Loading...
3 Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 3, 2001 Chairwoman Sidney called the Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The Planning Commission members and the Mayor introduced themselves to the public. MEMBERS PRESENT: LuAnn Sidney, Uli Sacchet, Deb Kind, Craig Claybaugh, Jay Karlovich, Rich Slagle and Mayor Linda Jansen MEMBERS ABSENT: Alison Blackowiak STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Matt Saam, Project Engineer, Julie Hoium, Planner I; Sharmin AI-Jaff, Senior Planner; Lori Haak, Water Resource Director; and Mahmoud Sweidan, Engineer. Public Present: Terese Meyer Terri Lee Paulsen Bob Paulsen Dick Hanson Darlene P. Scott Gauer Jeff P. James Robin Debbie LloYd Janet Paulsen ELECT CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR. Sidney: At this point I guess I'd like to open up the commission members to make nominations for Chair and following that we'll talk about Vice-Chair. We do have a note from Alison Blackowiak, which I'll read and this would serve as a nomination. Or acceptance for a nomination. She writes, I'm sorry I'm unable to attend the April 3rd meeting. I will be out of town. I realize that the Planning Commission will be electing it's Chair and Vice-Chair. I would like to say ifI were nominated for either position, I would be honored to serve in this capacity. I look forward to welcoming our new members at the April 17t~ meeting. Sacchet: Madam Chair, I would like to nominate Alison as Chair for our commission. Kind: I'll second that nomination. Sidney: Okay, any other discussion or nominations? Slagle: Madam Chair? Sidney: Yes. Planning Commission Meeting - April 3,2001 Slagle: I'd like to also nominate Uli as Chair person. Sidney: Thank you. Second for that? Do we need that? I guess we don't. Okay, any other nominations? Okay, let's vote on that. We have two candidates so all those in favor of Alison Blackowiak as Chair, please signify by saying aye. Slagle: Madam Chair, before. I thought I caught in the By-laws that it's supposed to be by ballot. I might be mistaken. Sidney: Yes, that I understand however at this point, well I had discussed this with Mayor Jansen and we could go secret ballot if you wish. However, the commission can suspend rules if you feel that would be okay. Mayor Jansen: So whatever all of you are comfortable with. If you want to suspect the rules and go with an open ballot. Otherwise you can stay with the By-laws and cast the secret ballots, if you'd like. Slagle: It doesn't matter. I just wanted to bring up. Sidney: No, good point because that is written and if we want to change it, that's something that we would want to discuss as part of the By-laws. So we'll return to the vote on Alison. Alison Blackowiak as Chair of the Planning Commission. Sacchet moved, Kind seconded to nominate Alison Blackowiak as Chair for the Planning Commission. All voted in favor, except Slagle who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5tolo Sidney: Okay, we could vote on Uli as well. Okay, for Vice Chair I'd like to open it up for nominations. Kind: Madam Chair, I'd like to nominate LuAnn Sidney to be our Vice Chair. Sacchet: I second that. Sidney: Okay, I accept the nomination. Any other nominations? Slagle: I'm going to nominate Uli. Sidney: We can only vote once here too. Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to nominate LuAnn Sidney as Vice Chair for the Planning Commission. All voted in favor, except Slagle who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5to 1. Sidney: So I guess LuAnn Sidney is nominated and has been voted as Vice Chair for the Planning Commission so any further discussion? ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION BY-LAWS. Sidney: I'd like to have a motion that we review that. Open it up for review. Planning Commission Meeting - April 3,2001 Kind moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission open the By-laws up for review. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Sidney: In this case, comments from the commissioners. I know there are a few things here that I saw that needed to be changed. Specifically the time of the meeting. It's been listed as Wednesday. It's actually Tuesday. And are there any other comments to be made? Sacchet: Yes Madam Chair. It's not really a change for the by-laws but I was wondering, since you're referring to Robert's Rules of Order, if that could be made available for ud to look at it at times. Aanenson: We have a copy here at City Hall. Sacchet: Okay. We can check that out. Okay, that's my comment. Kind: Madam Chair, I have a question on the last page of the by-laws, item (b) is bold faced and I was just wondering if staff could elaborate as to why that's in bold. Aanenson: That was a change made a while ago. I didn't catch it when it got re-copied. It was changed probably 4-5 years ago. Kind: And is that true that matters which appear on the agenda as open discussion items will not be recorded in the minutes? Aanenson: That's correct. That's how I did review this again today with the City Attorney. That's how we had posed it a'number of years ago and legally we don't have to. It's noticed as a discussion item. It does appear specifically so it does meet that qualification. It is posted what item specifically under open discussion. Anybody wishing to attend the meeting is welcome to attend the meeting. It does meet the open meeting law. Kind: In the past the open discussion items have been included on the minutes. Going forward should we make a point of not includingthem? Aanenson: Well I guess the stuff that we're talking about as open discussion really should be ongoing items. Just as LuAnn mentioned earlier. The open discussion was something we added different. That was never on the agenda. We provided that as an opportunity, as a mechanism that is someone met with staff and they felt like, I'd like to get a different interpretation. I'd like to get a second opinion, they can certainly always go to the council for a work session but this also provided an opportunity to get a read from the Planning Commission so it was just a forum to say, I'm not maybe not succeeding with the staff. I'd like to get another opinion so that was a new category that was placed on the agenda and that was specifically for that purpose. So if there's other discussion items, I think those should go under ongoing items. Or old business or something like that. Kind: Thank you. And then I have, let's see. One other typo. I don't know if it's a typo or not but one other change. On the first, let's see. The second page of the by-laws, talking about time. The address of the City Council Chambers is 690 City Center Drive. And then I would ask that we maybe discuss a little bit about the secret ballot, whether we want to keep it that way or not. Since we've never done it that way before. · Planning Commission Meeting - April 3,2001 Aanenson: You can always suspend your rules. If you put it the other way and you decide to do secret, you can go back and do it secret ballot so whatever, you have a right to suspend that. Kind: I guess my perspective would be that we do it the way we usually, have it listed in our by-laws the way we usually do it and then if somebody requested a secret ballot, we could always suspend the rules and go to secret ballot. Sidney: Right. Well, I guess Kate have we ever had a secret ballot, in Your recollection? Aanenson: I don't think so since I've been here, no. Sidney: Okay. Do you have any word smithing that you could offer for that? Kind: Oh yeah, wow. That would be wise for me to have been prepared for that, wouldn't it. Strike the words, this shall be done by secret ballot and insert a sentence that says, this shall be done by nomination and vote of the entire commission. And ! guess I need to strike the next, the rest of that paragraph really. Because it all talks about the secret ballot. Sidney: Do you feel that we should state that each the Chair and Vice Chair is elected or nominated and voted on separately? Kind: I think that makes sense. Sidney: Okay. And only voted on once too. Kind: Yeah, right. Sidney: So any other comments about the by-laws? Sacchet: Should we make a motion to adopt them? Sidney: Yes. Sacchet: ! move that we adopt them as discuss. Slagle: Second. Sacchet moved, Slagle seconded that the Planning Commission approve the By-laws as amended. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to 0. Aanenson: Madam Chair, can I just make an announcement? There is a library task force meeting at the senior center. I just want to make sure that anybody that's here for the library meeting, it is next door in the senior center. Sidney: Okay, I'll repeat just to make sure everybody heard. Anybody here for the library meeting? It's next door in the senior center. Okay. OATH OF OFFICE. Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 2001 Sidney: What we discussed and how we'll be doing this is, each of us will stand up and receive the oath and we'll read the oath of office together, inserting your own name of course as written on the piece of paper. Aanenson: And then to clarify, these need to be certified so at your convenience, if you want to come back during office hours and have a notary public and then they would be signed and put on file so we'll just do the swearing in part tonight. I think it works fine if you stand there and we read them collectively and obviously you can insert your name. The planning commissioners read the Oath of Office for Planning Commission members. PLANNING COMMISSIONER LIAISON TO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS. Sidney: Next item is to discuss Planning Commissioner liaison to City Council meetings. We need to discuss whether or not the commission should elect one person to attend or schedule all commissioners on a rotating basis for a year. Commissioners, do you have any comments please? Yes. Kind: Madam Chair, I don't like the idea of picking one that goes to every one. I like the rotating basis. Feel pretty strongly about that. I like the rotating basis. We've also discussed with the City Council I believe at our joint meeting, it may have been at our meeting after the joint meeting, I'm not sure. But we discussed the idea that we could perhaps pick any 3 meetings to go to throughout the year and I was just interested in my fellow commissioners thoughts on that. Sacchet: Yeah, Madam Chair. I guess the question that I have, if there is a purpose that there should be a planning commissioner at every council meeting, then we should rotate or always have somebody there but it's my experience that that may not necessarily be the case. I thinkthat'd be a question to maybe address, maybe Linda you could say something to that. Mayor Jansen: Sure. I don't think in the history Of my attending planning commission meetings or council meetings I've ever seen the commissioner actually get called on at the council meeting. It's always been my impression that it's more of a reporting back function and maybe we haven't handled it that way in the past. So if in fact that person were coming back and sharing a planning commissioners point of view on how the City Council handled certain issues, that that-might be a healthy and constructive way for all of you to hear feedback on how your discussion was maybe handled at the council level. I can always provide some of that but I think you have a more unbiased perspective if you have one of your own commissioners actually reporting back on what they observed and perceived and I can certainly add to that at any point. Sacchet: Thank you Madam Mayor. I think that is a good point because like we got some feedback from staff at times in terms of what happened to the recommendations we fed into the council so I guess that could be taken as a reason that we would maintain or rotating...cover all the council meetings. In the absence of that I would say, yeah let's pick some and go to the ones that are most interesting to us but with this in the picture I would think that we do have a reason to actually keep coverage of the whole. And then maybe we could actually make it an item under the discussion part of the meeting where the person attending could give a little bit of an update that would take something off of Kate's shoulders in that sense. We might get more of a report that way too. Sidney: I'll be asking for a report during open discussion, and we'll see how that goes. And I guess my comments about the liaison to the City Council, I guess I feel the way we have it set up is functioning Planning Commission Meeting- April 3, 2001 well. It's just we need some feedback to the Planning Commission and if you can't make the meeting, then I think it's incumbent on the commissioner to call someone else to fill in for you. And I know I've called on Commissioner Kind to do that for me in the past and I think we could work it that way. Sacchet: If I can add one more question Madam Chair. Now that we have these meetings on TV, is that possibly an option that you watch it on TV? Or is the idea that you actually come here? I know that that's splitting hairs but. Sidney: Well I guess I'd wonder, is the sound quality always good. Sometimes I guess I felt as though sometimes I couldn't really hear. Sacchet: So that'd be a reason to come here, okay. Alright. Sidney: Yeah. Mayor Jansen: And maybe experiment with it. Certainly since it's not an interactive exchange at the meetings, if you can hear well enough on the television set, I'd stay home ifI could so I think that's a good idea. Slagle: The initial question about the liaison from the council, come back to that or what's the status on that? Sidney: How do you mean? Slagle: Is the Mayor supposed to be the constant liaison or is there a rotating liaison from the council? Mayor Jansen: This is actually a commissioner that's attending the council meetings and then my role is pretty stable as far as we may be rotating every 6 months. But it's a little different function than the other. Slagle: Alright, I understand it better. Sidney: Thank you. Any other discussion? Actually I think we need a motion in this case to go forward.' Aanenson: Madam Chair, if I could just make a clarification. Again open discussion is a very specific item. I think if you want to have a report, we can make that as. Sidney: A separate item. Aanenson: Or it needs to go under ongoing items. Sidney: Oh I'm sorry. Aanenson: Just to make sure. As a general rule we don't have a lot under open discussion. And maybe we wouldn't have to put it on unless there was something there but it should either be a specific, we can have a Planning Commissioner's report if you'd like that or put it under ongoing items but I wouldn't recommend under open discussion. Planning Commission Meeting- April 3, 2001 Sidney: Okay. I guess that dilutes the purpose of open discussion the more I think about it. I'd like a motion concerning this item. Kind: Yes, Madam Chair I'll make the motion that we stay with a rotating schedule and have a commissioner's report at the next Planning Commission meeting on the City Council meeting that they attended. Sidney: And do we have a second? Slagle: Second. Kind moved, Slagle seconded that Planning Commission members will attend City Council meetings on a rotating basis and present reports at the following Planning Commission meeting. Ali voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to 0. REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE LOT 2, BLOCK 2, CHANHASSEN ESTATES 2ND ADDITION INTO TWO LOTS WITH VARIANCES FOR AN EXISTING DUPLEX ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF AND LOCATED AT 8004 AND 8006 ERIE AVENUE, ROBERT PAULSEN. Chair Sidney opened up this item for a public hearing. Julie Hoium presented the staff report on this item. Sidney: Commissioners, questions of staff please. Sacchet: Yeah, Madam Mayor, I need to clarifysomething. Are you recommending or suggesting that if we go with the PUD route that then it would be okay to do the subdivision? I just want to be real clear about that. Aanenson: Let me explain again. In the subdivision ordinance that we have right now, under the low density there's 3 zoning options. RSF, PUD, which is the smallest lot can be 11, or the R-4. Those are the 3 zoning options. These twin homes do not meet any of those. In order to do an attached product, the same thing we went through with the Pulte, you have to do a medium density. We've pointed that out as kind of one of the flaws with our ordinance so we would have to up zone that. What we're recommending is that we would do a PUD and then give exceptions for those 5 lots. You'd have to re- guide that though in order to make that happen. Sacchet: That part I understand, but I don't understand what are then within this new framework it would be actually acceptable to subdivide, whether you would support a subdivision at that point. Aanenson: Well the thing, if you do the PUD, you give a density allocation so they cannot create additional lots. Is that what your concern was? If you say this density is, unless they wanted to, if somebody wanted to subdivide