Loading...
PC 2014 08 19 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 19, 2014 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Lisa Hokkanen, Kim Tennyson, Maryam Yusuf, Steve Weick and Dan Campion STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer; Krista Spreiter, Natural Resources Technician; and Drew Ingvalson, Planning Intern PUBLIC PRESENT: Gary Disch 1401 Park Road Chris & Barb King 960 Carver Beach Road PUBLIC HEARING: VILLAGE SHOPPES OF CHANHASSEN-460 LAKE DRIVE: REQUEST FOR A TH SUBDIVISION TO REPLAT VILLAGES ON THE PONDS 8 ADDITION, AND SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 13,100 SQUARE-FOOT RETAIL BUILDING WITH A VARIANCE FOR SIGNAGE ON 1.45 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) AND LOCATED ON LOT 1, BLOCK 1, VILLAGES ON TH THE PONDS 8 ADDITION, PLANNING CASE 2014-24. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. The item before you, Planning Case 2014-24 is Village Shoppes of Chanhassen. There’s a two part review. The first part is a thth subdivision request. They’re replatting the 8 Addition into the 10 Addition. They’re just shifting lot lines within the development so not a whole lot as part of the subdivision. The second part is, they’re proposing to do site plan review for approximately 13,500 square foot building. Or two buildings on the property. The location is 460 Lake Drive. It’s the northeast corner of Main Street and Lake Drive in Village on the Ponds. It’s just to the west of the Community Bank building so if anyone’s familiar with that area. Again they’re replatting thth Villages on the Ponds 8 Addition and they’re going to call this the 10 Addition. They’re just th adding a little bit of lot area to Lot 2 of the 8 Addition so, and the site plan review is for one story, two buildings, 13,654 square foot retail center. I’ve tried to highlight the area that’s highlighted in red or pink is the area that’s being transferred from one lot to the other and becoming part of the bank building site. It’s part of their agreement to eliminate the underground parking requirement. One of the conditions of approval was that we get verification that that had taken place. That the bank no longer is interested in that and I did receive that this week so we have one condition that’s already been completed. The subdivision, there are no public improvements. We will approve this through a resolution process and then they would just pay their standard utility connection charges when they go to the building permit process and then they pay the GIS fees with the plat. The site plan review, again it’s a two building structure. It’s hard to tell on this but it actually between the two buildings there’s a break in elevation so the southerly building or the building that’s on the right on the picture is a little bit lower than the building on the left. They both are multi-tenant buildings. Materials are Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 19, 2014 brick faced block. Concrete masonry units. Some cultured stone materials and then I have the board I’ll put up after I get to the material board on here. It’s sort of nice, they labeled all these if you can pan out on that. The cultured stone on the back. So we have all the metal materials. They have a brown roof. Standing seam roof material that they’re using. Dark sconces. Metal trim at the parapet edges and then around the window shade would be silver color. This lighter colored building is below the windows. These decorative …units are on the side and then they have brick material. Finally they have EIFS. As part of our review the City Code permits only 15% EIFS as an accent material and they’re slightly higher. We are working with the developer to come up with some alterations in the elevations to get it down to 15%. They can, there’s a lot of different things they can do to make it compliant with ordinance and not a whole lot of change will be visible. You know it’s hard for people to tell 28% from 15% unless you’re looking at a plan set so. Again these could be multi-tenant units. I’ll have the developer go over what they’re proposing to put in here but on the north end there is a restaurant site and then they have multi-tenants throughout the two buildings. The majority of the parking is to the east of the site. They access off of Lake Drive East. It’s a joint access with the bank building. That’s their only driveway in there and then there’s a little one farther to the east, closer to the Lakewinds development so there’s a little circulation. This plan shows the trash enclosure immediately as you come in. We’ve requested that they flip that and turn it on the north side of that parking area. They actually have shown me plans where they can do that and so we’ll see that back of that enclosure there and they’re looking at a roof on their trash enclosure. The one thing is they need to widen that landscape island. It has to be the interior dimension must be 10 feet for landscaping and so we looked at some of the designs that will make that work for them and it will be revisioned before they come in for their building permit. Utility services. Sewer and water are available to the site. This is all served by a stormwater system. They are providing a stormwater connection through their parking lot and for their roof into the stormwater systems so. Landscaping, they’re providing that. It should look down in the southeast corner of the building they’ve added a patio area for a restaurant. We probably are looking at some revisions for pedestrian access to go around the outside of that so that it can be an enclosed area. If a restaurant comes in with a liquor license, then they can have their fencing up and comply with city ordinance. We believe the proposed development complies with city ordinance and so we are recommending approval of the, both the subdivision and the site plan review subject to the conditions of the staff report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendations. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: How are we doing on traffic with the one entrance? Is there a proposed impact or has that been looked at? Generous: Only originally we looked at it. We don’t anticipate that it will be an issue. There could be peak times but. Aller: And then stormwater drainage with the hard coverage. Does it meet the hard cover requirements? Generous: Well the hard cover, within Villages on the Ponds they averaged it over the entire development. In totality they’re probably, if they did the rest of the interior of the project completely hard cover they’d still be only at about 50% so. Aller: Okay and we allow with PUD’s 70%. 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 19, 2014 Generous: Well no, they can go higher. In this instance it’s up to 90% on their specific site. Aller: Okay, so they’re well under it. Generous: But the overall PUD it’s about 50%. Aller: Anyone else? Questions? Undestad: Yeah, just a quick question. The land that went over to Community Bank, was that just to keep the green areas together on there or what was that going on there, do we know? Generous: It’s, well potentially the bank would like in the future to expand and that would be an expansion area for them, and also they’re losing the access to their underground parking so as part of their agreement with VOP. Undestad: Okay. Aller: Any other questions at this point? Campion: There are some comments about minor alterations for flood protection. Do we know what those are? Fauske: Chairman Aller, if I may answer that question. Aller: Please. Fauske: On page 8 of the staff report under the stormwater management section, as Bob indicated that there’s certain regulations requiring the PUD as a whole as far as impervious surface coverage. Since the PUD was originally approved there have been some additional requirements set forth through the State and the PCA and their permitting process so we worked with applicants in order to try to provide some rate control, meaning that even though you’ll have the same volume of water leaving the site as currently, if not more, you try to at least dissipate that drainage off the site so it slowly leaves the site. So the applicant has submitted some calculations and through staff’s review there are a couple of items that came through as some questions in how they ran their model being with the type of soils and it’s simply a matter of getting that, that information ironed out and making sure that they have, as indicated in the staff report, they have an underground filtration system to provide some stormwater treatment and rate control. Aller: Does that answer your question commissioner? Campion: Yes it does. Aller: Thank you. Any other additional? Okay. Would the applicant like to step forward and make a presentation at this time or answer any questions? Give us some information. You can step forward and state your name and address and who you represent. 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 19, 2014 Steve Johnson: Good evening. My name is Steve Johnson. I’m a partner with Solomon Real Estate Group. Address is 1508 Welland Avenue, Minnetonka. Aller: Welcome Mr. Johnson. Steve Johnson: Thank you. Good evening guys. Want to thank you very much for seeing us. This project has been in the works for quite some time with our group and we’re happy to see that it’s finally coming to fruition. As Bob had indicated, and we’ve been working with Bob and Kate to comply with city codes and do that and that’s in the works. I apologize we don’t have those drawings available today. This has been kind of an ebb and flow process up til the last minute here and we are in the process right now of having a redesign on the, to get to the 70% slope roof requirement as well as the 15% EIFS requirement and then as the landscaping plans evolve here too, we’ll work with staff and design that so everything is appropriate. Aller: Great, thank you. Questions. Comments. Great, thank you. Steve Johnson: Thank you. Aller: Okay at this time we’re going to open the public hearing. Does anyone wish to come forward to speak either for or against the item before us? Seeing no one come forward I’m going to go ahead and close the public hearing. Open it up for discussion from the commissioners. Comments. Discussion. Once again it’s a very good report. Very complete. Answered a lot of the questions so we didn’t have any so thank you Bob. And for those of you at home or in the audience, these reports can be found on the Chanhassen website under the Minutes and reports in the planning section so feel free to go ahead and take a look at those either before or after these meetings. I’ll entertain a motion if there’s no other. Undestad: I’ll make a motion. Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City th Council approve the subdivision replatting Villages on the Ponds 8 Addition and site plan review for a one story, two building, 13,654 square foot retail center subject to the conditions of the staff report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Campion: Second. Aller: I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Questions, comments. Undestad moved, Campion seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the subdivision re-platting Villages on the th Ponds 8 Addition; and Site Plan Review for a one-story, two-building, 13,654 square-foot retail center subject to the following conditions and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation: Subdivision 1.Before the final plat is recorded the $45 GIS fee must be paid. 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 19, 2014 Site Plan Building 1.Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 2.The building(s) are required to have automatic fire extinguishing systems. Water supply for the fire suppression system must comply with NFPA 13 (specifically, see restriction/requirements for pipes under buildings). 3.Retaining walls over four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a permit must be obtained prior to construction. 4.Structure proximity to property lines and other buildings will have an impact on the code requirements for the proposed buildings, including but not limited to, allowable size, protected openings and fire-resistive construction. These requirements will be addressed when complete building and site plans are submitted. 5.Detailed occupancy-related requirements will be addressed when complete building plans are submitted. 6.The owner and/or their representative shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon as possible to discuss building proximity issues as well as plan review and permit procedures Engineering 1.The applicant must obtain the necessary agreement for the shared access between Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Villages on the Pond Tenth Addition. 2.Some of the sidewalk adjacent to the site is damaged and shall be replaced with the site improvements. 3.The proposed 8” ductile iron watermain on the east side of the building shall be privately owned and maintained. 4.The developer shall work with the small utility companies to ensure that any conflicts are resolved. 5.The grading plan must be revised to include proposed spot elevations on the patio on the northeast corner of the building on Lot 1 and the green area on the west side of Lot 2. Fire Marshal 1.“No Parking Fire Lane” signs and yellow painted curb will be required. The builder shall contact the Chanhassen Fire Marshal for specific areas. 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 19, 2014 2.There are specific codes relating to the installation of underground water mains under buildings. The builder will need to submit specific plans to the Chanhassen Building Department and Fire Department for review and approval. 3.A three-foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants. Planning 1.The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. 2.The developer shall provide the city with an acknowledgement from Community Bank waiving their right to access for their underground garage area. 3.The material for the trash enclosure should reflect the building design and building materials. The trash enclosure shall be shifted to the north with the gates facing north. 4.The building elevation must be revised to reduce the amount of E.I.F.S. to 15 percent. 5.Sloped roof elements shall be a minimum 70 percent of roof area. Revise the building elevations to incorporate additional sloped roof features. 6.The developer should verify the placement of the light poles along Main Street to allow pedestrian passage. 7.Additional benches should be provided as well as a bike rack. 8.The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to show the treed parking lot island with a minimum inner width of 10 feet. Water Resources 1.Prior to issuing a building permit, the hydrologic model shall be amended to include hydrologic soils group B unless adequate evidence can be provided showing that the USDA soil survey information is incorrect. 2.An operations and maintenance manual, stating anticipated inspections and maintenance and including the responsible party, the schedule of these activities and the methodology of reporting to the city, shall be prepared and submitted to the city for review and approval prior to issuing a building permit. 3.The applicant shall discuss potential opportunities for infiltration or volume reduction and incorporate where practicable to do so or provide reasons deemed satisfactory to city staff why these practices are not being proposed. 4.A detail sheet showing all proposed erosion prevention and sediment control best management practices shall be included with the final plan set. 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 19, 2014 5.Inlet protection on all existing catch basins downstream of the disturbance area and adjacent to traffic routing. This includes the catch basin which the system is intended to tie into as well as the four (4) catch basins near the entrance. 6.All turf areas shall have a minimum of 6 inches of topsoil placed prior to seeding or sodding. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: LAKE MINNEWASHTA REGIONAL PARK: REQUEST FOR A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE LAKE MINNEWASHTA REGIONAL PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ON 10.37 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR) AND LOCATED AT 6900 HAZELTINE BOULEVARD. APPLICANT/OWNER: CARVER COUNTY, PLANNING CASE 2014- 23. Spreiter: Good evening Chairman Aller and commissioners. As stated the Carver County Parks Department has submitted an application for the proposed Lake Minnewashta Regional Park Improvements Project Wetland Alteration Permit. I’ll be giving a short overview of the project tonight and then we’ll go over the proposed impacts and the associated requirements set forth by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act and the City’s Wetland Alteration Permit and Conditional Use criteria. The project is located entirely within Lake Minnewashta Regional Park located in Chanhassen. The project includes paving the current gravel surface access roads within the park. Expanding one of the existing boat launches and constructing a bypass lane and turn around at the park entrance. The park is currently experiencing unsafe conditions and erosion due to the park’s gravel surface access roads. The park also occasionally experiences back up’s onto Highway 41 at the park entrance creating unsafe conditions for motorists and users. The goal of the project is to improve safety and accessibility for users as well as to decrease the erosion that is being caused by runoff from the existing gravel roadway surface. The project is expected to begin in September of 2014 with substantial completion by October of 2015. Wetland impacts are proposed for Wetlands G and H shown in orange to accommodate the improvements and expansion of the existing boat launch and resulting trail realignment. Wetland G would be eliminated with the current proposal as it lies entirely within the proposed boat launch area. Proposed wetland impacts to both wetland basins total five hundredths of an acre or approximately 2,000 square feet. Wetland G is located within the proposed boat launch and just south and east of the existing boat launch. It is classified as a type 2 fresh wet meadow wetland and has not been classified under the City’s classification system. Wetland H is located just south of the existing boat launch area and is also classified as a type 2 wetland. It is not currently classified under the City’s classification system. As previously stated Wetland G would be eliminated as part of the proposed project. The current trail alignment intersects Wetland H and as part of the proposed project this portion of the trail would be removed and the area would be restored to wetland. The trail would be realigned to skirt the southern edge of this wetland resulting in 1,212 square feet of impact. The applicant is not seeking credit for the restored area but would like this effort to be recognized as a minimization measure. The applicant has chosen to meet the watershed district’s Wetland Protection Rule. This rule requires that a buffer be provided for all wetlands adjacent to the project area for that part of the wetland edge that is down-gradient from the project. The District’s rule is more stringent than the City’s Wetland Protection Ordinance which resulted in buffer creation for 5 wetlands. This table looks 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 19, 2014 at the watershed district requirements for each wetland buffer that is to be created. And this is Wetland F, one of the wetlands that will receive a buffer as shown in the project plans. These are the plan sets for the turn around and bypass lane, which also show the provided buffers for Wetlands E and A. A series of infiltration basins and a stormwater pond are proposed within the boat launch area to provide water quality treatment for the approximate half of an acre of additional impervious surface that is proposed as a result of the project. The Wetland Conservation Act requires the applicant to list at least two alternatives to the proposed project that would avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands or waters, one of which may be no build or do nothing. The applicant then must list and explain why the option in the application was chosen over these alternatives. The first alternative given was to explore alternate road alignments. The current proposal was chosen over this alternative to avoid wetland impacts to Wetlands B, C, E and F. Initial design of the road at the entrance to the park also resulted in impacts to Wetland A. The design was changed to include a retaining wall in this location to avoid impacts to this wetland. The second alternative was realignment of the proposed boat launch. The current location and alignment of the proposed boat launch was chosen over Alternative 2 to avoid significant impacts to the wooded area north of the parking lot and to avoid completely realigning the road to the south. The applicant also provided impact minimization and avoidance measures as required by the Wetland Conservation Act within the application. These efforts included wetland restoration in conjunction with the trail realignment. Constructing the trail in a way that would minimize wetland impacts due to slope and use for retaining wall adjacent to Wetland A. As a part of the proposed park improvements project the applicant is required to mitigate for any wetland impacts at a 2 to 1 ratio. The proposed five hundredths of an acre of wetland impact are to be replaced using wetland bank credits purchased from account number 1375. This wetland bank is in the same bank service area and major watershed as the proposed project. As the applicant has sufficiently met the sequencing requirements for the Wetland Conservation Act and made adequate efforts to minimize impacts where possible, staff is recommending approval of the Lake Minnewashta Regional Park Improvements Project Wetland Alteration Permit and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. That is all for my presentation tonight and I would be happy to take any questions at this time. Aller: So I just want to clarify, in reading this tremendous report which is about 50 pages. Again you can find it on the website. I get the idea that we’re trading off some hard cover, some repair and then we’re going to get less impairment ultimately in our water system. Spreiter: Yes that is one of the benefits is the reduction in erosion due to the replacement of the gravel surface with the paved surface. Campion: What is done with the existing launch site because it’s moved over right from the new one? Spreiter: Well it’s, for the most part it will be placed over the existing as well as expanded. So I don’t think that there is anything, any kind of remediation or major remediation that needs to be done with the old launch. That’s my understanding. Campion: Okay. Weick: Can you clarify just the idea of the credits and how that works. I just don’t understand. 