2019 09 03-pcCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 3, 2019
Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Weick, Mark Randall, John Tietz, Michael McGonagill, and
Laura Skistad
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad and Doug Reeder
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior
Planner; and George Bender, Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Dan Zwiers Elko
Michael Baier Box 340, Chanhassen
Larry & Susan Nowlin 3713 South Cedar Drive
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH A VARIANCE FOR HARD
COVER FOR EXPANSION OF A RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 590 WEST 79TH
STREET.
Generous: Thank you Chairman and commissioners. As you stated Planning Case 2019-08 is a
site plan review with a variance. They are proposing to slightly expand an existing restaurant
site in the community. Normally we would have done this administratively but they’ve gone
over 10 percent of the allocated square footage and so it has to come through the public hearing
process. The applicant is Chanhassen Butcher LLC and the public hearing is tonight, September
3rd and it goes to City Council on September 9th so it’s a quick turn around. The property is
located at 590 West 79th Street. It’s just to the east of the Walgreen’s and south of the Tires Plus.
Across the street is city owned property and we’ll discuss that a little later as long, as well as
some stormwater facilities. Again this is a site plan review for expansion of a restaurant to add
two exterior seasonal patios. One with a partial roof cover and there’s a variance for hard cover.
The property is guided for commercial uses in the Comprehensive Plan. It’s zoned Highway and
Business Services District and restaurants are permitted use in the district. The site plan. I’ve
highlighted the two areas of the patio. This is the south patio. This is going to be their adults
only area and this would be open to anyone that comes to the restaurant. They’re proposing that
this area is be fenced in also. They’re making these of composite wood materials so low
maintenance requirements. Long life on it. They will be having a roof over 70 percent of the
southern patio area and that’s where additional hard cover is brought into the equation. As part
of our review the Fire Marshal required that they provided egress, sidewalk from the patio to the
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 3, 2019
2
street system and then additionally staff had recommended that they provide this access from
West 79th Street into their building. Currently there is an access point on the end over here.
There’s a small stairway. The City Engineer felt it would be better to move that farther to the
east to accommodate anyone using that new crosswalk that will be developed on the corner.
Again this is a view of the, a schematic of the building. Here’s the new metal roof. It will be
standing seam black in color. They’ll have wood columns. They’re going to wrap those in cedar
and then they’ll have the composite decking. The surfaces allow water to percolate through them
so for the uncovered patio there’s no additional pervious surface and for the southern patio the
total size is 900 square feet, 670 square feet of that is in their, underneath the cover so it’s
counted in the hard cover. I should point out that as part of the variance request 56 percent of the
hard cover is due to the pedestrian circulation that the City is requiring them to install on the site.
There will be minimal grading for the sidewalk and this is an old plan. They don’t show the
connection but they’ll be some grading to bring the sidewalk to the west to connect in here. The
one condition that we have regarding the sidewalk is that we make it ADA compliant and so that
would mean that the steps would have to be removed and they’d have to revise the grading to
lengthen out that slope. I should note that the City is working with the property owner
concurrently or in parallel for a public parking lot on the south side of West 79th Street. This will
be a one way operation so they’ll enter from the west side and exit out on the east side. After,
this is the entrance to the Crosswoods Plaza development. There will be a sidewalk installed as
well as a little island for pedestrians in the middle of West 79th Street. In reviewing the site plan,
oh I should probably go back and point out. If you look at all these properties have cross access
and cross parking agreements so once you get in here you can actually drive internally without
going out onto West 79th Street and go over to the pharmacy. After 5:00 the restaurant has right
to use parking within the Walgreen’s site and historically it’s been the ones right on the
periphery but under the easement agreement it could be anything in here. There is a small
sidewalk section in here. This is the end of the sidewalk that’s being removed as part of this
project and this is the location of the public parking lot that will be available for all the properties
and development within the Crosswoods Plaza development. Finally staff is recommending
approval of the expansion of the 900 square foot patio on the south side of the building. The 677
square foot patio on the west side of the building and to permit an additional 946 square feet of
hard surface which will bring it up to 73.1 percent hard cover. Currently they have a variance to
allow 70 percent. Had this property been located north of the railroad tracks there would be no
variance requirements in this. This is an extension of our downtown area and so at the time it
was zoned Business Highway they were looking for low profile buildings and so they didn’t feel
that they would cover that much. However when you bring in a restaurant the parking standard
are increased so high that they tend to eat up all the hard cover with that. With that, and adoption
of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions.
Weick: Thanks Bob. Appreciate it. Just go ahead and open it up to the commission to go ahead
and kind of take turns and ask questions. If you want to start Commissioner Tietz.
Tietz: I will. Thanks Steve. Regarding the deck is, it’s specified as decking material but it’s
called a patio so is that, it’s pervious?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 3, 2019
3
Generous: It’s pervious yeah.
Tietz: It’s pervious.
Generous: So the slots between the boards and so.
Tietz: So that will drain and it will go under the ground.
Generous: Under the ground and the water.
Tietz: Okay. And on the parking, a couple questions on parking. The Walgreen’s on that side,
if you count just the sites that are highlighted in your red. In red in your diagram Bob, there are
87 parking so I’m not, one I’m not sure how they got to current of a 124 and proposed is 136.
Now does that assumes that it’s cross access parking agreement allows for that.
Generous: That’s correct.
Tietz: In the future when this takes off and we have a lot of people coming there the tire stores
stays open til 7:00. The drug store stays open til 10:00. How do you resolve conflicts of parking
in the future if there are more stalls required of the facility? And I’m also concerned, is the City
building the parking lot across the street or are they building it on city property?
Aanenson: They are building it on city property.
Tietz: They are?
Aanenson: They are, correct. And so that’s also going through the watershed district for
stormwater and all that too so correct.
Tietz: Okay, well just go back to the parking numbers. I just, it’s kind of confusing. The
numbers don’t seem to work out. And I don’t know what the occupancy of the building is
because those sheets were not included in the documentation.
Generous: They based it on the City’s requirement of 1 per 64 in the building square footage and
that includes their cooler and cooking area. The numbers they had, on site there were 87 spots
on the specific property.
Tietz: In that red.
Generous: Yeah in the red area which is their lot. And then they counted 24 of the spaces over,
off on the periphery of the Walgreen’s site. I don’t know if you’ve ever been there at 7:00 or
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 3, 2019
4
8:00 at night but I don’t, I’ve never seen any conflict there. But if it became an issue it’s
something that we would address with the property owner.
Tietz: Well it’s just you know it’s just those cross access agreements sometimes can get kind of
muddy and if there’s ever a conflict, it doesn’t appear that there would be but you know there’s
not too many people buying tires and having tires put on at 7:00 at night but happy hour starts at
5:00 I think doesn’t it so there’s, it’s just a concern with the cross access and if there ever is a
conflict how do we, or is it spelled out in that document? We didn’t have access to that
document.
