PC Minutes 09-04-2018Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 4, 2018
8
Walters: And that had unique standards.
Tietz: I think that one was 10 or 12 feet. It’s not a 5 or 6 foot sign. It’s a.
Walters: My recollection is 12 or 13 feet.
Tietz: It was significant I remember because we had some discussion about it’s height and
location.
Aller: Right.
Undestad: Well and that I think that signage for the pick up area part of that shows how retail is
changing. Businesses are changing. They need to change with it and this is part of it I think
when they have to put a new, the liquor store in there. We never had one, we never had drive up,
pick up your groceries you know and so I think, and again to keep it in the full PUD package out
there I think that’s the way it should be put in there.
Aller: And just to follow up on that a little bit. We also discussed the fact that there will not be
drive up pick up of alcohol.
Undestad: Right.
Aller: Any additional comments? Questions? Concerns? Otherwise I have a motion and a
second.
Undestad moved, Randall seconded that 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. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6
to 0.
Aller: Motion carries and we move onto item number 2. Thank you very much.
7644 SOUTH SHORE DRIVE: CONSIDER A VARIANCE TO INSTALL BOULDER
WALL AND PATIO IN BLUFF SETBACK AREA.
Walters: Alright item number 2 is Planning Case 2018-16. A variance for 7644 South Shore
Drive. This item will go before, if appealed will go before the City Council on September 24th.
It is a variance to place a boulder wall, a flagstone stepper path and a patio within the bluff
setback and impact zone for 7644 South Shore Drive. So the property is, let me get my little
laser pointer here. Is zoned planned unit development residential. In this PUD lots are required
to have 11,700 square feet. They have a 30 foot front yard setback. 10 foot side yard setback.
Are limited to 25 percent lot coverage within the shoreland overlay district and then for
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 4, 2018
9
properties located on a bluff such as the property in question there’s a 30 foot bluff setback or 5
feet for structures that exist pre-1991 and then there’s also a 20 foot bluff impact zone which
prevents vegetative clearing and removal. Topographical disturbances within 20 feet of the top
of the bluff. So the existing condition for the property, it is a 43,604 square foot lot. As of the
survey that was approved with the September 29, 2017 building permit for the remodel and
addition of the house it had 15.57 percent lot cover. There is a non-conforming 9.8 foot west
side yard setback and their house is a non-conforming 20 feet from the top of the bluff and then
there is a deck which has a patio underneath and a 3 season porch that are approximately 5 feet
from the top of the bluff. Again all these were constructed before the bluff district was extended
into this area so they are all legal non-conforming’s. The property also has numerous non-
conforming retaining walls east of the house within the bluff but it meets other standards for it’s
district. The applicant is proposing adding a boulder wall here. It would be between, primarily
between 1 and 1 ½ feet in height. Potentially a little taller in this section by the 3 season porch
as determined by the grades. They’re also proposing adding a stepper pathway. I believe it’s 18,
approximately 18 inch in diameter steppers to 30 inch in diameter steppers and then they’re
proposing to space them to allow for some infiltration between them. The purpose of this would
be to allow safe transit of the back yard. The area in gray here is the area that would require the
variance for that. They’re also proposing putting in a flagstone patio and seating area that is
within the bluff setback area. The boulder retaining wall, their goal with it is to help prevent the
migration of landscaping materials down the bluff during rain and also to provide some support
for the top of the bluff up here. The flagstone as I mentioned would be safe transit through the
rear yard. The patio, the applicant has stated that this area was previously covered by impervious
surface from a pre-existing driveway and that the area has already been disturbed. In sum when
you look over the landscaping plan it has been very thoughtfully designed to try to minimize the
amount of impervious surface generated and try to protect the bluff. And the location of the
home as we mentioned does pre-date the bluff protection ordinance and there is similar
landscaping near the tops of the bluffs in the properties surrounding this one. When staff looked
at it staff agrees that the flagstone stepper patio is needed to provide safe transit through the rear
yard. Staff has walked the site. There is a, it drops off fairly quick and it you know due to the
shade, etcetera it’s very hard to get vegetation to grow there. The applicant’s concern about it
being slippery when wet certainly seems like it’d be substantial. The bluff protection ordinance
does make allowances for paths to be located near and through bluffs to provide safe transit and
we believe this is in line with the intent of that part of the ordinance. Staff’s review of the
boulder assessment wall is that it will not negatively impact the bluff. The area has been
previously disturbed. It will likely help prevent the migration of materials down slope although
it’s a fairly minimal wall so it’s not expected to serve a major retaining function or anything like
that. Regarding the front yard patio, staff feels that there are potential alternative locations
where it could be placed. Staff also notes that the property has an existing rear yard deck and
patio. A front stoop that could be extended to provide additional seating and ultimately does not
feel the patio’s location meets the practical difficulties standards required for issuing a variance.
