PC 2012 06 19
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 19, 2012
Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Andrew Aller, Kathleen Thomas, Lisa Hokkanen, and Bill Colopoulos
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mark Undestad, Kim Tennyson, and Kelsey Nelson
STAFF PRESENT:
Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and Bob Generous, Senior
Planner
Aller: We’re starting the meeting a little late but let the record reflect that we have a quorum and we’ll be
taking some matters out of order tonight.
PUBLIC HEARING:
LAKESIDE BEACHLOT: REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
2006-26 TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF CANOE RACKS ON PROPERTY ZONED
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL (PUD-R) LOCATED ON OUTLOTS I & J,
LAKESIDE. APPLICANT: LAKESIDE MASTER ASSOCIATION, PLANNING CASE 2006-26.
Aller: Okay, the first item will be taken out of order. It is item number 2 and it is a request for an
amendment to Lakeside Beachlot Conditional Use Permit.
Generous: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Commissioners. As you stated this is an amendment to the
Conditional Use Permit for a beachlot at the Lakeside development. It’s Planning Case 2006-26. The
th
public hearing is being held tonight, the 19 and this is being turned around for council next Monday.
The property in question is located on Lyman Boulevard on the north side of Lake Riley. The
development immediately to the north of that is the Lakeside development and just to the northwest of
that is the North Bay development in Chanhassen. The property to the east of this is in the City of Eden
Prairie and that’s the Bearpath golf course that you can see to the northeast. In 2006 when this project
came forward they did a conditional use permit for the beachlot but they didn’t include any canoe racks or
non-motorized racks for the development. Now they want to come in and put those in and they’re trying
to expedite that process. The conditional use permit standards for beachlots allows up to 4 racks and with
up to 6 canoes or other non-motorized watercraft on it. They originally came in for only specifying 2 but
as part of this approval, because there are so many homes that may be in that association that we allow
them to do up to the 4 over time as they develop so. Here’s the original plan. They’ve just shown in this
little area to the northeast of the totlot area that they want to be able to put canoe racks in. Very simple
construction. It’s cross beams with wood. Maximum height of about 5 feet I think so they don’t have to
lift them very far. Actually the construction of these will not require a building permit from the City
because there’s no standards involved with that. That is the extent of the proposed amendment right now.
Staff is recommending approval of the amendment for the beachlot to permit canoe racks subject to the
original conditions of approval for the beachlot. And here’s the motion for you. With that I’d be happy
to answer any questions.
Aller: Who will be maintaining them?
Generous: The Lakeside Homeowners Association. It’s a master association I believe. It covers the
entire development and then there’s sub-associations in there but they’re all part of this association which
has the beachlot and the club house within the development.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 19, 2012
Aller: I have no other questions. Anyone else have any questions, comments? Thank you Bob. Would
the applicant like to come up and say anything? State your name and address for the record.
Gary Roethle: Hi. Gary Roethle from 8776 Lake Riley Drive, Chanhassen.
Aller: Thank you Mr. Roethle.
Gary Roethle: I’m President of the Highlands Homeowners Association and on the board of the master.
We’ve gotten approval from the master board to do this. We’ve also been accounted for making sure we
had an insurance rider, just so you’re aware, to our lakefront property to make sure in case there were any
injuries or whatever that that coverage is there and it’s the people who are paying, doing the work to build
it that are going to be responsible for the maintenance and whatever, and as Bob Generous mentioned, the
verbiage in the original submittal included statements of the boat racks but they never put them in the
drawings so we have a group of enthusiasts currently and then another half a dozen so I’m glad you took
it to 4, who wanted future access to putting kayaks or canoes up there so we’d like to do that and get it in
so we can enjoy the summer on the lake.
Aller: Thank you. I have no questions. Anyone?
Thomas: No, no questions.
Aller: It looks great, thank you very much. With that I’ll open the public hearing for comment. Anyone
wishing to step forward and discuss the request can do so. State your name and address for the record.
Seeing no one come forward I’m going to close the public hearing. Any need for discussion? Questions?
I’ll take a motion.
Colopoulos: I’d like to move that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve
Conditional Use Permit application 2006-26 amendment to permit the construction of up to four non-
motorized watercraft racks at the Lakeside recreational beachlot subject to the existing conditions of
approval.
Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Thomas: Second.
Aller: Having a motion and a second, any discussion?
