CC Minutes 2.12.18Chanhassen City Council – February 12, 2018
Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. McDonald. Any further discussion? Just one comment. Mr.
Hoffman this is the contribution that was made earlier, the first two years of the donation by CAA is
specifically going towards this project, is that correct?
Todd Hoffman: That’s correct.
Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. There being no further discussion.
Councilman Campion moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the City Council approves the
Purchase Agreement with Musco Sports Lighting, LLC in the amount of $209,811 for LED
Foundation to Poletop Lighting System for Lake Susan Park Baseball Field. All voted in favor and
the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Mayor Laufenburger: That motion carries 4-0. Thank you very much. Thank you Mr. Hoffman and good
luck Mr. Gallop. Pleased to have you in our community.
VARIANCE REQUEST: 3617 RED CEDAR POINT.
Mayor Laufenburger: Who’s is this? Is this MacKenzie’s, Mr. Walters?
MacKenzie Walters: This is mine.
Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Walters could you just clarify for us exactly why this is in front of the council
at this time?
MacKenzie Walters: Yeah absolutely. So this is, started out as Planning Case 2018-01 and the Planning
nd
Commission heard this on January 2. One of the citizens of our community appealed the decision of the
Planning Commission which means that it now goes to the City Council. The City Council has the
authority to affirm, remand or modify the Planning Commission’s decision in any way they deem
appropriate.
Mayor Laufenburger: Just a reminder the Planning Commission voted how on this variance request?
MacKenzie Walters: The Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 to approve this request.
Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, and as is allowed a member of the community has appealed that decision
and is asking for the City Council to make a final decision.
MacKenzie Walters: That is correct.
Mayor Laufenburger: Is our decision final?
MacKenzie Walters: Barring appeal to a District Court, yes.
Mayor Laufenburger: Can’t we just kick it over to you Mr. Knutson? No.
Roger Knutson: I think that’s what the law should be but right now it isn’t.
36
Chanhassen City Council – February 12, 2018
Mayor Laufenburger: Yeah the law doesn’t recognize you as the final answer, is that what you’re saying?
Alright, Mr. Walters thank you for that clarification. Proceed.
MacKenzie Walters: So the applicant is requesting a 15 ½ foot front yard setback variance, a 22.1 foot
shoreland setback variance and an 11 percent hard cover variance to construct a detached single family
nd
home. So as I mentioned this did go before the Planning Commission on January 2. Just to briefly go
over some of the concerns that were heard during the public hearing. Residents expressed concern over
the snowplow turn around and snow storage. We can go into that in a little more detail but essentially
currently the snowplow uses the property to complete a turn around maneuver and also to snow store
during the winter. The residents have also expressed concern. Some of the neighbors expressed concerns
over the size of the lot cover variance being requested. The Planning Commissioners in their comments
expressed concern over the narrowness of the road on Red Cedar Point and potential access issues that
may come up during construction. They also expressed concern about the effectiveness of the proposed
pervious pavers that are to be used on this project. Concern was also expressed over whether or not the
driveway length could accommodate adequate off street parking and there was disappointment expressed
that the lot coverage was not more significantly reduced from it’s existing but as I mentioned earlier
th
ultimately they voted 5-0 to approve the variance with conditions. On January 8 we received an appeal
and as I mentioned the City Council has the authority to reverse, affirm, modify wholly or partly the
appeal decision and that’d be a simple majority vote.
Mayor Laufenburger: Okay.
MacKenzie Walters: So the applicant provided us, sorry. The appellant provided us an appeal in writing.
They stated their concerns as the shortness of the driveway and it’s inability to provide sufficient off
street parking. They also felt that the proposed 3 car garage is oversized for the property. That the lot
coverage was excessive and that they felt that the home did not fit into the neighborhood and that
reasonable use of the property could be achieved with reduced variances. I would mention if you did read
the email submitted by the appellant they cited several things in the Findings of Fact. Those were from
Findings of Fact for denial of the variance that was drafted as a matter of practice. That was not the
Findings of Fact that was adopted by the Planning Commission so just in case there was any confusion on
that.