Staff believes reasonable use can be gotten for the property without creating additional
impervious surface within the bluff setback for that patio. Staff has worked pretty closely with
the applicant at every phase of this project. They have routinely taken staff’s suggestions and
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 4, 2018
10
you know removed features that we felt were problematic and so we’d just like to point out that
they have worked very, very hard to try to protect the bluff. Beyond that I would be happy to
take any questions you may have.
Aller: Any questions at this time? Commissioner Madsen.
Madsen: When they add the stepper pavers will they need to bring in additional fill to smooth
that out so that they’re flat to be able to use them or will they be able to do that without bringing
in additional fill?
Walters: My understanding from reading what the landscaper submitted was that their plan is
just to basically set them in grade and not alter the grade. However I believe I see the landscaper
in the audience so I’ll allow him to clarify that during their presentation.
Madsen: Okay thank you.
Aller: Commissioner Undestad.
Undestad: The, all the drainage swales around the house on there, are those all required?
Walters: No. That’s one of the things I was mentioning is they have gone above and beyond
what we would typically expect of a residential homeowner in terms of trying to manage the
water generated by it. They worked quite a bit with the Water Resources Coordinator to come
up with this plan. I think this is the third or maybe even fourth iteration I’ve seen of it in terms
of getting to the drainage swales designed and vegetated in a way that would be effective for the
property.
Undestad: Okay thank you.
Aller: I’ll just add another question on the patio. Where it was disturbed before. Was it verified
their property had been disturbed? There was hard cover on that location?
Walters: So I took a couple avenues to look at that. I looked at, as near as I can tell the
driveway was reconfigured a little bit after 2012. I looked at a pre 2012 survey and measured
back based on the location of the existing retaining wall. I believe that with the possible
exception of a very small edge of the driveway that patio area was not previously covered by
surface. It doesn’t mean it wasn’t disturbed by landscaping and other things. I also looked at the
2016 aerial with the, what we call the plan of matrix overlaid which show pre-existing asphalt
from I think it was 2006 and then kind of back counted that based on the number of trees I could
observe and if you look at my laser pointer what I saw was that the edge of the driveway kind of
did this but never came quite as far northeast as the proposed patio. From those two sources it’s
my belief that the section of the patio in purple here was not previously covered by asphalt.
Again this isn’t to say it wasn’t disturbed by other landscaping.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 4, 2018
11
Aller: And this square footage of hard cover, how does that compare with the square footage
that is typically allotted?
Walters: The applicant would be, even if the Planning Commission granted all variances they’d
be adding approximately another 900 square feet. I believe it puts them at about 17.6 percent out
of 25. They would still be well under the theoretical maximum for their district.
Aller: Thank you. Commissioner Tietz.
Tietz: MacKenzie it looks like on the photos it looks like there’s a downspout that’s being
directed directly to the slope. Is that going to be picked up in one of the future holding areas up
on top or is that going to, or is that part of the ultimate plan?
Walters: I don’t believe that’s the final position. I’ll allow the landscaper to speak to that. My
understanding from discussions with Vanessa and them was that the intent was that there not be
channelizing, certainly nothing pointing you know towards the bluff. But I’ll allow them to
clarify.
Tietz: Okay, thanks.
Aller: Any additional questions of staff? Hearing none if the applicant would like to come
forward that would be great. Those who are appearing in a representational capacity please state
that capacity when they are going to speak and we’d love your names and addresses for the
record.
Matt Arens: Hi, Matt Arens at the address 7644 South Shore Drive. My wife Amanda Arens
and then Tyler Wortz who can answer any of the technical questions because I’m sure I won’t
know the answer to them. So I won’t spend a lot of time going over the two proposals that the,
parts of the proposal that the staff had recommended. I would echo that we are incredibly
grateful for the staff’s willingness to work with us. They made some suggestions that I think we
were happy to take and I think actually improved the plan quite a bit so we’re grateful for their
efforts on that. I think the one thing, I think the point of contention here with the patio, I went
back and read our, I was surprised when the staff suggested that it not be approved. I went back
and I read our proposal and after I read it quite frankly I thought I don’t think I’d approve it
either. The way that we wrote it. We did not make a very good case for it and I will tell you the
reason for that is I was so focused on the other two aspects of the plan and if you go back and
read it that’s where I really, that’s where I really focused so maybe just a couple things that I
would add to why we’re hoping that you would consider this. I think just a factual correction on
my part. I don’t disagree with the assessment that the old driveway probably didn’t go into that
30 foot setback. I think it overlapped with part of where the patio is proposed but as I went and
looked and it’s really hard to tell, if I could say definitively it was in that area I would tell you.
