Loading...
PC 2018 01 16 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 16, 2018 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Nancy Madsen, John Tietz, and Mark Randall MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad, Steve Weick STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and MacKenzie Walters, Planner PUBLIC PRESENT: Rick & Liz Nustad 7721 Erie Avenue OLD BUSINESS: 7721 ERIE AVENUE – VARIANCE TO BUILD A GARAGE. Walters: Thank you. This item, case 2017-20 was first heard on November 21, 2017. If appealed it would go before the City Council on February 12, 2018. This is the revised request for a garage at 7721 Erie Avenue. This is a variance request for a second driveway access, a 10 foot west front yard setback, a 5 foot rear setback and a 9 percent lot coverage variance. So just st to recap the November 21 meeting, the Planning Commission requested that the applicant attempt to minimize the lot coverage associated with the variance. That they work with the Water Resource Coordinator to mitigate the impact of the proposed lot coverage. That the applicant pursue the vacation of the southern alley and that the applicant investigate the potential for using a single driveway access. The applicant worked with staff over the next month or so and came back with an attached, a proposal for an attached garage configuration which reduces the hard cover. Proposes using geogrid for the second driveway access which would reduce the amount of impervious surface. They are proposing an 8 foot in diameter rain garden to help mitigate the runoff generated by the increased hard cover and they are working with the engineering department to vacate the southern alleyway. They did talk to their builder and they do not believe it would be feasible to use a single driveway access just given how long the fire truck is and how tight the garage space is. So the location is the same as before. It’s still zoned residential single family. Site conditions are currently as they were. The property has 28.3 percent lot coverage. The lot is 8,529 square feet. The north setback is met and the existing setback for the front is 20 feet and there is the shed to the south that is within the south setback and rear yard setback. The applicant has taken, as I mentioned, every step they could to minimize the extent of variance required to house a fire truck. I decided to put two side by side here so you can see the difference between the initial and the revised proposal. I mentioned that they’ll be using a pervious paver driveway with geogrid instead of a concrete driveway. The Planning Commission – January 16, 2018 house as you can see has been moved up which removes about 100 square feet of impervious patio and then the rain garden would be located here and this green area is the about 460 square feet of lot area that would be added by vacating the alley to the south. And of course adding that extra 8 feet means they would no longer need a southern setback variance. This table shows the difference between the initial and revised proposal. The biggest difference is, are in terms of the lot coverage. The use of the vacation of the alleyway would reduce the lot coverage from the st proposed 37.4 percent you saw on the 21 down to 34 percent and using pervious pavers for the driveway would reduce it to 30.9 percent impervious surface and as mentioned they are proposing the installation of a rain garden to help absorb as much of that runoff as possible. That being said it would still be a significant increase from the property’s current 28.3 percent lot coverage. Staff looking at it assessment is pretty similar. The neighborhood does have the history of street flooding. There is inadequate storm water treatment. The applicant does currently reasonable use of the property with a single family home, two car garage, patio, storage shed. Staff is still concerned about the precedent of allowing variances for the storage of large vehicles. That being said, as was mentioned, the applicant has made a good faith effort to address the Planning Commission’s comments and concerns. This certainly represents the minimum possible variance for storing the fire truck. Unfortunately because of concerns staff still recommends denial unless the Planning Commission feels the revised proposal has st sufficiently addressed the concerns raised during the November 21 meeting. We do have a motion both for denial and approval prepared. I’d be happy to answer any questions you have at this time. Aller: Any questions at this time for staff? What’s the process that would need to be taken or is being undertaken to vacate that easement? Walters: Yep my understanding is they have applied for the vacation. I believe we got the, the one thing we were waiting on before we put a date on it was the Gopher One locates which they sent to us last week. I’m working, going to work with our engineering department to go over those but they are well on their way to vacating. There’s just a couple steps they would need to do and I believe it’s penciled in for a February date if we can get the Gopher One stuff taken care of, and again they did have the crew out there and it was marked so they are pursuing that and we don’t foresee any obstacles to that. Aller: And is there any, it’s not a requirement now but it could be made a requirement to this variance that that be done in order for the variance to move forward correct? Walters: It is currently listed as a condition for approval that before a building permit be issued the vacation be completed. Aller: Okay. Any additional questions based on that? Tietz: No. Looks like a good solution. 