Loading...
Agenda and PacketAGENDA  CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2020, 7:00 PM CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD A.WORK SESSION B.CALL TO ORDER C.PUBLIC HEARINGS 1.Consider a Code Amendment Regulating the Outdoor Storage of Boats, Trailers, and Recreational Vehicles on Residential Properties D.APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1.Approve Planning Commission Minutes dated October 20, 2020 E.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS 1.City Council Action Update F.ADJOURNMENT G.OPEN DISCUSSION 1.Discuss Commission Vacancies NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m. as outlined in the official by­laws.  We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda.  If, however, this does not appear to be possible, the Chairperson will notify those present and offer rescheduling options.  Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. If a constituent or resident sends an email to staff or the Planning Commission, it must be made part of the public record based on State Statute. If a constituent or resident sends an email to the Mayor and City Council, it is up to each individual City Council member and Mayor if they want it to be made part of the public record or not. There is no State Statute that forces the Mayor or City Council to share that information with the public or be made part of the public record. Under State Statute, staff cannot remove comments or letters provided as part of the public input process. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, November 17, 2020 Subject Consider a Code Amendment Regulating the Outdoor Storage of Boats, Trailers, and Recreational Vehicles on Residential Properties Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.1. Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, Associate Planner File No:  PROPOSED MOTION: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments to Chapter 20, Zoning, of the Chanhassen City Code concerning the outdoor storage of boats, trailers, and recreational vehicles. SUMMARY OF REQUEST The City Code allows for the outdoor storage of trailers, boats, and recreational vehicles in the rear or side yard behind the front of the principle structure. One of the most common code violation complaints that the City receives is that a neighbor is storing one of these items in their driveway in violation of this provision. Residents who receive a violation notice for this offense often express frustration that they cannot use their property as they wish and observe that many properties throughout the City do not follow this rule. Residents who lodge complaints about these items being stored in the driveway are often frustrated when the items are moved for a week or two and then reappear or when it takes weeks for the offending item to be relocated. Due to limited staff capacity, the inherently portable nature of the items, and the fact that many properties struggle to accommodate the side or rear yard storage of these vehicles, there is widespread non­compliance with this ordinance and it is extremely challenging to effectively enforce.  Staff conducted a review of how 19 other Cities in the area regulate the outdoor storage of trailers, boats, and recreational vehicles, and found that the majority allow for some driveway storage. Staff believes that allowing residents to store a trailer, boat, or recreational vehicle in their driveway would resolve many of the enforcement issues with the current ordinance without meaningfully degrading the character of the City’s neighborhoods. Staff is also proposing adding requirements to limit the total number of these vehicles stored on a property to two, preventing these vehicles from obstructing sidewalks or sight lines, and preventing them from being used to store items not permitted by the City’s outdoor storage ordinance. Staff feels that the proposed amendment strikes an appropriate balance between allowing residents reasonable use of their property and preserving the appearance and character of the City’s neighborhoods. A full discussion of this issue is provided in the attached staff report. APPLICATION REGULATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, November 17, 2020SubjectConsider a Code Amendment Regulating the Outdoor Storage of Boats, Trailers, andRecreational Vehicles on Residential PropertiesSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments toChapter 20, Zoning, of the Chanhassen City Code concerning the outdoor storage of boats, trailers, andrecreational vehicles.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe City Code allows for the outdoor storage of trailers, boats, and recreational vehicles in the rear or side yard behindthe front of the principle structure. One of the most common code violation complaints that the City receives is that aneighbor is storing one of these items in their driveway in violation of this provision. Residents who receive a violationnotice for this offense often express frustration that they cannot use their property as they wish and observe that manyproperties throughout the City do not follow this rule. Residents who lodge complaints about these items being stored inthe driveway are often frustrated when the items are moved for a week or two and then reappear or when it takesweeks for the offending item to be relocated. Due to limited staff capacity, the inherently portable nature of the items,and the fact that many properties struggle to accommodate the side or rear yard storage of these vehicles, there iswidespread non­compliance with this ordinance and it is extremely challenging to effectively enforce. Staff conducted a review of how 19 other Cities in the area regulate the outdoor storage of trailers, boats, andrecreational vehicles, and found that the majority allow for some driveway storage. Staff believes that allowing residentsto store a trailer, boat, or recreational vehicle in their driveway would resolve many of the enforcement issues with thecurrent ordinance without meaningfully degrading the character of the City’s neighborhoods. Staff is also proposingadding requirements to limit the total number of these vehicles stored on a property to two, preventing these vehiclesfrom obstructing sidewalks or sight lines, and preventing them from being used to store items not permitted by theCity’s outdoor storage ordinance. Staff feels that the proposed amendment strikes an appropriate balance betweenallowing residents reasonable use of their property and preserving the appearance and character of the City’sneighborhoods.A full discussion of this issue is provided in the attached staff report. APPLICATION REGULATIONS Sec. 20­909. ­ Outdoor storage: Allows continued storage of boats, all­terrain vehicles, snowmobiles and trailers in side or rear yard. This storage may not extend past the front of the principle structure, and the front of the structure if defined as the side accessed by the driveway. Section 20­910. ­ Storage of recreational vehicles: Allows recreational vehicles to be stored in the side or rear yard behind the required front yard setback. It contains provisions regulating condition, maintenance, and on­site use of recreational vehicles. BACKGROUND Ordinance 47, adopted in February of 1972, allowed for the outdoor storage of trailers, boats, and recreational vehicles in rear yards. Ordinance 47A, adopted in February of 1974, allowed outdoor storage of trailers, boats, and recreational vehicles in one side yard if rear yard was inaccessible. Ordinance 80, adopted in December of 1986, allowed outdoor storage of trailers, boats, and recreational vehicles in rear or side yards. This ordinance has not been substantively modified since its adoption; the handful of amendments passed all served to clarify rather than significantly alter the original ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to the City's outdoor storage ordinance. ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report Research Table CITY OT CHAI'IIIASSTI'I Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomonow MEMORANDUM FROM: SUBJ: Planning Commission MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner November 17 ,2020 Outdoor Storage: Boats, Trailers, and RV's Residents have expressed frustration with the ordinance's prohibition on driveway storage and the fact that many homeowners do not abide by the ordinance, which creates the impression of unfair or ineffective enforcement practices. The City Code allows for the outdoor storage oftrailers, boats, and recreational vehicles in the rear or side yard behind the front of the principle structure. One of the most common code violation complaints that the City receives is that a neighbor is storing one ofthese items in their driveway in violation ofthis provision. Residents who receive a violation notice for this offense often express frustration that they cannot use their property as they wish and observe that many properties throughout the City do not follow this rule. Residents who lodge complaints about these items being stored in the driveway are often frustrated when the items are moved for a week or two and then reappear or when it takes weeks for the offending ilem to be relocated. Due to limited staff capacity, the inherently portable nature of the items, and the fact that many properties struggle to accommodate the side or rear yard storage ofthese vehicles, there is widespread non-compliance with this ordinance and it is extremely challenging to effectively enforce. Staff conducted a review ofhow l9 other cities in the area regulate the outdoor storage oftrailers, boats. and recreational vehicles, and found that the majority allow for some driveway storage. Staff believes that allowing residents to store a trailer, boat, or recreational vehicle in their driveway would resolve many of the enforcement issues with the current ordinance without meaningfully degrading the character of the City's neighborhoods. Staff is also proposing adding requirements to limit the total number ofthese vehicles stored on a property to two, preventing these vehicles from obstructing sidewalks or sight lines, and preventing them from being used to store items not permitted by the City's outdoor storage ordinance. Staff feels that the proposed amendment strikes an appropriate balance between allowing residents reasonable use oftheir property and preserving the appearance and character ofthe City's neighborhoods. PH 952.227.1100. www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us. FX 952.227.1110 77OO I4ARKET BOULEVAED .PO BOX ]4T.CHANHASSEN 'MINNESOTA 55517 DATE: TO: ISSUE SUMMARY Planning Commission Outdoor Storage: Boats, Trailers and RV's November 17, 2020 Page 2 RELEV ANT CITY COD E Sec. 20-909. - Outdoor storage: Allows continued storage ofboats, all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles and trailers in side or rear yard. This storage may not extend past the front ofthe principle structure, and the fiont ofthe structue is defined as the side accessed by the driveway. Section 20-910. - Storage ofrecreational vehicles: Allows recreational vehicles to be stored in the side or rear yard behindthe required front yard setback. It contains provisions regulating condition, maintenance. and on-site use of recreational vehicles. ORDIN ANCE HISTORY Ordinance 47, adopted in February of 1972, allowed for the outdoor storage of trailers, boats, and recreational vehicles in rear yards. ordinance 47A, adopted in February of 1974, allowed outdoor storage oftrailers, boats, and recreational vehicles in one side yard if rear yard was inaccessible. Ordinance 80, adopted in December of 1986, allowed outdoor storage of trailers, boats, and recreational vehiclis in rear or side yards. This ordinance has not been substantively modified since its adoption; the handful of amendments passed all served to clarify rather than significantly alter the original ordinance. AN YSIS Existing Ordinance: It has bien staff s experience that many residents object to living next to houses with multiple trailers, boats, and recreational vehicles in varying states ofrepair and disrepair spread across the property. These objections become even more stringent when these types ofvehicles are located in ifr" -front yard and are readily visible from the street. There is general agreement that the lowered curb appeal associated with vehicles being stored in the front lawn lowers property values and constiiules a nuisance; however, there is not a clear consensus ifvehicles stored in the driveway are undesirable in the same way as vehicles stored on the front lawn. There is also a strong deference to property owners' rights to use their property as they see fit, so long as that use does unduly impact adjacent residents. In order to batance the right ofproperty owners to store their possessions on their property with the impact ofthat storage on the surrounding neighborhood, the City has prohibited outdoor storage of trailers, boats, and ricreational vehicles within front yards and driveways since 1972 while allowing storage within the rear yard. In 1986, the City loosened this ordinance to allow the storage oftrailers, boats, and recreational vehicles in both the side and rear yards. Currently the City's outdoor storage ordinance allows for the storage oftrailers, boats, and recreational vehicles in the rear and side yard. This storage may be on improved or unimproved surfaces but may not extend beyond the front ofthe principle structure. There is no stated limit on the number oftrailers and boats that can be stored on a property, but properties are limited to one recreational vehicle and an excessive number oftrailers or boats could violate the nuisance ordinance. The ordinance also has various provisions regulating the condition and use ofthese items. For example, the ordinance limits the amount of time that someone can live in a recreational vehicle stored on their property. The existing ordinance has the advantage ofclearly stating where vehicles can be stored, i.e. ifa boat, trailer, or recreational vehicle is anywhere in the front yard it is in violation ofthe ordinance, and since it has been in existence for 34 years many residents are aware of it. That being said, some residents have expressed frustration with the fact that other residents do not follow the ordinance and regularly store these items in their driveway. The