Mayor Laufenburger: You’re referring to the document that was applied as the appeal from the resident
of 3618 Red Cedar Point.
MacKenzie Walters: Yes, in the appeal they cite certain sentences from a Findings of Fact which was the,
a potential Findings of Fact that was not ultimately adopted.
Mayor Laufenburger: But that appeal, their appeal is still valid.
MacKenzie Walters: Absolutely.
Mayor Laufenburger: Okay.
MacKenzie Walters: Yes.
37
Chanhassen City Council – February 12, 2018
Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright continue.
MacKenzie Walters: So now to go in just into a little bit of background. The property, 3617 Red Cedar
Point is zoned for residential single family. It is a riparian lot which means under our zoning code it
would ordinarily be required to have 20,000 square feet of lot area. It’d be limited to 25 percent lot
coverage, 30 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setback, 75 foot shoreland setback, and then our
ordinance does allow a 250 square foot water oriented structure. This is the current house on the property
and the lot is substandard. It has 9,222 square feet so a little under half the size of what would ordinarily
be required by the ordinance. Existing lot coverage on the property is 3,353 square feet. It does currently
meet the front yard setback. It meets it’s east side setback but there is a shed or outhouse, depending on
how you talk to on the west side that’s about 4 feet off of the property line.
Mayor Laufenburger: We’re going to call it a shed by the way.
MacKenzie Walters: Absolutely.
Kate Aanenson: I think he meant out building.
MacKenzie Walters: Yes. I’ve heard both but yeah.
Mayor Laufenburger: A shed removes any ambiguity.
MacKenzie Walters: Absolutely.
Mayor Laufenburger: Okay.
MacKenzie Walters: Accessory structure. And that is currently set back 52.9 feet from the ordinary high
water level of the lake. There is currently what we would call a water oriented accessory structure that’s
24 feet from the lake and is 114 square feet. I should also mention that just due to the age of this
neighborhood, for whatever reason the road was actually constructed partially on this parcel and we
exempt the 543 square feet of lot area and hard cover there from both the lot size calculations and it’s
impervious surface calculations. What the applicant is proposing to do is to remove the existing house.
The gravel parking area that exists in front, which is shown in red. The existing water oriented structure.
The existing walkway in back and to construct a new home with a 3 car tuck under garage, driveway,
walkway and 161 square foot water oriented structure in the form of a patio off the rear of the house. The
applicant’s justification is that given the substandard size of the house it would not be possible to
construct a home that within the bounds established by our zoning ordinance. The existing house is in a
deteriorating condition. It does not meet current ordinance in terms of minimum square footage and
absence of garage. They would be removing the non-conforming gravel driveway. The lot coverage
would be reduced by 34 square feet and the side yard setback by removing the shed would be brought into
conformance. The request they feel is consistent with other variances which have been granted in the
neighborhood. Of the 26 parcels within 500 feet 13 have been given variances. The neighbors have
contacted staff with some concerns. We received 4 emails and/or phone calls. One after just talking with
staff expressed that they had no objection to the, and 3 expressed concerns. Two spoke about the very
restricted parking in the neighborhood. Two were very concerned about the impervious surface and two
felt the proposed size of the house wasn’t suitable to the parcel or neighborhood. Staff did an estimate of
the parking in the neighborhood based on the aerial photos and Google street views. Just for some
38
Chanhassen City Council – February 12, 2018
reference our city code requires a 2 car garage with a 30 foot driveway. That’s going to provide
depending on the length of the right-of-way 4 to 6 spots for parking, 4 of those being off street outside the
garage. Looking through this neighborhood the average number of spaces between the garage and
driveway we estimate is 4 ½ per parcel. The applicant is proposing what staff counted as 4 off street
spaces. The applicant has stated that because his daughter drives a Jeep he believes the driveway will
hold up to 3 cars for a total of 6 spaces. With a Jeep I would certainly agree 2 cars on the driveway.
