PC Minutes 6-21-16Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 21, 2016
Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussions?
Yusuf moved, Madsen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
that the City Council approve the Interim Use Permit to permit grading in excess of 1,000
cubic yards to include parking lot alterations, storm water improvements and the grading
of a hockey rink, plans prepared by Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. dated May 29, 2016
and subject to the following conditions and adoption of the Findings of Fact and
Recommendations:
1. The grading plan, hydrologic map and storm water model shall be revised to be
consistent with each other.
2. The plan must obtain appropriate permits from the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek
Watershed District.
3. The plan set must be revised to show the correct proposed slope from the parking lot to
the north wetland.
4. A buffer must be established and maintained around the wetland and monuments must be
installed.
5. The plan shall be revised to show the first floor elevation of the proposed warming house.
6. Emergency Overflow locations and elevations shall be shown on the grading plan.
7. Autumn Blaze maples shall not be included in the planting plan. An alternate species,
approved by the City, shall be provided.
8. Signed, professional design and building permit required for any retaining walls
exceeding 48 inches in height.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Aller: This matter again will be before the City Council on July 11, 2016. Moving onto item 2
on tonight’s calendar.
PUBLIC HEARING:
691 CARVER BEACH ROAD – REQUEST FOR A FRONT YARD SETBACK
VARIANCE ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND
LOCATED AT 691 CARVER BEACH ROAD. APPLICANT: CASTLE GATE
CONSTRUCTION. OWNER: TRAVIS SENEFELDER.
5
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 21, 2016
Generous: Mr. Chair and before I start I’d like to point out that the City makes the City go
through the same process of development review that we make an individual coming into the
process so they weren’t too happy about that either. Planning Case 2016-17 is a variance request
for a property, 691 Carver Beach Road. The public hearing is scheduled for tonight. Should this
th
item be appealed or be a non-unanimous decision then it will go to City Council on July 11.
Applicant is Castle Gate Construction. The owner is Travis Senefelder. The request is for an 8
foot front yard setback variance to permit a 22 foot front yard setback. Again this is located in
Carver Beach. It was subdivided in the 1920’s so they have the standard lots are 20 by 100 foot
in width and so there’s multiple lots that make up this lot. This specific property is
approximately 20,000 square feet in area. It’s zoned single family residential. Minimum lot
sizes are 15,000 square feet so it exceeds the minimum lot area. It also has 100 feet of frontage
on Carver Beach Road and it has approximately 200 feet of depth. Our minimum standards are
90 feet of frontage and 125 feet of depth so it exceeds the minimum requirements. The problem
with this lot is there’s a wetland in the rear yard of it and it takes up probably almost, over a third
of the land area there. This wetland requires a setback, I’ll step back. This property is also
guided residential low density on the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Under that density 1.2 to 4
units per acre are anticipated for development. Again this is a lot of, or lots of record. It’s an
appropriate building site. Wetland setback is 55 feet on the back. Front yard setback is 30 feet.
As I said the applicant is requesting an 8 foot front yard setback variance. In essence a 22 foot
front yard setback. Again here’s a survey of the property that was submitted by the applicant. It
was actually showing a 26 foot setback but it did not meet the lakeshore setback, or the wetland
setback on the rear. What we are recommending is that an alternative to the 22 foot be a 25 foot
setback would be more appropriate which would be a 5 foot variance on the front. As part of our
reasoning for that we’re looking at the ability to have a pick up truck parked in their driveway on
their property outside of the right-of-way so that generally gives sufficient. 22 feet for the truck
and then you have 3 feet to the garage door. We believe this is a reasonable request. Again the
property’s zoned single family residential. Permitted uses in the RSF district are single family
homes. What they’re proposing. Again the lot exceeds the minimum requirements. It’s a lot of
record so we really need to look at providing them with a reasonable use. The unique
circumstances to this property is that there’s a wetland in the rear yard that requires a 55 foot
setback. And again that wetland takes up over a third of that rear yard so it’s, they’ve lost a lot
of area that they could do it. Our preference is always to preserve the natural features on there.