Aanenson: In the cross access agreement?
Tietz: Yeah.
Aanenson: Yes it’s spelled out. I mean between the individual parties.
Tietz: For resolution of problems.
McGonagill: Yeah same question I had frankly.
Aanenson: Well it’s between the individual property owners so if they would have to resolve
that which Walgreen’s would assert their rights too. What the hours are and how many they’re
using, right.
Tietz: Okay.
McGonagill: Bob, thanks Commissioner Tietz because that was the very first same question. If
you can go with me Bob to, first off I want to start with the parking lot across the street because I
need to understand something on the 78th, the parking lot across the street that’s being built.
Okay, go to the diagram. Is there, when I look at that I can see where the fence is. They’re
putting the fence in along there right? Is that a sidewalk in there too?
Generous: No.
McGonagill: Okay, alright. So this comes to my question. If you now can go to the site plan of
the building, that one. My concern is this, I understand the fire department and they’re dumping
everybody out on the street. Right they’re dumping everybody out, right there.
Generous: Onto the sidewalk.
McGonagill: Onto that sidewalk. People are going to go across the street right there. What’s
going to prevent them from just walking off and then walking down the fence line? I mean I
realize that’s not what they’re supposed to do but you built this crosswalk and everything over
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 3, 2019
5
here on the left to try to put traffic flow there so people would not do that. But people line of
sight, I mean furthest distance between two points is a straight line and I’m really I think I know
exactly what’s going to happen. People are going to walk down the street. Either going to go,
and unfortunately they’re hitting the parking lot across the street right in the middle so they’ll go
this way. They’re going to go to the right or the left and work their way around that fence.
Aanenson: Yep a lot of time was spent looking at that issue with the applicants. The City did,
the City Engineer did work with SRF to give us a recommendation for the best crossing and we
did not want them to cross mid block nor did we want them to cross at the intersection because
people are committed so if they cross mid block they’re still not going to be able to get in.
There’s a fence there which is the reason why we put the fence there is to deter that so the fire
department, and it isn’t a building code issue. It’s a fire department issue to get people safely out
of the building to a surface. Again they would go back, can you go back to the parking lot. Go
back to the intersection where you’ve got a.
McGonagill: Yeah they’re going to come out basically where that car is.
Generous: It will be right here.
McGonagill: Right in there.
Aanenson: Correct. Have to go left or right because you can’t talk them in the box. Either go a
controlled intersection so part of everything that we discussed with this is, you know with the tax
increment district that’s, that we put in place with the Venue project is the improvement of
Market Boulevard so what we looked at that is kind of a short range this project is and as we
make those improvements on Market Boulevard this intersection would also be re-examined too
but there is a mid point crossing. Again if you could go back to the parking lot design. There is
a mid point crossing that shows a, there would be a base sidewalk similar to what’s at Galpin and
5.
McGonagill: Well I get when I first saw the design of this I was fine. Okay they’re going to
come off here. They go straight across. Straight line. They’ll go into the restaurant. Makes all
the sense in the world. But putting the sidewalk right in the middle you’ve negated that whole
approach of trying to force people to go in a certain direction. Do you follow what I’m saying?
Aanenson: Right but he other, we spent a lot of time discussing that too so if you’re going up
there is no access going up the driveway and you’re coming into the dumpster and some fire
hydrant equipment so currently right now the entrance is on the other side of the building.
McGonagill: Right it’s over on the left. You come around and you have to go around that.
Aanenson: Correct.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 3, 2019
6
McGonagill: I understand that but the, with the fence and the parking that will make people do
that. I’m just saying when they come out of the restaurant or they come out of the play area
they’re going to be on that sidewalk and they’re going to head south and they’ll dump onto the
street. I mean that’s.
Aanenson: That’s a smaller percentage of the people that are going to go there too. Those 25
yeah. Right.
McGonagill: It only takes one to get hit so that’s my point. Kids coming out of there running,
you know they’re going to go straight. And so then they’ll go down the street. So I understand
what you’re trying to go and that was one of my concerns. I want to understand that’s what you
did or how it was designed so I understand the point. And I’m, it was kind of, I was surprised to
see that but I understand what the fire department did. Now I understand why it was there to
start with so makes sense. On the site, can you go back to the site plan again? That one. One of
the things that when I was reading the write up I was curious why you, why this was done. Up in
the upper left corner, and we talked about, you know we talk about coverage. We talk about
hard cover and we talk about trying to get water into the ground to control it you know and to
void that which makes sense and even though we’re over the percentage, why did you replace
the, the way I read it. Maybe I read it wrong. Why did you replace the rain garden with a tree?
To me rain gardens work great. I mean this rain garden in the upper left corner. That’s the one
I’m concentrating on because this water’s dumping off of this shed, that would be an ideal to me
a place for a rain garden. I have one in my yard and it does a great job of controlling my wet
area but when…knows this a lot better than I do that if rain garden’s work, why was that one,
why did you take it out?
Bender: I believe it was felt that the tree in and of itself would, the root system would be
absorbing water. There were no details provided on the rain garden from the applicant at all and
all it said was potential rain garden and it wasn’t felt that it was completely necessary.
McGonagill: I understand, okay. Obviously if they had, with a concern of hard cover to me one
of the best solutions of handling hard cover is rain gardens and retention areas which is really
what a rain garden is. And given, if I go back, go back to the photograph Bob if you would
please.
Generous: Of the aerial?
McGonagill: Of the aerial yeah. When I look at that area and going to me if you’re going to put
one it’d be a great spot for it. It’d be a great place to hold the water because the drainage kind of,
if I remember right runs this way doesn’t it? And you could at least keep it on the site. Let it
slow down and then move it’s way.
Bender: Hit a tile and go straight to the storm sewer.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 3, 2019
7
McGonagill: Yeah and move it’s time. You know take it’s time to not overflow, particularly
since you have all this parking lot up to the north. That was my reaction to the question. That’s
really what I was wondering. Because it really was about that. I would like to see something in
there to kind of control it and I was also thinking that’s, you know if you had it is that a way you
could keep people from going across the street but you can’t the way it’s designed. You have to
go to the sidewalk so.
Bender: The applicant still can, you know when they come with their final plans and what not
still include one. That will be up to them.
McGonagill: Great. I think it’d be a great spot for it and be the right environmental thing to do.
Weick: Question. Will the, that parking lot be signed in any way? That’s across the street.
Aanenson: I don’t believe so.
Weick: In other words like.
Generous: One way.
Weick: They won’t say parking for.
