Loading...
PC 2006 06 20 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 20, 2006 Chairman McDonald called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Undestad, Kurt Papke, Jerry McDonald, Debbie Larson, Kevin Dillon and Dan Keefe MEMBERS ABSENT: Deborah Zorn STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Josh Metzer, Planner I; Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer; and Don Asleson, Natural Resources Technician PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Jerry & Janet Paulsen Craig Steesz 7305 Laredo Drive South Lake Drive East PUBLIC HEARING: LAKESIDE: REQUEST FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON 26.34 ACRES REZONING THE PROPERTY FROM R12. HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL (PUD-R) WITH VARIANCES: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR 29 BUILDING LOTS. TWO OUTLOTS AND RIGHT-OF- WAY FOR PUB LID STREETS: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 234 UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. INCLUDING TWO. THREE. FOUR AND CONDOMINIUM UNIT BUILDINGS. AND A COMMUNITY BUILDING: AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL BEACHLOT WITH VARIANCES. SIENNA CORPORATION. PLANNING CASE 06-26. Public Present: Name Address Thomas 1. Bastasz John Ringstrom Bruce Carlson Scott Frederiksen Stephanie & Thomas Drees Ken Ross Timothy Bohlman Rodney Walker Travis Beck John Harriss T odd Anderson Steven Mangold 179 Lakeview Road E. 126 Lakeview Road E. 8988 English Turn 18626 Bearpath Trail 14727 Boulder Point Road 8976 English Turn, Eden Prairie Ron Clark Construction 18992 Bearpath Trail 3702 22nd Avenue So, Minneapolis 250 3rd Avenue, Suite 130, Minneapolis 16338 County Road 30, Maple Grove 4852 Woodhurst Lane, Minnetonka Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 John Vogelbacher Paul Cherne John Bushey Steven Schwieter Rick & Linda Denman Laura Cooper Joan Ludwig David Florenzano 4940 Viking Drive #608, Edina 201 85th Avenue NW, Coon Rapids 9000 Riley Lake Road, Eden Prairie 10072 Gristmill, Eden Prairie 6656 Pointe Lake Lucy 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard 9005 Lake Riley Boulevard 9470 Lakeland Terrace Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Any questions for staff? Kurt, want to start? Papke: Yeah, I'll start. I've got a couple of them here. Page 3 of staff report, background item (t). Planning Commission has not ruled pro or con as to number 11 on the applicant, yadda yadda yadda. I didn't quite get it. What? Generous: As part of their previous conditional use permits, they are non-conforming use permits. The question was the number of boats that could be moored at the site. It had been pointed out as part of the historical, they had 15 boats, which is beyond what our ordinance was and so they sort ofleft that open as part of the granting of the conditional use permit back in '93. Papke: Okay, so this is back to a. Generous: '93 approval. Which is going away with the new conditional use permit. Papke: Okay. That was kind of confusing. Page 4 under intent. Is this within the Bluff Creek Overlay District? I know Lake Riley, Riley Creek goes just. Generous: No, it's not within Bluff Creek. Papke: That was a little, so. Generous: It should have been stopped after clustering of development. Papke: Okay, so strike the Bluff Creek Overlay District? Generous: Yeah. Papke: Page 6. The hard surface coverage. I understand that we're exceeding the 50% site coverage for individual lots. I'm just a little concerned here on this. Normally, quite often as we all well know when we have variances come in for hard surface coverage, the first thing the applicant asks is well can't I average this out over all the lots in my neighborhood, okay. And we always say no. Okay? Generous: Unless you do a planned development. 2 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Papke: Unless you do a planned unit development. So that's. Generous: That's the distinction. Papke: That's the rationale here. Because it's a PUD, we can average everything together? Generous: Right, and the idea behind PUD' s is also you might just have the lots around the unit and have more common open space. Papke: Okay. Okay. Page 12. The developer must provide ingress/egress to the North Bay residents for the duration of the utility extension within Lake Riley East. Can you color this in a little bit? How bad? How long a time is this going to be? I'm just concerned with the hardship for the residents there. Generous: And I'll request that Alyson. Fauske: Commissioner Papke, staff just looked at the location of the sanitary sewer and watermain tap connections and we just wanted to point out that they would just have to provide access to the neighborhoods since they only have one current access Lyman Boulevard. We don't anticipate that it will be a long duration. We anticipate half a day to a day at each location. Papke: Okay. So quite brief then. That sounds pretty good. Okay. Next one here. Question on page 30 of the staff report. Condition 55. The trail connection at the northeast corner of the site connecting the lakeside area to the future Highway 212 trail and underpass as depicted in the applicant's plan is completed. Can you explain that? Is this? Generous: This is one that Mr. Hoffman put in there. I believe it's that this connection be provided as part of this development because this trail will eventually connect to the underpass for 212/312. And so we're building this one and we want to make sure they get that one also. Papke: So what do we mean by "is completed"? Is the developer funding this or building it? Generous: Yes, the developer has to construct it. Papke: Okay. Okay, I got it. It was just the language was a little unclear what we were really installing. Okay. Page 4 of the findings of facts. Having to do with the potential exclusion of 93 units from the, this is one of the variances we're asking for here. A hardship for the developments, and this would exclude neighborhood residents from enjoyment of common facilities. I certainly concur with that. Could you explain how that turns into a hardship? Generous: Well as a part of, you're creating, segregating basically a neighborhood by saying anyone outside of this 1,000 feet is, can't enjoy the amenities that they're paying for as a part of this association. Again we were looking at, had they changed this design and put all the condominium buildings on the south end of the project, we wouldn't have an issue with this. Over 80% of the units. 3 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Papke: I don't disagree with the value and the conclusion. I'm just struggling with this being, you know because we're sticklers about this sometimes, as you well know, because we have three other variances on the agenda tonight. All of which are going to claim hardship issues, and I just want to make sure we're clear on this so. Generous: It's yes. It's how do you make this development work without allowing the entire association to participate in the association amenities. Papke: Okay. So it's more of an issue of fairness? Generous: Equity, yes. Papke: Okay. And I think that's all I have. McDonald: Debbie. Larson: The only one I've got is regarding, page 15 of the staff report. Talking about the tree requirements. Are we being, it'd be the proposed for the east property line. Are we not doing anything there because of the trees that are already currently there? Generous: No. Partially this analysis was superceded after Jill finished her report and left and then the applicant re-submitted a landscape plan which is the one that you're looking at, and it does have trees on that east property line. But we are going to require that they meet at least those, what's required on this. We'll do the review to make sure what they proposed. Larson: So there's something that I don't have that is. Generous: Well you have the plan but Jill didn't have the same. Larson: Oh, it's not on the report, but it's on the plans? Generous: Yes. Larson: Okay. Never mind. Alright, that's all I have. Thank you. McDonald: Kevin. Dillon: You're asking for a 48 for a building height rather than a 35 foot height. That's a pretty significant difference. Are there any things that's going to do to ruin the view or it would cause any other distractions or anything like that in that area? Generous: All the view would be within this development because to the east is the Bearpath golf course and to the west you have North Bay which is actually down from this site. So you're not changing that. It's just yes, it is. They're going up. The trade off is they could get the same number of units by adding another bigger building on that and we thought that it would be better 4 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 to vary upwards in this instance for those 3 buildings rather than oh 3 or 4. Or 4 or 5 shorter buildings. Dillon: And it's noted that the current uses that are there are going to get demolished, and maybe it's not the concern of this commission but what's going to happen to the residents that will be displaced and you know is there enough lead time for them to find... Generous: I'll have the applicant address that one because we did discuss that with him so they can tell you what they're doing. Dillon: That's my questions. McDonald: Okay. Mark? Undestad: Just one. On the beachlot. What size, I mean how do you determine how big the beach can be? Generous: Those are based on DNR standards. Papke: I think brief discussions with Lori, the applicant will have to get a permit from the DNR for the beachlot, and that will be worked out with the DNR. Keefe: Going back to hardships and variances. Just some understanding of what the hardship is on each one of these variances. I think you talked a little bit about the 48 foot one, but on the east side, it's a reasonable use question or hardship? Generous: Partially, is it reasonable to require this 50 foot setback? Ifby changing it you can reduce the concrete. More open space within the development and do other design issues within the project. And then also, usually when we have a planned development, it's next to some other use that's right there. Well in this case we don't have that. Keefe: Right. Yeah, I mean I'm not, I just want to know what the hardship is. I don't necessarily disagree with granting the variance in this case but I'm just curious what the hardship might be. And then the 1,000 foot standard, do you know why that was, why it's 1,000 feet? Generous: I'm not sure on that one, no. Keefe: Okay. So, and the reason why we grant this is so that all residents would have the ability to use the beachlot, is that really, my hardship would be a use for all residents of this community? Generous: My assumption was that they were concerned when developing the ordinance that you know as a neighborhood might develop and then one next to it and they want to join the association to get the access to the lake and so they wanted to try to limit that. Keefe: Okay. Alright. 5 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Papke: Mr. Chair? McDonald: Yes. Papke: Just because the meeting here we had some material given to us with some concern expressed by the North Bay homeowners, with drainage into their retention pond. Could staff explain the drainage patterns here and what water is going where from where? Fauske: As you can see here is Lyman Boulevard. Here is Lake Riley Drive. The existing neighborhood right here. I'm hoping people, unfortunately the colors don't show up very well on this but I tried to, what I did was color in essentially the area that would be draining to this pond here, which is the pond of concern. This area all through here would drain through storm pipes and outlet into this pond. This pond here was designed to accommodate runoff from this site. We had our engineering consultant, one of our consulting firms verify that the existing pipe and the existing pond here can accommodate the runoff from that site. Currently the entire site drains to this pond. There's a small depression area through here with a pipe that shows it outletting to this wetland. And then the remainder of the site through here goes to this pond right here. Papke: And that's a new pond? Fauske: Correct. A new pond for the development. And then part of the question, part of the concern that Mr. Ringstrom had was regardinf ownership and how do we have a right to do that. I pulled up, this is the plat from North Bay 2n Addition and I outlined here in green and then highlighted that there is a drainage and utility easement over the pond area here. Again here's Lyman Boulevard here. Here's Lake Riley Road or to the North Bay development through here. So we do have a drainage and utility easement over that. The City is responsible for maintenance through there. Through our campaign of, through the MPS, MPCA ruling where we have to go in every, I think it says 10, every 5 years. Pardon me. Thank you. Every 5 years the City has to go and check and see if the pond has sedimented in and we'll take out sediment in the pond if it' s removal capacity has been compromised because of sediment deposition in there. But it was designed to be a storm pond and the proposed runoff going to that pond meets the design requirements. Papke: Is there any overflow from the new pond to the pond in North Bay? Is there a cascading affect in here in essence? Fauske: Yes. The outlet to, going back to, and unfortunately you can't see it very well on this drawing but this pond does outlet over to the west. But again it meets the rate and quantity control set forth by this pond design. Papke: So it sounds like we've got all the quantity issues. It seemed like from the resident's letter and pictures that there was concern over quality as well. Phosphorous loading and so on. Perhaps when the developer gets up they can comment on plans for fertilizer and things of that nature to make sure that we address the quality issues. 6 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Fauske: Certainly, and also inherent in the design requirements for a pond, there is that, what we call a dead pool storage requirement, which is basically the volume of the pond below the outlet and that volume is determined based on settling velocities of sediments that come through the pond. So there's a water quantity, pardon me. A water quality component inherent in the design of a pond. McDonald: I have a question for you concerning the pond. What's the purpose of the pond? Fauske: This pond is a storm water treatment pond. McDonald: And then where does it drain off to whenever it reaches capacity? Fauske: It outlets at this location and then this location to a pond, a wetland complex that's up here and a wetland mitigation area that's down here. McDonald: So it doesn't drain into Lake Riley or anything such as that? Fauske: No. Generous: Not directly. Fauske: Not directly. McDonald: Not directly, okay. Anyone else have any follow along questions? Okay. Then with that, if the applicant could come forward and address the commission. John Vogelbacher: Good evening. My name is John Vogelbacher. I'm with Sienna Corporation. I've got some illustrated books that I'd like to pass out to the Planning Commission, and this is just a little bit more detailed in regards to the project and building products that are proposed for the development. And I've got some other additional copies if anyone in the audience would like to see these. I'll set some of these around. Do we have enough for everyone that would like one? Well appreciate the opportunity to present the Lakeside development to the Planning Commission and we have, of course we've been to the Planning Commission in a workshop and reviewed a lot of the design parameters of what we have put into the project. It's evolved based on staff comments and also evolved architecturally. We feel we've got a real good plan and something that I think that will be a real fine addition to the housing opportunities within Chanhassen. And maybe before we get into actually the book here, if we could address possibly some of the questions that you had since they're fresh in your mind. We could do those. I guess first of all would be the Lakeview Apartment residents that are currently residing on the property. Sienna does not own the property. We'll be closing on the property next Wednesday. The leases that are currently in the complex, there's 170 units in the apartment complex right now. There's approximately about 100 of those occupied. The leases provide for a 60 day notice both from the landlord and from the tenant. We realize that relocation for some of the tenants is going to be difficult so we've put together through the Carver County HRA a program which we can assist them. Sunday, July 2nd we'll have a 7 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 neighborhood meeting on that site for all the residents which would be to deliver a set of options for them that the HRA is going to be providing for us so we've worked with Julie and Mary over at the Carver County HRA office to put together a package to you know, identify particular locations that they might be able to find. In addition to doing that, we've got a couple translators that will help for those that may have difficulty in terms of, at the language barrier. What we'll be doing for them, which will be the assistance to help them relocate is we have a truck dedicated to help them move. We also would provide the deposit back to them immediately upon their vacation of the rental space, and we also have a program where, though there is a 60 day notice, we've allowed them to vacate their space as soon as they wanted to. In addition to that, if they vacated the 60 day time period, for every day that they would vacate prior to that we'd give them $20.00, so generally if a tenant had a place to go. Wanted to relocate on July 1st or June 30th, they would receive about $1,200 from us in cash, plus their deposit and I think that's, along with transportation if they need it, and enlist the help of the HRA, we think for a lot of those tenants that are there, that will provide a great deal of assistance and try to get them relocated so. We realize that there'll be some tenants that will need a little more tender loving care and we're certainly not going to put a family out on the street. We would not do that so that's our program through the HRA to help to assist existing tenants on the property. I think some of the other questions we had, the ponding issue, and Paul Cherne is here who's our civil engineer and I'm not an engineer but I did want to maybe clarify a little bit of the capacity that's in that pond. There's about 4 feet of bounce in that pond, so the outlet pipe or the pipe that takes it back into the North Bay project, there's actually 4 feet of holding capacity in that pond from it's normal water elevation and it's high water elevation so there's quite a bit of time period from which water that would... In addition to that component which currently isn't in place, and the water that does leave this site goes into that pond untreated, we would be treating it but in addition to that, what we would be doing is using that pond as a reservoir for that overall irrigation system for the whole project, and then there'll be a recharge well for the pond. So if certainly during time periods of July and August where it gets very warm and you do have more of an opportunity for algae growth within a pond, that's the worst time and so at that time period there's usually not a lot of rain so at that time period we're recharging on a daily basis with ground water which will again provide for a much greater degree of clarity in that water. So I know that's an issue and a lot of it is unknown based on not knowing what's going to happen. But I think really this particular project will actually support a great deal of degree of more water quality as that water's leaving the site. Paul, did you have anything else to add in regards to the ponding? Paul Cherne: Yeah, I think that's kind of. . . unless they've got a real specific question. John Vogelbacher: Some of the other items that were discussed was the distance from the recreational beachlot, and Bob correct me if I' m wrong but the ordinance provides that 80% of the occupants that are going to be using the beachlot live within 1,000 feet of the lot itself. And I know when we did, when we were here at the workshop meeting I know that the calculations in the staff report, I mean I guess my calculations, I'll have to check my math. Maybe I did it wrong or something but as I look at that and looked at the distance of 1,000 feet and then took 80% of that and then took the additional amount of residents that would be outside of that distance to come up with 100%, what happens to us is that Building C. If! can turn. How do we turn this map up? Oh thank you... Building C I believe, and I wish I would have brought that 8 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 with me but what happened to us is that just part of Building C would be qualified to use the recreational beachlot. And it just seemed, and I guess if you look at the hardship, in terms of administering the project, what we would have would be some sort of a portion of that building that would qualify to use the beachlot. The other portion of the building could not. And we believe that we have a contiguous site and the site is well laid out. We have a professional property manager to manage the facility which is a dramatic difference than what's currently occurring on the property. Real high quality amenities and a security system on the lake. You know we certainly understand the reasoning behind the ordinance but I guess the hardship would be how did you administer that when you have a portion of the building on I guess what we would have as maybe the first flood would maybe use the beachlot and the other two or three floors would not. And we think it just provides a very difficult administration. And there is some inequities relative to you know a person living on this property and certainly being part of the whole association, yet not being able to enjoy the whole benefits of what's provided for the far, far majority of the rest of the residents of the project. I'd like to just talk a little bit about the building height issue and again there was a question about the hardship and I, John Harriss who is the architect for the condominium buildings, he'll be pulling together, providing a lot more information in regards to the detailing and the design of the buildings, but it's probably not expressed so well in the staff report but Building A is a 3 story building. Building B is a modified 4 story building, which steps from the east to the west. And then Building C, we really haven't gone through a whole design parameter on Building C yet, but I guess what the concept was in Building A and we talked about this and that is, the roof on that building which is an attractive feature, also increases the height of the building, but it is a 3 story building. And could have done a flat roof. It would have dropped the height considerably. One of the objectives though was to make it have a more residential feel. As you look at all the properties that are on the other side of the fairway, or the other properties that are on the west side of the property line, the townhomes, they all have a pitched roof and so that was really more of the thinking there was to make that building have more of a residential feel to it. And certainly the height can be reduced if you went with a flat roof, but we just didn't feel that architecturally that would be the best look. I think what I'd like to do is just kind of continue through the book and maybe I've missed a couple items that were discussed but I hope I took well enough notes if there's any other particular comments that the Planning Commission had relative to the staff report I'd be glad to answer those but maybe I could just run through our book here and kind of describe the project a little bit better in terms of what we're proposing to the city. I think Bob had mentioned the development of the beaches on the property and that would actually be a permit that we would get from the Department of Natural Resources. Certainly that would be regulated by them. The actual beachlot is part of the city ordinances and relative to the amount of lineal feet of shoreline we have which is about 1,100 and we've got about 57,000 square feet of surface area, which would qualify for the recreational beachlot. Actually for two of them, and so what we'd like to do is propose for two 50 foot beaches on that property. They're separated quite a bit. Almost probably about 800 to 900 feet apart, and I'm not so sure that that's a variance or such. I mean we do qualify for two beachlots which would allow you to have a beach on each lot. We're combining the docks of the two beachlots into one, which is provided for in the ordinance, and that's just to consolidate and to provide one source of management for the boats on the recreational beachlot. 9 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Papke: Question on the beachlot, both for staff and the developer. One of the applications we've seen a lot of in the past couple years is the request by a homeowners associations or homeowner for an additional dock. Okay, one of their neighbors has a dock or they have an existing dock on a community lot and they want to add another dock. Now in this particular case you're giving up what is currently a dock. What, how final is this? My concern is obvious. I don't want to have you guys come back 5 years from now and say you know we really want that dock back in there again. We've got a bunch of residents that really want to dock their boats that way. How final is the legality of this? I know it's a very general question, but you see where I'm going. Generous: Well whatever you approve is what they get now. They can always come back. However they're not giving up the mooring spaces from their extra dock. They're just consolidating into one dock. Papke: Structure but we're giving up a launch, yes? For boats. Generous: Well they're removing a launch that is non-conforming. We don't permit that at any new ones. There is one on the east side of the lake for getting boats in but right now they can actually physically use that site to put, launch boats and we're eliminating that. Papke: And what would prevent one of the homeowners from backing their boat into the beach and launching it? Is there? John Vogelbacher: Well we have a fence. Papke: You have a fence? There's no. John Vogelbacher: Which there is no fence now. I think there's a... Papke: ... so you couldn't back a boat trailer in there? John Vogelbacher: Right. No, and they'd drive over a bunch of gardens and stuff. I'm not saying that someone couldn't do that but it would certainly be anyone that we would allow to do it, that's for sure. Papke: Okay. I just wanted to make sure that this is, this doesn't come back to haunt us 5 years from now. John Vogelbacher: No, and I think the plan that we have meets all the guidelines of the ordinance in terms I think we're just consolidating the docks so we have one, which I think in terms of meeting those requirements, we certainly do that. McDonald: I asked you a question concerning the docks. One of the things that's come up about these community docks is overnight docking of boats. Is that going to be allowed here or is this strictly going to be a daytime usage, first come first served? 