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 19, 2014 Spreiter: Sure. So the requirement is that they have to mitigate for the size of the wetland that is impacted or the area of the wetland that is impacted at a 2 to 1 ratio and they can do that in a couple of ways. One is mitigation by creating a wetland on site. More often what applicants do is they buy credits or buy acreage basically from a bank site which is a wetland that has been created or preserved for that purpose. Weick: Okay. Aller: And in this case the bank is in the same location. Spreiter: Yeah, so one of the mitigation requirements to get that 2 to 1 ratio because otherwise they may have to mitigate more is that that wetland bank that they buy from has to be in the same bank service area and major watershed. Aller: And as a result of the motion we’re actually increasing our buffers around. Spreiter: Correct. Aller: The water correct. Spreiter: Yep, yep. The existing buffers. There already is some buffers within the park but they will be enhanced and expanded as a part of this project. And then there is that, even though they’re not seeking credit for it, there is that restoration that will happen. I think that is over 600 square feet. Aller: Anything? Anything else? Alright. Yusuf: Looks like a nice improvement. Aller: I’m going to open up the public hearing portion of the meeting. Anyone wishing to come forward to speak either for or against the item can do so at this time. Have any questions? Alright. We’ll close the public hearing. Again it’s open for discussion or comment. Hokkanen: I have to say it’s a nice improvement for the area. If you’ve ever gone down there. Aller: There’ll be some great trade-offs. I’ll entertain a motion. Hokkanen: Okay, it’s a wordy one. Spreiter: I apologize. Hokkanen: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #2014-23 and WCA Permit #2014-03 to impact .05 acres of wetland and the wetland replacement plan under the Minnesota Rules Chapter 8420 which utilizes the purchase of .1 acres of wetland credit from bank #1375 for the purpose of the proposed Lake Minnewashta Regional Park Improvements Project and authorize the Water Resources Coordinator to sign the joint water resource application for approval of wetland replacement as 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 19, 2014 shown in plans dated July 22, 2014, subject to the conditions within the staff report and the adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: Thank you. I have a motion. Do I have a second? Tennyson: I’ll second. Aller: Having a motion by Commissioner Hokkanen and a second by Commissioner Tennyson. Any further discussion? Hokkanen moved, Tennyson seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Wetland Alteration Permit #2014-23 and WCA Permit #2014-03 to impact .05 acres of wetland and the wetland replacement plan under the Minnesota Rules Chapter 8420 which utilizes the purchase of .1 acres of wetland credit from bank #1375 for the purpose of the proposed Lake Minnewashta Regional Park Improvements Project; and authorize the Water Resources Coordinator to sign the joint water resource application for approval of wetland replacement as shown in plans dated July 22, 2014, subject to the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation: 1.Wetland replacement shall occur in a manner consistent with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (MR 8420). The applicant shall receive the City’s approval of a wetland replacement plan prior to any wetland impact occurring. 2.Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, maintained and/or created around all existing wetlands in compliance with Sections 20-401 – 20-421 of Chanhassen City Code. 3.The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, e.g. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minnesota Board of Soil and Water Resources and Army Corps of Engineers and comply with their conditions of approval. 4.The applicant must submit a Bill of Sale for Wetland Banking Credits to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources signed by both the buyer and seller of designated wetland credits. 5.The applicant must obtain, and the City must have received copy of an Application for Withdrawal of Wetland Credits from the Minnesota Wetland Bank signed and approved by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources prior to any impacts. 6.A signed Landowner Statement and Contractor Responsibility form shall be provided to the City prior to commencement of activity. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 19, 2014 PUBLIC HEARING: 1380 PARK ROAD: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW SCREENED OUTDOOR STORAGE ON PROPERTY ZONED INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK (IOP) AND LOCATED AT 1380 PARK ROAD (NORTHEAST CORNER OF PARK ROAD AND PARK PLACE). APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: MG, LLC, PLANNING CASE 2014-22. Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. Planning Case #2014-22 is a Conditional Use Permit for outdoor storage. The developer is MG, LLC. They are a contractor in the community and they do, they own the property. Previously they came in and did some grading to the site. If you’ve been out there they already have the berming in place and so as part of this they’d be adding landscaping and some fencing in this. This property is located at the northeast corner of Park Road and Park Place. It is an existing parking lot area that was built to provide overflow parking for the property just to the south of it across Park Road. Aerial view of the site. There is stormwater treatment on the property, or stormwater facilities on the property and that was part of the discussion as part of our review of this. At one time there was, where soil was stored on the property. They have removed all of that and the applicant has advised me that they don’t intend to put any more soil on that site so. Let’s see, here’s a schematic of the access will be from Park Road. The driveway into the site, they are proposing to put a security gate in place and then they would have fencing along the eastern property line so that people can’t take trailers off the site without getting through the fencing. Here’s a picture of it as you’re going west on Park Road. You can see some of the equipment on the property currently. Not a whole lot of landscaping. The berming has greened up pretty well with the, the one condition that we have as part of the landscaping is that they change some of the shrubs from perennial, annual type leafing to evergreen trees or evergreen and so we’ll have them work with the City Forester to improve that screening so it’s more year round basis. There is a dirt pile that used to be on the property. It’s now gone and it’s not going to be there and actually one of the conditions of approval is that they can’t have it. If they do then they have to block up the stormwater system in there so. Here’s a picture of the fencing that will be at the main gate. It will be lockable so that they can secure their equipment and materials on site. Staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit for screened outdoor storage at 1380 Park Road subject to the conditions in the staff report and adoption of Findings of Fact and Recommendations. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: Bob under the Code, the screening has to be opaque? Generous: Well it has to be, yes. Screening you can’t see through it so. Aller: Right. Generous: It could be landscaping. Aller: So it’s not just slat, like slat every other one or. Generous: No. It has to be completely that you can’t see what’s behind there. And the berming does most of the screening for the site. It’s just the, at the very top of it, it will help to, for the taller equipment. 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 19, 2014 Aller: And then they’re going to work with the City’s Forester on the evergreens? Generous: Right. Coming up with an appropriate plan for that and species. Aller: Any additional questions? Weick: For point of clarification. Are we approving the idea of screening the area or the idea of storing stuff outside? Or both. Generous: Well it’s both. Screened outdoor storage. Weick: It is? Generous: So it would allow them to, the use is storage but. Weick: So we don’t care what type of things they put in there? Generous: Well we do. We want them to provide us with a list of the materials that are going to be out there and of course one of the conditions is they can’t have hazardous materials stored outside so. Weick: Right. Generous: They are putting that list together for us and that will be one of the things that we review annually as part of our continuing conditional use permit reviews. Aller: So if they violate the terms of conditions of the use permit then the City will come in and we’ll remove the permit and. Generous: Yes. We could through the public hearing process Council could revoke that and they can take everything off. Weick: So does the, and I might have missed it. Does the screening have to completely hide anything that’s stored back there? Or can it be above the screening? Generous: Well generally yes. It’s supposed to screen everything but if they make a good faith effort to screen it up 10 feet, you know if you see the very top of something it’s not going to be too bad. Weick: Okay. Aanenson: I just want to remind you too, I think the equipment’s coming and going. It’s used for the business so it’s not. Weick: They’re in and out of there. 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 19, 2014 Aanenson: Yeah, it’s not like, we do have another business that has outdoor storage and that’s down on Stoughton Avenue where things sit out there you know for longer periods of time so in this circumstance equipment is coming and going so. Aller: Thanks. Additional questions? Comments. Okay. If the applicant would like to step forward and state your name and address for the record sir. Welcome. Gary Disch: Good evening Chairman, commissioners. My name is Gary Disch with Magney Construction. Also MG, LLC and we’re applying. Bob pretty much said everything. The dirt is gone. We don’t anticipate any, we aren’t going to put any dirt back on there. No hazardous waste. It is you know construction equipment. Excavators. Dump trucks. Trailers. So, and we’re going to be working with staff with our landscape architect to make sure the evergreens, whatever they need. Aller: Okay, thank you. So my understanding would be there’s not going to be a bunch of oil drums out there. Gary Disch: None. Aller: And being stored for maintenance purposes or. Gary Disch: No. No, we won’t be changing oil over there. Aller: And the conditions, the conditions that I understand the way the motion will be if it’s approved, if there is dirt put back on you’re not precluded necessarily from doing that but there will be additional requirements. Gary Disch: Yeah and the only reason why there was dirt on there in the first place is we repaired our driveway on the other side of the road last fall when it rained and rained and rained. Well we put it in and it rained and rained. We had to take it back out. We put it over there because it was too wet to do anything with so we brought new stuff in and that was left over but now it’s gone. We don’t ever anticipate, we’re not a huge dirt contractor. We don’t want to bring it back to our shop and handle it again. Aller: Right, thank you. Any additional questions or comments? Thank you sir. Gary Disch: Thank you. Aller: At this time we’ll open the public hearing portion of this item. Anyone wishing to speak either for or against can do so at this time. Again seeing no one come forward, closing the public hearing and open for additional comments or questions. Again the report covers it all. No pun intended. I’ll entertain a motion. Tennyson: I’ll make a motion. Aller: Thank you Commissioner Tennyson. 