Three would be challenging. Staff looking at all the factors and the unique situation with the lot believe
that the applicant should be required to install a buffer to utilize permeable pavers for the driveway and
rear patio and undertake a shoreline restoration project to mitigate the impact of the requested setback and
lot cover from the lake. Staff does concur that the requested variance is consistent with what has been
granted to surrounding properties and with existing non-conformities in the area. There is concern about
parking but the proposal does provide 4 spaces. Five spaces with the Jeep, which again is consistent with
what we believe the neighbors have and so for these reasons staff recommends approval with conditions
and as was noted earlier the Planning Commission initially voted to approve this variance. I would be
happy to take any questions at this time.
Mayor Laufenburger: Alright, thank you Mr. Walters. Council, any questions of Mr. Walters or staff?
Councilman McDonald go ahead.
Councilman McDonald: Very familiar with this neighborhood as we’ve had a lot of things over the years
come down. This particular lot, how does that lot compare with the other lots around it? Is it roughly the
same? A lot smaller? Bigger? Where would you say it fits?
MacKenzie Walters: Roughly average but there’s, you know switching here to kind of an overhead view
of the neighborhood. As you can see there’s a lot of variation. The lots immediately around it are fairly
close. Some are significantly bigger and some are actually you know down around 8,000 square feet.
Councilman McDonald: And then of the lots around it and the homes that are on it, do any of them
require variances for either front or rear or side lot?
MacKenzie Walters: Yeah if we go to the packet I ran through the front lots. Of the, we have apologies.
Let me look it up so I actually give you the right number. 13 have received a front yard setback variance
within 500 feet, of which their variance is right around the middle of the packet. The most extreme
variance granted was a 28.8 foot front yard setback variance. That was for a pre-existing structure that
was very close and the smallest was a 7 ½ foot front yard variance and again they’re asking for 11 1/2.
Councilman McDonald: And again one of the other concerns I had, the neighbors play rightly so if we’re
going to be doing construction, a complete tear down and a new build, where are we talking about being
able to stage equipment?
MacKenzie Walters: They will have to, the contractor will have to work very closely with our building
department to find acceptable places to put equipment. Working in that neighborhood is always
challenging. There have been a couple remodels on, and yeah our inspectors do stay on it and they do try
to work with contractors. I believe the applicant can speak a little bit more about some of the stuff
they’ve planned for trying to reduce that congestion.
39
Chanhassen City Council – February 12, 2018
Councilman McDonald: Okay. And where are we going to now put the snow and do the turn around?
Can you show me on the?
Paul Oehme: So right here we show, Mayor and City Council members. This is the right-of-way in this
area so this is right at the end of Red Cedar. This is a private drive and it goes off to the east so our plan
is to utilize this area as much as we can. There’s a fairly large cottonwood tree that’s over here. We’d
like to, it’s lost a limb too so we’re looking at removing that.
Mayor Laufenburger: Is the tree in our right-of-way?
Paul Oehme: It is in our right-of-way yep, so we’re looking at removing that tree. It’s in our right-of-
way and then utilizing this area for better snow plowing operations and turn around as well.
Councilman McDonald: Okay. One of the other things, and I’m just asking if you’ve asked. Why
couldn’t the house move back and make the driveway a little bit longer?
MacKenzie Walters: So one of the things that we always have held this council and Planning
Commission have held houses to in this community is not moving closer to the lake than the existing non-
conforming lake setback so when we met with people who were interested in this we asked that they do
everything possible to design houses that would not move closer to the lake. The more green space we
can have between the lake and the house, the more we can protect the water resources. That being said a
different house design you know would have a different footprint.
Councilman McDonald: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. McDonald. Any other questions of staff council? Councilmember
Ryan, go ahead.
Councilwoman Ryan: Could you just speak to the paver situation? I know you’ve been doing a lot of
research so you’re the perfect person to speak to it. Can you talk exactly where they’re going to go? I
know there’s some concern about the effectiveness. If you could just talk a little bit about that please.
