PC Minutes
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Andrew Aller, John Tietz, Maryam Yusuf, Nancy Madsen, Steve
Weick, and Mark Randall
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Mark Undestad
STAFF PRESENT:
Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Alyson Fauske,
Assistant City Engineer; MacKenzie Walters, Planner; and Roger Knutson, City Attorney
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Lynne Etling 7681 Century Boulevard
Elizabeth Kressler 1750 Valley Ridge Trail North
Jenn Singer 8470 Pelican Court
Shirley McGee 1950 Andrew Court
Terry O’Toole 8418 Burlwood
Wendy & Craig O’Connor 1702 Valley Ridge Trail North
Kim & Dan Obermeyer 1540 Heron Drive
Melanie Mertes 8671 Flamingo Drive
Tim & Shamus McNeill 1824 Valley Ridge Trail South
Jim Wagle 8411 Egret Court
Jeff & Kristi Strang 1701 Valley Ridge Trail South
Denise Choiniere 8481 Bittern Court
Pat Mazural, Bremer Trust 9501 Virginia Avenue South, Bloomington
PUBLIC HEARING:
6845 LAKE HARRISON CIRCLE: VARIANCE REQUEST TO BUILD A PAVER
PATIO AROUND A POOL AT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6845 LAKE HARRISON
CIRCLE.
Aanenson: Commission Chair before we start can we just verify the applicant’s here? I’m not
sure if they are here.
Aller: The applicants are present.
Aanenson: Sorry. We tried to save you a spot up front. I’m sorry, we’ll proceed.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 20, 2016
Walters: Alright, this is a staff report for planning case 16-22. The 6845 Lake Harrison Circle
variance. The applicant has requested a variance to allow a pool area to be constructed in their
rear yard. The pool area would involve a 1,500 square foot paver patio with permeable pavers
around a proposed 40 by 18 pool. The property is located in the Lake Harrison subdivision. Lot
2, Block 2. It is zoned residential single family. The variances involves several different aspects
of the zoning code. The residential single family zoning code has a 25 percent lot coverage
maximum. This area is also within Harrison Lake’s 1,000 foot shoreland management district
which is a zoning overlay that also has the 25 percent impervious coverage limit. The City also
has a blanket provision for all low density residential that limits detached rear accessory
structures to a maximum of 30 percent rear lot coverage and there is a Manage 1 wetland to the
rear of the property which with the current subdivision has a 20-foot buffer and a 40 foot
building setback. A little bit of history on the parcel is currently it has constructed a single
family house. It’s zoned for residential single family as I mentioned. All of Lot 2 has a blanket
5-foot front yard setback variance and in 2009 the house had a deck constructed on the back. In
2011 the deck was expanded by another 320 square feet and in 2013 the original homeowner did
apply for a pool. The permit was approved but they ended up withdrawing the project.
Currently the applicant has applied, the new homeowner has applied for the aforementioned
1,500 square foot paver patio around a pool area. In order to accommodate this, it would require
a 1,459 ¼ square foot variance on the lot’s hard cover maximum. That’s an 8.14 percent
increase. They would also require a 269 ½ square foot variance on the detached rear yard
coverage for an accessory structure. That’d be a 4.5 percent increase and it would also require a
15-foot setback from the wetlands area. The applicant proposes to mitigate the increased hard
cover through use of a permeable paver system. This system would be engineered to have 2 ½
feet of ¾ inch clear rock and 1-inch granite chips below. The system would be designed to allow
storm water to infiltrate in and would have a release valve for when it exceeded capacity. They
are proposing a 2-foot-deep rain garden in the southwest corner of the property and a retaining
wall that starts at 5 feet and tapers down to 2 feet as it runs southwest to direct any runoff into
the rain garden. They believe that this will significantly improve on the site’s current infiltration
and they’re also proposing to place signs to delineate the boundary of the wetland. When staff
evaluated this proposal there were several concerns with the proposed mitigation for impervious
surface. The Water Resources Coordinator indicated that it is not generally accepted practice
from the DNR to allow permeable paver systems to exceed the 25 percent hard cover cap for the
shoreland areas. The big reason for that is concerns about their efficacy over time. Essentially
like any system as they age their effectiveness decreases. Permeable paver systems require a
large amount of maintenance in order to function at optimum capacity. The City does not
currently have any provisions in place for monitoring the maintenance or enforcing the
maintenance of these structures. With a pervious paver system of this size if as little as 2.7
percent of it became impaired due to dirt clogage, age, other problems it would be the equivalent
