Loading...
Agenda and PacketAGENDA  CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2019, 7:00 PM CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD A.CALL TO ORDER B.OLD BUSINESS C.PUBLIC HEARINGS 1.Consider a Request for Site Plan Review with a Variance for Hard Cover for Expansion of a Restaurant located at 590 West 79th Street 2.Consider a Request for an Interim Use Permit for Mining Operations at 100 & 200 Flying Cloud Drive (Moon Valley Gravel Pit) 3.Consider a Request for a Front Yard Setback and Lot Cover Variance to Construct an Attached Garage on Property located at 3713 South Cedar Drive 4.Consider a Request for a Variance to Replace and Expand an Existing Garage on Property located at 6641 Minnewashta Parkway D.NEW BUSINESS E.APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1.Approval of Planning Commission Minutes dated August 20, 2019 F.COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS G.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS 1.City Council Action Update H.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION I.ADJOURNMENT J.OPEN DISCUSSION NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m. as outlined in the official by­laws.  We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda.  If, however, this does not appear to be possible, the Chairperson will notify those present and offer rescheduling options.  Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. If a constituent or resident sends an email to staff or the Planning Commission, it must be made part of the public record based on State Statute. If a constituent or resident sends an email to the Mayor and City Council, it AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSIONTUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2019, 7:00 PMCITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARDA.CALL TO ORDERB.OLD BUSINESSC.PUBLIC HEARINGS1.Consider a Request for Site Plan Review with a Variance for Hard Cover forExpansion of a Restaurant located at 590 West 79th Street2.Consider a Request for an Interim Use Permit for Mining Operations at 100 & 200Flying Cloud Drive (Moon Valley Gravel Pit)3.Consider a Request for a Front Yard Setback and Lot Cover Variance to Constructan Attached Garage on Property located at 3713 South Cedar Drive4.Consider a Request for a Variance to Replace and Expand an Existing Garage onProperty located at 6641 Minnewashta ParkwayD.NEW BUSINESSE.APPROVAL OF MINUTES1.Approval of Planning Commission Minutes dated August 20, 2019F.COMMISSION PRESENTATIONSG.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS1.City Council Action UpdateH.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSIONI.ADJOURNMENTJ.OPEN DISCUSSIONNOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m. as outlined in the official by­laws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda.  If, however, this does notappear to be possible, the Chairperson will notify those present and offer rescheduling options.  Items thus pulledfrom consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. If a constituent or resident sends an email to staff or the Planning Commission, it must be made part of the public record based on State Statute. If a constituent or resident sends an email to the Mayor and City Council, it is up to each individual City Council member and Mayor if they want it to be made part of the public record or not. There is no State Statute that forces the Mayor or City Council to share that information with the public or be made part of the public record. Under State Statute, staff cannot remove comments or letters provided as part of the public input process. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, September 3, 2019 Subject Consider a Request for Site Plan Review with a Variance for Hard Cover for Expansion of a Restaurant located at 590 West 79th Street Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.1. Prepared By Bob Generous, Senior Planner File No: Planning Case No. 2019­08 PROPOSED MOTION: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the restaurant expansion to include two exterior patios of 900 and 677 square feet with a variance to permit the addition of 946 square feet of hardcover to permit 73 percent hardcover subject to the conditions of the staff report; and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. SUMMARY OF REQUEST Consider Site Plan Review request with a variance for hard cover for expansion of restaurant to add two exterior seasonal patios, one with a partial roof cover with a variance for hard cover. APPLICANT Chanhassen Butcher, LLC and Chanhassen West 79th Street, LLC SITE INFORMATION PRESENT ZONING:  Highway and Business Services District, BH LAND USE:Commercial ACREAGE:  1.24 acres (54,014 SF)  DENSITY:  F.A.R. 0.14  APPLICATION REGULATIONS Chapter 20, Article 2, Division 3, Variances Chapter 20, Article 2, Division 6, Site Plan Review Chapter 20, Article XVII, “BH” Highway and Business Services District Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 7, Design Standards for Commercial, Industrial and Office­Institutional Developments PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, September 3, 2019SubjectConsider a Request for Site Plan Review with a Variance for Hard Cover for Expansion of aRestaurant located at 590 West 79th StreetSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.1.Prepared By Bob Generous, Senior Planner File No: Planning Case No. 2019­08PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the restaurant expansion to includetwo exterior patios of 900 and 677 square feet with a variance to permit the addition of 946 square feet ofhardcover to permit 73 percent hardcover subject to the conditions of the staff report; and adopts the Findings ofFact and Recommendation.SUMMARY OF REQUESTConsider Site Plan Review request with a variance for hard cover for expansion of restaurant to add two exteriorseasonal patios, one with a partial roof cover with a variance for hard cover.APPLICANTChanhassen Butcher, LLC and Chanhassen West 79th Street, LLCSITE INFORMATIONPRESENT ZONING:  Highway and Business Services District, BHLAND USE:CommercialACREAGE:  1.24 acres (54,014 SF) DENSITY:  F.A.R. 0.14 APPLICATION REGULATIONSChapter 20, Article 2, Division 3, VariancesChapter 20, Article 2, Division 6, Site Plan ReviewChapter 20, Article XVII, “BH” Highway and Business Services District Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 7, Design Standards for Commercial, Industrial and Office­Institutional Developments BACKGROUND On February 26, 1996, City Council approved a site plan for a 5,500 square­foot restaurant with a five percent hardcover variance to permit 70 percent hardcover, and denied a variance to permit two wall signs. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan #2019­08 to permit the construction of two exterior patios with a variance to permit an additional 946 square feet of hardcover for a total of 73 percent hardcover, plans prepared by CNH Architects dated 8/22/19, and Westwood dated 8/20/19, subject to the conditions of the staff report; and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report Findings of Fact Development Review Application Project Narrative ALTA Survey Grading and Drainage Plan Floor Plan and Building Elevation W. 79th Street Parking Lot Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing List CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: September 3, 2019 CC DATE: September 9, 2019 REVIEW DEADLINE: October 1, 2019 CASE #: 2019-08 BY: RG, EH, DN, JS, ET SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Consider Site Plan Review request with a variance for hard cover for expansion of restaurant to add two exterior seasonal patios, one with a partial roof cover with a variance for hard cover. LOCATION: 590 W. 79th Street Lot 4, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza 3rd Addition, Carver County, Minnesota PID 252490040 APPLICANT: Chanhassen Butcher, LLC Chanhassen West 79th Street, LLC 14663 Quebec Place 8560 Kelzer Pond Drive Savage, MN 55378 Victoria, MN 55386 (651) 331-0620 (612) 439-4632 loneoakmarket@gmail.com andymcconville@solomonre.com PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the restaurant expansion to include two exterior patios of 900 and 677 square feet with a variance to permit the addition of 946 square feet of hardcover to permit 73 percent hardcover subject to the conditions of the staff report, and adopts the findings of fact and recommendation.” 590 W. 79th Street, Planning Case 2019-08 September 3, 2019 Page 2 PRESENT ZONING: Highway and Business Services District, BH 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Commercial ACREAGE: 1.24 acres (54,014 sq. ft.) DENSITY: F.A.R. 0.14 LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The city’s discretion in approving or denying a Site Plan is limited to whether or not the proposed project complies with Zoning Ordinance requirements. If it meets these standards, the city must then approve the site plan. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The city’s discretion in approving or denying a Variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The city has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY Site Plan Review request with a variance for hard cover for expansion of restaurant to add two exterior seasonal patios of 900 and 677 square feet, one with a partial roof cover. The 630 square feet of roof and the additional sidewalks on site exceed the approved hardcover for the parcel. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 20, Article 2, Division 3, Variances Chapter 20, Article 2, Division 6, Site Plan Review Chapter 20, Article XVII, “BH” Highway and Business Services District Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 7, Design Standards for Commercial, Industrial and Office- Institutional Developments BACKGROUND On February 26, 1996, City Council approved a site plan for a 5,500 square foot restaurant with a five percent hardcover variance to permit 70 percent hardcover and denied a variance to permit two wall signs. On November 13, 1995, City Council approved preliminary and final plat to replat Lot 2, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza 2nd Addition into four lots and site plan review for a 7,742 square foot Tires Plus facility on Lot 1, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza 3rd Addition. 590 W. 79th Street, Planning Case 2019-08 September 3, 2019 Page 3 On March 9, 1992, City Council approved Crossroads Plaza 2nd Addition, which replatted Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza Addition into two lots, and site plan review for an 11,468 square foot bank and office building for Americana Bank on Lot 1, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza 2nd Addition. On February 12, 1989, City Council approve preliminary and final plat for Crossroads Plaza Addition creating two lots and four outlots. Two of the outlots were used for Highway 5 right- of-way and two of the outlots were used for stormwater ponds. SITE CONSTRAINTS Wetland Protection There is not a wetland located on the property. Bluff Protection There are no bluffs on the property. Shoreland Management The property is not located within a shoreland overlay district. Floodplain Overlay This property is not within a designated FEMA floodplain. SITE PLAN REVIEW The applicant is proposing the addition of two patio decks of 900 and 677 square feet. Since staff may only approve a 10 percent increase to an approved site plan (Section 20-108, Chanhassen City Code), the proposed expansion requires site plan review and approval. Additionally, while the decks do not count against hardcover since they permit water to pass through to the ground underneath, the applicant is proposing a roof over 630 square feet of the attached deck on the south side of the building. This roof area and the additional sidewalks for the property will increase the hardcover by 946 square feet or three percent to 73.1 percent hardcover. The applicant prepared a schematic of how they could potentially meet the hardcover requirements. However in order to do so, they would remove four parking stalls on site. The removal of parking spaces is not in the best interest of the business nor the city. 590 W. 79th Street, Planning Case 2019-08 September 3, 2019 Page 4 ARCHITECTURAL COMPLIANCE Size Portion Placement Access to the building is through the existing entrance in the northwest corner of the building. Material and Detail The building is made of reddish-brown brick. The decks will be built of wood with a black, standing seam roof over 70 percent of the south patio deck. Color The decks shall be brown. The fencing around the patio as well as the railing at the deck will both be decorative prefinished metal picket fence style in black. A black, standing seam metal roof will be added above the south patio. Height and Roof Design A black, standing seam metal roof is being added over 70 percent of the proposed southern patio. Facade Transparency The proposed expansion are for open sided patio decks, which are visible from the public right- of-way. Site Furnishing Tables, chairs and umbrellas will be used on the exterior patio decks. Loading Areas, Refuse Area, Etc. Screening of refuse and waste containers is in the enclosure on the east side of the building. Lot Frontage and Parking location Parking is located on the north side of the building. Additionally, there are cross access and parking agreements with the other parcels in the Crossroads development. 590 W. 79th Street, Planning Case 2019-08 September 3, 2019 Page 5 ACCESS Vehicular access to the proposed “Tequila Butcher” site, located at 590 W. 79th Street, currently exists via a shared commercial driveway through the eastern property line. There are cross access agreements with all the abutting properties including the Walgreen’s site to the west via an internal driveway connecting the properties. No improvements to the existing vehicular access have been proposed with the applicant’s submittal, while pedestrian access improvements to the site have been proposed. The applicant is proposing the removal of the existing western sidewalk access point and the addition of two new sidewalk access points: one is located at the southwest corner of the south patio and will provide egress to the new north-south sidewalk; the other is located on the west side of the building providing north/south access from the existing public sidewalk located near the southern property line to the main building. The north/south access sidewalk will also be the main pedestrian route to and from a future parking lot located across W. 79th Street. All accessibility barriers (e.g. stairs) should be removed and the sidewalks proposed should be fully ADA compliant. EASEMENTS There exists 20-foot public drainage and utility easements on the south and east property lines (abutting W. 79th Street and the private drive, respectively), and 5-foot public drainage and utility easements on the west and north property lines. The applicant is proposing the installation of fencing and private sidewalks within the public drainage and utility easements and will be required to file for an encroachment agreement with building permits. There are numerous private easements that affect the subject property as identified by the ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey provided by the applicant. There are cross access and parking agreements with the other parcels in the Crossroads development. The applicant is required to ensure all terms, conditions and obligations of these easements are met prior to construction. GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL Minimal site grading is proposed for the proposed expansion. The site is currently developed and grading will be limited to the installation of new sidewalks discussed under the ACCESS section of this report, as the patios will be installed as decking. Grading will require erosion control measures and best management practices (BMPs) be installed. Upon submittal of construction plans for building permits, the applicant shall update the grading plan to include the location of silt fence, bio rolls, concrete washouts, inlet protections, and any other erosion and sediment control BMPs that will be used during construction. The applicant is proposing to improve the existing structure with the installation of two patios. Patio B is completely uncovered, and Patio A has approximately 630 square feet of cover. Including the additional sidewalks (534 square feet), the increase to impervious surface will be 590 W. 79th Street, Planning Case 2019-08 September 3, 2019 Page 6 1094 square feet. However, with a reduction of impervious area of 218 square feet from the removal of the western sidewalk access, the total net increase to impervious area is proposed to be 946 square feet. UTILITIES The site is currently served by existing sanitary and water services, however, the site plan does not show existing utilities on or around the property. The applicant will be required to update plans to illustrate the locations of services and include a note on the plans to call 811 for locates prior to any work being performed. No changes to the existing utilities has been proposed at this time. LANDSCAPING The applicant is required by ordinance to provide landscaping around the exterior of the building as well as along the public right-of-way. These items are required with or without approval of the variance. Required Proposed Frontage road boulevard trees 5 trees 5 trees The applicant meets ordinance requirements for landscaping. However, rather than providing a rain garden, the applicant shall plant an additional tree, such as a Freeman Maple, in this location. 590 W. 79th Street, Planning Case 2019-08 September 3, 2019 Page 7 LIGHTING/SIGNAGE Parking lot lighting is currently in place. A new wall sign and shared monument sign are allowed. A separate sign permit is required for each sign. Signage must comply with the sign criteria for the BH District. MISCELLANEOUS Remodel of interior will require separate fire sprinkler, fire alarm, and kitchen hood suppression system permits. Sprinklers will possibly be required under the exterior covered patio ceiling. Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. Building plans must include a code analysis that contains the following information: Key plan, Occupancy group, Type of construction, Allowable height and area, Fire sprinklers, Separated or non-separated, Fire resistive elements (Ext. walls, Bearing walls - exterior or interior, Shaft, Incidental use), Occupant load, Exits required (Common path, Travel distance), Minimum plumbing fixture count. Detailed occupancy related requirements will be addressed when complete building plans are submitted. COMPLIANCE TABLE Code Project Building Height two-stories one-story NA feet 21 feet to top of parapet Building Setback N - 20' E - 10' N - 141' E – 19.5' W - 10' S - 25' W - 97' S –25’ Parking Stalls 124 stalls 136 stalls (Standards: restaurant full liquor 1/50 sq. ft. 5,806/50 = 116; patios 1/200 sq. ft. 1,577/200 = 8) Parking Setback N - 0' E - 0' N - 0' E - 0' W - 0' S - 10' W - 0' S - 0' Hard Surface Coverage 65% @ 73% # Lot Area 20,000 sq. ft. 54,014 sq. ft. (1.24 ac.) @ - A variance to permit 70 percent hardcover was approved by the city in 1996. # - A variance request to increase the hardcover by 946 square feet to permit 73 percent hardcover is incorporated in the request. 590 W. 79th Street, Planning Case 2019-08 September 3, 2019 Page 8 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Site Plan #2019-08 to permit the construction of two exterior patios with a variance to permit an additional 946 square feet of hardcover for a total of 73 percent hardcover, plans prepared by CNH Architects dated 8/22/19, and Westwood dated 8/20/19, subject to the following conditions: Building 1. Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of Minnesota. 2. Building plans must include a code analysis that contains the following information: Key plan, Occupancy group, Type of construction, Allowable height and area, Fire sprinklers, Separated or non-separated, Fire resistive elements (Ext. walls, Bearing walls - exterior or interior, Shaft, Incidental use), Occupant load, Exits required (Common path, Travel distance), Minimum plumbing fixture count. 3. Detailed occupancy related requirements will be addressed when complete building plans are submitted. Engineering 1. All newly proposed pedestrian access routes shall be ADA compliant. 2. An Encroachment Agreement Application shall be filed for any structures places in public drainage and utility easements. 3. Grading plans shall be updated to include erosion control Best Management Practices upon submittal of building permits. 4. Site plan shall be updated upon submittal of building permits to include: a. Legend b. Engineering scale c. Vicinity map d. Existing utilities (and services) e. Detail plates f. Call 811 notes Fire 1. Remodel of interior will require separate fire sprinkler, fire alarm, and kitchen hood suppression system permits. 2. Sprinklers will possibly be required under exterior covered patio ceiling. Planning 1. The applicant shall enter into a Site Plan Agreement with the City and provide the necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping. 2. The applicant shall install an additional over-story tree to the southeast of the south deck. 590 W. 79th Street, Planning Case 2019-08 September 3, 2019 Page 9 ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact 2. Development Review Application 3. Project Narrative 4. ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey 5. Tequila Butcher Schematic Site Plan by CNH Architects 6. Grading and Drainage Plan by Westwood 7. West 79th Street Parking Lot 8. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-08 tequila butcher - applebees site 590 w. 79th street\staff report tequila butcher.doc 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Chanhassen Butcher, LLC and Chanhassen West 79th Street, LLC for Site Plan review with a variance for hardcover. On September 3, 2019, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Chanhassen Butcher, LLC and Chanhassen West 79th Street, LLC for Site Plan Review to add exterior patio decks of 677 square feet and 900 square feet to a one-story restaurant building with a variance to the site hardcover on the property located at 590 W. 79th Street. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed conditional use and site plan, which was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Highway and Business Services District (BH). 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Commercial uses. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 4, Block 1, Crossroads Plaza 3rd Addition, Carver County, Minnesota 4. Site Plan. In evaluating a site plan and building plan, the city shall consider the development's compliance with the following: a. The proposed development, an expansion on the existing restaurant development of the property, is consistent with the elements and objectives of the city's development guides, including the comprehensive plan, official road mapping, and other plans that may be adopted; b. The proposed development is consistent with the site plan review requirements and meets all the specifications of City Code subject to compliance with the Conditions of Approval and approval of the hard cover variance; c. The proposed development will preserve portions of the site in its natural state to the extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general appearance of the neighboring developed areas; 2 d. The proposed development creates a harmonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development; e. The proposed development creates functional and harmonious design for structures and site features, with special attention to the following: 1. An internal sense of order for the buildings and use on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community; 2. The amount and location of open space and landscaping; 3. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and 4. Vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number of access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. f. The proposed development protects adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses. 5. Variance – Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The zoning of the property limits hard cover to 65 percent. As originally approved, the site was given a variance to permit a restaurant with a liquor license, which requires a significant amount of parking, relative to other commercial uses. Had the property been located north of the railroad tracks, there would not be a hardcover limitation and no variance would be required. The use is a permitted use in the zoning district. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. “Practical difficulties”, as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable 3 manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: The proposed patio area is consistent with other restaurant uses in the community. By adding the roof over the southerly patio, they created additional hardcover. In addition, the city is requiring that they install more sidewalks on the site, further increasing the hardcover. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations, but allows for a restaurant operation consistent with their business model. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The property is located in a zoning district that has severe limitations on hardcover, but permits uses that require significant parking standards. The proposed development has a floor area ratio (F.A.R.) of only 0.14. Normally, commercial uses have a F.A.R. of 0.2 or higher. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The proposed patios are very similar to the patios on the restaurants directly to the east of the site. f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 6. The planning report #2019-10 dated September 3, 2019, prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is incorporated herein. 4 RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Site Plan with variance for hardcover subject to the conditions of the staff report. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 3rd day of September, 2019. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY:___________________________________ Steven Weick, Chairman g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-08 tequila butcher - applebees site 590 w. 79th street\findings of fact tequila butcher.docx avI9 -0y COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT anning Division— P.O. 147 nhard CITY OF CILANHASSENMailingAddress— O. Box 147,Chanhassen,MN 55317110 11 Phone:(952)227-1300 I Fax:(952)227-1110 APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Submittal Oats (3I-l lPC Oats.ClI '3 i CC Dat. I x. 1 Int 60-Day Review Date:16( I I I C'i Section 1: Application Type (cheek all that apply) lRefor tot,*aop"t>Fviare Appr.'cahen Chocei sf for required subrmtar rntormorron thol must occonglany this opplratron) Comprehensive Plan Amendment 5600 0 Subdivision(SUB) Minor MUSA line for fading on-site sewers $100 Create 3 lots or less 300 Conditional Use Permit(CUP) E Create over 3 lots 600+S15 per lot lots) Single-Family Residence 325 Metes&Bounds(2 lots) 300 All Others 5425 0 Consolidate Lots 150 Intenm Use Permit(IUP) Lot Line Adjustment 5750000 FinalPlal In conjunction with Single-Family Residence.,$325 Includes$450 escrow for attorney costs)' O All Others 425 Adddoonal escrow may be required for other applications through the development contract Rezoning(REZ) Planned Unit Development(PUD) S750 0 Vacation of Easements/Right-of-way NAG) $300 Minor Amendment to existing PUD 100 Addiuohal recording fess may apply) D All Others S500 0 Variance(VAR) 200 Sign Plan Review S150 0 Wetland Alteration Permit(WAP) Site Plan Review(SPR) Single-Family Residence 5150 Administrative 100 All Others 5275 O Commercialllndustnal Dislricts' 500 Zoning Appeal S100 Plus 510 per 1.000 square feet of building area: 5 thousand square feet) o Zoning Ordinance Amendment(20A) S500 incluse number of vxisSnq employees' Include numnet of new employees NOTE: When multiple applications are processed concurrently, Residential Districts 5500 the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. Plus$5 per dwelling unit( units) 0 Notification Sign jCdy to instar and remove) 200 0 Property Owners'List within 500'(City to generate atter pre-applicabn meeting) 3 per address 13 addresses) Escrow for Recording Documents(check all that apply) S50 per document Conditional Use Permit 0 Interim Use Permit Site Plan Agreement 0 Vacation Variance Wetland Alteration Permit Metes&Bounds Subdivision(3 docs.) Easements( easements) 0 Deeds S1,039TOTALFEE: Section 2: Required Information Description of Proposal: Expansion of restaurant to add 2 extortor seasonal patios,one with a partial root cover. 590 79th Street West Properly Address or Location: Parcel,y: 252490040 Legal Description: Lot 4,Block 1 Crossroads Plaza 3rd Addition Total Acreage 1 24 acres Wetlands Present? Yes 0 No Present Zoning.Select One Requested Zoning: Select One Present Land Use Designation:Select One Requested Land Use Oesignalton: Select One Existing Use of Property: Restaurant OCheck box if separate narrative Is attached Scanned by CamScanner 1 Section 3: Property Owner and Applicant Information APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER:to signing this application.I.as applicant,represent to have obta.ned authonza:on from the arc:t ny owner to file this application.I agree to be bound by Conditions of approval.subject Ally to the right to object at me heanngs on the application or dunng the appeal period. If this application has not been signed by the property owner I have attached separate documentation of fa legal capacity to file the application This application should ae processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this app'ca:ron I v ill keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of malenal ano the progress of th s application, I further understand that add tonal lees may be charged for consulting fees.feasibility studies,etc.with an estimate prior to any authonzat on to proceed with the study. I ertify that the information and exhibits su tried are tru nd correct. Name: (, \ci,\i‘o4le.,-, laAtL,c ILL Sri p 1-Ft d4) Contact* s Address. is . _ Phone: C251 ?. S5_0(e C:ty State:Zip , 4 0.SS t Cell: ( 5 Ot% Email 10,e, a Ito/ t fain Fax: Signature: Dale: 0)11 PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application,I,as property owner,have full legal capacity to.and hereby do, authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those conditions.subject only to the right to object at the hearings or dunng the appeal periods.I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. 