Loading...
PC Minutes 12-7-04 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004 I t Papke: Okay, the reason I opposed it, and I mentioned this during my comments is that I really think that this development and the Shivley needs to be looked at as one project. We have the private Street B with the north connection. Do we have it in the right place? Is it, you know all things considered I think you need to look at these two together. Yes, it's only 5 houses or so today but I think given that they're not going to break ground on this until April, I think we could have taken the opportunity to look at this as one big project. That was my main opposition. i II K Sacchet: Really in conjunction basically. ~ Papke: Yes. Sacchet: A very valid point. And council hopefully will have more chance to look at it together. Alright, with that we get to our second item for tonight. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL WITH VARIANCES FOR A 4.080 SQUARE FOOT ONE-STORY WAREHOUSE BUILDING LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF AUDUBON ROAD AND COULTER BOULEVARD ON 2.4 ACRES OF LAND ZONED INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK. IOPM. PAISLEY PARK STUDIO STORAGE. RON SCOFIELD. PLANNING CASE NO. 04-41. Public Present: Name Address Ron Scofield Bruce Bissonette 7041 Chaparral Lane 17815 Hutchins Drive, Minnetonka Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thank you Bob. Questions from staff. Kurt, go ahead. Papke: Ah yeah. I'm a little bit puzzled on the north access to McGlynn versus Coulter. Now I understand I'll have to ask the applicant about their justification for why they want that but from the city planning perspective, is, what would be the advantages, if any, to having the parking lot accessed from Coulter versus the long private drive coming off of McGlynn? Are there any engineering or planning issues from the city's perspective where we would want to have the access from Coulter? Saam: Coulter Boulevard is a collector road. Classified as a collector in the city code book and comp plan. One of the things we try to do is limit direct access onto collector roads. We want them to carry traffic but not have driveways every 50 feet or 100 feet, so we're actually in favor of them coming off their local, I'll call it cul-de-sac of McGlynn Road. But as far as why they chose it, other than that, that's something for the applicant. 61 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004 Sacchet: Any other questions? Ladies first. Tjomhom: No, just a quick question and now that I see, when I was reading this, you know it was saying a slate blue metal roof with the red accents and teal green and almond and I just was thinking, is this a lot of colors going on, but if you could hold. Yeah, the picture tones it down a little bit. Yeah, that was my only, and like I said, I can kind of see the colors. Generous: And then the almond roof is a little softer and then the slate roof, blue roof is just over the entrance canopy so. Sacchet: Can you pass the materials around because colors always look a little different in reality. If you don't mind. Tjomhom: That was I guess my only issue was, when I read it and I saw you know there's like 4 different colors going on and so, I think that was it though. Sacchet: Steve, you got a question? Lillehaug: Page 6. You make a statement parking setback may be reduced to 10 feet if 100 percent screening provided to adjacent parking lot. I guess I've never seen that before. What are we saying here? Generous: Well that was in conjunction with, with the dedication of the right-of-way, if they couldn't meet the setback requirement, then they could still put the parking where it is if they could screen it to 100 percent at 5 feet of height, so that was more informative for them but they've shown a plan where they can still meet the setback. Lillehaug: So didn't you talk about screening and berming along Audubon and Coulter. Are they doing proper berming and screening? Are we satisfied with that? Generous: I know from Coulter it's up. Saam: Yeah, as far as the berming goes, I mean the site is, they're not really berming. The site is raised up. There's not really berming going on there but as far as the landscaping, I don't know Bob, I don't know if you. Generous: See that under the requirements they need additional shrubs in their buffer yard plantings and so that's one of the conditions of approval that they do provide that. Lillehaug: Okay. Can you comment on parking on every side of the building compared to the strategies we used before to remove the parking and put them behind the building if you're on the road. Generous: Well what you try to do on Coulter and Highway 5, the ordinance says that you don't want them in the front. They have one, the ordinance permits one row of parking. They have 62 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004 I I that between the building and the structure. The rest of the parking is to the west. You know they don't have a building