city does not have enough dedicated code enforcement staff to proactively patrol for violations ofthis ordinance and instead responds to complaints. This leads to a situation where some neighborhoods do not mind and never report violations, but other areas quickly report any observed violations. The result can be residents not realizing that these items should not be stored in the driveway, since they see many violations as they drive around the City and then feeling surprised and fiustrated when they are informed that they cannot store their boat, trailer, or recreational vehicle in the manner that they see others throughout the City storing them. While most residents are extremely responsive and conect violalions once they are informed ol them, there is a subset of residents who will move the item for a few days or weeks, just long enough to pass the follow up inspection, and then resume storing the boat, trailer, or recreation vehicle in its previous location. Since the City Code is designed to encourage compliance but not to be punitive, it is difficult and time consuming for the City to use the court system to issue citations or compel residents to take action to address a violation. In extreme cases where a resident chooses not to cooperate with the City, this means enlorcement actions can drag on for months. Understandably, this creates a large amount of frustration for the individual who reported the violation as they continually call in the same violation and there is an appealance of inaction on the City's part. Some ofthe language within the existing ordinance can also complicate enforcement issues. For example, the section on trailers and boats talks about "continued storage" but this term is not defined. Some residents have argued that if the boat is used most weekends it is not continued storage and should be allowed, whereas others have argued that a boat kept in a neighbor's driveway ovemight before a fishing trip once a year is a violation. Both of the above positions clearly violate the spirit olthe ordinance, but it becomes much more dillcult to determine what should be done in cases where a boat or trailer is present for a couple weekends each month or for a week during the start and end of the boating season each year. In the absence ofclear guidance, the resident making the complaint or the resident who is notified ofa violation will tend to feel the City is treating them unfairly, taking the other party's side, or misinterpreting the City Code. Additionally, while the current ordinance does limit the number of recreational vehicles to one, it does not limit the number ofboats and/or trailers that can be stored on a property. This has led to situations where a neighbor feels that multiple boats and trailers being stored on a property are unsightly, but these items are all being stored in a manner consistent with the outdoor storage ordinance. In extreme cases, the City can use the nuisance ordinance to address the complaint, but Planning Commission Outdoor Storage: Boats, Trailers and RV's November 17, 2020 Page 3 Planning Commission Outdoor Storage: Boats, Trailers and RV's November 17,2020 Page 4 typically, a case cannot be made that boats and trailers in good repair stored in the rear yard out of view ofthe public constitute a public rather than private nuisance. The public versus private nuisance distinction is always the threshold for City action. A final concem is the fact that the existing ordinance was created before the City's Residential Low and Medium Density (RLM) and most of the City's Residential Planned Unit Development (PUDR) districrs. The RLM district and some small lot/cluster PUDRs allow for 5-foot side yard setbacks on the garage side. While the outdoor storage ordinance allows for boats. trailers, and recreational vehicles to be stored in the side yard, most ofthese items are too wide to fit alongside the garage in these districts without crossing the property lines. Similarly, the S-foot garage side yard may not allow a resident to transport these items to the rear yard for storage purposes without trespassing on their neighbor's property. This creates a situation where homeowners in these districts are effectually unable to utilize their property for the outdoor storage ofboats, trailers, or recreational vehicles. The above issues with enforcement and clarity as well as those caused by changes to the City Code since the ordinance was initially adopted, are the reasons why staffbelieves that the existing ordinance should be reevaluated and amended. Possible Impacls of Amending: As was observed in the previous section, the existing ordinance has been in place for 34 years and due to this, many residents have longstanding expectations that boats. trailers, and recreational vehicles will not be stored in driveways. Some residents may see amending the ordinance to allow for this type of storage as a loosening of standards that will lower the aesthetic character oftheir neighborhood and negatively affect their property values. Many ofthese residenls may also have arranged to store their own boats, trailers, and recreation vehicles offsite and they may feel it is unfair to alter the City Ordinance to accommodate neighbors who are unwilling to adhere to existing communily standards. Altematively, they may simply be relieved that they no longer have to pay to have these items stored in other locations and may not be bothered by the presence ofa boat, trailer, or recreational vehicle in a driveway. ln a similar vein, multiple homeowners associations (HOAs) in the City have covenants or policies prohibiting the outdoor storage ofboats, trailers, or recreational vehicles or preventing these items from being stored in the driveway. While there is nothing requiring the City Code to align with HOA rules and HOAs can adopt provisions that are more restrictive than the City Code, staff is aware that significant differences between HOA rules and City Code can create confusion for residents and HOA representatives. Additionally, some HOAs prefer to use the City to enforce their rules when they overlap with City Ordinances, and these HOAs may be frustrated by any change in City policy that requires them to actively enforce their policies. Finally, other HOAs that feel strongly about items not being located in driveways may not have enacted bylaws addressing this issue because they knew that City Code already prohibited it. In addition to the more visible proposed changes to the City's policy on permitting the storage of these items in driveways, staff is also recommending setting a limit on the total number of boats, trailers, and/or recreational vehicles that can be stored outdoors on a property. Anecdotally, staff does not believe a significant number of properties have more than two ofthese items stored Planning Commission Outdoor Storage: Boats, Trailers and RV's November 17, 2020 Page 5 Uher Communities: Staffreviewed the policies of 19 municipalities, including Chanhassen, in order an attempt to identifo local trends in regulating outdoor storage. A list ofthe communities surveyed and a brief write up oftheir policies is included as an attachment to this report. There was a great deal of variation in the various ordinances, but staff was able to identif! several trends. Common areas regulated were: 1) where in the yard boats, trailers, and recreational vehicles can be kept 2) setbacks for the storage ofthese vehicles; 3) what surfaces vehicles can be kept on; and,4) number of vehicles that can be stored on a property. While most communities surveyed permitted driveway storage, many of those communities limited that storage in some way. As the table shows, approximately one in five cities, including Chanhassen, did not permit any sto identical percentage of cities allowed the uffestricted storage of boats, trailers. and recreation vehicles in the driveway. The rest allowed the use of driveways for storage, but limited that storage by season, i.e. boats were allowed in the driveway only dwing boating season, or placed limits on the size, number, or types of vehicles. Many of these Cities of boats, trailers, or recreational vehicles in driv ewa s. An also had provisions requiring that items stored in the driveway be setback a minimum distance from the road or front lot line. Seasonally NoYesYes with limits* 4 47f of City's allowing 2t.05%21.05%27.05%% of total *Typical limits: number of vehicles, type of vehicles, length of vehicles, height of vehicles, curb setbacks, or demonstrated lack of alternative location. outdoors; however, any resident that is accustomed to having more than that number of items stored on their property would be negatively impacted by the proposed limit. While these residents will likely be opposed to this limit, it is possible that their neighbors will be supportive of it and feel that it improves the neighborhood aesthetic. Staff anticipates that any enforcement ofthe proposed limit would need to be conducted with a great deal ofcompassion and flexibility, as formally compliant properties may need to find a new location for some oftheir boats, trailers, or recreational vehicles. Lastly, as was discussed in the previous section, the difficulties in enforcing this ordinance and apparent inconstancies caused by the complaint based nature ofthe City' enforcement process causes a great deal of frustration for all parties. Staff believes that expanding the permitted storage options for residents will reduce the amount of frustration generated by the outdoor storage ordinance by removing the most common and visible violation. While it is difficult to know what the majority of residents would prefer, the City has taken out an ad in the paper and used i1s online tools to solicit public input during and in advance ofthe public hearing. Hopefully, the received comments will help the Planning Commission determine which of these impacts the proposed changes will have for the majority ofresidents. Allowed on driveway 4 35.84% Planning Commission Outdoor Storage: Boats, Trailers and RV's November 17,2020 Page 6 Most Cities, 16 out of 19, also required side yard setbacks. The most common side yard setback was S-feet, 11 out of 19 Cities, but four Cities used a sliding setback based on vehicle size or required vehicles to meet zoning distract setbacks. One City imposed a ten-foot side yard setback for all outdoor storage. Chanhassen was one of three Cities that did not impose a side yard setback. There was a more even split between Cities that required vehicles stored in the side or rear yard to be parked upon an improved surface and those that did not. Just over halt I I of 19, did not require trailers, boats, and recreational vehicles to be parked on an improved surface. Chanhassen was one ofthe Cities that allowed these types ofvehicles to be parked on grass. The other eight Cities required that all vehicles be parked on a parking pad made of concrete, bituminous, pavers, or other approved hard surface. Finally, a great deal of variation was present in if and how communities limited the number trailers, boats, and recreational vehicles that could be stored outdoors on residential properties. Just under halfofthe Cities surveyed, eight of 19, did not place a limit on the number ofvehicles. Chanhassen was one of the Cities that did not explicitly limit the number of items that could be stored. The eleven Cities that did regulate the number ofvehicles stored outdoors used many different systems. Some allowed up to four vehicles to be stored but included cars as well as boats, trailers, and recreational vehicles in that total. Others regulated by type or size allowing two or three boats trailers, and/or recreational vehicles but only one ola certain type or over a certain lengh or height. When passenger vehicles were not included in the count, a limit of two or three total boats, failers, and recreational vehicles was the most common cap for communities with a limit on the number of items stored outdoors. As the information above shows, there is a great deal of variety in how Cities regulate the outdoor storage ofboats, trailers, and recreational vehicles. Chanhassen's current ordinance is more restrictive than most in that it does not allow for any storage within driveways, but more flexible than most because it does not require outdoor storage to meet any side yard setbacks. Similarly, Chanhassen's ordinance is in the minority by not limiting the number of vehicles, but in the majority by not requiring storage on improved surfaces. However, in both ofthe last two categories there is a very even split between communities. Potential Areas for Change: Examining other Cities' ordinances can provide useful information, but each City's outdoor storage ordinance needs to reflect the expectations oftheir residents, limitations oftheir zoning districts, and available enforcement resources. Keeping in mind these elements, staff evaluated the following areas within the City's outdoor storage ordinance for potential amendment: I ) driveway storage; 2) side yards setbacks; 3) allowed surfaces;4) size of items; 5) number of items; and, 6) duration ofstorage. The first issue is likely to have the largest impact on the perceived character ofthe City's neighborhoods. Staff knows that there are strong feelings on both sides; however, staff also realizes that the driveway storage prohibition is frequently violated and cannot be effectively enforced with current resources. As was discussed earlier, these enforcement issues have created a large amount of frustration for residents, both those abiding by and those violating the ordinance. Planning Commission Outdoor Storage: Boats, Trailers and RV's November 17, 2020 Page 7 While allowing driveway storage would be a significant change on paper, the fact that violations of these ordinances are as common as they are means the actual change to the City's neighborhoods would be more limited. Certainly, some properties that currently store boats, trailers, or recreational vehicles off site would switch to storing them in their driveway, but given the prevalence of driveway storage in some neighborhoods the visual impact ofthis uptick is unlikely to be dramatic. Additionally, in neighborhoods where HOA covenants prevent the outdoor storage ofboats, trailers, and recreational vehicles, those rules would still be in force and there would be no change. Residents living