1 further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees,feasibility studies.etc.with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify thatfthe information and exhibits submittedl_ are true and correct. Name:C:h t i e a ? J Tri T G' Contact: G/- g 1,4,d tk Address:_ B,jbC1 ` ,../"...e.,--- /i.A.,tt.Y,Phone:1 Cyd,-d3`7-41C 301 City'Slate/Zip: 14 c./v/i i rel 53-3J C Cell: I( Email: y r.c yi?tcccire_ @.a1iFax: 4, 5; f7/71i_.,ettSignature: l10- 1,de,eve\ Date: P. /'r ThisThis application must be completed in full and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application,refer to the appropriate Application Checklist and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural requirements and fees. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. PROJECT ARCHITECT if applicable) Name: CNH Architects Contact: Quinn Hutson Address' 7300 W 147th Street,Suite 504 Phone: 952)431-4433 CnyfStatefZ p: Apple Valley,MN 55124 Cell: 612)790-7943 Email: ehulson a©cnharch.com Fax: N/A Section 4: Notification Information Who should receive copies of staff reports? Other Contact Information: Q Properly Owner Via Q Email 0 Mailed Paper Copy Name: E] Applicant Via Q Email 0 Mailed Paper Copy Address: CI Engineer Via: CI Email Mailed Paper Copy City/Slate/Zip: Other' Via: Email Mailed Paper Copy Email: INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT: Complete all necessary form fields,then select SAVE FORM to save a copy to your device. PRINT FORM and deliver to city along with required documents and payment. SUBMIT FORM to send a digital copy to the city for processing.SAVE FORM PRINT FORM SUBMIT FORM Scanned by CamScanner 7300 WEST 147TH STREETSUITE 504APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124-7580(952) 431-4433 August 16, 2019 Project Narrative: Tequila Butcher Restaurant . The Tequila Butcher Restaurant is a proposed remodeling and patio expansion of the former Applebee’s Restaurant at 590 West 79th Street in Chanhassen. The restaurant will be locally owned and operated by the same family as Burgers & Bottles, Volstead House, Bourbon Butcher, and Whiskey Inferno all popular restaurants around the south metro. The project site is located in the Crossroads Plaza development accessed off West 79th Street just east of Market Boulevard one block north of Highway 5. The property is a 1.24 acre existing restaurant and parking lot site. The property is zoned BH – Highway and Business Services District as are the properties surrounding the site. The current and proposed restaurant is an allowed use within this zoning district. The existing restaurant has a gross floor area of 5,792 square feet and will remain the same size with remodeling of interior finishes and layout to create the new restaurant image. There will be two proposed exterior patios added to the site to provide 132 seats of seasonal guest seating for the restaurant, an amenity that is not currently provided with the former restaurant building. The west patio will be at grade near the front entrance of the restaurant and will include a yard game enclosure. The second patio will be attached to a portion of the south side of the building and will be raised above grade level with the restaurant floor height in this area. This attached patio will include a 630 square foot portion of the seating covered by a new canopy roof. Parking for the restaurant and expanded seasonal patio seating calculates to a minimum requirement of 124 stalls. The current parking provided, including the new stalls to be added along 79th Street, is a total of 136 stalls resulting in 12 stalls more than the minimum ordinance requirement. The new patios will all be constructed with wood deck framing and composite decking allowing rainwater to flow through the deck in order to not increase the impervious surface of this overall site. However, the new canopy roof and required added sidewalks provide a net additional impervious surface of 1,094 square feet. This increase in impervious surface brings the site total impervious surface to 72.7% which is slightly over the maximum allowed ordinance amount of 70%. The calculations indicate that the current impervious surface is already slightly over the ordinance maximum by 375 square feet. The new canopy and sidewalk will add an additional 719 square feet of net impervious surface, still only 2.7% total area over the ordinance. To address this slight additional impervious surface the project is requesting a variance to the impervious surface maximum allowed by city ordinance. Initially the restaurant considered removing four parking stalls to compensate for the additional impervious surface which would still result in more parking stalls than ordinance minimums, however the consensus is that removing parking stalls is counter-productive with the overall goal of adding parking for the Crossroads Plaza center in general, especially when the overage is such a small percentage of the allowed amount. The following items identify why this variance would meet the findings as required for granting a variance. a. This variance will remain consistent with the comprehensive plan and the general purpose of the ordinance. Parking lot pavement will not be increased but only a decorative canopy over a portion of the attached patio. Further the rainwater from this canopy roof will be collected by a gutter and run into a rain garden area in the adjacent landscaped area, not into the storm sewer system. b. The practical difficulty is the intent to increase parking for the overall development. As noted above, if the project offset the impervious surface overage by reducing parking stalls, the project would be in compliance with both the impervious surface amount and the minimum parking for the restaurant including seasonal patios. However, due to the broader shortage of parking stalls in this overall area, the variance addresses the existing conditions to increase total parking stalls in the district. c. The variance is based on a broader parking availability concern, not on economic considerations. d. The shortage of parking is not based on this restaurant but is a result of the conditions in the broader area. e. The increase in impervious surface will not change the character of the locality, in fact the project will enhance the neighborhood by expanding landscaping and providing additional seasonal outdoor dining for residents of the region. The existing building exterior is finished with brick, glass, prefinished metal standing seam accent roofs, and a limestone clad entrance tower. The new attached patio will have a pre-finished metal standing seam canopy roof, stained cedar colored wood deck framing, and a prefinished metal picket railing to match the picket fencing added to the site. This canopy will fit well with the existing building massing and enhance the south side of the building facing 79th Street as shown in the provided colored elevation. New landscaping is also shown including overstory trees along 79th Street and extensive additional base plantings along both new patios including 100 added shrubs and perennials. The civil engineering drawings indicate the minor grading for this project. The stormwater impacts were reviewed by the watershed district and the impacts are sufficiently minor to not require a watershed permit. In essence, there is no change to parking lot stormwater impacts and the minor stormwater addition from the patio canopy is directed to a rain garden area. In conclusion, the proposed Tequila Butcher restaurant provides for an exciting new dining option for the Chanhassen residents as well as guests from around the region. The added seasonal outdoor patio seating provides a great location to enjoy dining outside and creates an upgraded image between the new patios and extensive landscaping. On behalf of Tequila Butcher, we are pleased to have this opportunity to bring this new restaurant to Chanhassen. Sincerely, Quinn S. Hutson, AIA, LEED AP Principal CNH Architects, Inc. Phone (952) 937-5150 12701 Whitewater Drive, Suite #300 Fax (952) 937-5822 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 FO EX-MH RE = 945.71 EX-MH RE = 945.60 950947948949951950950949949951951 952 950949951952953 95 0 94 7 9 4 8 9 4 9950 947 948 949 946 947950.91 Existing landscaping Existing lan d s c a p i n g Existing landscaping Proposed Covered Patio with Roof 630 SF Proposed Uncovered Patio 270 SF Patio 'A' Patio 'B' Proposed Uncovered Patio 677 SF Walk-ins Existing landscapi n g Property Line Drainage and Utility Easement per the plat of Crossroads Plaza 3rd Addtion Roof above Existing sidewalk Proposed Fenced Area Existing Restaurant Building Existing lan d s c a p i n g Existing sign Proposed Sidewalk 331 SF Proposed new sidewalk 133 SF 951.3 951.3 951.1 951.1 951.1 951.1 952.3 952.3 952.3 952.3 949.8 -4.0% -2.0% (TYP.)948.7 G 950.5 G 950.5 G 950.0 G 951.1 G 951.1 951.1 G 950.0 947.6 949.7 946.6 950.7 G 950.6 G-4.0%-2.0% (TYP.)STOSTOST O ST O ST O ST O ST O ST O ST O STOST ST ST S T O S T O S T O STOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTOSTO STOSTOSTOSTO P:\Projects\2019\19064\Central\19064-ChanhassenRestaurant_qhutson@cnharch-CNH-LOGO-556336.jpg1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A B C D E F G H J K L M A B C D E F G H J K L M © COPYRIGHT BY CNH ARCHITECTS, INC.7300 WEST 147TH STREET SUITE 504 APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124-7580 (952) 431-4433CNH NO.: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 151 REVISIONS: DATE:8/19/2019 12:33:10 PM.C1Tequila Butcher590 West 79th StreetChanhassen, MN 5531719064 08/16/19 Drainage and Grading PlanPhone(952) 937-515012701 Whitewater Drive, Suite #300Fax(952) 937-5822Minnetonka, MN 55343Toll Free(888) 937-5150NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 0'20'40'60' 1"=20' 952.3950.6 G PROPERTY LINE 982 980 STORM SEWER EXISTING PROPOSED INDEX CONTOUR INTERVAL CONTOUR982 980 SPOT ELEVATION (G = GROUND) FLOW DIRECTION CURB AND GUTTER GRADING LEGEND 0.00%N:\0020082.00\dwg\0020082C-GRAD.dwgDATE:LICENSE NO.I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY MEOR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWSOF THE STATE OF MINNESOTADANIEL M. PARKS08/19/201918919 UP Existing brick soldier course; paint black Prefinished metal standing-seam patio roof Prefinished metal gutter and fascia Solid wood column and braces, stain Prefinished metal picket railing Wood deck framing, stain Existing brick walls Back Bar Host Stand Waiting Vestibule 101 Bar/Dining Room 102 Private Event Space 103 Kitchen 104 Women's Restoom 105 Men's Restroom 106 Existing roof above 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 A B C D E F G H J K L M A B C D E F G H J K L M © COPYRIGHT BY CNH ARCHITECTS, INC.7300 WEST 147TH STREET SUITE 504 APPLE VALLEY, MN 55124-7580 (952) 431-4433CNH NO.: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 151 REVISIONS: DATE:C:\REVIT (local)\2019\19064 - Chanhassen Restaurant_AKlis.rvt8/14/2019 11:24:04 AMCITY SUBMITTAL CS02Tequila Butcher590 West 79th StreetChanhassen, MN 5531719064 08/14/19 Floor/Furniture Plan and Exterior Elevation 1/4" = 1'-0"CS02 A1 South Elevation - Colored 1/8" = 1'-0"CS02 E8 Floor/Furniture Plan TTGEWESTS TR E E T79THMARKET BOULEVARDARBORETUM BOULEVARD (MN STATE HIGHWAY 5)APPLEBEE'SN:\0020082.00\DWG\CIVIL\PARKING\0020082CV01.DWG WEST 79TH ST. PARKING LOT © 2019 Westwood Professional Services, Inc.CONSTRUCTION PLANSWEST 79TH ST. PARKING LOTCHANHASSEN, MNPREPARED FOR:SOLOMON REAL ESTATE GROUP8560 KELZER POND DRIVEVICTORIA, MN 55386CONTACT: JAY SCOTTPHONE: 651.336.6060EMAIL: JAYSCOTT@SOLOMONRE.COMFORFORSITE & GRADINGPREPARED BY:PROJECT NUMBER: 0020082.00CONTACT: DANIEL M. PARKSPhone(952) 937-515012701 Whitewater Drive, Suite #300Fax(952) 937-5822Minnetonka, MN 55343Toll Free(888) 937-5150CONSTRUCTION PLANSWEST 79TH ST. PARKING LOTCHANHASSEN, MNFORFORSITE & GRADINGINITIAL SUBMITTAL DATE: 07/23/19SHEET: C000 OF 4PROJECT NUMBER: 0020082.00Sheet NumberSheet TitleC000COVERC100EXISTING CONDITIONS & REMOVALS PLANC200CIVIL SITE PLANC300GRADING, STORM SEWER, & EROSION CONTROL PLANCONTEXT MAP (1"=80')NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION SSSSSSWATWATWATSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANWATEDGE OF WATEREDG E O F W A T E REDGE OF WATERFESINV=943.18PONDPONDEX. CBRE=945.71EX. CBRE=945.60EX. FESIE=941.64STOSTO STO STSSSSSSFOWATWATWATSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANWAT953952951950948947946945 944943942946947951950949948 9479489479469469459 4 4 9 4 3 9 4 2943944 946FESINV=943.18SSTSTTSSSTGESANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANWATWATWATWATWESTS TR E E T79THARBORETUM BOULEVARD (MN STATE HIGHWAY 5)REMOVE CURB & GUTTERREMOVE CURB & GUTTERREMOVE TREE (TYP.)REMOVE TREE (TYP.)B-2B-1B-3\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\MANHOLE NOT LOCATED IN SURVEYXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXSHEET NUMBER:DATE:PREPARED FOR:HORIZONTAL SCALE:DRAWN:CHECKED:DESIGNED:INITIAL ISSUE:REVISIONS:Phone(952) 937-515012701 Whitewater Drive, Suite #300Fax(952) 937-5822Minnetonka, MN 55343Toll Free(888) 937-5150DATE:LICENSE NO.I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY MEOR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWSOF THE STATE OF MINNESOTAN:\0020082.00\DWG\CIVIL\PARKING\0020082EX01.DWG CHANHASSEN, MN07/23/19DMPDMPTDMWEST 79TH ST. PARKING LOTEXISTING CONDITIONS &REMOVALS PLAN8560 KELZER POND DRIVEVICTORIA, MN 55386WEST 79TH ST. PARKING LOTC10007/23/191891907/23/19DANIEL M. PARKSSOLOMON REAL ESTATE GROUPNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION© 2019 Westwood Professional Services, Inc.Common Ground AllianceCall 48 Hours before digging:811 or call811.com0'20'40'60'1" = 20'..........20'PROJECT NUMBER: 0020082.00PROPERTY LINE\\\\\\CURB & GUTTERSAW CUT PAVEMENTSANSANITARY SEWERWATWATER MAINSTOSTORM SEWERCONCRETEBITUMINOUSTREELIGHT POLETRAFFIC SIGNEXISTINGPROPOSEDSANWATSTOWATHYDRANTWATGASGASGASPUGUNDERGROUND ELECTRICPUGTUGUNDERGROUND TELEPHONETUGPOHOVERHEAD ELECTRICPOHTOHOVERHEAD TELEPHONETOHRETAINING WALLFENCEXSOIL BORING LOCATIONSB-19XEXISTINGREMOVALS\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\REMOVAL LEGEND1.LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AND UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THISPLAN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY SITE CONDITIONS AND UTILITYLOCATIONS PRIOR TO EXCAVATION/CONSTRUCTION. THE ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIEDIMMEDIATELY IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND.2.CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE LIMITS OF REMOVALS WITH PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTSAND FIELD VERIFY CONDITION OF EXISTING APPURTENANCES TO REMAIN. CONTRACTORSHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROTECTING OR REPLACING MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS (SUCH ASFENCES, SIGNS, IRRIGATION HEADS, ETC.) THAT MAY BE DAMAGED BY CONSTRUCTION.3.CONTRACTOR SHALL PLACE ALL NECESSARY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES REQUIRED TOMAINTAIN SITE STABILITY PRIOR TO EXECUTING ANY SITE REMOVALS.4.CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATION WITH UTILITY PROVIDERS FORREMOVAL AND/OR RELOCATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AFFECTED BY SITE DEVELOPMENT. ALLPERMITS, APPLICATIONS AND FEES ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR.REMOVAL NOTESSSX*XXX 79TH STREET WESTTTGESTXXXAPPLEBEE'SXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXFOCONCRETESIDEWALKFENCEPED. CROSSING AND ISLAND(BY CITY)PONDINGMODULAR BLOCKRETAINING WALL2213.5'25.62 '11.73'12.57'18.70'15'R3'R20'R15'R10'R150.79'R260.82'R293.02'R118.59'R25'R15'R 1 0 'R15'15'5'8.48'AA3'7'PLACE ROCK MULCH BETWEEN BACKOF CURB AND RETAINING WALLFENCEEDGE OF WATERBEGIN ONE-WAYNO TRUCKSSIGNSSODDED BOULEVARD (TYP.)DO NOT ENTERSIGNDO NOT ENTERSIGNSTOP SIGN6'HANDICAP PARKINGAND RAMP SIGNAGE45°(TYP.)W. 79TH ST. TURN LANESTRIPING BY CITYB612 CURB ANDGUTTER (TYP.)RAMP W/ TRUNCATED DOMESSODSHEET NUMBER:DATE:PREPARED FOR:HORIZONTAL SCALE:DRAWN:CHECKED:DESIGNED:INITIAL ISSUE:REVISIONS:Phone(952) 937-515012701 Whitewater Drive, Suite #300Fax(952) 937-5822Minnetonka, MN 55343Toll Free(888) 937-5150DATE:LICENSE NO.I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY MEOR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWSOF THE STATE OF MINNESOTAN:\0020082.00\DWG\CIVIL\PARKING\0020082SP01.DWG CHANHASSEN, MN07/23/19DMPDMPTDMWEST 79TH ST. PARKING LOTCIVIL SITE PLAN8560 KELZER POND DRIVEVICTORIA, MN 55386WEST 79TH ST. PARKING LOTC20007/23/191891907/23/19DANIEL M. PARKSSOLOMON REAL ESTATE GROUPNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION© 2019 Westwood Professional Services, Inc.Common Ground AllianceCall 48 Hours before digging:811 or call811.com0'20'40'60'1" = 20'..........20'PROJECT NUMBER: 0020082.001.BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR THIS PROJECT PROVIDED BY WESTWOOD PROFESSIONALSERVICES.2.LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AND UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THISPLAN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY SITE CONDITIONS AND UTILITYLOCATIONS PRIOR TO EXCAVATION/CONSTRUCTION. IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND, THEENGINEER SHOULD BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY.3.REFER TO BOUNDARY SURVEY FOR LOT BEARINGS, DIMENSIONS AND AREAS.4.ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CURB OR EXTERIOR FACE OF BUILDING UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED.5.ALL CURB RADII ARE SHALL BE 3.0 FEET (TO FACE OF CURB) UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.6.ALL CURB AND GUTTER SHALL BE B612 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.7.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING TRAFFICCONTROL DEVICES SUCH AS BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS, DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, FLAGGERSAND LIGHTS TO CONTROL THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC WHERE NECESSARY. PLACEMENT OFTHESE DEVICES SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE CITY AND ENGINEER PRIOR TO PLACEMENT.TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO APPROPRIATE MNDOT STANDARDS.8.BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT AND CONCRETE SECTIONS TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THERECOMMENDATIONS OF THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER.9.CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN FULL ACCESS TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES DURINGCONSTRUCTION AND TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY TO AVOID PROPERTY DAMAGE TOADJACENT PROPERTIES.10.SITE LIGHTING SHOWN ON PLAN IS FOR REFERENCE ONLY. REFER TO LIGHTING PLAN PREPAREDBY OTHERS FOR SITE LIGHTING DETAILS AND PHOTOMETRICS.11.PARKING LOT STRIPING TO BE TWO COATS OF 4" WHITE PAINT WITH EPOXY AND SILICA SAND.GENERAL SITE NOTESPROPERTY LINESETBACK LINEEASEMENT LINECURB AND GUTTERLOT LINEPOND NORMAL WATER LEVELRETAINING WALLNUMBER OF PARKING STALLSTRANSFORMERSITE LIGHTINGEXISTINGPROPOSEDFENCEXXNORMAL DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENTTRAFFIC SIGNPOWER POLEBOLLARD / POSTCONCRETE SIDEWALK (4" CONC. OVER 4" CLASS V)TIP-OUT CURB AND GUTTERSITE LEGEND5T PARKING LOT CROSS-SECTION A-AN.T.S.LAST REVISED:07/17/1918.7'13.5'5'3'7'EX. SLOPERETAINING WALLDRIVE LANEPARKING STALLSEX. CURBAND STREETFENCESI19PAVEMENT SECTIONS SHOWN ARE FOR PLANNING PURPOSES ONLY.REFER TO GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR FINAL PAVEMENT SECTIONS.LAST REVISED:08/15/17BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT SECTIONBITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (STANDARD DUTY)1.5" MnDOT TYPE 2360 SPWEA240B WEARING COURSE2" MnDOT TYPE 2360 SPNWB230B BASE COURSE6" MnDOT SPEC. 3138 CLASS 5APPROVED SUBGRADEMNDOT SPEC. 2357 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT6"MAX.AANOTES:1.PROVIDE A RELATIVELY FLAT MINIMUM 4'x4' LANDING BEHIND THE PEDESTRIAN RAMP, 2% MAXIMUM CROSS SLOPE BOTH DIRECTIONS.2.CURB RAMP AREA TO BE CONCRETE AND MEET LATEST ADA REQUIREMENTS. RAMP CROSS SLOPE 2% MAXIMUM. BACK-TO-BACK PEDESTRIAN RAMPS SHALL HAVE MINIMUM 48'' LANDING BETWEEN, OR PROVIDE AT-GRADE CROSSING.3.SIDE FLARES TO BE CONCRETE AND IMPLEMENTED WHERE ADJACENT TO PAVED AREAS. FLARED SLOPE TO BE 10% MAXIMUM. EXISTING CURB RAMP ALTERATIONS, WITH NO LANDING, SHALL BE 8.33% MAXIMUM. PROVIDE 10% MAXIMUM SLOPE, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.4.ANY VERTICAL LIP THAT OCCURS AT THE FLOW LINE MAY NOT BE GREATER THAN 1/4 INCH.5.ADA REQUIRED DETECTABLE WARNING SURFACE(TRUNCATED DOMES) SHALL BE 2' MIN. IN DIRECTION OF LANDING AT CURB AND SHALL EXTEND THE FULL WIDTH OF THE LANDING. AREA SHALL BE CONTRASTING COLOR TO THE ADJACENT WALKING SURFACE WITH A PREFABRICATED CAST IRON TRUNCATED DOME INSERT MEETING THE ADA DOME SIZE AND SPACING REQUIREMENTS.ALAST REVISED:08/15/17PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMPSI09AA332233FACE OFCURBBACK OFCURBFACE OFCURB15158"5' MIN.4' MIN. ORPER PLAN5' MIN.5'-4"MIN.2'8"5' MIN.5' MIN.4' MIN. ORPER PLAN5'-4"MIN.2'CURB FACEOR GUTTER5% APPROACHSLOPE MAXSEE NOTE #41/2" PREFORMEDJOINT FILLER MATERIALRAMP5'-4" MIN.LANDING4' MIN.RAMP 8.33%MAX. SLOPECONCRETE WALKDET. WARN.SURFACEROUND ALL SLOPEDINTERSECTIONSSIDE FLARE 10%MAX. SLOPESIDE FLARE5' MIN.RAMP4' MIN.SIDE FLARE5' MIN.ELEVATION OF RAMPSECTION A-APLAN VIEW OF DIAGONAL RAMPPLAN VIEW OF PERPENDICULAR RAMPHANDICAP SYMBOLLAST REVISED:08/15/17HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE SIGNAGE AND STRIPINGSI15HANDICAP SIGNNOPARKINGNOTE:BOTTOM OF SIGNS TO BE MOUNTED60"-66" FROM PARKING GRADE, SEESIGN POST INSTALLATION DETAILHANDICAP PARKINGNOTE:STRIPING TO MATCHPARKING, UNLESSPER LOCAL CODENOTE:SEE PLAN FOR PARKING LAYOUTNOPARKINGPARKINGVEHICLE IDREQUIREDUP TO $200 FINEFOR VIOLATIONVANACCESSIBLENOPARKING ACCESS AISLEHANDICAP PARKING SPACE WITHPAINTED INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL OFACCESSIBILITY WITH CONTRASTINGSQUARE BACKGROUND, CENTEREDTOWARD DRIVE AISLE.HANDICAP PARKINGSIGNS, 12"X18", OR PERLOCAL CODEHANDICAP SIGNCENTERED AT HEAD OFSPACE ON CENTER STRIPEHANDICAP PARKING ACCESSAISLE WITH PAINTED 12"HIGH LETTERING OF "NOPARKING" CENTEREDTOWARD DRIVE AISLEPER CITYCODEHANDICAP VANACCESSIBLE PARKINGSIGN, 12"X16", OR PERLOCAL CODE, ASAPPLICABLEFACE OF CURBSIDEWALKHANDICAP SIGNCENTERED AT HEAD OFSPACE, 2' MIN. AND 8'MAX. FROM FACE OFCURB2"-0"2"-0"10" DIAMETER CENTERSYMBOL IN PARKING STALL,ALL LINES TO BE 5" WIDE2"-0"NOPARKING4" WIDE PAINTED STRIPINGAT 45 DEGREES AND AT 2'O.C. AT ACCESS AISLE8'MIN.8'MIN.8'MIN.5°67. 5 ° FOWATWATWATWAT953952951950948947946945944943942 946947951950949948 9479489479469 4 69459 4 49439 4 2943944 946SSSSSWATWATWATSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANWAT EX. CBRE=945.71EX. CBRE=945.60EX. FESIE=941.64STOSTO STO STXXXAPPLEBEE'SX X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX79TH STREET WESTSSTSTTSSSTGESANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATWATSANSANSANSANSANSANSANSANWATWATWATWAT945.40945.90946.15946.20946.26946.50946.00947.20946.76947.01946.13947.75947.70947.40948.50948.10947.69948.94946.98945.99945.24946.59942.70947.00946.25942.04942.04BBSFSF SFSFS FSFSFSF SFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSF SF 947.00950946946947947947948949951940 940945 938 938939 939941 94 1 94 2 942 942 94 3 944 946947947 947.04946.83946.73946.40945.99945.96946.32945.75946.49945.71945.75944.40946.21944.69SEED & MULCH DISTURBED AREASILT FENCE (TYP.)SODDED BOULEVARD (TYP.)INLET PROTECTIONCB 27" ∅RE=945.40IE=941.77R-3067 CASTINGW/ 3' SUMPFESIE=941.5054 LF - 12" RCP @ 0.50%ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCECITY POND RM-P4.6NWL=941.5100-YR HWL=947.00100-YR HWL=949.48 (WATERSHED)PROPOSED PONDPOND BOTTOM=938.00NWL=941.50SFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFSFMNDOT SEED MIX33-262 ON SLOPEMNDOT SEED MIX33-261 IN WET AREASEED POND, SLOPES, &EMBANKMENT W/WOOD-FIBER BLANKETSEED & MULCH DISTURBED AREASSOUTH OF RETAINING WALLSEE OVERFLOWOUTLET PLAN DETAIL3:1 (TYP.)RESPONSIBLE PARTYJAY SCOTTDESCRIPTIONSTART DATESTART OF WORK09/05/19INSTALL EROSION CONTROL09/05/19START GRADING & RETAINING WALL CONSTRUCTION09/09/19PLACE SEED, MULCH, & FIBER BLANKET09/23/19INSTALL STORM SEWER, RIP RAP, & POND OVERFLOW09/30/19BEGIN CURBING, SIDEWALK, & GRAVEL FOR PARKING LOT10/07/19PAVE PARKING LOT10/21/19INSTALL SOD & FENCING10/28/19END OF WORK11/30/19SHEET NUMBER:DATE:PREPARED FOR:HORIZONTAL SCALE:DRAWN:CHECKED:DESIGNED:INITIAL ISSUE:REVISIONS:Phone(952) 937-515012701 Whitewater Drive, Suite #300Fax(952) 937-5822Minnetonka, MN 55343Toll Free(888) 937-5150DATE:LICENSE NO.I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN WAS PREPARED BY MEOR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM ADULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWSOF THE STATE OF MINNESOTAN:\0020082.00\DWG\CIVIL\PARKING\0020082GD01.DWG CHANHASSEN, MN07/23/19DMPDMPTDMWEST 79TH ST. PARKING LOTGRADING, STORM SEWER, &EROSION CONTROL PLAN8560 KELZER POND DRIVEVICTORIA, MN 55386WEST 79TH ST. PARKING LOTC30007/23/191891907/23/19DANIEL M. PARKSSOLOMON REAL ESTATE GROUPNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION© 2019 Westwood Professional Services, Inc.Common Ground AllianceCall 48 Hours before digging:811 or call811.com0'20'40'60'1" = 20'..........20'PROJECT NUMBER: 0020082.00PROPERTY LINE982980POND NORMAL WATER LEVELTOP AND BOTTOM OF RETAINING WALLEMERGENCY OVERFLOWSB-19SOIL BORING LOCATIONSTOSTORM SEWERWATER MAINSANITARY SEWEREXISTINGPROPOSEDINDEX CONTOURINTERVAL CONTOUR982980WATSANSPOT ELEVATIONFLOW DIRECTIONSB-19RETAINING WALLCURB AND GUTTERFLARED END SECTION (WITH RIPRAP)GRADING & EROSION CONTROL LEGEND1.LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AND UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE APPROXIMATE.CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY SITE CONDITIONS AND UTILITY LOCATIONS PRIOR TO EXCAVATION/CONSTRUCTION. THEENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED IMMEDIATELY IF ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND.2.ALL EXCAVATION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CURRENT EDITION OF "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR TRENCHEXCAVATION AND BACKFILL/SURFACE RESTORATION" AS PREPARED BY THE CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA.3.ALL DISTURBED UNPAVED AREAS ARE TO RECEIVE SIX INCHES OF TOPSOIL AND SOD OR SEED. THESE AREAS SHALL BE WATEREDUNTIL A HEALTHY STAND OF GRASS IS OBTAINED. SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR PLANTING AND TURF ESTABLISHMENT.4.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SUCH ASBARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS, DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, FLAGMEN AND LIGHTS TO CONTROL THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC WHERENECESSARY. PLACEMENT OF THESE DEVICES SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO PLACEMENT. TRAFFIC CONTROLDEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO APPROPRIATE MNDOT STANDARDS.5.ALL SLOPES SHALL BE GRADED TO 3:1 OR FLATTER, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED ON THIS SHEET.6.CONTRACTOR SHALL UNIFORMLY GRADE AREAS WITHIN LIMITS OF GRADING AND PROVIDE A SMOOTH FINISHED SURFACE WITHUNIFORM SLOPES BETWEEN POINTS WHERE ELEVATIONS ARE SHOWN OR BETWEEN SUCH POINTS AND EXISTING GRADES.7.SPOT ELEVATIONS SHOWN INDICATE FINISHED PAVEMENT ELEVATIONS & GUTTER FLOW LINE UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED. PROPOSED CONTOURS ARE TO FINISHED SURFACE GRADE.8.SEE SOILS REPORT FOR PAVEMENT THICKNESSES AND HOLD DOWNS.9.CONTRACTOR SHALL DISPOSE OF ANY EXCESS SOIL MATERIAL THAT EXISTS AFTER THE SITE GRADING AND UTILITYCONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DISPOSE OF ALL EXCESS SOIL MATERIAL IN A MANNER ACCEPTABLETO THE OWNER AND THE REGULATING AGENCIES.10.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A STRUCTURAL RETAINING WALL DESIGN CERTIFIED BY A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER.11.ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL RULES INCLUDING THE NATIONAL POLLUTANTDISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMIT REQUIREMENTS.12.PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF ANY STRUCTURE OR PAVEMENT, A PROOF ROLL, AT MINIMUM, WILL BE REQUIRED ON THE SUBGRADE.PROOF ROLLING SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY MAKING MINIMUM OF 2 COMPLETE PASSES WITH FULLY-LOADED TANDEM-AXLEDUMP TRUCK, OR APPROVED EQUAL, IN EACH OF 2 PERPENDICULAR DIRECTIONS WHILE UNDER SUPERVISION AND DIRECTIONOF THE INDEPENDENT TESTING LABORATORY. AREAS OF FAILURE SHALL BE EXCAVATED AND RE-COMPACTED AS SPECIFIEDHEREIN.13.EMBANKMENT MATERIAL PLACED BENEATH BUILDINGS AND STREET OR PARKING AREAS SHALL BE COMPACTED INACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFIED DENSITY METHOD AS OUTLINED IN MNDOT 2105.3F1 AND THE REQUIREMENTS OF THEGEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER.14.EMBANKMENT MATERIAL NOT PLACED IN THE BUILDING PAD, STREETS OR PARKING AREA, SHALL BE COMPACTED INACCORDANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINARY COMPACTION METHOD AS OUTLINED IN MNDOT 2105.3F2.15.ALL SOILS AND MATERIALS TESTING SHALL BE COMPLETED BY AN INDEPENDENT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. EXCAVATION FORTHE PURPOSE OF REMOVING UNSTABLE OR UNSUITABLE SOILS SHALL BE COMPLETED AS REQUIRED BY THE GEOTECHNICALENGINEER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING ALL REQUIRED SOILS TESTS AND INSPECTIONS WITHTHE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER.GRADING NOTES0.00%900.00900.00TW=XXX.XXBW=XXX.XXE.O.F.POND CROSS-SECTION B-BN.T.S.LAST REVISED:07/17/193:13:1NWL = 941.5'NWL = 941.5'5'EXISTING CITY PONDPROPOSED PONDPOND BOTTOM = 938.00BERM TOP = 942.00OVERFLOW=941.505'SILT FENCEROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCEEROSION CONTROL BLANKETINLET PROTECTIONSFSCHEDULE & RESPONSIBLE PARTY1.THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED THAT THE LOCATION AND/OR ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS AREBASED ON RECORDS OF THE VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES AND LIMITED MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN THE FIELD. THE INFORMATION SHALL NOT BERELIED ON AS BEING EXACT OR COMPLETE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY EXISTING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND NOTIFY THEOWNER OR ENGINEER OF DISCREPANCIES.2.ALL STORM SEWER MATERIAL AND INSTALLATIONS SHALL BE PER CITY REQUIREMENTS, MINNESOTA PLUMBING CODE, AND IN ACCORDANCE WITHTHE CURRENT EDITION OF "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR WATER MAIN AND SERVICE LINE INSTALLATION AND SANITARY SEWER AND STORMSEWER INSTALLATION" AS PREPARED BY THE CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA.3.PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN THE NECESSARY FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL PERMITS FOR THE PROPOSED WORK ORVERIFY WITH THE OWNER OR ENGINEER THAT PERMITS HAVE BEEN OBTAINED. PERMIT FEES SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTORUNLESS OTHERWISE ARRANGED WITH THE OWNER.4.ALL PRIVATE UTILITIES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANY. THECONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE THE SERVICE LINE CONSTRUCTION WITH THE UTILITY COMPANIES.5.CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY CITY PERMITS FOR UTILITY CONNECTIONS, AND UTILITIES SHALL BE INSPECTED AND APPROVED BYTHE CITY. THE CITY SHALL BE NOTIFIED 48-HOURS PRIOR TO COMMENCING WITH THE UTILITY CONSTRUCTION OR ANY REQUIRED TESTING.CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT OPERATE, INTERFERE WITH, CONNECT ANY PIPE OR HOSE TO, OR TAP ANY WATER MAIN BELONGING TO THE CITYUNLESS DULY AUTHORIZED TO DO SO BY THE CITY. ANY ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES OF SCHEDULED OR UNSCHEDULED DISRUPTIONS OF SERVICETO THE PUBLIC ARE TO BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR.6.STORM SEWER PIPE:A.REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE SHALL BE CLASS 5 FOR PIPE DIAMETERS 18" AND SMALLER, CLASS 3 FOR PIPE DIAMETERS 21" AND LARGERUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, PER ASTM C76 WITH R-4 GASKETS.B.ALL STORM SEWER JOINTS AND STRUCTURE CONNECTIONS SHALL BE GASTIGHT OR WATERTIGHT AS REQUIRED BY MINNESOTA PLUMBINGCODE, PART 707.3. STORM SEWER LOCATED WITHIN 10-FEET OF A BUILDING AND/OR WATER LINE SHALL BE TESTED PER MINNESOTAPLUMBING CODE, PART 712.7.AFTER CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE OWNER WITH AN AS-BUILT RECORD OF UTILITY CONSTRUCTION.THE AS-BUILT SHALL INCLUDE LOCATION AND LENGTH DEVIATIONS OR CHANGES TO THE PLAN. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY WITH OWNER ORENGINEER WHETHER A PLAN WITH POST-CONSTRUCTION ELEVATIONS IS REQUIRED.GENERAL STORM SEWER NOTESPOND OVERFLOW OUTLET PLAN DETAILN.T.S.LAST REVISED:07/19/19941.55.0'5.0'942942CLASS 3 RIP RAPBERMST05RIPRAP AT OUTLETS810108121418201612L(Ft.)TABLE OF QUANTITIES24"DepthDepth18"RiprapRiprapApron(Cu. Yd.)(Cu. Yd.)(Cu. Yd.)(Cu. Yd.)(Cu. Yd.)(Cu. Yd.)RiprapDepth12"(In.)PipeRoundDia.2.32.11.51.21.00.70.50.40.316.413.212.39.48.56.45.92.21.71.61.10.90.80.60.40.30.312.39.99.27.16.44.84.41.51.21.10.80.60.50.40.30.20.212.510.68.26.66.24.74.33.23.0RIPRAP AT OUTLETSCLASS IVCLASS IICLASS III2.929.624.921.122.218.715.814.848423630272421181512PLANSECTION B-BRIPRAP1'2'2'SECTION A-AGRANULAR FILTERGEOTEXTILE FABRICMNDOT 373352GRANULAR CUSHION4GRANULARCUSHIONGEOTEXTILE FABRICMNDOT 373321'1RIPRAPDIA. E 2'32' 2'AA1441BBLNOTES:1.FOR PIPES GREATER OR EQUAL TO 30", USE 1.5'.2.GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHALL COVER THE BOTTOM AND SIDES OF THE AREA EXCAVATED FOR THE RIPRAP, GRANULAR FILTER MATERIALS.3.DIMENSION "E" EQUALS INSIDE WIDTH OF APRON.4.GRANULAR FILTER, MNDOT 3601, MAY BE USED AS A CUSHION LAYER. PLACE FILTER PER MNDOT 2511.5.GRANULAR FILTER OR RIPRAP, MNDOT 3601, TO EXTEND UNDER ENTIRE OPEN PORTION OF PIPE APRON. DEPTH OF MATERIAL UNDER APRON SHALL MATCH RIPRAP DEPTH. WHEN USING RIPRAP INCREASE RIPRAP QUANTITY ACCORDINGLY AND PLACE A 3" LAYER OF 1.5" CRUSHED ROCK UNDER THE APRON TO AID IN GRADING FOR APRON PLACEMENT.6.CONTRACTOR SHALL PLACE RIPRAP, PULVERIZED TOPSOIL, SEED AND WOODFIBER BLANKET IMMEDIATELY AFTER PIPE IS INSTALLED. EXTEND AREA TO MATCH UNDISTURBED SOIL.GranularFilterUnderApronGranularFilterUnderApronGranularFilterUnder4d50 = 6"d50 = 9"d50 = 12"LAST REVISED:08/10/171941941940940 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, September 3, 2019 Subject Consider a Request for an Interim Use Permit for Mining Operations at 100 & 200 Flying Cloud Drive (Moon Valley Gravel Pit) Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.2. Prepared By Bob Generous, Senior Planner File No: Planning Case No. 2019­09 PROPOSED MOTION: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the Interim Use Permit, Planning Case #2019­09 to permit grading, excavation and slope restoration as proposed on the plans prepared by Sathre­ Bergquist, Inc., dated July 26, 2019, subject to the Conditions of Approval; and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting an extension of the Interim Use Permit to continue the mining and excavation operation on the property. APPLICANT Dan Zwiers, Moon Valley Aggregate, Inc. SITE INFORMATION PRESENT ZONING:  Agricultural Estate District (A2) LAND USE:Residential High Density (8­16 units per net acre) ACREAGE:  72.24 acres  DENSITY:  NA  APPLICATION REGULATIONS Chapter 7, Article III.  Excavating, Mining, Filling and Grading Chapter 20, Sections 20­231 through 20­237, Conditional Use Permits (Interim Use Permits are processed in the same manner as Conditional Use Permits.) Chapter 20, Article X. “A2”, Agricultural Estate District BACKGROUND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, September 3, 2019SubjectConsider a Request for an Interim Use Permit for Mining Operations at 100 & 200 Flying CloudDrive (Moon Valley Gravel Pit)Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.2.Prepared By Bob Generous, Senior Planner File No: Planning Case No. 2019­09PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the Interim Use Permit, PlanningCase #2019­09 to permit grading, excavation and slope restoration as proposed on the plans prepared by Sathre­Bergquist, Inc., dated July 26, 2019, subject to the Conditions of Approval; and adopts the Findings of Fact andRecommendation.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is requesting an extension of the Interim Use Permit to continue the mining and excavation operation onthe property.APPLICANTDan Zwiers, Moon Valley Aggregate, Inc.SITE INFORMATIONPRESENT ZONING:  Agricultural Estate District (A2)LAND USE:Residential High Density (8­16 units per net acre)ACREAGE:  72.24 acres DENSITY:  NA APPLICATION REGULATIONSChapter 7, Article III.  Excavating, Mining, Filling and GradingChapter 20, Sections 20­231 through 20­237, Conditional Use Permits (Interim Use Permits are processed in the samemanner as Conditional Use Permits.)Chapter 20, Article X. “A2”, Agricultural Estate District BACKGROUND On September 28, 2009, the Chanhassen City Council approved an Interim Use Permit, Planning Case #09­14, to permit grading, excavation and slope restoration.The Interim Use Permit was approved for ten years. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Interim Use Permit to permit mining of the property subject to the conditions of the staff report; and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report Findings of Fact and Recommendation Development Review Application Plan Sheets ­ Pages 1­3 Plan Sheets ­ Pages 4­6 Plan Sheets ­ Pages 7­9 Carver County Memorandum Affidavit of Public Hearing Mailing CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: September 3, 2019 CC DATE: September 23, 2019 REVIEW DEADLINE: October 1, 2019 CASE #: 2019-09 BY: GB, RG, EH, JS SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting an extension of the Interim Use Permit (IUP) to continue the mining and excavation operation on the property. LOCATION: 100 and 220 Flying Cloud Drive South of Hennepin County Regional Railroad, north of Flying Cloud Drive and east of Sorensen Addition. PIDs: 25-0360200 and 25-0360700 APPLICANT: Dan Zwiers Moon Valley Aggregate, Inc. 11111 Deuce Road Elko, MN 55020 (612) 720-5154 distintivetruck@gmail.com PRESENT ZONING: Agricultural Estate District, A-2 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential – High Density (net density range 8-16 units per acre) ACREAGE: 72.24 acres DENSITY: NA LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The city has limited discretion in approving or denying IUPs, based on whether or not the proposal meets the use standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. If the city finds that all of the applicable use standards are met, the permit must be approved. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting an extension of the interim use permit to mine gravel from the site located north of Flying Cloud Drive, approximately one mile east of Highway 101. The original IUP was granted on September 27, 2004 to Beatrice Zwiers of Moon Valley Aggregates, Inc. In 2006, Terry Brothers, Moon Valley, LLC took over the grading, excavation and slope restoration PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the Interim Use Permit, Planning Case #2019-09, to permit grading, excavation and slope restoration as proposed on the plans prepared by Sathre-Bergquist, Inc., dated July 26, 2019, subject to the Conditions of Approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision.” Moon Valley IUP Planning Case 2019-09 September 3, 2019 Page 2 operation. Terry Brothers has requested that the IUP be extended since there is a decrease in demand for the product due to the lower valued soils located on the active mining site. The applicant would like to extend the mining to the western portion of the property. There is approximately one million cubic yards of material to be removed from the site; the applicant anticipates this will take 10 years to accomplish. Staff has not received any complaints related to the site operations. The applicant is requesting a 10-year extension to the IUP to permit the excavation, grading, and restoration of the existing mining pit and a future development area west of the mining pit. The existing IUP had a 10-year time limit, which was set to end in September, 2019. The operation will require the removal of approximately1.8 million cubic yards of material from the site. However, staff believes a five-year extension is more appropriate to allow the city a better opportunity to evaluate and track the progress of the mining operation. The project site is adjacent to the Richard T. Anderson Conservation Area in Eden Prairie. To the south across County Road 61 (Flying Cloud Drive) are the Minnesota Valley Wildlife Refuge, the Minnesota River and State Wide Auto Salvage, Inc. To the north are the Hennepin County Regional Trail and the Settlers West subdivision. Access to the site is proposed via County Road 61. The proposed site grading and slope restoration will prepare the site for future development when urban services are available, stabilize the site to reduce run-off and erosion, and permit the vegetation, especially the trees, to grow between now and the time the site is developed. A Phase I Environmental Audit dated November, 2004 was prepared by McCain and Associates, Inc. for Moon Valley Aggregates, Inc. This audit pointed out several recognized environmental Moon Valley IUP Planning Case 2019-09 September 3, 2019 Page 3 issues that needed to be addressed. A Phase II Site Investigation Work Plan was prepared for the Moon Valley property in July, 2005. The Phase II study spelled out the environmental cleanup that would be performed on the site. Lead in the gun range was cleaned up. All house structures have been removed from the site. The house well has been capped. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 7, Article III. Excavating, Mining, Filling and Grading Chapter 20, Sections 20-231 through 20-237, Conditional Use Permits (Interim Use Permits are processed in the same manner as Conditional Use Permits) Chapter 20, Article X, “A-2”, Agricultural Estate District BACKGROUND On September 28, 2009, the Chanhassen City Council approved Interim Use Permit, Planning Case #09-14, to permit grading, excavation and slope restoration. The IUP was approved for ten years. On September 27, 2004, the Chanhassen City Council approved Interim Use Permit, Planning Case #04-27 to permit grading, excavation and slope restoration. The IUP was good for five years. February 1996, the city executed an earthwork permit agreement resolving the mining operation and restoration. June 22, 1992, the Chanhassen City Council approved an earthwork permit for the mining operation (IUP #92-4). SITE CONSTRAINTS Wetland Protection There is a wetland located on property. The proposed grading does not directly impact the wetland. Bluff Protection There are bluffs on the property. Shoreland Management The property is located within the Shoreland Overlay District for Rice Lake. Moon Valley IUP Planning Case 2019-09 September 3, 2019 Page 4 Floodplain Overlay This property is not within a floodplain. ACCESS Access to the properties are from CSAH 61, Flying Cloud Drive. GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL The applicant has submitted an updated plan showing what areas are untouched, the areas that are currently being graded, and the areas that have been graded and restored. Staff is requesting a phasing plan, a summary of the quantities removed and a summary of the quantity of remaining material to be removed. This information shall be submitted annually a minimum of 30 days before the anniversary of City Council approval. The applicant last received an IUP to excavate approximately 1.8 million cubic yards of material from the site in 2009. To date, the mine has reported approximately 400,000 cubic yards of material excavated since. The goal of the grading was to restore the severe erosion areas on the site and to leave the site in a condition that would allow future multi-family housing to be developed. Similar to the previously approved IUP, the applicant is proposing to grade down at steep, 40% (2.5:1) slopes from the high points on the north and south sides of the property. This will allow a relatively flat area with a gentle slope of 4% (25:1) to be developed in the center of the property. The flat area will be developed into multi-family housing sites when municipal sewer and water is extended to the area in the future. Permanent vegetation will be established over all bare soil areas. Moon Valley IUP Planning Case 2019-09 September 3, 2019 Page 5 Previously, a restoration plan for the main pit area east of the creek had been prepared in 1992 and approved by the city for this site. The 1992 plan proposed to grade approximately three acres of bluff area with 3.9 acres of tree removal. The 2009 proposal had approximately 2.6 acres of bluff grading and 7.3 acres of tree removal approved. While the 2009 plan resulted in more tree loss, the impact to the bluff area was less than the previously approved plan. Also, the amount of total usable or developable area for the entire site was increased from approximately 8.5 to 14 acres. In an effort to try and preserve more of the mature trees on the site, staff recommended in 2009 that grading on the east side of the creek cease at or above the 756-foot contour as a condition of approval. This was approved and staff recommends the same conditions be implemented for the current IUP application for the site as this would preserve approximately 1.6 acres of additional tree canopy while decreasing the bluff impact from 2.6 to 2.4 acres. The usable area available on this east side will still be 12.4 acres, which is nearly four acres greater than the 1992 plan and consistent with the 2009 plan. The existing site generally drains from the north to the south. There is an existing creek/wetland which runs through the center of the site. Eventually, the entire site drains to the Minnesota River valley through existing culverts under County Road 61 (Flying Cloud Drive). Under proposed conditions, the entire graded site area will drain to the two proposed ponds on either side of the creek which divides the site. Pond 1, on the west side of the creek, will outlet to the adjacent creek, and the existing pond (Pond 2) outlets to the County Road 61 ditch. Each of the ponds was previously designed to NURP standards and sized for the future developed state of the site. The previously submitted drainage calculations showed that the existing 10- and 100-year runoff rates were being met, per City Code. As City Code and the pond areas have changed over the Moon Valley IUP Planning Case 2019-09 September 3, 2019 Page 6 past 10 years, the applicant shall provide updated calculations that meet Chapter 19 Article VII of City Code. In the future, when a development proposal is submitted, drainage and utility easements over the ponds and creek will be required. Erosion control has been shown on the plan in accordance with industry best management practices. Continued efforts shall be made by the applicant to ensure erosion control practices remain up to date with City Standards, ordinances, and best management practices. Staff recommends additional silt fence in the southeast corner of the site around the grading limits when grading reaches this area, around the proposed pond outlet apron, and around the spent lime stockpile. All disturbed areas are required to be reseeded and mulched within two weeks of site grading. If erosion control measures installed in conjunction with this IUP are deemed by the city to be ineffective, the city will inform the applicant in writing of any deficiencies. The applicant will be required to remedy the deficiencies prior to continuing grading operations. The required remedy(ies) may include, but are not limited to: increased frequency of plantings, additional erosion control blanket, or terracing of the northernmost slope to permanently break up the length of the slope. Phasing is a very important management tool for erosion control, thus the existing grading east of the creek shall be restored and achieve final stabilization prior to grading and mining west of the creek. Stabilization of the toe (first 150 feet of the slope) is needed immediately upon final grading. Stabilization should continue to be done in phases. Large portions of the site should not be left exposed over weekends or during forecasted heavy rains. The slopes should be tracked with a dozer at all times. The dozer should be run perpendicular to the slope to track the slope. Due to the steep slopes and long runs of the slope, bio-rolls may be needed to aid in stabilization of all the slopes. Bio-rolls would help break up the length of slope and minimize erosion potential of the slope with the erosion control blankets. Six-inch bio-rolls are needed every 15 to 20 feet. Proper blanket application is crucial for this site. The blankets must make 100% contact with the soil and stapled according to the manufacture’s specifications. The staple pattern is vital to proper blanket function. The blankets should be head trenched as well. Geotextile and riprap or geogrids or other approved stabilization is needed to provide toe protection; there is a chance the toe of the 2.5 to 1 may start head cutting without toe protection. The seed mix shall be MN State Seed Mix 35-621 (Dry Prairie Southeast). Depending on the final soil used, blanket application may be difficult. If the soil is too sandy, stapling the blanket over long runs will be futile. ‘Terracing’ blankets or using strips of blankets with a heavy application of the seed mix (20 pounds per acre) and hydro mulch will be needed. The northeast “corner” of the site was a previous area of concern for instability addressed in 2009. It was recommended that a terrace, turf reinforcement mat and slope drain was likely needed in this area to promote long-term stability. On August 28, 2018, a letter was sent by staff to the applicant which addressed sluffing and a high level of erosion within the area of concern (northeast “corner” of the site). While the applicant was responsive to the request for Moon Valley IUP Planning Case 2019-09 September 3, 2019 Page 7 stabilization, the area still remains of concern. The applicant shall provide an assessment of this location by a registered geotechnical engineer to ensure no excessive slumping or obvious slope failures exist, along with recommendation of remediation (if any). Silt fence should be installed at least 25 feet away from the toe of the slope to provide storage and allow the silt fence to function properly. As stated on the plan, Pond 2 and the temporary sediment basin have been constructed. The applicant will be required to clean out Pond 2 and the temporary sediment basin to ensure adequate storage based on the updated runoff calculations and design of the stormwater structures. Coordination of these activities with the CSAH 61 project are required. Subsurface stormwater movement should be considered with surface movement of stormwater. When considering stormwater management, installation of draintile at the toe should be considered to reduce any future possibility of sloughing due to saturation from groundwater or slope seepage. Final restoration plan east of the unnamed creek: Moon Valley IUP Planning Case 2019-09 September 3, 2019 Page 8 DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL The proposed development will exceed one (1) acre of disturbance and will, therefore, be subject to the General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination/State Disposal System (NPDES Construction Permit). All erosion control shall be installed and inspected prior to initiation of site grading activities. The applicant should be aware that if excess material is transported to another site in Chanhassen, a separate grading permit will be required for the other property. Permitted hours of operation will be 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday with no work permitted on Sunday or legal holidays. A proposed haul route must also be submitted as required. In addition, appropriate signage for hauling along County Road 61 will be required and the new CSAH 61 will be rated for a 10-ton per axle road. All oversize/overweight loads leaving the mining operation to the east must apply for Hennepin County Transportation OS/OW trip permits. Grading on the east side of the creek must cease at or above the 756-foot contour and all disturbed soils must be permanently stabilized and restored in accordance with the Restoration Plan as specified in the Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan dated July 26, 2019. This must be continually reflected on all subsequent plan submittals. Terminating the grading at this elevation would follow the natural drainage pattern in the area. It would also alleviate the need for additional storm sewer in the future in order to capture the drainage and route it back to Pond 2. The future developable area available would still be 12.4 acres. A phasing plan shall be required on an annual basis. The plan shall be subject to city staff review of conformance with the conditions of the IUP. Financial security to guarantee restoration and erosion control measures will be required with the annual updated phasing plan. The plan is also subject to administration fees. An administration fee shall be collected each year and shall be based on the current year’s development review fee for IUPs from Chapter 4 of City Code. The applicant will need to request a formal extension 60 days prior to the expiration date for the IUP. The applicant provided the city with an original cash escrow in the amount of 110% of the construction costs (balance to date of $87,295.24) in 1996. This escrow is to guarantee erosion control measures, site restoration, and compliance with the IUP. The amount of the security shall be established annually and shall be submitted by the anniversary of the date of City Council approval. Moon Valley IUP Planning Case 2019-09 September 3, 2019 Page 9 Silt fence shall be furnished in accordance with MnDOT Construction Standards, Section 3886. Machine-sliced or Hand-installed woven geotextile silt fence must be installed and maintained at the northwest corner of project, and in all areas specified in the Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan. Machine-sliced or Hand-installed woven geotextile silt fence must be reinforced using sediment logs, wire backing, or other effective Best Management Practice. Exposed, unworked soils must continue to be stabilized with temporary or permanent stabilization BMPs in accordance with the construction sequencing as stated in the Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan. Exposed, unworked erodible soils with positive slopes must continue to be stabilized using erosion control blanket or alternate effective BMPs according to the Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan. All other sediment and erosion control measures must be in place and maintained according to the Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan dated July 26, 2019, and phasing plan to be submitted by applicant. LANDSCAPING Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the edge of the grading limits. No tree removal is allowed beyond the 756 contour on the east side of the creek. MN State Seed Mix 35-621 shall be used for the seeding. All restored slopes shall be planted with trees. The trees shall be bare- root, native species, one-half to one-inch in diameter, five to ten-foot spacing in a random pattern from the top to the toe of the slope. The approximate number of trees needed is 20,000 (7’ x 7’ spacing). Spacing (feet) Trees per acre 5 x 5 1,742 6 x 6 1,210 7 x 7 889 8 x 8 681 10 x 10 436 MISCELLANEOUS The permit holder must use and maintain accepted Best Management Practices for erosion control, including but not limited to construction entrances to limit tracking or scaring of the new road surface. The new CSAH 61 will be rated for a 10-ton per axle road. All oversize/overweight loads leaving the mining operation to the east must apply for Hennepin County Transportation OS/OW trip permits. UTILITIES City utilities are not available at present to the property. Moon Valley IUP Planning Case 2019-09 September 3, 2019 Page 10 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the IUP to permit mining of the property subject to the following conditions and adopt the Findings of Fact and Recommendation: Engineering 1. The interim use permit shall be approved for a period of five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. The applicant will need to request a formal extension 60 days prior to the expiration date of the interim use permit. 2. Permits from the appropriate regulatory agency must be obtained; including but not limited to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Lower Minnesota River Watershed District and Carver County. 3. The applicant must submit a phasing plan. The phasing plan shall address the spent lime stockpile and equipment removal. This information shall be submitted annually a minimum of 30 days before the anniversary of City Council approval. 4. An administration fee shall be collected each year and shall be based on the number of cubic yards of material being graded as identified in the phasing plan. The fees are taken from the Uniform Building Code Appendix, Chapter 33. 5. The applicant must submit a summary of the quantity of material that has been removed from the site and the quantity of remaining material. This information shall be submitted annually a minimum of 30 days before the anniversary of City Council approval. 6. The applicant shall provide updated stormwater and drainage calculations that meet the requirements set forth in Chapter 19 Article VII of City Code. 7. The applicant shall clean out the existing Pond 2 and the temporary sediment basin based on the stormwater and drainage calculations and design of Pond 2 and the sediment basin. 8. The applicant must provide the city with a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of 110% of the construction costs for the appropriate phase of the grading operations to guarantee erosion control measures, site restoration, and compliance with the interim use permit. The amount of the security shall be established annually and shall be submitted by the anniversary date of City Council approval. 9. Permitted hours of operation will be 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday with no work permitted on Sunday or legal holidays. 10. Grading on the east side of the creek must cease at or above the 756-foot contour and all disturbed soils must be permanently stabilized and restored in accordance with the Restoration Plan as specified in the Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan dated July 26, 2019. Moon Valley IUP Planning Case 2019-09 September 3, 2019 Page 11 11. If any excess material is hauled to another site in Chanhassen, a separate grading permit will be required for the other property. 12. The new CSAH 61 will be rated for a 10-ton per axle road. All oversize/overweight loads leaving the mining operation to the east must apply for Hennepin County Transportation OS/OW trip permits. 13. Machine-sliced or Hand-installed woven geotextile silt fence must be installed and maintained at the northwest corner of project, and in all areas specified in the Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan. Machine-sliced or Hand-installed woven geotextile silt fence must be reinforced using sediment logs, wire-backing, or other effective Best Management Practice and meet the specifications of MnDOT Standard Specifications for Construction (Section 3886). 14. Exposed, unworked soils must continue to be stabilized with temporary or permanent stabilization BMPs in accordance with the construction sequencing as stated in the Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan. 15. Exposed, unworked erodible soils with positive slopes must continue to be stabilized using erosion control blanket or alternate effective BMPs according to the Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan. 16. All other sediment and erosion control measures must be in place and maintained according to the Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan dated July 26, 2019, and phasing plan to be submitted by the applicant. 17. A driveway access to 230 and 240 Erie Avenue must be maintained at all times during construction. 18. Grading west of the unnamed creek shall not commence until the grading on the existing mining operation and site restoration has been completed east of the creek. 