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 19, 2014 Tennyson: I’ll move that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit for screened outdoor storage located at 1380 Park Road subject to the conditions in the staff report and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Campion: Second. Aller: Is that Commissioner Campion? Campion: Yes. Aller: Thank you. I have a second. Any further discussion? Tennyson moved, Campion seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit #2014-22 to allow screened outdoor storage in an IOP District for MG, LLC, located on Lot 1, Block 2, th Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 5 Addition as shown on the plans dated received July 18, 2014, subject to the following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation: Planning 1.A Conditional Use Permit shall be recorded at Carver County. 2.No unlicensed or inoperable vehicle/equipment shall be stored on the premises. Water Resources Coordinator 1.All stockpiled materials must have adequate perimeter control. 2.The existing catch basin must be protected at all times from having sediment enter. The applicant must demonstrate how this will be accomplished to the satisfaction of the City. 4.Access to the catch basin must be provided at all times for the City or their representatives. 5.The applicant must provide a detailed description of the anticipated materials to be stored on- site. No materials considered hazardous may be stored there. 6.No maintenance or refueling of vehicles may occur in the storage area. 7.Any leaks or spills must be cleaned up immediately and, if these spills exceed state threshold, must be reported to the State Duty Officer. 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 19, 2014 City Forester 1.The applicant shall revise the landscape plan to replace the majority of the deciduous shrubs with evergreen varieties. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: 3880 LONE CEDAR LANE: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO THE BLUFF SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A WATER-ORIENTED STRUCTURE ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 3880 LONE CEDAR LANE. APPLICANT/OWNER: SCOTT MURPHY, PLANNING CASE 2014-20. Aller: And for the record we’ve received an additional letter to add to our packets dated August 12, 2014 from Mr. William Humphries and that has been read by all the commissioners and will become part of the packet. Ingvalson: Good evening Chairman Aller and Planning Commission. My name is Drew Ingvalson, since I don’t have a name tag I’ll introduce myself. My name is Drew Ingvalson. I’m interning here at the City of Chanhassen. The item before you, Planning Case 2014-20 is a bluff setback variance request. The location is at 3880 Lone Cedar Lane. This is north of State Highway 5, on the southwest side of Lake Minnewashta. The applicant is requesting a 13 foot bluff setback variance from the required 30 foot bluff setback to locate a water oriented structure 17 feet from the toe or the low side of the bluff. So if you look at the survey up there, there currently is a shed existing on the property that will be removed with the, with locating a new water oriented structure on the property. In green you can see a 20 foot sanitary sewer easement. Permanent structures are not allowed within that easement. Also there is a red line on the left side of that green 20 foot sanitary sewer easement. That shows the 30 foot bluff setback and then in yellow is the yellow rectangle is the proposed water oriented structure location. The left side would be within that bluff setback. The property owner is requesting a variance for this location so that the water oriented structure can be permanent and is not in danger of being removed in the future by the City. Within 500 feet of this property there have been three variance requests. One of those requests was approved for a 10 foot bluff setback variance for a retaining wall. So while it is reasonable to request a water oriented structure, it is possible for this property to have one and also meet city code. Staff’s recommendation is to locate a temporary water oriented structure within the buildable area. You can see the location for that would be the rectangle in blue and then the buildable area is the black diagonal lines within the sanitary sewer easement. To locate something within that sanitary sewer easement it would require an encroachment agreement with the City. This would City ordinance but would not allow for the permanent structure and would possibly need to be removed by the City in the future. So staff is recommending that the Board of Appeals and Adjustment denies the bluff setback variance request and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision. However should the Planning Commission decide to approve the variance request, staff has provided an alternative Findings of Fact and Decision. That is the end of the presentation and I’m open to any questions that the Planning Commission has. 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 19, 2014 Aller: Thank you. Any questions at this point? Not yet? Okay. I guess I’ll ask about the previous variance for the retaining wall. What was the purpose of the retaining wall? Was it for erosion or protection of water or? Ingvalson: I don’t have that written here. Apologize. Aller: Okay. And then what do we envision a temporary structure looking like? Ingvalson: It’s going to be on 18 by 12 foot structure just to hold in different kayaks, canoes, different water. Aller: Would it be on wheels? Would it be on blocks? Ingvalson: So if it is outside it will be a permanent structure. The proposed one will be outside of that so it will be with a permanent structure there with footings. If it’s located within the sanitary sewer area it will be on skids. Aller: So it would be on skids. And then what is the likelihood that we, if we have in the past, that we’ve come in and actually asked someone to remove something or done work inside our easement area for the sewer? Is that something, do we have planned maintenance coming up in the next couple years? Did we look, I mean is it something we should be looking at? Fauske: That’s an excellent question. Every year the City does do televising of the sanitary sewer system within the city. Since we have an extensive network we only cover a fraction of the percentage of the sewer within the city. Typically we go and televise the sanitary sewer within an area that we will be doing a street project. Those take priority to make sure that we’re maintaining the pipe underneath the streets that we are going to do some improvements on. So we don’t have, to my knowledge we don’t have this one on the docket as far as getting any sewer televising done in there. That being said in an emergency situation, which has happened in the past where crews have had to go out and do an emergency fix, they do have equipment out there that we would be able to move a structure within the easement and that’s what the easement allows us to do. Aller: Additional questions at this time? Okay. We’ll ask the applicant to step forward and perhaps give us some insight as well. If you could state your name and address for the record that would be great. Scott Murphy: Good evening. My name is Scott Murphy. I live at 3880 Lone Cedar Lane. It’s Chaska, although I am actually a Chanhassen resident. It’s in city limits there. Don’t hold that against me. I appreciate you hearing me tonight. I’m impressed with all this discussion for a little back yard shed so I’m requesting a shed here. I’m just going to read off my notes real quickly. To put a boathouse in the back yard here. I’m recognizing that we are going to incringe on, or impinge upon the setback requirements of 15 feet from the lake and 30 feet from the bluff. Normally I wouldn’t have a problem with meeting that if it wasn’t the fact that it was really setting up in the sewer easement. For me that’s really not an ideal scenario. If I’m going to build a shed and 12 by 18 feet is a decent size, I’d prefer not to put that on skids. The fact is you may or may not have seen some of the pictures that we sent but that’s not a flat or level area where you’re putting it on. There’s about a 2 or 3 foot drop over that, that 12 to 18 foot section 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 19, 2014 you’re putting it on so to put skids on that area and to probably expect it to maintain level access, or a level base to it is I think probably unlikely with the way our weather and our conditions go seasonally. My other concern here is also access into the shed. Now you’ve got to be able to get in and out of this shed and presuming we put some sort of a garage door in, I’m entering in, if I place it on that sloped area, in an unlevel surface so I’ve got to find some way to make that work and also if I’m going to put it on wooden skids there I’m also going to probably have a much shorter lifespan for a shed as far as versus putting it on a permanent concrete foundation and for me the feasibility of putting the money and the time and the effort into making a shed that you know 5 or 10 years from now I’m going to have to replace the floor or the lower areas, it’s not ideal. I certainly you as well as I can find better ways to spend your money than to replace your shed every 10 or 12 years. Now the setback that I’m proposing here still doesn’t impinge directly upon, on the base. We’re well, we’re 17 feet away from the base. As the picture shows I’m also not really removing any significant vegetation. It’s already a mowed and grassy area where I would be moving it to so we shouldn’t have any further concerns regarding erosion or a breakdown of the surface area as well. It’s not really intrusive upon the environment. I shouldn’t be affecting local drainage. We also I know have hard cover concerns and we’re well below the total percentage of hard cover within the property as well including the shed area. We’re allowed a 250 square foot shed. This shed is only 216 square feet. Total hard cover limitation for the property is 25%. Even with the addition of this shed we’re only at 19.4% of total coverage so we’re well below the maximal area there. Any construction that we’re going to have occurring along the area should have minimal impingement because we already have a paver pathway. You can kind of see from the picture that we have up there, all the way down there so there shouldn’t be any damage to the local environment for bringing of construction materials down as well so I don’t see any significant issues with that. In fact in speaking with the builder he thinks that most of the shed will be pre-built and just hauled down in sections and constructed pretty quickly. As far as the concrete base or foundation, we think we can get a pumper truck in and run the tube right down and place the floating foundation so that should have minimal impingement on the environment as far as the construction as well. Construction of the shed obviously we’re allowed a water oriented structure and that does follow precedent for what goes on with the lake. I have brought examples if you’re interested of other sheds that are both closer to the lake and built within the, in the base of the slope in multiple areas even right next to our home and are shortly or a short distance away from it so there is precedent where this sort of thing has been done in the past and I don’t know if permits or variances were required or permitted or if they were just built without previous notification but needless to say I guess I don’t think my request here is an unreasonable one and we wouldn’t even be having this discussion if it weren’t for the sewer easement issue. We would have just put the shed up and moved on our way but I’m hoping you can see if that’s possible to, we can work around that. Aller: So when you say, I’d love to take a look at the pictures. If you want to put them up, that’s fine. And then while you’re doing that, did you have the opportunity to talk to the owners of the properties where you took the pictures or got the pictures so we know, are these sheds in a sewer easement or is it different? Scott Murphy: These sheds are not in a sewer easement. I have pictures of them on each side. This is the, show it here? Aanenson: Yep. 