Agenda and PacketAGENDA
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2018, 7:00 PM
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD
A.CALL TO ORDER
B.PUBLIC HEARINGS
1.Request for Amendment to Chanhassen Retail Center Planned Unit Development to
Allow Additional Signage on the Target Building
2.7644 South Shore Drive: Consider a Variance to Install Boulder Wall and Patio in
Bluff Setback Area
C.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Approval of Planning Commission minutes dated August 7, 2018
D.COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS
E.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
1.City Council Action Update
2.Future Planning Commission Items
F.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION
G.ADJOURNMENT
H.OPEN DISCUSSION
NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m. as outlined in the official bylaws.
We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not
appear to be possible, the Chairperson will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled
from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, September 4, 2018
Subject Request for Amendment to Chanhassen Retail Center Planned Unit Development to Allow
Additional Signage on the Target Building
Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.1.
Prepared By MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner File No: PC 201815
PROPOSED MOTION:
The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Chanhassen Retail Center
Planned Unit Development Amendment 201815, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation.
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
The applicant is requesting that the Chanhassen Retail Center Planned Unit Development (PUD) be amended to allow
signage along three street frontages.
APPLICANT
KimleyHorn & Associates on behalf of Target Corporation
SITE INFORMATION
PRESENT ZONING: Planned Unit Development
LAND USE:Commerical
ACREAGE: 18.69
DENSITY: N/A
APPLICATION REGULATIONS
Chanhassen Retail Center Planned Unit Development Ordinance: Limits wall signs to two street frontages, and a maximum
of 15 percent (15%) total wall area.
Chapter 20, Article XXVI. – Signs: Limits wall signs in Central Business District (CBD) to one sign per street frontage,
and provides a sliding scale for maximum display area.
BACKGROUND
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, September 4, 2018SubjectRequest for Amendment to Chanhassen Retail Center Planned Unit Development to AllowAdditional Signage on the Target BuildingSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner File No: PC 201815PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Chanhassen Retail CenterPlanned Unit Development Amendment 201815, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is requesting that the Chanhassen Retail Center Planned Unit Development (PUD) be amended to allowsignage along three street frontages.APPLICANTKimleyHorn & Associates on behalf of Target CorporationSITE INFORMATIONPRESENT ZONING: Planned Unit DevelopmentLAND USE:CommericalACREAGE: 18.69 DENSITY: N/A APPLICATION REGULATIONSChanhassen Retail Center Planned Unit Development Ordinance: Limits wall signs to two street frontages, and a maximumof 15 percent (15%) total wall area.Chapter 20, Article XXVI. – Signs: Limits wall signs in Central Business District (CBD) to one sign per street frontage,and provides a sliding scale for maximum display area.
BACKGROUND
Chanhassen Retail Center PUD:
On October 26, 1992, the City Council gave final approval for the Chanhassen Retail Center PUD and Target Project.
The PUD stipulated that wall signage was limited to a maximum of two street frontages.
On February 8, 2010, the City Council approved an amendment to the Chanhassen Retail Center PUD that allowed for
the use of LED lights and adopted the Central Business District standards for the PUD’s setbacks, height, landscape, lot
cover, and other standards not stipulated by the PUD.
RECOMMENDATION
Target is requesting an amendment to the Chanhassen Retail Center Planned Unit Development (PUD) to permit
signage along their building’s north façade at 851 West 78th Street. The PUD currently limits signage to two street
frontages and the building has existing signage along its western and southern frontages. Target recently added a liquor
section to the northwest corner of their store as part of extensive interior and exterior renovations, and feels that signage
along the West 78th Street frontage is needed to provide visibility for the new liquor section. Other buildings within the
PUD already have signage along three street frontages.
In reviewing the requested PUD amendment, staff examined the general sign code that would govern the property in the
absence of a PUD ordinance, other PUDs and sign plans within the city, and the existing signage within the PUD. Staff
believes that the requested PUD amendment is in line with the city’s general sign code and the treatment of similar
properties. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed PUD amendment.
Full analysis is provided in the attached staff report.
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Report_Target PUD Amendment
Chanhassen Retail Center PUD Ordinance amended February 8, 2010
Chanhassen Retail Center PUD Proposed Ordinance Amendment
Findings of Fact (Approval)
Findings of Fact (Denial)
Development Review Application
Elevations
Public Hearing Notice
Cover Letter
Affidavit of Mailing
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PC DATE: September 4, 2018
CC DATE: September 24, 2018
REVIEW DEADLINE: 10/2/2018
CASE #:2018-15 Chanhassen Retail Center PUD Amendment
BY: MacKenzie Walters
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting that the Chanhassen Retail Center
Planned Unit Development be amended to allow signage along three street frontages.
LOCATION: 851 W. 78th Street
APPLICANT: Leila Bunge
(Kimley-Horn & Associates)
2550 University Ave. W. 238N
St. Paul, MN 55113
OWNER: Target Corporation
PO Box 9456
Minneapolis, MN 55440
PRESENT ZONING: PUD
2030 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial
ACREAGE: 18.69 Acres
DENSITY: N/A
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The city has a relatively high level of discretion in approving rezonings, PUDs and amendments
to PUDs because the city is acting in its legislative or policy-making capacity. A rezoning or
PUD, and amendment thereto, must be consistent with the city’s Comprehensive Plan.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
PROPOSED MOTION:
“The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the
Chanhassen Retail Center Planned Unit Development Amendment 2018-15, and adopts the
attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation.”
(Note: a motion for denial and appropriate findings of fact are also included at the end of the
report.)
Planning Commission
Chanhassen Retail Center (Target) – Planning Case 2018-15
September 4, 2018
Page 2 of 5
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
Target is requesting an amendment to the Chanhassen Retail Center Planned Unit Development
(PUD) to permit signage along their building’s north façade at 851 W. 78th Street. The PUD
currently limits signage to two street frontages and the building has existing signage along its
western and southern frontages. Target recently added a liquor section to the northwest corner of
their store as part of extensive interior and exterior renovations and feels that signage along the
W. 78th Street frontage is need to provide visibility for the new liquor section. Other buildings
within the PUD already have signage along three street frontages.
In reviewing the requested PUD amendment, staff examined the general sign code that would
govern the property in the absence of a PUD ordinance, other PUDs and sign plans within the
city, and the existing signage within the PUD. Staff believes that the requested PUD amendment
is in line with the city’s general sign code and the treatment of similar properties. Staff is
recommending approval of the proposed PUD amendment.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Chanhassen Retail Center Planned Unit Development Ordinance: Limits wall signs to two street
frontages per business, and a maximum of 15 percent (15%) total wall area.
Chapter 20, Article XXVI. – Signs: Limits wall signs in Central Business District (CBD) to one
sign per street frontage per business, and provides a sliding scale for maximum display area.
BACKGROUND
Chanhassen Retail Center PUD:
On October 26, 1992, the City Council gave final approval for the Chanhassen Retail Center PUD
and Target Project. The PUD stipulated that wall signage was limited to a maximum of two street
frontages.
On February 8, 2010, the City Council approved an amendment to the Chanhassen Retail Center
PUD that allowed for the use of LED lights and adopted the Central Business District standards for
the PUD’s setbacks, height, landscape, lot cover, and other standards not stipulated by the PUD.
Relevant Sign Variances:
2003-05: Allowed Giant Panda to place signs on three building elevations, sign plan limited
Highway 5 Centre to two elevations.
2017-03: Allowed Dominos to place sign on eastern façade, sign plan limited Colonial Square to
southern façade.
Planning Commission
Chanhassen Retail Center (Target) – Planning Case 2018-15
September 4, 2018
Page 3 of 5
ANALYSIS
In regulating signage the city attempts to balance the advertising needs of businesses with the
potential visual nuisance/negative aesthetics that can be created by unrestricted signage. One of the
main ways that the city does this is by limiting which elevations can display wall signage. The city’s
general sign code allows businesses to display signage along each street frontage and allows signage
on the entrance façade in cases where the individual entrance does not front a public street. The city
also uses sign plans to further regulate the signage of planned centers and multi-tenant buildings.
These sign plans often designate the location of the building’s sign bands and can limit the number
and height of elevations where signage is permitted. PUDs often also have unique sign criteria that
can specify which elevations are allowed to display signage, and often establish design and style
criteria for the development.
Staff conducted a survey of 29 PUD ordinances and sign plans in order to determine what the
general trend for provisions regulating the maximum number of elevations were for these
developments. Almost half of these developments allow businesses to display signs on each street
elevation, with the next most
common limit being a maximum of
two elevations. Staff also found two
instances in which variances were
granted to allow businesses to
display signage along a façade
prohibited by their sign plan or development’s PUD.
The Chanhassen Retail Center PUD limits each
building’s wall signage to a maximum of two
street frontages, but does not specify which
frontages are allowed signage. As shown by the
table to the left, the various buildings have
signage facing all four potential directions and
two of the PUD’s five buildings already have
signage along three street frontages. The
building shared by Noodles and Jersey Mike’s
has signage along three frontages because the
interpretation was made that each business was
entitled to signage along two elevations. Staff
believes that Perkins was allowed signage along three elevations due to a permitting error.
In many cases where buildings are limited to specific number of elevations, the elevations are
specified (i.e. signage is only permitted on north and south elevations). These specific restrictions
tend to reflect the architectural design of the building or the nature of adjacent land uses. The intent
is typically to prevent unnecessary signage, signage that will detract from the aesthetics of the
building, or signage that will be highly visible to a residential neighborhood. The Chanhassen Retail
Center PUD is not located near any residential neighborhoods and is surrounded by commercial and
industrial uses. In this situation, the primary intent of the restriction is to prevent superfluous
Survey of Number of Permitted Sign Frontages
Frontages allowed 1 2 3 1 per street frontage Total
PUD 0 3 1 9 13
Sign Plans 1 8 1 6 16
Combined 1 11 2 15 29
Chanhassen Retail Center Signage
Business Frontages
Target South and West
Noodles and Company* South and East
Jersey Mike's Subs* North and East
Taco Bell North and East
Leeann Chin North and South
Perkins North, East, and West
*Noodles and Jersey Mike’s share a building so their
building has signage on three frontages.
Planning Commission
Chanhassen Retail Center (Target) – Planning Case 2018-15
September 4, 2018
Page 4 of 5
signage as some of the buildings have street frontages where additional signage would not increase
the business’s visibility or would be redundant due to the presence of monument or pylon signs.
During the development’s September 16, 1992 Planning Commission meeting, commissioners
discussed concerns related to superfluous signage as it pertained to Target’s proposed pharmacy
sign; ultimately, they decided to support the presence of the pharmacy sign on the Target building
because it advertised a service not present at all Targets. As a separate issue, the Planning
Commission also discussed the fact that the Target would be allowed signage along W. 78th Street
under the general sign code, which was not being requested. One commissioner indicated that they
felt signage along W. 78th Street might make the development “friendlier” and help break up the
large expanse of wall; however, no action was taken on the comment as Target felt the proposed
signage was sufficient.
Target’s recent remodel has added a new liquor store section with a separate entrance in the
northeast corner of the store. Since this is a new service not found in many Targets and which, due
to the separate entrance, functions largely as a separate store, Target feels that additional signage is
necessary to market the liquor store. Locating a sign near the intersection providing access to
Target’s parking lot facing 78th Street West is the most effective location for the sign. Staff agrees
that the proposed signage is not redundant and that its proposed location is not problematic.
Target Proposed North Elevation
Since multiple buildings within the Chanhassen Retail Center PUD already have signage along
more than two elevations and signage within the development already faces north, south, east, and
west, it would be appropriate to remove the existing provision restricting signage to a maximum of
two street frontages. Amending the PUD to remove that provision would allow the PUD to be
governed by the city’s general sign code’s restrictions limiting signage to elevations where a
building has street frontage.
ALTERNATIVES
1) Remove the provision limiting wall signage within the Chanhassen Retail Center PUD to
two street frontages.
2) Amend the Chanhassen Retail Center PUD to limit signage to three street frontages.
3) Add a provision allowing Chanhassen Retail Center’s major tenant signage along three
street frontages.
4) Retain Chanhassen Retail Center’s existing two street frontage limit.
Planning Commission
Chanhassen Retail Center (Target) – Planning Case 2018-15
September 4, 2018
Page 5 of 5
RECOMMENDATION
Staff believes that Alternative 1 would provide for equal treatment for all businesses within the
Chanhassen Retail Center PUD and would be consistent with the guidelines outlined within the
Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
“The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the
Chanhassen Retail Center Planned Unit Development Amendment 2018-15, and adopts the
attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation.”
Should the Planning Commission recommend denial of the proposed PUD amendment, it is
recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
“The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny the Chanhassen
Retail Center Planned Unit Development Amendment 2018-15; and adopts of the attached
Findings of Fact and Recommendation.”
If adopted the amended portion of the Chanhassen Retail PUD would be amended as follows:
2. Wall signs are permitted on no more than 2 street frontages. The total of all wall
mounted sign display areas shall not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the total area of the
building wall upon which the signs are mounted
ATTACHMENTS
1. Chanhassen Retail Center Planned Unit Development Ordinance as of February 8, 2010
2. Chanhassen Retail Center Planned Unit Development Ordinance Amendment 2018-15
3. Findings of Fact and Recommendation (Approval)
4. Findings of Fact and Recommendation (Denial)
5. Development Review Application
6. Chanhassen PUD Amendment Cover Letter
7. Elevations
8. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing
G:\PLAN\2018 Planning Cases\18-15 Target PUD amendment\Staff Report_Target PUD Amendment.docx
1
CHANHASSEN RETAIL CENTER
Approved 9/28/92
Amended 2/8/ 2010
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
a. Intent
The purpose of this zone is to create a PUD commercial/retail zone. The use of the PUD
zone is to allow for more flexible design standards while creating a higher quality and
more sensitive proposal. All utilities are required to be placed underground. Each lot
proposed for development shall proceed through site plan review based on the
development standards outlined below. The Central Business District regulations shall
apply except as modified by this ordinance.
b. Permitted Uses
The permitted uses in this zone should be limited to appropriate commercial and service
uses consistent with the City’s CBD development goals. The uses shall be limited to
those as defined herein. If there is a question as to the whether or not a use meets the
definition, the City Council shall make that interpretation.
1. Day Care Center
2. Standard Restaurants
3. Health and recreation clubs
4. Retail
5. Financial Institutions, including drive-in service *
6. Newspaper and small printing offices
7. Veterinary Clinic
8. Animal Hospital
9. Offices
10. Health Care Facility
11. Garden Center (completely enclosed)
12. Bars and Taverns
13. Fast Food Restaurants (Maximum of 2) *
• Drive-thru’s should be buffered from all public views.
c. Setbacks
Per City Code.
d. Development Standards Tabulation Box
USE Lot Area Bldg sq Ft. Parking
Permitted
Use
20,000
sq. ft.
NA Per code
2
e. Building Materials and Design
The PUD requires that the development demonstrate a higher quality of architectural
standards and site design. All mechanical equipment shall be screened with material
compatible to the building.
1. All materials shall be of high quality and durable. Masonry material shall be used.
Color shall be introduced through colored block or panels and not painted block.
Painted surfaces shall be allowed on the Target Store only.
2. Brick may be used and must be approved to assure uniformity.
3. Block shall have a weathered face or be polished, fluted, or broken face.
4. Concrete may be poured in place, tilt-up or pre-cast, and shall be finished in stone,
textured or coated.
5. Metal standing seam siding will not be approved except as support material to one of
the above materials or curtain wall on office components.
6. All accessory structures shall be designed to be compatible with the primary
structure.
7. All roof mounted equipment shall be screened by pitched roofs, except for the
Target store shall have a parapet wall for screening. Wood screen fences are
prohibited. Screening shall consist of compatible materials.
8. All outlots shall be designed with similar material and colors as Target. (Target
will be the first store to build and they will establish or set the theme.)
10. All buildings on Outlot B shall have a pitched roof line.
f. Site Landscaping and Screening
In addition, to adhere to the higher quality of development as spelled out in the PUD
zone, all loading areas shall be screened. Each lot for development shall submit a
separate landscaping plan as a part of the site plan review process.
1. All open spaces and non-parking lot surfaces (outlot) shall be landscaped, or
covered with plantings and/or lawn material.
2. Outdoor storage is prohibited.
3
3. The master landscape plan for the Target PUD shall be the design guide for all of
the specific site landscape developments. Each lot must present a landscape plan
for approval with the site plan review process.
4. Loading areas shall be screened from public right-of-ways. Wing wall may be
required where deemed appropriate.
5. Outlot B shall be seeded and maintained in a weed free condition in all areas
proposed for future development.
g. Signage
One freestanding pylon sign shall be permitted for Target. This site is limited to a
monument sign.
1. Each property shall be allowed one monument sign. Monument signage shall be
subject to the monument standards in the sign ordinance.
2. Wall signs are permitted on no more than 2 street frontages. The total of all wall
mounted sign display areas shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent of the total area
of the building wall upon which the signs are mounted.
3. All signs require a separate sign permit.
4. The signage will have consistency throughout the development and shall tie the
building materials to be consistent with the signs. This includes the freestanding
wall and monument signs. Signs shall be an architecture feature, they shall not be
solely mounted on a pole of a foundation. A common theme will be introduced at
the development's entrance monument and will be used throughout.
5. Consistency in signage shall relate to color, size, materials, and heights.
h. Lighting
1. All light fixtures shall be shielded high pressure sodium fixtures or LED. Light
level for site lighting shall be no more than 1/2 candle at the property line. This
does not apply to street lighting.
2. Glare, whether direct or reflected, as differentiated from general illumination,
shall not be visible beyond the limits of the site from which it originates.
3. Lights shall be on a photoelectric cell to turn them on and off automatically as
activated by yearly conditions.
4. Light poles shall be Corten, shoe box light standards.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. -----
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 20 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE,
BY AMENDING A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN ORDAINS:
Section 1. Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code, the City's zoning ordinance, is hereby
amended by amending the Chanhassen Retail Center Planned Unit Development Standards, Section
g. Signage, subsection 2 to read as follows:
2. The total of all wall mounted sign display areas shall not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of
the total area of the building wall upon which the signs are mounted
Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 24th day of September,
2018.
ATTEST:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Denny Laufenburger, Mayor
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on ___________, 2018)
g:\plan\2018 planning cases\18-15 target pud amendment\chanhassen retail center ordinance amendment 2018-15.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION (APPROVAL)
IN RE:
Application of The City of Chanhassen to amend the Chanhassen Retail Center Planned Unit
Development.
On September 4, 2018, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled
meeting to consider the application of Target for a Planned Unit Development Amendment. The
Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed application preceded by
published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested
persons wishing to speak and now makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Planned Unit Development District.
2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Commercial.
3. The legal description of the property is:
Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot A, Chanhassen Retail Addition;
Outlot A, Chanhassen Retail 2nd Addition;
Lots 1-3, Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition;
Lots 1-2, Block 3, Burdick Park Addition; and,
Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Retail 4th Addition.
4. The proposed amendment to the PUD is consistent with the guidelines outlined within the
comprehensive plan.
5. The planning report #2018-15, dated September 4, 2018, prepared by MacKenzie Walters is
incorporated herein.
RECOMMENDATION
The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the
Chanhassen Retail Center Planned Unit Development Amendment 2018-15.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 4th day of September, 2018.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
BY:___________________________________
Andrew Aller - Chairman
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION (DENIAL)
IN RE:
Application of The City of Chanhassen to amend the Chanhassen Retail Center Planned Unit
Development.
On September 4, 2018, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled
meeting to consider the application of Target for a Planned Unit Development Amendment. The
Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed application preceded by
published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested
persons wishing to speak and now makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Planned Unit Development District.
2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Commercial.
