Loading...
PC Minutes 10-19-04 cl-I- 3 2j ...-",' Planning Commission Summary - October 19, 2004 - b. The building must comply with Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policies 34-1993, 36-1994, 29-1991, 07-1991, 06-1991, and 04- 1991. Copies enclosed. 13. Building Official conditions: a. The building is required to be protected by automatic fire extinguishing systems. b. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. c. Submit a site plan indicating the location of all property lines. d. An eight foot access aisle is required for the accessible parking space. e. Detailed occupancy related requirements cannot be reviewed until complete plans are submitted. f. The owner and/or their representatives shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 14. All roof top equipment shall be screened. 15. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary financial securities. 16. Wall signs shall be permitted on the east elevation of the building only and must comply with Neighborhood Business District requirements. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signs on site. A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a sign permit. - 17. The applicant shall provide a survey signed by a registered land surveyor verifying that the hard surface coverage on this site does not exceed 65%. 18. A detailed lighting plan is required and only shielded fixtures are allowed as prescribed by ordinance. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to O. PUBLIC HEARING: VARIANCE FOR LOCATING A STRUCTURE AND GRADING WITHIN THE BLUFF ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8850 AUDUBON ROAD. PLANNING CASE NO. 04-33. Public Present: Name Address - Steve & Mary Pat Monson 8850 Audubon Road 3 Planning Commission Summary - October 19,2004 Dennis & Ruth Chadderdon 8900 Audubon Road Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Lillehaug asked for clarification on the need to obtain permits for the work performed. Also that it appears a neighbors house, which was built 3 to 4 years ago, was built within the bluff and asked for further clarification on the definition of a bluff. Commissioner Slagle asked for clarification on the extent of the bluff. Commissioner Papke asked if there was precedence for this type of variance request. Commissioner Tjornhom asked for historical information on when the parcel was subdivided, if the bluff was identified at that time, and what options exist for restoration. Commissioner Claybaugh asked for clarification on the height and setback of the retaining walls and regulations regarding grading. Commissioner Papke asked staff to reiterate the damage that would be done if the applicant were asked to re-establish the bluff, and impacts to Bluff Creek. Chairman Sacchet asked staff to address the statement made by the applicant that the city asked them to change the plotting of the 5 acres to run east and west, which puts most of their 2 112 acres entirely on the bluff. He also asked for clarification in the two Finding of Fact reports, item E seems to contradict each other. The applicant Steve Monson, 8850 Audubon Road addressed the issues regarding the previous subdivision and what was requested by the city and the amount of dirt that has been moved on the site. Mary Pat Monson stated when they built a swimming pool on the site a few years ago, there was never mention of a bluff at that time and comparisons of their property to a neighbor's down the road which appears to have steeper slopes. Chairman Sacchet opened the public hearing. Dennis Chadderdon, 8900 Audubon Road, the neighbor directly south of the Monson's stated there's been no erosion problems as a result of this construction work and that he supports the variance request. Chairman Sacchet closed the public hearing. In talking about runoff, the applicant stated they would build a trench filled with rock on the south side of the garage to catch runoff. He also showed pictures of the neighboring property in relation to the slope. After commissioner discussion, the following motion was made. Lillehaug moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission approves Variance #04-33 for the construction of a garage/storage building in a bluff as shown on the plans stamped "Received June 22, 2004", with the following conditions: 1. A building permit must be applied for within one year of approval of the variance or it shall become void. 2. The proposed addition must be built per plans stamped "Received June 22,2004". 3. The applicant must submit plans for the ramp before proceeding with construction. 4. An after the fact building permit for grading must be applied for. 4 Planning Commission Summary - October 19,2004 5. The graded slope must e entirely reinforced with a retaining wall which will require a building permit; or must be restored to a slope less than 3: 1. 6. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3: 1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Time Type of Slope (maximum time an area can remain unvegetated when area is not actively being worked) Steeper than 3: 1 7 Days 10:1t03:1 14 Days Flatter than 10: 1 21 Days These areas include any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man-made system that discharges to any surface water. 7. Permanent native vegetation shall be installed on the slopes to minimize the potential for future slope failure. 8. Submit an existing topographic survey signed by an RLS (registered land surveyor). The survey must show the following: a. Location of the retaining wall with top and bottom elevations. b. Driveway location and slope. c. Garage floor elevation. 9. The driveway must be hard surfaced and comply with City Code Sec. 20-1122 (attached). 10. No home occupation or business use will be permitted in the existing attached garage or proposed detached garage/storage building, as stated in City Code 20- 977: ". ..No garage or accessory buildings except accessory agriculture buildings existing on February 19, 1987 shall be used for any home occupation." 11. The applicant shall submit for staff approval and construct a French drainage system, along with gutters on the garage/storage building. All voted in favor, except Papke who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. 