Loading...
PC 2018 01 02 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 2, 2018 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Steve Weick, Nancy Madsen, John Tietz, and Mark Randall MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Public Works Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; MacKenzie Walters, Planner; and Vanessa Strong, Water Resource Coordinator PUBLIC PRESENT: Nathan & Daryl Kirt 50 Hill Street Howard Anderson 3613 Red Cedar Point Road Brianna & Wyatt Kirt 50 Hill Street Dave & Mike Tompt 16994 Tremdar Lane, Eden Prairie Linda Scott & Sue Morgan 4031 Kings Road Debbie Lockhart 3618 Red Cedar Point Road, Excelsior Steve Gunther 3628 Hickory Road, Excelsior PUBLIC HEARING: 3617 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD – VARIANCE FOR HARD COVER, LAKE SETBACK AND FRONT SETBACK TO BUILD A HOUSE. Walters: Thank you, yep this is Planning Case 2018-01. The 3617 Red Cedar Point Road variance. The applicant is Todd and Kristin Jackson. They are requesting an 11.5 foot front yard setback, 22.1 foot shoreland setback, and an 11 percent lot coverage variance to construct a detached single family home. So the property is located at 3617 Red Cedar Point. There’s currently an existing structure on a lot which is zoned for residential single family. Because the lot borders the lake the minimum square footage for a lot would be 20,000 square feet. It’d be restricted to 25 percent lot cover, 30 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setbacks, 75 foot shoreland setback, and then our code does allow up to a 250 square foot water oriented accessory structure. So as I mentioned there’s an existing building on the lot and the lot is substandard so it’s current size is 9,222 square feet. Currently the lot has 3,353 square feet of impervious surface largely due to a large pad of Class V gravel in the front lot. It does currently meet the 30 foot front yard setback. It meets the eastern 10 foot side yard setback. There was a shed located about 4 feet from the western side setback and it’s currently set back 52.9 feet from the lake. There is a water oriented structure and a fireplace and little flagstone patio complex that’s about Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 24 feet from the lake. And it should be noted that in the front of the property a portion of Red Cedar Point Road is actually within the lot lines and so that 543 square feet that’s covered by the road is not included in the lot coverage or lot area totals. So the applicant is proposing to remove the existing house, the gravel, the shed, the water oriented structure here and the walkway and they are proposing to construct a house with a 3 car garage. A water oriented structure here, which is going to be a rear patio. Driveway. The main justification for the variance is again the lot is significantly smaller than the zoning code would allow. As you saw with the, if the zoning code is applied the building area is extremely limited so they’re requesting relief from the setbacks. The plan is to maintain the existing rear setback from the lake. Bring the side setbacks into compliance and make a slight reduction of 34 square feet of impervious surface. The request is roughly consistent with other variances that have been granted throughout the neighborhood. It’s one of the older neighborhoods in the city. My memory serves we’ve given 16 variances for 25 properties within 500 feet. Many things are non-conforming. They will also be removing the gravel area and replacing it with sod to get some green space in front but they are again requesting a reduction to the front yard setback to accommodate the building envelope. We have received several comments from individuals in the neighborhood. Four individuals have spoken with me. One after going through it had no objections and 3 have expressed concerns. I gave you a handout of several emails we’ve received. That folks sent me after our conversations. Two of the residents with concerns to specifically address parking. Two discussed the large amount of impervious surface being proposed and then general concerns about the height. General aesthetics of the house and it’s fit within the neighborhood. I’ll go into the impervious surface a little bit more in the staff assessment but I did want to address parking in a little more depth than my report did. So I went through and I did my best using Google Streets and the aerials to estimate about how many other parking spaces are present in different properties around the area. The main concerns residents had was just the street is very narrow. It’s really not possible to do off street parking within the neighborhood and this is compounded by the fact that the street is not located within it’s right-of-way so you have situations, you know like this one where a portion of the street is within the lot lines and others where the right-of-way is you know right up against a house. So again I did my best to estimate the number of parking spaces available for the different properties. The 17 properties I looked at, the average works out to about 4 ½ parking spaces per property. That’s including garage and then also a driveway so total accommodation. Our code requires a two car garage and generally a 30 foot driveway which depending on the length of the right-of-way and the length of cars it would be 4 to 6 spaces. The proposal is 4 off street spaces but 3 of those would be the garage. You could get one car on the driveway. If you had a compact car you could probably get 2 but that’s about what the parking is there. So staff looked at it, staff also shared the concern about the impervious surface and Vanessa looked it over. I’m sorry the Water Resource Coordinator looked it over and recommended that staff install conditions requiring a 20 foot buffer to mitigate the increased runoff that would be generated towards the lake. The utilization of permeable pavers for the driveway and rear patio which would, well keep the lot coverage would then stay at 36 percent but it moves the impervious surface down to 29 percent, just over and then also that the applicant work with the Minnehaha Watershed to investigate doing a shoreland restoration process. We felt that if these steps were taken it would significantly improve the 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 current storm water management for the parcel and allow staff to support the impervious surface as proposed. Again staff did look at the other variances in the area. The proposed variances are roughly in line with what’s been granted historically in the region and there’s a detailed breakdown of that in the staff report. Staff does agree that parking is an issue in Red Cedar Point but the applicant’s proposed parking is similar to what many of the other properties have and for this reason staff is recommending approval with the conditions outlined in the report. I’d be happy to take any questions at this time. Aller: Anybody want to take the first crack. Tietz: Yeah. Aller: Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: Yes. MacKenzie, you know that is a very restricted, constricted area as you know. Over the last year and a half I think we’ve had 2 or 3 proposals for variances in that neighborhood. You know a big concern that I would have is access during construction and where construction parking goes. I can imagine cement trucks, delivery trucks with trusses and bottling up the street at some length of time and that’s, and the turn around space is very difficult. I guess I’m really curious how that’s going to be handled and how we as a community can protect the neighbors and always maintaining access, whether it’s emergency access or just daily traffic access. The parking I know in our neighborhood there was some recent construction and with everyone trying to get things done before cold weather set in. I guess it set in but there must have been 30 subcontractor cars parked along streets and I think that’s going to be, in this neighborhood in particular it’s a very critical issue. It’s parking long term is a concern and I understand how you assessed it but I think the construction duration parking and access and delivery is really needs to be monitored very, very closely. Walters: I would agree and I know that’s been an issue in several other of the variances in this neighborhood that came before. I would defer that question to the applicant. Ultimately it will be up to them and their builder to work with the City to try to keep access as clear as possible. Tietz: But I can imagine we’re going to, you’re going to receive calls when the contractor doesn’t adhere to the requirements that have been requested by the property owner and I think that’s, you know that’s something that we’re just going to have to be faced with. My other concern is the permeable pavers. Now we’ve talked about this in a couple previous planning commission meetings and I want to be certain that we have a detail for construction that’s appropriate for the purpose that it’s intended. You know there’s a lot of, definitions floating around but what permeable pavers are and how much sub-base and how they’re constructed and then how they’re monitored. I think that we as a city and the city engineer and who all is involved, we need to monitor this installation. All these installations where permeable pavers are used very closely. 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 Walters: Absolutely. The applicant would need to get any design they proposed signed off for them by the engineering department and the Water Resource Coordinator would have to determine that they met the intent and definition. We would likely use the Permeable Interlocking Concrete Paver Institute that we talked about earlier and their engineering standards as a baseline. Tietz: Okay, thanks. Aller: I guess one of my questions would be, has public safety come in and, for instance fire, police or anyone else or have we been receiving reports as it stands now because it seems like from the information in the report and the public comments that have been provided thus far which will be made part of the record in these emails, we’re concerned with the off street parking and the actual on street parking which would block traffic in that area. Walters: Public safety did not provide any comments and I could not speak to whether or not we’ve had any reports. Aller: Commissioner Weick. Weick: How many extra feet on the driveway would be, would give you space for 2 cars? Two reasonable cars. Walters: That’s a great question. So I researched, if you check my search history there’s a lot of stuff on the average size of an American car right now. Average car is about 16 feet. Figure at least 2 feet you know cushion. At it’s widest the driveway is right around 16 feet. Realistically I’d say you’d probably need to push it back 4 feet to be sure you’d be able to accommodate 2 midsized or you know full sized cars. That’d be my best guess. Weick: Thank you. Aller: And the average parking spots available for off street parking were 4.5? Walters: So not including garages, I would say a lot of the properties did have driveway space for 2 cars. In this case yeah there’d be driveway space for one car if you take the garage space out and just are talking about guest parking. Aller: And the majority of properties now 2 or 3 car garage? Walters: The majority of new constructions are 3 car. And our ordinance’s minimum though is 2 car which is relevant when we talk about standards. Oh sorry, were you asking about the neighborhood or? Oh my apologies. Most of the neighborhood is 2 car garage. Aller: Has 2. 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 Walters: Yes. Aller: So this would. Walters: There are some with no garages, yeah and some with larger 4 car. Aller: And based on their lot they have additional parking which would be off street regardless of 2 or 3 car garage? Walters: Yep. No I misunderstood that, thank you. Aller: Additional questions at this time for staff based on the report? Seeing none we’ll have the applicant come forward and if they’d like to make a presentation that would be great. Todd Jackson: Well just two comments. Aller: If you could just state your name and address for the record sir, that’d be fantastic. Todd Jackson: Todd Jackson. Two comments. One, we currently have a home right down the block within easy walking distance on Hickory so we don’t live there. It’s a cabin so we would be able to provide plenty of parking for construction. Obviously when they’re dropping off large items for the property they’re going to need to be there so I can’t control that but at least daily crews at the house will be able to have off street parking with about, well it’s 3732 Hickory so it’s, you know if they could move the map it’s, you can walk. It’s on the point so it’s very easy so we would provide that for them. And then secondly on the impervious pavers, our current home on Broken Arrow in Chan, we’ve been there, we built the house 10 years ago. The watershed district came by looking for volunteers to improve the impervious surfaces and do all that stuff. We volunteered. I spent money. I did that so my willingness obviously staff requires it we’ll do it but my willingness to do it regardless I think is proven because of what I’ve done in my current home where it was not required. We just went ahead and did it anyway so those are my two comments. Aller: So before you leave if you could just fill in some of the blanks. We’ve got the report and you’ve had an opportunity to read the report right? Todd Jackson: Yes. Aller: So just tell us about your project. How did you come up with the actual property configuration? What’s your intended use of the property? Are you planning on using the 3 car garage for 3 cars? 