Loading...
PC 2017 02 21 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 21, 2017 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Maryam Yusuf, Nancy Madsen, Steve Weick, and Mark Randall MEMBERS ABSENT: John Tietz STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; and MacKenzie Walters, Planner PUBLIC PRESENT: Tyler Treat 2148 Wynsong Lane Shawn McCotter 7000 Utica Lane John Butcher 6915 Lucy Ridge Lane Barry Dallavalle 6960 Utica Lane Scott Sather 7090 Utica Lane Terry McGinley 920 Lake Susan Hills Earl Gebauer 8441 West Lake Drive Josh Kimber 2060 Majestic Way Lisa Mekkelsen 9640 Independence Circle PUBLIC HEARING: COLONIAL SQUARE: VARIANCE TO INSTALL A PROPOSED MONUMENT SIGN AND WALL SIGN ON EAST FAÇADE OF THE BUILDING LOCATED AT 400-416 TH WEST 78 STREET ON PROPERTY ZONED CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. OWNER/APPLICANT: VERNELLE CLAYTON, COLONIAL SQUARE, LLC. th Walters: Alright this is Planning Case 17-03. A variance request for 400 and 416 West 78 Street. It is a sign variance so it will be heard again at, for final approval before the City Council th on March 13. Today is the public hearing. The applicant is Vernelle Clayton. This is actually a variance for two different signs. The first is a wall sign to allow a wall sign along the east façade of the building and the second is a monument sign that would be located within the parking lot’s required 10 foot setback. The location of the property as I mentioned is 400 thth through 416 West 78 Street and that’s the intersection of West 78 and Great Plains Boulevard right across from the Chapel Hill Academy right downtown. To the north is an area zoned R-12, high density residential. The building itself is a central business district. To the east is institutional, Chapel Hill. And the rest of the area is the central business to the south. Looking over the signage that’s permitted in the area, I’ve highlighted the sections that would normally Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017 apply to this property. They are allowed in 8 foot high ground low profile sign with a maximum of 64 square feet of display area. In terms of wall signage the ordinance would normally permit a sign along the east façade of up to 13 percent of the area because it falls within the 600 to 1,200 square foot. So a little bit of history. This is one of the older sites downtown. It was initially given a sign plan review on December 14, 1998. One of the provisions in that sign plan was that signage would be restricted to the southern façade so that’s one of the variances we’re looking at. th In 2016 they applied for signs on the south and east façade. On July 19 we issued a permit for a sign on the southern façade and that’s when we found the provision that prevented the sign from being on the east façade in the sign plan agreement. Staff has not been able to determine when the pylon sign was erected. It was quite some time ago and we don’t seem to have records. So to look at the proposed wall sign they’re proposing placing it as I mentioned on the east façade. It’s a 5, about 5 ½ square feet. It would be illuminated. It’s the little Dominoes sign shown here. The justification is the current city ordinance does allow signage on the east façade. The omission of the east façade from the sign plan was essentially an oversight. At the time the façade did not have windows. Had not been approved and it was just never anticipated that signage would be desired along that side so it was not included. Parcels with similar zoning in a similar intersection anywhere else in the city, unless modified by a different agreement would be allowed to have signage on both the southern and eastern façade. Regarding the proposed monument sign, the issue is there’s currently a large non-conforming pylon sign that would be removed. They would be putting in an 8 foot high ground low profile sign which is in line with what the ordinance would allow. It would be about 32 square feet of sign display area so well short of the 64 square feet allowed. They would be locating it outside of the right-of-way and outside of the sight distance triangle which are two elements that determine whether or not it would impact visibility or safety on the intersection. It would however need to be located within the 10 foot setback that the property has for all signs and it would be located within the drainage and utility easement so it would need to get an encroachment agreement with the engineering department. The justification is this would reduce an existing non-conformity. Pylon signs are not currently allowed in the central business district unless it’s a property that abuts the state highway. There’s no practical location of monument sign or free standing sign could be placed that would comply with the code just because of the age and the structure of the parking lot. We went out and looked and consulted with engineering. There’s no negative impact on sight lines for the intersection and quite frankly it looks a lot better than the current sign so regarding the proposed sign location, this is the sight distance triangle I was mentioning. It’s a 45 foot intersection from where the 2 improved surfaces, so the 2 roads intersect basically and no sign is allowed within that so I sketched out the island in the parking lot and the section is blue is where we believe the sign could be safely put. So we would require the sign to be located within that area, not within the sight distance triangle. Here’s an existing pylon sign located here. As we mentioned it’s a non-conforming. The sign would not normally be allowed and this is the proposed sign they’d be replacing it with. This is the, so summary would be the wall sign would generally be permitted by ordinance if not for the existing site plan. Staff does not believe there’d be any negative impact in allowing a wall sign in this location. Monument sign, there is no place they would put it that would be in compliance with the existing code. It does not have a negative impact on visibility at the intersection. It would reduce the existing non-conformity and 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017 we mentioned again it’s a facelift for the development. We did have one condition we’d like to add. Just because there hadn’t traditionally been any signage along the east façade and there was an interest in the sign plan in limiting that we would request that another condition be added to the ones provided in the packet. That window signage not be permitted in exchange for allowing the wall signage along that façade. Beyond that this would then be the motion if the Planning Commission wish to. And that concludes the staff presentation. If you do have any questions I’d be happy to take them at this time. Aller: I have none. Does anybody have questions of staff on the report? Hearing none, oh Commissioner Weick. Weick: Yes thank you. Is the monument sign two sided? Walters: It would be yes. Weick: Okay. Randall: Where is it in relation to that fire hydrant? Walters: Yep. So the fire hydrant is basically hereish. The way it’s set up, so we would be requiring the sign to be north and east of the hydrant outside of the triangle. Yep we did have the Fire Chief and Fire Marshal look it over and they expressed that concern and we would require it to be located outside of the triangle and out of that location. Randall: And one more question. The window signage is that, can you give me an example