3. The legal description of the property is:
Lot 1, Block 1 and Outlot A, Chanhassen Retail Addition;
Outlot A, Chanhassen Retail 2nd Addition;
Lots 1-3, Chanhassen Retail 3rd Addition;
Lots 1-2, Block 3, Burdick Park Addition; and,
Lot 1, Block 1, Chanhassen Retail 4th Addition.
4. The proposed amendment to the PUD is not consistent with the guidelines outlined within the
comprehensive plan.
5. The planning report #2018-15, dated September 4, 2018, prepared by MacKenzie Walters is
incorporated herein.
RECOMMENDATION
The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council deny the Chanhassen
Retail Center Planned Unit Development Amendment 2018-15.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 4th day of September, 2018.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
BY:___________________________________
Andrew Aller - Chairman
?c Utt- ts I-n.^>
COMMUNlTY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning Division -7700 Market Boulevard
Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147 , Chanhassen, MN 55317
Phone: (952) 227-1300 / Fax: (952) 227-1110 CITY OT CIIAI.IHASSII'I
APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
submittaroate:) 1,If<pc ort"tL'l-l !-L cc Date:1a:Ll-IL 60-Day ReviewDate:tollil*
(Refer to the appropriate Application Checklist for required submiftal information that must accompany this application)
trtr
tr
tr
Comprehensive Plan Amendment ..... $600
! Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers ..... $100
Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
fl Single-Family Residence ................................ $325
E All Others......... ........ $425
lnterim Use Permit (lUP)
! ln conjunction with Single-Family Residence.. $325fl All others......... ........ $425
Rezoning (REZ)
fl Planned Unit Development (PUD) .................. $750
EI Minor Amendment to existing PUD................. $100
fl All others......... ........ $500
Sign Plan Review........ ...$150
Site Plan Review (SPR)
E Administrative.......... .................... $100
E Commercial/lndustrial Districts* .. $500
Plus $10 per 1 ,000 square feet of building area:(_ thousand square feet)
"lnclude number of g1g{149 employees:.lnclude number of ryemployees:E Residential Districts. .................... $500
Plus $5 per dwelling unit (_ units)
Subdivision (SUB)
E Create 3 lots or less ............. ....... $300! Create over 3 |ots.......................$600 + $15 per lot( lots)E Metes & Bounds (2lots) ..............$300
E Consolidate 1ots....... ...................$150
! Lot Line Adjustment............... ......$150I rina|P1at.............. ....$700
(lncludes $450 escrow for attorney costs)*
"Additional escrow may be required for other applications
through the development contract.
Vacation of Easements/Right-of-way (VAC)........ $300
(Additional recording fees may apply)
Variance (VAR) .. .. $200
Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP)
E Single-family Residence............................... $1 50
fl Ail others......... ......$2Zs
Zoning Appeal........ ...... $100
Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) ................. $500
NOTE: When multiple applications are processed concurrently,
the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
u
tr
tr
tr
tr
tr
tr
h
x
tr
Property Owners' List within 500' (city to generate after pre-apptication meeting) ............:....... ...... $3 per address
( I l. addresses)
Escrow for Recording Documents (check all that apply)... $50 per document
E Site Plan Agreement
E Wetland Alteration Permit
E Conditional Use Permit E lnterim Use Permit
! Vacation E Variance
E Metes & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.) fl Easements ( easements)BrTl"E:+3:r,,.oo
Description of Proposal: Adding a "Wine & Spirits" sign to the north side of the Target building
851 W 78th St, Chanhassen, MN 55317
qq
lziF-t.1- [l*r^-
Property Address or Location:
Parcel#: 2518400'10 Legal Description:LOT 1 EXC: That part of Lot '1, Block 1, Chanhassen Retail Addition
TotalAcreage:10.06 Wetlands Present? ! Yes Z ruo
Present Zoning:Central Business District (CBD)Requested Zoning: Central Business District (CBD)
Present Land Use Designation: Commercial Requested Land Use Designation:Commercial
Existing Use of Property: Retail
ECheck box if separate narrative is attached.
Section 1:allthat
Section 2: Reouired lnformation
APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, l, as applicant, represent to have obtained
authorization from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to
the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. lf this application has not been signed by
the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application. This application
should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this
application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I
further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to
any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct.
Name:Leila Bunge (Kimley-Horn & Associates)Contact: Leila Bunge
Address:2550 University Ave W, 238N Phone:(763) 251-1015
St. Paul, MN 55113 Cell:
Fax:
Date:7131118
PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, l, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do,
authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those
conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep myself informed of
the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may
be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the
study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct.
Name:Eames Gilmore Contact: Eames Gilmore
Address:50 South 1Oth Street #400, TP3-1 1 140 Phone:
Cell:
(612) 761-1585
City/State/Zip:Minneapolis, MN 55403
Email:Fax:
Signature:Date:7t31t18
This application must be completed in full and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by
applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, refer to the appropriate Application Checklist
and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural
requirements and fees.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A
written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application.
PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable)
Name:Contact:
Phone:Address:
City/State/Zip:
Email:
Cell:
Fax:
leila.bunge@kimley-horn.com
Who should receive copies of staff reports?*Other Contact I nformation :
Name:Via:
Via:
Via:
Via:
trZtrtr
Property Owner
Applicant
Engineer
Other"
fl Email
E Email
E Email
E Email
E trlaiteO Paper Copy
f] ttlaiteo Paper Copy
! lvtaiteO Paper Copy
E naaieo Paper Copy
Address:
City/State/Zip:
Email:
INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT: Complete all necessary form fields, then select SAVE FORM to save a copy to your
device. PRINT FORM and deliver to city along with required documents and payment. SUBMIT FORM to send a digital
copy to the city for processing.
Section 3:Owner and lnformation
City/State/Zip:
Email:
Signature:
Section 4: Notification lnformation
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING CASE NO. 2018-15
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a
public hearing on Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in
Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider an
amendment to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Target to allow adding a sign to the
north side of the building on the property located at 851 West 78th Street and zoned Planned Unit
Development (PUD). Applicant: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Owner: Target Corporation.
A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review on the city’s web
site at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2018-15 or at City Hall during regular business hours. All
interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to
this proposal.
MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner
Email: mwalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us
Phone: 952-227-1132
(Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on August 23, 2018)
g:\plan\2018 planning cases\18-15 target pud amendment\ph notice to villager.doc
kimley-horn.com 2550 University Avenue West, Suite 238N, St. Paul, MN 55114 651-645-4197
July 31, 2018
City of Chanhassen
Department of Planning and Zoning
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Target (T-0862) Target PUD Amendment
851 W 78th St
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Mr. Walters,
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. serves as the engineering consultant for Target, who is seeking a PUD
amendment of the Chanhassen Retail Center for the building at 851 W 78th Street, Chanhassen, MN. The
PUD amendment is being submitted to include a “Wine & Spirits” sign as a permitted exterior wall sign on
the north side of the building.
Target has recently remodeled the Chanhassen store with façade and signage improvements, which
included a new liquor section. Since Target completed the liquor section, they have found that the current
signage is not advertising the service very well to customers. The addition of the “Wine & Spirits” sign on
the north elevation will provide more visibility to the store and new liquor section from 78th Street, which is
the main street facing the store.
We respectfully request to be on your next Planning Commission agenda. Thank you for your time and
comments on the initial submittal. If you have any more questions or require any additional information,
please feel free to contact me at 763-251-1015 or Leila.bunge@kimley-horn.com.
Sincerely,
Leila Bunge
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
Phone: 763-251-1015
Email: Leila.bunge@kimley-horn.com
Attachments:
1 – Development Review Application
2 – Elevations (Proposed Front vs. Existing Front)
3 – Property Deed
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVTT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on
August g,20l8,the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen,
Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public
Ilearing to amend the Chanhassen Retail PUD to permit signage on Target's north faqade,
planning Case File No. 2018-15, to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", bY enclosing a
copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes
addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the
names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County
Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records.
Subscribed and swom to before me
this\tlaavo%,2018.
JEAN M. STECKLING
Publb.Mlnnesota
Date & Time:Tuesday September 4,2018 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not
start until later in the eveninq, depending on the order of the agenda.
Location:Citv Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Proposa!:To amend the Chanhassen Retail PUD to permit signage on
Tarqet's north facade.
Applicant:Kimlev-Horn and Associates
Property
Location:
851 W.78th Street
A location map is on the reverse side of this notice.
What Happens
at the Meeting:
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
applicant's request and to obtain input from the
neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the
Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses
the proiect.
Questions &
Comments:
lf you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit
the city's projects web page at:
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2018-15. lf you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact MacKenzie
Walters by email at mwalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by
phone at952-227-1132.11you choose to submit written
comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in
advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the
Commission. The staff report for this item will be
available online on the project web site listed above the
Thursdav prior to the Planning Gommission meeting.
Sign up to receive email and/or text notifications when meeting agendas,
packets, minutes and videos are uploaded to the city's website. Go to
www.ci.chanhassen. m n.us/notifyme to sign up!
City Review Procodure:
. Subdivisions, Planned Unit Derelopments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and lnterim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings,
Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City
ordinancesrequireallpropertywithin500feetofthesubjectsitetobenotifiedoftheapplicationinwiting. Anyinterestedpartyis
inMted to attend the meeting.
. Staffpreparesareportonthesubjectapplicationthatincludesallpertinentinformationandarecommendation. Thesereportsare
available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation.
The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the
public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or
modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple
majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and iand use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial.
. MinnesotaStateSlatute519.99requiresallapplicationstobeprocessedwithin60daysunlesstheapplicantwaivesthisstandard.
Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the
process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
. A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to
meet with the neighborhmd regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s).
. Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any
correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. lf you wish to have something to be
included in the reoort. Dlease contact the Planninq Staff Derson named on the notilication.
Notice of Public Hearing
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Notice of Public Hearing
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not
start until later in of the
Hall Council Chambers 7700 Market Blvd.
To amend the Chanhassen Retail PUD to permit signage on
Taroet's north
and Associates
851 W.78th Street
A location map is on the reverse side of this notice.
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood
about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the
public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses
lf you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit
the city's projects web page at:
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2018-15. lf you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact MacKenzie
Walters by email at mwalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by
phone at952-227-1132. lf you choose to submit written
comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in
advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the
Commission. The staff report for this item will be available
online on the project web site listed above the Thursday
to the Plan Commission
Sign up to receive email and/or text notifications when meeting agendas,
packets, minutes and videos are uploaded to the city's website. Go to
www.ci.chanhassen.mn
Procedure:. Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and lnlerim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings,
Comprehensive Plan Amendmenls and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City
ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is
invited to attend the meeting.
. Staffpreparesareportonthesubjectapplicationthatincludesallpertinentinformationandarecommendation. Thesereportsare
available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overuiew of the report and a recommendation.
The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the
public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify
wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority
vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial.
. Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be pro@ssed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard.
Some applications due to their mmplexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the
process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
. A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contacl for the city. Often developers are encouraged to
meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the prcject with any interested person(s).
. Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence
regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. lf you wish to have something to be included in the report,
the
What Happens
at the Meeting:
Questions &
Comments:
TAX-NAME
5358 JACKSON DRIVE LLC
CARVER COUNW
CNL FUNDING 2OOO-A
HALLA FAMILY LP
ISTAR MINNESOTA LLC
MARKET SQUARE ASSOC LTD PTRSHP
RIDGEVIEW MEDICAL CENTER
SGO MN WEST VILLAGE LLC
TARGET CORPORATION T.0852
THE WOMACK FAMILY TRUST
TWIN CITIES & WESTERN RAILROAD
WEST ONE PROPERTIES LLC
WILLOW-MN LLC
TAX-ADD L1
5425 BOONE AVE N
502 4TH ST E
PO BOX 460359
6601 MOHAWK TRL
180 GLASTONBURY BLVD STE 201
PO BOX 404
5OO MAPLE ST S
55 BOVET DR STE 1OO
PO BOX 9456
111 W MONROE ST 24W-N
2925 12TH ST E
7930 KERBER BLVD BOX 11
4201 E YALE AVE STE 2OO
TAX-ADD-12
NEW HOPE
CHASKA
HOUSTON
MINNEAPOLIS
GLASTONBURY
CHANHASSEN
WACON IA
SAN MATEO
MINNEAPOLIS
CHICAGO
GLENCOE
CHANHASSEN
DENVER
TAX-ADD-13
MN 55428-3614
MN 55318-2102
TX 77055-8359
MN 55439-1029
cT 06033-4439
MN 55317-0404
MN 55387-1791
cA 94402-
MN 55440-9456
rL 50503-
MN 55336-3368
MN 55317-
co 80222-5s9s
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, September 4, 2018
Subject 7644 South Shore Drive: Consider a Variance to Install Boulder Wall and Patio in Bluff Setback
Area
Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.2.
Prepared By MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner File No: PC 201816
PROPOSED MOTION:
The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the variance for the construction of a boulder wall
and flagstone stepper path within the bluff setback and impact zone, and denies the variance for the construction of
a flagstone patio within the bluff setback and impact zone, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the
attached Findings of Fact and Decision.
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
The applicant is in the landscaping phase of an extensive remodel of a nonconforming singlefamily home and is
requesting a variance to install a small boulder wall, flagstone stepper path, and flagstone patio within the bluff setback
and impact zone. The rear of the house is located approximately 20 feet from the top of a bluff, which means that the
preexisting deck and patio are within both the 30foot bluff setback and 20foot bluff impact zone. A variance is
required to install new structures, defined as anything except stairs and landings, within these areas.
APPLICANT
Tyler Wortz with Magnolia Landscape & Design Co., on behalf of Matt and Amanda Arens.
SITE INFORMATION
PRESENT ZONING: PUDR
LAND USE:Residential Low Density
ACREAGE: 1 acre
DENSITY: NA
APPLICATION REGULATIONS
Chapter 1, General Provisions
Section 12, Rules of Construction and Definitions
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3, Variances
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, September 4, 2018Subject7644 South Shore Drive: Consider a Variance to Install Boulder Wall and Patio in Bluff SetbackAreaSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.2.Prepared By MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner File No: PC 201816PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the variance for the construction of a boulder walland flagstone stepper path within the bluff setback and impact zone, and denies the variance for the construction ofa flagstone patio within the bluff setback and impact zone, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts theattached Findings of Fact and Decision.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is in the landscaping phase of an extensive remodel of a nonconforming singlefamily home and isrequesting a variance to install a small boulder wall, flagstone stepper path, and flagstone patio within the bluff setbackand impact zone. The rear of the house is located approximately 20 feet from the top of a bluff, which means that thepreexisting deck and patio are within both the 30foot bluff setback and 20foot bluff impact zone. A variance isrequired to install new structures, defined as anything except stairs and landings, within these areas.APPLICANTTyler Wortz with Magnolia Landscape & Design Co., on behalf of Matt and Amanda Arens.SITE INFORMATIONPRESENT ZONING: PUDRLAND USE:Residential Low DensityACREAGE: 1 acre DENSITY: NA APPLICATION REGULATIONSChapter 1, General Provisions
Section 12, Rules of Construction and Definitions
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3, Variances
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 4, Nonconforming Uses
Chapter 20, Article Vii. Shoreland Management District
Chapter 20, Article XII. “RSF” Singlefamily residential district
Section 20615. Lot requirements and setbacks.
Chapter 20, Article XXVIII. – Bluff Protection
BACKGROUND
On November 28, 1989, the City approved a building permit to construct a singlefamily home at 7644 South Shore
Drive.
On July 2, 1990, the City approved a building permit to construct a deck at 7644 South Shore Drive.
On October 14, 1991, the City passed Ordinance Number 152 which created the City’s bluff protection ordinance.
On December 8, 1992, the City approved a permit for a threeseason porch addition.
On October 22, 2013, the City approved a building and grading permit to repair/replace the deck footings.
On July 1, 2014, the City approved a zoning permit to install a residential incline elevator and associated landings.
On September 14, 2017, the City approved a demolition permit to demolish the existing house down to its foundations.
On September 29, 2017, the City approved a building permit to construct and rebuild a singlefamily home on the
previous house’s foundation. This rebuild included a garage expansion and addition outside of the bluff setback.
In May of 2018, the applicant began working with city staff to identify what improvements could be made within, in and
around the property’s bluff, and what steps would be required for the various proposed improvements.
RECOMMENDATION
The applicant’s proposed landscaping attempts to minimize the impact to the bluff and limit the amount of water runoff
generated by the property’s impervious surface. Staff believes that the boulder wall and flagstone stepper walkway
represent thoughtful attempts to address practical difficulties created by the home’s nonconforming location while
meeting the intent of the bluff protection ordinance, and recommends that the Planning Commission approve these
portions of the variance.
Due to the fact that there are potential alternative locations for the proposed patio, similar accessory uses are already
present on the property, and patios are not needed to have reasonable use of a property, staff does not feel the patio
portion of the variance request meets the standards needed for the City to grant a variance.
(A full breakdown and analysis of the variance request can be found in the attached staff report.)
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, September 4, 2018Subject7644 South Shore Drive: Consider a Variance to Install Boulder Wall and Patio in Bluff SetbackAreaSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.2.Prepared By MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner File No: PC 201816PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the variance for the construction of a boulder walland flagstone stepper path within the bluff setback and impact zone, and denies the variance for the construction ofa flagstone patio within the bluff setback and impact zone, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts theattached Findings of Fact and Decision.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is in the landscaping phase of an extensive remodel of a nonconforming singlefamily home and isrequesting a variance to install a small boulder wall, flagstone stepper path, and flagstone patio within the bluff setbackand impact zone. The rear of the house is located approximately 20 feet from the top of a bluff, which means that thepreexisting deck and patio are within both the 30foot bluff setback and 20foot bluff impact zone. A variance isrequired to install new structures, defined as anything except stairs and landings, within these areas.APPLICANTTyler Wortz with Magnolia Landscape & Design Co., on behalf of Matt and Amanda Arens.SITE INFORMATIONPRESENT ZONING: PUDRLAND USE:Residential Low DensityACREAGE: 1 acre DENSITY: NA APPLICATION REGULATIONSChapter 1, General ProvisionsSection 12, Rules of Construction and DefinitionsChapter 20, Article II, Division 3, VariancesChapter 20, Article II, Division 4, Nonconforming UsesChapter 20, Article Vii. Shoreland Management DistrictChapter 20, Article XII. “RSF” Singlefamily residential districtSection 20615. Lot requirements and setbacks.Chapter 20, Article XXVIII. – Bluff ProtectionBACKGROUNDOn November 28, 1989, the City approved a building permit to construct a singlefamily home at 7644 South ShoreDrive.On July 2, 1990, the City approved a building permit to construct a deck at 7644 South Shore Drive.On October 14, 1991, the City passed Ordinance Number 152 which created the City’s bluff protection ordinance.On December 8, 1992, the City approved a permit for a threeseason porch addition.On October 22, 2013, the City approved a building and grading permit to repair/replace the deck footings.On July 1, 2014, the City approved a zoning permit to install a residential incline elevator and associated landings.On September 14, 2017, the City approved a demolition permit to demolish the existing house down to its foundations.On September 29, 2017, the City approved a building permit to construct and rebuild a singlefamily home on theprevious house’s foundation. This rebuild included a garage expansion and addition outside of the bluff setback.In May of 2018, the applicant began working with city staff to identify what improvements could be made within, in andaround the property’s bluff, and what steps would be required for the various proposed improvements.RECOMMENDATIONThe applicant’s proposed landscaping attempts to minimize the impact to the bluff and limit the amount of water runoffgenerated by the property’s impervious surface. Staff believes that the boulder wall and flagstone stepper walkwayrepresent thoughtful attempts to address practical difficulties created by the home’s nonconforming location whilemeeting the intent of the bluff protection ordinance, and recommends that the Planning Commission approve theseportions of the variance.Due to the fact that there are potential alternative locations for the proposed patio, similar accessory uses are alreadypresent on the property, and patios are not needed to have reasonable use of a property, staff does not feel the patioportion of the variance request meets the standards needed for the City to grant a variance.
