Loading...
CC Minutes 12-14-20City Council Meeting – December 14, 2020 11 there is no formal action being taken. Are there any additional questions or comments from anybody on Council for Matt? Councilman McDonald? McDonald: No further questions. My comment would be to thank you staff for putting these plans together. I know we have been doing this for many years and we’ve always ended up putting a pretty good plan together, so thank you for your efforts. Unmacht: Thank you. Mayor Ryan: Thank you, Councilman McDonald. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Tjornhom: No. Thank you for your presentation, Matt. Great job! Unmacht: Thank you. Mayor Ryan: Councilwoman Coleman? Coleman: No questions but I echo the gratitude. Mayor Ryan: Councilman Campion? Campion: No questions. Well done, Matt. Mayor Ryan: I second all of the comments. First, thank you to Matt for putting the presentation together and also just want to commend our staff for the hard work that goes into this plan. Obviously, it is really important for our stormwater. It’s something our residents notice as well when there is a construction project near where they live and the impact to their neighborhoods, their homes. I just think overall it has an important impact on the community as a whole. I appreciate you putting these plans together and sharing the with Council tonight I appreciate it. Next up we have New Business. ORDINANCE 663: APPROVE THE REZONING OF 1601 LAKE LUCY ROAD (ISLAND) AND APPROVAL OF SUMMARY ORDINANCE FOR PUBLICATION. Mayor Ryan: We changed the order just a little bit so let me pull that back. First up was from the consent agenda D-2 and it’s an approval of rezoning of 1601 Lake Lucy Road, it’s the island out in Lake Lucy, and approval of summary ordinance for publication. Ms. Aanenson, I think this is something that you are going to… The reason why administratively it got pulled off is, as Ms. Johnston said early on, that right before our Council meeting we received a couple of emails as it relates to this project and so just to make sure that we bring it forward and address those comments tonight is important. There was a public hearing held where comments were taken from residents at that time but these comments came in this evening so I thought it was important to address those as well. Ms. Aanenson, if you want to… City Council Meeting – December 14, 2020 12 Aanenson: Sure. So this item, as you mentioned Mayor, did go to the Planning Commission who had a pretty good robust conversation with the applicant, too. This is a lot of record. It has building capacity. A house could be built on it today and just pull a building permit. It doesn’t have to go through and site plan or anything. Because a lot of record means that you can build. The applicant wanted to do an accessory dwelling unit attached to the principal structure. In order to do that we recommended the path of the PUD ordinance. Because it is guided low density there is actually a couple of different zoning options they could have applied for. The R- 4 they could have requested to get a number of homes on there. It exceeds the five acres which you need for a PUD, so that’s another reason that we felt comfortable with that. The other reason with the PUD is you can attach reasonable conditions to the property. With this, we actually restricted the size of the accessory dwelling unit. The Planning Commission was kind of split on that. They thought that maybe that was onerous. At the end, we felt it was important the PUD also says that those two properties have to go together. They cannot be sold independently. Whoever owns the principal structure always has to maintain the second one so it can never be subdivided so you will always have one structure. It will be served by septic and well. The existing driveway will be maintained in place. Instead of improving that if a private street or a public street was to come down there and service four so we felt that was the least impactful. I know Mr. Wicka, the property owner, has worked to clear out a lot of the buckthorn. Again, the City ordinance doesn’t restrict the size of a structure so if somebody wanted to build a bigger house, that could happen. In looking at the goals that the applicant wanted and to make sure we have some control over that property, we felt that the PUD with the restrictions that were put in place includes some of the outbuildings, the number of docks. So all those conditions were part of the PUD. We reviewed that with the City Attorney. Again, the Planning Commission was fully supportive of the project itself. If there are specific questions that you may have, I would be happy to answer those. Mayor Ryan: I think they came in via email…or actually both came to me directly so I forwarded it on to Ms. Johnston if she wants to read some highlights. Johnston: Madam Mayor, members of the Council, the first set of comments came from Matt and Suzanne Woods. I don’t have an address. They were concerned about the proposed size and scale of the development in terms of having two homes on the property, and then expressed a concern that if this is approved, is the Council will to approved guest houses or accessory structures for other people as well so really it was about the size and the scope. The second comment also came in tonight and that was from Kirk and Camille Swanson. They basically said that they agree with Matt and Suzanne Woods’ comment and also indicated that they would like to build an accessory structure on their property. I do not have an address for them either. Those were the general comments and perhaps Ms. Aanenson wants to address them. Aanenson: Again, this is a 9-acre site so because a PUD requires 5 acres so anybody that would have that large of a piece of property and wanted to do an accessory structure, we could evaluate that in the same circumstance. Again we looked at what the PUD ordinance says and there are City Council Meeting – December 14, 2020 13 some trade-offs. We are restricting the potential of other buildings going on the site by one principal building