Loading...
PC 2016 03 15 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 15, 2016 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; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Drew Ingvalson, Planner, and Alyson Fauske, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT: Dan Hanson, Wausau Homes 1450 W. Farm Road, Chaska Keith Jones 6265 Ridge Road Ryan Majkrzak 9001 Lake Riley Boulevard Jack Fess 6280 Ridge Road Peg Schelitzche 680 Pleasant View Road Michael Wistrand 9670 Meadowlark Lane Gayle Vogel 105 Pioneer Trail Dave & Amy Vogel 9641 Meadowlark Lane PUBLIC HEARING: 6285 RIDGE ROAD, PLANNING CASE 2016-05: REQUEST FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A STABLE ON 1.74 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 6285 RIDGE ROAD (LOT 1, BLOCK 1, MEYER’S ADDITION). OWNER: NANCY LINK. Generous: Thank you Mr. Chairman, commissioners. Planning Case 2016-05 is a request for an interim use permit to allow a property owner to build a private stable on their property. Again th tonight is the public hearing and this item will go forward to City Council on March 28. The applicant is Nancy Link who lives at 6285 Ridge Road. I should point out that I did provide 3 pieces of correspondence that were submitted after the staff report went out. All 3 of them are opposed to approval of the interim use permit for the stable. I did want to explain one of them was talking about a side issue about the construction of a pool on the property. They have a valid permit for that and there’s nothing under our city code that requires that they provide the barriers around the hole in the ground. It would be like the City requiring that for every basement that was constructed in the city and dug out. It’s only prior to filling the pool that the city code requires that a fence be installed on the property so. The other item. Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 Aller: If I could just for the record, we have received all 3 items and they will be part of the packet which will be reviewed and then received by the City Council for final action. Thanks Bob. Generous: Thank you. And the second part of it was the shrubs that were taken out and trees and scattered on the site. We had been in contact with the property owner and she’s agreed to work with her contractor to get that cleaned up so those items will be addressed otherwise. The property’s located at 6285 Ridge Road. It’s right on the corner of Pleasant View and Ridge Road which is a private street. It’s in the northeast quadrant. The site slopes down from the west to the east. To the east is the Pleasant View preserve which is a natural area. It’s wooded in this area and then there’s a big wetland complex and then an open water body. The property is zoned single family residential. Under the RSF district regulations one of the interim uses is a private stable for horses. The requirements for getting that are that they comply with Chapter 5 which is our stable permit requirements which specifies all the things that a property owner would have to do. This property is 1.74 acres in size. City code requires a minimum of 1 ½ acres for up to 2 horses and then another half, 2 acres if you want 3 horses and then a third acre for each additional horse. The easterly part of the site is, has a significant canopy area. Some of the understory trees and buckthorn have been cleared out by the applicant and their contractors. Again the request is the interim use permit for a private stable. The RSF district permits stables as interim uses. What an interim use means is that at some point there is a sunset date on that. As part of staff’s recommendation we came up with 3 items that would trigger that event. One would be the sale of the home or the property. A second one would be a subdivision of the property which would make it smaller than ordinance requirements. And the third would be if the City would have to widen Pleasant View Road and take additional right-of-way to make that work. We believe that is, the sale of the property allows that if the City should in the future amend it’s ordinances to preclude this type of use that it would not have a non-conforming status that would be allowed to be continued so. Again the interim use is to construct a private stable on a property zoned single family residential. It’s to allow the owners to have horses and in this instance while they currently are proposing that they only have one, a miniature pony, ordinance would allow them to have up to 2 horses. This is a schematic of their property. This is the area where the pool is going in. It’s on the north central part of the site. House is located here. You can see all the contours. It drops down the hill. They’re looking someplace in this area to put the stable in and then the wetland is off the screen. They exceed the minimum requirements of separation in city ordinance so. They would have to come in for a separate building permit if this item is approved by the City Council. As part of the approval they would need to have, Chapter 5 has what is it? Ten criteria for the approval of a stable permit. Some of the opposition to this is a concern about noise and you know rodents and smells. However under our stable permit they’re required to keep that in a clean shape and one of the specific conditions are the shelter or stabling facility shall be clean and sanitary such that it would not be a harborage for rodents, flies and insects. The City has the right as part of the stable permit operation to inspect that so if there are complaints we can go out and make sure that it is kept in a wholesome manner. Manure has to be trucked off the site every once in a while. Unfortunately for the horse 2 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 this site does not provide enough forage for it so they’ll have to bring in hay and oats for it to be fed so. Again they’re going to have to enclose this. They have to meet all the requirements of city code. Annually they would need to come in for a stable permit and at that time we would, we do have an inspection that our stable inspector performs prior to issuance of the annual permit. It will be a one story structure. Again has to come in for building permit approval if this is approved by City Council. Footprint, there’s 2 proposed stalls in it. The lean to area on the east and then the area for storage on the west side of it. Pretty basic facility. It will blend in with the neighborhood. It’s you know attractive building as far as accessory structures go and it’s really not that big. 32 feet total from one end to the other and 16 feet wide so. Staff is recommending approval of the interim use permit to permit the private stable subject to the conditions of approval in the staff report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: Just real quick what’s our enforcement capability on Title 5? So if they don’t meet the requirements, they don’t pass an inspection what is the City going to do? Generous: The City may revoke their stable permit. Aller: And if they revoke their stable permit and they say we have a horse here we won’t go then we have to take legal action? Generous: That’s correct. Like any other code enforcement issue. Aller: Any questions at this time of staff based on the report? If the applicant would like to come forward we can hear from the applicant. If you could state your name and address for the record that’d be great. Nancy Link: Hello. Yes I am Nancy Link and I live at 6285 Ridge Road. Aller: Great welcome. Nancy Link: Thank you. I just wanted to start by especially thanking you Mr. Generous. I know we’ve worked a lot over the last several weeks but I want to thank all of you, Chairman Aller and all of the City Council members. Thank you for your public service and I just want to thank you for this time tonight and this opportunity to speak with you about my family’s request for a permission permit to build this stable. He did a great job. I probably don’t have to go into too much more but my goal for the time tonight is just to keep it short and sweet and informative th and productive. As I stated in my narrative to Mr. Generous on January 29 the reason that we want to build this stable is for a 3 year old miniature horse that we currently have at the breeder in Clearwater, Minnesota. It’s about an hour drive one way so our goal is to get him home so that we can spend more time with him. In an effort to be very forthcoming with the people in my neighborhood I provided them a copy of basically the narrative that I had provided City Hall. Some people have stopped by to share in their excitement but others have voiced their concerns 3 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 and the bottom line that I just want to voice tonight is that I am fully prepared to not only enhance this neighborhood but to keep everything just as clean and pretty as it already is. We know that it’s going to be a lot of work. My daughter when we go to visit the horse she does work at the stable. She can’t wait to get up there and do it and she can’t wait to get up in the morning hopefully and do it at her home. So we believe that he’s going to bring a lot of joy to our family. He already has and we hope that ultimately it will be a fun thing in the neighborhood but there was on the committee’s summary, the planning committee case summary those 5 points that you indicated. That the structure be of sound, solid construction and it will also be aesthetically complimentary to the look and design of our home. We will definitely submit a tree removal plan in conjunction with the building permit and our goal is to preserve any healthy trees and just get rid of things that shouldn’t be there anyway to make room. And then 4 and 5 is to meet all the city code Article 5 or Article III, Section 5 requirements. The only thing that I wanted to clarify under the discussion points, the last part of that paragraph. It starts out, it should be noted that fences for pool enclosures must be a minimum of 5 feet high. And then it goes onto say if the applicant intends to use the same fence for both the pool and the pasture they must increase the height to 5 feet. I just want to make sure I understood that because. Generous: As part of the permit application for the fence that the City had it said it was a 4 foot high fence. Nancy Link: Oh okay. Generous: So I was trying to clarify that. Nancy Link: Thank you, okay. Generous: It has to be 5 feet. Nancy Link: Okay great. I did not catch that part earlier. Thank you very much. So I’m happy to take any questions and hopefully I can answer them. I have some wonderful people on my team, none of which could be here tonight but they said that they would be happy to answer anything as well if there’s questions that I can’t handle. I think that’s it. Thank you so much. Aller: Any questions at this point? Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: I have a question about the fence. So is there a separate fence that will be around the pool area that’s different than the one that would be around the perimeter of your yard? Nancy Link: Yes and essentially the fence, the pretty part of the fence that will be made of cedar is going to go along the north side of the home and then once it turns into the more of the brushy part of the, of my property line it’s going to be a black vinyl coated chainlink fence that will come directly from the north to the south and will actually enclose the whole property for, not the whole property but the whole back yard for the pool and then contained within that will be 4 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 the small stable with a small pasture area separately. So almost concurrently, does that make sense? Generous: Side by side. Madsen: Side by side so two separate fence areas? Nancy Link: No so if, if this is the fence around the property of the pool, within that will be a smaller area that will have the stable and a smaller fence just for that. Just for the horse. Does that make sense? Aller: How large is the smaller fence? Nancy Link: You know we have, gosh my, the Dakota Fence Company has come out and laid out all those measurements but essentially it’s going to be whatever the minimum that is required for one miniature horse to have adequate pasture grazing capability. Aller: Okay and then could you tell us a little bit more about the horse itself? The size. The function. Nancy Link: Yep absolutely. Miniature horses, they’ve been around for a long time. They’re very popular in Europe and they have slowly, in the 70’s they started to make more of an appearance in the United States. My daughter, she is 11 and like most little girls she loves horses and when she turned 10 she really wanted a horse and she knew that wasn’t going to happen and so she discovered Google and then she discovered miniature horses and so as we started to learn more about them they really strictly are a family pet. They don’t have work capabilities. They’re not meant to be ridden. You cannot saddle them and ride them and so it’s more of, it’s almost like a dog because you can teach it to do tricks. You can take it on walks. There is a community in Minnesota that does horse therapy where you can, miniature horse therapy. You take them to visit nursing homes or hospitals or the like just because they’re a nice therapeutic type of, what’s the word. Demeanor about them so they’re calm. Very mild mannered animals and so we have come to know Smoke is his name. We go up and visit him quite frequently and he’s just a delightful little guy so. Aller: Great and you said you had a lot of people on your team. Are they friends, neighbors or are they professionals? Nancy Link: Yes. Bob Rennon is with Minnesota Green and he’s been an integral part of kind of everything. Dakota Fence, Rick Fisher has been my contact with that. And then Mike Austin is a builder, remodeler who also has 10 horses of his own so he helped design the stable that we put together. And the pool guy as well but he’s not really a part of that so I guess that’s it. 5 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 Aller: And then before I let you go, maybe somebody else has some questions but have you had an opportunity, you indicated some people had shared with you things that they didn’t like. Can you address some of those? What they were and how you intend to work those things out. Nancy Link: Yes. My understanding is that there is a concern about noise which he doesn’t make a lot of noise. He does make the sound of a horse but it’s just, it’s not as boisterous as like a full sized horse. He weigh 175 pounds. Miniature horses can get up to 250 pounds but he is a full sized, full grown guy so hopefully he won’t gain an extra 75 pounds but they, let’s see. So one concern was the noise and then the smell and you know thankfully these are not, you know this is one small horse. It’s not like a big herd of horses so I’m not concerned about that. I absolutely agree. I don’t want to smell it either but that will be part of the maintenance and keeping up and the work that is involved with having an animal like this. Let’s see. There is a concern about coyotes which is already been a concern in the neighborhood but I don’t know how else, you know I know that as far as the construction goes that there has been some debris that was placed and one of my neighbors has noticed trackings from a coyote and so that is something that I just learned about yesterday. Or was it yesterday? Yeah and so I’m already on that. But I think coyotes and deer and squirrels, you know these are all part of our natural environment but hopefully it doesn’t bring lots of coyotes in the area. I don’t know if that’s. Let’s see what else? I guess that’s it. Aller: Any other questions? Tietz: Yeah Andrew. Aller: Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: Yeah I just have a question. There appears to be a pretty significant drainage ditch just kind of wandering or meandering. Not a creek but a ditch that goes to Silver Lake and into the wetland. How would you propose to contain any drainage from the paddock or the corral because it appears that you know it’s a heavily wooded lowland vegetation area. Nancy Link: Yep. Tietz: I would think you’re really not, I’m sorry to make a comment about this, in my estimation it’s going to be very difficult to grow any grass down there with all the shade that you have so you’re essentially creating a corral or a holding area. So how are you going to deal with that and how are you going to deal with the runoff to Silver Lake? Nancy Link: Right. So Bob and I, as well as Mike Austin have had lots of discussions about that and part of several thousand dollars worth of work is going to go into grading that area so it becomes a flat area for him as well as getting rid of lots of the trees that are providing shade that doesn’t necessarily need to be so shaded back there so I mean we’re not going to clear out the whole area by any stretch but we definitely you know we’re having an irrigation system put in 6 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 with the pool so hopefully we can create a nice pasture that has a lot of grass and we can keep the runoff. I don’t know the technical terms for all that but it’s definitely, that is on our list of areas. Tietz: So will there be a grading plan submitted. Generous: As part of the building permit. Tietz: So the entire area that’s proposed as a pasture would have a grading plan submitted in conjunction with the application? Generous: Yes. Tietz: Okay. Aller: My assumption is they’d also have the typical requirements for the