to hide it behind. It's a small building on a big lot. Lillehaug: Okay. And then one more thing. Can you comment on the trees along the access drive? Would we, should we require trees along there? Sacchet: Private boulevard? Lillehaug: Would that be a no? Sacchet: I love trees. Generous: ... they'll be replaced so they exceed any requirements our ordinance has as part of the subdivision. We anticipate that that north access will actually be used to access another lot there too so it would be a joint access. Sacchet: So it would become a real private street eventually. Generous: Yes. But I don't know if we want to have on the east side with the sidewalk to put in trees. That might be something that you can add. But wait on the west side of that private street until that site develops to see where the connections are. Lillehaug: One more question and it would be regarding the materials of the siding on the building. It seems like for the past few years here we've been looking at, it seems like everything has some sort of brick on it. Are we okay with just the fiber cement siding? Generous: It's permissible under the code, yes. And this is a small building. As the architect told me, it's a cute building and it sort of is for what it's purpose is. Sacchet: Is that it? Slagle: I've got a couple. Sacchet: Go ahead. Slagle: The daycare to the north. I'm not really remembering what is on the south side of their parcel. Is the play area on the south side? Okay, so with that in mind, was there any discussion with the applicant in trying to keep some additional you know shrubs, what not giving a little bit of space between the parking stalls and what I will consider the play area of the daycare. Generous: None that I was aware of. ~l~gle: Okay. Second question is, we have the sidewalk going on the east side of the access .~ve urkt~ McGlynn, which I think is great but have we considered simply putting also a Sl ewa rom the eastern parking lot to connect to the sidewalk on Audubon? 63 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004 Generous: I did talk to Matt about that. Slagle: Why wouldn't we do that Matt? Because if you've got overflow parking, and people are parking here, it'd be easy, they'll be crossing the grass to get to Audubon. Generous: No, it will be fenced. Slagle: Well they'll climb the fence. Saam: There's my reason. That in addition to the grade, the elevation rises fairly dramatic coming up from the sidewalk, if you've been out there. Sacchet: So you have to be a pretty good climber. Slagle: Did we consider just a gate and a couple of steps? I'm just trying, I mean the sidewalk's there. I mean it's 10 feet from the property line. Why not connect it? Sacchet: Maybe you should ask the applicant whether they're open to that as an option. Slagle: I wanted to ask staff first. Sacchet: Okay. Slagle: Okay, that's it. Keefe: A couple of quick ones, and continuing on Rich's question in regards to, you know part of the use of this is for the overflow parking for events over at Paisley Park. Do we, would we want to have some sort of crossway across the street at all? As a way for the pedestrians to get across. Saam: I'll answer that. Currently we don't have any crossways...and in a situation where we're encouraging them to maybe cross down here at Coulter. It's better. They'll cross up at McGlynn. It's closer to the existing entrances. That sort of thing. Keefe: Okay, and there's no sort of, I mean they're just going to be going across. There's no crosswalk. There's no, anything at Coulter is there? Saam: No, not at Coulter. There's no crosswalk. Keefe: Because anything, we think the use is going to be heavy enough that we'd want to require that or do we know? Generous: Well generally when they have those events t~ey ge~ a temporary event permit and the sheriff office gets involved and they usually have polIce offIcers there. 64 r Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004 II: If Keefe: And then it's like what, 2 acres of parking lot, something along those lines. In terms, in regards to lighting. I mean it's not going to be, you know do they control lighting for that parking lot or is it sort of an always on type of thing or. Saam: I'm not sure what's proposed. Generous: Yeah, I don't know. J ~ Sacchet: Rich, you had something? Slagle: Just a quick add on. If we're going to, if this is the intent, part of it is to have the overflow parking. People are going to go up the sidewalk to McGlynn where their access road or cut over, and then they'll cut over Audubon and we've all seen the festivities that occur. People are parking on the east side of Audubon, at least from what I remember. So my comment to Dan's is, should we consider, since it's the same applicant, having them put a sidewalk on at least part of the east side of Audubon? Because otherwise people are going to walk on the grass or sort of walk along the car to get up to their place. Saam: And the only thing I'll point out is, in the past when they've had events there, they've