3 CUP 8900 Audubon RoadCITY OF
PC DATE: July 17, 2001
CC DATE: July 23, 2001
REVIEW DEADLINE: 9/15/01
CASE #: 2001-3 CLIP
J
L
STAFF
REPORT
PROPOSAL:
Request for a conditional use permit to construct a single-family home within the
Bluff Creek Secondary Overlay District with a variance to allow development to
encroach into the. required 40-foot setback of the primary zone. "
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
8900 Audubon Road, Lot 2 Block 1 Sunridge
Dennis & Ruth Chadderdon
5990 Charleston Circle
Shorewood, MN 55331
PRESENT ZONING: RR, Rural Residential District
2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential-Large Lot
ACREAGE: 2.5 Acres
DENSITY: N/A
SUMMARY OF REQUE~ST: The applicant is proposing to build a single-family home. The lot is
located within the Bluff Creek Overlay District and is adjacent to the primary zone. A conditional use
permit is required prior to any construction within Bluff Creek and a variance is required from the 40-
foot setback from the primary zone.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to aH property owners within 500 feet.
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City has limited discretion in
approving or denying conditional use permits, based on whether or not the proposal meets the conditional use
permit standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. If the City finds that all the applicable conditional use
permit standards are met, the permit must be approved. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project
meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion
with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-
judicial decision.
-- ,
..
es! V "~
~ a~p
Chadderdon CUP
July 17, 2001
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATION
Section 20-1554 of the zoning ordinance requires that conditional use permits be issued for all site
plans, and prior the erection or alteration of any building or land within the Bluff Creek Overlay
District
Section 20-1555 allows the Planning Director to adjust the boundary of the Bluff Creek Overlay
District, based upon data provided by a professional.
Section 20-1563 requires the primary zone to contain 100% open space.
Section 20-1564 of the ordinance requires a 40-foot setback from the Primary Zone with no disturbance
within the first 20 feet.
Section 20-591 of the ordinance states the intent of the "RR" District is to provide for single-family
developments.
PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE
On June 17, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and unanimously approved
this item. During the discussion, the commission expressed interest in requiring an additional
vegetative buffer adjacent to the outer boundary of the primary zone (881.6). The commission
changed conditions of approval 7, 10, 11, 14, and added condition 16.
This report has been updated. All new information is in bold.
BACKGROUND
In October 1998, the City approved a metes and bounds subdivision creating the subject site. In
December 1998, the City adopted the Bluff Creek Overlay District Ordinance (two months after this
lot was approved). The intent of the Bluff Creek Overlay District is to allow development to "blend
into the natural environment while protecting Bluff Creek and sensitive land areas abutting and in the
vicinity of the watercourse and its tributaries."
The applicant is proposing to build a single-family home on this property. The main issue with the
lot is that it is mapped entirely within the primary and secondary zones of the Bluff Creek Overlay
District. The district regulations for the primary zone require that open space consist of 100% open
space, and all structures setback 40 feet from the primary zone with no disturbance within the first 20
feet. In addition, a Conditional Use Permit is required for all development within the Bluff Creek
Overlay. This ordinance does not exempt lots of record.
Since this lot was created 2 months before the Bluff Creek Overlay District ordinance was adopted,
the proposed lot was not required to meet these standards during the subdivision process. The strict
application of these standards would result in this lot being unbuildable.
Chadderdon CUP
July 17,2001
Page 3
On May 18th, the applicant submitted an application for a conditional use permit with variances. A
wetland delineation, detailed survey and proposed site plan were included with the application.
Section 20-1555 of the ordinance states, "the planning director shall make a determination to
maintain the officially designated watershed zone boundary or if the boundaries need to be corrected
on city plans and maps based upon the data that is supplied." Staff studied the data provided by the
applicant and conducted research on site characteristics of the property. Bluff Creek and an ag/urban
wetland are located along the southern portion of the site. The wetland delineation submitted by the
applicant depicts the boundaries of the wetland to be located below the 100-year floodplain elevation
of 881.6 for Bluff Creek (See Attachment 2).
The area above the 881.6 flood zone elevation has average slopes that range between 3-9%. It has
been farmed and is devoid of native vegetation. The creek has been dredged and straightened to
provide drainage for agricultural purposes. This has eliminated much of the natural wetland
vegetation and habitat on this site.
The primary corridor is intended to be preserved as natural as possible while the secondary zone is
intended to be protected and managed to minimize impacts of new development on the primary zone.
The characteristics found on this site (above the 881.6 elevation) more closely fit the conditions and
intent of the secondary zone.
The boundary of the primary zone should follow the 881.6 contour instead of the boundary designated
on the official zoning map based on findings discussed above, which included a topographical survey,
wetland delineation, farming history of the site, and site characteristics. The map of the primary zone
has been amended accordingly.
With this change, the proposed home is located within the secondary zone. Variances from the
required 40-foot setback from the primary zone will be required to make this lot buildable.
The development of this site can be a tool used to enhance the Bluff Creek Corridor. It provides the
opportunity to protect the creek from further degradation. A site inspection by the Water Resources
Coordinator concluded that much of the vegetation on this site is not native to the Bluff Creek
corridor. With the development of this property, staff recommends that a buffer strip be established
adjacent to the 881.6 elevation, following the primary zone boundary. In addition, the portion
between the wetland and the elevation of 881.6 must remain undisturbed.
The property is zoned RR, Rural Residential. The intent of this district is to provide for single-family
residential subdivisions intended for large lot developments (Sec. 20-591). A single-family home, as
requested by the applicant, would be a reasonable use to this site. Prohibiting such a use could be
considered a taking. Staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit with variances.
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to construct a single-family home on a lot within the
secondary Bluff Creek Overlay District with variance to allow development to encroach into the
required setback of the primary zone.
Chadderdon CUP
July 17, 2001
Page 4
The site is located on the west side of Audubon Road, just north of Lyman Blvd. A 2,640 square foot
home is proposed for this site to be located on the northwest portion of the site, 20 feet from the north
property line, and approximately 21 feet away from the primary zone (newly designated boundary). A
septic system will be located near the northeast property line, as shown on the site plan. The driveway is
proposed to be approximately 400 feet in length with grades of less than 10%. Access to the site will be
via a previously existing driveway entrance off of Audubon Road.
Table 1
COMPLIANCE TABI.E
Ordinance Proposal
RR Setbacks
East (Front) 50 feet 340 feet
West (Rear) 50 feet 70 feet
North/South (Side) 10 feet/10 feet 20 feet/138 feet
Wetland 10 ft average buffer + 40 ft 61 feet
setback
Creek 75 feet 102 feet
ISTS (Septic)
Buildings 20 feet 20 feet
Property lines 10 feet 10 feet
Primary Zone
40 feet/20 foot no grading Does not meet, see below
DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS
The site is encumbered by numerous setback requirements (See Table 1). The Rural Residential District
requirements are 50 feet for the front and rear setbacks, and 10 feet for the side setbacks. The proposed
home will exceed these setbacks. The required setback of structures and sewage treatment systems
from the OHW of Bluff Creek is 75 feet. The proposed structure and sewage treatment systems
maintain the required setback.
A condition of the subdivision creating this lot stated a permanent drainage and utility easement was
dedicated over the creek at the 100-year flood elevation of 881.6. This easement has been recorded and
falls within the wetland setback area; therefore the proposed home will not encroach into the easement.
