Loading...
Agenda and PacketAGENDA  CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, MAY 21, 2019, 7:00 PM CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD A.CALL TO ORDER B.OLD BUSINESS C.PUBLIC HEARINGS 1.Consider a Request for Variances for Lot Cover, Lake Setback and Front Yard Setback for Property Located at 3617 Red Cedar Point 2.Consider Subdivision of 1.17 Acres into Two Single­Family Lots with Variances for Property Located at the NE Intersection of Carver Beach Road and Big Woods Boulevard D.NEW BUSINESS E.APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1.Approval of Planning Commission Minutes dated April 16, 2019 F.COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS G.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS 1.City Council Action Update H.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION I.ADJOURNMENT J.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. If a constituent or resident sends an email to staff or the Planning Commission, it must be made part of the public record based on State Statute. If a constituent or resident sends an email to the Mayor and City Council, it is up to each individual City Council member and Mayor if they want it to be made part of the public record or not. There is no State Statute that forces the Mayor or City Council to share that information with the public or be made part of the public record. Under State Statute, staff cannot remove comments or letters provided as part of the public input process. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, May 21, 2019 Subject Consider a Request for Variances for Lot Cover, Lake Setback and Front Yard Setback for Property Located at 3617 Red Cedar Point Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.1. Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, Associate Planner File No: Planning Case 19­03 PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 11.5­foot front yard setback, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision.” Or “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 8.5­foot front yard setback, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision.” Note: A motion for denial and associated Findings of Fact are included at the end of the report. Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is demolishing a nonconforming single­family home and is requesting a variance to construct a new single­ family residence on the property. The existing use encroaches 22.1 feet into the required shoreland setback, has a shed that encroaches approximately 6 feet into the side yard setback, and has 36.4 percent lot coverage. The proposed house would maintain the existing lake setback, meet the required side yard setbacks, reduce lot coverage to 34.5 percent, and require an 11.5­foot front yard setback variance. APPLICANT Pamela Reimer, 14455 Westridge Drive, Eden Prairie, MN 55347 SITE INFORMATION PRESENT ZONING:  Single Family Residential District PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, May 21, 2019SubjectConsider a Request for Variances for Lot Cover, Lake Setback and Front Yard Setback forProperty Located at 3617 Red Cedar PointSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case 19­03PROPOSED MOTION:“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 11.5­foot front yard setback, a 22.1­footlakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts theattached Findings of Fact and Decision.”Or“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 8.5­foot front yard setback, a 22.1­footlakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts theattached Findings of Fact and Decision.”Note: A motion for denial and associated Findings of Fact are included at the end of the report.Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is demolishing a nonconforming single­family home and is requesting a variance to construct a new single­family residence on the property. The existing use encroaches 22.1 feet into the required shoreland setback, has a shedthat encroaches approximately 6 feet into the side yard setback, and has 36.4 percent lot coverage. The proposedhouse would maintain the existing lake setback, meet the required side yard setbacks, reduce lot coverage to 34.5percent, and require an 11.5­foot front yard setback variance.APPLICANTPamela Reimer, 14455 Westridge Drive, Eden Prairie, MN 55347SITE INFORMATION PRESENT ZONING:  Single Family Residential District LAND USE:Residential Low Density ACREAGE:  .23 acres  DENSITY:  NA  BACKGROUND General Background County records indicate that the existing structure was built in 1927. The city does not have a building file for this property, nor does it have any records of any permits associated with this address. Planning Case 2018­01 On January 2, 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 Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and voted 5­0 to approve the variance. On January 8, 2018, staff received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the variance request. On January 22, 2018, at the City Council meeting during which the appeal was scheduled to be heard, was canceled. Staff notified the applicant and appellant that the appeal would be rescheduled for the February 12, 2018 City Council meeting. Staff also extend the 60­day review deadline for this item. On February 12, 2018, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission’s approval of an 11.5­foot front yard setback, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setback, and an 11 percent lot coverage variance subject to conditions of approval. On February 12, 2019, one year passed without the allowed construction being substantially completed. Per the terms of the variance, this resulted in the issued variance lapsing. Current Request On January 9, 2019, the applicant contacted staff asking about the possibility of utilizing the variance from Planning Case 2018­01. The applicant was advised that the variance would expire on February 12, 2019. Staff indicated that the variance represented the largest footprint that the city was likely to support, and recommend that the applicant familiarize themselves with the conditions that were placed on the variance. On March 29, 2019, staff informed the applicant that Planning Case 2018­01’s variance could not be extended, and that they would need to apply for a new variance. Staff indicated that it was likely the city would support a similar variance request to the one that was previously issued. Staff recommended that the applicant investigate the required conditions and indicated that staff would likely impose identical conditions, unless the requested amount of impervious surface was significantly reduced. (Note: A more detailed background including summaries of questions, comments and concerns raised during the meetings can be found in the attached staff report.) DISCUSSION Front Yard Setback: The applicant’s proposed front yard setback of 18.5 feet is consistent with a line drawn across the front of the property connecting the corners of the adjacent homes; however, Red Cedar Point Road encroaches between 8.29 and 8.63 feet onto the applicant’s property resulting in a driveway that is approximately 11 feet long at its shortest point and about 15 feet long at its longest. The setback that the applicant is requesting is that same as was allowed in Variance PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, May 21, 2019SubjectConsider a Request for Variances for Lot Cover, Lake Setback and Front Yard Setback forProperty Located at 3617 Red Cedar PointSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case 19­03PROPOSED MOTION:“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 11.5­foot front yard setback, a 22.1­footlakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts theattached Findings of Fact and Decision.”Or“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 8.5­foot front yard setback, a 22.1­footlakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts theattached Findings of Fact and Decision.”Note: A motion for denial and associated Findings of Fact are included at the end of the report.Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is demolishing a nonconforming single­family home and is requesting a variance to construct a new single­family residence on the property. The existing use encroaches 22.1 feet into the required shoreland setback, has a shedthat encroaches approximately 6 feet into the side yard setback, and has 36.4 percent lot coverage. The proposedhouse would maintain the existing lake setback, meet the required side yard setbacks, reduce lot coverage to 34.5percent, and require an 11.5­foot front yard setback variance.APPLICANTPamela Reimer, 14455 Westridge Drive, Eden Prairie, MN 55347SITE INFORMATIONPRESENT ZONING:  Single Family Residential DistrictLAND USE:Residential Low DensityACREAGE:  .23 acres DENSITY:  NA BACKGROUNDGeneral BackgroundCounty records indicate that the existing structure was built in 1927. The city does not have a building file for thisproperty, nor does it have any records of any permits associated with this address.Planning Case 2018­01On January 2, 2018 the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at itsregularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on theproposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from allinterested persons wishing to speak and voted 5­0 to approve the variance.On January 8, 2018, staff received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the variance request.On January 22, 2018, at the City Council meeting during which the appeal was scheduled to be heard, was canceled.Staff notified the applicant and appellant that the appeal would be rescheduled for the February 12, 2018 City Councilmeeting. Staff also extend the 60­day review deadline for this item.On February 12, 2018, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission’s approval of an 11.5­foot front yardsetback, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setback, and an 11 percent lot coverage variance subject to conditions of approval.On February 12, 2019, one year passed without the allowed construction being substantially completed. Per the termsof the variance, this resulted in the issued variance lapsing.Current RequestOn January 9, 2019, the applicant contacted staff asking about the possibility of utilizing the variance from PlanningCase 2018­01. The applicant was advised that the variance would expire on February 12, 2019. Staff indicated thatthe variance represented the largest footprint that the city was likely to support, and recommend that the applicantfamiliarize themselves with the conditions that were placed on the variance.On March 29, 2019, staff informed the applicant that Planning Case 2018­01’s variance could not be extended, andthat they would need to apply for a new variance. Staff indicated that it was likely the city would support a similarvariance request to the one that was previously issued. Staff recommended that the applicant investigate the requiredconditions and indicated that staff would likely impose identical conditions, unless the requested amount of impervioussurface was significantly reduced.(Note: A more detailed background including summaries of questions, comments and concerns raised during themeetings can be found in the attached staff report.)DISCUSSIONFront Yard Setback:The applicant’s proposed front yard setback of 18.5 feet is consistent with a line drawn across the front of the propertyconnecting the corners of the adjacent homes; however, Red Cedar Point Road encroaches between 8.29 and 8.63 feet onto the applicant’s property resulting in a driveway that is approximately 11 feet long at its shortest point and about 15 feet long at its longest. The setback that the applicant is requesting is that same as was allowed in Variance 18­01. Staff and neighbors are concerned that a driveway of that length does not provide significant off­street parking, but the driveway and three­car garage combine to provide an amount of off­street parking similar to the average provided by other properties in the neighborhood. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission either approve the variance as requested, or require an additional three feet of front yard setback to provide additional parking. Lot Coverage: The applicant’s lot is substandard with a lot area of 9,203 square feet. The property currently has a lot coverage of 36.4 percent, or 3,353 square feet. The applicant is proposing 3,170 square feet of lot cover. In evaluating these requests, staff looks at the extent to which the proposed amount of lot coverage and any associated stormwater best management practices will represent an improvement to property’s existing conditions. Staff believes that the applicant can improve the property’s stormwater management while retaining the proposed lot coverage by utilizing permeable pavers for the proposed driveway and patio, by installing a 20­foot buffer along the lake, and develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan to improve ecosystem health and function. Staff recommends that if a variance for the proposed lot coverage is granted, the three aforementioned items be made conditions of approval. Shoreland Setback: The city’s shoreland overlay district requires a 75­foot setback for properties located along Lake Minnewashta; however, the existing primary structure has a 52.9­foot setback from the lake. Since the applicant is proposing demolishing the existing structure and building a wider structure within the lake setback, a variance is required. These situations are common in the city’s older lakeside neighborhoods, and the city’s practice has generally been to use the property’s existing lake setback to determine what shoreland setback is reasonable. The proposed lake setback of 52.9 feet is in line with city's precedent and similar to the setback maintained by the adjacent properties. (Note: A detailed discussion of the variance request can be found in the attached staff report.) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that: “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 11.5­foot front yard setback, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision.” 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Driveway slope shall not exceed 10 percent. 3. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easements are documented. 4. The applicant must enter into a roadway easement over the existing portion of the lot covered by street pavement and curb. 5. A new 1” = 20’ scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit application clearly showing the proposed setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and structures. This survey should also correctly note the 100­year FEMA floodplain and should show the lowest floor not less than three feet above the regional flood elevation. 6. At least one tree must be planted in front yard, if one is not present after construction. 7. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the 28­inch oak tree from the grading and construction limits and locate tree protection fencing around it. 8. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side of PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, May 21, 2019SubjectConsider a Request for Variances for Lot Cover, Lake Setback and Front Yard Setback forProperty Located at 3617 Red Cedar PointSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case 19­03PROPOSED MOTION:“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 11.5­foot front yard setback, a 22.1­footlakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts theattached Findings of Fact and Decision.”Or“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 8.5­foot front yard setback, a 22.1­footlakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts theattached Findings of Fact and Decision.”Note: A motion for denial and associated Findings of Fact are included at the end of the report.Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is demolishing a nonconforming single­family home and is requesting a variance to construct a new single­family residence on the property. The existing use encroaches 22.1 feet into the required shoreland setback, has a shedthat encroaches approximately 6 feet into the side yard setback, and has 36.4 percent lot coverage. The proposedhouse would maintain the existing lake setback, meet the required side yard setbacks, reduce lot coverage to 34.5percent, and require an 11.5­foot front yard setback variance.APPLICANTPamela Reimer, 14455 Westridge Drive, Eden Prairie, MN 55347SITE INFORMATIONPRESENT ZONING:  Single Family Residential DistrictLAND USE:Residential Low DensityACREAGE:  .23 acres DENSITY:  NA BACKGROUNDGeneral BackgroundCounty records indicate that the existing structure was built in 1927. The city does not have a building file for thisproperty, nor does it have any records of any permits associated with this address.Planning Case 2018­01On January 2, 2018 the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at itsregularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on theproposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from allinterested persons wishing to speak and voted 5­0 to approve the variance.On January 8, 2018, staff received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the variance request.On January 22, 2018, at the City Council meeting during which the appeal was scheduled to be heard, was canceled.Staff notified the applicant and appellant that the appeal would be rescheduled for the February 12, 2018 City Councilmeeting. Staff also extend the 60­day review deadline for this item.On February 12, 2018, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission’s approval of an 11.5­foot front yardsetback, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setback, and an 11 percent lot coverage variance subject to conditions of approval.On February 12, 2019, one year passed without the allowed construction being substantially completed. Per the termsof the variance, this resulted in the issued variance lapsing.Current RequestOn January 9, 2019, the applicant contacted staff asking about the possibility of utilizing the variance from PlanningCase 2018­01. The applicant was advised that the variance would expire on February 12, 2019. Staff indicated thatthe variance represented the largest footprint that the city was likely to support, and recommend that the applicantfamiliarize themselves with the conditions that were placed on the variance.On March 29, 2019, staff informed the applicant that Planning Case 2018­01’s variance could not be extended, andthat they would need to apply for a new variance. Staff indicated that it was likely the city would support a similarvariance request to the one that was previously issued. Staff recommended that the applicant investigate the requiredconditions and indicated that staff would likely impose identical conditions, unless the requested amount of impervioussurface was significantly reduced.(Note: A more detailed background including summaries of questions, comments and concerns raised during themeetings can be found in the attached staff report.)DISCUSSIONFront Yard Setback:The applicant’s proposed front yard setback of 18.5 feet is consistent with a line drawn across the front of the propertyconnecting the corners of the adjacent homes; however, Red Cedar Point Road encroaches between 8.29 and 8.63feet onto the applicant’s property resulting in a driveway that is approximately 11 feet long at its shortest point andabout 15 feet long at its longest. The setback that the applicant is requesting is that same as was allowed in Variance18­01. Staff and neighbors are concerned that a driveway of that length does not provide significant off­street parking,but the driveway and three­car garage combine to provide an amount of off­street parking similar to the averageprovided by other properties in the neighborhood. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission either approve thevariance as requested, or require an additional three feet of front yard setback to provide additional parking.Lot Coverage:The applicant’s lot is substandard with a lot area of 9,203 square feet. The property currently has a lot coverage of36.4 percent, or 3,353 square feet. The applicant is proposing 3,170 square feet of lot cover. In evaluating theserequests, staff looks at the extent to which the proposed amount of lot coverage and any associated stormwater bestmanagement practices will represent an improvement to property’s existing conditions. Staff believes that the applicantcan improve the property’s stormwater management while retaining the proposed lot coverage by utilizing permeablepavers for the proposed driveway and patio, by installing a 20­foot buffer along the lake, and develop and implement ashoreline restoration plan to improve ecosystem health and function. Staff recommends that if a variance for theproposed lot coverage is granted, the three aforementioned items be made conditions of approval.Shoreland Setback:The city’s shoreland overlay district requires a 75­foot setback for properties located along Lake Minnewashta;however, the existing primary structure has a 52.9­foot setback from the lake. Since the applicant is proposingdemolishing the existing structure and building a wider structure within the lake setback, a variance is required. Thesesituations are common in the city’s older lakeside neighborhoods, and the city’s practice has generally been to use theproperty’s existing lake setback to determine what shoreland setback is reasonable. The proposed lake setback of52.9 feet is in line with city's precedent and similar to the setback maintained by the adjacent properties.(Note: A detailed discussion of the variance request can be found in the attached staff report.)RECOMMENDATIONStaff recommends that:“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 11.5­foot front yard setback, a 22.1­foot lakeshoresetback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attachedFindings of Fact and Decision.”1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit.2. Driveway slope shall not exceed 10 percent.3. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easements are documented.4. The applicant must enter into a roadway easement over the existing portion of the lot covered by streetpavement and curb.5. A new 1” = 20’ scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit application clearly showing theproposed setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and structures. This survey should also correctlynote the 100­year FEMA floodplain and should show the lowest floor not less than three feet above the regionalflood elevation.6. At least one tree must be planted in front yard, if one is not present after construction.7. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the 28­inch oak tree from the grading andconstruction limits and locate tree protection fencing around it. 8. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side of the lot encompassing all existing trees. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities shall be replaced. 9. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area. 10. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from EAB. 11 . The 228 square­foot rear patio area is understood to be the property’s water­oriented structure. 12. Lot coverage may not exceed 3,170 square feet. 13. A permanent 20­foot native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using native species with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 14. Develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan that is designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve ecosystem health. The plan may incorporate use of the existing riprap. The design plan may require additional approvals and must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 15. The property owner must propose to further reduce hard cover associated with the driveway and patio through the use of pervious paver systems reviewed and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator.  Or “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 8.5­foot front yard setback, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision.” 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Driveway slope shall not exceed 10 percent. 3. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easements are documented. 4. The applicant must enter into a roadway easement over the existing portion of the lot covered by street pavement and curb. 5. A new 1” = 20’ scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit application clearly showing the proposed setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and structures. This survey should also correctly note the 100­year FEMA floodplain and should show the lowest floor not less than three feet above the regional flood elevation. 6. At least one tree must be planted in front yard, if one is not present after construction. 7. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the 28­inch oak tree from the grading and construction limits and locate tree protection fencing around it.  8. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side of the lot encompassing all existing trees. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities shall be replaced. 9. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, May 21, 2019SubjectConsider a Request for Variances for Lot Cover, Lake Setback and Front Yard Setback forProperty Located at 3617 Red Cedar PointSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case 19­03PROPOSED MOTION:“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 11.5­foot front yard setback, a 22.1­footlakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts theattached Findings of Fact and Decision.”Or“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 8.5­foot front yard setback, a 22.1­footlakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts theattached Findings of Fact and Decision.”Note: A motion for denial and associated Findings of Fact are included at the end of the report.Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is demolishing a nonconforming single­family home and is requesting a variance to construct a new single­family residence on the property. The existing use encroaches 22.1 feet into the required shoreland setback, has a shedthat encroaches approximately 6 feet into the side yard setback, and has 36.4 percent lot coverage. The proposedhouse would maintain the existing lake setback, meet the required side yard setbacks, reduce lot coverage to 34.5percent, and require an 11.5­foot front yard setback variance.APPLICANTPamela Reimer, 14455 Westridge Drive, Eden Prairie, MN 55347SITE INFORMATIONPRESENT ZONING:  Single Family Residential DistrictLAND USE:Residential Low DensityACREAGE:  .23 acres DENSITY:  NA BACKGROUNDGeneral BackgroundCounty records indicate that the existing structure was built in 1927. The city does not have a building file for thisproperty, nor does it have any records of any permits associated with this address.Planning Case 2018­01On January 2, 2018 the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at itsregularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on theproposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from allinterested persons wishing to speak and voted 5­0 to approve the variance.On January 8, 2018, staff received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the variance request.On January 22, 2018, at the City Council meeting during which the appeal was scheduled to be heard, was canceled.Staff notified the applicant and appellant that the appeal would be rescheduled for the February 12, 2018 City Councilmeeting. Staff also extend the 60­day review deadline for this item.On February 12, 2018, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission’s approval of an 11.5­foot front yardsetback, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setback, and an 11 percent lot coverage variance subject to conditions of approval.On February 12, 2019, one year passed without the allowed construction being substantially completed. Per the termsof the variance, this resulted in the issued variance lapsing.Current RequestOn January 9, 2019, the applicant contacted staff asking about the possibility of utilizing the variance from PlanningCase 2018­01. The applicant was advised that the variance would expire on February 12, 2019. Staff indicated thatthe variance represented the largest footprint that the city was likely to support, and recommend that the applicantfamiliarize themselves with the conditions that were placed on the variance.On March 29, 2019, staff informed the applicant that Planning Case 2018­01’s variance could not be extended, andthat they would need to apply for a new variance. Staff indicated that it was likely the city would support a similarvariance request to the one that was previously issued. Staff recommended that the applicant investigate the requiredconditions and indicated that staff would likely impose identical conditions, unless the requested amount of impervioussurface was significantly reduced.(Note: A more detailed background including summaries of questions, comments and concerns raised during themeetings can be found in the attached staff report.)DISCUSSIONFront Yard Setback:The applicant’s proposed front yard setback of 18.5 feet is consistent with a line drawn across the front of the propertyconnecting the corners of the adjacent homes; however, Red Cedar Point Road encroaches between 8.29 and 8.63feet onto the applicant’s property resulting in a driveway that is approximately 11 feet long at its shortest point andabout 15 feet long at its longest. The setback that the applicant is requesting is that same as was allowed in Variance18­01. Staff and neighbors are concerned that a driveway of that length does not provide significant off­street parking,but the driveway and three­car garage combine to provide an amount of off­street parking similar to the averageprovided by other properties in the neighborhood. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission either approve thevariance as requested, or require an additional three feet of front yard setback to provide additional parking.Lot Coverage:The applicant’s lot is substandard with a lot area of 9,203 square feet. The property currently has a lot coverage of36.4 percent, or 3,353 square feet. The applicant is proposing 3,170 square feet of lot cover. In evaluating theserequests, staff looks at the extent to which the proposed amount of lot coverage and any associated stormwater bestmanagement practices will represent an improvement to property’s existing conditions. Staff believes that the applicantcan improve the property’s stormwater management while retaining the proposed lot coverage by utilizing permeablepavers for the proposed driveway and patio, by installing a 20­foot buffer along the lake, and develop and implement ashoreline restoration plan to improve ecosystem health and function. Staff recommends that if a variance for theproposed lot coverage is granted, the three aforementioned items be made conditions of approval.Shoreland Setback:The city’s shoreland overlay district requires a 75­foot setback for properties located along Lake Minnewashta;however, the existing primary structure has a 52.9­foot setback from the lake. Since the applicant is proposingdemolishing the existing structure and building a wider structure within the lake setback, a variance is required. Thesesituations are common in the city’s older lakeside neighborhoods, and the city’s practice has generally been to use theproperty’s existing lake setback to determine what shoreland setback is reasonable. The proposed lake setback of52.9 feet is in line with city's precedent and similar to the setback maintained by the adjacent properties.