19. The applicant must comply with all Carver County requirements and coordinate the mining activities with Carver County. Environmental Resources 1. Tree preservation fencing must be installed at the edge of grading limits. 2. No tree removal is allowed beyond the 756-foot contour on the east side of the creek. 3. MN State Seed Mix 35-621 shall be used for the seeding. 4. All restored slopes shall be planted with trees. The trees shall be bare-root, native species, one- half to one-inch in diameter, five- to ten-foot spacing in a random pattern from the top to the toe Moon Valley IUP Planning Case 2019-09 September 3, 2019 Page 12 of the slope. The approximate number of trees needed is 20,000 (7’ x 7’ spacing). A minimum of 75% survival rate for plantings must be achieved. Tree tubes are required for plantings. Spacing (feet) Trees per acre 5 x 5 1,742 6 x 6 1,210 7 x 7 889 8 x 8 681 10 x 10 436 Miscellaneous 1. Permit holder must use and maintain accepted Best Management Practices for erosion control, including but not limited to construction entrances to limit tracking or scaring of the new road surface. 2. The new CSAH 61 will be rated for a 10-ton per axle road. All oversize/overweight loads leaving the mining operation to the east must apply for Hennepin County Transportation OS/OW trip permits. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact 2. Development Review Application 3. Moon Valley Plan Sets Sheets 1-9 4. Carver County Access Review Comments Dated August 26, 2019 5. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-09 moon valley gravel pit iup\staff report moon valley iup.doc 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Moon Valley Aggregates, Inc. (Dan Zwiers) for an Interim Use Permit to permit grading, excavation and slope restoration. On September 3, 2019, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Moon Valley Aggregates, Inc. (Dan Zwiers) for an Interim Use Permit for the property located at 100 and 220 Flying Cloud Drive. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed interim use which was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential High Density use. 3. The legal description of the property is: All that part of Government Lot 1, Section 36, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota, which lies northerly of Trunk Highway No. 212; and, 27 acres in the west half of northeast ¼ south of the railroad and north of Trunk Highway No. 212, Section 36, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota; 1 acre in Government Lot 3 north of Trunk Highway 212 being that part of the northwest ¼ of the northeast ¼ and the northeast ¼ of the northwest ¼ in Government Lots 2 & 3, Section 36, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota. 4. When approving an Interim Use Permit, the city must determine the capability of a proposed development with existing and proposed uses. The general issuance standards of the conditional use Section 20-232, include the following 12 items: a. The mining operation will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. The site work will result in the stabilization and re-vegetation of the slope and the reduction in site erosion. 2 b. The mining operation will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and the zoning code by creating a future development area that may be developed consistently with the land use designation of the property and through the protection and stabilization of the slopes. The earthwork will be maintaining the site in a form suitable for residential use which is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan and this chapter. c. The mining operation will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area because the site will be re- vegetated and the slopes stabilized reducing site erosion. The aesthetics of the site will be enhanced with the elimination of the gullies/ravines in the site and the establishment of site vegetation. d. The mining operation will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses because the grading and drainage will be contained within the site perimeters. Additionally, hours of operation are limited and specific conditions of approval will be in place and enforced by the city. e. The mining operation will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use since development of the site will be delayed until urban services are available. The use is temporary which does not need to be served by public facilities and services. The proposed grading will prepare the site for future development. The development of the site will require additional city review and approval. f. The mining operation will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community since this is a temporary use. When the site is developed in the future, the development will enhance the city’s economic welfare. g. The mining operation will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare due to excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. The proposed grading could result in a temporary increase in traffic, noise and fumes. The conditions of the approval will provide standards by which the activities should be minimized. h. The mining operation will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. Through the use of signage, limits on the hours of operation, and if traffic becomes congested, additional limits on the hours of hauling operation could be instituted, potential traffic problems will be mitigated. 3 i. The mining operation will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. The proposal will result in the removal of some existing canopy. However, the site will be re-vegetated and there will be less bluff impact vis-à-vis the previously approved grading/restoration plan for the site. j. The mining operation will be aesthetically compatible with the area since the grading and re-vegetation of the site will improve the site aesthetics. k. The mining operation will not depreciate surrounding property values since the plan will improve the site and its impacts on the surrounding properties. l. The mining operation will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in Chapter 7, Article III of the Chanhassen City Code. 5. The planning report #2019-09 dated September 3, 2019, prepared by Erik Henricksen, et al, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Interim Use Permit to permit grading, excavation and slope restoration subject to the conditions of the staff report. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 3rd day of September, 2019. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY:___________________________________ Steven Weick, Chairman g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-09 moon valley gravel pit iup\findings of fact.doc Sore^o1 COiliiUNITY DEVELOPiIENT DEPARTTENT Planning Division - 7700 Market Boulevard Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952) 227-1300 / Fax: (952) 227-1'l1o APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW suumitatDate: ? Ia / fA PC Date q 3 I ccoate:Q /an lrq SGDay Review Date:to( tI Lc Section 1: Application Type (check all that apply) (Refer to tp apprcpiate Applitxtin c/?f,cldistr tor ,pqui.E,d submiftal infomat*m tl!€,l musl a@npany this applbatim) n Comprehensive Plan Amendment......................... $600 ! SuMivision 1suB1E Minor MUSA line br f;ailing on-site sewers.....$100 E Create 3 lots or less ........................................ $300E create over 3 lotsD Conditional Use Permat (CUP) ! Single-Family Residence ... E rut ottrers...... E p ntt otners...... E nezoning 1nez1E Planned Unit Oevelopment (PUO).... n Minor Amendment to existing PUD... E A others...... E Sign Plan Review.......... E site Plan Review (SPR) E Administrative......... lnterim Use Permit (lUP) fl ln conjunction with Single-Family Residence.. $325 .....................$600 + 915 per tot(__ lots)E Uetes & Bounds (2 lots). E Consolidate Lots..... ... ... .. E Lot Line Adjust nent........ E Final Plat......................... (lncludes $450 escrow for attomey cosb)' 'Additbnal es$ow may be ,equired ior other applications through the development contrad. E Vacation of Easements/Right-of-way (vAC)........ $300 (Additional recording fees may apply) .. $325 ..$425 $425 $7s0 $100 $s00 $1s0 .... $100 ....9500 $300 $1s0 $1s0 $700 tr tr E Commerciaulndustrial Districts' Plus $'10 per 1,000 square feet of building area( thousand square feet) 'lnclude number of g!!s!Dg enployees: Variance (VAR) ...... . Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) E Singl+.Family Residence........ .. $200 E Att ohers......... D zoning Appeal........ E Zoning ordinance Amendment (ZOA)........-........ $500 $200 . $150 .$27s $100 'lnclude number of @!t employees: tr nesioentiar oiiiti"t"-.....--f -.-.......---..--- Ssoo !QIE*: when rnuhirlc 'Pplio'tior rrt Foo'ss'd concurrundv' Plus $5 per dwelling unit r uni;i th' 'PPropritt' lbc sh'll b' oh"god ior .toh rPPllottion' K * d" Notification Sign (city to install and remove) Property Owners' List within 500' (city to generate after pre-application meeting) ..... Escrow for Recording Oocuments (check all that E Conditional Use Permit app D lv)........................... lnterim Use Permit E Vacation E variance n Metes & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.) E Easements ( easements) .... .. ...$3 per address t lSaddresses) ....... $50 per document E site Ptan Agreernent Alteration ,ko E weuanoE oeeos TOTAL FEE Permit Section 2: Required lnformation Description of Proposal: Mootl \)all -t truP L(\on*;on flz:r,,e cloJ Drit-loo + 2o0Property Address or Location Parcel #:Legal Description:Lol Weuands PresenP ! Ves E tto 3 .49 Total Acreage: Present Zoning Present Land Use Designation: Requested Zoning . Select One Requested Land Use Designation:Select ne E ffnecX box if separate nanative is attached AUb 0z z0lg SCfNNEt) Select One One Existing Use of Property: et Section 3: Property Owner and Applicant lnformation APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, l, as applicant, represent to have obtained authorization from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. lf this application has not been signed by the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter perteining to this application. I ' rill keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this applic€tion. I further understand that additional fees may be charged ior consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and conect. Name:Contect: Phone:Address: City/State/Zip Email: study. Name Address:ill City/State/Zip: Email <. Signature PROJECT ENGINEER (if appl icable Name: Address ?orla (/f / aaaual conect. "azti,:,, o Cell , ar\.r.- Fax: Cell: Fax: Date Davt Z ie,t'5 phone: 6ra 'f'zo-5154 Datei 7-3o- 11 Signature I certity that the information and exhibits submitted are true and ) Contact: Phone:o0 i lvl tlt {szq I sa{1"te..Conn This application must be completed in full and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Bebre filing this application, rerer to the appropriate Application Checklist and conEr with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural requirements and Ees. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. Section 4: Notification lnformation Who should roccive copi6s ot staft r.ports? trn Property Owner Via: ! EmailApplicant Via: D Emailn Engineer Ma: E EmailE omer Via: E Emait E ttiitaiteo Paper copy E ttrtaileo Paper copy E tvtaiteo Paper copy E uaneo Paper copy Address INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT: Com plete all necessery form fields, then select SAVE FORM to save a copy to your device. PRINT FORM and deliver to city along with required documents and payrnent. SUBMIT FORM b send a digital copy to the city for processing SAVE FORTI PRINT FORM SUB N FORM PROPERW OWNER: ln signing this application, l, as property owner, have tull legal capacity to, and hereby do, authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I turther understand that additional fiees may be charged br consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the + city/state/zip: Email: Cell: Fax: 'Othor Contact lntomation: No-o ciMstate/zip: Email: Carver County Public Works 11360 Highway 212, Suite 1 Cologne, MN 55322 Office (952) 466-5200 | Fax (952) 466-5223 | www.co.carver.mn.us CARVER COUNTY August 26, 2019 City of Chanhassen c/o Bob Generous, AICP Senior Planner Phone: 952-227-1131 bgenerous@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Re: Development / Access Review Comments: Moon Valley Pit CUP Extension Plat on County Highway 61 Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject development in the City of Chanhassen. Please reference the Public Works Development Review Process document on the County’s website for detailed instructions. Provided the land use proposal is a plat, the County assumes compliance with State Statute 505.03 Subdivision 2 regarding road authority review for plat approval. Consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan and County Codes, the following are comments and recommended conditions of approval and as potential requirements for any necessary permits to be issued for the project: 1. The proposed Land Development Proposal appears to include several parcels all of which are located adjacent to County Highway 61 and the Minnesota River Bluffs Regional Trail, for which the County is a formal authority or agent for the right of way and facilities. As part of any final approval, a comprehensive parcel and plan map will need to be provided to the County for review and approval showing all of the parcels and buildings from 100 Flying Cloud Drive to 220 Flying Cloud Drive, the City of Chanhassen, Erie Avenue, the Mn River Bluff Regional Trail, and those parcels of 450-470 Flying Cloud Drive, including any and all access permits and cross-access easements related thereto. 2. A comprehensive plan map of the proposed development and lots involved will need to be provided showing the highway right of way adjacent to the subject properties and along County Hwy 61 (Flying Cloud Drive) and the Minnesota River Bluffs Regional Trail. Current info shows that the right of way varies between approximately 80 ft. to 90 ft. along the property frontage. The preferred right of way for a County Highway with a two-lane undivided rural roadway section is 120 ft., or 60 ft. from centerline (Draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan). In addition, this section of County Highway 61 is identified as a Tier 1 RBTN Alignment, as designated by the Metropolitan Council. The preferred right of way for a two-lane undivided rural County Highway with a trail on one side increases by 20 ft. to 140 ft. total. A clear denotation of a setback shall be included and shown on the plan set of between 90 ft. and 100 ft from centerline. The planned ROW and needs for the Regional Trail will need further coordination with the County and the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority. 3. An overall access plan will need to be provided and reviewed and approved by the County related to the Regional Trail and Co Hwy 61. Revisions and / or further review of the access points and turn lane plans for the uses, parcels, and frontage along Co Hwy 61 are needed. This segment of County Highway 61 is designated as Category #5A in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Access Spacing Guidance. The access spacing for this roadway type is: ½ mile full intersection spacing and ¼ mile secondary intersection spacing. The existing access is a full access located approximately 0.32 miles east of Erie Ln. (private road) and approximately 0.39 miles west of the Anderson Conservatory Access. The proposed access just west of Erie Avenue is too close to Erie Ave and the culvert crossing facility of Flying Cloud Drive and will need to be reviewed further. A better location is at the western most parcel line where the existing access serves the 450-470 Flying Cloud Drive addresses. In addition, right turn lanes and left turn lanes may be required unless otherwise determined or provided. 4. An updated Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control Plan, and Stormwater Plan will need to be provided to the County for review and approval. Among other things, the subject Plan will need to show how it relates to the current Co Hwy 61 Reconstruction Plan, the Regional Trail Reconstruction Plan, and related facilities, grading, stormwater, and highway / trail rights of way. 5. All the ponds noted (and unnoted) on the plans will need further review and approval by the County, and eventually reflected in any updated Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control Plan, and Stormwater Plan. a. The most western Pond-1 is located on a City of Chanhassen parcel and the County requests a report of due diligence for western Pond-1 to verify that a pond can be placed in this area due to proximity to potentially contaminated soils. In addition, this pond will need to show how it relates to the current Co Hwy 61 Reconstruction Plan and related facilities and highway right of way. More review and approval of western Pond-1 by the County is required. b. The contours appear to show road and drainage ditches east of western Pond-1 (western Pond-1) that connects/outlets directly to County Highway 61 and bypasses the pond. Please provide more information on what this is. If this is the case, it should connect to the existing Erie Avenue private road to the west. c. It appears that Pond-2 will only capture runoff from the site directly west of the pond based on the contours. The County has existing issues with erosion onto County Highway 61 at the main driveway with rain events. This issue needs to be addressed with the current plans and any expansion. The plan appears like it will make it worse with the east expansion or at least leveling of the site, as it all appears to free flow towards the main driveway unmanaged, based on the County’s information at this time. d. The plans or site currently does not propose a formal pond just to the east of Erie Avenue, the existing creek, and new eastern Pond-1; however, there is an existing informal pond in this location that appears to add flow and silt to this sub area and drainage under Co Hwy 61. A response and clear remedy on the plans related to this will need to be provided for review and approval by the County. 6. The development plan’s interim use and permanent final plans related to but not limited to grading, stormwater / drainage facilities, embankment, erosion control, right of way, and access to and along the Minnesota River Bluffs Regional Trail will need to be reviewed and approved by the County and Parks Manager. 7. The development plan will need to provide some form of reciprocal cross access easement / agreement and construction and maintenance easement / agreement to the County from Co Hwy 61 to the Minnesota River Bluffs Regional Trail at various points, and for the interim and permanent final plans, to be reviewed and approved by the County and Parks Manager. 8. The development plan’s final grading plans, drainage flows, ponds, and right of way along the Regional Trail will need to be reviewed and approved. Prior to development approval, the County will need to review and approve an exhibit drawing with cross sections of the Regional Trial showing proposed grades for the trail and subject lots for the entire frontage of the trail in increments of 50-100 ft sections. A grading permit will be required for grading work within the trail / highway right of way or for any facilities affecting or flowing into or under such right of way. 9. The development plan’s final grading plans, drainage flows, ponds, and right of way along County Highway 61 will need to be reviewed and approved. Prior to development approval, the County will need to review and approve an exhibit drawing with cross sections of County Highway 61 showing proposed grades for the roadway and subject lots for the entire frontage of Co Hwy 61 in increments of 50-100 ft sections. A grading permit will be required for grading work within the highway right of way or for any facilities affecting or flowing into or under the right of way. 10. A final check with the County is required for stormwater/drainage, utility, and access easement needs, as well as water / sewer main and utility needs and locations along County Highway 61 and the Minnesota River Bluffs Regional Trail. 11. The technical details of the parcels of plat, its boundaries and form(s) will need to be reviewed and approved by the County Surveyor. 12. For any work planned or required on a county highway, county or regional trail facilities, the City will be required to enter into a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with the County to formalize that the City is required to be responsible for Plans, Specifications, and Engineering (PS&E) to the County’s standards and requirements, including Construction Administration and Inspection and related activities. Such work requires a CSAH State Aid certified professional engineer and a series of meetings and project development with the County prior to any formal right of way or utility permit applications, to include project scoping, concept development, 30-60-90 PS&E plan development, review, and approval involving the County Engineer. 13. Prior to any work affecting or on County highways, County trails, or in County right of way, the applicant shall coordinate plans with the County Engineer and obtain a Utility or Excavating/Filling/Grading Permit(s) from Carver County Public Works: (http://www.co.carver.mn.us/how-do-i/apply-for/a-permit). Final details of locations, grades, and profiles affecting County roads as well as any utility connections will need to be reviewed and approved prior to any permits. 14. Any damages, modifications, or changes incurred on County highways from current or approved conditions will need to remedied or updated at development expense, including costs incurred by the County. These are the County’s comments at this time. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact those noted below: Dan McCormick, P.E. PTOE Transportation Manager Carver County Public Works Angie Stenson AICP Sr. Transportation Planner Carver County Public Works Martin Walsh Parks and Recreation Director Carver County Summary of State Statute 505.03 Subdivision 2 (text truncated, emphasis added) If any proposed preliminary plat or initial plat filing includes land located in a city or town bordering an existing or proposed county road, highway, or county state-aid highway, and the property, road, or highway is designated on a map or county highway plan, then the plat or plat filing must be submitted by the city or town to the county engineer within five business days after receipt by the city or town of the preliminary plat or initial plat filing for written comments and recommendations. The county engineer's review shall be limited to factors of county significance in conformance with adopted county guidelines developed through a public hearing or a comprehensive planning process with comment by the cities and towns. Within 30 days after county receipt from the city or town of the preliminary plat or initial plat filing, the county engineer shall provide to the city or town written comments stating whether the plat meets county guidelines and describing any modifications necessary to bring the plat into conformity with the county guidelines. No city or town may approve a preliminary plat until it has received the county engineer's written comments and recommendations or until the county engineer's comment period has expired, whichever occurs first. Within ten business days following a city's or town's approval of a preliminary plat, the city or town shall submit to the county board notice of its approval, along with a statement addressing the disposition of any written comments or recommendations made by the county engineer. In the event the city or town does not amend the plat to conform to the recommendations made by the county engineer, representatives from the county and city or town shall meet to discuss the differences and determine whether changes to the plat are appropriate prior to final approval. Full Text of State Statute 505.03 Subdivision 2 Subd. 2.Plat approval; road review. (a) Any proposed preliminary plat in a city, town, or county, which includes lands abutting upon state rail bank property or upon any existing or established trunk highway or proposed highway which has been designated by a centerline order filed in the office of the county recorder shall first be presented by the city, town, or county to the commissioner of transportation for written comments and recommendations. Preliminary plats in a city or town involving state rail bank property or both a trunk highway and a highway under county jurisdiction shall be submitted by the city or town to the county highway engineer as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) and to the commissioner of transportation. Plats shall be submitted by the city, town, or county to the commissioner of transportation for review at least 30 days prior to the home rule charter or statutory city, town or county taking final action on the preliminary plat. The commissioner of transportation shall submit the written comments and recommendations to the city, town, or county within 30 days after receipt by the commissioner of such a plat. Final action on such plat by the city, town, or county shall not be taken until after these required comments and recommendations have been received or until the 30- day period has elapsed. (b) If any proposed preliminary plat or initial plat filing includes land located in a city or town bordering either state rail bank property or an existing or proposed county road, highway, or county state-aid highway, and the property, road, or highway is designated on a map or county highway plan filed in the office of the county recorder or registrar of titles, then the plat or plat filing must be submitted by the city or town to the county engineer within five business days after receipt by the city or town of the preliminary plat or initial plat filing for written comments and recommendations. The county engineer's review shall be limited to factors of county significance in conformance with adopted county guidelines developed through a public hearing or a comprehensive planning process with comment by the cities and towns. The guidelines must provide for development and redevelopment scenarios, allow for variances, and reflect consideration of city or town adopted guidelines. (c) Within 30 days after county receipt from the city or town of the preliminary plat or initial plat filing, the county engineer shall provide to the city or town written comments stating whether the plat meets county guidelines and describing any modifications necessary to bring the plat into conformity with the county guidelines. No city or town may approve a preliminary plat until it has received the county engineer's written comments and recommendations or until the county engineer's comment period has expired, whichever occurs first. Within ten business days following a city's or town's approval of a preliminary plat, the city or town shall submit to the county board notice of its approval, along with a statement addressing the disposition of any written comments or recommendations made by the county engineer. In the event the city or town does not amend the plat to conform to the recommendations made by the county engineer, representatives from the county and city or town shall meet to discuss the differences and determine whether changes to the plat are appropriate prior to final approval. This requirement shall not extend the time deadlines for preliminary or final approval as required under this section, section 15.99 or 462.358, or any other law, nor shall this requirement prohibit final approval as required by this section. (d) A legible preliminary drawing or print of a proposed preliminary plat shall be acceptable for purposes of review by the commissioner of transportation or the county highway engineer. To such drawing or print there shall be attached a written statement describing: (1) the outlet for and means of disposal of surface waters from the proposed platted area; (2) the land use designation or zoning category of the proposed platted area; (3) the locations of ingress and egress to the proposed platted area; and (4) a preliminary site plan for the proposed platted area, with dimensions to scale, authenticated by a registered engineer or land surveyor, showing: (i) the state rail bank property; (ii) the existing or proposed state highway, county road, or county highway; and (iii) all existing and proposed rights-of-way, easements, general lot layouts, and lot dimensions. (e) Failure to obtain the written comments and recommendations of the commissioner of transportation or the county highway engineer shall in no manner affect the title to the lands included in the plat or the platting of said lands. A city, town, or county shall file with the plat, in the office of the county recorder or registrar of titles, a certificate or other evidence showing submission of the preliminary plat to the commissioner or county highway engineer in compliance with this subdivision. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, September 3, 2019 Subject Consider a Request for a Front Yard Setback and Lot Cover Variance to Construct an Attached Garage on Property located at 3713 South Cedar Drive Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.3. Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, Associate Planner File No: Planning Case No. 2019­10 PROPOSED MOTION: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 5­foot front yard setback variance and a 1.83 percent lot cover variance for the construction of an attached garage, subject to the Conditions of Approval; and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is proposing to remove an existing detached one­stall garage and concrete patio area and replace with an attached two­car garage. The existing garage is located approximately 8.2 feet from the front lot line and the property currently has a non­conforming lot cover of 29.43%. The proposed project would increase the front setback to 25 feet and reduce the lot cover to 26.83%. A variance is required due to the fact that the project increases the width of the structure within the front yard setback. The applicant’s proposed project modernizes the property while reducing the existing non­conformities and avoiding the creation of new variances. Staff believes that the applicant has reduced the amount of lot cover as much as is reasonable, and that the proposed addition and two­car garage appropriately balance updating the property with minimizing the required front yard variance. The proposal results in a more modern home with an updated façade, increased front yard green space, additional garage and storage space, and reduced non­conformities. (A full breakdown and analysis of the variance request can be found in the attached staff report.) APPLICANT Susan and Larry Nowlin, 3713 South Cedar Drive, Excelsior, MN 55331 SITE INFORMATION PRESENT ZONING:  Single­Family Residential (RSF) LAND USE:Residential Low Density PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, September 3, 2019SubjectConsider a Request for a Front Yard Setback and Lot Cover Variance to Construct an AttachedGarage on Property located at 3713 South Cedar DriveSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.3.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case No. 2019­10PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 5­foot front yard setback variance and a 1.83percent lot cover variance for the construction of an attached garage, subject to the Conditions of Approval; andadopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is proposing to remove an existing detached one­stall garage and concrete patio area and replace with anattached two­car garage. The existing garage is located approximately 8.2 feet from the front lot line and the propertycurrently has a non­conforming lot cover of 29.43%. The proposed project would increase the front setback to 25 feetand reduce the lot cover to 26.83%. A variance is required due to the fact that the project increases the width of thestructure within the front yard setback.The applicant’s proposed project modernizes the property while reducing the existing non­conformities and avoidingthe creation of new variances. Staff believes that the applicant has reduced the amount of lot cover as much as isreasonable, and that the proposed addition and two­car garage appropriately balance updating the property withminimizing the required front yard variance. The proposal results in a more modern home with an updated façade,increased front yard green space, additional garage and storage space, and reduced non­conformities.(A full breakdown and analysis of the variance request can be found in the attached staff report.)APPLICANTSusan and Larry Nowlin, 3713 South Cedar Drive, Excelsior, MN 55331SITE INFORMATIONPRESENT ZONING:  Single­Family Residential (RSF) LAND USE:Residential Low Density ACREAGE:  .23 acres  DENSITY:  NA  BACKGROUND In 1985, the city granted a variance for the relocation of a detached one­car garage from a nearby property to 3713 South Cedar Drive with a 15­foot front yard setback. On October 16, 1985, the city issued a permit for the relocation of the detached garage. The attached survey indicates a 15­foot front yard setback; however, the garage was actually placed 8.2 feet from the road. On July 12, 2019, the applicant began working with city staff to determine if an addition and attached two­car garage would be feasible. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the 5­foot front yard setback variance and 1.83 percent lot cover variance, subject to the Conditions of Approval; and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision: 1. The applicant must apply for an receive a building permit. 2. The applicant must apply for an receive all necessary permits from the Watershed District. 3. The applicant shall submit a removal plan for the driveway abutting South Cedar Drive right­of­way upon submittal of building permits. The applicant shall also provide an erosion control plan with the grading plans upon submittal of building permits (adhere to city detail #5302B). 4. The applicant shall include all trees 6 inches dbh and larger within the construction limits on the building permit survey and note tree(s) to be removed.  All preserved trees must be protected during construction. 5. One tree will be required to be planted in the front yard if no tree is present at the end of construction. ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report Findings of Fact and Decision Approval Findings of Fact and Decision Denial Variance Document Development Review Application Narrative Survey House Plan Sheets Engineering Memo Landscaping Memo Email Comments CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: September 3, 2019 CC DATE: September 23, 2019 REVIEW DEADLINE: October 1, 2019 CASE #: 2019-11 BY: MW SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is proposing to replace an existing detached one stall garage and concrete patio area with an attached two-car garage. The existing garage is located approximately 8.2 feet from the front lot line and the property currently has a non-conforming lot cover of 29.43%. The proposed project would increase the front setback to 25 feet and reduce the lot cover to 26.83%. A variance is required due to the fact that project increases the width of the structure within the front yard setback. LOCATION: 3713 South Cedar Drive (PID 256600440) OWNER: Susan and Larry Nowlin 3713 South Cedar Drive Excelsior, MN 55331 PRESENT ZONING: RSF 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density ACREAGE: .23 acres DENSITY: NA LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The city’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The city has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 5-foot front yard setback variance and a 1.83 percent lot cover variance for the construction of an attached garage, subject to the Conditions of Approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions.” (Note: A motion for denial and appropriate Findings of Fact are also included at the end of the report.) Planning Commission 3713 South Cedar Drive – Planning Case 2019-11 September 3, 2019 Page 2 of 8 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The existing home was built in 1974 without a garage. In 1985, a 15-foot front yard setback variance was granted to allow for an oversized one-car garage from a nearby property to be relocated onto this property. When the garage was moved, it was situated approximately 8.2 feet from the front lot line, even though the variance required it to be setback 15 feet. Previous owners added a concrete pad between the home and garage as well as a patio area under the deck resulting in a non- conforming 29.43 percent lot cover. The current owners bought the property in June of 2019 and are undertaking efforts to modernize and upgrade the home. Part of the proposed upgrades involves expanding the master bedroom and replacing the existing detached garage with a two-car attached garage. The applicant initially proposed a larger footprint garage and bedroom expansion, which would have required a variance from the property’s side yard setback. After consulting with staff, they chose to redesign their project to minimize the variances required and to significantly reduce the property’s non-conforming lot cover. The proposed addition and two-car garage would require a 5-foot front yard setback variance and a 1.83 percent lot cover variance. Since the property currently has a structure 8.2 feet from the front lot line, the equivalent of a 21.8 foot front yard setback variance, and 29.43 percent lot cover, the equivalent of a 4.43 percent lot cover variance, the applicant feels that their proposal significantly reduces the extent of the current non-conformity. Additionally, they note that the City Code requires single-family homes to have a two-car garage and that their proposal would significantly increase the property’s driveway length and ability to provide off street parking. Finally, they state that the location of the house on the lot prevents the construction of a two-car Planning Commission 3713 South Cedar Drive – Planning Case 2019-11 September 3, 2019 Page 3 of 8 garage that meets the 30-foot front yard setback, similarly the lot’s substandard size means it is not possible to construct a two-car garage with an adequate driveway while remaining under the 25 percent lot cover limit. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 1, General Provisions Section 1-2, Rules of Construction and Definitions Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3, Variances Chapter 20, Article II, Division 4, Non-conforming Uses Chapter 20, Article VII, Shoreland Management District Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single-Family Residential District Section 20-615. Lot Requirements and Setbacks. BACKGROUND County records indicate that the house was built in 1974. In 1985, the city granted a variance for the relocation of a detached one-car garage from a nearby property to 3713 South Cedar Drive with a 15’ front yard setback. On October 16, 1985, the city issued a permit for the relocation of the detached garage. The attached survey indicates a 15’ front yard setback; however, the garage was actually placed 8.2’ from the road. On July 12, 2019, the applicant began working with city staff to determine if an addition and attached two-car garage would be feasible. SITE CONDITIONS The property is zoned Single-Family Residential District and is located within the city’s Shoreland Management District. This zoning classification requires lots to be a minimum of 20,000 square feet, have front and rear yard setbacks of 30 feet, setbacks of 75 feet from the lake’s ordinary high water level, side yard setbacks of 10 feet, and limits parcels to a maximum of 25 percent lot cover. Residential structures are limited to 35 feet in height. The lot is 9,545 square feet, and has 2,809 square feet of lot cover. The detached garage has a non-conforming 8.2 foot front yard setback and the southeast corner of the house has a non- conforming 9.5 foot side yard setback, but the house and rear deck comply with the district’s other setbacks. Planning Commission 3713 South Cedar Drive – Planning Case 2019-11 September 3, 2019 Page 4 of 8 NEIGHBORHOOD Red Cedar Point at Lake Minnewashta The plat for this area was recorded in August of 1913. Over the subsequent century, the City of Chanhassen was formed, a zoning code was passed, the zoning code was amended numerous times, and buildings were built, demolished, and rebuilt to meet the standards and needs of the existing ordinances. Additionally, the neighborhood’s roads were not always constructed within their designated right of way. In some areas, this has led to portions of buildings being located in the right of way and portions of these roads being located within residents’ property lines. Very few properties in the area meet the requirements of the city’s zoning code, and most properties either are non-conforming uses or are operating under a variance. Variances within 500 feet: 1978-07 3637 South Cedar Drive: Approved - 19’ front setback (garage) 1980-08 3629 Red Cedar Point Road: Approved - 12’ front setback, 3’ foot side setback, +1.5’ side setback for (chimney), 20’ lot width, 40’ lot frontage, 13,000 square foot lot area (house) 1984-02 7201 Juniper Avenue: Approved - 8.66’ front setback (addition) 1984-17 3725 South Cedar Drive: Approved (lapsed) - 4.53’ side setback (addition) 1984-18 3707 South Cedar Drive: Approved - 20’ front setback (detached garage) 1985-20 3624 Red Cedar Point Road: Approved - 1.2’ front setback, 4.8’ side setback (detached garage) 1985-26 3713 South Cedar Drive: Approved - 15’ front setback (detached garage) 1985-27 3701 South Cedar Drive: Approved - 5’ front setback 35’ lake setback (house) 1987-13 3629 Red Cedar Point Road: Approved - 12’ front, 3’ side (house) Planning Commission 3713 South Cedar Drive – Planning Case 2019-11 September 3, 2019 Page 5 of 8 1987-15 3725 South Cedar Drive: Approved - 4.53’ side setback (addition) 1991-04 3727 South Cedar Drive: Approved - 79’ lot frontage (house) 1996-04 3705 South Cedar Drive: Approved - 3’ side setback, 31’ lake setback, 50% lot cover (house) 1998-07 7201 Juniper Avenue: Approved - 11.5’ front setback (addition) 2002-05 3628 Hickory Road: Approved - 13’ front setback (Hickory), 2’ front setback (Red Cedar Point), 5’ setback (detached garage) 2004-07 3637 South Cedar Drive: Approved - 19.25’ front setback, 4’ lake setback, 40% lot cover (addition) 2006-04 3633 South Cedar Drive: Approved - 22.5’ front setback, 15.8’ front setback, 2.39% lot cover (garage) 2008-04 3637 South Cedar Drive: Approved - 20.2’ front setback, 8’ side setback (home) 2015-07 3701 South Cedar Drive: Approved - increase existing non-conformity (enclose deck 15’ in lake setback) 2016-11 3627 Red Cedar Point Road: Approved - 13.6’ lake setback, 4.8% LC (home) 2017-09 3622 Red Cedar Point Road: Approved - Intensify non-conforming by raising garage in side yard setback (garage) ANALYSIS Front Yard Setback The property currently has a 16-foot by 22-foot detached garage setback 8.2 feet from the front property line. The applicant is proposing to remove this garage and replace it with a 21-foot wide attached garage setback 25 feet from the front line. The property also has a wide driveway that extends from the eastern edge of the garage to the west lot line. The portion of this paved area west of the garage extends back approximately 16 feet. The applicant’s proposal would remove this paved surface and replace it with a more typical 16-foot by 26-foot driveway. The city establishes front yard setbacks in order to prevent neighborhoods from feeling crowded due to structures being Planning Commission 3713 South Cedar Drive – Planning Case 2019-11 September 3, 2019 Page 6 of 8 located excessively close to the road, to ensure the presence of greenspace, and to provide sufficient driveway length to accommodate off street parking. The proposed project would replace a largely paved and covered front yard that feels like an extension of the street with a traditionally configured driveway flanked by lawn. This combined with increasing the front setback by 16.8 feet will create more of a feeling of separation between the residence and the right-of-way. Finally, replacing the existing parking pad, which can provide off street parking for two cars, with a 16-foot by 26-foot driveway, which can also accommodate two cars, will not result in the loss of any off street parking capacity. Replacing the existing one-car garage with a two-car garage will allow the homeowners to store both vehicles in an enclosed environment and free up the outdoor parking spaces for use by guests. For these reasons staff supports the proposed 5-foot front yard setback variance. Lot Coverage The city requires a minimum lot area of 20,000 square feet for riparian properties and limits these properties to 25 percent lot coverage. The applicant’s lot is substandard with a lot area of 9,545 square feet. The property currently has a lot coverage of 29.43 percent, or 2,809 square feet. When owners propose improvements to properties that have non-conforming lot coverage, the policy is that the existing nonconformity must be reduced; however, there is no formal rule stating how much of a reduction must occur. In this case, the applicants are proposing reducing the lot cover to 26.83 percent, or 2,561 square feet. Reducing the property’s lot cover by 2.6 percent, or 248 square feet, represents a meaningful attempt to minimize the property’s impervious surface. In order to achieve this reduction, the applicant is removing a portion of driveway that currently extends to the western lot line and is confining their addition to areas currently covered by a concrete patio or the existing one car garage, as well as utilizing a relatively modest 16-foot wide driveway. Planning Commission 3713 South Cedar Drive – Planning Case 2019-11 September 3, 2019 Page 7 of 8 The applicant’s proposed lot cover is confined to the footprint of the home and garage, the driveway, a walkway, and a 179 square foot rear patio located under the deck. Staff does not believe that any of these features are unreasonably large, and recognizes that 2,561 square feet of impervious surface is in absolute terms significantly less than what is allowed on most properties in the city. For example, a lot meeting the single-family residential district’s 15,000 square foot minimum lot size would permit 3,750 square feet of impervious surface. For these reasons staff supports the requested 1.83 percent lot cover variance. Impact on Neighborhood Red Cedar Point is one of the oldest neighborhoods in the city. Many of its properties are non- conforming uses, and 20 variances have been given to the 33 properties within 500 feet of 3713 South Cedar Drive. Of those 20 variances, 13 variances were for a reduced front yard setback and four variances were for increased lot cover. Many of the surrounding properties have non- conforming front yard setbacks and lot coverage. Existing Proposed The applicant’s proposal will not negatively impact the existing neighborhood aesthetic, and replacing the existing detached garage with a more setback attached garage will improve the property’s cub appeal. Overall, the proposal matches the general character of the neighborhood and the proposed house façade is similar to what has been constructed on other similarly narrow lots in the area. SUMMARY The applicant’s proposed project modernizes the property while reducing the existing non- conformities and avoiding the creation of new variances. Staff believes that the applicant has reduced the amount of lot cover as much as is reasonable, and that the proposed addition and two-car garage appropriately balance updating the property with minimizing the required front Planning Commission 3713 South Cedar Drive – Planning Case 2019-11 September 3, 2019 Page 8 of 8 yard variance. The proposal results in a more modern home with an updated façade, increased front yard greenspace, additional garage and storage space, and reduced non-conformities. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the 5-foot front yard setback variance and 1.83 percent lot cover variance, subject to the Conditions of Approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. The applicant must apply for and receive all necessary permits from the Watershed District. 3. The applicant shall submit a removal plan for the driveway abutting South Cedar Drive right-of-way upon submittal of building permits. The applicant shall also provide an erosion control plan with the grading plans upon submittal of building permits (adhere to city detail #5302B). 4. The applicant shall include all trees 6” dbh and larger within the construction limits on the building permit survey and note tree(s) to be removed. All preserved trees must be protected during construction. 5. One tree will be required to be planted in the front yard if no tree is present at the end of construction. Should the Planning Commission deny the variance request, it is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion and attached Finding of Fact and Decision: “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the 5-foot front yard setback variance and 1.83 percent lot cover variance for the construction of an attached garage, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.” ATTACHMENTS 1. Finding of Fact and Decision Approval 2. Finding of Fact and Decision Denial 3. Variance Document 4. Development Review Application and Narrative 5. Survey 6. House Plan Sheets 7. Engineering Memo 8. Landscaping Memo 9. Resident Emails G:\PLAN\2019 Planning Cases\19-11 3713 South Cedar Drive VAR\Staff Report-3713 South Cedar Drive_PC.doc 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (APPROVAL) IN RE: Application of Susan and Larry Nowlin for a 5-foot front yard setback and a 1.83 percent lot coverage variance on a property zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF) - Planning Case 2019-11. On September 3, 2019, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 26, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta 4. Variance Findings – Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The intent of the city’s shoreland management ordinance is to protect the city’s aquatic resources by establishing a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet and a maximum lot coverage of 25 percent. These two requirements are designed to work together to allow property owners sufficient lot cover to construct a reasonably sized house and accessory structures while preventing excessive development that could generate unnecessary runoff capable of degrading the lake. In this case, the applicant’s small lot size means the 25 percent lot cover standard does not allow for a reasonable minimum amount of lot cover. Allowing a modest 1.83 percent lot cover variance to facilitate the construction of a two-car garage on a property that is not overbuilt is constant with the intent of the shoreland management ordinance. 2 Additionally, the home has a non-conforming lot cover of 29.43 percent. Under the city’s non-conforming use ordinance the applicant would be entitled to continue the existing non-conformity and the ordinance allows non-conforming uses to be modified or improved so long as the non-conformity is not expanded. Since the applicant is proposing to reduce the property’s lot cover to 26.83 percent, the variance is consistent with the intent of the Chapter. The city’s zoning code requires a minimum front yard setback of 30 feet in order to prevent neighborhoods from feeling crowded due to structures being located excessively close to the road, to ensure the presence of greenspace, and to provide sufficient driveway length to accommodate off street parking. The applicant’s proposal would increase the property’s front yard setback from 8.2 feet to 25 feet, would replace the largely paved front yard with a lawn, and would increase the amount of off street parking on the property. The proposed front yard setback represents a significant reduction to the existing non-conformity and is consistent with the intent of the Chapter. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: A two-car garage is a reasonable use for a single-family home. In this case, the lots substandard size and pre-existing home placement means that it is not possible for a two-car garage to be placed on the property without a variance. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The property is located in an older subdivision and the existing structure does not conform to the current zoning code. The parcel is significantly smaller than the minimum size required for riparian lots zoned RSF. The lot’s substandard size and pre- existing house placement means that a two-car garage cannot be situated on the lot without a variance. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The property is located in one of the city’s oldest subdivisions. The vast majority of the properties within 500 feet of the parcel either have received variances or are non-conforming uses. The proposed addition and two-car garage will not alter the essential character of the locality, and will increase the visual appeal of the property. 3 f. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2019-11, dated September 3, 2019, prepared by MacKenzie Young- Walters, is incorporated herein. DECISION “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a variance request to allow a 5-foot front yard setback variance and a 1.83 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. The applicant must apply for and receive all necessary permits from the Watershed District. 3. The applicant shall submit a removal plan for the driveway abutting South Cedar Drive right-of-way upon submittal of building permits. The applicant shall also provide an erosion control plan with the grading plans upon submittal of building permits (adhere to city detail #5302B). 4. The applicant shall include all trees 6” dbh and larger within the construction limits on the building permit survey and note tree(s) to be removed. All preserved trees must be protected during construction. 5. One tree will be required to be planted in the front yard if no tree is present at the end of construction. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 3rd day of September, 2019. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Steven Weick, Chairman g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-11 3713 south cedar drive var\findings of fact and decision 3713 south cedar drive (approval).doc 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (DENIAL) IN RE: Application of Susan and Larry Nowlin for a 5-foot front yard setback and a 1.83 percent lot coverage variance on a property zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF) - Planning Case 2019-11. On September 3, 2019, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 26, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta 4. Variance Findings – Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The zoning code’s shoreland overlay district was enacted to protect the city’s aquatic resources. Allowing the applicant to exceed the district’s 25 percent lot coverage limit increases the amount of runoff that will be directed to Lake Minnewashta and is contrary to the intent of the ordinance. The City Code allows owners to improve their properties in ways that reduce an existing non-conformity. Increasing the width of the structure located within the front yard setback exacerbates the visual impact of the existing non-conforming front yard setback and is contrary to the intent of the ordinance. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the 2 property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: A two-car garage is a reasonable use for a single-family home; however, the house could be remodeled or relocated on the property to allow for the construction of a two-car garage without a variance. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The pre-existing house placement prevents the proposed garage from meeting the front yard setback. Where the house to be removed or remodeled, a design could be found that met the required setback. Similarly, a smaller footprint home would allow the property to meet the required lot cover limit. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The property is located in one of the city’s oldest subdivisions. The vast majority of the properties within 500 feet of the parcel either have received variances or are non-conforming uses. The proposed addition and two-car garage will not alter the essential character of the locality, and will increase the visual appeal of the property. f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2019-11, dated September 3, 2019, prepared by MacKenzie Young- Walters, is incorporated herein. 3 DECISION “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies a variance request to allow a 5-foot front yard setback variance and a 1.83 percent lot coverage variance.” ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 3rd day of September, 2019. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Steven Weick, Chairman g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-11 3713 south cedar drive var\findings of fact and decision 3713 south cedar drive (denied).doc 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 2019-11 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 5-foot front yard setback variance and a 1.83 percent lot coverage variance. 2. Property. The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as Lot 26, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta. 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. The applicant must apply for and receive all necessary permits from the Watershed District. 3. The applicant shall submit a removal plan for the driveway abutting South Cedar Drive right-of-way upon submittal of building permits. The applicant shall also provide an erosion control plan with the grading plans upon submittal of building permits (adhere to city detail #5302B). 4. The applicant shall include all trees 6” dbh and larger within the construction limits on the building permit survey and note tree(s) to be removed. All preserved trees must be protected during construction. 5. One tree will be required to be planted in the front yard if no tree is present at the end of construction. 4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. 2 Dated: September 3, 2019 CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: (SEAL) Elise Ryan, Mayor AND: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2019 by Elise Ryan, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-03 3617 red cedar point road\variance document 19-03.doc pc 34.;icy - I I 1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division —7700 Market Boulevard CITY OF CIIANIIASSENMailingAddress— P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 lillfPhone: (952) 227-1300/ Fax: (952) 227-1110 APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Submittal Date' \ `• \ 1`-1 PC Date: 1 13 I (moi CC Date: D- ,1 60-Day Review Date: `C.. i I ICI Section 1: Application Type (check all that apply) Refer to the appropriate Application Checklist for required submittal information that must accompany this application) Comprehensive Plan Amendment 600 Subdivision (SUB) El Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers $100 Create 3 lots or less 300 Create over 3 lots 600 + $15 per lot Conditional Use Permit (CUP)lots) El Single-Family Residence 325 Metes & Bounds (2 lots) 300 El All Others 425 Consolidate Lots 150 Interim Use Permit(IUP) El Lot Line Adjustment 150 In conjunction with Single-Family Residence..