ISTS
The site plan shows two drain field sites for an individual septic treatment system (ISTS). When this lot
was subdivided in 1998, these drain fields were approved based on soil borings. A condition of the
subdivision was that each ISTS site must remain undisturbed and must be protected and identified
before construction begins. Individual sewage systems must not be placed on disturbed or compact
soils. To the best of staff's knowledge the area identified for the septic systems is the only area on the
site that has remained undisturbed. The proposed septic areas meet the setback requirements for
building and property line requirements.
Chadderdon CLIP
July 17,2001
Page 5
WETLAND
There is one ag/urban wetland located on-site adjacent to Bluff Creek. Since this lot was created after
the adoption of the current wetland ordinance, the applicant must maintain a 0 to 20 foot wetland
buffer (with a minimum average of 10 feet) and a 40-foot setback from the wetland buffer edge. The
proposed home meets this requirement, however the plans that were submitted do not show the
required wetland buffer. A wetland buffer with a minimum average of 10 feet should be shown on
the plans.
GRADING
Following the subdivision that created this lot, grading began for a driveway to provide access to it.
The property owner obtained a grading permit for the driveway in July 2000. As of today, grading
and construction for the first 250 feet of the driveway has begun, however, driveway construction will
not be completed until construction of the proposed home begins. A condition of the subdivision of
this lot stated that the driveway grade shall not exceed 10% and shall be paved for the first 40 to 50
feet off Audubon Road. The plans reflect a driveway that is in compliance with this condition. The
existing portion of the driveway is setback approximately 17 to 20 feet from the 881.6 elevation.
This is an existing situation and does not require a variance.
DRAINAGE
The northeast comer of this lot receives water from a swale along the west side of Audubon Road.
Prior to grading occurring on the site, the water drained from the northeast comer of the property to
the southwest, where it was intercepted by the wetland prior to flowing into Bluff Creek. Because the
culvert proposed in the grading plan application was not installed, the water is not able to flow into
the wetland. The applicant should provide a culvert under the proposed driveway at the lowest point
so water will be able to drain into the wetland. The applicant should install riprap at the downstream
end of the culvert in order to prevent erosion.
PRIMARY ZONE SETBACK
The following will require variances from the 40-foot primary zone setback, and the "no disturbance"
area of the first 20 feet of the 40-foot setback.
1. A comer of the proposed house is approximately 21 feet from the primary zone, requiring a
19-foot variance.
2. One of the proposed septic areas encroaches approximately 30 feet into the primary zone
setback. The septic areas could be shifted north to reduce the variance to approximately 20
feet.
3. The first 250 feet of the driveway is approximately _17 feet from the primary zone. Fill for the
grading of this portion of the driveway has been placed next to the edge of the primary zone.
Pe~nission to grade for the driveway predates adoption of the bluff creek ordinance. Access to
this site was approved when this lot was subdivided in 1998, and this portion of the driveway is
preexisting. The remaining portion of the driveway is proposed to follow the edge of the
primary zone.
Staff recommends leaving the current, existing portion of the driveway as it is, but moving the
remaining portion of the driveway north so it and any fill needed for grading will be out of the 100-
Chadderdon CLIP
July 17, 2001
Page 6
year floodplain (881.6). In addition, staff recommends the silt fence be moved outside the 881.6
elevation, no fill placed below the elevation of 881.6, and the retaining wall be constructed and
setback 20 feet from the primary zone (if the retaining wall is over 4' in height, it must be
engineered).
TREE PRESERVATION/LANDSCAPING
There are no existing trees on site. Since it is located in the Bluff Creek Overlay primary zone, staff
recommends; a minimum of three trees be planted on site. They are to meet the ordinance's minimum
size requirements and be native species. Staff recommends a choice of Sugar maple, Basswood, Red
Oak and/or Bittemut Hickory. The applicant shall submit a planting list.
VARIANCE FINDINGS
The Planning Commission shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless
they find the following facts:
a.
That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship
means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical
surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of
comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a
proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this
neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing
downward from them meet this criteria.
Finding: Literal enforcement of the ordinance would make this an unbuildable lot. In this case,
the applicant is proposing to construct a single family home on a lot encumber by numerous
restrictions. The lot is zone Rural Residential. A single family home is a reasonable use of this
lot. It is a use that is made by the majority of the properties within 500 feet.
b.
The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to
other property within the same zoning classification.
Finding: The conditions upon which this variance request is based are not applicable to most
other properties in the RR zoning district. While the BCO is located within a large portion of
the City, a majority of the RR lots are not located within this district.
Co
The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential
of the parcel of land.
Finding: The variation is not solely based upon a desire to increase the value of the land but to
construct a single family home upon which to live. This site was approved by the City as a
buildable lot.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Chadderdon CUP
July 17, 2001
Page 7
Finding: The hardship is not self-created. The lot was platted prior to the BCO ordinance.
The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
Finding: The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious
to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. With the
incorporation of staff conditions, the long-term restoration of this portion of Bluff Creek will be
improved.
The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or
substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or
endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the
neighborhood.
Finding: The variance will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties
or increase the congestion of the public street. It will not endanger the public safety or diminish
property values in the neighborhood.
CUP FINDINGS
When approving a conditional use permit, the City must determine the capability of a proposed
development with existing and proposed uses. The general issuance standards of the conditional use
Section 20-232, include the following 12 items:
Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general
welfare of the neighborhood or the city.
Finding: The proposed project will not be detrimental to public health, safety, comfort,
convenience of general welfare of the city, with the conditions of approval.
2. Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter.
Finding: This area is zoned Rural Residential and is guided residential-large lot. The
proposal will be consistent with the objectives of the comprehensive plan and the zoning
ordinance if the variance were approved.
o
Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with
the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential
character of that area.
Finding: The proposed project is designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to
be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general
vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area.
4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses.
Chadderdon CLIP
July 17,2001
Page 8
,
o
o
o
o
Finding: The proposed project will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or
planned neighboring uses.
Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and
fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will
be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by. the persons or agencies
responsible for the establishment of the proposed use.
Finding: The proposed project will be adequately served by essential public facilities
and services. It must have an approved well and separate individual septic treatment
systems.
Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be
detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
Finding: The proposed project will not create excessive requirements for public
facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the
community, it is served by a separate septic system and well.
Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation
that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive
production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash.
Finding: The proposed use will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials,
equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property
or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes,
glare, odors, rodents, or trash.
Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere
with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares.
Finding: The proposed project will have vehicle approaches to the property which do
not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares.
Access to the site is via an existing entrance. The existing driveway is being used to
minimize additional grading.
Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic
features of major significance.
Finding: The project will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access,
scenic or historic features of major significance. Staff believes that we have an
opportunity to improve the natural features of this area as part of the project, with the
conditions of approval.
10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area.
Chadderdon CUP
July 17, 2001
Page 9
Finding: The project will be aesthetically compatible with the area.
11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values.
Finding: The proposal will not depreciate surrounding property values.
12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article.
Finding: The proposal meets the standards provided in this article if the setback
variance is approved.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion:
"The City Council approves Conditional Use Permit 2001-3 to construct a single family home within
the Bluff Creek Secondary Overlay District with a variance to encroach into the required 40 foot setback
of the primary zone subject to the following conditions:
.
The applicant shall maintain a 0 to 20 foot wetland buffer (with a minimum average of 10
feet) and a 40-foot setback from the wetland buffer edge. The buffer shall be shown on the
plans.