in HOAs that do not currently ban this type of storage would also have the option ofpassing new bylaws to create or maintain desired neighborhood standards. Outside of aesthetic concems, the most significant issue with allowing driveway storage is the possibility for this storage to obstruct sightlines, sidewalks, or the public right-of-way. These concems can be addressed by requiring driveway storage to be inside of the front property line. Most ciry $reets have l0 to l5 feet ofpublic right-of-way between the curb and start of a resident's property. This gap between the rear of stored vehicles and the road will keep the site lines clear in most cases and will prevent any obstruction to vehicles traveling on the road. Sidewalks are typically located within this area as well, which means stored vehicles should not obstruct this infrastructure. A potential complication is the fact that many residents are not aware ofthe location oftheir front property lines and some education and enforcement may be required to address vehicles parked on the driveway partially within the public right-of-way. While enforcing this provision will require some education, since residents will have a simple solution ofpulling the vehicle further forward, rather than a more complicated and expensive solution like finding and paying for offsite storage, rates of compliance and cooperation will be higher. Given the above, allowing boats, trailers, and recreational vehicles to be stored in the driveway with provisions requiring they be stored behind the front lot line, not obstruct sidewalks, and be clear of the sight distance triangle would provide residents additional flexibly and remove a persistent enforcement issue. The second issue is the fact that the City does not currently require outdoor storage to meet any side yard setbacks. The rational for that policy is that these items are mobile and do not meet the definition ofa structure. Additionally, if the City were to require outdoor storage to adhere to a 5-foot side yard setback it would create a Code provision that many, ifnot most, residents could not take advantage of. Most ofthe City's detached single-family homes are located in districts with l0- foot side yard setbacks and many ofthese homes are built exactly at that l0-foot setback on the garage side. Since many boats, lrailers, or recreational vehicles are wider than five feet, these homes would not actually be able to store items in their side-yard. despite the ordinance saying they can. Finally, many residents have become accustomed to storing these items alongside their garage within five feet of their side lot line and would likely be frustrated by a change to the City's ordinance that prohibits storage in that location. To date staffhas not received a significant number of complaints from residents upset by the side yard storage ofboats, trailers, and recreational vehicles. Planning Commission Outdoor Storage: Boats, Trailers and RV's November 17, 2020 Page E The third issue, allowed surfaces, is closely related to the second issue of setbacks. All improved surfaces like gravel, concrete, bituminous, and pavers would be considered a structure or driveway under the City Code and would be subject to the relevant setbacks. Ifthe City were to require that boats, trailers, and recreational vehicles be stored on improved surfaces, it would essentially be creating a 5-foot minimum setback, which would involve all of the concems explored in the second item. Beyond those issues, it would also lead to a situation where properties up against their lot cover limit would be unable to store their boats, trailers, and vehicles on their property due to an inability to add a parking pad. This could create situations where residents who were previously able to store these items in their rear or side yard are no longer able to do so. Generally, the rationale for requiring improved surfaces is aesthetic, i.e. people believe it looks nicer, and to protect yards from being damaged by storage. Staff does not believe there is any compelling reason to require boats, trailers, and recreational vehicles to be stored on improved surfaces and is not recommending altering this portion ofthe ordinance. The fourth issue, size of items, is not currently regulated by the City. There is an obvious difference in the visual impact that storing a l4-foot high 45-foot long recreational vehicle has versus the visual impact that storing a l2-foot long fishing boat has. Some Cities have attempted to address this by establishing maximum height and lenglh requirements for the outdoor storage oftrailers, boats, and recreational vehicles. In reviewing the policies ofother municipalities, there did not appear to be any consensus on how big was too big and many municipalities allowed smaller vehicles to be stored in driveway while relegating larger vehicles to the side or rear yard. The main rationale behind these types ofpolicies is a desire to prevent vehicles from extending into the right-of-way, obstructing sidewalks, and blocking sight lines, as well as mitigating the visual impact on neighbors. All ofthese goals, except the last, can be better managed by requiring trailers, boats, and recreational vehicles to be located behind the front lot line and clear ofthe sight distance triangle. This tlpe of approach will also serve to indirectly limit the length of these items due to the tendency ofhomes to be built right up to their minimum fiont yard setback. In practice, this would mean that most properties would be able to accommodate the outdoor storage of something 20 to 25 feet long since the most common front yard setbacks are 25 and 30 feet. In cases where houses are set back sigrrificantly further fiom their front lot line, the visual impact ofthe increased size of items will be partially offset by increased distance from the road. Ultimately, the concem is that any size limit imposed will be arbitrary and subject to challenge by residents upset that their neighbor's 22-foot boat is okay but their 24-foot boat is not. There are also enforcement challenges created by an ordinance that requires inspectors to enter private prope(y to The existing expectations for side yard storage and the setbacks ofthe prevailing residential districts mean that implementing a side yard setback for outdoor storage would create significant enforcement issues. For these reasons staff does not recommend altering this portion of the ordinance. Planning Commission Outdoor Storage: Boats, Trailers and RV's November 17, 2020 Page 9 measue the length and height ofvehicles. Staff believes that the indirect limits created by requiring these vehicles to be inside ofthe front lot line are sufficient to address the major concerns associated with the size of stored items. The fifth issue, number of items, is mostly unregulated by the City's outdoor storage ordinance. The ordinance does limit properties to a maximum ofone recreational vehicle, but does not limit the number oftrailers and boats that can be stored on a property. From time to time, the City does receive complaints from residents about properties that have multiple trailers, boats, and recreational vehicles stored outside. Often residents feel that large numbers ofthese items stored on a property create an unpleasant appearance and violate neighborhood norms. Despite this, when the items are in good repair it is difficult to make the case that they violate the nuisance ordinance and ifthey are located in the rear or side yard, they meet the requirements ofthe City's outdoor storage ordinance. The presence oflarge numbers ofboats, trailers, and recreational vehicles on a single property can be visually unappealing and be out ofkeeping with the character ofthe City's single-family neighborhoods. Currently, staff is aware ofa relatively small number of properties thal have more than two ofthese items stored outside; however, an unintended consequence of allowing residents to use their driveways to store these items may be an increase in the number oftrailers, boats, and recreational vehicles stored on a single residential property. The presence of multiple boats, trailers, and recreational vehicles in a single driveway could significantly affect the curb appeal ofa property. These concems can be mitigated by limiting residential properties to storing a maximum of two trailers, boats, and/or recreation vehicles and allowing the storage ofno more than one ofthese in the driveway. The final item, duration of storage, is a source of ambiguity within the existing City Code. The outdoor storage ordinance prohibits continuous storage outside the rear or side yard, but does not provide any guidance on what constituted continuous storage. The ordinance does specify that recreational vehicles can be stored in the driveway for up to 24 hours for loading or unloading, but no such guidance is provided for boats and trailers. Many times the City receives a spike in outdoor storage complaints at the start and end ofboating season as boats spend a week or two stored in driveways as residents arrange to transfer them between their seasonal storage locations. Additionally, as was noted earlier in this report, staff often encounters problems enforcing the ordinance in situations where these items are kept in the driveway for a couple days each month. Allowing the storage ofone boat, trailer, or recreational vehicle within the driveway will help resolve lhese issues. If driveway storage is permitted, the temporary location ofboat, trailer, or a recreational vehicle will not create a location violation. While there may still be issues with a second item being placed in the driveway during transition times, there will be an easily executable solution of moving the item not currently being used to the rear or side yard to resolve the violation. Planning Commission Outdoor Storage: Boats, Trailers and RV's November 17,2020 Page l0 Adopting language limiting the number ofdays or hours an item can be stored in a certain location is problematic in that enforcement is very difficult since staffdoes not have a practical mechanism for tracking this. Proposed Chonges Staff is proposing the following changes to the City's outdoor storage ordinance: Sec. 20-909(6)Continuedstorageofrecreationalvehicles,boats,@and trailers,subjecttotherequirementsofSection20-910,@ a, Sueh storage may net Staf is recommending moving all clarifying provisions to Sec. 20-910 to increose clarity, with Sec. 20-909 only stating that the storqge ofrecreational vehicles, boats, and trailers is pelmitted subiect to lhose standords. Sec.20-910..@outdoorstorageofrecreationalvehicIes,boats,and trailers. Staff is recommending making this section apply to recrealional vehicles, boats, and lrailers rather than jusl recrealionol vehicles. Recreational vehicles, boats, and trailers owned by a resident owner or resident lessee of the property may be parked or stored in a residential or agricultural district provided the following conditions are met: The additions in this section are the existing language from Sec. 20-909(6) and should be retained to ensure that the vehicles slored on a property belong to the person residing there. (1) No more than ene two recreational vehicles, boats, and/or trailers may be parked or stored outside on a residential lot. Additional recreational vehicles, boats, and trailers may be kept within an enclosed structure which otherwise conforms to the zoning requirements of the district. Establishes a limit oftwo recreationol vehicles, boats, and/or tailers. This would increase lhe allowed numbers ofrecreational vehicles from one to troo, but also establish a limit on the number of boats and tailers allowed. Ifthe ordinance is not amended to allow for the keeping ofone item in the driveway, language clarifying the term continuous storage should be adopted. If the ordinance is amended to permit driveway storage, staff does not believe any regulations on the duration of permitted storage within the driveway will be needed. Planning Commission Outdoor Storage: Boats, Trailers and RV's November 17, 2020 Page I I (2) Recreational vehicles, boats, and trailers must be maintained in a clean, well-kept, operable condition. Expands exisling provision to include boats and trailers. (3) Recreational vehicles, boats, and trailers shall be mobile and shall not be permanently affrxed in the ground in a manner that would prevent removal. Expands existing provision to include boats and lrailers. (4) Recreational vehicles, boats, and trailers may be parked or stored in the following locations: a. One recreational vehicle, boat, or trailer may be parked or stored within the front yard setback in the driveway, provided that it is not located within the sight distance triangle, does not protrude into the road right-of-way, and does not obstruct the sidewalk, b. Recreational vehicles, boats, and/or trailers may be stored in the rear or side yard' provided that such storage does not extend beyond the front ofthe principal structure. The parking or storage of recreational vehicles, boats, and/or trailers in the rear or side yard may be on surfaced or unsurfaced areas. c. On corner or double frontage lots, storage or parking of recreational vehicles, boats, and/or trailers is not permitted within any required front yard setback' except as provided under Section 20-910(4)(a) above. Permits driveway storage of up to one recrealional vhicle, boal, or tailer. This storage would need to be clear of the right-of-way, not obstruct sidewall<s, and not block the sight distance triangle. Requires that storage on corner/double fronlage lots be clear ofrequired front yard setbackfor the side street. Sec. 20-910(1).b-c mirrors existing Sec. 20-909(6)(a-b). (4) Recreational vehicles, boats, and trailers may not be used for outdoor storage; however, trailers designed and intended to convey other vehicles maybe used to store those vehicles (for example, snowmobiles may be stored outdoors on a snowmobile trailer). h€urs. Makes it clear lhat snowmobiles/ATvs/etc. may still be kept outside on lrailers (as currently allowed in Sec. 909(6); however, does not allow residents to pile "junk" in boat/utility trailer and claim il is allowed as part of permitted ouldoor storoge. Issue 5: Proposed Outreach and Timeline Amending the outdoor storage ordinance would have a significant impact on the City's residents and could lead to a $eat deal of confusion as residents discover that previously prohibited practices are now permitted. In order to avoid this, staff is proposing that the amendment be passed with a clause Planning Commission Outdoor Storage: Boats, Trailers and RV's November 17, 2020 Page 12 specifying rhat it will go into effect on April l,2021. This delayed implementation will allow time to engage in community outreach and education to help make sure residents are aware ofthe new ordinance. Specifically, articles will be published in the City's Connection newsletter and ir;,the Chanhassen Villager explaining the changes. The City's website and social media will also be used to help publicize the new ordinance. Staffis optimistic that with multiple a(icles running on multiple platforms for several months, most residents will be exposed to the revised ordinance before it goes into effect. Staff has already gone significantly beyond the minimum public notification requirements by taking out an ad informing people ofthe proposed changes in the Chanhassen Villager and by featuring the proposed amendment on the front page of the City's website. Social media platforms were also utilized. It is hoped that these steps have already reached many residents who would have missed a single legal notice in the paper, and that individuals who feel strongly about this issue have taken the opportunity to weigh in on the proposed changes. ALTERNATIV ES I ) Do nothing. The City's existing policy is reasonable and functional. 