I’m just not sure so that very well could be correct and it may not have applicability there so I
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 4, 2018
12
wanted to correct that because I think we stated specifically that it did go into that, into that area
so that’s one point that I would certainly agree with. I could have done this a lot differently.
What happened, a little bit of the history here that would have made this easier is we really enjoy
this partnership with the staff because we bought this property and as you can tell, I mean this
house is kind of dropped right on the edge there. We didn’t build it. We would have done a lot
of things differently and we knew we were kind of taking on a headache when we bought it. My
wife and I were, didn’t have kids at the time. We did a lot of the landscaping ourselves and we
did a lot of things that we think really improved the property. Made a lot more friendly towards
the lake. I put a lot of that in the report. I won’t repeat all of it. But one of the things that we
did was we had a great partnership with the water resource expert for the city and Ms. Strong
now but prior to that Mr. Jeffery and he came out and when we were doing things we would ask
him if he’s come out and he was always very helpful in doing that. We had some work that we
were doing and we told him we’re contemplating a remodel and an addition to the existing house
and the initial plan, and you can see it from the pictures. I’m looking at page 8 on the report and
I don’t know if it’s easier to see up here but on page 8 it’s got the overlay of the old, the circle
driveway and then it’s got the new proposal where it shows the area in the bluff zone. So this is
something that I really wish I would have emphasized in making our case because I think it’s
critical and hopefully it will make a difference. Our initial plan for the house, if you look back
just inside that 20 foot bluff impact zone across the back of the property, more in the area where
the smaller retaining wall is being proposed, our initial plan extended the house along that same
line so the code is, allows on parcels of land where a building has already been constructed. The
setback from the top of the bluff is 5 feet or the existing setback whichever is more for additions
onto existing buildings so we could have extended the existing line all the way to the 10 foot
setback and that was our initial plan. That was where we were going to add onto the house. Mr.
Jeffery said I know you can do that but I would rather you didn’t. If you could change your plan
to try to extend the house forward more towards the cul-de-sac that would have less of an impact
and we’d really like for you to consider that and so we did. We actually had, we had the house
drawn up. It was already to go on that initial plan that would have extended it along that area
and we drew up new plans and really tried to find something that had less of an impact and what
I wish I would have done, again I feel like you learn this stuff as you go through the process so
by the time you figure it out you’re done with it and you’ve done things the way that you did but
I wish at the time that we made that design change that I would have come to the staff at that
point and said listen do you think this would have much less of an impact if we put this area in
the front and change the design and I’ll get to why that’s more important than it might look on a
piece of paper in a moment but, so that change was made and we took basically the addition and
we pushed it out in front of the house. So if you drive by the property, and we’ve got one of my
neighbors here who walks by frequently, what you’ll see is that new area where you can see the
difference between the old house and the new house. It’s all garage so when you come into the
house you just see this big garage and it’s quite frankly it’s not aesthetically great. So one of the
things that we talked to with the landscaper was can you shift some of the attention away from
this so it’s aesthetically, it’s got more curb appeal because it’s kind of a design flaw and the other
thing that we talked about, and respectfully I don’t disagree with the staff. You know you can
see there’s a little front stoop where you could sit but if you sit on that stoop you have to imagine
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 4, 2018
13
the wall of the new garage runs this way so if you look at here, you can see. You can’t even
really, you can’t see the driveway from where you’re sitting there so it’s, we’ve got a 5 year old
and a 7 year old child. You know they play in the driveway a lot and as you can see from the
back yard from the pictures that property falls right off. I mean there’s no area for them to play
and I don’t want to insult you folks by saying it’s going to be the end of the world if we don’t
have a little area to sit there in the front but essentially the alternative is it’s pulling lawn chairs
out and sitting in the driveway which is doable but you know there’s, this sitting area is more
important I guess than it would look like on paper so one, it’s to try to as you come up to the
house to try to turn the viewer’s eye and create a sitting area and a little bit of an interest but
more importantly it gives you an area where you can sit and you can see from the viewpoint you
can see the driveway and the kids riding their bikes and different things like that which someday
we won’t need but for the next several years I think is really an important feature. I think one
thing that I would point out that’s not part of the plan, and again I think this is because I was so
focused on the other two items, we can make this material permeable. That’s correct isn’t it?