If you look in the neighborhood Carver Beach is sort of unique. It was platted a long time ago.
Houses were, one house across the street was built in 1913. That house is only 20 feet from the
road. If you go 2 houses north of this site there’s a house that was built and it looks like it’s
approximately a 5 foot setback from the structure to the property line. Oh I should point out that
I handed out before this meeting 2 letters. One from James Henderson and the other one from
Janelle Schrof. They are neighbors to this property to the east. They are both opposed to the
granting of the variance request.
Aller: And just for the record we have received those 2 letters. One dated 6-13-2016 and one
dated 6-19-2016. I’ve had the opportunity to review them. They’ll be part of the package should
this matter need to go to the City Council.
6
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 21, 2016
Generous: Thank you. Again Carver Beach is a very unique area. While I did the search for
variances I could not find any within 500 feet but just by going out and looking at the property
there are numerous properties that don’t meet the 30 foot front yard setback. Again we believe
this is reasonable request. Staff is recommending approval of a 5 foot front yard setback
variance so 25 foot front yard setback requirement to permit the building, construction of a two
story walkout style home on this property. And adoption of the Findings of Fact and Decision.
We would also like to add one more condition. As a provision of the variance approval the
contractor builder come up with a construction parking plan. These are very narrow streets up
there and we want to make sure that they remain open for traffic and emergency vehicles so
they’re going to have to provide us with a plan on how they’re going to accommodate their
construction parking. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Aller: Anything based on the presentation by the City at this point in time on the project.
Commissioner Weick.
Weick: Thank you Chairman Aller. Question on the survey itself. What is the, or is there a side
yard setback?
Generous: It would be 10 feet.
Weick: So on these plans it’s only listed being 7 setback it looks like.
Generous: Right.
Weick: So would we need a variance on that as well?
Generous: No because we would require them to meet the 10 foot side yard. They can shift it to
the north.
Weick: Okay so this wouldn’t be considered a final plan.
Generous: No. It’s a schematic to show their proposal. It has a house plan in there that based
on that survey, it really showed us that you know they’re almost at the wetland setback on the
rear. They’re 54.95 feet based on this plan. They need to be 55 feet. We gave them the benefit
of the doubt and pushed it forward another additional foot or allowed them, are recommending
that they be able to go to within 25 feet of the street front.
Weick: Okay, thanks. That’s the only question.
Aller: Any additional questions at this point in time? Would the applicant like to come forward
and state your name and address for the record sir and tell us about your project.
7
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 21, 2016
Dan Kurth: Dan Kurth. Address 742 Tilia Lane, Victoria.
Aller: Welcome.
Dan Kurth: Thank you.
Aller: Tell us about what you want to do with the property.
Dan Kurth: Well I know that the board looks like have kind of recommended to approve a 25. I
think in the circumstance of that neighborhood you know I don’t think 22 is unnecessary. I mean
22, that extra 3 feet isn’t going to help because that wetland is very hard to design a house that’s
29 feet deep or 30 feet deep. In that area too if you notice some of the new construction is, the
lot prices are pretty high to build a very small house okay. The other thing is too like as he said
there’s precedence numerous houses in that area with setbacks much less than mine. And also
another thing taking effect that between the street and the lot line there’s another 10 foot of
boulevard so actually the house will be 32 feet from the street or actually might be slightly more.
If he is worried about the parking you know, you know a truck is going to be 18-20 feet.
Oversized truck maybe longer. You know if I could you know you have a 24 foot width of a
driveway and the lot line so you can see how it angles before the lot line and then there’s another
10 feet to the street. How about if they allow me to go that 22 feet and then angle driveway from
that point into the boulevard as an angle? Then you’ve got the full 22 feet or more you know so
parking wouldn’t be really an issue. It’s just that angle would cause that to, as get into the third
car garage right. I really think if you look at the precedence of that neighborhood there is
numerous houses, like he said 5 foot. You know 15, 18 foot that are much less of a setback than
mine and if, I don’t know if any of you have seen that lot, not only does it drop off but if you
look at the side yard it will not hinder their view of oncoming traffic at all because those lots are
very wide. It isn’t going to really any, any take away any aesthetics of neighbors of the house
but I think having that extra 8 feet instead of the 5 feet really gives me a chance to build a little
bigger house that’s more suited for that neighborhood which the price values are kind of high for
land there. And I don’t think it’s going to really hurt any aesthetics of that neighborhood and I
think you’ll, and the house will be designed to blend in with the neighborhood.