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 19, 2014 Scott Murphy: So here’s the proposed build site that we’re looking at here. So if you look closely you can see it’s already a grassy area. Now if you were to slide about 12 to 13 feet further down we’d be in that sloped area that’s working it’s way down to the lake. You’re obviously closer to the lake but we’re on that sloped area and the sewer easement tends to run right across this area right here. There’s a manhole cover actually on the property over there and then another manhole cover there and the sewer runs right parallel to that right underneath that so I know exactly where they’re talking about. I’m just talking about pushing it a little further up here in an area that’s already mowed. There is, I’m sure you’ve seen the picture, the foundation of the shed is a very simple 12 by 18 structure. Aller: Did you talk about materials? Is it going to be a metal shed? Wood shed? Scott Murphy: No, okay. There’s pictures of it in there. It’s going to, similar to the architecture of the home. It’s a shingled shed. Asphalt shingles and cedar shingle siding. I’ve got one more picture. That would be the view from the lake side. What you would see. So there’d be a door, window and a side door garage entrance. As far as similar sheds, this is a similar shed that’s 2 houses to the south of us that’s built into the base or bluff of the hill. This is a similar shed just north of us. Our next door neighbor. Again built right into the bluff or the base of the hill as well and if you go further north about a half a dozen houses this is another boat house that’s about 5 houses up built closer to the lakeshore as well so there is precedence for sheds being built closer to the lake as well as into the bluff base so what I’m asking is actually neither of those. Not closer to the lake or actually into the bluff but into a buildable area that’s out of the sewer easement. Any questions? Aller: Anything else? Additional questions? Thank you sir. Scott Murphy: You’re welcome. Thank you for hearing me tonight. Aller: Okay we’re going to open the public hearing portion of the meeting. Anyone wishing to speak for or against this item can do so at this time. Seeing no one come forward, again I’ll close the public hearing and open it for comments. Discussion. Campion: I’m curious if there’s any more detail on what the detrimental effects on the natural resources of it being in the proposed area. I saw a statement to that effect in the Findings of Fact but not. Not any further explanation on what is that detrimental effect they’re trying to avoid. Aller: Do we have any information on that? Detrimental impacts on the water. Fauske: Chairman Aller? Aller: Yes. Fauske: If I might provide some clarification for the Planning Commission. On page 3 of the staff report it indicates on the front, the top paragraph that the reason for the bluff setback is to protect the bluff from erosion due to removal of the tree canopy and vegetation, redirection of surface drainage and increase of flow rates and volumes on the bluff. Campion: But this shed would not remove any trees or canopy right? 18 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 19, 2014 Fauske: Yes, that’s also noted in the second part of that paragraph. Regarding minimal vegetation removal with regards to this proposal. Campion: Okay. Aller: Additional thoughts? I think it’s. Yusuf: Can I ask one question? Aller: Absolutely. Yusuf: A question for city staff. Are there any other options or any other variances that could allow the applicant to build the shed that he’s requesting given the precedent set by the neighboring houses? Ingvalson: No, if he was to have a permanent shed like he’s proposing this is, there isn’t any other locations that would be any better than this one. Yusuf: Okay. Aanenson: Let me answer that a little bit differently. I think one of the questions that, because it’s not impacting the bluff itself but there’s still the setback from the bluff and then you could look at, what are the unique characteristics of this property and the sewer line becomes a unique characteristic so if you look at is there any unusual circumstances or hardship. We can’t address the other issues that were put on with the other boat houses. We don’t have information that those were, how those were permitted at the time that they were constructed but you can see there’s a lot of different iterations. That’s why you know our first choice is try to preserve the bluff but that’s why we did give the additional Findings of Fact because there is some of the unique characteristics of this property and that is implication of the, you don’t want to build the structure over the sewer line. Aller: And there’s no guarantee that next winter we don’t have a major freeze and a break and you have to tear out what’s been put in. Undestad: Kate how many, how wide is that sewer easement? I mean if he’s got his house right down to the edge of the sewer easement. Aanenson: I’ll let Alyson address that. Typically they like setbacks from the easement. Fauske: I believe the sewer easement is 20 feet wide which is a standard sewer easement given a standard depth of sewer to allow the crew adequate space to both get a safe trench, boxing it and then area also for the equipment and the soil piles as well. Undestad: So there’s 20 feet of grass from where he wants to put his boat house? 19 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 19, 2014 Fauske: As shown in the plan it looks like if he went right up to the proposed edge of the easement, the sanitary sewer would be 10 feet from the edge of that. Of the proposed location to where the actual sewer line is. Aller: And that 10 feet would be from the buildable area as marked here with? Fauske: Correct. It would be from the edge of the building to the sewer would be approximately 10 feet based on what I’m seeing in the staff report. Undestad: And the bluff, setting back into the bluff and we want to control erosion from the bluff. I mean where he’s at right there down as low as he can get to the lake without being in the easement area, I guess, I mean to me I’m kind of looking at you know and the way he’s proposed it, I mean he wants to do everything right to preserve everything down there but I don’t know. I’m kind of thinking it should go there rather than on the easement. Yusuf: I agree. Undestad: And move things around all the time. Aller: So when we look at, when we look at variances though, if you can accomplish the task without the need for a variance and you can put it on skids. Undestad: Yeah. I don’t think you’d get. Aller: It’s not a perfect resolution but it works. Undestad: Right. Hokkanen: The easement kind of creates as a hardship itself though because if you build it on the, you know you could have to move it. I don’t know. Undestad: And it’s not going to last. Hokkanen: Right so I, this one’s unique. Tennyson: Very. Hokkanen: Because I think the applicant is proposing a good solution for the easement. For him it’s not really impacting the bluff. I mean its flat land. I guess I need a little clarification if he was to put it where it’s proposing what is the detrimental impact of the, to the bluff. To the setback. I mean is there any findings? I didn’t see anything in here that really. Weick: Well it doesn’t appear that it would. Hokkanen: Right. Weick: I mean if I read this it says it can be completed without increasing erosive conditions. 20 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 19, 2014 Hokkanen: Right. Weick: I interrupt that to mean if it’s built on the proposed site as a permanent structure there would be very little. Hokkanen: Impact. Weick: Impact to the bluff. If I’m reading that incorrectly I’d like to be corrected but I, to me it would be preferred to have a permanent structure on that graded, that grade of land right? That flat land as opposed to a temporary structure on a hill. Just from, I just think it’s a better option. That would be my opinion. With little to no impact to the bluff which is our major concern. Tennyson: Is that the concern though? I mean it meets practical difficulties. Aanenson: Someone could just float a motion and you can see. Tennyson: One direction or the other. Aller: Any further discussion on it? Does anybody have any questions or? Everybody has a vote in mind so I’ll entertain a motion. Undestad: Well I think they kind of gave us a just in case anyway. Hokkanen: It’s definitely unique. Weick: I’ll propose a motion. Aller: Go ahead. Yusuf: Which one? Weick: Motion to approve. The Chanhassen Planning Commission acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves Planning Case #2014-20 for a 13 foot setback variance to allow a water oriented structure on property zoned Single Family Residential District. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Aanenson: Can I just get clarification on the motion Chairman? I’m assuming you also wanted to add with conditions of Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Weick: With the conditions of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aanenson: Thank you. Undestad: I’ll second. Aller: I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? I guess one of my questions would be to discuss this a little bit further is, is there a way to reduce the setback and make sure 21 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 19, 2014 that we’re really minimalizing it. If we’re going to have a motion like this that we minimalize the impact. Weick: You mean with a smaller structure? Aller: It could be a smaller structure. It could be the setback that goes to the very edge of the bluff setback so it’s only the minimal amount that is needed or is required to allow them to move forward. And where would that line be? Aanenson: Chairman I think we’re pretty confident that’s where we located it. I think if your condition is going to, are there other things we can do to mitigate, drainage coming off the bluff. I think that’s something we can look at and make that, if that’s one of your conditions that we can work to see if we need to provide something there to, if there’s runoff in that area. If it’s concentrated or something that we could look at something there. But we believe that that’s the spot. Aller: That’s the spot. Aanenson: With least amount of impact, correct. Aller: And our hardship is in reality this, the easement. Does anybody have any thoughts on runoff or erosion created by the building or an accessory structure? Okay. Tennyson: If you look at it it’s meeting all of the requirements in the findings for the variance then I’m not sure you have to look beyond that. Aller: Alright, I have a motion and a second. All those in favor. Weick moved, Undestad seconded the Chanhassen Planning Commission acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a variance from the bluff setback requirements to allow a 18 foot by 12 foot water oriented structure 17 feet from the toe of a bluff on property zoned Single Family Residential District (RSF), Planning Case 2014-20 and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. All voted in favor, except Chairman Aller who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 960 CARVER BEACH ROAD: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITATION TO CONSTRUCT A DRIVEWAY ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 960 CARVER BEACH ROAD. APPLICANT/OWNER: CHRISTOPHER & BARBARA KING, PLANNING CASE 2014-21. Aanenson: Thank you Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. This item, 960 Carver Beach Road, Planning Case 2014-21. The applicants are Christopher and Barbara King. The location is Carver Beach and as I mentioned 960 off of Carver Beach Road. This item did appear before the Planning Commission in, excuse me was approved in August 12, 2013. The City Council approved a variance for hard cover of 5.8 percent to allow for a total hard cover of 22 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 19, 2014 30.8 with the following conditions of approval. They provide a tree survey. The building be limited to a split level or two story design and the builder apply for a building permit. All those were accomplished and the buyer bought this lot and moved forward with the building permit. Meeting the setback requirements and meeting the hard surface requirement. But as the as-built survey came through it was determined you know to meet the 30.8 percent impervious requirement that the driveway was rather sculpted in a way that didn’t make it very efficient for the applicant to or the owner to get into the third stall garage. Again it met all the requirements but in practicality it did get permitted through the planning office and unfortunately this isn’t the type of driveway that we would approve like this and it did go through that way. 10 feet at the narrowest part and then getting to that sharp corner, and I’ll show again illustratively when you look at that picture from here. Difficult to get in and again a 10 foot for a 2 car garage pretty minimal. Even a third stall. It is a 3 stall garage but I want to point out, I put into the staff report the dimensions of the third stall and it meets the, really pretty minimal as far as depth requirements. When you look at a typical 3 car garage it’s pretty narrow and the depth isn’t that great. Also in the depth of the garage it also is encumbered by the fact that you have to go up the stairs to get into the house so typically on a, someone that would want the additional storage. While this doesn’t have additional storage space for a shed or something. The hard cover is used up. I think the owners desire to provide that went astray in their desire to have that and also in our approval of it in this form and fashion. Some of the compromises should have been made but unfortunately it did go through. One of the issues that was brought up by the Water Resources Coordinator is you know when we had the severe rains in June the, in the Carver Beach Road, that’s what these pictures are looking flash flooding in this area. And this is Carver Beach Road. Runoff that would be in this area. There is minimal storm drainage and this is one of the older parts in town so you have surface water that travels where it will to find that spot to, you know there’s no curb and to where it needs to go. Again this is kind of Kerber Pond. Kerber Boulevard as it’s going towards the pond there. You can see the overflow so this is one of the concerns when we look at drainage as a whole in this area, why the hard surface requirement is something that we consider. I just also want to point out that we changed our requirements for hard cover and permitting zoning permits and that goes back to the case we just discussed and we changed that in 2005 so now we require everybody to get a zoning permit. So a zoning permit doesn’t necessarily mean a building permit but we want to check to make sure that you’re not exceeding your hard cover. You’re meeting the setbacks. You’re not putting a structure over the utility easement. Those sort of things so it may just be someone that wants to put up a retaining wall or that sort of thing that’s under 4 feet. We typically don’t take a permit for that but we check to make sure that they’re not putting it into the utility easement. How is that impacting drainage in the area? So we call those zoning permits and then we work with our residents to make sure that we understand what they’re doing and how that would effect so in the Carver Beach area as a whole we’ve, the Water Resources Coordinator has been working on doing some improvements in the area and I think next year’s street projects or the year after we’re going to be doing some additional projects up in the Carver Beach area to manage some of this so these were the comments from the Water Resources and this is kind of the larger drainage area and the home kind of up in this area, this LB48 would be the basin. Kind of where that’s impacting so I just want to emphasize as the Water Resources Coordinator was kind of reluctant to say you know yeah. We can go beyond that so the applicant proposed a driveway that was at 34 percent. Now I kind of clicked this because you can see here the existing driveway. Just take a pointer here. See if this works. Kind of follow my little red pen here. So this is the existing driveway. So this is what the applicants wanted to do. So this would allow you when you pull up a car to get groceries out. Get a child out of the back seat. Get you to the front door and then 23 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 19, 2014 this is a radius then to get you into that third staff with additional there. The staff’s goal was to try to minimize that and working to try to reduce minimal hard cover to make it functional and then reduce the amount of hard cover. So in taking that into consideration the staff’s recommendation would be the 33.3 percent but then also to mitigate that by providing that extra volume that was added to the site by creating a rain garden or using impervious pavers and that was the recommendation from the Water Resources so that would be the only way to move forward with that would be to minimize it and then also to compensate for that or mitigate that by creating that rain garden. So they’d have to create, calculate what that volume would be and provide that. I also wanted to let you know that we did receive a number of calls on this going back to this house shouldn’t have been built and again you know we’ve gone through that discussion. Legally the right to build on the house. We’ll take some responsibility for the way the driveway got shaped. Again it probably shouldn’t have been approved that way because it’s really not functional so we did want to resolve that as far as the aesthetics of that whole thing and also there’s complaints about the cars from this home parking on the drive. On the street. It is not marked no parking. We do allow parking on the public street. Obviously there’s winter parking rules that would have to be posted no parking but in hoping that the driveway is improved that the neighbors in good faith then would try to keep their cars in the driveway. This street does act kind of, as a minor collector so sight lines are improvement over there. And I also did include in your packet a letter from one of the neighbors too concerned about that. I also want to say in this Carver Beach area as a whole, going back to that 2005, there are probably other properties that are over. When we did all those PUD’s 2 years ago when we did all 30 some of them, we found all kinds of interesting things out in the older parts of town where properties were set next to the street. Fence lines went quite a bit over neighboring properties and things weren’t permitted as they are today so it’s unfortunate this happened and we’ll apologize for our part of it. Again probably the third stall was probably not the best choice for this but this is what we have today. So we are recommending, the staff’s, the 33.4 which would be an additional 2.5 percent and then with the conditions in the staff report which included that they provide that mitigation area so with that I’d be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Aller: Questions? This was before us a year ago so it’s fairly familiar to all of us I believe. And then I guess when we did those amendments we looked at this whole area and we were trying to make sure that we didn’t punish homeowners because of the natural scenario that they had the different lots that were out there and the way things were. We just wanted to make sure that people in the future knew what they were, when they bought something, what they could build and what was allowable. Aanenson: Yep, that’s correct Chairman Aller. I think part of the goal was to let people know. You know we tried to simplify when people were doing title checks to sell their home, we had all kinds of anomalies out there so we wanted to clarify their PUD’s so it was simpler for someone else trying to list their property and then also an opportunity to educate people on what now we require moving forward but what’s out there is out there. Aller: Great. And then do we have any idea of the calculations that would need to be done for the rain garden if that’s something we look at? What that would entail. Fauske: We would certainly work with the applicant to devise a plan of something that’s amenable to what would meet their requirements. Either porous pavement. Some sort of rain 24 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 19, 2014 garden feature. Just an attempt to try to make an effort and we would help them with those calculations and siting of those amenities. Aller: The motion before us would set that amount at the 25% which is the current restriction. Not what’s actually on the property, correct? Fauske: Correct. So anything over 25% would be treated through a porous pavement, rain garden, or a combination of any amenity. Aller: And then porous pavements, how would we enforce the use of porous pavement if somebody was to pour sand on it or alter it in some form or fashion? Fauske: I think we’d look back to the variance procedure that was granted. I mean if, as part of being granted a variance and being allowed to keep the non-conformity that exists, one of the conditions is to have that. As far as a, to bring up a situation where this has happened before. I don’t have one of those unfortunately. We are on some new territory here. We would certainly hope that the current homeowner and any future homeowner would agree that any porous pavement, rain garden, such thing would be a benefit not only to their property but to the whole neighborhood and would want to keep it that way. Aller: Krista, you have something to add? Spreiter: Yes. Thanks. Just to add to that. For projects where we’ve done some sort of stormwater treatment, usually there’s a maintenance agreement that is signed by the homeowner and it kind of spells out what their maintenance responsibilities are and how long they have to perform those maintenance activities. However usually it is terminated when the house is sold so that’s what we’ve done in the past. Aanenson: I think that’s something you might want to consider as an addition to, if you do choose to recommend approval I think what Krista just stated is important to have a maintenance agreement on this because we’re giving a variance. A