silt fence and things for purposes of construction to protect the water. Generous: Yes. Engineering will review their grading plan and all those things get added as part of our building permit review. Aller: And because we don’t have those plans and it hasn’t been approved yet, then the City hasn’t been involved in taking a look at it in any form or fashion at this point? Fauske: That’s correct. Aller: Any additional questions of the applicant? Nancy Link: Don’t want to get the cart before the horse right? Aller: Alright. Nancy Link: All set, thank you Chairman. Aller: Great, thank you. Okay we’ll open up the public hearing. And invite anyone here who wishes to speak either for or against the item to come forward. Come up to the podium and state your name and address for the record. And then your position. Let’s have a good conversation about what you think. Jack Fess: Well good evening Planning Commission and good evening Nancy. I live directly across from Nancy and I’ve been out in Colorado skiing for the last 9 weeks so I rushed home nonstop believe it or not in my car. 16 hours so I could be here to this meeting and the letter that my neighbors, well first of all I’ve managed the Ridge Road Chanhassen section for 33 years 7 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 right now and this road goes all the way back from the subdivision from the time Nancy Marino was the mayor here to come down with City Council. When that property was all subdivided. That total property on the right hand side as you’re going up from Nancy’s corner to the chain is 7 acres. Now I spent considerable time this morning talking to Dr. Marr who owned that property and I want to give City Council a little bit of history of that property if I can so that everyone, I mean I’ve been here 34 years. I’ve been managing the road 32. He’s been here 46 and there is a history of that property with horses and I’d like to let you know. Okay at one time Dr. Marr’s bought that property in 1972. He’s a Urologist that’s retired. Raised his 2 children there. Prior to him that property was owned by a man and a woman who had 2 horses. That fence came from Libby, Montana. Was shipped all the way to Minnesota and installed there because this guy’s father was in the lumber business. We had a death that took place on that property when a horse, a young kid came through the corral area which was from the original house down to the corner and he got kicked in the head by a horse. Now that’s before I got there. The gentleman’s, the son’s name, the family’s name was Lindquist. There was a lawsuit involved. A divorce involved with the guy that owned the property. Subsequently the lawsuit, the kid was a vegetable I understand. Aller: Sir, what I’d like to do is kind of narrow the issue down to the problem with horses at the location. Jack Fess: Okay here’s the situation. The property would have never been subdivided if Mr. Marr, Dr. Marr knew anybody would apply for a horse, whether it’s a small one or big one. One of the things when he came on that property, Dean Wetzel, Mrs. Wetzel still lives across the street from that property 3 doors up from Nancy on the lake side. We’re all on the lake side and it’s the first thing they said to Dr. Marr you better not be putting a horse. Now we were a township back then. That’s one thing but we’re not a township today and he said, he looked at Mr. Wetzel, he didn’t even know the situation and said what are you out of your mind? So we did have 2 horses on there. Now we have 13 houses on the street. We checked with every owner. The ones that are in Florida for the winter. We have one neutral and we have 12 against this and I can only tell that we will go to City Council if we have to bring counsel with us. Now I sent a letter, I hope everybody has gotten it on behalf of my neighbors addressing these. Now the thing that I’m shocked about coming back and hearing that in the city of, in the town of Chanhassen if you have 1.8 acres or 1.75, whatever the planner mentioned before you can possibly put a horse on it. That total property on both sides up there is 14 acres and if you look at that there’s, there’s basically those properties are all 1 acre plus. The neighbor across the street who lives next to me has 2 acres and about a $4 million dollar house. Now we have 4 homes going up right now on Christmas Lake. All of them in the Shorewood side and none of them are less than $4 million dollars. Now this is a pretty prestige area. We’re paying a lot of taxes down there so here’s our basic concerns. Our basic concerns is we’re in a residential area. We’ve had horse problems before on Christmas Lake when it was across County Road 17. If it wasn’t for Frank Beddor that lake would have been polluted. We fought it for years when we had commercial horses. We haven’t had another horse in that area since 1970. Pat Cunningham who happens to be the father-in-law of this doctor got rid of his horse after this accident took 8 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 place and that’s the property where you come around Pleasant View Road to start down the hill on the right hand side. Pat had one horse. He got rid of the horse. We had 2 horses over on Christmas Lake Road that caused problems with runoff going into Christmas Lake. Them horses haven’t been there for 20 years. I’d like to know of one other place around where we live where there’s any horse whatsoever in Chanhassen. I’d like to go see it and see what’s going on. Does any, and the other question I ask, if you had a house that’s in a million dollar plus range, which most of those houses are, would you want to be on a private road with a farm animal across the street in this day and age? I don’t think so. Now one last thing. We have one neighbor who probably has the biggest horse ranch in this area here that lives 4 doors up. This happens to be the Bar Knot, what town’s it in Deanna? Deanna: Out by Orono. Jack Fess: Out near Orono that was, here’s a Cargill family. The grand daughter that owned that. They have jumping horses and she takes them all over the world. Flies them in airplanes even to Dubai. Aller: Okay sir we have to stay with this property. Jack Fess: Okay, her answer is when we read the letter to her, she not only thinks it’s not a good idea. She thinks it terrible for the small horse to be there by himself with no other horses. They’ve got a llama out there. They even has a zebra for God’s sakes in that training stable out there. There are places you can put a horse that’s closer than where this horse is being stabled today and all due respect we’re just shocked as neighbors. Shocked at the idea that someone would build a new swimming pool and then put a horse in the same property. So we are very upset and as I read this letter, if you want me to read it out for the general public. Have you all have a copy it wouldn’t be necessary. Aller: It’s going to be on the website and you can receive, you can take a look at it and anyone at home. Jack Fess: Well we have 13 residents including Nancy. We have 11 no, one neutral. And we all have to live together and we do get along together. I don’t think there’s a better place in Chanhassen to live. We let everybody come up that private road. We have no problems whatsoever with neighbors but this is not a very good idea for where we live. I love horses too but I just came back from Aspen. I researched that whole valley for 50 miles. You couldn’t put a horse in the town of Aspen or Vail, Colorado today. You couldn’t put it in Edwards. You couldn’t even put it in the next town down. You’d have to drive 50 miles where people are stabling their horses out there because they just have zoning laws that you can’t do this so I mean I don’t think this is a Chanhassen of 25-45 years ago and I don’t think anybody on this Planning Commission would want to live on a private road where a horse in this day and age with little kids are going to take care of it with a busy schedule everybody has and the snow we get. And the other question I have, do we have electric in there? Do we have running water? How do you 9 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 keep it from freezing? I don’t know so all I can say we love Nancy and her family but this is not a good idea and she did not bring it to us before she went to you guys or we would have tried to talk to her so this is what happens when you don’t communicate. I’m sorry. Aller: Well we appreciate your passion on the subject and thank you for sharing with us. Any other individuals wishing to come forward. Keith Jones: Yes please. I’m Keith Jones. I’ll keep it real short. Aller: And your address please. Keith Jones: 6265 Ridge Road so I’m right next to Nancy. Aller: Thank you. Keith Jones: Love Nancy. Most fun neighbors we’ve had in that house ever so that’s been fantastic but we’ve been there 19 years. Owned the property for 19 years. Been there 17. Owned it for 19. My concern, it’s not the cute little horse. It’s the fact they can have 2 full grown horses in there. That’s true smell. That’s true property value, devaluation and other issues like that that happen. And I am quite concerned about the coyote issue. Yes we already have them but it will only get worst if something’s penned right there. My dog was killed within 100 feet of where that stable would be by a coyote about 10 feet out our back door while she was going to the bathroom. Aller: Sorry to hear that. Keith Jones: While I was watching her and they came in a pack and all that. Well anyway the point is just don’t feel it’s right for our neighborhood. Love the Link family. Don’t want anybody to feel bad and I also really appreciated Mr. Generous because I did have a couple questions about trees and stuff and I appreciate you taking care of those so thank you very much for your time. Aller: Thank you for sharing your information. Any other individuals wishing to come forward at this time to speak either for or against the item before us? Seeing no one come forward I’ll go ahead and close. Peg Schelitzche: I do have a comment. Aller: Oh we do have a person coming forward. Take your time. State your name and address for the record please. Peg Schelitzche: Peg Schelitzche and we live at 680 Pleasant View Road which is just adjacent there. It’s that buffer between the two and we just have a couple questions. First of all I’m not 10 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 seeing on the map exactly where the stable is going to be. Is that, it’s not up there now. Okay. So it’s way down in the bottom left hand, bottom right hand corner and we’re the house, then there’s buffer land inbetween and then we’re the house, the next house right on the corner on 680. We’re just concerned as to, first of all the runoff of the leftovers from the horse and all that and also my husband was concerned also, is there going to be, right now they’re working on the property as I understand it with the retaining wall and the pool is going in but there’s not going to be an access onto Pleasant View Road or is there? Fauske: An access to? Peg Schelitzche: An access, another driveway onto Pleasant View Road. Fauske: No. Peg Schelitzche: No. Okay right now there is because the workers are using that. Fauske: Construction entrance. Peg Schelitzche: Construction okay and so that’s just what our concern was is that there would not be another access to get to the stable or anything like that or for trailering or whatever you’re doing with that to be on Pleasant View Road because we don’t need more on Pleasant View Road that’s for sure because we all know it’s a bad road to begin with but that was all the concerns we had and we, like I said I didn’t see this map in the printout so I wanted to know exactly where this was going to be. Thank you. Aller: Great, thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forward? Seeing no one come forward I’ll close the public hearing and open it up for commissioner comments or questions. Any feeling on it? Madsen: I shared. Undestad: I have a question for Bob there. Maybe you can clarify the potential for 2 large horses on there. The acreage, the coverage, is the land structure? Generous: The land is sufficient to permit up to 2 horses. Undestad: So whether it’s a flat pasture or a cliff down, as long as it’s that acreage they can. Generous: Yes we were looking at amending the ordinance what is it a year ago but it wasn’t pursued. Undestad: Okay. 11 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 Aller: If they wanted to upgrade to allow 4 horses would the structure also have to change then? Generous: I don’t believe. Aller: Because if they built this for a miniature horse and they wanted to bring in 2 horses would they have to come back? Or would they have to get a building permit and change the building? Generous: They would just, if they had to change the building they would need a permit but they wouldn’t have to come back to Planning Commission. This is, their approval is now for interim use permit to have a private stable. And I would have to ask Carol, our horse inspector whether or not this facility is adequate for full sized horses or if it’s undersized. Aller: Any further questions or comments? I’ll entertain a motion to either table or pass or fail or? Yusuf: I’ll make a motion. Aller: Commissioner Yusuf. Yusuf: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the interim use permit to permit a private stable subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Hokkanen: Second. Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion? Madsen: I do not. Aller: Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: I do not support that. I think there are concerns from the neighbors with regard to the use of that property and how the neighborhood has grown and I just, I would not support that motion. I also have concerns about the waste and trucking it out and the fact that if you approve this for a private stable that doesn’t limit it to miniature horses. That large, regular sized horses could potentially be there. Generous: Yes theoretically they can have up to 2 horses on this property. Nancy Link: Can I address that? Aanenson: Can I just get clarification on what you’re discussing. …the interim use permit I wanted to separate. So the building permit’s a separate process. You’re not here to review the 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 building plans. We’re showing that for your edification to show what it could be so that will be managed through, looking at the drainage, the grading and all that to make sure it meets all the setbacks and accessory structures, square footage so the item before you tonight is whether or not it meets the criteria for an interim use permit and those are limited to in the ordinance. Does it meet the criteria of the zoning regulation? It’s a permitted use in the zoning district and is that, and that we gave a date of termination. Aller: For a sunset. Aanenson: Yeah, a sunset date so we gave 3 criteria on that. One if the owner changes. Road improvements and, what was the third one? A subdivision were to occur and then the City would at no additional cost, let’s see. The City will impose additional cost is the public, if it’s necessary to take property in the future so this would typically apply to some other where we’re subdividing or additional sewer and water would be a requirement so if they meet all those conditions that’s the criteria that we’re looking for. Aller: And I think that’s where Commissioner Madsen was going. I think what she’s looking at is the ability for the scope to be changed from what the request is with a miniature horse to the ability if it’s approved to just move in 2 horses. Aanenson: Right, again we’re not looking at, we’re looking at the interim use for the horses. We’re not looking at size. We’re not, we’re silent on that. We’re just saying does this lot meet those requirements and in order to address those issues we try to clarify where the barn’s going to sit. How it’s going to be managed. Will it be fenced. All those other conditions to make sure it meets regulations. Not to dismiss those other comments because those are certainly always important and if there are nuisance problems that we would go out and inspect those. Aller: What I’m hearing from the City after it’s investigation and from reading the report is that it does meet all the requirements statutorily. In our zoning. Generous: Yes it appears so. Aller: And then the question for us would be has anything been presented tonight which would put those findings into question as finders of fact and that would be the determination in your minds whether or not you feel as though it meets the requirements based upon what we have before us or it doesn’t. So based on is there any other comment or based on that information and the comments and the motion and second before us. Any further discussion? Yusuf moved, Hokkanen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Interim Use Permit to permit a private stable subject to the following conditions and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation: 13 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 1. A building permit is required. If the proposed construction is to be of a “pole-type” building a signed structural engineer’s design is required. 2. The applicant shall submit a tree removal plan in conjunction with the building permit application. 3. The applicant shall preserve any significant, healthy trees within the rear yard. 4. The applicant shall meet the requirements of City Code Article III, Section 5, Horses. 