of that? Would it be an open or closed sign in the glass or? Walters: Yeah so window signage would be anything affixed to the window. In theory you know it could be window signage is a good standard example is like the Childrens Learning Adventure main sign. There is a window sign but also anything that’s stuck in the window and looking out. It’s a broad term for basically anything displayed through the window would qualify. Randall: Alright. Aller: Based on those questions any other questions? Hearing none if the applicant would like to come forward they can do so at this time. Welcome. If you could please state your name and address for the record. Vernelle Clayton: Hi, I’m Vernelle Clayton. I live at 422 Santa Fe Circle and if you’ve read the full report you know that I’ve been around for a long time on this project. I hadn’t planned to say anything because I didn’t have any issue nor follow up questions when I read the report but 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017 apparently I missed the suggestion regarding the window sign. Was that in the report as distributed? Aanenson: No. We discussed that internally. One of the suggestions that we asked so that we didn’t have to go for the sign variance was the application for possibly using a window sign and at that time the applicant chose not to do the window sign so we felt like they were kind of duplicating the process by getting the sign and also now having the window sign on top of it. Because if we would have gone for the window sign there wouldn’t have been a need for a variance. Vernelle Clayton: Well I just want to know what the precedent is for that. I mean all we’re asking for is the same treatment as other buildings have and I think other buildings have signs in the window. Aanenson: Our precedent would have been the recommendation that it’s asking for a variance from what was intended on that site for the wall sign. Vernelle Clayton: I thought that the city’s ordinance said that you could have up to 50 percent of windows covered in retail areas and this is the same thing. It faces a street like all the others. I mean we’re happy to comply with that but I just know that somebody’s going to put a sign saying you know. Aanenson: Right and that was our suggestion in the first place. To not do the variance and put a window sign in. They said they didn’t want to do window signs so now I guess that’s my question. Vernelle Clayton: Well there are window signs and there are window signs. You know there could just be a sign that says open or there could be a sign you know no parking please because that happens there. Aller: Any questions of the applicant as to, is there an intention to use window signs? Vernelle Clayton: I haven’t heard. Aller: Have you used the window signs before? Vernelle Clayton: I haven’t heard if there was discussion about the window sign it must have been between Dominoes and the staff because it wasn’t with me so I don’t know if they intend to. Probably not and I can ask them not to but we’re only dealing with the people today and. Aller: Correct and you may have another tenant. 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017 Vernelle Clayton: And Dominoes who moves out in 5 years and we’re back here for one little window sign so. Sorry. Do you have any other questions of me? Aller: One of the things that they’re looking for, did you have discussions with them on the lit Dominoes sign? Vernelle Clayton: Yes, that’s important to them. Aller: Which is the variance. Vernelle Clayton: Yep that’s important to them and it’s actually it’s a modification of our building plan. Building sign plan. Aller: Okay. I don’t have any questions at this time. Vernelle Clayton: Anything else? Aller: Any additional questions? Thank you ma’am. Okay we’ll open up the public hearing portion of the item. Anyone wishing to come forward to speak either for or against the item before us can do so at this time. No strong feelings one way or another so we’ll close that portion of the hearing for public comment and we will open it up to commissioner comment and discussion. Weick: Is there a difference between a window sign and like an advertisement? I’m confused now. I wasn’t confused before. Walters: Yep there is basically we, the ordinance does not require permits to be pulled for window signs so in a business in a window could, as Vernelle mentioned put a sign that said no parking. No dogs allowed. You can also cover 50 percent of your window square footage with a large illuminated company logo and there is just the way our ordinance treats them there would be no permit involved and it, both would be allowed and equally possible so long as you don’t exceed the 50 percent coverage threshold. Weick: Okay. Aller: So I guess the question becomes the way this is worded, could Dominoes put in a, could not put in a 50 percent lit sign in the window. Walters: The way the condition proposed is worded would preclude any signage along the east façade in the window. If the concern is primarily illuminated high advertising, I believe language could be inserted that would restrict that. For instance no illuminated window signage or you know no illuminated window signage advertising products or service. Something to that 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017 effect could convey that while allowing for other types of informational window signs to be allowed. Randall: So if Dominoes leaves do they get, and the sign, the lit sign comes down then is that still a restriction on the property? Or is it only when Dominoes is there with their lit sign? Walters: The way the variance is written wall signage would be allowed along the eastern façade of the building so if a tenant changed that would stand because the language does not specify to the Dominoes sign but rather to the provision that does not allow signage along the east façade. Randall: Okay. Aller: Any additional questions? Based on that I guess Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: So is the language for the sign on the east wall similar or more restrictive than other businesses? Walters: A business, somewhat difficult to answer that. I’ll do my best and please ask for clarification. It is more restrictive than the city code for signage. However most multi-tenant buildings have a sign plan that they’ve agreed to which in exchange for some concessions or special treatment. I don’t like special treatment but in exchange for abilities not normally granted by the sign code they trade and allow other restrictions to be placed. In this case I believe hanging signs are allowed in Colonial Square where they are not allowed elsewhere in the city would be an example of this. So in exchange for the ability to put out this type of signage the developer may negotiate a way, a façade of the building or restrict their signage to a certain part of the building or something to that effect. So yes and no. There’s a bit of give and take in the sign plan agreements. Madsen: Okay. And would they be allowed to put an illuminated sign in the window that just said open? Walters: Depending on the language of any condition added regarding the window signage, yes. If you limit it to advertising, you know said advertising was not. Advertising window signs were not allowed then signs like open yes absolutely. Madsen: Okay thank you. Undestad: I’ve got one question you can just clarify for me. So Vernelle Clayton is the applicant on here and normally the buildings would be allowed window signage as typical? Is that right? Walters: Yes. 