Aanenson: No.
Weick: Because technically that parking is for anybody.
Aanenson: Correct.
Weick: So to assume that everybody that parks there is going to be going to the, the Butcher
restaurant isn’t, that’s not. They could be going to BW3. They could be going to Walgreen’s.
They could be going anywhere.
Aanenson: That’s correct.
Weick: Okay. Which then and my point to say that is then that sort of central walkway you
know might make more sense because it is servicing then the entire.
McGonagill: Central, which one Chairman?
Weick: The way they have it now.
McGonagill: Oh yeah.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 3, 2019
8
Weick: Because not everybody’s going to be going there.
McGonagill: No and that’s a perfect place to put it. I mean that was a good design. It solved the
problem for parking. It was across the street and it forced everyone, my point was it forced
everyone to go through at least the most controlled access point you could. They put a median in
there for protection so they had done a lot to protect the residents and I think that’s great. I agree
with you. It’s just when they come out of the restaurant and swing around go south they’re
going to head to the parking lot and they’re not going to go around. They’re going to go straight.
Weick: Okay.
McGonagill: It kind of, to there’s a particular restaurant close to the lake in Excelsior that has
this situation and people go across the street all the time in every direction. That’s, I don’t want
to recreate that issue.
Weick: Sure, yeah.
Tietz: We did have some conversation at one of the last meetings too about, hopefully that could
be more of employee parking. Is that correct or is that not correct?
Aanenson: It’s intended how they want to use it, yeah.
Tietz: Yeah.
Aanenson: Again that was the purpose of the fence. You can get over there but there’s no
sidewalk on that side so you’re really encouraging someone if you want to make the crossing to
try to jump a fence or walk in the street that you would stay on the sidewalk. Because there’s a
fence so that was the intent of that.
Weick: Questions? None, okay. Thank you. At this time I’d like to have the applicant come
forward. If they would like and either answer any of the concerns you’ve heard so far or just
give us a general overview of the project that’d be great. Good evening.
Blaine Eggen: Good evening. So my name is Blaine Eggen. This is Tony. We’re excited to be
coming to Chanhassen if we can get this thing done. The name of the restaurant would be
Tequila Butcher. It’s going to be a, I don’t know if any of you have been to Whiskey Inferno in
Savage but it’s a lot of smoked meats but this one, Tony likes to do, Tony’s the main orchestrator
behind all this. So we’re continuing to smoke meats but we’re adding a Mexican flare to it.
Tony started in Eagan. If anybody’s been to Folsted House. The Grandson’s Eatery and Burgers
and Bottles is in Eagan on Lone Oak Road. That’s where he got his start and then went to
Farmington with Bourbon Butcher and then Whiskey Inferno was our last one that we just did.
Completed last year. We’ve had a lot of good success there and we’re excited to bring this to
Chanhassen, this concept. In this particular setting we chose to do the split patios to try and give
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 3, 2019
9
a family oriented one on the side where we’ve got the fenced in area. We were trying to
incorporate like a Bocce Ball type of situation but with the terrain and the area that we’re left
with it didn’t work out so we kind of just created this fenced in area for families to, if their kids
want to play in the grass and do some sorts of activities there, that they would have that where
it’s safe for them to do that. The back patio with the covered feature is a key thing for us. We
have it in Farmington and we have it in Savage. It’s one of our main themes that we have where
you’ve got a fireplace to sit at back there and it’s just a, that area is going to be more of a quiet
adult area for people to mingle and have cocktails and stuff. The inside project if you guys care,
it will be different from all the other places but, I don’t know do you want to add anything to the
inside?
Tony: Hi guys, good evening. We’re, I guess what Blaine’s trying to say is we’re beyond
excited to be in Chanhassen. We want to bring something unique to the community that’s not
already here. We always spend a lot of time looking at what’s competition doing and we try to
not head on compete with what’s going on but create something completely unique to the
community so that’s what he’s saying with the two patios. One that’s family friendly and one for
much needed night out with friends and date night where you don’t bring the kids and there’s not
kids throwing crayons on the floor so very cocktail focused and just something very unique to
Chanhassen so.
Blaine Eggen: And then as far as the working with planning, we had come to the table with,
with eliminating 4 parking stalls so that we wouldn’t have to do the variance and they suggested
obviously we didn’t want to do that but we thought that would be a solution because we need
parking is also a big key to this. And they suggested no, that we go for the variance and keep the
parking which is great with us. So that’s where that all came about. Other than that if you guys
have any questions.
Weick: Great, thank you very much and please don’t misinterpret us kind of getting into the
weeds on some of these things as not being excited about you guys coming to town because I’ve
been on this commission for a few years and we consistently hear that people want solutions like
this you know for dining and for relaxing and having a drink or whatever it is. So certainly it’s a
cool, I think it’s a great thing for Chanhassen, speaking on behalf of myself only but I don’t have
any specific questions about the site but certainly if anybody does of the applicant. No? Okay,
well thank you. Thanks for coming.
Blaine Eggen: Thank you.
Weick: At this time I would open it to, I don’t gavel that. I gavel it closed. I’ll open up the
public hearing portion of this. Anyone wishing to come forward and voice an opinion on this
project or what you’ve heard so far tonight please do so. And seeing nobody come forward I
will close the public hearing portion and open this item up for commissioner discussion and/or
motion.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 3, 2019
10
Tietz: Probably not too much to say. I think it’s a great idea and a great solution for Chan. I
think it’s going to be good. I’m just always concerned about parking and I’m sorry but I am
concerned about parking and with the system that you have there with the cross, cross access
agreements for parking it just looks like, I don’t know what, how big is Houlihan’s across the
way? Sometimes that parking lot, I mea it’s over into Total Wine. It’s down by Bookoo. It’s all
over and it’s just my caution that hopefully we don’t run into some issues at certain times of the
evening but I think it’s great. I look forward to dining there so thanks.
McGonagill: Yeah I’ll reiterate what the commissioner said. It’s real excited about having it
there and I think it will be a great addition. Something that we’ve needed for a long time. My
concern goes, and it’s not the restaurant. It’s the parking just like you’ve talked. How you
access it and what it is. The cross agreements. They’re going to have to work that out. I do, I
can’t, you know my issue is with the sidewalk and having access in and where it’s going to
egress. I’d like to see some additional thought put into that some way. You know we have great
engineering staff and we have an applicant that wants to work with us to try to prevent people
from going across the street and walking down the street. That happens at another restaurant all
the time and people coming around those corners and people having a great time and you’re out
for a good time and you’re just walking. You don’t think about those things. So traffic flow or
pedestrian flow is a concern but it doesn’t take away from the value of the restaurant. I want to
make that clear.
