PC Minutes 01-06-2015
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 6, 2015
Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Steve Weick, Maryam Yusuf, and
Lisa Hokkanen
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Kim Tennyson
STAFF PRESENT:
Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmeen Al-Jaff,
Senior Planner; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Drew Ingvalson, Planning Intern; and Alyson
Fauske, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Steve Hansen Minnetonka
Mike Hoagberg 17550 Hemlock Ave, Lakeville 55044
Bernie Gaytko 521 Mission Hills Drive
Karla Thomson 8524 Mayfield Court
9015 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD: REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO EXCEED THE
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITATION AND THE SHORELAND SETBACK
LIMITATION TO CONSTRUCT A PATIO ONPROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 9015 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD.
APPLICANT/OWNER: ROSEMARY KELLY, PLANNING CASE 2014-27.
Ingvalson: For those that don’t know me, my name is Drew Ingvalson. I’m a planning intern at
the City of Chanhassen. Thank you very much Chairman and Planning Commission members.
So our first one is for a shoreland setback and hard surface coverage, a variance request. As you
might remember this actually came before the Planning Commission on October 7, 2014 and was
tabled to allow the applicant to work with staff. Since then additional information was provided
that showed the original request hard cover was actually underestimated and also just did some
other calculations with that. Since the previous meeting the applicant has also created an
alternative plan that actually has reduced hard surface coverage and then also maintains existing
shoreland setback. The location of this, like I said is 9015 Lake Riley Boulevard. It is on the
northwest side of Lake Riley. Looking at the picture, image on the right we’ll specifically be
looking at is in the rear yard of the property towards the lake. The request is, there’s two
actually requests for this. Hard surface coverage variance to increase an approved 1 percent
variance for hard surface coverage. This is an additional 4 percent. This will bring the total hard
surface to 30 percent hard surface coverage and it will be 5 percent over what the 25 percent
maximum allowed. Also the second part of the variance request is a shoreland setback variance
to increase an approved 32 foot shoreland setback variance to 36 feet. This is an increase of 4
feet, allowing a 39 foot setback from the existing 43 foot. The existing variance on the property,
like I stated before was passed in May, 2005 by the Planning Commission. This approved
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 6, 2015
variance was for a 5 foot front yard setback. A 1 percent hard surface coverage variance. One
percent above the 25 percent and also a 32 foot shoreland setback variance. These variances
were in place for the demolition of a house and then also then to construct a new home. These
variances actually reduced the non-conformities with the property. The property had a larger
hard cover percentage. It was at 26.4. It was then reduced to 26 percent and reduced the
shoreland setback from 36 feet and instead it was moved farther back to 43 feet. So this is an
image of the survey of the property prior to the variance in 2005. The setback was 37 feet and
the hard surface coverage was 26. A little over 26 percent. And this is the existing property. It
has a 43 foot setback from the ordinary high water level and has a hard surface coverage of 25.8.
These are images of the subject site. The one on the left is an existing patio underneath the
porch. It’s about 13 by 13 ½ feet and the image on the right is from the other side of the house.
There are 3 exits from the rear of the property. One underneath the porch. One underneath the
deck and then one to the far right. So here’s an image of the request that’s being made. The blue
you see is the existing hard cover and red is the proposed expansion. There are 3 house exits.
The hope of the property owner is to connect these 3 with accessible exits so they can accessed
onto hard surface coverage. The red area shows expansion that is 551 square foot patio. This is
a 4.2 percent hard surface expansion. Also as you can see at the bottom there is a 39 foot
shoreland setback for this request. There have been previous variance applications within 500
feet of this property. One of them was withdrawn in 1985 and then there were 2 others that were
passed. Both of these were to encroach into the shoreland setback and then also there was a
fourth one that was for this subject property that I talked about previously. The hard surface
variance, there’s also been a lot of these properties have shoreland setbacks and also hard surface
coverage that exceeds the maximum allowed. Three properties actually have hard surface
coverage that exceeds the 25 percent allowable. All three of those exceed the existing properties
hard surface percentage with the largest being 29.3 percent. Four properties have setbacks that
extend within the 75 foot setback. However none of them encroach closer than 43 feet, which is
what the subject property currently has. And the lot for the subject property is actually under
the, what would be allowable for a current property in the riparian lots. It is 12,900 square feet.