10 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 John Vogelbacher: Well what we have will be probably at a minimum 3 association owned boats. There would not be any privately owned boats in the docks. So they would only be owned by the association. The docks would be owned by the association and managed by the homeowners association. We're allowed up to 6. I don't really know if that's exactly how many we'll have. I don't think that will be the case. Part of that is you know you have association fees and somebody's got to pay for 6 boats and so it'd be somewhere between there. Probably a minimum of3 and it could not be any more than 6. McDonald: Okay, because on the drawing you show slips for 6 boats. John Vogelbacher: Right, and we're certainly willing to provide, in our developer's agreement exactly that situation where they're not slips that you sell, rent. Whatever they are. They're solely just for this project, right. McDonald: Okay. John Vogelbacher: So the site amenities which we talked a little bit about, which is I guess in terms of subdivision development this is quite comprehensive in terms of the amount of landscaping and features that are built into this project, and of course the first one would be along the lake there and the park area that is designed to work as probably about 4 to 5 shade gardens. Gazebo. Some paving there. Some hardscape paving to come from the street down to the dock area. And generally the development that is east of, there's a flat area and that's where you see the garden area and the gazebo that's in the very west side of that property. There really is very little, if any development and the staff report indicates some concern about the trail construction from the, let's say the active area where the docks are through the park area which would be back towards the east. And what we propose to do in there is as minimal as we possibly can, which would be this trail might be as little as 2 feet of width in some areas, depending upon what the site gives us. Not intended to be a 4 foot or 5 foot or 6 foot trail, nor any paving or bituminous. It would probably be more liken to a hiking trail then a trail that you might see like in a park area. And because it is very rugged through there. The topography is very steep. Very heavily wooded and we'd like to just basically keep it that way and that's kind of part of the experience that we're trying to create here is really more of a hike through the woods there than more of a parkland trail that you would find certainly through the rest of our project. As we go across the street, and again we would have a fence, an ornamental fence that would control access into the park area on the lake. As you go across the street on Lyman, we have a community building which is approximately 5,000 square feet and that's kind of a party or gathering area for the whole project. In the lower level of that building is a fitness area with restrooms and also some other additional storage areas, so that's a very good looking building. There's an elevation of that. That would be used by everyone that's actually in the community. The other major feature that's in the project is the waterfall at the center of the project, which is more of a center park that is to be used by all the residents. There's a trail that runs along a stream bed that cuts through the center of the project. There's about 14 foot waterfall that starts at the far north end, and then that drops to kind of more of a flatter area and the pictures that you see there would be very representative of what that trail or what that stream and waterfall would look like. Both pictures are actually from Windsong. That's a golf course project over on the west side of town. The contractor that built that stream would be the same one. That's Ravine 11 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Construction that would be building this stream. So, and they also built that big stream complex over at Troy Byrne which is another golf course in Wisconsin, and they're both very, very well done and the method that they use to do that is kind of, they use a slurry or kind of a concrete mix that sits in the bottom of the creekbed so you avoid erosion and things that you might typically find in a stream bed. So very good construction techniques and very good looking and that's really part of the central part of our project is to create some gathering points and areas that would be used by the residents of the project. The only other, the other nice monument plan for the corner and that's a waterfall feature and that's on that northeast corner of our private drive coming off of Lyman Boulevard. I didn't mention the decorative street lights but that picture is actually from Maple Grove and we've used those lights in other projects. It's a real nice looking ornamental light. It has a fluted base and nice ornamental logo area at the top of that fixture and it really lets very little glare, so it's a nice light in terms of the subdivision. Good looking and lights the streets up but yet reduces the glare considerably. So those are our street lights that are operated and paid for and maintained by the association. The next page is our trail and sidewalk system. There's 3 different components to that. One of the public trails that we would be constructing, and the other trails are the private trails and there's very little bit in terms of size. Again we talked about glare on the park. That's more of a hiking trail. That trail that runs along the streambed would probably be about a 4 to 5 foot gravel trail. The other sidewalks, pretty much incorporate access throughout the whole project, and then we have the public trail that runs down the west side, or excuse me the east side of the site. That's actually in Eden Prairie. Papke: Question on that before you move on. Could you give us a picture overall, if you will, of the different types of surfaces you're using on the development. You mentioned that one of the trails is going to be gravel. I assume crushed limestone or something like that. Are there any use of pavers, textured concrete? Is this all blacktop? Is there, you know can you give me an idea of surface materials? John V ogelbacher: For the trails? Papke: Trail and streets. Are there any intersections where you incorporate use of pavers or, you know I'm just trying to get an idea of the texture of the surfaces. John Vogelbacher: I think generally the streets would all be bituminous, but certainly at the main entrance we'll have probably somewhere between 50 to 60 feet of a paving treatment. Whether it's pavers or stamped bituminous and colored. Or concrete. We're not quite sure yet. But at the entrance there would be certainly a feature in the paving there. We don't have any other plans for the sidewalks to be anything other than just typical. . . Keefe: Is it going to be a gated entrance? John Vogelbacher: Ah no. No. So that pretty much summarizes the overall development. I would, if we could I'd like to maybe just talk a little bit about the Eden Prairie trail. You may recall when we came to the workshop previously, the trail that we had proposed and the trail that's actually commented to in the staff report was located on the west side of the property. And that would have certainly have been our preference. That's why we put it on the plan. The trail that we see here is part of the required trail construction that is done in conjunction with 12 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Bearpath. Sienna was the developer of Bear path and the partners of Sienna are the owners and operators of Bear path Golf and Country Club. We would have proposed to do something different. The City of Eden Prairie said you're going to put that trail right there. The reason why we never built previous to this particular application or why it hasn't been built was because it would have gone nowhere and the City of Eden Prairie said well that doesn't make a lot of sense to have a trail that runs up to oh you know, 2,000 feet north of Lyman Boulevard and stops. And so now with the highway coming through and the Eden Prairie trail connection that will be farther to the east, that will take you up on the north side of the highway, the timing is right now to put the trail in. We would again would have proposed to put it on the other side of the site but this is what Eden Prairie wanted and it works. I mean it does work and so that's part of our plan here is to construct it. We do have some other trails that connect to that which gives some good connectivity, you know pedestrian wise for both our residents, and for the residents within that immediate area. Papke: A related question. At the workshop one of the things that was still undecided was beachlot access. Underpass. At grade crossing. Where have you settled on that? What's the design of the crossing? John V ogelbacher: Well right now what we show is a crossing just at the corner there of East Riley Lake, or Lake Riley Road East and Lyman Boulevard. If you can see here. It's just an on grade crossing. We did look at that. It's, it was just so difficult to do. The grades there to try and get down below that street. There's also a watermain that runs up Lyman Boulevard. It was, I mean I think it would have been good but just sight wise it was extremely difficult to do that and we actually think this is a good alternative. We had suggested to the city staff that we'd like to see a stop sign at that corner for safety purposes, and I think that's really more their call. If they feel like they'd like to have that, and I'm not sure what their criteria is but we think that makes some sense at that particular intersection, and again the crossing there, we'd like to see some sort of marcation, whether it's in stamping, coloring. Some sort of a crosswalk demarcation, but again we'd be certainly happy to pay for that and again it's really more of the city staff and their engineering and street maintenance department as to what they would like to do there. But we think it merits some additional work and what the staff would recommend, we're not really quite sure yet. Papke: A related question, and maybe the city staff. What, I know there's obviously some rolling hills in the area. Are there any issues with sight lines as you come over the crest of the hill there just to the east of the development? Are we going to have plenty of time to see people crossing there and stop or any issues or concerns there? Fauske: No. When we looked at this, actually at the access facing more of that proposed entrance onto Lyman Boulevard, we were taking into account the topography of the area. In order to maximize the spacing between the two access points, you're looking at a significant grade, basically where Building A is and so we just knew that wasn't a viable option and the necessity to get two access points so you know we can look at, we can look at where the spacing is as far as safety concerns but really it's pushed as far east as possible. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Papke: Alright. Right now the trail on Lyman ends just east of the development here or, yeah. Just west of the development. Just west. Now I noticed the trail now goes on the north side of Lyman and extends at least to the Eden Prairie borders. Do we know is Eden Prairie going to extend this all the way to Riley Park? If so, I mean that's, this is one of my running routes so I'm near and dear to my own heart so. It's personal, yeah. So there's going to be a fair amount of, well if that trail does extend all the way into Eden Prairie, getting back to your issue of maybe putting a stop sign here. This could be higher traffic? Are we looking at that or is this something for Todd? Generous: Well I know Todd had them switch it over because Eden Prairie told them the trail would be on the north side. As to the stop sign. Fauske: Are you looking to stop traffic on Lyman? Papke: I don't know. I just, you know it sounds like we're not going to have the below grade crossing now. That's off the table, which is fine. I don't have an issue with that. But if we do indeed, if Eden Prairie extends the trail here all the way to Lake Riley Park, where currently the trail ends right when it hits Lyman Boulevard right now, so you have about maybe a half mile or so here where if you're walking or running or bicycling, you're on a fairly unimproved road. But so if that trail does go through, one would expect that there would be a fair amount of traffic through here so. John Vogelbacher: Well I can tell you that trail will be built this year. That trail that connects Chanhassen to Eden Prairie on Riley Lake Road because that trail we build. Papke: Okay. John V ogelbacher: So and again it was a situation where that was part of our developer's agreement was to build these two trails, the one to the north and then the one east and west, and we just never did it because we had always thought that they were going to improve that road and turn it into an urban street section which has never happened and so now with all the connecting trails showing up, it's time to put that in so. Papke: Right. So I guess I'd just ask city staff before this goes to the City Council, that we have some plan for what we're going to do there, if it's not a stop sign. That's fine as long as we have you know, we know what we're going to do. Keefe: Maybe you were going to get to it but let me ask a question about parking. Can you speak to parking? Is it 2 parking spaces per unit in the condos or is it I? Below grade. John Vogelbacher: All of the condominium spaces, each one would have 2 spots below grade. Keefe: Okay. Underground. And then it looks like you've grouped some parking spaces on the streets here. John Vogelbacher: Yeah. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Keefe: Is that intended for guest parking or is that kind of what your thought is there? John Vogelbacher: All the parking throughout the project can be used by any resident, whether they are in one building or another. So those are all guest parking, right. That would be located or kind of spread out across the project. I'd like to kind of continue on I guess if we could. Get to just the product types and we have 3 particular builders here this evening and I'd like to have them just express certainly in a summary what their product type is. The next sheet in our book here kind of puts it in summary in terms of the different types of units and some price points. Target price points. Also the total number of units. Right now we have 233, which is part of the staff report, and that consists of 3 different number of units into 3 different condominium buildings. I'd like to maybe have Steve Schwieter come up and describe his units. Steve, he's got an appointment he has to go to so Steve can describe the W ooddale units and Steve has been a builder over in Bearpath for years and certainly has been a very good one. We're sure pleased to have him in our project. Steve Schwieter: Good evening. I am Steve from Wooddale Builders. Like John had mentioned, we've been around a long time. I started the business in '74 and we started building townhomes around town as well as upper bracket single family for, well since then but we started building townhomes on the north side probably since 1984. We've done quite a few units throughout all of Eden Prairie. We have not done any project yet in Chanhassen but we look forward to this development. It entices us from the standpoint of all the amenities that they're putting in. Chairlift systems and things. The lake amenities. It is not a new product design for us. I mean it's a one level type product, walkout. Master bedroom first floor. First floor office. Kitchen. Dining room. Great room and a four season porch. We've done this style of unit before. We've changed the styling of the exterior to more of a cottage type look. It's a new look in today's request for styling. We do have both daylight units and walkouts. The daylights would be, back up to the water feature there, and we're planning on, we typically do, we're still working on the outside features regarding, I think we're looking at 3 different colors but we're trying to put, we are doing stone on the fronts. Quite a bit of stone and we're looking at doing a different type of stone on each building to give it some flare and probably 3 different colors. They're also using a, some of the new materials that are out today. Maintenance free type products but it isn't the old vinyl type lap siding. It's all shaker town look. Cedar looking textured. Board and batten type look and with a lot of the request today for this styling of unit. People are looking for maintenance free, so that's a huge scenario. We are building a, not a, well similar product up on the Eden Prairie river bluff right now where we are using like a shaker town style unit and we're well received back there. Other than that I guess I'm open for questions, if anybody has any. Papke: Ijust had one question on your preliminary landscape plan, and maybe I'll nitpick here but your current landscaping plans show identical plantings on the north and the south side of the buildings whereas most of the other plans do not. They more take into account sunny side, shady side so just, do you tweak these as you get closer to the end to just see you know, you'd think you'd want to put the hostas on the north side and the, you know the other stuff on the south side. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Steve Schwieter: Quite honestly we haven't spent a lot of time on that, but I'm pretty demanding when it comes to landscaping and things so that will be upgraded. McDonald: Any other questions? Thank you very much. Steve Schwieter: Thank you. John Vogelbacher: So the next product I'd like to have us go over in summary is the Charles Cudd townhomes. Rick Denman is here to give you a little overview and answer your questions in regards to those units. Those are on the east and central portion of the project. Rick Denman: Thank you. My name is Rick Denman. I'm with the Charles Cudd Company. Our company's been around for about 35 years. We primarily target the luxury home buyer. A few months ago the Sienna Group and John gave us a call and told us that this neighborhood was becoming a possibility or dream of what they wanted to do and I often wondered what would happen. I drove by that piece a number of times and I thought you know it's just a primo piece of property. It's got Lake Riley on one side. Bearpath on the other side and it obviously needs to be rejuvenated in some way and brought to a higher value. Very few people are going to be able to do as good a job as Sienna has really done with this layout and this format so we're very grateful to be part of it. We've really taken the extra step from a design standpoint. On the plat the only correction is we actually made the buildings a little bit wider and we went to all duplex units rather than there were a couple of triples that show at the end there. Three unit buildings. We went to all two unit buildings on there and we did that primarily because the location we're in I guess is probably one of the prime locations on the site, and I think when you're talking about the positioning of the condominium buildings, our units are one level pretty much walkout units so we have the master bedrooms on the main floor and we're really targeting the empty nester buyer here. Luxury home empty nester buyer. We have 12 foot plate lines on the inside. These are definitely very exciting units. Very exciting floorplans. We're building a very similar unit over off of 394 and County Road 73, in an area called Bassett Creek Crossing, which is under construction right now. We've had a lot of success with people walking through those so. Our exteriors will be shake and stone. We've got copper gutters. Wood stained garage doors. It's four sided architecture. We spent a lot of time on the front, the sides and the back to make sure that from all different viewpoints and view corridors that these are exceptional and you know we're very excited about being a part of the neighborhood so, do you have any questions? I'd be happy to answer them for you. McDonald: No? Thank you very much. Rick Denman: Thank you. John Vogelbacher: Thank you Rick. And last but not least, the condominiums. Steve Mangold is here. He's one of the partners in Lakeside Condominiums, LLC and John Harriss, and another member from his office, Travis who've done a lot of, building a lot of individuals have worked on these plans but I think John would like to, he's got a rather comprehensive overview and additional information on the condominiums. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 John Harriss: Thank you John. I'm John Harriss with Harriss Architects and I'd like to just discuss briefly some of the features of the condominiums. We did talk about them quite extensively at the workshop. I wanted to start out chatting a little bit about why we designed these condominiums the way we did. Obviously the views from the site and spectacular and that was the prime motivator for the way we designed these buildings. Starting with Building A, and we will have a better name for that building someday soon. Right now we're calling it Building A. It sits up on the most prominent part of the site. Highest part of the site, with the most commanding views. These units are intended to be true luxury condominium units. Are really targeting it to be the finest condominium units in the suburbs. Anywhere in Minneapolis-St. Paul area. The V shape of the building really comes from wanting to take advantage of the views and to make sure that every unit in the building has a great view. We had previously designed it as more of a rectangular building, but that was leaving some of the units kind of looking out onto this area, and not really taking advantage of the views of the lake and the golf course. So what we've come up with is a design that's actually a single loaded corridor, which is much different than most condominiums out there. We have a corridor on one side, on the outside where the parking lot is. We have multiple entrances into that corridor so people don't feel like they're coming into a central lobby and then having to go 150 feet to a corridor. We're really trying to make this more like a home so we have actually, we'll have 2 to 3 elevators in the building that will go down to the underground parking. The units are ranging from 1,850 square feet to upwards of2,500 square feet. Just under 3,000. Some of the units are intended on the top floor to be multi level units, but most of them are single level units. Will probably be 2 bedrooms with a den. 2 1Iz bath would probably be a standard layout. All the units have extensive decks and outdoor spaces and very large windows. We'll get to the elevations after I chat about the design of Building B a little bit. Building B is also in that kind of crescent shaped. Does a couple different things. It sort of embraces the view of the lake with the pond in the foreground, and also acts as a turn to this long green space. And actually at this point one can walk through a two story lobby and connect up with the ponds so there really is a sense of a connection throughout the whole site, and that was really important to us. Not to make the building seem like it was a block to the site but really more of a filter and a way to respond to the different features of the site. This building would be a little bit more traditional. It'll be a double loaded corridor. The units ranging in size from 1,600 to 1,800 square feet. The intention is that the price point of these units would be lower. Not significantly lower but lower than Building A. So we do provide a mix of units on the site. One of the things that we wanted to do with this building to respect the neighborhood to the west, was to step it down. And you can see, it's a flat roof building. We've stepped it down in a couple different terraces. These are green terraces. The top one being a community terrace. Green terrace and the lower one being assigned to the units on the end. So at this point we get down to a two story building. I felt that that was the most appropriate thing to do for this neighborhood. And we have provided in a drawing some site sections to show the planting details and the scale related to the street. You guys can jump in anytime you want with questions. Papke: Is Building B the only one that has the rooftop gardens?a John Harriss: Yes. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Papke: Okay. Is there a reason why you did not incorporate it into the other ones or you did put it in this one was makes this one stand out as the only one that has that feature? John Harriss: Well Building A is a pitched roof so that makes that difficult. But the rest of Building B we didn't bring in any access up to the roof because if we do that we're going to have to bring the stair towers up. We're going to have to bring the elevator up which is essentially going to make it a 5 story building. Even though we'd love to have a beautiful roof terrace up there, we felt we were pushing the envelope a little bit too much so we decided not to do that. Can you get a little bit, if you want to zoom in on this or not at all but. It was our intention of the design, this is Building A. This being the Bearpath, the elevation facing Bearpath. This being the elevation facing Lake Riley. The intention was to provide a highly articulated elevation and a skin of the building that was comprised of enduring natural interiors. 