Weick: Sure. Yeah.
McGonagill: And the hard cover I think they can, there’s ways to solve that that I’ve already
talked about so they can, but I would ask them to really consider that. But that’s really where all
my comments start and stop is the, is accessing the, I think we’ve done a great job with that
parking lot across the street trying to prevent people from going across the street except in one
spot. I want to see that discipline maintained someway.
Weick: Yeah. Because ultimately the parking affects the business right. I mean if there aren’t
enough spots for people to park then that ends up hurting the business so he’s not.
McGonagill: We want that.
Weick: Right yeah so we want.
McGonagill: We absolutely want that.
Weick: People to succeed and.
McGonagill: Yeah I think this will be a very busy place so it’s, I don’t know what the answer is
but I’m not the engineer. I just try to follow a want to be engineers.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 3, 2019
11
Weick: There you go. And no issues with the actual variance which is the hard cover variance.
I mean we don’t.
McGonagill: Not for myself.
Weick: Okay.
Tietz: Are you ready for a motion?
Weick: I love it.
Tietz: I’ll make a motion. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council
approve the restaurant expansion to include two exterior patios of 900 and 677 square feet, for
the variance to permit the addition of 946 square feet of hard cover to permit 73 percent hard
cover subject to the conditions of the staff report and adopts the Findings of Fact and
Recommendation.
Weick: We have a valid motion from Commissioner Tietz. Do we have a second?
McGonagill: I’ll second it.
Weick: We have a second from Commissioner McGonagill. Any last comments before we
vote?
Tietz moved, McGonagill seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the City
Council approve 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 and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation:
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
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 3, 2019
12
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.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Weick: The variances unanimously 5-0. How was that to count? Thank you very much.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR MINING
OPERATION AT 100 & 200 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE (MOON VALLEY GRAVEL
PIT).
Weick: Is this you again Bob?
Generous: This is me again.
Weick: Great.
Generous: Thank you Chairman, commissioners. Moon Valley, Planning 2019-09 is a public
hearing. This, the grading permit or the IUP for this project expires at the end of this month and
so they’re required to come in and renew it. As part of their, the application is Moon Valley
Aggregate Inc. They own the easterly parcel. Beatrice Zwiers Irrevocable Trust owns the
westerly parcel. The active portion of the mining operation is on the eastern portion of the site
so. This item is a public hearing tonight and is forwarded to City Council for September 23rd.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 3, 2019
13
Again this is located at 100 and 200 Flying Cloud Drive. It’s approximately 75 acre site total.
The active portion of the mining operation is on this eastern part of the site and this is future
expansion that they’d like to do. As part of their application they’ve taken the existing IUP and
are requesting two changes. One, that they have another 10 year term for their IUP and two, that
we release the condition that prohibits them from starting the mining operation on the western
part of the site until the eastern part of the site has been closed up. Finished or at least closed up
and restored so that erosion doesn’t become an issue. Again they’re requesting an extension of
the IUP to continue the mining and excavation operation on the property. Existing conditions.
Again the eastern part of the site is where active mining is going on. There’s access truck.
Currently they’re using part of it as a staging area for the road construction for Flying Cloud
Drive or County Road 61. This is the unnamed creek that is mentioned in our staff report. We
want to stop the grading elevation approximately in this location at the 756 elevation. This is the
western part of the site that they would like to be able to open up. And then we zoomed in on the
eastern part of the site. You can see their access road in. This is the active mining area. They
have a stockpile pit for lime here. A storage, again more equipment storage on the property.
And this is the northern part of that eastern site. It was cut off about here. This area has been
mined and is being reclaimed or restored. Portions of it have been replanted with trees and I’ll
have the applicant discuss that because they’re doing very well on that part of the project. This
is the overall grading plan that they’re looking at. They would look to create approximately a 14
acre site in the future for development. This property is guided for residential high density uses
so they would need a rather large area. There’s over 100 foot fall on the bluff to the north of the
property and then the Minnesota River Valley is across the street on the south side and the
wildlife area. Again this is the western portion of the site. This plan shows a potential access to
city owned property. They do have a plan that shows how they could come in on the east side of
the western property and access it. This is the easterly grading plan. You see their finished
elevation they bring it down. Again here’s where the 756 contour is so they’d stop grading at
that elevation and then slope it down. They actually are raising up the finished elevation from
this plan from 10 years ago so, and I’ll let the applicant discuss their mining operations in a little
more detail. This is the north part. As I said they’ve completed the tree planting at the top of the
slopes up here and it’s been very successful. They’ve been recognized by the environmental
groups for doing the work up there. They would restabilize the slopes. They’d have a 2 ½ to 1
slope on there so we’re looking at a high concentration of trees being planted as well as having
the wood fiber blanket put in place to help hold erosion back and revegetate that slope. The
westerly grading plan we’ll look at that but really until the easterly side is closed up we don’t, we
would have them come in with additional information to get provided for access and erosion
control measures. And then here again would be their finished plan with the slopes all returned
to the final elevations. Erosion control measures in place. Stormwater ponding in place and
discharges and then all of this water would discharge across into the Rice Lake. And this is, we
have submitted this to the lower watershed district. Their recommendation was that they close
up the eastern side of the property before they go to the, start beginning grading on the western
side of the property. Again our engineering department has recommended that this be approved
for only a 5 year period. Because of, during that time best management practices can change for
erosion control measures and we would like to be more up to date or current with them, and
getting their information for their phasing plan on an annual basis. Any changes to their plans
over a shorter time and then allow it to come back for the public hearing process to get a renewal
of that. We also submitted this to Hennepin County who is the lead agency for Flying Cloud
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 3, 2019
14
Drive east of 101. They’re rebuilding that. They have a requirement that they need to go to
Hennepin County for a permit for oversized loads to use that and then we submitted it to Carver
County because this is in Carver County and it’ll be a county road and they have requirements
that the applicant must meet for them to go forward with the project. So staff is recommending
approval of the extension of the IUP for a 5 year period and that’s one of the conditions in the
report based on the grading plans presented to you tonight and subject to conditions of approval
in the staff report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. And that’s only on
the eastern side that they can go forward until such time as that’s buttoned up. Thank you.
Weick: Great. Bob as we look past, so the eastern side being finished, what are you envisioning
in that land? I mean then does it open it up for development?
Aanenson: Yeah. If you remember.
Weick: That’s the idea right?