$325 Final Plat 700 Includes $450 escrow for attorney costs)*All Others 425 Additional escrow may be required for other applications through the development contract. El Rezoning (REZ) Planned Unit Development (PUD) 750 Vacation of Easements/Right-of-way (VAC) $300 Minor Amendment to existing PUD 100 Additional recording fees may apply) El All Others 500 111 Variance (VAR) 200 Sign Plan Review 150 Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Site Plan Review (SPR) Single-Family Residence 150 El Administrative 100 El All Others 275 Commercial/Industrial Districts* 500 Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area: Zoning Appeal 100 thousand square feet) Include number of existing employees: Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) 500 Include number of new employees: El Residential Districts 500 NOTE: When multiple applications are processed concurrently, Plus $5 per dwelling unit (units) the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. Notification Sign (City to install and remove) 200 E] Property Owners' List within 500' (City to generate after pre-application meeting)3 per address 32 addresses) El Escrow for Recording Documents (check all that apply)50 per document El Conditional Use Permit El Interim Use Permit El Site Plan Agreement El Vacation E Variance El Wetland Alteration Permit ElMetes & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.)Easements ( easements) Deeds p?r.. TOTAL FEE: $50.00 '' Section 2: Required Information 1 Description of Proposal: Property Address or Location: 3713 South Cedar Drive Parcel #: 25.6600440 Legal Description: lot 26/27 except westerly 30 feet thereof.Block 4, Red Cedar Point Total Acreage: Wetlands Present? El Yes 0 No Present Zoning: Select One Requested Zoning: Select One Present Land Use Designation: Residential Low DensQ Requested Land Use Designation: Residential Low Density1 Existing Use of Property: residential single family home O Check box if separate narrative is attached. Section 3: Property Owner and Applicant Information APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as applicant, represent to have obtained authorization from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. If this application has not been signed by the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name: Contact: Address: Phone: City/State/Zip: Cell: Email:Fax: Signature: Date: PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do, authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name: Susan and Larry Nowlin Contact:Susan Nowlin 3713 South Cedar DriveAddress: Phone: City/State/Zip: Excelsior, MN 55331 Cell: 651) 235-6202 Email:susan@pecosconsulti .com Fax: Signature: LOo n Date: 8/2/19 This application must be completed in full and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, refer to the appropriate Application Checklist and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural requirements and fees. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. PROJECT ENGINEER(if applicable) Name: Contact: Address: Phone: City/State/Zip: Cell: Email:Fax: Section 4: Notification Information Who should receive copies of staff reports? Other Contact Information: O Property Owner Via: 0 Email Mailed Paper Copy Name: O Applicant Via: 0 Email Mailed Paper Copy Address: Engineer Via: Email Mailed Paper Copy City/State/Zip: Other* Via: Email Mailed Paper Copy Email: INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT: Complete all necessary form fields, then select SAVE FORM to save a copy to your device. PRINT FORM and deliver to city along with required documents and payment. SUBMIT FORM to send a digital copy to the city for processing. SAVE FORM PRINT FORM]SUBMIT FORM VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR 3713 SOUTH CEDAR DRIVE, EXCELSIOR MN 55331 In June of 2019 we purchased 3713 South Cedar Drive, Excelsior MN. The lot is a non-conforming, sub standard lot with a current home and non-conforming single car garage that is in tough shape. We are doing everything we can to remodel/upgrade the home and garage to modern standards. We originally had plans for a more substantial remodel that would have required a side variance for an attached garage. After consulting with McKenzie Walters we learned that was not an appropriate way to go and would further compromise the land vs improve. We worked closely with McKenzie and our architect on a revised plan that reduced the size of the remodel, eliminated the need for any side variance, and allows us to have a small but adequate attached two-car garage. We plan to remove the non-conforming, single car detached garage that is 8.5 feet from the property line and replace this with a two car attached garage. The new garage would be approximately 27.5 feet back from the property line. This significantly reduces the current non-conformity of the single car garage and brings the new garage up to code. Our plan works within the current hardcover requirements and may ultimately reduce the amount of impervious concrete. This plan also allows for a driveway that is long enough for cars to park safely off the road. Due to the length and width of our sub standard lot we cannot get the garage back the full 30 feet. The central character of the neighborhood is non-conforming so this variance would not compromise the neighborhood in any way. P b.. 0 EP rt. I t Z 10i:1 I> n j 46 I I O o nIli I t== p Imo, II uZ lF- _- m O fi O S IIIIII 1 ii/m N CH O i u lig:. A 1'. z l xi a n,:i P ino ii2 lu oo> ELLL=w a it E N ti t p p o- a. m _ o Z Lt A nz N. 0 y e•r.a 3 u i N N 4. v O Ing,. re N-- x I3 uN p u ir> p w d 1^ N C 7/ n l 4. 1,-.- l N I I Will,' e O N e c Hart's Design o Nowlin Residence n Ni : New Home & Remodeling Design 37I 5. Gedar Pr. 952 - 828 - 9906 Excelsior, MN O Eden Prairie, MN 5546 Hart,PesigneComcest.net P 90'-9• Iy 4'-O" 44 1'-10" 10'-2" 2'10" N N N_132 N \ N \t l V n yam\ I o' 81 7,1 a0 ''.4c, 7,7 g. '" E.'O O N nM w4c \ L" I 40 Ziz 1\ I3 % I Io lei I `t1 \\ I e iN O p I I I CR5 6"CMD 3 EOu ( II CR5 0"CMD p y" 0" 16"CONC.ri65. ri QOM W/04 [CDA[ 0 Q I :Inc? I r, Irb e I ^J"i -1---v 000 I I r r-iu \ I 4 iO \. a IN vi li \ 41 o y I\ n iii d. \ r{5.-p„N g NOW cur JC%1511N6 ANDA11ON a e ax_ owi exlsnN6 t E+ z C%15fING r[AMCD WALL FLOOR 41116 t^ VCRIrY INS IL., E% 07O \ 0-Of** _ APPLY 4 MIL.V.P. >u Y p Q yam:31- a^ Ft a a v2"(VP. II aqw- o t:Ilu lar.5* EuMf ^ 0 ^f 2;zwN > a O{r.:MW - Q'u-- i Otlu *E2zcLINCellii0 ~ O tilt i u • V 0 t"-' iel ^Oi +M2AZ N M N N Ey va ^ vt z = u0 - o OEz i^ Mur e i^ 12`6° O .O r""" ^ i il M > Cy w N w w N 7A....-5 ava , M S' I OMP+ D vI i u 1 e j''•: ei Mp// a• O Z , 96"VANITY MO ;\ : i e:0= i i a r= N 3 9'-4" .1.9'-q• 1p-0"1, 9'-10" 4'-1" .I,T U 7.u y, IY 7.11.5+1 ,.-e„ f'-I"z s NY ^ N O :wF u u 1 E. Ciivizn 2 o i w f E. y ; jI _ zz >maim 5 o v 9 s a O < i z 6 t%15fIN6 PCARINO V 2. r f•-1. '11._10" y._0" ' Mt S O 471...X ,7Hart's Design o? Nowlin Residence a 1/41% New Home & Remodeling Design ; 71 3 5. Cedar b r. 952 - 828 - 9906 n\ Excelsior. MN eh O Eden Pr.Irls, MN 00 46 N. N.rtsPa.IgneCeree.st.net Memorandum To: MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner From: Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer CC: Jason Wedel, Public Works Director/City Engineer Ryan Pinkalla, Water Resources Technician Date: 8/19/2019 Re: Front Yard Setback and Lot Cover Variance at 3713 South Cedar Drive – Planning Case 2019-11 The Engineering Department has reviewed the Variance submittal for 3713 South Cedar. These comments are divided into two categories: general comments and proposed conditions. General comments are informational points to guide the applicant in the proper planning of public works infrastructure for this project, to inform the applicant of possible extraordinary issues and/or to provide the basis for findings. Proposed conditions are requirements that Engineering recommends be formally imposed on the developer in the final order. Note that references to the “City Standards” herein refer to the Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. General Comments/Findings 1. Any and all utility and transportation plans submitted with this application have been reviewed for the purpose of determining the feasibility of providing utility and transportation facilities for the project in accordance with City Standards. This recommendation of variance approval does not constitute final approval of details, including but not limited to alignments, materials and points of access, connection or discharge, that are depicted or suggested in the application. The applicant is required to submit detailed construction drawings and/or plat drawings for the project, as applicable. The City of Chanhassen Engineering and Public Works Department will review plans, in detail, when they are submitted and approve, reject or require modifications to the plans or drawings based upon conformance with City Standards, the Chanhassen Code of Ordinances and the professional engineering judgment of the City Engineer. 2. It is the opinion of the Engineering Department that the proposed variance at 3713 South Cedar Drive can be developed in accordance with the requirements of the Chanhassen Code of Ordinances (as it pertains to Engineering and Public Works requirements) and City Standards, provided it fully addresses the comments and conditions contained herein, and can be approved. 3. The property currently has access via South Cedar Road. The applicant’s proposed driveway appears to adhere to City Ordinance Sec. 20-1122. The proposed driveway will have to be constructed in accordance with City Standards (city detail #5209). 4. The applicant is proposing to remove existing sections of bituminous driveway abutting South Cedar Drive right-of-way. All work abutting and/or impacting public right-of-way must meet City Standards. See proposed condition 1. Proposed Conditions 1. The applicant shall submit a removal plan for the driveway abutting South Cedar Drive right-of-way upon submittal of building permits. The applicant shall also provide an erosion control plan with the grading plans upon submittal of building permits (adhere to city detail #5302B). MEMORANDUM TO: MacKenzie Walters, Planner I FROM: Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Specialist DATE: September 3, 2019 SUBJ: Variance for lot cover, 3713 South Cedar Drive Staff recommends that the applicant meet ordinance requirement when applying for the building permit and show all trees within the construction limits on the survey. Any trees scheduled to be preserved will be required to be protected with tree preservation fencing. One tree will be required to be planted in the front yard if no tree is present at the end of construction. Recommendations: 1. The applicant shall include all trees 6” dbh and larger within the construction limits on the building permit survey and note tree(s) to be removed. All preserved trees must be protected during construction. 2. One tree will be required to be planted in the front yard if no tree is present at the end of construction. E9EAtD - .. I?132E.3*tE <s ag P >P&xf; 4s i adi.d;,43.^loli il;HI+;ld pE -J ld O lq) EE!E+t3 t8 $lr '|? iE 5lE €oofoxaooou(! Ei T'o.| t,fcl Go o, Jo o a o o EL OJ =.AJ2 o :ocd ETo qJ o(, 1' o o 3o o =o T' eT'o]; 3=oOJfoOJo:ilo o Jo e- o,t,E o :<. =lct o 0, =.o,aoI -lOJfr(,F!;'!,1O,o3-3=+ooE'G=o. :loo;B=. cl<='od ge'gE I;'5:-r30* g ri EHEEEii a r,rl3 |ol<96il=blldt:Lrr^f ii'HlEilp rE"ii ltlc lEl'- Et6 t3ig 19-ir! l-iiE ,v fT9!3Eei{Es+q. a'-a€ii!Ioi5?otx;l! ?ts,D' -Coi oi5c EEg< =?sE' E, 4s a-o9i Bo.39 S: !{ *i 9oasB;q! EE 9.C \l, 2; li5 ei !r9 a =oIrr!aii r\,oP:tsIF3cfppiso!;3;!6i-9r8t.tf6i\€gf. i, ;oaliari,r!t" -, oc oo o- a c,og CI ,Dltc o ? a I a.ot atca -t tt aIo-) o, .J , , o -rO{,t { E o (/t6-{l n:c66(DatF*i1:$is'iFfE:XgrT =6 s,r5zUo<oa=ElE aDli ai*E^t= t rtPL/6 =.6 /\ ixElDC4l6f A36'et=-N:ze,ANUSPfEE+a."osHo I +>hiii<3 oa =; o!.:€<39s.aiioq ^-Y:!oicI*tsi8+;5d='a, q!,E e.BSina< =oot++91 iQ; a; rft98 IE =3 !t o int;oaE s- :. !J i+a: dI+5;:o_tc" :i 5'O(F aodE3eoE ocrco 9i N, Se =gt@ !o &: *E' o- 9i 36ONt! Ets =,o=!;qfi' Fbi r' (li iric<5lD9oocIg+e6gho3anG6'oaoo.o€.o3z PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, September 3, 2019 Subject Consider a Request for a Variance to Replace and Expand an Existing Garage on Property located at 6641 Minnewashta Parkway Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.4. Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, Associate Planner File No: Planning Case No. 2019­10 PROPOSED MOTION: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 6­foot side yard setback variance and a 3 percent lot cover variance for the expansion of an attached garage, subject to the Conditions of Approval; and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.” SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is proposing replacing the existing attached 19­foot wide two­car garage with a 25­foot wide two­car garage and upper­level bonus room. The existing garage is located approximately 9.8 feet from the side lot line and the property has non­conforming lot cover of 29.95 percent. The proposed project would reduce the side yard setback to 4 feet and reduce the lot cover to 28 percent. The applicant’s proposed project expands the home’s abnormally narrow garage while reducing the property’s non­ conforming lot cover and removing its non­conforming second driveway access. The proposed side yard setback is consistent with the minimum the city requires in order to minimize the chance of runoff adversely impacting the neighboring parcel, and the large distance between the two garages further mitigates the impact of granting the variance. Staff believes the proposed use is reasonable and works to minimize the property’s existing non­conformities and avoids unduly impacting neighboring parcels. A full breakdown and analysis of the variance request can be found in the attached staff report. APPLICANT James and Jean Way SITE INFORMATION PRESENT ZONING:  RSF LAND USE:Residential Low Density PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, September 3, 2019SubjectConsider a Request for a Variance to Replace and Expand an Existing Garage on Propertylocated at 6641 Minnewashta ParkwaySectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.4.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case No. 2019­10PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 6­foot side yard setback variance and a 3 percentlot cover variance for the expansion of an attached garage, subject to the Conditions of Approval; and adopts theattached Findings of Facts and Decision.”SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is proposing replacing the existing attached 19­foot wide two­car garage with a 25­foot wide two­cargarage and upper­level bonus room. The existing garage is located approximately 9.8 feet from the side lot line and theproperty has non­conforming lot cover of 29.95 percent. The proposed project would reduce the side yard setback to4 feet and reduce the lot cover to 28 percent.The applicant’s proposed project expands the home’s abnormally narrow garage while reducing the property’s non­conforming lot cover and removing its non­conforming second driveway access. The proposed side yard setback isconsistent with the minimum the city requires in order to minimize the chance of runoff adversely impacting theneighboring parcel, and the large distance between the two garages further mitigates the impact of granting the variance.Staff believes the proposed use is reasonable and works to minimize the property’s existing non­conformities andavoids unduly impacting neighboring parcels.A full breakdown and analysis of the variance request can be found in the attached staff report.APPLICANTJames and Jean WaySITE INFORMATIONPRESENT ZONING:  RSF LAND USE:Residential Low Density ACREAGE:  .35 Acres  DENSITY:  NA  BACKGROUND County records indicate that the house was built in 1962. On March 29, 1977, a permit was issued for the addition of a family room. In 1992, the city granted a 6­foot lake setback variance for the construction of an addition and deck. On September 22, 1992, a permit was issued for the construction of an addition and deck. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve a 6­foot side yard setback variance and 3 percent lot cover variance, subject to the Conditions of Approval and adopt the attached Findings of Facts and Decision: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Eaves that are between 2 feet from the property line and less than 5 feet from the property line require a one­ hour fire­resistance rating on the underside of the projection. 3. The applicant must apply for and receive all necessary permits from the Watershed District. 4. Submit a grading plan that illustrates existing and proposed grades (if any), include drainage arrows that show the direction of stormwater runoff, and include an erosion control plan. 5. Abandon one of the two driveway accesses off of Minnewashta Parkway serving the property and submit removal plans that are in accordance with City Standards. 6. Edge of the garage foundation must be 5 feet from the south lot line, eaves may project an additional 1 foot. 7. Garage gutter downspouts may not be oriented to the south. ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report Findings of Fact (Approval) Findings of Fact (Denial) Variance Document Development Review Application Narrative Survey House Plans Engineering Memo CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: September 3, 2019 CC DATE: September 23, 2019 REVIEW DEADLINE: October 1, 2019 CASE #: 2019-10 BY: MW SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is proposing replacing the existing attached 19-foot wide two-car garage with a 25-foot wide two-car garage and upper level bonus room. The existing garage is located approximately 9.8 feet from the side lot line and the property has non- conforming lot cover of 29.95 percent. The proposed project would reduce the side yard setback to 4 feet and reduce the lot cover to 28 percent. LOCATION: 6641 Minnewashta Parkway (PID 256150680) OWNER: James and Jean Way 6641 Minnewashta Parkway Excelsior, MN 55331 PRESENT ZONING: RSF 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density ACREAGE: .35 acres DENSITY: NA LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The city’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The city has a relatively high PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 6-foot side yard setback variance and a 3 percent lot cover variance for the expansion of an attached garage, subject to the Conditions of Approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.” (Note: A motion for denial and appropriate Findings of Fact are also included at the end of the report.) Planning Commission 6641 Minnewashta Parkway – Planning Case 2019-10 September 3, 2019 Page 2 of 7 level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The existing home was built in 1962. In 1992, the city granted a 6-foot lakeshore setback variance to allow for the construction of an addition and deck. The applicant has remodeled and modernized the interior of the house; however, the garage is original to the house and needs to be replaced. The existing garage is only 19 feet wide by 22 feet deep and the applicant is proposing expanding its width and depth by 5 feet and adding an upper level bonus room. The proposed expansion would reduce the side yard setback to 4 feet and increase the size of the garage to approximately 25 feet wide by 27 feet deep. The applicant has expressed a willingness to remove the existing non-conforming second driveway access to offset the increased lot cover associated with the proposed garage footprint. Overall, the proposal would reduce the property’s lot cover from 29.95 percent to 28 percent. The applicant has stated that the increased garage size is necessary to comfortably accommodate the parking of two average sized vehicles and provide additional storage space. The applicant has expressed the opinion that their garage is the smallest in the neighborhood and have observed that many surrounding properties have 3-car garages. Finally, they note that there would be approximately 34 feet of separation between their proposed garage and the neighboring home. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 1, General Provisions Section 1-2. Rules of Construction and Definitions Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3, Variances Chapter 20, Article II, Division 4, Nonconforming Uses Chapter 20, Article VII, Shoreland Management District Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single-Family Residential District Section 20-615. Lot Requirements and Setbacks Planning Commission 6641 Minnewashta Parkway – Planning Case 2019-10 September 3, 2019 Page 3 of 7 Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 1, Generally Section 20-908. Yard Regulations Chapter 20, Article XXIV, Division 2, Parking and Loading Section 20-1122. Access and Driveways BACKGROUND County records indicate that the house was built in 1962. On March 29, 1977, a permit was issued for the addition of a family room. In 1992, the city granted a 6’ lake setback variance for the construction of an addition and deck. On September 22, 1992, a permit was issued for the construction of an addition and deck. SITE CONDITIONS The property is zoned Single-Family Residential District and is located within the city’s Shoreland Management District. This zoning classification requires lots to be a minimum of 20,000 square feet, have front and rear yard setbacks of 30 feet, setbacks of 75 feet from the lake’s ordinary high water level, side yard setbacks of 10 feet, and limits parcels to a maximum of 25 percent lot cover. Residential structures are limited to 35 feet in height. The lot is 15,950 square feet and has 4,777.1 square feet of lot cover. The existing house and deck have a non-conforming 52.3 feet lake setback, and the southwest corner of the existing attached garage has a non-conforming 9.8-foot side yard setback. The other elements of the property copy with the district’s standards. NEIGHBORHOOD Pleasant Acres The plat for this area was recorded in January of 1957. This plat predates the formation of the city and since the plat was recorded, the zoning code was adopted and amended multiple times, homes have been built, demolished, and rebuilt to meet the standards and needs of the ordinances that were inforce at that time. Many of the homes in the area are of older construction, built between 1960 and 1990, and some, especially the older homes, do not conform to one or more aspects of the current zoning code, though a relatively small number of these properties have received variances. Planning Commission 6641 Minnewashta Parkway – Planning Case 2019-10 September 3, 2019 Page 4 of 7 Variances within 500 feet: 1992-10 6641 Minnewashta Parkway: Approved - 6’ lake setback (deck and addition) 1997-10 6601 Minnewashta Parkway: Approved - 13’ lake setback (rebuild deck) 1998-09 6621 Minnewashta Parkway: Approved - 28’ lake setback (rebuild deck) 2016-14 3801 Leslee Curve: Denied: Accessory structure over 1,000 square feet ANALYSIS Side Yard Setback The current garage’s 19-foot width is below the 20-foot minimum recommended width for a two-car garage and research shows that 24 feet by 24 feet is the most popular two-car garage size. The applicant’s proposal to increase the garage’s width by approximately 5 feet would not result in an atypically wide garage. Staff did ask the applicant to explore alternative configurations for the garage, such as expanding it into the house rather than into the required side yard. The applicant looked into this option, but stated that it would require the elimination of the home’s entryway and that they were not able to make that configuration work. The applicant’s existing garage is 9.8-feet from the side lot line and the proposed garage expansion would result in a 4-foot side yard setback. The applicant had initially expressed interest in a slightly wider garage with 2-foot long eaves; however, that would have reduced the distance from the edge of the eaves to the side lot line to 2.76 feet and staff expressed concern that this could lead to runoff being directed directly onto the neighbor’s property. After consultation with staff, the applicant revised their proposal to reduce the garage width by .25 feet and redesigned the roofline to utilize 1-foot long eaves. This results in a proposal where the garage foundation would be 5 feet from the side lot line and eaves would encroach an additional foot. The City Code typically allows eaves to project 2.5 feet into a required setback; however, that exemption is not extended to variances and a 4-foot side yard setback variance would be required to accommodate the structure and its proposed eaves. In an attempt to determine a reasonable minimum side yard setback, staff examined other detached single-family zoning districts within the city. The proposed 5-foot lot line setback with an additional foot of encroachment for the eaves would be consistent with the minimum side yard setback required by the Residential Low and Medium Density (RLM) district, which requires alternating 5-foot garage and 10-foot house side yard setbacks, and many of the city’s Planned Unit Development-Residential (PUDR) districts featuring smaller lots, which typically allow for 5-foot garage side setbacks. In both RLM and PUDR districts, the eaves of homes are allowed to encroach up to 2.5 feet into the required setback. It should be noted that these districts permit reduced side yard setbacks in order to offset narrow lot sizes and that some of them, particularly the RLM, have a very different character than the Single-Family Residential (RSF) district where the subject property is located. Planning Commission 6641 Minnewashta Parkway – Planning Case 2019-10 September 3, 2019 Page 5 of 7 Many of the districts that allow for 5-foot garage side setbacks have provisions requiring a minimum 15-foot separation between structures on adjacent lots. This clause helps prevent the sense of crowding that would be created by allowing homes to place their foundations 10 feet apart. In the case of 6641 Minnewashta Parkway, the neighboring home’s side loading garage is setback 27.8 feet from the side lot line, with the edge of their driveway being setback approximately 8 feet from the side lot line. The orientation and distance between the two structures will significantly minimize the impact of the reduced side yard setback on the neighboring property. Staff is typically very hesitant to support requests for side yard setback variances in situations where the property meets the minimum required lot width and where most of the surrounding properties conform to their zoning district’s minimum side yard setback. In this case, staff believes that the proposal is reasonable, will have a minimal impact on the neighboring property, and that there are no practical alternative configurations that would prevent an encroachment into the required side yard. For these reasons, staff supports the requested side yard setback. Lot Cover The city requires a minimum lot area of 20,000 square feet for riparian properties and limits these properties to 25 percent lot coverage. The applicant’s lot is substandard with a lot area of 15,950 square feet. The property currently has a lot coverage of 29.95 percent, or 4,777.1 square feet. When owners propose improvements to properties that have non-conforming lot coverage, the policy is that the existing non-conformity must be reduced; however, there is no formal rule stating how much of a reduction must occur. When the applicant initially brought the proposed project to staff’s attention, staff expressed concern that the garage expansion would increase the property’s lot cover to approximately 31 percent. Staff also noted that the property has a non-conforming second driveway access and requested that the applicant consider removing a driveway access and its associated lot cover to bring the driveway into compliance with City Code and reduce the non-conforming lot cover. The applicant submitted a revised proposal indicating that they would remove the north driveway access and approximately 550 square feet of lot cover. Further reductions to the size of the driveway are not recommended, as the City Code requires a turnaround on driveways accessing collector roadways to ensure safe vehicular access. This change would reduce the property to 28 percent lot cover, a 1.95 percent reduction to the existing non- conformity. Planning Commission 6641 Minnewashta Parkway – Planning Case 2019-10 September 3, 2019 Page 6 of 7 Once the garage expansion is factored in, the applicant’s proposal will remove about 300 square feet of impervious surface from the lot, approximately 2 percent of the property’s lot cover, as well as an additional 285 square feet of impervious surface located within the public right-of-way that is not included in the propery’s lot cover allowance. Staff believes that removing nearly 600 square feet of lot cover associated with the property represents a meaningful attempt to reduce the existing non- conformity. For these reasons, staff supports the 3 percent lot cover variance. Impact on Neighborhood The prevailing character of the houses along the east side of Minnewashta Parkway is that or relatively wide homes situated on shallower lots. Increasing the width of 6641 Minnewashta by approximately 5 feet will not alter the aesthetics of the neighborhood, especially given that there is a large gap between the applicant’s home and their neighbor’s garage. The largest visual impact of the proposed project would be adding the second-level bonus room above the garage; however, at 19 feet high it is still significantly below the District’s maximum height of 35 feet. Additionally, there are also other homes with second story living areas along Minnewashta Parkway. Overall, the proposal is consistent with the general character of the neighborhood and is not expected to negatively impact the area or surrounding properties. Existing Proposed SUMMARY The applicant’s proposed project expands the home’s abnormally narrow garage while reducing the property’s non-conforming lot cover and removing its non-conforming second driveway access. The Planning Commission 6641 Minnewashta Parkway – Planning Case 2019-10 September 3, 2019 Page 7 of 7 proposed side yard setback is consistent with the minimum the city requires in order to minimize the chance of runoff adversely impacting the neighboring parcel, and the large distance between the two garages further mitigates the impact of granting the variance. Staff believes the proposed use is reasonable and works to minimize the property’s existing non-conformities and avoids unduly impacting neighboring parcels. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve a 6-foot side yard setback variance and 3 percent lot cover variance, subject to the Conditions of Approval and adopt the attached Findings of Facts and Decision: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Eaves that are between 2 feet from the property line and less than 5 feet from the property line require a 1-hour fire-resistance-rating on the underside of the projection. 3. The applicant must apply for and receive all necessary permits from the Watershed District. 4. Submit a grading plan that illustrates existing and proposed grades (if any), include drainage arrows that show the direction of stormwater runoff, and include an erosion control plan. 5. Abandon one of the two driveway accesses off of Minnewashta Parkway serving the property and submit removal plans that are in accordance with City Standards. 