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 Todd Jackson: I am. So a 3 car garage is a requirement for my wife and me and our children to build a new home so that was something for us that’s a requirement so that’s why we ended up with the design. It’s going to be our primary residence. If you guys pass it we’ll move forward. We’ll build this house. Sell our current house on Broken Arrow and sell the cabin on Hickory and have that be our primary residence and live there and make my life a little less complicated with 2 places down to 1. Aller: Okay. Any additional questions? Commissioner Weick. Weick: Do you have any issues with the length of the driveway? As you’ve planned it and looked at it. Todd Jackson: No. You know it’s funny because I went out and when I got the plans back I looked at the measurements. My daughter drives a Jeep that would be parked out front. That would fit in the 16 foot and the 16 foot spot. It would fit there so you know from my view I could fit 2 vehicles there. Her Jeep on the smaller spot and then a larger vehicle in the second stall plus the 3 car garage. Actually we probably could really get 3 in that driveway, just like we did in the garage so I think we could probably get 6 vehicles there if we had to. Weick: Okay. Todd Jackson: Now they’re not going to, I’m not going to be able to put a Yukon XL out there in the driveway but on the one side I would but not the opposite side so I think we could fit 6 vehicles there. Weick: Okay. Aller: Any additional questions of the applicant? Hearing none thank you very much sir. Todd Jackson: You bet. Aller: At this point in time I’ll open up the matter for public hearing. That’s again an opportunity got individuals to come forward to speak either for or against the item. You can do so by coming forward. Stating your name and address for the record and then just give us your opinion. Anyone wishing to come forward? Have somebody working their way forward. Welcome. If you could state your name and address that’d be great. Debbie Lockhart: Debbie Lockhart. I live at 3618 Red Cedar Point Road, Excelsior and I have a major concern about, because we didn’t hear it in the report, about what the snowplow is going to do because right now, because the Souba house has always been a summer house, the plow always plows right, well it just disappeared. Sorry. Can you put it back again? See where the green is right there. Go up higher. That green. That area right there is where the snowplow goes up and pushes the snow up and then backs down and comes up the road because we are on a 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 very skinny road as you all know and there’s really no other place right now for him to go. And that was a concern, I voiced that concern when I talked to MacKenzie earlier but I didn’t see anything. I couldn’t read the report. It wouldn’t come up online for me. What they’re going to do with the snowplow because it is a major concern because I would hate for us to lose the service. Okay, thank you. Aller: That’s a great question, thank you very much. Before we go forward if we go ahead, we won’t stop the public hearing portion of this item yet so let’s go ahead and just mark that down for consideration. Come on forward, yep. We’ll try to get the questions answered at once at the end. Welcome. Steve Gunther: Good evening. My name’s Steve Gunther. I live at 3628 Hickory Road so I’m kind just up the hill from where the Souba’s lot is. A couple things. Living in this area it is difficult because the lots are small and with current building standards etcetera it is, it does require some number of variances to allow a property owner to build something that’s kind of within you know expectations of what people are looking for right now. You know I am okay with the setback from the lake. It seems to be reasonable and consistent with what other neighbors have gotten. I’m glad they’re bringing the side setbacks to the 10 foot expectation which is the standard. I am nervous about the front setback just because I know people will try to park cars there and it sounds like the thought is well I’m just going to leave my daughter’s Jeep out in the front while I’ve got 3 cars already and I’ve got a fourth car it sounds like being suggested to be put in that area but what I’m most concerned about frankly is how the hard cover variance will affect the lake quality. So I’m also the President of the Lake Minnewashta Preservation Association and the most valuable piece of real estate collectively the neighbors have is that lake which sits at the back of the lot. We’ve worked very hard over the years to maintain the lake quality. We’ve actually seen it degrade over time as more of the large homes are built and you know take up residence on the lake and I’m concerned that going from a standard of a 25 percent hard cover for this particular property to a suggested or a requested 36 percent hard cover. I understand there’s a gravel lot or gravel pad that’s already in front of the house. More than likely that was put in without any city approval. That was just put there so I don’t look at that as being the old standard that we’re going to reduce it by .36 percent because it was going from 36.36 percent down to 36 percent. I still view this as a request to go from 25 percent to 36 percent which is you know is how I would judge this request here so I am concerned about the increase in hard cover and I know everyone wants a 3 car garage. I know I’ve had to adjust my structure when we built our’s to get a 2 car front loaded garage. I’m concerned that that extra third car is taking 20 times 24, 500 roughly square feet of extra hard cover which if you eliminated that would be a long way to getting us back closer to the 25 percent so I’d just ask that we take a hard look at the hard cover variance request because more hard cover means more runoff into the water. More runoff into the water leads to degraded lake quality. I am glad the staff has suggested the 20 foot buffer strip because that will certainly help. I don’t understand the pervious versus impervious. I understand you know block versus asphalt but to me it’s all impervious if it’s a stone if you will. So I am concerned about the hard cover 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 variance request so I’d just ask you take a careful look at that as you’re making a decision so, thank you. Aller: Thank you. Any other individuals wishing to come forward at this time? Okay, seeing no one come forward I’ll go ahead and close the public hearing and I’ll ask for some comments from our public works and Water Resource Coordinator who are available. Thank you very much for being here. Maybe start with Mr. Oehme about the snowplowing and where we’re going to put that snow. Oehme: Sure. Good evening Chairman Aller and commissioner members. So I did have a conversation with our street crew and specifically the plow driver in this area recently so as Deb had eluded to our snowplow driver drives down Red Cedar Point here. Kind of cleans this area up and then backs up to this area and then turns around so obviously if this property is developed that cannot take place anymore. The City, this area was platted in the early 1900’s and luckily there is a little bit additional right-of-way in this area here so the thought is, is that the snow plow driver in the future would be able to do a three point turn. Basically come down. Stay within this cul-de-sac area here. Come back out and then around. I think there’s going to be, need to be some tree or I think there’s an old cottonwood that might have to go and some brush that have to be cleaned up in that area and then we would also have to talk to this property owner here. I think that property owner parks a car or two right there so we would have to work with them and try to at least in the wintertime you know having an access area so we’re not going to be backing that snowplow into that vehicle there. With this three point turn that we’re talking about it’s actually a safer movement than currently being taken right now. The snowplow driver wouldn’t have to back up you know half a block or whatever onto a public street here to make that turn around. You’d basically be backing up to the north and where there’s no vehicles, would be no vehicles at that point in time so staff is proposing that we would look at cleaning this area up so we can make that turn around at this point instead of down at this property here. Weick: Can I, I’m confused. Oehme: I’m sorry. Weick: The plow can turn around there now because it’s a gravel lot, correct? Oehme: Well there’s, it’s a little restrained right now. There’s I think in most of the time there’s a car or two that’s parked right here and then there’s some brush in the back that doesn’t allow them to back up far enough to make that turn around possible at this time. Weick: I guess what I mean on the subject property. What’s changing on the subject property to change the way the street gets plowed? That’s what I’m. Oehme: Well the road’s not going to get plowed any differently than it is today. 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 Weick: Okay. Oehme: In front of the subject property. It’s just where he turns around has to change. Right now he backs up onto this property. Weick: Right. Oehme: With his vehicle. With the plow truck and then turns around so we’re not, in the future we’re suggesting we’re not turn around at that point. We’re looking at turning around up where my pointer is. Weick: But it’s the development of the property that’s changing the snowplow, not the setback? Aanenson: Right. I would also say it’s probably not best practices to turn around on private property. Weick: Exactly yeah, but I’m just trying to understand what’s going on there. Oehme: It’s just easier for them to turn around here today versus right at this location just because of the brush and debris and some of the vehicles that are sitting there. Weick: Okay. Okay, thank you. Aller: And in that location where we have the right-of-way it would be our responsibility to keep that maintained at some point anyway. Oehme: That’s correct. It’s in our right-of-way. We just would need to take better housekeeping of that area especially in the winter months. Aller: Okay, and then would the parking be off, the on street parking or off street parking in the right-of-way that’s being utilized by the private homeowner that normally would not be accessible. It’s somewhere it’s basically been gratis because we haven’t used it. Oehme: Correct. So we just would have to work with that property owner to make sure they have the ability to park their vehicles there like they have in the past so. Aller: Okay. And then if we could move onto the storm water drainage and lake clarity that would be great. Strong: Okay, great. So cars come and go literally but I tend to look at a property like this from the perspective of the water so I’m looking at it from the back side. For me how far the impervious is from the actual lake is what I’m trying to protect because that’s something we can’t change and the lake is there forever and that lake is there for everyone. My main concern 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 is while we do have a non-conforming use that we need to take into consideration and we need to balance that with the needs of the property owner, we also have to look at what’s best for the lake. And to do that we have to kind of try to balance what’s continuing with maybe ways to implement newer management strategies while balancing non-conforming use but not just continuing to allow them to be the way they are but somehow finding balance to make them a little bit better each step of the way. That’s where the 20 foot buffer comes in. That’s for exchanging it for pervious pavers for all non-necessary impervious surfaces comes in. I understand that pervious pavers are newer to Chanhassen. I have a bit of a history with them and I’m very confident that because of how they’ve been used throughout the Twin Cities metro they are very successful. We have a lot of constrained sites and we’ve had to come up with new ways to treat storm water. Installed correctly is a very important factor. Using the Pervious Paver Institute, which is also supported by MnDOT is usually the best place to start and I’m pretty confident, especially if the homeowner’s already had this installed previously, they’re a very good candidate for installing something that will be maintainable. Another benefit to pervious pavers is that they reduce salt usage and being that close to the water salt use has a significant impact on water quality so they do reduce volume. Most importantly they reduce rate and flow. Combining that with a buffer and then right at the shoreline edge just working on some different strategies to see where we can replace rip rap with more vegetation to create habitat at that high habitat area zone, I think that helps improve the property overall so, but when it comes to pervious pavers you know it’s something that we’re learning here but they have been tried, tested and true within the Twin Cities metro and they do work if installed correctly so. Aller: So I guess one of the things that I would like to know, if it’s possible to get an answer for this, if you take the property as it sits today and you theoretically build a new property in it’s place and you look at both water systems, is it going to be more beneficial to have the new system in place for the lake or to leave it as it is? Does that make sense? Strong: It does. That’s a tricky question to answer. At the end of the day impervious cover is impervious cover. Storm water runoff goes straight to the lake when it hits an impervious surface so I think we’re getting as close as we possible can to an equal trade. Aller: Okay. Strong: It may be slightly worst but I think following through the property owner looks like they’re going to do everything possible to make it an equal trade as much as possible. Understanding again this is a non-conforming use. Aller: Right. Strong: And a unique site. Aller: Okay. Based on my questions and the answer, any other additional questions of staff? Commissioner Randall. 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 Randall: One of the questions Ms. Lockhart brought up was where that snow gets piled up in that corner. Is that going to be an issue? Or she talked about how it got piled up on the, kind of where that green bush would be. Right in that area I believe. Debbie Lockhart: It comes straight in next to it. Randall: Next to it. Debbie Lockhart: So it’s going straight to, you’re going right next to the yellow house. Between the bush and the yellow house. It goes straight up there. Randall: Okay. Any issues with that as far as watershed or plowing? Oehme: So that’s, this area is really tight to begin with so we’ll do our best to find places within our right-of-way to place that snow. Randall: Okay. Oehme: So like I said we’re going to try to clean up this area a little bit better than it is today and maybe try to pile as much snow over here as we can and not on private property. Strong: It’s proximity to the lakeshore itself and the lake itself, and melting it’s very close in either location. It’s so close it’s very difficult to make a decision as to whether or not it would have an adverse impact on the water. Aller: Any additional questions? Strong: It’s good questions. Aller: Then I’ll open it up for commissioner comment at this point. How are people feeling about the request and would you like to take any action? Commissioner Weick. Weick: Yes, thank you. I think my largest concern is the, you know the lot coverage really isn’t changing. May or may not get better with pervious pavers. I’m not sure. You know how I feel about that so it’s, you know that’s a bit of a disappointment. I don’t think, after hearing everything I don’t think there’s an issue with the front yard setback or the driveway to me. I’m having looked at other cases in this area as well I’m really pleased with the side yard setbacks. We’ve approved some things that are like you know reach out and you know hand your neighbor a razor or something so I think that’s pretty good. But the only, you know the biggest thing is just not changing that lot coverage at all. That’s disappointing to me. Aller: Commissioner Madsen. 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 Madsen: I do have a concern about the length of the drive. Although it sounds like it might work for the purpose intended for this homeowner, maybe a future homeowner would have larger vehicles and with the limited space on the road I just think it’s important that you know that there is places in the driveway for guests and people to park their cars. Aller: Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: Yeah I concur with Nancy with her comments about the parking. I think that is going to be a long term problem. The comment was made about a lot of the homeowners in the neighborhood have 2 car garages. With the current as proposed design eliminating one car would not solve the problem. Even if you had a 2 car garage because you’re not going to get, it’s a depth issue. Not a width issue because as Steve noted we’ve got you know better side lot than we’ve had in some other situations here so it’s a, it’s purely a depth issue and you can’t go closer to the lake so I think it’s a difficult site and a difficult neighborhood to build in and unfortunately most new construction is maximizing everything and that’s, goes with I guess today’s construction and design so I think it’s a problem and I don’t know how it could be resolved without redesigning the house and shrinking the depth of the house to get the setbacks because he’s really maximized every inch that’s available which is unfortunate in this case. But I still regarding construction I think it needs to be properly, and I don’t know if the City signs it or if the contractors has to sign it during construction. Is that a City signage for parking? Or do they have to request. Aanenson: It can be. It’s also managed through building inspections and the fire chief which we’ve done up there. Had the fire truck come up and. Tietz: And so it would be the full length in this neighborhood, both out to the point and beyond. Aanenson: We’ll have to look at that to see how that works. I mean also making sure, to say that we can guarantee they’re going to park on his property off site but they’re going to have to find somewhere that it’s passable during construction. Tietz: Controlling subcontractors, you know construction and trucks is really an issue. Aanenson: Yes. Tietz: I don’t know if any of you, if any of you have followed the construction of Marty Davis’ home on Lake Minnetonka. He actually had to buy a lot down by Howards Point Marina and shuttled people back and forth because they had such a congested issue with parking down in that neighborhood. Obviously that’s not something we can do here but it’s only because this neighborhood is so constricted and we just have to be very cognizant of, and respecting all the neighbors. 