80% of the building is stone and brick. Two different colors of brick. The primary color being kind of a dark reddish, wood formed, kind of an old English style brick. That really is sort of the style genesis of this is sort of the English manor homes. We have some coined features and some cast on features. We've had stone base that is highly articulated. Very large decks. Very large windows. Papke: Question for you. The chimneys are quite prominent in the design here. Are these all functional chimneys or are they there for decoration? John Harriss: It's a combo. We'll probably be running some.. .up there but their primarily decorative. Papke: Okay. All gas fireplaces in the units? No wood burning? John Harriss: Correct. So those can be side walled vented if we wanted them to but we don't really feel those are very attractive so. So you know our intention in terms of the scale of this, we do recognize the fact that we're facing other residences across the fairway at Bearpath and even though it's a very large building, we still attempted to create, break down scales of the building that would be similar in scale to the buildings across in Bearpath. If you look at a module where my hands are pointing here, a module here. Now as we march down they're articulated enough to really break down the scale. So that was our intention there. You can see we've also created some units that depict maybe some loft units within the roof line on some of the corner units as well. Lake Riley elevation really more the same thing. We're really trying to repeat some of the same elements and create some more detail. A building this size, it's really hard to show the level of detail that we're really intending but you know in terms of brick bonding and some of the details that we're going to have, it's going to be very highly detailed building. Very well crafted. The construction is going to be you know, if you can make a sound proof condominium building, this will be it and so we're really striving to do those kind of things. Building B takes some of those same elements and some of the same concepts but it's a flat roof building out of respect for the scale and out of respect for the idea of stepping the building down as well. These two gables being a little bit different in recalling some of the features on Building A. These are really kind of intended as a matched set, using some of the same materials and some of the same elements. This kind of portal here is the entrance from the north, coming down that long green space, so it really emphasizes the point of entry there in that two story space. That people can pass through from one end of the development to the other. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 We have a number of different trellis and sun control features. We recognize the fact that this building faces due south, and so we're using the trellises as decorative features so we hope that they'll be vines growing up all these buildings and really making it seem as part of the landscape and kind of give it some of that old kind of English manor type feel. Keefe: Are you going to have fireplaces in this one as well or, with flues and venting? John Harriss: Yes. Keefe: What sort of screening, is screening required do you think for this? I mean does Building A look down on it? John Harriss: Well there will be a parapet wall and there's really not going to be, there will be some mechanical equipment up on the roof but they'll be limited to the air conditioner condensers. Keefe: And so you're thinking if you parapet that would screen them? John Harriss: Yes. Keefe: Is there any elevation or I mean is there anything from A that can kind of. . . John Harriss: Yeah, the next group of graphics I have are from a vignette, some perspective drawings. Can I move this out of the way a little bit? I'm not disrupting wires or anything? Generous: No. John Harriss: I don't know if we can zoom in, if you want to zoom in on this a little bit here. That kind of gives you a pretty good overall picture. This is if you were a bird flying over Lake Riley. Looking down. So don't have anything from the view of the windows on the third floor, let's say this unit looking down. So this view really makes it seem like the rooftop's obviously are a lot more prominent but I think it does give you a sense of kind of how it fits into the landscape and the contours and the elevation shown on this drawing are taken directly from the grading plan, as are all the trees shown are directly from the landscape plan. So this is not a fantasy drawing. This is pretty accurate. There's also some vignettes. This is pretty much coming in the main entrance here and we don't show the waterfall feature because it is a little challenging graphically to put that together. But that's kind of the view you get when you're kind of coming into the complex. This shot here is the interior courtyard, and we are, the question was asked earlier about paving. We're planning on doing extensive stamped concrete and things on there. We have a water feature in the center of our parking island there. So it's really intended to be a very sense of luxury coming into this building. And then we can just see this elevation is the building facing Bearpath. And then I'll end with this. These are kind of the same thing, some vignettes and some perspectives. Maybe we could zoom in on this, get this over here a little bit. This would be looking from the southwest. You can see these are the terraces that we discussed. This being, belonging to this unit. This is being the common terrace. These will be green roofs essentially with planted modules capable of actually growing trees. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Small trees and bushes there so we're really trying to soften that edge the best we can. You see the pond with the drainage around and Building A in the background. Looking to the east with Lake Riley over here. This is a shot that's looking sort of northwest. The entrance, the parking entrance to Building B. Here's a close up the terraces. Some of the articulation that you find in the facades. And then we have Lake Riley as well showing the pond in the foreground and the building. So with that I guess I'll close and answer any questions that you might have. McDonald: Questions for Mr. Harriss? Thank you. John Harriss: Thank you. John Vogelbacher: Well I believe that concludes our presentation. I'm sure there'll be other conversation items or questions that you might have. We appreciate the opportunity to present the project to you. We're very pleased and excited about being part of the community and are anxious to get started. McDonald: I do have one question for you and I'm sorry I didn't ask you as the condo builder. What about Condo C? What kind of concepts do you have for that at this point? John Harriss: I think if we were to try, if! was going to say it would probably be most like Building B. That's you know, I think that those units will probably be a little bit smaller. Probably, and Steve correct me if I'm wrong but probably ranging from 1,200 to maybe 1,500 to 1,600 square feet. That's our thought now but we're kind of waiting to see how the community develops and what the most appropriate unit sizes would be for that building. But it will match the rest of the architecture. We'll use the same materials and the same overall concept. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Anything else that you want to address? Do any of the commissioners have any questions before he sits down? Okay. Well at this point we will open it up for our public meeting and I would invite anyone to come up that wants to make comments or ask questions, to step up to the podium. State your name and address and then address the commissioners. Sir, you're first. John Ringstrom: Commissioners, I'm John Ringstrom at 126 Lakeview and I want to say that I'm really very excited about this project because it's in my front yard and I think it's going to be a beautiful project. I do have one concern and that is regarding the storm drainage, and I think you alluded to it a little bit before and the, let's see. If! get rid of these. What I have here is just a little drawing of the area and this is the city built pond that is entirely surrounded by the North Bay community. And I've been learning a whole lot about regional ponds and duck weed and algae and everything else since this came up but one of the things that happened is, I was surprised to learn that all the water from the Sienna property is going to drain into the North Bay pond but after the very nice presentation they gave, then to tell us that part of it' s going to come into the Lakeview pond untreated. When all they have to do is add another 200 feet of pipe to get it to that side, down into their pond and treated first was a big surprise to me. And my concern is that the North Bay pond not become deteriorated. Ijust want to show you, I had a number of questions just regarding legality issues here and I think that maybe the city can respond to me on those. You've addressed some of them already and just in a little later respond 20 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 to those. If you look at the North Bay pond, you can see it's a nice clear pond. You see reflections of trees and everything else and I am concerned that it's going to deteriorate if it' s designed to the conditions that meet MPCA and everything else because this is another pond that is in the area and it's designed to all the same conditions that would be the end result maybe in the North Bay pond. And I guess I have a concern that our pond not end up looking like that one. To that end, my real concern is how do we assure that that doesn't happen. How do we assure that we keep the North Bay pond in really good shape. I think there are two things that could be done. Number one would be to re-route this untreated waste into the Sienna pond before it comes to the North Bay pond. And the other thing is, I thought okay I don't know what's going to happen to the pond. This seems like to be like green magic but I did talk to a number of the different associations where I walked around and talked to other associations, what they've done when they've had problems with ponds and things like that and to get rid of algae a common thing is to like put in a fountain aerator or something like that. That may not be necessary in the North Bay pond. We don't know but I thought well okay, what if it does happen. Then how do we address that issue? So I tried to put down at least a little bit of what it might cost to install. Today, in fact this has happened today. I did have a fellow from Fountain Air out and I got a little further education. But it looks like from what we talked about, it would probably cost about $18,000 to put an aerator into the North Bay pond and it would probably cost in the range of $2,000 a year in operating costs for electrical and in and out and that kind of thing. And I guess I just want to address those issues before we get so far back and then if I, before the North Bay, before North Bay residents have a pond issue. I'd like to address it up front. And that's all. Again I want the Sienna development to be successful and I'm really excited about it. McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to come up and make comment? Ken Ross: My name is Ken Ross. My family and I live on English Turn which is the street that, on the other side of the golf course from where the development is planned. I'd like to obj ect to three aspects of the development. The first is the 48 foot height variance of the buildings. Second is the 30 foot setback and the third is the plan to clear cut all of the trees along the entire golf course, and I'll address those in order. First of all is the 48 foot height. We heard earlier on the presentation that the 48 foot building would be at the highest point and the most prominent point in the development. I think putting a 48 foot building in that area would really not be appropriate. When I purchased my house, which now looks on trees, it was done with the understanding that there would not be buildings at that height on the other side. And now the plan is in place to do that. Secondly, in terms of where the buildings are situated. There are things on the other side, if not just the golf course. There are buildings that look, you know that overlook, including my own house, and I again did not expect buildings to be built so close to the property line when I purchased the house. I feel that both of these things will have a significant detriment to the property value of my home by putting this building in overlooking an extremely large and very tall building on a very high point of that property. And lastly as far as the trees go. The plan which really wasn't discussed here tonight, is to remove all of the trees along the entire golf course. Now I believe there is an ordinance that requires X number of trees to be left. The way that's being address is all the trees are being left on the other side of! guess it's Lyman over there, along the lake. All of the trees that currently border Bearpath are being removed. It's being done of course so the golf course views are provided but I just think that isn't really in the 21 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 spirit of an ordinance that says you can't essentially clear cut trees in an entire area. That other side there really isn't even part of a development that's on the other side of the street. It's not adjacent to any other property, and if you look at what the percentage would be, essentially with the exception of a small number of trees on the very corner, virtually every tree in that development is being removed in that area, and I really think that's something that this councilor this commission ought to consider when you look at the plan. So basically again you know, I'd like to object to the two variances for the 48 foot and the 30 foot. 48 foot height. 30 foot setback on the east side. And also ask you to consider the plan for total removal of all the trees on the east side of the property, which is what it is currently proposed. Thank you. McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to come up and address the commission? Tom Bastasz: Good evening. My name is Tom Bastasz. I'm a resident of North Bay at 179 North Lakeview. Lakeview East I should say and I currently serve as President of North Bay Homeowners Association. I will say that in general I think the 76 individual homeowners at North Bay, a majority of them are certainly in favor of this Sienna plan. We think it's a fine plan and we look forward to hopefully your commission's approval of it. We do have a concern, as expressed by Mr. Ringstrom two speakers ago. If you look at the Sienna plan, you'll see that some of the storm water is treated by their pond before it flows into the North Bay pond. But you'll also see that some of the storm water is not treated in their pond and flows directly into the North Bay pond. We're concerned about that. And we're concerned about that because if you consider when the original plat was probably the original engineering was devised, what's there now is a parking lot, the apartments and the parking lot and most of the 26 acres is natural ground, and the water will run into natural ground shall we say naturally. But now that that 26 acres could be redeveloped, it will all be, other than the buildings, it will be lawns and it will be areas that require storm water drainage. So we would request, and we know that Sienna is planning to build a fine development and they're planning to be very good neighbors, but we would request that they please consider all of their storm water would be routed to their pond before going into the North Bay pond. And I'd add one other thing why we're concerned about that. If you look on page 4 of the very lovely brochure that Lakeside passed out tonight, in the aerial photo you will see the two ponds, the North Bay pond existing. It looks pristine. And you'll see the pond beyond North Bay which is all green. We at North Bay would like to prevent that and that's why we make this request to the commission and Sienna. Thank you. McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to come up? John Bushey: Hello, I'm John Bushey at 9000 Riley Lake Road in Eden Prairie. I'm the property owner to the east of the proposed development but to the south of Riley Lake Road. Our property is a remnant of an old church camp and they're kind of in that woodsy area. Can we take a look at this here? In this area it's all woods. Natural. Pretty much the way it was when it, since it's been a church camp and there's a proposal to put a second beach and a trail along this shoreline to a small beach and a trailhead right there and I'd like to explain that the property that we have is pretty much isolated and inaccessible and almost invisible from the road during the summer, and from our house, and we have some buildings. Some remnants of the old church camp that were there that will be kind of inviting to kind of an attractive place if people are allowed easy access. We maintained the buildings. Kept them painted and roofed, but we've 22 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 purposely kept our property very rugged and inaccessible and uninviting. Well, the addition of that trail along the shoreline has the potential of inviting people down there, and that's fine. I'd like to request that if that beach is allowed, or if the trail is allowed into this corner here, that some natural plantings, maybe native shrubbery or something like that, relatively densely placed around there kind of contain the access to that area to prevent access to our buildings and property there. And without putting up fences or anything like that. It's just really pretty nice the way it is and I can understand why they want access there. Regarding the trail along the lake, I appreciate that Sienna's interested in having a very narrow trail there. It's pretty steep bank that they'll be going, traversing along and to put a narrow trail, that's the only way to do it without having a major engineering exercise so I hope that they can maintain that. If the trail is allowed, that it be kept at relatively narrow and not a big cut and fill operation with retaining walls so if that could be considered, those points be considered, I'd appreciate it. Thank you. McDonald: Thank you. Yes sir. Tom Drees: My name's Tom Drees. I live at 14727 Boulder Point Road in Eden Prairie and currently in the process of building on Bearpath Trail. I wanted to go or expound upon a couple things that Mr. Ross said about the trees and some of the other things that have gone on with Sienna down at Bearpath. As you all know Sienna was the builder of Bear path. They marketed the Bearpath lots. They own the golf course. There's 8 houses which you can see, where's the picture here? These houses all along this road right here. A number of people I've talked to, it was marketed the same way by Sienna reps that there's a 40 foot corridor on the other side of this fence that is being saved for a trail, and that these trees can never be disrupted. Now while this drawing shows there's hardly any trees there. I don't know if they erased them or what but we did get a little better picture in case you haven't seen it of what the trees actually look like. So this is where we're talking about the Building A, 48 foot high complex in their development. They're going to clear cut this right here is the fence, so it looks like a hedge. It is a fence. Every tree you see from here to here is going to be clear cut. Some of them have 3 foot bases. Some have 6 foot bases. They're going to be clear cut, which gives the golf course views that they're trying to sell. The project is a nice project. The variances and the clear cutting are the issue. Sienna sold the properties on the other side to Bearpath, or to people who live in Bearpath and now they're turning around and breaking the sales pitch that those trees are going to be disrupted to provide golf course views on the other side to make money for themselves again. So I guess the question is, how do you know exactly what they're going to do because they've kind of turned the tables on all the people that live on that side in Bearpath by disrupting the views. You go from a nature view with big mature trees, and here's another picture. The only area, you go from the edge of this picture right here all the way to the back of the green. That entire tree canopy is gone. Done. And what they're doing, the other part of the sales pitch was, there's a 40 foot corridor that couldn't be touched and a 50 foot variance so in a worst case scenario you're looking about 90 feet at a two story building. Now you're looking at a top of a hill with all the trees clear cut. For what purpose? They said that they want to go up three stories because they have this green space they want to preserve. Otherwise it'd only be two stories. We want to put more units. Well if you look at this proposal, I can't see any green space on there that they're talking about. Where is the green space that they were going to add those extra units? So I guess what we're requesting, what I'm requesting of this committee is while the project overall is 23 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 fine. That Building A is a big issue for the people that live on the other side and were given a promise by Sienna years ago when they built the Bearpath project. Thank you. McDonald: Thank you. Scott Frederiksen: Hello. My name is Scott Frederiksen. I also live on Bearpath Trail. I work as a career for a large commercial real estate company in the Twin Cities called Welsh Company and our business is standing up here on a regular basis and appealing to planning commissions and trying to get variances. What we're repeatedly told when we come up here and apply for a variance is that you have to meet one of two conditions. Either there has to be a public benefit to granting that variance, or there has to be a hardship, and clearly there isn't either of those things here tonight. The only thing that you're doing by increasing the height variance is allowing them to get more units on the site. The only thing you're allowing them to do by increasing, or decreasing the setback is cram the building closer to the golf course to make it more marketable and raise their sale proceeds so other than increasing the bottom line profit to Sienna, there's no basis for granting either of these variances and I'd have a hard time telling you, you know you could support that so. And just expounding on what Tom said, even a week and a half ago they were telling us those trees would stay so this, we had to find out about this from the Chanhassen paper so it was kind of a disappointing way to hear about what's going on in your back yard from your developer. McDonald: Thank you. Anyone else? Bruce Carlson: Hi, I'm Bruce Carlson. I've lived on English Turn. The same street as the other individuals here. I'd like to echo their comments and also add that the comments were made relative to the variance for the setback that there's nothing on the other side. The fact that there's a public trail to be built there is something that's significant from a standpoint of what are the normal setbacks for a public trail? I'm sure public trails are being put in at various places. There are setback requirements to those, and that should be honored as well. The trees, especially given the maturity of them and the nature of them, the idea that they'll be clear cut is pretty reprehensible and irresponsible as far as I'm concerned. Thank you. McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to come forward? Anne Florenzano: Hi. My name is Anne Florenzano and I'm your neighbor across Lake Riley in Eden Prairie, 9470 Lakeland Terrace and I just want to add my objection also to the 48 foot variance because looking across the lake, on one of the pages, you do have a view. Let's see if! can find it. I don't know if you can zoom in on the photos... That photo right there is the view from across the lake and for many, many of your neighbors who live on Lake Riley, both on the Eden Prairie side and the Chanhassen side, and...I think there would be a huge difference between a two story building and what you're proposing with a variance a three story building and how that's going to affect what it looks like from the lake. And people come to the lake to enjoy that. Now once again I have not a problem with a lot of the architectural details and some of the planned amenities, but the variance in height is a concern. Thank you. McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to come forward? 