2) Amend the outdoor storage ordinance to allow up to two recreational vehicles, trailers, and boats to be stored outdoors, with no more than one permitted in the driveway. 3) Amend the outdoor storage ordinance to allow for the storage of recreational vehicles, trailers, and boats in the driveway. 4) Amend the outdoor storage ordinance to allow for the storage of recreational vehicles, trailers, and boats on improved surfaces. 5) Amend the outdoor storage ordinance to clarify the term continuous storage. RECO MMENDATION Staff recommends Ahemative two. Staffbelieves that this proposal strikes an appropriate balance between allowing residents reasonable use oftheir property and preserving the appearance and character of the City's neighborhoods. The proposed ordinance would read as follows: Sec. 20-909. - Outdoor storage. As otherwise regulated, all outdoor storage is prohibited except: (l) Clothes line poles and wires. (2) Construction and landscaping material cunently being used on the premises. (3) Swings, slides and other play equipment. Planning Commission Outdoor Storage: Boats, Trailers and RV's November 17, 2020 Page 13 (4) (5) Outdoor fumiture and lawn and garden equipment. Wood for buming in a fireplace, stove or fumace provided it is stored as follows: a. In a neat and secure stack, not exceeding four feet. b. The wood stack is not infested with rodents. c. The wood is not kept in a front yard. Continuedstorageofrecreationalvehicles,boats,@and trailers'subjecttotherequirementsofSection20-9l0.@ (6) b en eemer and deuble frentage lets; the frent efthe strueture shdl be defined as the (7) Outside storage oftires is prohibited. (8) PODS (personal on demand storage) and roll-off dumpsters may be located a property a minimum of six feet away from the house for fire protection and at least ten feet from any property line. Such containers may be kept on-site for a maximum of30 days per year' An ixtinsion ofthe 30 days may be granted by the city if the container is used in conjunction with a valid and ongoing building permit. Sec'20-910'.@Outdoorstorageofrecreationalvehicles,boats,and trailers Recreational vehicles, boats, and trailers owned by a resident owner or resident lessee ofthe property may be parked or stored in a residential or agricultural district provided the following conditions are met: (l) No more than ene two recreational vehicles, boats, and/or trailers may be parked or stored outside on a residential lot. Additional recreational vehicles, boats, and trailers may be kept within an enclosed structure which otherwise conforms to the zoning requirements ofthe district. (2) Recreational vehicles, boats, and trailers must be maintained in a clean, well-kept, operable condition. (3) Recreational vehicles, boats, and trailers shall be mobile and shall not be permanently affixed in the ground in a manner that would prevent removal. (4) Recreational vehicles, boats, and trailers may be parked or stored in the following locations: a. One recreational vehicle, boat, or trailer may be parked or stored within front yard setback in the driveway, provided that it is not located within the sight distance triangle, does not protrude into the road right-of-way, and does not obstruct the sidewalk Planning Commission Outdoor Storage: Boats, Trailers and RV's November 17, 2020 Page 14 b. Recreational vehicles, boats, and/or trailers may be stored in the rear or side yard, provided that such storage does not extend beyond the front ofthe principal structure. The parking or storage of recreational vehicles, boats, and/or trailers in the rear or side yard may be on surfaced or unsurfaced areas. c. On corner or double frontage lots, storage or parking of recreational vehicles, boats, and/or trailers is not permitted within any required front yard setback, except as provided under Section 20-910(4)(a) above. (5) Recreational vehicles, boats, and trailers may not be used for outdoor storage; however, trailers designed and intended to convey other vehicles maybe used to store those vehicles (for example, snowmobiles may be stored outdoors on a snorvmobile traiter). hours= (6) Unmounted slide-in pickup curmpers must be stored no higher than 20 inches above the ground and must be securely supported at least at four comers by solid support blocks or support mechanisms. (7) Recreational vehicles may not be occupied or used for living, sleeping or housekeeping purposes for more than seven consecutive days or more than 2l days within a 365-day period. (8) Except for routine maintenance or during emergency conditions when powfl supply is disrupted, the operation ofa recreational vehicle power generator plant shall not be permitted in residential districts. Routine maintenance periods shall not exceed 60 minutes per month. g:\plan\city codeUO2OUO2045 - outdoor stomge on residential propeny\boat storage issue paper.docx City Code Section/Reference Recreational Vehicles Yes Yes with limits*Seasonally No Chanhassen Sec. 20-909 and 20-910 Side/Rear Yard behind front of principle structure for boats and trails, clear of front yard setback for RVs, max one RV, surface does not need to be improved.# of City's allowing 4 7 4 4 19 Chaska Chapt 14, Article II, Division 1, Section 26; Sec. 9.2.1.4; Sec 9.2.2; Sec. 9.2.3.1 Up to 4 vehicles (all types cars and recreational) in front yard/driveway, must be on surfaced parking area (except rural zones), only one vehicle over 30' in length is permitted per lot. Front/Side/Rear parking areas are subject to dwelling unit/accessory building setbacks, whichever is less.% of total 21.05%36.84%21.05%21.05% Cottage Grove Sec. 11-3-9; Sec. 6-2-4.C Up to 4 vehicles (all types cars and recreation) per lot, must be on surfaced parking areas (asphalt/concrete if in front, another hard surface if behind front plane of principle structure), parking areas must meet accessory structure setbacks Elk River From Website FAQ, couldn't find code reference/section Not allowed in front yard setback/driveway (unless 20' of space between RV and sidewalk and 6' of screening is present), must be on improved surface, must be at least 5' from property line Hopkins Sec. 102-164(9), Sec. 102-164(11)One non-passenger vehicle or one building for winter ice fishing less than 22 feet in length, not in front yard except 1 boat in driveway from May 1 to October 31. One non-passenger vehicle over 22 feet in length (5' off lot line and screened). Recreation vehicles allowed in driveway for 48 hours (loading/unloading). Improved surface Unimproved Inver Grove Heights From Website FAQ, Sec. 10-15A-3 Boats, Campers, RVs can be stored in side or rear yard so long as 5' from side lot line and 8' from rear lot line. Can be located in front if on driveway or parking pad. Front yard parking area must be asphalt/concrete/pavers. Max of 2 in R- 1C district.8 11 Lino Lakes Sec. 1007.044(11)(b)Recreational vehicles and Trailers must be setback 5' from side/rear lot line, in front yard must be located on driveway or parking pad, must meet sliding street setback depending on road classification (15' local to 30' major arterial), can't be used for storage 42.11%57.89% Prior Lake Sec. 1102.700(3)Recreational vehicles allowed seasonally (Nov 1 to April 1 for winter, April 1 to Nov 1 for summer) in front yard on or adjacent to driveway. Out of season must be in rear or side yard. May not be in front yard unless receives exemption. Must meet 5' side/rear setback Rosemount Sec. 8-2-5, Website Guide Recreational vehicles must be stored on improved surface. If under 23' long they may be stored in driveway but must be 15' from curb and clear of sight triangle. If over 23' long may not be stored in driveway. Summer related RVs allowed in driveway from April 1 to Nov 1 and Winter related allowed in driveway from Nov 1 to April 1. RV's can be stored in side yard behind front line of residence on improved surface, must be setback 5' from rear/side. If corner lot must be setback 30'. RVs stored in side/rear yard must be screened. Side Setbacks Savage From Website Guide, couldn't find code reference/section Up to 3 recreational vehicles in rear or side yard, must meet 5' side/rear setback or be 100% screened. During seasonal use up 2 recreational vehicles may be stored on driveway if does not obstruct sidewalk or protrude into right-of-way. May not exceed 34' in length.Yes No 5 10 Variable Shakopee From Website Guide, Sec. 151.141(G)Only 1 RV under 35' in length may be stored outdoors, must be stored on improved parking area, may be stored in driveway, Up to 2 boats/trailers up 20' long may be stored in rear or side yard (unimproved), must meet 5' side/rear setback.16 3 11 1 4 Stillwater Sec. 31-315 Storage of recreational vehicles allowed in Rural Residential District if screened by fence/landscape from road and neighbors view. Note: found newspaper article saying in 2016 they were looking at requiring vehicles parked in front/side yards to be on improved surface. Cannot determine what happened. 84.21%15.79% Minnetonka Sec. 845.020 Up to 4 vehicles stored outside. If parked in front yard must be on driveway, Eden Prairie From Website FAQ, Sec. 11.03 Sub 3.J.3 Up to 2 RVs, may not exceed 12' in height, if in front yard must be on improved surface and setback 15' from curve, 10' side/rear setback Victoria Sec. 12-61(b)(2), Sec. 20-59(e.) Recreational vehicle allowed on a seasonal basis, must meet setbacks 0 5 10 Variable* Shorewood Sec. 1201.03 Sub 3.7 One allowed in driveway 15' from street if can't be stored in buildable lot area, RVs may be stored in buildable lot area 3 11 1 4 Waconia Sec. 900.06.C.4 Not permitted in front or street side yard. Must meet 5' rear/interior side setback.15.79%57.89%5.26%21.05% St. Louis Park From Website Guide Oversized RV: 8'+ high, 22' long, max of 1 in backyard, must be screened; Midsize RV: 6-8' high, less than 22' long, max of 2 in backyard or alongside house on paved surface; Small RV: less than 6' height, less than 22' long, max of 2 in backyard or alongside house on paved surface, or in side yard on paved surface with screening. No more than a total of 2 RVs can be stored outside. Edina Sec. 26-338 Max 2 RVs (not more than one motorhome), must meet 5' side yard, 25' rear yard setback and street setbacks, must be closer to your home than neighbors, allowed 7 days in driveway if 5' from side and 15' from curb; In non-R-1, R-2, PRD-1 and PRD-2 must be on improved surface. Carver Sec. 46-169 5' setback from property lines, must be on improved surface, may not encroach on any yard setback accept front yard. No limit limit 8 11 42.11%57.89% Number of vehicles 5' (or more) side setback Required Side Setback *Typically said must meet building setbacks, accessory structure setbacks, or parking pad setbacks Outdoor Recreation Vehicles Storage (Boats, Trailers, RVs, etc.) Allowed on driveway *Typical limits were: number of vehicles, type of vehicles, length of vehicles, height of vehicles, curb setbacks, or demonstrated lack of alternative location. Note: all required improved surface if front yard Permitted Surfaces PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, November 17, 2020 Subject Approve Planning Commission Minutes dated October 20, 2020 Section APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No: D.1. Prepared By Nann Opheim, City Recorder File No:  PROPOSED MOTION: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the minutes from its October 20, 2020 meeting. ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated October 20, 2020 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated October 20, 2020 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES OCTOBER 20, 2020 Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Weick, Mark Randall, Michael McGonagill, Doug Reeder, Laura Skistad, Eric Noyes, and Mark Von Oven STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; George Bender, Assistant City Engineer; and Matt Unmacht, Water Resources Coordinator PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL TO CREATE THREE LOTS (BERROSPID ADDITION) WITH A VARIANCE FOR THE USE OF A PRIVATE STREET ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7406 FRONT TRAIL. Bob Generous, George Bender and Matt Unmacht presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Weick asked if the subdivision could support a turn around for fire vehicles, lot coverage, and poor soils in the area. Commissioner Reeder asked about a maintenance agreement between the 3 property owners for the private road and construction standards for the private drive. Commissioner McGonagill asked about the possibility of future subdivision of Lot 3 and if there will be maintenance agreements for annual inspection of the underground infiltration systems. Commissioner Von Oven asked for clarification regarding the concerns of the neighbor at 7404 Frontier Trail. The applicant Luis Berrospid discussed his plans for developing his property at 7406 Frontier Trail and conversations he has had with his neighbor at 7404 Frontier Trail. Chairman Weick opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. After comments from commission members the following motion was made. Randall moved, McGonagill seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve a three-lot subdivision with a variance for the use of a flag lot and private street subject to the following conditions and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation: Building 1. A building permit must be obtain prior to beginning work at the property. Engineering Planning Commission Summary – October 20, 2020 2 1. All driveways shall have direct access only to the proposed private street. 