it's sort of an update more or less. Generous: Yes. Planning Commission Meeting - January 21, 2003 Blackowiak: Okay. However there still might be some questions so Steve, do you have any questions? I'll let you start, regarding this specific. Now has this been approved? I mean before I even go forward. In other words, has this already been approved administratively? In other words we have no say. What are we. Generous: We haven't issued a building permit. They've done the review and said yeah, this looks okay. It's not a significant change from what was originally approved so. Blackowiak: So in other words this is on track to go forward as. Generous: For building permit. Blackowiak: As it has been revised by the applicant. okay, and we're just sort of seeing it kind of an FYI. you had a couple questions, so why don't you start. So staff is okay with it. The applicant's But that being said, I think Steve I know Lillehaug: Okay, and I'll just make them quick. Sharmeen e~mailed us at the later part of the day. I think it was today I guess. And she cleared up a few of my questions. One real specific question I guess would be, on the north end of the building, the loading docks were revised obviously, and they're screened well from the public. It's quite a change from what was previously there. The building's changed. Hopefully the building still has the same aesthetics. Generous: Yes. The front that, from elevation will be elongated but it will still be the same material and the same entrance treatments. Lillehaug: Okay. And then when I'm looking at the new layout drawing, it's kind of vague on the north end of how that actual parking lot is going to interact with the continuation of the parking lot going to the north for I assume a development that might be proposed in the future. Generous: The one to the north is already in pla, ce. Lillehaug: Okay. Generous: So that's a loading dock area for that building and so they tried to sandwich the two loading docks. Lillehaug: Okay. And this, my questions are generating pretty much because I don't know much about the previous approval. So when I'm looking at this new layout, I mean it's kind of vague and it's hard for me to compare but I guess without doing a full fledged review, I mean there are my comments. Blackowiak: Okay. Uli, do you have any comments on this? Sacchet: Yeah, question actually. I'm confused which way those loading docks work. Do they work to the east or to the west? I mean that little angle. I mean are the trucks going to be this way or this way? Generous: That's a good question. I'm not certain. Blackowiak: My guess was the east. It looks a little longer that way but I could be wrong. I don't know. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - January 21, 2003 Sacchet: Like this one? Generous: Sharmeen was just trying to provide a schematic. Blackowiak: Yeah, that's what my guess was. Generous: I would think the overhead door would face that way but I'm not certain. Sacchet: That would make sense because then it' s, if the shorter. Blackowiak: It looked longer...that's what I thought. Sacchet: If the shorter stretch. But then I was kind of wondering, how do they back into that last stall to the east? I mean that seems to be a major maneuver there to get in with a big track. Does that really work? Generous: Well there's several ways. They could actually go around the building if they wanted to and pull up there and then back in. Sacchet: Then back in. Blackowiak: Good point. Generous: ...a cross access agreement between the two parcels. Blackowiak: The parcel on the north you mean? Generous: Right. Blackowiak: Okay. Generous: That's how we had that common driveway put in at the property line. Sacchet: So where, actually this is another question. Where is the delineation there of the impervious surface here? On the northeast comer of the new building here. You see what I'm saying? I don't see, I just realized through your comment that there is a drive aisle on the east side of the building. Generous: No, I didn't. Maybe I mis-spoke. Sacchet: Is there? ...of this doesn't make that very clear. It's kind of white in that area. It doesn't show the delineation. Generous: I see that too. I would have to check with Sharmeen to be sure. Sacchet: And that's what triggered my question on which way are these tracks docking. Is there enough room? Is that going to work? Is that really, but I mean I would hope it's been thought through. That's not really my job to question that, I was just curious. We don't know? Okay. Generous: I'm not certain. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - January 21, 2003 Sacchet: Okay. Generous: This is the only plan I've seen also. Sacchet: Okay. Yeah, we would need a more detailed one to answer that question. And then my additional question in this context, you make a statement that the docks are fully screened and before they were inside the U-shape of the building so they were obviously tucked away. Here they're on the back of the building so what's our criteria for saying they're totally screened. Generous: Could be landscaping. Sacchet: Landscaping? Generous: That little boulevard area towards the entrance. Sacchet: Okay. Generous: Especially conifers, evergreen trees in there. Sacchet: Okay, that's my questions. Blackowiak: Okay, Rich. Slagle: I just have one. Bob, you use the term, and it's used in here, and I think it was used on e- mails that the changes were not deemed significant. Something to that effect. I don't want to put words in your mouth. And I'm just curious as how is that defined? Is that defined by anything on the books or is that someone's judgment? Generous: That's a judgment call. Generally if they're following the architectural detailing that was approved, that's one of the big things that we look at. That's about the same. Slagle: Okay, so would you say if the, I don't want to say the foundation. The footprint of a site or the actual placement of a building on a site was to change, would that be significant? That would require a variance