24 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Joan Ludwig: Hi. I'm Joan Ludwig and I live at 9005 Lake Riley Boulevard. It's the first house at the corner of Lyman and Lake Riley, and I have to say that a three story building would be right out my view as well so I echo what's been said about this variance for a very tall building. I'm also very concerned about the trees because even though I was never promised the trees, they certainly are attractive in the neighborhood. Thank you. McDonald: Does anyone else wish to come forward? Janet Paulsen: My name is Janet Paulsen and I live at 7305 Laredo Drive. I would just like to address the variances because this is. . . to increase the profit and it's self created. . . report on page 5 it's supposed to supply a variance. . . for all people of all income levels. Now on page 17 of the report it says the intent of the project is for luxurious housing units at the upper end of housing prices. So they're missing the... individual taste and expectations as stated on page 19 and we think it's not meeting the requirements of the comprehensive plan. . . all income levels. Also the setbacks should have to be maintained...It should maintain all the setbacks required. Another question is also, if the OHW now. . . because it's pretty hard to measure how those gazebo's and so forth will fit on the property if the OHW is higher so I would just like to confirm that. Thank you. McDonald: Thank you. Does anyone else wish to come up and make comment? Okay, seeing no one else get up, I'll close the public meeting and I'll bring it back before the council for comments. Dan, we'll start with you. Keefe: Well overall I think it's actually one of the finer developments which has come before us in terms of how well thought out it is in terms of the quality or the architecture. In terms of the really the quality of the whole, and the architectural detailing on the buildings and the condominium units. The amenity levels. The landscaping that you brought in. The creek running down the middle. Really it's just high quality and first class. I commend you for bringing that in. However I too am troubled by the height. Particularly the height variance. I think in regards to the variance on the beachlot, I can buy into the notion of hardship related to having everybody in the development have access to the beach, so I think I'm alright with that but I'm troubled by the height variance and I'm not seeing really the hardship related to that variance. So that's my thought on that. McDonald: Okay. Mark. Undestad: I'm kind of with Dan on this too but again the height issues on there. That seems to kind of come into play all around Building A on there. We're not really privy to what's been said between the developers and homeowners as far as which trees stay and which trees go. I know when we create a planned unit development, that gives the developer the opportunities to do a few more opportunities to rearrange. I mean eliminate some more trees or cluster some homes and create more green space on there, and that's what they've elected to do is create the new beauty out there. It sounds like the ponding issues and some of the other issues we've had in here have been resolved and talked about, but I think it still kind of comes back as one that on the height of Building A. That's going to be kind of sitting up over the whole world over there 25 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 so, but I think overall I think the design is excellent and the overall project, I like it. We just need to look at that height on Building A out there. McDonald: Thanks Mark. Kevin. Dillon: Yeah. A couple things. The question I had about programs for the people that are being dislocated, they seem to do a pretty good job with a pretty comprehensive plan of addressing that so I'm pleased with that. In terms of the beach, making sure that all the residents can have access, even though they're slightly outside the agreed...I think that makes, that's common sense and I think that I would be fine with that. The other thing that kind of brought up is you know I don't know about hydraulics and hydronomy about the runoff and all that but it would seem to me that, I can see where the people that have an issue with that, having their pond being exposed to water from the other development, if there'd be a way to kind of address that, I think that that would be prudent. Larson: Well everybody's kind of covered most of the things that I had. I guess one of the issues that I had from the beginning was the trees also. Other than that, maybe I'd like to understand you know what's going to be going up in place. I know they will be younger trees but like Mark said, you know because they're buying the property and because it's a PUD, they do have that right to readjust and rearrange things. I think it is an excellent plan. I'm certainly pretty much in favor of everything. The 48 foot height doesn't bother me because it's a nice building. It's not ugly. If it was a big, old ugly building I would have a huge problem with it but it's a beautiful building and I think from the standpoint of aesthetics, okay so they're adding more units in it to help cover the cost I suppose, or should I say maybe more profit but I think it will really be an asset as far as putting in something of the stature in Chanhassen so I'm leaning towards pretty much approving it all. McDonald: Thank you. Kurt. Papke: This development brings up some interesting issues here. Ifwe look at what we're trying to do, the whole idea, as Bob pointed out at the beginning of this application this evening, is you know reading from the verbiage here is to relax most normal zoning district standards in order to permit density clustering, and so improve the quality. I think one of the things we've been struggling with here tonight is all these variances. You know other than the beachlot issue with the 1,000 foot distance, I think we'd all be hard pressed to say oh, there's a hardship here. Okay. I don't think hardship is really the issue. I think more the issue is the quality issue and I think that's what we're really getting to, and if we look at how this is guided for zoning. This is guided for 8 to 16 units per acre, and this development is coming in at 8.9 which is at the low end. I mean that's a good thing so we're at the low end of it and, but we're achieving that by going higher, okay and we're minimizing the runoff. And getting back to the water quality issues, which we're all conscience of and striving for, I think that's a good thing. Ifwe made the buildings lower, we're going to have a bigger footprint. We're going to have more hard surface coverage. We're going to have more runoff and more runoff issues, so I think at the end of the day that's a good thing. But I'm struggling with you, it was very interesting to hear the public commentary. Kind of my take away on all this is, we're going to get a more, little bit more green space within the development. Lower density and so the residents of Chanhassen benefit, but 26 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 there's some existing residents of Eden Prairie who lose some views. Chanhassen benefits. Eden Prairie loses a little bit in this deal. So interesting dilemma here. What's the right thing for everyone involved? If you look at the golf course, I drive down Pioneer two times every day. Right past the golf course and you see a solid wall of townhomes on, facing north from Pioneer Trail. And I appreciate the fact that some people are going to lose some views, but that's kind of what the views are in a lot of the areas, and unfortunately every time we go into one of these developments, we chop down some trees and we put some more trees up to compensate for them. That's kind of how it works so. It's an interesting dilemmas here with, I believe the fact that this is really good for Chanhassen. It's a phenomenal development for Chanhassen but there's some folks in Eden Prairie that kind of lose some stuff as a result of it so, that's rather unfortunate. McDonald: Thank you. I guess the only comments I have is, a lot of people have said things about profit. That we're doing things for profit. Profit isn't bad. That's what makes developers come in and develop property. I understand the dilemma that the people over in Eden Prairie are having. However I would say that Sienna you know should probably do something about that. If those promises were made, that's something you should address. I'm not sure why all the trees need to come down myself. I would think some of that being left behind might even be a good sales pitch for a person. I understand you're looking for golf course views and that's a decision you're going to have to make but just be aware you'll have to live with it. The beach front lots, I'm okay with treating this as a PUD because again at that point we get something. We give up something. I think we're gaining a lot. I've seen, you know we're doing a lot of these developments a little bit to the south of here. They're a little bit higher density and not nearly as nice. I understand this is all upper bracket. The vast majority of us will never live there but there are people, you can talk about diversity. I think that we would like to have people that are well off within the city of Chanhassen. So I do not look at this as missing our comprehensive plan. I think Commissioner Papke called it out just right. This is not a high packed development. It meets the requirements and meets it on the low end. This is going to be a real gem of a community. The water quality. That's something I think the city's got to look at and address, and you're doing that already. Before, you already got the surface water management plan. We've already been through it on the, I think the lake just to the, Lake Ann as a matter of fact. Or Susan. I always get the two mixed up but the city is going around on a lake and pond basis and we're evaluating all this and that's part of what we're trying to do is to maintain the water quality so I think a lot of those concerns will be addressed. So I don't see a lot of problems there. The 48 foot height variance. Again, because of the PUD and because of what we're getting, I think it's a good compromise to the developer. Yes, I don't see the big hardships either. You're absolutely right, but that's what a PUD allows you to do. We got something in return. We're willing to give something up. I think the 48 foot variance is a good trade off. And I think overall, except for the problem I believe that Sienna may have with some of their former customers, it looks like an excellent development and I'm sure you'll do right by everybody. So with that. Papke: One more comment Mr. Chair? As I sat on the Surface Water Management Task Force this winter, one of the things I got hammered into my brain by our illustrious surface water management person is that water quality and you know eliminating duck weed on our water retention ponds is not a goal of our surface water management plan. They are there to treat surface water. To protect Lake Riley, Lake Ann, Riley, and Lake Ann, Lake Susan, and all the 27 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 things that we're really trying to protect. I think it would be great is Sienna puts in an aerator to pretty up the existing retention pond. I think they do that out of the goodness of their hearts and for aesthetics because obviously they're going to have units that are going to have views of that pond, great. Okay, but from the perspective of our goal with managing the surface water in Chanhassen, that's not one of our objectives so anyway, just. McDonald: Well, thank you for clarify that. With that I'm willing to accept. John Vogelbacher: Mr. Chairman, may I say something? McDonald: Sure. Step right up. John Vogelbacher: I certainly appreciate the comments and concerns of the Bearpath residents because we certainly have a very vested interest with them. We're also the golf course owners. Developed that property and I certainly have taken your comments to heart. I can assure you that myself, or anyone at Sienna would not have made those promises and I don't know what anyone else said but I'll certainly look into that. There isn't any requirement or anything else that would have ever been written relative to the issue of the trees or what would have happened in Chanhassen or such. I'm not aware of that but I certainly will look into that. We have other people that do other companies that are affiliated that do sales for the project and I'll certainly look into that. I promised before I'll do that. Relative to some of the other comments, on the storm sewer issue, just after evaluating and talking to our civil engineer, I certainly think we can make the additional storm pipe connections so that all the surface runoff from the project goes into our treatment pond first before it leaves the site. We'll have to add a decent amount of storm pipe but we certainly feel that that's appropriate and we can do it. And I think that might not solve the problem totally but I think relative to that one comment, I think we can certainly do that. As it relates to the tree loss, there's some other issues and some people.. .just aren't aware of that you could maybe zoom in if you could please on the aerial photograph. Get even closer if you could. Is that? There's not a clear cutting process going on here. Certainly the amount of trees that are in Chanhassen, those are being removed and there's a couple reasons for that. One, the location of the buildings that we have on the property are in the proximity of the golf course to see it. When we start building there, there's, you can't have a tree there. The value of this property and the hardship of what we're doing here is very obvious. It's obvious to us. This is a very expensive piece of property that the existing apartment complex. There's probably almost close to a million dollars in demolition to take that out of there and the point being is that to do this project and to do it this quality, you know we need the height of those buildings to produce the revenue that substantiates the development. As you all know when you get up on the top floor of a building, that's the most premium unit that you have, and so the reason why our builders are interested in constructing those buildings is because of that premium, and without that I'm very afraid we don't have a project so relative to the height hardship, I can express to you in a financial sense that it is a hardship and without it, I don't know if we have a project. I know I don't have a contract with my builder. I guess that would be a call for him to make. Because we made representations on what we feel is appropriate and we're asking the Planning Commission to provide that opportunity to us. But the tree clearing is, if you look at the trees that are on the golf course, there are no trees on the golf course that are being removed. None. So the illustration of the gentleman looking at the horizon there, that's not accurate. There's 28 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 numerous trees, if you look at the aerial, I don't know how many are up and down the golf course on that berm that drives up to the west of the golf course. Right here. Well... if I count, maybe about 50. . . Resident: That's an overhead view. This is the actual view. Right at the fence line is. McDonald: Okay, if! could. Well I would prefer is that, at this point we haven't really gotten into any of these issues that we're saying anything about the trees. We have made our comments. We have said we recognize the economic value of this. I think at this point there is no objection coming from the commission about the height. If there are issues concerning the trees and those things, I would prefer that you all deal with it as private parties because some of this is in the city of Eden Prairie. Some of it is in the city of Chanhassen. How it is dealt with, because you're the owner of both properties, I think that is something you've got to deal with. We are not attempting to deal with that tonight. What is before us is the PUD, and that is what we're going to vote on. And we're not voting on trees. Which ones come up or which ones come down because that is part of the plan. So anything that gets beyond this I think is getting out of the scope of what is before this commission and I would prefer that those be private conversations, which is where they belong at this point. So I appreciate you making comments but at this point I will close the public meeting again and we need to come back up here and I'm looking for some recommendations. Papke: Mr. Chairman, do you want one motion or four? McDonald: Why don't we just do all four. We'll vote on them. Papke: Mr. Chair, I make a motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission approves rezoning of the property located within the Lakeside development from High Density Residential District, R-12 to PUD, incorporating the development design standards contained within the staff report with a variance for the eastern perimeter setback, subject to the final plat and approval for the Lakeside development. I also make a motion that we recommend approval of the preliminary plat for Lakeside, plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering, dated May 19, 2006, subject to conditions 1 through 55. I further make a motion that we approve Site Plan for 233 housing units and a community building with a pool, plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering dated May 19,2006, revised June 7,2006 with a variance for building height for the condominium units, subject to conditions 1 through 16. And finally, I make a motion that we approve conditional use permit for a recreational beachlot, with a variance from the requirement that 80 percent of the units within 1,000 feet of the recreational beachlot, plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering, dated May 19, 2006, revised June 7,2006, subject to conditions 1 through 9 as stated in the staff report. McDonald: Thank you. Do I have a second? Larson: Second. Papke moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Rezoning of the property located within the Lakeside development, from High Density 29 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Residential District (R12) to Planned Unit Development - Residential (PUD-R) incorporating the development design standards contained within this staff report, with a Variance for the eastern perimeter setback, subject to the final plat approval for the Lakeside development. All voted in favor except Commissioner Keefe who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Papke moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Preliminary Plat for Lakeside, plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering, dated May 19, 2006 ,subject to the following conditions: 1. The developer must submit a list of proposed street name( s) and an addressing plan to Chanhassen Building Official and Chanhassen Fire Marshal for review and approval prior to final plat of the property. 2. Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services. 3. Additional fire hydrants will be required. Please contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of additional hydrants and any to be relocated. 4. A minimum buffer of 16.5 to 20 feet shall be preserved around the perimeter of the wetland. All structures (including parking lots) shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the wetland buffer. All trails and retaining walls shall be modified to remain outside the wetland buffer. The plans shall be revised to reflect the required wetland buffer and wetland buffer setback. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. 5. The plans shall be revised to depict the OHW of Lake Riley, which is 865.3. All structures shall be located a minimum of75 feet from the OHW. The proposed fire pit shall be located a minimum of75 feet from the OHW and shall be buffered from the lake by vegetation. No grading or intensive clearing of vegetation shall occur within the shore impact zone (all areas within 37.5 feet of the OHW). 6. A conditional use permit (CUP) shall be obtained from the City prior to the operation of a recreational beach lot. 7. All existing amenities and/or structures (including any docks, existing beach that is not proposed to remain and the boat launch) on Outlot B, North Bay shall be removed. A boat launch is not permitted. 8. The location of the building on Lot 1, Block 1 shall be adjusted to respect all drainage and utility easements. 9. The applicant shall supply details about the water feature between the rear yards of the units in Block 3, specifically the source for the water in the water feature. As an alternative to the 30 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 current proposal, the applicant should consider revising the plans to utilize storm water as an amenity as part of a rain garden system in this area. 10. The applicant shall provide additional information detailing the proposed emergency overflow (EOF) route from Pond 1 to Lake Riley. 11. The grading and landscaping proposed around Pond 1 shall be revised to provide a flat, open area so maintenance equipment can access the flared end sections from Lake Riley Road East without damaging the retaining wall or the landscaping and without being below the NWL of the pond. 12. All storm water infrastructure, including catch basins, storm sewer pipes, manholes, flared- end sections, outlet structures, ponds and swales, shall be owned, operated and maintained by the developer and, eventually, the homeowners association. Prior to final plat recording, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the City that outlines the parameters of operation, inspection and maintenance of the storm water infrastructure. This agreement shall be transferred to the homeowners association prior to the developer relinquishing responsibility for the development. 13. The SWPPP shall be provided to the City for review by the Carver Soil and Water Conservation District. 14. The plans shall be revised to show that erosion control blanket will be installed over all areas with 3: 1 slopes or steeper. 15. A stable emergency overflow (EOF) for the pond shall be provided. The EOF could consist of rip rap and geotextile fabric or a turf re-enforcement mat (a permanent erosion control blanket). A typical detail shall be included in the plan. 16. Energy dissipation shall be provided for all inlets and outlets within 24 hours of installation 17. Wimco-type or other comparable inlet controls shall be used and installed within 24 hours of installation of the inlets. Perimeter controls and inlet protection shall be in place and maintained as needed until 70% of the vegetation is established. 18. Typical building lot controls shall be shown on the plan in a typical detail. These controls shall include perimeter controls (silt fence), rock driveways, street sweeping, inlet control and temporary mulch after final grade and prior to issuing the Certificate of Occupancy (CO). 19. The proposed storm water pond shall be used as a temporary sediment basin during mass grading. The pond shall be excavated prior to disturbing up-gradient areas. Plans shall show how the temporary basin will be constructed and how water will be diverted to the temporary basin. Berms and/or ditches may be needed to divert water to the pond, and temporary pond outlets are needed. The outlet could be a temporary perforated standpipe and rock cone. The plans shall be revised to include a detail for the temporary pond outlet. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 20. The proposed silt fence along Wetland Basin B shall be Type 2 silt fence, as specified in Chanhassen Standard Detail Plate 5300. Type 1 silt fence may be used for the remainder of the site. The grading plan shall be revised to show the proposed silt fence following the grading limits for the site and shall be located outside of the required 16.5-foot wetland buffer. Silt fence shall be placed at the proposed high water level elevation of the proposed storm water pond. 21. Street gutters and catch basins are considered "surface waters" and shall be protected from exposed soils with a positive slope within 200 linear feet. Following installation of curb and gutter, silt fence shall be installed curbside along all positive slopes to the street with exposed soils. 22. Plans shall be revised to show erosion and sediment control measures for the road ditch along Lyman Boulevard. All perimeter controls shall be inspected by the city and the SWCD prior to grading. 23. Details for concrete washout areas where drivers will wash out their trucks and how the water will be treated should be developed and included in the SWPPP. 24. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. 25. At this time, the estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording, is $195,293. 26. The owner/operator of the proposed development shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Site Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Department of Health) and comply with their conditions of approval. 27. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to construction around all areas designated for preservation and/or at the edge of proposed grading limits. 28. A walk-through inspection of the silt/tree preservation fence shall be required prior to construction. 29. No burning permits shall be issued for tree removal. All trees removed on site shall be chipped and used on site or hauled off. 30. The applicant shall increase landscape plantings along the east property line to minimum bufferyard requirements. 31. No trees shall be removed behind the northwestern corner of the silt fence as shown on grading plans dated 05/19/06. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 32. A total of 139 trees shall be planted in the development as required for canopy coverage. 33. All existing buildings, driveways and accessory structures must be removed before grading commences. 34. The lowest floor elevation of 106 Lakeview Road East must be field verified. 35. The high water level of the proposed pond must be minimum three feet lower than the lowest floor elevation of the adjacent homes along Lakeview Road East. 36. The high water level of the wetland must be determined. 37. The proposed grading in the northwest corner near the wetland needs to be adjusted so that the first floor elevation of the homes within Lot 13, Block 2 are at least one foot above the emergency overflow elevation of the wetland. 38. Pavement grades at the following locations must be adjusted so that the grade does not exceed 7%: West of Building A, and the northern street extending from the Lakeview Road East intersection. 39. Private driveway grades shall not exceed 10%. 40. Ground (i.e. non-paved) surface grades shall not be less than 2%. 41. Emergency overflow locations and elevations must be shown on the plan. 42. High point elevations between the catch basins must be shown along the east side of Block 2. 43. Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services. 44. An easement is required from the appropriate property owner for any off-site grading. 45. If importing or exporting material for development of the site is necessary, the applicant will be required to supply the City with detailed haul routes. 46. Building permits are required for all retaining walls four feet tall or higher and must be designed by a Structural Engineer registered in the State of Minnesota. 47. All sanitary sewer, watermain and storm sewer within this site shall be privately owned and maintained. 