2 Planning Commission – January 16, 2018 Aller: Alright. We’ll go ahead and have the applicant come forward. If you could state your names and address for the record again that would be great. Rick Nustad: It’s Rick and Liz Nustad, 7721 Erie Avenue, Chanhassen. Aller: Welcome again. Liz Nustad: Thank you. Rick Nustad: We are the owners. Anyways just an update. We met with Terry Jeffery from the th Riley-Purgatory watershed district on December 7. He came out and we walked the yard and he was pretty nonchalant about it. We have, the yard drains backward towards this alleyway and he said basically we could rototill up about an 8 foot diameter chunk of land where the shed would be moved. That would suffice and I asked him about rain barrels and he said unless you have, or he asked do you have a use for the water and I said no. Like a garden and he didn’t see any issues at all. He said he was going to contact someone at the City which may have been th MacKenzie about so. And we made a work ticket for Gopher State on December 19 and they came out, bear with me here. I have here the completed sign off. Let’s see here, from Gopher State showing the only people that had to mark anything was CenturyLink. Everything else was no conflict and I’m pretty sure that the City was out and marked on this alleyway where I guess it’s a sewer that goes back there. So that was done. And we did file for the vacate and paid the fee. And we did come in with our geo pavers and turned in the spec sheet to MacKenzie so he could see that. We did want to show up tonight with a drawing of, street view of our house with the new attachment but Boyer Construction was unable to get that to us unfortunately. We did see a preliminary drawing and it does look very nice. And we do have the completed final drawing from our survey company. That does show the alleyway and there’s two, where they painted on the ground two lines from CenturyLink that actually go off to the south of us and that is really all we have. Aller: Great, thank you. Any questions of the applicant at this time? We’re all familiar with Mr. Jeffery. He’s a very accommodating individual and low key and did he happen to raise his eye brow at all? Rick Nustad: Eye brow, we missed. Aller: It’s a tell. Rick Nustad: But we do have a little better plan versus…8 foot diameter circle. He can come up with something. Aller: Sounds like it. Thank you very much. Rick Nustad: Thank you for your time. 3 Planning Commission – January 16, 2018 Liz Nustad: Yep, thank you. Aller: Okay, we don’t have a public hearing on this item as it’s old business. We’ve had a public hearing on a prior occasion. They were asked to work with the City and come up with a hopefully better solution and we have a plan before us so thoughts. Randall: I’m impressed that they did it. It looks nice that they went through and came up with a little bit better variance than what we had before so. Tietz: Yeah, I agree. I think it’s a great solution for the conditions and the situation that we reviewed the first time. I think it’s going to be, even though it is a larger garage than is normal I think under the conditions and in the neighborhood it works very well so thank you. Aller: Alright. Madsen: Although I appreciate all the extra work they’ve gone into I do have a concern that it would establish the precedent of needing a storage space for larger vehicles to justify exceeding the lot coverage so I still do have that concern. Tietz: Can you make a motion? Aller: Yeah, I can’t make a motion but I’ll invite a motion, whether it’s for or against modified. Randall: I’ll make it for. I just want to say one more thing. I really appreciate that they went through and worked with it on, that was nice you know so. They’ve followed a lot of our recommendations on it. The precedent obviously is an issue but at least they went back and made some changes there to help with it so that’s all. Tietz: Well and I recall we had positive comments from the neighbors the first time around so even though it is a little atypical there was not push back from the neighbors who spoke at the public hearing. Randall: I’ll make a motion. The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 10 foot west front yard setback, a 5 foot rear yard setback, a 9 percent lot coverage and a second driveway access variance for construction of the detached garage subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Discussions. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Tietz: Second. 