Colopoulos moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council
approve Conditional Use Permit 2006-26 amendment to permit the construction of up to four non-
motorized watercraft racks at the Lakeside recreational beachlot subject to the existing conditions
of approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
th
Aller: Motion carries and please note again this will be before the City Council on June 25, which is
Monday.
Generous: Clarification Mr. Chairman. Was that motion to also adopt the attached Findings of Fact and
Recommendation?
2
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 19, 2012
Colopoulos: I’ll make that motion to the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation, development
review application and racks schematic Section 20-266 of the Chanhassen City Code and public hearing
notice.
Aller: Can I have a second to that for motion for amendment.
Thomas: Yeah, motion to amend.
Colopoulos moved, Thomas seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council
approve Conditional Use Permit 2006-26 amendment to permit the construction of up to four non-
motorized watercraft racks at the Lakeside recreational beachlot subject to the existing conditions
of approval and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Aller: Passes formally.
PUBLIC HEARING:
6561 TROENDLE CIRCLE: REQUEST FOR A HARD SURFACE COVERAGE VARIANCE TO
ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SCREEN PORCH ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL
SINGLE FAMILY (RSF) LOCATED AT 6561 TROENDLE CIRCLE. APPLICANT: JAY
DONOHUE, PLANNING CASE 2012-07.
Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller and commissioners. As you stated this is a variance request for
hard surface coverage on the property zoned single family residential. Planning Case 2012-07. The
Planning Commission is sitting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments in reviewing this item. The
property is located at 6561 Troendle Circle. This is in north central Chanhassen. Just to the east and
south of this is the Carver Beach area of Chanhassen and approximately a quarter mile north is Pleasant
View Road. It’s currently these areas aren’t connected yet to come back out to Powers to get to them.
Single family homes in this neighborhood developed in the early 90’s. The request is for a 6.9 percent
variance to permit hard cover of 31.9% on property zoned single family residential. Our normal standard
for single family homes is 25%. When this, the applicant, or not the applicant. The original homeowner
came in or the original builder came in, the first approval actually allowed a house and driveway that
exceeded the 25%. However at that time we did not catch the coverage because it wasn’t included on the
survey. Since then the City has changed it’s review processes and for any improvements now we get
those calculations so that we don’t end up in situations like this. The existing hard cover on the site is
32.7%. What the applicant is proposing is to put his porch and deck in the rear of the house over where
the existing patio is, which is hard surface and that was put in by the previous property owner. With the
proposed, even with the proposed expansion the applicant is looking at reducing the hard cover on the site
by 117 square feet, which is just under 1% hard cover for the property. The reduction in the hard cover
includes the construction of the porch so that was a pretty good. It makes the situation better from what’s
existing. He can keep what he has now and so we actually will improve it. And we believe that the
granting of the variance is in keeping with the intent of the ordinance. We allow people to have porches
on their property. It is a reasonable use and it’s normally associated with a single family home. And the
practical difficulty in this situation is that he bought the house and it’s already over and he wanted to do a
reasonable improvement and he’s not permitted to. Had this been a simple non-conforming site and built
before 1972 the assumption would be that it complied with ordinance and any reduction is appropriate
and the staff could have signed off on that administratively. However since this was built since that 1972,
our ordinances have been in place and so his only relief is to request a variance from the hard cover. Staff
is recommending approval of the variance application to permit 31.9% hard cover on this property and
allow him to construct his screen porch. With that, and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and
Decision. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions.
3
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 19, 2012
Aller: Any questions? No? No question. I think it was a great report and I understand. I think
everything that had occurred. Would the applicant like to come forward? Is it Jay or Laurie Donohue?
Jay Donohue: My name’s Jay Donohue. I live at 6561 Troendle Circle in Chan here and my ultimate
proposal here is actually reducing my hard cover I currently have when I purchased the house. It was
kind of a fast learning curve for me once I applied for the, to build this porch and the whole idea right
from the beginning to remove the stone patio that’s back there and put in a porch. When we applied for a
permit we were turned down obviously and I’ve had several meetings with Bob and also Bob hooked up
me with Terry Jeffery of the Water Resource Manager and after meeting with him and he felt it was a
reasonable request on my part. After the meeting with him I decided to go ahead and try to get a variance
to do this. The house was actually built at 29.9% hard cover, which is considerably over what the City of
Chanhassen, so I went ahead to see if I could reduce the current hard cover and put up a you know more
usable screen porch.
Aller: It looks like the screen porch is actually a better use than the patio so.
Jay Donohue: Yeah, well after sitting out last night.