variance runs with the property. Often times the engineering department works to find alternatives to provide when they’re doing street recon projects, to provide residents that are willing to work with them or want to do some improvements on their own but in this case, because you are granting a variance you could make it run with the property. Aller: Thank you. That’s what I was looking for. And this is a problem area with stormwater management. Fauske: That’s correct. Aller: So this is, this would be a good thing to have. Either a rain garden. Some additional if we’re going to move forward, or even without. All the homeowners should consider rain gardens or, this area is in dire need of making sure that we don’t have that stormwater running into the lake. 25 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 19, 2014 Fauske: Correct. As Kate alluded to, we are looking at doing a resurfacing project in this area next year and we will be looking at alternative measures for stormwater mitigation with that project. Aller: Okay, thank you. Any other questions at this point? Okay, if we can have the applicant come forward. If they’d like to make a presentation. Sir, if you could state your name and address for the record. Chris King: Hi. My name is Chris King. I live at 960 Carver Beach Road. Aller: Welcome Mr. King. Chris King: Thank you. I’m going to just read because I’m not very good at speaking if you don’t mind. Aller: That’s okay. None of us are. Chris King: So good evening. Thank you for taking the time to hear our request. My family and I moved here a couple of months ago and love the city of Chanhassen and what it has to offer us. The last thing we wanted to do is move in and immediately cause problems. We wanted to wait a little while so, no. Just kidding. We do however feel that our request for an increase in our driveway is important and reasonable. We would like to thank Mr. Gerhardt, Mr. Generous, Ms. Aanenson. I hope I’m saying that correctly, and others involved for their recommendation and support as we realize 33.4 percent would go a long way to help our situation. We would however still like to respectfully request the full 34 percent that we have applied for because we feel it better fits our needs. When we made the request of 34 percent we did so understanding that this property has already had a 36 percent hard cover variance granted to Anita Benson in 2001 which was allowed to expire. Since that time the City has made significant upgrades to the drainage system. We also realize that Chanhassen’s population continues to grow but we don’t feel like our request will have a significant impact. We are also willing to follow the team’s recommendation that we either use pervious material or plant a rain garden. Another factor we feel should be considered is our proximity to Carver Beach Park which is basically one house down from us so there’s a house separating us from a very large open area. We are even willing to create a larger garden to accommodate the extra .6 percent if you were willing to bring it up to 34 percent. We also feel the full 34 percent is reasonable because we are a social family with young children and often host guests. At 33.4 percent we will not be able to fit as many cars as we would if the end of the driveway were wide enough, therefore creating the need to park on the street. Carver Beach Road is a very busy, very fast road with motorized traffic and this can pose a safety issue. Our house is actually positioned at the top of a hill so as you come over the hill it can kind of be a blind area. It’s hard to see there. We also feel our request would meet an aesthetic need for our neighborhood. Our neighbors have been supportive and welcoming but we do know that our current driveway and even the driveway at 33.4 percent will have an unusual look. One neighbor has even expressed the concern that it may be diminishing property value. Finally we would like to bring to the attention the fact, excuse me. Finally we would like to bring attention to the fact that in the report it was noted that we already applied for and were approved for a hard cover variance. This is not true as the variance was granted to the previous owner, Mr. David Moore whom I 26 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 19, 2014 purchased the land from. Thank you again for taking the time to hear our request. We are excited to move forward with this project and begin our long residency in the city. Thanks. Aller: Thank you Mr. King. Any questions of Mr. King? Great, thank you. Chris King: Thank you. Aller: Okay open up the public hearing portion of the meeting. Anyone wishing to speak either for or against this item can do so at this time. If you can please state your name and address for the record, that would be great. Carol Zalusky: My name is Carol Zalusky and I live at 960 Western Drive. Aller: Welcome. Carol Zalusky: Two streets over and I kind of represent some concerns of our community. The people in our area. We’re very disappointed to see over 25% coverage for that building even being approved because there have been other people in our neighborhood that have asked for variances to expand their home. Not even getting close to this degree of coverage and you know that’s been denied in the past. I mean I’m talking several years ago. Not current but you know the push has been in our community to try to have the green space. I would like to know how much the actual structure covers. Of that building. Not considering driveway, sidewalks. How much does the structure cover? Aanenson: It’s approximately 34 by 20. That’s for the house itself and then the garage is. Carol Zalusky: The house and garage. You know the building itself. Aanenson: We’re adding it up here. 1,292. Aller: 1,292. Carol Zalusky: And so what percentage is that? Of the square footage of the lot? Generous: It’s 21 percent. Carol Zalusky: Okay, 21 percent so you’re almost to the 25 just with the structure. Aanenson: Right. Aller: Right. Carol Zalusky: So have they considered, you know rain gardens are a great idea. There’s not a lot of extra space you know when you’ve had that much coverage so how much really could you do? You know it’s kind of on a slope already you know so how could the rain gardens fit in the front yard? Into really cover drainage coming off of the home. 27 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 19, 2014 Aller: If we were to add conditions to this, my understanding is what happens is that those conditions would have to be met before the variance could take place so. Carol Zalusky: Okay. Aller: It would be a matter of them working with the City to determine and calculate what that percentage is and that’s why I asked the question before. What amount are we looking for in some kind of remediation. Carol Zalusky: Right. Aller: And we’re going back to if the property was 25 percent we want to meet that so that’s the calculations that would be involved in the motion the way it stands right now. Carol Zalusky: Okay. Alright. Aller: Does that make sense? Carol Zalusky: Right. I mean and I know there are other materials. I mean now they have these pavers that, you know they’re a hard surface that you can still drive on but what kind of grass grows through so you have more drainage taking place so just want to see if other things could be entertained so, I mean we’re just very concerned about. Aller: And I think those are very good question and very good points and I think that’s one of the things that the staff was recommending was that they use the type of materials that will allow. Carol Zalusky: The pervious, yeah. Aller: The water to go through and then seep into the ground slowly and then we have the ability to slow that stormwater runoff. Carol Zalusky: Right, right, right so I guess if we’re going to approve a variance we should have a requirement of the better surface area so that’s just an opinion of the neighborhood. Aller: Thank you and I remember the neighborhood coming the last time so, tell them hi. Any other individuals wishing to come forward to speak either for or against. Seeing no one coming forward, we will close the public hearing on the matter before us and go ahead and ask for comments or questions or discussion. Undestad: I guess just one question of Alyson. Their comment about getting that extra point, a bigger rain garden, is that even a possibility or no? Fauske: We can work with the applicant to provide additional, additional surface either in a rain garden or as stated before. Either a porous pavement or some other amenity for the additional. I don’t see it being an issue but as Kate indicated the variance isn’t finalized until they’ve met all the requirements of it so if there would be an issue that came up with granting that additional .4 28 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 19, 2014 percent, if that came up during the design phases that that isn’t conceivable then the variance would only stand for what they’ve provided. Aanenson: Then I think what we looked at too, talking with the Water Resources Coordinator, it may take two. You know divide that so you have that front yard. It might be two on either side of the driveway or something like that. Undestad: Okay. Aller: Any additional comments or questions? How do we feel about the straight up variance? Is that something anyone is interested in entertaining or, I prefer if we’re going to consider it all to go to the additional conditions. Especially in light of the history of the property. It’s been before the council. It’s been before us. My first blush response, hearing that it was going to come back on was to say no until I read the potential for the conditions. Then my position soften so interested in hearing positions on that. Weick: If you attach conditions about the type of material or whatever, rain gardens, whatever it is, would you be inclined to approve the homeowner request of 34 percent or stick with the city request of 33 percent? I guess if we’re going to put conditions would you consider, I mean we’re basically talking about that little chunk. Aller: Well I think that’s what Commissioner Undestad was getting to when he was asking the question. Is it feasible in the first place to even go up if we’re going to go to that 25 percent? I think it’s absolutely should be a requirement in my opinion to have it meet the 25 percent requirement for the runoff so that we can basically remediate the condition of the property so that that neighborhood doesn’t suffer because of the building. And then the question is, is it worth fighting over the extra one percent? If it makes the value of the property an enhancement in the use of the property, an enhancement for all involved, including the neighbors. We’re looking at a 3 car garage as opposed to 2 car garage. And I think all the neighbors would appreciate the fact that they can park on their driveway or in the garage as opposed to on the street. Undestad: So Kate, if we looked at it with, if we approve it with the additional. With the full 34 percent and they go back and find out, okay there’s not enough room for rain gardens and we can’t get it down to the 25 percent, does it automatically go back to the 33.4? Aanenson: Yes. Our condition would be that it’s driven by they provide that 25 percent. Whatever’s over that 25 percent. Undestad: Okay. Aanenson: Yeah. If that’s the way you’re going. Undestad: Well I, you know if they can get the 25 percent and if at the end of the day they meet the 25 percent and keep their cars off the street. Aller: I mean the alternative is a strict one. Typically would be required that we’d just say no but here we’re presented with a unique. 