or. Generous: Going back through the process? Well we'd know, if it's more than 10 percent an increase, that's deemed a significant change. So if it increases square footage wise, or if the intensity of the use increases so that there's a significant change in parking requirements or trip generations, then we'd bring it back. Slagle: Okay. Let me throw one hypothetical and then you tell me if, because I'm just being relatively new, I'm just trying to understand so the future I'm not questioning like I question this one. You've got homes to the south of this building, albeit across a park. Okay. If the homes were directly to the south of Lake Drive West, would the fact that you've doubled the parking on the south side require a significant, or would that be deemed a significant change and you would thus ask the applicant to go through again or would that just be? Generous: Well, part of this is the site layout. If you're driving up there you're going uphill so the eastern part of the site, you're missing the first part of the parking if we can't do it through the screening. If they had increased the parking on the site, again by more than 10 percent, it'd definitely come back. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - January 21, 2003 Slagle: But again, and maybe I didn't ask it the right way. Let's say that the park wasn't there and you had a house right to the south on the other side of Lake Drive West. Houses, and they put two rows of parking versus the way they had it before. As a resident sitting there, would you hope that someone's taking your best interests to heart in requiring at least a public hearing or would staff, and I'm just asking. Would staff typically say that's not major enough and would. Generous: I would think that as long as there is parking there before and it's not, you're not creating a sea, you know going to two rows. Now if the building got shoved all the way to the way back, and it was 4 rows of parking in front, yeah. That would be. Slagle: Okay, just curious. Blackowiak: Okay. Any other comments? I just have a couple for the record. I talked to Sharmeen about this at length today and I just told her, I think that the problem that I had was the fact that there's a specific heading saying administrative approval. So if you're going to give me something and give me a report on it, to me that says you want my input. You want some type of action. And if it's not an action that you want, fine. Just update me. But don't give me this huge packet and tell me to look at it because I'm looking for a lot more than is really there. And I think that was my whole frustration was, I kept on asking myself was there anything huge that I was missing? You know what is happening? What is changing that's making this merit you know 8 pages or whatever it merits. But after talking to Sharmeen I'm comfortable with this and I would just hope that in the future it would be an administrative update or something. Not necessarily a separate item. Just let us know if something's changing. Update ns. If you want us to act on something, great. Send it through the process again. Give us a report. We'll be happy to do that. But if it doesn't require our action then an update I think would be sufficient. Generous: And I think the last time I've done it was when Family of Christ changed their roof line. We gave that as an update to you so you were aware of that change. That was a definitely an improvement. Blackowiak: Right, and that's very helpful and I think I can speak for all of us saying that we definitely want to know what's going on. I mean that's a good thing. However, to have this separate line item, when I'm looking at it I'm thinking what do I need to do? I don't want to be remiss in not doing what I should be doing here. Alright, any other comments? Lillehaug: Just one quick one. I think this is on the verge of being a little over minor. It is really a large change in my mind. I mean you're really changing a little bit of everything and I, in my opinion I almost think this is something that should come before the Planning Commission and the City Council for approval again. Blackowiak: Well it does go before City Council, am I correct Bob in saying that? Generous: They're being updated also. Lillehaug: And will they have a chance. Generous: Council can do whatever they would like to do. The way we present it to them is we're providing this as an update. If they don't agree with it, then they'll advise us and... 13 Planning Commission Meeting - January 21, 2003 Blackowiak: Would you just do us a favor Bob. When it goes to council would you please make sure that you say that we were concerned about the scope of the changes and just sort of let them know that, to take a second look at it and do with it as they please. But just so that they know that we were kind of interested in the process for this. Generous: Okay. Blackowiak: Okay. Slagle: I have an update request. Blackowiak: Certainly. Slagle: Since we're talking update. Has anything, I shouldn't say anything because that might be strong word. Has the formal packets been provided to City Council with respect to the lot, the historic lot? Pauly' s-Pryzmus. Okay. So then I don't want to ask you anything until that's been. Generous: Yeah, we have no submittal. We're still working on the platting. Blackowiak: And that is on the 27m, is that correct? Next Monday. Okay, so that item is going to be before them. City Council on Monday night. Slagle: ...appeal. Generous: No, as part of the subdivision it would just go. Slagle: Okay, naturally no matter how we voted, okay. Blackowiak: Okay. Generous: Variances as part of a subdivision, site plan, conditional use you recommend. As this body, if it's just a straight variance, then you can be the final determination. Blackowiak: Okay. Alright, thank you. Slagle: Thank you. Blackowiak: Well, 7:45. We'll adjourn the meeting tonight. Chairwoman Blackowiak adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 7:45 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 14