Aller: That’s a good betterment.
Jay Donohue: We tried to sit out last night and we were just hoping we’d get a variance because of the
bugs.
Aller: Yeah, you might need heavy duty screens. And a reduction is much appreciated. I mean we’re all
looking to try to make Chanhassen a little bit better and one of the ways we do that is to make sure we
keep our hard cover, hard surfaces down as much as possible so you’re asking for a reduction from
something that you’ve already got and it looks like you’re improving the property and it certainly was of
no fault or consequence of your’s at the time that you purchased the property so it’s unique to the
property. So thank you for coming and making the presentation.
Jay Donohue: Sure, thank you.
Aller: Any questions? I’ll entertain a motion.
Aanenson: Oh, Mr. Chair can we just.
Aller: Oh, let me open the public hearing. If anyone wishes to speak on the request for a variance at
6561 Troendle please step forward. Seeing no one stepping forward, close the public hearing. Don’t
think there’s any need for comment. Questions.
Colopoulos: I’ve got one question regarding procedure Mr. Chair. This is a variance is subject to our
approval correct? This is not a recommendation we’re making.
Aller: Correct.
Colopoulos: Okay.
Aanenson: Subject to you have to have a certain percentage otherwise it would be appealed. Yeah,
somebody could appeal it. If the majority votes in favor of it it would stop here unless somebody
appealed it, correct.
4
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 19, 2012
Aller: And that appeal should be done in 4 days for those who are listening. So with that, would anybody
like to make a motion?
Colopoulos: In that case I will make a motion that the Planning Commission approve the hard cover
variance subject to the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Decision.
1. The owner shall remove the existing patio surface and stairs at the rear of the home and re-grade
the site to maintain or improve existing drainage patterns.
2. Building permits are required for the construction of the porch and deck.
3. The structure must comply with Minnesota State Building Code.
And I’ll also reference in the motion the attachments listed 1 through 11 on page 3 of section 3.
Aller: Having a motion, do we have a second?
Hokkanen: Second.
Thomas: Second. Let Lisa have it.
Aller: Any discussion?
Colopoulos moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Planning Commission, as the Board of Appeals
and Adjustments, approves Planning Case #2012-07 for a 6.9 percent variance to permit hard cover
of 31.9 percent on property zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) subject to the following
conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Decision:
1. The owner shall remove the existing patio surface and stairs at the rear of the home and re-grade
the site to maintain or improve existing drainage patterns.
2. Building permits are required for the construction of the porch and deck.
3. The structure must comply with Minnesota State Building Code.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD-R) AMENDMENTS: REQUEST TO
AMEND THE FOLLOWING RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS:
A. MEADOWS/WOODS AT LONGACRES.
B. MINNEWASHTA CREEK.
C. RED CEDAR COVE.
Aller: Is it set 4?
Generous: It’s group 4, yes it is. We’re on the downhill slope on these things. We actually have the
research done for 6 groups so we’re moving forward and this Thursday we’re having a neighborhood
meeting.
5
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 19, 2012
Hokkanen: Can I vote on these? Okay.
Generous: Yeah, it’s quick. Planned Unit Development Residential amendments, the public hearing’s
thrd
tonight June 19. It goes to City Council July 23. Little background. We had a neighborhood meeting
st
for these 4 developments on May 31 at the Chanhassen library. Approximately 10 people showed up.
We also have the information on our website and then the meeting notices we directed people to that so I
think that answered a lot of people’s questions. Plus we gave them contact information for city staff so
they could ask us directly if they had any questions. Again some of the houses may not meet the standard
because over time we’ve changed our review processes. Our intent is not to make anyone do anything
right now. To tear anything out. To build anything. It’s for from this point forward we will have the
standards in an ordinance format and everyone will be aware of it rather than staff having to run down
and look up the individual peculiarities for the development that were approved. Nor is this an attempt
for the City to up zone anything. We just want to maintain what’s there so that’s been our goal right now.
As I stated there are 4 planned unit developments that we are reviewing in the western, northwest part of
the city. You have the Woods at Longacres, the Meadows at Longacres, Red Cedar Cove and
Minnewashta Creek. We’ll start with the Meadows at Longacres. This is PUD #92-04. It was approved
in 1992. The underlying zoning for this property which will be cited in the zoning ordinance is the RSF
district. Single family residential. It consists of 4 Additions at the Meadows at Longacres. This property
is located off of Highway 41 and Longacres Drive is an east/west collector road that goes through this. It
actually connects it to the Woods at Longacres which is the development immediately to the east of it. It
consists entirely of single family detached housing. There are significant features on there with
topography and lots of wetlands on site so as you look at the standards that’s probably the biggest part of
the ordinances that they have different setbacks because of wetlands and because of different wetland
buffers and wetland setbacks than our normal, in any other district or any single family residential district.