4 Planning Commission – January 16, 2018 Aller: Having a motion and a second. Any further discussion? I will just say that I share your concerns regarding the, regarding a precedent for purposes of allowing a variance for this type of stated use and it is a substantial change in the property. However I think variances are taken on a case by case basis. Again I’m hoping that it doesn’t turn out to be a precedent and that we don’t hear a lot of it and my goal would be to limit those to those that we feel are reasonable use of the property consistent with the neighborhood and as Commissioner Tietz said the neighborhood has come in in favor of this particular modification so in that factor I think that meets the requirements for me to satisfy myself with the fact that it would be an appropriate use of the property under these conditions and circumstances which would allow for the variance so I’ll be voting for it. Any additional comments? Randall moved, Tietz seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 10 foot west front yard setback, a 5 foot rear yard setback, a 9 percent lot coverage and a second driveway access variance for construction of a detached garage subject to the following conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decisions: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. The garage must be architecturally compatible with existing house and match color. 3. Vacation of the southern alley must be completed before the building permit application is submitted. 4. The second driveway shall be constructed using a pervious paver/geogrid system, the design of which shall be approved by the Water Resource Coordinator. The system must be installed by a certified installer. 5. The applicant shall construct an 8 foot in diameter rain garden in the southeast corner of the property, the design and installation of which shall be approved by the Water Resource Coordinator. 6. The property’s lot cover may not exceed 3,066 square feet, of which no more than 2,786 square feet may be impervious surface. All voted in favor, except Commissioner Madsen who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 3 to 1. Aller: So the motion carries 3 to 1. That is not a super majority. Aanenson: That’s correct so. Generous: It’s 75 percent of those present. 5 Planning Commission – January 16, 2018 Aanenson: Yeah. Generous: So it would be the final determination if it’s appealed. Aller: So it would move forward. Aanenson: No, it’s final unless it’s appealed. Yes. 75 percent of those in attendance. Aller: Oh that’s right. We only have 4 people here. Aanenson: You only have 4 people tonight so. Aller: So the motion carries and we move onto item 2. Thank you so much. And these items will be for public hearings. PUBLIC HEARING: 1651 MOTORPLEX COURT – REGISTERED LAND SURVEY (SUBDIVISION). Generous: Thank you Chairman Aller, commissioners. As you stated this is a public hearing to review a registered land survey and an amendment to a conditional use permit. The property’s located at 1651 Motorplex Court. Additionally there’s a second building on the south side that’s 1650 Motorplex Court as part of, it was approved previously with the conditional use permit and site plan review. This item will go to the City Council on February 12, 2018. The applicant is J&R Properties Limited Liability Company. Mr. LaMettry is the owner of that and he’s here tonight. Again this is 1651 Motorplex Court. It’s a unique property. It was, there were two properties as a part of the Motorplex development and as the Motorplex expanded over time it took pieces of this parcel away from it. When the LaMettry’s came in for site plan review, as a condition of approval he was to dedicate the land with the Bluff Creek corridor on the back side. There’s a wetland complex to the City. When he tried to record that deed transferring the property to the City of Chanhassen Carver County said no, they wouldn’t accept it. We were going to do a lot line adjustment and attach it to land that the City currently owns west of this parcel and told the owner that he would need to do a registered land survey to clean up all the exceptions from the descriptions. If you look at the registered land survey it’s a whole page of metes and bounds descriptions which is pretty confusing. This property is zoned industrial office park. It’s 24 acres in size. There are two building sites with existing buildings on the east side of this property right off Audubon and Motorplex Court which is a private street providing access to those buildings as well as to Audubon Motorplex. The registered land survey would create 3 tracts. Tract A is the property that contains the wetlands and the Bluff Creek primary zone on the west side. And then Tracts B and C on the east side contained two buildings that the applicant has constructed on there. Those two lots both meet the, exceed the minimum requirements of the IOP district. Staff is recommending approval of the registered land survey subject to the two conditions that they dedicate the land and that they memorialize the easement 6 Planning Commission – January 16, 2018 to the property. Through their property for, in favor of Tract A. In reviewing the amendment to the PUD it was only due to the subdivision of the property that they had to change that. Our ordinance specifies that if you subdivide or change the lot line the CUP is, will be voided so he needed to amend it. The only reason he did the subdivision is because he couldn’t transfer the land to the property. The only portion of the site that’s within the Bluff Creek primary zone is actually Tract A so