5. The interim use permit shall end with any of the following occurrences: 1) sale of the property, 2) subdivision of the property or alteration of the property lines or, 3) widening of Pleasant View Road which takes additional right-of-way from the parcel. All voted in favor, except Commissioner Tietz who opposed and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Aanenson: Then just for clarification for the neighbors this item is scheduled to appear on the thth 28, the City Council meeting on the 28. th Aller: On March 28. th Aanenson: March 28, right. Right. Again our staff report was saying did it meet those merits. We’re not judging whether or not it’s a good neighbor or not. We’re just saying did it meet the th intent of the ordinance so that will be scheduled then for the March 28 and all the information that was presented as well as the verbatim Minutes will be attached to this item going forward to the City Council. Aller: Correct and those of you at home or present who want to follow that also can receive these reports and see these reports on the City’s website under the Minutes of the Planning Commission and also on the, the different City Council Minutes section so as it comes forward and it moves forward as a package you’ll be able to click on that link and look at the PDF’s including any reports, letters, information and the verbatim information and documentation that was received tonight. Okay moving forward to item number 2. PUBLIC HEARING: 9001 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD, PLANNING CASE 2016-06: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO FENCE HEIGHT ON .98 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 9001 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD. OWNER: RYAN AND CAROLYN MAJKRZAK. Ingvalson: Thank you Chairman. Correct so this planning case is for a height variance for a fence that is in the shoreland setback. Here is an image of the, an aerial image of the property. On the left you can see that the property is adjacent to Lake Riley. It is also on Lyman 14 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 Boulevard and Lake Riley Boulevard at the intersection. The lot is a bit irregular shape as a very long portion that is along Lyman Boulevard. There is also a tributary that comes into the property. You can see is a bit irregular shaped due to the tributary coming in. At this point I’d also like to note that there was a email sent to the City. It was left in front of you. It is from a th Rosemary Kelly dated March 13. This was submitted to the City after the staff report was completed so it essentially says that it objects to the height and solid material construction of the fence. Are requesting that it is a shorter fence specifically stating that it negatively impacts the aesthetic view along the lake. Can I verify that everyone received that? Aller: And again for the record we’ve received that document. It will be attached to the record and proceed if necessary to the City Council for further action as well. Ingvalson: Great, thank you. One of the definitions that we’ll have during this presentation is the difference between lake proper and shoreline. Lake proper, if you’re looking at the image to the right will consist of the shoreland as you would see is where the lake continues along whereas shoreline will actually be where the ordinary high water mark is for the lake. That ordinary high water mark cuts into this property so the property line actually cuts in this way. It’s not a straight line across here but it cuts inbetween. A little bit of history about this property. The parcel originally looked something like the image on the left and if you look on the county website this is what the parcel comes up as. However in 2011 the City vacated a portion of the right-of-way. The portion that was vacated you can see in yellow and actually gave this, moved the property line to the west giving it more area and allowed it to build a home on this property. In 2013 the property owner came forward and built a house on the property. As you can see on the right, this is a survey that was submitted by the property owner and this is what the actual property lines are. There is a property line that cuts in on this portion of the parcel and that is where the ordinary high water mark is. Here’s an image of the property looking southeast. You can see it’s at the intersection of Lake Riley Boulevard and Lyman. Moving forward with the request. The property owner is requesting a 3 foot fence height variance to construct a 6 foot, 6 inch tall, 175 foot long privacy fence that is located within the 75 foot shoreland setback. The property owner is requesting a variance for a couple different reasons. The first two are really related to the traffic that is going on along Lyman Boulevard, as you probably know. It’s a very busy street. These images are taken on the right from Lyman. This is along the sidewalk. The other one is across the street. The first…area is about traffic. So the applicant is looking to decrease car traffic noise and also vehicle headlight glare. After going out to the property it’s apparent this could be a potential issue for the property owner. If you’re looking at here from the bottom picture, it’s very easily could be headlights that are flashing into this area even though the backyard or onto the deck that is on the rear part of the property as you can see here. There’s also issues of noise. It’s a very busy street. It’s very possible that there is a noise issue for the property owner so that’s the first part. The property owner’s also looking to prevent a couple other issues that they’ve had since purchasing the property. One of those is to prevent trespassing across private property to access Lake Riley. The applicant stated that people have been accessing the lake through this wooded area probably with the assumption that that’s public property. However it is private property if you’re looking on this image. They’d be cutting 15 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 across through here which is their private property. The applicant has come up with a couple different ways to reduce this from happening. They have put up signs which I saw when I was on site stating no trespassing. They said this deterrent has not really stopped people from trespassing across their property. The other issue that they have is that they’re looking to provide a little more privacy in their back yard. If you look from the sidewalk there is very limited privacy in the back yard. You can see right back there. The deck and everything in the rear yard so those are the big points they’ve had for why they are requesting this variance. Here is the proposed plan that the applicant has submitted. If you look onto the right the blue line is the location for the fence. Like I said before it’s going to be 6 foot, 6 inches tall and 175 feet long which doesn’t cover the entire property. It actually only covers probably closer to half the property line along Lyman. It will be outside the sight triangle so I know one concern that I’ve heard from a resident was not being able to see as they drive up from Lake Riley Boulevard onto Lyman. The City does require that fences are not within the sight triangle which is 30 feet from ways from this corner of the property so when a car comes up they will be able to see both ways on Lyman. The fence is also going to be located one inch off of the property line per city code and will be approximately 5 feet off of the public sidewalk that’s located on Lyman Boulevard. And if you look here, this is probably our best illustration of where the property line is. This green line is the ordinary high water mark which will be where the property line is and also down here is where the lakeshore continues so from the lakeshore the fence is definitely outside of the lakeshore proper area. 75 feet however because our definition of where the lake is with this inlet includes the lake so it’d be a part of that setback requirement of 75 feet which the fence is definitely within so the request for the variance is due to this 75 foot setback. Also something to note is that if this continuation of the lake went through this way the fence would be permitted by the height. The height is 6 feet, 6 inches tall. This is the maximum height allowed within the City so they would not be exceeding the maximum height allowed per city code. They’d be at the maximum height. However because it’s within the shoreland there are restrictions to protect the aesthetic view from other properties, from both the lake side and from the public side. And oh one more thing to note, on this next slide. So here is the, the reason that this inlet exists is because there’s drainage coming from a property across the street at Riley Ridge Park. There’s a wetland here. The City actually has a culvert that cuts across Lyman Boulevard and deposits into this inlet from the lake which creates this location. One condition that the City has added for this variance is that there will be a gate located here, at least 14 feet side to allow access to the City in case there was some sort of concern with the culvert there so we could have maintenance. Here’s an image from across the street. What the fence will approximately look like. The fence will approximately go to this point. It will be about 6 ½ feet fall. Will block this portion of the property. This is looking east from across the street Lyman Boulevard. Here is what it will look like a little bit with in the spring. I know the image before shows what it will look like in the winter. As you can see in the spring or summer time, I took this off of Google Maps street view. It’s a very vegetated area. There will be a loss of view obviously with anything that’s put up with that is a privacy fence. However that view will be minimal due to the amount of vegetation that’s already in the area. Here’s another view along the sidewalk. As you can see here is where the fence will stop. It will be about 5 feet off of the public sidewalk and it will be 6 ½ feet high and there may be some trees that will need to be removed. The applicant 16 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 hasn’t said any trees that they’ll be removing but with putting in a fence where these trees are located something that they’ll consider going forward. Here are some trees that will be removed the applicant has stated. They’ve said that they are diseased and they’ll be removed for that fence. They originally put in as a barrier from Lyman hoping that it would stop some of the noise from the traffic. However they said that it has not been adequate. A little bit about the character of the neighborhood. There are some variances that have gone forward within this area, specifically 3 requests. Or 4 requests, 3 of which were approved. One of which was withdrawn. For those 2 of them were for shoreland setbacks. Another one had been for a fence on a property. So after reviewing this case it’s definitely obvious that there’s some unique circumstances with the property and the orientation of it and then also with that inlet that makes it unique. Due to the unique nature of the property staff is recommending that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 3 foot fence height variance for a 6 foot, 6 inch tall, 175 foot long fence in the shoreland setback as shown in Attachment 6 of the staff report subject to conditions of approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision. Here are the conditions. If you have any questions I am open to any of them at this point. Aller: The variances that were either approved or denied, those were requests for additional hard cover? Ingvalson: Yes. They were, so looking at this. They were for a 5 foot front yard and 1 percent hard cover and then also for a 32 foot shoreland setback. The other variance is for a little bit over a 10 foot shoreland setback. Here’s another approval that was for hard cover and then there was a denial for a shoreland setback variance. Aller: Do we see any impact of the fence on the water flow for purposes of drainage one way or the other? Ingvalson: No. The culvert. Fauske: Thank you Drew. The slide here shows in the green the storm water pipe and that’s the conveyance system that staff raised the concern about so the challenge is. There we go. Maintaining the outlet here to the lake so that that removable panel would allow access to that. As far as surface flow goes there was no concerns with the fence being constructed at it’s proposed location. Aller: And for purposes of storm water collection and runoff or water control the City would have an interest in keeping that open then? Fauske: That’s correct. Tietz: Drew I have a question regarding the. Aller: Commissioner Tietz. 17 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 Tietz: Regarding the height of the fence. Why was 6 foot 6? Is that just because it’s a max in the city or were any view studies done? You know if there’s concern about walkers on the sidewalk, certainly a 6 foot fence would satisfy the privacy of the homeowner walking on the sidewalk. Were view studies conducted by the applicant? Ingvalson: I don’t believe they completed any view studies per se. I think a lot of it was that that is the maximum allowed within the city so that was the number that they went with for their property. I know looking at it, it does drop a bit in this location. However I know that I believe that the site also raises up in elevation near the home but I think they went with that number because it was the maximum amount that is allowed in a residential neighborhood within the city. Tietz: Okay and do we, does the City have any review authority or ability to look at the aesthetics of the proposed fence so that we, you know that’s a pretty highly traveled road and it’s, there’s some very nice homes along there and access and view to the lake. Ingvalson: We’ve not added anything to it regarding the aesthetics of the fence. We did, the applicant did state it would be a privacy fence. Tietz: Well there’s a lot of privacy fences. Ingvalson: Sure. Aanenson: It is a variance request. You can ask for reasonable conditions. If you wanted to make that a condition of the specs or get some more information on that as part of your conditions for a variance you’re certainly within your discretion. Tietz: Okay, thank you. Aller: Any additional questions of staff at this point? Hearing none if the applicant would like to come forward and maybe you can address some issues with the fence that was raised and any issues that you’ve heard neighbors discuss with you before would be great. Ryan Majkrzak: Absolutely. So my name is Ryan Majkrzak. I live at 9001 Lake Riley Boulevard. The site that was the subject of the application. Aller: Welcome. Ryan Majkrzak: So I think the first thing I want to do is just say thank you to the Planning Commission. My dad actually served on a planning commission for about 8 years when I was growing up. I know it’s many times a tedious job. Long hours and probably not one that you always get a tremendous amount of positive feedback for so thank you for doing it. I guess the 18 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 other comment I’d like to make is I’ve been very impressed by the process. I had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Generous and another member of staff before the holidays. I was actually very impressed. It was a very kind of collaborative, you know kind of helpful meeting. The spirit of it was kind of how do we work together to solve the issue and I guess I appreciate that approach and I’d say the report that was published and the presentation from Mr. Ingvalson also I’ve got to say he did a great job of summarizing it so I’m not going to repeat because I think he hit most of the key points but I do want to kind of emphasize a couple of things. You know one is just trying to do something reasonable here which is you know for any of us with our houses and our, you know place of residence you want a little bit of privacy so you know what we didn’t realize moving into the house because you move into a brand new house and you don’t understand the lot is. When you sit in our dining room and you have the shades open the car lights just come straight in to where you’re trying to have dinner. If you want to sit out on the patio same thing. And then you know we moved from out of town. We didn’t realize how busy Lyman was. It’s a busy road. It’s a noisy road and so the first thing we tried to do was to put trees in to kind of do the minimal thing so we spent a lot of money. Put a lot of big trees in. Found out that they’re diseased and they don’t really solve the problem anyway. They only partially block the view and they don’t block the noise. I mean trees you’d have to put in a heck of a lot of trees to kind of get good noise protection so I guess my point in all that is, you know we’re not going to come in with the sledge hammer first. The approach we tried to take was to do kind of the minimal thing. I guess the second thing I’d emphasize is this is a pretty unusual lot right. It’s not your typical kind of front yard, back yard. You know the back and side yard kind of extend along Lyman Boulevard. It’s I think 400 or 500 feet in total and typically the house does a good job of kind of blocking noise from the road. Not here. It’s an unusual lot. It’s also unusual from the lake side. I think Mr. Ingvalson covered it well. You know we’re not asking to put a fence in within 75 feet of what you or I would consider the lake. What we’re talking about is being within 75 feet of effectively a drainage path that