Loading...
PC Minutes 08-18-2015 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 18, 2015 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, John Tietz, Nancy Madsen, Lisa Hokkanen, and Maryam Yusuf MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Weick STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Drew Ingvalson, Planner; and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: 3892 LONE CEDAR LANE VARIANCE, PLANNING CASE 2015-20: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO 75 FOOT SHORELAND SETBACK TO ALLOW FOR THE EXPANSION OF A RETAINING WALL ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 3892 LONE CEDAR LANE (LOT 2, BLOCK 1, TROLLS-GLEN FIRST ADDITION). APPLICANT/OWNER: RYAN & TINA JOHNSON. Ingvalson: Alright thank you very much Chairman. This one like you said is an expansion of an existing non-conformity and as you said it’s at 3892 Lone Cedar Lane. This property is right off of Lake Minnewashta and is in the shoreland district. 1977 the City first adopted the shoreland chapter as authorized by Minnesota statute so this property needs to follow that. This is an image of the property from the lakeshore. In 1982 the subject property was granted a 11.23 foot front yard setback variance and a 7,500 square foot lot area variance. The property was constructed in 1983. The structure was built at this time and it is assumed that these retaining walls that you see here on the lower part and on the upper part were constructed around that same time. However there is not any city record of when they were constructed because at that time the City did not require any building permit for a retaining wall that was under 4 feet tall so we’re not exactly sure what time these were constructed but sort of assume that it was constructed around the same time the house was built. If you’re looking at those retaining walls the top retaining wall up here is 4 feet tall and then the bottom retaining wall is also 4 feet tall. The bottom retaining wall is 33 feet away from the ordinary high water level and the upper retaining wall, which is quite a bit up a steep hill is 55 feet from the ordinary high water level. The property owner is requesting a variance to demolish 2 existing retaining walls that you were shown earlier that encroach into the shoreland and bluff setbacks and is looking to replace them with new retaining walls, one of which expands on existing non-conformity. So the existing non-conformities that we have on the property, if you look on the image to the left, the red dotted line is the 75 foot shoreland setback. The 2 retaining walls that are currently existing are in blue. Here is the top retaining wall and then the bottom retaining wall is within this green area and there’s a blue line underneath there. They both are within that shoreland setback. The 2 retaining walls also encroach into the 30 foot bluff setback. The bluff setback, the bluff area is seen in this orange color here and would go out 30 feet, which both then encroach into. The Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2015 proposed project that is in front of us today is to demolish both of these 2 blue retaining walls you see here. Also this walkway that goes down. Connects the upper level to the bottom level by the shoreland. To replace it with 2 new retaining walls, one of which will be a retaining wall in the exact same place, which will be the same size and location as existing retaining wall which will be the lower retaining wall here. The applicant is also looking to put in a proposed shed. This proposed shed will meet all requirements from the city. It will be considered a water oriented structure. It will require an encroachment agreement but that will be something that staff is already looking at and will not require a variance. The walkway also, this middle walkway will be demolished and instead will have a walkway that goes along the south side of the retaining walls. The upper wall is where a lot of the change is going to occur. The height of the upper wall is going to increase from 4 feet, which is this retaining wall here, to the bottom wall here which is going to be 12 feet. The location will be moved closer to the shoreland as you can see and this is what will require a variance. It will also require a variance from an expansion on the non-conformity of being within the bluff area because it will be taller than the existing retaining wall. The main stated reason by the applicant for this alteration to the retaining walls is to increase the yard space. Looking at this image here the dark green area is existing yard space that the applicant has. The light green area is what would be obtained through this expansion. The longest distance from the house to the current retaining wall is 24 feet. The applicant is looking to expand this out to 34 feet. The shortest area on this image is 15 feet from the structure and what they’re looking to is expand it out to 26 feet. One of the stated, other stated concerns by the applicant for doing this remodel overall is for safety reasons. Looking at this image to the left, this is the stairway that you can see the wall is, I’m not sure if you can tell in this image but it’s definitely giving on that side and starting to give from some of the weight of the earth on the other side. It’s also beginning to deteriorate as you can see on these two other images off to the side. It’s made of timber right now so it is deteriorating rather rapidly and definitely needs to be replaced. However it should be noted that the variance is not required for to increase the safety of this. It could be done in the same place that it currently is without a variance for it because they’d just be replacing and maintaining what they have. Another concern with this variance request is the preservation of a tree that is located on the adjacent property. It is located to the north. The subject property is here and the subject tree is located right in this area. It is a white oak tree and one of the major concerns of that is that a lot of the work that’s going to be done around here is going to, around this retaining wall will possibly