2. The applicant shall provide a culvert under the proposed driveway at the lowest point so water
will be able to drain into the wetland.
3. The applicant must submit drainage calculations to ensure that the proposed culvert is
accurately sized.
4. The applicant shall install riprap at the downstream end of the culvert in order to prevent
erosion.
5. The erosion control silt fence must be moved outside the 881.6 contour. Type I11 erosion
control shall be installed as designated on the site plan.
o
The current, existing portion of the driveway shall be allowed to remain in its current
alignment; however, the remainder of the driveway shall be moved so that no additional fill
will be placed within the 100-year floodplain (881.6).
7. Final grades of the driveway shall comply with the grading permit. A minimum of the first
40-50 feet of the driveway, off of Audubon Road, must be paved.
8. There shall be no fill placed below the elevation of 881.6.
Chadderdon CUP
July 17, 2001
Page 10
9. The existing public drainage and utility easement over the wetland (to the elevation of 881.6)
must be shown on the plan as legally described.
10. The retaining wall must be setback 20 feet from the primary zone (881.6 contour).
11. The proposed walkout elevation of the home must be at least two feet above the OHW of the
adjacent wetland. As such, the elevation should be 883.6.
12. Include the benchmark that was used for the site survey.
13. A minimum of three trees shall be planted on site. The applicant may choose between the
following trees: Sugar maple, Basswood, Red Oak and/or Bittemut Hickory. The applicant shall
submit a planting list.
14. A 10-20 foot average vegetative buffer shall be established and preserved abutting the 100-year
floodplain (881.6). The buffer minimum shall be 10 feet.
15. The applicant shall comply with all conditions of Subdivision #97-11."
16. The applicant shall move the septic systems north as far as possible while still meeting
all setbacks.
ATI'ACHMENTS
1. Application and letter
2. Site Plan
3. Relevant Ordinances
4. Map: primary & secondary zones
5. Aerial map
6. Memo from Matt Saam dated June 13, 2001
7. Conditions of 1998 subdivision of this lot
8. Easement description
9. Public Hearing Notice and letters to property owners
10. Minutes from the July 17, 2001 Planning Commission Meeting
g:\plan\j h\proj ects\cup\chadderdon.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HE--PIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
Application of Dennis & Ruth Chadderdon for a conditional use permit to construct a single-family
home within the Bluff Creek Secondary Overlay District with a variance to allow development to
encroach into the required 40-foot setback of the primary zone.
Conditional Use Permit
On July 17, 20001, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule
meeting to consider the application of Dennis and Ruth Chadderdon for a conditional use permit for
the property located at 8900Audubon Road. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
on the proposed conditional use was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning
Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
,
The property is currently zoned Residential Single Family, RSF.
The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Rural Residential, RR.
The legal description of the property is: Lot 2 Block 1 Sunridge.
,
Section 20-232:
Will not be detrimental to or enhance the public health, safety, comfort, convenience
or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city.
bo
Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this
chapter.
d.
eo
go
ho
k°
o
Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in
appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not
change the essential character of that area.
Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses.
Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets,
police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer
systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services
provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed
use.
Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be
detrimental to the economic welfare of the community.
Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of
operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare
because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents,
or trash.
Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion
or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares.
Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or
historic features of major significance.
Will be aesthetically compatible with the area.
Will not depreciate surrounding property values.
Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article.
The planning report #2001-3 dated July 17, 2000, prepared by Julie Hoium is
incorporated herein.
RECOMMENDATION
use permit.
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the conditional
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 17th day of July, 2001.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
BY:
Its Chairman
ATTEST:
Secretary
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
TELEPHONE (Day time)
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
OWNER:
.____ Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Conditional Use Permit
Interim Use Permit
·
Non-conforming Use Permit
P/armed Unit Development*
Temporary Sales Permit
Vacation of ROW/Easements
variance
Wetland Alteration Permit
Zoning Appeal
Re. zoning
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
Notification Sign
Site PS Review* X
Subdiv~ion*
Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost**
($50 CU P/SPR/VACNAR/WAP/Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
TOTAL FEE $ ~'~ q.~'~"~--'
A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the
application.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
~rwenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8Y2" X 11" reduced copy of
transparency for each plan sheet.
Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
!cTrE-When muttiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
I~ET1..ANDS PRESENT
m _ST ZO. .G
YES NO
LAND USE DESIGNATION
:P, EDUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION ~ ~ CD~/,J"/-~ A-'L_
FO]:{ THIS REQUEST ~ 0 :"~-O-F'~
"This appTication must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning
.D~e~ to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
Adel. eT'm~na1.ioT~ of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A Written
~e of app~cation deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
'Th'~s to cert~ that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
· the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either
copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of. Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make
:this appl/cat~n and the fee owne.r has also signed this application.
1 'w~'11 1~ myseff informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
t,mderstand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
.rn~ ~.ge. .
'The c?ty hereby T~Ot'hfies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing
~'equirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day
extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review
,extenskms are approved by the applicant.
Si.g~re of Fee Owner
Aj:~pT~on Received on 5- [ ~ '~! Fee Paid
Date
Date
Receipt No.
"The app3icant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report whlch will be available on Friday prior to the meeting.
~lf,,-,.ot contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
Compliance Statement
Conditional Use Permit - Standards for Property: 8900 Audubon Road- Chanhassen, MN 55317
II.
mo
IV.
Vo
IX.
Ko
Proposed residential structure will not be detrimental to or enhance the public health,
safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the surrounding neighborhood or
the City.
Proposed residential structure will be consistent with the objectives of the City's
comprehensive plan and this chapter.
Proposed residential structure will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained
so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the
general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area.
Proposed residential structure will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or
planned neighboring uses.
Proposed residential structure will be served adequately by essential public facilities
and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse
disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such
facilities and services provided by the persons responsible for the structure of the
proposed use.
Proposed residential structure will not create excessive requirements for public
facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the
community.
Proposed residential structure will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials,
equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any person,
property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise,
smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash.
Proposed residential structure will have vehicular approaches to the property, which
do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public
thoroughfares.
Proposed residential structure will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of
solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance.
Proposed residential structure will be aesthetically compatible with the surrounding
area.
Proposed residential structure will not depreciate surrounding property value~~
Proposed residential structure will meet standards prescribed for certain
provided in this article.
JO8 NO. 01R-172
iI
100'iR
881.6
--. '% %` %. ~ '% ',.. LEGAL DESCRIPTION
.... %` ,-_ _].,gL;Za. Block [:San Rid~,b,.e.x_.cept that.p ~art lying Northeasterly o( a linc described a~ follows:
~ ~. ~x ~ ,.. ,,_ Bcginni~,'at.a,l)oint o-'l~c Easterly_linc o~':said..L.ot 2 a distancc of' 353.03 feet Southerly of the
'~ '~. '% "-- -- '--NoHheast~ corner o'~ _'~d0..Lot'~, thea~c'c Nonhw.~?te~l~, to.a ~oint on the Westerly line of said Lot
~ %` ~' ~ ~ __a distanc.~fi--30..5~, feet Southerly'~fi'om~e No?fi,west comer of 4ald Lot 2 and there terminalin$
pat of Lot"l>Bl~k l,"Smt.Rzdge Th,rd~ddmo'~n. Carver Count, Mmn~o~ ~ordmg to
~n~l~i at tho ~t ~ter~.com~ d~aid L~ I, Bto~ 1. SVn Hidip ~ird~ddition;
d~ ~87.~ f~t ~0 ~int ~gm~mg ot thKlme to ~ ~cp~: ~ce ~u~ 56
.-. . x . · ....