(A full breakdown and analysis of the variance request can be found in the attached staff report.)
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Report
Findings of Fact and Decision Approval
Findings of Fact and Decision Denial
Development Review Application and Narrative
Landscape Plan B
Plan Sheet Stormwater Notes
Photos
7644 South Shore Survey
Public Hearing Notice Mailing List
Variance Document
Exhibit A: Landscape Plan A
Engineering Comments
Water Resources Comments
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PC DATE: September 4, 2018
CC DATE: September 24, 2018
REVIEW DEADLINE: October 2, 2018
CASE #: 2018-16
BY: MW
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is in the landscaping phase of an extensive
remodel of a nonconforming single-family home and is requesting a variance to install a small
boulder wall, flagstone stepper path, and flagstone patio within the bluff setback and impact
zone. The rear of the house is located approximately 20 feet from the top of a bluff, this means
that the pre-existing deck and patio are within both the 30-foot bluff setback and 20-foot bluff
impact zone. A variance is required to install new structures, defined as anything except stairs
and landings, within these areas.
LOCATION: 7644 South Shore Drive
(PID 258010230)
APPLICANT: Tyler Wortz
Magnolia Landscape & Design Co.
9310 County Road 140
Cologne, MN 55322
OWNER: Matt and Amanda Arens
7644 South Shore Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
PRESENT ZONING: PUDR
2030 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
ACREAGE: 1 acre DENSITY: NA
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The city’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed
project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The city has a relatively high
PROPOSED MOTION:
“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the variance for the construction of
a boulder wall and flagstone stepper path within the bluff setback and impact zone and denies the
variance for the construction of a flagstone patio within the bluff setback and impact zone, subject
to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions.”
(Note: A motion for denial and appropriate findings of fact are also included at the end of the
report.)
Planning Commission
7644 South Shore Drive – Planning Case 2018-16
September 4, 2018
Page 2 of 10
level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established
standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The property’s original house
was constructed approximately
20 feet from the top of the bluff
in 1989 and a deck extending to
within five feet of the bluff was
added in 1990. Both of these
structures predate the city’s 1991
bluff protection ordinance and
the expansion of the ordinance
city wide in 1994.
The current owners bought the
property in 2005 and the bluff
was covered with buckthorn and
other small leafy trees that
prevented other plants from
growing and anchoring the soils.
They removed the scrub trees
and planted low-growth fescue to
help stabilize the slope. They
installed riprap to help stabilize the lake’s shoreline and planted tall grasses along the shoreline
to create a vegetative buffer. Throughout the course of these projects they worked with city staff
to identify how best to protect the property’s bluff and shoreline.
In 2017, the applicant demolished the original house and constructed a new house on the
previous home’s foundation, while adding on to the front portion of the home that is located
outside of the bluff setback. The applicant is now requesting a variance to install landscaping
features including a flagstone stepper path, boulder wall, and flagstone patio within the
property’s bluff setback and impact zones. The proposed flagstone stepper path would add
approximately 300 square feet of flagstone steppers separated by mulch or vegetation to provide
a means of walking from the front to rear yard, as well as facilitating landscape maintenance.
The proposed boulder wall would be approximately 12 to 18 inches tall and run along the top of
the bluff to help slow and disperse surface water before it reaches the bluff, as well as provide a
border between the fescue supported bluff and newly installed landscaping. The proposed patio
would be constructed of fieldstone placed over the top of a free draining base, and would provide
a seating area near the front walkway in an area that the applicant states was previously covered
Planning Commission
7644 South Shore Drive – Planning Case 2018-16
September 4, 2018
Page 3 of 10
by asphalt. As part of their proposed landscape plan, the applicant is including numerous swales
designed to collect and disperse stormwater.
The applicant has stated that the proposed flagstone stepper walkway is necessary to provide safe
transit through their rear yard as it is generally sloped and the area becomes very slippery when it
is wet. The applicant had initially proposed a rear patio, but revised their proposal after city staff
expressed concern about adding additional impervious surface near the bluff. The applicant
states that they have added a great deal of vegetation around the proposed front yard patio and all
other hard surfaces in order to ensure that they are not generating stormwater run off. The
applicant believes that the proposed landscaping plan will improve the property’s pre-existing
stormwater issues and will help protect both the bluff and the lake. Finally, they note that many
of the other properties in the area were built before the city’s bluff protection ordinance was
passed and are similarly located near the top of bluffs and steep slopes. The applicant feels that
these properties have been allowed to find reasonable ways to landscape their property, and the
applicant wishes to do the same.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Chapter 1, General Provisions
Section 1-2, Rules of Construction and Definitions
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3, Variances
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 4, Nonconforming Uses
Chapter 20, Article VII. Shoreland Management District
Chapter 20, Article XII. “RSF” Single-family residential district
Section 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks.
Chapter 20, Article XXVIII. – Bluff Protection
BACKGROUND
On November 28, 1989, the city approved a building permit to construct a single-family home at
7644 South Shore Drive.
On July 2, 1990, the city approved a building permit to construct a deck at 7644 South Shore
Drive.
On October 14, 1991, the passed Ordinance Number 152 which created the city’s bluff
protection ordinance.
On December 8, 1992, the city approved a permit for a three-season porch addition.
On August 22, 1994, the city expanded the bluff protection ordinance to cover the entire city.
Planning Commission
7644 South Shore Drive – Planning Case 2018-16
September 4, 2018
Page 4 of 10
On October 22, 2013, the city approved a building and grading permit to repair/replace the deck
footings.
On July 1, 2014, the city approved a zoning permit to install a residential incline elevator and
associated landings.
On September 14, 2017, the city approved a demolition permit to demolish the existing house
down to its foundations.
On September 29, 2017, the city approved a building permit to construct and rebuild a single-
family home on the previous house’s foundation. This rebuild included a garage expansion and
addition outside of the bluff setback.
In May of 2018, the applicant began working with city staff to identify what improvements could
be made within and around the property’s bluff, and what steps would be required for the various
proposed improvements.
SITE CONDITIONS
The property is zoned Planned Unit Development Residential and is located within the city’s
Shoreland Management District. This zoning classification requires lots to be a minimum of
11,700 square feet, have front and rear yard setbacks of 30 feet, setbacks of 75 feet from the
lake’s ordinary high water level, side yard setbacks of 10 feet, and limits parcels to a maximum
of 25 percent lot cover within the Shoreland Management District and 30 percent lot cover for
parcels located outside of it. Residential structures are limited to 35 feet in height. There is a
bluff located on the property. The city’s bluff protection ordinance establishes a 30-foot setback
from the top, toe and side of the bluff for all new structures, and establishes a bluff impact zone,
which restricts the alteration to land or vegetation within 20 feet of the top of the bluff.
The lot is 43,604 square feet, and the 2017 building permit approved 6,789 square feet (15.57
percent) of lot cover. The deck, associated patio, and three-season porch are non-conforming
structures setback approximately five feet from the top of the bluff at their closest points. The
house has a non-conforming setback of approximately 20 feet from the top of the bluff. The
property has several non-conforming retaining walls to the east of the house located within the
bluff and its setback. The property has a non-conforming 9.8 foot west side yard setback, and
complies with the district’s other setbacks.
Planning Commission
7644 South Shore Drive – Planning Case 2018-16
September 4, 2018
Page 5 of 10
NEIGHBORHOOD
South Lotus Lake 2nd Addition
The plat for this subdivision was recorded in April
of 1987, predating the city’s bluff protection
ordinance. The development’s riparian lots all tend
to be large lots with steep slopes; however, the
grades lessen to the east and the slopes on most of
the eastern parcels do not qualify as bluffs. In the
adjacent Hiscox Addition to the west the grades and
lot sizes are similar and the riparian parcels all
contain bluffs. Many of the homes and accessory
structures in both subdivisions were built before the
bluff protection ordinance was applied city wide in
1994, and as such are non-conforming uses.
Variances within 500 feet:
1997-01: 7500 Erie Avenue: 13.2’ Bluff Setback Variance (Approved) - Single-family home and
deck.
1999-20: 40 Hill Street: 27’ Front Yard Setback Variance (Approved) - Rebuild and expand
detached garage.
2000-02: 7501 Erie Avenue: 5’ Bluff Setback Variance (Approved) - Garage Addition.
ANALYSIS
Boulder Wall
The applicant is proposing constructing a boulder wall
that will run along the top of the bluff. The wall would
be approximately 115 feet long and would be between
1 and 1.5-feet tall, though portions along the northeast
near the porch may need to be higher. The applicant
will be installing filter fabric to prevent soils erosion
through the boulder wall. The stated goal of the
boulder wall is to help slow and disperse surface
runoff before it reaches the bluff, prevent landscape
materials from being washed onto the bluff, and to
provide a border between the landscaped portion of the yard and the bluff.
Planning Commission
7644 South Shore Drive – Planning Case 2018-16
September 4, 2018
Page 6 of 10
The city’s Water Resources Coordinator
evaluated the proposed retaining wall and feels
that its impact on the property’s surface water
management is essentially neutral. She has stated
the proposed landscaping when taken as a whole
goes above and beyond what would typically be
expected of a residential property owner and will
reduce the impact of the property’s impervious
surfaces upon the bluff; however, the majority of
the benefit is derived from the applicant’s use of
vegetation and swales. After consultation with the
Water Resources Coordinator, the applicant did
redesign their initial proposal to relocate water retention areas away from the boulder wall.
Section 20-1403 of the city’s bluff protection ordinance does prohibit the removal or alteration of
vegetation within the bluff impact zone, defined as an area 20 feet from the top of a bluff, and
Section 20-1404 states that no topographic alterations within the bluff impact zone may increase the
rate of drainage or create concentrated flow conditions. The area where the applicant is proposing to
install the boulder wall has already been disturbed by the pre-existing house and landscaping, as
well as the construction activities associated with the rebuild. The applicant’s proposed landscaping
will not increase the rate of drainage and should actually improve the existing conditions.
The area at the top of the bluff where the applicant is proposing constructing the boulder wall has
already been disturbed and the further disturbance involved in installing a boulder wall is not
expected to negatively impact the bluff. Staff believes that the proposed boulder wall is a reasonable
mechanism for preventing the migration of landscaping material down the bluff and that it does not
violate the intent of the bluff protection ordinance.
For these reasons, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the boulder wall
portion of the variance.
Flagstone Stepper Path
The applicant is proposing installing a flagstone
stepper path comprised of 18 to 30-inch diameter
flagstones spaced to allow for drainage between the
stones. The flagstones would be set onto existing
soils and no significant excavation or compaction
would occur. Mulch and/or landscape would be
placed around the stones to help stabilize soils and
minimize erosion. The applicant had initially
proposed expanding the pre-existing patio located
under the deck out to the top of the bluff; however,
Planning Commission
7644 South Shore Drive – Planning Case 2018-16
September 4, 2018
Page 7 of 10
they revised their proposal after staff expressed concern about the creation of additional impervious
surface within the bluff impact zone.
Section 20-1401 of city’s bluff protection ordinance does allow for the construction of stairways
and landings within the bluff setback and Section 20-1402 states that that stairways, paths and lifts
may be permitted in suitable sites so long as the construction will not redirect water flow direction
or increase drainage velocity. While Section 20-1402 is intended to govern stairways, lifts, and
landings allowing pedestrian movement from the top to bottom of a bluff, its guidelines are
applicable to the construction of pathways within the bluff setback and impact zone. The applicant’s
proposed walkways meet all of these guidelines in that they: 1) appear to be under the stipulated
four feet in width; 2) do not contain canopies; 3) have been designed to ensure control of soil
erosion; and, 4) are located in a visually inconspicuous portion of the lot.
As was noted in the previous section, the bluff protection ordinance does prohibit the removal or
alteration of vegetation and topographic alterations within the bluff impact zone. In this case, no
topographic alterations are proposed, and, due to the disturbed nature of the site, the provisions
governing the removal or alteration of vegetation are not applicable. Similar to the boulder wall,
staff believes that the proposed landscaping around the flagstone stepper walkway will actually
improve the site’s existing conditions.
Staff feels that applicant’s stated purpose of providing safe transit and access through a sloped yard
is a reasonable one. Staff believes that the proposed design meets the intent of the city’s bluff
protection ordinance and that it will not negatively impact the bluff.
For these reasons, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the flagstone
stepper walkway portion of the variance.
Flagstone Patio
The applicant is proposing placing a 180 square foot flagstone patio along the property’s front
walkway in order to create a front yard seating area. Approximately half of this patio’s area would
be located within the 30-foot bluff setback, encroaching about nine feet into the setback at its
maximum extent. The applicant is proposing placing the flagstone’s over six inches of a free
draining base material to facilitate infiltration and has noted that the top of the bluff outside of this
area is supported by established trees. The applicant has stated that given these circumstances the
patio’s impact on the bluff will be negligible. Finally, the applicant has indicated that the proposed
patio area used to be covered by impervious surface, prior to the driveway being reconfigured, and
that they were unaware that removing this surface would result in them losing the ability to
resurface the area.
Planning Commission
7644 South Shore Drive – Planning Case 2018-16
September 4, 2018
Page 8 of 10
In order to grant a variance, the city must find that
there are practical difficulties in complying with the
zoning ordinance. The city has historically taken
the position that the inability to install or expand a
patio is not a practical difficulty, especially in
situations where improvements such as decks
and/or other patios are already present, as is the
case for the applicant’s property. In this case, there
also appears to be alternative locations, depicted
left, available for a front yard patio that comply
with the city’s Zoning Ordinance. The applicant
also has existing front yard seating space provided
by their entry stoop and could even expand that
area without a variance. When existing
improvements provide a broadly similar function or
where alternative locations for a feature exist that
comply with the city’s Zoning Code, the requested variance provides for a preferred location rather
than a remedy to a practical difficulty.
In order to determine if the area had previously been
covered by asphalt, staff used a 2012 survey of the
property that depicts the driveway’s previous
configuration, the location of the retaining wall, and
the end of the bluff. Staff traced off the approximate
location of the 30-foot bluff setback, shown to the
left, and does not believe that the driveway
significantly encroached into the 30-foot bluff
setback. The driveway turnaround does not appear
to have extended as far to the northeast as the
proposed patio, and thus stayed clear of the bluff
setback.
Section 20-72 of the City Code, which governs
nonconforming structures, states that if a nonconformity is discontinued for more than a year the
nonconforming status is lost. This provision reflects the city’s intent that nonconforming uses and
structures be reduced or eliminated whenever possible. Even if there had been a historic
nonconforming use within the area in question, it would not be in line with intent of the city’s
nonconforming structure ordinance to grant a variance for the resumption of that use.
For the above reasons, staff recommends that the Planning Commission not grant the patio portion
of the applicant’s variance request.
Planning Commission
7644 South Shore Drive – Planning Case 2018-16
September 4, 2018
Page 9 of 10
Impact on Neighborhood
The boulder wall and flagstone stepper paths will both be primarily located in the rear of the home
and should not be highly visible from the lake or neighboring properties. The proposed front yard
patio is also setback a significant distance from South Shore Drive due to the property’s flag lot
configuration. None of the proposed improvements are atypical within a single-family
neighborhood. The applicant has gone to great lengths to make sure that their proposed landscaping
will not direct rain runoff onto neighboring lots or create erosive conditions.
As the applicant has noted, many of the area’s riparian properties also have steep slopes leading
down to the lake, and many of these properties have landscaping near or in these slopes. Both of the
riparian properties to the west have received bluff setback variances for the construction of homes
and accessory uses. No variances are on record for the properties to the east; however, one of these
homes was built before the bluff protection ordinance was passed and the slopes to the east are less
steep, potentially not meeting the city’s definition of a bluff. Staff does not feel that anything the
applicant is proposing would be atypical or out of character for similar lots within the neighborhood.
SUMMARY
The applicant’s proposed landscaping attempts to minimize the impact to the bluff and limit the
amount of water runoff generated by the property’s impervious surface. Staff believes that the
boulder wall and flagstone stepper walkway represent thoughtful attempts to address practical
difficulties created by the home’s nonconforming location while meeting the intent of the bluff
protection ordinance, and recommends that the Planning Commission approve these portions of
the variance. Due to the fact that there are potential alternative locations for the proposed patio,
the fact that similar accessory uses are already present on the property, and patios are not needed
to have reasonable use a property, staff does not feel the patio portion of the variance request
meets the standards needed for the city to grant a variance.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the variance for the construction of a
boulder wall and flagstone stepper path within the bluff setback and impact zone and deny the
variance for the construction of a flagstone patio within the bluff setback and impact zone,
subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision:
1. The applicant must apply for and receive a zoning permit.
2. The survey should be updated and provided as part of the zoning permit application
showing: a) the top of the bluff; b) 20-foot bluff impact zone; c) 30-foot bluff
setback; d) proposed lot coverage; e) 15” storm pipe and the drainage and utility
easement located over the pipe; f) scenic preservation/conservation easement; and, g)
all proposed improvements.
Planning Commission
7644 South Shore Drive – Planning Case 2018-16
September 4, 2018
Page 10 of 10
3. Stairways and flagstone stepper walkways within the bluff setback zone may not
exceed 4 feet in width.
4. There shall be a minimum of six inches of separation between the flagstones that
comprise the flagstone paths and walkways.
5. The location and dimensions of the boulder wall and flagstone pathways shall
substantially conform to those depicted in Exhibit A.
6. All exposed soil within the grading limits must either be covered with vegetation or,
in areas where vegetation will not grow, a double-shredded hardwood mulch.
7. Soil infiltration improvements, either adding compost or air spading, shall be
conducted within the project’s grading limits.
8. The proposed retaining wall on the east side of the property is within the drainage and
utility easement. It should not be constructed over the pipe or infringe on the
easement.
9. The existing retaining wall on the east side of the property is located within a
drainage and utility easement and an encroachment agreement should be obtained and
recorded for the wall.
10. Zoning permits are required for all proposed retaining walls under four feet in height
and building permits are required for any proposed retaining wall over four feet in
height.
Should the Planning Commission deny the variance request, it is recommended that the Planning
Commission adopt the following motion and attached Finding of Fact and Decision:
“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the variance for the construction of
a boulder wall, flagstone walking path, and flagstone patio within the bluff setback and impact
zone, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.”
ATTACHMENTS
1. Finding of Fact and Decision Approval
2. Finding of Fact and Decision Denial
3. Development Review Application and Narrative
4. Landscape Plans B
5. Plan Sheet - Stormwater Notes
6. Photos
7. 7644 South Shore Survey
8. Public Hearing Notice Mailing List
9. Variance Document
10. Exhibit A: Landscape Plans A
11. Engineering Comments
12. Water Resources Comments
G:\PLAN\2018 Planning Cases\18-16 7644 S Shore Drive Variance\Staff Report-7644 South Shore Drive_PC.doc
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
(APPROVAL)
IN RE:
The application of Tyler Wortz on behalf of Matt and Amanda Arens for the construction of a
boulder wall, flagstone stepper path, and flagstone patio within the bluff setback and impact zone
on a property zoned PUDR - Planning Case 2018-16.
On September 4, 2018, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals
and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The
Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by
published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Planned Unit Development-Residential (PUDR).
2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density.
3. The legal description of the property is:
Lot 9, Block 2, South Lotus Lake 2nd Addition
4. Variance Findings – Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the
granting of a variance:
a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive
plan.
Finding: The intent of the city’s bluff protection ordinance is to ensure that vegetation
and soils located near and on bluffs are not distributed in a manner that has the potential
to create erosive conditions or otherwise negatively impact the bluff. The location of the
house at 7644 South Shore Drive predates the bluff protection ordinance and its initial
construction and subsequent rebuild have already disturb most of the vegetation and soils
near the top of the bluff. The applicant has proposed a landscaping plan that works to
manage the stormwater generated by property’s impervious surface and to minimize the
existing and proposed features’ impact on the bluff. Neither the proposed boulder wall
nor flagstone stepper path are expected to have any negative impact on the bluff.