(Note: A detailed discussion of the variance request can be found in the attached staff report.)RECOMMENDATIONStaff recommends that:“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 11.5­foot front yard setback, a 22.1­foot lakeshoresetback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attachedFindings of Fact and Decision.”1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit.2. Driveway slope shall not exceed 10 percent.3. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easements are documented.4. The applicant must enter into a roadway easement over the existing portion of the lot covered by streetpavement and curb.5. A new 1” = 20’ scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit application clearly showing theproposed setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and structures. This survey should also correctlynote the 100­year FEMA floodplain and should show the lowest floor not less than three feet above the regionalflood elevation.6. At least one tree must be planted in front yard, if one is not present after construction.7. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the 28­inch oak tree from the grading andconstruction limits and locate tree protection fencing around it.8. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side ofthe lot encompassing all existing trees. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installeduntil all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities shall be replaced.9. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area.10. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from EAB.11 . The 228 square­foot rear patio area is understood to be the property’s water­oriented structure.12. Lot coverage may not exceed 3,170 square feet.13. A permanent 20­foot native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using native species withpermanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed andinstalled by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan must be approved by theWater Resources Coordinator.14. Develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan that is designed and installed by an experienced professionalin native shoreline restoration that will improve ecosystem health. The plan may incorporate use of the existingriprap. The design plan may require additional approvals and must be approved by the Water ResourcesCoordinator.15. The property owner must propose to further reduce hard cover associated with the driveway and patio throughthe use of pervious paver systems reviewed and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. Or“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 8.5­foot front yard setback, a 22.1­foot lakeshoresetback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attachedFindings of Fact and Decision.”1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit.2. Driveway slope shall not exceed 10 percent.3. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easements are documented.4. The applicant must enter into a roadway easement over the existing portion of the lot covered by streetpavement and curb.5. A new 1” = 20’ scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit application clearly showing theproposed setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and structures. This survey should also correctlynote the 100­year FEMA floodplain and should show the lowest floor not less than three feet above the regionalflood elevation.6. At least one tree must be planted in front yard, if one is not present after construction.7. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the 28­inch oak tree from the grading andconstruction limits and locate tree protection fencing around it. 8. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side ofthe lot encompassing all existing trees. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installeduntil all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities shall be replaced. 9. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area. 10. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from EAB. 11 . The 228 square­foot rear patio area is understood to be the property’s water­oriented structure. 12. Lot coverage may not exceed 3,170 square feet. 13. A permanent 20­foot native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using native species with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator.  14. Develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan that is designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve ecosystem health. The plan may incorporate use of the existing riprap. The design plan may require additional approvals and must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 15. The property owner must propose to further reduce hard cover associated with the driveway and patio through the use of pervious paver systems reviewed and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report Findings of Fact (Approval) Findings of Fact (Alt Approval) Findings of Fact (Denial) Variance Document Variance Document Alt Development Review Application Tree Removal Plan Updated Survey WRC Memo ERS Memo Engineering Memo Affidavit of Mailing Email Responses CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: May 21, 2019 CC DATE: June 10, 2019 REVIEW DEADLINE: June 18, 2019 CASE #: 2019-03 BY: MW SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is demolishing a nonconforming single-family home and is requesting a variance to construct a new single-family residence on the property. The existing use encroaches 22.1 feet into the required shoreland setback, has a shed that encroaches approximately 6 feet into the side yard setback, and has 36.4 percent lot coverage. The proposed house would maintain the existing lake setback, meet the required side yard setbacks, reduce lot coverage to 34.5 percent, and require an 11.5-foot front yard setback variance. LOCATION: 3617 Red Cedar Point Rd. (PID 256600320) APPLICANT: Pamela Reimer 14455 Westridge Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55347 OWNER: Patricia Souba 110980 Von Hertzen Cir. Chaska, MN 55318 PRESENT ZONING: RSF 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density ACREAGE: .23 acres DENSITY: NA PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 11.5-foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions.” Or “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 8.5-foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions.” Planning Commission 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 May 21, 2019 Page 2 of 16 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 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 parcel’s existing house is over 90 years old, does not meet the city’s minimum standards for single-family dwellings, and is in disrepair. This structure is located 52.9 feet from the lake’s ordinary high water setback and the lot currently has 36.4 percent lot coverage, largely due to the fact that the front portion of the lot is covered by a gravel parking area. The applicant is proposing replacing the existing structure with a modern home. In order to do this, they are requesting a variance to formalize the existing 22.1- foot encroachment into the required shoreland setback. They are also proposing to remove the gravel parking area, a shed located within the western side yard setback, an outdoor fireplace area, and a concrete walkway in the rear yard to bring the property more in line with City Code. Removing the shed will bring the property’s side yard setback into compliance with City Code. The lot coverage proposed for the new home, driveway, and patio area would require a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, a 1.9 percent reduction from the existing condition. They are also requesting an 11.5-foot front yard setback variance; Planning Commission 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 May 21, 2019 Page 3 of 16 since they believe the parcel’s size and existing lake setback make it impractical to construct a house and garage while meeting the property’s 30-foot front yard setback. The applicant has stated that they believe the requested variances are in line with those granted by the city in similar circumstances, and they have noted that many properties in the neighborhoods have structures with similar or small front yard setbacks. They believe the proposed house will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, and feel that replacing much of the existing gravel frontage with vegetation will improve the property’s aesthetics. 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 BACKGROUND General Background County records indicate that the existing structure was built in 1927. The city does not have a building file for this property, nor does it have any records of any permits associated with this address. Throughout the second half of 2017, staff received numerous inquiries from interested parties about 3617 Red Cedar Point Road. Staff informed individuals interested in the property that a variance would likely be required to rebuild on the property. Staff indicated that any variance request should maintain the existing shoreland setback and reduce the amount of lot coverage present on the parcel. Staff indicated that it would consider supporting a front yard variance in the interest of maintaining the existing lake setback, but expressed concerns about the ability of a shortened driveway to provide onsite parking. Additionally, staff expressed reservations about the property’s ability to accommodate a three-car garage, recommending that a tuck under or side-loading configuration be used. Planning Case 2018-01 On January 2, 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 Planning Commission 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 May 21, 2019 Page 4 of 16 mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and voted 5-0 to approve the variance. During the meeting, the Planning Commission expressed the following concerns: 1. Commissioner Tietz expressed concern over the narrowness of the road and access issues that will be created by construction activities. Staff indicated that the applicant’s contractors would need to work with the Engineering and Building Departments to minimize obstruction, but that the issue was unavoidable. The applicant stated that he owned another property in the area which would be used as a staging area to partially mitigate these issues. 2. Commissioner Tietz expressed concern that the proposed pervious pavers be properly designed and installed. Staff stated that the design would need to conform to the Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute’s guidelines and would need to be approved by our Engineering Department. 3. Chairman Aller asked if Public Safety had expressed concern with the proposal. Staff indicated that they had not. 4. Commissioner Weick wanted to know how much additional driveway length would be needed to accommodate two standard cars. Staff estimated an additional four feet would be required. The applicant stated that since his daughter drives a jeep, he believes he can fit two to three cars in the proposed driveway. 5. The Commission asked for clarification on the average parking in the area. Staff clarified that they believed most homes in the area did have driveway space for two cars, with an estimated average of 4.5 parking spaces between garages and driveway parking. 6. The Commission asked if staff felt the site’s management of water resources was being improved. Water Resources Coordinator Strong indicated that she felt it was probably as close as possible to an equal trade. 7. Commissioner Weick expressed disappointment that the lot coverage was not being more significantly reduced. 8. Commissioners Madsen and Tietz expressed concerns about the limited driveway parking. 9. Chairman Aller expressed concern about the potential impact to the lake. During the public hearing, the following concerns were raised: 1. Debbie Lockhart expressed concerns about snow removal and snow storage, stating that the snowplow currently uses the property for a turnaround and snow storage area. City Engineer Oehme indicated that he had spoken with the plow driver and feels that the city can use its extra right of way along the end of Red Cedar Point Road to facilitate snow removal and snow storage. 2. Steve Gunther expressed concerns about how the lot coverage variance will impact the lake via increased runoff. He requested that the Commission look at it as a variance from Planning Commission 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 May 21, 2019 Page 5 of 16 the 25 percent standard, noting that the home could be reconfigured to reduce the required lot coverage. On January 8, 2018, staff received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the variance request. On January 22, 2018, the City Council meeting during which the appeal was scheduled to be heard was canceled. Staff notified the applicant and appellant that the appeal would be rescheduled for the February 12, 2018 City Council meeting. Staff also extend the 60-day review deadline for this item. On February 12, 2018, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission’s approval of an 11.5- foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and an 11 percent lot coverage variance subject to conditions of approval. During the meeting, the City Council expressed the following concerns: 1. Councilman McDonald requested clarification on the size of the lot compared to surrounding parcels and on the prevalence of variances in the area. Staff responded that the lot is roughly average and noted that many properties in the area have received variances. 2. Councilman McDonald asked for clarification on how snowplowing operated in the area. Staff noted that there was right of way to the north that could be used to facilitate snowplowing. 3. Councilman McDonald asked why the house could not be moved further back to accommodate a larger driveway. Staff responded that city policy has been not to allow the intensification of existing non-conforming lake setbacks. 4. Councilwoman Ryan asked staff to speak on the paver requirement. Staff stated that in this instance the Water Resources Coordinator felt comfortable with their use and that a maintenance agreement would be required. 5. Councilwoman Ryan asked staff to estimate the height of the house compared to surrounding structures. Staff stated that exact information was not available, but estimated it was comparable and noted that it met ordinance. 6. Councilwoman Ryan asked why staff had recommended a tuck under garage. Staff clarified that the configuration did the most to reduce the house footprint. 7. Councilwoman Ryan asked staff to comment on the shoreland restoration requirements. Staff noted that that requirement would be met through coordination with the watershed district. 8. Mayor Laufenburger asked how long the applicant would have to act on the variance. Staff responded that construction would have to start within one year. 9. Councilman McDonald asked the applicant how they would stage construction. They responded that they would use their existing property in the area as parking, but noted any building would have the same staging issues within the area. Planning Commission 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 May 21, 2019 Page 6 of 16 During the meeting, the Mayor allowed the audience to address the City Council. The property owner spoke in favor of granting the variance. On February 12, 2019, one year passed without construction being started. Per the terms of the variance, this resulted in the variance issued on February 12, 2018 lapsing. Current Request On January 9, 2019, the applicant contacted staff asking about the possibility of utilizing the variance from Planning Case 2018-01. The applicant was advised that the variance would expire on February 12, 2019. Staff indicated that the variance represented the largest footprint that the city was likely to support, and recommended that the applicant familiarize themselves with the conditions that were placed on the variance. On March 29, 2019, staff informed the applicant that Planning Case 2018-01’s variance could not be extended, and that they would need to apply for a new variance. Staff indicated that it was likely the city would support a similar variance request to the one that was previously issued. Staff recommended that the applicant investigate the required conditions and indicated that staff would likely recommend identical conditions, unless the requested amount of impervious surface was significantly reduced. SITE CONDITIONS The property is zoned Single-Family Residential and is located within the city’s Shoreland Management District. This zoning district requires lots to be a minimum of 20,000 square feet, have front yard setbacks of 30 feet, rear yard 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 coverage. Residential structures are limited to 35 feet in height. The lot is 9,203 square feet, and currently has 3,353 square feet of impervious surface resulting in 36.4 percent lot coverage. The existing structure meets the 30-foot front yard setback and 10- foot east side yard setback, has a shed located approximately four feet from the west side lot line, and is setback 52.9 feet from the lake’s ordinary high water mark. The rear yard also has a 114 square foot fireplace/patio area that is setback 24 feet from the lake. Note: A portion of the parcel, 562 square feet, is covered by Red Cedar Point Road which is a public street. This area is not included in the lot area or lot coverage totals above. Planning Commission 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 May 21, 2019 Page 7 of 16 NEIGHBORHOOD Red Cedar Point The plat for this area was recorded in August of 1913. Over the subsequent century, the City of Chanhassen was formed, a zoning code was passed, the zoning code was amended numerous times, and buildings were built, demolished, and rebuilt to meet the standards and needs of the existing ordinances. Additionally, the neighborhood’s roads were not always constructed within their designated right of way. In some areas, this has led to portions of buildings being located in the right of way and portions of these roads being located within residents’ property lines. Very few properties in the area meet the requirements of the city’s zoning code, and most properties either are non-conforming uses or are operating under a variance. Variances within 500 feet: 78-07 3637 South Cedar Drive: Approved - 19’ front setback (garage) 80-08 3629 Red Cedar Point Rd.: Approved - 12’ front setback, 3’ foot side setback, +1.5’ side setback for (chimney), 20’ lot width, 40’ lot frontage, 13,000 square feet lot area (house) 81-08 3607 Red Cedar Point Rd.: Approved - 13.5’ lake setback (deck) 83-09 3613 Red Cedar Point Rd.: Approved - 12’ front setback, 2’ side setback, 7’ lake setback (house) 84-18 3707 South Cedar Drive: Approved - 20’ front setback (detached garage) 85-20 3624 Red Cedar Point Rd.: Approved - 1.2’ front setback, 4.8’ side setback (detached garage) 85-27 3701 South Cedar Drive: Approved - 5’ front setback, 35’ lake setback (house) 87-13 3629 Red Cedar Point Rd.: Approved - 12’ front setback, 3’ side (house) Planning Commission 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 May 21, 2019 Page 8 of 16 88-11 3605 Red Cedar Point Rd.: Approved - 4’ E side setback, 2’ W side setback, 26’ lake setback (garage, addition intensifying non-conforming) 92-01 3607 Red Cedar Point Rd.: Approved - 1.5’ side setback, 14.5’ lake setback (addition expanding non-conforming) 93-06 3618 Red Cedar Point Rd.: Approved - 8’ side setback, 15’ lake setback (deck and porch) 96-04 3705 South Cedar Drive: Approved - 3’ side setback, 31’ lake setback, 25% LC (house) 02-05 3628 Hickory Rd.: Approved - 13’ front setback (Hickory), 2’ front setback (Red Cedar Point), 5’ side setback (detached garage) 04-07 3637 South Cedar Drive: Approved - 19.25’ front setback, 4’ lake setback, 15% LC (addition) 06-04 3633 South Cedar Drive: Approved - 22.5’ front setback, 15.8’ front setback, 2.39% LC (garage) 08-04 3637 South Cedar Drive: Approved - 20.2’ front setback, 8’ side setback (house) 09-15 3625 Red Cedar Point Rd.: Approved - 15.5’ front setback, 6.5’ E side setback, 9’ driveway setback, 18.5’ lake setback, 12.3% LC, allow one car garage (house) 15-07 3701 South Cedar Drive: Approved - increase existing non-conformity (enclose deck 15’ in lake setback) 15-14 3603 Red Cedar Point Rd.: Approved - 20.2’ front setback, 17’ lake setback (two-story attached garage) 16-11 3627 Red Cedar Point Rd.: Approved - 13.6’ lake setback, 4.8% LC (home) 17-09 3622 Red Cedar Point Rd.: Approved - Intensify non-conforming by raising garage in side yard setback (garage) 18-01 3617 Red Cedar Point Rd.: Approved - 11.5’ front setback, 22.1’ lake setback, 11% LC (home) Note: Variance 18-01 lapsed due to one year passing without construction occurring. Planning Commission 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 May 21, 2019 Page 9 of 16 ANALYSIS Front Yard Setback The property’s existing structure meets the RSF District’s 30-foot front yard setback; however, the proposed house would be setback 18.5-feet from the front lot line, requiring an 11.5-foot front yard variance. The city requires front yard setbacks in order to ensure the presence of front yard green space, preserve the character of its Single-Family Residential Districts, and to provide for off-street parking. The property’s front yard is currently covered by a 2,105-square foot gravel parking area that runs the entire width of the property and extends past the property’s 30- foot front yard setback. While the proposed house’s expanded footprint and driveway will occupy about half of the space currently covered by gravel, the other half will be replaced with vegetation. Converting the gravel area to green space will represent an improvement to the property’s aesthetic. The applicant is requesting a reduced front yard setback because they feel that it is not possible to fit a modern house and garage on a substandard lot while maintaining the existing shoreland setback without relief from the front yard setback. Given the lot’s average depth of 122 feet, if the applicant maintained the existing shoreland and front yard setback they would be restricted to combined home and garage depth of approximately 39 feet. The proposed house and garage have a maximum depth of 47 feet and minimum depth of approximately 41 feet. The applicant has stated that it is not practical to construct a shallower house, due to the proposed home’s tuck under garage. The applicant chose to propose a tuck under configuration based upon staff recommendation and preference for a front yard variance as opposed to the side yard variances that would be required for other attached garage configurations. The applicant’s proposed front yard setback of 18.5 feet is consistent with a line drawn across the front of the property connecting the corners of the adjacent homes. When examining properties within 500 feet of 3617 Red Cedar Point Road, staff found that 13 of the 25 properties have received a variance from the required front yard setback. As the table below shows, six of those properties were allowed front yard setbacks of less than 11 feet, and a further four variances were granted allowing front yard setbacks of between 14 and 18 feet. Additionally, the neighborhood has numerous nonconforming properties with similarly short front yard setbacks. The request 18.5-foot front yard setback is in line what is present in this neighborhood. Planning Commission 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 May 21, 2019 Page 10 of 16 The final consideration in considering an appropriate front yard setback is the ability of the driveway to provide for off-street parking. The impact that the reduced front yard setback has on this is amplified by the fact that Red Cedar Point Road encroaches between 8.29 and 8.63 feet onto the applicant’s property resulting in a driveway that is approximately 11 feet long at its shortest point and about 15 feet long at its longest. Staff is concerned that the short driveway length will not facilitate off-street parking, but acknowledges that many properties in the area have comparably short driveways. Staff conducted an estimate of the off- street parking provided by the driveways and garages of nearby homes, and determined that houses in the area provide an average of 4.5 combined off-street parking spaces. Staff believes that the proposed driveway could accommodate one car parked parallel to the street, as the driveway is too short to allow for an average sized, 16-foot long, car to park perpendicular to the street. The proposed driveway configuration combined with the three-car garage would provide off-street parking for up to four vehicles. For reference, the City Code requires a two-car garage and 30-foot front yard setback, which would provide 4-6 off-street parking spaces Front Yard Setback Variances Granted within 500’ of 3617 Red Cedar Point Road Closest Structure Front Yard Variance Distance from lot line Garage 1.2 feet 28.8 feet Garage 2 feet 28 feet House 5 feet 25 feet House 12 feet 18 feet House 12 feet 18 feet House 12 feet 18 feet House 15.5 feet 14.5 feet Garage 19 feet 11 feet Addition (Home) 19.25 feet 10.75 feet Garage 20 feet 10 feet House 20.2 feet 9.8 feet House 20.2 feet 9.8 feet Garage 22.5 feet 7.5 feet Planning Commission 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 May 21, 2019 Page 11 of 16 depending on the width of the right of way, two in the garage and two to four in the driveway. Engineering staff is recommending that the house be setback an additional three feet to accommodate the perpendicular parking of vehicles within the driveway. The additional three feet of driveway length would allow the driveway to park one average sized vehicle and one smaller vehicle perpendicular instead of one parallel. Ensuring sufficient driveway length is important since the street width in front of 3617 Red Cedar Point Road is only 16.5 feet. This means it is not feasible for two vehicles to pass along the street if vehicles parked on the driveway overhang into the street. Lot Coverage The city requires a minimum lot area of 20,000 square feet for riparian properties and limits these properties to 25 percent lot coverage. The applicant’s lot is substandard with a lot area of 9,203 square feet. The property currently has a lot coverage of 36.4 percent, or 3,353 square feet. When owners propose improvements to properties that have nonconforming lot coverage, the policy is that the existing nonconformity must be reduced; however, there is no formal rule stating how much of a reduction must occur. In this case, the applicant is proposing to reduce the property’s existing lot coverage by 183 square feet, a 1.9 percent reduction. When considering what lot coverage is appropriate, both the percentage of lot coverage compared to the District’s standard and the absolute square footage of lot coverage present on the property should be considered. A non-riparian lot meeting the RSF District’s 15,000 square-foot minimum is allowed up to 3,750 square feet of impervious surface. Lots zoned Residential Low and Medium Density (RLM) and meeting the minimum size of 9,000 square feet are entitled to up to 3,150 square feet of lot coverage. These totals provide an indication of what the city considers to be reasonable minimum maximums for single-family residential lot coverage. The 3,170 square feet proposed by the applicant is close to the minimum maximum for RLM lots; however, the city has limited lot coverage to totals below those thresholds, especially in areas with stormwater management issues or which are adjacent to water resources. It should also be noted that areas zoned RLM are required to preserve significant amounts of permanent open space to offset their higher lot cover percentage. In evaluating these requests, staff looks at the extent to which the proposed amount of lot coverage and any associated stormwater best management practices will represent an improvement to the property’s existing conditions. A 183 square-foot reduction in the property’s lot coverage is not in and of itself a Planning Commission 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 May 21, 2019 Page 12 of 16 meaningful improvement to the property’s existing conditions, and if no other measures are taken to reduce impervious surface or improve stormwater management, staff does not recommend approving the variance with the proposed lot coverage. Staff believes that the applicant can improve the property’s stormwater management while retaining the proposed lot coverage by utilizing permeable pavers for the proposed driveway and patio, by installing a 20-foot buffer along the lake, and develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan to improve ecosystem health and function. Staff recommends that if a variance for the proposed lot coverage is granted, the three aforementioned items be made conditions of approval. Shoreland Setback The city’s Shoreland Overlay District requires a 75-foot setback for properties located along Lake Minnewashta; however, the existing primary structure has a 52.9-foot setback from the lake. Since the applicant is proposing to demolish the existing structure and building a wider structure within the lake setback, a variance is required. Due to the fact that the property has an average depth of 122 feet, requiring the new home to meet the 75-foot shoreland setback would provide the applicant with a very constrained buildable area. These situations are fairly common in the city’s older lakeside neighborhoods, and the city’s practice has generally been to use the property’s existing lake setback to determine what shoreland setback is reasonable. Within 500 feet of the property, shoreland setback variances of up to 35 feet have been granted to facilitate the construction of homes, and a total of three shoreland setback variances of over 20 feet have been issued. The properties to the east and west of the parcel have respective lake setbacks of 54.6 feet and 61.4 feet. The proposed lake setback of 52.9 feet is in line with city precedent and similar to the setback maintained by the adjacent properties. Staff is concerned that significantly increasing the size of the structure and amount of impervious surface within the shoreland setback will increase the amount of stormwater runoff being diverted into Lake Minnewashta. Staff believes that requiring the rear patio discussed below to be constructed using permeable pavers and requiring the installation of a 20-foot buffer between the home and the lake will serve to mitigate this impact. Portions of the rear patio will be setback closer to the lake than the existing houses 52.9-foot setback. At its closest point, the proposed patio would be setback approximately 45 feet from the lake. Since the City Code allows for lakefront properties to have one water oriented accessory structure of up to 250 square feet with a minimum setback of 10-feet from the lake’s ordinary high Planning Commission 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 May 21, 2019 Page 13 of 16 water level, no variance is required for the patio’s encroachment into the shoreland setback. The applicant has agreed that the patio will be the property’s only water oriented accessory structure, and will be removing the existing fireplace area which is setback approximately 24 feet from the lake. Impact on Neighborhood Red Cedar Point is one of the oldest neighborhoods in the city. Many of its properties are non- conforming uses, and 16 of the 25 properties within 500 feet of 3617 Red Cedar Point Raod have been granted at least one variance. Of these 16 properties, 13 have a variance for reduced front yard setbacks, five have been granted additional lot coverage, and 11 were permitted a reduced shoreland setback. Many of the nine properties that do not have associated variances also have nonconforming lot coverage, front yard setbacks, and shoreland setbacks. The height of the proposed house is higher than some of the surrounding homes, but with a peak height of 27 feet and building height of 22 feet, it is significantly below the 35-foot maximum building height allowed by City Code. The existing housing stock in the surrounding area is a mix between older single-level homes and more recent two-story homes. Due to the unique constraints posed by each lot and the changes in architectural trends over the decades, the housing in this area is a fairly eclectic mix. Proposed House Street Elevation Existing House Street View Planning Commission 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 May 21, 2019 Page 14 of 16 SUMMARY The applicant’s proposed shoreland setback maintains the existing distance to the lake and granting it would be consistent with how similar requests have been treated in the past. The requested lot coverage variance represents a minimal reduction of an existing nonconformity, but if pervious pavers are utilized and a buffer is installed along the lake, the property’s stormwater management will be significantly improved. The proposed front yard setback will result in a very short driveway and a limited ability to accommodate on-site parking, but it is consistent with the surrounding properties and what has historically been allowed within the neighborhood. Staff recommends approval of the proposed variances with conditions. RECOMMENDATION “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 11.5-foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions.” 