runs across our lot. You know if that kind of drainage path didn’t run across the lot we wouldn’t need to do the variance because it’s not within 75 feet of the lake. Of what any of us would kind of look at and say hey that’s the lake. That’s the pristine area that we want to look at and to me the purpose of a rule like that, I get a rule like that. It’s because if you’ve got neighbors next to you, you don’t want to block their view. Well there’s no neighbors across Lyman Boulevard for 500 feet and they’re perched up 200 feet on a hill. I put in my application, I drew a blue rectangle where the fence is. I’m not even sure you can see it on the map. So you put it in to try and kind of not impede that view. There is this public walking path and so we kind of, we understand that that’s a consideration that people want to use this public walking path and I guess my thought process there is very similar to Mr. Ingvalson where I mean there are little like 4 or 5 foot openings between the big spruce trees that we put in already and so I’m not really sure that provides much of a view to the lake for anybody going by, and we didn’t kind of say hey let’s build a fence along the 400 feet along the entire property line. In fact there’s over 900 feet of total property around the 3 sides. We just said hey for the 175 feet where car lights shine into our back yard and where the noise carries into our back yard, let’s just do the minimal necessary to try and, to try and block that out. So I think specific questions then, one of the questions was kind of hey can we do something less than 6 ½ feet and I think this picture does a pretty good job of showing 19 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 it. Unfortunately the way the road sets up the direct line of sight into our back yard is kind of back a little bit right. It’s actually pretty well represented by this second picture below so that’s kind of where the line of sight is most direct. Unfortunately the ground slopes away from the walking path there. In fact it’s almost like, it’s like a 30 or 40 degree angle so I mean it’s funny you mentioned sight studies. Well me as 6 feet 4 feet tall standing away from the path and my wife looking then I guess we did a sight study. And the point is you know our house is elevated right so the ground slopes away. The house is elevated. If I could build an 8 or a 10 foot tall fence there frankly I would try to because that’s what I would need to actually block it block it that far away. The 6 ½ was just kind of the most I can do and because it slopes away you know frankly the sight line, I think to your question Commissioner Tietz the sight line is not blocked in kind of the further away you get from our house. It’s actually blocked more so as you’re close to our house because there the slope is up but as you get further away it actually drops off so I want to kind of get as much as I can get for protection in that area. So I’ll stop there. I’m happy to answer any other questions that I didn’t address. I’m sorry. Aller: Any additional questions? Not at this point. Ryan Majkrzak: Okay great, thank you. Aller: Thank you sir. Hokkanen: Can you talk about the type of fencing? Ryan Majkrzak: Oh yeah. So you know again one thing I’ve been very happy with in this process is the kind of collaborative nature. I’m happy to, I mean we live there. We have a nice house there. It’s a brand new construction. We don’t want an ugly fence either so I mean our idea was to do a PVC or a vinyl because it’s very robust. It will last a long time. I think they look nice. We would pick a color that would blend in with the surroundings. I mean we don’t want a neon orange fence. We want something that’s kind of brown or tan or just blends in. Frankly I think we would put some shrubs around it to try and blend it in. I mean it’s a nice vegetated area and it’s our land. I don’t want an eyesore either. Hokkanen: Thank you. Aanenson: If I could just comment. Tietz: Just one other question. If you’re going to put shrubs around it how do you, if you’re an inch off the property line and the fence is within 5 feet of the public walkway, where would the shrubs go? Ryan Majkrzak: Well so, and if that, if we can’t do that then we won’t. I guess my thought was maybe we could back it up a foot. 20 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 Tietz: Well it’s a reasonable idea you know to do some screening especially when you have a 6 ½ foot fence. Ryan Majkrzak: Sure. Yeah I’m, I guess I didn’t understand that I needed to like specify it off… Tietz: It looked like from the information that you can get as close or they require that you only be as close as an inch. Ryan Majkrzak: Exactly. Tietz: I’d like to see someone install that. Ryan Majkrzak: Me too. Tietz: But that doesn’t give you any area to do any planting which obviously would soften the street side. Aller: But in doing that Commissioner Tietz we’d be reducing the setback again. Tietz: Oh I know. I’m just commenting on the proposal to put shrubs in front of it. That doesn’t seem to be. Ryan Majkrzak: So it’s a great point. We wouldn’t plant shrubs on the City’s property. We understand the idea of where our property line ends. Frankly you know I’m happy to go either way. I’m happy to put it right next to the property line. I’m happy to back it off 2 feet and put in shrubs. I’m happy to pay for shrubs to put on the City’s property with the fence right there. I mean I’m just trying to kind of solve a problem in a way that is amenable to the City. Aanenson: Mr. Chair. If you go further down on, well right immediately going east is city park. After that you have 2 beachlot associations so one of them is Lakeside beachlot association and they have a vinyl fence and they have a hedge behind it. I’ve been to both of those associations for National Night Out so just looking at that, those are a little bit lower fences but they also have the shrubs right behind on their own property. They maintain it because they do have a beachlot there so they keep those locked so there is a fence along that side but it’s, it looks like it’s quite a bit lower. Maybe 4 feet but they do have a hedge behind it so that would still be an option to put the hedge on their property. And that would be consistent with what’s kind of around the rest of that. Undestad: So just to be clear there you’re keeping the fence up within the 1 inch of the property line and then do whatever the owner wants to do behind it. Aanenson: Some sort of landscaping, yeah. 21 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 Aller: But behind it doesn’t help the view of the quick passing through. Undestad: No. No but, yeah. I mean I’m kind of looking at the elevations too where you know if he starts moving it away from the property line the thing keeps dropping down the hill. Ryan Majkrzak: Yeah. Undestad: You’re not going to have a fence. Ryan Majkrzak: And that’s I mean again that’s one of the reasons we looked at a fence you’re right because the drainage outlet is so close to the path, there just isn’t room to put in 50 feet of trees to create a buffer. The fence is kind of the most practical alternative. Undestad: And is that the beachlot, they have the vinyl down there too? Aanenson: Yeah but their’s is chainlink vinyl yeah so you’re right, if you’re doing a board vinyl you’re not going to get effectively any landscaping on the inside. Aller: So the chainlink would be filled in with the shrubbery? Aanenson: Correct, that’s how it is on the beachlot side. You’ve got the, the fence creates the physical barrier and the gate keeping people out but then the shrubbery also creates that aesthetic look. Aller: So it becomes a living fence almost coming up. Aanenson: Correct. Aller: Had you thought about doing something like that? Have you gone down and looked at it and talked to your people about? Ryan Majkrzak: We have. I mean again I think there’s a couple of things right height and then noise so that’s a beachlot for like a common area. No one lives there right so it’s kind of a partial obstruction at, you know however high I think it’s a shrub line of maybe 4 or 5 feet so not as high. Open in the middle. Doesn’t block sight. Doesn’t block noise. Aller: Okay. Any additional questions at this point? Thank you sir. Ryan Majkrzak: Thank you. Aller: Anyone in the audience wishing to come forward and speak either for or against the item before us tonight can do so at this time. Seeing no one come forward we’ll go ahead and close 22 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 the public hearing. Open it up for discussion or comment. Or a motion. Commissioner Undestad. Undestad: I’ll get a motion here. That the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 3 foot fence height variance for a 6 foot 6 inch tall, 175 foot long fence in the shoreland setback as shown in Attachment 6 of the staff report, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Yusuf: Second. Aller: I have a motion by Commissioner Undestad, a second by Commissioner Yusuf. Any discussion? I would just state in review of the report and looking at the property and seeing what’s there it clearly is what we would define as something, a property that’s unique in nature. That needs a variance that the conditions are at no fault of the owner. That in fact the City has an interest in keeping that waterway open and clear and that waterway is partly what causes the problem. The fence appears to be minimum intrusion compared to going and requesting a variance which would cover the entire length of the property and the safety issues are addressed with the sight lines so I would be in favor. Tietz: Chairman? Aller: Yes Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: I would just like to add, I would like the City to review the proposed design of the fence. The materials that are going to be used and any detailing. I think that’s only appropriate since it’s such a highly visible corridor. Your explanation was great but I think it’s advisable that we take a look at that. Thanks. Aller: And my only question with that Commissioner Tietz is if in fact the City and the applicant want to move the fence, will he need to come back for another variance? Ingvalson: Sorry could you repeat that? Aanenson: If they move the fence one foot or the other would it require it to come back. Ingvalson: Yes it would so what we will be approving is the location of what has been shown submitted. They could have it shorter than what they’ve shown but any movement of it towards the lakeshore, that would require another, a different variance be required so we’ll be approving exactly what’s in Attachment 6. 23 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 Tietz: And isn’t it just that link at the drainage way that is within the 75 feet? That there could be some latitude if the property owner wanted to vary that and maybe do something a little different along the road? Aanenson: There are some areas where you could do some plantings. Tietz: Well yeah if he chose to because as I recall on your plan it’s only that segment where the 14 foot gate would have to be installed that’s within the 75. Am I wrong? Ingvalson: You are correct. So the 75 foot setback would be from this point. That would be continued also from here over to approximately this location. This location could be moved without any additional variance but anything that is, any portion of the fence that is within 75 feet that’s what this variance is being granted for. Tietz: Okay. Ingvalson: So it covers a very large portion of the fence because this inlet comes to close to the property line. Tietz: So your arrow is not a 75 foot mark? It’s indicating, what is your arrow that says 75 feet from? Ingvalson: This arrow is showing how far 75 feet is. Tietz: Yeah but the other one from the shoreline. Ingvalson: Yep and that’s just showing an example of how. Aller: That would be if it was from the lake. Ingvalson: Yep, correct. Which is typically what you’re looking to protect with this ordinance. Aller: So if you want. Tietz: I think the design, I’d like to add that as a condition. Aanenson: So Mark made the motion. Would you, Mark needs to accept the friendly amendment. Aller: Mark needs to accept it as a friendly amendment. If there’s going to be an amendment and what would it be? Tietz: The applicant submit design details for the proposed fence. 24 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 Aanenson: Would you say based on comments that were given at the meeting tonight. Tietz: That’s fine, yeah. That wording would be fine to be that way. I think it’s just valuable in this situation. Aanenson: It was the aesthetic. That’s what we understand. Tietz: It’s an aesthetic issue. It’s not a technical issue where it should be located. Aanenson: Yes. Aller: Okay great. So having a motion as amended. Undestad: Yes. Aller: Commissioner Undestad accepts the amendment. What about the second Commissioner Yusuf, do you also accept the amendment? Yusuf: Also accepted. Aller: So we have a motion as amended and seconded. Any further discussion? Undestad moved, Yusuf seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a three foot fence height variance for a six foot, six inch tall, 175 foot long fence in the shoreland setback as shown in Attachment 6 of the staff report, subject to the following conditions and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision: 1. A gate, at least 14 feet in width, is included with the fence and placed so that the City will have convenient access to the outfall should maintenance be required. 2. The applicant applies for and receives a zoning permit. 3. The applicant applies for and receives an encroachment agreement from the City. 4. The applicant submit design details for the proposed fence for staff to review the aesthetics of the fence. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: 9641 MEADOWLARK LANE, PLANNING CASE 2016-07: REQUEST FOR SHORELAND AND WETLAND SETBACK VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION 25 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ON 2.40 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (RR). APPLICANT: WAUSAU HOMES. OWNER: DAVID VOGEL. Ingvalson: Okay here is our last item for the night. There was another document that was submitted actually after the staff report was completed. I’ll talk about it a little bit more in our, in my presentation but I’d like to just note that everyone received this. If we could you can also take a moment right now to look through it. Aller: Yes we have received the document which was dated March 15, 2016 regarding this matter. It will be attached and reviewed for purposes of this hearing and further action is th necessary by the City Council on March 28. Ingvalson: Alright so with that I’ll start with the presentation. The case before us is for a shoreland setback variance from a tributary. Here is the location of the subject property. It is located north of Pioneer Trail on Meadowlark Lane and it is also south of Lake Riley. Here you’re looking over to the right hand image. Oh I’m sorry, should have started looking at the left hand image. This is also on the far eastern portion of the city. This sort of shaded in area is Eden Prairie for those of you looking for where this is located. Looking over to the image on the right, you can see there is a tributary that comes across the property and empties into Lake Riley. There is also an existing path on the property. This is not an improved path. It’s currently just a dirt path that goes on the property. Actually gets access on the neighbor’s property and then comes in from the west and continues north. The lot is currently used as a recreational lot. There isn’t a primary structure on the property. So here is an image of that path that I spoke about earlier. This is taken from the south side of the property looking north. As you can see it’s fairly wooded on both sides and then this path is definitely not improved. It’s definitely made of dirt. And the request the applicant is making today is they’re requesting a variance from the 100 foot shoreland setback from a tributary to construct a single family home, accessory structures and driveway. Here is another location, image of the property. In blue is the tributary location. Like I said it flows north taking water from across the property. There’s drainage that comes across the property and flows into the tributary. Continues north. Dumps into Lake Riley as it picks up water from both the subject property and the property to the west. To the right is an image of that tributary and a little bit of the neighboring property. Neighboring structure. Little background about the property. In January, 2016 the property owner applied for a wetland alteration permit and a shoreland setback variance for a driveway. At this time the applicant did not have any, submit any plans for any structures or accessory structures. It was only for the driveway. February, 2016 the Planning Commission approved a shoreland setback variance for a portion of the driveway with conditions. The image to the right was a document submitted. The portion that was approved is that green area of this driveway. The black area was not approved as a part of this variance request. After that City Council approved the wetland alteration permit with conditions. Just last month February, 2016 the applicant applied for a shoreland setback variance for the rest of the driveway. So the black area seen here and then also for a single family home and accessory structures. Some things to note on this property. First we did, we 26 