~ 53 m~t~ 53 s~n~t a ~m~ ~ 89,2~t ~o ai~t~t ol I ~ N~mly n~t
~ .... N .... j.. . . .
20.~ff~t Sou~t~ly of~c ~d most ~dy corner o~id L~t I,IBI
PREPARED FOR:
TROY BEAR
16`317 TEMPLE DRIVE
MINNETONKA, MINNESOTA 55.345
PHONE (952) J45-9709
PREPARED BY:
HEDLUND PLANNING
-.. ~¢,. ~ ENGINEERING SURVEYING
8~to.o
) "X 2005 PIN O^K DRiVE
EAGAN, MINNESOTA. 55122
\ PHONE (612) 40.5-6600
x\
\ I
CITYOF
690 City Center Drive
?0 Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Phone
952.937.1900
General Fax
952.937.5739
Engineering Department Fax'
952.937.9152
Btdlding Deparone, t Fax
952.934.2524
Web Site
zt,zt,zt: ci. cha,hassen, mn. us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Julie Hoium, Planner I
Matt Saam, Project Engineer
June 13,2001
SUBJ:
Review of Conditional Use Permit for 8900 Audubon Road
File No. 2001-3 CUP
Upon review of the plan prepared by Hedlund Surveying dated May 17, 2001, I
offer the following conditions of approval:
1. The applicant must submit drainage calculations to ensure that the
proposed culvert is accurately sized.
.
o
The existing public drainage and utility easement over the wetland must
be shown on the plan.
The proposed walk-out elevation of the home must be two feet above the
HWL of the adjacent wetland. As such, the elevation should be 883.6.
4. Include the benchmark which was used for the site survey.
c: Teresa J. Burgess, Public Works Director/City Engineer
g:\eng\mattXmemoskstaffreports\8900 audubon cup.doc
§ 20-1562
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
Sec. 20.1562. Natural habitat restoration plan.
If natural habitat areas located within the Secondary Zone will be disturbed during any
stage of development, the applicant shall submit a detailed plan identifying the resources that
will be disturbed and a corresponding restoration and/or mitigation plan. Such restoration
might include wetland mitigation and replanting of habitat significant to endangered and
threatened species.
(Ord. No. 286, § 8, 12-14-98)
Sec. 20-1563. Open space requirements.
Open space shall comprise one hundred (100) percent of the area located within the Primary .
Zone. The city will establish the boundary for the Primary Zone using data provided by the
applicant.
(Ord. No. 286, § 8, 12-14-98)
Sec. 20-1564. Structure setbacks.
All structures shall be setback a minimum of forty (40) feet from the Primary Zone. No
disturbance of the site shall occur within the first (20) feet of such setback.
(Ord. No. 286, § 8, 12-14-98)
[The next page is 1977]
Supp. No. 11 1302
ZONING § 20-1555
(b) Preservation of the natural conditions found in the Primary Zone and to the greatest
extent possible, preserving significant resources and minimizing impacts in the
Secondary Zone through cluster development and other practices which mininfize the
removal of vegetation, minimize site grading, and application of practices found in the
city's best management practices handbook.
(c) Creation of a suitable balance between the amount and arrangement of open space,
landscaping, view protection, bluff protection, and vegetation protection and the design
and function of man-made features.
(d) Creation of an interconnected open space network that preserves migratory patterns
for wildlife.
(e) Creation of an interconnected open space network that provides recreational and
educational opportunities for people.
(Ord. No. 286, § 8, 12-14-98) -
Sec. 20-1553. District application.
The BCO district shall be applied or superimposed (overlaid) upon all zoning'districts as
contained herein as existing or amended by the text and map of this article. The regulations
and requirements imposed by the BCO district shall be in addition to those established for
districts which jointly apply. Under the joint application of the districts, the more restrictive
requirements shall apply.
(Ord. No. 286, § 8, 12-14-98)
Sec. 20-1554. Conditional use permits.
A conditional use permit shall be issued by the city for all subdivisions, site plans, and prior
the erection or alteration of any building or ]and within the BCO.
(Ord. No. 286, § 8, 12-14-98)
Sec. 20-1555. Boundary delineation.
(a) Generally. Primary and Secondary Zones shall be subject to the requirements estab-
lished herein, as well as restrictions and requirements established by other applicable city
ordinances and regulations. The Bluff Creek Watershed regulations shall not be construed to
allow anything otherwise prohibited in the zoning district where the overlay district applies.
(b) Boundaries; maps. The Primary and Secondary Zones include land that is generally
defined in this article and in the BluffCreek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan.
Boundaries as established by officially adopted city maps shall be prima facie evidence of the
location and type of watershed zone. The official maps shall be developed and maintained by
the planning department. The applicant shall provide appropriate technical information,
including but not limited to, a topographical survey, flora and fauna survey and soil data
deemed necessary for the city to determine the exact watershed zone boundary. The planning
director shall make a determination to maintain the officially designated watershed zone
Supp. No. 11 1297
§ 20-1555
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE
boundary or if the bou~daries need to be corrected on city plans and maps based upon the data
that is supplied. Data for watershed zone ~lelineation shall be generated and provided by a
qualified professional specializing i,~ watershed ~nanagement, environmental science or other
related profession. The applicant may appeal the planning director's determination of the
watershed zone boundary and type to the city council.
(Ord. No. 286, § 8, 12-14-98)
Sec. 20-1556. Impervious cover and slopes.
To the greatest extent possible, all development shall minimize the amount of impervious
surface by clustering development, using common access drives and utility corridors and
minimizing building footprint size. Roads, walkways, bike trails, and parking areas must be
designed parallel to natural contours with consideration to maintaining consolidated areas of
natural topography and vegetation. Management of surface run-offcaused by impervious cover
shall be designed using practices delineated in the city's Best Management Practices
Handbook.
Within the Secondary Zone of the BCO district, areas with average slopes exceeding
twenty-five (25) percent shall be preserved in their natural state and maintained as permanent
open space. Areas with average slopes less than twenty-five (25) percent but greater than ten
(10) percent shall not exceed an impervious surface coverage of twenty-five (25) percent.
Impervious coverage for areas where av. erage slopes are less than ten (10) percent shall be
governed by the underlying zoning district.
(Ord. No. 286, § 8, 12-14-98)
Sec. 20-15.57. Bluffs.
Bluffs shall be preserved as provided for under Article XXVIII.
(Ord. No. 286, § 8, 12-14-98)
Sec. 20-1558. Site views.
Through environmentally sensitive design such as "terrain adaptive architecture" (see
Figure 1), landscaping and site planning, site views both to and from the BCW district shall be
preserved and enhanced to the greatest extent possible so as to maintain views that reflect and
Supp. No. 11 1298
§ 20-576
CHANI-IASSEN CITY CODE
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(Ord.
Mineral extraction.
Reserved.
Mobile homes (compliance with section 20-905 is not required).
Bed and breakfast establishments.
Commercial kennels, stables and riding academies.
Wholesale nurseries.
Golf driving ranges with or without miniature golf courses.
No. 120, § 3, 2-12-90; Ord. No. 140, § 1, 3-11-91; Ord. No. 240, § 17, 7-24-95)
Secs. 20-577--20-590. Reserved.