5 y -;' -, Planning Commission Meeting - October 19,2004 16. Wall signs shall be permitted on the east elevation of the building only and must comply with Neighborhood Business District requirements. The applicant must obtain a sign permit prior to erecting any signs on site. A detailed sign plan incorporating the method of lighting acceptable to staff should be provided prior to requesting a sign permit. 17. The applicant shall provide a survey signed by a registered land surveyor verifying that the hard surface coverage on this site does not exceed 65%. 18. A detailed lighting plan is required and only shielded fixtures are allowed as prescribed by ordinance. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to O. PUBLIC HEARING: V ARIANCE FOR LOCATING A STRUCTURE AND GRADING WITHIN THE BLUFF ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8850 AUDUBON ROAD. PLANNING CASE NO. 04-33. Public Present: Name Address Steve & Mary Pat Monson Dennis & Ruth Chadderdon 8850 Audubon Road 8900 Audubon Road Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thank you. Questions from staff. Steve, you want to jump in? Lillehaug: I have a couple questions. On the second page, and I think you also reiterated it. There's two walls approximately 3 feet in height. They graded the driveway out there. You say all of these improvements were made without a permit. You don't need a permit for any of that work. Metzer: Right, and that's why in the presentation I said or zoning compliance. I failed to mention that in the report. Lillehaug: And is that something, one of the new zoning permits that we require now, is that it? I mean brand new within the last couple months? Is that right? AI-Jaff: It's part of the amended ordinances. However, if you are grading within a bluff, that's not a permitted action. And as far as the retaining wall, I don't know if Matt you would like to address that. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - October 19,2004 Saam: Sure, retaining walls under 4 feet you don't need a permit, but if you are grading in the right-of-way for a driveway connection, Audubon Road is city owned and controlled, then you would need a right-of-way permit. Lillehaug: So you're saying there's grading that took place within county right-of-way? Saam: Audubon there is city. City owned. Lillehaug: Okay, city. Saam: I'm saying if you are grading in a driveway and you grade into the right-of-way, then you would need it. If he exactly did that, I'm not sure where the right-of-way line is in reference to where he graded. Where his gravel starts. I guess we didn't check that, but I just wanted to clarify if he had gone into the right-of-way, then a permit would have been required. Lillehaug: Alright. One other question. And it would be pertaining to a residence, a couple residences to the west there, I mean there's a new house that was built there...3 to 4 years ago. It looks like that whole house is built on a bluff. Can you comment on that? AI-Jaff: Sure. Mr. Monson stopped by city hall earlier today and asked the exact same question, and Josh, Matt and I looked at the site and each calculated separately and we came up with a 20 percent, between 20 and 21 percent slope. The ordinance requires 25? Saam: 30. AI-Jaff: 30, I'm sorry. 30 percent. Lillehaug: It's the same bluff though. AI-Jaff: It's the same bluff. However. Sacchet: It doesn't qualify based on the steepness. AI-Jaff: Yeah, the steepness is substantially less. Lillehaug: So over there you're saying they could build anywhere on that, anywhere on that slope. AI-Jaff: That's correct. Lillehaug: Where that new house is a couple down. But on this property it's considered a bluff, and what's the actual grade of the bluff then? Is it right at 25 percent or? Steeper? 7 Planning Commission Meeting - October 19,2004 Saam: Are you asking what the grade of the bluff on the applicant's property is or what the definition of the bluff is? Lillehaug: Both. Saam: Okay, the definition is a 25 foot elevation drop with a 30 percent, basically 3 to 1 slope or grade. And I believe the applicant is right at, Sharmeen add, he's right in that 33 percent area. 30 percent. AI-Jaff: And the other thing that we did was, we actually asked the applicant to hire a registered land surveyor to look at the slope and tell us whether this is a bluff or not, and the conclusion was that it was a bluff. Lillehaug: Okay. AI-Jaff: And the grading that took place was within the bluff. Lillehaug: That's all the questions I have. Slagle: If I can ask, so the applicant after your request did hire a surveyor. AI-Jaff: That is correct. Slagle: Okay. And they came back with that. Let me ask this question Sharmeen. Using the average citizen who would look at something like this, in your opinion would it be quite obvious that this slope would require someone to do something? And I don't want to put you on the spot but I'm just saying, place yourself as an average citizen, do you see that, I mean right away someone say wait a minute. Something has to be looked at here. Just trying to get a gauge. Because I mean, again if we go to the neighbor to the west who built this big house, I'm just wondering if I was a citizen and I looked over, I don't know if I would know 20 some percent to 30 some percent. AI-Jaff: I honestly don't know but, and I don't know whether this issue came up or not. The applicant did go through a subdivision a few years back. Whether the issue of the bluff was raised at that point or not. Slagle: Okay. We don't know if it was? At the time. AI-Jaff: I don't know. Slagle: Okay. Matt, you were going to say something. Saam: Yeah, Commissioner Slagle. I'll just add, you know in our department quite often we get people coming in asking, you know say in this case. You're looking to do a garage. Well what are the requirements. I guess yes, I do see it probably at least once a week during a summer season, somebody will come in or if they want to move a 8 Planning Commission Meeting - October 19, 2004 significant amount of dirt or do a retaining wall. Now if it's just a gravel driveway, maybe not. But when you're talking about a garage