of allowing over 25 percent with standard hard cover so there’s a very narrow margin of
operability. The other concern we have relies around the fact that the hard cover provisions for
single family districts are not only concerned with water infiltration. It is also a matter of
viewscaping. The reason why the words lot coverage is used is because the main goal is to
insure a large amount of green space in our residential neighborhoods. This is also reinforced by
2
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 20, 2016
the provision which limits detached accessory structures to a maximum of 30 percent real lot
coverage. In this case the proposed patio would exceed both the lot coverage limit for the entire
lot and the real lots coverage percentage by a substantial margin. We are concerned with the
precedent this would set in terms of the ability to cover backyards with extensive patios and alter
the fundamental views of the neighborhood. It should also be noted that, the next concern
involves the wetland setback. The depiction you see on the screen above you is the current
wetland. The purple line indicates the existing 20-foot wetland buffer and the green line shows
the current 40-foot setback from that buffer. Under the ordinance that currently governs this
parcel no structure is allowed past the green line. If you would switch to the next slide please.
The applicant does have the option to use a clause in Chapter 20, Section 411E which allows
them to upgrade the buffer to be in line with current zoning standards. This would be in this case
a 25-foot buffer with a 15-foot setback. The picture on the right, the green line shows where the
adjusted setback would be for accessory structures. The slide on the left by contrast show, the
green line indicates the current structure setback. As you can see in both cases the proposed
paver patio and pool area encroaches substantially into the existing buffer and that is the reason,
I’m sorry existing setback and that is the reason why a 15-foot wetland setback variance would
be required to accommodate the proposal. Again it would be possible to design a pool that is in
line with the setback requirements as well as in line with the rear yard lot coverage requirements.
This is an overview of the Lake Harrison subdivision. When staff looked through the building
files for properties throughout it we discovered that a large number of properties were built in a
very similar configuration to this house. Approximately 18,000 square foot lots that have lot
coverage in excess of 24 percent as-built. In short a decision was made by the developer to build
rather large houses on lots that are about average for Chanhassen. This resulted in not many
options for increasing impervious surface coverage but it does allow for decks and other things
that do not count as impervious surface to be built in the year yards. Going through the files we
could find no variances on record for any property within the subdivision excepting the blanket
5-foot front yard setback variance for all houses in Block 2. In summary the house is zoned for
residential single family and currently accommodates that use. There are numerous activities
that could be done and developed in the back yard within line of code and because of that and
concerns with the implication on viewscape, the wetland setback and stormwater infiltration staff
recommends the following motion to deny the variance request. If you have any questions, I’d
be happy to take them at this time.
Aller: Any questions from the commissioners at this point?
Weick: Is the pool considered an accessory structure?
Walters: The pool is classified as an accessory structure under our ordinance. However, we
have by policy not included pools in hard cover calculations so the 1,500 square feet that I
mentioned does not include the 40 by 18-foot pool area. Only the paver patio apron around said
pool.
Weick: Got it, thank you.
3
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 20, 2016
Walters: Yep.
Aller: So from your answer my understanding is that the pool is fine. It’s the pavers around it.
Walters: I can say that depending on how designed, as I mentioned in the history in 2013 the
original home builder applied for a pool. He was, the permit was approved. My understanding
from the records is that there was a deal where he was going to remove some of the impervious
surface from the driveway in order to accommodate a small pool apron and then he was going to
use I believe decking for the rest of the pool area but it is possible to put a pool in that back yard
under the code yes.
Aller: Any additional questions at this point? Okay, if the applicant wishes to come forward
they can make a presentation at this time.
Barb Hegenes: Good evening: I’m Barb Hegenes, 6845 Lake Harrison Circle in Chanhassen.
Aller: Good evening and welcome.
Barb Hegenes: Pardon?
Aller: Good evening and welcome.