gotten a temporary lifting of the no parking on Audubon, because Audubon is no parking. But I think that's one of the reasons they're putting this site in and maybe the applicant can add something but in the future during events, they're now going to have their own parking right across the street so the city might take another look at well do we need to lift this no parking on Audubon. Ifit's such a big event that they can't handle it, I would think we'd accommodate them but it's just something to keep in mind. Dan, did you have anymore? Keefe: No. Sacchet: Anything Craig? Claybaugh: Nothing new to add, no. Sacchet: I have a question and a half. The thing about the canopy. It looks like we're, staff report the way I read it on page 4 asks that the canopy on the, that would be the east side would be smaller and that we add one on the west side. Did I understand that correctly? Generous: No, they add a small on the west side similar to the. Sacchet: And we leave the other one the way it is? Generous: Yes. Sacchet: I was just curious because I wasn't sure I understood that right so I didn't, so that's clear. And then we have, there's some grading comment on page 6 on the bottom that some proposed slopes are graded 3 to 1. Where would that be and what impact does it have? 65 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004 Saam: Again I think it's not a big impact. Sacchet: It can easily be mitigated? Saam: Yeah. There's just some... Sacchet: Along the drive? Saam: .. . due to the grading plan. Sacchet: Along the drive? Saam: Yep, there's some along the drive. Along the northeast comer of the parking lot as it goes down to the walkway and then just along the southeast comer. Sacchet: Okay, that's fine. That's all my questions. With that I'd like to invite the applicant to tell us your story please. The brief version if you can. Ron Scofield: I'm Ron Scofield representing Paisley Park Studios. Sacchet: We1come. Ron Scofield: And we just appreciate your concern to this this evening. We have no problems abiding by anything that staff has recommended in the proposal. That's all I have to say. Sacchet: That's a very brief version. Thank you. Do we have any brief questions for the applicant? Lillehaug: I do. I'm looking at your parking lot layout and I'm not sure if you're the one that would want to answer this but I'm looking specifically at the, if you come in the access drive and you're driving south, you don't turn at your first left but your second left. That row of parking, there's about 6 stalls there within that little bay area. Where if you pull in there your nose of the car's going to be hanging over into the drive aisle. Is that somewhere you could maybe increase the median width there? And then also in that same regard, it looks like you have painted medians there. Sacchet: Can you say again where you were there? I'm not sure I'm looking at the right spot. Lillehaug: You know where I'm talking about Bob? Generous: Yes, I think you mean. Lillehaug: Exactly. Sacchet: That one, okay. Yep. 66 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004 í I Lillehaug: And then also comment on the painted medians and why we're looking at them rather than a raised with grass or trees or. ~ Ron Scofield: In the medians, are we talking about over those areas? No specific reason either way. Bruce Bissonette: I'm Bruce Bissonette with Truman Howell Architects. The reason we did that is, we've got semi traffic coming in and we needed to get the semi's to be able to make the comers. Sacchet: So they can pull up and then back out. Bruce Bissonette: Right. Slagle: Assuming there's no cars there in the parking spot. Bruce Bissonette: It's probably empty most of the time. All we needed was one parking stall. Lillehaug: And then can you comment on the other area indicated about. Bruce Bissonette: We can, yeah. We can move some stuff around to nose this back, yeah. Lillehaug: Okay. That's all I have. Sacchet: Any other questions? Craig. Claybaugh: Could you comment on the lighting. Bruce Bissonette: The light? Claybaugh: On lighting the lot. Bruce Bissonette: I think that's. Ron Scofield: We'll just have that come on as needed. It will come on automatically. We hadn't really... Sacchet: So you wouldn't light it if it's not used? You would light it up when you use it. Ron Scofield: When we need it, yes. That is mostly going to be for, since it's a storage unit, it will be mostly for truck traffic bringing in props and things like that off the road. Or picking something up to take on the road, so it would only be turned on when needed. Sacchet: Okay. Does that answer your question? Claybaugh: Yes sir it did, thank you. 67 - Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004 Sacchet: Any other questions? If not, thank you very much. Appreciate it. Now this is a public hearing. Anybody want to address this item, please come forward now. Seeing nobody jumping up, I'll close the public hearing. Bring it back to commissioners, comments, discussion and eventually