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 Aller: Well I’ll entertain a motion at this time if someone would like to make one. Either as is or modified as you see fit. Weick: I’ll make a motion. Aller: Commissioner Weick. Weick: Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 11 ½ foot front yard setback, a 22.1 foot lakeshore setback, and an 11 percent lot coverage variance, 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: I second. Aller: Thank you Commissioner Randall. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? I will say that this area is so unique. The plots are so unique that it’s not surprising that we’re here doing this. The property is non-conforming and as much as I don’t hear that it is the best, it seems like it is a fair trade off which would allow for the homeowner to maximize the use and benefit of their property as situated and I think based on the, again the side lots and the setbacks that we do have, the buffer that is there and the concern that’s been placed in the report already for purposes of the lake, and I am very concerned about the lake and that’s why I was following up with those questions but I think that’s about as good as we’re going to get with the, with new construction unless we would deny it so I, because I think that it’s a fair and proper use of the property I’ll be voting for it. Any other discussion or comment? Weick moved, Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 11.5 foot front yard setback, a 22.1 foot lakeshore setback, and an 11 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the following conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easements are documented. 3. A new 1”=20’ scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit application clearly showing the proposed setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and structures. 4. At least one tree must be planted in the front yard, if one is not present after construction. 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 5. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities beyond those indicated in the tree removal plan shall be replaced. 6. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area. 7. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from Emerald Ash Borer. 8. The 162 square foot rear patio area is understood to be the property’s water oriented structure. 9. Lot coverage may not exceed 3,319 square feet. 10. The proposed rear patio and driveway areas must be constructed using pervious paver systems. 11. A permanent 20 foot native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using species native to the ecotype with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan must be approved by the Water Resource Coordinator. 12. The property owner must work with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to identify and implement any shoreline restoration projects that would improve ecosystem health and function. Replace riprap with bioengineering solutions is one example. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: 7052 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY – VARIANCES INCLUDING FRONT YARD SETBACK, WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK AND WETLAND BUFFER WIDTH. Aller: Again we’ll be sitting as a Board of Appeals and Adjustments concerning variances. Generous: Good evening Chairman Aller, commissioners. Aller: Can everybody hear? Let’s wait 30 seconds while it clears out. Thank you. Generous: Yes tonight we have a public hearing for Planning Case 2017-19 for 7052 Minnewashta Parkway. It’s a variance request. This property is located on the southwest corner of Minnewashta Parkway and Kings Road. The applicant is Nathan Kirt and the property owner 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 is Daryl Kirt, his father. The variance request is for the wetland setbacks. Initially we thought that we may look at a front yard setback variance but we believe that we’ve come up with an alternative that would not force him any closer to the road and provides an acceptable building envelope. Additionally the property, or the applicant did not want to go any closer to the road so. Again this property is on the southwest corner of Minnewashta Parkway and Kings Road. The property is zoned single family residential, RSF. It’s a total area of 6.27 acres, however the majority of that is in wetland and some of that is in actually in shore, and lakeshore area. Lake St. Joe. Setbacks are 30 feet from both Minnewashta Parkway and Kinds Road but the 10 foot setback on the west side of the property. However there’s a wetland that wraps around the building envelope on this site. It’s an outstanding, classified as an outstanding wetland on the back part of this property adjacent to Lake St. Joe which requires a total 100 foot building setback from that. 50 feet of that is buffer area and 50 feet is a wetland buffer setback. Maximum hard cover is 25 percent. When we pulled up our GIS system we looked at the site and it showed us that there’s a wetland on the property. It was never delineated for city purposes. However this is a little warning for the city that we look at the property to see that, make sure that it complies with all our ordinance requirements. The property is guided for residential low density use and that’s typically that means a single family detached housing with a 2 car garage. It’s guided for residential low density use so it was anticipated that this would develop for a single family home. I should note that we began working on this project at the end of 2016 and so we’ve been working with the property owner and the applicant to come up with all the information we needed so we can get an informed decision and have all the information before you. When we originally sent this out for jurisdictional review, both the DNR and the watershed district, Minnehaha Creek were concerned that the submitted survey was inaccurate. They believed that the ordinary high water elevation for Lake St. Joe was actually closer to the property and closer to that wetland edge so the applicant had his surveyor meet out with a representative from DNR and they came up and agreed to this is the closest that the OHW of the lake came to the home. So it’s over 240 feet so it exceeded the minimum requirement for the shoreland setback so there’s no variances involved in that. The OHW for Lake St. Joe is 945.2 so. The applicant’s proposal was to construct a 28 by 90 foot house on the property, maintain a 20 foot wetland buffer and then there was an 18.2 foot wetland setback from, for the closest from the house to the edge of the wetland. We agreed with the property owner that, I should go back. In 1989 the City did approve a 50 foot wetland setback variance for this property and the applicant began construction on the house on the site and then abandoned that and so the original variance has been voided and it’s no longer in effect. We do believe that there is a necessity for a variance to permit the development of this site. We’ve calculated the building envelope of the property with the required setback and it creates a 30 by 10 foot piece of buildable area right adjacent to the front yard setback. That, as we all know would not even accommodate a driveway in our circumstances. So we believe wrapping some type of variance was necessary. And then as part of our review and our reason for changing from the 1989 variance approval to now, I’ll have Vanessa explain our reasoning on that. Strong: Thank you. So it is always a challenge to balance the needs of an applicant with the needs of the community and also the protection and preservation of our local water resources. 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 As Bob mentioned we spent a good 4 months, since I’ve been here, really trying to work with the applicant to come up with something that is achievable and that balance and it has been hard. They had to walk through the Wetland Conservation Act process. The Board of Water and Soil Resources. The Minnehaha Creek watershed district. The DNR have all had eyes turned towards this and raised several questions on this property. So it’s important to understand that. Our recommendation tries to consider very, very many factors here. Primarily though I’ll break those into 4 categories. First of all is the site history. The current proposed buffer and setback from staff takes into consideration the historic use of the property. The applicant provided a lot of really great historical information on the site. We’ve looked at how the neighboring area has also developed and what current rules and regulations are for this area. That’s what we took all that into consideration. That’s one factor. Other agencies. So again like I said, many other agencies have a lot of concerns about this. Not only is it important that our city variances meet the requirements of our own variance necessities but also those of other regulatory agencies. So both the DNR and Minnehaha Creek watershed district also have variance requirements and we need to meet those and be sensitive to those as well. So the third factor here is wetland type, health and function. This is considered a preserve wetland. This is our highest quality and category of wetland. The vegetated uplands, the buffer areas between wetlands and the, the vegetated uplands between the wetland edge and the upland area is one of our most diverse eco habitat. That’s considered like our richest zones for aquatic organisms and semi-aquatic organisms. In Chanhassen we take these under the highest protection. These types of wetlands so this is not a standard wetland. This is our preserve wetlands. These are the ones that are paramount for protecting both the quality of Lake St. Joe but also Lake Minnewashta and all the surrounding sub-watersheds so this is something we take very seriously in protecting this specific wetland. That being said, the width of wetland buffers does matter. Wetland buffers less than 50 feet do have significantly reduced function. That’s why the minimum wetland buffer here is 50 feet so any variance that we’re granting, and we acknowledge we need to grant something, is going to reduce the effectiveness of that buffer so we need to try to create the widest buffer possible but still allow reasonable use in order to protect both the lake and that wetland so. The last piece is of course again community input. So again you know this is a parcel that has an intended use but there are also neighboring parcels and neighboring residents that have concerns about the quality of Lake St. Joe and the quality of Lake Minnewashta because they are hydrologically connected. And Chanhassen residents overall rank wetlands very high in their importance for this community. A lot of residents live here because of that. Our public outreach survey, I don’t know if you guys paid attention to that but they ranked wetlands as very high. It’s in our top 5 of important values for the citizens of Chanhassen so protecting those is important for the entire community. So we had to take all four of those and balance those to come up with our recommendation and that’s where we came up with the 40 foot buffer and 30 foot setback. Generous: And back to me. So we believe our amended variance provides the applicant with reasonable opportunity to develop this property. It doesn’t specifically meet his submitted housing plan but it covers a lot of it and provides an opportunity for him to build reasonably in this area. In determining this we also looked at housing within the area. We looked at all the 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 houses on Kings Road and those on Country Oaks Boulevard and the average dimension of those homes were 56.2 feet in depth and 66.3 feet wide. That would all easily fit within this building envelope that we show on this. The 40 foot buffer does, as Vanessa stated, provide an environmental safety for the water quality and the wetland and the lake and then the 20 foot setback also allows a reasonable building envelope but we’re also saying that they can have within the first 10 feet of that 20 feet they could have their accessory structure so if they wanted a patio or a deck they would be able to create an outdoor living space in conjunction with the building of the structure on site. So staff is, does believe that this is a reasonable alternative and it gives them a reasonable use of the property. It accommodates most, as a matter of fact this point is the same as what their original plan concept was, to put the house across this area. It’s just to the west and south where they had encroached into the wetland that we were looking at. So staff is recommending approval of amended 10 foot wetland buffer variance so a 40 foot wetland buffer and a 30 foot wetland buffer setback variance so a 20 foot setback so they are allowed to construct the single family home on the site and a garage. However also preserving the natural features on the property subject to the conditions of the report which basically say provide us with the grading, drainage, erosion control plan as part of your building permit application and if you impact any of the wetlands buffer that it will be revegetated to acceptable standards and we recommend adoption of the Findings of Fact and Decision. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: Thank you. I have two questions. One, first for Ms. Strong. The conjunction of the wetland requirements. The buffer and the setback requirement. Does it give us a de facto 50 foot setback if they’re not using that additional 10 because of the, I should say buffer because we’re using the setback partially it’s co-existing non-buildable use? Strong: That’s a very good question. These are not, these are not exchangeable requirements. A setback from a buffer and a buffer itself are two different things. We actually redesigned a diagram, it’s actually in your packet here. This one here, to kind of explain the difference between the buffer and the setback. The buffer itself is what’s protecting the wetland. The setback is something that municipalities use or regulatory agencies use for development. It allows somebody to use the space around a structure. But it is the buffer itself so no, they’re not de facto the same. It is a 40 foot versus a 50 foot buffer. Aller: Okay. And then have we looked at the impact of potentially what would happen if we moved the physical housing unit away from the buffer and created smaller side and corner setbacks and whether or not that would create perhaps a sight line hazard or what that impact might be? Generous: Not specifically a sight line. We were never concerned with that because the corner of the property has a 50 by 50 easement area that they can’t build in and so they’re, our sight line is 30 feet back so they’re way out of that. That wasn’t an issue. It’s can he fit a house in this. Yes, we believe so. We’ve seen lots of building plans come through that would fit within that envelope and provide exterior spacing. You know he could look at if he doesn’t want to do a 4 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 car wide garage, what if he did a 3 car wide would probably fit in there, or 2 car with a double deep garage would fit within that envelope. Aller: Alright. But my, and my question goes to the ability to increase the buffer and put a physical structure on that’s sufficient for common housing. Generous: Yes if you went farther north you could theoretically do that. Give them a 10 foot variance for the front yard setback and then add that to the rear. Again that area gets a little wider the farther north you get so. Aller: Right. Generous: However it also goes against what their preference is to stay away from Kings Road as much as possible. They want it to be even farther back and we’re saying well maybe you could move up to the building setback line. Aller: Okay. Any additional questions at this point? Hearing none if the applicant would like to come forward and make a presentation that would be great. If you could state your name and address and representational capacity if any. Daryl Kirt: My name is Daryl Kirt and I’ve owned the land for about 30 years. In fact we were at this very same meeting 30 years ago when our first house was approved and. Aller: Well I wasn’t there so welcome. Daryl Kirt: We’ve got 30 years of history. Some of these people only have a couple years history on the land. I’ll just start out by saying first of all everything, the buffers and everything are assume that the Lake St. Joe is an environmental lake rather than recreational lake. Now I’ve asked Mr. Generous to explain the difference. I’ve never got an answer so I’ve done some homework which we’ll bring up later. If it’s a recreational lake Vanessa then these would change I guess am I correct? Strong: At this time no. Daryl Kirt: We’ll start out with that but I appreciate everybody being here and I see one guy’s missing. I take that as a yes vote so I’m going forward with a lot of confidence here. Aller: Well without one here we still have a quorum so we’ll have a vote. Daryl Kirt: Okay. So I’m going to, if I could if I could just go through what you all have in front of you. Aller: That’d be great. 18 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 Daryl Kirt: And like I said there’s a lot of history so I numbered it. If you go to page 2. It talks about when they approved the Oaks development there and I had my land before of course that happened but when they did that they approved 35 acres went into homes and development and along with that came a holding pond so, right next to our land. We took on all the water from the Oaks project and probably even further up and the pollution that’s in, the runoff of the city. Not the city sewers but the city’s storm water, and Vanessa’s very familiar with that right? Like I brought the book but all the chemicals and the salt and all that is running down to the same wetland that we’re saying is protected, and I agree with it. Is protected but I’m saying there’s two standards here so do their development and they’re getting 35 acres plus probably some more of this going into my land down there and also to Sue Morgan’s land, which wasn’t mentioned in this and that’s going into the same exact wetland that I agree is protected exactly what he read. Okay. So then going onto page 3 we were here to do this house, and we did. We went through everything. We paid all the fees. We hired a contractor when we bought the land. We knew there’d be some challenges so we hired Braun and Carlson Engineering to do soil borings so we had to go through all the soil bores and the City agreed with our locations. We did the soil bores. We found bedrock so we had to take out the soil that was there. Remove it. Put in new soil. Compact it. It had to be inspected by Itasca Engineer. We did all this here. It cost thousands of dollars to do that and they agreed to this location and the size of our house. The footprint is there. The contractor was supposed to have it done during the summer. He didn’t. He got into winter. It got frost. We ended up going to court. We sued him. Judge Mackey, District Court rules in our favor. We got a judgment for $60,000 but we all know what it’s like to collect from contractors. They’re up and gone so we have a footprint on that land. Our compacted pad is there and is existing so if we’re allowed to go back to the same footprint that we did 30 years ago that was approved we won’t have to do anything as far as a new pad. And working for a year and a half on this and they’ll go through that later too. We were told we can do it over here. Then we can do it over there. There’s a lot of expenses involved in doing this. We bought the land. I didn’t zone it as residential. The city did. They agreed this would be a buildable lot. We believed in it. We did it. We did our part. We paid our dues. We did our pad. It didn’t work. It wasn’t our fault so now I’ve been trying to sell it ever since this happened for 30 years I’ve tried to sell this land and when I put it up for sale I’d run ads in the paper. I had a realtor sell it and the potential buyers would call the City and ask is it a buildable lot. We’ve had a lot of negative comments came from the City. Well that’s the land that the house sunk on. In the first meeting I had with Mr. Generous when I went to get the paperwork he couldn’t find it. It took him 30 minutes and found it in the archives in the basement and he came out of the basement with this little smile on his face. Oh that’s the land where the house sunk. Well the house didn’t sink. The contractor made the error and the error was there’s frost and the pad is still there and we removed. It wasn’t a house. It was just 3 walls of cement was removed so I, we built the house that I live in at 50 Hill Street and I’ve lived there for 30 years. I’m almost 70 years old. I’ve got this piece of land. I want it to go away and my, we had a family meeting. The children said the only way this is going to go away is if we get a permit. We build on it. If we like living there we will. But it gets rid of the problem with a piece of land I’ve had for 30 years so that’s kind of the history of how it, it just didn’t build a house that didn’t work. This 19 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 was a lot of money spent and a lot of time. So, and then they mentioned, Mr. Generous mentioned the lift station. The easement. In your packet you’ll see it’s not 50 by 50. It says when they started out they had 40 by 40. When it was completion the easement’s 20 by 20 so that’s not correct what he said there so now I’ve got the land. I’m trying to sell it. Nothing’s happening. About 15 years ago I started seeing big puddles of water show up on my land. I’d say what is this coming from so I have a restoration shop. We do antique cars. In the wintertime I drive by it on the way to work. I find a city truck. It’s got the big vacuum cleaner. It cleans out storm sewers dumping that water on my land. I called Channel 9 News. Channel 9 News comes out and the City worker said he didn’t do it and they said well we’re going to take a sample of this water and the guy admitted that he did it. It was 3 days on Channel 9 News top story. Kirt property polluted with city storm water so this is what’s happening to me on that lot so I’ll keep going here. I’m getting excited here so it’s been a long 30 years. So then we go down to like I say, the sewer. The lift station. May of 2017. Now I don’t know if anyone from the City is aware of this. The line broke on that. Mr. Generous are you aware of that? Aller: Okay so I’m just going to try to refocus on the issue which is whether or not we should give a variance on the setbacks and allow for the building. Daryl Kirt: Well I guess this will make sense as I go through it. Aller: Okay can we, I guess what impact would that have on whether or not there’s a setback or not? Daryl Kirt: I’ll tell you in 2 seconds here. Aller: Okay. Daryl Kirt: The storm sewer in 2007, the lift station, the pipe broke to it. It flooded my property with sewage. Raw sewage and I don’t want to be pushed closer to that lift station. I want to be farther away from, exactly where we were before and how did the City clean it up? Are you aware that that pipe broke? Aanenson: We’re not in charge of sewers so I’m sorry I can’t answer that question. Daryl Kirt: What’s that? Aanenson: The planning department isn’t in charge of sewer so we can’t answer that question. Daryl Kirt: Okay, so it broke. It’s obviously broke and you know how it was cleaned up? They came through and opened up the fire hydrant and washed the sewage. It ran to the south and onto my property. The same wetland that we’re, that I agree should be protected too. That’s how they cleaned it. So I mean I’ve got, it just goes on. 20 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 Aller: So I guess my question is with regards to the wetland it sounds like you want to protect the wetland. Why should we grant a variance for the buffer setback? Daryl Kirt: Because I’m going to show that I don’t feel the lake is, I think the lake is recreational and as we go further, then after that the City came to me and asked for a holding pond and they took a half acre of my land and put it in the exact same wetland that we’re talking about right here. You now have a half acre they took from me as a holding pond and that holding pond is taking all the runoff to the north coming into that wetland also going into Lake St. Joe so now there’s 2 holding ponds on an 18 acre lake and there’s a third holding pond by the public access and a definition of a lake, this environmental can’t have more than a house every mile or so. I counted, there’s 13 houses just on the north side alone and those houses, I don’t think Mr. Generous looked at them but they’re gigantic and the average is 3 to 4 car garage on every one of them that have lakeshore on Lake St. Joe. So by taking Lake St. Joe, we’ve got to make a decision. Is it or is not recreational and it might take a judge to do, I don’t know but that’s my point. Aller: Okay. Nathan Kirt: And I think Daryl, that’s my dad here. He felt the way this is written it kind of makes it look like we don’t care about the lake but we really do. We are conservationists. We love the lake. That’s why we want to be there and we do want to protect the lake. Aller: Right. Nathan Kirt: We don’t, we don’t feel that this variance would be very detrimental to the lake. And I want to live by a lake that has natural surroundings. We love wildlife. We love trees. I’ve already been out planting trees. Removing buckthorn and I know my dad may seem a little upset. He has had 30 years on there. Aller: Sure. Nathan Kirt: And feels he has had a little bit of abuse. Maybe a two sided story were we have storm water coming on both ends of his property. It was full of salt, debris, all kinds of pollution. I mean he just looks for, he’s just asking for a little variance, or I am, we are and we get shut down and acted like we want to go in there and develop a golf course or a 7-11 or something. We love that land. We love that property but we don’t want to be pushed on top of a sewage or a lift station that’s been leaking and stuff like that. But we don’t want to hurt a lake either. I don’t think we would at all doing what we’ve asked to do. Daryl Kirt: Yeah and we’re satisfied with the original, what the original plan was. The City, everyone approved it 30 years ago. The exact pad. My pad is there. We’re happy with that. Aller: Okay. 21 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 Daryl Kirt: And we gave up some skin already. We gave a half acre of our land away already for one holding pond and with that half acre holding pond, it’s in writing in the contract that the City will maintain the level of the culvert where it goes from Lake Minnewashta, or from St. Joe to Minnewashta because when they did that they narrowed it and the beavers are plugging it up and you can see the water’s up, down, up, down and the City has not done their job as far as maintaining that as well and that caused some of the water to be higher and some of the problems in the wetland. So now we have 3 holding ponds in the same wetland that we’re talking about. Aller: Okay. Daryl Kirt: We have the City with a half acre they’re not maintaining. The beaver control problem. They keep saying they will when we call them. Yeah we’ll fix it. They haven’t. We’ve been going out there 2-3 times a day cleaning up beavers. Beaver dams that keeps the water level and we have the chart that shows. The DNR, we have the chart showing where that level is and how it goes up and down. Nathan Kirt: We’ve been working with the DNR monitoring the lake. Aller: Awesome. That was going to be a suggestion with animals and lakes, DNR is the place to be so, any additional comments? Nathan Kirt: I have a few. Aller: Sure. Nathan Kirt: If you have time. Aller: Yep. Nathan Kirt: You guys have read through the agenda and it says on here the DNR assisted with an on site survey and have concerns. It also says the Minnehaha Watershed had concerns. I’ve spoken with both of them and the Minnehaha Watershed said that they were good with everything and they appreciated me calling and talking with them. The DNR that I met with on the lake, or on land, the only 2 spots where she wanted to add 2 more elevations. The only elevation she took were city elevations. One of a culvert and one of their holding pond. They weren’t issues with us at all. Aller: Okay. Nathan Kirt: And it’s written to make it sound like we had problems with the DNR. I don’t know why it’s written like that. 22 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 Aller: I think it’s interpretation. I didn’t take it that way so it really depends on your viewpoint when you read them so thank you for clarifying that. Nathan Kirt: …of these agencies have expressed concern over the development of the parcel so it makes me, but I just want to clarify that. Aller: Great. Nathan Kirt: We’ve worked with them and it went good. I enjoyed speaking with the DNR and Minnehaha Watershed. And one other thing I want to just bring up was, we’ve been doing this for a little while and if I could read a little paragraph here when they gave us a buffer of 25 feet and that was about 2 months ago and now last Thursday, that’s the first I’ve seen this agenda and it shows a 40 foot buffer now so I’ve had no working days basically. This was on Thursday evening right through New Year’s and to now. Staff has no authority to approve a building permit for this property without a wetland buffer. Staff reached out to the agencies with jurisdictional authority over this property. Minnehaha Watershed District on 10/23/2017 to determine any additional compromise for a minimum wetland buffer width that could be supported by staff and the watershed district. Staff was able to work with the watershed district to reach a minimum buffer width of 25 feet. Then when I get this agenda it says 40 feet. I guess not long ago. Aller: Okay. Nathan Kirt: So this agenda caught us by surprise and we’ve been working with staff for a long time. Thought we had gotten somewhere. Aller: Great. Thanks for pointing that out. Nathan Kirt: I appreciate you listening. Thank you very much. Aller: Thank you. Any additional questions of staff at this time? Do you want to address the 25 foot buffer versus the 45, or 40 foot buffer please? Strong: Yeah sure I can, and I can understand his confusion. Part of that is just timeline. He read it, as I wrote it correctly. That was back in October and as you’ve noticed there’s been a lot of different agencies involved and a lot of different times. It is true that the DNR, as we’ve been working with them and the watershed district, have been working with them, have supported the work that we’re trying to do with this and their concerns are not that it not get developed, and so I do apologize for that. It’s just how it gets developed. So the timeline between when that was written. After that the DNR came back and had their additional concerns about the setback of the lake and where the lake level actually was. I’ve attached in your packet