Barb Hegenes: Oh, you’re not loud enough. My son and I have been kind of a part of the
Chanhassen community for the last 15 years and we haven’t lived in Chanhassen but we always
wanted to and now he’ll be going to Chanhassen High School. We finally had the opportunity in
April to move into the city of Chanhassen. All of our friends and many of our family live here
so when we found the house, originally we looked for a house with a pool because this is kind of
a big project to undertake but when I bought the house the owner had said that he had already
gotten the City’s approval and so it wouldn’t be a big deal to put a pool in so I contacted Mark
Hauri with Outdoor Escapes and learned that he had put in several of the pools and done the
landscaping in our neighborhood. There’s 3 or 4 other pools in our neighborhood so I didn’t
anticipate that it would really be a huge issue to put the pool in as we now know it’s become kind
of complicated but Mark and I have been working all summer. Actually since the beginning of
May to try to make this happen so I’m going to turn it over to Mark now and let him give you the
gritty details.
Aller: Great, thank you.
Mark Hauri: Thanks for hearing us. My name’s Mark Hauri with Outdoor Escapes so I’m a
landscape designer that’s worked with Barb and her team to go through the engineering of this.
I’ve also worked with the, had a couple meetings with the Riley-Purgatory Watershed. I showed
them the plans. Reviewed it with them and they were actually onboard with what we were doing
4
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 20, 2016
and made the comment that we wish more people would do things like you do and be forward
thinking in this so anyways we want to come before you and you know present what we have.
We’d really like to get the pool in for Barb so I do actually have some pictures of the lot I could
hand out to people. I don’t know if that helps you at all or.
Aller: That’s fine.
Mark Hauri: Is that okay?
Aller: Yep.
Mark Hauri: And so I’ve got pictures and then also kind of a little sketch. There we go. Oh
that’s cool. So this is kind of what we’re proposing to do. It’s a little bit dark. Right now, put it
back. Right now the lot itself, everything from the front yard, rear corner of the house and
everything in back drains right to the watershed that’s in back. Drains directly to it so one of our
main focuses was just the ecology of the wetland and instead of having this water just run off the
sod right into the wetland we decided that one of the best options, not only for the pool but just
to help the ecology of the wetland would actually be to pick this back grade up. Actually build a
wall kind of right along this back to alleviate the water runoff that’s coming from the house, that
doesn’t have any gutters. From the front yard and from the back that runs right into the wetland
so our big thing right now, number one is actually building this wall to actually pick up the grade
and that would be on the house side of that setback line. That allows us to flatten out the whole
yard and now we can actually do this permeable paver structure. We’ve engineered 2 ½ feet of
rock based on the soil tests out there. We could actually go deeper if we want more holding
capacity and then our overflow pipe will go to a rain garden on this wet side so really now
everything running off, everything coming off the roof, everything off that pool deck will
infiltrate in the permeable pavers and any overflow will go into a 2-foot-deep rain garden before
anything will come over the wall to the wetland. It’s a really tight lot. I mean as they presented.
It’s actually a really difficult lot to work anything in the back yard and I know we’re asking for a
little bit more than normal but again I actually had gone to the Purgatory, or Riley-Purgatory
Watershed and talked with them about it and they felt comfortable with what we are doing too so
that led us to the variance process and here we are today. So if anybody has questions.
Aller: Questions at this point. Did you have the calculations on exactly how much water will be
held?
Mark Hauri: I don’t have true water calculations. What will be held. I mean that’s something
we want to do once we excavate down. We’re actually going to do soil bores. We’re going to
have 12 soil bores all the way around to determine every point that we’re going to have water in
so it will be a little bit easier to calculate at that point because then we can actually calculate
correct infiltration rates.
Aller: Is there a architectural reason why we can’t put in the pool without the pavers?