MacKenzie Walters: Yeah absolutely. So I’m the second best person to talk about this. The Water
Resources Coordinator is absolutely the staff expert on this but I will give it my best shot. So looking it
over this area here, the driveway as well as the rear patio area here were targeted as being a good location
to place the pervious pavers. If I remember, there it is. That totals 583 square feet which means that the
lot would end up with 36 percent lot coverage but in terms of what we, under our amended definitions
would consider to be impervious surface it would be down to just over 29 percent. So it takes about 7
percent give or take off of the impervious lot coverage that is currently present on the property. They
would be required to have an engineered paver design that the Water Resources Coordinator approved so
you know we’d make sure that there was an adequately prepared substrate that would allow for the
infiltration. They would need to you know enter into, I believe she’ll do a maintenance agreement. My
understanding is the most important thing with these systems is making sure they’re installed correctly so
we would held them to the standards established by the Interlocking Concrete Paver Institute and the
Water Resources Coordinator when discussing this with the Planning Commission mentioned that she has
a great deal of experience with these systems and in this case, especially because if memory serves me
40
Chanhassen City Council – February 12, 2018
right the applicant has already installed some similar water best management practices in their existing
property. She felt they were a good candidate for this and would do proper maintenance.
Councilwoman Ryan: Okay, so because where are we at with that ordinance? I know we’re right kind of
in the middle.
Kate Aanenson: So what we were hoping to do is get the Surface Water Management Plan, get those
comments out and that is out for jurisdictional review so we’ll be following up on that shortly here.
Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. And then let’s see here. I know there’s some concern about the height of
the house. Do you know how much taller this house is than the others in the neighborhood? I couldn’t
find any information.
MacKenzie Walters: Yeah unfortunately because we don’t keep building plans for more than a year in
the building records I wasn’t able to get the empirical data on that.
Councilwoman Ryan: We don’t have any restrictions in terms of heights in this area?
MacKenzie Walters: 35 feet and they are well under that and you know a lot of it is what house you look
at. If you look at you know the more single story structures across the street, noticeably higher. The
house to the east I don’t believe would be that significant.
Councilwoman Ryan: And then could you just talk a little bit about, I know this is part of the Planning
Commission when you’re in the maybe the development stage, why staff recommended the tuck under
garage versus the side yard. Could you just explain that please?
MacKenzie Walters: Every proposal we had that was trying to do more of a traditional attached garage
ended up really either cutting into the side yard where we didn’t currently have a non-conformity and
ultimately we felt that the only way to really accommodate a 3 car garage on this property was going to be
to have it in a tuck under configuration. Side loading was also an option. The applicant didn’t feel that
configuration worked for them so ultimately that, this is what they proposed. Several others in the area
did choose to go with the side loading but especially when you’re talking about a 3 car side loading
garage, you know you get up around 28-30 feet and you don’t have a lot of depth on this lot. It’s 100 and
I believe 22 to 125 feet deep lot. As it currently is the house at it’s widest is 48 feet so if 30 feet of that
becomes a side loading garage it gets to be kind of a really awkward footprint.
Councilwoman Ryan: Right, okay. And then you mentioned a shoreline restoration project. Is that
something that the City’s involved with or do they provide plans through us or is that the watershed?
MacKenzie Walters: They will need to coordinate with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed to meet that
requirement.
Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. And that will address obviously the restoration but then does that
incorporate some of just with the runoff, the storm water runoff and what the anticipated rate will be with
the surface, hard surface?
41
Chanhassen City Council – February 12, 2018
MacKenzie Walters: My understanding is most of these storm water runoff would be addressed by the
requirement of the 20 foot buffer strip and that native vegetation is what’s going to slow it down and
really absorb that water. Again I would defer to the Water Resources Coordinator or engineering on that.
Paul Oehme: Yes, that’s correct.
Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. And just for a point of clarification because you brought it up. It was in
your report. Just the, I’m confused over the road and how you have it designated of their setback. Where
the road is. So the road is in their front yard? So does the road count against their lot coverage then? No.