and create an additional lot, they would have to come back and rezone the property. Karlovich: I guess I kind of have the same question. Would they be able to subdivide it and have that unit without a garage or would they have to do a type of a condominium type of?. Planning Commission Meeting - April 3,2001 Aanenson: Well the State law is right now, they can do the condominium. My understanding from the applicant is their desire is to have a lot. In order to have a lot, to convey a lot line you have to have certain amount of square footage. So what we would be looking with the PUD is it provides specific standards which the anomalies would be those homes that are the twin homes. We would develop different standards so we'd say Lots 1 through 10 would have these standards, which we do in other PUD's where we've got different types of products. Similar to Walnut Grove where we say these are the standards for this, and call out the different zoning districts. So that's what we would do. Would that prevent somebody from still wanting their garage? We would convey as part of that PUD that one unit would have the garage. Just how it is now. Both garages are one side of the house. We would say as a part of this, this unit has this garage. This unit has the other garage. We'd make that part of the requirements of that specific PUD. Claybaugh: How old is that subdivision? Hoium: It was originally platted in the late 1960's. First part was platted, I think it was 1969. The second addition was platted in 1971. Claybaugh: And I'm to understand this is the first thing that's come forward relevant to that subdivision looking for a variance? Hoium: There have been numerous variance requests in that area. To an attachment or to Porches. Claybaugh: How have those been handled? Aanenson: We tapeverbatim minutes so... Claybaugh: How have those been handled in the past? Hoium: Just from going through the staff reports and the files, some of them have been, some of the variances have been approved. Some of them have been denied based onthe fact that they could not, hardship. They couldn't come up with a hardship. They couldn't prove a hardship. Aanenson: I think what we went through last time, this is the second time we've heard this. This i°t is one of the smaller ones so the lot that's being created, that's the struggle the staff is one of the undersized by creating two significantly smaller lots as opposed to some of the other variances that went through. Claybaugh: What is the average lot size? Any idea? Aanenson: For the twin homes? Claybaugh: No, not just for the twin homes. She said you've got 95 that are non-conforming overall. Hoium: The average lot size throughout the whole subdivision? The average lot size is approximately 14,000 square feet. Claybaugh: Would they need to take these down too in order to accomplish splitting the lot? Hoium: On this specific subdivision one is approximately 6,000 and one is 9,000. Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 2001 Sacchet: Yeah Madam Mayor, I have two more specific questions. Hopefully get a little clear answer on those. Kind: Madam Chair. Sacchet: Did I call you table or what? Never mind. Kind: He'll get it. Sacchet: Eventually I'll get it straight. One place in the staff report, I wasn't quite sure whether you were proposing that Chanhassen Estates PUD would be folded together with the PUD for the Hidden Valley development. Did I understand that correctly? Aanenson: That's one alternative. Sacchet: So it would be one PUD for the whole area basically because they have somewhat the similar characteristics and all. Okay, so that was part of your suggestion. Aanenson: Correct. Sacchet: Now real specific, within the PUD there are still some restrictions in terms of lot size. In terms of lot width and so forth. Now you pointed out in your table on page 4 that in the PUD, the requirements, 11,000 square feet, however there is a 75% that needs to be met so there's some leeway. Some flexibility and you said that there's 7 lots under the 11,000 square feet and I was wondering about how many are - under 8,250 which is 75% mark, and I believe there are two. At least that's what I deducted from the table of lot sizes in the attachments and those two happen to be the one duplex that was allowed to ' subdivide, correct? Now what I don't know is when you look at lot width in the PUD, there's a 90 foot requirement with a 75% flexibility will be 67 feet that are required. And how many don't meet that, do we know that or do we have a handle on that because that I couldn't extract from the report? Hoium: It was no more than a handful just from looking at the original plat. Just guesstimate I would say 5 possibly within the entire subdivision. I would have to go through. Sacchet: So pretty small number. Hoium: It was a small number. The majority of them were 80. 75 and 80. Sacchet: Okay. Hoium: Some of them were 60. 65. A small handful were. Sacchet: So they were really close. And the resulting lot lines, if we allow this one to subdivide would be, one would be 61 and the other one 38, is that correct? Hoium: One would be 62. The other would be 40. Sacchet: So both of them, one would be significantly less. Do you happen to know whether there's any other one in that area that is as low as 40? Planning Commission Meeting - April 3,2001 Hoium: No, there are not. Sacchet: Okay, that answers my question. Thank you. Karlovich: Are we in order here or do we just kind of. I have another question for staff. I'm still confused. I'm looking at option number 4 which seems like a good thing in general for the subdivision but with this preliminary plat, how can you let them split, have a line down the middle and a fence, but then he gets the right to go on the other person's lot to get in the garage and get out or, I'm still confused on how that happens. This preliminary plat will never happen, even under: option number 4, is that correct? Aanenson: Well you could put an easement together, and that was the original suggestion with the subdivision is that they would do an easement. Karlovich: Does the applicant want to do that? Hoium: The applicant has been willing to do that. They have spoken with an attorney about putting up an easement together and what would be needed to have a private easement from one side to the other garage. Karlovich: And what is that getting them besides just setting it up as a condominium type? Just so they could have a fence down the middle? Hoium: Just so, they didn't want to be landlords. They wanted to be able to own their own property. Have somebody else own the other property and not have to take care of the maintenance of the yard as. well as, I believe perhaps they could speak to that better than I could. Sidney: Any other comments? Okay° Would the applicant or their designee, please come forward and state your name and address please. Terri Lee Paulsen: Hi. My name is Terri Lee Paulsen and I live at 8006 Erie Avenue. First of all I'd like to thank Julie and the staff for their hard work on this. I'd like to introduce myself and my husband to the new commissioners and those who were unable to attend the last Planning Commission meeting. My husband has owned the duplex at 8004 and 8006 Erie Avenue for 10 years and we are before the Planning Commission looking for a way to be able to subdivide our property. We no longer want to be landlords, but we want to continue living on the property. Another duplex in the neighborhood was subdivided in 1986 and is now two single family homes, exactly the outcome we are asking for. We're very flexible about how this is done and have worked with the city to explore many options. One option we are pursuing involves building a single car garage, giving each side of the duplex access to their own garage. We have consulted with an attorney about easements and that is a viable option. Personally I think the one car garage on the 8006 property would alleviate any confusion and problems with people being on the driveway or what not. The PUD option looks to be a win/win situation for both us and the city. Not only would it allow us to subdivide but it would allow the city to make the Chanhassen Estates Addition compliant. At present only 27% of the 130 lots meet the current zoning ordinance pertaining to minimum lot size. And we'd be willing to waiver our rights to the 60 day rule to allow the city to hold a public hearing and discuss the PUD matter further. I think my husband wants to speak. Bob Paulsen: My name's Bob Pautsen. Like my wife said, I've lived on that property for 10 years and I just, this whole, can you put... Right now everything we're asking for has been done before. When we 10 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3,2001 talked to Julie originally about a garage, my next door neighbor has been given a variance for a garage. I think it was like in '85. Chanhassen has already split two subdivisions, one on 2 houses, 3 houses over and one on Iroquois. And everything come back to us. We're just trying to stay there and we're not asking for anything that hasn't been done before. And I think everything keeps on coming back to...property that is very unique and with the recent facts, it shows that it's just an odd situation but we're just trying to get past and that's pretty much all I would say. Thank you. Sidney: Okay, questions of the applicant? Commissioners? Okay, thank you. I would like to open this up to a public hearing. I'd like a motion to do so please. Slagle moved, Sacchet seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor. The public hearing was opened. Sidney: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, would you please come forward and state your name and address. Debbie Lloyd: Hi. My name is Debbie Lloyd. I live at 7302 Laredo Drive. I didn't expect to be talking on this issue at all tonight, but living in a neighborhood nearby, knowing a lot of my friends live in Chan Estates, that's an RSF. That's not a PUD development and I think you're opening yourselves up to a whole, huge neighborhood issue by suggesting that become a PUD. A PUD has requirements for open space and I mean there's an elaborate list of requirements for a PUD and I think that all should be explored without jumping into thinking this is a viable option. That's all I'd like to say, thank you. Sidney: Anyone else wishing to speak? Kind moved, Claybaugh seconded to close the public hearing. Ail voted in favor"and the motion carried. The public' hearing was closed. Sidney: Commissioners, comments please. Sacchet: Madam Chair, yes my comments. I sympathize with your referring to precedence and that was one of the main things we asked to look into at the last meeting because the precedence really don't fully straight on apply. The way we looked at them last time and the one that was allowed to subdivide has tuck under garages so the two lots are equally sized. The other lot that was given a variance to build a garage never built it, is expired and I at this point would be very hard pressed personally to make a recommendation for a variance like that. Now, the city attorney made a statement that precedence don't apply so I think we cannot make our recommendation based on precedence because that's very clearly established from the legal side that precedence don't apply. In terms of the idea of making a PUD, I do agree with you Debbie that that's a pretty big undertaking to retrofit a whole neighborhood into planned unit development framework. I do like the idea of exploring that and considering going that route in order to make the whole neighborhood compliant and especially in the view that somewhat similar size and similar character neighborhood just maybe a couple years younger next to it, the Hidden Valley neighborhood is a PUD. I think from the way I see it would make sense to go that route. I can support that notion. Now what I really do not see though necessarily is whether that automatically includes a recommendation to allow the subdivision of that lot. I personally still believe that it's stretching so many aspects on a lot that is 40 foot wide. It's not ideal to say at the least and so I would say yes to exploring the PUD idea. Merging this to Hidden Valley PUD but I'm still hard pressed to support the subdivision of the property of the applicant. Basically, one question, even in the PUD framework would there be a need for variances? 11 Planning Commission Meeting- April 3, 2001 Aanenson: Yes. The way the PUD is set up is, the other option was to give us another zoning that works for the city but generally we've done that through the PUD application and set each anomaly would have the different lots would be assigned different standards and that's the purpose of the PUD. To give some flexibility. Sacchet: So that's my understanding too because it's still less than the 11,000 square foot and even if you go with the 75%, at least the smaller one is less than the 8,250 square feet and in the width, they're both not compliant, isn't it? Well, no. They both don't make the 67 foot.' Aanenson: Just so you're aware, even in a regular straight subdivision, I mean a PUD which would be the Iow density PUD, there's often anomalies that we get relief from. For example we'll say because we're trying to save trees or there's a wetland, we'll give a variance for a 20 foot front yard setback instead of a 30, so each PUD is unique. Sacchet: Is a little different. Aanenson: And just in case you're, we did look at what other zoning, you know we tried to explore every option for you. Give you the alternatives. The other thing is, if that's the route that you want us to pursue, this is on the 60 day time frame so we'd make some recommendations. If you wanted us to explore it, we'd have to go back and it takes a whole other process to begin that dialogue so we just want to give you all the options that were out there. Sacchet: Basically where I'm trying to go with this last question is that, I would be very hard pressed supporting a variance because I don't see a hardship. I mean I cannot consider the fact that the applicant doesn't want to be a landlord anymore a hardship. That I'm really struggling with and that's one of the fundamental requirements in order to approve or recommend approval of a variance is that there is a hardship involved. That's my comments. Sidney: Mr. Claybaugh. Claybaugh: My comments would run parallel to Uli's. Sidney: Okay. Mrs. Kind. Kind: Yes Madam Chair, I have a few comments. I think rezoning the whole subdivision to PUD is overkill. I don't even really want to open up that can of worms at all. I am intrigued with the concept of Option 3, which is to rezone the lots with the twin homes on them right now to a PUD. To bring them into compliance. I think that is a valid solution and as long as there's conditions attached, that the PUD would require these lots to only be used as sites for twin homes with a zero lot line. My concern is, I don't want to change the rules on the people living in Chan Estates right now and all of a sudden have this be R-8 and allow apartments on those sites so I support Option 3 with that condition. Sidney: Okay, Commissioner Karlovich please. Karlovich: Madam Chair, Option number 1 is in front of us right now. I think that the 60 day rule that we should recommend to the City Council that what is before us right now be denied. I just can't see that ever going through. I think the easement idea as opposed to a condominium just doesn't make a whole lot of sense. If there was going to be a garage built, but I don't even know ifa garage could fit in there 12 Planning Commission Meeting- April 3,2001 without a side yard variance on that side of the house. Therefore I think at least Option number 1 needs to be recommended for denial. Option number 4 is not before us. I guess I could see the applicant hasn't made the applicant for the whole subdivision be reviewed or public hearing. We could recommend that to the City Council. I don't have a problem with that and see what the neighborhood has to say but Option number 1 should be recommended for denial. That's all I have. Sidney: Okay. Slagle: Madam Chair, I had fully been prepared to participate in this discussion until I entered the room today and saw Terri, the applicant and she is one of my clients, although her name has changed since the last time we had worked together so that's why I didn't draw the conclusion so I really think in this case I should abstain. Sidney: Okay, thank you. And I guess my comments are similar to Commissioner Karlovich's in that I think that the applicant was brought forward having to do specifically with these twin homes and I feel uncomfortable expanding it to all of Chanhassen Estates. And the other option still require a lot of work to make them viable and because of that I feel that this request should be denied and the vote thusly. So can I have a motion please. Karlovich: Madam Chair I would move that the action in from of us right now, the option number 1 to firm that up a little bit, that we recommend to the City Council that the applicant to subdivide 8004 and 8006 Erie Avenue as presented to us be denied. Sidney: Second? Sacchet: I second that. Karlovich moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the request for preliminary plat to subdivide Lot 2, Block 2, Chanhassen Estates 2no Addition into two lots with variances, located at 8004 and 8006 Erie Avenue. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0. Rich Slagle abstained. CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 18, SUBDMSION ORDINANCE AND CHAPTER 20, ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING THE SEC. 20-94, GRADING & EROSION CONTROL. Mahmoud Sweidan presented the staff report on this item. Sidney: Any questions from commissioners please? Kind: Madam Chair, I do have a question. I'm just wondering how you arrived at the 5,000. Is that a worst case scenario of a hill just totally slides away it would be covered if we have to repair it? Sweidan: Actually it was 5,000 but from our staff experience due to the last few years, they noticed that they are reaching this amount and they are taking the position that more for bigger size development which may have it. And to avoid that instance you know in the future, it's going to reach and to be more than 5,000 so that's why they estimated this 5,000 per acre. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3,2001 Saam: If I could add something also. I did a rough estimate of a 1 acre site. I said say we have a 1 acre site, 43,000 square feet. It's a square site so it's about 200 square feet on each side. Put a silt fence around the whole thing at $3.00 a lineal foot. I came up with $2,500 and then, well what if there's a hill where we want an erosion control blanket, that price is also about $3.00 a square yard. If you have a 800 square yard hill, that's another $2,500 so with the combination of the silt fence and any other environmentally sensitive areas on the site, I think it's a reasonable amount, $5,000 so that's one example of how it would work. Kind: I'm assuming that you decided that to come up with prices per linear foot and some sort of table that developers can refer to was just too complicated and that just putting a dollar cap was the way to go. Saam: Yeah, and as we discussed some at the last meeting, this was we thought then you'd have to raise them every few years and have to come back and ask for a commission to do that so just to avoid that, we thought we'd just have an amount per acre. Kind: But we will have to raise this number too over the years. Saam: Maybe in 20 years but I don't think we have to every year. I don't know, do you? Kind: No, thank you. Sidney: Any other questions? I'd like to open this up for public hearing. May I have a motion please. Sacchet moved, Karlovich seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Sidney: Anyone wishing to address the commission on this item, please come forward. (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Karlovich: ... draft ordinance, which is the last few pages of this item, I was just wondering why is MnDot in the title up on the top? And then in paragraph (c), after the word for and then there's 4" within parenthesis. I think we can simply put inches in there. Aanenson: If I can clarify that. That was part of another code amendment. We had 3 or 4 that was part of the same section. Instead of carrying this part forward, we just held it all back and to get this part, the Planning Commission asked for clarification. So all of this will be carried forward. The 4 inches was another amendment that was noticed at your last public hearing so this entire thing will go forward but it's the same section of the code. So that was addressed at the last Planning Commission. They did recommend approval of that amendment that's shown in bold. Karlovich: I think the word inches should go in there. After the parenthesis. Aanenson: Okay, yeah. Thank you. Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair. Question too of more linguistic interest. In paragraph (a), in the middle it says the maximum escrow required for parcel is $5,000 per acre. I think that should probably say the maximum escrow allowable per parcel is $5,000 per acre, not required. Because that's not, the $5,000 is not what's required. That's the maximum allowable, okay. That's something that's a miss edit. That 14 Planning Commission Meeting- April 3, 2001 needs to be lined up. Other than that I think it's a straight forward shot. I'm happy with the 5,000 as a ceiling. I hope that's not going to be changed too frequently and I think it allows the intent that was stated that we try to accomplish here that in cases where there is a need, it can be more than 500. Sidney: Okay. May I have a motion please. Sacchet: Madam Mayor, I move. Sidney: That's 3 times. Sacchet: Madam, oh Chair. Mayor and Chair. Alright, the mayor and the chair. Madam Chair, alright not quit yet the mayor. And I move that we adopt the ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code, the City Zoning Ordinance concerning grading and erosion control as proposed. With two changes. Well actually three changes. That we don't say Minnesota Department of Transportation in the title. That we say allowable instead of required in the middle of paragraph (a) and I do agree with Mr. Karlovich that feet and inches would be more easily understandable than the single and double squiggles. Kind: I'll second that motion. Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of amendments to Chapter 18, Subdivision Ordinance and Chapter 20, Zoning Ordinance regarding Section 20-94, Grading and Erosion Control with the following amendments: 1. Deleting "Minnesota Department of Transportation" in the title. 2. Using the word "allowable" instead of"required" in the middle of paragraph (a). 3. Inserting the word "inches" after (4") in paragraph (c). All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PERMIT FOR FILLING OF 2,000 SO. FT. (0.05 ACRES) OF WETLAND FOR ROAD CONSTRUCTION LOCATED AT 3675 ARBORETUM DRIVE, MINNESOTA LANDSCAPE ARBORETUM. Lori Haak presented the staff report on this item. Sidney: Questions ofstaff. Sacchet: Yeah, Madam Chair. Well first of all I had a fantastic adventure trying to read this blueprint. Trying to figure out where is actually road and stuff. I mean the parking lots are somewhat clear because of the little parallel, sort of parallel lines but I just want to clarify, make sure I got this right. There is really like almost a circle road around the parking lot, right? I mean there's a road on the north side of the parking lot as well. Haak: Actually if we could hold off on that question. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3,2001 Sacchet: Sure, we can wait for the applicant. Okay, I'll address that with the applicant. Now I do have some other question though for you too. Now when you said where the fill actually happens for the wetland, that's just that little triangle in the very top? Haak: Actually that's what was taken out of the original proposal. The cross hatched area. It's actually the drainage way that you can see there outlined in bold. Sacchet: So the drainage way is wetland? Haak: Yes. Sacchet: So that whole skinny, squiggle is wetland? Haak: Yes, that's correct. Sacchet: And that whole skinny squiggle plus the triangle on top is not more than 2,000 square feet? Haak: The triangle on top is not included in the current proposal. On the grading plan it says that it's about 500 square feet and the corps of engineers required them to take that out of the application in order to streamline the permitting process through the corps of engineers. So what they're proposing to fill is actually. Sacchet: Right, that whole thing. Haak: And this is not included in the fill area: It's 445 square feet. It's like 445 square feet that they were required to take out because of the corps of engineers permit. Sacchet: But basically the whole area, that 2,000 does include that whole long corridor. Okay, that's one of my key questions. And you touched on why they're not fully held to the 2 for 1 replacement because they're doing a lot of other good stuff. I don't mean to be picky on the Arboretum. It's the greatest thing, one of the greatest things we have around here but I do think we have to treat them as we would treat everybody else so. So we're actually proposing to give them some of our city credits. That was a little unclear. I mean on one hand you said well they're going to have all this kind of filtration and extra stuff there but then on the other hand you say you would give them city credits. Can you make that a little clearer please. Haak: The Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act does not allow for that sort of thing to get credit at this point. They're looking at allowing credit for infiltration of basins and rain gardens and that sort of thing, but it's not part of the rule yet. When I was speaking with the Arboretum and they were interested in incorporating some of those elements into the plan for the Arboretum and because they're into landscaping, it's a good fit for them and they actually came to me with that. I thought that it would be appropriate for us to do that. In order to encourage them to look at some of those practices because the city, it's my perspective that the city isn't really in a great position to go ahead and try some of those things. We don't really have a lot of land that we could, basically in the long run it's cheaper if we do it this way because then we can go out there every once in a while and say how are those rain gardens. How are those infiltration basins going? We can do that in the long run. Like I said, we have 22.4 acres of public value credit and that's just an inordinate amount of public value credit when we have 4. some odd acres of the new wetland credit, which like I said earlier, that's the stuff that takes 5 years to really. Once you create the wetland, it takes 5 years for that credit to be certified so that's the stuff that's hard to 16 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 2001 come by and really keep very close tabs on that. You know once we get down below 10 acres or something like that. Basically I made the recommendation because I felt that this was a good use of that 1,800 square feet and frankly 1,800 square feet isn't a whole lot. Aanenson: Can I just add to something too. I think the bottom line is they're doing some modeling for us that we can go back and measure and test. It's experimental. As some of you may know, this is something that Riley-Purgatory looked at with the Bluff Creek. Trying to implement some rain gardens. We were saying they're a little experimental so this gives us an opportunity to go back and measure some of that and so it's a good resource for us too. That's why we thought it made some sense. Sidney: Any other questions? Claybaugh: Did they delete the section here that you've got hashed off to come in under the Corps exemption. Square footage requirements. Haak: That's correct. Claybaugh: Are we staying_behind that? Haak: Yep. Claybaugh: What stage wetland is that? Haak: It's a Type III wetland basin so it's got, in the middle it's got all the cattails. The sides and the drainage way are more grassy types. Claybaugh: Okay, s° the bank site would be similar composition? Haak: I believe they're proposing a TyPe III for the bank site so. Claybaugh: That's all I have. Sidney: Would the applicant or their designee please come forward and state your name and address please. James Robin: Good evening. My name is James Robin. I'm the landscape architect who has prepared the document that you have in front of you. My address is 5935 Glencoe Road in Excelsior. Can I tell you about the plan? Sidney: Oh yes please. James Robin: Much of this, this whole program was prompted by the addition to the horticultural learning center and just for orientation purposes, this plan is oriented with north up. Highway 5 is across the marsh to the north. The main Arboretum parking area and buildings are off to the south and east here. And what, as I say, what prompted much of this is the construction of this large addition to the learning center and in doing that addition, and recognizing the increase in visits and so on and so forth, the decision was made to begin to implement some portions of the master plan which the Arboretum has been working on. One of the things that this accomplishes, this plan accomplishes besides increasing some available parking is that there's never been a school bus turn around, nor decent fire access to that 17 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 2001 building, and this plan accomplishes both. I've had a chance to review this with the fire marshal and I think he's happy with where we're going with this. The issue before you tonight is prompted by the fact that old Highway 5, which is the roadway that originally came past this building, when it was built, who knows when. Many, many years ago. A culvert was put under the roadway to connect this wetland to the south to the Lake Minnewashta Wetland to the north. And the area that we're talking about is the highway drainage ditch that was a result of that earlier construction. Because that elevation of the marsh and the bottom of the ditch relative to the working surfaces, or the use areas of the site, it's not possible to accomplish any of this, even in a revised format without impacting then so we've decided to approach it from the standpoint that we would fill it and implement the plan. A good part of which envisions the demonstration of rain gardens and runoff ideas in this central parking area. And if you'll let me I'll just share with you a brief sketch. I think it's upside down and backwards but it doesn't matter. This is an aerial view of that parking facility, looking from the building and what we're proposing to do hopefully in concert with the Minnehaha Watershed District is to develop a series of models based on segments of the parking area that demonstrate differences in rainfall volume that is produced by a totally paved segment. A segment with some soft surfaces. Segments that are more aggressive in the off pavement areas. Going all the way to doing some, hopefully some permeable pavement and ideas that actually allow water to infiltrate into the hard surface. In concert with some monitoring basins and/or demonstration basins, we haven't really worked out all of the details. Our ideas in the setting of a learning center would be a great benefit and you're more than welcome to come under any set of circumstances and observe what we've hopefully accomplished down the road. In addition to that there's a whole host of bio-engineering kind of ideas. There are some rainfall storm water quality issues that we can hopefully deal with. We think we're at the front end of an interesting project so that's where we think we're headed and your help in this wetland issue would be much appreciated. Sidney: Questions of the applicant. Sacchet: Yes, I actually do have some questions of the applicant. I believe from seeing your color - version of the print I actually confirm that I was reading it correctly. I would want to ask you, you made a comment that this was actually a highway drainage ditch at one point, so that's, it wasn't even a natural thing to start with. Okay. Just want to make clear I understood that right. And so the connections of the wetlands, I mean that was artificial in that sense but we would want to maintain a connection or are they still going to be a connection? James Robin: To answer the first half of the question, I don't know if there was a connection there. There was a farm here for many, many years. And this culvert connection is so old it has actually collapsed. It is really not functional. We are proposing to replace the hydraulic connection between the two with a pipe and in the process use that as the receiving point for some of the storm water that, you know right in this immediate area which is currently draining into the ditch. Sacchet: Okay. Then one more question. There is a list of conditions that was recommended by staff. A silt fence, seed mix, drainage and utility easements, wetland buffer areas, and so forth. Wetland buffer edge signs. That's all fine with you? You don't have an issue with any of those? James Robin: In discussing the list with the Arboretum people, we're not quite sure about the need for an easement over this pipe facility in a public facility. And I frankly can't tell you where the University would, legal minds would come down on that. Other than that one issue, we saw no problems. Lori and I have had a chance to chat about a couple of her concerns and we have no issues with those. Sacchet: Thank you. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 2001 Haak: If I might shed a little light on the question about the easement. After speaking with Kate and Matt, we decided it would be a good idea to have an easement and when the question was posed to me I wasn't quite sure exactly why it was a good idea, but on public property you still need to retain the right explicitly to go in there for drainage purposes. Because these basins are not contained solely on Arboretum property, we could have surface water issues. Granted it's a long shot but I think the city is in the business of protecting of it's own interest and I think this would do that satisfactorily. Saam: And in addition to that, when you say public property, I mean a scliool is public property but there's still easements on it. Somebody owns that piece of property. It may be used for a public purpose but it's not publicly owned so just a clarification. Haak: The other, I have one more thing. The applicant was received on March 8th of this year so the 90 day deadline is approximately June 8th. Just for your records because I neglected to put it on the staff report. Sidney: Very good. Any further comments? Thank you. Okay, this is a public hearing. May I have a motion to open this item up for a public hearing. Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Sidney: Okay, anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission on this item, please come forward and state your name and address. Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. All' voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Sidney: Okay, commissioners. Slagle: Do we need to vote on the motions? Karlovich: Do we need to vote on... Kind: Do we need to vote on the motions to open and close the public hearings? We never have in the past but I think technically, if you crack open this book I think we're supposed to. Sidney: Okay, let's back up here. Karlovich: I just feel strange knowing a motion is seconded... Kind: And then no vote. Sidney: Oh, okay. I guess that's what we have been doing, haven't we? Kind: We have been doing that but I think technically we're supposed to have a vote on it. Sidney: Wow. She says, should we? 19 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3,2001 Slagle: I think we should and I think they'd be quick. Sidney: Okay, we have a second. Let's back up to the last close. Kind: The last one which was. Sidney: Close the public hearing. Karlovich: We could just vote on all of them we've made so far. Sidney: Okay, all of the above. The commission voted on all the previously made motions to open and close public hearings. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously. Sidney: Now, commissioners. Comments. Thank you. Sacchet: Want me to start? Sidney: Oh yeah. Sacchet: Madam Mayor. I do think that the recommendation of staff to recommend approval of this wetland alteration permit is fine with the conditions as outlined. I can support that. Sidney: Other comments? Kind: Madam Chair, I'm really excited about some of the experiments they're going to be doingoUt here, especially the impervious surface. That's an issue that comes before this commission often and I'm interested in the results of that sort of thing so I support staff offering our credit and I support the staff's recommendation with the conditions. Karlovich: I would just throw out for discussion, if there is any push back from the State with regards to the easement, I think we should still go forward with it anyway. I don't know if they have to give us an easement or not. I know staff wants it but it's not a live or die issue. Sidney: Thank you. I guess one comment I really support the scientific investigation part that is attached to this. I think that's great. It can only benefit the city and those involved. Really good effort. Okay, may I have a motion please. Kind: Madam Chair, I'll move that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #2001-1 to allow wetland fill for the road construction as shown in the plans prepared by James Robin, Landscape Architect dated March 9, 2001 subject to the following conditions 1 through 11. Sacchet: Second. Kind moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #2001-1 to allow wetland fill for the road construction as 20 Planning Commission Meeting- April 3, 2001 shown in the plans prepared by James Robin, Landscape Architect dated March 9, 2001 subject to the following conditions: , . o . o . o . 10. Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant shall provide proof of recording of a Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants for Replacement Wetland. The City shall approve a wetland replacement plan prior to any wetland impact occurring. The wetland mitigation area shall be constructed prior to wetland impact occurring and shall meet the City's buffer strip and structure setback requirements. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, i.e. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval. Storm water shall not be discharged into any wetland basin prior to pre-treatment. Type III silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all areas to be preserved as buffer or, if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. The applicant shall re-seed any disturbed wetland areas with MnDot seed mix 25 A, or a similar seed mix that is approved for wetland soil conditions. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs,'under the direction city staff, before construction begins and shall pay the city $20 per sign. A 20 foot wide easement shall be provided over storm pipe connecting public waters/wetlands. The rim elevation for Manhole No. 2 shall be 956.0. The proposed invert elevation of the storm sewer on Wetland A shall be shown. 11. The survey benchmark shall be shown on the plan. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY CODE: CHAPTERS 18 AND 20, REGARDING THE USE OF PRIVATE DRIVES AND FLAT LOTS; Sidney: Okay the next items that are up for public hearings include amendments to the City Code and in this case what I'd like to do is to have discussions on items 6(a) and 6(b) followed by 6(d), and then leave 6(c) to the last item since that could involve substantial comment. So the first part of the item here is discussion about amendments to the City Code Chapters 18 and 20 regarding the use of private drives and flag lots. Staff report please. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 2001 Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Sidney: Thank you. Questions of staff commissioners? Sacchet: Yeah, Madam Chair I do have a question. Two questions actually. I have a whole collection. I have flag lots in blue, in yellow, in green and now in pink and so this has been going around a little bit so in one of those other colors you were actually referring to a different variance segment. Like in Option 1 now you refer to the subdivision variance section 18-22. In a previous incarnation of the same entity we were referring to the zoning variance section 20-58. And I wanted to have a little clarification why one or not the other or what's the background there? A1-Jaff: The private driveway will come in as part of a subdivision. Sacchet: So the subdivision thing is basically more applicable than zoning framework. Now it appears to me by my looking at how they compare that the subdivision variance framework is a little less stringent. At least it has less numbers of things to look at. I think that'd be something to clarify. A1-Jaff: These conditions would fit in with a subdivision. There are only 4 of them. They apply to subdivisions. The other set of variances that deals with additions to homes for instance, setbacks. Sacchet: It's more specific. A1-Jaff: It's more specific to home additions. Sacchet: Okay. And then my second question, I think when we discussed that last time, my interest was all of the above.. You may remember that. Of all the options. I think this is a prethd balanced approach. I however wonder whether it could be possible to combine it with for instance Option 3. To have them both part of it or whether that would be carrying it too far. I wonder whether you have any feedback, whether that would practiceable. Aanenson: I think it's wide. That's why we wanted a variance because each circumstance is different. I think that was the intent of saying we would attach conditions depending on the circumstance. It would be implied that we would be recommending and certainly you would put your fingerprint on that as would the council, but that was the intent is that based on orientation, whatever's happening in that neighborhood. And it may be set back. Maybe need a deeper lot, wider lot. Whatever is kind of that neighborhood standard and so that's why I think we'd leave it open. Leave that flexibility in there. Sacchet: So what I hear you say Kate is that it will be almost redundant to have that additional, these additional points because it's a variance in either case. I mean a flag lot by nature would require a variance? Aanenson: I guess I'm saying, I don't want to put a standard in there because it may be more or less. You know I would leave it open to say whatever's happening in that neighborhood is what we'd come back and say in order to mitigate the variance we would recommend these things and if you want to put a list to say, it may include width, depth. I'm not sure we could cover everything but that's the intent is that we would recommend some different standards to mitigate that. One of the things that Sharmin had mentioned that seemed to be some of the point of discussion is the orientation of the home. That's where we've had some of the problems when the houses may be imposing on someone's back yard and so that would certainly be one of them to make it consistent with that. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3,2001 Sacchet: Just to be real clear, understand you correctly Kate. So what you're saying is that with Option 1, with putting it into the variance framework, it gives the city the capability to put all these mitigative factors into effect without necessarily have an increased requirement for a lot width, depth, setbacks and so forth? A1-Jaff: It could be a condition that you would impose upon a variance. Sacchet: In the framework of the variance, okay. Aanenson: Right. For example, I'm assuming you may get one in a different zoning district. This is assuming that they're RSF districts. You could have it in a different zoning district which is some of the problems laying out specific setbacks. So that's the intent is that with the variance procedure you would apply something to mitigate that. Karlovich: I have a question for staff too. I don't know the history of any of the difficulties with trying to impose the current ordinance but can you correct me if I'm wrong, what I'm seeing is that the city would have to make Findings 1, 2 and 3 and either deny or say a private street can go in if the 3 factors are there. If we added a variance process then, there's also going to have to be a finding of undue hardship. Is that the goal as to what we're trying to get to? Aanenson: I think that's the direction we've been given. Karlovich: Okay. That makes sense. So it actually, at least in my mind, gives us more control over the situation. There has to be a finding of undue hardship and then I think within the variance framework you can put the conditions on the variance. 'I don't know if we could put condition~ on, in your finding 1, 2 and 3 or not finding 1', 2 and 3. I'm speaking out loud. Sidney: Other questions of staff?. Karlovich: No. Sidney: Okay, this is a public hearing. Anyone wishing, excuse me. I'd like a motion to open this up for public hearing. Slagle moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. Ali voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Sidney: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, please come forward and state your name and address. Janet Paulsen: My name is Janet Paulsen. I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. Commissioners. I think I have a few questions here in the definitions. Definitions are key. For example, what exactly is a private street. Should access 2 or more lots. What does that mean? Also private drive. Private drive isn't mentioned in here. There's no definition in our code of private drive. Private drive is the situation that caused the problems in the Igel project. I want to know what that means and why is that in the private street ordinance. Or if it isn't, where does it belong? Also lot area. Currently it says it doesn't include street rights-of-way. Doesn't a private street have street rights-of-way? Well on the Igel property we were told it wasn't street rights-of-way, it was a private drive. Also define lot. Currently the code says is lot is 23 Planning Commission Meeting- April 3, 2001 undivided by a private street or a public street and our staff did not agree that with a private drive easement that would be true. So I want to know where do we stand on these things. A private street easement doesn't have a definition in our code, what is that? Because that's what's used to squeeze in more homes on smaller pieces of property as opposed to a private street that stands alone. And the impact, private streets, there's no parking allowed so the impact is great on the neighboring property or the neighboring street. Where do all these people park? They park on the public street. And also the upkeep. After the street starts to deteriorate, who's going to fix it? And then in 20 years, they have a covenants. Covenants last 30 years and then something else has to be decided. In the interpretation, the city staff feels they can interpret as they wish. As a citizen I wish to read ~he code and understand what it means just by reading it. I don't have to go and have special interpretation. I have a few questions about Option 3. This would be the requirement that you have on side yard setbacks of 20 feet and it was changed several years ago because quote by staff, it was unworkable. It would have been great if they'd left it. Some of the examples used. This is Golden Glow Acres. This area is within...ofLake Lucy so it should have a 20 foot setback on a private street... The bottom of the L here is 30 feet. The rest of it is 25 feet. I thought the minimum was 30 feet easement for a private street. It's called a private driveway easement so what does that mean? Does this mean after the current ordinance was set? Also in the future, and this isn't supposed to be, I looked it up in the Carver County Records, this is supposed to turn into a cul-de-sac here and this is the private street here. So again it's... I have a question on this picture. ...actually in front of this flag lot here. How do we define... Sidney: Now which subdivision was that? That you just showed. Janet Paulsen: It's Golden Glow Acres. Sidney: Okay.' _ Janet Paulsen: And this is White Tail Cove... has a private street going in. Given as examples of flag lots but I don't know if you can call, these aren't flag lots. This is a private street going here. It has 3 homes on it and it's leading right to this property that wants to develop so how many more can go on there? It's kind of an awkward situation. And then finally... This lot is a flag lot but this lot sitting out here supposedly with a private street going to it. I guess that's all I have to say. Debbie Lloyd: Hi. My name's Debbie Lloyd. I live at 7302 Laredo Drive. Some of your faces are very familiar over the last year. Others of you I welcome to the Planning Commission. You have the hardest job in this city I believe. Next to the mayor's of course. Mayor Jansen: Well I don't know about that. Debbie Lloyd: We have worked over a year on this one subdivision. We've learned a whole lot about the code and the shortcomings of the code. When we address this private street, flag lot issue I think we also have to look at Section 18-60, Lots. Section A. It reads, all lots shall abut for their full required minimum frontage on a publicly dedicated street as required by the zoning ordinance or on a private street, or a flat lot which shall have a minimum of 30 feet of frontage. So if we jump in and change one thing, we'd better start looking at the ramifications of everything because if I've learned anything is that there isn't just one isolated part of the code. It's all tied together through different sections. 18 and 20 and even in some other parts of code. Surprisingly in the very basic foundation of the code. And Jan touched on some other elements, I think definitions really need help in this section. Definitions have gotten us I think into a lot of trouble because we use words interchangeably and this is something I read at the City Council meeting the other evening. Street. It's amazing how this word has been manipulated. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 2001 Shared driveway. Common portion of the driveway. Cross access easement. Private driveway. Private drive. Private street. Driveway access easement. I just hope that when we look at the entire private street issue we consider everything. I know the Paulsen's and I would be very happy to participate in a, just maybe a general discussion off the record, just to interrelate all the findings that we have. I have a box full of information at home. I mean it's a massive, it's a massive change we're looking for because it is so intertwined. And I hope no one else has to go through what we went through in the process and I think it will only help benefit the Planning Commission and the council to get these things fixed and done so that a common man can pick up this book in the library and say, this is what I plan to do with my land. Or this is what my neighbors are planning to do. I need to read this and get acquainted and figure out where my rights are and where their rights are because no one wants to, you don't want to take away anyone's rights. Neither do we. We just want to make sure all of our rights are protected. Thank you. Sidney: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the commission? Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Sidney: Commissioners. A lot of questions. Karlovich: I'll start off by saying first of all it appears as though the term private driveway is not consistent with the ordinance. It probably should read private street. One of the other comments I just want to make with regards to definitions. Not everything in the code can be a defined term and as an attorney, even if you have a defined term, that doesn't mean that everything is cured because if you show me a defined term, I can argue that it means a couple different things one way or the other depending on which client's paying you to read it one way or the other so. Definitions are great, or a total update of the code would be great or add more definitions. I just don't know if that's in front of us right now. Just. kind of throwing that out for commissioner discussion. Sidney: Any other comments? Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair. Well first of all I want to thank the Paulsen's and Debbie for all your support and your hard work researching all that stuff and I think, I would like to encourage staff to take them up on their offer to help line up maybe some of this terminology. However on the other hand, I don't think the terminology is necessarily what's in front of us to consider right now. I don't think the issue is so much the private road situation. To me at least, the way I see it, what's in front of us, the crucial thing is the flag lot element. And that's what we run into some challenges in the past with, I really like the aspect of having the variance element in the picture so that it gives the city some say in how a house, a building is oriented. That it gives us a say in the setbacks. Now myself coming from the environmental perspective I would propose to add some, maybe not elements of requirements as they are proposed in the Option 3 but at least express the intent. That the intent for flag lot would be to have the extra 10 foot in the front and rear setback and I would say probably 5 extra feet on the side would be proportionally more appropriate than have 10 foot all around. But rather than make it a requirement, at least express the intent in this framework that with a flag lot we'd expect some extra spacing. And to address your concern that we encountered with a recent situation, I do believe that would give us enough of a handle to be able to put things in a better context than we were able in the past with similar situations so. In terms of term definition, I mean one term that I continually struggle with, and I don't think it can be defined is the term hardship. If we go this route and we define that route to go with a variance, one of the key things that was pointed out is there's going to have to be a hardship involved and that's a very elusive term and...objective in exactly how that's being nailed down so we're opening us up 25 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3,2001 to another element of interpretation in the end but I think it fulfills the intent of what we asked staff to look into with these flag lots so you have a little more control basically over what's happening. So I do support the staff's recommendation. Would like to state however the intent of increasing the setbacks and the lot width and depth and all those aspects. Sidney: Any other comments? Kind: Madam Chair. An idea to just Uli's concern is, I don't know if you have your ordinance book with you. It looks like you might. On page 1009. If everybody will turn to their ordinance book. Page 1009, number 6 talks about the private street shall be designed to minimize impacts upon adjoining parcels. I think that might be a good spot to insert the types of things that we would like. For instance the next sentence says, the city may require revised alignments and landscaping to minimize impacts. I'm suggesting maybe we could add building orientation and increase setbacks to that list to give people who are subdividing an idea of the types of things we would be asking and then when the particular case comes before us, we can apply conditions that would be appropriate. And I too like Option 1. I like the idea of having a little more discretion for approving flag lots and private drive. Private street lots and I also would like to direct staff to do a word search in our ordinance book on private drive or private street. Get them in sync and then come up with a fabulous definition. Sidney: Any other comments? Claybaugh: They indicated that the City of Minnetonka and Plymouth also had permit flag and neck lots. Any discussion with those cities in terms of pros and cons? Al-Jarl: Again they follow the same, identical criteria that we have for flag-lots, as well as private streets. It is intended to preserve environmentally sensitive areas. Claybaugh: The question was more along the lines of, as they implemented it previously to this, What kind of problems have they run into, if any? A1-Jaff: None were mentioned. Sidney: Other comments? I guess I might make a comment that I feel adding the variance language is quite beneficial and I think that would be to the residents benefit as well so with that, any further discussion? Slagle: Madam Chair, let me throw out one thing that I just thought of. I would like to encourage staff'to really sit down with the Paulsen's. It sounds like they will but just again another encouragement. It sounds like some very valid concerns. I'd really like to see some type of report or something that, on how that interaction went, if that's okay. Sidney: Okay. And staff, I also wonder if you could address some of the issues that we, or questions that we heard tonight. Jan had a number about definitions and then specific examples. If you could maybe go through some of the responses you have to her questions. Aanenson: Tonight or? Sidney: Would you prefer to do that in another session? 26 Planning Commission Meeting- April 3, 2001 Aanenson: Yeah. Those were all brought up through the last process. We'd be happy to do that again. I mean I'd prefer to do that in writing. Sidney: Okay. Aanenson: If you wanted to table or something. Karlovich: I have one other question for staff. With regards to the wording, the use of a private street may be permitted if the. I just answered my own question. I withdraw my question for staff. Sidney: yes, and I guess I heard Kate, did you suggest that we table this item for further? Aanenson: Well if you want me to respond to all those. They have been answered by the city attorney, a lot of them so I guess I'd like to, you know instead of mis-speaking. Sidney: Miscommunicating. Aanenson: Exactly, and just to be clear that we're on, and interpretation has been made. That I stick with that interpretation since it's been made by the city attorney, I'd like to have the opportunity to bring that forward to you. Sidney: Okay. Sacchet: I'm not sure though, Madam Chair, whether that would require tabling this. I don't know whether they're so closely intertwined, the two things. Mayor Jansen: If I might Madam Chair, maybe add to that. It might be beneficial for us to move the two forward together, and I'm hearing what you're saying as far as tabling it. If only so that you can maybe_ see some of those issues and they are rather complex, and I don't know that they can actually be simplified or not, but it might be worth taking a look at and bringing forward with this so that you know how they're all interacting. Any idea how quickly you'd be able to bring that back? Is that a monumental task as far as pulling together all those comments? Aanenson: That was part of the last, no. I think that we could put, if you table it for 2 weeks, we can sure. Yeah, it's all in writing it's just that I want to make sure we pull it all together and again, some of the city attorney had given opinions on and so. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Sidney: Okay, I'd like a motion. Kind: Okay. I'll make a motion that we table the private street, flag lot item so staff can address some of the issues brought up by the public tonight and also do a cross check, is what I'm describing it, and do a search basically in our code book for the word private street, private drive and flag lot and just make sure that we're bringing all of those issues forward at the same time. And oh, and when you come back include some sort of list of the possible conditions. Possible conditions that we would attach if we approve a variance for a private street or a flag lot. Sacchet: I second that but I'd like to make a friendly amendment. Actually two friendly amendments. 27 Planning Commission Meeting- April 3,2001 Kind: Thank you. Sacchet: I'd like to be with your last element you requested, I would like to be specific that we would have it worded so that it fits into paragraph 6 on page 1009 of 18-57. Aanenson: 18-57(6), yes. Sacchet: That we would actually have proposed language that would be inserted there in the middle of that paragraph to kind of define the expectation of what we'd be looking for. And then my second friendly amendment would be, if you could, with the recommendation of the variance.., we would, the intent would be to have increased minimum lot width and depth. Minimum front and rear setback and minimum side yard setbacks. Slightly increased. My suggestion would be 10 feet, except for the side ones where I would say 5 feet. If that could be defined, I think that would be nice. Can you accept that? Kind: I'm not sure ifI accept that second one or not because I think it depends on the situation as to whether we would want to increase setbacks or increase landscaping. Sacchet: As a possibility. Not as a requirement. Kind: So I would not put it in an intent statement. I would put it in number 6. Sacchet: Oh, as a possibility. Kind: Exactly. Sacchet: Obviously it would have to be from case to Case. Kind: So I'd probably leave it out of an intent statement. · Sacchet: So it would be an intent statement. It would be in an example framework of what we would be asking for? Kind: You're saying that you want an intent statement? Sacchet: Well I'd like to anchor in, and I might be pushing it beyond the ideal balance point with this but as I said before, from an environmental viewpoint, I'd like to have that somewhat clarified that when we make this type of an exception that we do want a little more space around it. That we do want a little extra environmental value in it. That's where I'm going with this. Karlovich: There's always going to that circumstance we'll need a variance from our variance. Kind: I think it's probably implied with the variance. Sacchet: Okay. I can accept that if you don't accept it. Kind: So I accept Uli's first friendly amendment, and do we have a second to that? Sacchet: I already~ oh we need to second the amendment? 28 Planning Commission Meeting- April 3, 2001 Kind: I think you seconded it. Sacchet: I seconded your motion yes. We need to second before we make amendments, don't we? Sidney: Right. Okay, so it's time to vote then. I'm trying to think here. Kind moved, Sacchet seconded that the Planning Commission table the amendment to Chapters 18 and 20 regarding the use of private drives and flag lots and direct staff to address the issues brought up by the public, do a cross check search of the code book for the words private street, private drive and flag lot to make sure all of those issues are in sync, and to direct staff to include a list of possible conditions to attach to Section 18-57(6). All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to 0. Sidney: Motion carries and we'll see that back in 2 weeks. Aanenson: Yes. We'll get together with the neighbors and hopefully we'll have it back in 2 weeks. Sidney: Thank you. I think-on that note I'd like to ask that we take a 5 minute break and We'll be back in 5 minutes to resume. The Planning Commission took a 5 minute break at this point in the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE: CHAPTER 20 REGARDING LAKE SHORE PLACEMENT OF STRUCTURES. Lori Haak and Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Sidney: Questions of staff.. Kind: Yes Madam Chair, yes I do. I have kind of a philosophical question here. Were the lakeshore owners in our city notified that this would be on tonight's agenda? Haak: No. Kind: And the question for my cohorts here is whether we should send specific notice to lakeshore owners in our city because this really does affect them. I know it's probably not required but I think it might be a nice idea and if we think it's a nice idea, then I would suggest that we stop our discussion and have our discussion when lakeshore owners have been notified and have a chance to be here. What do you all think? Sidney: I'd like to continue the discussion since it's here. However I think I agree with your comments sine this is an ordinance that will be affecting quite a few homeowners. In this case they should be notified. Other comments? Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair. I do agree with Deb's point that lakeshore owners should be notified but I do not agree with Deb in that we should stop our discussion because I think since we're looking at this right now, let's take a step with it but maybe not do it as exhaustively. I mean there are certainly discussion part where you would think if there are lakeshore owners that would want to be part of it, I 29 Planning Commission Meeting- April 3, 2001 would want to respect that but at the same time also I'd like to also be able to give some feedback to staff in terms of the directions of the things maybe we see which direction we would want to go from our end. And then we have it one step further already when we bring it in front of the lakeshore owners. I think that would be fair to do it that way. So I would say a maybe shorten discussion. Sidney: Other comments? I guess I have one question for staff. I'm confused, and maybe it's the time of night but I guess we're looking at Section 20-481 and it says placement design and height of structure. Where do we get view protection out of that? I guess I don't understand. Is it, it's implied? Aanenson: Right, that's correct. Haak: Yep. Basically after the table that's shown in the code, there is a section that says you must use, and I can come up with it here. Sidney: When a structure is. Haak: Correct. And basically the intent of that portion was for view protection.