5
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 20, 2016
Mark Hauri: Well the pavers, you know it’s really the deck you know for chairs. Things like
that. We could actually put a pool in, in theory. Do some coping around the outside and then
sod it. You know we still want to pick the yard up. We still need to flatten out that yard so that
wall needs to go in. The pavers, the permeable system will allow more infiltration quicker than
the sod will itself. Plus, we’ll have more holding capacity with that top 2 ½ feet of rock. So the
pavers do provide, the permeable pavers do provide a better infiltration of that water as opposed
to sod. I know one of their concerns was you know if everything clogs up. If there’s a couple
percentage points that this won’t drain as well as when it’s new and I understand that. That’s
one big question that every city, every government raises about permeable pavers. This is a little
bit different because it’s in a back yard environment so we’re not going to be plowing this. It
won’t be exposed to salt and sand. The minute the snow hits it, it just stays that way so as
opposed to a driveway, a front sidewalk, a street, it’s not going to see the sand. It’s not going to
see the salt and that’s the main reason for these to clog up. So my concern about this system
clogging up and plugging up over many years is, to me it’s not even a minor concern just
because of it being in the back yard and not exposed to any winter salting or sanding.
Aller: Is there a reason you’re tied to the size of the pool? Is there a way to restructure the pool
size so that you can fall within the maximums that are set out now in the zoning?
Mark Hauri: It would be virtually impossible to get a pool in to fit. We have talked about doing
a little smaller pool, 36 by 18. We have talked about the potential for changing the angle a little
bit of the pool. Maybe taking a little bit more off the back side, kind of that long run right above
the boulder wall. You know there’s probably a good 150-160 square that could be taken off
there. Changing the angle of the pool a little bit would help. That could take off a couple
hundred square but in general with this permeable system you know we might still be looking
about 1,200 to 1,300 square feet of the back yard with this permeable system.
Aller: Is the permeable system required?
Mark Hauri: The permeable system isn’t required but just to be good stewards to the land, what
we don’t want to do is put a concrete surface in that has no infiltration and that we just shed
water off to the edges and then try to collect it with drain tile and run it into a drain rain garden.
A rain garden would just be overwhelmed with the amount of volume. The permeable system
allows that water, we can capture that water and have it fill up and actually infiltrate down even
after the rain storm so that’s why we went with permeable pavers right off the get go because we
wanted to mitigate any runoff that we had. Really let everything soak in and once everything
comes down that side hill it’s actually going to be directed right to the pavers so again that runoff
can hit our hard surface. The permeable pavers. Get into our drain field and anything that
overflows then the rain garden can maybe handle that overflow. But it has a tremendous
capacity. I mean it would have to fill up 2 feet to hit that overflow valve and that’s a tremendous
capacity so. The permeable pavers we thought about it right away just because we just felt we
6
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 20, 2016
were being much better stewards to the land going that route than just a straight concrete pool
deck.
Aller: What’s the capacity of the rain garden itself? If you had a rain garden in there with no
pavers.
Mark Hauri: If we had a rain garden with no pavers, what we would actually do is we would
engineer that rain garden and make it probably about 4 times the size so basically this whole, this
whole corner right down here, we would actually create a larger rain garden. Maybe have a 3
foot deep. Maybe actually do some soil correction. Put 3 feet of rock in there. Some sand and
then have a 2 ½ - 3-foot depression too so kind of doing the same thing as a permeable pavers
but we would have a rock retention area and then the rain garden up above that to just maximize
the amount of water we could get into an area that was you know probably 20 by 30ish.
Something like that. 20 by 40.
Aller: Alright, thank you. Based on my questions anybody have any additional?
Tietz: Andrew, yeah.
Aller: Commissioner Tietz.
Tietz: The excavation for the pool itself.
Mark Hauri: Yes.
Tietz: You said that you haven’t done any soil bores but you, do you know the consistency of
that soil? Is that going to be soil that you can use behind your boulder wall to build up or is it,
because it’s getting pretty close to a wetland.
Mark Hauri: Yeah we’re actually going to take all that soil off site.
Tietz: Off site.
Mark Hauri: Yep it actually, we did 4 tests and it actually drains very well. We did 2 kind of
what I would consider on the back side of the pool. Between the pool and the wall and we did
one kind of where the lounge chairs are and one kind of by the deck and it is pretty good draining
soil. We are still going to excavate that soil and actually bring it completely off site and
everything that when we build that wall we’re actually going to use granular fill in back of that
wall again which is going to be a porous rock. We’re not going to use a Class V or recycled. So
really everything from the edge of that pool to the boulder wall will still have a permeable
system below it. Above that wall we’re going to do a big hedge of box woods so we will have a
planter that’s maybe 3 feet wide by about 2 feet deep of nice black dirt that we’ll be bringing in
7
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 20, 2016
but everything that we excavate out at that, you know basically it’s about a 3-foot depth, we’ll be
bringing that material off site.