Aanenson: Yep when we did the 61 corridor we kind of examined all those properties, whether
or not we could cost effectively provide municipal services because the views there are fantastic
and everybody’s seeing that flow up. We saw a vertical product there. We kind of looked at
some senior housing or something like that so it will eventually have municipal services. It will
be a while so it allows them to get mineral extraction out of there. Our biggest goal is to make
sure that there’s not erosion problem or a blow out of this, of the containment there and then also
that they’re doing the reclamation plan which is, and our City Forester follows up on that. That
they’re making sure, there’s escrow monies that go into place. That they re-establish that so to
Bob’s point on the 5 year, the DNR changed the slope requirements as did the City of how much
slope you can impact so this kind of pre-dates some of that and so there’s a long history on that
but our main goal here is to make sure that, while we certainly are in favor of them doing the
mining that we follow the reclamation plan or doing responsible, doing that responsibly to the
property and ultimately we see development down there at some point yeah.
Weick: Okay. Other questions for the City from the commission?
McGonagill: Just I have one.
Tietz: Go ahead Mike.
McGonagill: And maybe to George and it was mostly just education for my part. In the write
up, I think it was on page 12 you talk about the erosion control and best management practices.
Is there a standard written on that and I was just, what is the standard?
Bender: You know we run into a bit of a problem with this being an industrial use permit and
it’s not necessarily falling under the construction practices that the standard being applied is
generally the construction standards to the permit you know and trying to make sure that there
isn’t an erosion concern. There have been some. The applicant’s been very good about replying
or responding to our requests as needed. If you remember you know over a year ago when
Krista was still here she was working with the Terry Brothers to take care of some things that
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 3, 2019
15
occurred. We also have requirements in there for them to monitor the pond. Clean out the pond
on an as needed basis if it comes to that. And Hennepin County has a, you know a concern with
their project and making sure from a hauling perspective that not only are they worried about the
overweight but they’re also worried about scarring of the roadway or deterioration so you know
having a construction entrance that works for them is one of their requirements. And you know
but generally the construction standards are kind of what’s being applied.
McGonagill: And the reason I ask the question.
Bender: MPCA.
McGonagill: When you’re dealing with something this big an rehabilitation that’s going to go
this long people change out and then the only thing that you can depend upon is a standard.
Everybody can point to the standard. This is what we adhere to once a debate come up and that
was the reason I was asking for the, really it’s for the benefit of the city staff. I want to be sure
there is a standard that you all are using that everybody points to. Everybody understands and
then you get a good product in the end so thank you George.
Bender: That’s basically our erosion control manual and training that we go into on an annual to
bi-annual basis so.
Tietz: Yeah, George I just and I want to follow up on Mike’s comment too. I’m assuming your
best management practices are different than mounds of soil we have at the Holasek property
which needs to be stabilized and protected too but that’s all basically organic material. Here we
have a very highly erodible material in those hillsides. I still recall what 25 or 30 years ago when
they had the blow out at the landfill up on Flying Cloud Airport and it all went down the hill into
the national wildlife refuge. I don’t think we’re faced with a situation like that here because we
don’t have the water source at the top of the hill that could blow through but I think best
practices for a mining operation there has to be something someplace. You know Wisconsin’s
dealing with frack sand mining right now and I’m sure there’s some best practices that they’re
trying to employ on stabilization and protection from erosion because I think that’s probably one
of the biggest concerns. I think this could be dynamite when it gets done but I also question why
in 10 years only 400,000 yards have been taken out when a permit allows for 1.8 million and is
this material of a high quality that’s desirable? Maybe this is a question for the owners and are
we just going to be hitting different pockets to try and find the best sources of the marketable
material and thus create some, you know are we looking at another 1.4 million coming out or are
we looking at another 400,000 coming out so?
Aanenson: I’ll just address one question really quick on the, so in my years here, which have
been a few, this started off with some, you know the DNR are getting to the motion so to the
point that’s our biggest concern is that we’re doing it at such a scale that we can manage it and
they can manage it and there’s not an erosion problem and that’s always the challenge. As you
know a couple years ago we had a super storm. We did have some people on the bluff that had
some problems so that’s always the challenge which has been, which they’ve done a good job of
re-establishing that. There was security put in place that they have to manage that so that’s an
annual inspection. And again that’s why we wanted to go to the 5 year so if there’s a significant
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 3, 2019
16
rule change by any jurisdiction that we would make sure that that’s being employed but yes, how
long they’re going to use it, again looking at that 5 year but that’s why we’re saying we don’t
want to open up that other side because we want to just manage what we can on this side and not
kind of, and open up a greater risk of some sort of failure.
Tietz: Well it says highly erodible soil and we seem to have 100 year storms every other week
now as compared to every 50 years so I’m sure that’s a concern in a situation like this with a
steep slopes and I don’t know, you know there’s not much topsoil to begin with and when you
try to reclaim that land I’m not, I’m sure that it’s a difficult task.
Aanenson: Right well they can tell you how long they’ve been mining there. It’s been a long
time.
Tietz: I used to shoot shotguns down there.
Aanenson: Yes, yes.
Tietz: When I was a kid I think and ski.
Aanenson: Correct.
Tietz: The Moon Valley Ski area was there.
Aanenson: Yeah, yep so they cleaned up all the shot.
Tietz: Back in the 50’s and 60’s.
Aanenson: Out of the slopes so that was one of the things we got accomplished so again we’re
moving towards the clean up towards redevelopment ultimately but yes I think soil erosion being
the biggest issue we have too.
Tietz: Yeah.
Weick: Other thoughts? Questions.
Skistad: Yes I was only, I was just going to ask how long is the application process for this
typically? So how long does the business have to…
Aanenson: Well interim use typically runs whatever you think the appropriate time line so like if
there was sewer and water it might be a time line but on this because the nature of it, it’s
something that we want to make sure that we’re, obviously we inspect it annually and you know
if we get complaints on but we just think again, we think 5 years is appropriate.
Skistad: I just mean for the applicant so when they apply for their interim use permit and they
have to go through the process of talking to different cities and counties, what are they looking
at? From a time line.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 3, 2019
17
Aanenson: Yeah 60 days. Yeah that’s the law. I mean they can ask for more time if additional
information is required just like us you know so we try to get them through in a timely manner
and let them know that their timeline’s coming up and give them a chance to respond. The same
with Hennepin County and Carver County has that same 60 days. Was that your question?
Skistad: Yeah.
Aanenson: Okay.
Weick: Thank you. Seeing no other questions I would invite the applicant or a representative of
the applicant to share their project with us. Thanks for coming tonight.
Michael Baier: Hi, I’m Michael Baier. I work for Terry Brothers so, and I’ve been in charge of
that site now for most of it and this is Dan Zwiers.
Weick: Welcome.