a motion. Keefe: One comment in regards to the daycare and the buffering along the daycare. If it is a playground on that side, do they have a fence? Generous: Yes. Keefe: That is fenced in? So maybe there's some... That's it. Slagle: The only thing I would add is, for the commission to consider just adding a connection to the east. Sacchet: To the sidewalk. Could we ask the applicant what they think about that? We didn't ask about that and I think in all fairness we should hear what you have to say about that. Maybe you want it fenced in, I don't know. Ron Scofield: Well the only reason we didn't, because we tossed that around a little bit but that is such a grade down to the, such a steep grade down to the road we thought that it probably wouldn't even be. Sacchet: So you'd prefer not to for safety reasons? Ron Scofield: Yes. And we're planning on putting a fence at the same height as what is around Paisley Park now. All around this area too. Sacchet: So it's not a fence you climb? Ron Scofield: It would be, yeah. It wouldn't be something you could climb. Scale pretty easy. Keefe: How about a crossing of Audubon in regards to you know. . . striping or designated crossmg. Ron Scofield: We'd be open to that. I think that would be good. That would make our valet or whoever is going to be using the parking lot mostly during events, that would make them feel safer too so we'd be open to that. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Lillehaug: I have a further comment. Sacchet: Go ahead Steve. 68 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004 ~' ; c;' i Lillehaug: I don't support any crosswalk and the reason being is this, what we're looking at here, using that crosswalk as a very, very seldom, couple times a year maybe and when you look at that area as a whole, you don't want people coming down from Highway 5 on the east side of the road and then having a mid-block crossing there. It's not the safer situation and I wouldn't support a crossing. So I would like to leave it as it is. One time event, I don't think we need a sidewalk on that side and I don't think we need an additional crosswalk. Sacchet: It can be done on a temporary basis. Okay. Any other comments? Claybaugh: I have a question of staff was, were they contacted by anyone that's affiliated with the daycare by any chance? Any comments from the daycare? Generous: No comments on this. Sacchet: No comments there at all. Okay. Alright, are we ready for a motion? I think we are. Who does it? Tjomhom: I'll make a motion. The Planning Commission recommends Preliminary Plat approval for McGlynn Park 3rd Addition creating one lot and one outlot, plans prepared by Ryan Engineering, dated 10/15/04, subject to the following conditions 1 through 11. Sacchet: 11. With letters. Tjomhom: With letters. Lillehaug: Second with a friendly amendment. Sacchet: Second and a friendly amendment which is? Lillehaug: One would be to add trees, more landscaping between the daycare and the parking lot. Sacchet: Landscape buffer between the daycare. Lillehaug: Yeah. Sacchet: Is that acceptable? Slagle: Point of clarification now. Isn't on page 9, the second recommendation in the middle. There's two motions. Sacchet: Oh, so we're doingjust the first one right now? Slagle: 1 through 10. Sacchet: We're doing conditions 1 through 10. 69 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004 Lillehaug: So where do we add our conditions at? Which goes with what? Generous: This one's just for the platting of the property. And the second one is for site plan conditions. Sacchet: So where should we put our conditions, with the second one then? Generous: I think if you want additional landscaping, put it with the second one. Sacchet: Goes with the second one. So we hold that one. Okay. Generous: This is you want a public improvement. Lillehaug: Okay, so I still second it and I have a friendly amendment. Sacchet: Go ahead. Lillehaug: Number 9. I agree with that condition but should we add that to include an additional, it says additional 10 foot of right-of-way but do we also need additional 10 foot of drainage and utility easement? Sacchet: Matt? Saam: Yes, those will be standard once the property line moves. The 10 foot easement then moves accordingly. And as Bob showed you earlier, they've already made that change for us so. Lillehaug: Okay. So it's proper to add that condition then because it's already done. Sacchet: Okay. Is that it? We have a motion. We have a second. Tjornhom moved, LilIehaug seconded that the Planning Commission recommends Preliminary Plat approval for McGlynn Park 3rd Addition creating one lot and one outlot, plans prepared by Ryan Engineering, dated 10/15/04, subject to the following conditions: 1. Full park fees shall be collected at the rate in force at the time of final plat approval. 2. Based on the proposed developed area of approximately 2.4 acres, the water quality fees associated with this project are $14,292; the water quantity fees are approximately $13,450. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $27,742. 3. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriatelrle~ulatcOry ag~~ies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Po utlOn ontro gency (NPDES Phase II Construction Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering) and comply with their conditions of approval. 70 ~ Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004 I 4. A revised landscape plan showing the required number of plantings shall be submitted to the city prior to final plat approval. ~ 5. Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of Minnesota must sign all plans. 6. A 40-foot cross-access easement for the shared driveway access must be obtained and recorded against the lots and the driveway must be built to a 9-ton design. I J¡ 7. Sanitary sewer and water hookup charges will be applicable for the new lot. The 2004 trunk hook up charge is $1,458 per unit for sanitary sewer and $2,814 per unit for water. Each of these charges is based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council for the new lots. Sanitary sewer and water hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. 8. The applicant will be required to submit storm sewer sizing design data for a lO-year, 24- hour storm event with a drainage area map at the time of final plat. 9. This development is required to provide ten additional feet of platted right-of-way along Coulter Boulevard. 10. The existing 30-foot curb radius along the north side of Coulter Boulevard must be removed and replaced with a 45-foot curb radius." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to O. Sacchet: And we need a second motion. Lillehaug: Before we make that second motion, because this, we didn't talk about that radius on Coulter and Audubon. Is this really the responsibility of this person to fix our roadway system? Sacchet: I guess that's a Matt question. Lillehaug: Who's paying for that because who's trucks are driving over there? It's certainly not these guy's. It's Pillsbury. Saam: No, not yet anyways. Yeah, that's a good point but as Bob said, when properties develop, that's the City's time or opportunity to take easements, whatever we need. In this case it's an improvement to the existing street system that immediately surrounds or is adjacent to this property, and our city attorney has backed us on these type of things before. It's similar to if we neede~ a ~atermain over sized or extended to an area of the plat where maybe they weren't proposmg It. We can require that as a part of the development. Claybaugh: But in oversizing a watermain we pay the up charge on it. 71 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004 Saam: Yeah, on an oversizing but I, maybe on an extension to an area of the plat. For example to the property limits. A lot of times developers don't, you know it goes outside their street system, whatever so I'm just tossing that out as another example. In addition to easements, taking of right-of-way. It's part of development. Sacchet: Okay, that answers it? Bethany, you have something? Tjomhom: Nothing. Saam: If I can throw out one more thing. Sacchet: Go ahead. Saam: The city will be working with General Mills to do the same thing at the south intersection adjacent to their building. Sacchet: Anything else before we go into a second motion? Second motion please. That's the one on page 9. Slagle: I'll do it. The Planning Commission recommends Site Plan approval of Planning Case # 04-41 for a 4,080 square-foot, one-story warehouse building, plans prepared by Ryan Engineering, dated 10/15/04, subject to the following conditions 1 through l1(h). On page 11. Sacchet: We have a motion. Do we have a second? Tjomhom: Second. Sacchet: Do we have friendly amendments? Buffer? Lillehaug: As previously indicated. Sacchet: Buffer as previously indicated. Accepted? Anyothers? None? Lillehaug: Another one would be to revise the parking lot to accommodate a little better median where I indicated previous. Sacchet: Better median where indicated. Lillehaug: So the noses of the cars aren't hanging over into the drive aisle. Sacchet: Alright. Slagle: Accepted. Sacchet: Accepted. 72 Slagle moved, Tjornhom seconded that the Planning Commission recommends Site Plan approval of Planning Case # 04-41 for a 4,080 square-foot, one-story warehouse building, plans prepared by Ryan Engineering, dated 10/15/04, subject to the following conditions: <;' I f Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004 1. The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. 2. Outlot A, McGlynn Park 2nd Addition must be final platted in to a Lot and Block configuration prior to issuance of a building permit. ~.. 3. A sidewalk shall be extended from the parking lot north to McGlynn Drive. A pedestrian ramp shall be provided at the parking lot curb. t [ 4. A canopy shall be provided over the door on the western elevation of the building. 