The minimum required by the City is 20,000 square feet. There are 3 other properties within 500
feet that do not meet this minimum square footage requirement for riparian lots. So there’s some
hard surface expansion issues. I know the one what originally that came forward before was that
this is a water oriented structure. It is not considered a water oriented structure due to it’s size
exceeding 250 square feet and if it was a water oriented structure we’d still include that area in
the hard surface coverage and that’s what this is for is for a hard surface coverage expansion.
Also additional hard surface coverage will add to the degradation of the lake and increase runoff
volumes, rates and pollutant loads into Lake Riley. Expanded hard cover could also increase
drainage issues for adjacent properties. So the alternative plan that was, came to between a
conversation with staff and with the applicant is to create an expansion that is 354 square feet,
which is a 2.7 percent patio expansion. The addition will require a 3.5 percent hard surface
coverage variance from the 25 percent hard cover maximum. If you’re looking at here in blue is
the existing hard cover and gray is the patio expansion. This patio expansion will not encroach
any further into the shoreland setback. It will maintain that 43 feet. Another part of this
alternative plan is that there is the opportunity to create some more usable space. Due to the
grade it’s, there’s very limited opportunity for outdoor space on this property. What we’ve
communicated between them is that you can create some more usable space that couldn’t be hard
cover but there could be some earthwork done there with retaining walls that will be allowable
2
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 6, 2015
through permits but none that would require a variance but could create some more space that
can be used outdoors. The recommended motion. The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and
Adjustments denies the hard surface coverage and shoreland setback variance request and adopts
the Findings of Fact. However if the Board of Appeals and Adjustments finds it is appropriate to
approve a variance request for hard surface coverage it is recommended that they approve a 3.5
percent hard surface coverage variance to allow patio expansion but not allow any further
encroachment into the shoreland setback per the alternative plan. And be subject to the
following conditions. One, the applicant must apply for and receive the appropriate permit
required from the City. This permit will include a revised survey that displays the location of the
patio addition, a completed hard surface coverage calculation worksheet and any other plans
required for the permit. And two, landscaping materials must be installed to absorb additional
runoff on the property.
Aller: Thank you. Any questions at this point in time with staff? Thank you Drew. It was a
great report and yeah, thorough and I like the demarcation between our two options so thank you.
At this point in time we’ll hear from the applicant. If you could come forward. State your
names and addresses for the record, that’d be great. Thank you.
Rosemary Kelly: Good evening. My name is Rosemary Kelly. I live at 9015 Lake Riley
Boulevard in Chanhassen.
Aller: Good to see you again Ms. Kelly.
Rosemary Kelly: Yeah. It’s been a while and in the intervening time I want to thank the staff
for having the opportunity to go over in more detail what was the expectation and requirements
of the variance request which we did not have time to do initially. From my aspect we had
worked together on the alternative plan which was more in keeping with our original plan to
make our home truly wheelchair accessible, both kind of inside and out. Our current home is
not, actually they didn’t never really finished the outdoor to make it accessible for a wheelchair
and we’d like to complete that. The other consideration for the setback was not essential to this
design and so we eliminated that completely. Finally we expanded only to the really the
minimum amount and reduced some of the hard surface request bringing the total to 28.5.
Allowing us to exit kind of through the garage onto a hard surface in the back yard. It doesn’t
allow for independent wheelchair accessibility to the lake but it allows for independent
accessibility to the outside and that was really the driving force in starting this project. I had no
other considerations that came up. I think the contingence of working with the permits and the
landscaping are all part of our consideration as well as homeowners and I had no conflict with
that.
Aller: Great, thank you. Any questions of the applicant at this point? Had you had any
discussions with your neighbor? I know that there had been correspondence earlier on drainage
issues and…
Rosemary Kelly: Actually they got the swale construction completed. We actually, she and I
actually talked right after this meeting in October and they finished it within about a week of that
because we knew the ground was going to freeze. So that’s been completed and that was kind of
3
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 6, 2015
the true issue coming off of the drainage from the street. It wasn’t really from hard surface so
much as drainage of the road construction and that had been in the works to be done prior. So
that’s been completed.