There are 95 homes in the development. The minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet. Our standard in the
RSF district is 15,000. Minimum lot width is 90 feet and the minimum lot depth is 100 feet. Our
standard in the RSF district is 125. Again we, these standards are for developing the building envelope
on the property and it’s pretty standard 30 foot front, 10 on the sides and 25% hard cover. However it’s
the notes at the bottom that are really unique to this development. We have some 20 foot front yard
setbacks and some 25 foot front yard setbacks. We also have a long compliance table for the wetland
setbacks and so we’re trying to put this all in one ordinance rather than, and we found them in 3 or 4
different files and it took us almost a year to get through that. We are recommending approval of the
PUD-R amendment for the Meadows at Longacres, and if you will, as we’ve done before, we’ve gone
through each of them. Had the public hearing and then at the end if you can make one motion.
Aanenson: …Mr. Chairman, since I don’t see any audience tonight, maybe we could just have one
public hearing.
Aller: One public hearing.
Aanenson: I think we could do that tonight because, since there’s nobody here and then we can, if you
need to go back for the motion pages we can do that but we’ll just kind of go through them all. It might
speed it up a little bit.
Aller: Sounds fine.
Generous: Okay, so if you have any questions on this one?
Aller: No. And seeing no one present let’s move forward to item 1(a)(2) which is Woods at Longacres.
6
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 19, 2012
Generous: This is the Woods at Longacres. It’s Planned Unit Development #92-04. It was also
approved in 1992. The underlying zoning for the development is RSF, which is single family residential.
There are actually 6 Additions to this development. This is located east of the Woods at Longacres on,
it’s primary access is off of Galpin Boulevard. Longacres Drive is east/west collector and Hunter Drive is
just a local street that provides a secondary access into the development. This project also is detached
single family homes. Again the significant features were the wetlands on site and Lake Harrison was
actually a natural environmental lake so I think there’s only like 2 or 3 in the community so setback
requirements. Again the 127 homes were approved as part of this development. The minimum lot size is
11,000 square feet. Minimum lot width is 90 feet and the lot depth is 100 feet. Setbacks were pretty
standard at 30, 10 and 30. However again like the Meadows at Longacres there’s a 9 and a 6 foot setback,
a 20 foot separation that the developer put in so those standards are all still here but again we’re just
putting it into ordinance format. And then the wetland setbacks and buffers were the big issue on that and
there’s again a long table based on the legal description of the property what their requirements are. Hard
cover is 25%. Again the interesting part is the footnotes in that. We have 20 and 25 foot front yard
setbacks as well as the standard 30 feet, and houses accessory structures have to be a 10 foot side setback
and you have a 6 and a 9 foot setback between, for the garage and the house to the property line but a 20
foot separation between buildings and so staff is recommending approval of that amendment to the PUD
to incorporate those standards.
Aller: Does anyone have any questions regarding Woods at Longacres? Hearing none, Minnewashta
Creek.
Generous: Minnewashta Creek. PUD #78-03 was approved in 1978. The underlying zoning is
residential low and medium density, and that’s because of some twin home development within the
project so that was the most consistent zoning that we could follow for a standard, other than what’s in the
standards for Minnewashta Creek. This is located off of Minnewashta Parkway between that and the
State Highway 7. Again it’s a mix of single family detached housing and some twin homes which are
located in this area and this area, at the end of the cul-de-sac. They do have a beachlot as part of the
association. This ordinance does not address any of the association requirements. We don’t expand their
association. That’s a whole separate item. It’s just these properties are all zoned planned unit
development residential so we want to have the zoning standards in the zoning ordinance for that. Again
as you can see there’s quite a variation between each addition. Minimum lot size for the first addition,
20,000 square feet. For the second addition, 12,665 square feet. For the third addition, 8,226 square feet
and for the Minnewashta Creek Hills, which was the final phase of this, it’s a 50,000 square foot lots.