be detrimental to the tree. About 25 to 50 percent of the roots are located, are most likely located on the subject property in this area and also, let’s see here. So to help stop some of the detrimental effects of this staff has come together with some measures to protect the tree’s health and also the soil in this area. One of the first things would be to use construction mats in the construction area. This would reduce some of the compaction of the soils in this area and would be very helpful to the roots that are on the subject property. Also minimizing the grading changes to the absolutely minimum possible. Not making them any more drastic than need to be. Then also covering the area with wood chips instead of sod for a finish. That will help some of the root re-growth in this area and help facilitate that. Then lastly providing good care of the tree area during construction. Just watering while, if there’s any droughts in the area. If there isn’t too much rain during that time period of construction. So the tree preservation condition of approval for this would be that the applicant shall work with staff to ensure reasonable efforts shall be made to protect the oak located on the north of the upper wall and possible root area during construction. This was also reviewed for shoreland management. One of the main points 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2015 of the shoreland management is really two fold. One is actually to protect any natural environment in the area through reducing runoff and erosion but another element of that is also to protect the view scape from the public waters of Lake Minnewashta or any other public water. To help do this the staff has proposed that there would be some vegetation planted in this middle tier area to help number one, reduce runoff and then also to help with the view scape of this 12 foot wall to screen some of that from the public area. Currently looking at the image in the bottom left there are rocks in the area which are not helpful and actually very detrimental to the runoff in the area. It pushes, helps push the water going down the slope faster and is just, pushes more erosion in the area. Having some plantings in this area, specifically some deep rooted vegetation would help with some of that runoff in this middle area and then also would help screen that 12 foot wall. Here’s the drainage plan for the proposed project. The drainage will run from this area over into the center of the retaining wall and there will actually be a drainage path through the retaining walls and eventually out to Lake Minnewashta. Currently drainage goes off to the sides of the property which is actually fairly detrimental with the steep slopes in that area and there’s a lot of, it’s very erosive to the soil in that area. For the character of the neighborhood there has been multiple variances granted within the area but none of them have been for a shoreland setback. There was one request that was denied. Other than that the other approved variances were for bluff setbacks, lot size requirements, front yard setbacks and for access off of a public street, or off a private street, excuse me. However there are other characteristics of this neighborhood that should be addressed, mainly that there’s a lot of properties in this area that have retaining walls within that 75 foot shoreland setback noted by staff when we went out on the site. The 2 adjacent properties both have retaining walls that are within that same area. There hasn’t been a note of how tall any of these retaining walls or anything of that but it’s fairly, easy to assume that a lot of these retaining walls were done during that period where the City did not require for retaining walls to come in that were 4 feet tall or under. Here’s the retaining wall design. It’s going to be constructed out of granite blocks so this is material will be a lot sturdier than the timbers that are currently there and looking here it will be 12 feet tall. Staff has recommended that the Board of Appeals and Adjustments approve the shoreland setback and bluff setback variance request as shown on plans provided Hawkins Tree and Landscaping dated July 16, 2015 with conditions from the staff report and adopts the attached Findings of Fact. Here are the conditions if you’d like to look at them and at this point in time that concludes the presentation and I’m open to any questions that you might have. Aller: Okay, any questions? Tietz: Commissioner. Aller: Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: Drew I noticed on that slide that showed the construction or the cross section of the retaining wall. Ingvalson: Absolutely. Tietz: That appeared to be a concept because it said that they are not structural engineers and that you’d need a structural engineer to produce the final design. Has that been done? 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2015 Aanenson: I’ll let Alyson answer that question. Fauske: Excellent question Commissioner Tietz. With the upper retaining wall being in excess of 4 feet high they do have to get a building permit. As such the plans for that wall has to be designed by an engineer registered in the State of Minnesota and signed by that engineer. Typically drainage behind a retaining wall that size is included in that plan so there will be an engineer that would have to sign off on the final drainage plan for the wall. Tietz: Good, thank you. Fauske: You’re welcome. Aanenson: Just to look to that, that is condition number 5 in the staff report that they would have to get that engineered. Yep. Tietz: Yeah. Hokkanen: Are they required then to have some kind of a fence or some kind of barrier from that, anything over 4 feet? Fauske: Typically when we have a retaining wall next to a public travel surface, a sidewalk, a road, that sort of thing, they’re certainly encouraged to do something like that. A landscaping feature to kind of keep people, you know small children away from the edge of that retaining wall but our code is for anywhere near a public traveled way. Aanenson: I would say also it may impact if it was on a neighboring property. This is