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Driveway slope shall not exceed 10 percent. 3. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easements are documented. 4. The applicant must enter into a roadway easement over the existing portion of the lot covered by street pavement and curb. 5. A new 1” = 20’ scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit application clearly showing the proposed setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and structures. This survey should also correctly note the 100-year FEMA floodplain and should show the lowest floor not less than three feet above the regional flood elevation. 6. At least one tree must be planted in the front yard, if one is not present after construction. 7. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the 28” oak tree from the grading and construction limits and locate tree protection fencing around it. 8. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side of the lot encompassing all existing trees. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities shall be replaced. 9. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area. 10. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from EAB. 11. The 228 square foot rear patio area is understood to be the property’s water oriented structure. 12. Lot coverage may not exceed 3,170 square feet. Planning Commission 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 May 21, 2019 Page 15 of 16 13. A permanent 20’ native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using native species with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 14. Develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan that is designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve ecosystem health. The plan may incorporate use of the existing riprap. The Design plan may require additional approvals and must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 15. The property owner must propose to further reduce hard cover associated with the driveway and patio through the use of pervious paver systems reviewed and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. Or “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 8.5-foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions.” 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Driveway slope shall not exceed 10 percent. 3. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easements are documented. 4. The applicant must enter into a roadway easement over the existing portion of the lot covered by street pavement and curb. 5. A new 1” = 20’ scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit application clearly showing the proposed setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and structures. This survey should also correctly note the 100-year FEMA floodplain and should show the lowest floor not less than three feet above the regional flood elevation. 6. At least one tree must be planted in the front yard, if one is not present after construction. 7. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the 28” oak tree from the grading and construction limits and locate tree protection fencing around it. 8. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side of the lot encompassing all existing trees. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities shall be replaced. 9. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area. 10. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from EAB. Planning Commission 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 May 21, 2019 Page 16 of 16 11. The 228 square foot rear patio area is understood to be the property’s water oriented structure. 12. Lot coverage may not exceed 3,170 square feet. 13. A permanent 20’ native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using native species with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 14. Develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan that is designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve ecosystem health. The plan may incorporate use of the existing riprap. The Design plan may require additional approvals and must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 15. The property owner must propose to further reduce hard cover associated with the driveway and patio through the use of pervious paver systems reviewed and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 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 a variance request to allow an 11.5- foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions.” ATTACHMENTS 1. Finding of Fact and Decision Approval 2. Finding of Fact and Decision Alternate Approval 3. Finding of Fact and Decision Denial 4. Variance Documents 5. Development Review Application 6. Tree Removal Plan 7. Survey 8. WRC Memo on 3617 Red Cedar Point 9. ERS Memo on 3617 Red Cedar Point 10. ENG Memo on 3617 Red Cedar Point 11. Affidavit of Mailing 12. Email from Resident G:\PLAN\2019 Planning Cases\19-03 3617 Red Cedar Point Road\Staff Report-3617 Red Cedar Point Rd Round2_PC.doc 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (APPROVAL) IN RE: Application of Pamela Reimer for an 11.5-foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance on a property zoned Single Family Residential District (RSF) - Planning Case 2019-03. On May 21, 2019, 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 Single Family Residential District (RSF). 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 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta 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 shoreland management ordinance is to protect the city’s aquatic resources by requiring structures to be setback 75 feet from lakes and limiting the maximum lot coverage permitted within 1,000 feet of a lake to 25 percent. The setback and lot coverage limitation is designed to minimize the amount of stormwater runoff that is discharged into the lake. The applicant’s proposal calls for maintaining the existing nonconforming lake setback and slightly reducing the existing lot coverage. Staff believes that by using pervious pavers, installing a vegetative buffer, and working with the watershed district to conduct a shoreline restoration project, the proposed home’s impact on Lake Minnewashta will be minimized. Given the existing nonconforming nature of the property and the BMPs being required as conditions of approval for the variance, the city believes that the applicant’s proposal balances protecting the lake and allowing for reasonable use on a nonconforming property. 2 The city’s zoning code requires a minimum front yard setback of 30 feet in order to provide for greenspace and a consistent neighborhood aesthetic. The applicant’s proposed reduction to the front yard setback is in conjunction with the removal of an existing driveway that occupies most of the front yard and is similar to the front yard setback maintained by other homes in the neighborhood. For these reasons, the requested front yard setback is in harmony with the Chapter’s intent of providing for greenspace and a consistent neighborhood aesthetic. 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 lot’s substandard size combined with the required front and lake setbacks mean a reasonably sized home could not be constructed on the property without a variance. 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 is located in an older subdivision and the existing structure does not conform to the current zoning code. The parcel is significantly smaller than the minimum size required for riparian lots zoned RSF. The substandard nature of the lot makes it impossible to construct a single-family home meeting the current zoning code. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The property is located in one of the city’s oldest subdivisions. The vast majority of the properties within 500 feet of the parcel either have received variances or are nonconforming uses. The existing housing stock is a mix between older single-level homes and more recent two-story homes. Due to the unique constraints posed by each lot and the changes in architectural trends over the decades, the housing in this area is a fairly eclectic mix. 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 #2019-03, dated May 21, 2019, prepared by MacKenzie Young-Walters, is incorporated herein. 3 DECISION “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 11.5-foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and an 11 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Driveway slope shall not exceed 10 percent. 3. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easements are documented. 4. The applicant must enter into a roadway easement over the existing portion of the lot covered by street pavement and curb. 5. A new 1” = 20’ scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit application clearly showing the proposed setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and structures. This survey should also correctly note the 100-year FEMA floodplain and should show the lowest floor not less than three feet above the regional flood elevation. 6. At least one tree must be planted in front yard, if one is not present after construction. 7. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the 28” oak tree from the grading and construction limits and locate tree protection fencing around it. 8. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side of the lot encompassing all existing trees. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities shall be replaced. 9. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area. 10. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from EAB. 11. The 228 square foot rear patio area is understood to be the property’s water oriented structure. 12. Lot coverage may not exceed 3,170 square feet. 13. A permanent 20’ native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using native species with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 14. Develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan that is designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve ecosystem health. The plan may incorporate use of the existing riprap. The design plan may require additional approvals and must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 15. The property owner must propose to further reduce hard cover associated with the driveway and patio through the use of pervious paver systems reviewed and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 4 ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 21st day of May, 2019. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Steven Weick, Chairman g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-03 3617 red cedar point road\findings of fact and decision 3617 red cedar_round2 (approval).doc 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (APPROVAL) IN RE: Application of Pamela Reimer for an 11.5-foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance on a property zoned Single Family Residential District (RSF) - Planning Case 2019-03 On May 21, 2019, 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 Single Family Residential District (RSF). 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 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta 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 shoreland management ordinance is to protect the city’s aquatic resources by requiring structures to be setback 75 feet from lakes and limiting the maximum lot coverage permitted within 1,000 feet of a lake to 25 percent. The setback and lot coverage limitation is designed to minimize the amount of stormwater runoff that is discharged into the lake. The applicant’s proposal calls for maintaining the existing nonconforming lake setback and slightly reducing the existing lot coverage. Staff believes that by using pervious pavers, installing a vegetative buffer, and working with the watershed district to conduct a shoreline restoration project the proposed home’s impact on Lake Minnewashta will be minimized. Given the existing nonconforming nature of the property and the BMPs being required as conditions of approval for the variance, the city believes that the applicant’s proposal balances protecting the lake and allowing for reasonable use on a nonconforming property. 2 The city’s zoning code requires a minimum front yard setback of 30 feet in order to provide for greenspace and a consistent neighborhood aesthetic. The applicant’s proposed reduction to the front yard setback is in conjunction with the removal of an existing driveway that occupies most of the front yard and is similar to the front yard setback maintained by other homes in the neighborhood. The front yard setback also exists to ensure properties provide adequate off-street parking; the proposed driveway length of 15 feet is insufficient to accommodate an average sized vehicle. In order to provide for adequate off-street parking an average driveway length of at least 16 feet is required. The requested front yard variance does not provide for this length, but granting an 8.5-foot front yard setback variance instead of the requested 11.5-foot front yard setback variance would meet the intent of the ordinance. 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 lot’s substandard size combined with the required front and lake setbacks mean a reasonably sized home could not be constructed on the property without a variance. 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 is located in an older subdivision and the existing structure does not conform to the current zoning code. The parcel is significantly smaller than the minimum size required for riparian lots zoned RSF. The substandard nature of the lot makes it impossible to construct a single-family home meeting the current zoning code. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The property is located in one of the city’s oldest subdivisions. The vast majority of the properties within 500 feet of the parcel either have received variances or are nonconforming uses. The existing housing stock is a mix between older single level homes and more recent two-story homes. Due to the unique constraints posed by each lot and the changes in architectural trends over the decades, the housing in this area is a fairly eclectic mix. 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. 3 Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2019-03, dated May 21, 2019, prepared by MacKenzie Young-Walters, is incorporated herein. DECISION “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 8.5-foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and an 11 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Driveway slope shall not exceed 10 percent. 3. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easements are documented. 4. The applicant must enter into a roadway easement over the existing portion of the lot covered by street pavement and curb. 5. A new 1” = 20’ scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit application clearly showing the proposed setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and structures. This survey should also correctly note the 100-year FEMA floodplain and should show the lowest floor not less than three feet above the regional flood elevation. 6. At least one tree must be planted in front yard, if one is not present after construction. 7. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the 28” oak tree from the grading and construction limits and locate tree protection fencing around it. 8. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side of the lot encompassing all existing trees. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities shall be replaced. 9. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area. 10. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from EAB. 11. The 228 square foot rear patio area is understood to be the property’s water oriented structure. 12. Lot coverage may not exceed 3,170 square feet. 13. A permanent 20’ native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using native species with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 14. Develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan that is designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve ecosystem health. The plan may incorporate use of the existing riprap. The Design plan may require additional approvals and must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 4 15. The property owner must propose to further reduce hard cover associated with the driveway and patio through the use of pervious paver systems reviewed and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 21st day of May, 2019. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Steven Weick, Chairman g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-03 3617 red cedar point road\findings of fact and decision 3617 red cedar_round2_alt (approval).doc 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (DENIAL) IN RE: Application of Pamela Reimer for an 11.5-foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance on a property zoned Single Family Residential District (RSF) - Planning Case 2019-03. On May 21, 2019, 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 Single Family Residential District (RSF). 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 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta 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 zoning code’s shoreland overlay district was enacted to protect the city’s aquatic resources. Allowing the applicant to exceed the district’s 25 percent lot coverage limit and increase the extent of the nonconformity within the required 75-foot shoreland setback area increases the amount of runoff that will be directed to Lake Minnewashta and is contrary to the intent of the ordinance. The City Code allows for owners to improve their properties in ways that reduce an existing nonconformity. Increasing the size and amount of structure located within the shoreland setback increases, rather than decreases the existing nonconformity. The proposed reduction to the property’s impervious surface does not meaningfully improve the property’s stormwater management. Increasing nonconformities is not in line with the intent of the Chapter. 2 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 lot’s substandard size combined with the required front and lake setbacks mean a reasonably sized home could not be constructed on the property without a variance; however, the requested variances significantly exceed the minimum variances needed for the construction of a reasonably sized home. 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 is located in an older subdivision and the existing structure does not conform to the current zoning code. The parcel is significantly smaller than the minimum size required for riparian lots zoned RSF. The substandard nature of the lot makes it impossible to construct a single-family home meeting the current zoning code. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The proposed home is larger than those located on the surrounding properties, and deviates for the general lake home aesthetic present in the community. 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 #2019-03, dated May 21, 2019, prepared by MacKenzie Young- Walters, is incorporated herein. 3 DECISION “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies a variance request to allow an 11.5-foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance.” ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 21st day of May, 2019. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Steven Weick, Chairman g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-03 3617 red cedar point road\findings of fact and decision 3617 red cedar_round 2 (denied).doc 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 2019-03 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 an 11.5-foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance. 2. Property. The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as Lot 9, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta. 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Driveway slope shall not exceed 10 percent. 3. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easements are documented. 4. The applicant must enter into a roadway easement over the existing portion of the lot covered by street pavement and curb. 5. A new 1” = 20’ scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit application clearly showing the proposed setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and structures. This survey should also correctly note the 100-year FEMA floodplain and should show the lowest floor not less than three feet above the regional flood elevation. 6. At least one tree must be planted in the front yard, if one is not present after construction. 7. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the 28” oak tree from the grading and construction limits and locate tree protection fencing around it. 2 8. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side of the lot encompassing all existing trees. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities shall be replaced. 9. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area. 10. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from EAB. 11. The 228 square foot rear patio area is understood to be the property’s water oriented structure. 12. Lot coverage may not exceed 3,170 square feet. 13. A permanent 20’ native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using native species with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 14. Develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan that is designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve ecosystem health. The plan may incorporate use of the existing riprap. The design plan may require additional approvals and must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 15. The property owner must propose to further reduce hard cover associated with the driveway and patio through the use of pervious paver systems reviewed and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 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: May 21, 2019 CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: (SEAL) Elise Ryan, Mayor AND: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager 3 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2019 by Elise Ryan, 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 g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-03 3617 red cedar point road\variance document 19-03.doc 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 2019-03 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 an 8.5-foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance. 2. Property. The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as Lot 9, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta. 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Driveway slope shall not exceed 10 percent. 3. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easements are documented. 4. The applicant must enter into a roadway easement over the existing portion of the lot covered by street pavement and curb. 5. A new 1” = 20’ scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit application clearly showing the proposed setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and structures. This survey should also correctly note the 100-year FEMA floodplain and should show the lowest floor not less than three feet above the regional flood elevation. 6. At least one tree must be planted in the front yard, if one is not present after construction. 7. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the 28” oak tree from the grading and construction limits and locate tree protection fencing around it. 2 8. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side of the lot encompassing all existing trees. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities shall be replaced. 9. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area. 10. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from EAB. 11. The 228 square foot rear patio area is understood to be the property’s water oriented structure. 12. Lot coverage may not exceed 3,170 square feet. 13. A permanent 20’ native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using native species with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 14. Develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan that is designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve ecosystem health. The plan may incorporate use of the existing riprap. The design plan may require additional approvals and must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 15. The property owner must propose to further reduce hard cover associated with the driveway and patio through the use of pervious paver systems reviewed and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 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: May 21, 2019 CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: (SEAL) Elise Ryan, Mayor AND: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager 3 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2019 by Elise Ryan, 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 g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-03 3617 red cedar point road\variance document 19-03_alt.doc (Refer to the appropriate Application Checklist for required submittal information that must accompany this application) trtr tr ! n Comprehensive Plan Amendment.................. ... $600! fUinor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers..... $100 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) E Single-family Residence ........... .. $325 fl rut others........ .......... $425 lnterim Use Permit (lUP) n ln conjunction with Single-Family Residence..$325 E nltothers........ ....... $425 Rezoning (REZ) n Planned Unit Development (PUD) . . ... $750 E tvtinor Amendment to existing PUD........... ..... $100 E rut Others........ ..... $500 Sign Plan Review....... .... $150 Site Plan Review (SPR) n ROministrative......... ... $100 E Commercial/lndustrral Districts" .. $500 Plus $10 per 1 ,000 square feet of building area:(_ thousand square feet) *lnclude number of exisflno employees: _*lnclude number of ry employees: E Residential Districts ... $500 Plus $5 per dwelling unit (_ units) Subdivision (SUB) E Create 3 lots or less ............ .. $300 n Create over 3 lots ............. ......$600 + $15 per lot(_ lots) E Metes & Bounds (2 lots) ....$300 E Consolidate lots...... ..$150 [] Lot Line Adjustment.............. ........ $150 n rinat P1a1............. .. $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) n Single-Family Residence........... . $150 E ntothers........ ..... ...$275 Zoning Appeal . .. $100 Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) .... $500 p[!: When multiple applications are processed concurrently, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. tr tr n a n tr n f, eroperty Owners' List within 500' (city to generate after pre-application meeting) @_rJJr".r"rl E] Escrow for Recording Documents (check all that apply) E Conditional Use Permit E lnterim Use Permit I Vacation Z Variance n Metes & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.) E Easements (- easements)E Deeds C.r l^r TOTAL FEE: '4L $3 per address $50 per document E Site Plan Agreement E Wetland Alteration Permit Description of Proposal: 3617 Red Cedar Point Rd.Property Address or Location: Parcel#: Existing Use of Property: 256600320 Legal Description:Block 4, Lot 9, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta TotalAcreage:0.23 Wetlands Present? Present Zoning. Single-Family Residential District (RSF) Present Land Use Designation' Residential Low Density Detached Single Family Single-Family Residential District (RSF) E Yes Z tto Requested Zoning: EChect< box if separate narrative is attached. Requested Land Use Designation. Residential Low Density Q<_ lq ^o3 CO-IIIMUNITY DEVELOPM ENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division -7700 Market Boulevard Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147 , Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952) 227 -1300 / Fax: (952) 227 -1 110 Submittaro.,"'[ \f Q,\ t9 pcDate:5]LtrJ--.