48. The watermain extension from Lyman Boulevard must be wet-tapped and must be done under traffic. 33 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 49. The developer must provide ingress/egress to the North Bay residents for the duration of the utility extension within Lake Riley Road East. 50. Each new lot is subject to the sanitary sewer and water hookup charges. The 2006 trunk hookup charge is $1,575 for sanitary sewer and $4,078 for watermain. Sanitary sewer and watermain hookup fees may be specially assessed against the parcel at the time of building permit issuance. All of these charges are based on the number of SAC units assigned by the Met Council and are due at the time of building permit issuance. 51. The 15-foot wide sanitary sewer easement on the northwest side of the property must be vacated. 52. The proposed pool house must not lie within the drainage and utility easement. 53. The payment of full park dedication fees at the rate in force upon final plat approval in lieu of parkland dedication. 54. The applicant shall provide all design, engineering, construction and testing services required of the "Lyman Boulevard Trail." All construction documents shall be delivered to the Park and Recreation Director and City Engineer for approval prior to the initiation of each phase of construction. The trail shall be 10 feet in width, surfaced with bituminous material, and constructed to meet all city specifications. The applicant shall be reimbursed for the actual cost of construction materials for the Lyman Boulevard Trail. This reimbursement payment shall be made upon completion and acceptance of the trail and receipt of an invoice documenting the actual costs for the construction materials utilized in its construction. 55. The trail connection at the northeast corner of the site connecting the Lakeside area to the future Highway 212 trail and underpass, as depicted in the applicant's plans, is completed." All voted in favor except Commissioner Keefe who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Papke moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Site Plan for 233 housing units and a community building with pool, plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering, dated May 19,2006, revised June 7, 2006, with a Variance for building height for the condominium units, subject to the following conditions: 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. The pool, including the pool deck, shall be relocated outside the 50-foot setback from Lyman Boulevard. 3. Accessibility must be provided to all portions of the development and a percentage of the units may also be required to be accessible or adaptable in accordance with Minnesota State Building Code Chapter 1341. Further information is needed to determine these requirements. 34 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 4. Buildings over 8500 square feet of floor area are required to be protected with an automatic sprinkler system. For the purposes of this requirement property lines do not constitute separate buildings and the areas of basements and garages are included in the floor area threshold. 5. The buildings will be required to be designed by an architect and engineer as determined by the Building Official. 6. Demolition permits must be obtained before demolishing any structures on the site. Application for such permits must include hazardous substances investigative and proposed mitigation reports. 7. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before permits can be issued. 8. Walls and projections within three feet of property lines are required to be of one-hour fire- resistive construction. 9. Retaining walls over four feet high require a permit and must be designed by a professional engmeer. 10. A 10-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e., street lamps, trees, shrubs, bushes, Xce1 Energy, Qwest, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1. 11. Yellow curbing and "No Parking Fire Lane" signs will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact location of yellow curbing and locations of signs to be installed. 12. Fire apparatus access roads and water supply for fire protection is required to be installed. Such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternate methods of protection are provided. 13. Temporary street signs shall be installed at street intersections once construction of the new roadway allows passage of vehicles. Pursuant to 2002 Minnesota Fire code Section 501.4. 14. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus and shall be serviced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities. Pursuant to Minnesota State Fire Code Section 503.2.3. 15. No burning permits shall be issued for trees to be removed. Trees and shrubs must either be removed from site or chipped. 16. Approved fire apparatus access roads (driveways) shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the 35 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access roads shall comply with requirements of Section 503 and shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility or any portion of the exterior wall of the first story of the building as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. Exceptions: Fire Marshal is authorized to increase the dimension of 150 feet where the building is equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3. Pursuant to Section 503.1.1 2000 Minnesota Fire Code." All voted in favor except Commissioner Keefe who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Papke moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit for a recreational beach lot with a Variance from the requirement that 80 percent of the units within 1,000 feet of the recreational beach lot, plans prepared by Pioneer Engineering, dated May 19,2006, revised June 7, 2006, subject to the following conditions: 1. A conditional use permit (CUP) shall be obtained from the City prior to the operation of a recreational beach lot. 2. The plans shall be revised to depict the OHW of Lake Riley, which is 865.3. All structures shall be located a minimum of75 feet from the OHW. The proposed fire pit shall be located a minimum of75 feet from the OHW and shall be buffered from the lake by vegetation. No grading or intensive clearing of vegetation shall occur within the shore impact zone (all areas within 37.5 feet of the OHW). 3. The area of Outlot B shall be recalculated to include only the area within the outlot above the OHW. The amount of shoreline for Outlot B shall be calculated along the OHW. The number of docks and slips permitted by the conditional use permit for the beach lot shall not exceed the number of docks and slips allowable by City Code for the actual beach lot area and frontage. 4. All existing amenities and/or structures (including any docks, existing beach that is not proposed to remain and the boat launch) on Outlot B, North Bay shall be removed. A boat launch is not permitted. 5. The applicant shall work with staff on the design of and materials for proposed path from Lyman Boulevard to the dock to minimize the impacts of runoff from the path to the shoreline and Lake Riley. 6. The proposed walking path along the shoreline shall be made of a pervious surface such as mulch, crushed rock or turf grass and shall not be located below the OHW. Special attention shall be paid to ensure that the path materials are not prone to erosion. The plans shall be revised to show the woodland gardens above the OHW of Lake Riley. 36 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 7. An individual permit shall be obtained from the DNR for any beach sand applications that do not meet the DNR standards for sand blanket applications without an individual permit. 8. One beach area shall be permitted to minimize impacts to the lake and to adjacent residents. 9. The applicant shall work with staff on the placement of the beach lot infrastructure to preserve as many of the existing trees in that area as possible. A survey of the area with the tree locations will be required and used to facilitate tree preservation. The applicant shall also work with staff on the location of the woodland path and woodland gardens along the path. " All voted in favor except Commissioner Keefe who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Papke: Dan, you want to clarify? Keefe: Yeah, my issue's with the height variance on number C. McDonald: The building? Keefe: Letter C. McDonald: Oh, okay. Did you take note of that Bob? Okay, thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: ABRA AUTO BODY & GLASS: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN AUTOMOBILE BODY REPAIR SHOP AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR 14.430 SQUARE FOOT EXPANSION TO A 4.074 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING ON 1.89 ACRES LOCATED AT 60 LAKE DRIVE EAST. PROPERTY ZONED HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT. APPLICANT ABRA AUTO BODY. PLANNING CASE 06-24. Public Present: Name Address Henry Cornelius Maleah Alosta Carol Kahnke 6322 Timber Trail, Minneapolis, 55439 Alliant Engineering, 233 Park Ave, Mpls 154 Choctaw Circle Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Dan? Mark? Kevin? Dillon: How many outside parking spots for like cars that are like waiting to get repaired? How many, or how many on the spot, typically how many cars are there now and then how will that increase? 37 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Generous: I think the applicant would be better able to address that specific operational question. McDonald: Anything else Kevin? Dillon: Ah no. That's the only question I have. McDonald: Debbie? Kurt? Yeah, I have no questions either. Will the applicant please come forward. Henry Cornelius: Hi. My name is Henry Cornelius. I'm with Abra Auto Body and Glass, Chanhassen and to address the specific question, it's probably not going to change much. Actually probably will be less because we have a lot more space inside. Right now the problem we've got is, business has grown. The building is too small and so it's just, it's just natural evolution. Bigger building. And the other thing is, we've actually gone with less doors and so it's a more room inside so just drive through and, or just drive everything in and park it inside. McDonald: Any questions for the applicant? Thank you very much. Henry Cornelius: One comment I would say is, I think that the original building was built in '91 and I don't think it's really been improved since then and it's got a, for that size building it's got an inordinate amount of blacktop if you will, and it's pretty deteriorated all around there. I think this is really look impressive. I know we're doing quite a bit with the landscaping and to meet all the codes, and I think it will look like a nice building. Papke: One question before, well I don't know if this is for the applicant or city staff. With obviously you already are painting cars in your existing location but you'll, I assume there's a larger spray booth or something of that nature going in here. Can we comment on the additional pollutants being generated and how they're being treated? That would be my only concern with this whole proposal is air pollution issues associated with the paint booth. Henry Cornelius: Probably since we put that booth in place about 13 years ago, I think the standards have tighten up and anything new that will go in would be, would probably be less polluting. We're planning on putting only one booth in again. What we're going to be doing is putting two prep stations in, which are, they're kind of mini booths but they're very well filtered and I mean standards just get tighter. We're inspected on a regular basis. Abra Auto does corporately and then we get audited by people. As a matter of fact I was at a conference in February and we actually hire an outside audit agency to come in. An organization, a consulting firm to come in and we just, you know we don't need those kind of problems and so they audit us quite extensively and anybody who comes into our location, we've got files and we're checked and we check a lot. McDonald: Thanks. Okay, this is a public meeting so at this time anyone wishing to make comment, please come forward and address the commissioners. Okay, seeing no one come forward. Come on up. 38 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Carol Kahnke: My name is Carol Kahnke. I live in Chanhassen on Choctaw Circle. I guess I just wanted to ask one thing because I know one of our locations... business to have great concern with how many vehicles are outside. I think it was addressed here so. Since Mr. Cornelius is going to be enlarging his business, and that's good...I guess I'm curious as to whether or not it kind of opens up, are you going to put a limit on the number of vehicles that will obviously be outside? I think you previously addressed that. So that would be my only concern. I don't know how much more space there is in the building, and I'm not... screening and how much can you really screen but it sounds like he's taken that into consideration but that was my only question. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Does anyone else have any questions or wish to make comments? Okay, seeing no one, close the public meeting and I'll bring it back up for the commissioners for comment. Kurt, I'll start with you this time. Papke: I have no concerns. I think it's a very attractive design with glass curtain wall. I think the sight lines from Highway 5 should be very nice. I think this is great. No issues. McDonald: Debbie? Larson: I'll just make a compliment that I like the fact that they have gone well above the required amount of landscaping and this just looks wonderful so kudos to that. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Dillon: My question or concern was addressed. I'm good. McDonald: Okay. Mark? Okay. I actually have no comments either. This is a well thought out plan and thank you very much for thinking of the community and making our job so easy so that we don't have to make a lot of recommendations. It shows a little bit of fore thought. With that I will bring it back up, looking for a recommendation or a motion. Keefe: I'll make a motion, Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Case #06- 24 for site plan approval for a 14,430 square foot expansion to a 4,074 square foot building, plans prepared by Alliant Engineering, Inc., dated 5/19/06 subject to conditions 1 through 23. And B, the Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Case #06-24 for a conditional use permit for a major auto body, or auto repair and body shop subject to conditions 1 through 8. McDonald: Can I have a second? Undestad: Second. Keefe moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Case #06-24 for Site Plan approval for a 14,430 square-foot expansion to a 4,074 39 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 square-foot building, plans prepared by Alliant Engineering, Inc., dated 5/19/06, subject to the following conditions: 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. The addition is required to have an automatic fire extinguishing system. 3. The plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 4. The expansion must comply with Minnesota Accessibility Code (MSBC 1341 required). 5. A separate sign permit shall be required for each sign proposed on the site. 6. The lighting must be shielded to prevent off-site glare. 7. The builder must comply with the following fire prevention policies: 04, 06, 07, 29, 34, 36, 40,47,49 and 52. 8. The applicant shall protect all existing trees to be preserved during grading and construction. Any trees damaged, removed or killed that were to be saved shall be replaced by the applicant prior to final inspection for the site. Trees with less than 60% canopy shall be replaced before landscaping financial guarantees are released. 9. Mechanical equipment must be screened. No wooded fences are permitted on the roof. 10. A wetland buffer 16.5 to 20 feet in width (with a minimum average width of 16.5 feet) shall be maintained around Wetland A. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install a minimum of 4 wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of City staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. All structures shall maintain a 40- foot setback from the edge of the wetland buffer. 11. A temporary cover of mulch and temporary seed shall be in place within 14 days of rough and or final grade for any exposed soils or if any exposed soils are not actively worked within a 14-day time period. 12. During installation of the proposed storm sewer infrastructure to the existing storm sewer, temporary caps or plugs shall be needed until the installation of the pipes and inlets are complete to prevent sediment from entering the storm sewer. 13. Plans shall include a designated concrete washout area and/or plans on how the development will handle the concrete wash water. 40 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 14. All perimeter controls and inlet protections shall remain in place until 70% of the area is permanently protected by vegetative cover. 15. Wimco-type or other comparable inlet controls shall be used and installed within 24 hours of installation of the inlets. Additional existing catch basins immediately adjacent to the project shall also be protected. 16. The proposed silt fence along Wetland A shall be Type 2 silt fence, as specified in Chanhassen Standard Detail Plate 5300. Type 1 silt fence may be used for the remainder of the site. The grading plan shall be revised to show the proposed silt fence following the grading limits for the site and shall be located outside of the required 16.5-foot wetland buffer. All perimeter controls shall be inspected by the city and the SWCD prior to grading. 17. The applicant shall make certain that all construction equipment uses the entire length of the rock construction entrance and that the entrance is properly maintained to minimize soil tracking onto streets. Street cleaning of soil tracked onto public streets shall include daily street scraping and street sweeping as needed. 18. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (NPDES Phase II Construction Site Permit), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (for dewatering), Army Corps of Engineers, Minnesota Department of Transportation (for discharge into their storm water infrastructure), Minnesota Department of Health) and comply with their conditions of approval. 19. The developer's engineer must submit data showing that the proposed runoff rate and volume to the existing storm sewer on the north side of the site will not exceed the existing rate and volume. 20. The developer's engineer must verify that the existing stormwater pond southwest of the site has adequate dead and live storage for the additional impervious surface. 21. The existing service must be abandoned at the main. 22. The wet tap must occur outside the operating hours of the businesses which access the private drive. 23. The developer's contractor must submit a written request to the City Engineer for the proposed construction time and date for the wet tap." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to o. Keefe moved, Undestad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Planning Case #06-24 for a Conditional Use Permit for a major auto repair and body shop, subject to the following conditions: 41 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 1. The development shall comply with the site plan requirements approved as part of Planning Case #06-24. 2. No unlicensed or inoperable vehicles shall be stored on premises except in appropriately designed and screened storage areas. 3. The drop-off location for damaged vehicles will be limited to the parking stalls in the southwest corner of the lot behind the evergreens. 4. All repair, assembly, disassembly and maintenance of vehicles shall occur within closed building except minor maintenance including, but not limited to, tire inflation, adding oil and wiper replacement. 5. No exterior public address system is permitted. 6. No sales, storage or display of used automobiles or other vehicles such as motorcycles, snowmobiles, or all-terrain vehicles. 7. Disposal of vehicle fluids shall comply with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency regulations. 8. Facilities for the collection of waste oil must be provided." All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to o. PUBLIC HEARING: THOMAS SCHWARTZ: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO ALLOW STRUCTURES WITHIN 40 FOOT WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7376 BENT BOW TRAIL. PLANNING CASE 06-22. Don Asleson presented the staff report on this item. Papke: What's the material of the decking around the fire pit area there? Is that gravel? Pavers? Asleson: This right here is actually, I believe it's a paver. The applicant could correct me ifI'm wrong. Papke: Okay, so it's impervious. Okay. Asleson: They are under their impervious coverage. Papke: Right, but the actual incursion into the wetland setback is impervious. Asleson: Right. McDonald: Debbie. Kevin. 42 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Dillon: I don't have any questions. McDonald: Mark? Dan? Keefe: Can you give us your view of how this condition created itself? I read something I think in the letters maybe attached that they talked about they weren't aware from the developer or what's your understanding of that? Asleson: From what I understand the applicant has said that he spoke with somebody at the City, however we weren't able to verify any sort of documentation that the conversation existed. Obviously if we would have had the zoning permit, I think the issue would have been avoided. So I guess a brief conversation with the building department, however we weren't able to verify any sort of conversation or documentation. McDonald: Is this something that would now have been caught by our zoning compliance? Asleson: Yes. The zoning compliance. McDonald: How entrenched is this into the property? I mean are we talking about footings being sunk for the gazebo or is this something that floats on a base? Asleson: That would be a question probably better answered by the applicant. The construction of the actual gazebo and structure, the patio and fire structure were never in our discussion so I guess I would forward that to the applicant. McDonald: Okay, and then when you had talked about the 2000 I guess survey. Is it the yellow area that all of this could be moved to, which would be more or less directed behind the house instead of off to the side? Asleson: That's correct. That would be an acceptable area for the structures on that particular property. McDonald: Okay. Thank you. I have no further questions. If the applicant is here, if you would come forward. Thomas Schwartz: Good evening Chair McDonald, commissioners. My name is Thomas Schwartz. I live at 7376 Bent Bow Trail. To answer that one question, the gazebo itself is on standard footings. The fire pit is free standing. It stands at maximum height 18 inches off ground on one level. Ground level at the intersection... The intersection of the base of the gazebo and here so basically ground level here. What isn't shown as part of when we did this comprehensive landscaping plan, what isn't shown here is just to the east of the gazebo are additional landscaping and trees that currently stand about 10 to 12 feet in height. They're filling in very naturally creating a natural buffer from Bent Bow as far as the views to the gazebo. As far as that side of the property, we also have pine trees that are now growing and filling in that should create an additional buffer, visible buffer I should say for anything that we do as far as 43 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 landscaping. Originally when the gazebo was built and when I went to the property association initially with my request and received approval from them at that time the gazebo was built, it was under the understanding that there weren't any restrictions. The only thing that I was aware of at the time that the gazebo was built is a 10 foot buffer to the actual, or to the, or for the wetlands. Nothing else. Unfortunately in my investigation at the time was disclosed as far as any restrictions or any barriers, I went through all of our documentation that was given to us at the time of purchase of the property and in there nothing is disclosed relative to barriers that would prohibit me from placing the gardens where they've been placed, or the gazebo, etc. So we became aware of the fact that this was encroaching a wetland buffer setback when Mr. Asleson contacted me in November oflast year after those rains. So we're asking for is in fact an after the fact, not knowing that I put them in a place they shouldn't be. I hope you can appreciate and seeing the picture, that these are natural set, within a relatively distance to the pond because that would be the best place. I mean if you're going to put something, you know on this property, you'd want it aesthetically pleasing and visible and it lends itself off of my deck directly to the gazebo, within in the landscaping plan that was created. McDonald: Okay, any questions of the applicant? Papke: Ah yes sir. At the time you constructed it, did you have a copy of this plat drawing? Thomas Schwartz: I did not. Papke: Okay. And you didn't attempt to get a plat of your lot? Thomas Schwartz: I used what I received from, at the time it was Lundgren development. What they gave me within the packet. That also disclosed all of the restrictions if you will within the development. What you could or couldn't do. Where you could or couldn't do them. They list specifically by lot, by block what is allowable. My property isn't mentioned within those documentation. With that, and with the understanding or when I bought the property that there was that 10 foot, no touch, no fuss, no muss. Don't go near the 10 foot and I got that real loud and clear. I stayed away from it. Everything else was developed, I mean the landscaping, the gardens, you know all of it was with the aid of local landscapers. Local contractors who I entrusted would follow up anything that I found out. I personally made a call after going through the building process for the