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017 Undestad: So and she’s in requesting a variance for the wall sign. Walters: Yes. Undestad: But and now we’re going to say okay you can have the wall sign but no window signs. Is that right? Aanenson: Again we worked with Dominoes. Undestad: Okay that’s what I was wondering. Aanenson: We offered Dominoes, you don’t need a variance if you were to use the window sign to put whatever you want in the window sign you wouldn’t need a variance. They said that wasn’t their preference. Undestad: Okay. Aller: Based on those responses any additional questions? Hearing none I would some conversation on this. How are we feeling about the recommendation or motion and what do you want to do with it? Undestad: I guess my, I mean I’m still a little confused. If the building has, well buildings have window signage approved. They’re asking for a variance to put a wall sign on. The tenant Dominoes doesn’t care for window signage but if we change this now and Dominoes moves out in a year does all this go back to the where everybody can put window signs up again? And the Dominoes sign comes down so. Aller: Or does the Dominoes sign allow for another tenant to come in and. Undestad: To put up wall signage. Aller: And put up another sign that’s illuminated. Yusuf: It sounds like more discussion is needed around this. Around the window sign. Is there a real need to include that in this motion right now? Weick: We don’t need to. I mean we can decide not to include it certainly, right? Aanenson: Yes. You can decide to do that yes. Weick: Yes. Or a modification. 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017 Aller: And if it’s not included then we’ve allowed it. If we include it somebody would have to come in and ask for a variance or a modification to put in signs. Weick: Right. I’m just envisioning a Planning Commission in the future hearing a case that says well there was this old condition on this building that said you couldn’t have a window sign on like every other sign in the city. Or every other site in the city and you know we want a variance to go back to that instead of just saying either we, to me do we allow the variance for the sign above the window or not? In which case Dominoes would have to put it on the window. Right? I mean those are the two choices. To me. It doesn’t sound like we have any issues with the sign above the window so. Yusuf: So MacKenzie, earlier you mentioned I think there are some stipulations about how big a window sign can be. Walters: Yes there are. Yusuf: And is the concern here just how much coverage we’re going to have if we have wall signs and window signs, is that the concern? Walters: Yeah that is the essence of the concern. Yusuf: Could we draft up some kind of condition that just kind of sets a limit as to how much is a maximum coverage allowed? Is that an option? Walters: There is a stipulation in, the existing city code limiting window signage to 50 percent of the gross window footage so essentially I guess I would say those calculations have already been made you know and that’s been determined to be a reasonable level for businesses to display in this area. Yusuf: So now you have the 50 percent coverage in the window and then you have the wall so is there a combined total then that would then be applicable here? Walters: There is under ordinance, I could not calculate it out in my head without the, but essentially they’d be limited to a maximum, theoretical signage maximum would be 50 percent of the window display and I believe it’s 13 percent of wall façade along the east but again those are the standards that are applied to the CBD. The central business district throughout the city. Yusuf: So could those standards apply here then so instead of just saying no window signs. Walters: They would. Yusuf: Okay. 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017 Walters: Yep. Yusuf: Thank you. Walters: And if the motion as displayed here were adopted that would be what happened because we do have a condition that the normal city code provisions always apply essentially. Yusuf: Perfect. Okay thank you. Aller: What do you think? Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: I’m okay with the original motion without the additional restriction of the window sign because there are already rules that would apply to the window sign if someone chose to do that in the future. Randall: I feel the exact same way. Aller: Additional comments, questions or concerns? Hearing none I’ll entertain a motion. Undestad: I’ll make a motion. Aller: Commissioner Undestad great, thank you. Undestad: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals recommends approval of the variance request to th allow a wall sign along the east façade of the building at 400 to 416 West 78 Street and a monument sign located within the parking lot’s 10 foot setback subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact. Weick: Less number 7 right? Undestad: 7’s not on there. Aller: Right. Walters: Yep number 7 was not in the packet or the motion as drafted so unless you would have moved to add it, it does not exist. Aller: Correct. So I have a valid motion. Do I have a second? Yusuf: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a second, do I have any further discussion? 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017 Undestad moved, Yusuf seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the variance request to allow a wall sign along the east façade of the building at th 400-416 West 78 Street and a monument sign located with the parking lot’s 10 foot setback, subject to the following conditions and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive the required sign permits from the City. 2. The applicant must enter into an encroachment agreement with the City in order to locate the ground low profile sign within the drainage and utility easement. 3. The wall sign on the east façade must comply with all provisions of the City Code, and the Colonial Square Shopping Center Exterior Building Sign Plan, excepting the provision in the later that limits signage to the south elevation. 4. The ground low profile sign must meet the sign code’s design criteria and follow the standards for the Central Business District (CBD). 5. The ground low profile sign may not be located within the sight distance triangle depicted in the attachment. 6. If the ash tree is removed a tree must be replaced with one shade tree. The tree shall be a minimum size of 2 inch diameter. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: LAKE LUCY RIDGE – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT FOR THE CREATION OF A 5 ACRE RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT FOR THE LAKE LUCY RIDGE SUBDIVISION RESIDENTS. THE REQUEST INCLUDES A PRIVATE SEASONAL DOCK SERVING NON-MOTORIZED WATERCRAFT AND A CANOE RACK FOR SIX VESSELS. THE SITE IS LOCATED SOUTH OF LAKE LUCY ROAD ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LAKE LUCY ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. OWNER: LAKE LUCY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. APPLICANT: GREG MCGUIRK. Aller: And for the record we’ve received several emails which I know staff will discuss in their presentation which came in after the original filing of the report. They will be received. They’ll be made part of the record and they will be forwarded to the City Council for review as well. Al-Jaff: Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. The application before you today is for a beachlot. The location of the site is south of Lake Lucy Road and on the northwest corner of Lake Lucy. It is legally described as Outlot B of Lake Lucy Ridge Addition. Just a 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017 th brief history on this site. On May 28 of 2002 the City Council approved a final plat for a subdivision consisting of 17 lots and 2 outlots. Outlot B, which is the subject site for this evening is intended or contains a trail that is a regional trail and it also has a storm pond. Typically it is the City’s policy to take ownership of such parcels, specifically when they are along a lake and have environmental features on them mainly because we want to preserve them in their natural state. In this case there is an easement over the trail as well as a drainage and utility easement over the storm pond. Initially the developer had intended to deed the outlot to the City. However the homeowners association ended up maintaining ownership of this outlot. So as I mentioned earlier this is a conditional use permit for the creation of a recreational beachlot. One of the things that we need to point out is that initially we advertised for both a conditional use as well as a wetland alteration permit in the event that there was an impact to the wetlands while reviewing the application and the construction plans. It was clear to us that there would be a no loss in wetland function or values as defined in the Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Act. As such there is no need for a wetland alteration permit. Just a conditional use permit. So with the proposed layout for the site, Outlot B is intended to contain the, a dock that would be able to allow homeowners association members for Lake Lucy Ridge to access the lake. The area of Outlot B is 5 acres and it will serve the 17 homes within this development. The dock is proposed to have a length of 160 feet that will be extending out onto Lake Lucy and there will be a T-bar at the end of the, a T-bar at the end of the dock that is 25 feet wide. One of the concerns that we have had lengthy discussions about with the homeowners association’s representatives regarding this proposal deals with access to this proposed beachlot as well as the dock area. So access to the beachlot is via this trail. This is a regional trail. It is owned and maintained by the City. What we need to elaborate on with specifically with this portion of the trail is that it is only a small section of a much larger trail system that will eventually extended beyond Lake Ann. As the trail segments get built, and that will happen as properties in the surrounding area develop, it will generate additional traffic and with that there is the potential that it may general some trespassing complaints. We talked about this issue at length with the applicants. Their proposal calls for a gate on the dock and on that gate there would be a sign that will read private dock, no trespassing and staff pulled up some examples of gates that have been used. One of the other elements that are proposed on the lake is a double paddleboard, canoe, kayak rack. There will be a total of 3 of those elements and, for a total of 6 non-motorized watercrafts. Staff is recommending approval of this application with conditions. There have been several emails that have been submitted to the City and staff would like to address them very briefly touch on some of these elements that have been pointed out. The first one deals with the name of the homeowners association. The public hearing notice that was mailed out stated Lake Lucy Homeowners Association. It should have said Lake Lucy Ridge Homeowners Association so that is one correction that staff is making on the record. There was some discussion regarding potentially the City owning the parcel and prior to the Lake Lucy Ridge subdivision being developed there were conversations between city staff and the homeowners, or the landowner at the time. That acquisition did not occur. There were some concerns dealing with the beachlot. What will happen if they choose to intensify the use of this beachlot? We need to point out that any amendment, any changes to the beachlot will require an amendment of the conditional use permit. What the City is approving is strictly based on plans that were 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017 submitted January 20, 2017 which show a dock as well as a canoe rack. One of the comments that was also made in the email or question that was raised is would the approval of this application place restrictions on the current users of the lake and the answer is no. There are no restrictions whatsoever. Another email that was received basically pointed out that the canoes should not exceed 6 in number and that is one of the conditions of approval. It’s what the applicant is requesting and what staff is recommending. There was a statement that there is a beach area that is being introduced with this request and as you saw on the plans there is no beach proposed. Another statement dealt with a chainlink fence proposed to be erected in close proximity to the back lots of several homes in, on Steller Court. Staff is not aware of such a proposal. There is a statement made regarding devaluation of properties in the surrounding area and that taxes should be lowered on these properties and potential noise complaints. And one of the last comments in those emails deals with may be providing public access along Lake Lucy for neighboring properties to use non-motorized canoes out on the lake and not limited to the homeowners association requesting the conditional use permit. That summarizes the emails that we received and I’ll be happy to answer any questions. Aller: Thank you. I have a few. The first one is with the notice. The notices went out to the appropriate homeowners that were within range and are impacted according to code, correct? Al-Jaff: It went out to people within 500 feet as well as all individuals that own property along Lake Lucy. Aller: Okay great. Then the second thing would be is there anything that would preclude other than our typical zoning and building codes that would stop an individual from building a fence on this property without this request? Al-Jaff: Meaning on Outlot B? Aller: On Outlot B. Al-Jaff: They will have to meet all shoreland as well as DNR requirements. Aller: But they could do it without creating this little functionary location? Al-Jaff: Yes. Aller: Okay. And then with regard to access to the property, how are we treating the access to Outlot B? Al-Jaff: It is a public trail that the application would be using. This is the public trail and anyone can use it. One of the things that we did state in the staff report and we’ve talked to the applicant about this is how do they intend to build the dock because motorized vehicles are not permitted on public trails and they are aware of that. They did contact and have a conversation 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017 with their contractor. The contractor agreed to build it without motorized vehicles on the trail. We questioned the bid that came back. It was a little low and requested that the applicant basically confirm that this is what they will be charging them and I had a phone conversation with the applicant stating