{-13- ccDate:t/ro ( tq 60-DayReviewrr,",L[tY ltt *crTYor APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW vc Section 1:allthat Section 2: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. Address: City/Statr Email: nName: Trrt.tr, Q*^tr contact: l)n.^eln 2r; tf Phone: ?,< rC- ,l I O, ft/e A ?se- ato. s4se Signature: " a*&i=2 Daro: 4-/7*/? PROPERTY OWNER: In 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. 2r.;.,o ,4. -9r,-,ho contact: GF€' Soubq *u City/State/Zip ,ff& f /otz- Atb- qffl 5 Address: ' %/l th, f ' f'=a /?" (?' '* Phone: Fax Signature: PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable) Name: at Fax: oa" Qrz;z /7, ?d1 7 Address: Contact: Phone: City/State/Zip: Email: Cell: Fax: 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. Who should receive copies of staff reports? 6wtrtr *Other Gontact lnformation : Name:Property Owner Applicant Engineer Other. Via: Via: Via: Via: EIEmail I fuaiteO Paper Copy EfEmail I UaiteO Paper Copy ! Email ! tvtaiteO Paper Copy f] Email I tvtatbO 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 Section 4: Notification lnformation April 10, 2019 City of Chanhassen Community Development Department 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 5531,7 Re: Variances for 3617 Red Cedar Point Road We are requesting the following variances on the property: L. L0.9o/o hard cover variance 2. 2Z.l ft.lake set back variance 3. 18.5 ft front yard setback from property line to the NE garage corner fustifications for the variance: L. The lot is sub standard. 2. We will be removing an old structure and building a new home. 3. Increased tax base for the city. 4. We will reduce the current hard cover by 44 sq.ft. 5. Current homes in the neighborhood have similar variances that we are applying for and therefore this helps justify the variance; furthermore, this property was approved in 2018 for exact above variance. 6. We will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 7. We will be bringing the side setback into compliance by removing the outhouse. Note: The patio in the backyard is the water oriented structure. The current structure on the property is a 1930's vintage Sears mail order cabin that is showing its age. The structure does not have a garage or a working bathroom, rather an outhouse that is beyond the side yard setback. The driveway currently is gravel and runs the entire width of the property and is lacking in green space. Our plan is to build a single family home (plans attached) that will improve the neighborhood from aesthetics and tax base standpoint. I am currently a neighbor and look forward to moving down the street, closer to long-time friends. As mentioned above, we will also be reducing the current hardcover and bringing the West side yard setback into compliance. Sincerely, Pamela Reimer 7/e t Re r4oval The Gregory Group,Inc. INVOICE NO. 86405,87086 dh. F.B.NO.__ 1093.44 LOT SURVEYS COMPANY SCALE.1"• 20 Established ii 1962 LAND SURVEYORS Doom remelt=ellemeeret REGISTERED UNDER T1¢LAWS OF STATE OF NNESOTA 0'i11"w`"'"tMI N017M1Ammo 111•4 4701160.101/1 p...lamer SUS fby•ly 460.1122 3ururyurs MertifiruteS.w6 ear EXISTING CONDI TIONS SURVEY FOR: 1>.wlae • Greerrimesi1 seureed MARK D.WILLIAMS CUSTOM HOMES Bolding Seats*1106.11111116111 Freed($0.V)-30 fast Side -10 feet Property located a S6croe 011W•7S Meet dates ef7 NO eager) I,Towage's 116.Reye 23, Caner Corry.Maeraa Property Address: 3617 Red Ceder Net Rd. e•st•.9 hardcover Ch66hma6.MN 5.22 sr k ChonoChoosy meted Beachreeh rang d/rilery odd.03627 ReLdmtee - 7A3 se kaeration•037.30 feet Gamete - 327 sq ft Grad s lace - 2105 aq h ditancws road • 543 sq.h!rot mc6aded mikes - r3,1k rbefteoe - 101 se ft z3.3s iNrrenb9e 3C.36%Parr rd two "We Note:The road surface d 543 al h.5 rot s.c4ded a the Aandhow r or the total lot arca CodaPRed omt Road Ili t •- S 84'SOY r E 79.• 1 c-aa r,owe O•01.501,,, P. 4 I - 1` 95202 n - ''-'=- i.--- r----- --------114-Z- 1 err , sic '1sus. a.r 1 920'7 010 i OS0 ween 3t err T _ s 10 44 A I asz i za i i rLrwr X Oi 1OOs.9 150 r a +- F 952.2 9545 2.5r-ne .,.a tiA a s tG.o r 7 Na 3622 55r 7 Ile4,64 No. a»:: 2-5r-fit I le NI a' j t0.0 e•. l34.e Ab.3613 Z s •7 4,e - et,' I fo 9 1 !3z r 9s 1 r12€.3 4.---.74,77-76wn,s.ri$ 10.0 7" -• OIL --' 4 W4r a1vl309 /! • p " III!34 4 932.9 W 2 Rt f.X l 36 7 S oa Dec* 93r.L I ii 4:444 , 7 ni i oar I w rt, m. 2;1 aslsr 7 22, o •-- _ z, 4 I 95 5 . 3302 tjvr..,4...,t.fore I leo.. q I 9504 950•_ x; L-i©u~ 947.4 ,` nyso.v mm2 merp 949.5 Itreptses 949.'5 u x.r 5410.: 9no 2447--x__ t SW$It 2445 C aIroe 804 4.> l I I 41It\ 9«a _':__caw a - .Pi rr3Y.117eg60' .11.1. 80.0 •94c9 •94...c wt '.La-.-90i4`s l+e.s =_--_ 944 5 -1 7144.$ 941.5 r efhroomite"wens hem Goo*odes acne..1454 Lake Minnewashta 00 ler Neal p.Mae-545.0 711..ray...s... em.are as..pre of mate.r i4enea.n Lots 9 and 10.Block 4,RED CEDAR POINT LAKE MB.INEWASHTA ptosed y dint.Carver Comty,Minnesota 1 aaaty Net W.Max p.oln6...er repot mei propeiad fe to• etder.ry dead aper rb.end NW 1.71.017016rerot tea. oiler Maar a.a..et M pea•mimosa. Surveyed 9W 1711 day d May 2017 5.__ M 511-6-- 1 nand elft On.n Pry ) 7 1‘21-,1 1-Oo-17 added(laest0ne Woes 6• vee.s lir.lleg.!..IrM r -____ - .•4.4.44,4.444414.4164•480444404..r..r.... •am. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: MacKenzie Walters, Assistant City Planner FROM: Renae Clark, Water Resources Coordinator DATE: May 6, 2019 SUBJ: Variances for 3617 Red Cedar Point Road Project Summary: The applicant is proposing a new single family home in replace of an existing home at the above address on Lake Minnewashta. The project requires a variances from the Shoreland Management requirements within Chapter 20 of the City Zoning Code for hard cover and lake setback. A similar project was reviewed and approved by the City in 2018. The proposed project makes slight improvements to water resources by reducing impervious surface approximately 300 square feet (sq. ft.). Recommendations provided below remain generally consistent with the previous authorization. Water Resources Review Comments and Recommendations: 1. Tree protection fence, located outside the dripline, should be shown on the site plan for all trees proposed to be saved. 2. The Site Plan dated 4/26/19 (REV) incorrectly notes the 100 YR FEMA floodplain for Lake Minnewashta as 945.0 feet. The correct floodplain elevation per FEMA (Dec. 2018) is 945.9 feet. City Code section 20-329 requires the lowest floor not less than three feet above the regional flood elevation. The plan indicates a crawl space that does not meet this threshold. The plan should be updated to show all low floor elevations meeting this standard. 3. The proposed plan reduces hardcover by approximately 300 sq. ft. To mitigate the impacts to Lake Minnewashta of a reduced lakeshore setback and increased impervious service, I recommend the following conditions consistent with the previously approved variance request: a. A permanent 20’ native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using native species with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. b. Develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan that is designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve ecosystem health. The plan may incorporate use of the existing riprap. The Design plan may require additional approvals and must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. c. The property owner must propose to further reduce hard cover associated with the driveway and patio through the use of pervious paver systems reviewed and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. MEMORANDUM TO: MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner FROM: Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Specialist DATE: May 21, 2019 SUBJ: 3617 Red Cedar Pt Rd, Variances to construct a home The lot has a number of existing mature trees in the rear yard. They are all within the shoreland impact zone and are therefore required to be preserved and protected. According to the submitted plan, a 28” oak in the shoreland impact zone is not scheduled for protection. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the tree and remove it from the grading area. To protect the trees during construction, the following practices are required: • Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of construction and grading limits. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. • When excavating near the tree, roots should be cut by hand or a vibratory plow to avoid ripping or tearing the roots. • No equipment or materials may be stored within the tree protection area/rear yard. Additionally, as required by city ordinance, one tree will be required to be planted in the front yard. Recommendations: 1. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the 28” oak tree from the grading and construction limits and locate tree protection fencing around it. 2. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side of the lot encompassing all existing trees. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities shall be replaced. 3. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area. 4. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from EAB. MEMORANDUM TO: MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner FROM: George Bender, Assistant City Engineer DATE: May 2, 2019 SUBJ: Multiple Variance Requests for 3617 Red Cedar Point Rd Planning Case: 2019-03 The requested variances have been reviewed and the following comments were noted: ● A title search for the property should be required in order to document all existing easements. ● The plan should allow for reasonable off-street parking in the driveway. The edges of the driveway are not dimensioned but by scale the west side is 14.5’ and the east side is 11’. Providing a minimum average length of 16’ is recommended based on Staff research for the average size vehicle length. (Essentially the garage would need to be moved back 3’ from the back of the curb) ● The slope of the driveway shall not exceed 10%. ● A dedication of ROW over the street pavement and curb is requested. If a dedication is not feasible to request then an easement over the existing roadway portion of lot would be acceptable. ● Maintain the requirements from the prior review for this lot as part of Planning Case 18-01. 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 May 9, 2019, 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 request for variances for hard cover, lake setback and front yard setback for property located at 3617 Red Cedar Point Road,zoned Single Family-Residential (RSF), Planning Case File No. 2019-03 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. k)\j Kim T. Me'ssen, Deput Cl rk Subscribed and sworn to before me this(3'P'day of IY1 C 2019. x,1--4,,rJEAN M STECKLING L`eeC w oaiwrwon ate..101 31,a7tNotaryPublic . 4 14 11 1 r m''..... r.CedaPoktt Rd =, ' ', ' f n \ p ..000- 4.. . \ \ Subject Property Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one.This map is a compilation of records,information and data located in various city, county,state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown,and is to TAX_NAME» be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic TAXADDL1» Information System(GIS)Data used to prepare this map are error free,and the City does TAX ADD L2» «TAX ADD L3»not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes§466.03, Subd. 21 (2000),and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims,and agrees to defend,indemnify,and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User,its employees or agents,or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. im4-- z Ni G's, - // t 7:* , , daGedai.POk( 411‘ a Subject 4 ` Property ihb Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one.This map is a compilation of records,information and data located in various city, county,state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown,and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System(GIS)Data used to prepare this map are error free,and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the Next Record»«TAX_NAME» depiction of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to TAX ADD L1» Minnesota Statutes§466.03, Subd.21 (2000),and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims,and TAX_ADD_L2», «TAX_ADD_L3» agrees to defend,indemnify,and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User,its employees or agents,or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. p a m. w r 0 N C O `' N (n O 0 C z cam (O r um° w.so yr 2,...„8 a 0 n > C O N bTO- ova° m .cm. o Lac Oa« N 0 0 O N N a E c1' 1 EL •> S a) oUd dm. em wrE 86- oc O Y N o .0 — U U N ` N C 3 t .- a t 0) mcami umiEcmE c v CO U 6 Q)— N O C N ., (O O a N O m H N N N a"i m c d 1-0N — ce 0 '0 3 .( 1)— • - 0 a) u) 0- L 0) O yc F d and mymc E .- O C U C Ti N U E = a C oE , cmEd_ 3oE mmO (O (O QN p U (OL = .0 •+7, p mo¢ °aoT- Vic - acm Of6 -0 > M ..•, N -6 .O .0 3 (OL 0 a Q ? j a (2c-) o, mmUmWN (COaO' , cg 01 c 12 > U ., N 0i L. +. U Q N j 0 N O +-' O E > E E O a c m a H E c a o U a t So tC Q) a - as - V OEO Op 'VE O > VL +- 0000 . me Emy c= mSTc' d 0) L y N (O to C C O _C Q Q y E N 0 , . N •-d = L a) a) (n m a 82 m U E o '2 U=- m NO L w ... L ( O O C O 0` CL E — C V O Q > 'y a . 0 N 3Lo foo (T, iE 8 c L O o m H (O O u, ..9, -- c7)- 0.. c0O O O V O O E L £ 3 3 m m d m B E c m° gy m L C O 0 +. coo N C N + O N U 0_./... +,. C U) (A a m.cHCCDiiivwarnmro y 0 p O U (0 d . C p 3 0 CD E a w O cofl ! iUCO m 2' 11 :UU ':flllasyOOtiCQ-LL•O . E O Q 47_ O C 4) N N v m° a O ` p N y N Q O p 3 C a N L m r m Tm m 0.-0 C (j (t i co 0) L O w 4- .1) O -O "O U N 0 ..+O (/ Q.L a+ Q ` m U a 3 E 8 _ p " > QC ay. U O a C U " o N -C a 0 O 0 coo m >a EvBymo- v 0 p 2,m ` O -0 N > . 0 0 C_c O N .> 0 (O Q O co p " 3 U C . c ° m m 5 m«• r y°-2 a T a oOd) c O .2 p a L -p 'C > Q0 V 0- Q C QN X Oa) p) cm2 a3-°o .°11a20tm20bc:c d C N_Q L co N N C Com. to N 3 O • N - 3 a (n O N Q N N ^— a O •.m a m 1° o a ac 2$ a E ca w v° w .0 _- NU OL O •p w . O N O) in N t_ >,N N O a O = O m0 mncomom'vm cto a c N of•U El..)p N d O -.,., ca) O .c ,a)_ C0 N ' C N U (O L N L E L Q. (a za Q N d m c d L E v.. >a m in m o , en -a N y N U +: CO O) L (n (n (n a) I—C O E o'vy m- Emyoam o tr« v a >,,c C p .a C (O• O cr.O 0, •V 0 0 • C O ` O) .0 a s (O N ,+ m =m ^ E o B E =." m e c y ° °a ca+co N DO co E N O) N 0 C — Q N 4) ... O` co .«' " C r a — +. a E w c o om. E E m Oa. m OZc2 > 0),-- >. N w U c N N ( n 3 N 0-L a) (O as .( O ' O C .0 m fn c 22 y¢ o g H s s 2 m a>,r m n m E y N U +' O C Q N E U Q CO (n V O >> a C p () O E O E o E'ES. .- .6 E. ' 5 c ki 00 (O O w0 (O N O O N - C..., C L O 7 O 3 ?.. V 0 0 0 N U ' a + 0 0 0 7 c 8 8 m c°o v.-g Z, m . rn m. sz v d m L 41 N c = 0 C a IX 1V 0-.0 5 .VU1— Ud +.. OU O C)QE (CO g C s- > -° C amc tR myo agm2t3yEONTa. E 7 E > O ommEmm ac° 5 ° O 7 4? =' O C O (O (p- -c Q L 0 N O O >, O -0 O C .` N •D E m 3 0 80_, 0 H (gO F- (Odd MQ H CO CO Q' NM .-. (n L 0 (OU 0 0-- O N N mEmmt a=rmrn0.82m Oa N2rnOvE_ 0 N N E°mo" 8Em'no= n8occ C C 0- O L cmmEOemmvaSmv ncc a a) a 0 C_ Ca cammmovLoinNry iam E_ 0.4-• 0r) In. a, 0c0 ._, M CC Oa Bar.+ a yE8aQ. - Q. (O O L a my 20, 10="- c omv 4-. 0 0 Q. 0 0 L r 3 O W 0 Tr' ovcm >L8°o moo ° camomm O 0 a- Q- 1 O O v U0._inmra >mvsa¢ Em !a CI _i a. < dJ O a0 z Q c) . 0 a m.w c c Ca 13 u 63d— g,.E Fyo3 WLo4- n NO = C '- as N r 154 cr OCL -0 N C = 'a -O N OU L n > Y CZN (O -, C cDa ° uEE H= '5 m y NO O L N j N O N E ` E >a) o c m 8 ` d 15 aY L L — "-'U N •N C 3 a 0) myE ;roa «E 8a v cm E . c $N OCN7NOa p gym r 8a 0 m m mT?c CO O 3 a'N (n0' L 42 CNC F- m.0 ; 0 mmmmCN- v N Q U n EoN 6E13p O C .' U C OL - L . 0 mo¢ vET msoEac ma o) p -0 > Np Q O O c (O .0 0 a) 0- 3 ••-• N0 mU T.- EL) o'- co C > U NQNN0Ca UoaECNrnmflIfluIIa)r L y p aV OE N (n jyOw. OLN QN0E c 8r UE L. UwuaNONN0LEEaNNY + N C C N OO 'e2H " L ` O m8 { 2s 2 m wO N O. + i c 3 a .8,0= m ° cm `rE 08 61 O E N g n Ew • QNCD0LN N '- U a L- n O C 15 = U .O mcm aco¢d > 3.fi 0-p 0 U 0 C •- (O O p p "' y — . CO p I C O LL NEO O , aN (O O m iLo m m 0 2200 ( O O Q OC NONQ 3 >+ N amdO « . CQ• p _ N 3 -• N E - > (4 O a E LmrE >,m a = n 0 - cQ0) L 0 + `- N -, -0 -O p)N7 Udst _ o d.-oa) c U N V O 075Om am8m >uON o ; OCL O = Cvmmc8mm 8>c-0 L Of0 N N .- Q- •(7 — 3 -- -0 a 'Dvoo12LEQL • 0 C .. Xa) • oO - amcmmcHUU0 cn cr) O7c- •o +.. Y 'O CC ` 000 - OUO CQE . - .. V C -O n O a m«pC (OnU N N QO0 C — N o Eao -«omAAiCa7 OC CL (n . = C L (n a n N NQ N D) a •- ` COO y m V' y N aDc2Ecw^U° a m° m .-).o.• C - a) U 0L 0 'pC +n . 2N NC) N C >,N _ a a ^ C 0 m U mm us m« ° p N d 0 0 _cOC (O OURLN - cEL ( 60- O mm c m r E ca o m 4.2 mas ,- p•U O n -0Ly . a) N > (O 'C (n -5N (f 0 t—C 0 E c E a m_ E c m o 2 d8 .t r rNOa) O NO • .0O ° , L mmtrcdE -Ym S.Cl- 'c 7 0 ( E et.O 0), c 00p •OCLO .toL 2on0L (C ++ .-cr.. a O . aE om `Om m'T,2 E u a o -vOCd0 (O 0ONNQ'r- 0- U 2 Q L a .F ,O L _ C8o m ymmm m na= z ( Aa N U O A U E O ) in CO 0' E C ( na) , N O0 +,. En y m EE mv_ Ea> `2- E a — -- +C. 0 -p C 0-' N" - N "' EQ' (O •- C NU) O a cpc V . o E Na tccnOy O NO ma) oL3 a0Q , E0 m e g 8-30,0 -8.R rn0 -aoR -0 - c2pcc CC%.7)„. U UL O O O U EC C L Op E .nii UmN' a •cc-L nc 0 I VQ, 0 1— U d . OE NE . O > C ms - cogcymU c o O a Q 0 0 Q E > Ecy c ' EN0EmmmoO >, O "d O C .` U c aE 8 a rn sma04 .— O 0 O c - L QL 0 Q. m N U (O d d co Q CO CO 0-r a.. n ›.- .0 U (O U O NNwOci m . 8ma,Lt mDrnVc,„ moE - c . L 8pc0ynmEomo« ocmoasE y.E5oC0OLcmf. aoymva3 -5Lc8Y. a aC 0 C C y maE9E5oc5 3(n 2 51,. F, 0r..NCE 0om . mv mT ov-0a C C c oaQc .) ° a Oa .22mmi m ti5o ° 00 2FCOC >> C a .cO a n vi. • ; ommmaa3 `ammay =Lrn8OylatO a la Q. a CL03 OL y C Y Ua,vncm mmuD`O2ym32v8 0 0 •Q- O 0 L r.+ O W V a oD17, >t°o o ° camimmai CO O L 0. L O O nU O nmHa >U7 a¢ Em n o a Qa - 3 (a a0 z Q C5 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C C C C C C C C C C C C C I- F F F I- 1- I- C C C C = 1- 1- F- = Z_ ZZZZZZZZZ Z 0 0 0 0 0 Z_ Z_ Z_ 0 000000000 0 cc C C C = 555 =O O C a a a a a a a a a a a < Q a a < a a a a C C C cc C C C C C C a C C c, 0 0 0 0Ccc 0 C C C 0 Z- a a a a a a Q a a a Q W W W W W Q Q Q w 0 > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 0 > U U U U > U C C C U CU w CCLU LU LU w LU w w w w CCw CC2 2 2 2 0 = LU w LU = a U O D U U U U U U U 0 0 0 0 F 1_ 1_ 1- 01- U001- F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > DDD U D 0 0 0 D Ii) Lu w w w w w w w w w w 0 0 0 0 — 01-1-11-1-11-u0 w C 2 C C C C C C C C C 2 C 2 N N N v1 2 V1 C C C v1 a N N t0 M U1 N en 03N U1 N 00 01 O ri N N Ln CO N O 01 V M i en r-1000 .-1 ri N NI N N N M 01 0100001-1004 0 2 l0 CO CO co l0 l0 CO CO (.13 CO CO CO CO LO CO lD N N N N N lD l0 N v1 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 0101010-101010101M NIN .1 .-i ,1 .-1 O O .1 .1 l0 .-1 )43 l0 CO CD 00 00 CO 00 lD 1- 1 N 01 N N N N N N N N l0 N l 0000 00 CO CO LO CO N l0 .1 N N ' N N N N N N N N N N N l0 lD LO lD lD N l0 N 01 lD M N N 111 N N N N N N NN 01 1 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 V 00 01 11 00 00 .1 -1 ‘Li e-1 .1 .-i ‘Li ri .-,i r-1 .-i c11 ‘.LI .-1 .-i .1 '-i .1 ri Lf1 M .1 O ri LO 00 M M M enM enM M M en M M M M M enM en en cr en 0 M O O M M MLnLnLr) M M M M M M en M M M M M M M M en en M M Q Ln U1 Ln en O U1 U1 U1 V1 111 U1 LnLi-) Lt-) U1 U1 U1 U1 U1 U1 U1 U1 V) U1 LI1 U1 Ln Z z Q1 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z J I- Z Y Y 0I D J C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Z Z C O wOQ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° ° 0 Q Y L a J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J Z Z J X I VI LU ca U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U Z Z U a 2 0 Q X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X F U C U w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w L L w C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 C C a C C C a cc C C U F F F HI- F F F F C C C C C CCH Z ZZZZZZZZ Z 0 0 0 0 0 0Z 000000000 0 0 = = = = = C O F CI C C CC C C C CC a 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C Z > M a W « « « « « = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 0 > U U U U U > U 0 w CC CC u_i Z C J Z N C W W W W W W W W C W C 2 2 2 2 2 C 2 W a W w10QQUUUUUUUUOUOFFFFF .....F U 2 F a 0 > cc =100000000600 CI- D 0 0 - O 0 _U C Z Q 000 O > CC z z CC CC z CC LLI CC = CC = 0 0 0 0 O = OU C U -, I 01 UJ .-1 en Ln N en 00 Ni Lf1 N 00 01 O .-i M N .-i Ui lD N O O .-i .-i X O N O O O O .-i r-1 N N N N N M M M M O O O O .--1 M O O ri M l0 l0 lD l0 to l0 l0 l0 l0 kb to l0t0 t0 LC N N N N N M 01 N iF '-i rri M M M M M M M M 01 M en M en en en en en en en In U1 N FNCF Z F m Z U Lu g Z ww0w CC Z Z CC 7 o Z N C = a V)a Y w O F ow cri F- < a 00 D O Q Z U lu N w 00 _Z C F r O Z Y C a LL1 5 Z Q LUN - F 6 CC 0- 0O3-J- Y C F 0 0UCJwkr) ZZ am Z a C = Q 0 a C7 (9 .‹a C7Z Q Q Z C C Q Q O > w Z Z Z m 0C 2 en O Dkn , w O w - w Z m 0 vI c Z W --I w O Y Q LL co 0 a 00 a Z SG Z O2 .< 1- w C7 CI" Q O w OSS Q w Z co 0 N a - ce w -, Q a cc ZI 0 a Z w Q (9 Q w w > O F w Q C > 2 w w O 2 Z O w 0 XI- CC a O w a 0 0 a F- LLUU Q O I- 01- a = Q Z cc 0 = Q cc F- a (7 w x a 0 = 0 N m 0 (7 U In 0.. a F O < C7 U c -I 0 0000000000000000000000000 N N r1 N 00 01 r1 N M M .7 U1 U1 LO l0 r-1 CO 01 .--1 00 N 00 O V O M O O N N N M O O M M O M O M Ln M M C U1 M O 'h 0000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000 l0 l0 l0 lD l0 l0 lD lD lD l0 l0 l0 l0 W l0 l0 l0 W W lD lD lD lD l0 l0 13 CO Z Ui LLI) 1LI1 LLI) LID LI1 UU1 V) U 1 Lf1 ) UULD10D LO 1 V) V1 LU1 UUi V 1 Ui Ui Ull0 CID U1 Ui Ui U 1 LLI1 UO1 U 1 d N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Steckling, Jean from: Scnt: To: SubjGCt Walters, Ma(Kenzie Monday, May 13, 2019 7:51 AM Steckling, Jean FW: 3517 Red Cedar Point Road ' variance From: davemeryjo@aol.com <davemaryjo@aol com> S.nt: Friday, May 10, 2019 4:40 PM To: kaaenenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us; walters, MacKenzie <Mwalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: Re: 3617 Red Cedar Point Road - variance Kate & MacKenzie, We are $riting this email in respons€ to the variance request at 3617 Red Cedar Point Road' 5 houses east of our house on Lake Minneweshta. we arB gonerally in support of the proposed development, holvever, have a serious concem regarding the lack ol off: - .tr*t p"'*ing rie City'cooe requiiei'aoequ+ otrlstreet parking.be pro/ided and requires a minimum stall length of 18 ieet. -if"arfinA pnn ioes not iroviae nil fn" turr"y does n6t str6w tre proposed distance trom the edge of tho ;;^t ,*i tffg io garage tdr parr,ing cars in the driveway, howe\€r, it appears to be approximatety 11 bet ln the . ;Ji;rH hd;t*'"rp[s"ja -nE. for adequate off sreei pafiing. I am not aware of an_yrranances granted since the Lunent zoning orOinances was put in place in dre l976's that allowed a driv ey l33s $an 18' in length The two properfies ".iost tre ste€t are very tEht on ofi-steet parking bul both can accommodate hro \rehicles and both were bn'"truaeo *ett uebre the cunent zoning rules were established' This conditioo is even mofe extreme than typical b€caus€ the roads in this neighborhood are extremely nanow From our norr"i"ii io Ut" "nd of the point the road'is too nanow to park a car without blocking vehicular travel' this includes ule iL" of n" proposeo development. Red Cedar Point Road ind South Cedar Drive are slightly wider.lr'€st of the inter.""ion'ilr6*ing for parliing on one one side of the road, horlever. people ofien park 2' ontoour lawn on both streets in oiOii to o""t" ,-orc room blr can to pass resulting in tom sod, mud and damage to o-ur sprinkler system since the city oia not instatt curtring when the roads rire upgraaeoi whil€ this is a realty as a result oJ platting long betore the zoning coo" ,rras "oopoo, ie dont want to see it milnified by making it worse than it akcedy B - espeoally when there are i&"oniof. aftLraes. Reducing g1e deptr ot f,re garaleunouse from the prcposed 17''2" lo 41 bet u,ould allow the minimum required bf cars to perk the length of the driveway We are pleased to see pam stay in $e neighboftood and have verbally expressed this concem to her. We trust $e staff can work with tie applicant to address this concern Thank you for your consideration. Dave & Mary Jo Bangas.ser 3633 South Cedar Drive Chenhassen. MN 55331 I Steckling, Frpm: S.nt To: Su$cct Walters, MacKenzie Monday, May 20, 2019 1:01 PM Steckling, rean FW: Proposed variance for 3617 Red Cedar Point Rd Fmm: Nancy Renneke <nancyrennekewrites@Smail.com> Scnt: Monday, May 20, 2019 12:04 PM To: Walters, MacKenzie <MWalte6@ci.chanhass€n.mn.u5> Subject Proposed variance for 3517 Red Cedar Point Rd Dear Ms. Walters: Hello, I am writing to support our neighbor, Pam Reimer, in her request for a property varianoe. We live just a fei,y lots past her new property at 3617 Red Cedar Point Rd. We are nelv to the neighborhood, but I recently visited with her and trust that she'll be a good stewad of her future home and'Lake Minnewashta. We're exciled that a responsible buyer has come along to finally take care of this lot the way it deserves to be maintained. lt's a potentially beautiful lot, but the old Sears cabin is run down and the lot needs the loving care - and grass - Pam will provide. Her ownership will make the neighborhood betterfor all and I hope you'll agree that her plans are appropriate. It's my understanding that Pam's proposal offers adequate parking and it's apparent that her proposed driveway is not unusual for our little community. lf you've driven down our street, you'll appreciate that this is a unique neighborhood where houses are close together, the street is nanow and everyone's parking is limited. That's part of its lakeside neighborhood charm. The p€ninsula is a dead end and it's apparent to us already that this isn't a street with traflic other than people who live here and our guests. lt's our understanding and experience that since \rre all live on a unique street, everyone cooperates with each other. Case in point, one of our neighbors just gave us permission to bonow part of his driveway for two days to park our boat before we are able to get in the water. I hope you and the planning commission will see that our street is unique, and that Pam's variance request suits the neighborhood. We feel lucky that Pam - an experienoed homeo,vner and good neighbor on the lake - will redevelop that site, and we hope her variance request will be approved, allowing construc{ion of a beautiful home that will enhan@ our neighborhood. Thank you. Jean Regards, Nanry Renneke 3607 Red Cedar Point Rd. I Steckling. From: SGnt To: SubiGCt Attrchm.nls: Walters, MacKenzie Tuesday, May 21, 2019 7:56 AM Steckling, rean FW: 3617 Red Cedar Point Road Variances 5.20.19 Rcd Cedar Point Garage Survey l.pdf From: Steve Gunther <stguntherCgmail.com> S.,tt Tuesday, May 21, 2019 7:09 AM To: wahers, MacKenzie <Mwalters@ci.chanhass€n.mn.us>; kaaenenronOci.chanhassen.mn.us SubiGGt 361/ Red Cedar Point Road Variances Mackenzie and Kate. I am writing this email in response to the Variance Requests for 3617 Red Cedar Point Road(the former Souba properly). This is the same input that I offered when this propert) $as considercd for variances several months ago. I objected to thosc variance requests. feeling that the lot size. road uidth and the trallic panem wele not consisteat with rhe large house being considered for construction on rhat lot. My objections remain. I hope this time you uill tisten to the input from the neighbors who are to tx forever affected by your decisions. Firsr. as the presidenr ofthe Lake Minnewashta Prcsen'ation Association and an owner on the lake since 1998. I objecr to providing a hard cover variance for this propertl because of the effect it lr'ill have on water qualiq in the lake. The morc hardcover a property has. the less chance that rainwater has ro drain through the soil and be filrercd before k enters Lake Minnewashta. The LMPA has been spending considerable effon educating homeowners to lgbeg hardcover on their propenies for the good ofthe lake and all its users. We need more vegetation not less. On the road side. runoff from the driveway sen'icing the proposed 3 car driveway uill increase the transport of petroleum products and leaves and grass clippings into the storm drains. This sen'es to introduce contaminants into rhe lake. The impact ofthe petroleum products is obvious. The leaves and clippings serve as a nutrient source for the algae in the lake, which degrades the water qualitl' for everyone. A previous owner violated the hardcover limit and added a larger than allo$'ed Class 5 drivewaS'. That deviation should have been remediated. not made permanenl. Reducing the hard cover (by 44 square feet) t-et slil[ exceeding the hardcover requirement is not good enough. While I object to the lake setback variance requesl. I understand compromises must be made on a non- conforming lot. I expect that Chanhassen and the Watershed District uill requirc proper shoreline planting I Jean buffering or a rain garden to prevent direct runoff into the lake. LMPA board member Kevin Zahler is a trained Master arer Ste.iard and oitcrs his rn'ices without charge to rcsidents to help explain and plan this kind of action. Hc can bc reached ar 612{18-9817 or via email at kjzahlerg-hotmail com I also objecr to the street setback variance for safety reasons. t believe that. given the lot sizc, tlle number of street-f;ing garage spaces should be rcduced to 2. Because 3 garage sralls are planned, that rcduces the front setback on i Jrreeyiniersection that is inordinarely small and tighr. lfa car or walercraft/trailer is hanging into the str€et on lhat driveway space. it creates an undue hazard for others. irrcluding large garbage trucks. snon ploq,s and emergency vehicles thar have lo navigate lhos€ ver)'tight roads. The average-car length is 14-16 iect. For refercnie. a Honda Civic is over l5 feet long. lt looks like this drive*ay space is less than that. more like I l -12 feet. Having only a 2 car garage should not be considered a hardship for owners in this neighborhood where lots are narror,rl andsmall. Every lakeside house on Red Cedar Point. South Shorc Drive and Hickory Road has no mone than 2 garages excepl rhose that have much larger frontage or have side loaded garages. I've attached a marked up ROF forlour use. All homes constructed or remodeled in the last l5 years. with the exception of one house. have been constructed with only tr^.,o garages facing the street' If Ms. Reimer insists on having three stalls. wh! not have one of them be double deep? That eliminates the need for a street setback variance. It also reduces the amount of driveway- (hardcover) you need to scrvice the 3 spaces. We did thar *ith our house built in 2003 as a way to contain the footprint ofour house within the 25% hard cover limit. I may not be able to attend the Ptanning Commission meeting on Tuesday May 2lst but *ill do my besr to be there. In lieu ofthat. please accept this email as m1'objections to lhe hardcover and str€et sdback variance r€quests. I,ve copied m1. neighbon *'ho mighr be affecred by these variance requests u'ith my commerls in case they would like to send on rheir own. Steve Gunther 3628 Hickor.'- Road. Chanhassen. MN 55331 president, [:ke Minnewashta Prcsen'ation Association stgun ther a qmail.c ()m Citizen I Investor I lr{ultispons Enthusiast 2 gt ,t ,* tt *I!tE-<..