deck, I called the same individual that I had on my list of approving the deck stages. Told him I was buying a gazebo kit. Putting it in a comprehensive landscaping plan. Were there any issues and unfortunately undocumented the answer was no. Larson: Did, when you closed on this property, did you get title insurance or title packet? What do you call those? Thomas Schwartz: Yes. Larson: Typically in one of those they will have a surveyor a plat drawing within that. But I guess maybe upon looking you know at the plat drawing that would be in there, what I don't know is, I'm assuming that the, on the plat drawing you're going to show all easements that 44 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 happen to be on the property. Including the conservation easement but I don't know if that is shown or not so therefore. Thomas Schwartz: Unfortunately it is not, and what I can tell you is that I used, I used what I submitted to the development and then consequently used as kind of, when I went to the landscapers and went to the contractors they, you know this is what I want to do. You know it just didn't appear on anything I received unfortunately so I went, at this time finding out blindly along thinking that I was okay putting it where it was. It's been a heck of an education. Larson: Why don't we put conservation easements on plat drawings? I mean truly, I mean because this could have been completely avoided if something like that had been put on there... Thomas Schwartz: And truthfully, and you know Don is probably, I hope he can support me on this. The comment, and as well as going back now to the folks who bought Lundgren Development, two things would have been obvious in my opinion at this point. One is I would have never put it where it is. It would have made no sense. With or without a permit, irregardless of how that answer came about, it would have never made sense to put where it is had anybody stood up and said can't put it there. Okay. Secondly, and kind of off the beaten path here, I've actually. . . property with as many restrictions as that are on this piece of property, I don't think anybody in their right mind would have ever put a house on that property. And let alone put any time or money or effort into putting in a garden. I hate to mention the dollars I have involved in putting in that garden that's got to come out. I mean that, this thing has been a disaster, is the only way I can state it. It's been a disaster. Larson: Yeah, well is there any consideration, I don't know Bob if this is for you but, if he were to, if it was the pavers, would you guys consider allowing just that little piece of the gazebo? I mean it's really, it's not the whole gazebo. It's like one-third of it, you know. Generous: That's up to you. Larson: Okay. I mean truly it's absolutely gorgeous and I just, you know when I read this my heart went out to you because I thought you know, what a bummer. Thomas Schwartz: I appreciate that. Larson: But okay, I guess that's all I have at this point. Thomas Schwartz: And I think partly, if! can try and defend, if! can a little bit of where I believe maybe Lundgren and their sales staff came from. At the time that I bought this property, and true I believe if I understood it correctly, May of 200 1 the restriction stated that it was primary resident only, and it was only after May that there was a new change to that to include all, I mean you call it impervious surfaces. And if! understand that correctly, and again I'm unable to verify it on the web site. I was unable to get anybody within city staff to say you know what, yeah you're right. But I have a gentleman who has offered some advice and his comment was, that that's in fact the case. Is that was only adopted after unfortunately the gazebo was actually put in place. So that may be why Lundgren never mentioned it. I can only assume that. 45 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 McDonald: Kevin. Dillon: And I don't know if this question is for you for the staff but if the structures were to remain, what, is there harm to the wetland that they're there? I mean is the construction damage like already been done or I mean what's the down side to leaving them there? Besides the legalities and not getting the variance... Asleson: You know as far as increase impervious surface was, which I think would be, has been covered, it doesn't appear that the wetland vegetation has been cleared around the wetland like the applicant has stated. It appears that he has stayed back about 10 feet from what would be the wetland edge. Unfortunately you know I don't know. I can't really answer that with any certainty that anything has changed within the wetland because I haven't seen it before the structures were there. McDonald: Okay. Undestad: It just looks like you had contacted the city but it was back in the building department issue again? Thomas Schwartz: Unfortunately, and unfortunately it's not in writing. McDonald: No questions? Keefe: No questions. McDonald: I guess at this point I'll probably hold all of my questions and comments too until the very end. Thank you for coming up. This is a public meeting so at this point I'll open up the floor to anyone wishing to make comment or ask questions to come forward to the podium. Seeing no one come forward, we'll close the public meeting and I'll bring it back to the commissioners for discussion. Start with Dan. Keefe: Yeah. I empathize with the applicant. Unfortunately I think. . . pretty clear in this matter and I'm not, you know I think we'd end up getting into trouble if we end up giving variances, especially when it comes to wetlands. That's all. Undestad: You know, we've been through these before and unfortunately the applicant went through the building department process and again, trying to find out what's required and what's needed and I think we've changed that problem by putting our zoning reviews into place at this point. It looks like he's done a great job with landscaping back there. Preserving the wetland areas back there and the hard surface coverage, he's not expanding that at all. He's well within that. It looks very nice back there. The issue still remains is us as a commission, you know looking for hardships in these types of things and again, coming into these, I always get kind of torn up because I think the hardship, it looks beautiful back there. To try and tear this up, move it and it would be difficult. I'm still kind of in the middle here but again, I mean he's done a fantastic job landscaping back there. It looks very nice. 46 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 McDonald: Thank you. Kevin. Dillon: You know it's... and we shouldn't be out... but by the same token if someone can... tell me what the real negative impact is to the wetland, or the down side, I don't, I mean you know, if there's sludge bubbling up from underneath the gazebo or it's causing a problem, that's a different story but no one can tell me that that's the case. So there's no clearly identified negative impact. Asleson: Can I say something? McDonald: Yes. Asleson: Okay. The only down side I would see is that you lose a net buffer area around the wetland. You know maintaining a 20 foot average buffer around the area as part of the PUD was part of that PUD's requirement. Certain lots received smaller buffer areas. Certain lots received larger buffer areas, so as far as impacting the wetland through decreased buffer area, that would be maybe a potential impact for that. I just wanted to throw that out there because there is the buffer area and 20 foot average that would be decreased. McDonald: Okay, thank you. Larson: My take on it is, I guess maybe the only part would be the decking, if that could be moved, I would be all in favor of leaving the gazebo, just because it's not that much. And if the deck could maybe be pushed around to one side, out of the conservation easement then I'd be more than... McDonald: Okay. Kurt. Papke: This one's a prime example of why we put the zoning compliance into the city code. I mean it's just, it's classic. Every time we get one of these, it's just classic. In terms of the impact if this was just incurring a couple of feet into the setback, you know I'd be inclined to give a little bit here but the fact that it goes all the way into the conservation easement I think it just way too egregious of a variance here. And the fact that you have impervious pavers as well, and there's, in cases we've had a couple cases, I remember one distinctly we had a couple years ago where we had an accessory structure near Lotus Lake and there was almost no place to move the shed, okay. We get these from time to time where there's no recourse. Where in this particular case there's a big back yard and it's a gazebo kit. It's a bunch of paver blocks. You get out the wheelbarrow and you move so you know it's regrettable but I think in this particular case it's, there are viable alternatives at play here so I would recommend that we uphold the code. McDonald: Okay, thank you. I do have one question of staff. I guess I forgot to ask you as you were going through this. You said the reason that we found this was because of a water event that came through. What happened exactly? What was the nature of that? 47 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Asleson: Well if you can recall the storm events we received in late September and October there, we had some pretty significant rainfall and there was some drainage issues in the Longacres development. And inspecting for those they took a look at some of the other storm water ponds in the Longacres development and wetlands. This one particularly. They did know that there was the emergency overflow, and they, that's how they came across it. They were more looking to make sure the storm water system was functioning and that people weren't threatened with wet basements. McDonald: Oh okay. Yeah, I'm always torn when these come up here. We've had a lot of them. You know it isn't always a gazebo. Sometimes it was Sport Courts. There was another applicant that came before us that fixed up their back yard but unfortunately in the process of doing that they exceed the impervious surface requirement. The harm done is that again we set these buffers up and since you start to encroach into them, that's the harm in and of itself. Is that we set a limit and we've gone through this a number of times as to how much that should be and we've kind of reached the conclusion as to how much of a setback is required for the buffers for wetlands. I always hate to sit here and try to tell you that well, you've just got to take it apart and move it but, you're in a little bit better position than some people who come in here and we make them tear up a slab of concrete or you know a very permanent structure that's encroaching into an area where it shouldn't be, but again the only way that according to the zoning that we could grant anything is to showing of a hardship and I just don't see it here so I guess, I also would have to very reluctantly vote against the variance. Undestad: One quick question. On the gazebo, like the wetland setback area, you had shown on the other drawing what moving this stuff up on this side of the house. If it just comes inside of that wetland setback? Asleson: Yeah. Undestad: So you were showing it as an alternate to keep it up in the yellow. Asleson: The wetland buffer setback line actually runs like this, and so the blue area is the 40 feet from the wetland buffer line. The wetland buffer has iron monuments in the ground to delineate where that's. Undestad: So it's got to get all the way out of that blue area. Larson: Oh... McDonald: Did you have anything else you wanted to say? Thomas Schwartz: I guess just in kind of respect to a comment that was made, it's just a gazebo. It's easy to tear it down and move it and you know it's not a big deal. It is a big deal. If! were to tear it down, I already have $5,000 into this thing. I've got another $3,500 in having this property surveyed, just to stand before you today. Okay. If! were to move it, tearing it down is simple. Pulling out the qualified pilings, disrupting the landscaping, rebuilding the landscaping and rebuilding the gazebo, minimum is $21,000. Irregardless of my ability to pay that or not, 48 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 that's a hardship on anybody. I mean we're talking potentially $40,000 to $50,000 of cash just to move it. By the time I'm all said and done, including permits. Now I'm willing, and I've already disrupted a garden that was associated to this, okay to put in a better overland, overflow swale because we were told that those raised beds that were in that garden jeopardized that. With the engineers that came out and did the survey, they've confirmed that swale works. Without disrupting the garden. But we're willing to do what we have to as a compromise in hopes that with the significant costs that I may have to incur, with the fact that it is part of a very extensive landscaping project, and the fact that we're willing to do what we have to on that overland, overflow swale to make it, I mean we want to cooperate. But we're hoping that you know there's somewhere in the middle here that we can be met. One of the comments that does it create a hardship on the wetlands? Has it or will it in the future? Mr. Asleson has even stated so directly to me that if it had caused any damage, that damage would have been caused already. There will be no future ill effect by leaving the gazebo where it is. So I'm hoping with. . . truly a financial hardship here, and in addition to that if in fact the city code had been changed interim to this being built, I would not have been aware that that code existed as it is relative to the gazebo. So I ask that to be considered as part of your decision. McDonald: Well first of all I'd like to address your comment about it's only a gazebo. None of us up here think it's only a gazebo. We may have said that as an illustration, and again what we're trying to get across is you're not the only resident of this city that has come before us and has suffered a financial hardship. I feel for you and I understand that and the finances are a hardship. Unfortunately the way the code is written, and we have to look for a hardship, financial hardship is not one of the criteria that we're allowed to judge by. My suggestion to you is that once we have taken our vote, if this does go before the city commission, and between now and then you have an opportunity to talk with staff and if you can convince them as far as a compromise, things could change once you get up to the commission meeting. You still have an opportunity to try to reach an agreement, but again that's why our only role is to look at what the ordinances and the subdivision rules allow us to look at. Weare not allowed to change them and the problem is is that with these setbacks, you are so deep into them, we just can't grant that type of a variance because of the impact it has on the rest of the city. It's not just you. It's the rest of the city, and that's why the ordinances were put together the way they were and we have to judge everything based upon that. So I do feel your pain and everything and I do understand that it is a financial hardship, but again we can't use that criteria as part of our evaluation up here. And I do apologize for that. We as a commission did recognize this as being a problem and did ask city staff to do something so that homeowners have some way of knowing beforehand that they're encroaching upon something. And I'm just hoping that in the future we can save someone else from going through all this misery but again, I'm afraid that the way the ordinances are written, our only role is to judge things based upon that. With that, I'd like to get a motion. Actually did we discuss this yet? Yes we did. Papke: Yeah, we all had comments. Mr. Chair, I make a motion that the Planning Commission denies the 52 foot variance for the 175 square foot gazebo and the 45 foot variance from the 230 square foot patio/fire ring structures based on the findings of fact in the staff report, and conditions 1 through 3. In addition I make a motion that we order the applicant to remove the structures from within the wetland buffer setback and restore native vegetation to disturbed areas as required by city code. If the structures are to remain on the property with conforming 49 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 setbacks, building permits and zoning permits must be obtained. The applicant shall also install wetland buffer signs provided by the City at the monument locations. McDonald: Can I have a second? Undestad: Second. Papke moved, U ndestad seconded that the Planning Commission denies the 52 foot variance for the 175 square foot gazebo and the 45 foot variance from the 230 square foot patio/fire ring structures based on the findings of fact in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant's hardship is self created in nature. 2. The applicant has reasonable use of the property. 3. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are applicable, generally to other property within the same zoning classification. In addition, the Planning Commission orders the applicant to remove the structures from within the wetland buffer setback and restore native vegetation to disturbed areas as required by city code. If the structures are to remain on the property with conforming setbacks, building permits and zoning permits must be obtained. The applicant shall also install wetland buffer signs provided by the City at the monument locations. All voted in favor, except Larson and Dillon who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. McDonald: And again, what I would encourage the applicant to do is that between now and the City Council meeting, offer city staff some of the plans that you brought up. If those would be acceptable, I'm sure that they will propose that to City Council when you plead your case before them. They have the power to actually make adjustments to the city code. Thank you. Thomas Schwartz: Thank you for your time. PUBLIC HEARING: GARY CARLSON: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN EXISTING FOUR STALL GARAGE AND RELIEF FROM THE 1.000 SQUARE FOOT DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE RESTRICTION FOR THE RSF DISTRICT. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) DISTRICT AT 3891 WEST 62ND STREET. PLANNING CASE 06-23. Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. 50 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Papke: This is obviously, as you stated, the second time we've seen this one and you're still recommending denial. Can you give us a little bit of context as to how this came before us again tonight. Metzer: Originally the intention was to take this request with the compromise of taking the two additional structures up to City Council, but the deadline for appeal to the recommendation of denial was missed. And so by law we have to take it back through the process over again. Larson: Just in the findings you have does not cause undue hardship to, or to take down, I'm tired. The garages that they want to take down, but I'm thinking you know wasn't this one where they need the van to get in there for their daughter? Metzer: Right. Larson: And to me that's kind ofa hardship. If that van can't access to get in there and so. Metzer: But it was a garage that was built without a permit. Larson: Bad people, no permit. Alright, okay. Thanks. McDonald: Kevin? Dillon: No questions right now. McDonald: Mark. Undestad: Yeah a couple. ... coming back as a trade off then to eliminate two more structures? Metzer: Say it again. Undestad: This is coming back now, the difference in this plan. . . Metzer: Right. Undestad: They're trying to do a trade off. Two more structures... Metzer: ... structures that were built without permits... where the last time it was here where the three in question, they're still in question. The only difference is, he is agreeing to remove these. I think it was more for a convenience on one of these. Undestad: Now he's agreed to take the two small ones out. Metzer: Right. And that's these that are pictured here on the top. Larson: So Band C would be gone? 51 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Metzer: No. Well Band C are still up for applying for the variance for the intensification of the non-conforming square footage of accessory structure. Larson: Okay. Metzer: Bu the applicant is proposing, in agreeance with being granted the two variances to the setback and the three structures, intensifying the square footage, he would remove these as well as these other 5. . . agreement. Larson: Okay. Keefe: Josh, I have a question for you. Are the building that he's talking about removing, are they in use? Are they, I mean are they. Metzer: To my knowledge they are. Maybe the applicant could shed a little more light on that but. Keefe: And in terms of their physical repair, are they useable from that standpoint? Metzer: Well I mean from what I know, they're quite old. As far as their structural soundness, I really have no idea. Keefe: Okay. Yeah, I'm just I'm kind of scratching my head on, I mean they'll build a new building and then I'll see if! can trade by tearing down some buildings that are older and get, so when do the buildings come down? You know I guess only when he gets an agreement is when they come down or? Metzer: I mean part of the, if you were to grant a variance, part of the, one of the conditions is that those two buildings are removed. Keefe: Alright. McDonald: Kevin. Or did you already pass? Larson; I've got actually one more. McDonald: Go ahead Debbie. Larson: So like if they had gotten a permit to do Building A, Band C, would A have not been allowed? Metzer: None of them would have been allowed. Larson: None of them. 52 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Metzer: No. Because city code states that this zoning district, RSF, maximum detached accessory structure is 1,000 square feet. They already exceed that before these three buildings were built. McDonald: I have no questions of staff. Is the applicant present? Luke Melchert: Yes, your honor, or Mr. Chairman the applicant is present. My name is Luke Melchert. I'm going to talk on behalf of the applicant and he will talk also in a minute. It seems to me that I hope you would look at this the same way that we look at it, and seems to me that it's a case where, we've got the round pegs of the ordinance that are being trying to be pounded into the square piece of property, and it just doesn't always fit sometimes. This is an RSF zoning, which allows only 1,000 square feet of accessory structures. The RSF zoning allows for anywhere from 1.4 to 4 units per acre. This is 3.85 acres. So if, assuming that the property could be developed to a maximum density allowed in the ordinance, there could be 15 single family homes here, plus 15,000 square feet of accessory buildings. And we're looking at only 5,000 square feet. So if we would like to think that you would agree with what I think the neighbors agree are looking for is that, to allow some semblance of an existing lifestyle that's been in existence for 100 years out here. It's always been some type of a hobby farm. I suspect that 98 to 99 percent of the people in Chanhassen have no idea where 3891 62nd Street is. Have never been past it and really don't care what goes on here. The only people that really care are the neighbors and they've all agreed that they would prefer this type of activity be on the property as opposed to Mr. Carlson selling it to his greedy lawyer and he go out and developing it to the maximum of it' s potential where you can have 15,000 square feet of accessory buildings on there. There's no question it violates the letter of the law, but I don't think it's violates the spirit of the law. And if you look at, let me get these other pictures up here first. Sticking more to the 30 foot setback requirement. If you look at the picture down here in the left hand corner, right here is where the 22 setback requirement is. It's the least. The 30 foot setback is required. There's only 22 feet from the building, corner of the building here to the right-of-way. The corner of the building is 59 feet from the driven surface of the roadway. And the building sits behind a 3 foot earthen berm and a stand of trees that existed for years. I would think that if this building had not been built and were coming in for the variance now, given the fact of the disabled child where a large tree, if you look at this picture, sits only 12 feet from the garage. You see some of these pictures of where vehicles try to get between the garage and the tree. And now you're looking at an emergency vehicle, a fire truck is going to be very difficult. It seems to me that's a, if not an existing hardship, certainly a potential hardship. If you take everything into consideration, this plus the fact that it costs over $17,000 for him just to remove it, it seems to us that the perceived evil from this 22 foot setback is insignificant in comparison to what could be potentially go wrong there. And the cost of removing the building. It would seem to me that if we had requested that variance now, it would be not unreasonable to grant it now because there is existing structures along the highway and Josh, is the hockey rink not in violation of this setback? According to. . . Metzer: It's within the front yard setback but it's you know, it's a hockey rink. You know it could almost function as a fence rather than a garage. 