MacKenzie Walters: No. City practice for public infrastructure, roads is that we deduct both the lot area
and the impervious surface covered by that from their lot.
Councilwoman Ryan: Okay.
MacKenzie Walters: So we don’t count that against them because that’s serving a public purpose and the
result would be to artificially inflate their lot coverage. If you remember when we recently, well last year
I guess now amended the code to explicitly exempt driveways in neck and flag lots from lot area
calculations, it’s the same rule and that’s the rule we were extending just to treat everyone fairly.
Councilwoman Ryan: Okay. Alright, thank you.
Mayor Laufenburger: Any other questions? Mr. Walters, just restate in it’s simplest form the current lot
coverage on the existing property is roughly 36 point decimal percent.
MacKenzie Walters: 36.36.
Mayor Laufenburger: Using the future ordinance which allows pervious pavers, the lot coverage would
go down to did you say 29?
MacKenzie Walters: The lot coverage would remain at 36 percent. The impervious coverage is 29, and I
forget the decimal off the top of my head.
Mayor Laufenburger: So today the impervious coverage is 36 point decimal, correct?
MacKenzie Walters: So what we did when we amended the definitions of impervious and pervious
earlier this, I guess it was in December. Late last year was we try to give some flexibility for situations
like this. Lot coverage for this property is set at 25 percent so we’re giving them an 11 percent lot
coverage variance. However we wanted to give flexibility for the Planning Commission and council to
look at unique situations and say because you’re using a certain percent that we understand to be pervious
we’re willing to grant a larger variance than we might otherwise be, if that makes sense.
Mayor Laufenburger: Alright so, so this new property, the new plan that has come before us now, for us
to approve or disapprove maintains the shoreline distance, number one. It also does not increase the
existing coverage, right?
MacKenzie Walters: It reduces it by a very small amount, yes.
42
Chanhassen City Council – February 12, 2018
Mayor Laufenburger: Close.
MacKenzie Walters: Yep.
Mayor Laufenburger: I mean it was really close, okay. Alright. Also can you, the individual who
appealed the decision by the Planning Commission is right across the street is that correct?
MacKenzie Walters: That is my understanding.
Audience: No.
MacKenzie Walters: No? My apologies.
Mayor Laufenburger: Down one? Well actually sir, just a second. You can wait there. Can you bring
the map up? You showed the, yeah.
MacKenzie Walters: Let’s get the other one.
Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, so the 3617 is what property?
MacKenzie Walters: 3617 is this property here.
Mayor Laufenburger: Okay. 3618 is where?
Audience: Right there.
Mayor Laufenburger: Okay good. I just wanted to get kind of approximation of that. And Mr. Walters
you also said that, oh. This is interesting. The property owner is one name. The applicant is a different
name, is that correct?
Audience: They’re sisters.
MacKenzie Walters: For the application for the 3617, the property owner has signed the development
review application giving the current applicant permission to pursue this variance.
Mayor Laufenburger: Oh okay, alright. Okay. So I get it. So if we grant this variance and give
permission to build in accordance with this variance how long do they have to build?
MacKenzie Walters: They must start construction within one year.
Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, alright. Okay. Is the applicant present this evening? Is it Mr. Jackson?
Todd Jackson: Yeah.
Mayor Laufenburger: Would you like to come up and address the council for any reason? Not required.
43
Chanhassen City Council – February 12, 2018
Todd Jackson: I’ll wait if there’s any questions I’d be happy to.
Mayor Laufenburger: Okay, council are there any questions of the applicant? Alright Mr. Jackson would
you mind coming to the podium please?
Councilman McDonald: I asked this of Mr.
Mayor Laufenburger: Just a second. Just state your name and address.
Todd Jackson: Todd Jackson, 621 Broken Arrow Drive in Chan and then I also have a property on Red
Cedar as well. 3732 Hickory.
Mayor Laufenburger: Okay.