communication emails from the DNR that were dated actually after that which are in the end of November and the last comment we have from the DNR as far as an email that I attached was they do want to 23 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 make sure that they see the storm water analysis when it’s ready and that again they just continue to be concerned that the size of the buffer is sufficient and that is what inspired and led to us widening a buffer from 25 feet to 40 feet. Again the DNR has variance requirements. The watershed district has variance requirements. We could grant a 25 foot variance. What I was looking for was something that would not trigger an appeal from another agency right off the bat. That being said all the agencies through my conversations support what we are proposing and they’re most comfortable with what we are proposing. And that’s where we are at now. She he’s right. At that time that’s where we were at but since then the DNR continued to be concerned through November and that’s what kind of led to the 40 foot but. Aller: Thank you. Nathan Kirt: Would I be able to speak just real quick? Is that alright? Aller: Sure, real quick. Nathan Kirt: Because she did email me back just afterwards and she says thanks Nate. I think this looks good. That was the new, with 2 more elevations put on it. I forwarded it to Bob and the City with a note and I believe the survey is accurate. I’ve never been given anything from the DNR saying that they thought anything should be changed and when I talked to them they said it was up to the City. She said this isn’t my job. I don’t make this buffer and we’re, how many feet back are we from the shoreline? It’s like 300 or 200 feet. We’re a long ways from the shoreline. Much, much further than most other houses in the area. Aller: Great thank you. And just to clarify the shoreline setback and the wetland setback are two different items. Strong: Yes, so again we’re talking about two different things and I think that is also one of the difficulties in working with the DNR. We work with both the shoreline and the wetland and they’re almost two separate things, even though in this case they are connected. So in fact in this case when he asked the question as to whether or not it was a recreational lake or a natural system lake, the reason why at that point I said it wouldn’t be relevant is because the buffer is based upon the wetland and not the lake. The DNR is actually the one that sets the status and the type of the lake so whether it’s recreational or natural system that would be up to the DNR. Could that be relevant for the lake? Maybe it is a different one. That I won’t contest. You might have to discuss with the DNR. What my point was simply that the buffer is based actually on the wetland and this is a preserve class wetland so that’s where that came from. Aller: Thank you. Okay, Commissioner Randall. Randall: So…the Kirt’s questions at all or? Aller: Yes, yes. We haven’t opened the public hearing yet. 24 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 Randall: Just real quick I want, did you, will this be buildable for you this 10 foot wetland buffer variance with the 30 foot wetland buffer setback? Daryl Kirt: This one… Generous: And this is the City’s we had the 40 foot buffer in there. This is his request with the 20 foot buffer and an 18.2 foot. Randall: Alright. Nathan Kirt: The one with the City wouldn’t, I’d have to redesign the house and I’d have to wrap this house around a septic system. A lift station. And it wouldn’t be using our building pad. The building pad is where this is now. Randall: Okay. Nathan Kirt: And where they push us off would be, would not be a building pad. Aller: Everybody good? We’ll open up the public hearing portion of this item so anyone wishing to come forward can speak either for or against the item before us and we’ll try to have any questions answered as you probably will be enlightening us on new issues. Sue Morgan: Hello, my name is Sue Morgan. I live at 4031 Kings Road and it’s the large property right there. Aller: Welcome. Sue Morgan: Linda Scott and I have lived there, well we’ve owned the property since 1985 so we’ve seen a lot happen around Lake St. Joe and we’ve watched as Daryl’s property has gone through a lot of changes over the years and you know it’s, just to give you some perspective. I give Daryl a lot of credit for putting up with what the City has put him through. For what the City has put his property through. We act as kind of guardians of the lake. We do the Secchi readings and clarity readings, things like that and send them into the Met Council so we kind of watch the quality of the lake and the levels of the lake and we have a dock there and Scotty has fought the battle of the beavers. The water levels go up. Go down. Go up. Go down. We’ve called the City how many times to ask the City’s help in getting rid of the beaver. Getting promises made. Promises broken. Watching the water level go up and down. Watching Daryl’s property be flooded with storm water and I hope that the City will enable Daryl and his son to build the house on their property. They’ve been through 30 years of a lot and I think that, I don’t know what the problem is with this property. How the City sees the property but I know they don’t see a lot of value in Lake St. Joe. I feel that they don’t see the value in Lake St. Joe because it’s so small. I know the DNR owns the access. Very seldom do they build up the 25 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 access. It’s difficult for people to get their boats in and out. We’ve called the City again about the beaver. They do nothing about the culvert. Right now there’s a pile of debris on each of the culvert that feeds Lake Minnewashta that’s taller than I am because the Kirt’s and Scotty and Mark all clean out the beaver dam so if the City does enable the Kirt’s to build the property on this. Build their house on this property, I hope they then support the effort to maintain the lake. To clean the lake. To watch the storm water runoff. Because you know both the DNR and City say that they value it and the wetland setbacks are important but then again as Daryl said they do nothing to support that effort so you know there’s going to be parameters put around them to build their house a certain way and a certain piece of land in order to honor the wetland setbacks. But at the same time the City, the DNR need to do something to help maintain the lake as well so it’s just a perspective on what’s fair for everybody. You know it’s not always the DNR and the City that get their way. The property owner has owned this property for 30 years and I think that you know we, when we built our property got variances for things and I think that you know in seeing the people in Red Cedar Point that got variances to build their home, I think it’s within the City’s wherewithal to try to make this happen. After 30 years it should happen and I don’t know what else to say other than I hope it does. I wish you luck. Aller: Thank you. Any additional comments? Seeing no one come forward we’ll close the public hearing at this point in time and we’ll open it up for discussion. Anyone wish to open up? Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: I just have a question about the responsibility to clean up the culvert area. The beaver house area. Is that the City? Is that the DNR? Is that something that could be addressed and improved upon going forward? Strong: I’ll answer part and then I’ll let Paul answer it. Being new to the City I don’t have that much history. I will say it’s always interesting from my perspective that I look at these resources, again being new to the City and most people anywhere want to live next to these for the wildlife and yet the wildlife is something they want us to manage more and control more and they’re a problem and so I’m always struggling with how to balance the beaver, which that’s not there. Again this is just my perspective. That doesn’t make it your’s or anybody else’s. And so for me beaver management is not what we’re responsible for doing. We’re responsible for making sure the beaver has a place to live. That being said does the DNR have beaver management programs? Absolutely, and I do not know what the history is of the City and what the City has promised for that type of thing but I can tell you from a water resources perspective it’s usually to let the wildlife be there because that’s what that area is for and it’s usually why people want to live in a place like that. They provide critical ecosystem function so I’ll answer that part. Paul maybe you know a bit more about the history of. Oehme: Yeah so the City has been out there cleaning out the culvert underneath Minnewashta Parkway on numerous occasions over the years. It’s something that the City has struggled with and I think the DNR has been contacted on occasion on this. It typically has, typically comes back to the City to maintain it but it’s something that we have struggled with to be honest with 26 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 you so you know we’ll look at it a little harder I guess is what I’ll say and see if there’s any other opportunities to maintain that area a little bit better but it’s, I know it’s been a problem ever since I’ve been working here so. Aller: So just to clarify. Is the DNR telling the City this is the way we want it and then we’re responsible to actually just do and put in the condition that they want to keep it in or is it, or are they saying oh it’s up to the City? Oehme: Yeah, I haven’t been part of those conversations but it’s my understanding that DNR resources are stretched thin too so I don’t think they have the resources to maintain you know outlets like this in every lake in Minnesota but you know we’ve tried to maintain it on occasion when people call in. We’ve had to clean it out on occasion too. Aller: And I know it’s not an easy thing to do because we’re dealing with, not necessarily this property but as Chanhassen as a city we’re dealing with 3 different watershed districts. We’ve got a lot of people to deal with plus DNR plus Army Corps of Engineers who are all telling us this is the way we want it to be but they don’t have the manpower to do it and they put it back on the city to do what they want the way they want it so we’ll see how that pans out. Daryl Kirt: We have the answer. We have the answer right here to answer the question. It’s a contract signed, when I gave the half acre to the City in a contract the City said that they will maintain that culvert and that problem. It’s in writing with a contract with the City. Aller: Okay, so that answers the question as far as. Daryl Kirt: …get back my half acre of holding pond if they’re not going to maintain the contract. Sue Morgan: Not only that but from. Aller: Okay the public hearing’s been closed at this point so. Sue Morgan: Sorry. Aller: That’s okay. That’s okay. Daryl Kirt: It’s easier to do it in court. I’d rather don’t have to go to court to get it settled. Aller: Well you know a lot of the issues here are probably in the report already or have been addressed so I just don’t want to go over it 3 different ways so let’s see how it pans out first. Daryl Kirt: Okay. 27 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 Aller: Okay. And if it’s, if it is something that’s in your favor then you can run with it. If it’s something that’s against you then you have an opportunity still to go before the City Council to overturn on whatever we’ve done so, on an appeal so at this point I’m concerned and still concerned about the setbacks because I do want to protect the watershed and I do want to protect both the lake, and it sounds like everyone’s concerned with protecting the lake and protecting the wetland so what I’m hearing is that everyone seems to be amicable with the modified or amended plan so I would be willing to, because it’s a reasonable use of the property, vote for that particular plan if a motion is made in that vein. That’s pretty much where I’m thinking at this point. Tietz: Chairman Aller I just have one more comment on the beaver. Aller: Sure. Tietz: Yeah I like animals too but when they create a problem and they’re a nuisance animal and creating a detrimental to private property, you know in Bloomington and I don’t know if we have it here in Chanhassen but they have deer hunts because the deer are a problem in some communities and I don’t know what the DNR program is but I certainly side up with the landowner in this situation. If we’re creating a detrimental condition because of a beaver and that water level is fluctuating to the point that it’s detrimental to property values around the lake, I think that I don’t know if we have any leverage with the DNR. It’s an animal control issue as opposed to, I think as opposed to a city issue but I think we should work diligently to you know, St. Joe is a dog gone pretty lake and I’ve driven by that for years and there’s a lot of private land that really doesn’t come up to the shoreland because I think, didn’t we deal with a dock issue last year and we said you know, it’s not right in this situation to, because it is a wildlife lake with limited access so enough said. I think I certainly support moving forward. Aller: And I agree with you there. I just don’t think it’s part of the variance decision… Tietz: No it’s not part of the variance so I think it needs to go on record that something should be done with the DNR. Aller: So before we continue with anything I think we would all agree, unless I hear something different now, to make the recommendation that the City look into assisting with the resolution of the potential damming of this culvert and then I would also just say, people out at St. Joe get on the phone with DNR and hit it from both sides. Sue Morgan: It’s not the DNR. It’s a drainage issue. Aller: Well, wherever you can get your assistance so maybe the DNR will come in and say we can help you out in some form or fashion so I don’t think it’s a bad thing to ask for help from anywhere you can get it. So back on the variance. Commissioner Randall. 