\ItrS3\)f,r:!03lII:il(IIr! !i Eil:l!Eit: t:l!alEi8r t: e: Ir olgi Ei!! ;: =t!itl E.i .ai t.: 3;t!I. tr al$iEIal (F r.( i--i ------ - J N \ u T1.t) \) \ \, \ I \l\ ( l:: \i w\ $\:.\'L Ad r( t(' r *I *..' I,-''#.iF Y\'''lrll r( 7_*-...-' {', $ II:" tr I I il 5&L lltq' .t. s q. \ '{' \ L + \ t q \ Steckling. Jean Ftom: S.rt To: ssbi.ct F]Dm: Helen Gunther <helen.Sunth€r@results.net> SGnt Monday, May 2O,2Ol9 7:27 PM To: Walters, MacKenzie <MWalters@ci.chanhass€n.mn.us> Subjrt variance for 3617 Red cldar Point Rd. I am writing to express my concern for the proposed home to be built on 3517 Red Cedat Point Rd. As a homeowner on the lake I am enremely concerned about the plans for the new home. I was very concerned and disappointed when you approved the plans fo. the last home that was proposed for this lot. I felt it was way too bi8 for the size lot and th€ impact to the late and the surrounding neighbors was extremely detrimental. I also think whoever builds on a lot that is hss than X acre should build a home appropriate to the size of the lot...especially for a lakeshore lot. Red Cedar Point is a very narrow street, with little room for cars, trucks or emer8ency vehicles to go through as it is. Allowing a driveway as narrow as the one proposed is 8oin8 to cause accidents, frustrations, and po$ibly even danterous situations if emergencl/ vehicles are unable to Bet throuSh. Furthermore, hardly any homes on the point have a 3 car gara3e. The few that do are on much larger lots, and none of them erceed the hardcover code. The bt iust does not lend its€lf to a 3 car taraSe. The tarate needs to be furthet away from the street, which will increase hardcover, but it's why the home should only be approved for a 2 car garate. Last time plans for this lot were brought before the plannint commission, the board was happy the potentaal owner was not asking for a side yerd setback. This seemed incredulou3 to me since the lot is 80 feet wide and shouldn't need a side yard setback. Most of the people comint before the commission looking for side yard s€tbacls heve lots that are only y) or 60 feet wide. Someone ought to b€ able to build a lovely home on an 80 foot wide lot. I Walters, MacKenzie Tueday, May 21, 2019 7:59 AM Steckling,.,ean Fw: varian(e for 3517 Red cedar Point Rd. I realize there is more hardcover on the property now than building code allows, and I realize the propo3€d house plans reduce that hardcover a tiny bit. But I have a hard time believing that asphalt and a house absorb water or run off at the same rate as class 5 travel. You might consider class 5 gravel hardcover, but I don't think it has the same lack of runotf as asphalt. The absorption rate cannot possibly be the same. So I would uBe you to approve a plan where there was a more significant reduction in hardcover. Are the plans that are attached conect? ls this the home that will b€ built? Th€ plans call for a beckya.d patio, but the plans show windows across the back of the home. ls the owner toin8 to crawl out the window to 8et to the Patio? Are you really sure this is the home that will be buih? I understand the lot is non{onforming and variances are needed to build on it. But I would urte the commission to s€nd the owner bact to their architecvbuilder to come up with a plan for a home more suited to the size of the lot end take into account the restrictions of the neithborhood and the road. One more thint. I don't think the owner should be p€nalized for this, but how are all the construction vehicles goinS to be able to park and not block the neighboB who need the road to access their homes? I rtrontly u'te the commission to have the homeowner reduce the size of the home they are requ.sting to make it mote appropriate for the lot. Ihank you foryour consideration in this matter. Helen DREAM W]TH YOUR EYES OPEN. Lrt mo br your guE.. 3{ekn Quntfrer Tfie Ritter (eam BE/iffiC"cntg ET 2 Steckling. Jean From: Scnt To: Subjcct Walters, MacKenzie Tuesday, May 21, 2019 12:54 PM St6kling, Jean Fw: 3617 Red Cedar Point Road Variances Thank you, Keith Paap keith.@oaao.net (email ) I will be unable to attend the planning meeting this evening and I would like to echo Mr. Grmthet's concems/objections on these variances. My name is Keith Paap and I live at 3601 Red Cedar Point Rd. The lake setback variance is not ideal, however problems may be mitigated by shoreline buffering as was suggestd. However tlle street setback variance is of particular concem and m1' primary' objection. As a resident that must &ive through this str,etch daily, I am concemed about the access and safety along this stretch of road. This is a stretch of road that is single lane wirh no available street parking. Tuo cars cannot pass side by side on this sretch of road so any parking along the sueet in this atea *ill simply block the mad. I f the depth ofthe driveway does not pmvide adequare space for visitor parking at this location there would be no where for them to park without blocking access on the stre€l. The setback varia1c€ request may be consistent with the corners of the adjacenl home, but the neighboring home as a side entance garage allou'ing for a deepcr &iveu'ay for off street parking, Making surc this s€tback provides enough depth for off streel parking while avoiding adding sigrificant hardcover by making it thret $alls wide may be handled with a double deep garage as suggestd. Access on the streer will also be of panicular concem during consmrcdon as *'orkers tend to leave vehicles along the srreet as was the case during construction at 3627 Red Cedar Poinl Rd. The access and safety concems during construction will be temporary. Not providing adequate setback for vehicles to remain off the street while at &e residence would bc a permanent hardship for those ofus that must travel this stretch of road daily. I On Tue. May 21. 2019 at 7:09 AM Steve Cunther <stqunther, smail.com> $role: Mackenzie and Kare. I am *riting rhis email in response to the Variance Requests for 3617 Red Cedar Point Road(the former Souba prop€rty). i.,it it th. o.. input that I offered when this propeny was considered for variances several months ago. I objected to those variance requests. feeling that the lot size, road width and the traffrc pattem were not cinsist.nr with the large house being considered for consrnrction on that tot. My objections remain. I hope this time you will lisren to the input from the neighbors who are to be forcver affected b1' your decisions. First. as rhe president ofthe Lake Minnewashu Preservation Association and an owner on the lake since 1998- t object to providing a hard cover variance for this property because of the effect it will have on watcr quality in the lake. The more hardcor.r a propmy has. the less chance that rainwater has to drain through the soil and be filrercd before it enters Lake Minnenashta. The LMPA has been spending considerable effort educating homeowners to reduce hardcover on their properties for the good ofthe lake and all its usen. We need more vegetation not less. On the road side. runoff from fie driveuay sen'icing the proposed 3 car driveway uitl increase the transpon of petroleum products and leaves and grass clippings into the storm drains. This senes to introduce conuminants into the lake. The impact of the petroleum products is obvious. The leaves and clippings serve as a nutrient source for the algae in the lake. which degrades the water qualiq for everyone. A previous owner violated the hardcover limit and added a larger than allon'ed Class 5 drive*ay. That deviation should have bcen remediated. not made permanent. Reducing rhe hard cover (by ,14 square feet) yet still excceding the hardcover requirement is not good enough. While I object to the lake setback variance r€quest. I undersund compromises must be made on a non- conforming lor. I expecr thaiChanhassen and the Watershed Distrio uill require propet shorcline planting buffering o-r a rain garden ro prevenl dircct runoff into the lake. LMPA board mcmber Kevin Zahler is a trained Masrer ftarer Steu'ard and oifers his services u'ithoul charye to residents lo help explain and plan this kind of action. He can be reached at 612-618-9817 or via email at kjzahler@hotmail'com I also object to the streer setback variance for safety reasons. I believe that, given the lot size, the number of sueet-facing garage spaces should be reduced to 2. Because 3 garage stalls are planned..that reduces the front serback on i itteJfint-ersecrion that is inordinately small and tight. lfa car or watercraft/trailer is hanging into rhe strget on that driveway space. it crcates ur undue hazard for others. including large g8rbage trucks, snow plows and emergency vehicies that have to navigate those very light roads. The average. car lcngrh is l4'16 ieet. For referenc". " Hondu Citi. is over l5 feet long. ft looks like this driveway space is less than that. more like I l -12 feet. Having only a 2 car garage should not be considered a hardship for ownen in rhis neighborhood where lors are nano*I andsmalt. every tateside house on Red Cedar Point. South Shore fhive and Hickory Road has no more than 2 garages exccpr those that have much larger frontage or have side loaded garag.es. I've attached a marked up Rbf f6r your use. All homes constnrcted br remodeled in the last I 5 years. rith the exception of one house. have been constructed $ith onll t'*o garages facing the street. lf Ms. Reimer insists on having three stalls, uhl not have one of them be double deep? That eliminates the need for a streel sctback varianie. Ir also reduces the amount of driveway (hardcover) you need to sen'ice the 3 spaces. We did that u,ith our house built in 2003 as a way to contain the footprint of our house within lbe 25o/o hard cover limit. 2 I may nor be able to atrend the Planning Commission,meeting on Tuesday May 2tst but willdo my best to be therc. In lieu ofthat. please accepr fiis;mail as my objections to the hardcover and $reet setback variance requests. I,ve copied my neighbon who might be affected by these variance requests with my comments in case they would tike to send on their own. Steve Grmther 3628 Hickory- Road, Chanhassen' MN 55331 president. [:ke Minnewashta Preservation Association $suntherargmail.com Citizen I Investor I Multispons Enthusiast 3 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, May 21, 2019 Subject Consider Subdivision of 1.17 Acres into Two Single­Family Lots with Variances for Property Located at the NE Intersection of Carver Beach Road and Big Woods Boulevard Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.2. Prepared By Sharmeen Al­Jaff, Senior Planner File No: PC 2017­06 PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat to subdivide 1.17 acres into two lots and a variance to allow a 50­foot public right­of­way (ROW) as shown in plans stamped "Received April 22, 2019," subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation." SUMMARY OF REQUEST Subdivision of 1.17 acres into two lots and a variance to allow a 50­foot right­of­way. APPLICANT Paul T. Eidsness, 1217 Cape Coral Parkway East #346, Cape Coral, FL 33904 SITE INFORMATION PRESENT ZONING:  Single Family Residential District, RSF LAND USE:Residential Low Density (1.2 – 4.0 units/net acre) ACREAGE:  1.17 acres  DENSITY:  2 units per acre  APPLICATION REGULATIONS Chapter 18, Subdivisions Sec. 18­22. ­ Variances Sec. 18­57. ­ Streets (a)  Sec. 18­60. ­ Lots(f) Chapter 20, Article XII, RSF District BACKGROUND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, May 21, 2019SubjectConsider Subdivision of 1.17 Acres into Two Single­Family Lots with Variances for PropertyLocated at the NE Intersection of Carver Beach Road and Big Woods BoulevardSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.2.Prepared By Sharmeen Al­Jaff, Senior Planner File No: PC 2017­06PROPOSED MOTION:"The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat to subdivide 1.17 acres into twolots and a variance to allow a 50­foot public right­of­way (ROW) as shown in plans stamped "Received April 22, 2019,"subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation."SUMMARY OF REQUESTSubdivision of 1.17 acres into two lots and a variance to allow a 50­foot right­of­way.APPLICANTPaul T. Eidsness, 1217 Cape Coral Parkway East #346, Cape Coral, FL 33904SITE INFORMATIONPRESENT ZONING:  Single Family Residential District, RSFLAND USE:Residential Low Density (1.2 – 4.0 units/net acre)ACREAGE:  1.17 acres DENSITY:  2 units per acre APPLICATION REGULATIONSChapter 18, SubdivisionsSec. 18­22. ­ VariancesSec. 18­57. ­ Streets (a) Sec. 18­60. ­ Lots(f)Chapter 20, Article XII, RSF District BACKGROUND On January 23, 2006, the City Council approved a metes and bounds subdivision (#06­02) of 2.18 acres into two lots, as shown on plans stamped “Received January 5, 2006,” subject to conditions. The parcel along the east contains a single­family home. The remaining 1.17 acres of vacant land is being proposed to be divided into two lots. RECOMMENDATION The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat to subdivide 1.17 acres into two lots and a variance to allow a 50­foot public right­of­way (ROW) as shown in plans stamped "Received April 22, 2019," subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation.” ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report Findings of Fact Development Review Application Preliminary Plat Sheets stamped “Received April 22, 2019” Public Hearing Notice Affidavit of Mailing CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: May 21, 2019 CC DATE: June 10, 2019 REVIEW DEADLINE: Waived CASE #: 2017-06 BY: SJ, EH, TH, RC, JS SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Subdivision of 1.17 acres into two lots and a variance to allow a 50-foot ROW. LOCATION: Northeast intersection of Big Woods Boulevard and Carver Beach Road. APPLICANT: Paul T. Eidsness 1217 Cape Coral Parkway East #346 Cape Coral, FL 33904 paul@eidsnesslaw.com 952-473-1926 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential District, RSF 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density (1.2 – 4.0 units/net acre) ACREAGE: 1.17 acres DENSITY: 2 units per acre LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The city’s discretion in approving or denying a preliminary plat is limited to whether or not the proposed plat meets the standards outlined in the Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Ordinance. If it meets these standards, the city must approve the preliminary plat. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The city’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Subdivision Ordinances for variances. The city has a relatively high 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. PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat to subdivide 1.17 acres into two lots and a variance to allow a 50-foot public right-of-way (ROW) as shown in plans stamped, Received April 22, 2019, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the findings of fact and decision recommendation.” Planning Commission Lotus Woods May 21, 2019 Page 2 of 12 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 18, Subdivisions Sec. 18-22. - Variances Sec. 18-57. - Streets (a) Sec. 18-60. - Lots(f) Chapter 20, Article XII, RSF District PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting to subdivide 1.17 acres into two lots for single-family detached housing. The property is located at the northeast intersection of Big Woods Boulevard and Carver Beach Road. Access to the site is proposed via Carver Beach Road and a driveway off of Big Woods Boulevard. Sewer and water is available to the site. The property is zoned Single Family Residential, RSF. BACKGROUND On January 23, 2006, the City Council approved a metes and bounds subdivision (#06-02) of 2.18 acres into two lots, as shown on plans stamped “Received January 5, 2006”, subject to conditions. The parcel along the east, contained a single-family home. The remaining 1.17 acres of vacant land is being proposed to be divided into two lots. Navaj o DrCar ver Beach RoadPonderosa Drive B r o k e n A r r o w D rLotus Tr ail Lotus Trail Canterbury Circle DerbyDriveB e lm o n t L a n e rtConestog a TrailBighorn D riveFr ontier Trail KiowaShadowmer eBighorn D riveYuma DriveRingo DriveYuma Dri veImperial D r Ponde rosa Drive Preakness Lane Wood Hill Dr Big Woods Blvd F o x H i l l D r Subject Property Meadow Green Park Carver Beach Park Lotus Lake Planning Commission Lotus Woods May 21, 2019 Page 3 of 12 SUBDIVISION The applicant is proposing to subdivide 1.17 acres into two lots. The lots are proposed to be served via Carver Beach Road and a driveway connecting to Big Woods Boulevard. The applicant is proposing to dedicate the ROW for the future extension of the street east of the subject site and the existing Carver Beach Road. There is a variance attached to the application that deals with the width of the ROW. This variance will be discussed in detail later in the report. All of the proposed lots meet the minimum area, width and depth requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff notes that the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and generally consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. EASEMENTS The applicant is proposing the dedication of drainage and utility easements (D&U) for the subdivision that meet Sec. 18-76. of city ordinance. Dedications of easements that are more than the typical D&U widths are found on the north side of Lots 1 and 2, and on the south side of Lots 1 and 2. On the north side of the two lots, the D&U has been located five feet south of an existing shared driveway, rather than five feet from the property line, creating a wider D&U than the required 5-foot minimum (ranging from 8-13 feet in width). The existing driveway, which the D&U is measured from, provides access to abutting properties, and due to previously recorded access agreements, must remain in place at this time. On the south side of the two lots, Planning Commission Lotus Woods May 21, 2019 Page 4 of 12 the D&U has been platted at varying widths. At their maximums, the D&Us reach a total width of 21 feet and 35 feet on Lots 1 and 2, respectively, and at a minimum, maintains a 10-foot width. These widths are necessary to accommodate the installation and maintenance of potential future stormwater improvements. EXISTING-CONDITIONS SURVEY The applicant did not provide an existing-conditions survey. Prior to the recording of the final plat, the applicant shall submit an ALTA survey illustrating the existing conditions of the subdivision including all existing easements on, and abutting, the property to be developed. GRADING/DRAINAGE The applicant is proposing to grade the west side of Lot 1 and the east side of Lot 2 in order to accommodate the construction of one new home on each of the lots. While only a few drainage arrows were illustrated on the grading plan, the proposed grading on Lot 1 appears to route stormwater runoff away from the proposed building, while the proposed grading on Lot 2 appears to not adequately route stormwater runoff away from the building, particularly on the north side. The applicant shall add drainage arrows to the grading plan to illustrate the route drainage will take around the buildings for review and approval by the city prior to grading. If drainage does not route stormwater away from the new homes, an updated grading plan will be required for review and approval by the city prior to grading. Due to the close proximity of the proposed new homes on Lots 1 and 2 to the existing driveway, which provides access to abutting properties (630 & 640 Carver Beach Road), the applicant will be required to provide an exhibit demonstrating how snow removal operations from the existing drive will be performed without conflict or nuisance to the proposed subdivision prior to recording of final plat. One approach may be the use of a privacy fence on Lots 1 and 2, north of the proposed buildings, outside the D&U easement. This would ensure that snow storage is not placed directly adjacent to the proposed homes, which would cause drainage issues during periods of snowmelt. The applicant has proposed grading on private property located east of “Lotus Woods Drive” (630 Carver Beach Road). Grading on adjacent properties requires a temporary construction easement be recorded. A copy of the executed construction easement shall be provided to the city prior to grading. EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL The applicant has prepared and submitted a preliminary erosion and sediment control plan for the grading of Lots 1 and 2. The proposed total ground disturbance will exceed 5,000 square feet but is less than 1 acre, thus a NPDES permit is not required and all erosion control measures shall meet Sec. 19-145 of the city ordinances. Erosion control measures shall be reviewed and approved concurrently upon building permit submittals for Lots 1 and 2. Planning Commission Lotus Woods May 21, 2019 Page 5 of 12 RETAINING WALLS Three retaining walls have been proposed with the subdivision: two are on Lot 1 and one is on Lot 2. Top of wall (TW) and bottom of wall (BW) elevations have not been provided for the proposed retaining walls. Updated plans illustrating TW and BW elevations shall be provided prior to grading. Any retaining walls located in D&U easements will require an encroachment agreement. All retaining walls over four feet in height shall be constructed in accordance with plans prepared by a registered engineer or landscape architect. All walls shall be constructed of a durable material (smooth face concrete/poured in place, masonry/mortared, railroad ties and timber are prohibited). STREETS The subdivision abuts Carver Beach Road to the west and Big Woods Boulevard to the south. The applicant will be required to dedicate 50 feet of ROW to the east abutting Lot 2, as shown on the preliminary plat as “Lotus Woods Drive”. While a 60-foot public ROW is standard for residential street sections, a 50-foot ROW is sufficient to construct a 28-foot back-to-back street section, providing consistency with the Big Woods Development off Big Woods Boulevard and the surrounding area. This ROW will be extended when future development of the area to the north occurs. Construction of the street will occur when the property to the north of Lotus Woods Subdivision is developed, or when the city determines it is appropriate to construct the street, whichever occurs first. The developer will be required to put into escrow the cost for construction of the future street “Lotus Woods Drive” abutting Lot 2, which includes the cost of removing the temporary driveway (discussed below). This cost will be determined by the developer for review by the city prior to recording of final plat. If the escrow amount collected is not sufficient to pay for the Planning Commission Lotus Woods May 21, 2019 Page 6 of 12 future street construction abutting Lot 2, the difference shall be paid by the future developer of the subdivision to the north. Access to Lot 2 has been proposed via a driveway over and through the future public ROW “Lotus Woods Drive”. This approach is acceptable to city staff, as it allows access to Lot 2 via a temporary driveway through the public ROW until such time that a public street is constructed. The driveway elevations and grades shall align with the future street improvement of “Lotus Woods Drive” so that future construction of the street will not create adverse grades (a driveway grade greater than 10% or a street grade greater than 7%). A detail showing conformity of potential future street grades and proposed driveway grades, with elevations, shall be submitted with updated plans prior to grading. Also, a sign approved by the city shall be placed in the ROW at the corner of “Lotus Woods Drive” and Big Woods Boulevard, i.e. near the driveway entrance of Lot 2, indicating a future street will be constructed. Lastly, because this is a private driveway located in a public ROW, the homeowner will be responsible for snow removal of the driveway up to Big Woods Boulevard. SANITARY SEWER AND WATER MAIN Based on the city’s as-built information, there currently is access to existing sanitary sewer and water service from Carver Beach Road for Lot 1 and Big Woods Boulevard for Lot 2. Within Carver Beach Road is an 8” PVC sanitary sewer line and a 6” DIP water line, and within Big Woods Boulevard is an 8” PVC sanitary sewer line and 8” PVC water line. All utilities are adequate to service the subdivision. The applicant has not provided in their submittal, connection methodologies or proposed locations of service laterals for either water or sanitary services for Lot 1. Updated plans illustrating the location and connection methodologies will be required prior to recording of final plat. From as-built information on Carver Beach Road, it appears there was water and sanitary laterals stubbed to the property near Lot 1 in 1975. If these services are currently in use by an existing property, the developer will be required to relocate those services in order to avoid having private service lines running through the proposed subdivision. If these services are not in use, the developer will be required to field verify their locations and serviceability prior to connecting services to the laterals. The applicant is proposing to extend the public sanitary and water main from Big Woods Boulevard north, through the newly created public ROW “Lotus Woods Drive”, approximately 80 feet. Water and sewer service laterals to Lot 2 will be extended from these newly installed mains within “Lotus Woods Drive.” From the submitted plans, the applicant is proposing to install a gate valve at the end of the newly constructed water main. Instead, a fire hydrant will be required on the end of the water main extension in order to flush and maintain the newly created dead-end system. The applicant shall provide an estimate of cost for these proposed public utility improvements prior to the recording of the final plat. Planning Commission Lotus Woods May 21, 2019 Page 7 of 12 All newly constructed public utilities shall adhere to the city’s Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Review and approval of all construction plans shall be completed prior to issuance of building and/or grading permits. All required permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies shall be required prior to construction, including but not limited to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Department of Health, and the City of Chanhassen. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT The applicant is proposing a subdivision of land governed by Chapter 18. This chapter specifies that an existing and proposed drainage plan shall be provided which illustrates the pre-existing and proposed direction and rate of runoff to pubic stormwater infrastructure. Article VII, Chapter 19 of city code describes the required stormwater management development standards. The proposed development must provide plans to meet the applicable requirements of Chapter 19 and the stormwater management requirements for Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District. Stormwater Utility Connection Charges Section 4-30 of City Code sets out the fees associated with surface water management (SWMP). A water quality and water quantity fee are collected with a subdivision. These fees are based on land use type and are intended to reflect the fact that the more intense the development type, the greater the degradation of surface water. This fee will be applied to the new lots of record being created. It is calculated as shown in the table below for the current rate in force for 2019: SURFACE WATER DEVELOPMENT FEE AREA PER ACRE FEE ACRES FEE GROSS AREA $8,320 1.04 $ 8,652.80 NET AREA 1.04 $ 8,652.80 The applicant shall pay the SWMP fee at the rate in force at the time of final plat approval. ASSESSMENTS Water and sewer partial hookups are due at the time of final plat, and there are no outstanding assessments for water and sewer main installation. The partial hookup fees will be assessed at the rate in effect at that time. The remaining partial hookups fees are due with the building permit. For 2019 rates, the partial hookup fees are: a) A portion of the water hook-up charge: $2,311.00/unit b) A portion of the sanitary sewer hook-up charge: $691.00/unit The remaining partial hookups fees are due with the building permit. The remaining fees for 2019 are: Planning Commission Lotus Woods May 21, 2019 Page 8 of 12 a) The remaining portion of the water hook-up charge: $5,393.00/unit b) A portion of the sanitary sewer hook-up charge: $1,611.00/unit FEES Based on the proposal, the following fees will be collected with the development contract: a) Administration Fee: The improvements are less than $500,000, thus 3% of the improvement costs. b) Surface Water Management Fee: $8,652.80 c) A portion of the water hook-up charge: $2,311/unit d) A portion of the sanitary sewer hook-up charge: $691/unit e) Park Dedication Fee: $5,800/dwelling f) GIS Fees: $25 for the plat plus $10 per parcel LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION The applicant for the Lotus Woods property development has submitted tree canopy coverage and preservation calculations. They are as follows: Total upland area (excluding wetlands) 1.17 ac. or 50,965 SF Baseline canopy coverage 75% or 38,546 SF Minimum canopy coverage required 46% or 23,443 SF Proposed tree preservation 29% or 14,980 SF. The developer does not meet minimum canopy coverage for the site; therefore the applicant must bring the canopy coverage on site up to the 46% minimum. The difference between the required coverage and the remaining coverage is multiplied by 1.2 for total area to be replaced. One tree is valued at 1,089 SF. Minimum required 23,443 Less canopy preserved 14,980 Minimum canopy coverage to be replaced 8,463 SF Multiplied by 1.2 10,155 Divided by 1089 =Total number of trees to be planted 9 trees The applicant has proposed a total of 11 trees. The development does not have any buffer yards required. The existing parcel is a high quality woodland typical of the Big Woods, a type of forest dominated by sugar maple and basswood. To preserve the existing woods and retain the wooded feel of the neighborhood, staff recommends Conservation Easements in the rear of each yard. Planning Commission Lotus Woods May 21, 2019 Page 9 of 12 COMPREHENSIVE PARK PLAN The city’s comprehensive park plan calls for a neighborhood park to be located within one-half mile of every residence in the city. The proposed Lotus Woods subdivision is located within the Carver Beach Park neighborhood park service area. Carver Beach Park features the following amenities: swimming beach, playground, fishing pier, trails and parking area. Carver Beach Park Planning Commission Lotus Woods May 21, 2019 Page 10 of 12 COMPLIANCE TABLE RSF Setbacks: Front: 30 feet, Side: 10 feet VARIANCE City Code requires a 60-foot ROW. The surrounding area and the ROW within the Carver Beach area is between 40 and 50 feet wide. Approval of the variance will allow the street to blend in with the surrounding neighborhood. This street will provide future access to the property located north of the subject site. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: “The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary plat to subdivide 1.17 acres into two lots and a variance to allow a 50-foot public right-of-way as shown in plans stamped, Received April 22, 2019, subject to the following conditions and adoption of the findings of fact and decision recommendation: SUBDIVISION Engineering: 1. The applicant shall submit an ALTA survey illustrating the existing conditions including all existing easements on, and abutting, the subdivision prior to the recording of the final plat. 2. The applicant shall add drainage arrows to the grading plan to sufficiently illustrate the route drainage will take around the buildings and throughout the site for review and approval by the city prior to grading. 3. The applicant shall provide an exhibit demonstrating how snow removal operations from the existing driveway providing access to 630 and 640 Carver Beach Road will be performed without conflict or nuisance to the proposed subdivision prior to recording of final plat. 4. A copy of the executed construction easement shall be provided to the city prior to grading. Lot Area (sq. ft.) Lot Width Lot Depth 25 %Maximum Site Coverage (sq. ft.) Code (RSF) 15,000 90 125 3,750 Lot 1 27,908 106 269 6,977 Lot 2 17,433 100 157 4,358 Right-of-Way 5,000 Total 50,341 Planning Commission Lotus Woods May 21, 2019 Page 11 of 12 5. Updated plans illustrating retaining wall elevations shall be provided prior to grading. 6. The applicant will be required to dedicate 50 feet of right-of-way (ROW) to the east abutting Lot 2, as shown on the preliminary plat as “Lotus Woods Drive”. 7. The developer shall put into escrow the cost for construction (see condition 14) of the future street construction of “Lotus Woods Drive” abutting Lot 2 prior to recording of final plat. The construction of the street will occur when the property to the north of Lotus Woods Subdivision is developed, or when the city determines it is appropriate to construct the street, whichever occurs first. 8. Lot 2’s driveway elevations and grades shall align with the future street improvement of “Lotus Woods Drive”. A detail showing the elevations and conformity of future street grades and driveway grades shall be submitted prior to grading. 9. A sign approved by the city shall be placed in the ROW at the corner of “Lotus Woods Drive” and Big Woods Boulevard indicating a future street will be constructed. 10. Updated plans illustrating the location and connection methodologies of sanitary and water services for Lot 1 will be required prior to the issuance of building permits. From as-built information, it appears there was water and sanitary laterals stubbed to the property in 1975. If these services are currently in use by an existing property, the developer shall relocate those services to avoid having private service lines running through the subdivision. If these services are not in use, the developer shall field verify their locations and serviceability prior to connecting services to the laterals. 11. A fire hydrant shall be constructed on the end of the water main extension in “Lotus Woods Drive”. 12. The applicant shall provide an estimate of cost for the proposed public water main and sanitary sewer main extensions prior to the recording of the final plat. 13. The applicant shall provide an estimate of cost for the grading and construction of the future street “Lotus Woods Drive”, abutting Lot 2, prior to the recording of the final plat. 14. All newly constructed public utilities shall adhere to the city’s most recent Standard Specifications and Detail Plates, and city review and approval of all construction plans shall be completed prior to issuance of building and/or grading permits. 15. All required permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies shall be required prior to construction, including but not limited to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, the Department of Health, and the City of Chanhassen. 16. The development of Lots 1 and 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 applications. 17. The applicant shall enter into a Development Contract. Water Resources: 1. Provide an erosion and sediment control plan in accordance with Sec. 19-145 of city ordinances upon submittal of building permits for individual lot development. 2. Provide drainage and stormwater management plans as prescribed in Chapter 18, Sec. 18- 40 and Section 19-143. Planning Commission Lotus Woods May 21, 2019 Page 12 of 12 Parks: 1. Full park fees in lieu of additional parkland dedication and/or trail construction shall be collected as a condition of approval for the two lots. The park fees will be collected in full at the rate in force upon final plat submission and approval. Based upon the current single- family park fee rate of $5,800 per dwelling, the total park fees would be $5,800. Environmental Resources Coordinator: 1. The easterly 140 feet of Lot 1 and the westerly 40 feet of Lot 2 shall be covered by a Conservation Easement. 2. Tree preservation fencing will be required on each lot. Fencing must be installed at the edge of grading limits prior to the start of any construction activities. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Preliminary Plat Sheets stamped “Received April 22, 2019”. 4. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing List. g:\plan\2017 planning cases\17-06 lotus woods (formerly eidsness) subdivision\staff report preliminary.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Paul Eidsness for Subdivision approval. On May 21, 2019, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Lotus Woods for preliminary plat approval of property into two lots with a right-of-way variance. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed subdivision 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 Single-Family Residential District (RSF). 2. The property is guided in the Land Use Plan for Low Density Residential. 3. The legal description of the property is: See Attached Exhibit A 4. The Subdivision Ordinance directs the Planning Commission to consider seven possible adverse affects of the proposed subdivision. The seven affects and our findings regarding them are: SUBDIVISION FINDINGS a. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the zoning ordinance; Finding: The subdivision meets all the requirements of the Single-Family Residential District (RSF), and the zoning ordinance if the conditions of approval are met. b. The proposed subdivision is consistent with all applicable city, county and regional plans including but not limited to the city's comprehensive plan; Finding: The proposed subdivision is consistent with the comprehensive plan and subdivision ordinance if the conditions of approval are met. c. The physical characteristics of the site, including but not limited to topography, soils, vegetation, susceptibility to erosion and siltation, susceptibility to flooding, and stormwater drainage are suitable for the proposed development; Finding: The proposed site is suitable for development subject to the conditions specified in this report. d. The proposed subdivision makes adequate provision for water supply, storm drainage, sewage disposal, streets, erosion control and all other improvements required by this chapter; Finding: The proposed subdivision will provide adequate urban infrastructure subject to the conditions specified in this report. e. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage; Finding: The proposed subdivision will not cause significant environmental damage subject to conditions of approval. The proposed subdivision contains adequate open areas to accommodate house pads. f. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements of record; and Finding: The proposed subdivision will not conflict with existing easements, but rather will expand and provide all necessary easements. g. The proposed subdivision is not premature. A subdivision is premature if any of the following exists: 1) Lack of adequate stormwater drainage. 2) Lack of adequate roads. 3) Lack of adequate sanitary sewer systems. 4) Lack of adequate off-site public improvements or support systems. Finding: The proposed subdivision will have access to public utilities and streets if the specified conditions of approval are met. VARIANCE FINDINGS Sec. 18-22. Variances. The City Council may grant a variance from the regulations contained in this chapter as part of the plat approval process following a finding that all of the following conditions exist: 1) The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. Finding: The hardship is not a mere inconvenience. The 50-foot right-of-way will allow the street width to be consistent with streets in the surrounding area. 2) The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the land; Finding: The hardship is caused by the particular physical surroundings, shape and topographical conditions of the land. 3) The conditions upon which the request is based are unique and not generally applicable to other property. Finding: The conditions upon which the request is based are unique to this site and not generally applicable to other properties due to the fact that all streets in the immediate surrounding area have a width of 40 - 50 feet. 4) The granting of the variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. Finding: The granting of a variance will not be substantially detrimental to the public welfare and is in accord with the purpose and intent of this chapter, the zoning ordinance, and comprehensive plan. The request, if granted, will allow the right-of-way to be consistent with the surrounding area. 5. The planning report #2017-06, dated May 21, 2019, prepared by Sharmeen Al-Jaff, et al, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 21st day of May 2019. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY:__________________________________ Its Chairman g:\plan\2017 planning cases\17-06 lotus woods (formerly eidsness) subdivision\findings of fact.docx Block 2CARVER BEACH ROADLOTUS WOODS DRIVE12BLOCK 1LOTUS LAKEProject No. Revised:Checked By: Requested By: Date:Drawn By:Scale: Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. 9 West Division Street Buffalo, MN 55313 (763)682-4727 Fax: (763)682-3522 www.ottoassociates.comdenotes 1/2 inch by 14 inch iron pipe set and marked by License #40062 denotes iron monument foundNPRELIMINARY PLAT OF LOTUS WOODSVicinity MapNFeet020405-5-16 T.J.B.1"=20'P.E.O. Eidsness Law Offices, PLC I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. _______________________________ Paul E. Otto License #40062 Date:_____________ CARVER BEACH ROADBIGWOODSBLVD.12BLOCK 1DOGWOODRD.SHEET NO. OF SHEETSREV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTIONDESIGNED DRAWNCHECKEDDATE:PROJECT NO:Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522www.ottoassociates.comN16-01395-20-1627LOTUS WOODSCHANHASSEN, MNPRELIMINARY UTILITY PLANFeet03060 BIG W O O D S B L V D .12BLOCK 1 SHEET NO. OF SHEETSREV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTIONDESIGNED DRAWNCHECKEDDATE:PROJECT NO:Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522www.ottoassociates.comN 16-01395-20-1637LOTUS WOODSCHANHASSEN, MNPRELIMINARY SANITARY SEWER &WATERMAIN PLANLOTUS WOODS DRIVEFeet050100 CARVER BEACH ROADBIGWOODSBLVD.DOGWOODRD.12BLOCK 1SHEET NO. OF SHEETSREV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTIONDESIGNED DRAWNCHECKEDDATE:PROJECT NO:Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522www.ottoassociates.comN16-01395-20-1647LOTUS WOODSCHANHASSEN, MNPRELIMINARY GRADING PLANFeet03060SILT FENCE DETAIL(SECONDARY) CARVER BEACH ROADBIGWOODSBLVD.DOGWOODRD.12BLOCK 1SHEET NO. OF SHEETSREV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTIONDESIGNED DRAWNCHECKEDDATE:PROJECT NO:Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522www.ottoassociates.comN16-01395-20-1657LOTUS WOODSCHANHASSEN, MNEXISTING TREE INVENTORYFeet03060 CARVER BEACH ROADBIGWOODSBLVD.DOGWOODRD.12BLOCK 1SHEET NO. OF SHEETSREV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTIONDESIGNED DRAWNCHECKEDDATE:PROJECT NO:Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522www.ottoassociates.comN16-01395-20-1667LOTUS WOODSCHANHASSEN, MNTREE INVENTORY(AFTER SECONDARY CONSTRUCTION)Feet03060 12BLOCK 1CARVER BEACH ROADBIGWOODSBLVD.DOGWOODRD.SHEET NO. OF SHEETSREV. NO. DATE BY DESCRIPTIONDESIGNED DRAWNCHECKEDDATE:PROJECT NO:Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc.SSOCIATES9 West Division StreetBuffalo, MN 55313(763)682-4727Fax: (763)682-3522www.ottoassociates.comN16-01395-20-1677LOTUS WOODSCHANHASSEN, MNTREE PLANTING &SIGNAGE PLANFeet03060 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 2017-06 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, May 21, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for a subdivision of 0.65 acres into two single-family lots with variances for property located at the northeast intersection of Carver Beach Road and Big Woods Boulevard, Outlot A, Big Woods on Lotus Lake and part of government Lot 6 and zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). Applicant/Owner: Paul Eidsness. 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/2017-06 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. Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner Email: saljaff@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1134 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on May 9, 2019) g:\plan\2017 planning cases\17-06 lotus woods (formerly eidsness) subdivision\april 2019 resubmittal\ph notice to villager.docx 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 May 9, 2019, 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 subdivision of 0.65 acres into two single-family lots with variances located at the northeast intersection of Carver Beach Road and Big Woods Boulevard and zoned Single Family Residential(RSF), Planning Case File No. 2017-06 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. 71-- 0 I ,Z—t-A_LCZAA32-1/\-- K m Mce wissen, Deptilerk Subscribed and sworn to before me thisI3 day o 2019. 4 A Notary Public JEAN M STECKLING Notary Pubal-Mnnesota vt „+ My Gmmirlml Ivies Jan$1,'024 SUBJECT PROPERTY I' t. r. 11/4 4 A gig Woods=1vd 111 sill Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one.This map is a compilation of records,information and data located in various city, county,state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown,and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System(GIS)Data used to prepare this map are error free,and the City does TAX NAME»not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the TAX_ADD_L1» depiction of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to TAX ADD L2», «TAX ADD L3» Minnesota Statutes§466.03, Subd.21 (2000),and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims,and agrees to defend,indemnify,and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User,its employees or agents,or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. SUBJECT PROPERTY f ii s Big Woods Blvd' 7t s 1 Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one.This map is a compilation of records,information and data located in various city, county,state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown,and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System(GIS)Data used to prepare this map are error free,and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes§466.03, Subd. 21 (2000),and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims,and Next Record»«TAX_NAME» agrees to defend,indemnify,and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought TAX ADD L1» by User,its employees or agents,or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. TAX_ADD_L2», «TAX_ADD_L3» E-7 N _ O N N N- a 3 m 8 E L as LNm LE ovd>, aE m .o .mr 3-O L O . O O '- -c -0 ON -) nO + dd O Z d 'p ma 84,° 8.6E° me kg0coN > O Q + .NrOt rCN0 ! i- ++ eac= EE yo 7 ° .cmOO m 0 c U d ° mm m L cd dnO QU C O O4-' L L U U N O) U Ci, CO aNc m` mc `° EtEc' a> O cNCOOcOlO0) 43 c° a' t °287, yi md ° co 03 N LcO ' 0OO O i >5 : -m5 , e- 0a3 - CSC O •- _ Q O O > NC • CENC ,_ i U C C N O, Q N 0 N 0 o cmm c vm p c as sa.m°¢ 2V0 co` mOOa) w t >+ E0 _ L N 0m°C) v ?' _' mcd °C) - c .O > p w E - o 0) Q 'u) . 3 (/) L p . EO (> N c5, 57,2-=2oi 'C m N O N d N U 4-, `wv.,- - EaHEc arnaL LTvsmc. clacC1) @ p C N E O C O -c Q Q L E E O (.0 N C p U i CD N m a H t E U E 2 L U is m oycoNY - m E O m 7 N c L c y c L .L.' L N co c O 4- L C Q O Y E 7 L aj 3 L O ° m E m CLO, 2 j m C H O N N N J LLL 2 m Q O OU OU C 'C E= .., (0 md '' mm-° E c ,°no.?$cm C U O O .. .N 0.- c O N 0) .' O i N p >N co , QA i a m E :1-a `0 m a m t •oEaO O m CQ c)if) O.- O _ 0).c C -- N O co ,...• ••- N N CO >, E..m o f am'= m c 3 °c apQ2OcoC d , C C N 3 r- (0 E -p O c0 a) E -a N c 4- .- _ s F.8 'f,o L u o.m E N O ti O N C • O QO 4••. _ _ N N C " U ccsmEmc¢ m > a3 0 CoN O N O (n N O C O c0 0 N m 0) Q_ d w' U N ° am° E v d N,1 o o 'odcO 'O y N L O p a, C N L N Q (O N 0 - > d iC L m L E S > ° > m a>.- c:1-13 E _, c N`-0 O U d L O '- . N "O N O .,,;L U 3 0 41 , Q v= m r _ 3 Ec u m'w V ` O N O V C 0 0 0 N N > O C (O m U ( 0 w0 } O U 1:1E ° 0 = c i 8 d c a 0- rn E a 8 m `' m 'o O (O CB L C O ; C L O N N O Q • O L >,70 £ OS C .-- o E rn m L.c° 0 3 m°m(i>,c V O c O O _ON O L '-' > QO O Q C O - Q > dTs C _6 C a ,`,3"L al co Q _ > > 'O E '(A m _O L O U U L L (.? N X 0 cm ° a;-" ti ` Lmom._ o Cf c co •>O m C 0 - c o = O N p O E Q•V O O O aU) U) v'om mmoc° Eno` m omL>Q. c O O L L 0 m C L C O Q N v) N m" m- v rn.N O_ E Q (06 cf) O 3 , + ( 0 O N L O _ ._ H L c0 O 32m vmovcE Ec.°w-Uu O c N _ 23 U U y 0 co O 4--LN V --E C (O m N N +., m O .. rr •E a Q N a>m a m t E m 2 > o m cm o c V (U ( 5) C N C fp i m• O N 0 0•U) O. c i N _ N O c0 m 0 0) O v) E C m E E m m E E ac' o N m $ .L. r a. N E m0 •= N C Q +. m N O` c = Q N t .O •_-,_ c C _0 N v- N .- .0 O I- .- a E w c.o m d E c g m E m a m yOc2 > O O C .- C 2 N _ co Q - ' Q O. Q (0 co .' L U) t 0) V (p c6 O d¢ o o m, m 3 m 11;,..,r o a m m Z H N O > N -0 N O Q , N N w- ( 0 E •V Q c0 N U m ( 0 O O >! C) E N ` 65 v ami .E1:22 c m E a>a t..m N >'w N L "a (0 (O E O E C L L t 0) E 1] E 0.") '- am a te+ C O N °` a E om m `a m >..0 m m.8 c c C N N O +' O > C C, m (0 .- 0 L O m N i •.>'' .0 O O -, C i C) •= O O m E D g m U o a`o mrn m'x .= d E 0 v) = m 3 L a) as Q•U j •V U) H- O -c m () • N E r- - 41 N ;'a E c °'u E umi-`l'- '°°°-° .`-' v O 0) _QN -•, C > C ma E Q°-E cL2 c0 7 :? ..- a) N ca 0 0 0> _c Q m 0) O T N N O 4. .„,-= -p • a°c kg ' a d E d d E m_m`m°0 0 c H 0U 0 Q Zm 0Q H (O (O Q— NM ' - N .0NL E v) Q.a• a) c c a>E.-• ma.2LU° m $ Loamman V mm m mcmmLr O N N c mE O`N c.J O m c m° °" a° O c'E y a) N `,a 2 cc¢31 v° ma% m3 mo rn°mCCQmL ° cm mm ayaci 4• E mn'a on csada) m C C . Dm jVlifflllflflu1 a P. 2 28-22365`=Z2-:5),.. -2E oc5U65cLm mmaLE0' 0 O' 0) Nr C C C •E_) LaGdnn .. 3£ c. mv ,'CO)12dvacamd02,ocm ai mHy (0 C. CQ' n0L d Y c ov miL« coocae ° rnmVO . O V C4-, C O LJO 2•nU`>' mta f na¢Em2aOC. t 0 CI J a. < a. —1 11 a Z Q o L 1 c> N a cNod oE vcc$> d NN_ N O N y d w tmo ` N. cm rn .E mr C p w- L O +- Oca' -c0 N • 0 t O O - V,O O N Q / O H 13 CON m E oN0scuEcimmLdmEa° vO00 (O 0 O L Q•3 L L _ U m N YCO cO (O NU 0 (OOCNU • OL cocHdaa cit' mE dm ccOCmCO -- 0)O N Np CO ,OdL. 00 2 N _ 0 m m m m c ca "., p C OQ O - ONc O Qoo °2E ONc i L0C C EM r) c >. c = a c m 0) a) - CO N N N>+ Q N D1 L >' EQN cl mm EmE > c Eo C 3 LNO NC • 3 ,. Q CO RE Eromt" UL O . N aE= a'- 8ma°U.°t= O 11 0UrLcm0J > E a) O N 'U E 0 m U C V N N 'ag 8ryU2utHvaUmE IT) 4- c-'cec 4- C O -` •• Q-E L E E T Cm O L C m E o =.° om U m m ma)N . j O RS m .Ummm, o5m2t ,_ NL NO 0) O O0 L.c ( O O U O LL Y — m CO 4c-,' C Q U O C ` -t .-, > t 1, g2,1 'drnL mc '_o.5m°- L C p U O J LN C QO L • U O > l- CNa/1 ma m omL(Oa) O C T) (0 OC N « C .N+ COLNN _cO OOOC , Q-4-' CO d OTEad ° > m om vTomc y= • N Q- 6O m p 0 0 O.- O . C i- aN 0) N .0 mmL mo LE ¢ CD c'-omm > oC0C ap EDNO "O r U cooE_ o rn dLm °•` v0N. N N • •C ' EQD N fic0pNOiO: t%ct=a7Em'2dEOL ~ O O -Oy COO ? .- - O - OQ (O m 'L 0 - > d EL Om2d 4-•O O a) a L O L V- N OC - O "O N 0N _- L OO U ! .Od ' p m mc c m Nm E a caa. mno. 3 c c ` O05. 0L0ON O N C U C -.., N QC — o a c.- m c m m- u. VCa CO cUv 0 r' O O O C NN • pLN ( QOO ( > ycu - 0 C ma E 3mocc' mNm> m ' OmLEO OO ,, L -p ,t '' N • O QCp0a15C .,-, - 0 , e Edo aT.-a... 2 Ety ° y5Uo 7 C) 5 y cm -0 ` mCmL pO' UU 0EQ._ p00 +_' 0O -pN 0 ?,,,,, f.% ,8.2-4 ,,, ..E.-° .2 - mQ. 0 Om >O C QNQ = NN L3NUOU Q (i) To' i (O O 3mm mm ?-.1,6 c' °n E c' ohU. cLc •CN0ca • VQ N . NOC3O .' N N = = N O S m E IEE o@Ea% cNNOL N U3Ldt _a) c*-2mt dw oO .--, O U L N C (0 cO 0 N N m O ... C m c E ' ai v c a' Dd ° d l0 N - mU er Om >.- y0 • N 04 .N Ea) >' m cL - o-0 ma. >,.c C (ON O m05OU O U O . L Q O + > r. aNw .mmonc CO 22f 2aOCws O N c - C N p ` c Q co r- co 0 o o mm o Fa- m O C _ O L a) + ci 5_ as LO V - p yN m , r >° am 8ZNUO > w, " 6OE O in NN Q' E UOCLN v 0 E N \ Nod 2 E mE Lc 'i,N N Q L ui O Dg o:52 L °N NL _C -0 N O E 0 C Y EQ" 3 >,.. C •( 0 0.) C O = :,C, mU o-0 E d c -o R O - . " u CU • EcmmcU82mic -0 c = >. wN ` QV .-, U L O mm _ U) E G1C > 5 C `acmc _ m cacc.r2oN '- j L Nu . m 1- Ua_ ..' V EN ' QOr • c ' V E 1.1 75.• a Ex a)Eav ccrnCO - >NQ > 0N Q O L N c0 (0 a im3 m °dcman 8a...,2 a...-,,-O)O 0„0 0a) n N m-t - al 0 CC O d Z CO 0Q H as N 0_ • • - • v - N -C E vQa. c0 N 2 m oc .-G a ot= m-cE - ga U p N co '' w8 -OH )N_OLag ° m N cEao. ° mLa2. 3 .€0of= :, cE E . c-''O=%u sn cmu d QmC ° c m m m ay mD m =tem aoLE u mmcCdEamcdso2a-'4,an a,5 mo'cac4. E 0 C v) 2 C E L oa' dc c. 0B .o`°m2-o ocam8 C C AC N .r+ C C Cn .. " mm `= c->'minE 'o.°ELtmtmc0Uccy: >.._.c Q. ( a) :C.rr 4) 0 N E Y Oaaa)r $d ;r0ymm_ ?i..-g,- 4- 0 0 ,Q O 0 c co QC 7 O W U z9oa.52 `L omZoocumia) 0EJa. Q a. J 2 r a ()Z Q U N U o._N m r a E E m a a E m O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 I 3 -1 co CC CC 0 m 0 m „ = m „ 0 u , z u u Lr m ? m u u m m mLAIA111 = uCC p 0 z O 00 0 0 0 w J V1 m 0 mCC w zWV) m w w O 0 m L i1 0 w w z La,,, m m Z o Z a Z 0 a O Z z Z m r O Z z a 0° z 0 w Z J m m Z O a o Z m m 0 0 0 a m a 0./ s _ O z Z 00 p 2 0 z m s 0c vi 0 0c z Z -.. acc Un z z J a cc 0c 0 Z Z O 00 z z 0 0 0 z m = Z a O o w 0 w O o O W O O o Y = W O 0 Y O x > > 0 > w W 3 0 > > > > Y > x Y I- x x 2 Y x Y > x x x > r >> x = > x I. a x x x LA Lox O O z p O x cc 0 w V. x 00 z V, u, O , , Lz s , , l7 O z x 0 00 O 00 m 00 00 z U_ _V' * 0 *0 a * 0 00 *0 z O a 0 s Oa a z cc < a z a o z a m m m m m m m m m m m u o m m m co u moa m u u E CD m a E OO u u Fa m o0 CO u CO a 0 0 H 0 H O 01 H IN 0 0 0 0 .7 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 I, ..0 H 0 V/ H o rn O Ln o N H LD H Ln o ff LA LNn LND U111 LW11 LMD IN VP s LLA LLn LOO Le)at ..O LO LD LO LA VI LII en N LO LO VIA VIi LO N OM0 vmi 10 LN0 LA 00 N LO Lil N L.,-, 01 L LID LCO CD LH11 LLA LLI1 L 00 01 LD LSO LLA LCO O V1 N C LA 01 LA 01 01 C LD LO LD I-, 01 C LA V1 01 N H V1 01 CO LD CO H a 01 00 C Vl CO C C C 01 H CO 01 0 ,100 ,00LO 0 0 0 0 0 0 V/ 0 0 0 LD H 0 0 Vl M 0 M 0 0 LO M 00 N 0 0 0 LD 0 M W CO VI LACOLACOV1V1V1mmmHV1V1COmV1V1HCOLANCOVIHLnLANVImCVlV1ulLnHVItie Jm 01 q CO 01 00 01 01 C 00 CO m N 01 V CO m 01 01 N CO 01 01 CO 01 N C CA 9., C CO Ot C C C 01 N 01 01 1 AANr, n n r ri ri 8a ,-, -, -, .- 1H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H rI H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H HMenMMenenenenMenMenenMMMenenMInMenenenenMenenenMenMMenenenenenenenMenMLALALl1 aIDM1LA LnLALn LALALn LA VI L/1 LALAu, LA LALALi,IA LA LALALALA LA LALA V, U, LA L, VI LALALA LALALALnLnLn VILALALn LA LALnL,LA LA LALALnLA LA LALAL, X C Z 2 Z 2 Z Z 2 ZZ Z 2 Z Z 2 Z 2 Z Z 2 2 Z 2 Z Z 2 Z Z 2 Z Z 2 Z Z 2 2 Z ZZZZZZZ N J W Z Z W Z W Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 2 z Z 2 z W z Z Z Z z 2 z z z 2 z Z z z Z z z Z Z z W 2JWWWWWWLUWWLUWLUWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW UN N MN N LAVI NLANMN hMNN LAN N VNN LA N LA 0 = LU NUnNNLALAVINLAN VLA IA hN V1 VI IA N VI LA 0 a a a a a a a aaaaaaaa a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a at.../ 2221222222222222221222222222 2 2 x 2 22222222222 al Lu Z Z z z Z Z Z ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ22Z z ZZZZZZZZZZZXaaaaQaaaaaaaaQaaaaQaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx2xxxxx2xx2x2xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx1- u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u LOCrMx s m 00 Y O 0 0 0 J m m 00 CG K > J J m a K CO K OOc K m C CC 00 z m K u m ac m Oa' U s ? OG u u m m = ? m s Lxj L=j m m m V CL m O D a D a Q m o a o m 0 LNiI 0 m m a vLni D m m 0 0 0 a m Q J 0 z J O Z z 0 o Z Z z I- 0 2 2 z r w z z0 O z 0 0 0 10+ 0 J OCCZ( 0 ,.. 0 0 Z W O O O o L+ S 0 0 0 Y = La, O M Y O x > > O 3 LLI a > 0Lu> > cC cc > > 3 Y > x a = x 3 = L11 L11 LLI Y = Y Y x x x > x x > x 1- a x x a < ,..., x o 00 00 _ 00 00 _ cc 00 00 *0 00 a o 00 *0 00 = o a 00 o 0. 00 o a a 00 00 00 z *0 * 0 a s *0 *0 *0 00 a O w IN m W m m m m m m m m m m m u O m m m m u m 0 a m u u m m m a m m u u m m m m u m X H 0 o H o H o 01 H H N0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 ID H 0 Ln H 0 M 0 V1 o r\ H LD H VI 0 01 a N N N O LO CA IN C N V 011OlHONV101001M010COC01MMCO0N00IDV1NCALACOCHCOHLALACON I- H V1 ID IA LA ID V1 V1 LD LD LA LO LO ID LD W VI LII LA V1 LD LD LA LD IN LD VI LD LD V1 LA ID IN VI V1 t0 LD VI LA LA LD m V1 LD LA 2 a 3 00w W 00 w = x 2 Lo I- z L• 0- n 2o a x W W Z N Vl > L~n O d = z O L• V L J D UF- W z N J O 4 Z K z w u 100 ,xWJ o m ° Lli1 LL a CO g_ 3 V 0 O2 w 0 LL x J W W Y Z Q W Y c, z > 0 Z a 1- x J Z Y 0 Ln L±+ J a C 2 -a. g w Y O J u Z w z Z m a > ~ O > U rNV o T > m Z = > w w VI W = u a 0C J K } z J Y c u i_ J Z Z m W a u J r N W OC O 2 N <7 Yc a Oc 2 Lc, 2 W Z K Q Q CC x Z u Q 2 Y Q a 2 0 a Q OL J m z u L> Z a ? Ln W a VI r O Z z W O a J a N2amza u z u W a z '^ r a m o 2 O z x W m LA Y m m O g J Z ~ - Y = , cwc 0 0 a oso m a 0 y 0 s > . 3 x Z a 06 ob 2 x am Om = Z ut Y Q z 0,S OJ a ,z _ z m L J Z Y L w (n O O u L O O LI- J OZS J W a a Q K W Y W W 1--:" 5 m W > a g 3 w = > W J 0 z ~ CC Ln - z N a W 2 W LL N Q 0 a l7 J x I- K 2 v LLU a 2 z 2 LL11 W a Z N a mLL1 00 F- W 00 x 0 d 0 0 0 a Q ~ a O a a 0 -. Ou Lon 0 0 s- CC 0c Y O G Y U O¢ K ? j x a 0 K °i w -, Q x a ' Y O VI N C V1 01 V1 C 01 LO LO LO H 01 C Vl V1 01 N H Ln 01 m LO CO H H V1 C Ol m C Ln H CO C C C 01 H CO Cr, 0 . 0 0 LD 0 0 LD 00000 VI 0 0 0 LD 01 0 0 V1 M 0 01 0 0 0 01.0010 0 0 N 0 0 0 LD 0 M LD COCLn Le) 01 C 000 CA W C 01 C CO CO CO N 01 C COO CO CA 01 N CO 01 O1 CO 01 N N CO C O1 01 C CO N CA C C C 01 N 01 01 C0- RN IN t` r\ n r\ n r\ f` H H H H H H H H H H H H H H CA CA H H H H H H H H H H H H H H CA H H H H H H CA 01 H H H M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M MMIACIIMMMCOMMIAMM 0101 MLA LLVI A LN11 LVlI VVI VLI 111 LA LI-1 LA 1/11 LA VI LA LLA LLA LLI1 LLA LA LlLA VI LA Ul tnl L 11 LN11 VtnLA l LLA L 11 LLA LLA LA LLA LLA LFII LLA LLA LA LA LA N LA N VVI N LLA LLA LA VI LLA L11 LA LLA LVI LA LLA 0-RN ZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZSZZZZZZZZZZZZZSZZZZZZZZZZZZZS V1 Lwn VI VVI LA LA VI N IA V1 LA V1 VI N N LA N VI VI LWn N LLU Wn VVI N LL1. 1 UJ wn V1 LA Lwn V1 V1 Lwn LA VI N N Ln Vl N LA VI LA VILUIllL.L1 LLI LU ID L.L1 11.1 IA 1./1 N V1 LA VI N IA V1 1A V1 V1 V1 LA N VI V1 V1 VI N V1 N VI Ln VI V1 N Vl VI VI Ln VI VI N N Vl N LA V1 VI V1 N V1 Ln ¢ a a a a a a a Q a a a a ¢ a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a 22222222 22222222222222222122222 2222222 = 222 ZSZZZZZZ z Z z Z z z z z Z z z z Z Z Z z Z z Z Z z z Z z z z z z z z z z z z aaaaaaa a a a a a a a a a a a Q a a a a Q a a Q a a Q a a Q a a a a a a a a a 222 = 2222 2 = 2 2 = 2222222 222222x2 = 2222222222222 U u u u U u u u u u U u U u u u u u u u U u U LLu u U u u u u u u u u u u U u u U u u ZZZZZZZZZZ z Z z z W z z z z z z z z z z 2 2 z z z z 2 2 z 2 z z z z z 2 z 2 z W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W LU W LA VI N LA V1 V1 V1 N LA V1 V1 N VI VI 1A N N LA V1 Vl V1 VI V1 VI LA VI VI V1 V1 VI Vl VI VI VI V1 V1 N V1 V1 N V1 V1 Vl V1VIVIV1NV1V1V1VIVIV1V1VIVIVlV1V1NVILANV1LAV1VILAVILALAV1V1VIVILANLANV1V1NV1VILAVINaaQaaaQaaaaaaQaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaxxxxxx22222xxxx2xxx22222xx22x2x22xx22xx22xx2zzZZZZZZzZZzZzZZZzZZzzzzZZzZZZZzzzzZzZzZzzzzaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaQaaaaaaaQaaaaaQaaQaaaaa 22 = 22 2 x2xxxxxx2xxxxx = xx = 222222222222 x x 22 2 2 2 x u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u u V u u u H 00 0c _. 00 C 00 _, cc _. z m m a s m cc z 0 z cc Z cc m 0 cc .>. z z _. s 0 0 J -I 0C CC CC 0, m m m 0_ 1- m 00 H z m m on 0c 0_ m m m m Z2 J o 2 Q 2 o a o z z z m o z z a J f° z W z J m m Z o a W o z m m mo0oa a K O K w cc O W O K w K cc V1 O ce cc O O z J CC CC L1' O VI Y o J W W O O W Z O 0 W W 0 0 0 W W = W w• 0 x 3 = Y 0= 3 Y 3 0 0 0 > > 3 x = 0 x > _ D a x x > > = 3 Y a = > > 3 3 3 Y Y LL =m O x ac r w X cc a O w s cc o Oc X o H 0 >< 00200 (D ° U' L7 a 0 ' D l7 LD 5 o a l9 O s O Q a O` l7 z ¢ L7 'D a a l7 L7 l7 Oc a O s VI m m m m m m m EEE m u m m fO m u m p a m u u m m ma m m u u m m m m u m 0 . O ON N 0 LOO 01M 0 01 01CN 01 - 0 N U C 0 010 M 01 0 M C V M M 00 0 N CO LD V1 oN CA VI m C 01 00 01 V1 LLA 00 N 2 1.11 LO VI VI LO Lll V1 LO V1 LD LD LD LD 01 LA LA LA LA LO LD VI 01 N LO LA LD LO V1 V1 LD N V1 LA LD LD V1 V1 LA LO LO LA LD I 1.1D W 00JCO H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 R 001,100f o CA O M 0 N lCn V 0 0 CO M C 01 0 C - N N LOD 01 0 0 CA H CAN 01 0 0 c/ . 00001 .1 .701 0 0 0 n100 ,1 0 0 N N 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 N N Ln O N 0 0 0 Win 00 ,40 0 0 00 0 0 0 N N N NO1MO01M0M0) 0 0 01 01 M O1 H O M M M O o N M 0 01 01 H N 0 M 01 0 01 01 M 0 H 01 01 01 0 0 0 00OlLDO01LDOtOLDLDO01CFI010LD00101LDLDH01LDLnOl0HLDOtOLDV10OIID000010LOIDLO H n . N H H H H H N H O H H N N H H O N H m 010001 N H H CO H N H O H H H H H H HHen .• LA V1 V1 LA V1 VI V1 LALA LA VI LA LA V1 LA V1 LA LA LA LA V1 Vl VI 1.0LA VI VI V1 VI LA LA LA VI LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA VI E. ,-, ,, ,, ,, ,,, ,, ,, ,-4 N 01 01 N 01 N 01 01 N N 01 N 01 01 N 01 N 01 N N N 01 01 01 N N N N 01 N N 01 01 01 N 01 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, May 21, 2019 Subject Approval of Planning Commission Minutes dated April 16, 2019 Section APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No: E.1. Prepared By Jean Steckling, Senior Admin. Support Specialist File No:  PROPOSED MOTION: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the minutes from their April 16, 2019 meeting. ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated April 16, 2019 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated April 16, 2019 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES APRIL 16, 2019 Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Weick, Mark Randall, John Tietz, Michael McGonagill, Douglas Reeder, and Laura Skistad MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and MacKenzie Walters, Associate Planner PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO ALLOW BOARDING KENNELS IN INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICTS. MacKenzie Walters presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Tietz asked for clarification of language regarding outdoor recreation area, fencing, and location. Commissioner Skistad asked about the minimum lot size for a kennel. Commissioner Tietz asked if staff has visited any kennels in other communities with similar ordinances. Commissioner Randall asked about the affect of this ordinance on veterinary clinics. Chairman Weick opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. After discussion the following motion was made. Reeder moved, Randall seconded that the Planning Commission table the amendment to the City Code to allow boarding kennels in Industrial Office Park Districts and bring it back with information requested by the Planning Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO BRING TREE DIVERSITY STANDARDS IN LINE WITH THE 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. MacKenzie Walters presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Tietz asked how the one tree per 1,089 square feet of cover was determined. Chairman Weick opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. McGonagill moved, Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 18 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning tree standards. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Planning Commission Summary – April 16, 2019 2 PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO ALLOW FOR THE DESIGNATION OF ALTERNATE FRONT YARDS. MacKenzie Walters presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Weick opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. Randall moved, Reeder seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning the designation of front yards. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Tietz noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meetings dated February 19, 2019, March 5, 2019, and April 2, 2019 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Bob Generous provided an update on action taken by the City Council rescinding the final plat for Avienda and extending the preliminary plat to December 31, 2019. Randall moved, Reeder 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 8:05 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 16, 2019 Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Weick, Mark Randall, John Tietz, Michael McGonagill, Doug Reeder, and Laura Skistad MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and MacKenzie Walters, Associate Planner Weick: I’d like to start off thanking Commissioners Aller and Madsen for many years of really good and dedicated service to the City of Chanhassen and welcoming new planning commission members Laura Skistad as well as Doug Reeder. Tonight we have 3 code amendments to the Chanhassen City Code. These are open for public input. As a reminder the Planning Commission is a recommending body to the City Council. If you would like you can follow any of these items discussed tonight with the City Council on May 13th. Items before the Planning Commission, also as a point of review, we use the following format. We will introduce the item. Staff will make a presentation. Commissioners have an opportunity to ask questions of staff at that point. Once that is satisfied we’ll open the public hearing and accept all public input. Anyone who wishes to come forward and we will close the public hearing. Make comments and then make a motion as appropriate. So again we have 3 items tonight. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO ALLOW BOARDING KENNELS IN INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK DISTRICTS. Weick: The first is an amendment to the Chanhassen City Code to allow boarding, kennels in industrial office park district. MacKenzie take it away. Walters: Yep as always I will go through these somewhat quickly but feel free to ask any and all questions that you have. So boarding kennels within the industrial office park districts staff has been contacted by quite a few different entities that are interested in opening up a pet daycare business in the city. We did a review of the zoning code and there are very few areas in the city where these type of businesses can be located. Currently they are permitted as interim uses which are uses that are planned to be phased out and discontinued within the A2 and RR. These are rural single family districts. Minimum lot size 2 ½ acres designed to be residential in nature. And then also within the business fringe district which is basically a holding district we have in the southern part of the city. It’s there to allow for limited low impact commercial use until such a time as sewer and water are extended at which point the plan is for these areas to be rezoned and those uses to be phased out. So this leaves us in a position where there really is no place in Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 2 the city where these types of uses will be permitted long term so what staff did some research. Looked at what other cities did and then also add a business that was operating in one of our industrial and office park districts. Industrial and office park districts are districts that allow office use as well as light industrial and warehousing. That business has been in operation for 8, 10 years. Somewhere around there. Has not generated any significant complaints so staff felt that with appropriate safeguards it’s likely that these types of uses could be accommodated in the industrial and office districts. So with that understanding staff is proposing that boarding and pet kennels that are established without outdoor exercise areas as a pure internal structure be allowed as a permitted use subject to several performance standards. They would be required to have the city’s kennel license. The would need to have a mitigation plan to deal with the potential cause, noise or odor nuisances. And they would also be required to be located at least 200 feet from residential property lines and have employees on site at all time. Staff was concerned that for these businesses when they have the outdoor exercise area because there is more of a potential for them to generate noise or have larger impacts, that a conditional use might be a more appropriate method to, sorry I got tongue tied. That it may be more appropriate to classify them as conditional uses. This would allow for more oversight. Require a public hearing and a chance for the City to impose any conditions they felt necessary and that were reasonable to address the impact of this use on neighboring businesses. We propose that screening would be required. That outdoor areas would need to be 500 feet from residential property or 200 feet if they had sufficient noise mitigation. They would still be subject to the general 200 foot structure setback from residential properties. Require animal supervision when outdoors and again an employee on site at all times. So that’s the very quick rundown and I’d be happy to go into as much depth as you would like. Weick: Thank you MacKenzie. Any comments or questions at this point for MacKenzie. Reeder: MacKenzie where’s the one that’s operating now? Is that down on 101? Walters: The one that’s currently in business is the, I believe it’s Hound Dog Hotel now. They recently changed their name. It’s in the Arboretum Business Park. The one that you’re thinking of down by Flying Cloud, was operating under a conditional use permit and they are not currently open. Tietz: MacKenzie what’s that, is that a boarding facility on Crosstown and 494? I think it’s Dog Gone or Dog something. It’s an old, it was an industrial. It was an office building that was turned into a dog I believe boarding and daycare. Can you tell me more about that one? It’s Eden Prairie. Walters: I’m afraid I’m not familiar with it. I only researched the ones in my community but. Generous: Well I know they only have indoor facilities there and so what is it, Doggie a Go Go or something like that. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 3 Tietz: Yeah I think that’s it. Yeah. Generous: And yes they provide daycare services for pets. Dogs and overnight boarding. Tietz: But that’s not, we’re going beyond that in providing? What’s outdoor recreation for dogs? Is that really exercise area? Generous: Yeah it’s an exercise area. Tietz: It seems like there’s a lot of language in this document that kind of creates some questions at least in my mind. You know what’s an outdoor recreation for dogs and what’s a sturdy fence and why is it on a collector street when it’s in an industrial park? Aren’t those all kind of semi- collector streets? There’s a lot of things in the document that seem to raise a lot of questions in my mind as to why they’re essential. Walters: I don’t believe by retaining the arterial and collector for the standards for industrial and office park. I had at least so it was not my intention to do so. Tietz: Okay. Walters: That being said outdoor recreation area would be any outdoor area associated with the kennel. Tietz: But just isn’t it just an exercise area? I mean is it going to be clear for anyone who reads the document? Walters: Yeah and if you, I would be, I think we could easily amend it to be whatever language you feel increases clarity. Reeder: Mr. Chair there’s actually, MacKenzie there’s actually some indoor places that I’ve taken my dog to that have indoor/outdoor cages. Which area does that fall under? Walters: If there was any outdoor facility it would be an outdoor area. Reeder: Okay even though it’s not a general recreational thing? Walters: Yep. Reeder: Which is it’s sort of a nice arrangement to have the dog to be able to walk when he’s confined but you’d still be concerned about noise right? Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 4 Walters: Yeah and that would be one we would definitely want, I would imagine at least the animal supervised when outdoor to make sure that if the dog begin barking someone brought it inside you know or acted in a way to mitigate that. Weick: Although as it’s written now you would have to keep the dog from going outside after 10:00 p.m. Walters: Yes. Reeder: Or if they do that… Yeah it’s a good point. Weick: Because 10:00 to 6:00 a.m. they can’t be outside according to this code so they’d have to make arrangements. Skistad: So how big would the lots for these new kennels be located on? Walters: The kennel license requires a minimum of one acre standard, as does the minimum size for our industrial office park district. Skistad: So if you’re going to have 500 feet from residential property that’s only one acre and wouldn’t that be difficult because one acre is only typically 88 yards by 55 yards. That would be 264 feet and 165 feet. Walters: Well the goal would be to prevent them from being able to locate close to residential properties so the reason why we put that setback in is to prevent one of these from going right next to a residential neighborhood. To guarantee it would have to be somewhere interior to the office park or situated on a larger parcel with more separation. If that makes sense. Reeder: So you couldn’t have it next to residential? Walters: The idea would be that the 200 foot setback would be significant enough to minimize any noise generated by it. Typically we don’t put industrial parks right up against residential neighborhoods as well so you have an adequate safeguard there. Tietz: Wouldn’t this, if it’s in an industrial park, let’s say it’s repurposing or a building, I don’t view this as a free standing facility. I view it as probably a repurposing if it’s in an industrial park area. You may not get an acre. You may be limited to some old surface parking that’s behind might become an outdoor, and this is really, I don’t know. It’s getting confusing when you talk about an acre and then you’re in an industrial park and if it’s not free standing it’s a repurposing. I just don’t know how it’s going to work. Walters: I guess I’m. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 5 Tietz: How do you get an acre in an industrial park if you’re part of a building that’s existing? Walters: Acre would refer to parcel size. Tietz: No. Walters: Typically they don’t break them out into like condominium units where you’d only be renting the condo. It would be for the parcel. If you couldn’t meet the acre threshold then you wouldn’t be able to get a license and that would not be an appropriate site. If you’re concerned about doing a multi-tenant building we could certainly. Tietz: Well I don’t know, you know there’s a lot of industrial properties in town and they’re not, I don’t think we have 100 percent occupancy and we have there may be an opportunity for a landlord to come in and say you know I’d like to have a doggie daycare or doggie kennel facility. How would you react to that? McGonagill: In a multi-tenant building. Tietz: In a multi, well it could be a one story big building. It could be you know a reconstruction. It could be I don’t know, we’ve got a lot of opportunities I think for repurposing things in town. How does that work? Walters: Well if they met the standards of the ordinance they would be allowed to put the business in that facility. Reeder: With the parking requirements that he’s got in here I doubt you’d be able to get this thing…in any way because you’ve got to have 1 space for every 10 dogs or something like that. You probably have 50 dogs. Yeah plus staff so you’ve got 10 parking spaces or something. Skistad: Depending on the size of the animal. A little toy dog versus who knows what service right versus a hunting dog. Reeder: Yeah I think…want to be able to accommodate 30-40-50 dogs I would think. Skistad: I guess where do we have, where is the opportunity for this? Are there certain areas where we say there’s 10 opportunities based on what we have written down here within Chanhassen? Walters: I haven’t done the site by site survey to know how many parcels would be eligible for it. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 6 Generous: But our industrial zone is primarily south of Highway 5 to the railroad tracks from 101 all the way out to the, well the McGlynn’s area. So those are all potential sites. Areas that could be used. Skistad: So they’re zoned and not currently built on? Generous: Not all of them. Some of them are vacant. Some of them are currently constructed on them. There’s a whole area west of Paisley Park that’s guided for office industrial use. It’s currently zoned ag I believe but it’s any development of the site would have to be consistent with that office industrial use so IOP zoning would be appropriate. Skistad: So that’d be by the highway? Generous: Yes. Up to Coulter. Walters: The two or three sites we have received specific inquiries on have all been stand alone structures. Just mentioning that. Tietz: Well I just, I wouldn’t want to limit it to that because of you know to current and future use. Have you visited any kennels that you find to be examples, good examples of it and represent this standard? Walters: Well I think Hound Dog Hotel in here would be one that. Tietz: No in other communities. You list a lot of communities where they have ordinances but have you visited any of those facilities where they have kind of classic examples of a good, a good kennel. Walters: I’ve not done any site visits no. Tietz: Okay. And are there state standards for dog kennels? Walters: The kennel license is derived from state standards and any kennel would need to meet that. Tietz: So there are standards for containment? Walters: Yep there’s state and county standards and one of the conditions they need to get our kennel license is to meet state and county. Tietz: And is that enforced by the state or county or by us? Who would inspect the facility to ensure that they’re getting proper air and light and exercise space and containment space that’s appropriate size? Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 7 Walters: County and state would enforce their requirements and their licensing. Tietz: Okay. Walters: We would enforce anything that was solely our ordinance like noise. McGonagill: Let’s talk about the noise part MacKenzie. The limits of noise. There’s not a noise quantitative test in this like so many decibels but it’s qualitative. Talk a little bit about the qualitative test where somebody, they had a kennel, if this happened and they’re in violation. Walters: Yep. So both the kennel license standards and proposed conditional use standards or permitted use, performance standards say they can’t create nuisances and our ordinance defines animal noise nuisance as being you know dogs barking for audible at 500 feet from location for a period of more than 3 minutes or audible outside of the building for a period of more than 5 minutes so it’s both distance and duration criteria. But if they trip those and we have nuisance complaints the kennel license standards require they take proactive measures to address the noise. McGonagill: And that’s true for both external, outside and you said inside as well. So how does it work if you have a multi-tenant building, someone’s right next door? Walters: I imagine quite similar to how Stock and Barrel, the gun range operates. Very good sound proofing. McGonagill: You have to attenuate it? Walters: Yep. And that’d be part of the noise mitigation plan. Waste disposal mitigation plan that’s required for them whether they have an outdoor area or not. Randall: MacKenzie I have one question for you. Not to open another can of worms here and no pun intended but gets you in the dog house. But is there any affect on veterinary clinics with this because they also board dogs or have dogs there and I know that there’s one on 79th. Is this going to affect veterinarians from coming indoor community and opening a business? Walters: That would be considered an accessory use that’s part of the veterinary clinic. Randall: Okay. Walters: So no new provision would be adopted that would affect that. At least not to my knowledge. Randall: Okay. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 8 Tietz: MacKenzie you said what 3 people have inquired? Walters: In the last half year or so. Tietz: Yeah. Have you reviewed the proposal with anyone who would be a provider to see if they have any issues with it? Walters: To be honest so far the conversations have kind of ended when we told them they’d have to go through a process of amending the city code and it’d be you know the minimum 60 day timeframe. They’re usually looking to move faster than that so no we have not reviewed with this any potential. Tietz: Might that be beneficial because I’m not in the dog business and I don’t currently have an animal but you know if someone comes to the City and reviewed this code and then just walks away because they think oh my goodness. This, we can’t do this. This is going to add X to the project and I have to buy more land and there’s not a site. I think it may be beneficial to at least review it either with existing kennel operators in another community where they have an excellent example of a kennel or with perspective owners. Randall: I have one more thing on there. I have boarded my dogs in the past and to give you an idea, I mean people are very picky about where they bring their dog to. We always did site visits to check it before we and they’re very busy. I mean there’s a lot of, there’s a need for dog daycare and pet daycare. Also too a lot of these facilities also have camera monitors so you can watch your dog from the phone, or from your phone. You can call your dog in the evening. There’s all kinds of things so I think the marketplace will drive a lot of the quality in these places and the safety standards. Places that don’t have a good reputation are not going to get business and they will be closed so. That is also a concern of mine too because of the traffic. You know did we have that issue with daycare facilities where there’s a lot of traffic. Parents dropping off kids. Picking them up in the evening. Same kind of thing so those are some of my other concerns with it also but I agree with you. It’d be kind of interesting to see what those past people, those inquiries have looked at. Is our, is this broad enough to draw them because there is a need for it so. Tietz: Good point. McGonagill: I guess I would add that, I agree with you Mark and also, but I also think there’s a need for a kennel out in this area. Randall: Yeah I would agree. McGonagill: I mean we’re all having to go, we have a dog as well and we’re having to go deep into the city or way out west to get one in here and a quality facility let’s say like Dog a Go or Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 9 whatever. If it was reasonably priced and that’d be the problem because as a stand alone facility there’s definitely a need in the area. There’s clearly, well there’s clearly just demand for it because it seems you got to almost reserve at certain times you know a month or two ahead so. Reeder: Just picked up my dog yesterday in Mound. McGonagill: Yeah. I think there’s a community need for it but it needs to be put in the right kind of way. Randall: Yes. Weick: And I think we have a responsibility not just to dog owners but to people that don’t want to hear dogs barking. But I’d be concerned about making it so unrestrictive that it could be, you know we could potentially have neighbor, you know neighborhoods that can hear dogs. They’re loud. I mean when I take my dog way out and it’s in the middle of nowhere and I can hear those dogs barking when I’m driving up. I wouldn’t want that you know close to a neighborhood and 500 feet’s not enough. I mean frankly so I think anything that restricts you know outdoor kennels is in my opinion would be a good thing for this but that’s just my opinion. McGonagill: Particularly with the density the way it’s going. Weick: Yeah. Randall: And one of the things, this also benefits too by having more of these come into town with dogs barking at people’s homes there’s an avenue for the city to say hey you can board your dog here you know and have it in an area where the barking doesn’t matter as much too so I agree with you though and I think that sound mitigation thing, I know when I deal with barking dog complaints I sit in front of the house for the 3 minutes and watch my watch and make sure they’re, you know I dealt with one today so but that’s kind of the, it’s tough. I mean for dog owners you know so. Reeder: Well I think putting it in an industrial park really eliminates a lot of problems we’ll have with this because there’s nobody there at night time generally you know which is the worst time for people bringing complaints so I think we’re putting it in the right place. MacKenzie what I was wondering is, are you still, after you adopt this are you still going to allow them in any other district? I don’t know maybe you should. Walters: Yeah nothing in this would change how the ones allowed in the business fringe district or the agricultural estates or rural residential districts are currently treated. We’re not looking to, none of that would be altered. Reeder: Are there, did I read that there are in there now? Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 10 Walters: There are none operating in the agricultural estate or rural residential. As mentioned because of the requirement for an arterial or collector street there quite frankly aren’t many in those districts that could accommodate this use. Reeder: Well wouldn’t it make sense to end that right now because I see such a potential problem if one goes in in those areas and then the area develops and you’re making a non- conforming use. That could be a non-conforming use for 50 years. Not good. Walters: Well again in those two districts because it’s an interim use the permit would be revoked upon development. You would put in a sunset clause. Reeder: What does that say? What’s development? One guy next door? Walters: Usually we would specify the extension of sewer and water is typically how we’ve done that for the interim use permits down there so once that becomes available and utilities or the zoning changes they would lose that. Reeder: Will somebody actually build a nice expensive dog care thing if they know it’s going to go away at some time? I mean that just doesn’t make sense to me at all to allow it out there. Walters: Fair enough. Reeder: You get a selected thing that’s in the middle of nowhere but. My other question was what do you do with, I sometimes take my dog to somebody else’s house. No advertising dog care in their house and they may have a dog. They have a fenced in yard. What’s the definition of a kennel that is subject to all this? Walters: Well under the current city code if you have 3 or more dogs you’re supposed to have a private kennel license and if you’re accepting them for pay you should already have a commercial kennel license. However the city responds to complaints and if you’re keeping a low profile and we never find out about it then it’d be the same because we’d never know about it. Reeder: So if somebody complains about somebody doing that you would tell then they are a commercial, if I’m paying them to keep my dog there? Walters: I believe we actually have an enforcement case similar to that going on right now yes. Reeder: Okay. Weick: More questions, comments for MacKenzie. Clarification. Fair enough. We will open the discussion to the public. Seeing nobody come forward I will close the public hearing and open for further commissioner comment or motion. I heard some concerns about you know an Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 11 acre being the right number potentially and does that even, you know does the math work to be able to do that so I hear that. Some clarification on really what do we mean by outdoor recreation and I think we can add language that says outdoor recreation exercise, things like that into it. McGonagill: And I think Commissioner Reeder talked about just taking away the ability to put this in some places where we don’t have them already and starting to put it straight in industrial parks. If I understood you right commissioner? Reeder: That is what I was suggesting. I don’t know if that has to be part of this ordinance but I think it’s a thought that they may want to look at. McGonagill: So what I’m hearing are 3 things. Outdoor. Noise. Limiting it to where it goes now. Narrowing that down. Can we do that or do we need to table it and send it back and have it come forward again? I’m looking for counsel. Tietz: Mike I just have a thought too about. There are some things that are quite specific in here yet they’re not clearly defined like what’s a sturdy fence. There’s other items, if there are some standards that are available that we can plug in that’s one thing but saying a sturdy fence and that’s up, who determines whether it’s a sturdy fence? Is it a 6 foot you know cyclone fence? Is it a 4 foot? Is it wood to 8 feet? I don’t know what a sturdy fence is if I’m a perspective developer of a kennel so I don’t know if you could go too far and say this is the kind of the fence but when you say sturdy fence I don’t know what that is. And then there’s you know other requirements about, oh what’s another one I wrote down? Something about ample heat, light and ventilation. What’s ample heat, light and ventilation? Does the state licensing have a standard for that? Are there examples of high class operations or you folks keep your dogs when you travel that someone else has a standard that we could apply or are we going to be so broad that it’s open for interpretation? Randall: You know and there might be a national kennel owners association that has a standard. You know maybe it references that. That way if they’re, if it’s ongoing changing there’s a new standard that comes in place it automatically follows that. McGonagill: Best practice. Tietz: Yeah best practice. Randall: Yes so. McGonagill: Yeah the kennel association will have a best practice for kennels…but I would almost bet there is one. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 12 Randall: Some of the kennels I’ve been to they have, you know segregated areas depending on the size of the dog and that type of thing so small dogs aren’t with the big dogs so then does that increase your operational space that you have? I like the reference the outdoor recreation. I think that’s important to word that because then that limits the boarding in an outdoor area. If it’s a recreation area they’re not going to be in a kennel. Or a cage if you want to put it that way so. Walters: If I may jump in. I would just like to clarify that these ample heat, ventilation and sturdy fence requirements are currently in our ordinance as standards for the commercial kennel license. Those are not new standards we proposed. It doesn’t mean they’re not problematic and can’t be refined. Skistad: So that’s what it says in the current code? Walters: Yes. That is a current requirement for anyone who’s getting a commercial kennel license. McGonagill: But you’d like to see some of this tighten up a little bit more? Tietz: Well I don’t know. It just seems like if I have a valuable hunting dog and I’m going to go away for 2 weeks and maybe you guys all have valuable hunting dogs or something. McGonagill: Every dog’s valuable. Tietz: Or your dog is a little one. Well I know but it’s just, you know if we’re going to have a standard do we set a high bar for it or do we find something in the middle and then let people come in and at least there’s a minimum standard established. And ample and sturdy doesn’t tell me that’s a minimum standard. McGonagill: It needs to be quantitative. Tietz: Well I don’t know. And like you said if there’s a national kennel club or whatever it is, or some organization that has some standards or if there’s examples you know Doug where you take your dog or Mark that are good examples that could be held up as a baseline, maybe we consider incorporating that so we get a high quality, you know people don’t come in and start complaining about the quality of the standards, of the living standards for their dog when they kennel them. Skistad: I guess I would say they’d just go out of business. You wouldn’t take your dog there. Tietz: Yeah I suppose. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 13 Skistad: I wouldn’t worry about it. I think the business, if they made such poor choices they’re not going to be a business very long. Tietz: Yeah that’s true. Skistad: Especially not in Chanhassen. Randall: It also too there is that you know sturdy fence type thing. Yeah if your prized hunting dog does escape from there it is somewhat of a civil issue because it’s on that kennel owner. They’re responsible for your dog at that time. Who are we to say you know the Great Dane, it has to have a Great Dane standard or the Great Dane can’t push the fence over or I know one of my dogs who’s a small dog was perceived as a climber and I was unable to board my dog there just based on the breed and so is that a standard too? Is it a chain link fence? Is it you know, there’s all these type of things so I agree. I really think it’s going to be more market driven based on the quality and the perceived quality by that customer so. And also too these places might have a standard built into their insurance policy also to run a kennel because of that civil liability issue also. Weick: We can, you’re not required to but we can certainly entertain a motion. I think we could attach if we wanted to amend some of the wording I believe we could attach it to the motion. Walters: Certainly you could also instruct staff to do a little more homework. Fine tune some definitions and come back after we have better information for you. Whatever your pleasure is we’re happy to do. Weick: That’s what I mean. We’re not required to put a motion forward at this time but I would leave that to the group. McGonagill: Well I would, Chairman I would propose that we do ask staff to do a little bit more work. There’s some further definition. I think that particularly Commissioner Tietz suggestions perhaps look at a couple of the type of kennels that we would like to see in the city to see what standards they use. If there is a best practice they use. You know and bring it back. I think we, I think we’ve given staff a lot of good direction and I appreciate them bringing this up and starting the process and we’re just fine tuning something that we all want to have here so. That would be my proposal that we. Randall: I would agree with that. The other thing that would be nice to have more public here for some input on it. McGonagill: Yes. Randall: That would be great especially if we know that’s coming up but I mean it’s out of our control but it’d be great to have the public here to have some input. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 14 Skistad: I would love another kennel here because I take mine a long ways away. I would like to see one. I don’t want to have too many requirements to have a barrier for them to have a business. But at the same time we want to protect our public. Tietz: Yeah I just don’t think we, we don’t want to make it so onerous that people, people come in and then they want to get a variance right away. Let’s get a document that supports the industry and provides for a good quality environment for the critters and hopefully they’ll give them a lot of latitude and a lot of opportunities for, sounds like everyone here has a dog except me. Weick: Well I’ll give it one more shot officially. I will open it up and accept a motion if there is one on the table. Reeder: I’ll make a motion to table this item and bring it back with some more information that the Planning Commission’s requested. Weick: Fair. Randall: Second. Weick: And I don’t think we have to vote on that. Generous: You do. Weick: We do have to vote on that? Okay so the motion on the table. Reeder: Mark made a second. Skistad: I’ll second it. Weick: The motion is for tabling the boarding kennel in industrial office park amendment to the city code. Having staff review the notes and comments that have been made this evening and coming back with a new amendment. Having a motion and a valid second. Reeder moved, Randall seconded that the Planning Commission table the amendment to the City Code to allow boarding kennels in Industrial Office Park Districts and bring it back with information requested by the Planning Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Weick: It passes unanimously. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 15 PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO BRING TREE DIVERSITY STANDARDS IN LINE WITH THE 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Walters: Alright the next proposed code amendment is concerning tree diversity standards. Essentially as you know the city’s been in the process of updating our Comprehensive Plan and one of the requirements that’s placed in that is that the city code whenever it is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan needs to be updated within 9 months to bring it into compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. One of the goals we specifically mention in the Comprehensive Plan has to do with protecting the City’s urban forest as we call it. So that’s all of the boulevard trees. The trees that people plant in their yards. The trees we require to go in as part of the subdivision. As the city code is current written we have a provision that requires for new subdivisions that their plantings be 20 percent from the, no more than 20 percent can be one genus and no more than 10 percent can be from one single species. In order to adopt the most current trends and best rules of thumbs for forestry our Comprehensive Plan calls on adopting the 30/20/10 rules which takes that out one step further away on the telescope and says no more than 30 percent of the trees should be from one family. So staff is proposing that we amend that portion of our ordinance to do 30 percent one family, 20 percent one genus, 10 percent one species instead of as it’s currently is with 20 percent one genus, 10 percent one species and that would also in addition to being good practice for the urban forest bring us into compliance with our Comprehensive Plan. The rationale behind this rule is the more closely related the species are, the trees are the more likely they are to be susceptible to the same past weather events. Disease. Whatever the case may be. It increases the odds that something like Emerald Ash Borer can completely decimate our urban forest. Where if we have multiple different trees one pest can’t do as much damage. It spreads slower. It’s cheaper for the City to fight and generally just helps us preserve that asset. That’s the quick rundown. If you have any questions I’d be happy to do my best to address them. Weick: Thank you MacKenzie. We’ll open it up for questions from the Planning Commission. Jump right in. McGonagill: Process question. Will this apply to subdivisions that are currently in process like Avienda and/or the park? Walters: If the new plantings happened after the moment this was put intact and went into effect yes it would. McGonagill: Okay thank you. Tietz: MacKenzie I assume Jill was responsible for a lot of this? Walters: Yes she was. I will do my best to clarify but yes. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 16 Tietz: Well so help me, how did you determine one tree per 1,089 square feet of cover? Walters: That I am afraid is not my area of expertise. Yeah. Weick: Bob. Tietz: Come on Bob Generous: That was one of the first ordinances I worked on here and we had to come up with a standard that said how big a tree was and so we looked at the average crown spread of trees and that came, that was the number that came up with. We wanted to be able to quantify the required plantings so if you need so many square feet of canopy coverage is what we really look at. Not the actual trees and. Tietz: But canopy cover when? When it’s 50 years old or when it’s? Generous: No over an entire site. We look at, we don’t care so much about the individual trees when you’re calculating canopy coverage. It’s a view from above. How much of that site is covered with leaves basically so we get a total canopy coverage on a property and then let’s say they remove 30,000 square feet. Well how many trees is 30,000 square feet? Divide it by 1,089 and that’s how you came up with the number of trees. Tietz: Interesting. Generous: That was back in ’93. Tietz: So if it’s a bare site and you’ve got an acre of 43,560 square feet you’ve got to plant 40 trees? Generous: Well depending on what the canopy coverage requirements are. Tietz: Well I said if it’s an open site. Generous: Yeah but we have standards. If there’s zero, well if there’s zero canopy coverage it’s no removal and you want to bring it up to a minimum standard and when there’s not a lot of, not any trees there’s some. It’s like 20 percent or something canopy overage. You can take that 20 percent of 43,560 and it gives you a number and then it quantifies the number of trees by dividing 1,089. Tietz: Okay well. McGonagill: There’s standards depending on what the existing canopy coverage was. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 17 Generous: Coverage is yes. McGonagill: Before you started. Generous: Yes. McGonagill: Before you started. Generous: Correct. McGonagill: Okay got it. Generous: And what the target preservation or target requirements are. Tietz: Okay. Reeder: So if there’s no trees there what’s the requirement? Generous: I don’t know the specific number but it’s based on the land. Yeah there’s based on the land use there’s a specific square footage for canopy coverage or percentage canopy coverage and then how did you quantify that. You had to have a number that you could divide it. Tietz: So help me out then with, maybe follow up on Doug. If the Lennar project that we just reviewed. So most of that area will be scraped and there’ll be most of those lots will be void of any canopy cover. Then we go back to what’s required of a developer to establish the base number of trees per lot? Generous: Correct. Well the base number of trees per lot is one. The additional tree requirements of how much of that target is not being met. McGonagill: But you started with how many trees were there originally right? Generous: How much canopy coverage. McGonagill: …excuse me, how much canopy coverage there is originally and how much has been taken out. Generous: Yes with the development. McGonagill: And then you build it back to whatever the standard is for a development like that, is that correct? Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 18 Generous: That’s correct and if you look at our subdivision review we have those tables that say this is what the baseline canopy coverage is. This is the removal. If they meet the target there’s no additional penalties. Then they have to add so many trees and how did we calculate the number of trees? 1,089 square feet. Skistad: The developer adds the trees or the homeowner? Generous: Well it’s the developer. Homeowners can add additional trees but a developer’s required to provide a minimum number. Skistad: What happens if the trees die? Generous: Well most of them are under warranty for what is it, a 2 year period. Skistad: If a homeowner doesn’t care, doesn’t want to replace it. I’m just wondering I mean. Generous: Yeah that’s it. Unless they have a separate agreement with the developer that he’s going to guarantee their trees for 10 years. Or 5 years or whatever. That’s, it’s up to, it’s people’s due diligence to determine that. If you have healthy trees go in and they’re protected and they don’t compact their soils they have a good chance of surviving and growing to maturity. Reeder: But to her question can I chop my tree down? Walters: Yes. Generous: The resident can yes. Walters: Property rights are property rights and you know we do our best to set stuff up to be as good as possible and folks will sometimes make it even more beautiful and wonderful and sometimes decide they want to clear cut back yards and there’s not a lot we can do about that unless there’s a tree preservation or conservation easement or some protective measure in place. Skistad: Okay so this is just for an initial property development. Walters: Yep. Generous: Right. Walters: Yep. And so same thing is, I as a homeowner, let’s just say I love sugar maples and I’, going to plant 100 percent sugar maples in my rear yard. This ordinance would not tell me no, no, no. You can only have 10 percent sugar maples. You have to put these other species in. I can still as a homeowner having bought the property put up what I want in my yard. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 19 Generous: You love arborvitae. 50 of them along your property line. Tietz: Let the deer eat them. I have another Jill question. You’ll love this. Item number 6 it says plant materials used for reforestation shall be of similar species as vegetation found on the site. So now I’ve got a site that’s all box elder and ash. Generous: Those aren’t in our approved list. Tietz: Well but if it’s similar, you know that’s what’s there now so it’s kind of a ridiculous condition. Generous: I think it goes back to the family. Like the big woods that. Tietz: But this is still mostly for developers coming in. Generous: Yes. Tietz: It doesn’t impact the homeowner at all. It’s just new developments. Walters: Correct. Tietz: Okay. McGonagill: Does the standard raise the canopy or just try to keep it the same? I mean are you with this standard you’re not changing the density, you’re not increasing density of trees under this? Walters: No we are only changing the percentage ratios you’re allowed. McGonagill: Within that. Walters: Yep. Generous: Diversity is what we’re trying to get to. McGonagill: Yes that’s fine. Weick: Other questions for MacKenzie. Hearing none we will open up this item for public hearing. And seeing nobody come forward I will close the public hearing and open it up for commission comment and/or motion. Fairly straight forward. Reeder: I think this makes sense. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 20 McGonagill: Chairman I’ll propose a motion if you like. Weick: Please. McGonagill: Chanhassen Planning Commission, I would propose this motion Mr. Chairman, the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 18 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning tree standards. Walters: Having a valid motion, do we have a second? Randall: Second. Weick: We have a second. McGonagill moved, Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 18 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning tree standards. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Weick: The amendment passes. And we have one more item I believe. One more amendment. PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO CHANHASSEN CITY CODE TO ALLOW FOR THE DESIGNATION OF ALTERNATE FRONT YARDS. Walters: Yep. Sorry my mic got turned off. Yes we do. This one is allowing the City the ability to designate alternative front yards. What this comes down to is in 1990 the City adopted a provision which said that the front yard for properties accessed via private street is determined by the nearest access to a public right-of-way. Unfortunately this doesn’t always mirror how historic developments went in. How folks chose to situate their house or how the subdivision was initially inefficient and it leads to a few neighborhoods having very weird situations where they have their garage and their entire house oriented one direction. They come into pull a permit or do something, build a deck and I have to tell them well no you can’t do that because this is your front yard and they say what do you mean it’s my front yard. It’s literally the back of my house and you look at all the other houses around and it is, it’s counter intuitive. It doesn’t work. It doesn’t make life easy and then the neighbors are not always thrilled when stuff goes in that should only be in a rear yard and it’s what they believe was a front yard. So what we’re hoping to do is given ability for the City to address these issues as they come up. What we’re proposing would allow the Community Development Director to look at these older things and when they come in designate a front yard consistent with the house’s orientation and the development patterns of the subdivision and then also to formally enshrine the Planning Commission and City Council’s ability to designate alternate front yards. So this is similar to what was done for Anthem on the Park if I’m correct where the orientation of some of the flag Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 21 lots, if you applied the strict definition would have given you like a 40 foot wide building pad or 30 foot wide building pad and instead as part of the subdivision the City said no. I believe it was the southern lot and the lot line in that case is the front yard. We designated what made sense. A more recent one would be the Red Cedar Point subdivision where that was the two lot split on 3800 Red Cedar Point where we said the east lot line should be the front yard because that’s how it has access. That’s where the driveway is. That’s where the other houses around it are oriented even though the definition technically would have said it was north didn’t really make any sense in the overall context. So this would be correcting the error that, not error but the situation that came up because of that 1990 amendment. I provided an example of one just to show you a little better of what I’m talking about. So this is a private street and it accesses a public right-of-way to the east. What that means is for this house this is their front yard. This is their rear yard so for them to legally build stuff they have to meet a 30 foot front yard setback and a 30 foot rear yard setback. Never mind that they obviously have a garage up here. Access this road to the north. As far as the city code’s concerned this is their side yard. Front yard. Rear yard. Side yard. Same with all of these houses behind. Again as can be seen all of these houses have what I would call a common sense north yard as their front yard. So if this individual came in and said I’d like to build a shed back here. This lets us say without going through the variance process yeah that seems like a place a shed could go, although in this case you would have to be 75 feet from the lake but, so that’s the gist of what we’re going for here and I’d be happy to answer any questions. Weick: MacKenzie I do have a question. Is this only backward looking? So if this existing properties that want to do something to their property? Walters: I put in two provisions. The second one is the grandfather clause that looks back and the first one then would be what allows or formally allows the City Council to designate an alternate front lot line so the idea is for every new subdivision we’re aware of this issue. We would do what we did with Red Cedar Point or what we did with Anthem on the Park and pre- emptively designate it in the city code. Weick: Up front. Walters: Yeah so there’s no confusion. No doubt. It’s in the compliance table. Everyone knows what they’re getting into. So realistically it would mostly be applied looking back at properties because we will hopefully catch any of these going forward. Reeder: Couldn’t you just say that, is this cul-de-sac is private? Is that why it doesn’t count? Walters: Yep. It is private. Reeder: Couldn’t you just say if you frontage on a private road or a real road that you’ve got the front yard? Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 22 Walters: I think there was a rationale for doing it this way. I think a lot of it, just looking over some stuff was designed to avoid any confusion or abuse of flag lots and so I think there is some benefit to retaining the existing provision and the intent there so we don’t you know allow folks on flag lots to reoriented beyond what was envisioned as part of their subdivision, if that makes sense. Unfortunately I don’t have an example of that. Reeder: You don’t have any pictures of that yeah, okay. Tietz: But aren’t there, MacKenzie there are some. These are all new construction so the flag lot didn’t really create a problem. Those are, and you’re, the one that’s on the screen right now. Those homes on the lake side have all been built with in the last 5 years so there it’s kind of controlled but we have a flag lot. Someone makes the back of their lot now a sellable property and they run a, you know it creates a flag lot. This house the old house could have a crazy orientation because it was right at the time it was built and now you’ve got the house behind that’s going to be, presumably it’s going to face the drive that comes in correct? Generous: Well the ordinance currently would require that their front yard would be. Tietz: Facing the other person’s back yard? Generous: Yes. Walters: Yes. Tietz: But aren’t we trying to avoid that? Generous: Yes. Well that’s. Tietz: So this would do that so that it’s. Generous: We designate. Tietz: You can control like the ones on the screen you can control that because you can, when they come in for the building permit or when they go through the flag lot approval process because that’s a variance. But it’s the old ones where they subdivide where this kind of clears that up. Is that correct? Weick: Or want to build a shed or something, yeah. Tietz: Yeah, yeah. Okay. Weick: Some structure. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 23 Walters: Yeah it’s mostly designed to accommodate existing houses and existing weird situations and let us give common sense answers. Randall: Is there a, any other standards that you apply like the actual front door to the home considering that being the front or was it pretty much just based on the orientation of the home? Is that your decision or is it. Walters: This would allow the Community Development Director to make that determination but it does have criteria you know consistent with the subdivision development pattern and orientation of other structures within the neighborhood. So the idea is this has to be a defensible determination. You have to look at how this lot is organized. How the lots around it are organized. How the houses around are organized and then say yeah this makes sense as a front yard. The goal is not to give you know a blank check where I can go to I don’t know we’ll just say River Rock Road and say oh you want to do this. Yeah okay. The east lot line is your front lot line even though it’s clearly. Randall: Yes. And where I see this a lot driving through neighborhoods is the development that was built around the old farm house. I don’t know if you’ve been in a neighborhood and you see the house how it’s orientated differently because it was built in 1927 and every other house was built in 2010 but that’s where I can see a little bit of it too but obviously you guys are taking care of that and that would be included in the development of a new property so. Weick: Great, other questions for MacKenzie? Hearing none at this time I will open the public portion of the hearing and accept any public comment. Seeing nobody come forward I will close the public hearing and open it back up for commissioner comment, ideas, and/or motions. Reeder: Looks good to me. Randall: Can I propose a motion? The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning the designation of front yards. Weick: Having a valid motion, do we have a second? Reeder: Second. Weick: And we have a second. Randall moved, Reeder seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning the designation of front yards. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 24 Weick: The motion passes and that is our last amendment. Great. Thank you MacKenzie. That was really good dialogue I thought. You answered a lot of really I think important and good questions. Do we have any new business Mr. Generous? Generous: Nothing new business. I have something on the council update. Oh May 7th Planning Commission meeting has been cancelled. We didn’t get any applications. Unless the kennels come back. Weick: Okay, well we’ll wait and see. Generous: That would be the only item unless you want to carry it forward… Weick: That’s up to MacKenzie now though. He might want to you know woof. Walters: Well I do know there’s one in Hopkins located within their industrial park. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Tietz noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meetings dated February 19, 2019; March 5, 2019; and April 2, 2019 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Weick: Well again I will say welcome again to our new commissions and thank you for bearing with me this evening as I muddle through trying to run one of these meetings. It’s not as easy as you might think. And I guess now we have administrative presentations. City Council update. Generous: The only item for City Council they did rescind or void the final plat approval for Avienda and extended the preliminary plat until December 31st. Weick: So what does that mean? Generous: Well they weren’t quite ready to go forward with recording the plat so, and they’re looking at revising it somewhat. They’re changing some of the lot configurations. They want to eliminate that ring road is my understanding so they’re going to have to come back and do all that. Skistad: The council’s coming back or Avienda’s coming back? Generous: Avienda will come back. McGonagill: To the council. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 25 Generous: For the final plat but it will come back to the Planning Commission because they’re also looking at amending the underlying planned unit development so. Tietz: But didn’t, they got approval for their grading permit didn’t they? Generous: Yes. That’s still in place and they’ll. Tietz: But if they’re going to eliminate a road how do you get a grading permit and eliminate a road? Generous: Well they’re not going to do that part. Tietz: That’s Phase 10 or something. Generous: It could be. They have to, well there’s a lot of infrastructure improvements that they need to do with Bluff Creek Boulevard going through and then the north/south road on the west side and we’re getting sewer and water in there. There’s a lot of grading. They’re bringing that hill down as you are aware. They’re going to have huge retaining walls on the north end and so. Tietz: So is it likely Bob that we’re not going to see much of what we saw 2 years ago? In the final because they had, that was when they had that big 90,000 square foot HyVee and we had all the different variable type of housing and, is it changing significantly? Generous: Yes and they’re shifting it around internally so once they submit that, they’re still working it out on their end so. Skistad: Could you tell me the date again? That you’re expecting to hear from them. Generous: Oh, sometime this summer. In May they want to go to council for a work session item to discuss what their plans are so I would think late summer or in the summer sometime they’d come in with any amendments. Skistad: Okay. Generous: But it’s almost a year of grading out there once they start. But we will get, we’ll preserve that Bluff Creek knoll. The wooded knoll on the southwest corner of the property and they’re providing financial payment to the city for the stormwater, or as part of their wetland impacts and so we’re going to buy, we’re buying property on Pioneer Trail so in conjunction and the watershed district and I believe the DNR we’re all trying to get all those properties in public ownership and then we can, there’s a big wetland back there. And then the next item is you have a joint meeting with City Council next Monday. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 26 Weick: Correct. Generous: And you will be receiving a packet with the items. Generally Steve you get to run it and present anything but if you have any, it’s time for you to meet City Council and get any direction from them so. And Kate will be back next week for that so. Weick: Okay. And that will be an open conversation. I mean obviously bring your agenda. McGonagill: No you’re chairman. Randall: What time is that going to be at? Tietz: I think it’s a pre-meeting. It’s like 5:00 or 5:30 isn’t it? Generous: 5:30 or 6:00. Randall: Okay I might have an issue with being at that. I’m going to be in a training down in Mankato that day and it’s not supposed to get done until 5:00 so. Weick: Okay. Tietz: It’s pretty informal as I remember. You know it’s just. Well not for you Steve but for us it’s pretty informal. Weick: Right. Although there’s new council members and the mayor and so who knows, it will be fun. Okay. Generous: That’s it. Tietz: Do you have an update on the calendar Bob? Any changes in the calendar? Generous: No we’re still waiting for things to come in. Tietz: So we don’t have a meeting then? Generous: The first one in May is cancelled. Tietz: Okay. That’s what you, I missed that. I’m sorry. Generous: Yeah that one we won’t have, unless like I said unless the dog kennel, the kennel comes back. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 27 Tietz: Is there much coming up? I mean projecting out you guys always are looking like a couple three, a couple months ahead. Is there stuff in the pipeline that you’ve been talking to folks? Generous: Just small projects. A couple variances. Tietz: But nothing. Walters: I’ve got 3 variances that have been telling they’ll apply all year and as you can tell they have, we have not received an application so we’ll see. Tietz: Okay. Generous: We talk to people all the time though but they don’t follow through and we can’t dictate that. McGonagill: Bob what’s the process on the park? What will it be? You know where they’re at. Where they’re going. I don’t think it comes back here but it will go back to the council correct? Generous: That’s correct. They did submit revised preliminary plat plans so that we can review it to make sure they met the criteria that council said so they’re down to 169 lots. McGonagill: They did get it down. Generous: They’re showing a parking lot for the development so we’re reviewing that yet and then we’ll get back, and then they’ll come in for final plat approval is the next phase for them where the actually have to submit the construction plans for the development and any phasing plan that they’ll have. McGonagill: Will that come back here when that happens? Generous: No. McGonagill: It will go back to. Generous: It will directly to City Council. McGonagill: Okay. So is the plat submission public? I did not look. Is it out there on the web? Generous: The preliminary revisions haven’t been put out there yet. We’re still going, reviewing. We just got them, what was it last Friday so. McGonagill: Okay. Chanhassen Planning Commission – April 16, 2019 28 Generous: But yes, eventually those will go back online but yes when they make their application that becomes part of the public docket. McGonagill: Okay thank you. So generally we’re coming back in the way the council directed them to so they’re lining up with that fairly well? Generous: That’s my understanding. I haven’t completed all the review. There’s some undersized lots I think. Walters: Yeah there’s but again having not completed we’re broadly speaking it looks consistent. McGonagill: Okay thank you. Weick: I will entertain a motion to adjourn. Randall moved, Reeder 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 8:05 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, May 21, 2019 Subject City Council Action Update Section ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS Item No: G.1. Prepared By Jean Steckling, Senior Admin. Support Specialist File No:  ATTACHMENTS: City Council Action Update City Council Action Update MONDAY, APRIL 22, 2019 Camp Tanadoona Site Plan Discussion (WS) Planning Commission Joint Meeting Discussion: Reviewed the anticipated 2019 Work Plan by staff as follows: • Public hearings on code amendments based on the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan and Local Surface Water Management Plan. • PUD Amendment for Avienda. • Potential site plan review of Avienda developments. • Timely review of all other development applications. • Joint Commission Tour. The Planning Commission discussed the following items for the City Council to consider: • Lessons learned exercise where larger projects are reviewed to evaluate the process and outcomes. • A code amendment to allow for Accessory Dwelling Units; Secondary Units within or on a single-family property. • Request staff to continue to provide detailed updates on ongoing projects. MONDAY, MAY 13, 2019 Ordinance Amendments to City Code Approved 30-20-10 Tree Diversity Standards for Subdivisions Designation of Alternate Front Yards Subsurface Sewage Treatment System Reference Update 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\development forms\city council action update.docx