that, that is the case. Aller: If this is moved forward does it impact the ability for me to go down there and use the trail? Al-Jaff: No. Aller: Portage my own canoe down to the bottom or my own board to the bottom and use it. Al-Jaff: You? There is no public access. This is a private access. The public may use the trail. However this is a private dock and anyone that goes on the dock would be trespassing unless they are part of the association. Aller: Okay so my question is, the use of the regional trail is open to the public. Al-Jaff: That’s correct. Aller: Does it allow for me, can I get down there and get access without using the dock? Or the proposed dock. To the water. Al-Jaff: No. Weick: Because of natural barriers or? Aanenson: Correct. Weick: Okay. Aanenson: The wetland. Weick: Right so it’s physically difficult to drag a canoe down the trail and it’s naturally difficult to actually get it into the water. Aller: Right. Weick: Okay. Randall: We’re calling this a recreational beachlot but there’s no beach per se, correct? Al-Jaff: Under the city code a conditional use permit is required to allow a dock. 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017 Randall: Okay. And I was just wondering because I know one of those emails they talked about it and I was picturing you know beach balls being thrown around and you know barbeque on the grill and that type of thing and it’s not going to be like that at all. Aller: And that’s why I’m asking these questions. I want to get to what the actual use is as opposed to what we’re calling it because I think that information needs to be out there to make a proper decision one way or another so. Does it impact the use of an individual from the water coming across the way they normally would? An individual wouldn’t be allowed to beach on this property anyway correct? Al-Jaff: It’s private property so. Aller: So no, it’s not impacting my ability to go out there and boat and canoe and paddleboard and it’s not changing anything that I normally would do or be allowed to do? Al-Jaff: Correct. You will not be able to use the dock to access the lake but other than that everything else should remain the same. Aller: Right. Al-Jaff: You want the trail then if you want to access the trail you will be able to do so. Aller: Okay. Weick: But if I wanted to walk down the path and walk through 100 whatever 40 feet of cattails, could I go swimming? And I’m not a resident of that area. I’m not going down the dock. I’m just coming down the path and I want to go for a swim. Could I walk through 150 feet of cattails and jump in the lake? Legally. Al-Jaff: You will be, based on what we have seen on all of our maps you would be trespassing. Weick: You would be, okay. Al-Jaff: You would be trespassing. Weick: On the lake side. Al-Jaff: On the lake side. Weick: Of the path, okay. Al-Jaff: Because the trail is limited. 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017 Weick: Got it. Al-Jaff: To an area within an easement. Anything beyond that is outside the trail way easement and you are on private property. Weick: I just wanted to clarify that. Aller: And so far edification an easement is really a permissive use. We’re being granted permission to use that property for the purpose of ingress and egress for the trail to walk, to view, to see, to enjoy nature but not to run around the yards next to it? Al-Jaff: That is correct. Aller: Any additional questions at this time? Madsen: I have a question. Aller: Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: So the section that addresses recreational beachlots can also allow sailboats. A certain number for the length of the shore length. Now none are proposed here so if someone wanted to moor sailboats in the future would they have to come back and get approval? Al-Jaff: Right now we are, yes. Yes they will have to come in and get approval. Everything would have to be amended. Right now we are limiting it to 6 canoes. If they chose to use paddleboards. Madsen: Okay because sailboat mooring is different. That would be away from the dock. Al-Jaff: You are correct. Madsen: And that is not getting approved in this plan. Al-Jaff: That is correct. Madsen: Okay thank you. Al-Jaff: Sure. Aller: Any additional questions based on the staff report at this time? Hearing none if the applicant would like to come forward and make a presentation they can do so. Welcome sir. If 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017 you can state your name and address and your representational capacity if any that would be great. John Butcher: Yep, good evening. I’m John Butcher. I live at 6915 Lucy Ridge Lane and I’m part of the Lake Lucy Ridge HOA. The President is traveling and can’t be here tonight so I’m representing the group. Just to be clear on a couple of points. I think you guys understand exactly what we’re intending. I think the notice scared some people. It sounds aggressive like we are creating 5 acres worth of beach. Our intention all along is to just provide safe and consistent access for the people of the HOA to the lake. There are currently people as part of our neighborhood that try and take a canoe out into the water and it’s pretty dangerous when you go through the cattails because all of a sudden you’re walking on cattails then you sink a couple of feet and so we’ve had a couple of kids that had some close calls and it got us, I’ve only been in this neighborhood for a year and a half, just asking well our HOA owns the property that goes to the lake. How come we haven’t ever looked at a dock and everyone said oh it’s just too many hurdles so we decided to start trying to gently and gradually clear hurdles and understand what they might be and so we’ve been working with the City for the better part of about 8 months now to make sure that we are doing this in a safe and responsible way. We love this lake. We love this part of the lake. It’s very serene and part of why we chose this house is because it is so, it’s a wonderful place to be. I’ve lived in Chanhassen for 15 years and we love where we’re located so we don’t want to do anything that would in any way disrupt the wetland. So we’re minimizing and you heard the City say that we now have zero impact to the wetland. That was intentional and it took us a while to get to that point because we don’t want to disrupt anything either. We just want a way to go from the existing paved path to the lake and onto the lake in a way that we know that we can let our families go down there and not have to worry about it. The gate is proposed to, we’ve talked about a lot of different ways to keep people off of the dock who shouldn’t be on there because obviously we want that too. From a liability standpoint we don’t want someone coming onto the dock that shouldn’t be there and then have something you know happen to them. The way that has been proposed to us that we think might be best is to, because it’s very shallow along the cattails for a while is to a few feet into the dock place a gate that will not allow anyone to go beyond that section of the dock and then our kayaks, canoes, everything else would be stored at the end to prevent any dragging on and through the wetlands and also we thought that was just kind of a one size fits all solution to keep people off and keep anything else from having to be moored up on the shore so anyway that’s I just wanted to make sure everyone understood our intentions and what we’re hoping to get out of this and I’m happy to answer any questions that you guys might have or anyone else here for that matter because I know that there are people that probably are wondering what this is all about. Aller: Great. Any questions of the applicant at this point? Weick: No. Aller: Not at this time but we might have a couple later. 