28 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 Randall: So on the variance, I just wanted to thank you Mrs. Scott for, Scott for coming because. Sue Morgan: Morgan. Randall: Morgan, I’m sorry. Sue Morgan: That’s alright. No problem. Randall: I wrote it down wrong because I know when we dealt with the dock issue I really learned a lot about the lake and how it’s a really great lake to have in our community and everything. The concern I have is with what they’re asking which brought up are we going to trigger an appeal with one of the watershed districts or what not and I know that this is a compromise to prevent that from triggering. We all know from when we amended our ordinances how they were all over the place and we’re trying to keep that consistent to make it easier for people and not get stuck in that watershed problem so the way it’s amended by the City, I totally agree with. I wish we could do more but I think it’s just going to cause them more problems if we move forward so. Aller: Commissioner Weick. Weick: My concern is with the homeowner, or the landowner in this case, actually doesn’t sound like they’re okay with the buffers as amended. Their request was for the 10 foot and the 30 foot and so they, I don’t know. Maybe that doesn’t matter and we just, I’m opposed to it on every front. I’ll just say that. I am not in favor of. Aller: Even as amended? Weick: Even as amended. Aller: So you don’t think it goes far enough with the buffers and the protection for the wetland? Weick: I don’t and I think, you know I struggle with this. I struggle with it with Red Cedar Lake which is what we just heard. I struggle with it with the majority of variance cases that now come in front of us where there is land that’s difficult to build on and sometimes the land is unbuildable in my opinion and we’ve, I can name off the cases and we can go back and read the record of the ones that I’ve considered unbuildable and we continue to build on them. Anyway so my voice is very, very quiet but I just don’t believe that it’s an appropriate. It doesn’t feel like it’s for the homeowner, I don’t think it fits for the wetland and the buffer and so I am opposed. Aller: Any additional comments or action, proposed action. Madsen: I share Commissioner Randall’s opinion on the, although this doesn’t fit what the homeowner is requesting and I, he’s worked so hard on this property and so long and had some 29 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 really frustrating things for him but the concern would be if a larger variance was granted it wouldn’t get approved by those other watershed districts and from the sounds of it is they are all in agreement that this would be something that would be agreeable for them so that’s why I would support it. Aller: Any additional comments or action proposed? I can’t make a motion so. Madsen: Okay, I will make a motion. Aller: Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 10 foot wetland buffer variance and a 30 foot wetland buffer setback variance to construct a single family home subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Tietz: Second. Aller: Having a valid motion and second, any further discussion? I tend to agree with the idea of protecting the wetlands which is what I was going for before. However I think when we look at variances we look at the different hardships. There may be a difference in opinion as to where the hardships have been created but I think it’s based on the fact that this lot is situated the way it is. The watershed districts have changed their buffer requirements and they may change in the future but as they sit now I think it’s a reasonable use of the property with a reasonable accommodation on the buffer for the wetland and living on a lake myself I’m real concerned about those things but I think in this particular situation it would appear to work for both the homeowner and protect the wetlands at the same time so I will be voting in favor. Any additional comments or questions? Madsen moved, Tietz seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment and Appeals approves a 10 foot wetland buffer variance, requiring a 40 foot wetland buffer, and a 30 foot buffer setback variance, requiring a 20 foot wetland buffer setback, with a 10 foot wetland buffer setback for accessory structures subject to the following conditions and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Decision: 1. A complete grading, drainage and erosion control plan shall be submitted as part of the building permit application process. 2. Erosion control shall be installed outside the wetland buffer area prior to any on site construction activity. 30 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 3. The delineated wetland edge required wetland buffer and structure setbacks shall be shown on the building permit survey. 4. Wetland buffer signs shall be installed at the front building setbacks and at each turn in the wetland buffer for a total of five signs prior to any construction. 5. Any impact to the wetland buffer shall be restored to the satisfaction of the City of Chanhassen prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 6. The applicant shall obtain all required permits from review agencies with jurisdictional authority. All voted in favor, except Commissioner Weick who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 1. Aller: Motion carries. TH 531 WEST 79 STREET – PANERA SITE PLAN REVIEW. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller and commissioners. The public hearing before. Aller: If we’re going to have conversations can we take them outside please. Thank you. Please proceed. Generous: The public hearing before you is a site plan review for a Panera Bread restaurant on, th at 531 West 79 Street. Today is the public hearing. This goes to the City Council on January nd 22. Panera LLC is the applicant. Chanhassen Inn is the property owner. This property is th located between West 79 Street and Highway 5. To the west of this site is a city owned property with a storm water pond in it. To the east is Chick-fil-A restaurant which was recently opened last year so there’s a joint access for both properties along the east side of this property line. Chick-fil-A additionally has another driveway on the east side of their site. The property is zoned business and highway services district. The request is for, to construct approximately a 4,500 square foot one story restaurant with a drive through and this has come up since the staff report went out. They’re requesting a variance for the use of EIFS. Exterior insulating finishing system as a primary material on the building. EIFS is similar to stucco but it’s a modular unit that they use. The applicant from Panera wants to discuss that further. We did notice this for variances so it’s something that the Planning Commission could review. The intent of the business and highway services district is to provide for highway oriented commercial development restricted to a low profile building. This building has a total height of 21 feet. It’s one story so I believe it complies with that requirement. Fast food restaurants are a permitted use in the BH district so the proposed use of the property would be consistent with our zoning. Additionally they have joint cross access and cross parking easements with the property to the east. As part of the Chick-fil-A development they actually built 13 more parking stalls than are 31 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 required under this use. The proposed development shows that they have 51 parking stalls on the site. However our ordinance would require 56. With the cross parking arrangement they would be in compliance with our ordinance which allows parking to be on addition, other properties if it’s within 400 feet of the building and it’s considerably closer. Again it’s a 4,500 square foot building. They comply with all the zoning requirements such as height and bulk so they meet all the setback standards. They meet the building height. They meet, comply with the site coverage so this is an instance where they do, they’re less than the 65 percent site coverage that is permitted in the highway and business services district. As part of their storm water plan they are providing an infiltration pond on the west and south side of the development. This is not intended to continuously hold water but to allow it to be extracted. I’ll have engineering discuss that any further. However it did create some problems as part of their landscaping. They don’t meet the requirement, buffer yard replanting requirements for trees along the south property line. Ordinance requires 12 trees. They provide 1 and so they’re 11 short. While we may not be able to fit all of them in there we do believe that they can move closer to meeting that standard and I did talk with the Water Resource Coordinator and there can be trees that are provided in the bench of the storm water area so we would request that they work with our environmental resource person to come up with the appropriate trees for that area. The buildings are pretty much aligned with the existing restaurant to the east. Common driveway down the middle. They have so much drive aisles on the south side of the building because they need to provide two way operation and so that’s where the garbage trucks will go around and then back into that, the garbage or trash enclosure which is located in the northwest corner. This is their trash enclosure. Drive through wraps around from the north to the south side of the building. They do comply with the stacking requirements that the City amended. At one time it was 6. We raised that up to 12 and they do meet that standard. Exiting would again be through this common driveway area. They are providing a pedestrian connection to the trail system on Highway 5. We have proposed that they provide some bicycle racks adjacent to this so that it would be very similar to what they did at the Chick-fil-A. It’s the most likely access point for anyone on a th bicycle to come along our trail and in since there any pedestrian accesses from West 79 Street. th There’s no sidewalk on West 79 Street. And this is the area that we want additional trees to be incorporated. There are 5 overstory trees are required and they provided 1 and then some understory trees. They have provided shrubs but that’s understory and we want something a little bit bigger to help soften this site. Now this is where the report was different. Unfortunately I was on vacation the first week it came in. The applicant’s architect was on vacation when I came back so we couldn’t discuss it. They had submitted some information on two colored brick building. However that was just to show some of the elements they wanted to incorporate to try to meet our standards. All this area would be proposed as EIFS. City code permits only 15 percent of a wall area to be of EIFS material. If they were to do regular stucco they would be permitted to do all this. Brick elements are included as a base and to help raise up the elevation. If you notice on this wall, which is the north elevation they have a large expanse of blank walls. As part of our condition we’re saying you need to revise that to provide an additional window area. It could be either full or real glass and a lot of this, behind this is a kitchen area so I’d leave it up to them to determine what’s the best alternative for that. This is the west side. Again they have kitchen area and then some storage so I’m not sure if they could put real glass in but they 32 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 could provide some spandrel glass in there to help break up that expanse. This building is visible from all 4 elevations. It’s very, it’s an entryway to our downtown area and we’re really concerned that they meet our architectural standards. And then this is the west side of the building as you see the only opening they have is a doorway and so they could provide additional area for windows on this. Additionally they need to assure us that they’re going to be screening any rooftop equipment that they have. They did try to provide a little bit in this elevation. This is, they were starting to evolve on their architecture but this is the last thing I got from the architect and then he went on vacation and so, but they, the roof line began to be varied as it was going up. We got a large expanse of brick over the entry area. However again we’re still left with those large expanses of blank walls and so we need them to correct that. Additionally their plan sets show that they have signage on 4 sides of their building. Our City only permits it on their street frontages. However we have allowed, they get 2 building elevations that have windows on. We would work with them if they want to designate 2 different ones. Either the north and east or the east and south or whatever rather than the north and south sides of the building. However we, as part of this entrance area we do believe that additional articulation and the roof treatment should be provided in this. I did hand out a revised conditions from the planning department. We added a condition that says that we’d like, we want the applicant to revise the elevations prior to it going to City Council for approval. Their revised building elevations. Aanenson: So Mr. Chair if I may. Sharmeen Al-Jaff actually started working on the architecture. As you know she’s done, does a lot of the architecture in the core of downtown as we kind of a changing of staffing level there for a little bit. This really isn’t far enough along as we like to see so while we’re trying to keep it on track by saying changes, it’s nowhere near where we’d like to see and I’m a little reticent of just saying well go ahead and you can fix it by putting EIFS on the building so we’re hoping that the applicant in good faith is working with us as we move towards Planning Commission so we’ve got good examples in the downtown core. If you look across the street over on the other side of the Dakota Building. Where we’ve got Smashburger and the like. There’s some nice articulation there. There’s some different applications there. Generous: Walgreen’s. Aanenson: Walgreen’s so there are other building styles that we can look at for images and we’d just like to hear from the applicant today that they’re willing to move in that direction. Otherwise I would recommend tabling. We don’t want to do that. We want to keep it moving for we just want to make sure that the architecture is where we want it as we move along so I just want to make that comment. So as Bob noted we did add that condition of approval tonight so if they’re amenable to that and can get that accomplished then we can stay on track. Aller: And I guess any questions at this point in time for staff? Commissioner Randall. Randall: Is the EIFS product, is that something that’s new, is that’s why we’ve limited it or? 33 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 Aller: It’s not new. Generous: No, it’s not a new material. It’s been around a long time. However the City’s concerned that if you put it at a lower elevation it is soft and you can poke it and so we wanted to eliminate that. However it is really good if you want to do some architectural detailing. Cornices or jut work or things like that because it’s formed in a factory and then they just install it on the building. Aanenson: Again our intention on that is it’s more of an accent material to give articulation, yeah. Aller: Great, Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: I have a question about the parking easement and the sharing. The concern would be if they want to share in that parking easement it’s likely that their busy times are the same times and I’ve been there when it’s really busy at Chick-fil-A and I don’t know that there’s going to be that extra parking for them. It’s just so difficult and crowded during those busy times so that would be a concern. Generous: Yeah, well we’d like to have the applicant address it but we felt that their employee parking would be the farthest one away. Madsen: Okay. Generous: So I know that right now they’re providing some parking for the Holiday store or they did, were doing that when they were under construction on their parking lot area so there is some slack in that and it’s a lot of times our restaurants are really busy when they first start opening and then they sort of slow down a little bit as they go forward. Madsen: Okay. Generous: And as a matter of fact as part of this whole thing we had the applicant submit a traffic study and I’ll have Paul talk about that a little bit later. Shortly. The floor plan’s pretty basic. However it did provide you know this is the south elevation along this wall and so you have a bathroom so we know that we can’t put a glass window in there but a spandrel type window on the outside would work with that and then you have the utility room that again glass may not be appropriate but spandrel would and then along the south elevation, and then this is a kitchen area which is in the northwest corner of the building. And then here’s the entrance. My direction to the architect is how are we going to make this entrance more inviting so that they come here rather than go over to Chick-fil-A. And so now we get to the trip generation information if I can hand it over. 34 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 Aller: Great. Mr. Oehme. Oehme: Mr. Generous, yep. So we did request that the developer produce a traffic study for this development and look at surrounding traffic. The existing traffic and base their model on what potentially we would see in the future so this graph, table shows you what the existing use is. The hotel versus the proposed use for the fast food and what the increased potential trips would be on a daily basis and on a peak hour timeframe so this would be your a.m. peak during