tying it to the other building that they can never be subdivided. Then again, because it is a larger lot of 9 acres, there are not that many unique properties in the City that would have that same capacity. Mayor Ryan: So when it’s over 5 acres you can have as many accessory structures as you like? Aanenson: No. To recap that again, the cap for the accessory dwelling was capped at 1,600 square feet and only two bedrooms and then there was some outdoor storage buildings, those were capped. As to the number of docks there is currently two 0n the site and we said you cannot add any more than two docks. Those two docks have been there for quite a while. Mayor Ryan: Then just to address the concerns, I know that it was part of a packet and I know the applicant has done a lot of work in terms of buckthorn removal, working with Ms. Sinclair and getting a tree assessment. As I know, you did and other members of staff heard from a lot of residents that either are on the lake, look out onto the lake and are concerned how does the build then affect tree loss. Aanenson: I know Mr. Wicka is on the… This plan would just come in for a building permit so we would review that and the City Forester would too. She has walked the site. The other thing I want to mention too is the bridge going across. We’ve asked that they consider fire suppression, too. All those things have been addressed where if it just came in for a straight building permit, they are not required to do fire suppression so those are adds that we’re requesting. I know that Mr. Wicka has worked with the City Forester regarding some significant trees on the site. Again, we would make sure that those be maintained in place as we are looking at the building footprint. What’s been shown today is illustrative. It’s not the final, final plan. The City Forester I’m sure would be happy to walk it again when they get things staked out. Mayor Ryan: Perfect. Thank you. Council, do you have any questions? The applicant is on the Zoom call so if there is questions that you want direct towards the applicant feel free to do that. Mr. Wicka, I thank you for joining us tonight. I’m going to go through a roll call again and ask if you have any questions for staff or for the applicant. Councilman McDonald? McDonald: I guess at this time I really don’t. The only question, I guess what I don’t understand is this is almost 10 acres. Why wouldn’t they be allowed to build two houses on it if they wanted to? I’m not sure I got that from the presentation. Aanenson: I think that’s where the Planning Commission came down and felt like that it seemed like a reasonable request and the fact that there really wasn’t two different ownerships. It would be one owner with an accessory dwelling so they would be forever linked and that’s part of the PUD Ordinance that you are also approving tonight. City Council Meeting – December 14, 2020 14 McDonald: Okay. Because I seem to recall a couple of years ago we had the same thing over on Lotus Lake and I can’t remember what the outcome of that was. I know the house never got built but it was going to be a detached garage with a living quarters above it and I thought that we said that was permissible but I could be mistaken. That’s where my question comes from because I had thought we had go through this once before and put some criteria in place for doing this. Aanenson: The city code does allow via a variance to do a separate dwelling unit within a house. We actually have one of those coming forward and that’s a separate process. This is a little bit different because it’s not inside the house. It’s detached from the house and that’s why we went with a PUD. Again, the PUD is structured uniquely to this piece of property. It’s a different path. McDonald: Yes but the property I’m referring to was the same thing. It was detached. The house was down by the lake and the detached garage was going to be up on the shore aways. It would have been a detached, it was going to be a mother-in-law residence and I know it went through a number of things about again putting two units on one lot. I just thought we had gone through and settled all of that. That’s… as to why. I guess if you are saying the PUD would allow it, then that’s fine. I believe that the property owner should be able to build a mother-in-law residence if they wish. Of course at that point everybody wants to be independent so they would want their own place. I can understand all of that but if the PUD allows it, then I guess were going to…same thing. No further questions. Mayor Ryan: Thank you, Councilman McDonald. Any questions or comments, Councilwoman Tjornhom? We can’t hear you. Tjornhom: Now you can hear me I bet. Kate, I’m wondering if once these buildings are on the property, say five years goes by, can they come back to re-do the PUD and add more structures to this property if they want to or is this just going to, because of what they are going through now with this PUD, is this binding? Moving on into the future? Aanenson: Anybody can request an ordinance amendment so in five years if someone wanted to apply, that’s a decision that would require a public hearing and the City Council would have to weigh in on that. It would have to go through the same process this one did. It’s technically a rezoning so that would require Planning Commission recommendation to the City Council. Tjornhom: Thank you. Mayor Ryan: Thank you Councilwoman. Councilwoman Coleman, any questions or comments? Coleman: Just one question. I know one of the emails we received said this would “open a can of worms.” Can you explain why this does not do that? Aanenson: Again, this is a nine-acre piece of property and PUD requires at least five acres so someone else would have to have those same unique attributes. Those are all the decisions that City Council Meeting – December 14, 2020 15 go into doing a PUD. The first thing are the PUD findings or the intent statement as the City Attorney always had to look at is that you do some tradeoffs. So by having less density there, we looked at combining a driveway that