6. Edge of the garage foundation must be 5 from the south lot line, eaves may project an additional 1 foot. 7. Garage gutter downspouts may not be oriented to the south. Should the Planning Commission deny the variance request, it is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion and attached Finding of Fact and Decision: “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the 6-foot front yard setback variance and 3 percent lot cover variance, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.” ATTACHMENTS 1. Finding of Fact and Decision Approval 2. Finding of Fact and Decision Denial 3. Variance Document 4. Development Review Application and Narrative 5. Survey 6. House Plan Sheets 7. Engineering Memo G:\PLAN\2019 Planning Cases\19-10 6641 Minnewashta Parkway VAR\Staff Report-6641 Minnewashta Pkw_PC.doc 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (APPROVAL) IN RE: Application of James and Jean Way for a 6-foot side yard setback and a 3 percent lot coverage variance on a property zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF) - Planning Case 2019-10. On September 3, 2019, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot Two (2), Block Seven (7), Pleasant Acres, Excepting therefrom: That part of Lot 2, Block 7, Pleasant Acres, Carver County, Minnesota, lying south of a line drawn Easterly and parallel with the North line of said Lot 2, from a point in the West line of said Lot 2, distant 110 feet Southerly of the Northwest corner of said Lot 2, said parallel line being extended Easterly to the shores of Lake Minnewashta. 4. Variance Findings – Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The intent of the city’s shoreland management ordinance is to protect the city’s aquatic resources by establishing a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet and a maximum lot coverage of 25 percent. These two requirements are designed to work together to allow property owners sufficient lot cover to construct a reasonably sized house and accessory structures while preventing excessive development that could generate unnecessary runoff capable of degrading the lake. In this case, the city must balance minimizing the property’s lot cover with allowing for reasonable use of the property. The applicant’s proposal to increase the width of their substandard two-car garage is in line with the City ordinance’s requirement that all single-family homes have a two-car garage. 2 Additionally, the home has a non-conforming lot cover of 29.95 percent and under the city’s Non-Conforming Use Ordinance the applicant would be entitled to continue the existing non-conformity and the ordinance allows non-conforming uses to be modified or improved so long as the non-conformity is not expanded. Since the applicant is proposing to reduce the property’s lot cover to 28 percent, the variance is consistent with the intent of the Chapter. The city’s zoning code requires minimum side yard setbacks of 10 feet to maintain a neighborhood aesthetic, to prevent structures from directing runoff onto neighboring properties, and to accommodate the presence of landings, eaves, and other common features present on the sides of structures. In this case, the structure on the adjacent parcel is located over 27 feet from proposed garage and conditions are being imposed on the variance to minimize the potential for runoff to be directed onto the neighboring property. Additionally, the variance still provides for the minimum structure setback deemed acceptable to prevent negative impacts on adjoining parcels in other zoning districts. Due to the large distance between the existing structure and placement of the foundation 5 feet from the side lot line, the variance is consistent with the intent of the Chapter. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: Expanding a 19-foot wide two-car garage to a 24-foot wide two-car garage is a reasonable use for a single-family home, and the existing placement of the 1962 home does not permit the applicant to expand the garage without encroaching into the side yard setback. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The property is located in an older subdivision and the existing structure does not conform to the current zoning code. The parcel is smaller than the minimum size required for riparian lots zoned RSF. The lot’s substandard size and pre-existing house placement means that the garage width cannot be increased without a variance. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The prevailing character of the houses along the east side of Minnewashta Parkway is that or relatively wide homes situated on shallower lots. Increasing the width of 6641 Minnewashta by approximately 5 feet will not alter the aesthetics of the neighborhood, especially given that there is a large gap between the applicant’s home and their neighbor’s garage. The largest visual impact of the proposed project would be adding the second-level 3 bonus room above the garage; however, at 19 feet high it is still significantly below the district’s maximum height of 35 feet. Additionally, there are also other homes with second story living areas along Minnewashta Parkway. The proposal is consistent with the general character of the neighborhood and it will not alter the essential character of the locality. f. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2019-10, dated September 3, 2019, prepared by MacKenzie Young- Walters, is incorporated herein. DECISION “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a variance request to allow a 6-foot side yard setback variance and a 3 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Eaves that are between 2 feet from the property line and less than 5 feet from the property line require a 1-hour fire-resistance-rating on the underside of the projection. 3. The applicant must apply for and receive all necessary permits from the Watershed District. 4. Submit a grading plan that illustrates existing and proposed grades (if any), include drainage arrows that show the direction of stormwater runoff, and include an erosion control plan. 5. Abandon one of the two driveway accesses off of Minnewashta Parkway serving the property and submit removal plans that are in accordance with City Standards. 6. Edge of the garage foundation must be 5 feet from the south lot line, eaves may project an additional 1 foot. 7. Garage gutter downspouts may not be oriented to the south. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 3rd day of September, 2019. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Steven Weick, Chairman g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-10 6641 minnewashta parkway var\findings of fact and decision 6641 minnewashta pkw (approval).doc 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (DENIAL) IN RE: Application of James and Jean Way for a 6-foot side yard setback and a 3 percent lot coverage variance on a property zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF) - Planning Case 2019-10. On September 3, 2019, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot Two (2), Block Seven (7), Pleasant Acres, Excepting therefrom: That part of Lot 2, Block 7, Pleasant Acres, Carver County, Minnesota, lying south of a line drawn Easterly and parallel with the North line of said Lot 2, from a point in the West line of said Lot 2, distant 110 feet Southerly of the Northwest corner of said Lot 2, said parallel line being extended Easterly to the shores of Lake Minnewashta. 4. Variance Findings – Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The city’s zoning code requires minimum side yard setbacks of 10 feet to maintain a neighborhood aesthetic, to prevent structures from directing runoff onto neighboring properties, and to accommodate the presence of landings, eaves, and other common features present on the sides of structures. Allowing the applicant to reduce their side yard setback would be incongruous with the surrounding properties, most of which meet the required 10-foot side yard setback. Additionally, the proposed reduction could lead to run off being diverted onto the neighboring parcel. Finally, if in the future, the adjacent house was removed and replaced with a home located at its 10-foot side yard setback, the atypically narrow space between the structures would lead to a more 2 crowded feel then is typical for the Single-Family Residential District. For these reasons, granting the proposed variance would not be consistent with the intent of this chapter. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: The homeowner could reconfigure the interior of the home to allow for the expansion of the garage without requiring a side yard setback variance. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The applicant’s need for a variance is cause by the placement of the home on the lot and configuration of the existing garage. There is no factor unique to the parcel that necessitates a variance. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The prevailing character of the houses along the east side of Minnewashta Parkway is that or relatively wide homes situated on shallower lots. Increasing the width of 6641 Minnewashta by approximately 5 feet will not alter the aesthetics of the neighborhood, especially given that there is a large gap between the applicant’s home and their neighbor’s garage. The largest visual impact of the proposed project would be adding the second-level bonus room above the garage; however, at 19 feet high it is still significantly below the District’s maximum height of 35 feet. Additionally, there are also other homes with second story living areas along Minnewashta Parkway. The proposal is consistent with the general character of the neighborhood and it will not alter the essential character of the locality. f. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2019-10, dated September 3, 2019, prepared by MacKenzie Young- Walters, is incorporated herein. 3 DECISION “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies a variance request to allow a 6-foot side yard setback variance and a 3 percent lot coverage variance.” ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 3rd day of September, 2019. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Steven Weick, Chairman g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-10 6641 minnewashta parkway var\findings of fact and decision 6641 minnewashta pkw (denied).doc 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 2019-10 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 6-foot side yard setback variance and a 3 percent lot coverage variance. 2. Property. The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as: Lot Two (2), Block Seven (7), Pleasant Acres, Excepting therefrom: That part of Lot 2, Block 7, Pleasant Acres, Carver County, Minnesota, lying south of a line drawn Easterly and parallel with the North line of said Lot 2, from a point in the West line of said Lot 2, distant 110 feet Southerly of the Northwest corner of said Lot 2, said parallel line being extended Easterly to the shores of Lake Minnewashta. 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Eaves that are between 2 feet from the property line and less than 5 feet from the property line require a 1-hour fire-resistance-rating on the underside of the projection. 3. The applicant must apply for and receive all necessary permits from the watershed district. 4. Submit a grading plan that illustrates existing and proposed grades (if any), include drainage arrows that show the direction of stormwater runoff, and include an erosion control plan. 5. Abandon one of the two driveway accesses off of Minnewashta Parkway serving the property and submit removal plans that are in accordance with City Standards. 2 6. Edge of the garage foundation must be 5 feet from the south lot line, eaves may project an additional 1 foot. 7. Garage gutter downspouts may not be oriented to the south. 4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. Dated: September 3, 2019 CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: (SEAL) Elise Ryan, Mayor AND: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2019 by Elise Ryan, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-03 3617 red cedar point road\variance document 19-03.doc €tPt1- to COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTUENT Planning Division - 7700 Market Boulevard Mailing Address - P.O. Box '147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952) 227-'1300 / Fax: (952) 227 -1110 Submitlal Date ! Comprehensive Plan Amendment......................... $600E Minor MUSA line for failing on-site serryers..... $1OO n Conditional Use Permit (CUP) ! Single-Family Residence! att ottrers....... ! lnterim Use Permit (lUP) E ln conjunction with Single.Family Residence.. $325! All orhers $425 n Rezoning (REz) trn Planned Unit Development (PUO) Minor Amendment lo existing PUD ................. $750 ................. $100 ................. $sm CITY OT CHAI{IIASSII'I APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEWI2-6)no".113l tq ccoateQ(g-[g- sooay Revisv Dare: lo I , ltz (Refer lo tlr€ app,Wdate Applbdi,. ClFcklist lot Gquicd submittal inlol|rltr,ti}]. ths, mun ac@mpany this e4iptb5/.ixl) E SuMivision (SUB) E Create 3 lots or lessE Create over 3 |ots.......................$600 + $15 per lot(_ tots)! Metes & Bounds (2 lots).................................. $300tr!Consolidate Lots. Lot Line Adiustment E Final Plat ............ $300 .. ..........$1s0 $32s $42 $150 $100 ss00 ..........................'..... s700 $1s0 E nn oners....... E Sign Plan Review....................... E Site Plan Review (SPR) tr!Administrative (lncludes $450 escro , br attorney costs)' 'Add,tjo.El escrow may be equiEd fu. ofrrer applicatioos thmqh the de\leloflnent contsct. E Vacation of Easements/Rirht-of-u,ay (VAC)........ $300 (Additionel tEcodnE E€8 m8y +ply) fr v"n nu (vAR)........................... fl Wahnd Alteraion Permit (wAP)!tr E Residential Dislricts $500 Plus $5 per dwelling unit ( units) F Notificetion SilJn (city ro irEts 8nd remoie) El property Owne6' List within 5@' (city to gs{Eratr ster Fs€ppricrtoo m€cfrlg) .... Commercial/lndustrial Districls' Plus $10 per 1,000 square fuet of building ersa:( thousand squar€ fed) 'lnclude nl'mber of llllslhg emdoysG: 'lrrclude number of @ employeB: apptratr SingleFamily Residence .......... t150 .......... $27sAll Others...... I Zoning Appea|..........$100 ! Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA)................. $500 Ill)IE: Wion multlple appllcltions .ro proce6sed concurendy, fhs tPproprlrta to€ Ehrll bo chargod ior each lppllcrtlon. s200 $3 per address( <3' addresses) S fgcrow for Recording Documents (check all thet(-l$t Conditional Use Fermit- Ll Vacation E Maes & Bounds SuMMsion (3 docs.) lv)......................... lntorim Use Permit Variance Easements (_ easements) ....................... $50 per document E Site Plan AgreementE Wetland Alteration Permitl-l oeeos lr, o i6t11- resr )',1 , o0 Section 1: Application Type (check all that apply) Section 2: Required lnformation Description of Poposal Ro wr0ue c--,., J '-'rgt-"a ap'i4 tnJ 7a.e45e a* o-J.1, {.^ .'- boy,(-5 vn..)\4- .,so*\J toe b,-,'lt o ue.,'9 o-. ..- I e. Property Address or Location Parcel #: Select One Legal Description:L o-\ 'z a q.k Wetlands Present? E Yes E No G o53 PI ed*h Total Acreage: Present Zoning Present Land Use Desig nr1;on. Select One Requested Zoning Select One Requested Land Use Desig 6s1ion. Select One Existing Use of Property:Vq9. d ew,-L t $200 lcheck box if separate nanative is attacfied. Section 3: Property Owner and Applicant lnformation AppLlcANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, l, as applicant, represent to have obtained authorization from the property owner to file thb application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. It this applicatioi has not been signed by the pioperty owner, I have attaahed separate documenlation of full legal capacity to file the aPplication. This application should be frocessed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I will keep mysetf informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of lhis application. I furiher understand th;t additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feaslbality studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any aulhorization to proceed with the study, I certify that lhe information and exhibits submitted are true and corecl. Address: Name:Contacl Phone: Cell: Fax: Date Contact: Phone 6lz _ztL-gL-?9 9 6- vwr L city/state/zip PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this applbation, l, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do, authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those conditions, subjecl only to the right to objec{ at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines f;r submission of materbl and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studie8, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify thal the information and exhibits submitted are true and conect. Signature city/state/zip Email Name: C \. a-w Name: f o- -" e 1 Address: G 4 l-rvt Ltc. Par k".-'- br,t Cell: Fax: Cell: Fax: o Signature PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable) Date: )' Address: Contact Phone: City/State/Zip Email: A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. u iredandionmbealnformalandust byfullbemustreqplanstsThaccompaniedbypliap hecklistctheicationBeforethisleOrdncenaappropriateApplapplicationprouslons.filingityapplicab dn icable roced raUrdioanancethendeterminetoaPplpDepartmentspecificn rn9and confer with the Pla requirements and fees. Who should receive copi6 of staff rePorB? ntr!tr Property Owner Ma: E EmailApplicant Ma: ! EmailEngineer Ma: E EmailOthef Ma: E Email E Mailed Paper Copy ! Mailed Paper copy E Mailed Paper Copy ! Mailed Paper Copy City/Statezip: INSTR UCTIONS TO APPLIGANT:Complete all necessary form fields, then selec{ SAVE FORM to save a coPy to your device. PRINT FORM and deliver to city along with requiled documents and payment. SUBMIT FORM to send a digital copy to the city for processing SAVE FORiI PRINT FORITI SUA IT FOR Email: refer to Section4: Notificationlnformation 'Other Contact lnfomatlon: Name: - Address: Email: Thank you for considering our variance We, Jim and Jean Way purchased the home at 6641- Minnewashta Parkway about 25 years ago. What we purchased was a lake front lot that included a house. A fixer upper. The house was built in about 1962. We gutted the interior and totally remodeled the house with the exception of the small attached garage. We also put an addition in the back of the house. We are applying for a variance to build a larger garage which would put our home with the garage about 5 feet from the lot line. We would like to replace the existing garage with a normal/average 2 car garage. From we have determined is our 19 foot wide garage is the smallest garage in this residential area. Many have a 3 car garage. The new garage would be 34 feet from the closest neighbor home just to our South. We believe that with the new garage we would be bringing our home closer to the quality of the surrounding homes. We have discussed our building project with the neighbors. They do support our plan for a larger garage. lt is our opinion along with others that our garage project would have no negative effects on the neighborhood. Only positive effects. These are the problem with existing garage. 1. Poor original workmanship. 2. The roof sags in the middle. 3. The Span Crete floor has deep cracks across the full length ofthe floor. The garage floor is endangered of collapsing and falling in the storage space below. 4. The width of the garage is only 19 feet on the inside. You can get 2 compact cars in the garage which is a tight fit. lf you have a passenger, the passenger needs to exit the car before it can be driven into the garage. We would like to replace the garage with a garage with adequate space for 2 cars and some storage. The footprint of the new garage would be about 5 feet wider and about 5 feet deeper. Thank you very much for your consideration of this variance request. Memorandum To: MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner From: Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer CC: Jason Wedel, Public Works Director/City Engineer Ryan Pinkalla, Water Resources Technician Date: 8/16/2019 Re: Side Yard Setback and Lot Cover Variance at 6641 Minnewashta Parkway – Planning Case 2019-10 The Engineering Department has reviewed the Variance submittal for 6641 Minnewashta Parkway. These comments are divided into two categories: general comments and proposed conditions. General comments are informational points to guide the applicant in the proper planning of public works infrastructure for this project, to inform the applicant of possible extraordinary issues and/or to provide the basis for findings. Proposed conditions are requirements that Engineering recommends be formally imposed on the developer in the final order. Note that references to the “City Standards” herein refer to the Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. General Comments/Findings 1. Any and all utility and transportation plans submitted with this application have been reviewed for the purpose of determining the feasibility of providing utility and transportation facilities for the project in accordance with City Standards. This variance approval does not constitute final approval of details, including but not limited to alignments, materials and points of access, connection or discharge, that are depicted or suggested in the application. The applicant is required to submit detailed construction drawings and/or plat drawings for the project, as applicable. The City of Chanhassen Engineering and Public Works Department will review plans, in detail, when they are submitted and approve, reject or require modifications to the plans or drawings based upon conformance with City Standards, the Chanhassen Code of Ordinances and the professional engineering judgment of the City Engineer. 2. It is the opinion of the Engineering Department that the proposed variance at 6641 Minnewashta Parkway can be developed in accordance with the requirements of the Chanhassen Code of Ordinances (as it pertains to Engineering and Public Works requirements) and Construction Standards, provided it fully addresses the comments and conditions contained herein, and can be approved. 3. The property currently has no drainage and utility easements within the side lot area (south property line) where the variance is proposed, and would require no encroachment agreements. 4. It appears that the existing topography would direct additional stormwater runoff from the proposed addition away from the abutting property to the south. Nonetheless, upon submittal of building permits, a grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City. See proposed condition 1. 5. The property currently has dual access (two driveway entrances for the one property) off Minnewashta Parkway. Minnewashta Parkway is defined as a collector street under City Ordinances Sec. 20-5. In accordance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the policies within, the City “will strive to discourage… and limit access to collector streets.” The applicant shall abandon one of the two access points to the property off of Minnewashta Parkway in accordance with City Standards. See proposed condition 2. Proposed Conditions 1. Submit a grading plan that illustrates existing and proposed grades (if any), include drainage arrows that show the direction of stormwater runoff, and include an erosion control plan. 2. Abandon one of the two driveway accesses off of Minnewashta Parkway serving the property and submit removal plans that are in accordance with City Standards. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, September 3, 2019 Subject Approval of Planning Commission Minutes dated August 20, 2019 Section APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No: E.1. Prepared By Nann Opheim, City Recorder File No:  PROPOSED MOTION: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the minutes from their August 20, 2019 Planning Commission meeting. ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated August 20, 2019 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated August 20, 2019 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES AUGUST 20, 2019 Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Weick, Mark Undestad, Mark Randall, Michael McGonagill, Doug Reeder, and Laura Skistad MEMBERS ABSENT: John Tietz STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and George Bender, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: LIFE TIME FITNESS PARKING LOT ADDITION SITE PLAN REVIEW. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Commissioners Reeder and McGonagill asked for clarification on the need for additional parking spaces. Representing the applicant, Justin Schmidt addressed the need for additional parking on the site. Kristie Elfering with Elfering and Associates clarified the issue regarding irrigation. Chairman Weick opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. Undestad moved, Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the site plan for a 184 space parking lot expansion for a off-site parking lot for the Life Time Fitness campus, subject to the following conditions and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation: Building 1. The addition of parking spaces requires additional accessible parking spaces be provided per the Minnesota Accessibility Code. The additional accessible spaces shall be distributed to locations at or near the accessible entrances of the four Life Time buildings noted on the plan. Engineering 1. On sheet C1.00: Under the governing specification notes, reference the City of Chanhassen’s Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. 2. On sheet C2.00: Existing utilities illustrated on Water Tower Place do not match city records, the developer should request appropriate shape files and as-builts from the city to accurately depict existing locations of utilities for clarity (e.g. the fire hydrant located on Planning Commission Summary – August 20, 2019 2 the east corner of the driveway approach to 2932 Water Tower Place is not illustrated, draintile in the area is not illustrated, etc.). 3. On sheet C3.00: Field locate the existing sanitary sewer service stub and have the plans updated to the exact location; electrical wiring is not illustrated between lights to be removed, show all electrical wiring and call-out removal; plans indicate the reuse and salvage of existing gravel, illustrate location of stockpiles either on sheet C3.00 and sheet C6.00. 4. On sheet C5.00: From the “Utilities Symbols” the existing and proposed storm manhole appear the same, adjust for clarity; from the “Utilities Symbols” there are multiple line types/symbols that are unused in the plan sheets, remove any unused line types for clarity, also ad symbol for “light grey” pavement that is hatched within majority of work area; add ADA compliant ramps; storm structures (catch basins, storm manholes, etc.) that have inverts should be labeled with direction of invert (N, S, E, W) connection type (IN/OUT); illustrate locations of access pits for Stormtech system; RCP pipe from CB 6 to STMH 5 shall be 15” diameter; adjust symbol if storm infrastructure is called out as STMH as currently all STMH’s are symbolized as proposed catch basins; show connection to outlet control structure and reference detail and/or sheet the detail is located on for clarity (STMH 7); reference city detail #5207 for driveway entrance off Water Tower Place; correct name to Water Tower Place; connection to existing STMH on southeast corner of site references “verify existing invert,” applicant shall field verify and update plans accordingly; add note to abandon 6” PVC sanitary stub and to coordinate with Public Works @ 952-227-1300 48-hours prior to commencement of work. 5. On sheet C6.00: Call out for rock construction entrance should also illustrate the entrance on plans; remove silt fence where rock construction entrance is located for proper ingress/egress; relocate silt fence on far east side to the edge of the extents of proposed grading (approximately 40’ to the west), and not on existing impervious surface, adaptively manage with bio logs and other approved erosion control BMPs when tying in new and existing bituminous; show stockpile of salvaged gravel and methods for erosion and sediment control; remove call out for existing and proposed contour and add line types to symbols. 6. On sheet C8.00: The planting legend indicates areas where work would include “sod- disturbed areas”, however no areas are proposed or illustrated to be sodded, update accordingly. 7. On sheet C10.00: Add applicable city details per updates required from Conditions 1-6, which includes, but are not limited to, driveway details, erosion control details, and storm pipe bedding details. 8. On sheet C13.00: Provide MPCA issued Construction Stormwater General Permit; update SWPPP to include every requirement listed under Sections 5.2-5.26 of the NPDES general permit. Planning Commission Summary – August 20, 2019 3 9. On sheet E0.1: Light pole base detail does not provide dimensions of concrete base, rebar spacing, depths, etc., update accordingly; electrical conduit/wire is difficult to read on plans, enlarge text for clarity; provide legend; provide north arrow; Key Note 3 shall replace the word “abandon” with “remove”; Key Note 4 indicates “conductors to be removed”, locate conductors on plan. 10. Provide an updated stormwater report that indicates the property owner and their contact information along with the consultant/engineer who produced the analysis and their contact information. 11. The stormwater report indicates that the underground system will utilize biofiltration. Provide an update to the report that clarifies how biofiltration will be achieved. Environmental Resources 1. All parking lot islands and peninsulas that contain a tree must have an inside width of 10 feet. Parking lot landscaped islands and peninsulas are required to have proper planting soil and irrigation. Planning 1. The applicant shall enter into a Site Plan Agreement and provide the security required by it prior to receiving a building permit. 