Councilman McDonald: I asked this question of Mr. Oehme because again I’m very sensitive to that area
down there. There’s just not a lot of room. How do you plan to stage construction?
Todd Jackson: Well as I just stated I own a property, 3732 Hickory which has a significant driveway. I
don’t know MacKenzie if you can scroll back but I’ve talked to the builder and we’ve agreed that 3732
Hickory will be used as parking for crew. Now obviously there’s going to have to be equipment that’s
going to have to drop off stuff that I’m not going to be able to do anything with.
Councilman McDonald: Right.
Todd Jackson: But I’d also point out that regardless of the variance, even if you were to build something
that’s within the city ordinances the equipment’s still going to need to get back there but in this instance I
have the ability to allow daily crew to park their vehicles within walking distance of the property.
Councilman McDonald: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Jackson do you live in the dome house?
Todd Jackson: No, I live at the one right to the east of it. Right at the top of the hill.
Mayor Laufenburger: Okay.
Todd Jackson: We built that house and that’s actually where we put the, the dome house.
Mayor Laufenburger: You know what I mean right?
Todd Jackson: Oh yeah. Yeah believe me I know. That’s actually the house next door. To the west of it
we built in ’06 I guess but we, we, my wife and I chose to work with the watershed district and add a
whole large area on the eastern side of our property to help with flowage into Lotus so we did that on our
own.
Mayor Laufenburger: Alright, I thought I recognized you from an earlier visit. Alright. Any other
question of Mr. Jackson? Okay. Thank you.
44
Chanhassen City Council – February 12, 2018
Todd Jackson: Yep.
Mayor Laufenburger: Let’s bring it back to the council. Any questions, comments or actions?
Councilman McDonald: Did you want to hear from the gentleman who’s opposed to this?
Mayor Laufenburger: You know that, thank you Mr. McDonald. Is the appellant present? Not present.
Jeff Souba: I’d like to say something.
Mayor Laufenburger: I think I’d allow that. State your name and address please.
Jeff Souba: My name is Jeff Souba. My address is 3617 Red Cedar Point. That property has been in my
family since 1914 I believe. The person who wrote the letter to you, the applicant is not a resident of
Minnesota. She lives in New York. Her sister owns the property at 3618 and if you look at their property
it’s within 10 feet of the street. They’re complaining that he’s trying to build too close to the street when
in fact they are closer. If you look at their property directly next door to mine, directly across the street
from 3618, that’s the owner’s daughter. Her property is within 5 feet of our property. If you looked at
the picture where it showed the pick up truck and the boat in the driveway and the corner of their lot, her
garage is 10 feet from the street and 5 feet from our property line. She’s taking up her entire lot. She’s
only got a 50 foot lot and so my point is, they are complaining that he’s trying to build too big of a house
on our lot when in fact they’ve built houses when you compare the quality, the size of the house to the
size of the lot, that are much bigger. When you compare the footage so I think they’re being a little
prejudice.
Councilman McDonald: I’m confused. So you’re speaking in favor of building on this lot?
Jeff Souba: Absolutely.
Mayor Laufenburger: You’re the current owner of the property.
Jeff Souba: I am the current owner of the property, yes. My family is I should say. I have Power of
Attorney for my mother. She is the owner of record. She’s 89 years old and in a nursing home.
Mayor Laufenburger: So your position would be you would support the variance going through.
Jeff Souba: Absolutely 100 percent. I’m just, what I’m saying is the letter that you received from Debbie
Lockhart, you got a letter from somebody who is biased. You’re not getting a straight shooter basically.
Mayor Laufenburger: Say your last name again?
Jeff Souba: Souba.
Mayor Laufenburger: Mr. Souba we’re accustomed to getting correspondence that is often biased so we
understand that, okay.
45
Chanhassen City Council – February 12, 2018
Jeff Souba: Alright, thank you.
Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Souba. I would ask again. Council is there anybody that would
like to make a comment or propose an action?
Councilwoman Ryan: Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Laufenburger: Councilmember Ryan, go ahead.