29 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 19, 2014 Hokkanen: Another unique. Aller: Opportunity to hopefully resolve the issue without creating a problem for new owners. Had it be the old owners I’d probably be feeling a little different about it. Undestad: And that brings up another question Kate. On the agreements, they have to enter into the maintenance and agreements for these wetlands or the, sorry the rain gardens but it was mentioned that that expires with the sale of the house. We could put it in where it would run… Aanenson: Right. I think we’re talking about a street recon project or some of that is applied and say I’d like to get some funding to look at this for some alternative but in this circumstance it runs with the property. A variance runs with the property so if they would sell the house and the future homeowner would be bound by maintaining that rain garden. Undestad: Okay. Aanenson: Yeah, which is similar to conditions that we would put on any other property. Hokkanen: And they would have to disclose that with the sale of the property. Aanenson: Exactly. Hokkanen: Right. Aller: Any additional thoughts? Comments? Carol Zalusky: Can I ask another question? Aller: Sure, come on up. We’ll open up the public hearing. Carol Zalusky: Just because I’m really familiar with that area and I don’t know about this house but some of the homes pump water constantly out of their sump pumps. I mean our neighbor next door, every 15 minutes even in these drier periods. Swoosh. Swoosh. So you know that also is a little concern of mine. You know there’s another additional water flow coming out of these homes and I don’t know about this home if that’s on a spring also because there are so many springs that have pretty high water table. Just another consideration in terms of the water. Aller: Thank you. While we have it open does anyone else wish to speak on it? Alright, we’ll close it up again. And then I think going to the 25 percent is really the end result which would resolve that issue. I mean the water’s going to come. The question is where is it coming from? Is it really this particular parcel’s problem? And then on top of that if we’re reducing our flow to 25 percent, I think that’s what’s before us and what we’re considering at this point. Aanenson: Can I just clarify one thing for the record too. While this applicant didn’t apply for a variance. That was the kind of the rule set for that lot you know so, they were given a variance that they had to work within and unfortunately they chose to go wider garage and here we are today because if we would have stuck with the 2 car, how it was represented, we wouldn’t be in 30 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 19, 2014 this situation so we’ll take our responsibility for that but putting the third stall is kind of what was the tipping point here. Now we’re trying to fix the situation. Aller: Which is the alternative. We can toe the hard line and say no. They were before us. We gave them a variance. It was approved by the City and it was approved before council. I mean clearly it’s a buildable lot and all those other issues are gone. And then what we ended up with was not as represented and it’s non-conforming. Undestad: But we did approve the building permit. Aanenson: Right. Undestad: For a 3 car garage. Aller: Which, I mean that’s why the compromise is a good one. Undestad: Right. Aller: Even though I think, and the City’s position would be clear and this is what we granted. You provided something that wasn’t and you shouldn’t be able to rely or hold us to the fire for something additional at this point. I think that’s happened before in the City and the City has prevailed so, I think the potential to compromise is better for the. Hokkanen: For everybody, right. And the homeowner. Aller: And certainly for the homeowner who came in and. Hokkanen: And the neighborhood. Aller: Had no idea what was going on. Hokkanen: Right. Aller: Any further discussion? Comments. Yusuf: I have a question for city staff. Is hard cover just straight up hard cover all the time or do you guys have calculations that you may adjust depending on what materials you use? Aanenson: Typically it’s anything is a hard cover. The only exception would be if someone was to put a deck on that’s not sitting on the ground. We don’t count that as, so this property has exhausted any other future outdoor sort of thing and I guess that’s kind of why when it went through is kind of looked at for the 2 stalls so we could use some, you know so. Aller: Yeah we would have to remove, for instance we could take away the sidewalk and put a driveway in but there would be a trade-off. Aanenson: Right. Right. 31 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 19, 2014 Aller: And that’s really not a good use of the property. Aanenson: Those are kind of the practical difficulties. I think in looking at this permit originally came in with a patio and I believe it was switched to a deck so they could extend that so it’d be above ground so worked hard on trying to make that reasonable. Aller: I’ll entertain a stab at a motion. Anybody have an idea of what kind of number they want to put on what I’m hearing? Undestad: I’ll make a run at it here Chair. Aller: Commissioner Undestad has a motion. Undestad: I make a motion that staff recommends that the Planning Commission, as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments approve a variance for an additional 3.2 percent for a total of 34 percent hard surface coverage subject to the five conditions in the staff report, and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. And the fifth being a maintenance agreement that runs with the property. Hokkanen: Second. Aller: I have a motion by Commissioner Undestad, a second by Commissioner Hokkanen. Any further discussion? Undestad moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Planning Commission acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an additional 3.2 percent hard cover variance to permit the construction of a driveway to a single family home subject to the following conditions, and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Decision: 1.The property owner shall submit an as-built survey to ensure additional hard cover does not exceed 3.2 percent, to a total of 34 percent hard cover. 2.The driveway expansion shall substantially conform to the schematic as shown in the staff report. 3.Provide mitigation for the increased volume through some type of infiltration practice which abstracts a volume equal to that volume which runs off the area of impervious that are over the allowed 25 percent (i.e. rain garden), or use an alternate pervious surface for the construction of the driveway. 4.The applicant apply for a zoning permit for the driveway expansion and rain garden. 5.A maintenance agreement shall run with the property. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Aller: Motion carries. I think that’s a good result. 32 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 19, 2014 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Hokkanen noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 15, 2014 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Aanenson: Thank you. Westwood Church withdrew their rezoning and land use amendment request. They are going to final plat that little segment that goes past the Hope House so we’ll get that as a part of their approval so working on that right now. We approved the extension to allow the auto repair on property, that’s kind of in the downtown area off of Kerber Boulevard. Mr. Hansen’s kind of industrial. You know we look at the intensification. As you can see some of those older uses that we have downtown. That’s the gas stations are now turning over so we look at that area in the future so that extension goes for another 5 years. We can revisit that. He’s not as visible where they’re located back behind the license center for a prime retail spot but over time it’s kind of quasi-industrial use may want to go somewhere else but we did extend that for, that was extended by the City Council for 5 more years. The Vistas at Bentz Farm is coming back. You’ll see that at your next Planning Commission. They are, the applicant chose to leave the back property off so it was kind of left landlocked which we, is against our city ordinance so allegedly they’re working on purchase agreements with someone in the area but you’ll see that next week. If there isn’t a purchase agreement in place then they’ll have to find another way to provide access to that property because you can’t allow a landlocked piece of property, and we want to go back through because the residents that were here were the people to the north that wanted full disclosure and we just felt uncomfortable so we asked when it went to City Council that at that time that we’d come back through the process because we wanted to make sure that the residents were informed of that. So that is on your next agenda. And then the Preserve at Rice Lake. The John Knoblauch. That one’s chugging through the process. Trying to get some permits going there. Some for the MnDOT approval for the wall is kind of the biggest issue there but that’s going for final plat, or was approved for final plat but now we’re still waiting to get the wall approved which is on Alyson, on the next City Council meeting? Fauske: Correct. Aanenson: Okay. So then we should be seeing some work happening out there. And then for future planning items, there are a lot of things coming forward. You just had five kind of more business items except for the retail building. So we talked about Bentz Farm. A cell tower ndth coming up on September 2. September 10 we have our joint Planning Commission, Environmental Commission, Park Commission meeting so we’re going to focus on, because of the rain that we had this spring, we’re going to focus on some of the erosion. Kind of stormwater issues so if there’s anything else that you folks would like to look at, so I think it’s kind of a great opportunity to kind of cross pollenate and educate each other. The park commission educate the planning and planning educate environmental so we’re trying to set up that tour and we’re going to end up at the new park at Pioneer. Is it Pioneer Ridge? Pioneer Pass, thank you. Pioneer Pass is where we’ll end up so hopefully everybody will make that. th And then we already have things that are coming in for the September 16. We do have a restaurant pad going out, that the City owns and part of it will be on Target’s property so that is in. You’ll be seeing that so we’re getting restauranted up here in town. We’ve got a lot of things 33 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 19, 2014 going on and you’re going to see some more. So we did expect to see the 7 and 41 Crossing also come in. There is a plan on that and that will also be some sort of restaurant. Still working through some issues on that one but we did get a variance for another hard surface request on a thth lakeshore lot so that will be on the 16. The 7 and 41 might move down to October 7. We’re also anticipating a big item on that agenda too so we’ve got quite a few projects in the works, including some potential multi-family projects too. So we’ll be busy this fall. Aller: Great. Aanenson: Things are heating up so. That’s all I had Chairman. Aller: Anyone else? I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. Undestad moved, Weick seconded 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 8:35 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 34