Tyler Wortz: Yes.
Matt Arens: So if that’s helpful we’re more than happy to do that. And I will tell you the other
thing is the alternative is if we don’t do it in this area I think our only option would probably be
to take out a couple of the mature trees that we planted 10 years ago and I would really rather not
do that. I mean it’s doable but it’s certainly not optimal in my mind so I think there’s some
tweaks that we can make to it that would make that a little more important. Again I apologize.
There’s a different way we could have went about this which I think would have made our case
stronger than we’ve made it but that’s, those are kind of some thoughts that I wanted to put
forward on that aspect and I’m happy to answer any questions on that or the other parts of the
plan as well.
Aller: Any questions at this point of the applicant? I just have some questions for the
landscaper. Otherwise thank you sir. So let’s talk about the permeability.
Tyler Wortz: Yes.
Aller: What’s that option? Your vision to be…
Tyler Wortz: With the flagstone patio we could make it a permeable flagstone where the joints
are free draining into our free draining base which then can infiltrate into the ground water. The
more traditional way is to fill those joints with a poly metric sand that hardens and so then we’re
sheeting water off of it but we could definitely turn it into a permeable system that allows it into
the ground water without the sheeting.
Aller: And the retaining walls. Could you talk about the retaining walls and what that would do
to protect the lake?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 4, 2018
14
Tyler Wortz: So the row of boulders in the back or the small retaining wall is, you know
fieldstone boulders ranging in size from you know on the small end 12 to 18 inch diameter
boulders. Probably on the upper end 25 to 28 inch boulders. Installed with not much
disturbance to what’s already there. As you see in the pictures there’s a pretty clear defined drop
off between the currently disturbed soils and then the fescue on the bluff. So what we’re looking
for is just a defined separation between those two areas and to help us keep mulch and landscape
materials from ending up on that beautiful fescue and slowing down water. One thing that we
talked with Vanessa Strong quite a bit about is you know dispersing and slowing the rain water
and so the intent isn’t to hold the rain water. That’s actually one of the original drafts of the plan
was having rain gardens on top of the boulder wall and you know maybe a learning point on my
end was working with Vanessa on how that’s not necessarily what we want at the top of a bluff
and so, so we moved those swales into other portions of the property where we want water to
soak in and that back boulder wall is just slowing the water.
Matt Arens: If I could just one point to add to that.
Aller: Yes.
Matt Arens: Just a little history. So when we moved into this property there was a lot of just
scrubby volunteers on that back area and so it was dirt transitioning to more dirt and one of the
things I wish I would have done differently is I wish I would have videotaped when we’d get a
hard rain because mud would wash right down the hill and into the lake and I think I mentioned
that in the report. We have tried, so we planted, we planted, we got a recommendation and the
City has been really complimentary of how this low growth fescue has gone in. It’s, you know
it’s got a deep root system. It holds that hill incredibly well. The problem is you get the flatter
area and then you get it to transition so we’ve tried putting mulch in there. It washes down the
hill. We’ve tried putting all sorts of things and it’s just, we haven’t been able to find anything.
And then the other thing is, there are certain areas where, I mean the old house and I think
somebody had a question about where the rain water from the spouts went. There was a spout
that came down and drained and it had some velocity and it dropped quite a bit and that area
would wash out 3-4 feet and so we’d go and we’d try to smooth it over and we’d try to keep that
bluff line kind of intact and so part of this is to, it’s not to build something up. It’s not to do
anything. It’s just to anchor that so then we can have, and again this was, I give all the credit to
the staff on this. We were going to put you know a yard surface in there and they said if you can
do stepper stones that would give you what you’re looking for and to have that and to transition
to that really effective fescue we think, we think makes a lot of sense.
McGonagill: So then, if I can ask a question. That drain pipe will stop before the boulder wall
and just distribute above the boulder wall? The one that was in the photo.
Tyler Wortz: Yeah the drain pipes that you see in the photo are all temporary. We wouldn’t
allow any of them to be running that closely to the bluff. That’s where all the vegetative swales
on the plan throughout the property come into play. We’d be routing them more towards the
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 4, 2018
15
front where they can slow and disperse but we would not want any point sources of water aimed
directly at the bluff like that.