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017 John Butcher: I’m sticking around. Aller: Stick around. Randall: I have one question. John Butcher: Oh yes. Randall: Do you have any concerns with the proposed trail development coming around Lake Lucy with more traffic in the future? John Butcher: There have been some concerns just in general. You know the path obviously stops at Prince’s land and. Randall: And with the situation changing with that property there might be more development sooner than later with that. John Butcher: Yeah we anticipate that which is why the gate was so important to us. Randall: Okay. John Butcher: You know there’s already quite, I mean it’s surprising but, because our lot actually is one that abuts the trail so on one side you have a trail and the other side you have the lake. There’s already, there’s a lot of people that go and just walk to that dead end and then turn back around. And many people, as I’m sure you know walk all the way through that land because Prince just didn’t care. He shared it with everybody so our chief concern, and actually I think I personally I would love for the trail to be extended down to Lake Ann because I just think it’d be great to be able to access more of the west side of those lakes. Our biggest concern was just how to keep people if there are hundreds of people a week on the trail, how to keep them off the dock and so we’ve been assured by, we’ve talked to multiple people who install docks and gates and this seems like the best way because there are potential overhangs that would hang over the top of the cattails and prevent someone from going over or around the gate to get onto the dock and so we thought the combination of that and then posting a sign to make sure people understand that it’s private should be enough. Randall: And one more question. Where is your, what’s your plan for off season storage for the dock? Is it going to be a year round dock or are you? John Butcher: We’ve talked about a couple of different options. One would be if we, if we don’t think it, we think that this lake is small enough that we might just be able to leave it in in the winter and then minimize some of the other disruption of in and out. I don’t think there’s going to be a lot of heaving. My neighbor who uses this lake regularly has watched and he feels that that’s probably the case. If we have to take it out we can store it off site. 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017 Randall: Okay. Alright. John Butcher: Yeah most of them do what? Leave it in or take it out? Aller: They take them out. John Butcher: They don’t, okay. Aller: Based on those responses and questions any additional comments or questions? Hearing none thank you very much. I’ll open up the public hearing portion of this item. This is an opportunity for those individuals present to come forward and speak either for or against this item. Please state your name and address for the record when coming forward. Welcome sir. Barry Dallavalle: Hello. My name is Barry Dallavalle. I’m at, live at 6960 Utica Lane and I’m representing the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association which is the other homeowners association on the lake that we have about 12 members that basically reside on the eastern and northern sides of the lake. On the face of it, on the face of this request we really don’t, we do find it to be a reasonable one and a modest one and pretty much in line with how other lots are being used but we do have 2 concerns. One is that while the request is modest and this was brought up by some of you already, that as a recreational beachlot designation there are a lot more uses that it could have and we wanted to be sure that any expansion of what is asked for would require another public hearing so that we have a chance to weigh in on it, and that seems to be the case here. You know there are things in the city code that allows you to put gazeboes on there or put motorized boats on there so we would want to make sure that that amendment I think has been suggested by staff to stay with this proposal. Aller: You had two concerns? What was the second one? Barry Dallavalle: Yeah there’s another. Another issue is probably the bigger one is that this lot is unlike any other lot that we have on the lake. All the other lots are privately owned and are owned by people who reside on that lot. This lot is kind of a, we see it as a kind of quasi public lot. It is restricted we understand to apparently 17 households that belong to the HOA. I don’t know if that membership is restricted to those 17. Would it ever be expanded? But it’s 17. We’re only 12 so you can see that it’s greatly expanding. Almost doubling the amount of users on Lake Lucy. Probably the biggest thing though is that since no one resides on that lot it’s probably going to be difficult to police it. Self police it as to who’s using it. Who’s doing anything on that dock. Who are the people that are accessing it. I know that you know there’s a security gate that’s being ahead. That’s primarily for the vandalism or the access from the trail but you know anybody can go down there and I don’t know if it’s these 17 homeowners, you know is it their family, their friends, the relatives also have access to it so we have some concerns there about if something is going on there who would we contact? You know who 18 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017 would be the responsible party if there is one? What would be any recourse if there’s some unusual activity going on there? We hope that doesn’t happen but that’s a concern that we have. Aller: Great, thank you. Barry Dallavalle: You’re welcome. Aanenson: Mr. Chair can I answer that question? That was a good question. Aller: Please. Aanenson: Yep, we have a number of beachlots in the city that actually have kind of this situation where they’re not attached to a property. If you were to go up on Minnewashta Parkway there’s a number on Minnewashta Parkway. I know these very well because that was one of the first things I did when I came to the City is permitted all those because they didn’t limit the association size and so while, or the number of docks on the, they were tied to a subdivision but not necessarily how many. What was the expectation of how many slips could be put on at any one time so they were all given permits and then that was after we created this ordinance that we’re looking at now. So we do have other situations where there’s not direct, you’re accessing something public. A public street to get down. Again Minnewashta comes to mind. There’s a couple other ones that are also on Lotus Lake. Same situation. You’re coming off of a public street and there’s common, so the one key thing they have is they’re tied to association and they’re limited. In this circumstance as Sharmeen has pointed out, the association owns this property all of which is a wetland so you can’t have a beach on a wetland. You can’t put a structure on a wetland but for a dock so all those would require a permit so yes. This is tied to that association. We also do inspect beachlots. That’s part of our, the planning department’s job so we do check those annually and also if there’s complaints we’ll follow up on those. Often complaints go to the sheriff’s office or just come in directly to the City and we’ll follow up on those and that again is part of our job but the association will manage the beachlot and is tied to that number of homes. As far as someone else that might be, have access to using it they’re still restricted to the 6 boats so that’s up to the association how they manage it as long as it doesn’t exceed the number of boats and their following any other rules of the lake and good behavior. Any other city nuisance issues that’s how that’s policed. Aller: Great. Any additional questions based on that? Alright hearing none, we’re still in the public hearing portion so anyone wishing to come forward can still do so at this time. Thank you sir. Please state your name and address for the record. Scott Sather: Hi Scott Sather, 7090 Utica Lane. Aller: Welcome. 