Aller: Great. Any questions of the applicant at this point? Thank you very much sir.
Dan Kurth: Alright.
Aller: Okay as with these matters we’ll open the public hearing. This is an opportunity for any
individual that’s in the audience to come forward and speak either for or against this item. Ask
any questions you’d like to have me get answered to the best of our ability. Seeing no one come
up, do we have a gentleman come forward? Please come to the podium. State your name and
address for the record sir and let us know what your thoughts are.
8
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 21, 2016
Jeff Kleiner: It’s Jeff Kleiner, 655 Carver Beach Road, Chanhassen. I used to own this property
that Dan had.
Aller: Welcome.
Jeff Kleiner: Granted it is you know expensive lots out there. There is a huge wetland. It’s
going to be filled. Everything’s going to be clear cut in there to get the house in and a lot of the
driveways that are right next door to it are totally steep down and people have problems with
their getting in and out in the winter. I know it’s probably going to pass with the setbacks and
that. I don’t know where your boulevard is because they don’t have that.
Dan Kurth: No but there’s from where the lot line is to the street down there is 10 foot further.
Jeff Kleiner: Oh, in the street.
Aller: Why don’t you go ahead and address us that’s okay and we’ll try to get any questions
answered just so we don’t have problems.
Jeff Kleiner: Then I wanted to know if this is a spec home or not.
Aller: Okay. We’ll get that answered.
Jeff Kleiner: Okay, thanks.
Aller: Awesome. So at this point in time do we know whether the home is, it’s considered spec
or is it?
Dan Kurth: No it will be a spec house. Actually we…
Aller: You can come on forward.
Dan Kurth: We have had some interest on that lot but because of the condition of the wetland
and narrowability it’s also a little harder to build in that price range alright so that setback I think
would give us the opportunity I think to have a broader appeal to potential buyers.
Aller: And just to let you know that we don’t look at the actual economic value of a piece of
property for purposes of this or whether or not someone’s going to make money or not make
money. It’s really regarding the land. The changes required by the land for the reasonable use
so if you could comment on those things that would be helpful.
Dan Kurth: Right you know as a builder I think too you’ve got an empty lot there that’s very
difficult to build on. I think it’s there. It’s approved for a buildable lot but because the wetland
and the way that the topography of that land it makes it very difficult. I can you know the
9
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 21, 2016
problem is that I think you’re going to have very unlikely somebody buying that lot to build a
house that gives you a little tax base there because it’s a very difficult lot. I think this is a
reasonable thing. I really don’t think it’s going to hurt. You know what he is, Jeff is talking
about the neighbors their actually driveways are like this. They probably shouldn’t have done
that you know. Our’s is going to be more towards with elevations and that and the grade, the
way we’re going to be grading it will not be going into their lot at all. I mean into their
driveways. We’re going to have a channel. There’s enough room on the sides so that shouldn’t
cause any further hardship for them. They already have a bad design.
Aller: You’re not requesting a variance regarding the slope of the driveway or any of those
conditions that will be on your based upon the requirements that are typically had in
construction.
Dan Kurth: Yeah, right. Yeah have the 2 percent slope okay.
Aller: Okay.
Dan Kurth: You know and what I’m asking too in this variance request is that I think that 22
feet, I do understand that but if we could angle that to the street from that 22 feet, I think that
eliminates any of that worry about that you know.
Aller: Thank you. Any other individual wishing to come forward to speak either for or against
the item can do so at this time. Seeing no one. Okay new hearing. Have to state your name and
address again.