on a hill where you're moving dirt with machinery, I would think most, just my opinion, most citizens, we do see them come in and ask hey, are there any requirements here. Do you need a permit for this and what not. Slagle: Okay. One last question Sharmeen, or Josh. I mean what was the demeanor of the applicant when the applicant was informed that it was indeed on a bluff and sort of you have to stop. AI-Jaff: I think they were fairly surprised. I mean when I initially looked at the survey I noticed the steep slopes and contacted the applicant and I said, it just seems like severe slopes and we need someone to provide us with more information. I mean they weren't happy about it. Slagle: And at that point did they provide the information they had already graded it. Okay. So it was them giving us the information they had graded it versus us discovering that it was graded. AI-Jaff: That's correct. I mean they, the only reason we truly found out about it was because they applied for a building permit and we contacted them and said you can't do this and they said but a retaining wall is in and. Sacchet: Kurt. Papke: Quite commonly when we have an application for a variance like this, staff prepares some sort of precedent analysis that you know certain houses in the neighborhood has this happened before, etc, etc. Do we have any data on this kind of a grading in a bluff where we have had variances requested, granted, or in this case where we've had to go in and have a similar situation where we've had somebody who has done the grading before asking for the variance. So what kind of history or precedence do we have, if any? AI-Jaff: There isn't anything within 500 feet. Papke: Okay, and that's the requirement that you have for staff to only examine properties within 500 feet. So there has been no precedent in the area. I realize this is kind of putting you on the spot, but across the city are there any cases of precedent where we've had a similar situation? AI-Jaff: Where someone graded into the bluff? Papke: Yes. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - October 19,2004 Saam: Well the recent Moon Valley site that we looked at that we're now going to be restored. That one comes to mind. That was years ago. I guess not that I recall since I've been here that I've reviewed personally. Usually we flag those. Lillehaug: The site right north of Moon Valley, the whole development there. There was a lot of grading within the bluff there I think. Partially on Eden Prairie and Chanhassen, that development there. AI-Jaff: Settlers West? Saam: I don't know that there was grading into the bluff. Lillehaug: Into the setback of the bluff. Saam: That may be, but I know on that one they did protect the bluff and it's like we had them do storm sewer to prevent drainage from going over the bluff. Sacchet: I think we reduced the setback on them but not the bluff. Claybaugh: Stabilize the bluff wasn't it? As I understood it. Papke: Yeah. Okay, so we have no cases, no precedent here of any kind? AI-Jaff: None that comes to mind right now. Sacchet: Any other questions? Tjornhom: Mine was I think historical. Just wanting to know when they did divide their lots in 1997, if the city, if that code was being, excuse me. Was that code that requires the preservation of the bluff area in full force? I mean were they told then in 1997 that, and obviously you don't know the answer but. Metzer: I believe the bluff ordinance was adopted in 1992, somewhere in that area. It was at least a few years before this subdivision occurred. Tjornhom: Okay. And what are some of the options then that they have for restoring it? Saam: Well, removal first off of the walls. You know I believe it's a boulder wall. And then it's just stabilizing the slope. I think we listed a maximum of 3 to 1 in there with blanketing, that sort of thing. Getting some type of vegetation established on there to keep the slope intact. It's not as severe a site as the Moon Valley one that I brought to your attention just a minute ago but some of those same type measures that we're going to do there, on a much smaller scale we do here. Tjornhom: So it looked like in the picture they took out a lot of land or, you know when I look at the pictures I see. 10 Planning Commission Meeting - October 19,2004 Sacchet: Got a cut into the bluff rather than building it. Tjornhom: Right. What did they do with that, I mean did they dispose of that flat? Where'd the dirt go, that's it? Alright, where'd the dirt go? Is the dirt still there? Metzer: If you look it kind of looks like what they graded, they used to push out and create the building. Sacchet: To the retaining wall, okay. Metzer: There's two retaining walls. There's one up. They graded here. Made the building pad here and another retaining wall down here. Tjornhom: Okay. Sacchet: Makes sense. Claybaugh: Did they set those walls back 4 feet, is that what they did Matt? Not 3, back 4. Not the 3. Something on that configuration? Saam: Yeah, I don't believe the walls are, at least the rock part is over 4 feet. So but yeah, it's a two tiered one. Claybaugh: Okay. That in part gets back to what we discussed with the City Council with respect to the retaining walls and the setbacks and the one thing that would help circumvent things getting to this point with setting those walls back rather than just enforcing that 4 foot ordinance. Do you know who performed the excavation out there? Or would that be a question for the applicant? Saam: I don't. Metzer: A question for an applicant, I'm not sure. Claybaugh: Do we have any ordinances with respect to pulling a permit with x number of, once you cross the threshold for cubic yards being moved. Saam: Yeah, I think. Metzer: 10 I believe it is. Claybaugh: And I'm assuming that this certainly qualified for more than 10 yards. Metzer: Matt was out there with me. I wasn't sure. 11 Planning Commission Meeting - October 19,2004 Saam: Yes, yeah just remembering back estimating. Yes, I'm sure it would qualify. We would ask the applicant if he would have any idea but yeah. Claybaugh: How far into the bluff using the toe as the reference point would you say that they're into it? Saam: Oh, the width of the. Metzer: They're more, they're very near the top of the bluff. Saam: Yeah, I guess it was my understanding, and maybe the applicant can add something that the bluff was here. Maybe the top is cut in but then you, I believe you'd have to actually fill to get the flat part for the driveway. Or for the garage, so I'm not sure how far they actually went into the bluff. Metzer: If you look, there's a picture in the report giving you an idea of how far from the, the person who took the picture was standing at the toe of the bluff. I was at the nearest retaining wall. The edge of the building. Slagle: So you were the model? Metzer: Yes. Sacchet: Oh that's you. Didn't recognize you. Metzer: I had to go in there for a sense of scale. Sacchet: I thought it was very good to have a person in there, definitely. Claybaugh: Last thing I would add, probably a little more comment than question with respect to people recognizing whether there's a bluff or not. I know that we've sat in no less than 2 round table meetings with developers that had expressed surprise that the land that they had purchased included as much bluff area as it has. That I know for a fact so that's a developer that makes his living doing that. That has already acquired land and is, finds himself in a position where it's not what he expected so I certainly could see it very comfortably happening to a home applicant so, it's a difficult thing for a homeowner to know. That's all I have. Sacchet: Kurt. Papke: Another follow-up question from Bethany's line of questioning. If we were to ask the applicant to push the dirt back up the hill into the cut, what is your assessment of any additional damage that would be done to the bluff and the vegetation and so on in that area. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - October 19,2004 Saam: Short term sure. There would be some but I think in the long term, once it's, once the bluff slope is re-established, it's going to be better for the long term versus having the garage there and impervious associated runoff, that sort of thing. Papke: And another follow along question to that. This is fairly close to the Bluff Creek area, yes. And is there any concern from an engineering perspective of any runoff from any dirt in this area from the cut or from the re-establishing of the bluff going down into the Bluff Creek area in terms of silt drainage and so on? Saam: Sure. There would have to be measures put in place. Silt fence. That sort of thing prior to any, whether the variance is granted or not, whether restoration is made or not, silt fence is going to have to be put up prior to any work occurring to prevent what you just said from happening. Papke: Is there any silt fence there now? Saam: Not that I saw. We were out there last Thursday. I think Josh, it wasn't there then. Metzer: Not that information Sacchet: Few more questions. So our main concern is the erosion and with vegetation and all that, we can mitigate it reasonably? Saam: Yes, I do. Metzer: Others in the planning department felt it could be done also. Sacchet: And obviously that would apply to both? Whether the shed goes in or not. If it's restored or not, either way the re-vegetation would be the remedy, right? Metzer: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. In the letter from the applicant, it's end of the first paragraph. The applicant states the city asked us to change the plotting of the 5 acres to run east and west, which is what we did. Now that leaves us with 2 112 acres almost entirely on what is considered a bluff. That was a city request to do it that way? Were we aware, I don't know whether any of us were here then. Metzer: In the discussion that I've heard, just talking about, it was stated that when the home, the Monson's home was already constructed at the time that this subdivision took place. They were proposing a private access to both properties along the south, if it was to be divided north and south. But that would require the driveway to be built all the way up the bluff to the Monson home from the south, which. AI-Jaff: Do you want to show on the overhead? 13 Planning Commission Meeting - October 19,2004 Sacchet: Yeah, if you could show us on the layout, that would help. Metzer: Okay, it was originally, this would be the Monson property before subdivision. Sacchet: Those two together, okay. Metzer: Yeah. Originally they wanted, sort of like this with a Plivate access running along the south. There is a wetland here. Sacchet: That's the low side. Metzer: Right. Sacchet: That's the bottom of. Metzer: Trees and buffer here where the construction building, so this would have required a driveway from this south portion all the way up to the Monson home over here. Coming through the bluff which you can see, if that comes out at all. .. .come up somewhat in through here to this extreme contour. Claybaugh: Was that specifically identified at the time that the bluff was the reason, or one of the primary reasons for reconfiguring that? Metzer: I'm not sure. Yeah, I was talking to Bob about this and he had mentioned it would have been coming through the bluff, from my understanding. Claybaugh: Right, I understand that they're looking at that, and that's on the table and they all realize that now. Was that part of the discussion at that time? Is there any records available to that effect? Metzer; Not that I could find. AI-Jaff: And the staff reports that we found indicate, or there are some discussions dealing with Bluff Creek, but. Claybaugh: But what I was specifically after, did they ever identify that the bluff existed on this site during any of that previous correspondence? That you can identify. AI-Jaff: It mentioned that the elevations are from 896 to 876 on one of the parcels but not the one that had the house. So it's addressing mainly the southern piece, which would have the proposed future development. But not specifically the Monson piece. The existing Monson piece that we're dealing with today. Claybaugh: Okay. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - October 19,2004 AI-J aff: I would also like to remind you that with this scenario the east/west property line versus the north/south, you have two parcels that actually abut a public street that meet the minimum ordinance requirements, so just keep that in mind also. Sacchet: Okay. I have another question here. This is kind of a technicality in the staff report on page 4, where Finding E states that we are concerned about the dangers of erosion and danger to the natural character of the land. And then when we look at the findings after the staff report, the first attachment, Finding E says, the granting of a variance will not be detrimental to public. The two seem to contradict each other. So I assume the one in the staff report is what we, what your position is, is that accurate? AI-Jaff: That's correct. Sacchet: Okay. So we may need to line that up with what we're saying in the Findings of Fact. Metzer: Well with the public, I mean residents. Sacchet: Alright. I think that's all my questions. With that I'd like to invite the applicant to come forward. If you want to tell us your version of what's happening here, we'd really appreciate it. Steve Monson: Okay, my name is Steve Monson. I live at 8850 Audubon Road. Sacchet: Welcome. Steve Monson: First with this old, when we were going to split the lot we were going to kind of just, you know it was going to go up like this and over, and then we were going to just use this driveway that was here. You know the house that got built there, and we were just going to come off the same driveway because we didn't want to drive out onto another spot out here on Audubon. So we were just going to come and then have another driveway coming onto our lot. But the city wanted us to go out like this instead of like that. Sacchet: Was there any mention about the bluff in that context? Steve Monson: No. They never, I never heard of a bluff. That's why I. Sacchet: Right, it's kind of new. Not so pleasant surprise. Steve Monson: And the thing was, that house that's built two doors down, you know that's even more on a slope than our house is. That's the way I look at it. So I never thought of it. One thing is, you know with the, you guys were talking about the dirt and what do we do with all of the dirt. Did we push it down the hill? Actually this retaining, that boulder retaining wall that's at the top, it's sloped down from my driveway, down 15 Planning Commission Meeting - October 19, 2004 about 3 feet. So all we did was just make a little level spot to stack those boulders up. So then we, when we took this dirt from here and put it behind, that's what we used. Sacchet: Moved it up actually. Steve Monson: Go behind it so I could make my driveway larger. That's what started this whole thing was because I wanted to make my driveway bigger so I could turn around and back up. So we cut about a 5 foot cut in here, and by the time we got out to the 16 or 18 feet off another edge here, there was... So there wasn't very much dirt that came out of there. And then about the vegetation, there's vegetation on the, there are places never been you know disrupted or, you know there will never be any erosion because the vegetation's just really vegetated. But anyway, when we had bought that house we were told that we could build anything we wanted on the whole 5 acres or 2 112 acres at that time. We didn't see anything about a bluff area, so that didn't come to mind either so. Sacchet: Anything else you'd like to add? Mary Pat Monson: He's trying to read my notes. Sacchet: Maybe you should come up and help him present. Mary Pat Monson: I'm Mary Pat Monson and I also live at 8850. One other thing that kind of came up. We put a pool in a few years ago off to the side of the house, and at that time nothing was ever said about, that we were in the bluff area. We put in some retaining walls on both edges of the pool and I just think that part of the problem here is, we put in, made the driveway bigger and then had the flat part. Came in for a building permit for the garage. And then that's when they asked us to get a survey because they thought it was too steep, and you know we kept looking at the house down the street going well, you know this isn't nearly as steep as what the house is down there, so there shouldn't be any problem. We had the survey done, submitted it and it came back. Well you have to get a variance. And when we talked, I said well what caused the house down the street to get a variance. Well they're not on a slope and, or on the bluff and I said, that's impossible. There's no way and I think if you look at the topography and you follow it across, you know I mean, it just comes down to it's up, and when Sharmeen told me that it's up to your surveyor. Steve Monson: Yeah, just like our survey you know, it's just 2 feet either way you know. It could be plus or minus however the surveyor set up where he's taken the actual or put the stake you know and shoots it. You know if he was over 1 foot farther this way or towards the slope or towards the back and down at the toe, you know. Where is he on the toe? I mean we're only 2 feet, saying that we're on a bluff. Sacchet: So it's pretty much borderline is what you're saying? 16 Planning Commission Meeting - October 19, 2004 Steve Monson: Yeah, I mean it's just, and that's the same way is with this other guy's house down there. He had the surveyor come in there. You know where did that guy shoot all the elevations to get that all figured out? Nobody ever could buy that land over there because it was straight down. You know then somehow they finagled the survey to make it that it's not in a bluff. That house is on stilts. Sacchet: You're referring to the house to the northwest of you or? Steve Monson: It's to the west. It's right on the same bluff. Just follow that bluff around. So it's to the west. Sacchet: Yeah, west. Over there. Okay, the skinny one. Steve Monson: But that's where, I think what it comes all down to is, how can you, when I talked to Dan Remer, you know I mean he says, well where did he shoot the height from. You know because it's such a small amount. I mean we could have the guy go out there the next day and say, you know hold your stick over here or hold it over there, and all we're just shooting from the hip. We didn't know if the, now wejust had to get a surveyor out there to take a look at