Additionally, the bluff protection ordinance makes provisions for the creation of paths,
stairs, and landings to allow people to safely transverse up and down bluffs. For these
2
reasons the proposed flagstone stepper path and boulder wall are in harmony with the
intent of this Chapter.
The proposed flagstone patio would create new impervious surface in an area within the
bluff setback that does not currently contain impervious surface. Additionally, the
proposed seating area would involve the installation of frost footings and other soil
disturbing activities. It would not be in harmony with the intent of the bluff protection
ordinance to permit the creation of new impervious surface within the bluff setback.
b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical
difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the
property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this
Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct
sunlight for solar energy systems.
Finding: In order to have any use of their rear yard, some improvements are required
within the bluff impact and setback areas. The installation of a boulder wall to help
prevent the migration of landscaping material down the bluff and the creation of a
flagstone stepper pathway to allow the homeowner to safely transverse their yard are
reasonable uses for the property, and have been designed to have a minimal impact on the
bluff. The applicant must locate these features within the bluff setback and impact zone
because the home’s original location predates the city’s bluff ordinance.
The requested variance for a flagstone patio is not the result of a practical difficulty. The
property has several other potential locations for a front yard patio that comply with the
zoning ordinance, and other existing features, such as the front stoop, also provide a front
yard seating area. Finally, the property currently has a rear yard patio and deck. A front
yard patio is not required for the applicant to have reasonable use of the property.
c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.
Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations.
d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the landowner.
Finding: The property was developed before the city enacted the bluff protection
ordinance, and the change in ordinance rendered the house non-conforming and
necessitates a variance for most improvements near the rear of the house.
e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: The other larger lots within the neighborhood are also located on steep slopes,
and many other of these properties have landscaping near or in these slopes. Two riparian
properties to the west have received bluff setback variances for the construction of homes
and accessory sues. The boulder wall and flagstone stepper path are located in the rear of
3
the house and will not be highly visible. None of the proposed improvements are atypical
for a single-family neighborhood. The variance would not alter the essential character of
the locality.
f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota
Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter.
Finding: This does not apply to this request.
5. The planning report #2018-16, dated September 4, 2018, prepared by MacKenzie Walters, is
incorporated herein.
DECISION
“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the variance for the
construction of a boulder wall and flagstone stepper path within the bluff setback and impact
zone and denies the variance for the construction of a flagstone patio within the bluff setback and
impact zone, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant must apply for and receive a zoning permit.
2. The survey should be updated and provided as part of the zoning permit application
showing: a) the top of the bluff; b) 20-foot bluff impact zone; c) 30-foot bluff setback; d)
proposed lot coverage; e) 15” storm pipe and the drainage and utility easement located
over the pipe; f) scenic preservation/conservation easement; and, g) all proposed
improvements.
3. Stairways and flagstone stepper walkways within the bluff setback zone may not exceed
four feet in width.
4. There shall be a minimum of six inches of separation between the flagstones that
comprise the flagstone paths and walkways.
5. The location and dimensions of the boulder wall and flagstone pathways shall
substantially conform to those depicted in Exhibit A.
6. All exposed soil within the grading limits must either covered either with vegetation or,
in areas where vegetation will not grow, a doubled shredded hardwood mulch.
7. Soil infiltration improvements, either adding compost or air spading, shall be conducted
within the project’s grading limits.
4
8. The proposed retaining wall on the east side of the property is within the drainage and
utility easement. It should not be constructed over the pipe or infringe on the easement.
9. The existing retaining wall on the east side of the property is located within a drainage
and utility easement and an encroachment agreement should be obtained and recorded for
the wall.
10. Zoning permits are required for all proposed retaining walls under four feet in height and
building permits are required for any proposed retaining wall over four feet in height.”
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 4th day of September, 2018.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Chairman
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
(DENIAL)
IN RE:
The application of Tyler Wortz on behalf of Matt and Amanda Arens for the construction of a
boulder wall, flagstone stepper path, and flagstone patio within the bluff setback and impact zone
on a property zoned PUDR - Planning Case 2018-16.
On September 4, 2018, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals
and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The
Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by
published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Planned Unit Development-Residential (PUDR).
2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density.
3. The legal description of the property is:
Lot 9, Block 2, South Lotus Lake 2nd Addition
4. Variance Findings – Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the
granting of a variance:
a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive
plan.
Finding: The intent of the bluff protection ordinance is to prevent any vegetative
removal or soil disturbance near the top of the city’s bluffs. The applicant’s proposal
involves the creation of new structures and impervious surfaces within the bluff’s setback
and impact zone. The installation of the boulder wall, patio, and other landscaping
features will involve disturbing the bluff’s soils. Granting a variance to allow the
installation of these features would not be in line with intent of this Chapter.
b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical
difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the
property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this
Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct
sunlight for solar energy systems.
Finding: The parcel currently has a house, three-car garage, rear patio, rear deck, and hill
hiker system providing access up and down the bluff. There are additional areas near the
lakeshore and in front of the property that could be developed without a variance. The
2
properties existing amenities and potentials for future additions provide reasonable use of
the property within the zoning code.
c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.
Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations.
d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the landowner.
Finding: The property was developed before the city enacted the bluff protection
ordinance, and the change in ordinance rendered the house non-conforming and
necessitates a variance for most improvements near the rear of the house.
e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: The other larger lots within the neighborhood are also located on steep slopes,
and many other of these properties have landscaping near or in these slopes. Two riparian
properties to the west have received bluff setback variances for the construction of homes
and accessory sues. The boulder wall and flagstone stepper path are located in the rear of
the house and will not be highly visible. None of the proposed improvements are atypical
for a single-family neighborhood. The variance would not alter the essential character of
the locality.
f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota
Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter.
Finding: This does not apply to this request.
5. The planning report #2018-16, dated September 4, 2018, prepared by MacKenzie Walters, is
incorporated herein.
DECISION
“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the variance for the
construction of a boulder wall, flagstone walking path, and flagstone patio within the bluff
setback and impact zone.”
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 4th day of September, 2018.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Chairman
c >ort.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPM ENT DEPARTMENT
Planning Division -7700 Market Boulevard
Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317
Phone: (952) 227 -1300 / Fax: (952) 227 -1 1 10
Submittal Date:
crTYoIcrrAttrrAssrtt
APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
cc Dare: 7 -2'.{ ' t R 6sDay Rsview Dar€:la-2-tB
Refer to the appropiate Application Checklist for required submiftal information that must accompany this application)
tr
tr
a
n
n
tr
n
n
n
tr
Comprehensive Plan Amendment ..... $600EMinorMUSAlineforfailingon-site sewers..... $100
Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
Singte-Family Residence ................................ $325!
Ail others......... ........$425
lnterim Use Permit (lUP)
E ln conjunction with Single-Family Residence.. $325Elttothers......... ........$425
Rezoning (REZ)
Planned Unit Development (PUD).................. $750nMinorAmendmenttoexistingPUD................. $100nRltothers......... ........$5oo
Sign Plan Review........ ... $150
Site Plan Review (SPR)
I Administrative.......... .................... $100ECommercial/lndustrial Districts* .. $500
Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area:(
thousand square feet)
lnclude number of existlno employees:
lnclude number of new emPloyees:
n Residential Districts. .................... $500
Plus $5 per dwelling unit (- units)
Subdivision (SUB)
n Create 3lots or less ............. .......$300
n Create over 3 lots ..................,....$600 + $15 per lot(
lots)
n Metes & Bounds (2lots)........ ......$300
n Consolidate 1ots....... ...................$150
n tot Line Adjustment............... ......$150
n FinatP1at.............. ....$700
lncludes $450 escrow for attomey costs)"
Additional escrow may be required for other applications
through the development contract.
Vacation of Easements/Right-of-way (VAC) ........ $300
Additional recording fees may apply)
Variance (VAR)......... ... $200
Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP)
n Single-Family Residence............................... $1 50
n Allothers......... ......$275
Zoning Appeal........ ...... $100
Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) .........,....... $500
Q[!: When multiple applications are processed concurrently,
the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application,
n
tr
3 per address
Description of Proposal:
Property Address or Location:
parcet#: 258010230
TotalAcreage:
Aul 0 3 2oB
Property Owners' List within 500' (city to generate after pre-application meeting) ............r:r.....(
rlS addresses)
E Escrow for Recording Documents (check all that apply)..........
n ConditionalUse Permit n lnterim Use Permit
n Vacation E] Variance
tritetes & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.) fl Easements (- easements)
TOTAL
7644 South Shore Drive
LegalDescriptien' SOUTH LOTUS LAKE 2nd ADDITION TWp
1.M Wetlands Present? E Yes Z tto
n Site Plan Agreement
n Wetland AlterationPermitEDeeds
Wt;
50 per documeni
Requested Zoning: Single-Family Residential District (RSFfIl
Existing Use of Property:Residential
f]Cnecx box if separate nanative is attached.
g,- 9-lg
Section 1:all that
Section 2: Reouired lnformation
APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, l, as applicant, represent to have obtained
authorization from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to
the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. lf this application has not been signed by
the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application. This application
should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this
application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I
further understand that additionalfees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to
any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct.
Contact:
Address:
City/State/Zip:
Email:
Signature:Date:
PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, l, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do,
authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those
conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep mysetf informed of
the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additionalfees may
be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the
study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and conect.
Matt and Amanda Arens Contact:
Phone:
Matt Arens
Address:7644 South Shore Drive
City/State/Zip:Chanhassen, MN 55317 (es2) 367-660s
Name:Contact:
Phone:Address:
Phone:
Cell:
Fax:
e52) 367-660e
Cell:
Fax:
City/State/Zip:
Email:
This application must be completed in full and must be accompanied by all inforrnation and plans required by
applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, refer to the appropriate Application Checklist
and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural
requirements and fees.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal.
wriften notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application.
PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable)
Who should receive copies of staff reports?
Property Owner Via:
Applicant Via:
Engineer Via:
Other* Via:
Other Contact lnformatlon:
Name:
Ztrtrtr
E Email El nllaiteo Paper Copy
fl Email E ltlaitea Paper Copy
I Email I frlaiteA Paper Copy
f] Email D ruaiteo Paper Copy
Address:
City/State/Zip:
Email:
INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT: Complete allnecessaryform flelds, then select SAVE FORM to save a copy to your
device. PRINT FORM and deliver to city along with required documents and payment. SUBMIT FORM to send a digital
copy to the city for processing.
Section 3:Owrrer and Information
Cell:
Section4: Notification
Written Justification of Request Compliance
Submitted by: Matt and Amanda Arens
7644 South Shore Drive, Chanhassen, MN 55317
When we purchased our home in 2005, we took on a property that was an absolute mess. lt was
overgrown with buckthorn and thistle and the mostly small leafy trees were creating a canopy that
didn't allow anything to grow to hold the sloped areas. The area close to the lake was sloped and mostly
bare. When we would get hard rains, you could stand by and watch soil being carried right into the lake.
We were newly married and didn't have kids yet, so we had a lot of time on our hands and spent most
weekends working on the property. We removed the scrubby trees that were mostly small boxelder,
basswood and buckthorn. We planted hostas, plants and bag after bag of low-growth fescue. We had
riprap put in to stabilize the shoreline along with a small beach. We tried several times, before finally
hiring professionals, to plant tall grasses along the shoreline to create a buffer for the lake. We planted
tall grasses in a lower lying area and directed overflow water to that spot rather than over the surface
into the lake. We are grateful for the partnership we enjoyed with the City as we completed these
projects, and we received great advice and support from people like Terry Jeffrey, the former water
resources specialist, and have modeled many of our plans after his suggestions.
We knew when we purchased our home that it had many problems, but the longer we lived there we
came to more fully understand that the deficiencies were much worse than we thought. We thought we
could remodel our house within its existing structure, but it became clear we would be better off tearing
down most of the structure and starting over rather than remodeling within the bad bones of the house.
We broke ground on that major project last year, rebuilding the house on the existing foundation. As
most of these things go, it has taken longer than anticipated and we have had plenty of surprises
throughout the process. Now that the house construction is mostly done, we would like to finish
landscaping the area around the house, so it is stable, looks nice and doesn't detract from all of the
efforts we have taken to make the property and house look attractive.
Unfortunately, the house was originally built very close to the bluff line, which is the reason for our
variance request, We have come up with a landscape plan we feel has as little impact as possible on the
bluff line given the placement of where the original house was built. We recognize we are going
through this process because some of the items in our plan are not routinely allowed by the City code.
However, we believe these items fall within the boundaries of using our property in a reasonable
manner, and we respectfully ask that you consider the following points as you review our request:
1. Most of the area around the sides and back of our house is generally sloped. lf we were to
simply put grass there, it would be difficult to maintain/mow, but more importantly, this area
gets very slippery when damp or wet, creating a significant safety concern, particularly
considering we have parents who spend a lot of time with us who are in their late 60s/early 70s.
The only way to access our lakeshore is through these sloped areas. We want to ensure it is
landscaped in such a way that there is a safe path for anyone who may be accessing it.
2. ln terms of the sitting area in our front yard, it would be located in an area that was a
blacktopped circular driveway when we purchased the property. When we removed this portion
of the driveway several years ago, we were unaware that we would later be required to obtain a
a: t
t-
variance to put a hard surface back in that area. We are not looking to extend the current
driveway back to that area. We simply want to create a comfortable area to sit while we are
outside watching our kids play in the driveway and on the swing set. ln our landscape plan, we
have incorporated a great deal ofvegetation around all hard surfaces to ensure it adequately
captures water and we're managing runoff in a responsible way. ln this particular area, we
simply want to be able to utilize our yard and property in a way that's consistent with the
character of our house and locality.
3. As alluded to in the above bullet point, we are going to great efforts to ensure that our
landscape plan will meaningfully improve the rainwater issues that have plagued this property
likely since it was built. These runoff issues have caused problems for the lake and some of our
neighbors. We believe our plan will make great strides in improvingfixing these issues.
4. Many of the properties near our home have had similar bluff line challenges, as the homes were
built before the most recent bluff line regulations were put into place. ln some cases within our
neighborhood, more than 50% of the home is actually over the bluff line. Challenges conforming
to the most recent bluff line regulations are not unique to our property, and many of our
neighbors have been able to find reasonable ways to landscape their properties so they are able
to fully utilize and enjoy their homes, We are simply looking to do the same.
It is our hope that when you consider our project as a whole and our many attempts, both current and
past, to go above and beyond for what is good for the land and the lake, that you will grant us a variance
for the landscape items in question, so we may finish our project. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Matt and Amanda Arens
1
Variance Request for 7644 South Shore Drive
Items requiring a variance per Staff review, falling within bluff impact zone and structure setback.
A) Boulder Border / Wall along top of bluff line - North Side of House
Fieldstone boulders ranging in size from approximately 12" diameter to 27" diameter. lnstalled
as a border and small retaining wall between existing fescue supported bluff and new landscape
around house. The majority of thiswall would be approximately 12-18" exposed height (1
course of boulders) as determined by the contour of the top of the bluff. Some areas near the
porchcorner(NE) mayrequire 2 courses to stabilize the slope. Filter fabric will be placed behind
boulders to prevent soil erosion through boulders. The intent of this wall is to provide an added
means of slowing and dispersing any surface runoff onto the bluff. The landscape above the
boulders will be graded and planted to do the same. Added benefits will be definition between
the landscaping and the bluff, prevention of landscape materials (mulch/rock) migrating onto
bluff and a more comfortably maintained landscape.
B) Flagstone Stepper Path from Back Patio to Front Yard
lrregular shaped, full range natural Bluestone Flagstone to be used as stepping stones to create
a comfortable means of walking from front yard to back yard, as well as access for landscape
maintenance. Stepping stones will range in size from approx. 18" diameter to 30" diameter,
with varying irregular shapes. Stones to be set onto existing graded soils, with no significant
excavation or compaction needed. Stones to be spaces approximately 4" to 10" apart to allow
for drainage between and around stones. Mulch or landscape rock to be used around stones,
depending on the location within the plan. Some areas may incorporate groundcover plantings
between stones to stabilize soils and minimize erosion. The stepper path is an alternative to an
orlginal design concept that featured an expanded patio. City Staff recommended that no
additional impervious patio be installed in this area. The stepper path will allow for some of the
same function but with less impact on runoff.
Cl Flagstone Seating Area/Patio with Stone Seat Wall
Patio/Seating area near front walkway to improve use of front yard and driveway area. Seating
area to be constructed of full range, irregular shaped natural Bluestone Flagstone set on 6" of
free draining base material (3/8" clear limestone). Geotextile underlayment fabric to be
installed between native soils and base material. Stones to be leveled and cut to fit with 1" or
less joint tolerance, connected to front entrance walkway (also stone). Seat wall to be built on
12" diameter frost footings tied into a poured concrete slab. Blended natural wall stone stacked
and mortared to create a free-standing seat wall, approximately 20" tall. The top of the bluff
outside of this patio area is supported by long-established trees, so we feel the bluff impact of
this feature is very minimal, especially considering the historical cover of this space (past
driveway turnaround).
3''".t
.t.:_
B*
ffi
,,:
k
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on
August g,20l8,the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen,
Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public
Hearing to consider a variance application to install a boulder wall and patio in the bluff
setback area, Planning Case File No. 2018-16, to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A",
by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the
envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid
thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the
records of the County Treasurer, Carver County,and by other appropriate records.
Kim T.
Subscribed and
trrirga- day of ,2018.
orn to before me
L . a, .-,t,1,
JEAN M. STECKLING
t lobry PLbllc'fullnnesotre
Date & Time:Tuesday September 4,2018 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing mav not
start until later in the evening, depending on the order ol lhe tSgllg.
Location:Citv Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Proposal:Consider a variance application to install a boulder wall and
patio in the bluff setback area.
Tyler Wortz
Property
Location:
76445. Shore Drive
A location map is on the reverse side of this notice.
What Happens
at the Meeting:
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood
about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the
public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project'
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses
the proiect.
Questions &
Comments:
lf you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit
the city's projects web Page at:
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2018'16. lf you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact MacKenzie
Walters by email at mwalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by
phone a|952-227-1132.1f you choose to submit written
comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in
advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the
Commission. The staff report for this item will be
available online on the project web site listed above the
Thursdav orior to the Planning Commission meeting'
Sgn up to receive email and/or text notifications when meeting agendas,
packets, minutes and videos are uploaded to the city's website. Go to
www.ci.chanhasse@. Subdivisions, planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviere, Conditional and lnterim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings,
Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission City
ordinancesrequirealtpropertywithin5OOfeetofthesubjectsitetobenotitiedoftheapplicationinwriting. Anyinterestedpartyis
invited to attend the meeting.
. Staffpreparesareportonthesubjectapplicationthatincludesaltpertinentinformationandarecommendation. Thesereportsare
available by request. At the Plan;ing Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation.
The item will be opened for the publi; to speak about the proposal as a part of the healng prccess. The Commission will close the
publichearinganddiscusstheiiemandmakearecommendationtotheCityCouncil. TheCityCouncilmayreveBe,affirmor.
modifywhollforparflythePlanningCommission'srecommendation. Rezonings,landuseandcodeamendmentstakeasimple
malority vote of the City Councit exiept rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial.
. MinnesotaStateStatuteslg.ggrequiresallapplicationstobeprocessedwithin60daysunlesstheapplicantwaivesthisstandard.
Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the
process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
. i neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to
meet-with the neighborhood regaiding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s).
. Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence
regarding the applicaiion will be included in the report to the City Council. lf you wish to have something to be included in the report,
oleasecontaclthePanninqStaffpersonnamedonthenolification.
Notice of Public Hearing
Ghanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Notice of Public Hearing
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not
start until later in the order of the
Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Consider a variance application to install a boulder wall and
io in the bluff setback area.
Wortz
7644 S. Shore Drive
A location map is on the reverse side of this notice.