with the new PUD that would be, or new CUP that will be recorded against Tract A only and the rest of it would be eliminated. Additionally the initial conditional use permit was to permit multiple buildings. Two buildings on one lot. Well with this registered land survey that part goes away and so each of them have individual buildings on individual lots. The applicant is dedicating Tract A to the City in fulfillment of the original conditional use permit and also as a condition of this conditional use permit so we are recommending approval of the CUP amendment. Again they try, the reason they’re here is they tried to meet conditions that were imposed on them back in 2015. Carver County wouldn’t let them record that deed. Because they have to subdivide the CUP has to be amended and so we’re recommending approval of this whole thing so that we can get it finalized. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Aller: What did you say? Actually the report sets it out quite nicely and so does your explanation so a convoluted way of getting there but it looks like we will get there so any questions of staff at this point based on the report or the presentation? Okay, if the applicant could come forward. Welcome sir. State your name and address for the record and… Richard LaMettry: Richard LaMettry and I’m from Naples, Florida. Tietz: What are you doing up here? Richard LaMettry: This. Aller: He heard we had some warm weather today. Richard LaMettry: Yeah. So I mean it pretty much says, it’s just for the benefit of recording or transferring that wetlands to the City. Aller: Any questions of the applicant? Thank you sir for going through the process. This does require a public hearing so I’ll open up the public hearing for comment. Any individual wishing to speak either for or against this item can do so at this time. Opportunity to come forward. Seeing no one come forward I will close the public hearing. Open it up for discussion or action. Or comments. I think it’s pretty straight forward. Randall: Pretty straight forward yeah. Aller: I’ll entertain any motions that one of the commissioners would like to make at this time. 7 Planning Commission – January 16, 2018 Madsen: I can make a motion. Aller: Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit and the Registered Land Survey and approves the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Randall: Second. Tietz: Second. Aller: Having a valid motion and second, any further discussion? Madsen moved, Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit (#2015-19) for development within the Bluff Creek Corridor and the Registered Land Survey creating three parcels, subject to the following conditions of approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation: Conditional Use Permit: 1. Development must comply with the Bluff Creek Corridor regulations. 2. Tract A shall be dedicated to the City. Subdivision: 1. Provide the City of Chanhassen with a copy of the current access and maintenance agreement for Motorplex Court. 2. Access to Tract A shall be included as part of the current access and maintenance agreement for Motorplex Court. 3. Identify and provide a Drainage and Utility easement over the publicly owned piping on the site. 4. Dedicate Tract A to the City of Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. 8 Planning Commission – January 16, 2018 Aller: Motion carries unanimously. Thank you again sir. Richard LaMettry: Nothing to it. PUBLIC HEARING: 7700 QUATTRO DRIVE – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO EXTEND COMMUNICATION TOWER. Generous: Thank you Chairman and commissioners. Again this is an amendment to an existing conditional use permit. They were approved for a 75 foot tower. As a condition of approval they were required to construct it so that it could be extended in the future to accommodate another set of antennas. However it was too short. Again this is a public hearing. This will go th to City Council on February 12. The applicant is Crown Castle Services and the property owner if Marilyn Beddor. This property is located at 7700 Quattro Drive. That’s actually in Hennepin County. It’s just north of Highway 5 and east of Dell Road. There’s an existing cell tower in the back yard and the property is zoned industrial office park. It’s over 2 acres in size. The location of the tower meets all our zoning requirements. Again the existing tower and equipment are behind the building, the northerly building on the site so they’re not visible from the public right-of-way. They would be adding 15.2 feet to the height of the tower and an additional 3 feet on top of that for a lightning rod. They will be putting in additional equipment platform on the rear and then they’re going to enclose that with a fence system. (Due to technical difficulties a portion of the staff report and the applicant’s presentation were not recorded.) Richard Krueger: …so yeah this is definitely no, yeah. Tietz: Taken into consideration. Richard Krueger: Absolutely yeah. Tietz: That was the only thing I was concerned with. With an aging, for an 18 year old structure and. Richard Krueger: Right, yeah they’ll do welding and there’s welding standards and stuff like that on the flange plate and all that kind of stuff so yeah. It’s, if it were to fail it would be very bad for the company and the public and you don’t hear about cell towers falling over for that reason. It’s very safe so. Yeah there’ll be, an act of God would have to happen basically. A 100 year flood down in Texas or something like that so yeah there’s a lot of testing that goes along with that. Tietz: Good, thanks. 