it and now if we could...I suppose if we could have told him where to put the stick you know. Sacchet: Put the stake in a different spot. Steve Monson: Then you know I guess the, getting back to, you know everybody says we did this after the fact or they put the retaining walls in first and then got the, well we never had to call to get a, we called to find out about retaining walls but you don't have to get a permit unless it's, so we weren't doing this to spite. Sacchet: You even inquired about the retaining wall then? Mary Pat Monson: We did. We called the building department and they said that as long as the retaining wall's under 4 feet, it's not attached to the house and you're not encroaching on another property line, you don't need a building permit. So when you've got 2 112 acres, you've obviously not encroaching. It didn't touch the house and it was under 3 feet so you know. Sacchet: Yeah, we understand that part. Anything else you'd like to add from your end. Steve Monson: No, thanks a lot. Sacchet: Or do we have any questions for you guys? Claybaugh: Did you hire an excavator to perform the work? 17 Planning Commission Meeting - October 19,2004 Steve Monson: No, I didn't it in conjunction with just a friend of mine. We had, you know a Bobcat and you know. And we just, we all talked about the permit so that's why we called. Sacchet: Any other questions of the applicant? No? Thank you very much. Now this is a public hearing. If anybody wants to come forward and comment to this issue in front of us, we'd appreciate it. Yeah, looks like we have some takers. If you want to give us your name and address for the record. Dennis Chadderdon: My name is Dennis Chadderdon and I live at 8900 Audubon, just to the south of the Monson's. Sacchet: You're right south, okay. Dennis Chadderdon: Right. I built there 2 years ago and I watched the work that Steve was doing to prepare for this and he had talked, he was going to put the driveway there and I didn't have a problem with it at all. Yeah, this is my property right here. Sacchet: The other half. Slagle: You've got the tuck under garage? Dennis Chadderdon: Yes I do, yep. As far as vegetation goes, that whole hill is completely vegetated over. From when was it, June? When this happened. There's been no erosion. That's one of the things that was a big deal when I was building my home, was that they were talking about watershed and how much water would come off that hill. I have a 24 inch culvert that goes underneath my driveway which you could crawl through there. I mean it's huge, and the water running off of his property, I have never had any streams, any ruts or anything coming off of there. And none of the dirt has moved either, and we've got a couple ofreal good rains you know since then so erosion in my mind is not a problem for them there. Other than that, I have no problem with them doing what he's doing. I don't think it's going to be an eye sore or anything like that from my point of view so just thought I'd give you my thoughts on that. Sacchet: Appreciate it. Thank you very much. Anybody else wants to address this item? Seeing nobody getting up, I'll close the public hearing. Bring it back to commissioners. Discussion. Comments. Anybody want to jump in? Steve. Lillehaug: I suppose I can. I actually, I support the variance request and I'll give you my reasoning. If you look at the contour plan that's in our packet here, I do the elevation difference off of contours and boy, it's right on the bubble and I would expect staff to do the same thing they did for this report. Very good job on the report. That's the purpose is I think this is right on the bubble and so I appreciate you guys bringing it in front of us but I do support it and the reasoning would be is it's, one. It's right on the bubble and what's the reason behind protecting the bluff? You know I think it's to protect the sightlines of the bluff, etc, and if you look where this garage is going, it's going down the 18 Planning Commission Meeting - October 19,2004 slope 8 feet plus or minus, and the top of the building, what's it going to cover up? It's going to cover up their driveway, their house and their garage so I really don't see it being a huge impact to the bluff. Do they have any other reasonable options? I don't believe they do. They have one flat spot on their property, but they don't have any way to provide access to it. 2.5 acres, I think it's reasonable to put another garage on a property that size. Everything I'm seeing, you know I don't see anything that was done intentionally trying to skirt the bluff ordinance by Mr. and Mrs. Monson so I'm in support of it. Sacchet: That's good. Anybody else wants to comment or any discussion points? Papke: As is the tradition I will, I take the opposite stance. I believe in this particular case the, given the proximity to Bluff Creek, I think it would have been prudent before doing the excavation, just to call the city and say geez, we're 200 feet above the creek, or 200 feet away from the creek or so. We're on the side of a hill. Is there anything we need to do? It just would have been prudent. Mary Pat Monson: We're 400 feet, we measured it. Papke: 400 feet, I'm sorry. It's a small map. But it's still, it's, it is up the hill from the creek and granted there's a lot of vegetation there. But, and I agree with Steve that certainly on a plot of that size, it would certainly be nice to have another garage added on to my 3 car garage, but I don't think that constitutes a hardship so I don't support this vanance. Sacchet: Thanks. Any other comments? You want to say something Craig? Claybaugh: Yeah. I agree with Commissioner Lillehaug that, in terms of calculations that the bluff is debatable. We're on the bubble. I believe that the applicant attempted to do due diligence within their experience with land issues and construction. It is large lot property. I don't see a problem with having an additional structure on the site. It's one of the benefits of living on a large lot. And with respect to hardship, once a person gets down the road that far with respect to planning and the rest of it, I personally am not prepared to penalize the applicant having found that they have tried to do due diligence and didn't get here as Commissioner Lillehaug commented by trying to skirt any of the bluff issues so within that context I'm prepare to support the applicant. Sacchet: Okay. Does staff agree that this is somewhat on the bubble? Somewhat a border line case. AI-Jaff: I believe that to follow, for the registered land surveyor, I think that's why we hire them, or the applicant would hire them in this case. Because they're professional. Lillehaug: Close? Sacchet: Close. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - October 19, 2004 Lillehaug: Close may be a better term. Sacchet: It's close. Claybaugh: Marginal. Sacchet: Marginally close. Well it's good we hear the neighbor to the south is okay with it. It's a tricky thing. I mean we're kind of punishing the honest one here, which is not a desirable thing. Then on the other hand yeah Kurt, you have a point. I mean we know that Bluff Creek is a sensitive thing and I'm sure it's one of the amenities that you actually enjoy there, living in that particular place. We need how much of a vote for this to pass, or what is it? AI-Jaff: Only one of you can go against it. Sacchet: Only one. How about if one abstains? AI-Jaff: Then it's a recommendation and it goes back to City Council. Sacchet: Then it goes to council. Because I'm struggling with, is whether maybe this should go to council frankly. I mean I really sympathize with the applicant personally. I think it's very obvious that the applicant did everything possible to do the right thing and I don't see anything there that, I mean yes, it was done without a permit but it didn't need a permit per se, except that it's in a bluff and they were not aware it was in a bluff. Now should they have known it's in a bluff? Well, they didn't. Now they do. It probably wasn't a very pleasant surprise to find out this way. Also what I'm struggling with is, I mean to restore this is going to have an additional impact, probably more detrimental impact environmentally than what was done so far. Now, then we can say how much of that runoff is a real issue. How would they treat that runoff? Would they catch it? I mean is that something that we looked at how this could be mitigated? I mean because runoff seems to be the real issue, right? Saam: Yeah, runoff would lead to erosion and they're all kind of intertwined. Lillehaug: I think erosion would be more of the term. Sacchet: Yeah, not the runoff. The erosion. Lillehaug: The erosion I think is the concern, in my mind. Sacchet: It is, and do we know how it slopes? The applicant actually is allowed to speak just about at any time so if you want to add something. 20 Planning Commission Meeting - October 19,2004 Steve Monson: Yeah, just a matter of fact. I had talked to Schoells and Madsen, you know they're engineers on, taking care of the water runoff and all that kind of thing and he even talked to Bob. Sacchet: Bob Generous, yep. Steve Monson: Jerry over there. He talked to him about a way we can take care of it, there's water that runs off. There's a system that we do where you dig a big trench behind the garage, or on the south side of the garage. Sacchet: The down slope. Steve Monson: A big trench. Fill it with rock or whatever. But they'd do it. They'd design it and. Sacchet: Catch it, yeah. Steve Monson: And then catch the water so it goes into the ground, and down. Instead of just rushing down the hill. You'd have to have gutters on the garage, and then slope the front around, it kind of goes.. .in a corner with this big trench he dug out. Sacchet: Is there enough room the way it is now with the retaining wall that you would have room to put like a gravel type of catch for the water? Steve Monson: Yeah, we've already, they've looked at it and we've already, we can do that. Sacchet: So is that, okay. So that would fit actually. Steve Monson: And it was working and it'd be a good catch basin to catch all the water coming down the hill and go into there and then into the ground. Sacchet: Appreciate it. Good addition here. From engineering's viewpoint, how valuable is what he's actually describing here? Saam: I think he's describing some sort of French drain type system. Gutters draining into it and yeah, that's something we talked about when we were out on site. If it was approved, how could we take care of the runoff. Instead of just letting it spill right off the roof right down a steep slope. And it was, what we had talked about was something like that with a pipe or gutters or some sort of system like that, where we drain it out at the bottom of a hill possibly, or into the ditch. Lillehaug: Commissioner Sacchet. Sacchet: Go ahead. 21 Planning Commission Meeting - October 19,2004 Lillehaug: You know how do you, looking the whole bluff, how do you view that bluff? You know just to me it's right on the bubble for the entire bluff around, all the way to the west and around to the north. I mean do you see this area as a different portion of the bluff that we need to preserve as compared to where they just built that house 3 years back? You know what are we really trying to do here? I mean two properties down they built a house on approximately the same bluff. Here we're getting into the bluff by about 8 feet. You know to me the significance of it isn't any more, or it's actually less than building that house on the. Sacchet: Well we don't have clear data on the house. I heard staff say it wasn't exactly.. . Claybaugh: But this goes back to the footprint. This is a much greater impact. Sacchet: Yes, in terms of size wise. Lillehaug: Just looking at the hill, I mean to me it's, it might not be a bluff where that house was built and here it's obviously it's pretty close to being a bluff, or it is a bluff, but the whole character of the whole side of the hill, I mean to me it doesn't change and why penalize Mr. Monson. Mr. and Mrs. Monson, I guess I'm not going to say any more on it. You know my opinion. Sacchet: I hear it. I hear, and it' s... Steve Monson: If you want I have pictures of that house he's talking about. Sacchet: Do you want to put it on the table there? Do you want to help him Sharmeen to put in the right spot? Okay. Just turn them upside down and then we see it upside down. So that's the other house that. Steve Monson: Another view we're talking about. Sacchet: Yeah, and those are bigger retaining walls than your's. Steve Monson: Well it's just more, way more of a slope. The guy has a driveway that cuts back like this to get down to his house. That's what is so, I mean that's the street here and he's got his driveway there. It cuts back 3 different times before he gets down there. Sacchet: Okay. Yeah, okay. Thank you. Well, I think if we can put in a very clear condition of that gravel type of catch of water, I would consider this reasonable enough to pass it through. That's my personal opinion of this. Now I'm not necessarily going to be in a position to formulate exactly how we would phrase that particular condition. Claybaugh: Something like capturing it with a French drain. 