ARTICLE XI. '~R" RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Sec. 20-591. Intent.
The intent of the "RR" District is to provide for single-family residential subdivisions
intended for large lot developments.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 4(5-4-1), 12-15-86)
Sec. 20-592. Permitted uses.
The following uses are permitted in an "RR" District:
(1) Single-family dwellings.
(2) Public and private parks and open space.
(3) State-licensed day care center for twelve (12) or fewer children.
(4) State-licensed group home serving six (6) or fewer persons.
(5) Utility services.
(6) Temporary real estate office and model home.
(7) Agriculture.
(8) Antennas as regulated by article XXX of this chapter.
(Ord. No. 80, Art. V, § 4(5-4-2), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 259, § 9, 11-12-96)
Sec. 20-593. Permitted accessory uses.
The following are permitted accessory uses in an "RR" District:
(1) Garage.
(2) Storage building.
(3) Swimming pool.
Supp. No. 9 1208
tO0~ 9 Inl"
g
seuoz AJepuooes ~ AJeLU!Jd
I.'[. J~)JoJdx::lOJV lEIS::]
. }
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
DATE: October 26, 1998 RESOLUTION NO: 98-96a
MOTION BY:
Senn SECONDED BY: Eneel
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A METES AND BOUNDS SUBDMSON
STEVE AND MARY PAT MONSON, OWNERS $850 AUDUBON ROAD
WHEREAS, the applicant is requesting to subdivide a 5 acre parcel zoned Rural
Residential, RR, district, creating 2 lots on Lot 2, Block 1, Sun Ridge Addition; and
WHEREAS, the proposed lots meet the minimum zoning ordinance requirements and is
guided in the comprehensive plan for Large Lot Residential which permits 2.5 acre minimum lots
inside MUSA.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Chanhassen City Council hereby
approVes the metes and bounds subdivision of the Monson property as legally described on the
attached Exhibit A, with the following conditions:
.
A detailed grading, drainage, and erosion control plan will be required at the time of
building permit application for staff review and approval. The plan shall include driveway
grades/location, tree preservation plan, lowest floor elevations, top of block and garage'floor
elevations, culvert type/size and location, existing and proposed grade elevations around the
structure pursuant to city codes.
.
The applicant shall dedicate to the city by permanent easement a drainage and utility
easement over the creek up to the 100-year flood elevation' (881.6) and right-of-way along
the easterly 17 feet of Parcels I and ri.
e
If the applicant connects to city water, hook-up and connection fees for water shall be
collected at time of building permit issuance. The applicant also has the option to install
a well.
4,
The driveway grade shall not exceed 10% and shall be paved for the first 40 to 50 feet off
Audubon Road.
.
The developer shall pay the city $450 for administrative, GIS, and recording fees before the
city signs the recording documents.
6. The developer shall pay full park and trail fees for parcel Il pursuant to city ordinance.
.
Protect each ISTS site in accordance with Chanhassen Inspections Division Policy #10-199
prior to any activity (grading, construction, recreation, etc.) near the sites.
,
The applicant shall pay water quality fees of $285.00 and water quantity fees of $707.00
prior to recording of the subdivision documents.
Requirements for building setbacks on an ag/urban wetland are a 10 foot buffer zone in
addition to a 40 foot building setback.
Passed and adopted by the Chanhassen City Council this 26th day of October, 1998.
ATTEST:
Don A~.shwo~~, C&~
Nancy K. Ma~ino, Mayor
YES NO ABSENT
· ,
Mancino
Berquist
Mason
Engel
Senn
None None
EXHIBIT A
LEGAl, DESCRIPTION: A drainage and utility easement over that part of the
following described parcels that lies below the elevation of 881.6 feet, as defined
and located by using the bench marks as established in 1929 by USGS survey:
Lot 2, Block 1, SUN RIDGE, according to the recorded plat thereof,
That part of Lot 1, Block 1, SUN RIDGE 3rd Addition, Carver County, Minnesota,
according to the recorded plat thereof, lying northerly, northeasterly and easterly of
the following described line: Beginning at the most easterly comer of said Lot 1,
Block 1, SUN RIDGE 3rd Addition, thence North 69 degrees 51 minutes 18
seconds West along the northerly line of said Lot 1 a distance of 87.00 feet to the
point ofbeg/nning of the line to be described; thence South 56 degrees 53 minutes
53 seconds East a distance of 89.20 feet to a point on the northwesterly fight of way
line of Audubon Road, and said line there terminating, said point of term/nation
being 20.00 feet southwesterly of the said most easterly comer of Said Lot 1, Block
1, SUN RIDGE 3rd Addition, as measured along the said right of way line of
Audubon Road.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 17, 2001 AT 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
690 CITY CENTER DRIVE
PROPOSAL: Conditional Use Permit
APPLICANT: Dennis & Ruth Chadderdon
LOCATION: 8900 Audubon Road
NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicants, Dennis & Ruth
Chadderdon, are requesting a conditional use permit for the construction of a single family home within the Bluff Cre(
Overlay District with variances to allow development within the primary zone located at 8900 Audubon Road,
What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's
request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead
the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project.
Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during
office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project,
please contact Julie at 937-1900 ext. 117. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one
copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission.
Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on July 5, 2001.
} I Lyman alvd (C R
/
fNTHIA F BONGARD,TRUSTEE &
MESA BERNARDS,TRUSTEE
31 AUDUBON RD
-IANHASSEN MN 55317
JEFFREY W & GAIL H MOODY
1800 SUN RIDGE CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
AP, ION M MICHEL
8 CREEK LN S #2
RI)AN MN
55352
· YLE & LOIS DEGLER
30 LYMAN BLVD
IANHASSEN MN
55317
CHAEL J & JOANNE COCHRANE
51 SUN RIDGE CT
IANHASSEN MN 55317
OY BAER
317 TEMPLE DR
NNETONKA
MN 55345
EPJEN J & MARY P MONSON
~0 AUDUBON RD
ANHASSEN MN 55317
RIS B & LESLIE J ERICKSON
,1 SUNRIDGE CT
ANHASSEN MN 55317
NIEL K & ROBIN L EDMUNDS
1 SUNPdDGE CT
ANHASSEN MN 55317
1RY B BENNETT
0 AUDUBON RD
MXrI-IAS SEN
MN 55317
Y OF CHANHASSEN...
scou:~ ~o~rcms~'
ER DR PO BOX 14'
MN 55317
/,
,.,
·
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JULY 17, 2001
Chairwoman Blackowiak called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Rich Slagle, Bruce Feik, Deb Kind, Uli Sacchet, and Alison Blackowiak
MEMBERS ABSENT: LuAnn Sidney and Craig Claybaugh
CITY COUNCIL LIAISON: Mayor Linda Jansen
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Julie Hoium, Planner I; Bob
Generous, Senior Planner; Lori Haak, Water Resource Coordinator; and Matt Saam, Project Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
PUBLIC HEARING:
REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH VARIANCES FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT
LOCATED AT 8900 AUDUBON ROAD, DENNIS & RUTH CHADDERDON.
Name
Address
Chris B. & Leslie Erickson 1831 Sunridge Court
Dennis & Ruth Chadderdon 5990 Charleston Circle, Shorewood
Julie Hoium presented the staff report on this item.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Commissioners, are there any questions of staff? Deb, you want to start?