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 just take a look and see what is the buildable area for the property. Something to note is this property is not sewered which means it has different, which gives it different setback requirements from tributaries and from the lakeshore. If this was a sewered property it would have a 75 foot setback requirement. Because it is not sewered it has a 100 foot setback requirement from tributaries and Lake Riley to the north. Looking at this, the widest portion of the buildable area is 45 feet. Or 44 feet and at the, closest to the lakeshore which is 100 feet from Lake Riley it is 39 feet. Another exercise that we completed, that the applicant actually completed for this one was to show what this property would look like if it met all setback requirements. The image to the right shows what was completed. There is a S curve driveway. So there’s a pretty sharp curve right here and then the driveway would go to a garage which would load from the south. The house would be very long. Elongated being the long side being north to south. Would have limited access to views of the Lake Riley being this is the shorter portion of the home and a lot of the home would be facing directly to the neighbor’s property and to the tributary to the west. They also would have the primary and alternative septic locations located closer to the tributary as the septic per building code is required to be setback 75 feet from tributaries and from the lakeshore. While structures for this property, since it is not sewered are required to have 100 foot setback. The applicant completed a proposal for the property. This is the proposal as you see to the right. It has a driveway that follows the same path as the existing dirt path. It comes up to the north. It has a side loading to the garage so loading from the west. The septic as you can see here are outside of the dotted line which represents the 100 foot setback. However they will be meeting the 75 foot setback from the tributary. The home is oriented with the long side to Lake Riley to take advantage of the views which a lot of properties do in this area and there also will be a deck with concrete patio directly underneath it. So a large portion of the home is outside of the, what would be the buildable envelope due to it being the, so narrow in nature. There’s also an existing shed on the northwest corner of the property. That is by city code they are allowed to have one water oriented structure which this structure meets. If they were to have any additional structures this one would need to be removed as they are only permitted one water oriented structure. A little bit of character about the neighborhood. The structure really in the proposal as done by the applicant really is fairly consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. Looking here the red is the subject site. A lot of these properties are oriented facing towards the lake. A lot of them have very long driveways. Large front yard setbacks which is similar to the proposal by the applicant. The size of the, we also looked at the size of, the footprint of the proposed structure. House and garage and it is just under 3,000 square feet. Fairly consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. A little bit even maybe on the small side. 2,500 is the smallest one in the area with the largest being over 6,000 square feet for a footprint. Also the setbacks from the lake is today 100 feet. Some of these are less than 100 feet which I believe the assumption that these were pre-dated ordinance. One of the structures also, the direct neighbor is within 100 feet of the tributary which I will talk about later in the report. So when staff looked over this there was a few questions that came up specifically about the plan that was submitted. Some of these questions, first of all related with the driveway and the location of the driveway and things that can be done to reduce the setback from the tributary. One of them was rotating or relocating the primary and secondary septic systems. Rotating the garage so maybe there wasn’t such a need for a wide turn. Loading the 27 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 garage from the south and altering the driveway without moving the septic systems. Also looked at the structure to see how that could be reduced. Moving the house to the east was one of those things and where the house can be located was something staff brought up as potential ways to reduce the variance request. Then also narrowing the driveway. The applicant has proposed a 12 foot wide driveway which was approved with the previous driveway for the entrance which is what the City require would be a 10 foot wide driveway. But 12 foot wide would be keeping consistent with what was approved with the previous variance and with the previous variance. So the staff after receiving all this information and looking over it we sent all of it to the applicant to let them know ahead of time what we were, what the issues were. After sending those there was no changes made by the applicant. They believe in the plan that they submitted. Kept with that plan. After that staff took it upon ourselves to make a couple alterations to show some different options for this proposed variance. First one that you see here is what was within the staff report. This one shows moving the house to the east so keeping the same footprint but just shifting it to the east. And then also rotating the garage so it’d be loading from the south. Here another change that would be, the driveway instead of continuing up and loading to the garage this way it would be loading from the south. Another alternative we had was then creating a sidewalk so you’d have access to the house from outside and also moving the septic systems south. Due to weather conditions staff was not able to look at the septic site locations due to weather conditions. Frozen ground. When spring conditions occurred a little bit earlier this year we were able to go out and look at them this last week. Upon looking at them our staff found that the site could not accommodate sites further south than where they are proposed on this image and originally proposed by the applicant. That took away the option to have these two green septic sites and also this driveway rotating over the top of this primary septic location. After that staff came up with new alternatives for you. Those were the alternatives that were provided in the memo that was left in front of you. There’s really 4 options that we’ll have that I’m going to talk about just now. The first one was an option to have the structure located south of the primary septic so here are the two septics in the original location. This is just the bottom of the garage so having the house be located away from the lake which would reduce the long driveway, reducing the setback and reducing the variance that would be required. Looking at this there are two primary issues with this. Number one, there’s a 20 foot setback from septic locations so there’d be a 20 foot setback from the septic site and then also a 50 foot setback from the wetland. That left a distance from north to south of about 86 feet. However the structure that was submitted by the applicant is closer to 96 feet in length approximately so it would not fit in that area. To accommodate this sort of plan the applicant would either need to alter the structure and either reducing the deck or the garage or altering it in some way. Or would need to move the septic sites further to the north which may be possible but have not been inspected by city staff as we just were able to inspect these two locations. So those would be the two options for Option 1. So as it is would not be able to approve the building plan that was submitted with this one. However staff does believe this would be the smallest variance. Would minimize it to the greatest extent possible. However there are negatives that go along with that specifically losing the views of the lake as you’d be much farther away from the lakeshore than what it was proposed by the applicant. Option 2 is a lot less of a variation from what was submitted by the applicant. The septic sites would stay in the same location and then also the driveway would 28 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 stay in the same location as proposed by the applicant and also the garage would be in the same location. The only change with option 2 would be moving the building over to the east so the east wall of the house would line up with the east wall of the garage. This move is about 9 feet from this location to this location on here. There were a few concerns that were stated by the applicant specifically with windows on the property. There are 2 windows that would be covered if you move the garage. The bottom one completely covered and then the top one would be partially covered at least because the roof pitches up where the window would be. The bottom room is as I believe it was either an office or a den area which does not require an egress window as I spoke with our building department. The upper window however is for a bedroom which by building code requires an egress window. The image to the left shows that the window, the X is the approximate location of the window that will be lost. Also a garage door out the back of the garage would be lost also if the house was moved over to the east. However there will be an opportunity to put an egress window out of the side location or there are also other architectural designs that can be changed in the house to accommodate an egress window. How that’s done staff does not really have any comments on. Just that there are opportunities that could be completed. Option 3 would be the option that was submitted by the applicant so this is it again zoomed up closer. This is exactly how it looks as they were submitted. There is this jog from the garage and here’s the septic locations but this would be our third option that we have tonight and the final option, option 4 which I don’t have a slide for would be denial of the application and completion which is the last option you’d have. There was a couple concerns in the narrative, or not concerns. A couple comments regarding other properties that are sort of similar in nature that the applicant saw. I’d like to address a couple of those right now. The first one was the variance we just had here at 9001 Lake Riley Boulevard stating the setback from the house to the shoreland. Their setback is less than 100 feet. However it is allowed to have a setback less than 100 feet. It is a 75 foot setback because it is a sewered property. It has city sewer so it is in compliance with city code. 9441 Great Plains Boulevard was another property. There’s a tributary that goes across this property and the property adjacent and then empties into Lake Riley. This property is also is very close to a tributary. Definitely within 100 feet within probably 70 feet and this property however was built in 1960. The structure was built and at that time there was no ordinance restricting how close it was for the tributary as I was informed by our Water Resources Coordinator. And then another property we had was 9611 Meadowlark Lane which is the property directly adjacent to the subject site and that property is within 100 feet of the tributary on the adjacent property. That was by looking through our building files for that property that was approved by an error by staff. The assumption by looking at it was that the, when they sent in their application on the survey it did not show that structure on the adjacent property so it was probably not noticed and then was approved where, in the location that the current structure is in. The last one was a property that the applicant brought up, 9536 Lakeland Terrace. This property is in Eden Prairie and staff does not have any comments regarding that property. So after going through all this staff noted that the first option 1 that I showed you that would be the most minimal variance. However with what we have for where the structure is located, how it’s oriented and everything with the applicant what they submitted for the structure wouldn’t fit for option 1. However that would be the minimal variance allowed. The motion that staff has put forward, the recommended motion would be that option 2 would be 29 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 the option to go with so the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a variance from the 100 foot shoreland setback from a tributary to construction a single family home, accessory structures and driveway as shown in Attachment 2 in the memorandum dated March 15, 2015 which should be 2016. Subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision. There are also multiple conditions that went with this report. Something you can see them in the staff report, specifically some from building and planning conditions. Also Water Resources Coordinator added multiple conditions to protect the shoreland and then also our forestry specialist added conditions and our fire marshal. At this point I’m open for any questions that you might have regarding the variance application. Aller: Thank you Drew. It’s a lot to take in when you have so many choices. Ingvalson: Yes. Yes, there are multiple. Aller: Any questions of staff at this point? Madsen: I have a question. Aller: Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: Are there specific measurements of the size of an egress window and by proposing to move the window to this new spot is there enough space for the size that might be required? Ingvalson: Yes. There are specific size requirements. However they do give flexibility on what the size would be. I don’t have those numbers in front of me. I did bring this to our building department. They said there’s a lot of flexibility. There are minimum requirements. I know it needs to be 24, I believe 24 inches wide. Go to our building department to talk more about that but they are very flexible. There are minimums but they can vary from how tall they are. How wide they are but they would be able to be accommodated on that location. Madsen: Okay thank you. Tietz: Mr. Chairman. Aller: Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: Drew it looks like it would take some pretty dramatic design direction changes on the city staff’s part and it looks like the functionality of the proposed plan would be affected significantly and I’m not sure that the 9 feet of moving it to the east property line is going to benefit the neighbor. What really went into your thinking? Is it all just trying to squeeze down into conformity with minimizing the impact on the setbacks? 30 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 Ingvalson: Absolutely our charge is to when we are bringing a variance forward is to have the minimum variance required to have a reasonable use of the property so. Tietz: But yet we haven’t taken into consideration, we’re not architects. This is a pretty dramatic proposal. Ingvalson: Absolutely and like I said we are, I’m not an architect as you know. What I am charged with is to minimize that variance. We looked at what that would be to keeping within city code. City code states the closest it could be from that property line to the east is 10 feet so I stayed within our city code. Aanenson: I’d just like to point out one other thing. I think from the beginning there’s been one plan and that plan’s in for building permit review. There’s never been any drawings from the applicant which we would have preferred rather than having staff try to draw something to give you some alternatives but that plan has never varied from the applicant so we just tried to give you some other options of what… Tietz: I understand. Aanenson: Yep. Aller: And this property that’s being requested, the actual physical home is not the smallest in the area. Ingvalson: No the smallest one was I believe slightly over 2,500 square feet and that is only showing the footprint of the home. These are not livable space. These are just the footprints of the home using aerial image and approximately… Hokkanen: I have a question. So if we went with option 3 which the applicant submitted, that’s the 100, how much of a variance is that one? I’m confused. Ingvalson: Sure absolutely. Hokkanen: Sorry. Ingvalson: The setback for the driveway really varies. We didn’t put a solid number for that. We did say the closest location for the driveway if I’m not mistaken I believe it was 32 feet is the closest or yep, this is not the option but the closest that the driveway would be is 32 feet. It meanders as does the tributary so the distance varies. It’s 45 feet at this location. However the home is 70 feet from the tributary at it’s closest location. The option 2 which would push it to the east would make it a 79 foot setback which would be hypothetically if this was a sewered property would meet that requirement because it’s 75 feet. As it is right now with the option 3 which was submitted by the applicant is a 70 foot setback from the tributary. 