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood
about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the
public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses
the proi
lf you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit
the city's projects web page at:
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2018-16. lf you wish to talk to
someone about this project, please contact MacKenzie
Walters by email at mwalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by
phone at952-227-1132.1f you choose to submit written
comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in
advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the
Commission. The staff report for this item will be available
online on the project web site listed above the Thursday
to the Plan Commission
Sign up to receive email and/or text notifications when meeting agendas,
packets, minutes and videos are uploaded to the city's website. Go to
www.ci.chanhassen.
. Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and lnterim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings,
Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City
ordinancesrequireallpropertywithin5OOfeetofthesubjectsitetobenotifiedoftheapplicationinwriting. Anyinterestedpartyis
invited to attend the meeting.
. Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are
available by request. At the Planning Commission meeling, staff will give a verbal overuiew of the report and a recommendation.
The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the
public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify
wholly or partiy the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority
vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial.
. MinnesotaStateStatute5lg.ggrequiresallapplicationstobepro@ssedwithin60daysunlesstheapplicantwaivesthisstandard.
Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the
process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
. A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to
meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s).
. Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence
regardingtheapplicationwillbeincludedinthereporttotheCityCouncil. lfyouwishtohavesomethingtobeincludedinthereport,
What Happens
at the Meeting:
Questions &
Comments:
named on the notification.
,oolicant:
TAX_NAME
SCOTT G FROST
JO A FELLMAN
WILLIAM & JEANETTE LAPPEN
PATRICK FLANNERY
ROBERT ANDERSON
MARK D & JULIE ANNE PERKINS
EDWARD G MCGITTIVRAY II
KEVIN P &JILLC MCSHANE
CAROLIN JEAN SKAAR-PAGE
FRONTIER TRAIL ASSN
WILLIAM & IVY KIRKVOTD
SUSAN C HOFF
ROBERT FLYNN
MIKE EWASIUK
CATHERINE S HISCOX
DENNIS FISHER TRUST
SCOTT & JULIE MAEYAERT
SCOTT MAEYAERT
ANTHONY T DOPPLER
MARTHA E MCALLISTER
KATHRYN L MCINTIRE
CURTIS E & TANYA K HAMILTON
PAUL HYPKI
RICHARD J CORWINE
JOEL T SCOTT
ROBERT C BLAD
JEFFREY M COOKTE
CHRISTOPHER W & JULIE JOHNSON
NATHAN T & NANCYANN CASTENS
TRUST AGREEMENT OF MARK E GREENE
GREGORY W & COLLEEN E FLETCHER TRUSTS
WILLIAM & DOROTHY LEBRUN
LINDA WILKES
TAX_ADD_11
120 SOUTH SHORE CT
131 SOUTH SHORE CT
140 SOUTH SHORE CT
141 SOUTH SHORE CT
151 SOUTH SHORE CT
160 SOUTH SHORE CT
16], SOUTH SHORE CT
180 SOUTH SHORE CT
2OO SHORE CT S
201 FRONTIER CT
201 FRONTIER CT
221 FRONTIER CT
40 HILL ST
7425 FRONTIER TRL
75OO ERIE AVE
7501 ERIE AVE
7506 ERIE AVE
7506 ERIE AVE
7508 ERIE AVE
7510 ERIE AVE
7531 ERIE AVE
7561 ERIE AVE
7591 ERIE AVE
7600 ERIE AVE
7601 ERIE AVE
7602 ERIE AVE
7603 ERIE AVE
7504 ERIE AVE
7605 ERIE AVE
7614 SOUTH SHORE DR
7616 SOUTH SHORE DR
7628 SOUTH SHORE DR
7632 SOUTH SHORE DR
TAX-ADD-t2
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
TAX_ADD_13
MN 55317-
MN 55317-9318
MN 55317-9318
MN 55317-9318
MN 553r.7-9318
MN 55317-9318
MN 55317-9318
MN 55317-9318
MN 55317-9318
MN 55317-9728
MN 55317-9728
MN 55317-9728
MN 55317-9586
MN 55317-9724
MN 55317-7903
MN 55317-9441
MN 55317-7903
MN 55317-7903
MN 55317-7903
MN 55317-7903
MN 55317-7903
MN 55317-7903
MN 55317-7903
MN 55317-9715
MN 55317-97r.5
MN 55317-9715
MN 55317-9715
MN 55317-9715
MN 55317-9715
MN 55317-
MN 553r.7-9400
MN 55317-9400
MN 55317-9400
ROBERT D GOGGINS
AMANDA LYNN ARENS REV TRUST
JAMES J DUBOULAY
KEITH R & KIMBERLY K NORBIE
ROBERT M CREES
SCOTT WALKER
DAVID G & KAY V YOOST
JOEY R RIEDER
ALAN R & CAROLYN D DIAMOND TRUSTS
DONALD J LUCKER
HALP&PENETOPEJHOLT
JASON W WHITE TRUST
THOMAS W & PAMELA C DEVINE
7636 SOUTH SHORE DR
7544 SOUTH SHORE DR
7648 SOUTH SHORE DR
7652 SOUTH SHORE DR
7656 SOUTH SHORE DR
7660 SOUTH SHORE DR
7664 SOUTH SHORE DR
7668 SOUTH SHORE DR
7564 ERIE AVE
220 S 6TH ST SUITE 3OO
5110 WEST ST
7528 ERIE AVE
PO BOX 714
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
MINNEAPOLIS
EXCELSIOR
CHANHASSEN
CHANHASSEN
MN 55317-9400
MN ss317-9400
MN 55317-9441
MN 55317-9441
MN 5s317-9441
MN 55317-9441
MN 5531.7-9441
MN 55317-9441
MN 55317
MN 55402
MN 55331
MN 55317
MN 55317-0714
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA
VARIANCE 2018-16
1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby
grants the following variance:
The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the construction of a
boulder wall and flagstone stepper path within the bluff setback and impact zone.
2. Property. The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County,
Minnesota, and legally described as Lot 9, Block 2, South Lotus Lake 2nd Addition.
3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant must apply for and receive a zoning permit.
2. The survey should be updated and provided as part of the zoning permit application
showing: a) the top of the bluff; b) 20-foot bluff impact zone; c) 30-foot bluff
setback; d) proposed lot coverage; e) 15” storm pipe and the drainage and utility
easement located over the pipe; f) scenic preservation/conservation easement; and, g)
all proposed improvements.
3. Stairways and flagstone stepper walkways within the bluff setback zone may not
exceed 4 feet in width.
4. There shall be a minimum of six inches of separation between the flagstones that
comprise the flagstone paths and walkways.
5. The location and dimensions of the boulder wall and flagstone pathways shall
substantially conform to those depicted in Exhibit A.
2
6. All exposed soil within the grading limits must either covered either with vegetation
or, in areas where vegetation will not grow, a doubled shredded hardwood mulch.
7. Soil infiltration improvements, either adding compost or air spading, shall be
conducted within the project’s grading limits.
8. The proposed retaining wall on the east side of the property is within the drainage and
utility easement. It should not be constructed over the pipe or infringe on the
easement.
9. The existing retaining wall on the east side of the property is located within a
drainage and utility easement and an encroachment agreement should be obtained and
recorded for the wall.
10. Zoning permits are required for all proposed retaining walls under four feet in height
and building permits are required for any proposed retaining wall over four feet in
height.
4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not
been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse.
Dated: September 4, 2018 CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
(SEAL) Denny Laufenburger, Mayor
AND:
Todd Gerhardt, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
(ss
COUNTY OF CARVER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
2018 by Denny Laufenburger, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen,
a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted
by its City Council.
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
MEMORANDUM
To: MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner
FROM: George Bender, Assistant City Engineer
DATE: August 24, 2018
Engineering is generally in agreement with allowing Items A & B of the variance request. There appears
to be alternative areas for the seating area that is not within the setback. A reconfiguration should be
considered for this feature to keep it out of the bluff setback.
Engineering has the following conditions:
1. Reconfigure the portion of the proposed patio overlooking the driveway that is within the 30’
bluff setback.
2. Install the flagstones a minimum of 6” apart to allow for infiltration.
3. Address the area under the raised room on the NE corner of the structure. Recommend
installing double-shredded mulch underneath it because grass or plantings are not expected to
survive well.
4. Update the survey. The survey does not show the 15” storm pipe that is on the east side of the
property. The drainage and utility easement over the pipe also does not appear to be shown on
the survey. Review the as-built information from 1986 and consider maintenance of the pipe
and access through the easement.
5. Update the survey. The conservation easement shown on the 1986 as-built drawing does not
appear on the survey. The as-built indicates it was to generally follow the 930 contour.
6. The proposed retaining wall on the east side of the property is within a drainage and utility
easement. It should not be constructed over the pipe or infringe on the easement in order to
facilitate pipe maintenance.
7. The existing retaining wall on the east side of the property is also with a drainage and utility
easement. An encroachment agreement should be obtained and recorded for the wall.
The proposed vegetated swales significantly exceed stormwater runoff requirements for the site. These
swales will help dissipate runoff from the roof by slowing it down and spreading it out, reducing the
potential for erosion. Erosion is a primary concern for a properties located on bluffs and lakefront. The
applicant has gone above and beyond to improve stormwater management on the site.
Water resources has no comment regarding landscaping within the bluff. Any potential impacts to water
quality and erosion are offset by the proposed vegetated swales and redirected runoff.
Vanessa
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, September 4, 2018
Subject Approval of Planning Commission minutes dated August 7, 2018
Section APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No: C.1.
Prepared By Nann Opheim, City Recorder File No:
PROPOSED MOTION:
The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the minutes dated August 7, 2018.
ATTACHMENTS:
Summary Minutes
Verbatim Minutes
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
AUGUST 7, 2018
Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Steve Weick, Nancy Madsen, Mark
Randall, and Michael McGonagill
MEMBERS ABSENT: John Tietz
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; George
Bender, Assistant City Engineer, and Vanessa Strong, Water Resources Coordinator
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Russ & Diana Jones 3961 Country Oaks Drive
Lynn & Nancy Simpson 3980 Country Oaks Drive
Court MacFarlane 3800 Leslee Curve
Jane Bender 4001 Stratford Ridge
Steve Arndt 2960 Stratford Ridge
David Robertson 2900 Stratford Ridge
Jason Watt 3961 Stratford Ridge
Trent Birkholz 3851 Stratford Ridge
David & Diane Lieser 3881 Stratford Ridge
Linda Brand 3981 Country Oaks
Garit Solheim-Witt 3850 Leslee Curve
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONTROL CONCEPTS: REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCE.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Weick asked for
clarification on the need for the trail. Commissioner McGonagill asked about fencing.
Chairman Aller asked for clarification on the speed of runoff between having one or two
retaining walls. Representing the applicant, Cory Watkins explained that the need for the
variance was because of requests to have the trail be a different user experience than the first
proposal. Chairman Aller opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was
closed.
Undestad moved, McGonagill seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of a variance to permit construction of retaining walls within the Bluff Creek
primary zone setback as shown in the plans prepared by Loucks, dated 06-15-2018, revised
Planning Commission Summary – August 7, 2018
2
7-12-18, subject to the following conditions and adoption of the Findings of Fact and
Recommendation:
Building
1. Retaining walls over 4 feet in heights require an engineered design.
Environmental Resources
1. The applicant shall coordinate a trail inspection with the city arborist to review tree
removals prior to any trail construction activities.
2. Tree protection fencing must be installed at the edge of grading limits along the trail.
Parks
1. The developer shall be responsible for planning, engineering, and constructing the
“wetland trail.” Connection points for this new trail shall be the terminus of the Trotters
Ridge trail and the intersection of Century Boulevard and Water Tower Place. Bid
documents, including plans and specifications, shall be approved by the Park &
Recreation Director and City Engineer prior to soliciting bids. Project bidding shall
occur in a competitive environment with a minimum of three bids being received. The
results of the bidding process shall be reviewed with the Park & Recreation Director and
City Engineer prior to award. Cash payment for trail construction shall be made from the
City of Chanhassen to the developer upon completion, inspection, and acceptance of the
trail.
2. Trail easements within Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 7th shall be dedicated to
the city to accommodate the “wetland trail”.
Water Resources and Engineering
1. The limits of the Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD) shall be identified throughout the
plan set.
2. Add detailed design for the retaining walls including a profile, proposed construction
materials, and railings/fences.
3. Add cut sections through the retaining walls and the trail to provide for easier
visualization and enhance constructability.
4. Create a parapet design along the upper wall when it is above the trail.
5. Extend the silt fence installation as appropriate to protect from construction.
Planning Commission Summary – August 7, 2018
3
6. Identify snow storage locations on the plans.
7. Provide a restoration plan for grading in the wetland buffer and in the Bluff Creek
Overlay District (BCOD) buffer.
8. The proposed redevelopment will need Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District
(RPBCWD) permits.
9. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure and submit proof that permits are received
from all other agencies with jurisdiction over the project (i.e. Army Corps of Engineers,
DNR, MnDOT, Carver County, RPBCWD, Board of Water and Soil Resources, PCA,
etc.).
10. The grade through the ADA areas of the parking lot shall be a maximum of 2% slope in
any direction. The point elevations should be re-checked. Add this code requirement in a
note on the plans.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
GLENDALE DRIVE SUBDIVISION REQUEST.
Sharmeen Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. George Bender addressed the street
layout and Vanessa Strong discussed stormwater runoff issues. The applicant, Curt Fretham
with Lake West Development, 14525 Highway 7, Minnetonka, discussed issues related to the
subdivision standards, requirement for a through street from Stratford Ridge to Glendale Drive,
and how cul-de-sac lengths are determined. Chairman Aller opened the public hearing. Jason
Watt, 3961 Stratford Ridge expressed concerns and frustration with notification, issues
associated with Minnewashta Parkway being a collector road and how that affects the request for
a through street connection with Stratford Ridge, and asked how undue hardship is defined.
David Lieser, 3881 Stratford Ridge expressed opposition to the extension of the cul-de-sac on
Stratford Ridge to Glendale or any other road. David Robertson, 3900 Stratford Ridge discussed
the fact that when he bought his property there was nothing in the title search that indicated that
the Stratford Ridge cul-de-sac was temporary, and how this subdivision will affect their
Homeowners Association. Court MacFarlane, 3800 Leslee Curve expressed concern with
stormwater runoff and the confusion surrounding how cul-de-sac footage is measured, but noted
he was in favor of this development. Carin Moore, 6760 Minnewashta Parkway, owner of the
property directly south of the development, explained that her major concern was drainage,
future development possibilities of her property, and traffic circulation. Jane Bender, 4001
Stratford Ridge expressed concern with adding these 5 lots to the Pleasant Acres Homeowners
Association and the additional hard cover being added. Chairman Aller closed the public
hearing. After discussion by commission members the following motion was made.
Planning Commission Summary – August 7, 2018
4
McGonagill moved, Madsen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission tables
action on the preliminary plat to subdivide 2.14 acres into 5 lots and one outlot and a
variance to allow a 50 foot public right-of-way and directs the applicant to address the
issues, address issues in the staff report and preserves the right for public comment. All
voted in favor, except Commissioner Weick who opposed, and the motion carried with a
vote of 5 to 1.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Weick noted the verbatim and summary
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 17, 2018 as presented.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Bob Generous presented the update on City
Council action and outlined future Planning Commission agenda items.
Randall moved, Madsen seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was
adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 7, 2018
Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Steve Weick, Nancy Madsen, Mark
Randall, and Michael McGonagill
MEMBERS ABSENT: John Tietz
STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; George
Bender, Assistant City Engineer, and Vanessa Strong, Water Resources Coordinator
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Russ & Diana Jones 3961 Country Oaks Drive
Lynn & Nancy Simpson 3980 Country Oaks Drive
Court MacFarlane 3800 Leslee Curve
Jane Bender 4001 Stratford Ridge
Steve Arndt 2960 Stratford Ridge
David Robertson 2900 Stratford Ridge
Jason Watt 3961 Stratford Ridge
Trent Birkholz 3851 Stratford Ridge
David & Diane Lieser 3881 Stratford Ridge
Linda Brand 3981 Country Oaks
Garit Solheim-Witt 3850 Leslee Curve
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONTROL CONCEPTS: REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCE.
Generous: Thank you Chairman, commissioners. Control Concepts, this is part two Planning
Case 2018-11. We saw the site plan at the July 17th meeting. As part of that there was concern
about the size of the retaining walls adjacent to the pedestrian trail that’s being put in. So we
worked with the applicant to come up with an alternative design that would reduce the size of
those walls. However to do that they need a variance to encroach the retaining walls into the
Bluff Creek primary zone setback. Not into the primary zone itself but into the 40 foot setback
from that one. The property is located at 8077 Century Boulevard. This is in the Arboretum
Business Park planned unit development. The request is in conjunction with the site plan so this
is only a recommendation that we’ll make tonight. You won’t make a final decision as a Board
of Appeals and Adjustments to permit the retaining wall to encroach into the primary zone
setback as shown on their plans. The property is guided for office industrial uses. It’s zoned
planned unit development as part of the Arboretum Business Park. It’s also within the Bluff
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
2
Creek corridor which has additional protection requirements. This was the site plan that was
approved on, or recommended for approval on the 17th. Unfortunately it’s only two dimensional
so it looks really great and easy on the screen. It’s a 54,600 square foot building. The western
portion is, has a two story office component and then it has warehouse and manufacturing or
manufacturing space on the eastern side. There is a tenant space on the extreme eastern end of
the building. As submitted with the site plan review they were proposing one, a single retaining
wall adjacent to the trail system. This raised, had high points of over 18 feet at the corner of the
property. At the turning points in the trail and then also down on the east end of it. That was a
concern of the Planning Commission and staff and the Parks Director and what type of
environment would that create for the trail users. The applicant was able to provide us with a
cross section to give you an idea of what the experience would be and you can see that wall
would really dominant the walking in that area so, and this is I believe at the point 7 on the trail.
So as part of the alternative design we came up with the tiered wall system. It reduced, basically
split the height of the retaining wall so half was on top and half was below. It reduced the
highest point in the retaining wall to 12 feet on the eastern end of the building but at that corner
point down in here it had an upper elevation of almost 9 feet. Just under 9 feet for the retaining
wall and then another 9 foot retaining wall below it so they created like an overview or shelf area
in the corner that would allow people to look over the wetland complex to the northeast of that.
This is, however having this wall encroach into the 40 foot setback requires a variance and so
that’s what we’re here for tonight. Again they provided a cross section to show how the
experience for people using the trail would be much more human scale and so we would think it
will provide an enhanced environment for people to go forward. Staff is recommending that the
Planning Commission recommend approval of the variance to permit the retaining walls within
the Bluff Creek primary zone setback. We have Findings of Fact that it is in harmony with our
ordinance and it does not change the character of the area but we believe will enhance the
pedestrian experience as they use this trail system. Additionally there’s adoption of Findings of
Fact and Recommendation. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Aller: Any questions at this time of staff? Commissioner Weick.
Weick: First time this came up I just did a bad job of getting clarification for myself so I just,
I’m looking for clarification on the necessity for the trail. So is there currently like a dead end
trail in the Preserve that’s waiting to be connected?
Generous: There is a fork that was established with the 7th Addition which was built in 2007 to
come towards the north.
Weick: Okay.
Generous: And so that was the plan and this would actually connect to the heart of the
Arboretum Business Park area and provide really easy access for people to get onto the system.
Right now you can get into it off of 82nd Street. There’s a connection that goes around, there’s a
big stormwater pond in that corner.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
3
Weick: Yeah.
Generous: And then into it so it was felt at the time of the subdivision and approval that this was
an important connection so we’re trying to implement that. As part of the approval for the 7th
Addition the developer was required to do that but we allowed them to wait until this site
developed before putting in the trail. We could have had them put in the trail back in 2007 and
then the development would have to come in and either fit into, their design into where the trail
was or.