all on their own property. Hokkanen: So then it doesn’t. Aanenson: Yeah. Yeah so if it would maybe abutting another neighbor’s property so in this circumstance you’d have the 12 feet. Then you have that area that we were recommending they landscape then you’ve got that wall that they’re replacing so it’s all on their private, so it’s kind of their own risk as. Hokkanen: Okay. Aller: Have we recommended the type of landscape that we would put next to that wall? We’re looking at 12 feet. Can we put a small overstory tree or understory tree? Ingvalson: So we have from our conditions we had number 2 there, the specific condition I’ll read off is that the middle tier shall be planted with native deep rooted vegetation that will provide the water quality and ecological benefits and acts to screen the wall as viewed from the lake within 14 days of completion. We have there is it going to be vegetation ornamental trees we required and the one thing that we did have in there is a specific condition was that it shall be, 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2015 the area cover shall be no less than 85 percent. Nothing specific with types of plantings. That’s something we’d probably be working out as we move forward with it, if this was approved. Aanenson: When they would submit their building permit we would ask them to subject the landscaping plan too. Aller: And is the oak on city right-of-way or is it on private property? Ingvalson: Private property. Aller: Their’s or neighbors? Ingvalson: Neighbors. Aller: Okay so they would have to deal with the neighbors. Aanenson: The neighbors have met on site with the City Forester so we’ve had discussions about, it’s a civil matter but we are trying to use best practices. Both neighbors are in concurrence of that and have taken inventory and status of the tree so they’re both monitoring that during construction period. Aller: Okay. And then on drainage and runoff, is there a benefit to having the piping come through the center of the property as opposed to the side yard? It seems to me that if it’s slowed down by the natural flow on the yard, even though that there’s some erosion. That’s not as fast of runoff so you wouldn’t have a lot of the nutrients and other things pouring into the lake, is that something that we’re looking at? Fauske: Well typically you do want drainage to follow the natural lay of the land. That being said there’s a lot of, there’s very steep slopes on this property so when you get slopes that see the velocity of the water is conducive for erosion on the property so the benefit of having the drainage feature that goes through the middle of the property is, the intent is to try not only gather some of that water but get it to that area inbetween the upper tier and the lower tier and then with the natural vegetation it’s taking some of that runoff and pulling it out. It’s using that to feed and get the deep root so that you’re getting some of the natural absorption into the plant material versus direct runoff towards the lake. Aller: Okay, thank you. Any additional questions at this time? Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: Would it be more favorable for the tree if the retaining wall stayed in it’s current location? Ingvalson: Either way with this project that’s going to be done here, if they do construct a retaining wall in that same place they will need to do construction in that area so you’re looking at a situation where there’s going to be work done there either way. Really what we’re looking at is trying to mitigate any of those negative issues that we’d have there. There will be a potential change in grade in that area that we would hope that we could minimize. 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2015 Madsen: Okay. And the neighbor who has the tree, is that neighbor in favor of this proposed change? Ingvalson: I believe they had signed a document stating that they were in favor but I would have to check first. The property owner at 3898, Pam and Terry Johnson have signed and I have a document in here saying they were in favor of this. They have not stated anything they would change their minds since the previous talks they’ve had with staff. Madsen: Okay. Aanenson: I’d just mention that the City Forester did meet with both owners out there so. I think they’re both working hard to make sure they save that. Madsen: Thank you. Ingvalson: Absolutely. Aller: And for the record of those individuals at home there are a number of letters in support from the neighbors up and down Lone Cedar Lane that can be viewed on the website. Any additional questions? Aanenson: This is a public hearing so we have to open. Aller: Yes we’ll open the public hearing. We don’t have the applicant here so we’ll open the public hearing and anyone wishing to speak either for or against the item can do so at this time. And seeing no one come forward my guess is that they feel that the letters that have been attached to the package have stated their ascent to the request as indicated in the package and I’ll close the public hearing at this point in time and open it up for discussion. Comment. Yusuf: I’ll just make a comment. I do appreciate just how good the packet is and the lengths that the applicant went to to gather up support from the neighbors and working with the staff. Aller: How do you feel about the project? Yusuf: I understand the challenge. I understand the challenge that they’re faced with and you know it’s a good opportunity to fix it. I’m in favor. Aller: Any additional comments? I think it’s great that the neighbors were contacted and were brought in and that communication was there and that the forester is working with them. Especially with the neighbors with such a precious commodity being a large oak such as we’re dealing with and the efforts that staff has gone through with the applicant to make sure that the conditions are there to safeguard the erosion and the bluff and the other natural resources in the area. It does look like to me that it’s replacing and repairing and maintaining as opposed to coming up with some new major project, although the wall is larger and