9 Planning Commission – January 16, 2018 Richard Krueger: Yeah no problem. Aanenson: I was just going to add on that too Planning Commission members that those permits will be reviewed by the City so they have to submit those engineering reports so, before a permit would be issued to work on it. Tietz: Good, thanks. Aller: Based on the commissioners question or the response any additional comments or questions for the applicant? Seeing none. Oh Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: I just see in our packet that the ordinance would allow for a taller tower. Do you anticipate in the future that to make it taller or could you add additionally at a later point in time? Richard Krueger: I think if they really wanted to do it. The impetus for this is Verizon, the carrier came to us and said we wanted coverage in this area. We looked at the tower. It says well we don’t have what we call a center line, RAD center line radio distribution center line so we’re going to extend the tower so the reason why we’re doing this right now, to this height is because it’s the most economically feasible one and frankly I’m not an engineer. I went to law school. I don’t know like the calculations and stuff like that but I’m guessing that if it got a little bit, if it got too tall that’s when we run into issues with structural integrity and also legislatively speaking there’s a 6409A passed by the U.S. government says you can go up to 20 feet. It’s called an eligible facilities request which this is so anything under 20 feet is not a substantial change to the tower and there’s other criteria too but if we’re talking about height it’s under 20 feet so they like to keep it underneath that no matter what because the cost benefit analysis, it wouldn’t really work to extend it another 10 feet and then run into an issue where it’s like, instead of going to 87 or 90 we’re going to 100 or 105 or something like that. It’s just more spooky. We’re getting into triple digits there so, as far as coming back and extending it, I don’t see that happening. But if it was to be the case that would be 20 years from now and by that time everything will be small cell anyways so. Madsen: Okay, thank you. Richard Krueger: Yeah no problem. Aller: Great, thank you very much. Just a follow up for staff. The conditions are requiring a building permit which will allow for a 90 foot tower and the structure would have to be substantially fit for 90 feet. Generous: Correct, it would have to meet the 90 miles an hour wind load and then the half inch of ice so. 10 Planning Commission – January 16, 2018 Aller: If they were to come back how high would it be for purposes of an administrative request as opposed to coming before us again. Generous: We only get 10 percent so 9 feet. Aller: Thank you. Now we’ll open up the public hearing portion of the item. Any individuals wishing to come forward can speak for or against the tower issue before us. Seeing no one come forward we’ll close the public hearing and comments or action. Randall: I have no comments. Madsen: Looks good. Aller: I’ll invite a motion then. Madsen: I’ll make a motion. Aller: Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the amendment to the Conditional Use Permit to permit the extension of the communication tower and approves the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Randall: Second. Aller: Thank you Commissioner Randall. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Madsen moved, Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of an amendment to Conditional Use Permit #2000-6 to permit the construction of an extension to the communication tower up to 90 feet monopole, plans prepared by Design 1, dated revised 04-10-17, and subject to the following conditions and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation: 1. A building permit is required to construct the platform and tower extension; the tower must be designed for a 90 MPH wind load and include the effect of one-half inch of radial ice. 2. The original plans must be signed by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota. 11 Planning Commission – January 16, 2018 3. The contractor shall meet with the Inspections Division as early as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures. 4. The applicant shall submit a detailed grading, drainage and erosion control plan for staff review and approval. 5. The tower extension shall be of the same color as the existing tower. 6. A letter of intent committing the tower owner and his or her successors to allow the shared use of the tower if an additional user agrees in writing to meet reasonable terms and conditions for shared use shall be submitted to the City. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: 7555 WALNUT CURVE – VARIANCE TO BUILD A POOL. Walters: Alright this is Planning Case 2018-04, 7555 Walnut Curve. If appealed this would go th before the City Council on February 12. The applicant is requesting a 4.9 percent lot coverage variance for the construction of an in ground swimming pool and pool apron area. So it’s located in the Walnut Grove subdivision on 7555 Walnut Curve. This is a planned unit development. It has a minimum lot size of 10,400 square feet and then 30 foot front and rear setbacks. 10 foot, I’m sorry that should read 10 foot side setback and this zone, this PUD has a 30 percent lot coverage but properties within the shoreland overlay district are limited to 25 percent. This property is located within the shoreland overlay district due to the presence of a mapped stream or creek in the field to the east. There are 4 houses within the planned unit development, 4 single family homes within the planned unit development that are subject to this 25 percent limit. The property has a 14,283 square foot lot. There’s currently 26.4 percent lot coverage and it meets all required setbacks. The applicant is proposing to construct an 18 foot by 36 foot sport pool with a 566 square foot pool apron/patio area. They are proposing to install a rain garden in the southwest corner of the lot in order to capture a lot of the pool runoff. The property naturally drains towards that corner away from the stream so their rationale is most other similar properties within the PUD would be allowed the 30 percent. The intent of the shoreland management zone of protecting the creek can be met due to the grading of the lot even with the higher percentage and the applicant is planning on installing the rain garden and also an additional rain barrel to minimize runoff and impact on the stream. When staff looked at it water resources agreed with our assessment of the grading with the exception that they noticed that there’s a slightly lower dip here and they believe that if a one foot berm is constructed here to bring it all up to 1,000 foot elevation that it would then function as intended and direct any potential runoff away from that stream or creek. As you can see the creek is, looks to be pretty much plowed under in the field. We’re not exactly certain where it is there but it is, it does exist on the map so that does trigger the shoreland overlay district. Staff does believe that the intent of the overlay district of protecting the creek can be met through grading and through the use of the 12 Planning Commission – January 16, 2018 rain garden and since other properties within the PUD are allowed the 30 percent lot coverage staff did feel it was appropriate and recommends approval of this variance. I’d be happy to take any questions you have at this time. Aller: Any questions of staff at this point in time? Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: I see on the map that there is a shed and a deck on the property as well. Was there ever any discussion on maybe reducing that size to help offset the lot coverage? Walters: If my memory serves there was not discussion on reducing, removing the shed. I believe we discussed minimizing the patio area around the deck but not in terms of actually rebuilding or reducing the deck. I would let the applicant comment on that. Madsen: Okay, thank you. Aller: Any additional questions at this point in time? Hearing none we’ll have the applicant come forward. If you could tell us your name and address for the record and then tell us about your project please. Jessica Hansgen: Do you want me to speak? Nick Hansgen: Go for it. Jessica Hansgen: Okay, Nick and Jessica Hansgen, 7555 Walnut Curve, Chanhassen. First time here. Not really sure what you want me to say. Aller: So why are we building the pool? Jessica Hansgen: Do you want to address the deck and the shed. Nick Hansgen: Well why are we building the pool. I’ll cover that real quick. We are very active in the community. We have 2 young kids and we found that we do not have the time to leave the city to go to a cabin or somewhere outside of our house and really want to kind of treat this as our oasis for our family and our friends because we are so active in what we do with youth sport activities. I’m a coach here. My wife volunteers all the time so we just don’t have the opportunity to leave so we really want to take advantage of this opportunity. And then with regards to the deck. Yeah we didn’t discuss that with MacKenzie in the conversation but we feel like again as part of the natural flow and drainage of the property this will actually help in reducing any rain off that will go the other way because of how we’ll have it positioned. As well as the rain garden that we’ll have in the corner to catch any runoff from the hardscape around the pool as well as an additional rain barrel that we will use to water all of our gardens around the property. Again to help with any sort of rain off that acre. 13 Planning Commission – January 16, 2018 Jessica Hansgen: The addition of that berm that was requested from the City will actually help level off the one lower corner so in the far right, kind of that pointiest corner right there is the low part which is wet anyway and we had discussed with our landscape company who’s here as well raising that anyway so when the City came back as a condition it actually works perfectly. Nick Hansgen: It