53 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Luke Melchert: But I would think ifI'm building a private hockey rink, that you're going to look at that as fence. You're going to look at it as a structure. So it seems to me that the evil perceived here is not very great in comparison to what the potential hardship would be. And it should not be forgotten either that this condition's existed for over 10 years. And so it seems to me if there is such an evil, it should have been stopped before you know, so again, I would like to think that again it's the letter of the law's been violated, we don't think the spirit of the law's been violated. And as far as the square footage, there's an existing agreement, written agreement between the City ofChanhassen and the Carlson family that allows over 3,000 square feet of accessory structures. The other stuff is this garage which we think is necessary for the child. It's necessary for, you know it's not unreasonable where the building is situated. And again we think you know the letter oflaw has been violated but the spirit of the law certainly hasn't been violated, and I think as the neighbors are requesting, that they would rather see this type of activity on the property as opposed to what could be on the property. Thank you. McDonald: Any, well before you sit down, does anyone have any questions for the applicant? Luke Melchert: I am not the applicant. I'm speaking. McDonald: But you're speaking for the applicant so you just became the applicant. Luke Melchert: Okay. Larson: I've got one. You just mentioned a letter from Chan allowing 3,000 square feet of accessory structures. Luke Melchert: There's an existing agreement between the City of Chanhassen when Mr. Carlson was putting in his pole barn and the removing of these other five buildings. It's kind of a comparable removal of and then, so under that written agreement, that building plus the other structures exceed the 3,000 square feet. Larson: Right. Luke Melchert: And so all we're asking for is the difference between 3,000 and 5,000 on 3.9 acres. Again, yes it violates the letter of the law. There's no question about it, 3,000 or 5,000 but you all have to remember that you are treating this property exactly the same way you are treating a what, three-quarter, 1,500 or 5,000 square foot on 15,000 square foot lot. And this is 3.8 acres. Almost 4 acres. And again the only people who really see this property are the neighbors and they all would prefer it to remain as it is, and Mr. Carlson continue the activity there. McDonald: Kevin, do you have any questions? Dillon: Are there any neighbors here that will attest to that? Luke Melchert: We have some written document. Mr. Carlson, do you have those letters? 54 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Metzer: They should have been in the report. Keefe: Let me just ask, why weren't the buildings permitted? Luke Melchert: I have no idea. They were not. There's no question they weren't but again, that garage has been there for 10 years. And so I don't even remember some of the things I've done 9 months ago. Keefe: So it's been in the family for a hundred years and you put up some buildings? Okay. Luke Melchert: And now the types of uses have changed. You know it's always been a hobby farm. He's had an apple orchard there and now he's doing horses. McDonald: I have a question for staff first of all. You said a couple of things about the 3,300 square foot, the agreement between the city. If my memory serves me correctly, part of that was a compromise because isn't this a non-conforming use? Metzer: Right, they have an existing accessory structures are out there are like 3,000 something. Of you know legally built, long before our current ordinance existed. What they wanted to do, they have a dilapidated barn where the horses were staying which they needed to improve so they brought in a pole barn and in exchange removed an equal amount of existing structures. McDonald: And so we actually. Metzer: Consolidated from 5 into 1. McDonald: Consolidated 5 buildings down to 1 which made it simpler as far as the building, that was part of the compromise. Metzer: Right. McDonald: Okay. You say that if we were to look at this as being divided up into 15 single family units, there'd be 15,000 square feet of additional structure space that would be allowed if these were individual lots. Isn't that a little apples and oranges? Luke Melchert: ... factual? I mean under the ordinance it can be subdivided into 1.4 to 4 units per acre. And now I'm just assuming that whoever bought it would seek to subdivide and develop it to it's maximum potential. McDonald: But wouldn't those be individual units? Luke Melchert: Right, but it's on the same 3.87 acres, there'd be 15,000 square feet of accessory structures. McDonald: But at that point you're looking at 15 individual pieces ofland versus one piece of land. 55 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Luke Melchert: Absolutely. But it's 15 that are maybe quarter acre area of lots as opposed to one 3.85 acres. McDonald: Okay. I have no further questions, unless someone else does. Okay. Thank you very much. This is a public meeting and what I would invite is anyone that wishes to come forward and speak, please do so. Gary Carlson: Gary Carlson, 3891 West 62nd Street. I'd like to say a few words on my behalf. I have one additional letter from the neighbor. Well just quickly, the letters from the only neighbors involved with this property, because the rest of thousands of feet away, are the two that are already in the statement. They're very short. Dale and Linda Keehl who live directly east of the Carlson property have no concerns or problems with the placement of their out buildings or the number of them. That's my neighbors directly to my east. We visit, you know... all the time. The next neighbor is directly east to my property, Terry Toll. Next to the Carlson's on the east side. I have no problems with their buildings. Exclamation point. And they would gladly come here tonight. And then this new letter, we are Sue and Steve Bradley. We live in the first home directly to the west of the Carlson property. We find the position of agricultural buildings on their premises benefits the surrounding neighborhood. We believe it increases the safety of the citizens of the area and the livestock on the property. Neighbors, including ourselves, enjoy their rural influence on our children and the agricultural nature of the property provides endless entertainment and education. Protecting the legacy of rural life in Chanhassen should be considered for the healthy and happy development for future generations in and around Chanhassen. We all need to do more to support this type of diversity in our neighborhoods and help promote a connection to the land. This is from Sue and Steve Bradley. Our neighbors to the west. Big picture is here. I don't have RSF zoning, and I never will and we can never get our zoning to match my home. If I do redevelop, which I have developed 21 lots in our city. Very beautiful lots. All with no variances, I'll bring in a development that you'll be pleased to approve. Which if! keep my hobby farm for 20 to 30 years, I can very easily see a light rail train station on my site because everything else is getting burned up with homes because I have the full light rail goes right by my property and there's enough place for a trail station there because there's no other property, so I'm thinking way out in the future but getting back to what's at hand. The big picture is I have an agricultural farm. The City is doing the best they can to get me into the RSF, and if you read carefully their whole program is, their whole packet it's very well put together. Very well worded and they worked hard on it now the second time because I didn't know I had to sign a paper for appeal within 4 days. I didn't get it signed in 4 days, and during the interim it's given me a chance to work out some more changes in the older buildings. It's giving me a chance to hire some, advice of to guide me. It's not a person that would be strange to these type of city operations. He's, I really appreciate him being on the end and guiding me through this, Mr. Luke Melchert. He's the city attorney from the City of Chaska and they're such small variances. The City has already you know gone with let a pole barn come onto an RSF -1 that's over the 1,000 square foot. The City has already varianced me for adding an apartment to my house in RSF -1. Both of these were non, it's a non-conforming home. It's already gone over and said well we're not even going to allow, trying to improve. The City has already allowed me two different occasions to change and non-conform. And if we can't get some positive reaction, get you folks to understand what we're doing here, we just need 56 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 these minor variances to keep it in line with the city's zoning. It's not a precedent. There's no other home like this. No large property like this. Not going to change things in the rest of the residents. It doesn't affect anyone really or otherwise. I guess I just want to get these pictures shown briefly. This is the old barn that's coming down. Can we blow that up? Little bit. Yeah, that's good and I'll just move the picture up. This is the old barn that's coming down. And this is already in. This is the pole barn that's replacing it. Now do you see encroachment of too many structures on this property? We've got space everywhere and there's room all around it. There's not too much surface structure area. The next picture over is the machine shed that was put in 13 years ago and that's where all the equipment for the horses are kept. This little building there to the right of it is coming down, and of course you can see the pole barn again. It's already in place. It's already been set and we're starting to move things into it so I can take down the old barn. And not a big problem with, I mean it's not a big, it's not building to everyone. . . you read the report it says I have 13 out structures. I do. We're taking down 7 of them. Let's look at this next picture quickly. I think we have time on that. This is the machine, you know this is the, you can see the horse. This is their, when they're in that part of the pasture this is, as the horse inspector said, you need something better than the barn and I put this in 4 years ago. You can see the size of the pick-up besides this. Not a very big building. 22 by 20. This is another picture of it down the side of it, and out into the rest of my property. All the way to those trees is my property. Now I think it looks big because I'm standing right beside it. Nice structure. That's 4 years old. That's a new structure. And we move over again and there's that machine, machinery storage. And there's that little old shed that's coming down. And I've got to show my wife out in the garden there working. That kind of shows, you know I have to improve my buildings and the city is recognizing that. They're glad to see these old buildings go, and yes I've had some without permit. I thought I was ag use. I am ag use. The city has mentioned in here I'm an ag use. You can drive by any time you want and they've got 13, 9, 7 out buildings. They've got silos. I mean I didn't know you've got to take a permit for every, as they changed uses of that. . . farmer and the next thing you know you're in dairy or, I don't know what that zoning permit is required but I'm no different. I've had to improve these utility buildings and I'm taking down 7 of them. Just to cover a little bit, I guess you went over all the setback and how we showed on these pictures the uses up there. The only thing I want to cover is that the Planning Commission approves a variance for a 22 foot front yard setback, which was 8 foot. I mean there's a plan in here that shows how far the road is actually from my property because the road doesn't come anywhere near the property line. You've got the railroad right-of-way. You've got a corner right-of-way and you've got 3 streets coming together so there's a lot of right-of-way. There's a lot of space between me and any traffic. I just want to state what we're here for and if we can't have a positive outcome of course I will get everything signed and get it appealed to the council in time this time. Planning Commission approves a variance for a 22 foot setback, and just what the staff has said on the approval. With the following conditions. The building permits have been submitted for almost a year now. Since last August. So the whole prints, all the drawings of these new buildings are all there waiting at the building department. When you approve this, we're just talking about the variance tonight. You approve the variance, the building department then kicks in and they're not going to issue building permits. They're going to write them and they're going to be called printed, but not issued because it was an after the fact building permit. They'll print them but they won't issue them until they look at the building. Make sure it meets all the codes and setbacks, whatever. So when you say well we gave them the variance and then he gets the building permits. No. That's 57 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 a whole separate process. I've submitted that. If those buildings have anything that's not approved, they'll be coming down. And not based on your variance. These are based on the fact that they're not, they don't meet building codes. Luke Melchert: I just wanted to, if! may, just one last comment here. Staff has written that you do have a great deal of latitude in determining variances and it seems to me there is enough here that this property is so unique and if you do grant these variances you're not going to be setting a precedent for any other variances. . . Gary Carlson: Thanks. You guys do a great job. We love being in Chanhassen. We love the fact that you have a city center. I see Victoria has really improved their's I think because Chanhassen was such a great city. And thank you for being here. I know it's a job sometimes but thanks for being here. McDonald: Thank you Mr. Carlson. Does anyone else wish to come forward and make comment and ask questions? Okay seeing no one come forward, I'll close the public meeting and I'll bring it back up to the commissioners. Dan, I'll let you go first. Keefe: I guess I'm just, you know I'm torn by the garage was built without a permit and not only was it built without a permit, it's built not at the setback. I'm just kind of troubled by that. I think that does, despite what they say about you know we just can't have that. I mean you've got to get permits and adhere to the setbacks. I mean we have granted him some other things, you know. But on this one I'm just troubled by them. McDonald: Mark. Undestad: Yeah, it does sound like the City has given, met on some of these issues and helped out along the way here. You know and again, I mean they're building structures without permits, and we all know you can't be doing that. This is what happens here. The comment was made as far as you know, the letter of the law versus the spirit here and I think as a commission again we kind of have, we're kind of back in that path of the letter of the law is what we kind of have to look at here so. I think that's what we've got to base it on. McDonald: Thank you. Kevin. Dillon: Yeah, I'd like to add I'm a little bit troubled by the lack of attention to detail to process and missing the last chance for appeal and doing the buildings without getting not only the right approvals beforehand. There seems to be just a little bit of a pattern of not really caring and so that troubles me a little bit. As well as just like you know, the aesthetic nature of what we're approving is not what I would like to see. McDonald: Okay. Debbie. Larson: What I'm wondering is if this were in agricultural versus residential property, would we be running into the same problems. 58 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Metzer: No. Larson: So would it make sense to try and change the zoning on that property because it's. Metzer: No. It's land use designation is for low density residentiaL.. Larson: So there's no way to change that? Okay. That's all I have. McDonald: Kurt. Papke: Yeah I think Deb touched on the zoning issue. I mean if we're guiding this for 2020 low density residential, that's very different than if it was being guided for ag or rural residential in that timeframe so I think it's clear what the city's intentions are. The property to the south is being developed. When I drove by last weekend, I noticed just on the other side of the light rail trail there's a new development of four big homes going in there, so that area is developing. It is becoming more residential, and I think we have to be sensitive to the surroundings. Also as you come south on the roadway there, that impinges on the garage, the picture shows the big signs directing people to you know turn left here. I don't think the picture does justice to it. I mean they're pretty obvious. They're pretty blatant. It's pretty clear that the traffic engineers were justifiably concerned that somebody doesn't miss that corner, so I think this you know, if the setback was in an area where it didn't make any difference, you know I think there might be some reason for latitude but in this particular case it seems pretty obvious that the traffic engineers had cause for concern, and being that safety should always be upper most in our minds, I think we have to take that into consideration too so, that's it. McDonald: As I said before, these are always the toughest ones to I think deal with because you hate to tell someone what he can and cannot do on his property. To say that it doesn't set a precedent is dead wrong, and I think everyone knows that. The man that was in here before us suffering $47,000-$50,000 worth of effort. I don't see where his problem is any different from this, and I see us, we're bound by the same rules. Ijust don't see where we have the latitude that everyone believes that we do. And if we can grant variances under certain conditions, we've been through this before. We found that the conditions to grant a variance have not been met. I don't see where anything has really changed. It's just at this point you will have the opportunity to go before City Council. Plead your case at that point, and you know if they wish to redo something considering the zoning or something along those lines, they have that power within the city charter to do all that. And as I said before, I don't like doing these and I'm sorry when they always come before us but we did swear and oath to enforce the laws of the city. I see where we have no choice here either. Luke Melchert: May I respond to a couple of things that were brought up? McDonald: Well I've been bitten pretty bad tonight by letting people respond after we have made comments. I would suggest at this point to save the comments for City Council. Again as I've explained, we are very limited as to what we can do and I don't think there's anything you can tell us so what I would do is ask for a motion from the council. Or actually from the commission, I'm sorry. . . 59 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Larson: I'll give it a shot. Planning Commission, staff. Okay is this what I'm supposed to read? Planning Commission, the staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion. The Planning Commission denies the variance for a 22 foot yard setback for an existing four stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square foot detached access structure restriction in a single family residential district at 3 891 West 62nd Street based on the findings of fact in the staff report and the following, 1 through 3. Planning Commission orders the applicant to demolish and permanently remove three storage buildings. That's it? Okay. McDonald: Do I have a second? Keefe: Second. Larson moved, Keefe seconded that the Planning Commission denies the variance for a 22 foot front yard setback for an existing four-stall garage and relief from the 1,000 square foot detached accessory structure restriction in the Single Family Residential (RSF) District at 3891 West 62nd Street, based on the findings of fact in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. 2. The applicant has reasonable use of the property. 3. The applicant will be able to continue the non-conforming agricultural use without the three storage buildings which were constructed without building permits. The Planning Commission orders the applicant to demolish and permanently remove the three storage buildings. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to O. McDonald: What I need to tell the applicant is that you have the ability to appeal. Please don't forget this time... and good luck. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: LOREN VELTKAMP: VARIANCE REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM 30 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR THE EXPANSION OF SECOND LEVEL OF HOME WITH NON-CONFORMING SETBACKS. TWO SETBACK VARIANCES WILL BE REQUIRED BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS A CORNER LOT. THE SITE IS LOCATED IN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) DISTRICT AT 6724 LOTUS TRAIL. PLANNING CASE 06-25. 60 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Public Present: Name Address Sig & Don Sennes Pat & Keith Gunderson Jeff King Bruce Johansson Jim Boeshans Mike Henderson Shelly Berg 6680 Mohawk Drive 6661 Mohawk Drive 767 Carver Beach Road 6701 Mohawk Drive 6651 Pawnee Drive 6701 Mohawk Drive 6701 Mohawk Drive Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. McDonald: Before you go on there, I've got a question. If you're saying that he was renting, what's the City's position on that? If this is rental property with apartments within it, what's the code? Is he supposed to have a license? Generous: He would need a rental license. McDonald: And at this point he does not have one. Metzer: Correct. McDonald: And I take it that is in dispute between the City and the applicant as to whether or not he was renting. Metzer: Correct. Staff is however recommending approval of the request. We feel that by recommending approval of this variance we'll be able to better enforce ordinances on the property. And so we have some conditions of approval attached in the staff report and I'd be happy to answer any questions you have. McDonald: Dan. Keefe: Can you explain how granting a variance will help to be able to enforce? Metzer: It's mainly the condition that they'd be required to get a rental license. Kind of allow us to restrict parking in the area. Things like that. Keefe: And so, you can't do that without getting the variance? Metzer: From what we've been told, no. It was just. Keefe: It was just conditions of approval, conditions of approval for reconstruction? For expansIOn. 61 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Metzer: Of the second level. Keefe: Would incorporate certain conditions which would restrict the use of the building. Metzer: Right, and would not allow the kitchen on the second level. Restrict it to two kitchens with the home. Keefe: And the City cannot control the uses in the building without? Metzer: Without that condition of approval, right. Keefe: Okay. Dillon: What's the status of the building today? Metzer: They have received a permit to rebuild what they had, without the proposed addition. So they're in the process ofre-building the roof right now. Dillon: Is it inhabited? Metzer: I don't believe so. It shouldn't be. McDonald: Debbie. Kurt. Papke: Yeah, I've got a couple. On page 3 of the staff report, you mentioned that in the building permit history here there were two building permits issued and that they were issued in error. Could you shed some light on that? What was? Metzer: It was basically, there must have been confusion on the setback to the north, that paper street. Requires a 30 foot setback. My only guess is that, whichever staff members approved the permits were under the impression that it was a 10 foot setback to that. Papke: Okay. The other question was, we're attaching a couple conditions here and I just want to make sure I'm clear how they line up with city code. So the hard surface coverage is clear. Four vehicles parked outdoors at all times. Where does that, is this part of city code for rental property? For single family residential. Where does that, how does that line up with city code. Metzer: It was my understanding that you know it's the intention but not to allow the property to become you know a humongous rental property. And it was thought that by limiting the number of vehicles you park in the driveway. Papke: Is there a limit for residential single family? Metzer: There's not. Papke: Okay. And how about, the same question about the two licensed dogs. 62 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Metzer: It's just to make sure that. Papke: Is there a restriction for residential single family for how many dogs you can have without a kennel permit? Metzer: Yes. Papke: What is it? Generous: If you have more than 2. Papke: More than 2, okay. So this one is basically in keeping with city code whereas the number of parked cars there we're actually restricting the applicant to something tighter than existing city code for residential single family. With sort of the tacit assumption that it's rental property and okay. Got it. McDonald: I have a question for you. Okay, this is a non-conforming use and to approve this we're going to intensify a non-conforming use. And the reason we want to do that is that we're able to put some restrictions on his use. Papke: Correct. McDonald: Whereas if we denied this and said that what he's allowed to do by law is to replace what was currently there, then he doesn't get the second story addition. And then we're back to okay, no rental license but can't city code enforce that if he is renting without a license? Metzer: Well part of it was the. McDonald: You'll get your opportunity sir. We're just asking questions. Metzer: Part of it was the sheriff s report that was taken when the home was burnt down. Tenants... stating that they were renting. Sheriff s report said that there was at least three family units living there. McDonald: Three kitchens, that would make sense. Metzer: So, and as we were going with, by doing this we can disallow a third kitchen. We can restrict parking space, or number of parked vehicles. Which in turn would I believe restrict number of renters. Papke: How are we normally, kind of a follow up question. How would we, if in normal circumstance we found that someone was renting out, you know most of their house to, as rental units. How would we normally get compliance for a rental license? How would we normally enforce that under those circumstances? 