Kind: Yes Madam Chair. You talked about moving the septic systems north, and I did not see the
variance, or I'm sorry, a condition for that. Is it in here and I'm missing it?
Hoium: I didn't put one in there. If we want to add that, I can attach, add that condition.
Kind: So you'd be okay with adding a condition to that effect?
Hoium: Yes, we could.
Kind: That would be a good idea. And then condition number 10 it talks about the retaining blank,
think it's a wall, must be set back 20 feet from the primary zone. I see the retaining wall on here and
right now it looks to be, it's not 20 feet.
Hoium: It's closer than 20 feet.
Public Present:
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001
Kind: It's closer, okay. And it's possible to move that back? It looks like it's holding back quite a bit of
contour there.
Hoium: I'm not sure. That would be something for the applicant hopefully to answer.
Kind: And on page 3 of the staff report you talk about the development of this site can be a tool used to
enhance the Bluff Creek corridor. Other than creating a buffer strip, are there any other enhancements
that this would?
Hoium: Planting vegetation and trees along the outside of the primary zone. Other than the buffer strip,
maintaining it. Preserving it. Not going in and doing anything to it.
Kind: That's all I have for now.
Blackowiak: Okay. Uli.
Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair, I have a few questions too. First of all I'd like to clarify the boundaries of
the primary Bluff Creek Overlay District zone. In the report you suggest that 881.6 contour line should
be considered the border. Is that a new element or can you give me a little bit of framework of how that
come about?
Hoium: Sure. On the official Chanhassen city map, this is how the red is the primary zone. That is how
it is mapped on the official map. Based upon the data that the applicant provided, the wetland
delineation, the site plan, survey and just going out and doing site inspections, and following, which
section is it? Section 20-1555, which allows the planning director to move it based on the information
provided, it was determined that it fit more with the primary zone at the 881.6.
Sacchet: So putting it at that elevation line is actually reducing a little bit.
Hoium: The boundaries?
Sacchet: The boundaries. That's in the interest of the applicant so I'm sure they're happy about that.
Hoium: Correct.
Sacchet: Now when we're talking about a buffer strip, relative to this 881.6 line, we can't really do a 20
foot because the driveway's very close in some areas pretty much...
Hoium: Correct.
Sacchet: The septic as we said, if we move it we might be 20 away. The comer of the house will be
close to the retaining wall potentially intrudes on it. How much buffer, I mean can we quantify how
much buffer we put in there?
Hoium: Just based on what we've looked at and the information we've had, I think staff discussed a 10
foot buffer might be able to fit in there. Following the outer edge of the primary zone.
Sacchet: So if we could possibly do something like an average of 10 foot or something like that?
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001
Hoium: Yes.
Sacchet: Because in some areas it might have to be less.
Hoium: Yes. Where the driveway comes into the property, yes.
Sacchet: It would not be feasible to have an average of 20 foot buffer, would it?
Hoium: I don't think so. It would be tight.
Kind: Madam Chair, point of clarification. The buffer needs to be from the wetland edge, not from the
primary zone marker.
Hoium: We are, maybe I'm confused. I thought we were talking about adding an additional buffer on
the outside of the primary zone. There is a buffer, 10 foot buffer from the wetland itself.
Sacchet: I was talking about, you understood what I...from the primary.
Hoium: This would be in addition to the wetland.
Sacchet: Now that's a good point. Let's clarify that. We're really clear which one we're talking about.
When we said that there's usually a 20 foot buffer required, that would be from the primary zone
boundary out. Is that correct? Am I understanding this correct?
Hoium: Correct.
Sacchet: Okay. So on that basis it would be fair and equitable to put a requirement on that it would be
10 or 15 foot average from that primary zone boundary?
Aanenson: Yes, it's going to be 10 plus.
Sacchet: Okay. Okay. Yeah, because I think if we make a condition I'd like to be very quantifiable.
Now the silt fence is not on there. That's something that should be added in.
Hoium: It's actually in place right now.
Sacchet: Oh, but it has to be moved.
Hoium: It has to be moved outside of the primary zone.
Sacchet: Because it's in the primary, so it would have to be moved outside of that primary zone line.
Hoium: Correct.
Sacchet: How far is that one fifty foot along that driveway is actually in existence? That goes actually
past that wetland thing or reaching north, isn't it?
Hoium: No. It's about right there.
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001
Sacchet: Because the reason why I'm asking, when I went out there I was under the impression that it
was actually past the red line figure.
Hoium: It' s possible. I think it' s, do one of the pictures show it. I think it' s right in that vicinity.
Sacchet: Okay. Okay. And then...that raises another question. When we say that we recommend that
the rest of the driveway would have more setback, we couldn't really do too much there anymore could
we? Really the damage is basically done to the wetland from there on. It's away from the wetland.
Hoium: Yes, that is correct.
Sacchet: I just want to clarify whether my perception's accurate. Okay, that's my questions Madam
Chair. Thank you.
Blackowiak: Rich, any questions?
Slagle: Just a couple of questions. Dove tailing on what Uli has suggested on the driveway Madam
Chair, was there options to explore the driveway avoiding the wetland or is it I mean just said and done
that it has to go across? Or adjacent to it?
Hoium: Adjacent to it.
Slagle: Yeah, I mean I guess what I'm wondering is there a real cost to moving that driveway further
north?
Haak: I guess I can speak to that a little bit. The driveway was put in prior to the city reviewing any sort
of detailed plans. The city had approved a grading plan for the driveway and to the best of my
knowledge it wasn't reviewed by myself or someone in my position, so we actually issued a Cease and
Desist Order on the driveway just so we could make sure where the wetland boundary was so we could
make sure that there was no additional fill. There right now is not wetland fill. It gets real close to the
wetland boundary. I think any removal you do of material in that area, it' s kind of a 6 of 1, half a dozen
of the other really as far as making the applicant remove the material versus just leaving the material
where it is. It's outside of the wetland so I guess staff' s perspective was just to cut our loses and try to
get the driveway, the rest of the driveway as far away as possible.
Slagle: Okay.
Blackowiak: Bruce, do you have any questions of staff?
Feik: You said this was originally approved in '98.
Hoium: Correct.
Feik: If I recall the Park and Rec moved the trail to accommodate this driveway. At that time was there
any consideration made to how this lot would have been accessed and was there any promises or
indication given to the owner of the lot at that time how the lot would be accessed and where that
driveway would go?
Planning Commission Meeting -July 17, 2001
Aanenson: When this lot was created in 1998 simultaneously, I believe at that time there was a
discussion on how that would be accessed. This parcel.
Hoium: If I could add. The access was originally a farm access.
Aanenson: Correct. So it's been there for a while.
Hoium: It has been there.
Aanenson: So that was kind of reviewed and as Lori said, we kind of cut our losses. Moving it, the
degradation that you possibly could do. Again with the variance with this, you can attach reasonable
conditions if you wanted to do some other things as far as mitigation to, for vegetation or whatever. You
have that opportunity to attach a condition for that so we've decided that at this point trying to remove it
probably is worse than, and that was part of the old farm road.
Feik: Thank you.
Sacchet: Can I clarify something?
Blackowiak: Certainly, go ahead.
Sacchet: That' s an interesting point. So that driveway was part of an existing farm road at one point?
Hoium: Correct.
Sacchet: Okay. Well that helps. Thanks.