was part of our plan. Jessica Hansgen: It was part of our eventual plan to raise that up anyways so that the entire property doesn’t drain. In fact that will pretty much make 100 percent of the property drain towards that drainage pond. Not the creek. Nick Hansgen: Yep. Aller: So the neighborhood has heard you want to build a pool. Jessica Hansgen: Oh yeah, they see it. Aller: And what comments have you had? Jessica Hansgen: They are very much in favor of it. Nick Hansgen: When’s the party? Jessica Hansgen: Yeah, yeah. Nick Hansgen: When can we come? Jessica Hansgen: We have a pretty active neighborhood in terms of kids who are around who are inbetween both of our sons. We’ve got a young one and then an older one and a lot of ages inbetween come over and they’re hoping it passes. They’re excited. We do have a couple other pools in the neighborhood but their kids are aging so in terms of the use and being around you know. Nick Hansgen: Limited. Aller: Any additional questions of the applicants at this time? Tietz: Just, I assume that with the excavation for the pool you’re going to have excess fill material which will make that construction of that berm a non-issue. Jessica Hansgen: Yeah. Nick Hansgen: Yep. 14 Planning Commission – January 16, 2018 Tietz: I’m sure that the grading that’s going to occur back there is going to. Nick Hansgen: Yep, that was our plan. Tietz: It’s a nice place to unload some material. Jessica Hansgen: Yeah that was actually like I mentioned in our favor. Tietz: Yeah so it’s good. Jessica Hansgen: Yeah it gives our boys a nice flat area. Tietz: Yeah we just have to find that creek you know. Jessica Hansgen: Yeah right… Nick Hansgen: The farmer… Tietz: The farmers that plowed it for 25 years. Nick Hansgen: He plows it. He fields it every single year. Can’t see it anywhere back there. It is pretty much dried up. Jessica Hansgen: The turkeys and the deer like it. Nick Hansgen: Turkeys and deer are there but yeah, there’s, you can’t see anything back there at all. Aller: Great, thank you. And this is a public hearing item so I’ll open up the public hearing portion of this item for any individual wishing to come forward and speak either for or against the item. Hearing no one, seeing no one come forward I’ll go ahead and close the public hearing portion of this item and open it up for discussion and action by the commissioners. Randall: I think it’s an improvement of the property even with the variance. The way they planned it out and everything, I like it. If I’m going to approve a variance it definitely passes my approval I guess. Aller: Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: Yeah. Aller: Well any motions or actions suggested at this time, I’ll invite a motion. 15 Planning Commission – January 16, 2018 Tietz: I’ll make a motion. Aller: Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 4.9 percent lot coverage variance subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decisions. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a valid second? Madsen: Second. Aller: I have a second. Having a motion and a second any further discussion? Tietz moved, Madsen seconded that the Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 4.9 percent lot coverage variance subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decisions: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Lot coverage may not exceed 4,266 square feet. 3. A low berm must be constructed in the southeast corner of the lot as depicted in Attachment 6: WRC Required Berm. 4. The applicant must purchase and install a fourth rain barrel. 5. A rain garden must be installed in the southwest corner of the property. The design of the rain garden and installation must be verified by the City’s Water Resources Coordinator. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Madsen noted the Summary and Verbatim Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 2, 2018. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Aller: Future Planning Commission agendas. We do have some changes there. 16 Planning Commission – January 16, 2018 th Aanenson: Thank you Chair. We did have one item scheduled for February 6 and that’s a conditional use permit amendment for Arbor Glen. Because there was just one item and th typically when we do the interviews on the 20 we’d like to have some other items so the candidates can stay and listen to that item and, those items and kind of get a flavor for it so I th know Mark’s going to be absent on that meeting but, so we would cancel the meeting on the 6 and then move the Arbor Glen. That’s our one item that we know is in. Something potentially could come in the next, by this Friday and then we’d also do the annual report. Typically we’ve done that in the work session. Our goal right now under the work session, we’re going to be populating this with a few more things as we’re tracking some bigger projects would be that we would go through all the jurisdictional comments that we got on the comp plan so everybody’s kind of embedded in that and then, so we’d have those public hearings on that coming up in April so. Aller: Great. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. Commissioner Randall moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 17