19 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017 Scott Sather: Hi. So one of my biggest concerns is somebody accessing Lake Ann through the public launch and there’s a beaver dam now that’s plugged up Lake Ann and the lake waters are a lot higher and we’ve had people, it’s non-motorized Lake Ann but it’s motorized on Lake Lucy and they’re pushing their boats through the channel and then they’re accessing Lake Lucy and it’s, it can get really crowded on the weekends and my concern is somebody pushing a boat through and then maybe tying up to the new dock and people coming on and off the dock all weekend and then basically using the lake, not can they shore the boats at night? Tie them up. Can they jump on and off that sort of thing? That’s one of my biggest concerns because it gets really crowded fast and we’re noticing that is a little bit of a problem lately. Aller: No and I appreciate your concerns. Living on Lake Lotus myself so I understand the wake and the slow wake and the motorized versus non-motorized and the desire to keep your property and to use your property and then at the same time to share it with everyone else on the lake and having public access there so there’s that constant tension there that we all enjoy hopefully. Any additional comments or questions or concerns from the community at this point? Okay I’ll close the public hearing portion of this item and open it to commissioner discussion and comments. Comments? Concerns? Yusuf: Seems straight forward to me. Aller: I think most of the concerns that are being voiced are good concerns as I said. I think that the staff report addresses most of them. If we go back in and we look at them I think based on the Findings of Fact and knowing that the delineation of this property and the wetland, it’s already been delineated. It’s already been filed. Notices have been provided to the appropriate agencies for the Wetland Conservation Act and none of those agencies have come forward to appeal those findings. It gives me a comfort level and the fact that we’ve in the past had conditional permits. Use permits revoked for misuse and abuse here in Chanhassen. I think we do a good job. I think it’s the public’s, it’s on the public’s dime to go ahead and call people and say this is what we see. This is what we’re concerned about and I think the City will act on that. I think any expansion of this is clearly something that would have to come back to us and the City Council for approval so I’m going to vote in favor. Any additional comments, questions? Weick: I believe the intent is to you know for these families to use the lake and I think in the spirit of that intent it makes sense. I would like to address on the record though a comment that was made in one of the emails. I don’t think I necessarily have to identify the email but it was noted in there that there’s a concern that these, in quoting the hearing is a formality and the City has made up it’s mind and I just want to go on the record as saying that these are not formality hearings and we do hear both, all of the neighbors and all of the concerns both for and against proposals. Whether it is in favor or not of what the City is recommending. This body is independent of that and I do want to put it on the record that these meetings are not mere formalities for the City. Aller: Your umbrage is noted. 20 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017 Weick: Thank you. Aller: Yes Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: I do appreciate that there are specific restrictions on this outlot and that not, they don’t, it does not allow for all recreational beachlot possible uses. It is restricted and it, they are trying to preserve the wetlands and I think that they’ve done a good job in trying to do that. Aller: I agree. Additional comments? If not I’ll entertain a motion or further action. Weick: I’ll propose a motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the creation of a recreational beachlot. This is Planning Case 17-04 subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Randall: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion or comment? Weick moved, Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the creation of a Recreational Beachlot as shown in plans dated Received January 20, 2017, Planning Case 17-04 and subject to the following conditions and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision: 1. The beachlot shall contain no more than one dock with no more than 3 racks for the storage of 6 non-motorized watercrafts. 2. The beachlot shall meet all requirements set forth for recreational beachlots in Section 20-263 of the City Code. 3. The beachlot shall not be used as a boat launch and the City will post the appropriate signage. The applicant shall be responsible for the cost of signage and installation. 4. An amendment to the Conditional Use Permit shall be required for any changes to the beachlot including but not limited to: dock configuration, installation of portable chemical toilets, placement of boat racks, and placement of structures. 5. To the extent feasible the City may impose such conditions even after approval of the beachlot if the City finds it necessary. 21 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017 6. It should be noted that the only access to the private dock is via a public pedestrian trail owned and operated by the City of Chanhassen and open to the public. 7. Prior to construction verification shall be received that the dock contractor is going to deliver twenty (20) sections of 4’ x 10’ dock by hand a distance of 1,000 feet and install the dock, canoe racks and security gate for a fee of $500. 8. Motorized vehicles cannot be utilized to deliver or retrieve watercraft or association gear to or from the dock. 9. There shall be no chemical or physical removal of emergent vegetation. 10. Emergent vegetation may be cut no lower than the normal water elevation from the centerline of the dock to a point no more than five (5) feet from the edge of the dock on either side. 11. The cross section of the wetland shall not be altered to accommodate placement of the dock or the approach to the dock. 12. No materials shall be stored within the wetland buffer except as allowed on the dock itself. 13. The applicant shall contact the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and insure compliance with DNR regulations governing shoreland. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTE: Commissioner Yusuf noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 7, 2017 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Aanenson: Thank you Chair. I think we included in your packet the, kind of the annual report and that report will also be the genesis of your discussion when you have the joint meeting with the City Council on, it’s in your calendar too so you want to make note of that. It is. I just had it th here. It is the 24 of April. Monday night. So that’s a meeting so we’ll have our Planning Commission in place then and so then that meeting we’ll talk about what the Planning Commission’s been doing. So again as part of the charge of the commission to do an annual st report by the end of March and so as we do every year here it is. We estimate as of April 1 our population will be at 25,273 so this is a number that we use. We put it on the website. Again a lot of the information, the planning staff generates a lot of statistical information that people 22 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017 want to use when they’re looking to locate here. They’re putting out for whether it’s realtors or businesses want to move here so all that’s updated into, if you go onto the City’s home page under demographics there’s some great information there. People looking for, to drill down on that. We also include the number of building permits. The 124 and then what we’re estimating, which is 2.1 percent increase. And then we’re also gave you some protections of what we’re looking at for next year. We talked about the subdivisions that we did this year and what we’re working on right now. You know obviously Avienda is one of the big ones and some of the downtown redevelopment that we’ve been doing. Also once we get done with the City Comprehensive Plan then there will be some code amendments. You saw the big, the changes are some significant ones that need to be updated. I would say one of the biggest ones was the, amending the temporary sales ordinance to allow special events that were kind of unique that didn’t quite fit in there. And as you’re aware we’re working on meeting with all the stable owners to get clarification, to make sure they feel comfortable understanding what those rules are so kind of taking a step back on that and making sure these are marching together on that. So again we talk about the permits that we did. Now just kind of going through building inspections. Talking about what our average home value is so you can see our value from 2012 from $326,000 is up to just over $400,000. That would be your average home. And this next cycle we’re again looking at, you see now that Fox Wood is underway. They’re pulling the permits there on Lyman and, just south of Lyman on 101. Also that property that you saw before, Arbor Glen which is on the, just on the corner there would be the southwest corner. That one is coming in for final plat and that was the patio style homes so you’ll see we have a range of price points. We’re also looking at something potentially coming forward on the Klingelhutz so that will affect that range of prices too. So kind of tracking what we do annually as far as number of permits. We keep track of that by quarter. We also keep a lot supply inventory too so we’re just showing that illustratively a couple different ways of the different type of products that we do so one of the permits that was issued this year too which kicked the numbers up was the additional building off of Powers Ridge. Right off of Powers Boulevard and there’s one more building there yet to go so, and then ultimately if we do the redevelopment in the downtown core that one was approximately 130 units too so that affects. So we did a couple of subdivisions. Again we’ll, Avienda’s anticipating some multi-family. Potentially seniors apartments and some single family within that project too so depending on how that works through the process or gets approved we’ll be seeing that so we just included those. Again population, percentage of increase over the years. The number of subdivisions that we did. And then some of the bigger office industrial and then of course the Chick-fil-A. And the west water treatment which is also underway. So as I mentioned before you know code enforcement isn’t in here but that’s a lot of what we do too so all the conditional uses we have on an annual schedule including beachlots and the like so that’s part of our charge also so that’s our annual report. Again we kind of talked about what we’ll be spending our time, which you’ll be looking at would be the Comprehensive Plan and Avienda’s the biggest project and then we do have some smaller subdivisions that are already kind of in the works right now too so with that you’ll be seeing that again when we put that packet out. But I’d also request from you if there’s specific topics that you would like to put forward with the City Council, if you’d let me know then I’ll 23 Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 21, 2017 make sure that that gets added to that work session agenda. Those things you may want to review with them so. Aller: Great, thank you. th Aanenson: With that I do have the upcoming meetings. So for your March 7 one we do have a subdivision coming in and a variance so the subdivision. Let’s see. I think, excuse me the st subdivision’s going for the 21. The AUAR for Avienda will be a public hearing. If anybody’s interested in that there will be an open house here next Tuesday. A week from today and that will be in the senior center, right next door here from 5:00 to 7:00 and just to be clear the AUAR is different than we’re looking at the site plan. The AUAR is to look at project magnitude. It’s to talk about traffic control. Road connections. Those sort of things. Maximum density development. When we look at the PUD we’ll look more at the architecture, the types of uses, those will all be put together in that schedule but, so you will be having that public hearing on th the March 7 meeting so. If you’re interested in coming to the open house you’re welcomed to. Stop by. It’s not a specific time so you can go to different stations and ask questions so I encourage you if you’re interested in that to stop by for that. So I also tried to plug in on the Comprehensive Plan those dates. If you turn the page on the second page of the schedule so you can kind of see. Your work session we’re going to do an overview of the comp plan but then we’re going to kind of break down each one on different topics so I spread those out. Whether it’s housing or environmental we’ll do a little bit deeper dive on each of those and then we’ll have the public hearing later on. I want to make sure that you feel comfortable with what we’re putting out before we have the public hearing and then we’ll take comments on that. So that’s our upcoming schedule. We had no items that went forward to the City Council at the last meeting. You did approve, recommended approval for Tweet Dental. That is going Monday night to the City Council. As are the other code amendments but for the stable. So with that Chairman and Planning Commissioners that’s all I had. Aller: Thank you. Aanenson: And then we will adjourn into the interviews. We’ll go into the Fountain Conference room. Aller: Okay, having no further business I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. Yusuf moved to adjourn the meeting. Chairman Aller noted the motion was non- debatable. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 24