Ken Vermeer: Ken Vermeer, 730 Preakness Lane, Chanhassen, Minnesota. We live directly
opposite of that property and slightly I guess towards Lotus Lake so I don’t think we’re going to
have any issues with the view or anything like that particularly during the summer when it’s all
covered and everything else. But we took a drive down Carver Beach Road and took a look at
that property and it has got a major, major drop from the road into the lot itself and I’m just
curious how much fill is going to be put into that thing and is that going to cause any kind of
damage to the ecosystem. The wetlands down below because that is a natural area that frankly
we want to see preserved.
Aller: Sure.
Ken Vermeer: Thank you.
Aller: Okay. Well let’s ask Alyson. Do we have a position on that at this point in time? Has
there been any indication that there’ll be fill in the area?
Fauske: Thank you Chairman Aller. Just taking a look at their proposed survey, and I don’t
know how much this has changed. Perhaps if some of this is incorrect the applicant could
10
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 21, 2016
correct me. The survey that’s included in the packet indicates a first floor elevation or front
garage elevation of a 944. Based on the contours that’s shown on the existing, the plan there,
they’re at the garage floor at a 938 but then they’re doing a 10 foot basement so they’re working,
they’ve chosen a home style to work with the grade elevation drop on the property and actually
at the walkout elevation it looks like they would actually have a little bit of fill at the bottom
there and I don’t know if the applicant has run any numbers as far as if this is balance. The plan
submitted does not show the proposed grades so perhaps if the applicant has some more
information to provide to the Planning Commission as far as what they plan to do. If they have
excess or need to import material to the site.
Aller: Great, thank you.
Dan Kurth: If I can add some further light on it.
Aller: Come on up. We want to have a discussion.
Dan Kurth: I think…understand you know we do have to clear, you see those trees that where it
is, no matter what. What kind of house you’re going to do those trees have to be taken out but if
you notice the grade towards the back of that, none of those trees would, you know a couple of
those in the back will have to be taken out but you have to also take in fact wetland is actually 55
feet away so we’ll be putting a silt fence and probably also a erosion log on top of that okay
because of the steepness of the grade. There will be fill and compaction and there has to be soil
tests. We’ve already done a test on one of the corners. We’ve got some bad soils so we’ll have
to put in some compact which will be a soil report on that but the back, we are not trying to
create a big usable yard so majority of that area where the grade is we’re going to try to keep that
as natural as possible so we’re not creating you know 40 feet of back yard. It’s basically is going
to be minimal. Probably 10 to 12 feet where that deck is and even if that. Some of that area
we’ll keep it wild so we’ll have to do a little bit of probably boulder wall landscaping but from
that landscaping down, maybe 15 feet away from that house or less because I think we have to
keep it within 35 feet so we will not even get close to the 35 foot from the wetland okay which
is, we’re trying to protect that.
Aller: Right.
Dan Kurth: The way the natural grade is there is during construction with a silt fence and
erosion logs in front of that is going to prevent probably a majority if not all of the sediment
from even reaching anything. Not only is there 35 feet separation, we’re going to even get any
disturbance. That’s a lot of vegetation that’s going to capture that but I don’t think any of that is
going to get through the sediment. Yes we are going to lose some of the trees in that but what
we’re trying to do is we’re trying to preserve the overall effect of the land. We just have to build
it up to build a house. We just can’t build that low without a requirements that you guys have
okay.
11
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 21, 2016
Aller: Great, thank you. Okay. Any other individuals wishing to come forward? Seeing no one
come forward I’ll close the public hearing. Open it up for commissioner discussion. Based on
the comments, thoughts? Commissioner Tietz.
Tietz: Yeah it just looks like there’s, with that depth to the wetland there seems to be no reason
to grant a variance whatsoever because you could push the house back and be at the required
depth from the front yard and reduce the slope from the road to the garage. There’s a 4 foot
slope it looks like from the survey and then pushing the home to the north a bit creates a better,
well as Bob already pointed out it doesn’t meet the code on the south side anyhow so I guess I’m
not so sure that there’s really a need for a variance at all.
Aller: Commissioner Weick.
Weick: Sort of piggy backing off of that. I mean it does look like the house to the south,
although it’s been noted that depth of the house is an issue, that house is a house and you know it
appears, I tried to, I mean there’s not, unfortunately there’s no measurements on that house.
