PC Minutes 02-19-19CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISION
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 19, 2019
Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Steve Weick, Nancy Madsen, and
Michael McGonagill
MEMBERS ABSENT: John Tietz and Mark Randall
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; MacKenzie Walters,
Associate Planner; and Erick Henricksen, Project Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT:
John Kunitz 6441 Bretton Way
Jerry Cone 6320 Minnewashta Woods Drive
Tony Fricano 980 Lake Lucy Road
Lynn Pelto 6581 Foxtail Court
Annette Stock-Lind 8104 Dakota Lane
Rodney Colson 6440 Pipewood
Colleen Johnson 5015 St. Albans Bay
Laurie Susla 7008 Dakota Avenue
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION WITH A VARIANCE FOR REDUCED LOT
FRONTAGE AT 3800 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD.
Taping of the meeting started at this point in the staff report.
Walters: …sewer access currently so from the north up here and the proposed Lot 2 on the south
had utilities stubbed in in 1974 off of Red Cedar Point to the south. Sorry I’m having a little
trouble changing slides for whatever reason. With regards to right-of-way streets and easements,
no right-of-way dedication is being requested. The plan is for Lot 1 to be accessed via the
existing driveway easement up through the vacated Kirkham Road onto Hickory. Lot 2 will
have driveway access to Red Cedar Point and the applicant is going to dedicate a 5 foot side yard
drainage and utility easements and then 10 foot easements along the front yard and they will be
dedicating, asking for the designation of the northern lot line here as the front lot for Lot 1, Block
1. This is really slow. Sorry, bear with me a minute. Regarding the proposed variance request
they are, they gave us a couple options to show the feasibility of doing the subdivision without a
variance. That’s shown as Concept A or Concept B. They’re proposing again having zero feet
actually on a strip public street because the front lot line would be where there is not a street.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019
2
The reason for this is the Kirkham Road is not improved. In order to do it without requiring a
variance they could install a private street which would involve several thousand feet of
impervious surface within the area. They could also dedicate land to the city right-of-way and
conduct, construct a public street. They could also use a flag lot configuration which would
involve having a 30 foot neck that would service this rear parcel off of Red Cedar Point. All of
these would result in an increase in impervious surface within the subdivision and given that the
lots exceed the minimum dimensions required and lot area required staff’s preference would be
to minimize the amount of impervious surface installed within the shoreland district. Staff has
been contacted by several individuals in the neighborhood. Comments have fallen into two
categories. One was concern that the subdivision not exceed two lots. Staff’s reassured folks
that what’s being proposed is a two lot subdivision and there is no contemplation or potential for
more than two lots to come from this. There has also been concern expressed over the
subdivision’s potential impact on the area’s stormwater. Mainly staff’s been informed that
Hickory is a low point and there’s concern that increased impervious would cause more runoff to
be diverted into that area. Staff clarified that under the subdivision ordinance two lot properties
are not required to install their own stormwater infrastructure or improvements and that the
development would need to meet city and watershed requirements when they pull a building
permit. So looking over the proposed subdivision it could go forward without a variance through
the use of either a private street or a public street or through a flag lot which would require a
variance from the subdivision ordinance but it would likely meet all of those criteria. All of the
above mechanisms would require additional impervious surface. Staff as I mentioned believes
it’s important to minimize the amount of impervious surface within the shoreland district. Both
of the proposed lots are significantly larger than the residential single family district’s minimum
lot width, depth and lot area requirements. Lot 1 will have access provided to a public road from
the existing driveway easement which is a continuation of the current situation in the
neighborhood and the subdivision meets all the requirements of the city code so for all of these
reasons staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat with the variance. I’d be happy
to address any questions you have at this time.
Aller: Any questions of staff at this point? Commissioner McGonagill.
McGonagill: One question I had is mostly my own education on Lot 2 I notice they have a rock
driveway going in.
Walters: That is conceptual for the construction so they, you know they can put the rock
entrance so that they can get the construction vehicles there when building. So they showed that
in the grading plan I believe on the plat.
McGonagill: Right, I was just wondering were they doing that to avoid an impervious surface or
are they thinking about they’ll pave it down the road?
Walters: It would be paved after construction. That would only be for like some of the grading
activities as part of the construction.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019
3
McGonagill: Okay, thank you sir.
Walters: Yep.
Aller: Additional questions. Hearing none if the applicant would like to come forward and
make a presentation that would be great. If you could state your name and address for the record
sir.
Rod Colson: Sure Rod Colson with Colson Custom Homes, 6440 Pipewood Curve.
Aller: Welcome.
Rod Colson: Thank you.
Aller: Tell us about your project.
Rod Colson: Well it’s a pretty straight forward two lot subdivision. There’s nothing special
about it.
Aller: There had been some concerns stated about the amount of water runoff and whether or
not there’s a storm drainage problem based on the fact that this property would be built or
subdivided. Can you address those issues a little bit?
Rod Colson: Well I don’t think that it’s going to be creating more of a problem or making any
problems that are there worst than already the, Hickory Road is the low point anyway so a lot of
the water comes across and then it comes up from the lake when we have high water.
Aller: Will the property when you build the property it’s going to have it’s own drainage area or
no drainage area? Is it going to have, what’s it going to use to wick water away from your
construction?
Rod Colson: We’ll be well under the hard cover so it will, the soil’s pervious will absorb the
water. There’ll be some runoff but that’s normal. There’s already runoff coming through from
the lot to the west up high so.