31 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 Tietz: It appears that the deck could be shifted to the east somewhat to eliminate some of that non-compliance of the edge of the hard surfaces. Is that something that was discussed with the applicant? Ingvalson: There are multiple different ways that this variance could be minimized. Tietz: Okay. Ingvalson: We didn’t want to come here with 20 different variations. That’s as you said before I’m not an architect so that’s not within my realm of even close to understanding in what I do but we did want to come here with a couple different options that we would allow or be open to any different sort of discussions we’d have with how this could be minimized. Aller: The conditions that were placed on it by Mr. Jeffery or by our building those would apply to each and every one of these across the board? Ingvalson: Correct. Correct. Aller: Any additional questions of staff? Hokkanen: Do we have adequate information from the applicant or are we missing something? Ingvalson: For their option which they have requested we have adequate information. They have provided everything for one option. Hokkanen: For that one option. Ingvalson: Everything else was just to have a discussion here of what would be possible to minimize this variance. We’ve never given any other alternatives and we haven’t, since we haven’t been given any of those we can’t fully view a lot of the other locations. Aanenson: I would just add too what’s different now than when the packet went out is we were able to determine where the septic sites could be because that’s really the driver so within that, once we know where the septic was acceptable and where it could and couldn’t be moved. Could it potentially move to the north? That has major impacts for the visibility of the lot on the lake so then at that point we still said well is there another way to minimize and that’s where Drew spent some time trying to see if there’s, can we get more conformance adheres to the city code or less variance request. Yeah. Tietz: Mr. Chairman? Aller: Yes Commissioner Tietz. 32 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 Tietz: One more question for Drew. We don’t have, obviously we don’t have a grading plan for the entry drive but would we consider trying to sheet drain that to the east so that it doesn’t fall off the slope to the tributary? Maybe I missed that in the comments from the water folks and then drain it down towards that, I’ll call it a holding pond but it’s a wetland right adjacent to Meadowlark. Is that, I mean obviously that’s, I have a greater, well a very, a concern for what drains into the tributary because it eventually gets into the lake. Is there a detailed, probably that’s the next step from the applicant. Aanenson: There is something in there. A grading plan for that but I think that certainly can be a condition. Tietz: Because I think you could, you could drain that and without a curb to sheet drain it to the east side so that it always runs off as opposed to down. Ingvalson: So the grading plan that they have submitted is…numbers on it but is of the longer sheets. 11 by 17. It is on the back side of that first sheet. Tietz: Oh sorry. I didn’t notice that. I apologize. So it appears to, you know it looks like it could take the majority to the east but it also is dumping some to the tributary. Aanenson: So that could be modified. Tietz: Well I think it’s just the way you install the driveway. Okay sorry, thanks. Aller: Based on those questions any additional? Alright we’ll hear from the applicant, if they’d like to come forward. State your name and address for the record please sir and let us know about your property. Dan Hanson: Hi. My name is Dan Hanson. I’m with Wausau Homes. I’m the custom builder for this project working with the Vogel family. I’d like to start off by thanking the Planning Commission and the planning staff for all the work they’ve done. It’s been a long road. We’ve been going through a lot of revisions. Lot of information passed back and forth to try to get to a viable answer, solution. I wanted to start by just saying that this is a bit of a challenging piece of land. This was part of a subdivision that was set up in 1988 and it is a, was a buildable lot back then. A lot has changed since then so as we started looking at it had no idea that we were dealing with this much restriction if you will. When we did our math on it this lot has about 5 percent that is not restricted when you take in all the variances so and it means it’s not buildable as well because we can’t get to the land that is buildable. So it did set off kind of the stage of coming to you for a variance to get first of all onto the land which we did and we thank you for that. At this point we have gone through all the different scenarios. I just wanted to address each of them if I could. If we can look at the, kind of one at a time. First. We did spend a fair amount of time with our engineers for the septic system to determine placement because of how tricky it was on 33 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 the lot. Where the house is and where the septic system is on our proposal is the high point of that lot so that drives a lot of that with regards to the quality of the soil for both the foundation of the home and the drainage system for the septic. So as we looked at the different options we kept coming back to that knowing that we had very little movement as far as, as those septic drainfields went. We actually started when we first had a meeting 3 months ago trying to understand the restrictions on the land that we were dealing with a 75 foot setback. We actually designed the home around that and the septic systems were designed around that as well. We quickly found that that was 100 setback and that we were dealing with 100 foot setback from the tributary as well. Originally we were thinking it was a 75 foot setback and a lot of that evolved over quite a bit of time with discussions and meetings and things like that so you know the comment about us not coming to the table with some changes to the home plan, we felt that we have. Not only did we completely rotate the house from the original plan. It was actually the garage on the left which put the garage more almost 100 percent if not 100 percent within the 100 foot setback. That was our first change that we made to the plan. Since that time we haven’t really changed the layout of the structure itself just because there were so many restrictions that we were dealing with and they didn’t come to us all at once. It was a step by step thing. Each time we looked at them we addressed them. We were sent information that we had to respond to in writing with regards to different restrictions and we were trying to kind of wrestle all those issues at once. A lot of it had to do to start with the driveway and the driveway location. We felt all along that that driveway should be placed right on top of that existing dirt road if you will and a lot of that was driven by the fact that we didn’t have to disturb any other part of the lot. We could still get all the other things on the lot in the location that we needed them so that kind of set the stage for that and it seems like as we’ve evolved some of the initial ideas and thoughts about road place, driveway placement, house placement have supported that position just because of the septic systems. We knew all along that it was going to be tricky to move them. In fact by coming from 75 feet to 100 feet from that lakeshore with the house it pushed the septics to the very max of where our engineer would accept them to be placed so that was another change as well and again maybe we didn’t come to the table with ideas on how to rebuild that house or redesign that house but the reality was is it was a complete package for us. How we were looking at it to get all those moving pieces and parts in there and for us to start doing a major redesign on the house didn’t seem logical because we hadn’t even worked out where’s the house going to go. Where’s the driveway going to go? Where are the septic systems can go and obviously we didn’t want to change the house. We designed it for the family. They wanted a main floor master bedroom. That was a big thing because they want to live in the house for their entire life. They want to retire in the house and they want to be on the main level so we chose not to go with a rambler which would have been a bigger footprint. We are two story which is a smaller footprint. I think somebody alluded to the question of how big this footprint is. Well this footprint, all hard surfaces all in is 9.6 percent of that lot. We are allowed to go up to 20 percent so we are less than half than what we’re allowed to do. We understand we need it to be smaller because of all the restrictions but I think we’ve done a good job of selecting the right plan that fits the lot with all the pieces that we had to deal with. As far as the other issues with regards to the different plans. If I could have you pull up kind of each option. I’d just like to make a couple of quick notes. The first option I think we’ve all talked a little bit about it. 34 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 Maybe the least disruptive if you will to at least the one that doesn’t impede on the restrictions as much. I haven’t seen this one until this week so we had no chance to really look into it but I can tell you they’ve got issues with that septic system going down farther away closer to that wetland. Closer to the front. I’m going to have the same issues with the soil quality for a foundation setting on it so I don’t think that’s a viable option. We hope that we can kind of dismiss that one and move onto some others. Number 2. Aller: If just a quick question. If you were to do that what would be required to engineer it properly? Dan Hanson: To actually do that? Aller: Yeah. Not holding you to any plans. Dan Hanson: Well not knowing because we did soil bores but it was up high for the septics. We haven’t done anything there because we typically wouldn’t unless we were looking into it because that’s expensive and it’s time consuming. Aller: Sure. Dan Hanson: But it depends on what we find. If it’s low laying ground and if it’s got water in it, it might not even be an option at all. If it’s just bad soil that’s not compacted properly then it would be removable and there’s many options you can go to but they’re all pretty expensive. And depending on how bad that soil is you could be digging down, I’ve got a project I’m working now, they’re going down 16 feet and removing all the soil and having to come back into good soil. That project was a house smaller than this and it was $80,000 worth of dirt work so it would be a major thing. Aanenson: I just want to clarify again. We kind of ruled it out too because it doesn’t meet the setbacks from the wetland. I agree with you there’s probably marginal soils there. We didn’t have all that information when this packet went out so we too would probably say this probably is less than desirable. Aller: Sure, thank you. Dan Hanson: This second option, as staff had stated this one is pretty close to what we’ve been talking about from the very beginning and we were pleased that we came to I would say similar conclusions on a lot of the items we were dealing with. Septic system placement. The driveway location. All that. The setback from the lake has not been an issue. We agreed to that from day one and we’ve got the setback from the property line so the real issue here, we were asked to comment on this several weeks ago has to do with the placement of the house in relation to the garage and really our plan, the only difference is that we’re taking the house and sliding it out 9 feet from the garage so there’s a setback. The house is further away from the property line than 35 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 the garage. In doing so there’s 3 things that change as you’ve heard a little bit about. We lost a service door that would allow you to go out the back of the garage down to the lake for servicing. And then the other piece was, as we discussed the windows that we get taken away and I haven’t had a chance to see the real impact to that as far as the egress window and we talked about there are options but there are also very restrictive language around the size of that window. The height of that window off the floor and the operation of that window. Obviously it has to function a certain way so I have not had an opportunity to even look at how we would redesign to do that but I’m sure there would be some issues just because now we’ve got a bedroom with a teeny little 2 foot window and it’s not going to be desirable and there’s going to be no windows in that office on the lower level. Or the main level so I guess my question would be what is the 9 feet represent? I mean what is the importance? We’re in a variance situation regardless with their plan or the plan that the staff had recommended or our’s. Either one is a variance for the house placement. The road placement is also so we’re trying to understand why we should have to give up some really cool design things and functionality things for the house when we have not had any discussion around what’s the real reason for doing it. Certainly we’re trying to get closer to meeting setback but we’re already in a variance as well and really when you talk about wetlands everything I’ve read on the code and requirement for wetland protection has to do with the entire piece of land that’s being impacted and all of the wetland that’s on that and how the hard surface interacts, it effects that wetland. We’re not actually in the wetland. We’re in the buffer for the wetland so we’re not even impacting the wetlands so I heard a few comments about water and how water would move on the property. We think that we’ve got a nice balance to that as far as placement with regards to separation of the structure and the hard surface with the undisturbed pieces of the lot and the tributary for runoff. We are working with the watershed district to go through some of the same issues and they have their own set of rules and restrictions. Buffer zones are a big part of what they do which means all of the areas within, what they would call the wetland buffers will be unusable for the homeowner which means everything to the left of that driveway will be unusable. Untouchable. They can’t touch it. Manicure it. Mow it. Anything and there’ll be signs all along that driveway that state that so that if he ever sells somebody else can’t come in and start mowing there and things like that so those signs will be up and down that driveway. They’ll circle that entire wetland in the front of the property including the ditch area that we’re going over so there’s a lot of area on this piece of land for handling the water runoff from this. The engineers that we hired to do the surveys and thth you saw a copy of that survey. It’s very detailed. That is probably the 8 or 9 generation of that survey that we’ve had to go back with changes, additions and that came from some of the stuff that was happening here with the staff but also with the water district and also with the movement of the home and things like that. We had a discussion with our engineer. They spoke with the Barr Engineer person from the district that is hired for them by them and they had a discussion about retention pond. It was one of those things that we were right on the border that they were looking at thinking about and they thought that we did a really nice job of how we placed the hard surface material on the lot to allow the lot to handle and the wetlands to handle the water coming off the hard surface so not only did we I think because of how we designed things I think minimize the damage or if you will the effect on the wetlands. We actually kept it so that we didn’t have to have a retention pond which in my mind is further kind of changes from 36 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 the natural habitat and the wetlands. I don’t think that with what we’re dealing with the size of this lot the idea that we had a tributary to help with the runoff. We have wetlands all over. It shouldn’t have been necessary for a retention pond. We’re glad to hear that it wasn’t a requirement. Any questions from the council? Aller: Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: I have one. Just responding to Drew’s presentation of option 2, did you explore separating the 3 car garage from the house and either having it free standing and kind of look at option 2 or create a breezeway connection between the house and the garage thus not impacting the windows. So now I’m playing designer okay. I just said Drew shouldn’t do that but now I’m doing it because I, there’s appears to be maybe some middle ground. Did you explore those 2 options? Dan Hanson: Well the trick is the amount of room we have to work with up there on that high ground. We can’t move the septic system. We decided that so how do I get that garage you know manipulated? Tietz: Well I’m just saying slide the garage south and create the gap between and with either a breezeway. Now I should not be saying this or commenting but when the option is presented and I trust that you thoroughly explored that as an option and then how could you make something similar to option 2 work for the owners without disrupting the design character that your company has prepared. Dan Hanson: We did to a certain degree. We didn’t go to the effective drawings and things like that but we did talk in terms of what would that do and could it even be done. To be honest we didn’t know where this process was going to go. We were dealing to be honest with you with some of the previous, the previous options and they were so drastic from our plan that we spent a lot of time just addressing the issues related to those because without the septics where they were without the road. Where they were in our minds we were dead in the water so for us to go in and start coming up with 10 to 15 options on how to redesign the house to meet the restriction we spent more time trying to understand it and come up with our rationale, our argument for keeping the plan the way it was. Could we redesign it? Probably but I can tell you it’s very difficult where that garage is to pull it away from the house because it’s going to impede on the septic system location and that can’t move. Tietz: Well from where the green splotches are it doesn’t appear that that would have an impact so. Dan Hanson: What’s that? Tietz: Where the green patches are indicated doesn’t look as though that would be an issue to pull it, pull it 10 feet off of the house. 