Blackowiak: I guess I just have a couple questions here. On the conditions, number 11, I just wanted to
clarify, proposed walkout elevation of the home must be 2 feet above the OHW. I'm assuming you mean
at least 2 feet?
Hoium: Yes.
Blackowiak: Okay. Wanted to clarify that. And the second thing has to do with the City Council
resolution back in 1998, condition number 6. It talks about the developer paying full park and trail fees
for parcel 2, and I'm not sure if this is parcel 1 or parcel 2. And if this is parcel 2, do we need to have a
condition in there saying we need full park and trail fees?
Hoium: Yes, this is parcel 2 and that was, I believe that was with the subdivision itself.
Blackowiak: Okay. Now do we need to have a separate condition?
Aanenson: Those are paid with the building permit.
Blackowiak: It's okayed with the, okay. So we don't even.
Aanenson: If you want to put it on there, that's no problem.
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001
Blackowiak: No, if it's covered, I'm fine. I just wasn't clear as to whether this was parcel 1 or parcel 2
so I guess that's where I was coming from. Okay. Well if there are any other questions, then I'll ask the
applicants or their designee to step to the microphone. State your name and address for the record.
Dennis Chadderdon: I'm Dennis Chadderdon. I live at 5990 Charleston Circle in Shorewood. This is
my wife Ruth.
Ruth Chadderdon: Hi.
Blackowiak: Okay, did you have anything you'd like to talk to us about this evening or anything that
you'd like to clarify?
Dennis Chadderdon: Not really. We're just here to you know, try to see the project through. We'd like
to build a home on this lot and think it's completely possible to do. We know about the wetland
situations and everything like that.
Blackowiak: Okay. And based on the recommendations that the staff has made in terms of shifting
possibly the septic fields, I mean how are you feeling about those recommendations?
Dennis Chadderdon: We don't have any problem with doing what we can do with the septic system.
The existing driveway is in to a certain point right now and continuing it and moving that a little bit
north, we don't have a problem with. We've already discussed that with Julie.
Blackowiak: Okay. Commissioners, do you have any questions? Start with you Bruce. Questions of the
applicant?
Feik: None, thank you.
Blackowiak: No? Okay. Deb.
Kind: I just want to make sure you had a chance to read all the conditions and you're okay with the
conditions staff is recommending. Great.
Blackowiak: Uli.
Sacchet: Yeah, I have a few questions. The idea of adding a buffer like to that new line of where the
primary zone boundary would be, is that something that you think is doable like a 10 to 15 foot average
buffer?
Dennis Chadderdon: Yeah. From the plans that we have submitted, I mean whatever it takes. We're
not, we have no plans on infringing you know anywhere near the wetland.
Sacchet: It probably means some extra planting or.
Dennis Chadderdon: I'm sorry.
Sacchet: You probably could translate it into some extra plantings on the south side of the driveway,
which I would think you'd want to plant something anyhow. And then, let's see. The thing with the
retaining wall, making that retaining wall any shorter. Is that a problem for you guys?
Planning Commission Meeting -July 17, 2001
Dennis Chadderdon: The retaining wall on the front of the house?
Sacchet: Right.
Dennis Chadderdon: No. That, and that was drawn in by the survey people and if I can get away with
you know shortening it, I have no problem doing that.
Sacchet: Okay, so that's not... Good, thank you.
Blackowiak: Okay Rich, any questions? No? Okay, thank you. This item is open for a public hearing.
So if there' s anybody who would like to come up and speak before the commission, please step to the
microphone and state your name and address for the record.
Leslie Erickson: I'm Leslie Erickson. I live at 1831 Sunridge Court and we live in the lot just adjacent
to where the building's going to be going on. And I have just a couple questions. I'm wondering if
somebody could define this Bluff Creek Overlay for me. What exactly is an overlay?
Blackowiak: Okay Kate, would you like to tackle that one.
Aanenson: Sure. What the overlay district does is, it's an additional set of standards so there is the
zoning ordinance. There's the zoning ordinance that regulates how you can use the lot. In addition with
an overlay district it provides additional roles and regulations that you have to follow depending on if
you're in the primary or the second zone. So it's an additional set of roles. And this example, the Bluff
Creek is for those lots that are within a sensitive area of the Bluff Creek, and that line follows either a
topographic features or their severe slopes. A wetland boundary or creek boundary, or if there' s a
significant stand of trees. So this overlay district runs the entire kind of diagonal section of the city
starting up at Lake Minnewashta all the way down to the Minnesota River.
Leslie Erickson: Okay. Alright. And just to point out where we are, this is our lot here and so our home
is here. They're I'm guessing that your home is going to be just right in this little comer. In that area,
okay. We're a little concerned, and I don't know if you'll have to bring in a lot of fill up close to our
property at all. Okay, good. And then when you talk about constructing the retaining wall, where is that
going to be located?
Dennis Chadderdon: That's in the front of the home.
Leslie Erickson: On the front, okay.
Dennis Chadderdon: It will be toward the road.
Leslie Erickson: Okay.
Aanenson: ...retaining wall right here. That's where we're asking them to cut the...so there's less
grading. Again, that's the intent of the overlay district is to minimize disruption.
Leslie Erickson: Okay, that's it. Thank you.
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001
Blackowiak: Thank you. Would anybody else like to make comment or anyone else have a question?
Seeing no one, I'd like to close the public hearing. Commissioners, now's the time to make comments.
Rich, I will start with you.
Slagle: I would just throw out a thought and that thought is, I mean I guess given what can happen in
'98, where we stand today is okay with me. So I had a couple questions just regarding the intent of the
applicant and after listening to it I felt pretty comfortable that they're willing to work within the
conditions so.
Blackowiak: Okay, thanks. Uli.
Sacchet: It was interesting when I went out there looking at the site. I felt it actually is a sensitive area
that can get impacted has already been impacted. It's that initial stretch of the driveway and it's certainly
good to hear that that was an existing driveway for a farm before. The way I see it, the driveway really
goes beyond that little finger of wetland that reaches north so there's not much we can mitigate there.
And then the rest of the construction is basically away from the wetland that I think we have a pretty
straight image here. I would like to add some conditions though to state that the septic system moves
north. I'd like to quantify that a little bit. I'd like to ask that we consider a strip, a buffer strip beyond
just the boundary of the primary zone since overall we ask for a 20 foot buffer. If we ask for an average
somewhat smaller buffer, that is practical and is realistic in that framework, I think that would be
balanced. And also with the retaining wall, I think it'd be fair to ask that there's an effort made to
accommodate the standard setbacks in this type of environment. Other than that I'm fine with it.
Blackowiak: Okay great, thank you. Deb.
Kind: I agree with Uli and Rich's comments. I just have a question for Uli. Do you feel that condition
number 1 that talks about the applicant shall maintain a 0 to 20 foot wetland buffer with a minimum
average of 10 feet and a 40 foot setback from the wetland buffer edge, do you think that covers part of
your request? And then coupled with number 14, which asks for a 10 foot vegetative buffer shall be
established and preserved abutting the 100 year flood plain, so that would be in addition.
Aanenson: That was our intent, correct.
Kind: Between those two conditions, are you comfortable that it's covered?
Sacchet: Well in terms of being equitable, I mean one of the efforts that we're making here is everyone
treat everybody the same way. And it's my understanding that the 20 foot buffer would be required from
everybody else of the primary zone boundary. Is that correct?
Hoium: No.
Sacchet: No, okay.