Michael Baier: Land owner along with his mom and so he’s the applicant so. I guess what I
wanted to start is that you know Bob did a good job of kind of explaining what’s been going on
but I wanted to maybe speak to some of your questions on erosion control and the length of time
and why it’s taking so long just because those questions came up. I think first it’s important to
know that this was always a reclamation project just like you said. It used to be a shooting range
and so Dan did a good job of taking the lead out that was in there and so we also then went into
restore the northeast slope where there’s housing up there. That was a straight up and down cliff
when we first started in there and so it’s always been a reclamation project so it’s not really just a
simple mining project. The reason that we asked for 10 years and we’re completely fine with 5
is that we think that’s a realistic timeframe with the quality of dirt that’s in there so. I forget who
it was that had talked about is it kind of a hunt and peck and it is kind of that way so you’re
absolutely right. What had happened is that according to the borings we thought that it would be
select sand much deeper than it is so we ran into kind of a silt layer which is real typical of the
area but it’s higher up than we thought it would be and so it’s still marketable but at a slower
rate. We’re also selling black dirt out of there but that’s at a slower rate and so again things just
kind of have slowed down a bit so that kind of explains why that is. As far as the slopes, the
good news is you’re right. The stuff’s that in there is highly erodible but the stuff that’s going
back into the slopes tends to be the clays and the black dirt that’s in the area so anything that
we’ve restored is not quite as erodible and we’re able again to plant trees in it. We’ve had real
good luck with our tree planting and with them growing and then also blanket and stabilizing
with seed. So I think with that I think that kind of covered some of your’s and I just I guess open
it up for questions.
Weick: Great. Any, go ahead.
Tietz: I see what was that, Minnesota 35-621 seed mix. Has that been successful? Is that
working on those slopes?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 3, 2019
18
Dan Zwiers: You know the problem is, is yes. I’ll talk on that. Yeah it’s a wonderful idea to go
plant a seed mix and then when you’re in a, you know basically a wild area, whatever’s in that
area tends to take over so I think you’ve seen before with some more natural prairie mixes.
Eventually if you want that to continue you need to go in with a burn and then kind of take care
of that so, so yes and no. I mean you can see that those are planted.
Tietz: Was that kind of a prairie mix?
Dan Zwiers: Yeah it’s supposed to be more of a prairie mix to kind of you know reclaim it back
to the way it was.
Tietz: …you’ve got some deeper roots maybe to help you out but.
Dan Zwiers: Right, yep.
Tietz: I was just curious.
Dan Zwiers: Yep.
Tietz: I didn’t know what that was.
Dan Zwiers: Well yeah unless you burn you know whatever’s in the topsoil at the time it’s hard
to get rid of that’s going to grow along with whatever seed you put in.
Tietz: Thanks.
Weick: There are quite a few, you know as part of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation
there’s quite a few kind of stipulations I’ll say and without going through each one I guess if
you’ve had a chance to read those and you’re comfortable with kind of the rules that are in place
I guess going forward.
Michael Baier: Yeah they’re real typical to what we’ve been working under anyway so yeah.
Weick: Other thoughts or questions for the applicant? Seeing none thank you very much.
Appreciate your time. Public hearing? Yeah at this time we will open for public opinion. Public
hearing. Anyone wishing to come forward and speak their mind about this project please do so.
Thank you. Welcome.
Dan Glode: Thank you, hi there. My name is Dan Glode. I’m a relatively new resident to
Chanhassen but I own one of the properties up above the bluff on Lakota Avenue now and this is
maybe more of a question for the after the 5 year if it’s, and on the west end is being looked at
but the trail right there is currently because of erosion problems as I understand it and the west
end gets a lot closer to that trail so are we, is there, is there anything that the commission, the
planning look at that aspect or is there anything that potentially impacts the trail further or you
know how is that being re-opened? You know I don’t know if a part of it is the 61 corridor
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 3, 2019
19
project as well but it’s been closed for a long, you know for the last year that we’ve owned the
property.
McGonagill: Bob can you show me where, on here where the trail goes that he’s talking about?
This little break? Okay. I just want to follow just to be sure.
Dan Glode: You know it’s a little farther away on the east end but maybe as long as it’s.
McGonagill: So it’s closed right now?
Dan Glode: It’s closed from 101 to I don’t know where.
Aanenson: There was a blow out, yeah.
Generous: Yeah the sloughing of the slope was in this area at the creek. So the bottom of the
creek came up and they’re looking at the restoration of that. Hennepin County is taking a lead
on that project.
Aanenson: And actually you have to come from the bottom and so the owners of the property
were permitting that to get in to fix that but to be clear we’re not recommending going to the
western side right now.
Dan Glode: No I know. I know that.
Aanenson: That would be some of the things we want to look at more closely what the impacts
would be, yeah.
Dan Glode: Right but I didn’t know whether the east side had impacted it or where.
Aanenson: No. It’s actually on top.
Dan Glode: Closed down or whatever so.
Generous: It’s right here and then the stopped their operation in this area.
Dan Glode: So they didn’t, I haven’t heard any plans on when that might be.
Aanenson: Well I can tell you real quickly.
Dan Glode: …101 project.
Aanenson: We applied for FEMA money on that and it’s a pretty expensive project between
Hennepin County and Carver County it was a pretty expensive fix so we’re still working on that.
It was denied by FEMA. I think they applied like 3 times and so the other problem, with the
slope we had in Chanhassen was fixed through a FEMA so still working on that issue. Trying to
get that resolved and get that portion of the trail open.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 3, 2019
20
Weick: Yeah for sure. Thank you for coming forward. Any other, anyone else wishing to come
forward? Seeing nobody come forward I will close the public portion of this hearing and open
up for commissioner comment and/or a motion.
Tietz: I don’t know if we want to make any additions to this and I’m sure that the program that
we’ve had in the past for erosion control and best management practices is sufficient but I, you
know there’d have to be some other than just regular industrial guidelines George that are out
there with, again I’ll refer to the frack sand mining in Wisconsin and I know some of those
counties have been extremely diligent about protecting the reclamation process and also, and
they have, unfortunately they’ve had some huge ponds that they’ve had to have over there
because of the processing and the frack sand and they’ve had some big blow out’s. I don’t
anticipate we’re going to have that here but again since we’re on a 5 year program we’re
probably just fine but you know you never know. You just don’t know what’s going to happen
with our weather conditions and you know just don’t want to lose anymore soil so that’s, I’m not
requesting that we pursue it to any greater degree but I think it is something to monitor as we go
forward with this.
McGonagill: And I support the Commissioner’s thought on that because best management
practices are a standard to me. Coal mining’s got one for example in the coal business for
reclamation and they deal with a lot heavier slopes sometimes than this and strip mining so, you
know I would just encourage that.
Bender: I’m not saying that we don’t, aren’t open to looking for them. Not trying to say that at
all but you know MPCA is part of the review process. MPCA sets the standard and we’re trying
to you know apply that as best as we can.