Aller: Great. Any additional questions based on? Thank you. Sir, did you have any comments?
I know you came up together. Are you moral support or?
Phillip Sosnowski: No additional comments. I’m just here to support the, to Rose and address
any questions that the commission may have of us.
Aller: Okay, thank you. Nothing right now? Okay. We’ll open the public hearing portion of
the meeting. Anyone wishing to speak either for or against the application can do so at this time.
No one coming forward I will close the public hearing portion and open it up for commissioner
comments and discussion.
Yusuf: It seems like they’ve reached a consensus.
Aller: Well I’m not, I don’t know whether it’s a consensus. When I first looked at this I saw the
package come back and when I was hearing this the first time, what I was hearing was that the
numbers were wrong. Maybe that they would be more favorable and it came back less favorable.
So I’m glad to see that they had that discussion. I think that the City is taking an appropriate
posture on it to say we should deny that because it does or doesn’t meet the variance
requirements and that’s what we should look at so that would be my initial comment to invite
your discussion about the variance requirements and whether or not it meets them.
Weick: Can you show the actual photos that you had earlier in the presentation of the, there was
another one. Yeah. The only thing I’m, I mean I was especially interested in the letter that was
included from Joan Ludwig at 9005. So the next door neighbor there so I was just seeing if, you
know if the house slants that way. I know there’s runoff from the street that comes down
between the houses is the way I understand it. I just didn’t know if the landscape was pitched
such that it also runs you know into that yard as well. But it doesn’t. I mean everything looks
like it’s pitched down to the lake. I don’t know that adding you know concrete, hard surface
against the house there and I’m certainly not an engineer but it doesn’t look like it would add
significant issues for the next door neighbor. What do you guys think?
Hokkanen: I don’t know if it meets the requirements of a variance. The legal. Maybe you can
explain, yeah. The legal requirements of a variance.
Undestad: That’s kind of the issue I have too. I mean it’s nice we’re trying to move things back
and all that but what’s been granted previously on here and I just don’t think it meets the
requirements that we could say yes. My opinion.
Aller: When I look at it one of the things that concerns me is that it was non-conforming in the
first place and it wasn’t, my understanding it wasn’t their property at the time but the builder
came in. Took away a lot of those non-conforming uses and issues but they still needed a
variance. It’s still at the maximum for the neighborhood. If it was different than the
4
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 6, 2015
neighborhood I would be more inclined to look at that particular issue a little differently but I
think that that does have an impact as well with the hard cover being what it was and that the
variance, and it’s still at the maximum and the variances for the other properties were for new
construction as well. So any, sir did you want to come up and address any of those issues? I
mean that’s.
Tom Goodrum: Yeah, thanks. Tom Goodrum.
Aller: Thank you.
Tom Goodrum: The Senior Planner for Westwood, although former planner for Carver County
and Minnetonka. Helping Rose Kelly out on this request and just to address a couple of
comments that you made. First of all, again we’re thanking staff. They’re supporting the request
after we met with them with this alternative plan. One that we felt was reasonable for this site
and with the property and with the neighboring properties. This is something that you had asked
us to go back. Talk to staff. Work with staff. We did that. We came up with the plan
supported by staff to come back so thanks for that opportunity. Again thanks to staff for working
on this but to answer some of the questions that you brought up. Again the property line,
between the property owners, that’s not part of this proposal. That’s a whole different issue and
that’s going to be solved so now we’re just looking for what’s a reasonable use for this site.
We’re not getting any closer than the lake than what is currently existing. Similar to the two lots
next to us. They’re both 43 feet back as wise so we’re not doing any more impacts to the
neighborhood that already exist. We reduced the hard surface down to 28.5 which is similar to
what we have with neighboring properties. I think the one just next to us is 27 point something.
The one next to that, he’s more than us at 29 percent hard cover so we’re still in that ballpark.
We’re still meeting the, you know the character of that neighborhood. The purpose, the reason
we’re doing this is because of the handicap accessibility. We do have that need for the family.
