PC Minutes 1.16.18
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