Tietz: Right.
Weick: But you know I tried to draw a line across because the back of the houses are the same
and the front of the house and it would actually be a little bit, even without a variance the new
house would be a little bit deeper than that house that’s existing to me so I guess along the same
lines.
Tietz: Well and the homes that are closer to the road if they were built in 1905 there’s, you
know new construction we have to consider as opposed to homes that have been there for 50 or
80 years.
Weick: Right.
Tietz: Those are not, they may not be, well they may not be typical but they’re also historic.
Weick: And which came first the house or the road?
Tietz: In the presence yeah.
Weick: Right?
Tietz: Yeah.
Aller: Well this isn’t the first Carver Beach property that’s been before us for a variance. I don’t
think that there’s many if any, I’d have to look, that the properties aren’t unique in some form or
fashion in that area based on the way it was platted back in the 1920’s and based on our zoning
12
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 21, 2016
coming in that much after it and again we’re not looking at the economics. Whether or not
someone, the price of the lot or the price that someone wants to get out of the property. We’re
looking at reasonable use. From the presentation it sounded like there was a lot of thought put
into what was reasonable and different opportunities. I disagree with the fact that we want to
turn driveways sideways and angle them and allow for as much as the 22 foot or an 8 foot
setback but I am inclined to agree with the City that giving them a little bit of leeway which
gives the eave space based upon the nature of the properties that are already there and are non-
conforming that never had to come and ask for a variance. And knowing that the property’s
going to have to go through the process to get the building permit and to get all the requirements
that we require as a City on the builder, at that point in time I think we can take care of any of the
other problems. I like the fact that we’re looking to preserve that wetland in the back. I think
that’s paramount especially in that area, Carver Beach and the Lotus Lake area and so I would
think that it’s reasonable to request this use and the 5 foot setback. Any other comments before
we vote?
Tietz: Bob have there been other variances requested for new construction in this area recently?
For similar situations.
Generous: Yes.
Tietz: Okay. For new construction.
Generous: (Yes). And the house immediately to the east of it was built in 2007. While there’s
no variance involved and we don’t have the as built survey, from the aerial it looks like they’re
25 feet from the Carver Beach Road.
Tietz: From the road.
Aller: Which is closer.
Generous: From the right-of-way I should say.
Tietz: Right-of-way okay.
Aller: Any other comments? Questions of staff before I’ll entertain a motion one way or the
other. Or something inbetween. And I do agree with the additional condition. As we all know
we can put on reasonable conditions because we have the leeway when someone’s asking for a
variance and to modify our zoning conditions that we put reasonable conditions on it and that
parking plan, if there is a motion should I believe be attached to that. Thoughts? Motions.
Madsen: I like the fact that the back yard is going to be kept as natural as possible and they’re
not going to, there’s no plan to tear out the natural features of it and that by keeping the house
within the variance rules and I believe the deck is also within those variance rules, you’re
13
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 21, 2016
preserving the pond and the natural areas and that what you have proposed, although asking for
the variance really keeps in with the character of the whole neighborhood so I guess I would
agree with that.
Tietz: Yeah Bob, can we also look at a profile and how the driveway’s going to drain because
it’s not insignificant from the road to the proposed garage floor elevation and if that’s all going
to drain to the south and around on that side of the house down I think it’s important to look at
drainage so that if this is a spec house we’re not going to have a garage full of water.
Generous: Mr. Chairman as part of the building permit review that is something that we
specifically look at. They may have no more than a 10 percent slope on that. There has to be
positive drainage away from the home and we look at what it’s impact will be on neighboring
properties. And at that time we also require the erosion control stuff. Maybe even preservation
fencing be put up because the wetland has a buffer area and then you have a setback area and so
we may have 2 levels of protection back there. But that’s all the way down at the bottom of the
hill. That’s 20 feet below grade at the front.
Tietz: Yeah it’s a pretty severe site.