Weick: Yeah, okay. That’s all I had.
Aller: Great. Any additional questions? Commissioner McGonagill.
McGonagill: Bob on the down slope wall, what would the fencing be along that wall to keep
people from falling off of it? Do you recall?
Generous: Yeah it’s a dual pipe system so two rails of pipe. Black pipe that would go along
there. About 42 inches high.
McGonagill: Okay, thank you.
Generous: And it’s the open design so when we push snow it can go through that in the winter
so that people would be able to use that year round.
McGonagill: Okay thank you. Keeps bikes from going off it.
Generous: Yes.
Aller: Commissioner Madsen. Is that fence similar to the one that goes along 101? It’s on the
right side, or on the west side of 101.
Generous: Yes that’s what the design that they were talking, the Parks Director was talking
about. That it’d be similar to that.
Madsen: Yep south of Lyman, north of Pioneer Trail.
Generous: Correct.
Madsen: Okay thank you.
Aller: Okay I have a question for Ms. Strong. As always I’m always concerned about the Bluff
Creek so obviously they made an effort to alter their plans based upon the comments from the
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
4
last hearing. The question I have basically is going towards when we stagger this we’re going to
reduce the speed of the runoff. How will that impact, based upon the grade and the elevations or
would it impact the flow as compared to, are we getting a better deal with the two as opposed to
one?
Strong: I thought about that too. It’s really tough to say. I think they’re attempting the best they
can to meet the needs for the trail so I think when it comes to runoff, the ground level versus the
two tiered, the difference is not considerable compared to the fact that they actually need to meet
the trail in the first place. Obviously ideal would be to have a wider buffer. That’s really what
we need. But with a balance to meet many needs so.
Aller: Any additional questions based, hearing none we’ll have the applicant come forward and
make a presentation. Answer questions. If you could state your name and address and
representational capacity for the record that would be great.
Cory Watkins: Hi. Cory Watkins. I’m with Control Concepts. We’re at 18760 Lake Drive East
in Chanhassen.
Aller: Welcome back.
Cory Watkins: Thank you. You know I don’t have a lot to present. Your staff did a good job of
presenting what we’re doing. I would say that the original proposal that we put forward did not
require a variance and so the variance is really specifically because of requests to have it be a
different user experience so it’s more of a trail causing the variance versus us as an entity
looking for the variance so that’s really our position on it so.
Aller: Additional questions, comments. Alright, thank you sir.
Cory Watkins: Alright thank you.
Aller: At this time I’ll open up the public hearing portion of the item. This is an opportunity for
those present to come forward and speak either for or against the item. Seeing no one come
forward I’m going to close the public hearing portion of the item and open it up for
commissioner discussion or action.
Weick: Yeah the only comment I would make, I’m not opposed to this in any way. It seems like
we’re putting an awful lot of work into making this connection. I’m, I don’t know that we really
need to make this connection. I use that area and you can get around. I think sufficiently
without that connection. It’s really not that far from the 82nd Street that kind of brings you
around in on the other side so I, personally I don’t even think we need to make the connection. It
doesn’t, you know if that’s what we want to do that’s fine. It seems like a good solution. I’m
just not convinced that it’s needed.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
5
Aller: Additional comments? Questions? I’d entertain a motion for or against.
Undestad: I’ll make a motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval
of a variance to permit retaining walls within the Bluff Creek primary zone setbacks subject to
the conditions of approval and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation.
Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
McGonagill: Second.
Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion? Okay. Comments. Otherwise
we’ll entertain a vote.
Undestad moved, McGonagill seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of a variance to permit construction of retaining walls within the Bluff Creek
primary zone setback as shown in the plans prepared by Loucks, dated 06-15-2018, revised
7-12-18, subject to the following conditions and adoption of the Findings of Fact and
Recommendation:
Building
1. Retaining walls over 4 feet in heights require an engineered design.
Environmental Resources
1. The applicant shall coordinate a trail inspection with the city arborist to review tree
removals prior to any trail construction activities.
2. Tree protection fencing must be installed at the edge of grading limits along the trail.
Parks
1. The developer shall be responsible for planning, engineering, and constructing the
“wetland trail.” Connection points for this new trail shall be the terminus of the Trotters
Ridge trail and the intersection of Century Boulevard and Water Tower Place. Bid
documents, including plans and specifications, shall be approved by the Park &
Recreation Director and City Engineer prior to soliciting bids. Project bidding shall
occur in a competitive environment with a minimum of three bids being received. The
results of the bidding process shall be reviewed with the Park & Recreation Director and
City Engineer prior to award. Cash payment for trail construction shall be made from the
City of Chanhassen to the developer upon completion, inspection, and acceptance of the
trail.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
6
2. Trail easements within Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 7th shall be dedicated to
the city to accommodate the “wetland trail”.
Water Resources and Engineering
1. The limits of the Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD) shall be identified throughout the
plan set.
2. Add detailed design for the retaining walls including a profile, proposed construction
materials, and railings/fences.
3. Add cut sections through the retaining walls and the trail to provide for easier
visualization and enhance constructability.
4. Create a parapet design along the upper wall when it is above the trail.
5. Extend the silt fence installation as appropriate to protect from construction.
6. Identify snow storage locations on the plans.
7. Provide a restoration plan for grading in the wetland buffer and in the Bluff Creek
Overlay District (BCOD) buffer.
8. The proposed redevelopment will need Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District
(RPBCWD) permits.
9. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure and submit proof that permits are received
from all other agencies with jurisdiction over the project (i.e. Army Corps of Engineers,
DNR, MnDOT, Carver County, RPBCWD, Board of Water and Soil Resources, PCA,
etc.).
10. The grade through the ADA areas of the parking lot shall be a maximum of 2% slope in
any direction. The point elevations should be re-checked. Add this code requirement in a
note on the plans.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
GLENDALE DRIVE SUBDIVISION REQUEST.
Al-Jaff: Chairman Aller, members of the Planning Commission. The application before you is
for a 5 lot subdivision and a variance that is being recommended by city staff for narrowed width
of a right-of-way from 60 feet to 50 feet. Briefly the subject site is located southeast of the
intersection of Glendale Drive and Minnewashta Parkway. It is zoned single family residential.
It is guided low density. It does lie within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnewashta which makes it
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
7
within the shoreland overlay district. Any regulations pertaining to shoreland will apply to this
site. The grades overall slope southeast on this property. There is Roundhouse Park located
within the service area of the site. There are trails along Minnewashta Parkway which this site
will have access to. Just a brief background. The reason we’re going to provide this information
is because staff has received a large number of phone calls and inquiries. Whenever a
subdivision appears before staff and when we meet with a property owner or a developer, staff
does not look at a property in a vacuum. We always have to look at the big picture. How is the,
yes we do look at lot areas such as in the single family residential district we look at lot area that
has to be 15,000 square feet. Lot frontage on a street that is 90 feet. Depth that is 125. Those
are the simple things. The way we provide connection to other properties located in the
surrounding area. How do we extend sewer, water. If we do add development to an area can
emergency vehicles approach these sites. Can they, if we build homes where is the water going?
Overall what direction is it going? When you have property that is next to shoreland where is the
water being treated before it goes into the lake because ultimately that’s where it’s going to end
up so again overall when we look at a subdivision there is more to it than just meeting the simple
requirements of lot area, lot width and lot depth. We have to look at circulation. We have to
look at emergency management. With that said that will allow me to talk about the surrounding
area. One of the issues that we need to point out or one of the facts that we need to point out at
this point, the property that is immediately west of the subject site which is the Country Oaks
development left a very small sliver that was always intended to be part of the development that
is before you today. It was going to be combined with it and subdivided. That piece went tax
forfeit and the City ended up owning it. It is our intent to turn over that piece of property. The
other thing I want to point out is this bubble of a cul-de-sac right here which is temporary in
nature, back in 1987 there was a development proposed for this site which is the Stratford Ridge
development. As I mentioned earlier whenever city staff looks at a development we cannot, we
may not look at it in a vacuum. We have to look at the big picture. The developer for Stratford
Ridge came back with two options for developing these sites and at that time the only existing
development that was a platted development was northwest of where we are right now. Of the
site we’re looking at. Throughout this area the roads were extended specifically through to the
north between Stratford Ridge and Glendale. Option B, which is closer to what actually got
developed cul-de-sacked this section rather than putting it through on both sides. But this
connection still was maintained through these parcels to the north. At this point I want to turn it
over to our engineering staff that will address both, will address the stormwater as well as the
street connections and basically elaborate on that portion of the background and why we’re
recommending some of the issues be resolved.
Bender: Okay I’ll take it from there Sharmeen. Thank you very much. To speak about the
access one thing that I want to explain is Minnewashta Parkway is a, known as a, has collector
status designation by the city code. It means that it’s a primary street with higher average daily
traffic volumes. It’s meant to be a faster circulation road rather than residential, just a regular
residential street. And as such along Minnewashta Parkway it is a goal of the City and as
expressed in the city code to limit the access to it so similar to more of a highway type design
where it’s controlled access. So the goal essentially that we apply when engineering projects
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
8
touch these type of things, these roadways, is to not allow additional accesses to the collector
street and to eliminate accesses where possible. So when areas redevelop that is a consideration.
In addition to the area that Sharmeen was explaining is this bubble down here is actually platted
with a stub to go to the northeast towards Leslee Circle. Or Curve. And that’s the, one of the
primary indications that led us to go looking through our records to find the information from
1987 that Sharmeen presented. In addition there’s narrative within the development files that
discusses it as she was trying to summarize for it to go through. One of the things that the 5 lot
development would do is cut off access to Leslee Curve from Stratford Ridge. In speaking with
the Fire Marshal about that on behalf of the fire department and emergency management services
they would be against doing that so if the two parcels to the south developed, that cul-de-sac
would essentially have to propagate to the north and become permanent and the fire department,
Fire Marshal’s review would prefer more access, quicker access and more convenient access as
in a through street through the area. And in addition this cul-de-sac is already at a maximum
length per our city code. It’s at 782 feet. Our city code is currently maximizes that length at 800
feet. As a technicality the fire code actually limits that to 750 feet that is currently applied so
there’s a little bit of a discrepancy between our code and the fire code by 50 feet. What it says is
you know we’re basically at the maximum length. So extending that further would have to be
you know a special consideration that would be recommended by City Engineer and then
approved by many other parties along the way that believed it would be the right thing to do.
One last consideration is that bubble is 90 feet in diameter. That would place an awful lot of
extra area coming off of these two lots that instead of having the through street that would go
here. So in order to allow 5 lots here there’s a little bit of a future undue burden upon the two
lots to the south. So you know there’s access so the lots that would be considered with a through
street along here would have access off, taken off of Minnewashta Parkway which we feel is a
benefit and they would have a through street in order to allow however the development
configuration takes place and these lots up here of course would have access to Glendale so.
From an access standpoint that’s the discussion that I wanted to convey. So this is kind of a
ghost plat. Kind of shows the size of the bubble. I don’t even believe the size of that bubble is
actually the true 90 feet in diameter. It would actually look bigger. And you know it also is
going to have to work from a stormwater perspective as well and that’s where access kind of
turns it over to you know water resources to you know holistically look at this development. So
lastly that’s kind of what this statement is saying. It’s kind of our guidance from developing
street design. You know we consider traffic circulation. We consider the topography. We
certainly consider the runoff of storm water where it’s headed. We look at the public
convenience and public safety. You know how the land is being proposed to be developed in
serving the community. So you know and this is another statement in the city code where street
arrangement and configurations are not allowed to cause undue hardship upon owners of
adjoining property when a subdivision is going, taking place. At this point I’ll turn it over to
Vanessa.
Strong: So there were many, many comments from a water resources perspective when we
reviewed this. I’m just going to highlight kind of maybe the major four that made it very, very
difficult and in fact not possible to, for the staff to give a decision at this time. Because
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
9
addressing these big questions could significantly change the overall design of the development
to the point where conditions of approval may not apply or it may not even be able to make the
appropriate conditions of approval. So the first thing I’m going to start out with is, this diagram
here, now this is something that I made. I overlaid the applicant’s submission over the City’s
GIS system and then I highlighted his ponds and I drew the arrows and I identified where he put
information. Emergency overflows are where your stormwater during a significant rain event
goes so we’re talking in this case anything over an inch and we all know we have a lot of storms
over an inch and these are big storms so this is very focused. Very heavy water that’s moving
through which is why city code has a couple of really important rules when it comes to
emergency overflows. One of them that it be identified. Well first and foremost he didn’t
identify any, the applicant did not identify any. It were just the overflow routes. My biggest
concern is that many of these ponds are all right along the property line. Well I mean I’m just
guessing. I’m guessing but you know based upon the contours those emergency routes are going
directly onto the neighbor. Well that’s not really a route. That’s just discharging directly onto
your neighbor. So city code says emergency overflow routes, if it’s adjacent to a property the
lowest building opening must be a minimum of one foot above the emergency overflow. Well
this lowest based upon the property records from the building file of this home, the lowest floor
opening is 976 feet. The emergency overflows for 4 of these ponds is at 978. To meet code they
would have to be a minimum of at 975. As proposed there’s no grading contour at 975 for this
entire parcel so they’re very high. The lowest building opening is very low. How are they going
to meet that elevation difference? The second piece is that again these emergency overflow
routes are discharging directly onto this property. We do have responsibility to look out for all
surrounding properties and city code again says they must not create a nuisance condition onto
adjacent property and at this point the applicant hasn’t provided information to at all address
whether or not that can be done. This is also a bit of a land locked parcel so there’s not really a
good outlet for all the water that comes here. So yes while you are allowed to send storm water
in it’s natural direction, when it comes to high volume, high rate emergency out falls and
overflows, there are requirements that must be met and there are many questions based upon how
this was addressed. Can you go to the next slide please? The second piece is placements and
easements. Now I just took two different pages from the applicant’s documents. Unfortunately
they did not place all of the stormwater information that would be relevant on one page so I kind
of had to flip and line out the best I could. Private storm water best management practices, that’s
what these rain gardens are that they proposed, they’re not actually permitted in public drainage
and utility easements. These are private structures so to the best of my ability it looks a bit like
these are the drainage utility easements for the City and when the applicant proposed them
they’re right against the property line in several cases. So between that and the fact that
infiltration/filtration basins must be located a minimum of 10 feet from the building envelope of
any primary structure because again this is a typical proposed pad. We don’t know where in here
that they’re actually going to put the house per se and that’s plumbing code and storm that, they
must be a minimum of 10 feet away from the structure to prevent any issues with water
infiltration into basements. That leaves a very small, little gap here. In fact you take the full 30
feet that’s given here, you subtract 10 feet from the rear property line. 10 feet from that building
setback and you’ve got now a tiny 10 foot strip. So it was very difficult to see how the applicant
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
10
was proposing these would actually be placed. It was just very unclear. So next slide please.
Additionally, I won’t go to great depths but the lot area, pervious and impervious calculations
were inconsistent between the plan set and stormwater report and the soil borings. You have to
use all 3 together to build their case and unfortunately if they’re not consistent data I’m not, you
know it’s never quite clear which data is the accurate data and what are we reviewing here at this
point. For example it appeared the draft soils report identified moderately slow permeability of
soils. Yet it would appear that the basins were designed for high draining soils. So these are
different inconsistencies that made it very difficult to make a recommendation because you
weren’t sure exactly what was the accurate data you were reviewing. Finally this is also rather
significant. Operation and maintenance of private storm water best management practices is
required in perpetuity. Both through the watershed district stormwater rule and the City’s MS4
Permit, Part 3D5, Section sub 5. That means private stormwater treatment devices, which these
are 5 little rain gardens, they most, first of all they’ve got to be placed in stormwater easements
that are recorded against the property. They must have an operation and maintenance plan
approved and recorded against the properties that provide for the permanent inspection,
maintenance and funding mechanism to ensure that they will function as designed permanently.
They need to provide, in order for us to make a decision, an operation and maintenance plan that
meets those requirements. And some explanation as to how they can ensure whichever resident
lives here and from now until forever basically has that capacity and to me that seems like a very
complex hurdle to overcome. I don’t know how you can anticipate any resident would have that
technical skill or funding mechanism and how you can ensure that in perpetuity. So you know
staff tries very hard to provide recommendations. Unfortunately there are times when it is just
too difficult. The applicant is responsible for submitting the proof necessary for staff to make a
decision and we’re not there right now so.
Al-Jaff: As far as the plat goes, and as I mentioned at the beginning that we look at lot area,
depth, width. All of that information has been provided by the applicant and yeah, we do have
parcels that exceed 15,000 square feet, 90 foot frontage, 125 foot depth for lots. One of the, we
really don’t know how this happened but the parcel extends across the public right-of-way and
into adjacent to neighboring properties that the applicant is proposing to outlot the right-of-way
over Country Oaks Drive will be dedicated to the City. The outlot, it is our recommendation that
the applicant contact the adjacent property owner and see if they would be interested in this
parcel because otherwise it will be a parcel that will not benefit anyone. With that said it is
staff’s intent to recommend approval. We want to recommend approval of a subdivision and
historically and with every subdivision that appears before the Planning Commission, City
Council we recommend conditions attached to an application. The approval always has some
adjustments that need to be made. In this case staff found it very difficult to make a
recommendation that we knew what the outcome would be that we would feel comfortable with
presenting it to you and to the City Council that we can stand behind. We do recommend that
you direct the developer to look at staff’s recommendation that they, you table action on this
application. Allow the developer to address these concerns and bring it before you at a future
date and I’ll be happy to answer any questions that you might have for us.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
11
Aller: Questions at this time of staff? Commissioner McGonagill.
McGonagill: Pretty simple. George, can we go to your map that you had where it showed, it had
that yellow arrow one. That one. How, you know I just want to be sure I understand on the
Minnewashta Parkway side it looks like there’s two driveways that you’re trying to eliminate or
is there 3 and you’re going to...at some point that you’re trying, would like to see.
Bender: Yeah there is two and you know the lot that’s currently being developed does not have
an access off of Minnewashta Parkway. There’s not a home on the property.
McGonagill: Okay, thank you.
Bender: Yep.
Aller: Additional questions? If this matter was tabled are we up against the timeline for the City
to make a decision where the applicant would have to sign a request?
Al-Jaff: We have 120 days with subdivisions. We contacted legal counsel, city attorney and he
concurred that we are fine.
Aller: So there’s sufficient time for this to be tabled to a reasonable date?
Al-Jaff: Correct. And it should give the applicant adequate time to make the revisions should
the Planning Commission recommend tabling action on the application.
Aller: Additional questions of staff based on any of the questions asked already? Hearing none,
if the applicant would like to come forward. If you could state your name and address and
representational capacity for the record that would be great.
Curt Fretham: Good evening Planning Commission and city staff. My name is Curt Fretham
from Lake West Development. Our address is 14525 Highway 7, Minnetonka. My phone
number is 952-930-3000. I appreciate you taking the time to review our application. There are
certainly some additional work that needs to take place on it. We have acknowledged that and
we’ll work with you and staff and the neighbors to, with hopes to come up with a plan that
everybody can feel good about and be a win/win. I prepared an exhibit that I want to share with
you but I’d like to go through the staff report a little bit and if I could take you to page 1 of the
staff report. Towards the bottom of the page, the first paragraph it says the City’s discretion in
approving or denying preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the
standards outlined in subdivision regulations and zoning ordinance. If the standards are met the
City must approve, I repeat must approve the preliminary plat. So my thoughts were we felt we
were submitting a preliminary plat that was conforming and met all the requirements and I know
there’s some uncertainty with that but I want to go through that tonight to hopefully bring some
clarity to myself and understand it better but also for the other parties that have concerns over it.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
12
I also look to the next paragraph and I’m not intending to go through every paragraph on this
page but, or the pamphlet but, or the City’s report but it talks about a variance and we did not ask
for a variance. I understand why city staff is recommending a variance but we also feel like we
could make a minor modification to allow for that additional right-of-way that you’re asking for
by, because we have the square footage and the lot right-of-way that we could make those
adjustments to remove that variance requirement and we’re willing to do that so just wanted to
make that point known. If I go to, and I also want to turn you to Exhibit A on this pamphlet that
was handed out it just shows the site and then if I go to the bottom of the staff report page 2, not
that I mean to skip over things but a lot of this was covered so I’m trying to hit the highlights but
the bottom of page 2 in the staff report talks about the streets and it’s the first sentence the
development does not incorporate a through street stubbed to facilitate the extension of Stratford
Ridge to Glendale Drive. I understand the rationale as to why it’s being asked for but when I go
to Exhibit B, the second page of the pamphlet that I hand out to you, this is an excerpt from the
comprehensive guide plan.