37 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 Dan Hanson: It’s possible. I’ve got to have septic tanks. There are just the drainfields so I’ve got to have tanks. The tanks can’t be covered by the garage. It doesn’t look like we… Aller: Can’t we reduce the size of the garage to a 2 car garage? Dan Hanson: Pardon me? Aller: Can’t we change it to a 2 car garage? Or reduce the footprint of the house. Dan Hanson: Well I would say no just because you know you’ve got an acreage property. You’ve got a home that’s a 3 stall. You know 3 plus that new home. We’ve got no place for any sort of a storage facility. You have no place to put a boat. The things that they need for the lake so that third stall becomes extremely important. Aller: Okay. Additional questions? Commissioner Undestad. Undestad: When you went through with Barr Engineering and the watershed and the wetland and stuff were there any concerns or comments from anybody in there about your footprint design and the location within the tributary wetland? Dan Hanson: From the neighbors? Undestad: No. When you went through with Barr Engineering. Dan Hanson: Oh you know we’re still working through that with them. We have just now got the thumbs up that we’ve got everything to them to meet their next meeting. If we can get into that meeting which we were working very hard to do because the timing of everything. We weren’t getting what they needed. The complexity of the information they needed. If you look at our survey, that 2 pages it is layer upon layer of detail of how they needed us, what they needed us to prepare to get ready for that meeting so all we know is that we have got everything that they need. We are now just providing some additional information and answering questions that they have. To be honest their focus right now is unrelated to the house or the septic system. It has to do with the driveway that we’ve already approved here. They don’t think that we’ve met the requirement on the drainage component of that and the issue was their requirements would have us put two 15 inch culverts in that drive and there’s not enough material to even cover two 15 so what we are arguing is that the 12 would be, or one 15 would be sufficient and that it would have no impact on the neighbors on the area. We can only move so much water from that ditch area because it goes into that tributary and if it doesn’t move off, away from that area, through the tributary it’s going to back up anyway. It doesn’t matter if you have 1 or 10 culverts there so we’re going through that issue. 38 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 Aller: So I guess the question I have then is, is the application a little bit premature because if what I’m hearing is if Barr says you don’t meet those requirements, that the project is dead? Dan Hanson: They’re not saying that at all. They’re basically saying that we need to address them and that we need to put in the application for a variance is what we have done for that particular area and it really just has to do with providing enough information for them just like we have for you so that they can basically speak…as a variance. Undestad: So the culverts. Dan Hanson: There is no, we don’t see any way that they cannot approve it. It’s a ditch. It’s not even a wetland to be honest. It’s been designated a wetland but that material came from the wetland across the street. I mean we understand why we are where we are but it’s still difficult and we’re trying to get through it all with all the different parties and we understand that they’re just going through the steps that they have to go through and we think with the two engineers talking it will get the verbiage that they need to get that. That’s the only thing that we’ve heard that’s even an issue with regards, that would stop or slow the project down. Undestad: So what, just to clarify that. What you’re talking about with Barr Engineering is the culverts that we’ve, just to get through that ditch. Initial ditch right from Meadowlark Lane. Aller: Right. Dan Hanson: They’ve seen the same design that you guys have seen with regards to width. The material that’s being used. The volume of material being used. They just, there’s a requirement and that requirement is under what we can produce or prepare for them based on the material we’re using and the volume of material. I mean some of it had to do with the width of the road or the driveway and we’re, you know we squeeze it down and now we can’t get… Hokkanen: Does that approval need to be a condition of our approval? Aller: I think it’s in the original variance. Hokkanen: Okay. Oh it is? Aller: That’s why I’m saying it seems as though it’s been presented as a two part process and the first part hasn’t fully been approved yet so. Aanenson: But for the house meets all the requirements. It’s kind of more technicality of what size piping he can use so. This is the conundrum we don’t like to have is bouncing back between two jurisdictions so we’re trying to work together on this. It is complicated when we did the first application because we didn’t, we weren’t able to see the whole application and so here we are today because we didn’t have that in the first place. We didn’t see the whole house and 39 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 everything so now we’re trying to get to that point. Have we done our best to try to minimize that. Aller: So with the septic are we using force field? Are we pumping it up and out? What do we? Dan Hanson: For what? Aller: For your septic. Dan Hanson: Septic is a drainfields but it’d be pumped like any other every 2 years required by that. Aller: Okay. Any additional questions at this point? Okay thank you. Dan Hanson: Thank you very much. Aller: I’ll open up the public hearing portion for any individual wishing to speak either for or against the project as presented. Welcome sir. If you could come state your name and address for the record that’d be great. Michael Wistrand: Hello. Michael Wistrand, 9670 Meadowlark. Aller: Welcome. Michael Wistrand: We’re the neighbors. We’ve been there going on 26 years. This land that we bought and that David is planning on building on, the Vogel’s have been there. They’re founding members of the city. They’ve been there forever. When we bought the lot in ’87, before that it was a farm field. This creek goes through my yard. It’s this wide. I can step across it. It’s not this, I mean it looks huge on that but it’s really just a little creek. In the 26 years I’ve been there I haven’t seen this thing more than a couple feet wide at any point. When the culvert gets flooded on Meadowlark it flows across and it rolls right out to the lake. It’s very little flowage out there but there is flowage always. There are several springs on my property that feed that and also up along Pioneer Trail. As far as the neighbors go I’ve talked to just about all the neighbors, nobody has a problem with this. We want a nice house. Putting a 2 car garage is ridiculous on a lake lot. I mean that’s kind of like defeating the purpose. He’s got a nice plan. It works well. I think if the vegetation is correct it’s going to take care of any problem you’re going to have. You can easily you know, if you look at the plot it really is fairly flat. It doesn’t, there’s not a lot of runoff there so I think if you put the right vegetation in. You treat it correctly it’s going to handle any runoff. Even the driveway, if you look at the driveway. The way they have this laid out there’s very little side end to it. I mean it’s not dropping towards the creek. It’s pretty flat and I think it will be easily, you could keep that running that way. You had mentioned running it off to the right or something. I suppose there’s the possibility of doing something like that if you could put a little holding pond or run it down to the gutter, or to the 40 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 gully down below and run it all the way across the property but you know I think it’s, you’ve got to have the right house. You’ve got to have a house that looks going to look right. You’ve got to have a house that’s going to work with the neighborhood and work with the lake. You want it to look good on the lake and this plan number 1 is kind of, that’s ridiculous. There’s no reason for that. Keeping the septics, you know I’ve got septic myself. It’s very critical you’ve got to do it right. Pushing them towards the lake makes no sense at all. I think you want to get as much area to, for runoff as possible. Number one if you do it correctly there should be no runoff of bad things coming out of a septic and that’s supposed to go into the system. I just wanted to let you know that of all the neighbors I’ve talked to, I think I’ve talked to all but 2 of them so far. Everybody’s for it. Nobody has a problem with the plot. Anything else. They want it done right and I think everybody’s pretty comfortable with, if it’s done properly and you go through the water district and everything else it can easily be done so that’s all I have. Aller: Thank you. Any additional comments? Here comes someone. If you could state your name and address for the record that would be great. Thank you. Gayle Vogel: Gayle Vogel, 105 Pioneer Trail and partly that property, I was married to Dick Vogel and that property has been in the Vogel family for over 100 years and as they said we developed it in 1988 and Dick and I talked about building down there but he was in love with his cows and didn’t want to move across the road to that darn lake and so I kind of gave in to him so we stayed where we were but our dream was always to have our kids build so here we are and I’m looking at the on the plan number 3. I’m thinking if it was your 8 year old daughter and you were knocking off 9 foot off of her bedroom and no window for I think the question was, what does that 9 feet gain so I’d really put a strong vote in for option 3. And David and Amy have really worked hard to, that is a beautiful lot for those of you that have seen it and the trees and it isn’t a trail that goes. It’s a farm road that’s been there for over 100 years so that road has been used and well compacted and you know pretty much stuck where it is so we’d love to have you and I think we started in September looking at all of this and I know there’s been all sorts of contingencies and getting the right things together but we’d really like to get started so they could move in in the fall so thank you. Aller: Thank you. Any additional comments? Dave Vogel: Hello, Dave Vogel. One of two owners. My wife is here as well. I’d like to thank you again for meeting with us. I know this is the second time. I’m not going to rehash why it’s the second time but just want to emphasize you know with this option number 3 it minimizes the trees that we cut down. We keep the driveway you know the other additional thing is when we’re talking about house design and what’s reasonable and reasonable can be a two way street. I mean there’s give and the take and there’s been so much give and take with all this so when we were asked to move you know the 9 feet farther the initial concern was well you know we’ve got to redesign the house again and again at that point why wouldn’t we have to do it again. I mean you could take a foot. You could take 2 feet. It ended up at 9. I mean we just felt like we worked. We flipped the orientation of the house. We have a two story so that we went up 41 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 instead of out with a rambler. Allows us to expand into the basement if needed and also I know it was just mentioned but I did talk to all of the neighbors. I’ve met with them. I walked the whole neighborhood. Handed out our design. I had more concern that the, I forget if it’s option 2 or whatever it was on here that they don’t want a narrow house built. They want it to conform with the neighborhood so that the property values aren’t affected and that was the biggest concern. And you know I talked to Mike Monk again today. The neighbor to the east. You know when we had option number, the latest option to show up at 3:00 today he didn’t agree with that as well and I talked to Tim Erhart immediately to the west and we’ve got the neighborhood on board so I can’t possibly believe you’d hear from any of the 12 people in this neighborhood so we feel that was part of our being reasonable and making sure that we got everyone on board with that so any additional questions for me I’d be happy to take. And again thank you for your time and consideration. Aller: Thank you. Any questions? Okay thank you. And we have another individual coming forward. Amy Vogel: I’ll be fast. My name is Amy Vogel. I am the other owner of the property that we’re trying to build. I just wanted to give you some perspective because it is kind of a conversation between option number 2 and option number 3. Our’s being option number 3. We have 3 young children. We have a 3 year old, a 5 year old and an 8 year old so when we were choosing to want the master on the main so that we could live our lives out on this property it was, we did have to put some thought into thinking of putting our children all up when we were down but we did decide it was worth it to minimize some of the impact that this house could have on this property given the restrictions. So when you look at something as little as that 9 feet, which doesn’t seem like a lot to push that house over to the property line those 9 feet, like my mother-in-law Gayle said it does impact that bedroom on that second floor and that bedroom was going to be my 8 year old daughter’s and it’s a nice big bedroom and to think of this tiny little window somewhere in that space on a side wall when it’s a bedroom that won’t get a lot of light in if you’re really minimizing things to just take that nice double window because you’re sliding the house over 9 feet and lose that and I do question the ability of a fireman to gain access to that room when those 9 feet are lost on that wall. I can’t say for sure if they, if that would be an issue or not but just thinking of the aesthetic quality of a bedroom that a 8 year old girl is going to be hanging out in for quite a few years and how much light would actually also get into that space for 9 feet is a question that concerns me as well since a bedroom is a very important place for a child so thank you. Aller: Thank you. I think we’ve run out of audience members so at this point I’ll close the public hearing portion and open it up for commissioner comments and discussion. Tietz: Chairman? Aller: Commissioner Tietz. 42 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 Tietz: First of all I want to compliment the staff on really a great job on this and all of our projects I think that come. I know this one’s been really challenging and I think had we all been here 30 or 40 years ago we probably wouldn’t be discussing the same topics that we’re discussing today and that’s, you know the land is encumbered by our current regulations and we have to try our best to work within them at all times and we’ve certainly gone through a number of iterations of plans and discussions over setback and how this is going to impact but personally I feel that option number 3 is within the design constraints that they’ve established and the floorplan and the work that’s been done. I’d have to say that that, you know to go back and continue to redesign and look at options that are going to conform to a minimal extent beyond what they have done with a very, very difficult site. I think the comment by the contractor saying that we had essentially 5 percent of a site that’s actually buildable. That places really severe restrictions on anything that’s been done but I think given the design that you’ve selected and the approach that you’ve taken that option 3 in this instance is very appropriate. Aller: Any additional comments. Undestad: I would have to agree. Hokkanen: I agree as well. Aller: So when we look at this there’s no question that this is the type of property that requires a variance if you want to have reasonable structure at all because of the complexity of the setbacks and the water structures that surround the property and we visited this the first time. We do want to minimize any impact and so I really appreciate staff coming forward and making the effort to try to look at options and I would also commend staff. This is the third hearing tonight and we always hear that the process has been a great process for people to work with staff and going through and that you are accommodating and that you do look at options so I think that the staff did a great job in making presentation that includes all the options and number 1 didn’t pass mustard because of the property structure conditions but I appreciate the fact that you looked at it because it is another option that would minimize those, the impacts on the restrictions and that’s one of our jobs in granting a variance is to make sure that it’s minimized. Just as I asked the question about reduction of the property I wanted to see whether or not individuals had thought about to a degree the type of structure and the amount of the hard cover and the footprint that’s being used by the property and I was pleased to hear that obviously it had been thought about in great detail including the safety factors and issues with regard to the bedroom and the windows and although we have requirements and laws and legal scenarios where we require an ingress and egress window to be a certain size it doesn’t necessarily mean that we have to put our structures in such a position that we have to use them so I agree with the other comments that the presentation by staff was excellent. I think that option 3 in my mind is probably the best for the use of this property to make it a reasonable use under the circumstances which is what I think we’re charged with so I would be voting to approve a motion for 3 and I would ask for someone to make that motion. 