Aller: And that’s why when I’m looking at this I’m looking at is this a reasonable request for the
use of the property and trying to balance the owners opportunity to build and use his property the
best he can and in light of our desire to keep and maintain our wetlands and our natural
properties in the state that they’re in and those requirements that we put on through the building
process even though we would allow for setback at that point in time would be addressed as well
as any water permits that are necessary for purposes of drainage. So because it’s a unique
property because and of course it’s of no fault of this individual who didn’t create the situation.
That wetland and the other factors that we look at I’m keying in on the reasonable use of the
property and I think this is a reasonable request. Any other comments? Would anyone like to
make a motion to grant, deny, table.
Yusuf: Well before anyone makes a motion I just want to make sure.
Aller: Further comments and concerns, sure.
Yusuf: Yeah before anyone makes a motion. I just want to make sure that your concerns are
fully addressed since you were.
Tietz: Well I think you know city staff will be looking at that closely in the permitting process.
Yusuf: Okay.
Tietz: I still think that there’s options for this to be pushed back. And no need for a variance.
14
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 21, 2016
Yusuf: Without the use of a variance. I just want to give, I want to hear what Bob has to say
about that please before we go on.
Generous: Mr. Chairman. Our concern is if we push this back to meet the front yard setback
you lose 4 feet on that house so we’re down from 30 feet to a 26 foot wide structure. I believe
economically yes it’s difficult and from a practical standpoint we don’t see them usually that
narrow. I don’t know if there’s any way to bend it because that wetland starts to go to the west
as you go north. They might pick up a little more space on that north end and maybe towards the
south but not a lot so.
Aller: And again I want to stay off the economics of the building itself. We can always put you
know smaller, larger properties on varying situations but we want to look at the property itself
and how it’s situated and what’s a reasonable sized house to put in there and I think it’s
consistent with the neighbors.
Generous: It’s very similar to the house to the south. Narrower than the one to the north.
Weick: John were you suggesting moving the house, encroaching on the wetland setback?
Tietz: Well I guess yeah. I guess I probably was but then it’s a problem because yeah, I
envisioned when we were talking about the depths to the wetland and what was the distance
between it because it’s not well presented on the survey where the wetland starts on the survey. I
just envisioned that there was more room to the west to play with and evidently there isn’t.
Generous: It’s right at the wetland setback as it’s shown on this plan. This survey.
Tietz: Okay.
Aller: Well and I guess the opportunity for the applicant would be to come back in if they’re
going to change their situation and come back in and ask for a different type of variance if they
want to alter the plans.
Generous: And when we initially met with the applicant we said we may be able to support a
front yard setback but we would not support a variance from the wetland setback.
Dan Kurth: That would have been my choice because then we meet all the requirements. And
it’s also changed…
Aller: But that’s why we have, in my opinion that’s why we’ve got these rules in place is to
protect that wetland and protect.
Tietz: I stand corrected. I was, I misread that.
15
Chanhassen Planning Commission – June 21, 2016
Aller: And we’re looking for that.
Tietz: I misread that when I reviewed it and didn’t, so yeah.
Aller: We need to look at those alternatives.
Weick: I propose a motion.
Aller: Commissioner Weick.
Weick: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the variance request to
permit the 25 foot front yard setback with up to 18 inches additional encroachment for an eave
subject to the conditions of this staff report and adopting the attached Findings of Fact and
Decision including a construction parking plan prior to final submittal.
Aller: Thank you. Having a motion do I have a second?
Yusuf: Second.
Aller: I have a motion and a second properly before us. Any further discussion?
Weick moved, Yusuf seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments
approve a five foot rather than an eight foot variance to permit a 25 foot front yard setback
and permit up to an 18 inch eave encroachment into the 25 foot setback, subject to the
following conditions and adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and Decision:
1. A Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek watershed district permit is required.
2. The wetland boundary must be confirmed and a notice of decision confirming the
wetland boundary must be obtained based upon this confirmation.
3. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit prior to construction of a
home.
4. The applicant must provide a construction parking plan prior to construction of a home.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Dan Kurth: Could I ask one question? So thank you for approving.
Aller: Why don’t we hold, is the question for public edification or maybe you want to meet with
staff later.
16