Loading...
2019 05 21-pcCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 21, 2019 Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Weick, Mark Randall, Doug Reeder, and Laura Skistad MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad, John Tietz, and Michael McGonagill STAFF PRESENT: MacKenzie Walters, Associate Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; George Bender, Assistant City Engineer; Renae Clark, Water Resources Coordinator; and Jason Wedel, City Engineer/Public Works Director PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER REQUEST FOR VARIANCES FOR LOT COVER, LAKE SETBACK, AND FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3617 RED CEDAR POINT. (Due to technical difficulties recording of the meeting began at this point in the staff’s presentation.) Walters: …but we did our best looking at driveway lengths and garages to estimate the number of parking provided by the different homes in the area. Staff determined that there are 77 spaces for 17 properties so an average of 4 ½ spaces are provided per property. The applicant’s proposal would provide 4 off street parking spaces. 3 in the garage, 1 in the driveway. That’s assuming the car in the driveway is parked parallel. Staff does note that if the driveway length was increased by 3 foot it would, it would create an average driveway depth of 16 feet which is the same as the average vehicle length and that would allow for perpendicular parking to be accommodated in the driveway, assuming an average sized vehicle. And then I’ll turn it over to George for more of a discussion on that. Bender: So this is an exhibit of the driveway that’s shown on the survey. It’s dimension to show the average of the 13 foot length and due to research that staff has done in the past the average length being about 16 feet and the desire to not overhang the vehicle into the roadway considering that the roadway in and of itself is only 16 ½ feet wide and that includes full width of the surmountable curb that’s on one side You know the condition that’s in there for your consideration is to have the, an additional 3 foot overall length of driveway to assist with the off street parking along the very constricted and narrow street. It is a low volume road being that it’s on the end of the point so that’s you know in it’s favor but you know at 16 ½ feet, you can get 2 vehicles by but you know hopefully they’re going slow and carefully. This is a street view of the Red Cedar Point Road. The yellow house on the right is 3617 Red Cedar Point Road. The subject property. As you can tell the mailbox on the left is very close to the road. There is not a lot of additional space out there. This picture is currently looking east and the next slide will get Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 2 into maintenance of the street, specifically winter plowing. And the street curves to the left in this picture which is to the north and unfortunately Google Street View kind of stops at that point to get a real nice picture of that looking that direction. So this is oriented straight due north is facing up. This is where the street curves. The subject property is actually in this area here. In speaking with the public works department and the Superintendent that’s responsible for the plowing currently the plowing situation is that they use the subject driveway to back up into it to turn the plow around and drive out so that they don’t have to back out to the intersection to the west. The public works staff is very confident that they can effectively plow this area you know with the new proposed home and driveway as shown in the survey and not utilizing that property for that purpose. They would have to do a 3 point turn in this area and kind of back up and come back out in order to go out without having to back up. They feel that there is going to be some work in this eyebrow area that needs to be taken care of. There’s an old cottonwood tree that will need to come down. They feel that they can take down that tree safely and you know between that, cleaning up the area a little bit more and then working with two other properties. This is 3613 and this is 3616. Based on how you can see the white vehicle here is going on the driveway to 3616 and then this is parked next to a shed. There is a garage over here but you know additional parking space they’re going there. We would have to work with these two properties in order to help you know do the winter maintenance and be able to be an effective and efficient in keeping public safety moving through the area. And for that I’ll turn it over to our Water Resources Coordinator. Clark: Good evening, Renae Clark, the Water Resources Coordinator. I’ll first review the basis for the lake buffer to support the variance request. First the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources implements a shoreland management program, one of five different programs by the State that are established to protect the state’s public resources. The purpose of this shoreland management program is development and impervious surface impacts the functions and values of lakeshore and water quality increasing nutrients and runoff to lakes causing erosion, scenic degradation, and more over the shoreland zone, the upland area next to the lake and the first 15 feet into the lake. What’s referred to as the littoral zone are the most productive and important pieces of lake and lake water quality. So the shoreland management program is to protect public resources from associated changes from land use. The shoreland management program establishes minimum land use standards through state rule that communities must adopt and enforce through local zoning ordinance and MacKenzie referenced those in city code which in this case the 25 percent cover and the 75 percent setback. Minnesota statute then referenced on your screen 462 discussing planning and zoning in summary says that when evaluating variances the zoning authority shall request the property owner to address stormwater runoff, reduce impervious surface, increase setbacks, use vegetated buffers and other conservation design actions. So in considering a variance request in this case one criteria must be also consistency with the city’s Comprehensive Plan. Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan includes a local water management plan. Within the local water management plan that was recently adopted the beginning of 2018 one of the goals and policies discusses a required 10 foot minimum buffer width for all properties and those are to be brought into conformance when permits are applied for and variances are requested to improve the property. The recommendation in the local water Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 3 plan calls for a 10 foot minimum width. Minnesota DNR guidance refers to in some places a 30 foot minimum width. The recommendation from staff for this project is a 20 foot buffer and that was discussed by water resources staff with this original application and DNR concurred with staff’s recommendation. The plan before you shows, at the top you can see the patio area in the back of the proposed home. The 20 foot buffer area is highlighted in red and that’s 20 feet from the ordinary high water level of the lake shown on the site plan. This is a picture of what that shoreline looks like. Staff’s recommendation in the variance request and buffer calls for leaving and utilizing the existing lake access which is shown in this picture. It’s approximately 4 feet in width. And then staff’s recommendation also calls for incorporating and improving shoreline restoration which includes replacing or augmenting the rip rap with native vegetation. Staff provided the applicant several resources in how to design and explain what a lakeshore buffer is and before you is a picture of a lakeshore buffer and what they can look like and here’s a second picture of a lakeshore buffer and to call out in this picture it incorporates the use of existing rock rip rap with native vegetation and then transitions into an upland buffer and this is an example of something that the property owner could do to comply with staff’s recommendation. Walters: So in conclusion based on the above the staff is recommending approval of the variance request. The conditions on that as mentioned staff believes that in order to offset the increased impervious surface or the above 25 percent impervious surface and the increase of it on the lake, towards the lake with the house widening the buffer that Water Resources Coordinator Clark discussed should be required. Permeable pavers should be required for the driveway and patio area and staff’s again overall assessment is that the requested variances are consistent with those granted to surrounding properties and the existing non-conformities present on the property. Staff is concerned about parking. Does note that the proposal provides a total of four off street parking spaces. As you may have noticed in your, sorry. Mind just blank for a second there. Staff report, staff proposed two different motions. The motion that reads with the 11 ½ foot front yard setback would be the one that provides for the driveway as proposed by the applicant to accommodate the fourth parking space. It would require a parallel park in front of the driveway. The second proposed motion requires the additional 3 feet and that reads as an 8 ½ foot front yard variance. As staff noted because of the proposed dedication of the right-of-way that first one would need to be increased to a 20 foot front yard variance and we’ve written that in the motion. We’ll be happy to clarify as needed because we understand it gets a little confusing. If you have any questions we’d be happy to take them at this time. Weick: Thank you MacKenzie. Commissioners, questions for city staff. I’ll open with one MacKenzie. I’m going to need clarification on the math on the driveway. Walters: Yep. Weick: Because there’s an added layer of confusion if we’re talking about from the, you know from the, are we measuring to the street or are we measuring to the curb? Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 4 Walters: And that’s where it gets a little more confusing. So because the applicant is willing to dedicate the area of the lot currently covered by the street to the city the 20 foot front yard setback would be measuring from the curb, which would then become the edge of the property line because they would lose that 8 ½ feet. So that’s why it switches from the 11 ½ to 20 is to accommodate the fact that their front yard essentially contracts by 8 feet when they give that land to the City. But all the 11, if it’s easier to put that aside the, all the front yard setback is measured from the property line. So the driveway to the curb is about 14 ½ to 15 feet with the proposed one that is the 20 foot setback and the right-of-way being dedicated at it’s long point and about 11 feet at it’s shorter point. And then with the one being proposed for the 8 ½ foot setback then you would push everything back, the house back 3 feet and you would end up with at it’s long point about 18 ½ and then about 14 ½. Yeah 14, 14 ½ on it’s shortest extent for an average of 16 feet. Is that correct? Bender: I was trying to make sure that the question that you’re asking is getting answered and was it more the difference in the motions or was it related to what’s on the screen? The driveway dimensioning and. Weick: Yeah I’ll restate the question. Bender: Okay. Weick: If the goal was to have 16 to 18 feet roughly of parkable driveway I guess, I just want to be, I don’t know how to ask for that. I don’t know which motion necessarily covers that. I guess in my opinion if you wanted to, and I’m not saying this is mandating something. I’m just asking the question but if you wanted to park a car instead of parallel perpendicular you would need at least 16 feet to do that so that’s 16 to 18 foot seemed to make more sense. Bender: So to get to the 16 feet basically the recommendation is for the driveway length to increase 3 feet in the average part of the driveway which is right in the center where you see the 13 foot dimension. Weick: Okay. Bender: So on the widest part of the driveway, the 14 ½ feet here, that would increase an additional 3 feet to 17 ½ so you know you’d be able to get a 16 foot car in over here because it’d go from 17 ½ to about 16 ½. And then in the middle where you know a third or a second car could park, you know it’d go from about that 15 ½ to a little bit under the 13. And we have to be careful about no portion of the vehicle hanging out into the street and you know it would always be nice if there’s a, you know it’s very difficult to pull right up and put your bumper right up against the garage door. So you know in, there’s a little bit of flexibility there. So the thought in getting that fourth vehicle parked perpendicularly is you know the safest point is for it to be on this side. So if we’ve got something that’s a little bit less than an average size vehicle you know it can kind of park in the middle or if it’s a very small vehicle it could park off on the narrower Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 5 portion of the driveway. If it’s a very big vehicle, something with a trailer, you know the only option is going to be to be parking perpendicular. Does that answer your question or help? Weick: It does. It does. Bender: Okay. Weick: I mean would an option for us to consider be to maintain a curb to house minimum? So instead of allowing the driveway be a, whatever shape that is, you know it maintains a consistent… Bender: Yep. So it’d be at 90 degrees to the roadway. Weick: Yeah. Bender: And basically you would go to the average dimension which would probably be the dimension that they would have to do and if you know you certainly could recommend 16, 17 or 18 feet and the driveway to be you know reconfigured to be 90 degrees to the roadway and that would take care of the offset that you’re seeing here. And you know that is written in the city code for that to be that way. It’s not something that’s always you know enforced that way. Weick: Okay. Just glancing through my notes. If anyone else wants to jump in please. Skistad: If you move it, the driveway. You added the 3 feet, does that just push the house back? Or are you saying that they have to shrink the house? Bender: It would require an adjustment to the design of the home. The other option would be you know to allow a different dimension for the setback from the lake but you know it’s felt that that’s a pretty critical dimension. Skistad: And weren’t you right in the middle between, you went with 20 feet lake setback? So it was recommended as 10 and the full amount is 30 that the State would like. So you just went right in the middle 20. So if the did 8, 6, 17 or I mean whatever that number is. 20 minus 3. Walters: To clarify that is the buffer. The setback is the 75 foot setback but they are currently 52.9 feet from the ordinary high water level of the lake. And so they could in theory the Planning Commission could grant a variance to reduce the lakeshore setback without impacting the buffer width. City policy historically has been not to allow houses to move closer to the lake than existing closest point but that’s certainly an option that could be considered. Reeder: Mr. Chairman? Skistad: Than answers that. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 6 Weick: Yep please. Reeder: I do like the idea of having at least 16 feet of parking behind the curb to the building but I’d like to hear from the proposer what that would do to the house. Weick: Sure, we’ll get there. MacKenzie for you it just, on page 8 of 16 in the packet, I just wanted to clarify the way the lot coverage is noted there. Your, on that page while you’re looking for it what you’ve done is listed out the variances that have been granted I believe in the area. And so it says for instance, are you on that page or no? Okay. If you go down 1, 2, 3, to the fourth one which I think is the first lot coverage variance which is 3705 South Cedar Drive and it says 25 percent LC. Lot coverage. Is that 25 percent plus 25 percent? Walters: Yes. All of these are, whenever we write variances we write it as the deviation from the standard so that would be a property that has 50 percent lot cover. For a little bit of context. Whenever we deal with a property that’s a non-conforming like this we use the non-conformity as kind of, as the base point because the city code allows by rights continuation of the non- conformity and rebuilding so long as there is a reduction. So what we always tell applicants is make it better. Reduce it from where it is. So if a property started with say 55 percent lot cover. Weick: Sure. Walters: We’d look at 50 percent as perhaps not ideal but still an improvement. Weick: Okay. No I just wanted, I wanted to be sure I was reading that right. And then there’s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. So there’s 6 of these that are listed that are lot covered, that include lot coverage variances if I’m reading that correctly. Walters: I believe so. Weick: Including the one we’re talking about tonight. Cool. I’d love to give you another chance to ask MacKenzie some questions or staff. Randall: I’m good right now. Weick: Good. Reeder: Mr. Chair one other question. Weick: Sure. Reeder: Tell me about the height of the proposed structure. Could it go higher or is it at the max? Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 7 Walters: Legally it is well under the maximum. We allow structures to be up to 35 feet in height within the shoreland and we measure that as midpoint of the highest of the highest gable. I will glance at my notes but my recollection is with that measured this is at 22 feet in height. With a peak eave of 27, I apologize. I’m not finding my, one second. Yep, 27 at peak height. 22 as we measure so in absolute theory the code would allow without variance up to 35 feet midpoint of highest gable. Weick: Oka thank you MacKenzie for your presentation. At this time I would invite the applicant to come forward and tell us about the project. Welcome and thanks for coming. Pam Reimer: Should I come here? Weick: Yeah. Pam Reimer: I haven’t done this before so. Weick: You and me both. Pam Reimer: Alright. Good evening. I am Pam Reimer and I own the property at 3617 Red Cedar Point. The last applicant who was pre-approved for this exact same variance. Went through this whole process and decided not to buy it as did somebody else but I’m already all in. I’m thankful for MacKenzie Walters because he has spent many days educating and helping me through the planning process so I can build my house. To reiterate the timeline I did contact MacKenzie in January of this year to build the lot and to utilize the existing variance that was already approved. Thank you. Unfortunately my dad had a heart attack and my mom and I pretty much lived in the ICU for 2 weeks and he had another heart attack. Behind the scenes my amazing architect put together a house plan that met the approved footprint and then some. He reduced the hard cover from 36.4 percent to the approved variance of 36.3 and then he called me and said do you really need that big of a house space wise and economically for one person and can I reduce the square feet and further reduce the hard cover. I said you know me. You know what I need in the house and a dog wash in the garage for my licensed therapy dog and a service dog, and a service door for him. And yes I want to save money. He revised the plans and in a timely manner reduced hard cover an additional 1.9 percent. My builder Team Wagner not only got the survey company which did the approved variance to put our proposed house on it but he put together my house on the approved footprint with all the bids from the building parts inside and out. Met with MacKenzie 3 times to meet the city requirements by the variance deadline. He reduced the current side setback from 6 feet to 10.3 and 10.29 which is in compliance. He didn’t put in a basement or a crawl space because he hired an engineer to analyze soil samples requiring this lot to have a $70,000 boring. He arranged with their $5,000 engineer how deep the pilings would go on our already approved plan. When it was all done and said we were a month after the approved variance on my lot lapsed and MacKenzie gave me a new form and had me fill out the $528 fee and here we are. In good faith MacKenzie has covered all the conditions Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 8 and our team is willing to accept these. In good faith the City wants about 677 square feet of my lot and I’m willing to dedicate this valued at about $50,000. I will meet with Carver County and complete the right-of-way upon my variance request being approved. In good faith I have discussed the vegetation buffer with Renae. Neighbors like the Bangasser’s said no one in our neighborhood had to put that in. What rule says you have to do that? In good faith I hired an outstanding expense professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve the ecosystem. Mark Halla, owner of the Mustard Seed, he proposed a plan with the accepted, expensive vegetation and the design filters and is ecological to improve the condition of the lake. Renae liked the custom mix and suggested prairie grass as well. I have request it to go from the shore at the opening to 10 feet on both sides. Here’s a rough diagram in green. And oh I’m giving the secret away to my neighbors, you guys said there was an overhead camera that can see this? The surprise color is charcoal gray on my house. Anyway the green area shows, Renae said this shape is aesthetically pleasing and functional and I could add flag stones so the neighbors could still walk yard to buffered yard to yard. I requested it to go from the shore on the opening out to the sides. 10 feet on both sides. In good faith to fulfill requirements to further reduction of hard cover both my builder and Mark used pervious pavers and will use on my driveway. In good faith to fulfill requirement of tree protection my builder shared with MacKenzie in our last meeting he’s a horticulture expert and he will go above expectations to protect with tree fencing. In good faith Team Paul Wagner, Cold Creek Construction has significantly reduced lot coverage from the already approved variance 3 months ago. In good faith I had the same setback as already approved in Variance 18-01 through February of this year 2019. I’m on the point with limited neighbors on the dead end of Red Cedar Point and the combined parking for my one car, no sports car, and any guests who have 2 more large cars and additional compact cars like my son’s Prius 4 and girlfriend’s Mini Cooper which can park perpendicular in that driveway, or in the garage in the 2 extra spots. This was approved and accepted one month after we applied and we feel strongly to not change the size of the garage. The footprint is important to me and in good faith done in pervious pavers. I’m one woman. I don’t have a big family or gatherings. I feel I’m consistent with the neighbors. Even if I make my garage smaller it’s not going to fix the problem because if people with big cars come and can’t fit in my garage it’s not going to solve the parking problem. Per MacKenzie’s report my combined 3 car garage and driveway provides an amount of off street parking similar to the average provided by other properties in the neighborhood. My life down on South Cedar Drive, I own a house down the road on South Cedar Drive a few blocks down on that road. It has a short driveway so you can either pull into a single car garage or park at an angle so as not to hang on the street so I was careful to provide parking in this house. In the City notes 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. All the variances listed on page 7 and 8. I need storage in my garage and there’s no basement and no storage on my main living level. If my garage was reduced and the space I planned in the approved variance for my storage stuff like my Christmas Tree box. All my lake stuff. My kayak. And my car and extra stuff would be out in the driveway and as MacKenzie, my builder and Steve met yesterday and they laughed. You shrink the garage and it defeats the point of parking a big car in the garage and it’s back to the driveway for my stuff. I need my dog wash so hospital patients don’t complain that the dog smells, although the public school kids in Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 9 Paws Allowed to Read would say oooh, that’s funny. My neighbor Nancy says I’m a good neighbor and I already bought the property. I’m committed to this neighborhood. I’m committed to the survey plan that was already approved. My neighbor says hello I’m writing to support a neighbor Pam Reimer in a request for a property variance. We live just a few lots past her property at 3617 Red Cedar Point. We are new to the neighborhood but I recently visited with her and trust that she’ll be a good steward of her future home in Lake Minnewashta. We’re excited that a responsible buyer has come on to finally take care of this the way the lot deserves to be maintained. It’s a potentially beautiful lot but the old Sears cabin is run down and needs a lot of loving care and grass that Pam will provide. Her ownership will make the neighborhood better for all and I hope you agree that her plans are appropriate. It’s my understanding that Pam’s proposal offers adequate parking and it’s apparent that a proposed driveway is not unusual for our little community. If you’ve driven down our street you’ll appreciate that it’s a unique neighborhood where houses are close together. The street is narrow and everybody’s parking is limited. That’s part of the lakeside neighborhood charm. The peninsula is a dead end and it’s apparent to us already that it isn’t a street with traffic other than people who live here and their guests. It’s our understanding and experience that since we all live on a unique street everyone cooperates with each other. Case in point, one of our neighbors just gave us permission to borrow part of his driveway for 2 days to park our boat before we were able to get it into 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 experienced homeowner and good neighbor on the lake will redevelop that site and we hope her variance request will be approved allowing construction of a beautiful home that will enhance our neighborhood. And that was Nancy Rennake right down from me on Red Cedar Point. In conclusion our team has been operating under the assumption that this variance was approved. We did the soil borings and measured for trusses and all the house building parts. We stayed within the footprint assuming there’s no issue with the footprint of the house and to change the whole plan is not economical. My builder is ready. The boring company is ready and we’re excited to check off number one to apply for a building permit so I ask you now for a simple majority vote that says that Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 11.5 front yard setback on the street or just changed today because I offered to dedicate my land to you, a 20 foot land that I’m dedicating to the City of Chanhassen coma, 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 Fact and Decision. Thank you very much. Weick: Thank you. If you could hang on for a moment. There may be some questions from the commission or clarification. Questions? Commissioner Reeder. Reeder: Yeah my question still remains what would be the problem with having at least 16 feet back from the curb of the house? Pam Reimer: You’re taking away from my garage and my storage. Reeder: How big is the garage? Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 10 Pam Reimer: It’s a 3 car garage and there’s room in the front for a dog wash. I have a therapy dog. He’s a service dog. Reeder: What’s the length of the garage? Audience: 26 by 30. Pam Reimer: 26 by 30. Reeder: 26 feet long and 30 feet wide? Pam Reimer: Yeah. And that’s all the storage. There’s no storage so, it’s got all, I have like 20 bins. I have Christmas. Thanksgiving. Extra clothes. Waders. I have bins of things and they’re all on shelves now and they need a place to go and I’m not going to put them out in the driveway. Then the neighbors would really complain. Garage sale every day. So thank you. Reeder: Thank you. Weick: No other questions, thank you. Pam Reimer: Thank you too. Weick: Thank you for presenting. At this time we will open the public hearing. As a reminder please come forward one at a time. State your name and address for the record and your comments on this issue. There’s some stirring. Yes, okay. Steve Gunther: Good evening. My name is Steve Gunther. I am a resident of Red Cedar Point. That area out there. I’ve been a resident there for about 21 years. We built the house in about 2003 so we’ve been through this process, although our house did not require any variances. I’m also the President of the Lake Minnewashta Preservation Association. The LMPA has been around for over 20 years and our job is to maintain and improve the quality of the lake for the residents and the users of the lake. I’m speaking kind of in both roles here. I’ll talk about the LMPA side, Lake Minnewashta Preservation Association side first. The LMPA spends a ton of money to improve the quality of this lake. We spend about 20 grand a year on treating weeds in that lake. This year we’ve donated $10,000 to Carver County of all people so that they can continue inspections of watercraft entering the lake to prevent aquatic invasive species from coming in the lake. So financially we have a big effort into keeping this lake as pristine as we can for all users. Also we have one board member who is a master water steward trained by the water associations in the State of Minnesota to help things. Put in place things like rain gardens, buffers and so on that Pam mentioned earlier so my concern as the President of the LMPA is the amount of hard cover variance requested in this lot. I spoke a year, over a year ago with the last request for a variance and pleaded with this council and maybe different members at that time to Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 11 not approve the hard cover variance with the idea of preventing runoff into the lake. That being said, having this afternoon read the 60 page report from staff which came in before I came here I was happy to see that the buffer zone that I had suggested in my email is being required. That impervious pavers in the driveway and the patio are also required. That’s good news. So I think from a runoff point of view those actions and the lake side setback make me satisfied that approving the lake side setback in fine. Also happy that they’re going to take down the shed. It’s actually an outhouse believe it or not that’s been there since probably 1920 something and not ask for a variance on the side setback. Where I am largely concerned is the front setback from the road. I understand Pam’s issue that the City is taking part of her property. That’s happened to me too when they repaved the road several years ago so I understand that. You lose some of your property as a result of that but it is what it is. I mean when she bought the lot the lot lines were, the concrete or the asphalt where the road was was where it is so we’re not going to change that so I’m happy she’s going to donate it but effectively that was the property she was going to build with what was left. What I’m majorly concerned is the approval of a front street you know setback to the extent that’s been requested. The average size American car is 14 to 16 feet. A Honda Civic just for reference is 15 feet so if you know the size of a Honda Civic that’s 15 feet. Jeep Cherokee which is the car that Pam drives is 16 feet or longer depending on the model so having 11 ½ foot driveway in that spot in my mind, even if you park parallel is a safety issue. My strong suggestion is that you go with what has been proposed by staff as an option and that is, and I think it’s been brought up here as well, let’s require that that setback be a minimum of 16 to 18 feet which will accommodate you know a car parked fully in the driveway. In my mind if you do that as staff has sent in their report either reduce and you maintain the lake side setback at 52 ½ feet. That will reduce the depth of the house that’s allowed to be built to 39 feet. On an 80 foot lot, 10 foot setbacks, 60 feet wide house by 39 feet, you know depth of the house you’re at over 2,300 square feet for the size of the footprint of that house so by doing that you’re creating a house which in my mind is the modern standard house. 2,300 square feet on one level. Now I would comment that you have, I would also suggest strongly that you eliminate the 3 car garage proposal. If you look at the file that was sent out this afternoon in there there’s a map that I sent to MacKenzie which shows a printout of every lot that’s on Red Cedar Point, South Cedar, Hickory Road and you can see that the majority of the homes that are in there, it’s probably second to last page of your report here but the vast majority of the. Walters: You want to put the drawing on the document cam please. Thank you. Steve Gunther: So if Pam’s house is this 3617. This is the end of the point in this direction here. This is the area where there’s very little parking ability and turn around ability right in this spot here and these are the garage numbers of every house in the immediate area around there and you’ll see a lot of 2’s there. The next door neighbor Betsy Anding has a 1 car garage so you see a lot of 2’s there. The few homes that are 3’s or higher have extremely wide lots. 100 feet wide lots or larger, or they chose to do a side loading garage which you know puts the garage perpendicular to the road so my strong suggestion is that you push the front setback variance to 16 or 18 feet to allow 2 cars to park side by side in the driveway and then allow Pam to build a 2 car garage behind that so that gets your 4 car you know average minimum number of off street Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 12 parking spaces. A single woman, I mean she said it herself. I’m a single woman with a dog. With 1 car I’m not sure why you need a 3 car garage right. If you have 4 parking spaces with a 2 car garage as you would with a 3 car garage with a car parking sideways to it so again it’s my recommendation that you not approve. Go ahead with the lake side setback variance. Be happy with the 10 foot side setback. You know back to code if you will. Do not approve the front setback variance but go with a deeper driveway. If it’s not obvious that having an 11 ½ foot driveway with a 3 car garage on a 16 ½ foot road when snowplows are coming down and emergency vehicles are trying to get through there, it’s obvious to me that you shouldn’t have that kind of parking situation there. You get the cars off the street and put them on a standard size 16 to 18 foot driveway. And I think that’s all the comments I had. And by the way we’re friends with Pam. She was down in our house in Florida for a week. We’ve know here for 10 years or more so it’s nothing personal. It’s all let’s do what’s right for the neighborhood and let’s build a house that’s consistent with the size and scope of the neighbors that are in that very tight community. Thank you. Weick: Thank you. Dave Bangasser: Hello. Weick: Welcome. Dave Bangasser: Thank you. I’m Dave Bangasser. I live, my wife and I live at 3633 South Cedar Drive. I’ve been in the neighborhood for a long time. My wife’s family purchased the property in ’46 so we’ve got a lot of history on the property and frankly I’d rather not be here because nobody wants to object to their neighbor but much like what Steve just talked about, Pam this is nothing personal and I’m generally in favor of the plan but I do take exception to the length of the driveway. I think it’s a very bad precedence to have this short of driveway especially in that location with such a narrow road as Red Cedar Point Road is at that point and I have talked to Pam a couple of times about this topic. I really haven’t heard any other considerations other than nothing can change. There’s no alternatives. I don’t believe that. I’m in design and construction. There’s lots of alternatives to this. It’s a 47 foot deep structure. I know I’ve got storage above my attic with a stairs up to it so all those lake things, including my kayaks go upstairs in the attic of the garage. There’s lots of alternatives to this. 47 feet deep. Something can give here. I do also have to take exception to, while I generally agree that increasing the driveway width 3 feet is a step in the right direction, I don’t agree with averages. Averages don’t work when you’re talking about a 16 foot vehicle and the average depth of the driveway. Well if that middle car that’s parked in the middle perpendicular, one side of it might be inside the roadway but the other side’s sticking out the roadway and I do think it is a safety issue. We’ve got a number of vehicles, the garbage trucks back up the street to get the garbage because they can’t turn around. We’ll see how the emergency vehicles, the snowplows and I’m pleased to see or hear that you think you’ve got something figured out there but I do think it’s a safety concern and driveways are mainly for visitors. It’s one thing if it’s you and you’re parking there all the time. You can probably figure out how to make something work but Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 13 driveways are mainly for visitors that aren’t necessarily familiar with things. I have an 18 foot long driveway and I believe that is an absolute minimum and I don’t have a long vehicle. I drive the same vehicle as Pam does and with an 18 foot driveway the garage door is often getting bumped because people pull up. You can’t necessarily see the front end of your vehicle. You don’t necessarily think about a license plate sticking out the front or you don’t necessarily think about a trailer hitch. We’re on a lake. A lot of people have trailer hitches. Trailer hitch sticking out the back. I think 18 feet is the minimum for something like that because you’re not going to practically pull right up to and bump the garage door. And again with that narrow street we certainly don’t want the vehicle sticking out past the street so I just think it’s a bad precedence not to allow at least 2 vehicles to pull into that driveway perpendicular to the street so that they can get out. I will grant you that with the driveway proposed you can angle park 2 vehicles in that driveway but I don’t know how you could get out without backing up the street all the way to the intersection and that’s a safety concern that we don’t want in the neighborhood. Again I’m not aware but for the variance that was granted on this property, I’m not aware of any other variances that have been granted that would not allow 2 reasonable vehicles to be parking in a driveway and I’m hoping that’s not something that is granted here tonight. Thank you. Weick: Thank you. Betsy Anding: I am Betsy Anding and I am the direct neighbor of Pam and I really don’t have anything additional to add other than I just do want to voice my support for what Steve Gunther and Dave Bangasser have just shared. Those are my concerns as well. I think they’ve articulated them extremely well so I’m not going to regurgitate but I did at least want to add my voice that I concur with their concerns and with what they have offered as possible alternative solutions to some of the issues. Thank you. Weick: Can I actually ask you a question? Betsy Anding: Yes. Weick: When you say direct neighbor to which? Betsy Anding: I am at 3625 Red Cedar Point so the direct neighbor on the west. Weick: Is that the blue? Betsy Anding: White house with the green roof. Weick: It’s the white house, okay. Got it, thank you. I just wanted to get that in my. Audience: Beautiful house with the one car garage. Betsy Anding: One car garage and a full driveway. It fits two cars. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 14 Weick: Welcome. Dave Bishop: Hi there. My name is Dave Bishop and Nellica Knight and I live at 3605 Red Cedar Point Road. We haven’t met Pam so hi Pam. Welcome to the point. She’s right. It’s a very close neighborhood and we do cooperate a lot together. I’m going to try not to repeat anything that you’ve heard already today but we didn’t walk in at the very beginning of this so if I do please correct my misapprehensions. I want to talk to the issue of, and I believe in my heart that at some point a structure’s going to be built on this property and I welcome it because the yellow cabin that’s there, it’s useful life has well been spent. But when you do build something there is a construction process and I heard 16 ½ feet in width. I went out with my tape measurer and measured the width of that road in front of the cabin. It’s 15 feet 2 inches and I raise that because 2 houses to the west, we went through this whole process and they tore down a house and rebuilt a brand new one and we went through that construction period and we had at that point the advantage that people on the opposite side of the street had a very broad 3 car driveway so that when the construction equipment blocked the road we could actually go off the road and go around and still enter and exit but had we not had that we would have been stuck in our houses because they often had you know 2, 3, 4 construction or cement trucks or dump trucks or other related stuff taking out the entire road during this period. In addition you can see if you go further west down Red Cedar Point, up the hill and then down the hill, there’s a nice straight area there but during the construction phase people parked both overflow of us residents, visitors, swimmers from and what not, park on one side of the road. Construction would park on the other side of the road and there was only about 6 ½ feet between them to actually go so there was a lot of difficulty so I’m suggesting to you that if this comes in with a variance that you address in the variance process a construction alternative that will ensure that the road isn’t blocked so that we have ambulance and fire and all of us have itinerate schedules at that end of the point. Coming in late at night, early in the morning and during the day and we’d just like to make sure that we can get in and out during that period. I think somebody mentioned the issue of snowplowing and garbage and I don’t know what you have talked about on that issue but in my experience snow got thrown onto the gravel parkway of the cabin because that was a nice empty place and nobody was parking there and I am curious about where the City plans to put the snow once we have taken that significant area out of storage spots because everybody else has landscaped to the hilt there. Thank you. Weick: Did you want to respond? Bender: Yeah I can respond to some of that. Weick: Sure yeah. A direct response would be great. Bender: I’ll address the public safety comments first. I did speak with the Fire Marshal about this. From a public safety perspective no parking will be allowed on Red Cedar Point Road, Hickory Road, South Cedar Drive, or any other road in the vicinity that is less than 26 feet Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 15 during you know any demolition, construction or development phases of the lot. This is you know the Fire Chief and the Fire Marshal were both discussing this and they are well aware of the problems that have occurred out there previously. They’re also well aware that this will be a, probably a routine battle to try to enforce this. We would expect that the CSO is probably going to be out there quite often trying to communicate delicately and enforce this. But the thought for construction traffic and construction workers is that they are going to have to find another place to park. They will have to come to the lot, drop off their supplies. Their tools. Their equipment. Unless they can pull into the lot and be out of the roadway they will not be allowed to stay there. For the second part which was more related to the plowing and the maintenance, I’ve spoken with the public works staff. The street superintendent that’s responsible for plowing the area and they do realize that this lot has been used in the past and that you know with the proposed construction they’re not going to be able to use the, this area. Knowing this they’ve thought through the process. Come up with alternatives in order to be able to not only move the snow and navigate the plow but also to store the snow. There is a large cottonwood tree out there for example that would have to be removed by public works in order to help create space and that’s in the, near the eyebrow area that’s in the right-of-way right in this area. There will be some other clean up that will have to be done. There will have to be communications that are made with the neighbors in order to help facilitate this. Summer and winter parking conditions may be a little bit different but you know they are confident that they can manage this situation with this lot redeveloping. That’s all I have. Weick: Thank you. Please. Jeff Souba: My name is Jeff Souba. My family owned the lot at 3617 for 90 years and I think that the plan that Pam has and for her needs their driveway is adequate. I don’t think she should have to make things smaller. I think for a single person living in that house you’ve got enough driveway there that she can get by with her guests either parking in the garage or on the property and I don’t think she should have to make any changes over what she’s already done to the plans and what she originally planned on doing. I just wanted to say that. Weick: Appreciate that. Thank you. Paul Wagner: My name’s Paul Wagner. I am the builder for Pam Reimer so if anything I just thought it’d be a good time to let all these neighbors know who they’ll be dealing with and I’m really easy to deal with. There’s 43 years of a licensed home builder. 75 projects on lakeshore. I’m a licensed horticulturist and a 20 year veteran of the fire department so I have a lot of respect for narrow dead end roads in the middle of the night. Lately in the neighborhood there’s a lot going on with landscapers and construction and I think everybody kind of bends a little bit. Otherwise you can’t do anything in that neighborhood. You’d better be driving slow because you’ve got nowhere to drive fast. It’s a dead end. As far as safety and meeting the needs of the neighborhood during construction I will personally be there every day and nobody will have any issue with any of my people. If you go to my website you’ll see 43 years of customers that have nothing but good to say because that’s how I do thing. My name is Paul Wagner. I’m going to Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 16 give everybody information on myself. I will personally go around and meet all the neighbors. Let them know who’s doing what and how we’re doing it. They’ll have a phone number and a contact so that if there is an issue it will get addressed immediately but the end result is we want a beautiful home for a beautiful person in a beautiful neighborhood with beautiful neighbors and happy neighbors and when I leave the neighborhood and I run into somebody at the Dairy Queen I want them to wave to me. Not with a single finger so thank you and I look forward to hanging out with everybody here. Weick: Thank you. Anyone else would like to come forward now would be the time. Give everybody a chance but seeing nobody come forward I will close the public hearing portion of this hearing and open the floor for commissioner discussion. We’ve heard a lot this evening. There’s certainly a lot in front of us. I will sort of remind you there are 3 items in the variance for consideration so it includes the front yard setback which includes the driveway and there’s a couple of options there as written by the City. There’s an option for the variance as it was previously approved. There’s also a version that adds approximately 3 feet to that. By adding it makes the driveway longer if that’s an accurate way to say it by approximately 3 feet. So there’s that portion of the variance. The second is the lakeshore setback and the third is the lot cover variance. One thing that we didn’t really discuss if we are, it sounds like, it was suggested and accepted to use permeable pavers. That would in theory, assuming they’re maintained, improve the lot coverage would it not? Clark: Commissioners yes, the pervious pavement acts as a permeable surface if maintained offsetting the effect of a hardscape variance. Weick: Yeah. So that’s not accounted for in the official request of this variance which sits at 9 ½ percent. I did some very bad math but you could almost cut that in half with the use of the pervious pavers. I want to use the terminology right. That would get it in that 28 to 29 percent range actually. Roughly. Which is significantly less. The other consideration that you know we’ve talked a lot about, and I’ve thought a lot. I happen to be, I happened to hear this case previously as well and the 3 car garage was always something to me that I struggled with in my head but I sort of thing of it as a shed, right? So is it a better use to have a shed like this or to have a separate standing structure that you’re going to try to build somewhere else on the property? Probably not. In my mind I think this is probably a better you know storage is an issue. This is probably a better use for something like that than trying to approve a variance for a stand alone structure somewhere else on the property in my opinion if it’s already sort of captured within the existing building. Just those are some of my thoughts off the top of my head. Hopefully that gave you guys a chance to think about something as well. What are you thoughts? Randall: You ready? Weick: Yeah. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 17 Randall: Alright. So I agree with you. I remember dealing with this back, was it January? Weick: A little over a year ago. Randall: And walking away from it I know we approved the variance but I had issues with it because of the garage. Personal experience, I spent a year looking for my lot so I could build a 6 car garage so that was a requirement for me. I found the lot that I was able to do it. I was looking at city lots. These small lots but due to the hardscape percentage, the setbacks and everything I was limited on what I could do. I feel like this house is, I love the house. I love the location and everything like that but you’re trying to put a square peg in a round hole. Maybe this isn’t the lot for this type of home because it’s requiring so many variances on it and I get the whole storage thing. You can ask my wife. She thinks I’m a hoarder but to get your stuff stored you have to come up with creative solutions and I’m worried about that driveway aspect of it. Is it creating a precedent that we’re going to be allowing this over and over again? But you get into these neighborhoods where you’ve got a small lot like this property’s been in the previous family for 90 years. So in 1927 did they envision that? Or 1928. Weick: You don’t have to do the math. It was a long time. Randall: Yeah so 90 years ago like I said. Things have changed. These lots are desirable. This was way out in the country at that time. Things have changed. We’re in an urban area. Suburban area now. My concern with it, I just remember last time walking away from that approval and I had issues with it and then this came up again and now it’s kind of a time to rehash some of those things and, and it’s too bad the variance lapsed because it would have been nice to keep it going for then we wouldn’t have had to deal with this again but I’m going to have a hard time voting in favor for it. I just feel like changes can be made. I mean I had to restrict some things at my house that I didn’t want, or I wanted but I couldn’t do it because of my hardscape percentage and that type of thing too so I could stay within bounds so that’s kind of my thought about it. I did think the property owner, I think she brought up some, she’s worked out a lot of the issues. The parking. She’s worked out that a little bit you know with cars and how that’s going to fit on her property understanding that’s going to be a hardship. She lowered the hardscape percentage which was great. I think it’s good, I don’t have any on the lake side of it. I don’t have any issues. It’s just that one side. Is that driveway going to be too short? And that’s all I have to say. Weick: Is there a number that you would feel more comfortable with? Randall: I would still like to have the more, the bigger setback for a full sized car to get into the driveway. That’s what I would like. I get what you’re saying about the shed and not having a detached, something later but if it means doing a 2 car garage with more room in the back for storage or going up I’ve got a car lift in my garage so I can lift stuff up and there are options out there that you can do so I think some of those would be, should be explored. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 18 Weick: And I would say we, I mean we shouldn’t get in the business of trying to design it. Randall: No. Weick: We really should be focused on if it should come down to if we believe that, if we believe the driveway length is important really to park a car perpendicular that’s really what we should, you know what that ends up doing to the design of the house is less of, I mean we’re certainly not here to design that house. Whether it’s a 2 or 3 car garage. I think it’s important that we make a decision on the length of the driveway though. Randall: But you know we go back to that case with the gentleman with the fire truck, he wanted a variance. Came back. Did some redesign work and we knew that he had worked with us on that and he was able to show that he did that for us so is that one of those cases where this still can be adjusted a little bit and make everyone a little bit more happy. Maybe so, I don’t know. Weick: Thank you. Sure, jump in. We’re informal here I hope. Reeder: First of all there’s certainly a beautiful house compared to what’s there now. Sort of sad to see what might be the last outhouse in Chanhassen disappear. I don’t know if that’s the historical society has looked at that or not but. Pam Reimer: It’s for sale. Reeder: I’m okay with the variance on the lakeshore side. I’m okay with the lot coverage that’s being offered. The one concern I have is the parking situation. I think we have to look at this property as a property that’s going to be owned for the next 50 years by 6 different people and the size of cars that people own now that are going to move into it really doesn’t matter. The question is will this house provide enough parking in the long run for anybody that wants to live there including somebody like me that has a long truck that would want to park in front of my house so my concern is the driveway setback. I would be comfortable. I’m not comfortable with the average idea proposed by staff. I’m more comfortable with the building line being setback 16 feet from the back of the curb. That I understand would make it an angle but that’s I think a doable thing. You could certainly if you want a 3 car garage you can make one of the garages shorter than the other garage I mean if that’s a problem. I think the proposed garages are pretty adequate at 23 feet and if it had to be reduced I don’t think that’s a real major problem so I would not vote for the front yard variance as proposed. I would vote for a total of 16 feet all the way across the lot. Weick: Thanks. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 19 Skistad: I think the homeowner has, or the land owner has made, has tried to meet everyone’s expectations and has worked really hard to do that and I don’t think the driveway is ideal but I also think that she worked it out and I guess I would be in favor of the plan as she has it. Weick: As she has it? Skistad: Yeah. Weick: So quite a few opinions across the 4 of us here. So I hear, okay. I guess leaving the. Skistad: I guess the only other question would be if we moved the driveway 3 feet back and we just allowed the setback to go, the house to go back 3 feet. That would be, you know if that, if her whole house could just move back 3 feet. Weick: Well certainly they would have to redesign. Reeder: I don’t agree with moving the house 3 feet toward the lakeshore if that’s what you’re suggesting. Skistad: That’s what I would suggest. I mean if that’s the. Reeder: Because it’s already in line with the house next door. I think it’s just about exactly and I think that’s as close as we should go to the lakeshore. Weick: It would mean, if we were to add feet to the driveway it would take away, it would be a zero sum so we would take away from the garages and I’m not quite sure if this is probably offset but it would be a one for one. Reeder: Mr. Chairman? Weick: Yep. Reeder: Let me ask staff. Could they overhang the second story in reducing the, and increasing the size of the driveway or what’s the setback line? Walters: In variances there is no architectural encroachment. That being said it is something you could stipulate. You’d like the use of a cantilever and it requires some writing but it’d be doable. If that answers your question. Reeder: I think so. Maybe they could come up with some creative options that would keep the upper level of the house the same relative size and just reduce the garage size as needed to accommodate a longer driveway. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 20 Walters: I would want to consult with the city attorney on that. My understanding is the front yard, when we grant a variance we establish basically a box that they can work in. I don’t know that we’d have the ability to put a control that would prevent them from altering the design of the house up to the front yard setback and our code specifies that for a variances to front yard setback is for all architectural features. Eaves, cantilevers, etcetera. Weick: I think we discussed that last time. No. Walters: I strongly suspect not but would, yeah. Weick: But again I’d reiterate for me I think the decision that each of us needs to make is whether we believe the driveway needs to be longer or not. Whether there’s adequate, whether we believe there’s adequate space for whatever considerations each of us have. Whether it’s safety or you know cars hanging out in the street or whatever it might be. Skistad: What’s the current driveway? Weick: This one that’s here in the picture? It’s deep to the house. It’s probably 20 feet. Randall: Yeah if you look at the page with the color. Jeff Souba: It’s probably more than 20. Reeder: No it’s more than 20. Weick: 30 feet, yeah. Jeff Souba: You can park an entire row of cars facing the street and then another set of cars facing sideways in front of them. We’ve put 13 cars in that driveway and not have anything imposing on the street. Weick: I remember that’s all hard cover out there today so not ideal. The whole thing yeah. The whole front. Are you looking to answer or are you just getting paper? Walters: I was driving the survey to answer the question about how far back the gravel goes. Weick: Okay. Walters: Looking at reference points I would say just shy of 30 feet on the west and just a hair over 30 feet on the east. Weick: Other questions or comments from commissioners. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 21 Randall: By code what’s the minimum driveway length? Walters: Not specifically addressed but it would generally be the length of the front yard setback so in residential single family a property that met zoning code would have a 30 foot long driveway. I believe the smallest I can remember in a PUD I believe we allowed 20 and that was not including the right-of-way. That was going to property line. Randall: Okay. Because I think about like what they are for like some of the townhome complexes and that type of thing. They have pretty short driveways there but I don’t know what the minimum would be. Walters: Again I believe we try to keep them around 20. I can’t recall any that go below that. Sharmeen might have a better memory than I on that one though. Al-Jaff: 20 feet regardless of townhouses or single family and the subdivision that’s going to appear before you after this along Big Woods Drive the front yard is 20 feet on some of those homes. Randall: Okay. Weick: Okay. And I did, when I was out there on this property the next door neighbor on the other side has a relatively short driveway. They actually had an SUV parked in the driveway tucked up against the garage door and had you know less than a foot. I kind of walked it off, whatever and it was 16ish feet so very similar to what you’re speaking to which is just mandate a car’s length. That setup was very similar to what you’re talking about. And seemed to work. You could fit two cars there so. At least visually it gave us a picture of what that might look like. Without any, I mean it sounds like we’re hung up on the driveway obviously. It didn’t to me sound like anybody had, I mean I’m very thankful that the buffer and the shoreline restoration is, and use of pervious pavers is part of this construction moving forward. That’s fantastic for the lake. It significantly reduces the hard cover as I mentioned before which is awesome. And to me I’m with Commissioner Reeder, I think it’s important to have the space for an average you know SUV type vehicle to fit in front of that house perpendicular to the street. That’s my opinion. But we can you know certainly entertain if one of my fellow commissioners has a motion we can talk about that. We can look at it. We can. Paul Wagner: Could we, could we just make… Weick: Absolutely. Randall: Please come forward. Weick: If it would help yes. Do I need to reopen the public? I will officially reopen the public portion of the hearing. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 22 Paul Wagner: I apologize. I just talked with Pam and there’s nothing like having good neighbors so Pam and I would agree to keep peace in the neighborhood and make this all work, I can do some adjustments in that third stall for her doggy deal and stuff and storage and the storage up so we’ll be, we would take 3 foot off the existing plan of the garage. Weick: Thank you. Thank you also Pam. Randall: What would we need to change the approval to? Weick: You wouldn’t there is, there is one written for that I believe. Walters: Forgive me I would have one question just for clarification for the building and the applicant. Would that still be with the dedication of right-of-way or would that be with an easement granted? It’s, it will change the math of the variance that needs to be granted. Skistad: Was it for the small garage? I was a little confused on that. Paul Wagner: We would keep everything as discussed. Walters: So that’d be with the dedication? Paul Wagner: Correct. Walters: Okay. So then that would work out, so the Planning Commission would look at the motion ahead. Instead of the 8.5 foot front yard setback there would be 8.5 feet added to that to essentially account for the right-of-way that’s being seated to the city and it would then become a 17 foot front yard setback variance. Similar to how with this one with the dedication it went from 11.5 to have the shorter driveway. The 8 ½ moved it up to 20. This one would be adding 8 ½ and this would not be with an easement condition but the dedication of the roadway to the City. Weick: So it’d be 17 ½? Walters: It’d be 8 ½ plus. Bender: 8 ½ and 17 correct. Walters: Always check with the engineers for the math but yeah. Weick: Thank you. Audience: What does the driveway have to be now? …middle of the road but… Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 23 Walters: That is what I was getting at sir is because their road would no longer be on the property we would shift the front yard setback, back to accommodate for that. It would have an average driveway depth of 16 feet would be the average depth. Bender: I guess one question I would have is are we talking average depth or are we talking orienting the driveway to be completely perpendicular to the roadway so that you would have 16 feet on both sides. Dave Bangasser: Is the public hearing still open? Weick: It actually is. I didn’t close it after the. Dave Bangasser: In my opinion. Weick: Can you come up to the? Thank you. Dave Bangasser: As I stated before but in my opinion averages don’t work if part of the vehicle’s sticking out from the road. And I don’t know exactly whether another 3 feet does it or not because the survey doesn’t show us that. My suggestion would be to set some minimum driveway length and to go with that. To me I don’t care if the third stall is less than that. To me I think it’s important precedence to say a minimum of 2 cars wide that is some minimum depth. Personally I think 16 is too narrow. I already told you that I have 18 feet with the same vehicle and I think that is really a minimum but that’s my opinion and up to your judgment. Weick: Thank you. And I will close the public hearing at this point. I apologize. But those are important, those are both important comments to add. Reeder: Mr. Chairman if they did an average of 16 how many cars could we park? How many 16 foot cars could we park there? Bender: Technically you get one. If the driveway is as oriented as it currently is proposed. Reeder: So it would be 17.9 on the one end there? Bender: Yeah you’d get a little, for the car that would be parked in the middle you’d have a little bit less than 16 on this side of it. You’d have a little bit extra here. You’d have enough on this side of the car. You’d have a little bit less than this full 16 feet here. The only other. Weick: So as I’m reading this I add 3 feet to. Bender: Each of those. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 24 Weick: 14.6, 13, and 11.6 and that’s the, that would be the new depth of the driveway. It would be 17.6, 16 and then very short next to them. Bender: And then 14 ½ yes. Reeder: So at least 2 of them would be 16 feet. Weick: He’s saying it’d be tight. Bender: It’d be a little bit less on, for the middle. The vehicle that would be parking in the middle. To get that fifth car spot. It’d be about 15 1/2 because of the angle of the road and the driveway is not completely perpendicular to the street. It’s possible that you know the garage door could maybe be orientated a little bit to match the angle of the road and still keep the front but again you’re getting into design at that point which probably is not your jurisdiction but you know. Weick: But we could say, we could, correct me if I’m not but you could maintain a 16 ½ foot. Pick a number. Bender: Yeah. Weick: You could say from the curb the driveway needs to maintain X feet. Bender: Yep and I’m just, I know it’s important to the applicant who already has the home designed and especially the foundation design to be able to leave the building corners at their current location. Weick: Got it. Bender: To not add expense for the redesign of the hiloco piles. And you know maybe an adjustment to the front of the building like we have heard earlier tonight that there are alternatives to be considered. That would help orientate the structure to the, the front of the garage to be parallel to the roadway. To achieve that 16 foot average dimension. Weick: Thanks. Do you need to hear more? Do you? Randall: Is the public hearing closed? Weick: Yes it is. Randall: I’m glad that they were able to add 3 feet. I mean it shows that it’s doable. It added a lot bigger spot on that very end. Just by doing that created a lot more space which I was happy about so if that’s included I’ll be voting for it. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 25 Reeder: Are you saying increase it by 3 feet? Randall: Yeah. Reeder: I can live with that. That wouldn’t be my first choice but. Randall: I know. It’d be better if it was deeper. I’d like to see more conforming but I’m glad them came back 3 feet. That added a lot more space in my opinion. It’s still going to be tough to park cars out there but. Weick: You’ll get one. Randall: For sure yeah. Weick: For sure. And then the other one will be potentially at an angle there. Randall: Plus they still have 3 garage spots too. Weick: Right. Randall: So. Reeder: My only concern about that is the next one that comes before us that says well look what you did to this. You did an average or you did it less than 16. That’s why I’m more comfortable with 16. That’s a good number. Paul Wagner: If that foot would make a big difference to everybody then let us move the house one foot closer to the lake. Pam Reimer: Yeah and my grandmother lived to be 106 so I’m going to live a long time… Paul Wagner: You’ve got to keep in mind we’re still complying with the impervious surface. In fact we are better than the last time for the. Pam Reimer: Yeah…2 percent. Paul Wagner: And now by eliminating 3 feet and then going to pervious pavers on the driveway we are more than accommodating the impervious surface. Pam Reimer: And you’re going to help pay for that right? Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 26 Weick: Thank you. We can entertain a motion if you all are comfortable with this as it reads. I am also open to discussing it further. Randall: I’m willing to make a motion if there’s no more discussion. Okay. Make a motion the Chanhassen City Council. Weick: This is it. Randall: This is it right here, okay. Weick: This has, it doesn’t change the setbacks in the back yard. Randall: But it changed to 17 feet in the front. I just want to make sure. Weick: Right. Which is the addition of the. Randall: The Chanhassen City Council approves the 17 foot yard setback at 2.2, or I’m sorry. 22.1 foot lakeshore setback and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance for the construction of a single family house subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decisions. So shouldn’t it say Planning Commission, not City Council? Walters: Apologies issued. That was sloppy on my part. Randall: Okay. Alright I’ll re-read it then. The City, the Chanhassen City Planning Commission approves a 17 foot yard setback, a 22.1 foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance for the construction of a single family house subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decisions. Weick: We have a valid motion. Do we have a second? Reeder: I’ll second that motion. Weick: We have a valid motion and a second by Commissioner Reeder. Any further comments for the record before we vote? I would add, as I have before and I know it’s already on the record but the actual lot coverage is significantly less than 9 ½ percent with the agreed use of pervious pavers and there’s also discussion to use the buffers in the shoreland restoration as proposed by our Water Resources Coordinator which is also a fantastic addition to the project as well. We have a motion and a second. Randall moved, Reeder seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 17-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: Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 27 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. 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. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Weick: The motion passes with a 4 to 0 vote. If anybody would like to appeal this motion they may do so within 4 days of this decision. Thank you. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 28 The Planning Commission took a short recess at this point in the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER SUBDIVISION OF 1.17 ACRES INTO TWO SINGLE FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NE INTERSECTION OF CARVER BEACH ROAD AND BIG WOODS BOULEVARD. Al-Jaff: Thank you Chairman Weick, members of the Planning Commission. The application before you is, my apologies. We don’t have a monitor here so George will be going to. The application before you is for a subdivision and a variance. The request is to subdivide a 1.17 acre into two lots for single family detached houses. The property is located northeast of the intersection of Big Woods Boulevard and Carver Beach Road. One of the things that we need to point out specifically dealing with existing conditions out there. There are two homes located east of this parcel. The addresses are 640 and 630 Carver Beach Road. Those two parcels share a cross access driveway that straddles the northerly property line of the subject site. And we will talk about that later in more detail. Just a brief background. So back in 2006 this parcel that extended from Carver Beach to Lotus Lake appeared before the City. It was subdivided into two parcels. The easterly portion which contained a single family home was sold and the remaining 1.17 acres is what remains vacant and is before the Planning Commission for further subdivision. So this is a fairly simple two lot subdivision. The parcels are both, the lot area width and depth all exceed the minimum requirements of the city code. The parcels are guided single family and this is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. As part of the subdivision the applicant is dedicating right-of-way and it is in compliance with all of the ordinances. Staff is recommending approval of this application with conditions. One of the things that we need to highlight is that 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 the easterly 140 feet of Lot 1 and the westerly 40 feet of Lot 2 be covered by a conservation easement. The Comprehensive Park Plan requires that homes be, a park be located within half a mile of residential subdivisions. In this Carver Beach Park serves this development and some of the amenities that can be found at the park are swimming beach, playground, fishing pier, trails and there’s also a parking area for individuals that wish to drive out to the park. At this point I need to turn it over to Assistant City Engineer George Bender to address access among other issues. Bender: So for Lot 1 the access is off of Carver Beach Road. It’s fairly normal and consistent. Not much to discuss there. The access for Lot 2 is a little bit different. Due to the grades that are out there this driveway is proposed to come off of the new right-of-way. There are in association with this driveway that’s along here and existing easements there is difficulties in carrying the road through the subdivision to the northerly lot line as would be a normal process. As such alternatives have been considered and the proposal is to serve the home off of the new right-of- way but allow the driveway to go through the right-of-way. The sewer and water mains would be extended beyond the driveway but not impact the existing easements that are in place to utilize the driveway by this lot and this lot. And at the time that further development occurs to Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 29 the north the driveway would be torn out within the right-of-way and replaced with a street that would be extended all the way over to the north to the Fox Path Road that’s to the north. The developer would be required to provide an escrow to pay for the extension of the street and the removal of the driveway. There is no knowing how long development will take to the north. If the, or if that escrow became not enough to build the road the differences would be as written in the staff report would be put on the future developer. The utilities as discussed would be, there’s already stubs out of Big Woods Boulevard that was recently reconstructed. They would be extended beyond the driveway to allow for and be sized for the future development but they would get beyond the driveway but yet not impact the existing easement. The watermain would become a dead end. It would have to have a fire hydrant on the end of it to facilitate flushing and other maintenance. The other thing to note about this from a maintenance perspective is the City would not plow the driveway or be responsible for the maintenance due to the driveway being within the right-of-way. That would be a condition. Another part of this slide discusses the drainage and utility easements along the south side of Lots 1 and 2. You’ll notice that they are abnormal. There has been future stormwater improvements designed. They’re not part of this two lot subdivision because it is a two lot subdivision. But in the future drainage and utility easement is being granted so that they could be added as necessary when the property to the north develops. It would become the responsibility of the City to do that. There are some concerns related to that existing driveway and how they will impact this two lot subdivision. Especially from a drainage perspective because the area to the north is higher in grade than the area to the south and everything generally is sloping towards Big Woods Boulevard. So the blue arrows that are shown are basically showing drainage flow patterns that are aimed at the houses. There would be a requirement for the developer to provide an exhibit to show how drainage would not impact the home, selected home sites and you know primarily concerned with snow melt and plowing. How that would occur so that the two homes that are constructed would not be at the mercy essentially of being downhill of that. Staff is comfortable with the drainage as exhibited in the flow patterns for Lot number 1. We do have identified some concerns with Lot 2. We don’t feel that they are major concerns. We feel that with a little bit more detail that this could be easily correctable but it is noted. We’d also like to see a driveway exhibit be provided and that’s noted in the staff report to show how in the future when the road is extended, not only does it meet code for grades but how the driveway will tie into it and also meet the maximum of a 10 percent slope restriction. Regarding retaining walls. Three new retaining walls are proposed on this site. They do not have top of wall and bottom of wall elevations shown on the proposed plans. That would need to be added. It is a condition that is noted in the staff report. In addition any retaining wall that would be over 4 feet in height would be required to be designed by a professional engineer. Any retaining walls that would encroach on a drainage and utility easement would be required to file for an encroachment agreement and the existing retaining wall that’s along Big Woods Drive is within the property would be within the drainage and utility easement so that will have to be looked into from filing an encroachment agreement and looking at you know who owns that retaining wall. And that’s the end of my presentation at this time. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 30 Al-Jaff: So one of the things that I need to clarify just a little bit more. The driveway that is serving the two parcels east of the subject site. There is a cross access agreement. It has a life of 99 years. I know that the developer as well, or the owner of the property as well as their engineer and staff have communicated with the neighbors to explain to them the options and the neighbor to the north basically does not wish to have any development, doesn’t want to be part of development at this time so one of the questions you asked me Chairman Weick at the beginning was the date on this application. It was 2017 and that’s when we started working with Mr. Eidsness. He submitted his application then trying to resolve all of these issues. All of these matters has taken quite a while. With that said staff is recommending approval of this application and we will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Weick: Great, thank you very much. At this time if there’s any questions for staff from the commission speak up. Randall: I have none. Weick: None? Randall: None. Weick: Commissioner Reeder? Reeder: Mr. Chairman, trying to figure out why they are building two huge lots instead of, if you just look across the street on Big Woods Boulevard why wouldn’t they put 5 lots in there? Tell me about the conservation easement that you have. Al-Jaff: Sure. One of, when they appeared before the City these parcels, you can only fit two homes. If you look at the lot area, lot depth, lot width. Also there are some steep grades on these two parcels so first blush you look at it and you say it makes perfect sense to come off of Big Woods Boulevard. The fact is they’re depth will not work so they would have to come before you with variances. Reeder: What’s the? Al-Jaff: They would need 125 foot minimum. Reeder: Depth from Big Woods. And what do they have? Al-Jaff: It is less than, it’s 105. Reeder: 105? Al-Jaff: 106. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 31 Reeder: Okay my concern is that we’re setting ourselves up for a variance in the future if they come back in and try to subdivide these lots to get more lots on these houses. You talked about a conservation, how’s that work? Al-Jaff: So basically with a conservation easement they, and this is an area that they had not intended to grade. They won’t be able to remove the trees and it would preserve these, the overall area as wooded. If you look across the street with Big Woods we do have similar easements. They are not as wide and what we did is we allowed the, these parcels to have a reduced front yard setback in lieu of, so their front yard is 20 feet but their rear yard setback is 40 feet and within that 40 feet is where they have their conservation easement. Reeder: Okay so we have a conservation easement here that’s the City’s in control of and would not ever allow anything to happen? Al-Jaff: I’ve learned a long time ago to say, I never say never. But it is basically what happens is if there is a diseased tree for instance then they will go and meet, work with the City Forester and ensure that it is removed. If there are dead trees the same is true. But can they clear trees, clear cut trees out of that area? The answer is no. Reeder: And they can’t come in for a subdivision? Al-Jaff: No. You can only fit two lots into that area so no. They can. Reeder: Without a variance. Al-Jaff: Without a variance. Reeder: Because of the depth. Al-Jaff: Correct. Reeder: Clearly they have more lot area than you need for these two lots. Total area. What’s a normal lot size? Al-Jaff: 15,000 square feet. Reeder: 15,000 and these lots are? Al-Jaff: So one of them is 17,000 and the other one. Weick: 27.9. I think. On page 10 of 12. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 32 Al-Jaff: Yes. In addition to the lot depth that’s going to become an issue, or a problem. Again the grades on these parcels are not very conducive to accessing off of Big Woods Boulevard. Hence you will see retaining walls in multiple areas. There are fairly large drainage and utility easements and that’s where we will have potentially future drainage utilities. So between all of these things it’s unlikely that you will be able to fit another parcel. Reeder: Okay it’s beautiful. I love it just the way it is. That’s fine. Al-Jaff: Thank you. Weick: Any questions for the City? Skistad: I guess the only thing that confused me was the retaining wall that we don’t know who owns it? Does that have to be answered first? Bender: I don’t believe it has to. That can be worked out with the final plat. Reeder: Who built it? Bender: I couldn’t answer that question at this time. Weick: And it meets, other than the variance for the right-of-way this meets all of the. Al-Jaff: It exceeds everything. Weick: It meets and exceeds all of the requirements for a preliminary plat. Okay thank you. At this time I would invite the applicant to make a presentation if you would like. Just state your name. Paul Otto: I’m Paul Otto with Otto and Associates. I’m representing the applicant. If you have questions for him I can answer. I’ll be fairly brief on this. I think it is pretty straight forward. You’ve all realized that. A couple of the things. The retaining walls if we need to pull them out of the easements I think we can. What we did with the homes on this and the proposed grading as we wanted to give an idea of how that would look. These would be custom design as most of Chanhassen is but the easterly home, we actually have a dropped garage so that garage is dropped from the main floor farther than you normally would in a home and we are proposing to pull grade up on the north side of that home so we can get it to drain around there. We’ll certainly provide more detail on that and then as well the, why the garage is dropped is because we actually, there’s a lot of history in this. I first looked at this property and all the properties to the north in 2006. We laid it all out. I’ve got a design for the whole thing so this was the first part of it and that driveway there needs to be dropped to fit into the future road so we’ll certainly provide that to city staff as well. Other than that I think we’re onboard with everything. The retaining wall that’s at the intersection there was built with the project to the south. We Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 33 happened to have done that. The little piece there was an outlot of that project and then that got attached to the north so that’s how that got there. What easements are there or not I don’t know. We haven’t seen title work yet. Maybe that will have something in it. Maybe not so I don’t know if you have any questions for me. Weick: Certainly open it up if there’s any commissioner questions. Any questions? No, thank you very much. I’m sure it’s going to be beautiful. Lots of trees in there. At this time we will open up the public portion of the hearing if anyone would like to come forward and provide comment on this project you’re welcomed to do so now. You would go to the podium and state your name and address for the record. Yes please. David Igel: Good evening Chairman and commissioners. My name is David Igel. I live at 501 Big Woods Boulevard and my wife Rachel and I actually developed Big Woods Boulevard so I have a little bit of the history. Paul was our engineer of record and probably knows more of the details and I’ve known Mr. Eidsness and he’s been working on this for some time as well as city staff. You know I think overall we were hoping that the entire property would develop at the same time. I think it would make for a better flow. I think everybody probably feels that way but as it is I think done properly it’s going to be a nice addition to the neighborhood. I did just have a couple of questions on it and I think that this has changed a little bit in design since the last time I talked to city staff so I’ll try to be brief here but maybe if some of those questions could be answered. There’s not going to be stormwater ponding or anything added at the present time? Is that correct? It’s just planned for future? So does the existing stormwater system on Big Woods that flows both east and west, those calcs are done and that will handle the existing hard cover I presume? Bender: Yes. David Igel: Is that right? Okay. The one, let’s see. I just wondered if those trees are the final location. The additional trees that I think are required by the, to keep the canopy. Is that the final position for those to be planted or could they be, if not instead of trees being used to provide screening from the house into the trees that are going to be kept in the conservation easement, if those could be dropped on the lower side to provide screening from Big Woods ma be a consideration and that wouldn’t necessarily have to be put in but I haven’t had a chance to talk to the applicant to this point. That would be one comment I would have. With the retaining walls, the existing retaining walls which were put in when Big Woods was put in were all made of boulders and my thought on it, and perhaps the City and the engineers have a different feel for it. I think as a matter of consistency, and maybe the applicant would have a different feel for it as well but as a matter of consistency it’d be nice for those to be retaining walls as well. Made of boulders just as a matter of consistency coming across. I don’t know if that’s been considered. And then the one thing I would just like to add, and it’s probably not part of this process but because of the grade that does come down and I think it was touched on with the erosion control, that is going to be really important. The last house that was built on Big Woods at the end was uphill from the cul-de-sac and the retaining pond in my driveway that actually runs down into Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 34 my garage wasn’t properly maintained. There’s actually some weird water tables in there so the, a spring was kind of feeding the water behind. Contractors were in there. Did some work. They cut the retaining, or the silt fencing that was holding, we had several thousand gallons that ran down into the pond, into the driveway, into my garage so I would just say that special care be taken of that. I’m sure that that’s the intent of the applicant and engineer but that I think is going to be really critical because if a big storm comes down that’s going to silt up all of the catch basins. All of the underwater piping and then of course the new retaining pond or the new area to the west. The one variance which I think that’s probably the only thing that you have much discretion on here of being a 50 foot wide for the right-of-way for that future road I think is a great idea and if that could ever be made any more narrow so fewer trees could be taken out in this area. We had a 50 foot variance on our’s and I think that would have been better if that would have been more narrow because a lot of trees were taken out there. You come from a 20 foot wide cart path coming in there to what’s probably a larger boulevard than is necessary and the fewer trees and the fewer, the less excavating that needs to happen up there for that new road or for the driveway would I think be beneficial to the whole neighborhood. Thank you. Weick: Great, thank you. And as a note all the comments that are made become part of the public record so your comments and suggestions will be part of the public record for this case. Please. Mike Sweet: Thank you. My name is Mike Sweet. I live at 565 Big Woods Boulevard. Kind of right straight across from the easterly lot there and I was wondering if there’s any stipulation regarding the orientation of the two houses. Do they face Big Woods Boulevard or do they face you know the westerly one facing Carver Beach Road and the other one facing the other way? Because you know all the houses on the south side of Big Woods Boulevard face and it just seems odd to me if the other houses were facing east and west so that we’re looking at the side of that house and that it would maybe negatively impact the property values of the houses on the south side of Big Woods Boulevard. So is there any stipulation for that or is that not something you can stipulate? I mean you just kind of divide up the lots and let people build houses, whichever orientation they want. Weick: You know we’ll keep track of the questions and then we can certainly pose them to the applicant. Mike Sweet: Okay. And so that’s one concern that I had. And the other thing is just to reiterate to leave as many of those trees as possible. They’re just beautiful. Just full of maple trees and really a nice spot over there. I’d hate to see too many of those taken down. I don’t know if the conservation easements, if the size of those is cast in stone or why, how we came up with the size of those but if they could be as large as possible we’d appreciate it. Weick: Thank you. Anyone else? Yes please. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 35 Francesca Landon: Hi, my name is Francesca Landon and I live at 620 Fox Hill Drive so I’m actually north of the woods completely and our house looks out to the woods so I’m in favor and I appreciate that you guys try to keep as much of the trees as possible within that. I had a quick question because if I recall correctly I thought the original plat from years and years ago that I had talked to you on the phone about, I thought this area served as a holding pond, is that correct? About it because there was going to be like the wetland on the upper side and I thought that there was a holding pond on the south side of this entire wooded area. Al-Jaff: There was. Francesca Landon: To serve as like the storm but it was much bigger if I can recall. I was trying to track down any of the old paperwork but I couldn’t find it. My question with that is from that larger amount then to adding all the hard cover and everything like that is the proposed storm, sorry. I’m spacing here. Is that going to be enough for these two houses as well as what you guys are planning for in the future? Weick: Okay and we’ll pose it because there’s different people that have to answer certain questions so. Francesca Landon: Yeah. And then my other question is for I’m sorry I forgot your name. You had said that the second house, the Block 2 I think, that on the north side of the house you were going to be dropping the garage because of the upgrading needed on the north side of the house but how does that affect the driveway that’s currently there for the two houses? And I think that’s my other one. Oh actually I’m sorry, I do have one more. Because of the weird school district lines I was curious. Would those be Carver County schools or Minnetonka schools? It’s kind of off topic but I think that was jut it so yeah, thank you. Weick: Thank you. Would anyone else? Oh there you are. I wasn’t looking I’m sorry. Diane Carney: No problem. Diane Carney. I live at 549 Big Woods Boulevard. I won’t go into it. My questions are similar to what’s already been said by our neighbors here which is retaining the trees. They’re so beautiful and they’re in full bloom and as many as can be retained as possible. And I live directly on that Lot 4 directly across from that new road and just to reiterate