- It's not called out as such in the ordinance. Aanenson: Let me just add to that. There's kind of a two prong process here. One where we're saying there's ambiguity in the interpretation of the current ordinance so ultimately if there's ambiguity the Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the council of the interpretation, so that's one approach. And what we're saying is we kind of took that a step further and said, because there's ambiguity we'd recommend some different language. So that's kind of the two prong. Whichever direction you wanted to go. We just gave you a recommendation. Sidney: Okay, this item is up for public hearing and I guess. Karlovich: ! have a question for staff. Has the city attorney rendered an opinion on that language or is that from staff or just? Aanenson: There's concurrence it's ambiguous, right. Slagle: I have a final question Madam Chair. On page 5, the listing of the tables that shows the different cities throughout Minnetonka. Am I correct to assume that when it says no view protection ordinance, that is correct in all those cities. They do not have an ordinance. Haak: That's actually the staff report from 1999 1 believe you're looking at. Slagle: Okay. Has that changed since in those communities? Haak: No. That is not, I checked the web site of each of those. Haven't made the call but from what I could find on their codes, none of them have it and I was particularly interested in Minnetonka, Plymouth and Wayzata because those are the big cities that I believe would be most likely to have something like this. And I made sure I double checked each of those and I could not find anything so. Sacchet: I still have a question too of staff Madam Chair. There is ambiguity so we're trying to solve a problem. Now your suggestion is eliminate it. However, what I'm missing a little bit is a clear definition of the problem. What exactly is the problem? The problem is that. 30 Planning Commission Meeting- April 3, 2001 Karlovich: What I kind of view as the problem is, even if we send out a notice to, or when we do send out notice to all the lake owners, they're going to want some protection in this code so that they kind of have at least a sight line easement over their neighbor's property. So that if the house is torn down, it's not built a little bit closer to the lake and they have a sight line easement, I think what the staff and city attorney is saying is that if the person wants a sight line easement over the adjacent piece of property, they should buy it. Preserve the sight line easement and then sell it somebody else and that possibly with.., code here, we might be, it might constitute a taking when we deny a building permit for... Sacchet: On that basis. Karlovich: So that's going to be the problem. Maybe I'm answering the question. Haak: That's exactly right. Basically, and just maybe I didn't call it out enough in the staff report. Basically there's one sentence in the staff report that kind of encapsulates that and what it says is the first 3 options deal with views over other people's property. And the final option, basically entitles people to view down their property lines. That's what they have control over. Sacchet: Yeah and that's where I'm trying to go actually so, however our language in our ordinance and our framework does not necessarily go into the aspect of view. What we're dealing with is setback, okay. So we're staying away from the aspect of view. That's very smart. But now it seems like there are multiple problems because when we're talking about the Minnetrista standard which has a couple things and then you make a statement that with them excluding, if something is' further than 200 feet, that eliminates one problem. It appears to me from the examples you've shown that it actually eliminates pretty much all the problems, and I'd just like to clarify that a little bit. If you could address that please. Haak: Absolutely. I'll get to maybe your first question. First things first I guess, ifI can get the overhead camera. Basically this, I've tried to illustrate as many scenarios as I could for what staff runs into in these types of problems. Boil them down to the nuts and bolts. What we have here is the lake, the dotted line is the ordinary high water level and I've shown the 60 x 60 building pads. This is the proposed pad. Kind: Madam Chair, point of clarification. The dotted line is the 75 foot setback. Haak: Oh, I'm sorry. That OHW, thank you. I've been looking at these for too long. This structure and these two are the existing structures2 This structure in my diagram is set back 84 feet. This one is set back 192 feet. If you take the ordinance for the word, what it is saying right now, it says that you must use the setback of the structure on the adjacent lot. It does not say the greater but staff would interpret it as the greater, so what you're looking at on this particular piece would be the 192 foot setback. In which case this person with the new house has a complaint, but that's the issue. The way staffhas interpreted the ordinance is one of two ways. The first is to take a mathematical average of the 84 and the 192 and you come up with 138, which also does a pretty good job is you draw a line between the two properties. It's pretty consistent with that. That, and I'm getting ahead of myself. And that is the other option that staff uses in instances where the shoreline is undulating. In geometric fashion, as it always does in nature, but if you have the lakeshore being varied, it's not straight across ever. Then it makes a whole lot more sense to keep these in a line and a lot of places, a lot of cities just do that naturally. Sacchet: And you would do that also is it bubbles out, not just if it bubbles in. 31 Planning Commission Meeting- April 3, 2001 Haak: That's correct, right. Basically you would maintain that same looking setback. It wouldn't, these people would have more back yard but the appearance from the street would be the same, and then likewise if you get into the views, which we won't do anymore, it would be similar. The difficulty with maintaining the same setback comes in something like this and I believe I've included this in the staff report as well. If you have 162 feet on either side and you can get this bubble in or out, 162 feet is either going to be this way or this way, depending on which way the shoreline goes so that's the difficulty you run into there. And I have some other things here that I've drawn up but they don't apply so, does that? Sacchet: Thank you, yes that does. Yeah, I think that answers the question to where I want to take it right now. Sidney: Any other questions? Kind: Yes I do. I'm debating about whether asking them tonight or when this comes back but maybe I'll just ask them both times. I'm wondering if there is any history on previous setbacks before the DNR 75 foot requirement. Haak: Well I was unable to find anything prior to, the city adopted.the ordinance in 1994 and that's what... Minnewashta Landings subdivision prompted the adoption of the 75 foot and the 150, well basically that table that you have in your code. Staff was unable to find out when the DNR standards were put into place. I was checking around with staff a little bit to see if they had any indication and the consensus was that if there was something, it was much less because there are a lot of instances, especially with, if you start thinking about cabins or things like that, these standards apply to the entire state. When you start looking at cabins, there are some cabins that are right up to the edge of the lake that are very close probably 25 to 50 feet and so our educated guess was that if there was something, it was less but I haven't been able to confirm that. Kind: I'm sorry, I'll keep going. And referring back to that map that had the pink and it looked kind of purple on our screens, Where many of those properties were unsewered and so if they're newly developed right now, we would require them to be 150 feet back. And then when they get sewer, whenever that is, their neighbors could be 75 feet. Am I understanding this right? Haak: Unless they redeveloped the property. If they, for some reason decided that maybe the lost next to them was developed at that point and they wanted to redevelop their property, they would be at that point eligible to move their house up to the minimum setback so it would involve redevelopment. Aanenson: They're bound to the minimum unless you have some other standard in place. Kind: Okay, that's it for my questions of staff. Sidney: Other questions? Karlovich: Yes. Has staff taken a look to see what the City of Minnetonka does? Haak: I also did check their web site and I could not find anything. Karlovich: And one of the things, the reason I suggest that is the City of Minnetonka has an awful lot of lakeshore. The one thing that they do have is an in-house legal staff and a lot of times if you want to see 32 Planning Commission Meeting- April 3,2001 some of these ordinances that are on the cutting edges, a lot of time it's either the League of Minnesota Cities or the City of Minnetonka. I think that would be a good place to start to see what they're doing. Sacchet: I've come up with just one more question. Sidney: Go for it. Sacchet: I'm still struggling with one aspect, and that the framework from the Minnetrista standards basically throws out if the structure is more than 200 feet back so you won,t have that skewedness that you were worried about. What other problems would we possibly run into? Haak: Well, the one main thing that I came up with would be that even though you remove structures that are over 200 feet away from the existing structure, or from the proposed structure, that still could get you a ways away on some of the lots. Maybe the proposed structure goes right up to the 10 foot setback. Then you've got 190 feet to work with and it can still skew your numbers quite a bit. Especially when you're looking at lots like the Whitetail Cove where you have quite a bit of wetland on the site, and some of the other considerations that arise. Sacchet: Now in a situation like that, what would be our options if we had a framework like that? I mean couldn't these people apply for a variance or? Aanenson: Yes. Sacchet: So it's not a dead end necessarily. . Haaki The other concern that I had about that would be that it's the greatest of those so, now I'm thinking on the spot and my brain's just not going to do it at 9:30. I had some other concerns that I might be able to. Sacchet: That's fine, they'll surface. Thanks Lori. Sidney: Okay, this item is open. Other questions? This item is open for public hearing. I'd like a motion to open it as such. Sacchet moved, Kind seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Sidney: Anyone wishing to, yes indeed, address the Planning Commission. Please come forward, state your name and address. Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I'd like you to turn to, let's see. The sixth page of the staff report. On the reverse side of it. It actually says page 5 dated 2/10/99. Does that make sense? Sacchet: Yeah we've got it. Debbie Lloyd: There's a statement there that's referring to the standards of height and it says these standards were adopted in 1977. Okay. The State of Minnesota has the Shoreland Management Act that regulates all land within 1,000 feet of a lake and local units of government are required to adopt these or stricter standards into their zoning ordinance. These are the State standards on height. Height is 33 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3,2001 important in view and that's why I'm bringing this up. If there's one thing that we can help control, I came home tonight, I just got the staff report at noon so I didn't have much time with it but I came home. I live on property within 1,000 feet of the Lotus Lake and I came down Laredo Drive and looked at my neighbor's house and I realized if their house were 10 feet higher, my whole view of the lake would really be obstructed from the point at which I was looking at. So our code really doesn't have the State standard. Our code has a 35 foot height standard and I think that might be something that, I heard the concern about being subjective. If we adopted the State standard of 25 feet, we'd no longer have something that were subjective. It's a hard and fast number. And I think those homeowners who have already built, you know those would be non-conforming lots, that's true but I think there's a lot of lakeshore at stake. When you look, the staff report says there aren't many lots but there's a lot of lots around the lakes and even though you may not reside within 1,000 feet of the lake, when you're driving by I think as citizens we all get pleasure from looking at the lake. From the beautiful scenery. The trees and everything. I think it's part of our comprehensive plan. Part of our whole objective is to retain the aesthetic value we have in Chanhassen. So I'd like to bring this up as a point of discussion and consideration for you. Thank you. Sidney: Anyone else wishing to address the Planning Commission? Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Sidney: Commissioners, comments. Karlovich: With regards to the last comments made, I just want to throw out discussion for the commission that if this is a state mandated, state law, you don't always have to have it in your ordinance the exact same as the state law. You are pre-empted. You can restrict things further but then one of the things at least I've found in practice is, if you start trying to put everything from state law into your ordinance and they start changing the state law, then you have to start updating your ordinance all the time so just for a discussion item, I just wanted to throw that bit of reality out. Sidney: Thank you. Any other comments? Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair, I do have comments. I really do not agree with staff report here. I think we're shirking the problem. I mean we don't identify what exactly the problem is. We're not solving it. We just say let's do away with the language that possibly gets touched by it. I definitely don't want to see anything in the context of a view ordinance but I definitely would like to see something in a setback framework, and I do believe that the Minnetrista standard is a good starting point. However, if we are not very clearly identifying the problems we have, then we have a hard time solving them. That's why my previous question, I was trying to understand what exactly are the problems because we do use plural in the report. What exactly are they and then how can we solve them? It appears to me like we say well there are problems and let's just take the context out and to me that doesn't solve the problem. I think we're shirking the problem so, on that basis and on the basis that we want to invite the lakeshore owners, I would suggest that we table this issue and would like to ask staff to try to address the problems and I would encourage not necessarily literally take the Minnetrista standard but kind of take that as a starting point and see where, adopt something that really addresses the problem you're trying to solve. That's my comment. Sidney: Okay. Any other discussion? 34 Planning Commission Meeting- April 3, 2001 Kind' I guess I would like to add that staff should take a look at the building height issue and it's 20- 481 (f) and maybe put some language in there about building height must comply with the state shoreland requirements and then we don't have a moving target. Aanenson: I'd be happy to show you the implications of that recommendation. Kind: Oh, well come back with the implications of that recommendation. Okay. Aanenson: Yeah I mean it's huge. Huge. Kind: Come back. Aanenson' We have four story apartments next to a lake so, it has huge implications. Kind: For residential though. Aanenson: That's residential. We'd be happy to put together a map showing the implications o£that and what the height restrictions would be and for someone that wanted remodeling or whatever, we can show that here. Kind: You're talking about the Lake Susan Apartments? Aanenson: The implication of the 25 foot height. Kind: But they must exceed 35 feet. .' Aanenson: Right. Kind: So we granted a variance in that'case. Aanenson: No. We have shoreland regulations that are adopted. They are consistent with the shoreland regulations, correct. Karlovich: So this is just a guide. Aanenson: Correct. We have adopted shoreland regulations. I'd be happy to show that to you. It's good information. Kind: Okay. Come back to us with that please. Haak: In addition we'll prepare something about what our shoreland regs are and how that compares to the state standards so you can see both of those. Kind: That'd be swell. Slagle: Madam Chair, I'd also like to see ifI can ask staff a listing or at least a number of copies of the local communities, if you can get those updates, that'd be great. Especially Minnetonka. Aanenson: Can I just comment on Minnetonka? 