Tietz: Thank you.
Mark Hauri: Yep.
Aller: Additional questions? Alright, thank you very much.
Mark Hauri: Okay, thank you.
Aller: Okay at this point in time I will open the public hearing portion of this item. Anyone
present wishing to speak either for or against the item or comment on the application may do so
at this time. Seeing no one come forward I’ll close the public hearing and open it up for
questions, comments and concerns of the commissioners.
Tietz: I think they should be applauded for the work on the permeable pavers and the depth but I
think the, you know the amount of surface area that’s encroaching upon the wetland is pretty
significant. It’s over 1,400 square feet so to mitigate that I don’t think the permeable pavers
really do that and it’s really setting precedent.
Aller: Let me ask you a quick question. How is the City and the planning department, how have
we dealt with pervious pavers before in the calculations?
Walters: Yeah so I’m not kidding when every week I do get a call from builder asking how we
deal with permeable pavers. I got one Monday actually. The answer has always been the City of
Chanhassen’s policy is we treat them as hard cover. We don’t allow credits and we consider
them to be the same as concrete. That’s largely due to the maintenance concerns. I do believe
there’s one commercial development that was allowed to use permeable pavers. Kate could
probably talk a lot more about the conditions that were placed to make the City comfortable with
that but residential has never been allowed.
Aller: And I ask the question I’ve never seen it used and even with sport courts I know that we
haven’t allowed it so any additional comments or questions? None? Alright, I’ll entertain a
motion if anyone has one or would like to bring one.
Yusuf: I’ll make it.
Aller: Okay.
Yusuf: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the variance request to allow
hard cover to exceed 25 percent by 8.14 percent, allow a detached accessory structure to exceed
8
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 20, 2016
the rear lot coverage in the amount of 30 percent by 4.5 percent and allow a 15-foot reduction in
the wetland setback and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision.
Aller: Having a motion by Commissioner Yusuf. Do I have a second?
Madsen: Second.
Aller: Commissioner Madsen seconds the motion. Any further discussion?
Yusuf moved, Madsen seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments
denies the variance request to allow hard cover to exceed 25 percent by 8.14 percent, allow
a detached accessory structure to exceed the rear lot coverage in the amount of 30 percent
by 4.5 percent and allow a 15-foot reduction in the wetland setback and adopts the
Findings of Fact and Decision. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with
a vote of 6 to 0.
Aller: So the motion carries. The variance is denied. If you wish to appeal that variance you
should do so in writing with the City and the follow up date on that matter before the City
Council would again be October 10, 2016. Okay.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PAISLEY PARK MUSEUM – REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
7801 AUDUBON ROAD FROM INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK (IOP) TO PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT IOP TO FACILITATE THE USE OF THE BUILDING AS A
MUSEUM.
Aanenson: Thank you Chair, members of the Planning Commission. This request is for a
rezoning. There are some other things that go along with the rezoning but the legislative action
is to rezone. The property is located at 7801 Audubon Road and the, as stated in the staff report
the Bremer Trust is requesting through the special administration or the estate of Prince Roger
Nelson to request a use for a museum. The location again is 7801 Audubon Road is located right
off of Highway 5 and also access by Audubon Drive or excuse me Audubon Road which is also
a collector street. In looking at the request the access again, two streets and that site is 9 acres
and the building, existing building footprint is 46,150 square feet and I’ll get in a little bit more
detail on that in a minute. So the site is guided office industrial and that’s what we’re, that’s the
underlying zoning district that will be going with is also industrial. Everything around this
property is industrial and this is taken from our land use map. The property shown with the star
on it here, this is the property. The City’s public works is just behind that property and so the
request again for the museum is just for this subject site itself and it’s just a rezoning at this time.
In looking at the applicant’s request for the site and how they see it being used, there’s no
interior remodeling at this time. I know I’ve given you emails and there’s 3 more that I handed
out tonight that will become part of the record. There were emails that were attached to that.
Similar questions asked about why wasn’t this treated like some other buildings we’ve done in
9