63 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Metzer: I'm not totally familiar with it. Generous: It's through the building department. They have a rental license inspection requirement and licensing requirement, so they would go in and determine that the units complied with all building and safety code. Papke: And how would we determine that indeed this was a rental property? Generous: Through investigation. Either the applicant admits that they're renting the property or the tenant admits that they're renting the property. Or you know we see an advertisement in the paper, things like that. If someone can say no, I don't. These are my roommates and, then the issue becomes how do you disprove that because the burden of proof is on the city. Papke: Okay. Larson: Is it, the gentleman that was here before when they had the rental for the care keeper for his daughter. I somehow remember there was something that there is a restriction on how many people can rent in a certain. Metzer: That was for use of a single family home as a two family home. Larson: Okay. So this is a completely different? Generous: Right. Larson: It's a single family home rented by several family units... Metzer: Rent is allowed as long as a rental license is you know in place and is applied for. Larson: Okay. So there's no restriction on the amount of family units that can be within a single building? Generous: Theoretically. Larson: Okay. McDonald: Okay, I guess the problem I'm having with all of this is that, we've got a non- conforming use. We just had a non-conforming use case. We turned that down because of the way the code and everything is written. Now you're coming before us, you're asking us to approve something that we just turned down and I'm at a loss to see what the advantage is because again, you know we just went through all this with Mr. Carlson about what he's offering to do and the compromises, back and forth. I don't see yet why I should do this. I haven't heard anything actually from staff that would convince me, and that's what I'm looking for. Why are you in favor of this? Metzer: It's like we said, the requirement of the rental license. 64 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 McDonald: Okay but again you have city code to do that. You can enforce that. I understand the problem of yes, the burden of proof is upon the city but I mean at some point it would seem pretty easy to prove that if you have so many people going in and out, they all can't be living there for free. I'm just, I'm at a loss. You've got to help me here to show where we're really getting an advantage here. Dillon: Yeah, if you take the rental thing off the table, would you say to approve this? Given your recommendation on the previous two variances. Metzer: Just allowing the kitchen on the third level and restrict the number of parking spaces. The number of parked vehicles outside. And that was part of the reason that the driveway became so large we believe is to allow for parking spaces. Larson: So you'd allow two kitchens, but not three? Metzer: Right. McDonald: Well ifhe rebuilds though, does he get to go back to three kitchens and the wide driveway? I mean if we don't approve this. He is allowed to rebuild the non-conforming because of the fire. Does he get the three kitchens back and the driveway if we were to disallow this? Metzer: Well he doesn't get the driveway, no. I mean he doesn't get the 25%. He has to reduce 25%. Part of that was the reason the driveway became so big we believe is because of the parking spaces. They need parking spaces. McDonald: Okay, and again the third kitchen was built without permits, so wouldn't he have to get permits to build a kitchen if he wanted to, even if it's non-conforming, it was there before, it was there illegally. Metzer: Right. Generous: It depends. McDonald: Okay, so he would still be limited to two kitchens. Metzer: Right. McDonald: Okay. I'm having trouble seeing where if we disallow it, we're gaining anything but, are you the applicant sir? Loren Veltkamp : Yes I am. McDonald: Why don't you come forward and you can, I'll give you your turn and then we'll ask you questions. 65 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Loren Veltkamp: I can clarify a lot of this very quickly. These issues came up about 5 years ago when I started to work on this house and we did spend a lot of time. Oh, my name is Loren Veltkamp. 6724 Lotus Trail. I've lived there for about 15 years and during the time I've added a lot to the house. And I did this all without a variance and after my divorce I was deemed handicapped by the court and I was not able to make a regular living due to certain problems. But anyway I resorted to renting my home out and we got into this with the city over a long period of time and it, this was before Josh was hired by the City, and we went through it with a number of people and it went all the way up to the city attorney and I eventually got a letter from the city attorney saying that I did not have rental units. And this is what I said from the beginning, you know I have a single family home. It's a very nice home, and I don't want rental units. I don't want to have apartments or a triplex or a duplex or anything like that. I've never set out to do this, and the problem we got into was that the code defining what an apartment is, is a little vague. You know it says if you have 5 particular amenities, like cooking. A place to eat, sleeping, a bathroom and a living space, those 5 things, then you have an apartment. Okay, but it also says you have to have a separate unit, okay, and that's where it was determined that I did not have apartments because they were not separate okay, and that there was no door between them. There was certainly no locking door, so it never became a definable, rentable space. And it's confusing, I was very confused about this for a long time, and I ended up writing an 8 page letter to City Council about this, which I believe they still have and you can look at it. I call these, instead of a rental unit, I called it a mila which stood for mother-in-law apartment. And that's what I thought I was building was just mother-in-law apartments that extended families could use in the future, and roommates can use today. And so that's what I set out to build and the kitchen for example, I did get, I didn't exactly get a permit to build a kitchen but I included the kitchen on my plan and because I put a bathroom up there, the kitchen was included under the plumbing permit. And the kitchen was thoroughly inspected and approved and my house was visited 5 times on 5 separate occasions by city inspectors. Five different times now they went through my house from top to bottom to determine that there were not apartments in this building. And that's exactly what I wanted from the beginning. I don't want apartments, but I needed to have people live with me in order to afford the house because I just, there's just no way I can stay there. So I think maybe they cut me some slack you know because of the handicap thing. I'm thinking that's what they might have done. And I did have trouble you know when I built the house writing in the plans you know, I changed the plans as I went. They started off just building a garage and then I got up on top of the garage and I said this is really nice living space so I built a room up there. And then I extended it into the house and then I put in a bathroom and it was all done kind of piecemeal, and I changed the windows three times and I did this over a number of years, which is why the records and I submitted hand drawings on some of the stuff and I believe some of it was lost. You know some of it was just misplaced, but in the end everything I did was you know rigorously inspected and I had all the paperwork for that. I pulled all the necessary permits and even the city attorney spent a great deal of time looking into this. And it is a complicated issue. You know the difference between an apartment and having roommates, and especially when you have the five amenities but you don't have significant separation of the units. So I was totally confused about it, and I don't blame other people for being confused about it too. But I didn't do anything without a permit, and I didn't do anything without a permit and you know the work is not all perfect and all that stuff. I did a lot of it myself but I was thoroughly inspected and we had this all set. I did have roommates in my 66 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 house and you know we went on this way for 5 years you know and it's been fine. And I'd like to continue it just the way it was. With a couple little alterations but I think that the city after some time made the right decision you know. And everything I think has been pretty good, and I would just like to continue it. This variance request is not really born out of hardship. You know what actually happened here is that the roof burned off and I had some builders come over and say you know, what do I do you know, and they said why are you building out over the garage when you should be building out over your house, you know. Because then you can stack the bathrooms and you can put the storage over the garage and everything is much cleaner and neater and you know more economical. So for purely practical reasons I said well, maybe I should apply for this variance you know. I'm not going to get another chance to do it so. This is probably the right thing to do for a house. I'll give it a shot. And in terms of hardship, you know I'm not going to exaggerate hardship here. There's a certain amount of hardship in having a poorly designed house and paying more utilities because things are spread out more and this kind of thing, and I suppose over the life of the house that probably goes into the tens of thousands of dollars. There is some hardship here with having a poorly designed house, that kind of thing but it's nothing that we can't understand. It's pretty clear. So there is some hardship here and there is some opportunity here and I basically just want to build the house a little differently. I don't want to add square feet or anything like that. I don't want to add anything to bother anybody here. By just cleaning up the design of the house a little bit, and make it a little more livable and get things where they belong and put in a different heat system and things like that, then you know I'm good to go. McDonald: Okay. Any questions? Kurt? Keefe: I've got a question in regards to, you know locating the kitchen on the second level, if you were to grant this variance, you're okay with that? Loren Veltkamp: Actually I can't survive in the house with that because the roommates that I had used the kitchen, and I used it too. The kitchens were a common area as the City determined. When you have roommates the City, you know they. . . hard and fast ordinance was the City wrote me a letter saying that bedrooms in this situation are private, okay. You can't have people walking into other people's bedrooms. So they're considered private. All of the areas are common. Are held in common. So anybody can walk into anybody's kitchen or you know into any of the living areas or decks or you know, I had everything in the house. I mean hot tub and spa and everything, and everybody, exercise room. You know just everything that anybody would want almost. We had large screen TV's and entertainment rooms and it was wonderful. And people loved it and all the people that lived there as part of the fire losing stuff, they all want to come back you know. They all signed six month sub leases and they all want to come back in August. And I said I'll do whatever I can to get you back you know. So it's a happy family. It's more like an extended family than a bunch of you know rental units. I mean I don't even like rental dwellings. I wouldn't even have a rental if it was up to me. Roommates is the only way to go. But that's the state of things today. But I want to emphasize that we went through a great deal of trouble talking about this 5 years ago and it was all agreed and determined in writing and cleared up finally. And now, since the fire, this whole issue has just exploded again. You know and it's because we got new people working the city and the reason they told us very little and you know the people before that didn't read them that literally. And 67 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 there's another issue here that I need to bring up and this is even weirder. I've been in this house for 15 years you know working on it and I've had I think 5 surveys done on this house in the time that I've lived there. After the fire my survey was done again by the same guy for I think maybe the eighth time, and it was rejected 4 times because he couldn't get it right. You know I agreed with staff that it wasn't really done right. It's crazy but in spite of all this, I still don't even know which way my house is facing. I've been there 15 years and I don't know which way my house is facing. It used to face south and the driveway went south and the front door went south and there was a paper road out there that's going to be developed, which was the fastest way out of the, you know away from the lake there. And also the guy that owned by lot owns another lot which was on this road you know going out so the house originally had defined setbacks. You know it was 30 feet, 10 and 10, which was the way that they did things back then. But now the city decides Lotus is the main road, and they have new setbacks you know. 30 and 30 and 15 and 15 on the sides. This just kills me you know. If my house had burned, it's a very serious problem. If my house had burned for another 10 minutes, I would have been past the 50% destruction level, and I would have lost everything. This scared the bejeebies out of me you know. I totaled up what my loses would have been, and I would have lost a half a million dollars. That's what I would have lost after I got all my insurance and everything else. Just because of that one code. I had no idea that code existed. So I think the city's got to look at this a little more carefully because people don't have insurance for their house and the lot in case they can't ever rebuild it. You know I certainly can't. So that's a side issue but getting back to this more important issue of which way we're facing. I talked to some lawyers about this and they felt, both lawyers felt that the city really shouldn't be imposing these setbacks on me because they're the ones who changed the street, okay. If! had built it wrong, it'd be another issue but since the City changed the street there and then changed the setback in such a way that I no longer have a buildable lot. I've got literally a 10 foot strip down the middle of my lot that is buildable. Which is of course not buildable. So they said that this is land grabbing.. . You know not intentional land grabbing but land grabbing just the same because you know the city can change the streets any time and then change the variances any time and people like me, completely unaware have a calamity in their lives and we end up losing everything. So I think if this went to court, I think a jury of my peers might have a little trouble with that you know. I think this needs to be researched. I don't know what the answer is but it doesn't seem right to me you know that a person can lose their lot just because the city changes which road is you know going to service their land. So that's a very basic issue in this case, which is still unresolved. And the lawyers want is the $300 an hour to research it, and I thought well maybe they just want my money you know. I don't know. But that's an issue and hope we can look at that further. And I would specifically request, you know I say it all the time but I'm very pro roommates for the city. I don't like apartments. I like roommates and I think it's a good thing. I put this in my letter to the City Council. I think it's a good thing for people to have roommates because if you fall ill or you know the kids need more of a house, or you have some other calamity, roommates can come in and give you the extra money to keep your house, which is what happened in my case. I was able to keep the house and finish the house and develop the house and I think that's a good thing for me and the roommates seem to like it too, and we were able to do it with, you know right in front of the eyes of the city and work this out, you know. 68 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 Undestad: I've just got one question for you. He keeps going back to the rental thing and rental units. What issue are there that, I mean if you want to put the three kitchens and things in there, what issues do you have with the city and... Loren Veltkamp: ... you know there's the 5 amenities that make an apartment. Obviously they don't like having tenants in my house. They've never, you know they never liked that. They think it's apartments you know. Undestad: But getting a rental license, you wouldn't do that? Loren Veltkamp: I got a rental license. That's another funny thing. I applied for a rental license and then they determined that I didn't need a rental license because I don't have apartments you see. So I put my, I gave my money and I never got my money back. You know they still have my money but I don't have a license because I don't need one. I said screw it okay. I'm happy. And I don't have more than 2 dogs either. I don't know why that comes up you know. And the driveway, you know staff implied that the driveway was built to accommodate renters but the driveway was built before I was even divorced and the fact is we had two snowmobiles. A large boat. A motorcycle and two cars and we needed the driveway just to turn the boat around because there was no parking on Lotus Trail so. Undestad: You mentioned you might you know, this might need more research or might need more time. That may very. . . Loren Veltkamp: The code's about rent, you know apartments versus roommates. They need to be re-written because I've been through this twice now. And it's gone on for, I think this is the sixth year now that this has been an issue, and we had it quiet for 2 years. Dillon: We're not going to do that here tonight though. Loren Veltkamp: I know. I know but it's vague you know and it's just a little too vague. And to me the key issue with an apartment is a locking door, you know. If you've got a locking door and the people are renting that space and controlling that space, that's an apartment regardless of whether it has 2 toilets or 3 toilets and whatever. McDonald: Well I guess we're getting a little bit off par here but I do have a question for staff but I, the purpose of all this is so you can bring roommates back in. Loren Veltkamp: No, not at all. I can bring the roommates back anyway, and they all, they do want to come back and the only reason I have applied for a variance is to make the house more livable and it's cleaner. It's a better design and it's cheaper to build per square footage, and it's just more practical for me to do it that way. It's really just a matter of practicality. Now whether impracticality equals a hardship, you know a certain amount of screwed up design. For example, in the old house the storage was through a person's bedroom. Okay, but under the city code you know that bedroom was a private bedroom so I couldn't go into my storage you know without getting written consent you know, so this is an impracticality. So I said. 69 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 McDonald: Well, before you go on with that, I mean that brings up a question and I don't think we have an answer for it but I do have a question for staff. I know in the City of Minneapolis in a situation such as this, this is viewed as a boarding house. You take a residence and you let people have the bedrooms and you have the common areas and those things. Do we have a comparable ordinance that would deal with boarding houses? I mean it seems as though he's being treated as an apartment. Yeah, maybe he's not an apartment house but it's definitely a boarding house. Metzer: I think that's been part of the problem in the past years is the definition of what's what. I don't know if it' s finding ways around the definitions or what but. McDonald: Well I guess I'd like to see something there because I'm sorry, I'm still having a problem with all of this. It all comes down to the fact that you're asking for a variance and I'm just not sure why I'm doing this and I need to know something there. After telling two other gentlemen that sorry, you have to tear it down or pull it up and you know, both of them are saying a great financial hardships. Understanding you've got one too but I would just like to know what's going on so I would like staff to do something. I'd like to know what's, if all we have is an ordinance for rental, for apartments, then he's probably got a point. Ifwe view this as a boarding house, which is different, then is there something else that he falls under? Loren Veltkamp: The staff has repeatedly told me that they like roommates. They want to encourage roommates. Roommates are fine but you've got to stay within the line. McDonald: Well I understand that and that's perfectly fine. That's why I say, what you've got is a boarding house. That's the rules of a boarding house. It's not apartments. You've got the common areas. I've seen a lot of these in Minneapolis. Loren Veltkamp: I don't know what a boarding house is so I can't. McDonald: Well you've got one. Yeah, you meet the definition and that's what I want to find out is you know, does the City address a boarding house differently than it does an apartment. And that's something to look at because what you're defining and what you're saying is going on is the same thing that goes on in downtown Minneapolis, around the University. A lot of people take their homes, the old homes down there. They convert them into boarding houses. They rent them out to students. They rent them out to individuals. They have the common areas the City of Minneapolis, also because of the fire 3 or 4 years ago where a couple students were killed, started cracking down on boarding houses. That they do fall under an ordinance. There are requirements. Loren Veltkamp: Are the owners living in these houses with the students? McDonald: Huh? Loren Veltkamp: Are the owners living in the houses? 70 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 McDonald: In some cases they were. In some cases they weren't, and that's what creates the problem, and that's why I'd like to know what it is you've got. Maybe at that point it does justify the variance. But if staff can't answer that right now, one of the things I would ask him to do is come up with something. Papke: Would you accept a motion to table this? McDonald: I would accept a motion to table this. Papke: Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion that we table this application until we can come back with something that clearly delineates the legal ramifications here and doesn't attempt to enforce something that seems to be ill defined by granting a variance. Dillon: Second. Loren Veltkamp: Can I make one small request? McDonald: Well first of all let us vote on the motion. Papke moved, Dillon seconded that the Planning Commission table the variance request for 6724 Lotus Trail, Planning Case 06-25, until staff can come back with something that clearly delineates the legal ramifications and doesn't attempt to enforce something that seems to be ill defined by granting a variance. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to o. McDonald: Did you wish to add something? Loren Veltkamp: I would like to just put a rush on it because my house is getting rained on every day. I don't have a roof you know. McDonald: I understand that and staff is under certain constraints. It will be dealt with in an expeditious fashion. I'm sure that they will contact you about, we will, what is the time? Can we come back on the calendar at our next? Generous: Yeah, the next one unfortunately, our next scheduled meeting will be the 4th. Loren Veltkamp: I just can't wait that long. I, you know, I'm under a certain time limits on the insurance company. They only pay for me to be out of the house for a certain period of time, you know. I mean it's a hardship for me to drag this out. I've got people lined up to work on the house. I've got a roof. Papke: Can you proceed with reconstructing under your current? Loren Veltkamp: I can do what I can. Put the roof over the garage and did some second story decking. You know we've got tarps up. Our tarps have ripped off again with this last you know deluge we had and. I would just like to rush it. 71 Planning Commission Meeting - June 20, 2006 McDonald: Yeah, well we'll have it back by the 18th. And that's about 3 weeks away. In the meantime, if this goes up before us for a vote, I'm afraid you'll be turned down and you're still looking at going before City Council. Nothing is going to happen before then anyway so at least by doing this, I think we're only throwing maybe a 2 week delay into anything. It's just, this doesn't make sense and I cannot in good faith vote for it after denial of two other variances. Unless there is a compelling reason to do so, and I just haven't heard it tonight. Okay, with that then we will move on to the next agenda item. Resident: Excuse me. Will we get notification of the July 18th meeting because we're all waiting to see? Generous: I can send out a notice. McDonald: Yep. Notices will be sent out again. I apologize for everybody coming in but I'm afraid at this point we just don't have enough information. And that's part of what we're going to try to do is unconfuse all of this so that everybody understands what's going on and we do finally make a recommendation that makes sense to everybody. So I appreciate everyone coming in. I understand the late hour and everything, but thanks very much and thank you for your patience and I'm sorry if this is going to cause any kind of a hardship but again, as I said to the gentlemen, two before, financial burden is not something that we can look at. We have certain rules to follow and without this making sense within those rules, we can't vote. So we will adjourn with that. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Larson noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 6, 2006 as presented. Chairman McDonald adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 11:10 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 72