The house was built for that need. Now that the family is reaching that age or have family
members that have those needs, they’re now discovering some of the flaws with this property
and that’s what the purpose of this variance is for is to correct a wrong that you had mentioned
earlier that yes, it was built by a previous homeowner and these things that already existed but it
was built for the purpose for handicap accessibility. Now that we have that need we’re finding
out that there’s some flaws in that initial requests and now that was part of the initial request.
Don’t know where the commission or council will go with it but we assumed that they would
support it as they supported the other uses on here. The hard surface we’re requesting is for
access. You have a garage coming off the back of the house. This way somebody in a
wheelchair or in a scooter can pull into the garage. Don’t even have to maneuver within the
house. I mean entering that patio is going through a bedroom plus a couple other rooms inside of
that house. With the expansion we’re asking for, you’re pulling into the garage. You get out of
the car. You go out the back of the garage and you’re in the back of the patio, you know
envisioning the lake. Enjoying the lake. You’re not coming out of the garage. Maneuvering
through the doors in the house. Maneuvering through bedrooms to get out to the patio. So the,
again the purpose for this is to meet what was not met before. To work with staff. Come up
with plans that are reasonable that staff can support which we achieved to be harmonious with
the rest of the neighborhood. Variances have been approved by this commission as recently as
the last time Rose was here with the Kurt Fretham project. There was a variances for hard
5
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 6, 2015
surface coverage for two lots. One at 28 and one was at 30 percent. There’s one in 2013 for a
hard cover. I mean they all have their own issues, their own items and we believe this is similar
in those cases. That these type of hard surface variances are not detrimental and this is a
reasonable use for this property so with that again we appreciated the time to work with staff to
come up with something that everybody could support. I sure hope that the Planning
Commission understands where we’re coming from. Our request and that you can support us as
well so thank you.
Aller: Thank you.
Weick: Can I ask a clarifying question? The property that’s underneath that deck, that’s not,
that’s currently considered hard cover?
Ingvalson: No.
Weick: No.
Ingvalson: Incorrect. It’s underneath a deck so decks are not considered hard surface coverage
as long as water can penetrate through them.
Weick: Through, okay.
Ingvalson: So currently the only hard surface coverage there would be that step that’s right
outside the door.
Weick: Got it. Thank you.
Undestad: Bob, can you pull up that picture again of what the reduction that they did from the
existing? Yeah, that red. There you go. So on the right hand side of that picture, the sidewalk.
The patio coming out of the garage back there. What, is that about 4 feet?
Ingvalson: 5 feet.
Undestad: 5 feet. And that transitions across the entire garage door back there?
Ingvalson: Correct.
Weick: I think that’s the minimum, right? For wheelchair access.
Ingvalson: For any.
Aller: The percentage of hard cover is based on the present, present square footage of the lot,
correct?
Undestad: The 12,900.
6
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 6, 2015
Aller: So we are dealing with apples to apples? It’s not something because of the reduced lot
size, they’re doing anything different? Or receiving any different numbers.
Generous: Correct.
Undestad: And we talked about this once before too but how would they treat, when we talk
about if we approve something, how are they going to control the excess runoff and we talked
before and nobody can really monitor rain gardens and that sort of thing but if we’re asking them
if we approve this and they create some landscaping to take care of that we’re kind of back to the
how do we monitor there? How do we know?
Generous: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. It’s basically with the initial design we’d be able to
determine whether or not there would be benefit. And the idea actually came up with the
original proposal where they showed that hedges at the end of the retaining wall and those are
perfect opportunities to create a well if you will for water to use up some of the runoff that’s
coming off of that hard surface.
Undestad: So is that something that the City would do through the permit process and design
into that plan?
Generous: Exactly.
Aller: Do you feel that the conditions in the alternate findings would allow for you to control
that process?
Generous: We do.
Weick: I hate to get into this debate again and really open this up but for as long as the
homeowner chooses to maintain them as rain gardens or whatever they are.
Hokkanen: Shrubs or landscaping.
Weick: Right. I mean there’s no jurisdiction of the City to control how long that landscaping is
maintained, correct?