43 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 Tietz: Mark? Yeah I’ll make that motion. Aller: Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: First do we change? Undestad: Just go to 3. Tietz: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a variance from the 100 foot shoreland setback from a tributary to construction a single family, boy you made it a lot easier for me to read it. Home, accessory structures and driveway as shown in Attachment 3. Oh you changed it. Ingvalson: Correct. Hokkanen: Magic. Tietz: In the memorandum dated March 15, 2016 subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Madsen: Second. Aller: So I have a motion by Commissioner Tietz, a second by Commissioner Madsen. Any further discussion? Just again would applaud staff in being prepared for the motion. Obviously thinking of all the options presented so I’m happy to have staff present them all so a decision that is an informed one can be made and with that I’ll entertain the vote. All those in favor. Tietz moved, Madsen seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approve a shoreland setback variance from a tributary for the construction of a single-family home, accessory structures, and driveway, as shown in Attachment #15 of the staff report, subject to the following conditions: Planning and Building Department 1.The applicant shall apply for and receive a building permit and/or zoning permit for all structures. 2.The applicant shall erect temporary fencing around the proposed septic locations prior to any operation of equipment on the site. Water Resources Coordinator 3.The plan must clearly indicate the shoreland impact zone and encroachment therein. 44 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 4.The applicant is responsible for any other agency approvals that may be required. 5.No site disturbance may occur until the city has received confirmation from the Board of Soil and Water Resources that the wetland bank account has been debited thereby satisfying the approved wetland replacement plan. 6.All erosion prevention and sediment control practices must be properly installed prior to any earth disturbing activities. 7.Type II sediment control best management practices are required for all areas up gradient of the wetland, the stream and the lake. This shall be machine sliced silt fence with metal tee posts or other as approved by the City Engineer. 8.All other pertinent aspects of City Code Section 19-145 must be included with the site plan including, but not limited to the placement of six (6) inches of topsoil to all disturbed areas. 9.The city or their representative shall inspect the erosion prevention and sediment control best management practices prior to any earth disturbing activities. Forestry Official 10.Clearing and construction limits shall be located outside of shore impact zone and will be no closer than 100 feet to the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL). 11.Clearing of vegetation along the shore shall be limited to a strip of 30 feet, parallel to the shoreline and extending inward within the shore impact zone. The applicant shall use this clearing for views and access to the lake. No additional clearing is allowed by ordinance. 12.Per city ordinance, all trees 10 inches and larger within the construction limits shall be shown on the building permit survey. Fire Marshall 13.Address numbers shall be posted at the driveway entrance prior to any building construction. Numbers shall be minimum 12 inches in height, located at the driveway entrance, contrasting color to the surface they are applied to. Builder shall contact Fire Marshal for review and approval of numbers. 14.No burning permits will be issued for tree or brush removal. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Yusuf noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 16, 2016 as presented. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Aanenson: Before we get to the year end report if you don’t mind adjusting the schedule there we’ll take the, sorry. We’ll just go through upcoming meetings real quick why we get set up. So th we will not have a meeting April 5. We did not have any additional applications. We have quite a few that are in process that we’re working on. I also want to announce at the City 45 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 Council meeting last night they did recommend approval of Commissioner Aller, Commissioner Madsen and Commissioner Weick as being reappointed so they were reappointed and so we’ll do the oath of office and then your by-laws, picking a Chair, Vice Chair at your meeting then on th April 19 so we’ll take care of that. We were anticipating the Wilson Nursey site coming in. The application for that. It says 3-11. That’s actually this Friday so we’re not sure if that one will come in. We’re also working one on Lake Lucy would be the opposite corner of the one that we did most recently so that would be the, would actually be the northwest side of that intersection of Yosemite so I think that was 12 lots Bob? Generous: Yes. Aanenson: 12 lots on that one yeah. So that’s next to the park there so we’ll potentially see that one. They’re still working through engineering. Both of those are complex. All the easy ones are gone. And also we’re expecting Chick-fil-A to come in with their application. We think for sure that one will come in. That one seems to have got, they’ve got their watershed district meeting I think Terry was going to that one tonight or tomorrow tonight to the watershed district so, because they’ll have to do contained, underground containment on that one too so we expect that one to come forward. Then I also want to remind Planning Commissioners that on April th 20 we’re doing kind of a visioning process with all commissions and the City Council regarding the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. I asked you to all save that date. You’ll be getting some what our…calling kind of leveling documents so we’ll give a lot of background to everybody so when we come to that meeting we all kind of have that same information as we think about what the City will look like in 2040. As you are knowledgeable in the city codes and some things going on in the city, you know your input is greatly appreciated. Good news bad news. That means thth you have back to back meetings on the 19 and the 20 but another good excuse to get together. I think it will be fun to be with the other commissions and the council to do that exercise. And then we do, we are working on an industrial building so I’ve just kind of put some place holders out there. Right now we’re kind of telling people first come first serve. We don’t want to go til midnight so some of these are going to be more complex and then also a rezoning for the old Klingelhutz property. There’s someone actively working on a nice project on that one too. That’s where the barn sits so it will be a really nice project on there too so we do have things in the works so I’m giving you a little reprieve. Every other meeting here we kind of ease into it and now we’re going to hit the ground running as we get into April and as we’re plugging away on the comp plan. I’ll give you City Council update and that was obviously wetland alteration permit was approved. We kind of got offset on our meetings because the council met just last th night and tonight we have this happens maybe twice a year so again no meeting on the 5 and thth then back to back on the 19 and the 20 and with that I’m going to turn this over to Bob to kind of go through the year end report which he put together. Again this is kind of a requirement of your job description in the city code that you’ll give the City Council a report of what we did this year so when we put, we usually, we’ll review this with you now. If there’s anything you want to change but we’ll also include this when you have your meeting with the City Council. I’ll turn it over to Bob. 46 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 Aller: Thank you. Generous: Thank you Chairman, everyone. As Kate stated we are required to put this report together annually and so we try to look at what we did last year and what we think will be happening for the coming year. First of all we’ve estimated our population just under 25,000 for st April 1 of this year. It continues to go up. We have building permits that are continued. This is all based on building permit activity through the end of last year so the assumption that they’d be completed now. Maybe a little delay in some of that. In 2015 you did, you had 25 planning cases that were reviewed. We actually had a lot more building, or not building but sign permit activity in the city last year than the previous year so that’s why our total applications are up on average from earlier years. However in 2014 you actually had more planning cases that were reviewed but not as much stuff in them so there were 35 cases. The City issued 104 building permits for residential development. We are predicting an increase in that for this year but a majority of that will be due to multi-family housing coming in. Projects that were approved 1 or 2 years ago and then are finally coming in through the building permit process so you won’t see any new information on that but we do know we’re running out of platted lots. We only 118 single family lots that have platting in place. That could be one year of capacity if we have a busy building season so as Kate stated we are working on some other subdivisions. They’re a little smaller. One’s 45 lots and the other one is 12 lots so that’s almost half a year so. For 2016 the, we’ll continue to see I think infill development. These tougher sites will be coming in. All the really easy ones have happened already or the property owners aren’t interested in developing right now so we, they won’t come forward. Commercial development and industrial development, we have had discussions with several people or several developers on that and we’ll see something coming forward this spring. We won’t have a lot of big developments. Probably the biggest thing we’re doing for 2016 will be the Comprehensive Plan review and update. We hope to have our draft documents completed by the end of the year so that we can submit them out for jurisdictional review in early 2017. Technically they don’t have to be adopted til 2018 but historically we like to be early in the process so that we can, we get through it better. We have a good relationship with the Metropolitan Council. We have our engineering department is working on the, already working on this water management plan and Terry has been working on the surface water plan for the last year and a half so we should have those. The water plan will be the draft is, I was told today should be done by July so we can have that. Aanenson: I was just going to add something too on that Bob. So in the past when we have done the Comprehensive Plan we use the Planning Commission. You’ll be holding all the public hearings on the Comprehensive Plan and then those recommendations will go up to City Council so our goal is to get a draft out. Again we wanted a kick off meeting with all the commissions to kind of start working on gelling that vision and as we take it we’ll have a draft and that draft is what we’ll take out to our neighborhood meetings before you have public hearings on that so we want to get you have a clear understanding of you know and detail all the different chapters. While typically your purview is more the housing, land use you’ll also be holding the public hearings on the different chapters. They all are interrelated. Sewer, water, transportation into development so you’re going to be doing a lot of heavy lifting on that in the next 2 years. 47 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 Generous: But we’ll try to spoon feed you so we don’t give you too much at one time. But it is an exciting time for a community. It’s an opportunity to look at how to look when it’s built out, fully developed. 2040 seems like a long time away. Well the first comp plan I worked on here was a 2020 plan and that will be in 4 years so. So that’s a big one. There are some minor, well city code amendments that will be coming forward again in relationship to the surface water management plan. Those are the big ones. Kate and I have discovered that there are some corrections or clarifications that we need to provide in the code and so we’ll bring those forward but we’d like to get a few of them so we don’t have you know piecemeal. Bring one thing at a time rather than a few of them. And again we’re having a joint meeting again with the other commissions. We’ll go out in the community. See what development has taken place. Talk about definitions that impact development and just give you an opportunity to be in the non- public setting or non-hearing setting so you can get feedback and discussion with other commission members. And then if there’s anything that you as a planning commission would like us to do, review, research for the year let us know. We can include that as part of our work plan for this year. Again the big thing we’ll be working on is the comp plan. There’ll be a lot of information but things may come out of that too that you want us to look into so. Aanenson: I was just going to throw something else out too. I think you’ve all been invited to go to, if you wanted to tour Dem Com on Thursday so if you want to meet down there. There’s quite a few of us from city hall that are going to try to go down there too. It’s exciting. Environmental Commission is interested in more compost…so that’s something that…into the future and we’re trying to integrate it here at city hall. So when we talk about, Bob talked about the tour that we’d like to do with the other commissions later in the summer. We’re going to try to get that in August so if you’re thinking about maybe as we work on the comp plan some areas that might be of interest to look at. We focus a lot of on the 61 corridor. You know we’re working on the 101 going down there but there might be some other areas that, to think about. Even maybe the lifestyle center area or something like that so as we get towards that, closer towards that August date we can kind of fine tune that tour but like Bob said if there’s something else that you think that we should be looking at or have some concerns about ordinances or whatever we’d love to hear that too. Aller: Great. Aanenson: But there’s a lot of good information in here. We tried to add a few more things. Bob did a good job pulling this all together. Some of this will go into the comp plan but I think it’s interesting to look at you know where our housing values are going. You can compare that. You can go to the realtor’s website and look at what resale values are and some of the new sales. Many people might be surprised at what the values of the new homes going on Lake Lucy Road are so yes, so it’s then also kind of looking at commercial. That always kind of goes under the radar but a lot of the additions and improvements that go to the existing businesses that turn over when you get a new business in town also shows a lot of increased value and we’ve talked about in the downtown area some of those buildings that may have gone through their life cycle. For 48 Chanhassen Planning Commission – March 15, 2016 example now Chick-fil-A will remove something and a new building will go in so that has a lot of value too. Aller: If Chick-fil-A moves forward is there any indication as to when construction would be on that? Aanenson: Probably shortly thereafter they get approval because we’re going to be out of road restrictions by the time they get all the way through. That one does need potentially a variance on that one. Aller: Right. Aanenson: There’s just a lot of complexities there with the shared driveway and the like so we’ll go through that in detail when that comes in. But if you think of anything shoot us an email. Otherwise if you want to give us any other feedback. I know it’s kind of late now, we’d like to hear from you on this before it goes to council. If you’d like any changes or something else that you think you are kind of interested in this. If you want to pull that data together, I’ll volunteer Bob to whip it up for you. Aller: Thanks Bob. Generous: These are all the spreadsheets in here. Aller: Thank you for the reports and all the work that you do to keep up informed and give us all the options and choices that we need to do a better job for Chanhassen and the community so. Anything else? Entertain a motion to adjourn. Undestad moved, Yusuf seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 49