Generous: Yeah just put it on there.
Curt Fretham: Oh right here?
Generous: Yes. Then you can…
Curt Fretham: Excellent, I’ll do that. Under roadways on the comprehensive guide plan it says
residential street systems should be designed to discourage through traffic and to be compatible
with other transportation modes including transit, bicycle, walking, et cetera. But my point is
here’s your rules. Here’s what the City’s asking for. It’s written. It’s a goal. It’s in your
comprehensive guide plan. I’m getting conflicting direction to do exactly the opposite, put in a
through street. It says the property also was planned for a through street by, back in 1988 when
some of the other properties were platted. However there’s a contradictory plan in that our site
has 7 sewer and water stub in’s that were paid for so there must have been an alternative plan
that called for 7 lots on Glendale and if there was going to be 7 lots that conflicts with any kind
of a stub in for a through street connection so what plan over rules which plan? I’m not sure. I
want to talk about, so it just adds to some additional confusion. I could go to the top of the page
on the next page 3 but I’m going to skip and go to the second paragraph first. Second paragraph
talks about, we had proposed to, showing that the properties to the south could be developed by
extending the cul-de-sac on the south and I’ve got an exhibit that I want to put up to help show
that. Right here. It shows that you’re ghost platting this or showing how this, these two parcels
could be developed in the future with extension of this cul-de-sac. Showing 5 homes on here. It
allows these homes to stay. There was another concern about removing driveways onto
Minnewashta Parkway. This plan accomplishes that because it gives them alternative access
through a cul-de-sac so there’s not an advantage for the through street for that purpose.
Alternatively if you look at the through street scenario what it does is it provides for 1, 2, 3, 4
lots for this property owner loses one of their lots. Less efficient layout. Less, and it causes
removal of the home whether they choose to or not. It also is a disservice to this lot right here
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
13
because it creates a double frontage lot which if I go to city code it talks about double frontage
lots on C-2. No, let’s see it’s on, is it C-2? C-2(f) talks about street arrangements proposed shall
not cause undue hardship. Lot 4 has undue hardship by the through street from the fact that it’s
not going to meet the additional lot depth requirements by a double frontage lot. Double
frontage lots require, can you share with me where that section’s at? I think I missed it but. I’ll
come back to that in a moment but, but regardless it is a much less desirable. On the cul-de-sac
version that’s an A lot. If it’s a through street that lot becomes a D lot. I think that’s an undue
hardship to that property in and of itself. What does it do to Lot 5? My lot. It takes my best lot
in the group. A nice corner lot that fronts Minnewashta Parkway and turns it into a lot that has
street frontage on 3 sides. Three sides. It’s not a double frontage. It’s a triple frontage lot. It
creates an undue hardship onto my development. But none of that can happen according to the
staff report unless you issue a variance. Maybe that’s why the variance talk is on the front page
of the staff report but I would suggest that another level of confusion I have is I read the second
paragraph about where it starts out that it says the current length of the cul-de-sac is
approximately 700, put it right here. 782 feet. Measured from the center line of Minnewashta
Parkway. Then along Stratford Lane. Then along Bradford Boulevard. Then along Stratford
Ridge to the center of the cul-de-sac. I’m going wow. If I look at city code and that is on D-1.
Excuse me D-3. How do you define the depth of a cul-de-sac? D-3. This is out of city code.
It’s out of 518457, Section K. It says the length of a cul-de-sac shall be measured from the
intersection of the cul-de-sac to the street’s center line. To the center point of the cul-de-sac turn
around. It doesn’t say go down this street and that street and this street and that street. Here’s a
diagram right here. And so if I put the dimensions about how this is measured here it is right
here. It’s taking it down this street, then down this street, then down here. According to city
code it’s measured at the intersection right here. If that’s 782 feet so be it. This is only less than
half that so we’ll call it 350 plus a slight extension I’m up around 400 plus or minus. An
extension of a cul-de-sac meets city code requirements. And then furthermore you can say no,
that’s not how we measure it. Alright if that’s not, if we measure it from the other streets, which
is not how city code reads, take a look at Exhibit D-2. Alright here’s Minnewashta Parkway.
Let’s measure it the way that the staff report calls it out. Starting at Minnewashta Parkway.
Down Kings Point Road. Go north on this street. West on that street. It’s 2,100 feet. That’s
two blocks south. Is that how you measure it? I’m confused because that’s not what city code
says how you measure it. Let’s take a look at another one. They’re all over. Mine’s one of the
shortest ones after extended. So I don’t believe, unless I’m mistaken but it appears to me this is
a big error in this entire staff report. With that said go back to the paragraph above and it’s
referring me to section of city code of 18.57 and 18.60. They’re moot points. I’ll take you back
to this first exhibit. Look at the make-up of this neighborhood right here. What do you see?
Cul-de-sac, cul-de-sac, cul-de-sac, cul-de-sac, cul-de-sac, cul-de-sac, cul-de-sac, cul-de-sac, cul-
de-sac. All dead ends and then we’re going to put a through street in right there. The only
through street in the whole neighborhood. It’s against historically against the make up of the
neighborhood so you wonder why we’re not interested in putting a through street in. There’s a
lot of reasons behind it. I have a lot more but I think I’ve given you enough already to be
respectful of your time. We’re willing to work with staff. We know there’s some water resource
issues that we can work through and they can be happy with. We know we can accomplish the
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
14
city goals. We think we can do the best we can to satisfy the neighbors on their concerns. I’m
available for additional questions if you have any. Thank you so much for hearing us.
Aller: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant before he steps down? No questions? Okay
we’ll open up the public hearing portion of this item. Any individual wishing to come forward
and speak either for or against the item before us can do so. The matter is open. As you come
forward please state your name and address for the record and tell us what your concerns or your
proposals are.
Jason Watt: Sure. Good evening. My name is Jason Watt. I live at 3961 Stratford Ridge.
Lived there for about 4 years. Thank you very much for your service. I was once…employee as
well and appreciate your service. I’ve had to do a lot of education in the past 8 hours and that’s
what I maybe want to start with is just maybe to share with you my perspective of some
frustration in just terms of notice. Probably about 2-3 weeks ago there was a sign posted at the
corner of Stratford Ridge and Minnewashta Parkway stating that there was a proposed
development or a variance so I called the City or the County. City and asked what is this all
about and that employee, which I can give you the name at another date. I don’t have the name
with me, had informed me that all that has really nothing to do with your neighborhood. It’s
north of you so no concerns. So I shared that with the rest of our neighborhood that really
there’s no concern at all. And then as of late last night it was discovered that actually this does
affect our neighborhood. There’s an affidavit in the handout tonight that I, it says that there was
something mailed out just today and I just want to note for the record that my address doesn’t
have a name assigned to it for some reason so if it’s helpful again my name is Jason Watt. My
wife’s name is Katie. We live at 3961 Stratford Ridge. So just I’ll start with that just some
frustration in terms of process and notice. You mentioned that the decision cannot be made in a
vacuum but I feel like from what I’ve seen so far in the report that although it may be accurate
it’s not complete and that’s kind of why we’re here this evening is to share our perspective on
this proposal. You’ve mentioned that Stratford Ridge is a collector. I’m not familiar with that
term. Just learned that term today but it’s a collector road and I would just ask for some
consistency I guess in terms of how we apply that rule. I just counted north of where our turn in
for our neighborhood is and there’s 12 homes already that exist right on the parkway so
removing these 2 homes, I’m not sure what the logic of that is. It’s not really going to
accomplish that much in terms of what the intent of that ordinance is. In addition to that when
you look north from where we turn into our neighborhood I know that there was a new
development just north of us on the parkway within the past year or two. Just south of us there
was another new development that was split that this also attaches directly to the parkway so to
me it seems a little bit inconsistent in the analysis or the application of that rule. I’ll just leave it
at that. Also with the idea of the collector road, without knowing much about real estate
development I would think that you’d want those lots to be used for best use so the 2 existing
homes that have access straight to Stratford Ridge, if you drive along that parkway you’ll notice
that most of the homes that are placed right on the parkway they’re very large homes. They have
lake access so I don’t really think they would be best used for those homes to not have a direct
driveway from Stratford Ridge, or from Minnewashta Parkway to their homes. It just doesn’t
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
15
seem logical to me to reverse that into a cul-de-sac versus having direct access to the parkway. I
think they’d probably get a better dollar for those lots if they’re directly, they have direct access
from the parkway. There was a comment about the Fire Marshal and his desire to have a direct
route through our neighborhood. This is National Night Out. You can see that most of our
neighborhood is here rather than celebrating at home with our neighbors. We’ve had the fire
department there many years. They’ve never had a problem getting in and out of our
neighborhood so I don’t know that that’s necessarily a requirement for us to install a road simply
for fire access. We’d prefer that this not be installed period. Whether it’s an entire road or if it’s
a cul-de-sac we just, it’s not our preference to have this done. I would be curious to learn a little
bit more about how you define undue hardship. I think maybe there’s one other option of how
this, these properties could be developed that’s not been discussed so far. I don’t have a diagram
with me but you have the 5 lots have been proposed. Then you have 2 lots south of that there as
well and is it Leslee Curve I think that is to the west of there. If you’re talking about undue
hardship we don’t necessarily have to have the easiest way to develop it but just a way in which
it could be developed so I’m curious how we define undue hardship. If you look at the middle
lot it technically could have access through the road to the west of there. Then the farther south
lot that’s partially developed above our development, it could just have access through our little
cul-de-sac there so maybe one additional home rather than blowing us all up and installing a
whole new cul-de-sac or putting a road through. There are different ways to have access for
development for those 2 lots for the future. Just one other note that maybe there’s a lack of
creativity or we’ve not discussed all options on the table. That we’re just talking about access.
We’ve not talked about runoff or all the dimensions but just wanted to note that there are
different ways to have access to those 2 lots. We have about 15 kids in our neighborhood so
we’re talking about safety. Again back to the Fire Marshal’s comment. We really would prefer
not to have more cars coming through there. We’re already worried with other cars coming
through with you know high school kids getting a little bit lost so we’re always watching our
little kids. I used to live in Minneapolis. We wanted to put some speed bumps on our street
because they had redirected traffic onto our street. We were willing to pay for them. Same
number of kids. The City had declined our offer to pay for those speed bumps. That was one of
the primary reasons why we left the city so I feel like 4 years later I’m in the same spot here
dealing with something that we never anticipated and I know that maybe justice or the idea of
this being unfair is not really something that’s considered in this process but there was never,
when we looked at this, you know the possibility of buying a home in this neighborhood we did
our title check. We did all, I’m an attorney. We did all the responsible things that you should
do. I guess we never looked at the plots or about you know potential development in the future.
There’s a term that I’m not familiar with but what is that road called where it’s called a partial
road? You just kind of put in the curbs there. A stub road so there was never a stub road
installed in that northern cul-de-sac. I think that would have been a nice way to maybe give
people notice that that was the plan of the city to install a road in the future. With that any
questions?
Aller: If we were to take action tonight what action would you like to see?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
16
Jason Watt: Well I think the motion is that we delay the decision so we would be in favor of
delaying the decision but bottom line I think we’re going to fight the best we can against having
that road installed. Or a cul-de-sac.
Aller: Thank you.
Jason Watt: Thank you.
Weick: I’m sorry, can you just restate your address so I can…
Jason Watt: You can update it. 3961 Stratford Ridge.
Weick: So you’re on that, okay. Thank you.
Jason Watt: Yeah, thank you.
David Lieser: Good evening. My name is David Lieser. My wife and I own the property at
3881 Stratford Ridge.
Aller: Welcome.
David Lieser: In addition to the things that Jason has brought up I’d like to point out that it
seems to me, and I think to many other people that considerations on future hardship which may
be incurred possibly by people subdividing 2 other properties between our properties and the
Glendale Road project. Measuring that against the actual hardship to 15 families on Stratford
Ridge is kind of a no brainer. I don’t know how far the rest of the project is going to get
considering the fact that there were so many objections by the planning people involved here as
to the water problems. It looked like there was an issue about density with the 5 lots versus
perhaps strict adherence to the city code. But I do know that when I bought my house 21 years
ago that there was no, no document was pointed out to us in any way, whether it was title
document or whether it was reviewing the plat which I believe that the attorneys did. That would
indicate to us that the cul-de-sac at our end of the street had what you’re calling a stub and that
any Comprehensive Plan of the city was to make this into a super highway running parallel to
Minnewashta Parkway. We have the same concerns that the neighbors do about their children.
We have grandchildren that visit with us and our primary concern is their safety. Secondary
concern is that now that the City is bringing up the idea that oh there should be this grand
through way to Leslee Curve, it seems to me that our property values are already being impacted
by that because now that this is said to be a possibility because of all this adherence that we have
to have to the possible rights of subdivision to possible future owners of 2 lots between us and
Glendale that would deprive us of our cul-de-sac. That would have to be revealed to any
possible buyers of our properties in the future and I think just the fact that that’s now on this
collateral record to the property, we’re in a position to really be at a great disadvantage as a
result of this. We don’t, I personally and my wife don’t have information enough about the
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
17
impact of the water problems and so forth that would, whether there would be any impact on us
or the other requirements that the city staff has set forth on the report, and I got a copy of today
to read but our concern is strictly as to the extension of the road from our cul-de-sac to either
Glendale or any other space inbetween where it is now and the Glendale project. And that’s the
gist of what I have to say. If you have any questions.
Aller: Thank you sir.
David Lieser: Thank you.
David Robertson: This is a tag team from Stratford Ridge just so you know.
Aller: If you can spend National Night Out together.
David Robertson: You bet. My name is David Robertson. I live at 3900 Stratford Ridge which
puts me right on that cul-de-sac that’s outlined in blue. That means that if any road is extended it
will go through my property as well as Trent’s somewhat and will affect us probably most
dramatically. Jason summarized a lot of the main concerns from a neighborhood perspective.
David added a few. I would just like to elaborate a little bit more on one. When we bought our
property 4 years ago in there, there was nothing in my title, and I looked at it today, that
indicated that this was ever a temporary cul-de-sac which is what is reflected in the report. We
have not had the time to review all of the titles of every neighbor or any narrative or anything
else but obviously if we see nothing there that could be an actionable thing on our part if it ever
came to that and I just wanted, I should express that. The other thing about it as well is I don’t
understand, again a little bit dovetailing on what David’s point. We bought into this property
because we had 14 homes, a house, an association that owned 450 feet of lakeshore collectively
that we share. I renovated a good portion of our house 2 years ago by gutting the entire main
level under the auspices of the fact that I have lake access and if our neighborhood has changed
in any way I believe it will diminish our property values because I don’t know how we include
these additions in regard to our HOA. I don’t know, I do know that when my house was
appraised to pay for the renovations that we did, that they took that into consideration. The
HOA. The lake frontage. The partial ownership. That still continues but that creates a mess for
us down the road as a neighborhood and how do we deal with this depending on what happens so
you know I’m, I talked to the developer the other day. I don’t have a fundamental issue with his
idea of what he’s going to do but I do have some concerns on how it would affect the
neighborhood if any stub is required by him that would in my mind insure that there’s probably
going to be a road put in at some point. Right through our property. Thank you.
Aller: Thank you.
Court MacFarlane: Good evening. My name is Court MacFarlane. I live at 3800 Leslee Curve.
I’m on the north end of the property, or north side of the property.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
18
Aller: Welcome.
Court MacFarlane: At the corner of Glendale Drive and Leslee Curve. I didn’t realize that there
were the issues with the water as far as you know the stormwater that would run off of those 5
lots. I’m hoping that there’s some way to solve that. My wife and I have lived, my wife built
that house 50 years ago. I’ve been there for the last 40 years and we’re very much in favor of the
kind of development that’s proposed to go across the street from us. I think there’s some real
confusion as to the way the measurements are made as far as how far a cul-de-sac has to be from
a main artery. In other words Minnewashta Parkway. I think there have been an awful lot of
good examples of just how inconsistent that is. I was surprised to hear or to see your diagram as
to just how far they had to go back to come up with the footage. One more thing would be the
through street that’s proposed or you might want to see go through. I would be very opposed to
additional traffic going through there. We get an awful lot of traffic coming up Glendale Drive
off of Minnewashta Parkway. That gets to be a bit of a speedway. The only good thing I think is
as you turn off of Minnewashta Parkway onto Glendale Drive there’s a real dip in the road so
nobody goes through there fast but they accelerate up the hill quite a bit. It would just another
dimension. There’s a stop sign on Leslee Curve as you turn onto Glendale Drive and people
don’t always stop there either. My driveway’s on Glendale Drive but that’s basically all I
wanted to say. I’m in favor of what he’s proposing.
Aller: Thank you.
Carin Moore: My name is Carin Moore, C-a-r-i-n and actually I’m the owner of the property
directly to the south of the development. 6760 Minnewashta Parkway. I was actually born and
raised at this property so I’m not going to say how many years I lived there. I’m just kidding.
42 years. I actually do not currently live at the property. My parents have both passed. I am
now the owner of the property and looking at the for sale sign in my yard currently. I do have
major concerns for the drainage. Obviously. The Knetson’s who live to the south, I’m not going
to speak for them but you can see on the watershed, the maps, it not only drains into my property
but it goes right into their’s as well. They actually have the low point of all 3 properties. There
is the, if it’s called the actual water table or the actual draintile, there is actually an underground
path that goes underneath the parkway out to the lakeshore. About 17 to 20 years ago there was
a major washout and actually the access going down to both our property and the association’s
property, the road was washed away and a portion of it and we had to get it fixed and that came
right down on the south side. On the north side property line of our property and the south side
of Foy’s, that’s the direction it came down and washed out. The City I believe made some
improvements with the roadway at that point as well. 17 years ago I wasn’t quite as involved but
I do know that my parents you know played a part along with Pleasant Acres to make sure that
that was maintained and fixed. So definitely I would like to see some work done to understand
how this is not going to continue especially adding 5 new homes to that causing that potential
damage again. And also causing damage to our property. I have questions and comments but I
don’t want to take up too much time too. I’ve met for the last 6 years I think with Sharmeen on
this property. We’ve looked at other options. We’ve actually looked at access on the back side.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
19
Not possible currently with the way the property lines are marked and we’ve tried because we
were looking at trying to get a, split our property in half east to west and put an access between
the Dorsey’s who is to the west side of our property right on Country Oaks and our property and
create a driveway to allow for a split property and leave it at that. No additional roads. No
additional stuff. Driving into the sewage and electricity and drainage and everything for Country
Oaks and keeping the parkway, okay. So unless something changes there that’s not a possibility.