Generous: That’s correct. We don’t take any securities or anything like that for that. We would,
the assumption and as part of the design for the improvement they’re going to.
Weick: Understood.
Generous: Right.
Weick: Understood but again as we’ve talked about before if someone else were to move into
the house, if something were to change there wouldn’t be anything that would prohibit anybody
from changing that landscaping, I don’t think is there?
7
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 6, 2015
Hokkanen: It does.
Weick: So it does? I guess that’s my question.
Aller: The condition would be there.
Hokkanen: The condition does but enforcement is the issue.
Weick: Okay.
Aller: Yeah like most enforcements you rely on neighbors to basically say hey, there’s
something going on next door.
Hokkanen: Right.
Aller: Any other feelings on it one way or another? Kind of wrestling with what you’re going to
do?
Yusuf: Not really wrestling. I appreciate that they’ve been able to work with staff to come up
with an alternate plan. Seems like a nice agreement there. Provided that the conditions are met
of course.
Aller: Well I would entertain a motion at this time if somebody wants to make one.
Yusuf: I will make one. The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals
and Adjustments approves Planning Case number 2014-17, a 3 ½ percent hard surface coverage
variance from the 25 percent requirement to allow a 354 square foot patio expansion on a
property zoned Single Family Residential District.
Aller: I have a motion, do I have.
Yusuf: And oh I should just add the subject to the following conditions listed there.
Aller: I have a motion which includes conditions. Do I have a second?
Weick: Second.
Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion?
Yusuf moved, Weick seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the
Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves Planning Case #2014-17, a 3.5 percent hard
surface coverage variance from the 25 percent requirement to allow a 354 square foot patio
expansion on a property zoned Single Family Residential District and adopt the Findings of
Fact and Decision for approval subject to the following conditions:
8
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 6, 2015
1. The applicant must apply for and receive the appropriate permit required from the City.
This permit will include a revised survey that displays the location of the patio addition, a
completed hard surface coverage calculation worksheet and any other plans required for
the permit.
2. Landscape materials must be installed to absorb additional runoff on the property.
Commissioners Yusuf and Weick voted in favor; Commissioners Aller, Undestad and
Hokkanen voted nay. The motion failed with a vote of 2 to 3.
Aller: So do we have a date for that?
Aanenson: Yes we do.
th
Aller: January 26.
Aanenson: Correct.
Aller: So because of the denial by a less than a super majority this will be moved to the City
Council to be heard on January 26, 2015. So anyone wishing to follow this item to it’s final
conclusion should do so at that time. Thank you one and all.
PUBLIC HEARING:
MISSION HILLS SENIOR LIVING: REQUEST FOR PUD AMENDMENT,
SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH VARIANCES FOR A 134 UNIT
SENIOR HOUSING STRUCTURE AND 9 TWIN HOMES (18 INDEPENDENT LIVING
UNITS) ON 8.64 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
(PUD) LOCATED AT 8600 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD (OUTLOT 3, MISSION
HILLS). APPLICANT: HEADWATERS DEVELOPMENT, PLANNING CASE 2015-01.
Al-Jaff: Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. The application before you is
for a planned unit development amendment, a subdivision and a site plan. The site is located at
th
8600 Great Plains Boulevard, which is at the southeast corner of the intersection of 86 Street,
Great Plains Boulevard and north of Highway 212. The area overall that is, majority of the area
that surrounds the interchange of 212 and 101 is guided mixed use development. Within that
type of land use you are permitted two different types of uses. The first one being neighborhood
commercial. Basically meeting the daily needs of neighbors within the surrounding area and the
second type of use is high density residential which is up to 16 units per acre. Basically
apartments. The area where we are showing the subject site on this land use plan is the site that
the applicant is proposing to build an apartment building that would be serving seniors as well as
independent living townhouses. That is a permitted type of use. A few years back staff had
meetings with property owners within that area and it was mainly people, or property owners that
had vacant land. We just wanted to make suggestions. We studied the area quite a bit and we
needed to let them know what the options are. When we were looking at this specific site we
recommended that senior housing would be something that they should really consider. At that
time, and while we were going through amending PUD’s and cleaning up different applications
9