5. Additional foundation plantings shall be provided for the southerly 37 feet of the eastern building elevation. In addition, landscaping shall be provided on the west side of the building north of the overhead doors between the parking lot and the building. 6. Wall mounted lighting must be shielded from off-site views. 7. The metal halide lighting shall be replaced with high pressure sodium lights. 8. Natural Resources Coordinator Conditions: a) Applicant is required to plant 21 overstory trees in the parking lot area. b) Applicant is required to meet minimum bufferyard landscaping requirements along the north property line, Audubon Road and Coulter Boulevard. c) A revised landscape plan showing the required number of plantings shall be submitted to the city prior to final plat approval. 9. Building Official's Conditions: a) The building must be protected with an automatic fire sprinkler system. b) The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. c) Six accessible parking spaces must be provided as near as possible to the building main entrance. d) The water service must be brought up into the building directly inside the exterior wall. e) The plans were reviewed for general building code compliance only. Complete plans must be provided before a detailed plan review can be done. f) The developer shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 10. Fire Marshal's Conditions: 73 Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004 a) A lO-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xcel Energy, Qwest, Cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by fire fighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. b) Builder must comply with The Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division Policy #29-1992 regarding premise identification. If structures are not visible from street, additional numbers will be required at driveway entrance. Size of numbers and location must be approved by Chanhassen Fire Marshal. c) The proposed hydrant shown on plan must be relocated 100 feet north to the parking lot island. 11. Engineer's Conditions: a) A 40-foot cross-access easement for the shared driveway access must be obtained and recorded against the lots and the driveway must be built to a 9-ton design. b) The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. In addition, if importing or exporting of grading material will occur to/from the site, a detailed haul route must be provided for staff review. c) Add City Detail Plate Nos. 1002, 1004, 1006,3101,3102,5201,5203,5207,5300 and5301. d) On all plans: 1. Revise the drive way aisle width to 26-foot minimum. 2. Include a north arrow and bar scale. 3. Provide a plat name. 4. Show the location of proposed handicap parking stalls. 5. Show the location of the vacated right-of-way for McGlynn Road. e) On the site and utility plan: 1. Add note "Any connection to existing manholes must be core drilled." 2. Show the sanitary service pipe class as SDR26. 3. Show the water-main pipe type and class. 4. Show the proposed and existing storm sewer pipe size, type, class and slope. 5. Show the existing and proposed manhole rim and invert elevations. 6. Show the dimension of the curb radii for the access drive at McGlynn Road. f) On the grading plan: 1. Add Type I silt fence around the grading limits. 2. Show the benchmark used for the site survey. 3. Show a 75-foot minimum rock construction entrance. 4. Correct the proposed elevation contours off the northeast comer of the parking lot. 5. Label the FFE of the proposed building as 979.6, not 879.6. 6. Revise all slopes to maintain a 3: 1 maximum. 74 7. Show the location of the existing boulevard trees along Audubon Road and Coulter Boulevard. I [ Planning Commission Meeting - December 7, 2004 ¡¡: g) Any retaining wall over 4-foot in height must be designed by a registered structural engineer in the State of Minnesota and require a building permit from the City of Chanhassen Building Department. . h) A concrete driveway apron and pedestrian ramps will be required at the access location. 12. Add a landscape buffer between the parking lot and daycare center. 13. Revise the parking lot plan to better accommodate the cars around the medians. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to O. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR AFTER THE FACT VARIANCE FOR ENCROACHMENT INTO LAKESHORE SETBACK LOCATED AT 6900 MINNEW ASHTA PARKWAY. RICHARD & JUDY BERLAND. PLANNING CASE 04-42. Public Present: Name Address Rich & Judy Berland Garry Jones Sharon Morgan Dave Headla Chris Knox 6900 Minnewashta Parkway 6738 County Road 72 3920 White Oak Lane 6870 Minnewashta Parkway Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Questions from staff. Claybaugh: Yes. Could you put that photo back up on the screen please. Sacchet: That one? Claybaugh: Yes ma'am, that's correct. Staffreport indicates they're looking for a variance for a foot and a half or a 10 foot setback from the ordinary high water mark. Either that photo is terribly deceiving or. AI-Jaff: Here is another one. Claybaugh: Okay, that looks a little better. Okay. 75