McGonagill: Sure.
Bender: We feel that the construction standards are so stringent and looked at continuously that
you know that applying those are more like the best management practices for us to actually
point to and go to.
McGonagill: And Mr. Bender I understand the comment. It’s not a criticism. Again it’s, you’re
blessed. You have an applicant that’s working with you. If you didn’t you would really be
wanting to have very hard standards. That was my point if it ever were to change underneath
you.
Bender: Yep.
McGonagill: You would want them. I’m done.
Weick: Good feedback for the record by the way. Any other thoughts or desires for motions?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 3, 2019
21
Randall: I’ll make a motion. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City
Council approve the Interim Use Permit Planning Case number 2019-09 to permit grading,
excavation and slope restoration as proposed on the plans prepared by, is it Sathre-Berquist?
Weick: Sathre yeah.
Randall: Sathre-Berquist okay. Incorporated dated July 26, 2019 subject to conditions of
approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation.
Weick: Thank you. We have a valid motion from Commissioner Randall. Do we have a
second?
Skistad: I’ll second it.
Weick: We have a valid second from Commissioner Skistad. Any final comment for the
record?
Randall moved, Skistad seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that the 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:
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.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 3, 2019
22
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.
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.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 3, 2019
23
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
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.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Weick: I lost my, I completely lost my train of thought. The moral of the story is that it passes
5-0. Can we just go with that in the record and another embarrassing moment for Commissioner
Weick. Thank you. Do you just lose your complete like where you are. I had no idea what to
say.
McGonagill: When you get older it happens.
Weick: Thank you very much.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 3, 2019
24
Michael Baier: Thanks for your time.
Weick: You bet.
PUBLIC HEARING:
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.
Aanenson: Thank you. This is a request for a variance for a front yard setback. Applicant
Susan and Larry Nowlin. Again located at 3713 South Cedar Drive. I think we did another one
recently in this neighborhood. This property is zoned residential single family. 20,000 square
foot lot area. These are the standards. 30 foot front. 30 in the rear. 75 feet from the lake. 10
foot on the side and 25 percent lot coverage. So the conditions on this is the 9,500 square foot
lot. As you can see it’s deficient. Currently it has a 90, excuse me. 29.43 lot cover. It’s non-
conforming on the side yard setback. 9.5 on the east side. There’s a variance. The request for
the variance is for a detached garage with a 15 foot front setback. Actually the garage is 8.2 feet
from the setback and as you know as we talked about last time enough parking in the front so the
house in the rear deck completely comply with the setbacks. So the applicant’s proposal then is
to remove the existing detached garage and move it closer to the house. In reviewing this the
staff’s justification of based on city code for single family homes is the proposal increases the
front yard setback from 8.2 to 25 feet giving what staff believes is great guest parking. The
proposal also decreases the lot cover by 2.6. Again there’s currently hard cover on that area
where it’s as a driveway but now becomes part of the garage so it does decrease the hard cover.
The lot is substandard. Requires a variance to accommodate the two car garage. The position of
the house and the narrowness of the lot make it impossible to adequately attached the two car
garage meeting the 30 foot front yard setback. So MacKenzie worked on this one. MacKenzie
Waters. Staff member and worked hard with the applicants through a number of different
designs to minimize the amount of variances that were needed and so the plan before you
accommodates that. So there was two letters from residents and you did receive another one in
your packet and that was from Ms. Reamer and so that was regarding how her subdivision or her
variance request and this variance request differed so again there was a request about the pavers.
Why doesn’t this one require new pavers or vegetated buffer on this site and so again it’s
significantly smaller lot cover variance. The 1.83 versus the 10 percent that was required on the,
on Mrs. Reamer’s recent variance and then the location of the impervious surface is outside of
the 75 foot lakeshore setback so that’s again we look at each project and apply the mitigation
standards based on the, what we as staff see as the implications so because the amount of lot
cover that was reduced from 29 to 26 versus the 35 to the 34 so significantly higher amount of
hard cover on the first request as opposed to this one so again that was the reason for not
requiring the landscape buffer. I believe that she stated that she had met with MacKenzie and
she tried to get this hard cover. I’m not aware of those discussions and I apologize for that but
the scope on the work of the addition reducing the non-conformity versus the demo rebuild and
expanding variances where we applied the additional standards so no this one isn’t required to do
the pervious pavers because they originally…nor are they required for the buffer. They do have
a greater setback adjacent to the lake so that was our basis for that. So again the staff’s
assessment summary, the proposed lot is substandard and given the current house placement
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 3, 2019
25
cannot accommodate a two car garage without a variance and the applicant’s proposed lot cover
is not excessive and therefore there are not areas that would be, would be reasonable to further
reduce it. The proposed garage is reasonably sized to accommodate two vehicles and provide
some additional storage. Based on lot coverage you know try to put that inside the garage itself
and the proposal significantly improves the non-conforming front yard setback in the current, in
the proposed configuration. And the applicant has worked with staff again trying to find the best
solution. There was a number of different iterations before this one was settled upon so with that
staff is recommending that you approve, acting as the Board of the Adjustments and Appeals that
yo u approve the 5 foot front setback and 1.83 lot cover variance for the construction of an
attached garage to the, subject to the conditions of the staff report and the attached Findings of
Fact and Decision. So with that I’d be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Weick: Thanks Kate. I have one. There is a picture on, I think it’s page 5 of 8 and I think it’s
just an optical illusion but the current garage is not connected right? That’s not a roof there?
Aanenson: Correct.
Weick: That’s actually the pavement inbetween.
Aanenson: Right, correct. Correct.
Weick: Okay. I just wanted to clarify.
Aanenson: That’s an optical illusion.
Weick: I was like wait, that doesn’t look right. It looks like there’s a building there. Okay
that’s all I had. Any other questions?
Tietz: I just.
Weick: Yeah.
Tietz: Steve to your counter point. I drove by. That link, the current link between the garage
and the house looks lower than the garage elevation. Is that accurate? And yet the section here,
the house it looks like the new garage is lower than the first floor of the house. Are you going to
have a, am I, he’s nodding. Did I misread something?
Aanenson: I’ll let you ask the applicant that. I’m going to bring up one other point if I may
Chairman.
Weick: Yeah.
Aanenson: I know this was asked of, if there’s something missing on the survey so this is the
variance request and there are conditions of approval that are enumerated in the staff report and
those are that they have to provide a survey with additional information. If I may just for the
record so if you do approve it they have to apply for a building permit. They also have to apply
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 3, 2019
26
for necessary permits from the watershed district. They also have to submit a plan for removal
of the driveway abutting South Cedar right-of-way. And then they also have to show the erosion
control plans we talked about within them and they also have to show any additional trees. The
City Forester did go out there today and didn’t believe there was anything over the 6 inch width
but also all trees have to be preserved during construction and those are things that we didn’t
know on the building permit itself when that comes forward and then if there’s not one tree in the
front yard then we would request that one tree so those are the conditions of approval so I just
want to make sure that those are part of the record as well.