2. Calculations supporting the 7-ton private street design shall be submitted by a professional engineer for review and approval prior to grading operations. 3. The applicant shall submit updated designs for the private street utilizing either a crowned street or a uniform and continuous cross-sloped street to adequately direct stormwater to the proposed stormwater conveyance system prior to grading operations. 4. The final plat shall be updated prior to recording to include public drainage and utility easements as follows: a 10’ wide D&U on the west property line of Lot 2 and 10’ wide D&Us centered over all newly proposed public utilities including stormwater, sanitary sewer, and water mains. 5. An updated existing condition survey shall be submitted prior to grading operations that includes all existing utilities within and surrounding the property. 6. An encroachment agreement for all existing structures within public drainage and utility easements shall be filed concurrently with the recording of the final plat. 7. Updated grading plans shall be submitted that illustrate drainage arrows and adequate grading to drain stormwater away from structures, specifically the proposed home on Lot 1, prior to grading operations. 8. Updated utility plans shall be submitted illustrating draintile locations for Lot 1. 9. Updated grading plans shall illustrate the location, width, and grades of the driveway to Lot 1. 10. The applicant shall conduct a soil boring near the proposed structure on Lot 1 to ensure groundwater elevations are a minimum of 3 feet below the lowest floor elevation. 11. An erosion and sediment control plan, a stand-alone document (separate sheet), in accordance with CCO Sec. 19-145 shall be included with updated plan submittals prior to grading operations. 12. All newly installed sanitary sewer, water, and stormwater mains and appurtenances shall be publicly owned and maintained by the city after acceptance of the public improvements by the City Council. 13. Construction plans shall be updated to show the 25’ D&U located on 7404 Frontier Trail, the means of how utility work in the D&U will not encroach onto private property, and a note prescribing restoration methods of the disturbed areas within the D&U. 14. All applicable permits required by Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District shall be obtained and adhered to. CONSTRUCTION PLANS 1. On sheet 1.0, Title Sheet: show hydrant symbol at end of leader for benchmark call-outs; update contact information for City Engineer to “Jason Wedel”. 2. On sheet 2.0, Grading Plan: all references to “shared driveway” or “driveway”, as it pertains to the private street, shall be updated to read “private street”; show tree protection methodology on plans; show stockpile locations, including required topsoil; reference detail plate #5202A for street patching where Frontier Trail and private street meet; update the symbol for “proposed silt fence” as it closely resembles “existing retaining wall”, for clarity; on the private street profile section call-out 10% grade as “maximum”. Planning Commission Summary – October 20, 2020 3 3. On sheet 3.0, Utility Plan: provide profile views for all public utilities; call-out detail plate #2204 for insulated pipe section; relocate sanitary MH-2 within the private drive hard surface area; relocate curb box for Lot 2 to be and within the drainage and utility easement over the water main; update material type for public water main to be C900; call-out for “ex. curb stop damaged” shall add note to remove and abandon service and lateral; call-out for FES-1 should note that no guard shall be installed; all sanitary service sewer laterals shall be updated to be 6”; extents of removal of existing services shall be illustrated to go from where the new sanitary service and water service are being connected to Lot 2 down to the curb stop for Lot 1’s water service and the property line for Lot 1’s sewer service; use a darkened line type for proposed storm sewer within the “Legend”; add a note regarding coordination with Public Works 48-hours prior to any work on public utilities; add a note that the governing specifications for utility work shall be the City Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. 4. On sheet 4.1, Construction Details; remove detail plate #3101 and replace with detail plate #3102; add a note to detail plate #3108 that no trash guard shall be installed on FES-1 (outlet). 5. On sheet 4.2, Construction Details; Add detail for tree protection, street patching detail plate #5202A, and pipe crossing insulation detail plate #2204. Fire 1. Private road will need to follow City of Chanhassen Code for Private Roads – including a turnaround for emergency vehicles. Parks 1. Full park fees in lieu of additional parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. Planning 1. The front lot line for Lot 1 shall be the northerly property line. 2. The front setback for Lot 1 shall be from the point at which the lot measures 100 feet. 3. An access and maintenance agreement for the private street shall be recorded with the plat. All voted in favor except for Chairman Weick who opposed. The motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Noyes noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 6, 2020. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Kate Aanenson provided an update on action taken by the City Council at their last meeting and future Planning Commission agenda items. Planning Commission Summary – October 20, 2020 4 Von Oven moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 20, 2020 Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Weick, Mark Randall, Michael McGonagill, Doug Reeder, Laura Skistad, Eric Noyes, and Mark Von Oven STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; George Bender, Assistant City Engineer; and Matt Unmacht, Water Resources Coordinator Weick: Just quickly reviewing the guidelines for this evening’s meeting. It is a Zoom meeting. I would ask that commission members not hold chats, text messages or discussions on the side. Everything needs to be vocalized and on the record for the public. There is one hearing this evening on tonight’s agenda. Staff will begin by presenting the item. When staff is finished commission members may ask questions. Get clarification on the item. The applicant will then be asked if they would like to make any additional comments or presentations and also would be open to questions at the conclusion of their presentation. After that we would open the public hearing. We will summarize all emails for the record. Anyone here in chambers in person will be welcome to come forward and speak their opinion on tonight’s matter and we will also offer a telephone number for anyone listening that would like to call in and have their opinion added to the record. When everyone has had a chance to be heard we will close the public hearing. One more chance for commissioners to discuss the item and then we will consider a motion and a vote as appropriate. Tonight’s item is item number, Case number 2019-13. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL TO CREATE THREE LOTS (BERROSPID ADDITION) WITH A VARIANCE FOR THE USE OF A PRIVATE STREET ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7406 FRONT TRAIL. Generous: Thank you Chairman, commissioners. As you stated this is a public hearing to review a subdivision request to create 3 lots with a variance for a flag lot and private street. The property is located at 7406 Frontier Trail. It’s zoned single family residential which means a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet with property served via private streets have to have 100 feet of lot width at the building setback line. These lots all comply with that and they need a minimum of 125 feet of depth and they all comply with that. The smallest lot is just over 15,000 square feet. The middle lot is about 18,000 square feet and the rear lot is 56,000 square feet. The site has about a 50 foot elevation drop from the west end of the property to the east end of the property. It’s currently 96 percent with canopy coverage on the property. Slide please. Again it’s a 3 lot subdivision. They’re dedicating right-of-way for Frontier Trail, the existing roadway encroaches onto this property and this puts it within, creates the public right-of-way so Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 20, 2020 2 that would be continued and memorialized. Access is via a private street. In conjunction with private streets and subdivisions they will have to record access and maintenance agreements with the subdivision documents. As part of the project they are extending public sewer and water lines into the development and they’re providing a stormwater treatment system for the site hard cover that’s going into the development. With that Steve will discuss the public improvements. Or George, I’m sorry. Bender: As Bob noted the site slopes from the western side to the eastern side towards Frontier Trail and there’s approximately about 50 feet of grade change across the site. You know due to the grade changes there was a need to design several retaining walls. They all are on individual lots so they can be private walls that are owned by the lots. And subsequently maintained by them. The private street itself is going to have the maximum allowed grade for about 100 feet of it which is 10 percent by code and then it will generally transition down to about a 2 percent grade as it accesses down to Frontier Trail. There will be some cut and fill within the 100 year floodplain. This was reviewed and approved by the watershed district. This is noted in the pink and the green on the slide that’s up currently. The retaining walls are in red. Matt Unmacht, our Water Resources Coordinator is going to discuss the wetland impacts. Unmacht: Good evening. Can everybody hear me? Aanenson: Yeah. Unmacht: So this property does have the potential to contain or to have wetlands, specifically on the south, or excuse me the east side of the property. Bob had mentioned it. It slopes west to east. A soils, a review of the wet soils survey shows, you can see in the orange area that’s considered a hydric soil and City staff including myself did stop out at the site this week and we did see some vegetation that is commonly found in wetlands in kind of a low depression right at the eastern portion of the parcel. So since staff believes that a delineation should be done at least to confirm or deny, or confirm whether or not there is a wetland present. It is marginal. It’s not most obvious site that I’ve seen but I think it warrants a delineation and then getting a delineation and then a MNRAM done would determine any, if a wetland exists on the property and if there’s any required buffers or setbacks. Bender: As far as stormwater goes, the applicant has done any design to establish volume, rate control and water quality treatment. They’ve provided for this through an underground system. There is an inlet control manhole that has a sump structure that will grab the initial heavier sediments and allow for fairly easy cleaning and then it will go into an underground infiltration chamber to allow the increased, the water from the increased hard cover to infiltrate as much as possible. The applicant has worked with the watershed district to the maximum extent possible to abstract or meet their abstraction requirements. In this case they were able through their geotechnical report to prove Type D soils exist which from the watershed district’s perspective reduce the abstraction by half from 1.1 inches to .55 and then through their rules they have a very strict and prescribed proof to reduce abstraction below that restricted amount and in this case the Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 20, 2020 3 applicant went through that with the watershed district and was able to get a restricted abstraction amount of .27 inches and you know that, per the watershed district that’s the deemed amount for the maximum extent practical. So this has been provided. This system will need to be maintained by the applicant. It will require an operation and maintenance plan be worked out with the City. And then the benefitting properties it will need to be, that plan will need to be recorded against. The City recommends that a homeowners association be created by the applicant so that the maintenance cost for the system can be split across the properties and be the responsibility of all the properties. This will require Lot 1’s low floor elevation as submitted to be adjusted to achieve an extra foot of free board from the high water level in the underground system. Regarding the public utilities, the blue line is the watermain extension from the right-of- way for Frontier Trail and the green line is where the applicant is proposing to connect to the sanitary, public sanitary sewer system which comes up the easement along 7404 Frontier Trail’s property. The City will be requiring all services to, the services for sewer and water to all 3 lots to come off of the new extensions. There are existing services that cut across the lot where Lots 2, Lot 3 where Lots 1 and 2 are and the City is going to require that these be abandoned and then reserved off of the sewer lines that are being extended. There will be coordination required with the property owner to the north at 7404 Frontier Trail where the sanitary sewer and main extension will extend to meet the existing sanitary sewer main that’s within the easement. The area will need to be restored to either match or improve the existing condition as part of this and if any temporary construction easements are needed they will need to coordinate that