Dave’s point on keeping that as narrow as possible to try and preserve. There’s some really big trees right on that corner so that’s all I have. Thank you. Weick: Thank you. Seeing no one else come forward, would you be willing to answer some of the questions? That’d be great. I kept track of some of them but to just kind of rattle them off. One is the trees that will be added. Would there be consideration to adding trees to screen on Big Woods Boulevard? Paul Otto: Yeah and one thing that I wanted to point out and I didn’t right away which I should have is that these, the homes and the lots themselves will be sold and those will be custom Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 36 designed by whoever buys them so the City will have to handle reviewing the building permits to be in accordance with that so it’s probably going to be more up to those owners because one of the last things we want to do is come in there and clear cut these trees and plant these new ones and it doesn’t work into their home or somebody says, I mean I’ve seen people do a lot of different things and they say I want to see something completely different and design around maybe some of those trees so that will happen with the actual owners who frankly I mean I work for developers. It’s a business. They will probably have more sensitivity to that as well. Weick: Which could then also affect the materials you would use for retaining walls I would imagine. Paul Otto: Correct. That would be the same thing. That would really be up to the homeowner. They will be all on private property so. Weick: Yeah. Obviously if they could consider what some of the neighbors are saying to keep some of the consistency that’s always something to keep in the back of our mind. I think there was some, a request for care during construction especially for the runoff. Paul Otto: Yeah so for the construction portion of it what we will be responsible for is the utilities and that access and probably will be building that driveway up there just to help salability out so we will, staff has commented we need a little more erosion control on that. Weick: Okay. And then orientation of the homes. Again it’s probably up to the person who owns. Paul Otto: Yes. Why they’re in there like this is because that grade is coming down to the road. We could come off of Big Woods Boulevard but you’re going to be looking at a tuck under type garage home and that’s not as desirable at least in this area and probably you know it can be done and that’s not to say they couldn’t do it on these lots but this is a little bit easier for a buyer to see and visualize. Weick: Okay and then I think the last one for you was a question around dropping the driveway and if that, how that would affect I think the long driveway. Paul Otto: Yeah I didn’t really explain that correctly. So we’re going to, so we’ve got our house foundation and you’ve got trusses above that but you’ve got your house foundation and your outside grade is set by that. We’re going to drop the garage down I think, I can’t remember what it is. It’s a foot or foot and a half from that. And then on the north side of that we’re, what we show on our plan is that would actually be block on that north wall in the garage so that we can keep the grade of the north wall higher than the half a foot below the garage floor is what I’m trying to, what I tried to explain. Weick: Yep. Perfect. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 37 Paul Otto: Your stormwater pond question. Weick: Yes. Paul Otto: I can help with that because we did that design. We can only work with the properties that we have. When we did that design we, all of these property owners in this whole block were in agreement at that time and had hired us to look at that and the place that made the most sense was at that intersection because it’s the lowest on the property. We don’t have that now. What we have done is we’ve shown city staff that if you look at this development as a whole we can accommodate this new road in those easements but it will not handle the rest of the water to the north so the property owners to the north are going to need a pond on their own property. We ponded on our site for that road and extension for the future but we haven’t accounted for anybody else’s water. Weick: Okay. Paul Otto: Just to be clear. Weick: Okay. Great, well thank you. Paul Otto: Thank you. Weick: Appreciate it. And then I think the one last one was do we know the school district? Al-Jaff: I will check that information and make sure it’s available at the, when we update the report to the City Council. Weick: Great. I’m not sure if I closed the public hearing but I will. Public hearing is now closed and I will open this up. Oh did you want to? Yeah come on. We’ll open it back up. I have to do things semi-officially so. Francesca Landon: No and I, and maybe it’s just not clear for me. Weick: Yeah. Francesca Landon: From everything that I’m hearing it sounds like in the future regardless of what I would like, is that this area is going to be constructed. Personally I’d love it to just be trees forever. I know that’s not going to happen so knowing that information where are we going to be putting that extra pond that you had just talked about? Where is that going to go if this isn’t an option anymore? Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 38 Weick: I think that would be the responsibility of whoever is developing the property to the north. Is that a fair? Bender: I would agree with your statement. Maybe to add a little bit to that. Weick: Please. Bender: And Paul correct me if I’m wrong but there’s a low area and it’s kind of shown in some of the grade lines here that was previously going to be a pond and would likely be considered as a future pond site and that’s about as far as I can go with it. Weick: Okay. Francesca Landon: I’m just going to comment on that. Weick: Yeah go ahead. Francesca Landon: Because that pond is directly across from my house and I look at it every day. Currently that pond, especially with all the rain and the snow that we’ve had has kind of made it’s own trail and has started going down to the fire hydrant so that’s actually a spot that’s already low but it fills up very quickly, especially in the spring and it doesn’t have anywhere to go. It just trails down to Fox Hill and Carver Beach corners so just to keep that in mind. Weick: Thank you. I think that’s good information. Mike Sweet: One more quick comment regarding orientation. Weick: Sure. We’re going to get it all in. Mike Sweet: The orientation of the houses. I understand that it doesn’t make sense because of the grade the driveways really can’t come off of Big Woods Boulevard. They need to come in from the sides but if the houses could still be oriented to face Big Woods Boulevard. I realize this will be determined by the developer and the homeowners and stuff but if they could face Big Woods Boulevard it would seem more like a neighborhood so that all of our houses aren’t looking at the side of a house across the street then it seems like kind of a hodge podge you know put together thing. It’d be nice if they faced Big Woods. Weick: No that’s great feedback. I’m going to pause because I have rushed it too much. But this is really good conversation and important to get on the record for the development. So seeing nobody else come forward I am going to close the public hearing and I can open it up for commissioner discussion at this point. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 39 Randall: I just had one thing. MacKenzie did we talk about the facing of the homes? Didn’t we change something with that recently where you know because there’s these lots like that where they determined where the front of the house was going to be. Walters: Yep that was an ordinance amendment for a private streets and while it allowed the establishment of a front yard setback, the front yard setback does not dictate how the house is oriented design wise. Randall: Okay. Walters: It was just a you know a structural thing for driveways, etcetera and that was mostly targeted towards dealing with pre-existing development patterns and existing houses as they were built. Randall: Okay. Now does the one house on the west is that going to have a Carver Beach road address or is that going to have a Big Woods Boulevard address? Al-Jaff: It will have, if accessing off of Carver Beach it will have a Carver Beach address. Randall: Alright. Al-Jaff: Both of those parcels are corner lots. They would need to maintain a 30 foot setback from the right-of-way for Big Woods and Carver Beach as well as the future extension. Randall: Okay. That was all I had. Weick: Okay. Reeder: Quick question looking at this new road heading down toward Lot 4. …in a situation with the headlights going in the Lot 4? And I know that’s already situated there. Bender: Could you say that one more time? Reeder: If we’re going to put a road through directly across from Lot 4 here, we’ve got headlights heading right toward that guy’s house which sometimes people are concerned about. Bender: I see where you’re coming from. I don’t believe I understand completely which house you’re, are you talking the house that’s going to be at the end on. Reeder: No I’m talking about the Big Woods lot number 4 directly across the street from, yeah. Bender: Oh right here, okay. Eventually yes there would be headlights going at that house with that street platted through there. Best I can tell ya. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 40 Reeder: Looks like we’re setting up a problem. I don’t know what the solution would possibly be though because you’ve, you actually had that street entrance already established there right. So you assume that Lot number 4 knew it when they bought it. Bender: That is correct. We were, to talk about headlights a little bit. And it is addressed in the staff report a little bit in relation to the driveway that’s along here. We were thinking that the new houses on Lots 1 and 2 may also see headlights coming in and it is discussed in there as part of the drainage concerns of maybe using some sort of a privacy fence to help address that concern for as long as that driveway is there. Sharmeen correct me if I’m wrong but I believe that that cross access agreement went into effect in 1971. Al-Jaff: Correct. Bender: So it will be 99 years later or 2070 so approximately 51 years from now that that will expire if new agreements aren’t reached. Al-Jaff: The other thing that could potentially happen is the property to the north actually comes in for subdivision and at that time we would vacate that easement. Reeder: Okay. Weick: Comments, questions? Certainly entertain a motion if you feel like moving in that direction. Anything? Randall: I did the last one. Weick: Thank you. Skistad: 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 conditions of approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision Recommendation. Weick: We have a motion. Do we have a second? Randall: Second. Weick: Second from Commissioner Randall. Any further comment on this case before we vote? Skistad moved, Randall seconded that 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 Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 41 subject to the conditions of approval and adopts 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. 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. Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 42 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. 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. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Randall noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated April 16, 2019 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. Weick: You all are doing a great job. That’s my presentation for you. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Weick: Any administrative presentations or City Council action update? Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 43 Walters: Just wanted to let you know that the two code amendments you had forwarded onto the City Council were passed on the consent agenda on May 13th. Staff is still working on the kennel ordinance. This is the busier time of the year so it could be a little while before I can get to it but we will try to turn that around as quick as we can. Beyond that I don’t believe. Al-Jaff: Control Concepts will be appearing before you at your next Planning Commission meeting. It’s a site plan with a conditional use permit because you are within the Bluff Creek overlay district. Weick: Got it. Is that the only one for next time so far? That you know of. Al-Jaff: Yeah. Walters: I believe yes, yes it is and the deadline’s lapsed so you should be good. Bender: They’ve also seen that one before. Al-Jaff: Correct. Weick: I know it sounds familiar yeah. Is that the one with the path? They’re back. That’s my favorite one. Okay well I won’t miss that one. Can I ask, I don’t know how to appropriately adjourn the meeting. Do we need a motion? Al-Jaff: You need a motion to adjourn. Weick: And we vote on it. Al-Jaff: Correct. Weick: Okay thank you. Do we have a motion to adjourn? Randall: Motion to adjourn. Weick: And a second? Reeder: Second. Randall moved, Reeder seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned 9:40 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Chanhassen Planning Commission – May 21, 2019 44 Prepared by Nann Opheim