2. A separate sign permit application, review and approval shall be required prior to site sign installation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. NEW BUSINESS. Bob Generous reviewed items scheduled for the next Planning Commission meeting on September 3, 2019. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Randall noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 16, 2019 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Bob Generous reviewed action taken by the City Council at their July 22, 2019 and August 12, 2019 meetings and the Star Tribune article regarding Carver County. Planning Commission Summary – August 20, 2019 4 Commissioner Undestad moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 20, 2019 Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Weick, Mark Undestad, Mark Randall, Michael McGonagill, Doug Reeder, and Laura Skistad MEMBERS ABSENT: John Tietz STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and George Bender, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: LIFE TIME FITNESS PARKING LOT ADDITION SITE PLAN REVIEW. Weick: Bob, if you want to take it away. Generous: Yes thank you Chairman, commissioners. As you stated we have a public hearing tonight is a Life Time Fitness parking lot, Planning Case number 2019-09. It’s site plan review for 184 space parking lot expansion. This site, the applicant is Life Time and LTF Real Estate Company is the property owner. As you stated this item is going to Planning Commission, or to City Council next Monday night so it’s a quick turnaround. The property is located at 2970 Water Tower Place. It’s Lot 1, Block 1, Arboretum Business Park 5th Addition. It’s just to the west of this is Highway 41. There’s about a 14 foot drop down from the right-of-way to this site. At some time in the future if 41 is ever lowered that roadway will connect and there’ll be a right- in/right-out at that location. Previously this site had been used for an outdoor exercise facility but now they’re coming in to provide additional parking for the Life Time campus. They own the 3 properties to the north of this as well as the office building to the east of it. The site plan approval for a 213 stall parking lot. They’re adding 184 parking stalls to the site. When the office building to the east of this was built they provided a row of parking that just intruded onto this site. There’s a drive aisle that goes down the middle of the two property lines. As part of the subdivision for the 5th Addition there is cross access and cross easement agreements that were recorded for the two sites. The property is guided for Office Industrial use. It’s zoned Planned Unit Development. It’s the Arboretum Business Park Planned Unit Development. Office and health club parking are permitted uses in the PUD. Not very exciting site plan. It’s a basic parking lot. They’re complying with all the requirements of our ordinance with it. They’re trying to come in as part of this we will put other improvements in. Lighting for the parking area. Landscaping and stormwater improvements. As part of the site plan they don’t show any signage for the property. However under the zoning they would be permitted to come in with a monument sign if they so desired. Grading plan. The site is fairly level right now. They’re just going to grade it out so it drains towards the northeast I believe it is. There will be catch basins Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 20, 2019 2 on that side to take the water to the infiltration system. They will be providing quite a bit of landscaping on this site. I was sort of excited of making this slide because I was able to add both the legend and the plan together so we can tell what those symbols mean. They provided overstory parking. The aisles that don’t have any overstory parking in it will have light poles ins them so we didn’t, we have understory trees that they work out a lot better for everyone. And landscaping does need to be irrigated so they’ll have to incorporate that. That conflicts with one of the conditions that engineering had about abandoning the water service so they’d have to resolve that. As you’ve seen in a lot of new developments the stormwater system is an underground infiltration system so they’ll have the water go through and be treated and then it will connect into the existing stormwater system that goes down the hill to Arboretum Business Park outlot which is an centralized stormwater pond. Staff is recommending approval of the site plan subject to the conditions in the staff report. I should note that condition number 3 of the planning conditions should be deleted. It inadvertently got copied from another report and so, but there’s no articulation in any architecture with this site plan so. And adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Weick: Anybody can jump in. Reeder: Mr. Chairman my question is why do they need so much extra parking that we don’t have now? Weick: Is that something better for the applicant? Generous: Yeah I believe the applicant will be able to address that one. Weick: Can we save that one? Reeder: Yeah. Weick: Perfect. McGonagill: So Bob how many, if you can tell me, how many parking spaces are there today and where are they proposing to go to? I’m trying to get a percentage of growth on it. Generous: On this specific site or overall? McGonagill: It looks like to me it’s a corporate site. They’re all… Generous: Yeah the applicant has those numbers I believe. And I believe business has been good for them and so that’s why they need those. Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 20, 2019 3 McGonagill: Well yeah it’s always busy there but outside of this, I mean refresh my memory. The last growth, the last plan that was approved there for the expansion was when? 2008? 2017? Generous: Yeah, for expansion? McGonagill: Well you know they made some building recently here. Generous: Yeah those were approved like 10 years ago. McGonagill: Okay. Generous: And then they built the health club and the first office building and then they started the second office building and finally are in for completing that project. McGonagill: And so that second office building was approved when? Generous: Oh about 10 years ago. It was a two phase development. McGonagill: Okay thanks. Generous: I think I had that in the history. McGonagill: 2004, thanks. Generous: So 15 years ago. Yeah August, 2004 it was approved. Weick: Any other questions for the City? Are you thinking Mr. McGonagill? McGonagill: Oh no I’m done. Weick: Okay I didn’t know if you were pondering something else or not. Okay. Yeah go ahead. Skistad: I had several things. I’m just wondering is that a second, are the office buildings just Life Time office buildings or are they going to be rented out to other businesses? Generous: I believe they’re all for the corporate operations. And they actually reduced the floor space for offices on the second office building to provide additional interior parking stalls so. They’ve got too many people driving. Weick: Okay, well it sounds like we have a few questions for the applicant but I will certainly allow you to make a presentation first if you want to add anything. Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 20, 2019 4 Justin Schmidt: So we’re just doing a quick, sorry. Weick: Oh that’s okay. Justin Schmidt: One sec. Weick: Yeah take your time. Well don’t take your time but take some time. Generous: I need to…for all this stuff. Reeder: Mr. Chairman when they got approval for the second office building they’re building on every corner which was parking approved with that? I mean I assume it was. I mean. Generous: Mr. Chairman yes. They meet our standards down below. It’s just their operation is such that they need a lot more. They need more. Reeder: I mean because parking lots don’t pay a lot of taxes. Generous: No. Weick: Yeah. McGonagill: I assume they’re still within the code for hard pan with this. Like the number of impervious surfaces percentage, I didn’t look at that. Generous: Yes they comply with the ordinance requirement. And also as part of it getting the stormwater improvements so they’re getting the pre-treatment of the water before it goes into our system. McGonagill: Okay thank you. Skistad: So does that save us money from a, a state standpoint if we treat it. If it’s treated first and then it goes into the stormwater. Generous: George I don’t know if we can answer this. Pre-treatment saves the City any money in our system? Bender: I don’t know 100 percent for sure but I don’t believe it does. Skistad: It seems like it should, doesn’t it? Bender: Like I said I couldn’t say for sure. Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 20, 2019 5 Generous: I would venture that we save because they are responsible for the maintenance of that system as opposed to the City having to do those so. Long term. Weick: Well welcome. Justin Schmidt: Thank you. Weick: Yeah you bet. Justin Schmidt: I’m Justin Schmidt, a manager for Life Time. We didn’t prepare any presentation but I came here of course to answer any questions and we were just doing some quick math on that existing parking versus the proposed. So existing parking for the campus, so that would be the 3 buildings that would be on let’s say the Life Time campus plus the Water Tower Place piece, that’s 1,221 stalls. Weick: Okay. Justin Schmidt: We’re adding about 24 percent more for a total of 1,519 because we’ll have some head in stalls on the Life Time lots we’ll call them on the north and the south side and then we’ll have the Water Tower Place addition, that’s the easiest way to sort of make sense. As far as additional parking, yeah to Bob’s point. We’ve grown. We’ve expanded staff wise in incredible amounts so that’s why we’re building Corp 2 and then just realizing that parking was not going to work as far as coinciding with how well the fitness piece has been doing. Weick: So that kind of answers why, I think why so much parking is needed. Reeder: Well I’m still not sure. Are we exceeding what we require for parking? Is that what I’m hearing? Justin Schmidt: Yeah. Yeah requirement baseline yes. Reeder: And what you’re saying is that you’re 200 spaces short from your daily requirement for parking? Justin Schmidt: We believe so. Yes. Reeder: Based on? Justin Schmidt: Well it’s talking with traffic engineers and just internal data. Reeder: Okay. Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 20, 2019 6 Justin Schmidt: In order to help relieve parking too we actually, Corp 2 was supposed to be 3 levels of office. The first level is actually still parking so we actually took out the congestion of one level of that building just to alleviate some of that parking. Because if Corp 2 was built out we’d need even more parking. Reeder: Corp 2 is the one? Justin Schmidt: Sorry that’s the building that’s under construction. Reeder: Under construction now. Justin Schmidt: Correct, yep. McGonagill: So is your plan to build it out and so will you be back here again doing this again? Justin Schmidt: Hopefully not. It’s just parking now. McGonagill: If you build out the Corp 2 to become offices or is it always going to be parking? Justin Schmidt: So the first level of Corp 2 is going to be parking forever. Indefinitely. You know to my knowledge and then the second and third levels will be occupied for office. So we’ll have a basement, underground parking in the basement. The first level will be at grade parking inside and then second level and third level will be occupied by office. McGonagill: So I guess the question I have, you have a 24 percent miss in parking spots. What busted? Justin Schmidt: Well the thing that put it over the edge was the construction of Corp 2 and the mobilization area that’s needed to construct that. You know we missed out on all that surface stalls that are currently being occupied by construction equipment. McGonagill: But that will be taken care when construction is done right? Justin Schmidt: Yes. And so then indefinitely when Corp 2 was built just we were going to have to find a parking solution. McGonagill: So is this a temporary parking solution since you’re taking up these corporate stalls with construction equipment? Once that’s done then those stalls re-up again. Justin Schmidt: We’ll still those. Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 20, 2019 7 McGonagill: So I’m not following you. The bust was you just said that it was due to the fact that you had construction equipment on existing parking lot and you took it out of service for a while. Justin Schmidt: Sorry, and in addition with Corp 2 being built that was just going to cause an additional parking constraint. McGonagill: But you didn’t put that in the original design for Corp 2? Justin Schmidt: I don’t think, I don’t think we anticipated how well the athletic piece parking wise was going to take up. Reeder: Mr. Chairman when we considered Corp 2 did we have a parking plan that said they gave us this much parking as they’re required to have? Generous: Yes under, Mr. Chairman under city code they did meet the requirements. Reeder: With or without their first floor parking? Generous: Without that first floor parking. They put an additional. Reeder: So that building stands on it’s own without this lot? Generous: Yes. From a zoning standpoint but from their operation standpoint it’s not meeting their needs. Skistad: And so that was 10 years ago. So 10-15 years ago, okay. Weick: And there was another question, I think Commissioner Skistad asked, and I think we know the answer but these are Life Time only uses for these buildings. Justin Schmidt: Correct. Weick: You’re not renting out space to other people. Justin Schmidt: No. McGonagill: But if you had to take the growth between the 24 percent, the 24 percent swag that you’re going to, how much is consumed, of that is really being consumed by users as opposed to your staff so you think? The growth. I’m just trying to get a feel for it. Justin Schmidt: I would attribute a majority to staff. I guess I couldn’t give you a percentage. I would say a majority. A high majority. Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 20, 2019 8 McGonagill: Where are they parking today since you don’t have it? Justin Schmidt: There’s a temporary parking lot in this alpha field right now. McGonagill: Oh in the. Justin Schmidt: Where we’re proposing to park. To put in an asphalt parking lot. Reeder: And how many cars fit in that? Justin Schmidt: I think, I mean it’s not striped. It was just a temporary lot to relieve congestion during construction. Reeder: Are we talking 200 or? Justin Schmidt: It’s probably 150. It’s not as big as what the buildout is proposed to be. Reeder: Okay. Okay, alright. That’s helpful. I mean it’s refreshing to have somebody provide as much parking as you actually need. Weick: I would agree with you. Reeder: You know they put a parking ramp up…on this huge parking lot too. Weick: Well they’re expensive. I won’t speak for you. Justin Schmidt: They are. Weick: Good. Kristie Elfering: And if I can just interject. Weick: Yes please. Kristie Elfering: My name is Kristie Elfering. I’m with Elfering and Associates. We assisted Life Time with the site civil work. Weick: Welcome. Kristie Elfering: And I’m going to throw a little wrinkle in there I guess that we weren’t aware of, that Bob was mentioning in his presentation is a requirement for irrigation. We actually had a meeting with the watershed this morning and they were pretty adamant that we not irrigate it and Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 20, 2019 9 that’s going to be part of their requirements so I guess we would look for a, I don’t know if that would be a variance then or. McGonagill: So does that affect the trees? Kristie Elfering: No. So all of the trees are planning on being there and then what we’re going to do is there will be a rock, I’m going to call a trench I guess beneath it that will connect into the storm sewer system so the roots will be able to go down into the ground and draw from our underground storm system and so that was why it was required to not be infiltrated. That we’re not adding additional water on the top. That we’re meeting kind of our requirements through that. Generous: And that type of system would meet the irrigation requirements. Weick: Okay. Kristie Elfering: So I guess yeah I just wanted to be clear that we weren’t going against our. Weick: Anything is written right? Okay. Kristie Elfering: Okay just wanted to be clear because I just talked to the watershed and I didn’t want to go back to them and be like oh now we’re irrigating. Weick: Thank you. That’s very good information. Well thank you very much. Appreciate it. At this time we will open the public hearing portion. Anyone wishing to come forward and speak an opinion. Seeing nobody come forward I will close the public hearing and open this item for commissioner discussion. I’ll start. I will say as a member of Life Time Chanhassen I have had to leave, I’ve driven in. I’ve driven around and I’ve had to leave because I could not find a parking. And I was like ah, I’m not going to circle around and wait right, so I just, I went back home. So it happens. It happens at this club. It happens at other clubs too as a matter of fact. I would say that’s a good problem to have probably. But I think any additional parking, whether it be for members or for employees is probably needed for sure and will help alleviate for them you know some headaches I would imagine. Other thoughts or comments? Undestad: Looks good to me. Growth is always good. Weick: Certainly entertain a motion if someone is so. Undestad: Well I’ll make a motion. That the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the site plan for 184 space parking lot expansion subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. And Bob do we need to do anything with number 3 in there? Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 20, 2019 10 Generous: Oh yeah delete. Weick: Condition number 3. Undestad: Delete planning condition number 3. Weick: We have a valid motion. Do we have a second? Randall: Second. Weick: We have a valid motion and a second. Any comment regarding this item before we vote? Undestad moved, Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the site plan for a 184 space parking lot expansion for a off-site parking lot for the Life Time Fitness campus, subject to the following conditions and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation: Building 1. The addition of parking spaces requires additional accessible parking spaces be provided per the Minnesota Accessibility Code. The additional accessible spaces shall be distributed to locations at or near the accessible entrances of the four Life Time buildings noted on the plan. Engineering 1. On sheet C1.00: Under the governing specification notes, reference the City of Chanhassen’s Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. 2. On sheet C2.00: Existing utilities illustrated on Water Tower Place do not match city records, the developer should request appropriate shape files and as-builts from the city to accurately depict existing locations of utilities for clarity (e.g. the fire hydrant located on the east corner of the driveway approach to 2932 Water Tower Place is not illustrated, draintile in the area is not illustrated, etc.). 3. On sheet C3.00: Field locate the existing sanitary sewer service stub and have the plans updated to the exact location; electrical wiring is not illustrated between lights to be removed, show all electrical wiring and call-out removal; plans indicate the reuse and salvage of existing gravel, illustrate location of stockpiles either on sheet C3.00 and sheet C6.00. 4. On sheet C5.00: From the “Utilities Symbols” the existing and proposed storm manhole appear the same, adjust for clarity; from the “Utilities Symbols” there are multiple line Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 20, 2019 11 types/symbols that are unused in the plan sheets, remove any unused line types for clarity, also ad symbol for “light grey” pavement that is hatched within majority of work area; add ADA compliant ramps; storm structures (catch basins, storm manholes, etc.) that have inverts should be labeled with direction of invert (N, S, E, W) connection type (IN/OUT); illustrate locations of access pits for Stormtech system; RCP pipe from CB 6 to STMH 5 shall be 15” diameter; adjust symbol if storm infrastructure is called out as STMH as currently all STMH’s are symbolized as proposed catch basins; show connection to outlet control structure and reference detail and/or sheet the detail is located on for clarity (STMH 7); reference city detail #5207 for driveway entrance off Water Tower Place; correct name to Water Tower Place; connection to existing STMH on southeast corner of site references “verify existing invert,” applicant shall field verify and update plans accordingly; add note to abandon 6” PVC sanitary stub and to coordinate with Public Works @ 952-227-1300 48-hours prior to commencement of work. 5. On sheet C6.00: Call out for rock construction entrance should also illustrate the entrance on plans; remove silt fence where rock construction entrance is located for proper ingress/egress; relocate silt fence on far east side to the edge of the extents of proposed grading (approximately 40’ to the west), and not on existing impervious surface, adaptively manage with bio logs and other approved erosion control BMPs when tying in new and existing bituminous; show stockpile of salvaged gravel and methods for erosion and sediment control; remove call out for existing and proposed contour and add line types to symbols. 6. On sheet C8.00: The planting legend indicates areas where work would include “sod- disturbed areas”, however no areas are proposed or illustrated to be sodded, update accordingly. 7. On sheet C10.00: Add applicable city details per updates required from Conditions 1-6, which includes, but are not limited to, driveway details, erosion control details, and storm pipe bedding details. 8. On sheet C13.00: Provide MPCA issued Construction Stormwater General Permit; update SWPPP to include every requirement listed under Sections 5.2-5.26 of the NPDES general permit. 9. On sheet E0.1: Light pole base detail does not provide dimensions of concrete base, rebar spacing, depths, etc., update accordingly; electrical conduit/wire is difficult to read on plans, enlarge text for clarity; provide legend; provide north arrow; Key Note 3 shall replace the word “abandon” with “remove”; Key Note 4 indicates “conductors to be removed”, locate conductors on plan. 10. Provide an updated stormwater report that indicates the property owner and their contact information along with the consultant/engineer who produced the analysis and their contact information. Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 20, 2019 12 11. The stormwater report indicates that the underground system will utilize biofiltration. Provide an update to the report that clarifies how biofiltration will be achieved. Environmental Resources 1. All parking lot islands and peninsulas that contain a tree must have an inside width of 10 feet. Parking lot landscaped islands and peninsulas are required to have proper planting soil and irrigation. Planning 1. The applicant shall enter into a Site Plan Agreement and provide the security required by it prior to receiving a building permit. 2. A separate sign permit application, review and approval shall be required prior to site sign installation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Weick: Hearing none the motion passes 6 to 0. McGonagill: Not too often that happens. Weick: I had to do quick math there. Great we’ll move on to new business. NEW BUSINESS. Weick: Any new business? Mr. Generous. Generous: Yes on your next Planning Commission meeting you have 4 items. Moon Valley is back in for it’s Interim Use Permit. It expires in September and so they need to re-up it. Tequila Butcher is coming in for site plan approval. They are slightly expanding their space but they’re over what we can do administratively. They’re going to put two outside patios on but it adds too much square footage and I can’t do that at the staff level so you’ll see a public hearing. Plus there’s a variance. The want to increase the hard cover on the site. They’re at 70 percent. It looks like they’re going to increase that by 2 percent. We have a variance at 3713 South Cedar Drive. That’s a front yard setback and hard cover variance. And then we have a variance for 6641 Minnewashta Parkway. They’re proposing to replace their existing garage and expand it. Right now it’s under sized so I think it’s like 19 feet wide and they want to go to 24. And but it will go into their side yard setback so we need a variance for that. They are over on hard cover but they’re reducing their overage so we think it’s a plus for everyone so that’s what you’ll be seeing on September 3rd. Weick: Bring your coffee. Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 20, 2019 13 McGonagill: Bob on the Tequila and the Butcher. One of the things I would like to see or at least the discussion when you come in is the relationship between that parking lot and the CVS next door or a Walgreen’s, whatever it is Skistad: Walgreen’s. McGonagill: Walgreen’s. You know if they’re going to plan to use that? Are they not? Is there going to be ability to access that parking lot you know across right there? You know what I’m talking to. Generous: Yeah there’s, I can answer that right now but it also will be in the report. There are cross parking agreements between that whole development and they are allocated 24 of those stalls. McGonagill: Okay well I just, I just so you know. You know I’ll be looking for that and also hopefully there will be a drive thru so you don’t have to go back on the street and come back into the lot. You know make a loop. That’s what I’m looking to see. Just, I don’t know if that’s appropriate Mr. Chairman. Weick: Sure. It’s appropriate in my book. McGonagill: Okay that’s just, once again… Weick: …but that certainly is fine. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Randall noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated July 16, 2019 as presented. COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Weick: I think we heard, I might have jumped the gun a little bit. We heard some of the administrative presentations. Are there any City Council action updates? Generous: Yes, Lotus Woods was approved on July 22nd. That was a final plat for that two lot subdivision. However it’s tied up in some legal issues and so we’ll see where that goes. And the City accepted the public streets and utilities in Anthem on the Park. And then on August 12th the council approved Ordinance 644 which was the Fire Code amendments to city code. You covered the Chapter 18 revisions and Chapter 20. The conditional use permit for the Xcel meter tower was approved south of the high school. And they approved the final plat construction Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 20, 2019 14 plans and specifications for Park One so that’s the City got about almost 100 acres of open space. 50 acres of wetlands. Weick: Oh that one, yeah sure. Generous: Prince’s old property so. And previously they had approval to start the grading so that’s a lot of the trees are coming down as part of that and people are upset to see the change. Now we have, the City has that survey online about what people want to see in that so encouraging people to respond to that and let us know what they’re looking for as part of the buildout of that open space so. Weick: Yeah. Skistad: Do you know how many people have responded? Generous: I’ve heard that the response is good but I don’t know the numbers yet. I think they’re going to give an update at council on Monday so. Weick: And there’s something noted here about a Star Tribune article. Generous: It’s the County is booming with people coming to our community. Weick: Is that what it was? Generous: That’s what it was and people even who have left previously are now coming back for the great lifestyle that we have. You know we have the number one in health. Number one is wealth in the metro area so you know it’s a great place to be. Lots of amenities. Weick: And places for them to live now too. Generous: And the business community is just growing too. Weick: Sounds like planning. Bender: I heard they’re starting to sell lots. Weick: Are they really? Generous: In The Park, yeah. Bender: Yep. Weick: So they’ve got it kind of, they’ve got it all staked out and everything or? Chanhassen Planning Commission – August 20, 2019 15 Bender: I think it’s more mapped out. Weick: Mapped out yeah. Beautiful land. McGonagill: Bob you talk about the business, have you had many discussions with, because we get this question a lot about higher end restaurants, those sort of things coming in. Talking about that. I mean the Tequila and the Butcher’s coming. Are there any others that you’re, is there any action on that? Generous: Well not the new restaurants but we do have some people are looking at the Perkins site. McGonagill: Yes. Generous: To re-use that so. McGonagill: So there is some action on that? Generous: There’s action on that and then when Avienda comes forward as part of their Lifestyle Center they had restaurants included as part of that so. McGonagill: Okay thank you. Skistad: Do we have any idea when Avienda is going to move? Bender: Million dollar question. Answer is no. We’re waiting on them. Every time they come in with something we respond and then we wait. Weick: Great. Well great discussion this evening. I would entertain a motion to adjourn at this point. Commissioner Undestad moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, September 3, 2019 Subject City Council Action Update Section ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS Item No: G.1. Prepared By Jean Steckling, Senior Admin. Support Specialist File No:  ATTACHMENTS: City Council Action Update City Council Action Update MONDAY, AUGUST 26, 2019 Consider Site Plan Review for Life Time Fitness Parking Lot Addition - Approved Glendale Homes: Approve Final Plat, Development Contract and Construction Plans & Specifications - Approved Approve Driveway Easement for Control Concepts - Approved Approve Indemnification and Cooperation Agreement Regarding the Flying Cloud Airport Joint Zoning Board and the Flying Cloud Airport Zoning Ordinance - Approved Minutes for these meetings can be viewed and downloaded from the city’s website at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us, and click on “Agendas and Minutes” from the left-side links. g:\plan\forms\development forms\city council action update.docx