with the 7404 Frontier Trail to be able to do the installation so that they remain within the easement. They will need to survey that easement so that it is known in the field when that work is being done. And with that I will turn it back over to Bob. Generous: Part of our subdivision review we review the amount of tree removal on the site. They have provided us with preliminary numbers for tree removal. As I stated originally there’s 96 percent canopy coverage on this property. The proposed plan estimates that they will have 55 percent canopy coverage after the development is done. City code uses that as a target amount of preservation so they do meet city code requirements. However we are requiring that they verify these numbers for us before it goes to final approval and do all the calculations so that we can determine whether any replacement plantings would be required. Right now the only condition is that they provide one tree for every front lot in the development. And then that they provide tree protection fencing prior to any on site construction activity. With that staff is recommending. Oh, we’ve got multiple. One call regarding, concerning this development, they wanted, well actually there were two. They are concerned about the construction traffic on Frontier Trail and that any construction would degrade the right-of-way. And the other thing, they were just concerned that there’s enough housing on Frontier Trail. They don’t need any more so. And then the second call was regarding the stormwater that’s generated on top of the hill off of Del Rio Drive and it comes, crosses this property and if you look at the topo’s you can see there’s like a swale system that comes down the hill and that’s one of the things that George had addressed. We had a second, an email tonight regarding the location of the manhole connection for the sanitary sewer on 7404 Frontier Trail. We did respond to it that it’s approximately 75 feet downstream from the existing manhole. And then also he had questions Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 20, 2020 4 about the natural drainage pattern which comes from the top of the hill down this property. Our response was that they are not creating any of that stormwater and they’re directing some of it onto their street system but it will follow the natural course that it has currently and so. Bender: You want me to expand on that? Generous: Yes if you could. Bender: So you’re in the mouse here on the slide. There’s a development to the west here that’s between Del Rio Drive and Cimarron Circle and the back yards from those properties have natural drainage that heads to the east and crossed the subject property and generally the water is following this topography. There’s a small culvert here and then hitting the northeasterly property line. This is showing the grading that’s being done within the property’s limits. It is directing it onto the road and then it will, the road is actually sloped as shown here from north to south. And then the water will eventually cross the road, hit this curb line that’s right here and then be collected down in the stormwater collection basin. So this should improve it. Any water that gets off of the property as it’s coming down here, you know the applicant is not proposing and not really authorized to regrade the neighboring property to do this. If they wanted to work together you know they certainly could have discussions about that but as shown in these plans there is no regrading on the neighbor’s property. If there was some we would flagged that you know as part of this for remaining on the subject property unless there’s an agreement in place. So that’s about it. Generous: And then one other email, there was a gentleman questioning whether they met the variance requirements and I had to explain to him that the variance is for the use of a private street, not to have a 3 lot subdivision. We did look at this development originally providing a public street. It can be done. However it adds a significant amount of additional hard surface to this area and there’s no resulting benefit so we directed him to go through the variance process for that. He also requested information about the tree removal on the site. He says it looks like they’re taking out 70 trees. I estimated, I counted 65. Again the subdivision ordinance encourages the preservation of trees but it doesn’t prohibit it. Based on his, the calculations that were provided he is meeting city code requirements so. This person also expressed concerns about the drainage issues from the property to the west draining across this site. As George pointed out he is making some improvements but he can’t develop off site and so he can’t make any improvements to that and also that is beyond the purview of his requirements under our subdivision ordinance. He needs to treat and direct all the stormwater within his property that is generated by the development. And also he was concerned that with the removal of trees the City was allowing the elimination of a wildlife corridor that uses the existing lot. However that, we’re a merging community. He’s following the zoning ordinance requirements so we believe that he’s within his rights to propose it and again he’s meeting the City target for tree preservation and this person also had concern about construction traffic on Frontier Trail. Again that’s something that we try to minimize and require that we have weight limits and everything like that but it is a public road and it’s designed to carry traffic so. That’s it. And then I guess Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 20, 2020 5 the last thing is our, we’re recommending approval of the subdivision subject to the conditions in the staff report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Weick: Thank you Bob and George for your presentation. I will give commission members a chance to collect their thoughts and perhaps ask a couple of questions that came up. Not only during your presentation but also as I was reading the report. One being the, did the existing drawings show an approved turn around for the fire truck? Bender: They do show one. There are requirements that it needs to be adjusted to meet Engine Number 1. That will need to be coordinated with the Fire Marshal when the final construction plans are done so it is a condition. Weick: Okay. But that could potentially make that area, that could add lot coverage to that area. Bender: It could make some minor adjustments, that is correct and it might adjust like their retaining wall and there’s another requirement that that area that’s supported by that retaining wall has to use the surcharge from the fire vehicle to make sure that when it’s designed that you know it can support it. Weick: Okay. The other question kind of also related to the road is the road included in the lot coverage calculation? Generous: The private street or the front? Weick: Private street. Generous: It’s not. The common portion is not included in the lot area calculation. But we don’t include the hard cover nor the area in that lot. The flag lot so. Weick: So it wouldn’t benefit or be a detraction from the lot coverage? Generous: No. Weick: It’s an area that’s just not included. Generous: Right it’s covered under the stormwater improvements that they’re providing but it’s not, we may come in if they wanted to expand the house it would not be added to. Weick: Okay. Generous: The fire truck turn around would but the rest of the private street would not. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 20, 2020 6 Weick: Okay. And then there was mention on, bear with me. Page 6. No, further. It was about the soil and I can just say it from memory because I can’t find it right now but there was a report that the soil wasn’t sufficient to support road foundation and other things and it would need to be replaced. I’m just not familiar with building. Is that like a normal thing or is that a difficult thing to do? Bender: Basically they’re going to have to meet the supportive requirements of burying for not only the road but the foundations associated with the residences so it’s not like they have to take out all of the soil or anything. They have to put back, they’re going to have to take out some soil that doesn’t have the right bearing capacity and replace it with probably what we call select granular material and compact that in place to increase the support of capacity of those areas. Weick: Okay. I think for right now that was all the questions I had for staff. I would open it up also for the commission members if you’ve had a chance to collect your thoughts. Any questions? Reeder: Mr. Chairman one question on the road. Do we require an agreement between the 3 property owners to maintain that road, A. And B, the actual construction of that road do we have some standard for that? Bender: Yes we do. Yes is the answer to both questions. Basically we are recommending a homeowners association be created by the developer in order to provide for the maintenance of that private street and equally share the costs associated with it’s maintenance. Ultimately that is up to the developer to determine whether an HOA is going to be created but at the same time they will have to have some sort of agreement in place in order to make sure that the road can be maintained and it just doesn’t fall upon the Lot 3 where it is because the private street is not shown on the preliminary plat in an outlot. There will also have to be access agreements provided for Lots 1 and 2 so that are essentially relative to ingress and egress along the private street. So and yes there are design standards. You know this has to be a 20 foot minimum wide road which the applicant has provided. It has to have a maximum of 10 percent grade which the applicant meets. It will also need to meet a 7 ton design which the, there is a condition that the applicant’s engineer will need to submit those calculations for our review. Weick: Thanks Commissioner Reeder. Other questions for staff at this time? McGonagill: Mr. Chairman this is Commissioner McGonagill. Weick: Hello, good evening. McGonagill: George I’ve got a couple questions for you. If I look on page 6 and I’m just really looking at the grading and drainage plan on the plot. I think I know the answer to this but I just want to be sure. On Lot 1, can Lot 1 down the road be subdivided again? Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 20, 2020 7 Generous: No it’s at the minimum requirement in the RSF district. McGonagill: Okay so there’s no potential that they could come into that… Generous: The one on top Lot 3 potentially if they could get the property over to the west, or to the south of them to grab the property there’s a potential. They could meet the minimum 15,000 and have 90 feet of. McGonagill: On Lot 3. Generous: Yeah the one on the top of the hill. McGonagill: Okay I call that Lot 1. I’m confused. So it’s the one to the west they could subdivide that one? Generous: If they got the property from the property to the south to have access onto Del Rio. McGonagill: Yeah that was really the question I was coming from. You know does that potential then does exist to do that if they could get access to Del Rio right? Generous: Yes. If that property owner would sell them enough land to do that. McGonagill: Okay and that’s why I assume that issue the property owner to the west is why the road, I think there’s two reasons that road doesn’t come in from Del Rio. One is you just answered is access. The other is there’s quite a bit of an elevation grade to come down into that house which I call house on Lot 3, is that correct? Bender: I’d add to that, that it’s an existing house that was constructed in 1969 and you know it’s currently served off of Frontier Trail so you know it’s kind of designed from a garage perspective and to face that way so to change it and have it come from the other way would have quite a few impacts. McGonagill: Yeah I understand. But I just think about the potential down the road. So if Lot, I guess you call it Lot 1. If Lot 1 gets subdivided then access, would the access have to come off of Del Rio or could it actually come off the private drive? What I’m hearing you say it cannot come off the private drive because when they extended the private drive into that new subdivided lot they would not meet lot cover minimums, is that correct? Generous: No. When you said Lot 1 I was thinking you meant the most easterly property which is only a little over 15,000 square feet. At the top of the hill. Aanenson: Can you put a map up so everybody can see? Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 20, 2020 8 McGonagill: Yeah and I’m sorry. I’m sorry. You know I had my numbers wrong. That’s my error. Weick: Commissioner McGonagill while we’re pulling that up can you just restate your question again? McGonagill: Okay it really is fairly simple. I’m trying to look at the next step of the larger lot. The lot to the west, can it be subdivided again and what that would require if that were to occur because then you’ve got plan, in my mind I’m planning for the next step that logically could come. Generous: Well the first part of it he could conceivably extend the private street up to service the most westerly part of the parcel. McGonagill: Okay. Generous: It would need to go through a public hearing process again and they’d have to revise the variance again to use a private street. However if you could get the right-of-way or the property to connect to Del Rio there then they could access that lot from the south and come in and have a lot there. It’s contingent on the property owner selling him the land. McGonagill: Correct. But if the property owner didn’t he still could let’s say when it’s, the gentleman that’s living to the west in the large parcel decides to leave he could subdivide this again and just extend the private drive and it would just be another variance. Aanenson: Wouldn’t it be over the 10 percent grade? Bender: Kate just mentioned that it would be over the, it may be over the 10 percent grade so for that to be extended you know it would still have to meet the code requirements of the maximum of 10 percent and the grade lines do tighten up as it goes up the hill so that would more than likely require regrading in order to extend the drive far enough to accommodate another lot. McGonagill: That’s a technically challenging issue when you get into that…is what you’re saying. Bender: Yeah. I mean if the property could be you know generated to access Del Rio Drive it’s likely that one driveway would come off of it for a house that would be placed further to the west and the house that’s currently located on Lot 3 or if it was a tear down and rebuild would access the private drive. McGonagill: Okay. And I realize that’s not what we’re talking about here tonight and it doesn’t really enter in. I’m just trying to think about what the next step would look like. That’s where I’m trying to come from. George next question I have is on the stormwater system. Could you Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 20, 2020 9 cover that drawing that had the underwater containment stuff that you showed? Please sir. It had the catch basin and then what I call the silos in your presentation. That one. Question I had, this water containment system, when it leaves the system, you know if it doesn’t go to infill, does it go into some sort of stormwater system into Lotus Lake? Bender: Well it would enter our stormwater system that’s out in Frontier Trail so there’s an overflow pipe shown in the control structure so that would essentially connect into our stormwater system in Frontier Trail and then if I can here, you know it would more than likely make it’s way right down to these ponds that are here. McGonagill: Okay. So and then ultimately that with the way the flow is going through ground filtration or whatever if it overflows it does end up in Lotus Lake, does it? Bender: Ultimately. McGonagill: Maybe not. Maybe that’s a question for Matt. Bender: Yeah Matt are you still here? Unmacht: Yeah I’m still here. I got the datalink pulled up here at home and best I can tell, I believe it ultimately does. Bender: I think it’s going to make it’s way through those ponds Matt and then this drainage channel. Unmacht: Yep, that red triangle that you’re, that right there. That’s outfall into that drainage channel into Lotus Lake is what I believe. McGonagill: Okay. So that’s if we stay right there, you said it would go through several systems like a pond which are containment basins. Settlement basins, etcetera before it gets into another outfall that would end up in Lotus Lake because I’m worried about Lotus Lake quality obviously. That’s a recreation lake. Is that right Matt? Unmacht: Yes that’s correct. It would go through at least those two basins along with the infiltration, or excuse me the underground stormwater treatment system that’s already proposed on the project. McGonagill: George on those underground infiltration systems you said there has to be a maintenance plan for them and you can just stay on this picture which would be fine. In that agreement is there any requirement for those systems to be annually inspected to be sure they’re not full of debris and that report provided to Matt or can we put that in there because again I want to be sure that those systems are working on an annual basis. You know you get a hard rain Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 20, 2020 10 or hard year those things can fill up full of junk and suddenly you don’t have anything that’s working anymore, you follow me? Unmacht: Yep. So yeah we are definitely going to have required inspections and maintenance done on a system like this so we’ll work with the applicant as to what the inspection and reporting details will be but they absolutely will have at the very least annual reporting and the most likely after a specific rainfall amount events. McGonagill: That’s perfect. Yeah that way you know if it’s still working properly and if you had that working and you’ve got the rest containment basin you’ve done just about everything you can. Unmacht: Correct, yep. McGonagill: Okay that’s quite helpful. Mr. Chairman that’s my questions. Bender: I’d add one part to that please if you don’t mind. Get it back to the right slide here. So as part of this structure that they’re putting in, in the control structure there is a 4 foot sump in it to collect the heavier solids before it ever gets to the infiltration chamber. In addition it’s kind of hard to see but they also have an energy dissipater that they’re putting in non the inlet pipe and then a skimmer on the outlet pipe to the infiltration chamber to keep as many solids as possible in the control structure so that’s as easy to maintain as possible. So over time they’ll learn you know how many solids they’re collecting and kind of at what type of timeframe that fills up that sump. Whether it ends up needing to be annually cleaned or maybe it could be you know every 2 years. That will be kind of a to be determined aspect associated with it but you know the easier that they can make the maintenance, you know the more often it will happen and be better for the overall Lotus Lake water quality. McGonagill: Well George that’s very helpful. I think the thing that’s going to be real important and I have to guess Matt this will be in your purview with inspectors is to insure they’ve got really good erosion control on there so you don’t load that whole structure up during construction because that could happen. It’s an underground. You’ve got an underground system. You really…load it up bad and you just wreck the thing and it never works, you follow me? Unmacht: Yep absolutely. They’ll be required to get an approved erosion and sediment control plan that needs to be approved by city staff before any grading can happen. We’ll make sure that they’re doing their due diligence when it comes to keeping erosion on site, especially around that inlet structure. McGonagill: Yeah, then you follow my point. Thank you very much. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 20, 2020 11 Bender: There’s inspection points associated with this underground system that allow our inspectors to you know insure that there is no sediment in the chamber system when it’s activated and the site work has been kind of completed. McGonagill: Yeah I’m just not too familiar with these and so I’m sorry for the rudimentary questions. I’m just not too, I haven’t seen too much how they work and so this is helping me so I appreciate it. Mr. Chairman I think that takes care of me. Weick: Thank you Commissioner McGonagill. Other commissioners with questions for staff? Von Oven: Yeah Mr. Chairman this is Commissioner Von Oven. Weick: Good evening. Von Oven: During the presentation I heard mention and I didn’t quite understand it. I heard mention of the potential of striking a deal on something with the neighbor to the north. 7404 with respect to was it grading? Bender: I’ll take it first. The neighbor to the north was one of the comments that we received. We received it you know just within an hour, hour and a half before the meeting and responded to it but essentially the concern was related to a stream of water that comes down you know especially in larger rainfall events between the two properties and he’s wondering whether that would be addressed to avoid any further damage in this area or potentially make it go away completely. And the response to that was, you know the water pattern as it crosses 7406, you know and this is water that’s essentially just crossing the property also drains in part onto the bordering area of 7404. And if this resident wants you know this problem to go away completely it may require regrading to help with that and at that point you know the two properties would have to have some sort of agreement if they’re trying to, you know as part of this development improve something that’s not on the property. Does that answer your question? Von Oven: Yes and so it actually leads to my second question which is, you’ve got an existing stream of water. It’s kind of directing itself near or at that property line and now there’s going to be a hard surface put in a private road. Based on all of these finds is there any chance that this situation is going to get worst for 7404 in terms of the amount of water floating onto his property? And if so is there any recourse for that resident? Bender: I don’t believe so because there’s no grading going on essentially on that drainage pathway across Lot 1 which is the western most lot. And then as the water hits where the private street is going to be constructed on the western end some of that water is going to find it’s way onto the street and then be collected, you know directed to the south curb line and then be collected in the stormwater basin so there will be less water but you know how that water actually directs itself at the point of where that water path hits the border between the two properties. You know there can be some on each side of that and you know because that’s pretty Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 20, 2020 12 much what the comment says is where it’s headed and that’s what the grade lines show that it is. So some of that water is going to kind of go a little more to the south via the private street. Does that answer your question? Von Oven: It does thank you. No further questions from me. Weick: Thanks Commissioner Von Oven. Other questions? Hearing none at this time from the commissioners. Hearing no other comments from the commissioners I would invite the applicant to either come forward and make their presentation thank you, and welcome this evening. Luis Berrospid: Hi. Thank you everybody. I don’t…I want to thank Bob and George for the great presentation. I’ve been on the property for over 2 years and I have….and I moved to Chanhassen back in January, 2018 and I’ve been working with Bob for probably over a year and a half on this project. My family and me we do love the community here and the Chanhassen area and I’m hoping that we can you know approve this project and move forward with it. Like I said I think you guys did a good presentation on it and I’m here to answer any questions that you guys might have on any additional questions so. Weick: Thank you and thank you for coming this evening. Stay up there just in case there’s, yeah. I will open it up for commissioners. If there are any questions of the applicant at this time. Give everybody a second. Are there any conditions? Generous: Your neighbor to the north? Luis Berrospid: My neighbor to the north? Generous: Yes. Luis Berrospid: I did talk to the neighbor to the north. Basically him yesterday and I, maybe that’s where the question arise but I went to his home and we talked about the center manhole that I’m going to be putting into his property. He did ask me about you know pretty much the grading that is coming down, sometimes erosion control it’s not running off right now from the property. The problem is that the existing road that is right now the driveway, somewhat like George was saying some of it comes into my property and some already goes into the line but today everything goes into what I call the kind of like a, whether it’s an RC pipe that goes across the road but I think he has been having issues with that erosion control problem and he was asking if maybe we can fix it and that’s something that I would probably like to fix too with him. Something that if I end up developing the project on my own I would probably end up working with him on how to get that problem solved for him and myself too. So that’s one thing. And then I did mention that I will encroach into the property into the easement so I can hook up to a sanitary line. It seems to me that he was fine and he said yep go ahead but I will definitely work with him during construction if I end up developing the project. You know to work with him on Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 20, 2020 13 coordination and things like that. I will definitely try to minimize, I don’t think I will open cut that. I would probably have a trench box to minimize the tree removal in that area because there is small trees in that area but hey I would probably do it with a trench box. That’s probably one of the contingencies with the notes that they ask me on how I’m going to connect to it. But I think it’s just minimizing you know with a 6 to 8 foot trench box to get into a connection for the sanitary line that we have. Weick: Okay thank you. One more opportunity for commissioners to ask any questions of our applicant this evening. And hearing none thank you very much for coming forward and thank you for the project. Luis Berrospid: Yeah. Weick: With that I will open up the public hearing portion of tonight’s item. If you are watching the number 952-227-1100 is on your screen. You may call that number and enter your opinion for the record. Anyone here this evening who would like to come forward and speak their opinion on this item may do so at this time. And we also did receive and will add to the record any and all calls or emails, and/or emails that came in this afternoon and thank you Bob and George for summarizing those for us. Appreciate it. Seeing nobody come forward this evening and seeing no phone calls I will close the public hearing portion of tonight’s item and move to commissioner discussion. Any thoughts? Skistad: This is Commissioner Skistad and I would just say that it looks like a great project and I think that mitigation with the drainage, I mean it seems like maybe with what’s being suggested it might actually help Lotus Lake with the drainage anyway so I don’t really have any questions but I expect to approve this. Weick: Thank you Commissioner Skistad. Appreciate your input. I can offer a few comments. I read this one several times actually and really tried to collect my thoughts on it. You know it’s two parts as you’re aware. There’s the plat and there’s the variance and the variance is for the road that has to be put on the property. The things that concern me about this project are the soil replacement was, I think that was answered pretty well. It sounds like something that isn’t you know any kind of deal breaker for the applicant. The idea of the wetland conservation sort of raises, it raises concern for me and it all relates back to what I would classify as poor, a poorly treated preservation plan and those that know me know that I often comment on this kind of thing but it’s disappointing to me to see all of the trees taken out on the front side of the property. It’s just an uneven solution to the problem and the trees that are taken out, it was taken down all the way down to the minimum coverage or