your breakfast time. Probably around 8:00 and then the p.m. peak would be around 5:00 or 6:00 in the evening. Those would be the trips generated per hour so in total we’re looking at about 800, th a little over 800 new trips per day to this site off of 79 Street. The traffic, the table here shows the trip generation comparisons. This is the level of service that traffic engineers use to gauge the, you know how well traffic is moving through the area or intersections so this is basically showing that each of the intersections of the points modeled are functioning at an acceptable level of service A. However at certain legs of the intersections aren’t functioning as well as th some other legs so for example the 79 Street/Great Plains Boulevard intersection. The left turn th onto Great Plains from 79 Street is currently at a level of service F and in the future we’re anticipating that that remain the same. And likewise these other intersections are basically staying the same or dropping maybe one level of service from what it is currently today. We typically try to remain at a level of service C if we can. Level of service F means that it’s not completely you know accidents galore or anything like that. It’s just a delay that we’re anticipating are longer than what we’d like to see these intersections or specific legs of the intersection so if that’s helpful. And so with that information and the existing trips that are generated, and I think the traffic study did include the Chick-fil-A traffic that is currently out th there today. The biggest concern again is the left turn out on 79 Street onto northbound Great Plains Boulevard. That’s something that staff has requested that we look at a little bit more in detail by the traffic engineer for the study. Give us some options. Look at other things that we can do maybe to help alleviate that situation. I know one of the recommendations is to work with MnDOT on trying to retime Great Plains Boulevard and Highway 5 intersections, especially at that peak p.m. peak hour so those are kind of the strategies that we’re looking at generating. However when you look at traffic you know people are going to go in the direction where they feel most comfortable or where they think it will be the most expedient to get from point A to th point B so you know if for example you’re heading north off of 79 Street we would anticipate if this exit here going north on Great Plains Boulevard is backed up, we anticipate a lot of traffic would end up going onto Market Boulevard which is a free right which would be a little easier th movement and taking some of that congestion away from 79 Street and Great Plains Boulevard so thereby kind of balancing out where the traffic would be going so I would say this traffic study and our recommendations and our strategies that we’re looking at it’s still a work in progress but it’s something that we’d like to have you know wrapped up before this goes to council and make sure we understand exactly what the impacts are. If there’s any questions on traffic I’d be more than happy to try to answer them at this time as well too. I think the traffic study was included in the packet. Aller: Any questions at this point in time? Alright. 35 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 Tietz: Not for Paul. Can I go back to Bob? Aller: Sure. Tietz: Bob I just have a question. Obviously they’re meeting the requirements and so forth. It’s just the hard cover, you know in these sites get so constricted by existing property lines and then you try to plunk something down that now we have to have a 2 way driveway behind. I mean we’re just adding significant amount of hard surface which obviously it’s acceptable under the code. I just hope that as we look to the future and projects that are coming down the road where we have large parcels of land that will have similar functions occurring on them that we deal with them in advance where they do proper planning. We have good circulation. We have proper use of land. This is, it will be nice I guess to have it but maybe the site, I don’t know. I looks like there’s on the elevations there’s one by the HyVee. I don’t think we have a HyVee in Chanhassen yet so maybe that’s a flat open site up there that works a lot better but you know that’s, it’s a problem I have with these tight sites in the urban, in the core area of our city where the land use changes and we force something on the site that creates I think significant problems. Aanenson: I think that’s one of the things that we’re looking at with the downtown study. Not only the, you know the infrastructure of streets. Adequacy. We talked about the upgrade of Market Boulevard with the City Engineer. Tietz: Right. th Aanenson: We’ve also talked about the functionality of Great Plains and West 78. We’ve also talked about storm water management in this area which is very difficult and those are some of the challenges but as we work on that plan, looking at some of those land uses and targeting all those areas to try to solve some of those problems. And also staging. I think that’s a long term thing too is to say put them into a capital improvements plan to make sure that they’re moving forward. Tietz: Thanks Kate. Aller: So just a quick informational question of Mr. Oehme would be, based on the work that was previously done there with the underground storage, water storage and the fact that it’s pretty much all hard cover anyway, what impact, if any do you see on the storm water management system if this goes through. Paul Oehme: Well Chairman Aller, we’re trying to limit the runoff to current conditions. We’re trying to meet that 1.1 inch capture rate so in terms of impervious surface coverage I think we’re about the same what is out there today so in terms of the runoff so in terms of you know how much more extra runoff. I think Vanessa’s looked at that model a little bit more than I have. Maybe she can try to answer that. 36 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 Strong: Interestingly enough they opted for surface treatment so they didn’t do underground storage. Actually they’re doing a basin and so that actually reduces the impervious surface on this lot from that respect and reduces also the amount of like heat island and heat sink because it’s a vegetated surface. They do meet city requirements. I will be clear that I did not evaluate for watershed district requirements because they do have to go through the watershed district for permitting and we’ll see how that goes. The city requirements at this time are not as stringent as the watershed district so I just leave that out there as you know our hoop right now is not the only one so. Aller: Thank you. Any additional questions of staff? Hearing none, if the applicant would like to come forward and make a presentation they can do so at this time. Please come forward and state your name and address and representational capacity if any for the record and tell us about your project. Alan Catchpool: Good evening. My name’s Alan Catchpool with CEI Engineering. We’re the civil engineer on the project. With me tonight. Dan Cook: Dan Cook, Senior Design Manager for Panera, 3630 South Geyer in St. Louis. Aller: Great, thank you. Welcome. Alan Catchpool: I can talk a little bit on storm water. Yes as far as impervious coverages we’re slightly less than existing. Just under the 65 percent requirements. As far as runoff’s, yeah the City, I mean the watershed is by far the more stringent. We’ve submitted to them. We just got comments the end of last week so we’ll be working with them and we’re on their next agenda meeting so we’ll be working with them and working out the kinks. This is restricted soils. We’re Type D clay soils. The Chick-fil-A next to us is you know a couple higher, taller than us in elevation as far as the finished floor elevations so we weren’t able to go with underground chambers so we decided to go with the bio retentions which you know allowed us to reduce our hard coverage and be very close to the required parking counts and with the shared cross access easements we do meet those requirements. And you know with what Panera was originally looking for as far as numbers we do meet those parking requirements so. I would comment on the landscaping. The only reason we didn’t initially put trees along that south edge is because there’s drainage and utility easements along there. Kind of the same reason Chick-fil-A doesn’t have any along there so but we’ll absolutely work with city staff on all of that stuff. Aller: Okay and just to make it clear, you’ve had an opportunity to read the report and go through it and you’ve been working with the city. Is there anything in the report that you can’t live with right now? I mean understanding that you still might want to tweak it and work with them on different things. 37 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 Alan Catchpool: Nothing that jumped out at us. We’ll absolutely work with them and like I said I think a little back and forth and yeah, there’s no issues there. Aller: And then the traffic study. How does this work with other Panera’s that may have drive throughs. Do you see the same kind of flow through traffic? Is this the same pattern? Is it different? Dan Cook: It’s similar to some. This actually has quite a bit longer queue than the majority of our cafes do. We usually have between a 6 and 8 car stack in general. We typically only have 1 to 2 cars beyond our menu board at any given time. So having a 12 car stack, while we do meet that here is over and above what we would typically put in. Aller: Okay, so it should be able to accommodate additional traffic compared to what your normal. Dan Cook: Absolutely. About less than 30 percent of our sales is through the drive through window whereas Chick-fil-A is 75-80 percent through their drive through. We are definitely not a fast food use. We created the fast casual category. Several cities across the country don’t have fast casual in their books or in their law so we have to kind of skirt the line between restaurant and fast food. But a 12 car stack is more than enough for our typical use. Aller: And then the EIFS system is there, are you particularly tied to that for a reason? Is it your, are all your other stores EIFS or? Dan Cook: Quite a few of them. Quite a few of them are. The EIFS system we spec is equivalent to drivet lime stone system. It’s not your 1980 strip center, real bubbly EIFS look. It is very much a stone look on the building or a true stucco look. It is an additional coat process. It’s not just a spray on finish. It is a troweled on finish in the EIFS. In this climate the EIFS product does give a better insulation value than regular stucco. I don’t have the numbers to back that up but we use EIFS I’d say on the majority of our cafes across the country. Aller: Okay. Dan Cook: With that upgraded finish, sorry. Aller: Any additional questions? Have I prevented you from providing. I jumped in and started asking questions. Did you have a presentation or anything that you’d like to tell us about your project that we haven’t covered or isn’t in the report. Dan Cook: Just that we, we are very excited to come to Chanhassen. We think it’s a great community. We feel it’s a great spot for this bakery café. We feel we will do very well here and we are more than willing again to work with staff on the building design and feel. I do want to make one comment. What’s going to bring folks to us as opposed to Chick-fil-A, it’s more 38 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 environment than it is putting a mansard roof over the entry or some entry element to the building. It is very much our environment. Our food. Our staff. Our people that bring the customers back. We just opened the café in Richfield. I don’t know if any of you have had the opportunity to go to that one. Your’s is going to be better. I can say that hands down you are getting the next generation café compared to Richfield. Aller: Well we definitely have the best customers. Dan Cook: Absolutely. Tietz: I just have one question. Aller: Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: Again in that dual lane drive around the back side. The east to west and looping, providing access to the garbage. Is there a reason that that cannot be, could not be a one way from east to west in loop behind and still reduce it by maybe 30 percent in width and still provide your access to your service area? Dan Cook: It’s primarily from, we use a WB62 delivery truck for our dry goods at least 2 to 3 times a week. It’s so our delivery trucks can circulate the site without affecting parking. Without affecting landscape area. Tietz: So you could have had a better site. It’s driven by the turn radius and the accessibility? Dan Cook: Primarily, yeah. Tietz: That’s too bad. Aller: Okay, additional questions? Comments. Concerns. Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: Just an additional question on the parking. For other Panera locations that you have of similar size, how many parking spots do you find is sufficient? Dan Cook: With shared parking we’re down in the low 40’s in some instances. If we are our own entity we’re in the mid 60’s so we’re kind of again we’re hitting right in the middle with this one. Very comfortable with the parking situation with Chick-fil-A. I believe the honeymoon period was mentioned earlier with Chick-fil-A that their sales will hopefully taper some. You know I think again us providing a drive through here with only about 30 percent of our cafes in our entire system being drive through it’s that additional option for our guests. If the parking lot is full, they have the option of going through the drive through and still enjoy a meal with us. 39 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 Madsen: Okay, thank you. Dan Cook: Yep. Aanenson: Mr. Chairman I just want to for their edification too. Aller: Yes. nd Aanenson: So we’re anticipating this going to the City Council on the 22. We need to get some of the traffic issues resolved and we want to finalize the architecture as close as possible. Aller: Right. nd Aanenson: So just for anybody watching it’s our goal to get on that meeting on the 22 but it may bump back 2 weeks if we can’t get everything resolved. Just to make sure that it’s. Dan Cook: And we’d love to work with you to make that happen. Aanenson: Yeah, we want to work too. Dan Cook: Absolutely. Aanenson: And just to point out to the site, we know they’ve been looking for a long time to try to find a site on Highway frontage so. Dan Cook: We have. Aller: Great. Dan Cook: Thank you. Aller: Thank you so much. At this point in time I’ll open up the public hearing portion for this item so anyone wishing to come forward and speak either for or against the matter before us, please come forward. State your name and address for the record and let us know your opinions. Have any questions. Seeing no one come forward I’ll close the public hearing and open it up for commissioner comments and action. Any comments? Any requested action? Weick: Very excited. I think it’s a good use. Aller: We ate at Panera out on 7 a couple days ago so I’m glad to see it a little closer to home. Tietz: Motion? The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve for a 4,500 square foot one story restaurant with a drive through facilities, plans prepared by CEI 40 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 Engineering Associates, Inc. dated revised November 30, 2017, subject to conditions of approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Generous: Mr. Chair? Does that include the amended motion? Tietz: Oh you mean the one that’s on here? Generous: Yes. Tietz: Yes. Final architectural details shall be revised and approved prior to City Council review. Generous: Do you have any direction on the EIFS? Tietz: I think can’t that be handled at the staff level? Aanenson: Yes. Aller: Alright. Having a motion, do I have a second? Randall: Second. Aller: For further comment before we vote. Any further additional comments or concerns before we vote? I will state that I feel that I would prefer to see less EIFS and more articulation on the property and it sounds like the applicant’s willing to work diligently with staff in getting that accomplished so with that I would be voting for this motion. Anyone else? Comments. Tietz: No. Tietz moved, Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission approve the site plan for a 4,500 square foot, one-story restaurant with drive through facilities, plans prepared by CEI Engineering Associates, Inc. dated revised 11/30/17, subject to the following conditions, and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendations: Building: 1. The building is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. 2. Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 3. Sanitary and storm sewer service must comply with Minnesota State Plumbing Code (see Table 701.1). 41 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 4. Detailed occupancy related requirements will be addressed when complete building plans are submitted. 5. The owner and or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. Engineering: 1. The plans shall be signed and sealed by a Professional Engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota prior to recording the site plan agreement. 2. Provide perimeter drainage and utility easements were none exist concurrent with recording the site plan agreement. 3. The applicant must move any feature out from within the City’s drainage and utility easement, including both bioretention basins or the applicant must enter into an encroachment agreement with the City after, but concurrent to the site plan agreement. 4. An additional drainage and utility easement shall be recorded over the two bioretention basins concurrent with recording the site plan agreement. 5. Soil boring locations shall be shown on the grading plan prior to site grading. 6. Indicate finished floor elevation of the adjacent parcel to the east prior to site grading. 7. Provide existing and proposed elevations at each lot corner, top of curb or centerline of the roadway at each lot line extension, center of the proposed driveway at the curbline, and indicate the proposed driveway grade prior to site grading. 8. Indicate information to verify the lowest building opening is a minimum of 1-foot above the emergency overflow elevation of the bioretention basins prior to site grading. 9. Identify soil stockpile areas intended within the site limits prior to site grading. 10. Address review comments identified in the attached letter from MnDOT prior to site grading. 11. Provide Limited Use Permit (LUP) for the public sidewalk connection prior to recording the site plan agreement. 12. Applicant shall utilize the City’s standard detail for the sidewalk connection prior to site grading. 13. Staff has requested further traffic analysis to include the Market Blvd intersection prior to review for City Council consideration. 14. The applicant’s engineer shall also examine ways to mitigate the queueing and decreased th LOS at the W 79 Street & Great Plain Blvd intersection prior to review for City Council consideration. 15. The applicant’s engineer shall verify whether an adequate sight line is provided for vehicles exiting the site access prior to review for City Council consideration. 16. Prior to review for City Council consideration, the traffic analysis report shall further th discuss recommendations for the timing of improvements to the W 79 St & Great Plains Blvd intersection. The recommended ¾ intersection shall include a figure in the Appendix showing the proposed design. Further commentary shall be included related to its operation. 42 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 17. Plans shall show the current City detail plates and indicate all of the most up-to-date plates shall be used when the project under construction. 18. The storm sewer piping shall be included on the utility plan prior to recording the site plan agreement. 19. Plan shall include the bioretention basin details with elevations prior to site grading. 20. Recommend applicant review the design for the on-site hydrant. From a long term perspective, the hydrant should be fed by the water service to the parcel it serves. Coordinate with the adjacent property owner to abandon un-necessary water pipe. Otherwise, a maintenance agreement between the two parcels shall be filed to define future maintenance responsibilities and other important business protection aspects prior to site grading. 21. Utility plan indicates 0.87% for the sanitary sewer grade. Revise plan to increase grade to a minimum of 1% prior to site grading. 22. Sanitary sewer service shall be routed the nearest sanitary manhole to facilitate sewer cleaning due to the zoning classification and proposed property use. Prior to site grading, revise the plan to show the existing sanitary service connection to the main shall be abandoned. A short liner shall be used in the sanitary main and the pipe shall be filled with flowable fill or non-shrink grout to the property line. The line shall be capped at the property line. 23. Staff recommends C900 PVC water main pipe material be considered. 24. Recommend testing requirements for the utility piping be considered with the utility design. Install a new gate valve at the property line where the new water service piping ties into the existing service piping. 25. Provide details on the plans for the grease trap prior to site grading. 26. Demolition plan shall include removal of existing service piping to the connection locations prior to site grading. 27. The applicant shall coordinate with City staff prior to removal or construction of the th services regarding inspection and traffic control on W 79 Street prior to site grading. 28. Once construction is complete, the applicant shall retain ownership of the proposed sanitary service, water service and hydrant constructed on this property. Recommend applicant consider flushing of the water service piping when selecting the location for the hydrant. 29. The applicant shall follow the accessibility code for the construction as well as all applicable State and Federal laws. 30. The applicant shall obtain permits from all applicable agencies which may include, but is not limited to the MPCA, MnDOT, Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District, etc. Environmental Resources: 1. The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to accommodate more of the required bufferyard trees in the south buffer yard area. 43 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 2. The interior width of all landscape islands and peninsulas containing trees must be a minimum of 10 feet. The east island shall be enlarged to a minimum interior width of 10 feet. 3. Any existing trees scheduled to be preserved that are lost due to construction activities shall be replaced. 4. The Colorado spruce listed in the Plant Schedule shall be replaced with Black Hills spruce. 5. Existing ash trees that are preserved must be treated for EAB, as approved by the city. Failure to treat the trees, resulting in their death, will require replacement trees to be planted. Planning: 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. A copy of the cross access/parking agreement shall be submitted to the city. 3. Wall lighting and the trash enclosure lighting shall comply with city code. 4. The proposed monument sign shall be relocated on the site to comply with city code. 5. Signage shall comply with city code and requires separate sign permits for each sign. 6. Bike racks shall be incorporated on site near the access sidewalk from Highway 5. 7. The building elevations shall be revised to incorporate additional window openings in the bare expanses of the north, west and south walls. 8. The applicant is proposing two color bricks for the building material: tan and brown. The soldier course of brick above the doors and windows shall incorporate the darker colored brick to accent the windows. 9. Brick veneer may not be painted. EIFS may only be used as an accent material and may not cover more than 15 percent of the wall area. 10. Additional rooftop treatments shall be provided above the building entrance. 11. Final architectural details shall be revised and approved prior to City Council review. Water Resources: 1. Six inches of topsoil is required and will be verified by city staff. In grading notes on page C3 it states 4 inches. 2. Topsoil needs to be specified. 3. Sequencing of Construction identifies no. 5 as to construct the temporary sedimentation and sediment trap, but nowhere in the grading plan is it identified. Plans should identify the bio-filtration basins be graded to be used as temporary sediment basin, along with temporary outlets to allow stormwater to be pumped and drained too, during construction of the site. 44 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 4. A design and planting plan approved by the Water Resources Coordinator is required for this high visibility location. Seed mix is insufficient for these vegetated basins. You must use species native to the ecoregion. 5. Sock should be eliminated from drain tile. Buckshot and or pea rock to surround underdrain pipe. 6. Underdrain tile needs to be identified. Should be a HDPE Corrugated perforated plastic tile. SCH 35, 40 PVC pipe is not allowed for underdrain. 7. Tile in bio-filtration basin needs to be placed on a minimum grade of 0.5 percent. 8. Plan details need to show a profile of the bio-retention basin with the grade of the tile placement. 9. All quantities of materials to be used, and specifications need to be identified on plan sheet for contractor to bid and to construct. 10. Mixed D soil may not be used. We only use 75 percent washed sand and 25 percent leafy compost. 11. Bio-filtration basin should be identified in sequencing that it should not be completed until all surrounding watershed to basins are stabilized. 12. City staff to be called, and be on site when contractor is installing bio-filtration basin to make sure the existing subsoil is scarified 18 inches below surface in bio-filtration basin 13. Contractor to have written statement as part of the pre-construction meeting, the means and method of how they plan to scarify and protect the subsurface from compaction in the bio-retention basin. 14. An approved operation and maintenance plan is required for all stormwater treatment devices. Including contact information for person(s) responsible for maintenance as well as person(s) performing onsite inspection and maintenance duties. The city must approve operation and maintenance plans prior to permits being issued. 15. The city will hold the security on the project until vegetation is well established and the planting is free of weeds. This may take a few growing seasons to achieve. 16. An additional drainage and utility easement shall be recorded over the drainage basins located west and south of the parking lot. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Aller: Again those of you that are following this item for further action it should come before the City Council on January 22, 2018. You should look at the packets or double check the calendars as they come out on the city website because if they’re working, even though they’re working diligently on getting things done it might get pushed back so the intended date is January 22, 2018. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Madsen noted the verbatim Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated December 5, 2017 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. 45 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 Aanenson: Thank you Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. So we, the last th action that affected anything from the Planning Commission was on December 11 when they passed a number of ordinances. That also included what we just addressed tonight. The setback. Clearly there’s a disconnect when we have a fast casual but as we know sometimes restaurants turn over too so when we have those drive through lanes so we’ve learned that having the longer stacking distance does help in some of those circumstances so you can see the 12 of them that were on there. Not all of them were under your purview but the majority of them were. Then th also on December 18, that was a special meeting regarding Avienda and their wetland so the City Council did approve the Wetland Conservation Act permit application and the mitigation plan so next steps, we’re anticipating getting a grading plan and working on that so there’s a lot of steps with the grading plan. How they’re going to manage the storm water. How are they going to, you know the retaining walls and those sort of things so there’ll be a lot for the grading plan and that would be covered under the development contract. I think engineering probably wants to see more specifics on the utilities and probably the street layouts too before we get the grading plan so that’s their next steps so. I think the good news on the wetland alteration permit was all of the area in the Bluff Creek Overlay District was preserved. That was one of the conditions. I think you were there Commissioner Tietz on that one too so we were, that was something that the staff felt strongly about from the very beginning so I think that’s going to provide a nice buffer there so that was kind of the mitigation for the wetland permitting. And in addition, so there was 2 wetlands in the wooded area there too so not only did we eliminate the access road because that would also cause quite a bit of damage through there. Then we also, we talked about that senior housing. Trying to push that out so now they’ll figure something else to make that work, staying outside of that so these conditions does, it prohibits them coming back and asking for, if you remember at the Planning Commission they asked to come back. Tietz: Yeah. Aanenson: Ask for a variance because you wanted to see an actual project but this condition then prohibits them from coming back and saying we want a variance to that because this is tied to the permit itself so we’re confident that we’ll get some great uses up there. Make those all work out so again the next steps is the permits. And I just want to take a minutes to share with you, we will have. Go ahead. Tietz: Kate, just one question. Have they, you know I noticed in the news or in published reports or something that HyVee is down sizing some of their new construction. Has that been discussed at all for this site? Aanenson: We have not heard anything regarding that from that. Tietz: Okay. Aanenson: Where they’re going with that but yeah, I think Chaska’s was down. Yeah. 46 Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 2, 2018 Tietz: There was one, and I can’t remember where but they’re considering. I don’t know if it’s a new model because of. Aanenson: Yeah they had presented to us about 90,000 square feet or 98,000 I think. I think some of the ones they were building were closer to 120,000 so I’m not sure where that sits. Tietz: Okay, thank you. Aanenson: Good question though, and we will have a meeting in 2 weeks. Just if you look on your agenda we’ve got a registered land survey. We’ve got a conditional use permit for an extension of a cell tower antenna. I think we talked about the fire truck variance coming back and then in addition we have a variance for someone for hard cover that someone wants, or I think it’s a setback too for a swimming pool. So we will have a meeting then in 2 weeks. And then also new commissioners, if those of you that terms are up. I think it’s someone over here reapplying. Aller: Yep, Commissioner Randall. Aanenson: So that’s all I had Chairman. Aller: Awesome, thank you. Alright, and then we will, any other announcements or correspondence? Hearing none I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. Weick moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned 9:15 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 47