22 Planning Commission Meeting - October 19,2004 Sacchet: The French drain is the term that expresses it clearly? Okay. Alright. Now, my main concern is the precedent aspect. The hardship, it's reasonable under the circumstances from many different angles. But the precedence part, how can we, does that need to be more balanced? Is there any comments from fellow commissioners on that? Claybaugh: I think whether, we had someone come in before that was looking at putting in a pool or a Sport Court and they had done something previously and they got into being over the hard surface allowance. I think every time we've run into these we've looked at it, whether someone was trying to skirt a code or ordinance issue versus someone trying and attempting to the best of their ability to do due diligence with what's in front of them. Sacchet: Yeah, it's pretty clear that we have due diligence here. Claybaugh: Beyond that I don't think we've ever been able to articulate anything. Sacchet: Alright. Somebody want to formulate a motion? Lillehaug: I'll make a motion the Planning Commission approves Variance 04-33 for the construction of a garage/storage building in a bluff as shown on the plans stamped "Received June 22, 2004" with the following conditions, 1 through 10. And then 11 as, that Matt could maybe clarify and elaborate on to deal with the runoff and erosion from the building. Sacchet: French drain. Slagle: And gutters. Lillehaug: And gutters, yep. Claybaugh: Why don't we say French drain system? Sacchet: French drain system, is that what you call it? French drain system. Yeah, let's use that. Claybaugh: Can we also add that they're coordinate that with staff? Sacchet: Coordinate that with staff, okay. So that would be, have to be submitted in terms of a plan to get the permit. Claybaugh: Prefer that. Saam: Yeah, we already have the survey required so we'll just work with them off of that to make sure the French drain gets incorporated in that. 23 Planning Commission Meeting - October 19,2004 Claybaugh: But with respect to the design of the French drain system, if that could be required to be submitted to staff or engineering for approval. Sacchet: Is that an acceptable friendly amendment Steve? Lillehaug: Yes. Sacchet: Alright. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Claybaugh: Second. Lillehaug moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission approves Variance #04-33 for the construction of a garage/storage building in a bluff as shown on the plans stamped "Received June 22, 2004", with the following conditions: 1. A building permit must be applied for within one year of approval of the variance or it shall become void. 2. The proposed addition must be built per plans stamped "Received June 22, 2004". 3. The applicant must submit plans for the ramp before proceeding with construction. 4. An after the fact building permit for grading must be applied for. 5. The graded slope must e entirely reinforced with a retaining wall which will require a building permit; or must be restored to a slope less than 3: 1. 6. Erosion control blanket shall be installed on all slopes greater than or equal to 3: 1. All exposed soil areas shall have temporary erosion protection or permanent cover year round, according to the following table of slopes and time frames: Time Type of Slope (maximum time an area can remain unvegetated when area is not actively beinl!; worked) Steeper than 3: 1 7 Days 10:1 to 3:1 14 Days Flatter than 10:1 21 Days These areas include any exposed soil areas with a positive slope to a temporary or permanent drainage ditch or other natural or man-made system that discharges to any surface water. 7. Permanent native vegetation shall be installed on the slopes to minimize the potential for future slope failure. 24 Planning Commission Meeting - October 19,2004 8. Submit an existing topographic survey signed by an RLS (registered land surveyor). The survey must show the following: a. Location of the retaining wall with top and bottom elevations. b. Driveway location and slope. c. Garage floor elevation. 9. The driveway must be hard surfaced and comply with City Code Sec. 20-1122 (attached). 10. No home occupation or business use will be permitted in the existing attached garage or proposed detached garage/storage building, as stated in City Code 20- 977: ".. .No garage or accessory buildings except accessory agriculture buildings existing on February 19, 1987 shall be used for any home occupation." 11. The applicant shall submit for staff approval and construct a French drainage system, along with gutters on the garage/storage building. All voted in favor, except Papke who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. PUBLIC HEARING: ARBORETUM SHOPPING CENTER PUD AMENDMENT TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD CONVENIENCE USES (CENTURY PLAZA RET AIL CENTER). PLANNING CASE NO. 04-35. Public Present: Name Address Paul Andrescik Timothy Bohlman 710 Debbie Lane, Carver 7500 W. 78th Street, Edina Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Yes, this is questions. You can ask questions of staff, go ahead. Tjornhom: I have a question Sharmeen. When you say health and physical exercise clubs, do you also mean like Curves? Places like that. Would they be included in those? You know what I'm saying when I mention Curves? Al-J aff: Yes. 25