canopy coverage which doesn’t give us a whole lot of leeway if there’s changes that need to be made either to the road or to the turn around or if something comes up over the wetland itself and so you know those, it’s just there’s a feeling to me that this is, this is a case where sometimes I call it, it just doesn’t feel like a great property to develop. I’m not sure that there’s enough, it meets all the regulations as far as I can see so it’s difficult for me to say that I couldn’t vote for this but it is, it just doesn’t feel right to me and it Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 20, 2020 14 doesn’t, it really comes down to kind of that wetland question. The soil question and the fact that so many of those trees have to be taken out on the front half of that property. Those are just my thoughts on that. I’d certainly welcome feedback from commissioners or you know helping me manage through those thoughts. Or a motion. It’s quiet. It is a quiet group tonight and that is rare. Randall: I’ll make a motion. Weick: Commissioner Randall, please go ahead. Randall: The motion is for the Chan Planning Commission, I was reading it off the screen here. Recommends the City Council approve a 3 lot subdivision with a variance for the use of a flag lot and private street subject to the conditions of the staff report and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Weick: I’m sorry, caught me daydreaming there for a second. We have a valid motion from Commissioner Randall. Do we have a second? McGonagill: I’ll second it Mr. Chair. Weick: I’ll give that second to Commissioner McGonagill. Any comment prior to a vote? Reeder: Mr. Chairman? Weick: Yeah. Reeder: I agree with your concern about the trees in this particular case but I think because the proposal meets most of our requirements. Weick: Understood. Reeder: That we need to move forward with it. That’s unfortunate. Weick: Yeah I, and I think the only thing I would say is there’s something to me about the private road and if that were a driveway it would be included in your lot coverage and it’s certainly bigger than a driveway and has more impact on the area than a driveway so you know that was kind of my concern. But thank you for your comments and with that I will take a roll call vote. Randall moved, McGonagill seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve a three-lot subdivision with a variance for the use of a flag lot and private street subject to the following conditions and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation: Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 20, 2020 15 Building 1. A building permit must be obtain prior to beginning work at the property. Engineering 1. All driveways shall have direct access only to the proposed private street. 2. Calculations supporting the 7-ton private street design shall be submitted by a professional engineer for review and approval prior to grading operations. 3. The applicant shall submit updated designs for the private street utilizing either a crowned street or a uniform and continuous cross-sloped street to adequately direct stormwater to the proposed stormwater conveyance system prior to grading operations. 4. The final plat shall be updated prior to recording to include public drainage and utility easements as follows: a 10’ wide D&U on the west property line of Lot 2 and 10’ wide D&Us centered over all newly proposed public utilities including stormwater, sanitary sewer, and water mains. 5. An updated existing condition survey shall be submitted prior to grading operations that includes all existing utilities within and surrounding the property. 6. An encroachment agreement for all existing structures within public drainage and utility easements shall be filed concurrently with the recording of the final plat. 7. Updated grading plans shall be submitted that illustrate drainage arrows and adequate grading to drain stormwater away from structures, specifically the proposed home on Lot 1, prior to grading operations. 8. Updated utility plans shall be submitted illustrating draintile locations for Lot 1. 9. Updated grading plans shall illustrate the location, width, and grades of the driveway to Lot 1. 10. The applicant shall conduct a soil boring near the proposed structure on Lot 1 to ensure groundwater elevations are a minimum of 3 feet below the lowest floor elevation. 11. An erosion and sediment control plan, a stand-alone document (separate sheet), in accordance with CCO Sec. 19-145 shall be included with updated plan submittals prior to grading operations. 12. All newly installed sanitary sewer, water, and stormwater mains and appurtenances shall be publicly owned and maintained by the city after acceptance of the public improvements by the City Council. 13. Construction plans shall be updated to show the 25’ D&U located on 7404 Frontier Trail, the means of how utility work in the D&U will not encroach onto private property, and a note prescribing restoration methods of the disturbed areas within the D&U. 14. All applicable permits required by Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District shall be obtained and adhered to. CONSTRUCTION PLANS 1. On sheet 1.0, Title Sheet: show hydrant symbol at end of leader for benchmark call-outs; update contact information for City Engineer to “Jason Wedel”. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 20, 2020 16 2. On sheet 2.0, Grading Plan: all references to “shared driveway” or “driveway”, as it pertains to the private street, shall be updated to read “private street”; show tree protection methodology on plans; show stockpile locations, including required topsoil; reference detail plate #5202A for street patching where Frontier Trail and private street meet; update the symbol for “proposed silt fence” as it closely resembles “existing retaining wall”, for clarity; on the private street profile section call-out 10% grade as “maximum”. 3. On sheet 3.0, Utility Plan: provide profile views for all public utilities; call-out detail plate #2204 for insulated pipe section; relocate sanitary MH-2 within the private drive hard surface area; relocate curb box for Lot 2 to be and within the drainage and utility easement over the water main; update material type for public water main to be C900; call-out for “ex. curb stop damaged” shall add note to remove and abandon service and lateral; call-out for FES-1 should note that no guard shall be installed; all sanitary service sewer laterals shall be updated to be 6”; extents of removal of existing services shall be illustrated to go from where the new sanitary service and water service are being connected to Lot 2 down to the curb stop for Lot 1’s water service and the property line for Lot 1’s sewer service; use a darkened line type for proposed storm sewer within the “Legend”; add a note regarding coordination with Public Works 48-hours prior to any work on public utilities; add a note that the governing specifications for utility work shall be the City Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. 4. On sheet 4.1, Construction Details; remove detail plate #3101 and replace with detail plate #3102; add a note to detail plate #3108 that no trash guard shall be installed on FES-1 (outlet). 5. On sheet 4.2, Construction Details; Add detail for tree protection, street patching detail plate #5202A, and pipe crossing insulation detail plate #2204. Fire 1. Private road will need to follow City of Chanhassen Code for Private Roads – including a turnaround for emergency vehicles. Parks 1. Full park fees in lieu of additional parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. Planning 1. The front lot line for Lot 1 shall be the northerly property line. 2. The front setback for Lot 1 shall be from the point at which the lot measures 100 feet. 3. An access and maintenance agreement for the private street shall be recorded with the plat. All voted in favor except for Chairman Weick who opposed. The motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 20, 2020 17 Weick: With that the item passes 6 approval, one opposed. The item will be moved forward. Generous: It’s going to City Council on November 9th. Weick: Thank you to the applicant for coming this evening. All of the public input as well as the staff report. Very thorough and very good as always. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Noyes noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 6, 2020. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Weick: And I will turn it back over for city presentation. I think we do have a couple presentations this evening. Aanenson: First I’m going to give you an update and then we’ll go into adjournment. McGonagill: Can’t hear. Aanenson: First we’re going to do the City Council update and also then just some Planning Commission business. So at the City Council update, there was a discussion for TIF for the last building at the Powers Ridge Apartment buildings because in order to get the density bonus they needed to do some affordable so there was tacit approval on that so that project will go back. They need to do a PUD amendment because. McGonagill: Kate can you speak into the microphone. Aanenson: Yes I apologize. McGonagill: There you go, thank you. Aanenson: So they need to do a PUD amendment and a site plan approval so we’ll be seeing that project probably after the first of the year. Secondly the council did approve the two code amendments. One is for the, excuse me for one and that was for the certain constructions in outlots. As you recall we did do a variance for somebody that wanted to do a shed. That’s typically associated with a beachlot but this was concerned an outlot. They did have a lot of discussion on this, the zoning permits. I think that was a split vote and so they wanted to remand that back to the Planning Commission but we’re going to do a little bit more work on that before you see that again. And then finally they approved the development contract for the, the development contract was approved for the Bluffs at Lake Lucy. It was being held up at the County for recording. They were backlogged and so they wanted to proceed with the grading to keep things moving so they went forward and broke off the grading development contract from the rest of the development contract. So that grading contract was approved except on the north Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 20, 2020 18 end where the hours were limited to no Saturdays. The developer’s probably coming back to the next City Council meeting to talk about that. Meanwhile we also just, we did receive the 3rd Addition for Lennar so that will just be going to City Council. So anyway that project’s underway. That projects been…The Bluffs, the northern part, The Bluffs at Lake Lucy which is Gonyea Homes so they are grading right now so they do have permission for that. As it turns out they’ll probably get the entire development contract maybe in, to get recorded yet this week so they’re trying to as they say make hay when the sun shines so we’ll see how the weather cooperates there. So I also just wanted to remind the rest of the Planning Commission that we do not have a meeting in 2 weeks because that is election day so hopefully everybody’s voting but we do have a meeting on the 17th of November and we do have a subdivision. As it turns out it’s Deerwood so that’s actually Mr. Ashfeld who spoke, the other project that he spoke on coming off Yosemite. I think I talked about this before and Mr. Randall may recuse himself but it’s up in that area off Yosemite coming in off of a private drive so you’ll see another example of a private drive in the application of that so I just wanted to let you know kind of our schedule. We do have a couple things that are floating out there. We were expecting an amendment to the PUD down at 101 and Lyman. That building. Sharmeen did a very good job on the architecture on that and I think they want to kind of go back, we had some suggestions on that and I think they want to rethink it before you see that so we have a couple things that are floating out there. I’m not sure they’ll all land before, we just have one meeting in December so after this there’s just a couple more meetings and then we’re into the new year. So with that Chairman you could adjourn. McGonagill: Mr. Chair just for Kate your information. I will be out of town on the 17th. November 17th. Aanenson: Okay thank you. So just an FYI everybody else then if Commissioner Randall chooses to then we’re down to 5 so if somebody can’t make it they’d give us a heads up on that, that would be great. So with that Chairman you can adjourn the meeting and then we’ll just go into open discussion which we won’t be broadcast live. It’s just kind of really for education for the Planning Commission. Weick: Okay, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Von Oven moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, November 17, 2020 Subject City Council Action Update Section ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS Item No: E.1. Prepared By Jean Steckling, Senior Admin. Support Specialist File No:  ATTACHMENTS: City Council Action Update City Council Action Update MONDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2020 Consider Modification of Work Hours for The Bluffs at Lake Lucy - Approved MONDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2020 Approve Preliminary and Final Plat, Development Contract and Construction Plans and Specifications for a Subdivision Creating Three Lots (Berrospid Addition) with a Variance for the Use of a Private Street on Property Located at 7406 Frontier Trail – Approved Minutes for these meetings can be viewed and downloaded from the city’s website at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us, and click on “Agendas and Minutes” from the left-side links. g:\plan\forms\development forms\city council action update.docx PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, November 17, 2020 Subject Discuss Commission Vacancies Section OPEN DISCUSSION Item No: G.1. Prepared By Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director File No:  BACKGROUND Discuss upcoming vacancies and have Commissioners prepare a list of key characteristics that they believe are needed in candidates for the Planning Commission. Identify a member from the Commission to participate in the Council's interviews of candidates.