Aanenson: The 20 foot from the primary, but you have the 0 to 20 so in some circumstances along that
wetland it's going to average 0 to 20. In addition to that it's going to be 10 for the primary zone. Outside
the primary zone. In some circumstances they're close to each other.
Haak: That's what we're requiring. The 20 feet that we get with the primary zone is a 20 foot no grade.
It's not necessarily called a buffer but everybody has that requirement. It's a 40 foot setback from the
Planning Commission Meeting- July 17, 2001
primary zone so we don't really call it a buffer. We call it a no grade, no impact zone. But it in effect is
the same thing.
Aanenson: Yeah, so the mitigation is to make it a buffer.
Haak: Right.
Aanenson: That's what we're saying. It's a no touch zone but what we're implying is the mitigation and
what you're saying, you have to landscape that and maintain a buffer.
Sacchet: So in that sense you would have a valid point. That that is already covered in the current
conditions. Okay. Yes.
Kind: That's all Madam Chair.
Blackowiak: Okay. Bruce.
Feik: I just want to say that given previously the city has made some accommodations to allow for this
lot, including some significant park and rec changes to the trail head and delay of the trail, I guess I'm
just happy to see that it is finally getting resolved and a building going up.
Blackowiak: Okay. And I just have a couple extra comments I guess. In the staff report they talked
about a 40 to 50 foot paved area on the first part of the driveway, and I hope in a motion we'll see
something. I don't know if we need to add that but I maybe would like to see that added. That the first
40 to 50 feet will be paved. Secondly, that the septic will be moved north, just like Uli said. Third,
condition 11. That the OHW would be the marker and the walkout elevation be at least 2 feet above that.
And then finally if someone would like to make a motion and talk about any kind of mitigation. You
know when you're talking about 10 to 20 feet, we could certainly suggest additional vegetation or
something. I mean I think that would be fair to kind of mitigate what's happening in this area so those
are my comments. So if somebody would like to make a motion.
Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair, I move that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Conditional Use Permit 2001-3 to construct a single family home within the Bluff Creek Secondary
Overlay District with a variance to encroach into the required 40 foot setback of the primary zone subject
to the following conditions 1 through 14. In number 10 I'd like to add the retaining wall. The wall must
be set back. In number 14 I'd like to read, minimum average 10 foot vegetative buffer shall be
established and preserved abutting the 100 year flood plain. And I'd like to add a condition 16, that the
septic system will be moved north as much as possible.
Kind: I'll second that and I have a couple of friendly amendments if I could.
Sacchet: Sure.
Kind: You said conditions 1 through 14. Did you?
Sacchet: Oh 15, sorry. Yeah.
Kind: Okay. Just wondering if you were excluding 15 on purpose.
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001
Sacchet: No I didn't. Sorry. So 16 would be the extra.
Kind: And number 7. I'd like to add Alison's suggestion. Final grades of the driveway shall comply
with the grading permit and add a second sentence that says the first 40 to 50 feet will be paved.
Sacchet: That's fine.
Kind: And number 11, did you say anything about the proposed walkout elevation of the home must be
at least 2 feet above the OHW?
Sacchet: Let's add it. Yep.
Kind: And number 14, I just want to clarify. You changed it to say 10 foot minimum.
Sacchet: Minimum 10 foot average.
Kind: I was wondering if we could make it even stronger and say 10 to 20 foot vegetative buffer shall be
established and preserved abutting 100 year flood plain. The buffer must average at least 10 feet?
Sacchet: Yes, that would work. I mean we have to allow for areas where it's not going to be 10 foot
because the driveway's so close there that it wouldn't work.
Kind: If we say average it could be 0 in some spots.
Sacchet: Well preferably it'd be more but.
Kind: Theoretically.
Sacchet: But if we say it the way you just said that it would be 10 to 20 feet with a minimum 10 foot
average, I'm fine with that.
Blackowiak: Okay, that's different so.
Kind: Minimum 10 foot is it means it cannot go down to 0.
Blackowiak: It could be a 0 then. Could we clarify please?
Kind: Well a minimum of 10 feet.
Blackowiak: That's totally different.
Kind: That's totally different. I'll try it again here. Number 14 shall read, a 10 to 20 foot average
vegetative buffer shall be established and preserved abutting the 100 year flood plain. The buffer
minimum must be 10 feet.
Sacchet: I don't think that's practical. It's not possible. I don't think it is. Please correct me. I mean
what I've seen when I was out there, I really think that drive was closer than 10 feet in some areas. So I
would say we could say something to the effect that any new grading or construction has to maintain the
minimum of 10 foot. I think otherwise, what do you think Kate?
10
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001
Aanenson: Well, not to split hairs. We're going by the survey. The survey says you can get 10 feet so
we're comfortable with what we put in there which is a minimum. If you want in those areas they can go
more, I think that's great so if you want to say minimum of 10, averaging 10 to 20. So if there's areas
where they can go more and you want to mitigate that by saying put more buffer in, that's fine.
Sacchet: Point of clarification. You're saying that according to the survey they can maintain the 10 foot
everywhere?
Aanenson: Yes, based on what.
Sacchet: Well then let's ask for it.
Aanenson: That's what we suggested.
Sacchet: Yep.
Blackowiak: Alright, it's been moved and seconded. Uli, do you accept the amendments that were
offered?
Sacchet: Yep.
Blackowiak: Okay. I'd like to vote on this motion.
Sacchet moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Conditional Use Permit #2001-3 to construct a single family home within the Bluff Creek
Secondary Overlay District with a variance to encroach into the required 40 foot setback of the
primary zone subject to the following conditions:
.
.
.
.
.
.
The applicant shall maintain a 0 to 20 foot wetland buffer (with a minimum average of 10 feet)
and a 40 foot setback from the wetland buffer edge. The buffer shall be shown on the plans.
The applicant shall provide a culvert under the proposed driveway at the lowest point so water
will be able to drain into the wetland.
The applicant must submit drainage calculations to ensure that the proposed culvert is accurately
sized.
The applicant shall install riprap at the downstream end of the culvert in order to prevent erosion.
The erosion control silt fence must be moved outside the 881.6 contour. Type Ill erosion control
shall be installed as designated on the site plan.
The current, existing portion of the driveway shall be allowed to remain in it's current alignment;
however, the remainder of the driveway shall be moved so that no additional fill will be placed
within the 100 year floodplain (881.6).
Final grades of the driveway shall comply with the grading permit. The first 40 to 50 feet of the
driveway shall be paved.
11
Planning Commission Meeting - July 17, 2001
8. There shall be no fill placed below the elevation of 881.6.
,
The existing public drainage and utility easement over the wetland (to the elevation of 881.6)
must be shown on the plan as legally described.
10. The retaining wall must be set back 20 feet from the primary zone (881.6 contour).
11.
The proposed walkout elevation of the home must be at least two feet above the OHW of the
adjacent wetland. As such, the elevation should be 883.6.
12. Include the benchmark that was used for the site survey.
13.
A minimum of three trees shall be planted on site. The applicant may choose between the
following trees: Sugar maple, Basswood, Red Oak and/or Bitternut Hickory. The applicant shall
submit a planting list.
14.
15.
A minimum of 10 feet, averaging 10 to 20 feet vegetative buffer shall be established and
preserved abutting the 100 year floodplain.
The applicant shall comply with all conditions of Subdivision #97-11.
16. The septic system site shall be moved to the north as much as possible.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously 5 to 0.
12