Aller: And then if you could just comment quickly on the flagstone.
Tyler Wortz: The flagstone steppers. Yes to your question on, no we wouldn’t be bringing in
any fill to install those. We’d be working on the native grade and just you know minor hand
working to level them and set them into place but we’re not going to do any major disturbance to
the existing grade and soil.
Madsen: Thank you.
Tyler Wortz: Yes.
Aller: Additional questions at this time? Okay thank you very much.
Tyler Wortz: Thank you.
Aller: At this point in time I’ll open up the public hearing portion of this item. Any individuals
wishing to speak for or against the item can do so at this time. Welcome sir. If you could state
your name and address for the record that would be great.
Curt Robinson: My name is Curt Robinson. I live at 202 West 77th Street. I really haven’t seen
the property. I don’t really know all the technical issues you’re talking about. I take my
grandson down fishing next door and I can tell you that Mr. Arens always keeps the property
neat and I’m sure he will continue to do so. Thank you.
Aller: Thank you sir. Any other individuals wishing to come forward at this time can do so.
Seeing no one come forward I will close the public hearing portion of this item and open it up for
discussion. Any bones, primarily my concern was going to be the patio and not necessarily
because I don’t find it to be a reasonable use but because of the potential water issues and the
hard cover issues but I think they’re resolved by the amount of the hard cover not exceeding
about 17.5 percent. The fact that there’s been an offer to potentially do that with pervious pavers
as well which is something that I would be in favor of doing and so I would be in favor of any
motion which allows for this, these variances to be made with that modification based on the fact
that clearly this applicant has made and gone well beyond, above and beyond in protecting the
bluff and my concern is with the bluff and the water issues and for the fact that they’ve put in the
swales. That they’re going to reduce the rate of the water flowing into the lake. That they’re
protecting the slope which protects again the lake from having other sediments and particulates
go into the lake. And the fact that I think everything has been the safety factor as well as the
impact of having those pavers put in for the walkway and economically as well as
environmentally. I just think that it’s a good thing for us to approve at this point in time.
Commissioner Tietz.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 4, 2018
16
Tietz: Chairman Aller. It’s an excellent example of citizens working with the staff and staff
being very cooperative and offering suggestions and obviously the land owner has taken those
suggestions to heart and worked with their landscape architect to come up with a reasonable
plan. It’s a difficult site. This is looking at the photos and looking at the survey and the terrain
it’s, I’m sure it’s been a challenge for all these years to work on it but it looks like you’ve come
to a good solution and a good process.
Aller: Additional comments, questions or concerns? I’ll entertain a motion.
Madsen: So this would include the patio?
Aller: We would need to make a modification.
McGonagill: Yeah that’s what I was thinking. We’d have to modify this.
Walters: All you would need to do if I may is just omit the denies and just so approve the
variance for the construction of boulder wall, flagstone patio and flagstone stepper path and then
add the condition that the flagstone patio be pervious pavers. And then I would alter the variance
document in Findings accordingly.
Madsen: Let me give it a stab. The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a
variance for the construction of a boulder wall and flagstone stepper path, and the construction of
a flagstone patio with pervious pavers subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the
attached Findings of Fact and Decisions. Is that right?
Tietz: Very nice.
Aller: Sounds right.
McGonagill: Well done.
Randall: I’ll second that.
Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion?
Tietz: Just a clarification.
Aller: Commissioner Tietz.
Tietz: It’s references pervious pavers and I think if you’re using flagstone you’ve got the
drainage between the flagstone parcels but are they technically considered pervious pavers?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 4, 2018
17
Walters: The landscaper will need to work with our Water Resources Coordinator to make sure
that the design of the flagstone patio abstracts the first half inch of rain water and meets our
specifications but I believe it should be doable and that they can come up with a solution
between them.
Tietz: I just don’t want somebody to be restricted by the terminology and now have to change
the design to accommodate a brick type paver. Is that was, because I immediately jumped to a
brick type paver in my mind after all of the discussions we’ve had about pervious pavers so. Just
so it’d be clear.
Aller: Thank you for that clarification. Well taken. Any further discussion or comment?
Hearing none.
Madsen moved, Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments
approves a variance for the construction of a boulder wall and flagstone stepper path
within the bluff setback and impact zone, and the construction of a flagstone patio within
the bluff setback and impact zone with pervious pavers subject to the conditions of
approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decisions:
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.
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.