they will be gaining the 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2015 ability to have the access to more lawn or area. Back yard. That it looks to me that they’re doing what they need to do to make sure that the property is maintained more than developed. Hokkanen: I agree. Aller: So because of that I’m in favor. Hokkanen: I’m in favor. Aller: Any additional comments? Questions? Concerns? I’ll entertain a motion. Hokkanen: I’ll propose a motion. The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a variance request to replace expand, replace and expand retaining walls that encroach into the shoreland setback, bluff setback and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Undestad: Second. Aller: I have a motion by Commissioner Hokkanen and a second by Commissioner Undestad. Any further discussion? Hokkanen moved, Undestad seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the variance request to replace and expand retaining walls that encroach into the shoreland setback and bluff setback, as shown in plans provided by Hawkins Tree & Landscaping dated July 16, 2015, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision, subject to the following conditions: 1.The applicant shall work with staff to ensure reasonable effort shall be made to protect the oak, located north of the upper wall, and possible root area during construction. 2.The middle tier shall be planted with native, deep-rooted vegetation that will provide the water quality and ecological benefits and act to screen the wall as viewed from the lake within 14 days of completion of construction. As this wall will be up to twelve (12) feet in height, at least some woody vegetation/ornamental trees will be required and total aerial cover at maturity shall be no less than 85%. A landscape plan shall be prepared and submitted to the City for review and approval. 3.The vegetation between tiered walls shall be low or no maintenance. 4.Surety funds shall be required equal to 110% the cost of landscaping the middle tier prior to any earth-disturbing activities. 5.The applicant shall apply for and receive a building permit prior to construction. 6.The following materials are prohibited for retaining wall construction: smooth face, poured-in-place concrete (stamped or patterned concrete is allowed), masonry, railroad ties or timber. 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 18, 2015 7.Walls taller than six feet shall not be constructed with boulder rock. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: 1190 LYMAN BOULEVARD VARIANCE, PLANNING CASE 2015-15: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO WETLAND SETBACK TO RELOCATE SEPTIC SYSTEM ON PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURAL ESTATE (A2) AND LOCATED AT 1190 LYMAN BOULEVARD. APPLICANT/OWNER: DUANE SKLUZACEK. Ingvalson: This next case is for a wetland setback variance request. Location of the subject property is at 1190 Lyman Boulevard. If you look over here it is just off of Powers Boulevard and then off of Lyman also. The city sewer currently is not available to this property and also the subject property is not required to connect to city sewer due to it being over 150 feet from the city sanitary sewer. Here’s an image of the subject house. This house was constructed in 1984 with a septic system designed to handle 2 bedrooms. At some point in time after 1984 this house was remodeled and, for it to have another 2 bedrooms so now it is currently a 4 bedroom home. There’s not any city record in our city building files that show when this was completed or when this was done. So the request the applicant has is that they are requesting a variance from the 75 foot wetland setback to construct a new septic system with a 4 bedroom design. The existing system is failing so that’s why this is coming about. They need to get a new system in there. This new system will be an enlargement as I stated from a current 2 bedroom design to a 4 bedroom design. The applicant is proposing to do a Type 3 mound system which will be located on top of part of the current system partially. Here is an image of the property and all the setbacks that this structure is going to need to meet. Looking on here the dark green is the wetland. The light green is the 75 foot wetland setback. The reddish pink is the 20 foot structure setback. Here’s from the house. The blue circle is the 50 foot well setback. The purple is the 10 foot property line setback. Brown here is the 20 foot steep slope setbacks and there’s also some more structures in there that make it very difficult to put this new system in. This goldish color is gravel which is compacted soils which can’t be used for a septic system. Leaving only this white area as possible areas for a new septic system. The proposed location is right here, this orange rectangle for the new system. An alternative location is right here in this cross hatched area or this cross line area as an alternative spot. However the building, the City’s building department has gone out and looked on site. There is a drainage way that goes through to the wetland right here in this dark blueish area which also makes this a poor area for a new septic system. The main reason that the property owner is looking to have this septic system in another spot was to preserve some mature trees. Looking on the left side here the mature trees that they are looking to preserve for this project. To the right is some smaller trees that will need to be removed with the new septic mound system that they’re looking to locate it. Here is an elevation and drainage diagram. The low point on the property is located on the southwest area with it going down in elevation to the wetland area. Here is the location of the drainage ditch. You can see these contours that drainage flows through this area to the wetland. There’s also steep slopes behind the back side of the house which make it difficult for the, that makes it not able to meet the steep slope area there. The diagram shows the proposed septic site right here. It has to be located with the contours per building requirements for a new septic system. This report was 8