Councilwoman Ryan: I’d like to make the motion that the Chanhassen City Council approves an 11.5
foot front yard setback and a 22.1 foot lakeshore setback and an 11 percent lot coverage variance for the
construction of a single family house subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached
Findings of Fact and Decision.
Mayor Laufenburger: Alright, thank you Councilmember Ryan. Is there a second to that motion?
Councilman Campion: Second.
Mayor Laufenburger: Thank you Mr. Campion. Any further discussion at this time?
Councilwoman Ryan moved, Councilman Campion seconded that the Chanhassen City Council
approves an 11.5 foot front yard setback, a 22.1 foot lakeshore setback and an 11 percent lot
coverage variance for the construction of a single family house subject to the following conditions of
approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision:
1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit.
2. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easements are
documented.
3. A new 1”=20’ scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit application clearly
showing the proposed setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and structures.
4. At least one tree must be planted in the front yard, if one is not present after construction.
5. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the
entire south side. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until
all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities beyond those indicated in
the tree removal plan shall be replaced.
6. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area.
7. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from Emerald
Ash Borer.
8. The 162 square foot rear patio area is understood to be the property’s water oriented structure.
46
Chanhassen City Council – February 12, 2018
9. Lot coverage may not exceed 3,319 square feet.
10. The proposed rear patio and driveway areas must be constructed using pervious paver systems.
11. A permanent 20 foot native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using species
native to the ecotype with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path
and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native
shoreline restoration. Design plan must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator.
12. The property owner must work with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to identify and
implement any shoreline restoration projects that would improve the ecosystem health and
function. Replace riprap with bioengineering solutions is one example.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Mayor Laufenburger: That motion carries 4-0. Good luck Mr. Souba and nice to have your family in the
community for over 100 years and same to you Mr. Jackson.
TH
531 WEST 79 STREET: APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN TO CONSTRUCT PANERA BREAD.
Mayor Laufenburger: Who’s is this?
Kate Aanenson: This is mine. Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. Panera Bread is
th
requesting approval for a site plan located at 531 West 79 Street. This item did appear before the
nd
Planning Commission on January 2. They did recommend approval. The applicant’s are Panera LLC
th
and the Chanhassen Inn. So again the location on West 79 Street. I’ll give a little bit more detail on that
but I just want to talk a little bit about the history of the Chanhassen Inn which was built in 1981 and they
added 14 rooms onto the site. Sorry, let me put my pointer on there. So this building will be torn down
adjacent to the Chick-fil-A. If I can go to the next slide you can see, put it in a little bit frame of reference
here. So again the Chanhassen Inn would be removed. That’s why they’re part of the signature on there
and then this is the older building, the Ramsey Building but shared the access with the Chick-fil-A. There
was a traffic study which we’ll talk about in a little bit more detail but the request then is for a site plan
approval to construct approximately 4,500 square foot building, a one story restaurant with a drive
through with a variance request for the use of EIFS as a primary material. The intent of the Business
Highway District, which this is zoned, is to provide commercial oriented building. Low profile so fast
food are a permitted use in this district and maybe you do or do not know but Panera has been looking in
the city for a number of years to locate and had unable until now to find a site to build on and they were
definitely looking for Highway 5 frontage. So the site plan itself, as I mentioned, has a shared access
within, coming in next to Chick-fil-A. Their parking has additional parking spaces so they have an
easement to the east. In the staff report we talk about the requirements that they need so there’s additional
parking there. The other thing I want to point out is they do have the drive through and we talked about at
the Planning Commission as you recall last fall we modified our standards for additional stacking for a
drive through. I’ll let Panera talk about this but the ratios that they used for drive through is significantly
less than Chick-fil-A. Chick-fil-A has a lot more drive through. Panera tends to have more people that
would go inside the store so they are accommodating the additional stacking length which I believe would
be 12. They will be putting a filtration pond on the subject site so this area adjacent, so it would be in the
southwest corner will be where the filtration pond would go. So some of the issues they have to address
47