The Stratford including a new development, I wanted to comment on that. We actually own 187
feet of lakeshore private as well as our neighbor’s to the south owning another 133 feet of
lakeshore. Pretty sure that if any development came on those two properties we would not be
including Stratford. It would be just that lakeshore so I think that HOA concerns for Stratford in
my opinion, take it or leave it, would not be an issue because we actually have our own private
lakeshore property. The biggest thing for me, like I said is the drainage. I am not, I’m not
opposed or for either option quite, right at this moment because I don’t think there’s enough
detail. I think throwing a cul-de-sac into my neighbor’s backyard and into my backyard is
potentially damaging in essence because it’s taking up a lot more of my land. I’m also not fully
looking at the diagram that Curt you know showed me, which I appreciate as being really
verbatim. I don’t see how a house can come on one of these lots. I don’t, you know I would
love to see more information and be totally in support of that but I don’t have it today to be able
to be in support of that. As for a road I’ve, like I said I grew up there. I learned how to ride my
bike there. I learned how to swim there. I’ve walked to friends houses before Stratford was even
there. I walked through that field and I rode horses. I mean I’ve been there since it was
cornfields and hay. My parents could have said even longer than that but the traffic that I see
potentially coming in if a road was added, you’re adding 4 lots. I don’t see how anybody who’s
familiar with the area would think jumping onto Glendale and coming down that road is more
convenient to get into Stratford and vice versa, why would they skip the parkway and jump onto
Stratford to go through the windy road to get over to Glendale Drive? That’s not, doesn’t make
sense. Again I’m not an engineer. I’m not a traffic coordinator so that’d be good information to
know. I have noticed a lot more traffic going through there. I have been there quite a bit so I do
understand those concerns. I also have concerns. I have little children. We go to the lake. We
have to cross Minnewashta Parkway to get to our property so I understand that but at the same
time I think that some sort of actual facts would be really helpful in understanding that because I
think a lot of people are just really nervous of the what if’s without any details behind it. I think
I’ve kind of hit most of my concerns at this time. I know you asked the other people. I’d say
table it. I think more information is needed. Thank you.
Aller: Thank you. Yes sir.
Court MacFarlane: I have just one point and I think I can help clarify. The property that’s being
developed was part of the original land that was owned by Les and Lee Anderson that was
subdivided into Pleasant Acres and then later Country Oaks. But on their title any property that
was part of their original parcel of land, when it was eventually subdivided any owner of those
lots would become members of the Pleasant Acres Homeowners Association and have access to
the beachlot that we have which is down, well just immediately down from Glendale Drive so I
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
20
don’t think there should be any concern by the people in Stratford, is it Stratford? That there
would be any use of the shoreline by these 5 lots. They would then become members of Pleasant
Acres. That’s my understanding.
Aller: Just for the record you’re Mr. MacFarlane right?
Court MacFarlane: Pardon?
Aller: You’re Mr. MacFarlane?
Court MacFarlane: MacFarlane yes. Yes.
Aller: Thank you.
Jane Bender: Hi I’m Jane Bender. I’m at 4001 Stratford Ridge. I’m at the other end of the cul-
de-sac but I’ve been there for 20 years. I enjoyed raising my children in the area and I want to
thank you for your dedication to having parks so close to all the homes and being conscious of
green space as well as conserving our lake. I just kind of feel like a little bit of clarification in
terms of using the Pleasant Acres area. We’re concerned about if we extend our cul-de-sac, we
already have a homeowners association and so then that would add, and this is like preparing for
something that hasn’t even been, you know no one has asked for yet but should the cul-de-sac be
expanded then if the new homes were put in that cul-de-sac they wouldn’t really be part of our
homeowners association so that could run into some awkwardness. But along the lines too I just
wanted to mention that adding all of these roads and adding the cul-de-sac and being concerned
about drainage and water and things I feel that we’re just taking away more green space. I hate
to see more cement lay down and then you have to maintain it and our cul-de-sac, I don’t know
the last time it was actually kind of smoothed over, redone. It’s been several years and I know
it’s very, very expensive but just that whole maintenance part of it too is a concern for me. We,
you know we really do take pride in our curbside appeal and you know roads and access in and
out is part of that.
Aller: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to come forward at this point?
Audience: Can the City define undue hardship for us?
Aller: I think it’s.
Bender: I’ll try to and maybe Sharmeen will jump in and add something to that. It’s about an
uneven distribution of the land required in order to allow each of these 3 lots a fair course at
subdivision. So is that understood? I mean did I explain?
Audience: …or is that just your, I’m not trying to disrespectful. Is it somewhere with that
definition or?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
21
Bender: No I was just trying to explain it there so.
Generous: Mr. Chairman.
Aller: Yes.
Generous: There’s nothing specifically written. It says you look at it is there a reasonable
expectation that if they follow the requirements of the ordinance they won’t be unduly prohibited
from having a reasonable use of their property. But there’s nothing, you know there’s no
quantitative measure that you could really look at. It’s a little bit subjective because it’s not
quantifiable. But it’s when you put too much burden on someone else so that your, you can go
forward with what you do then that’s a hardship.
Aller: Thank you.
Al-Jaff: There is one other thing that we might want to point out. If you look at the grade at the
end of the cul-de-sac there is approximately a 10 foot drop. You need a distance, the grade of a
street has to be no more than 7 percent and to maintain that 7 percent you really need to grade
those, the area over a stretch and we don’t believe that they would be able to meet ordinance
requirements with just an extension of a cul-de-sac. If the cul-de-sac ended in this vicinity with
that type of drop they’re not going to be able to make the 7 percent. It would need to be
extended further so that’s one of the reasons also why we recommended the road extend out to
Glendale Drive.
Aller: Okay. Was anyone else going to come forward? So you just got back or you just
appeared. Would you like an opportunity to speak on the Glendale matter?
Audience: No.
Aller: Okay. Having no one come forward at this time I’m going to go ahead and close the
public hearing on this matter at this point in time and open it up for commission discussion,
action including the recommendation. Commissioner Randall.
Randall: This is pretty complicated here. I think there’s a lot of issues on the table with it. I
appreciate everyone coming in to talk tonight about it. Their concerns and their feedback on it.
There’s a lot of different moving parts to this. I mean obviously we have 2 other property
owners right there at the end of this stub or cul-de-sac, whatever you want to call it. At this time
I would feel better tabling it so we can get those water runoff issues going and after hearing their
concerns I think we got a lot of unanswered questions right now with it. That’s how I feel about
it.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
22
Aller: Any additional comments at this time? If someone was to make a motion to table it is
non-debatable so we would not have an opportunity to discuss any further so any additional
comments or concerns at this point? Commissioner Madsen.
Madsen: I would agree to table it. I would like to see more information about if the through
street was developed what sort of traffic would that be expected to generate just so that could be
quantified. I would also like to find out the reasoning why extending the road to the middle lot
was not an opportunity previously and so that it can’t be considered going forward and then more
information about why you’re proposing that it needs to be a through street and not a cul-de-sac
on Stratford Ridge. More information about geographical limitations.
Al-Jaff: Okay.
Aller: Additional, Commissioner Weick.
Weick: This might be difficult and I might be all over the place a little bit but bear with me if
you will. I do want to make a couple comments and then it might ultimately get to a point at the
end and it might not. But I share your heartbreak over losing green space. It’s something I
struggle with every time a development comes in front of us personally. I agree with you the
reality of large lots becoming small lots I just, it hurts. But it’s also a reality of kind of our city
and there’s a lot of large lots that have the opportunity to be profitable for the landowner and so I
think we need to respect that as well. The second thing is I’m concerned, I’ve heard a little bit
about not wanting the through street necessarily or at least the stubs for the through street. I’m
just concerned like, we can’t promise what those other 2 lots will develop into in the future so
I’m concerned, I am just, I think the reality is even if there weren’t stubs for a through street put
in it’s not to say that in the future something wouldn’t happen on those 2 southern lots that would
be you know potentially a cul-de-sac or an extension or something. I mean who knows and
that’s, so that needs to be considered as well. I’m opposed though to tabling this because I’m not
sure, and this is where it sort of comes around. I probably go 360 but, or 180. The burden to me
is on the landowners and so the conditions that exist around these 3 properties are the realities of
kind of how that land has been developed. I think in my opinion the, I don’t see anything in that,
in what’s been proposed today that we would oppose or could oppose as a preliminary plat and I
would welcome contrary opinion to that. So that land is developable, if that’s a word. The
impact that that has in the future on the 2 properties to the south unfortunately if people aren’t
working together with that land, I don’t know that we should be taking that into consideration
today so I don’t think we should suggest a through street or the stubs. I think that property can
be developed into 5 lots that make sense. I’m not sure we have a position contrary to that and so
if we do, maybe I’m misunderstanding but we’re considering things that are, we’re sort of
looking into the future and saying well if all of these properties would be developed together it
might look different but they’re not. Right? It’s one property that’s being developed and I think
we have to consider if the middle property wants to develop we have to consider that separately
and if the third southern property wants to try and develop at that time that needs to be
considered separately but, am I, and if I’m missing please correct me.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
23
Aller: I just look at it as, and that’s why I asked originally whether there was a timeline in
position that would be impacting and maybe prejudicial to either side and since we have the time
to do it and we have everyone basically coming in, or most people coming in, in my mind and
saying there’s a lot more information that they would like to have to perhaps to voice a different
opinion then I would be in favor, if somebody was going to table it to go ahead and table it. If
they were requesting a, if they want to go through with a plat I don’t think I have enough
information. You know how I am with my water issues to really determine whether or not the
water impacts would be protected and whether or not the, there’s enough information for me to
move forward and vote for the project at this point so I would be voting against so for me I think
it’s favorable to go ahead and table it and give the City and the neighborhood and the applicant
to get together on some of these issues and come back and maybe we’ll see something different.
I mean I’ve heard people say that wisdom, it’s not really smart to be in a position not to change
your mind. It’s being in a position of wisdom and shown by actually changing your mind when
you’re shown different facts and circumstances so I’m a great believer in the fact that, as in the
prior situation where people are, the City and the applicants are willing to get together and work
on things and we’ve had plenty of input from the neighborhood at this point in time, that they
can all use that to their benefit and come up with a plan that again may not be perfect but it’s
going to be better than this one.
McGonagill: If I may.
Aller: Commissioner McGonagill.
McGonagill: Commissioner Weick I agree with you it’s one property we’re talking about. I
look at it that way and it’s with the issue of that one property that I also will vote to table because
I have the concerns on the water and how it will accelerate, to use that word or increase the
amount of water runoff to the lots to the south and to me that’s a hardship on the, you know
we’ve just got to be sensitive to and be sure that there’s a good water management plan in place.
There’s already a bad, well I say there’s a bad situation there. You can look at the topo’s and see
it and ultimately I agree with what you said. Those lots will be developed and water issues, how
we manage those here are going to start setting precedent for how that water will be managed
down the road and the impact it has on Lake Minnewashta itself. As one of the public
commenters tonight is there’s a lot of water that moves through there in big storm events and so I
want to see a better plan for that or better understanding of that or what we’re going to do. I
realize we’re only doing the one and that’s what we have to consider but what I saw tonight
didn’t answer my questions to the point where I could vote in favor.
Weick: Can I ask a question?
Aller: Sure.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
24
Weick: Is preliminary plat, do you have to have your water plan complete at the time of
preliminary plat approval?
Al-Jaff: Yes.
Weick: You do, okay.
Al-Jaff: It’s required by ordinance.
Aller: And I think the staff report went through and said, these are things that we’re looking at
as being required and that we would require of all applicants and we don’t have enough
information to really make a decision or a recommendation to us. I don’t feel comfortable
making a decision with them not feeling comfortable. But I may decide I don’t agree with them
but I don’t even have that before me to make my decision.
Weick: Okay. And that’s good information I think because I certainly wouldn’t approve based
on the water alone the plat. I think that does need to be fixed. I just want to be clear that I’m not
in favor of tabling this in order to study the road situation anymore. I don’t, I’m concerned about
the canopy coverage which I think was probably just an omission because there was just all
zeroes. And then the water which is significant. I think if that can be fixed over this time that
we table it I think that would be a benefit to the developer.
Aller: Additional comments? Or action. I can’t make a motion so.
Weick: What did you think?
Undestad: No I agree. I know what you’re saying there but again it’s not tabling it just for the
street. It would be for, and the zeroes on the canopy coverage, there was no landscape plan
submitted.
Weick: That’s what I mean, yeah.
Undestad: So there is nothing, you know again that was more information that’s required to get
that covered too so I agree with it. I think tabling is the right thing to do.
Weick: Okay.
Aller: So I’ll entertain a motion of some sort.
McGonagill: Mr. Chairman I can do that.
Aller: Commissioner McGonagill.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
25
McGonagill: Recommend that the Chanhassen Planning Commission tables action on the
preliminary plat to subdivide 2.14 acres into 5 lots and one outlot and a variance to allow a 50
foot public right-of-way and directs the applicant to address the issues, address issues in the staff
report.
Aller: And with the, I would like to add that we preserve the right to have a continuation of a
public hearing on any information provided so we basically, because we’ve heard what the
public has said and what the community wants to do based on the information that they have in
front of them but that might change.
McGonagill: I would agree to that addition to the motion, is that what you’re requesting? Okay
so it would read like we said but add an addition for additional time for public comment.
Generous: Preserve the right.
McGonagill: Preserve the right for public comments. I would agree with that Mr. Chairman.
Aller: And I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Madsen: Second.
Aller: Having a motion and a second, it’s non-debatable so there’s no further comment.
McGonagill moved, Madsen seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission tables
action on the preliminary plat to subdivide 2.14 acres into 5 lots and one outlot and a
variance to allow a 50 foot public right-of-way and directs the applicant to address the
issues, address issues in the staff report and preserves the right for public comment. All
voted in favor, except Commissioner Weick who opposed, and the motion carried with a
vote of 5 to 1.
Aller: So the motion carries with Commissioner Weick opposing. That’s fine. Before you leave
I’d like to thank everyone present for coming tonight and sharing your National Night Out with
us and making us a part of your neighborhood. We really appreciate you coming in and giving
us your viewpoint and since I had to miss mine and leave mine early I was just grateful to have
you all here and share it with you so thank you for being here. Let’s take a one minute recess
while the room clears.
(There was a short recess at this point in the meeting.)
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Weick noted the verbatim and summary
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 17, 2018 as presented.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
26
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS.
Aller: We’ll have a City Council action update.
Generous: The subdivision on the Red Cedar Point was approved with a variance. It was
creating two lots and they used a cul-de-sac…with variance. And future Planning Commission,
there’s no meeting on the 21st unless this item can magically turn around by Friday.
Aller: I don’t think it will. There’s a lot of work to be done but I think that, they all realize that
and that it will get done.
Generous: And just to remind you that the joint commission tour is tomorrow night so be here at
6:00. If you can make it let me know, or let Kate know.
McGonagill: It starts at 6:00?
Generous: Yes. And you’ll just meet right out front here. And we have a bus.
Aller: How’s the weather report?
Generous: It’s going to be hot.
Aller: Hot and muggy right?
Generous: (Yes).
Al-Jaff: You will be done by 8:00 we promise.
Aller: Footwear?
Al-Jaff: Comfortable shoes. There will be a half mile walk.
Aller: Great.
Generous: On the trail. On the new trail. By the water treatment plant.
Aller: Wonderful.
Generous: We’ll start at the bottom and finish up on top.
Aller: That’s a water treatment plant? It doesn’t look like a water treatment plant.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 7, 2018
27
Generous: That’s my summer home. If you go on Manchester that looks great. We do have 2
items for the September 4th meeting. There’s a variance request on South Shore Drive and then a
PUD amendment for the Target Chanhassen Retail Center. It’s a minor amendment regarding
signage so. That’s it for now.
Aller: Great. So those of you at home want to see what’s coming up make sure you check the
website and take a look at the packets as they appear on the website and you can come on in and
make comments if you desire to do so as matters come before us. I’ll entertain a motion to
adjourn.
Randall moved, Madsen seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was
adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, September 4, 2018
Subject City Council Action Update
Section ADMINISTRATIVE
PRESENTATIONS
Item No: E.1.
Prepared By Jean Steckling, Senior Admin. Support
Specialist
File No:
PROPOSED MOTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
City Council Action Update
City Council Action Update
MONDAY, JULY 23, 2018 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Meeting Cancelled.
MONDAY, AUGUST 13, 2018 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Galpin Property: Planned Unit Development Concept Plan Review – No Action
Required.
Control Concepts: Approve Site Plan with a Variance for Lot 2, Block 1, Arboretum
Business Park 7th Addition - Tabled to September 10 City Council Meeting.
MONDAY, AUGUST 27, 2018 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
No Planning items on the agenda.
The minutes for these meetings can be viewed from the City’s website. Go to
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us, and click on “Agendas and Minutes” from the left-side links.
g:\plan\forms\city council action update.doc
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, September 4, 2018
Subject Future Planning Commission Items
Section ADMINISTRATIVE
PRESENTATIONS
Item No: E.2.
Prepared By Jean Steckling, Senior Admin. Support
Specialist
File No:
PROPOSED MOTION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Future Planning Commission Agenda Items
Future Planning Commission Agenda Items Schedule
DATE ITEMS
Work Session Items
Possible Future
Items (Date
Unknown)
• Moon Valley – IUP amendment
• Santa Vera Apartments – Site Plan Review – PUD
• Holasek – United Properties
• Beehive 3rd Addition – Site Plan Review
• 6480 Oriole Ave. - Subdivision
• City Code updates
• 330 Pleasant View Road – subdivision
• Frontier – subdivision
• Eidsness – subdivision with variance
• PUD Amendment Avienda
• United Properties/Rezoning to PUD (Marathon)
• 3800 Red Cedar Point Road – Subdivision with variance
• Applebees Redevelopment CUP
• American Legion Expansion
January 2
January 22 CC
(Mark U. absent)
• 7052 Minnewashta Pkwy – setback variances to build a home
• 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Variance (2 car garage and setback)
• 531 West 79th Street – Panera site plan review
January 16
February 12 CC
• 1651 Motorplex Ct – LaMettry RLS (subdivision)
• 7700 Quattro Dr. – CUP
• 7721 Erie Ave. – variance
• 7555 Walnut Curve – variance for pool
February 6
February 26 CC
(Andrew absent)
• Cancelled
February 20
March 12 CC
(Mark R. and Mark U. absent)
• Arbor Glen – PUD Amendment
• Annual Report
• Interview New Commissioners (immediately following meeting)
March 6
March 26
(John & Nancy absent)
• Cancelled
March 20
April 9 CC
(Mark U. absent)
• Cancelled
April 3
6:00 PM start time
WORK SESSION
• Review Comp Plan – jurisdictional comments
• Local Water Management Plan – update
• Oath of Office for new commissioners
• Adopt Bylaws
• Election of Chair
April 17
May 14 CC • MEETING CANCELLED (NO ITEMS SUBMITTED)
April 23 CC
(Andrew absent) • Joint Meeting with City Council
Future Planning Commission Agenda Items Schedule
DATE ITEMS
May 1
May 29 (Tuesday) CC • MEETING CANCELLED (NO ITEMS SUBMITTED)
May 15
June 11 CC
• Public Hearing - Code Amendment – pervious pavers & Brewery
Ordinance, adult daycare OI district amendment, beekeeping, Retail
Pickup Signage
June 5
June 25 CC
• 1110 Lake Susan Drive – lot cover variance for shed
• 340 Sinnen Circle - front setback & lot cover variance for garage expansion
• Transmission Line – Audubon & Lyman – CUP
June 19
July 9 CC
(Michael absent)
• 3861 Red Cedar Point Road – subdivision with variance
July 3 • No Meeting
July 17
August 13 CC
(Michael absent)
• Control Concepts – site plan review
• 2040 Comprehensive Plan
• Galpin Property – PUD concept review
August 7
August 27 CC
• Glendale Drive – subdivision
• Control Concepts - variance
August 8 • Joint Commissions Tour
August 21
September 10 CC • Cancelled
September 4
September 24 CC
• Target PUD Amendment-sign variance
• 7644 South Shore Variance for Bluff Setback
• Glendale Drive – subdivision
September 18
October 8 CC • 821 Creekwood?
October 2
October 22 CC •
October 16
November 13 CC •
November 6 • No Meeting - Election
November 20
December 10 CC •
December 4
January 14 CC •
\\cfs5\cfs5\shared_data\agendas\pc\2018\future planning commission agenda items 2018.docx