was really two and then saving a lot of slope and a lot of trees. Those are the attributes of recommending this course of action. Coleman: Great. Thank you. I just wanted that clearly stated for the record. I appreciate that. Mayor Ryan: Thank you Councilwoman. Councilman Campion, any questions? Campion: One question. Ms. Aanenson, you had made a comment that this property cannot be subdivided in the future. Can you just explain what enables that and if its not possible to come and, I don’t know if we would be rewriting the PUD. I can’t believe there would be no mechanism to subdivide the property at any point. Aanenson: As its currently written in the PUD, they can’t subdivide. They would have to come back through the city and they could ask for a rezoning to something else. Campion: Okay. Aanenson: Again, this is low density. There are four zoning options: the RLM, RSF, R-4 or the PUD so they could come back at a later date and ask for that. But that again would require a public process, Planning Commission public hearing and approval by the City Council. Campion: Understood. Thank you. Mayor Ryan: Thank you and Ms. Aanenson I appreciate you, I know all of us have asked multiple times because I think especially with the last couple of emails that we received tonight about the can of worms and if this is allowed, then everybody should be allowed to do it. But I think the clarification comes that it’s the size and acreage that that’s why this have been allowed. I appreciate you explaining that or clarifying that for Council especially, but for all the residents. I know this has been a project that Mr. Wicka has been working on for a number of years with staff to try to come up with the least intrusive way to build on this island. I know he greatly respects the bluffs, the trees, the natural environment. It’s his family, his young children, multiple children and wants like I said to be the least intrusive to this land as possible. He’s worked extensively with the Fire Chief to make sure that the safety measures are in place for emergency vehicles. I know that was a concern with the Planning Commission. I think overall we’re used to seeing that untouched island but most of the neighbors that abut him, I think two of the neighbors that are directly abutting his access anyways, wrote letters in support of this development. While there are concerns which are understandable, I think overwhelmingly the support from the neighbors and he’s conscientious and I think just from a piece of his letter that he wrote, “We are planning to build green structures using solar for power, geothermal for heating and cooling, green roofs on parts of the structures, highly efficient building designs,” etc. and he wants to make sure that the bluff areas and shorelines will not be affected in terms of tree City Council Meeting – December 14, 2020 16 canopy and coverage. I know that he wants to be a responsible steward of the land so I appreciate staff taking the time to really work through this so there isn’t that impact to not only our natural resources and the lake but the neighbors as well. Thank you for that. With that said, Council if you don’t have any further questions for staff, if there is a motion, I would entertain a motion, please. Please? McDonald: Madam Mayor, I’ll make a motion. Councilman McDonald moved and Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve rezoning the property described in Exhibit B located at 1601 Lake Lucy Road with an approximate area of 9.03 acres from Rural Residential to Planned Unit Development- Residential incorporating the attached ordinance with standards, summary ordinance, and adoption of the findings of fact and decision. All voted in favor and the motion passed 5-0. Mayor Ryan: Thank you Ms. Aanenson. Next up is another consent agenda item. I had actually pulled this one off and this has to do with a development at the Crossroads of Chanhassen and Ms. Aanenson, will you be doing this one for Christian Brothers Automotive. CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN GATEWAY PUD, MODIFICATION TO PUD-SPECIFIC DESIGN FEATURES, AND AMENDMENT TO CROSSROADS OF CHANHASSEN SITE PLAN WITH VARIANCES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 5,100 SQUARE-FOOT AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SHOP LOCATED AT 8941 CROSSROADS BOULEVARD; AND APPROVAL OF SUMMARY ORDINANCE 664. Aanenson: This item appeared at the Planning Commission and when it first came in we worked through a few issues there regarding the architecture and the like, but this project located at the intersection of Lyman Boulevard and Highway 101, the Kraus Anderson project area, really had some unique things down there. It has a gas station, we anticipated probably some banking drive- thru so when this came forward we kind of thought, hmm. But actually, the architecture and everything as we anticipated turned out really well and as the developer explained their goals and how they like to see them fit in. It’s a 5,100 square-foot automotive facility, very high end. The architecture looks great on the site. The Planning Commission was really intrigued with how they made it fit in and work, orientate it. I just want to compliment Sharmeen Al-Jaff on the planning staff who worked really hard with the applicant to make a superior project. The presentation by the applicant was fantastic. I think they really sold the Planning Commission about what they are trying to do so it’s exciting. It’s a great project down there as how they figured how to sit within the site. They have another Christian Brothers Automotive up in Maple Grove where they are next to a daycare so they thought that was a nice ancillary relationship and also with the Park and Ride that they can use that. Someone can pick them up. But it is not your traditional auto repair. They are kind of doing more of an electronic kind of thing so it’s a nice fit. One of the Planning Commissioners did also ask how they would manage some of the residue, stormwater runoff, parked cars and they had really good responses on all of that. The