Minimum lot width go from 90 to 45 feet, or 100 to 45 feet. And lot depths are all the same so it’s 125
feet. Setbacks for single family homes are 30 feet. The third addition doesn’t have any and the fourth, or
Minnewashta Creek Hills has a 50 foot front setback but that was to keep it off of Minnewashta Parkway,
and they also are accessed via a private street so that encompasses both of those areas and allows
sufficient driveway off of the private street. Lakeshore setbacks, the first addition is the only one with
lake front property so that’s where the 75 feet come in. Front yard setbacks, 25 feet and 20 in the second
and third addition. Side setbacks are 10 feet which is standard and the rears are 30 feet. It’s 25% site
coverage for all of the developments except for the third addition which is outside of the shoreland area.
Then that is all of it. We want to get it all in one location and as you can see they are very unique and
individualized. Staff is recommending approval of the amendment for Minnewashta Creek PUD.
Aanenson: I think in researching this one we actually found uses that were inconsistent with the zoning
ordinance. Commercial was listed as a permitted use wasn’t it?
Generous: Yeah.
Aanenson: So another reason why to clean it up.
7
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 19, 2012
Aller: Based on the presentation any questions? Having none we’ll move on to Red Cedar Cove.
Generous: Red Cedar Cove, PUD #95-05 approved in 1995. The underlying zoning for this development
was residential low and medium density district. It consists entirely of townhomes. Two unit and
townhouses. It’s located on Minnewashta Parkway and Red Cedar Point Road. There is a beachlot
associated with this and we did incorporate that as part of the ordinance for it, and you can see there’s a
common dock for the association. This is the beachlot area for the development and they did go through
quite a process to get that approved for this project. It was very interesting reading through some of these
old reports and minutes. So it is a townhouse development. One duplex and 4 fourplex townhomes.
Common areas covered under CUP #85-9 and 10. The minimum lot requirements for each of the units
was 2,625 square feet. Minimum lot width is 35 feet and minimum lot depth is 75 feet. There’s a 30 foot
setback from Minnewashta Parkway and 75 foot setback from the lake and internally there are no required
setbacks. Hard surface coverage is 25% but that’s over the entire site including the beachlot. Staff is
recommending approval of the amendment to the PUD for Red Cedar Cove. Be happy to answer any
questions.
Aanenson: I was just going to add Mr. Chairman that on all the ones that had beachlots we did note those
in those so if someone’s calling to find out does this association have a beachlot, we can answer yes and
then we know where to go to find that information. That’s also important in a listing or if a buyer wants
to know, then we can find out, they have to work with the association. That’s a private thing but at least
we can get the information on whether or not there is one or not.
Aller: Great. So this is basically a continuation, phase 4 of what we’ve been doing all along was trying
to make it easier on individuals to be able to see the actual uses which are available to them for their
properties.
Generous: Correct. And codify what was approved as a part of the development contract. We put it into
a zoning ordinance.
Aller: And consistently we have not up zoned any properties?
Generous: Correct.
Aller: Great. Any questions?
Generous: And we are recommending approval of the ordinances amending the planned unit
developments for Meadows at Longacres, Woods at Longacres, Minnewashta Creek and Red Cedar Cove
and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation.
Thomas: Are we going to do them all together?
Aller: What I’m going to do is I’m going to open a public hearing and we’re going to have anyone that
wishes to comment on the presentations for Meadows at Longacres, Woods at Longacres, Minnewashta
Creek or Red Cedar Cove, please step forward. State your name and address for the record and you can
choose to speak on any or all of the items. Seeing no one coming forward, I’m going to close the public
hearing and open the matter for discussion. Any further discussion?
Aanenson: You can make the motion…
Thomas: I was going to, yeah. I’ll make a motion.
8
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 19, 2012
Aller: Thank you.
Thomas: The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the attached ordinances
rezoning the planned unit development residential to incorporate the development standards for Meadows
at Longacres, Woods at Longacres, Minnewashta Creek and Red Cedar Cove and the adoption of the
attached Findings of Facts and Recommendations.
Hokkanen: Second.
Aller: We have a motion and a second. Any comments? Questions?
Thomas moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City Council
approve the attached ordinance rezoning the Planned Unit Development – Residential to
incorporate the development standards for Meadows at Longacres, Woods at Longacres,
Minnewashta Creek and Red Cedar Cove, and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and
Recommendations. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Aanenson: And Mr. Chair, if you could just do the Minutes then we can adjourn.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Thomas noted the verbatim and summary minutes of
the Planning Commission meeting dated June 5, 2012 as presented.
Thomas moved, Hokkanen seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at
8:10 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
9