Aller: Additional questions? Okay thank you.
Rod Colson: Thank you.
Aller: We’ll open the public hearing portion of this item so this is again an opportunity for an
individual that’s present to come up and speak either for or against the item. Make a comment.
The public hearing is now open. Seeing no one come forward I’ll close the public hearing. And
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019
4
entertain comments, concerns, questions, additional questions of staff or a motion.
Commissioner Madsen.
Madsen: Yeah it looks like a, as presented would be better than the flag lot or some of the other
alternatives in trying to reduce the impervious surface and that would be with the
recommendation that staff is proposing.
Aller: I see a lot of sense. Commissioner Weick.
McGonagill: And this will include the new address right?
Walters: That is one of the conditions of approval.
Weick: I was going to propose a motion.
Aller: Please do.
Weick: I don’t want to rush anybody but the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
that the City Council approve the preliminary plat for a two lot subdivision and approve a lot
frontage variance for Lot 1, Block 1, Comer Addition as shown in the plans dated December 5,
2018 subject to the conditions of approval and adopting the Findings of Fact and
Recommendation.
Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
McGonagill: Second.
Aller: Having a valid motion and a second, any further comments or concerns? I just want to
say that I think under our guides we are looking for what will be least impactful and a reasonable
use of the property and when we look at the situation here we have an opportunity to create a
situation where there’s better stormwater management and reduction of the impervious surface
so I think it’s a good plan as well. Any additional comments?
Weick moved, McGonagill seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council approve the preliminary plat for a two-lot subdivision
and approves a lot frontage variance for Lot 1, Block 1, Comer Addition, as shown in plans
dated December 5, 2018, subject to the conditions of approval, adopts the findings of fact
and recommendation:
Building:
1. Demolition permits required for the removal of any existing structures.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019
5
2. A final grading plan and soils report must be submitted to the Inspections Division before
permits can be issued.
Engineering:
1. Lot 1 shall have a 10-foot drainage and utility easement along its front lot line
(northernmost lot line) prior to recording of final plat.
2. An accurate soils report indicating soil conditions, permeability, slope, and groundwater
elevations shall be provided upon the submittal of grading permits.
3. The contact information for the responsible person(s) for erosion and sediment control
best management practices shall be updated on the plans prior to issuance of grading
permits.
4. Review and approval of the use of silt fence and bio rolls for perimeter control shall be
conducted by the city prior to the issuance of grading permits.
5. Add city detail 5302B – Erosion Control for Individual Lots, to the detail sheet.
6. If the 1974 sanitary and water services stubbed off Red Cedar Point Road that will
service Lot 2 are inadequate for use, they shall be abandoned in accordance with city
standards and re-installed.
7. The developer of Lot 2 will be required to pay all required city WAC and SAC fees
associated with service connections for the rate in force at the time of building permit
application.
Environmental Resources:
1. Any trees removed in excess of what is shown on the grading plan dated 12/5/18 will be
required to be replaced at a ratio of 2:1 diameter inches. Additionally, a birch and maple
on Lot 1 are not shown on the tree inventory, but are larger than the 10” dbh minimum
for the inventory. They will be preserved on Lot 1.
2. Tree preservation fencing shall be installed around existing trees to be saved prior to any
construction activities and remain installed until completion.
Fire Department:
1. The home on Lot 1, Block 1 must be addressed off of Hickory Road.
Parks:
Chanhassen Planning Commission – February 19, 2019
6
1. Park dedication fees shall be paid for one lot at the rate in force at the time of final plat
approval.
Planning:
1. An escrow of 110 percent (110%) of the estimated removal cost for the concrete pad on
the interior lot line between Lot 1 and Lot 2 must be received, and the concrete pad
removed within four months of the approval of the final plat.
Water Resources:
1. All permits and approvals must be received from other regulatory agencies prior to
issuing permits.
2. The applicant shall pay the SWMP fee for 1.06 acres at the rate in force at the time of
final plat approval.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE PERMITTING CHICKENS IN
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
Aller: Moving onto the amendments to the Chanhassen City Codes which have been put forward.
Do you want to hit these one on one or would you like to take them as a group?
Aanenson: Yeah…
Aller: Okay so we’ll hit item 2 which is an amendment to Chanhassen City Code requesting a
permitting of chickens in residential districts.
Walters: Alright, so the first code before you is, and I do apologize. This is not working, there
we go. Is again the question of allowing chickens. I’ll maybe give it a minute until folks can.
Alright the question is re-examining the City’s policy on back yard chickens. Currently the City
considers chickens to be farm animals. This is kind of reminiscent of if you’ll remember the bee
discussion we had last year. They’re restricted to parcels, agricultural or 10 acres or larger.
We’ve had a lot of people contact us express interest in having chickens on their properties.
Staff looked at, I think we surveyed 62 different cities, 44 of which now allow back yard
chickens. Looked at some literature and staff’s belief is that they can likely be accommodated in
residential districts so long as there are numbers of chickens. Limits on the number of chickens
and then also some performance standards. So some stuff that we looked at, and I apologize, I
put a lot of charts on this one slide but the different type of regulations that cities had. So I
mentioned we looked at 62 cities. 44 of these permitted chickens to be kept in the back yard. Of
those the most common limit was a limit on the number of birds. 40 of the 44 did that. About