35 Planning Commission Meeting- April 3, 2001 Slagle: Sure. Aanenson: Minnetonka really has just a small part of Gray's Bay. If you want to get other lakeshore, Tonka Bay, Greenwood, Deephaven actually have more lakeshore so those are going to be the models to follow. Slagle: Good point. Haak: Then we'll contact cities. Slagle: That'd be great, thank you. Sidney: Okay, how about a motion with including direction to the staff. Kind: Anybody want to tackle it? I can. Go for it Deb. Madam Chair, I will move that the Planning Commission table, let's see ifI can find it here on my list. Chapter 20 regarding lakeshore placement of structures and direct staff to come back with information regarding rationale for how this solves our problem. And also come back with information regarding building heights and how it syncs with state guidelines for shoreland. And anything else guys? Sidney: Notification oflakeshore. Kind: Oh and please notify all lakeshore owners for our next meeting. Aanenson: Can I get a point of clarification, excuse me. This is just my recommendation; for what it's worth. I think it would be helpful if we had consensus on an ordinance before, I mean if you want input from the neighbors because we're kind of moving around on this. I'm not sure, chicken and egg kind of thing. If we're looking at all these other ordinances trying to put something together, do you want to get input and then try to adjust something or? Karlovich: I would tend to agree to bring, or send out the notification to all lakeshore landowners that something's going to happen to their view. Right now I'm thoroughly confused as to where we're headed here and. Aanenson: So is the staff. Karlovich: To face all those people at this land of confusion here. Kind: So leave off the notification at this juncture and have staff come back and report to us the other requests and then we'll get some sort of consensus of where we want to go before we notify lakeshore owners. Aanenson: I just think it'd be helpful if there's a clear understanding what we're trying to do. Certainly there can be modifications through that based on the input but I think if there's an understanding of what we're trying to achieve. I'm not sure we understand the goals. Just to be clear on the background, this was approved in 1994. It was specifically for one subdivision. We've had problems administering it. It was put in place by one problem and I'm not sure that ordinance that was put in place by the council at that time has been solving, so I mean we can go back and look, if we pull some numbers together too~ 36 Planning Commission Meeting- April 3, 2001 Number of instances, some of that sort of thing. Where it hasn't worked. But if, I'm just trying to figure out timeframe. If we can come back. If we notice the neighbors, that's going to take at least a month to wrap it up. Get the hearing notices out. Put it in the paper. Kind: I think people are saying let's not notice the neighbors right now. We can get some clarity. Aanenson: ...consensus and then come back with... Karlovich: Now I'm waffling back and wondering if we don't notice, someone will feel like they weren't brought into the process early enough. I did this all the time on the park commission. I always switch gears. Sidney: But it's published in the Villager. They are notified. Sacchet: If I may add my two cents Madam Chair. Kind: Should'I withdraw my motion or what do you think? Sidney: We're still in the motion. Sacchet: If we can, it appears to me if we can clarify a little bit the intent of where we'd like staff to go, maybe we have a higher comfort level to project to inviting the neighbors. I would kind of make it contingent on that. And in that context, I don't know if I'm just naive but I'm not quite as confused. It seems relatively straight forward situation. What the problem is, that we have the framework that is not applicable .widely enough. And so if staff could look at the different cases that have surfaced and be kind of distilling it down to what are the different problem situations, I think that would be the first step. And then the second step would be to see to what extent the standards from Minnetrista would solve the problems or what other problems remain and then maybe try to think, is there some way that this could be mitigated. And I think that is a relatively clear direction to go with taking Minnetrista as a starting point. With first having identified what are the situations we ran into and then we can take that one sentence with the setback that has created problems and we can replace it with something that is more thought through. That is more widely applicable. That is applicable to the problem situation that we encountered in that context and if you come back with that and I don't know if I'm asking for too much or I'm too optimistic here. What's possible ultimately but if it comes to that point I wouldn't see an issue with the iakeshore owners being part of when that comes back and is presented. I'm an optimist so. Sidney: We still have a motion too. Slagle: I think it was, did you withdraw it? Kind: I'm thinking I should withdraw that motion so we can continue our discussion. Sidney: Please do. Kind: I will withdraw my motion so we can continue our discussion. Sidney: Okay. 37 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3,2001 Claybaugh: I'd like to address the staff. Are you aware what precipitated the ordinance for the subdivision that you noted? Aanenson: Correct. It's the older areas where the conflict is when you have older areas that came in under septic that have a greater setback because they have a septic system. The standard at that time was greater and now when you come in with a subdivision with sewer, they can be as close as 75 feet. Claybaugh: You said this was adopted for a specific subdivision, was that the case? Aanenson: Right, this case precipitated a change in the language and what we're saying, the problem is the interpretation of that language. So I don't know, I feel like we're making it much more complex. We tried to explain to you how we're having problems interpreting it. I mean it can be as simple as tweaking some of the language in here or you know, I think we're. Claybaugh: I think once it goes to public notice and people show up, it will get much more complex. It's a very dynamic issue and I'm certainly not in favor of going public with it until we have substantially narrowed the scope of the problem. Aanenson: And maybe it's just some work tweaking, some word smithing. I guess that's fine too. I mean we're just looking for some direction. Mayor Jansen: And I guess Madam Chair, ifI can maybe jump in. I'm hearing what Kate's saying and probably agreeing that if what you end up doing is just tweaking the language or making it easier for staff to interpret and apply, you may not have to bring the lakeshore owners in in droves. And I don't think you're excluding them from the process becauselyou're still trying to balance everyone's property rights, but you're just trying to give staff a clearer framework to be able to apply it and I think that's what I'm hearing. Karlovich: I just~want to make one more comment. What I see as our view with regards to lakeshore, we obviously have the setbacks in the different areas which protects the shoreland, but then I think we also go, not that we were trying to give neighbors easements back and forth but I think we do have the ability to have the neighborhood, the setbacks look normal and good instead of having houses back and forward, in front and back. I think the new ordinance should somehow have them go in a line or kind of go in a smooth flow back and forth and be written to achieve that. I guess I'm kind of speaking out loud. I think that really should be our focus. Setback away from the water won't destroy our natural resource but then I think we should have something on the code, instead of just deleting this out that gives us some power to make the subdivision and the houses around there not look goofy. Sidney: That's what we do. As a commission. Haak: If I might Madam Chair. Real quickly. I think that with the direction I've gotten from you so far, I can certainly work up something that's more clear. I'm willing to do that. Claybaugh: For staff, it sounds kind of like the 80/20 rule. You threw up the one house up here that was set back substantially from they had to be for 75 feet and you've got another one Up front here so, you're covering both ends of the spectrum so where are you ever going to come up with anything that protects the sight lines and the rights of either one of those. It's never going to happen. So we need to identify, the person that places their house back 200 feet, whatever the setback was, they made a choice to place that back there. The person that places it 75 feet made a choice. They're both within standards, okay. 38 Planning Commission Meeting- April 3, 2001 At a certain point it's got to become a moot issue. I mean if that person moves back 200 feet, the person at 75 feet is extremely limited for anyone coming in and purchasing the property adjacent to it. And that would also affect the lot value and that would be also reflected in the purchase price of that lot, in my mind. If sight line is restricted in there, that would affect price of the lot for somebody coming in. They would pay less for that lot. They wouldn't be buying the same deal. I think you're chasing a problem that's extremely difficult to solve. Haak: Yep. Claybaugh: Well in that case typically it's, in my opinion speaking out loud, is to piggyback some other ordinance, whether it be the state ordinance or otherwise, whether they change it or update it, at least there's an audit trail for it. You can update your's accordingly. Haak: And we'll try and flush that out a little bit more before we bring it back. I think you get to kind of the point of what Uli's concern was as far as the integration between... Claybaugh: There's a justification. Haak: ...so I think we need to be clear that we're not doing it for the view perspective and maybe I wasn't even clear when I was writing the report. Claybaugh: Well that's the underlying intent, no doubt about that. Haak: Right. ClaybaUgh: But I mean if the perSon's justified for being back 200 feet, and I guess that's something different but to just arbitrarily say this person put their house back 200 feet and we're going to restrict somebody else from not going with the minimum setback in response to that, I struggle with that. Aanenson: Well it's a little bit more complex than that because theywere held to a different standard. Claybaugh: Pardon? Aanenson: They were held to a different standard. They had to be back 150 feet because of septic and the circumstance that staffed the ordinance. The concern that we have is you're holding to a standard. Now if that house was to go down, they could go as close as 75 feet, so now you've penalized somebody but they still have complete control of their property, you see what I'm saying. Claybaugh: Right...address that with redevelopment but that's an awful high ante in so. Sacchet: Well, are we ready to make another motion Madam Chair? Sidney: Yes, let's attempt to. Sacchet: I wonder whether we need to make a very long motion. Why can't we, I would propose a motion that we table this and with the direction to staff as we discussed. Sidney: Good. 39 Planning Commission Meeting- April 3, 2001 Karlovich: I second that. Claybaugh: I was wondering that direction would be paraphrased by Uli. I may be na'fve but I think there may be some room for misinterpretation. Sidney: Quick vote. Sacchet moved, Karlovich seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the amendment to Chapter 20 regarding lake shore placement of structures with direction to staff to bring the item back with clarification as discussed. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to 0. Aanenson: Can I just get clarification then? We'd be happy to notice. I'm not trying to exclude anybody from the process. I just want to make sure that there's a little bit of clarity because it seems that there's ambiguity so if you'd like us to notice the lakeshore, we'd be happy to do that. Whatever you're. Sidney: I guess I would advise not doing it at this point. They are notified in the Villager about what we're discussing and if we want to get specific, and we have something that we've crystallized and we can explain, then I think it's the time to bring in all the lakeshore owners. Aanenson: So we'll hold that off until the next, make that decision after the next meeting is what I'm hearing. Sidney: Madam Mayor, do you agree? Mayor Jansen: Yes, I think that's a good idea: Then you've got more ora target for them to be able to. speak to, whereas things went back and forth here tonight. They might go back and forth again so, yes. But thanks for mentioning that Kate. Karlovich: I'd just like to make a comment for the record that this is an open hearing process and we're not excluding anyone. We're not inviting anyone or not trying to withhold them from the process and I think that each of the commission members will at any public hearing have an open mind on everything and if they're anyone like me they will switch back and forth at every meeting on different issues so. Sidney: Thank you. And we're rapidly approaching and it is 10:00 p.m. and it appears that probably, well I'm certain we'll not be getting to Chapter 20 including site plan review. That part of the amendments to the city code. So if any of you are here specifically for that item, I apologize but that will be on another agenda that will appear in the future. So I would like to press forward if possible and staff, are we prepared to do so? Aanenson: Yes. AMENDMENT TO CITY CODE: CHAPTERS 18 AND 20 REGARDING SUBDMSION AND STANDARDS IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Sidney: Questions of staff. 40 Planning Commission Meeting- April 3,2001 Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair. Questions of staff. The confusion arises here, I mean for one thing. One thing we're talking about blending, and I'm certainly not interested in blending home styles. What I'm interested in is blending size of lots. Specifically in existing neighborhoods. So would there be a way to anchor in this aspect that it's relative to an existing neighborhood. I think the reason why we're pursuing this and gave this relatively high priority from the Planning Commission side is that we did run into situations where we felt our hands were tied where we really would have liked to do something when subdivision of lots come in, and I think the context, would there be a way to separate out the context from the new development context to the context of an existing framework? Aanenson: That's what Option 3 I believe says. Sacchet: That's pretty much what Option 3 does. Now you did answer what this 36,300 figure is. One question I had was, when you say it does not allow land to develop to it's full potential. Full potential. Meaning squeeze in as many houses as we possibly can? AI-Jaff: 15,000 square foot lots. Sacchet: Okay. I just wanted to be clear that's what we're saying here. Okay. Now and we're saying they should allow, when we're looking at this example with this Rice Lake Manor and are we saying that they should be allowed to subdivide? Aanenson: Some of them have. Sacchet: Some of them already have? Aanenson: Yes. Sacchet: Like into stacked lots or? Aanenson: Some of them have, yes. Sacchet: So these or flag lots, right? Okay. That's my questions for now, thanks. Karlovich: I have a question with regards to the approach of the tying anything in with an average lot size. Has there been any discussion with the city attorney if you were to recommend, instead of tying something into an average lot average, could possibly be viewed as arbitrary depending on what your neighbor wants to do with this property. If he wants to have a 100 acre farm next to you, and continue to farm that as opposed to if your goal is to preserve this neighborhood, creating a new district like in an SF-1 with different standards. I just am speaking out loud a little bit. I think from a legal standpoint and trying to go forward with it, it just doesn't seem logical to tie it into an average lot size if we need a new zone category. If our current zone that fits all 15,000 doesn't fit all, it seems as though we should possibly be looking at creating a different one and rezoning property as opposing to tying it into an average lot size such as, it seems arbitrary. Aanenson: I would agree. That's what we're saying. We've stated in this that the minimum lot size is 15. And this is the same example as the one you just discussed. If the person next to you has an acre lot and you come in and subdivide and you have to maintain an average, then or larger, then they can subdivide too, either the 15,000 works or it doesn't. So that's part of what we said is the beauty of the PUD. We don't like the over use of the PUD but with the PUD, in order to add an additional lot you 41 Planning Commission Meeting- April 3, 2001 have to rezone because the density's allocated for that subdivision. Some of the older subdivisions that have the 15,000, just as you're stating. That's the minimum unless we come up with something inbetween, or there's some other covenants or conveyance that says they can't subdivide. Say there's a homeowners association or some other instrument that they can control. Karlovich: I just hear about the enforceability of this average lot size. If we did change to that you know, if we could. Aanenson: Right. Sidney: Other questions? Kind: Madam Chair. When this was last discussed with the Planning Commission, I think it was at a work session and in our packet at that time was an Edina ordinance. Could you speak to why you didn't include that as any of the options? AI-Jaff: We spoke to the, well what they have is Option 1. And with that it's area within 500 feet. I apologize. Karlovich: Option 2. Kind: And if I remember right, their minimum lot size is 9,000 square feet. AI-Jaff: Correct. Substantially smaller lot sizes. The majority of Edina is fully developed. I mean they really don't have much open land left that comes in for subdivisions. My understanding when I spoke to their planner at the time was, they get probably 3 subdivisions per year and mainly, most of what they do is commercial, industrial and redevelopment. Kind: So it doesn't really apply to Chanhassen. Al-Jarl: It doesn't apply. It's a different city. Different standards. Different character altogether. Versus in Chanhassen you have open land and land is constantly being brought into the MUSA and we're a developing community. They are a developed community. Kind: Now one thing that they had in their ordinance that I thought was kind of interesting in addition to they had specifics for averaging width and depth and all sorts of stuff which I agree. I don't think that's going to work here because of the case you put in our, the worst case scenario that's in our packet this evening. But one thing that they had in their approval process was something that was called considerations and I took the liberty of re-wording it to fit maybe for us and I just want to throw this out to the commission as a possibility that would allow us to have some discretion, and here goes. When reviewing plats and subdivisions for approval or denial the Planning Commission and City Council may consider the following: The impact of the proposed development on the character and symmetry of the neighborhood as evidenced and indicated by the suitability of the size, shape, location and arrangement of the proposed lots relative to the existing lots in the neighborhood. , The compatibility of the size, shape, location and arrangement of the lots in the proposed development relative to the comprehensive plans guided use for the neighboring lots. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3,2001 Food for thought. And it might, I guess I'd be interested in staff's feelings about that. Aanenson: I think that's fine. I think you could take that same and imply it to the intent of the flag lot. It's the same sort of scenario, and it's how you make that transition. I guess what we're saying is because we have a larger lot already, it kind of goes back to what Jay was saying, but I think those are, what's our intent and that we may want to attach conditions to mitigate some of that intent when they're subdividing. Whether it's orientation, additional width, depth, whatever to make it to feel better because that's when the rug comes in... Kind: What I liked about it in the Edina ordinance was that it seems to give the Planning Commission and City Council a little discretion when a lot doesn't seem to fit, to coin an expression that we've used in the past. I just thought that might be a way to solve it without having specifics about lot averaging and things like that, because I agree with Jay. I think that's a slippery slope. Aanenson: So do we. Kind: So I'd be interested in my fellow commissioners thoughts on something like that and staff's opinion too and maybe the appropriate thing to do is to table it so staffcan respond. Aanenson: We anticipated most of these would be tabled and come back with direction. Sacchet: Madam Chair, is this a hearing? Sidney: Yes it is. So we will have discussion afterward as well. Sacchet; Maybe we should, if we want to open it for a hearing and then continue with discussion maybe after. Sidney: Correct. Okay. This is a public hearing. Kind moved, Kariovich seconded to open the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was opened. Sidney: Okay. Now, I can say. This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission please come forward. State your name and address. Kind moved, Sacchet seconded to close the public hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was closed. Sidney: Okay, discussion. Or motion. Sacchet: Yeah I'd like to make just a brief comment. I think this is a pretty fundamental thing in terms of the vision, where we want to go as a city so I think this is really more a vision setting, policy setting thing. That it's going to be up to the council because the fundamental question is to what extent can we, or do we want to try to preserve the existing character of neighborhoods, because that's basically what it boils down to with those lot sizes. So it's really, it's quite a bit further than probably our scope is as a Planning Commission. I do very much like your suggestion that to have a set of guidelines. I kind of expressed intent rather than a fixed set of rules that gives us some sort ora context that we can do 43 Planning Commission Meeting- April 3,2001 something. I mean one example we give you that weren't here before is, like we had somebody come in with what effectively was 2 ½ lots and they want to subdivide it into 3 lots. I mean you get kind of things that you can't really oppose it and then you start fishing for things, trying to well, can you do something. They can't have access from here and there. It gets messy so if we have a way to address the issue that's really at hand to protect the neighborhood structure, but then again that becomes a policy issue. That's where I would like to see us go with it. If we can formulate a little bit of vision or suggestion that then can be passed onto council, that's I believe what we're doing here. Again I'm not after blending home style. I'm after blending lot size here. I do think it's important that we do something and I do definitely like Option 3 better than Option 4. I do think we need to do something, but yep. So in that context I would recommend to table it with the direction to staff to research for one thing the suggestion that Deb made and it's again a situation where we kind of shirk away a little bit from exactly identifying what the need is to try to fulfill it. Being flexible is good but we saw situations in the past where we were at a loss to be able to address the issue in front of us. That's my comments. Mayor Jansen: Well and Madam Chair, ifI could maybe speak a little bit to the policy piece of this. I think what I'm seeing when I look at this is the mechanisms and the tools that we use to create these smaller lots and you spoke to that earlier tonight when you were looking at the flag lot issues and the private streets. And if you look at those tools that are used to then change the make-up of these neighborhoods, how do we guide those tools to less impact the neighborhood, and I think earlier this evening you were starting to touch on some of those issues, so I think conceptually and vision wise you're definitely on the same track that your council would be on, and it's do we have the right tools and mechanisms in place to keep our neighborhoods with their integrity as they arel That we're not so impacting them with stacked homes and where the orientation of the homes is inappropriate to the neighborhood or we think it is. And I think in that earlier report again staff spoke to that very well as to front yards facing the same directions, but conceptually and to your policy 'issue, I think where you're going is accurate to where your council will be. Sacchet: Thank you. Karlovich: I don't think that we really have the tools to stop every subdivision and we really do not want. I'd also agree with my fellow commissioners, it's a little bit beyond our scope and I think we'll fail too if each lot coming in we try to say well, it's our thought here to save this neighborhood. I guess what I'm possibly envisioning, and I hate to think of more work for our overworked planning staff but it' almost seems like there should be a planning, little study of the different neighborhoods within the city and identify which ones we want to preserve and then they should be rezoned. And what you're going to get, if you rezone a neighborhood like this, you're going to get some of the neighbors that cheer you on because they're being preserved, but there's always going to be those in there that had always banked on the possibility of subdividing their lot to pay for their kid's college tuition so, if we have a kind of... study of the neighborhoods that we want to preserve, I think we'll have a little bit more of the back bone to fall back on and say this is our vision and I'm sorry about your property value. I'm kind of speaking out loud, for further discussion amongst the commission here. Sidney: Thank you. Any other thoughts? Sacchet: Here's one little piece I'd like to add. I do take exception to consider developing to it's full potential to try to stack in as many buildings as possible. To me, coming from an environmental viewpoint, that's not really very good vision. And I think that's where, as the city fills up, as we grow, we get to see more and more of these lots that are big enough, they want to split. And yeah, we can have a rule that applies to everything but I'd be just trying to get a little more handle on that. 44 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 2001 Sidney: Okay. How about a motion. Sacchet: Well we heard this one before. I move that we table this subdivision of all lots within existing neighborhoods proposed ordinance amendment with the intent that is expressed in the discussion. Kind: I'll second that. Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission table action on the amendment to the City Code, Chapters 18 and 20 regarding subdivision and standards in existing neighborhoods. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 6 to 0. Aanenson: Can I just add some? I think what we're seeing tonight is the two tied directly together, as the mayor pointed out. The flag lot and the lot blending. We've gone through some of that. I think Commissioner Karlovich raised an interesting point that we've talked about too. We tried to do an old town plan. Trying to preserve the character. We got through that process and it went up in flames for the exact reasons you pointed out, but I think it's an interesting dialogue and maybe it's been a lOng enough time that if you're interested we could resurrect it and talk about and just on some bumwad, show you some subdivisions that have exceeded the standards and what some of the implications would be and just kind of maybe go through that exercise before we come back and look at the tools more specifically. Is what I'm saying is these may slow down a little bit to kind of maybe digest a little bit smaller pieces. The complexion up here has changed, to just kind of talk about that in broader terms. When you're talking about older subdivisions, Carver Beach throws out a whole different set of rules and so does old town so I think maybe step back a little bit and look at that, just to get everybody up to on the same page. Talk about what makes a neighborhood. Some of those sorts of things. If that's okay with you. I think maybe we'll just slow these down a little bit, if that's okay. Maybe step back and do a little bit more exercise on that. Just so we're all kind of coming together. You can understand the complexity just on these. There's the same complexity on a lot of other issues in the ordinance. In speaking with the city attorney, we've been making kind of ad hoc Changes. I think it'd be our recommendation as we come into the first of next year that we're probably going to maybe look at redoing the whole city ordinance and some of these things, I think if we just slow down a little bit and look at them in big picture, it might be helpful to see what the issues are out there. A lot of the subdivisions again we've done recently are PUD's. And we talked a little bit about the differences and just step back a little bit if that's okay. Maybe take an extra month to look at some of these issues, if that's alright. On those two specifically, the flag lot and the blending. Sidney: Yeah, and I was just thinking too, have we given you good enough direction in terms of what we want as an outcome, and that's another point that maybe the commission needs to specify in terms of objectives. What are the problems? Do you feel you need more direction? Aanenson: No, I think it's clearly stated. Some of the tools that we use as the mayor stated, certainly affect whether or not someone can, you can change the tools and then that affects the lot sizes but I think also it steps back to say what's the character of the neighborhood and do we want to look at a different, or is that a tool? Maybe we need to implement a different minimum lot size of 20. I mean maybe there's some neighborhoods that we want to look at that so I think we can take a step back and maybe look at that level and then go forward. Just step back and then go forward, if that makes some sense. Sidney: Okay. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3,2001 Aanenson: So what I'm saying is these may not make it onto the next, the lakeshore one we'll come back with and this other one that we tabled, but maybe these flag lots and the other may take another one, if that makes sense. Mayor Jansen: And Madam Chair, my only question to staff would be, we don't have any proposals that would be coming in utilizing the flag lot and the private drive, do we? That we need to be suggesting to those applicants that we are potentially making changes that will affect their applications. Aanenson: There is one that is part of, Whitetail Cove. We can apprise them of that. I guess the first step, yeah we can certainly let them know that we're looking at that. I guess my first set was to say, what standards are out there right now and then we can decide where we want to go. Just kind of do a, like I say, on a bumwad take the city on of the zoning map and show you what some of the neighborhood standards are. Karlovich: And that's where I guess a lot of my, I'm speaking out loud, the question and this issue of, I live over by Galpin and Lake Lucy and I see the subdivisions going in around some big area lots but looking at the big picture, those big area lots that are left are those the ones that we need to preserve, and we've got to preserve every single big area lots left in? But maybe something like this is something that we want to preserve so the whole thing fits around just, if we need to kind of step back and identify which areas we want to preserve. Mayor Jansen: And maybe even to better define what we're talking about when we're saying existing neighborhoods, because I guess what I'm seeing here is an existing neighborhood and when I see some of these large lots, if they're still 10 acres or. Aanenson: ...neighborhood. Mayor Jansen: That's not a neighborhood Aanen3on: Right, that's my concern too. Are we using the same terminology and getting everybody on the same page. Mayor Jansen: Yeah. Slagle: Madam Chair? Kate, how would that take place? I mean what format or will you be providing us with information? Aanenson: Yeah, I think we'll just do it, put something on the overhead. This table with. Slagle: At our next meeting or? Aanenson: I'm saying that's going to take probably a month for us to put together. Try to pull some things together. What we will bring forward for you next time is the lakeshore ordinance and we'll have our first run through of the design standards so. Slagle: And I don't know if this is appropriate but if there's anything prior to that that you can provide us through the mail that we can catch up, that'd be great. Thanks. Sidney: Okay, moving on. 46 Planning Commission Meeting- April 3, 2001 NEW BUSINESS. Aancnson: We did have the Holiday gas station was scheduled for the next meeting. We did find a quirk in the ordinance regarding a 250 feet separation between gas stations. They currently do not, are legal non-conforming. Technically we have to notice a variance. We got a legal opinion on the language. It's another one of those ambiguities so it will be table to the first meeting in May to get the notice for the variance, the 250, even though it's currently in violation. So they're remodeling their gas station. Other than that you'll be seeing additional code amendments. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Deb Kind noted the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated March 20, 2001 as presented. ONGOING ITEMS. Sidney: I requested and hopefully this will be brief, a report from our commission liaison to the City Council. Kind: And who was that? Sidney: I thought it was you. Kind: I don't think it was officially me but I was there. Sacchet: Oh that was me. I think I was the official one last time, . Kind: Were you the official one? Sacchet: I believe so. It was a wonderful meeting. They sat up here and talked. They made good decisions. Without having brought in thc sheet, let me think. What was on there? Aanenson: You just had one thing on consent. Mayor Jansen: Yeah, your part was real easy. Was it something with Ashling Meadows? Aanenson: Ashling Meadows is on next time. Sacchet: The sheriffhad all the good news of having caught the bad guys, yes. That was one of the things. But there was one main issue. I'm trying to remember what it was. Mayor Jansen: It was Highway 101. Sacchet: Thc 101. They were talking about the 101. The trail. People really want a trail but they don't want a wide road and there's going to be further study and discussion. Good summary I believe. Mayor Jansen: Much shorter than the meeting. Sidney: Open discussion, I think we discussed ourselves out here. 47 Planning Commission Meeting - April 3, 2001 Aanenson: I'll take it off unless there's something on. I'll have Vicki do that. We won't put it on the agenda, open discussion unless we publish something under open discussion. Mayor Jansen: Open discussion would have been like what you did with the Foss Swim School, correct? Aanenson: Absolutely. We have an interpretation of the roof line. We also used it for the car dealership. We asked that... Mayor Jansen: And Kate literally pulled the tables together. Everybody sat around the tables and had more of a work session presentation. That's the only one I can think of. Aanenson: Right, and then we used it for the car dealership too. Mayor Jansen: Okay. Aanenson: So I won't put it on the agenda unless there's something underneath it. Sidney: Okay. And I looked at my Robert's Rules of Order here and because the Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30, the meeting now is adjourned. Chairman Sidney adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 10:35 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 48