Weick: Yep and those are on page 8 of 8 in the report. And we’ll save that question for the
applicant when they, okay. Any other questions for Kate? Hearing none I would invite the
applicants to come forward and share their project with us. Thank you for coming tonight.
Susan Nowlin: I’m Susan. This is Larry.
Weick: Hello. Hi there.
Susan Nowlin: And we moved in on June 26th and are going to remodel the home and we’ve
been learning a lot along the way and our initial plans were for a little bit larger remodel and a
side variance and in working with MacKenzie realized that that was not a favorable way to go
and we scaled down our remodel. We scaled down the width of the garage so we’re at 21 foot
garage now which is about as small as we feel, that’s an outside measure so we’re getting it as
far back as we can. Still allowing the cars to fit in and allowing there to be stairs to go up to the
house so we can get into the home. And you asked the question about what it looked like, you
know the slope is down. We are going to have, the current garage demolished. There is
currently a large 4 square patio that covers the full distance between the current garage and the
home. That’s coming out. That’s where part of the new garage will be and it will be part of,
they’re putting in a foundation so that it will be level with the first floor of the home is what the
plan is.
Tietz: Okay. Yeah it looks, I think it was when you look from the road, I didn’t wander around
your property.
Susan Nowlin: We were wondering who that guy was.
Tietz: But it looked so that patio must be actually lower than you go up to the first floor, is that
about right? Because it looks.
Larry Nowlin: That’s right.
Susan Nowlin: Yeah.
Tietz: Sheet 2 of 6 on your architectural elevations it looks like the driveway or the garage slab
will be just a little bit lower than your current first floor elevation.
Larry Nowlin: It could be.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 3, 2019
27
Tietz: And that’s fine. I just wanted.
Susan Nowlin: Yes and so then we will have the stairs that go up.
Tietz: On the west side that goes up to the house. Yep, that’s fine.
Susan Nowlin: Right, correct.
Tietz: I just needed to clarify.
Susan Nowlin: Yep.
Tietz: Because I think that gap between, I think this is a great solution to get rid of that old
garage.
Susan Nowlin: Yeah.
Tietz: Too bad you can’t get a little bit wider but it looks like you’ve got some depth.
Susan Nowlin: We’ve got the depth. At least it will get the cars in and we’ve got at least enough
space I think that we’ll be able to walk between them and then get up to the, but just the lot is so
narrow we couldn’t get a wider garage without, unless you want to give us a side variance. You
know what.
Weick: It’s a lot harder. I think MacKenzie was right.
Susan Nowlin: Yeah, yeah.
Weick: Good, any other comments about the project or?
Larry Nowlin: We’re anxious to get going we need your help.
Weick: Okay.
Susan Nowlin: Yes, yes.
Weick: Other questions from the commission.
McGonagill: …help you row the boat.
Larry Nowlin: Thank you. You noticed.
Weick: Well thank you for coming tonight.
Susan Nowlin: Okay, thank you so much.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 3, 2019
28
Larry Nowlin: Appreciate it.
Weick: At this time I would open the public hearing portion and invite anyone to come forward
who would like to speak an opinion on this project. And seeing nobody come forward I will
close the public hearing portion of this item. I’m having trouble. And open it up for
commissioner discussion and/or appropriate motion. Commissioner Tietz I think you said it. It
seems like a good use of what’s there.
Tietz: It’s a great solution. Nice push back and get the garage gone and.
Weick: I mean it’s a heck of an area.
Tietz: Have a new garage and your neighborhood is great.
Weick: Yeah. Beautiful.
Susan Nowlin: Thank you.
Tietz: We’ve had a couple projects further out on the point over the last few years and I had an
opportunity to drive through again and boy every time you turn around there’s something new
happening and it looks, it’s really a great neighborhood.
Weick: It’s very unique right in the way it’s laid out. Any thoughts or?
Tietz: Well I’ll make a motion if everyone’s ready.
Weick: That’d be great.
Tietz: 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 Fact and Decisions.
Weick: We have a valid motion from Commissioner Tietz. Do we have a second?
Randall: Second.
Weick: We have a second from Commissioner Randall. Any final comments for the record?
Tietz moved, Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments
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.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 3, 2019
29
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.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Weick: This item passes 5 to 0.
Larry Nowlin: Thank you.
Susan Nowlin: Thank you very much.
Weick: You bet. Thank you for coming tonight. And we have one more item on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO REPLACE AND EXPAND AN
EXISTING GARAGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6641 MINNEWASHTA
PARKWAY.
Weick: Kate is this you as well?
Aanenson: Yes it is.
Weick: Okay.
Aanenson: This is on Minnewashta Parkway as you stated and the applicant is James and Jean
Way. This is for a 6 foot side yard setback with a 3 percent lot cover variance to expand an
attached garage. Again this is in the shoreland district. Same standards as the previous
application. 20,000 square foot minimum where you have a riparian lot. 30 feet in the front. 30
in the rear. 75 foot lake setback. 10 on the side and 25 percent lot coverage. So the subject site
here is 15,950 square feet so it’s deficient in the square footage required under the 20,000. It has
almost 30 percent lot coverage. It’s non-conforming on the one side when it’s only 9.8 feet on
the south side setback and it’s non-conforming on the lakeshore setback by, at only 52.3 feet.
The 6 foot lake variance for additional setback of the deck and then the house and rear deck
comply with all other setbacks. So the proposed project is to expand the existing driveway.
Excuse me, the existing garage by approximately 5 feet. I’m just going to hit my laser pointer
here. And 5 feet in width and 5 feet in depth. Have you noticed in some of the older areas we’ve
seen a lot of the garage where we have bigger cars, taller cars and we had one recently up in this
area where they couldn’t get the pickup truck in where it’s a lower profile so meeting today’s
standards so at 18 feet wide the existing garage is too narrow. Pretty similar to the other case
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 3, 2019
30
that you just saw to get 2 cars in and not be able to get out. If you look at our standard parking
stalls those are 18 feet wide so when you’re pulling them into the garage it makes them pretty
tight. Many of the surrounding properties had 2 or 3 car garages in that area so it would remove,
so the goal of this as we work with the applicants is really to figure out a way to, if we’re going
to give the variance what can we do to improve the situation so this has a horseshoe driveway.
When you’re on a collector street the engineering staff prefers to have the one control. Actually
a controlled access point with the street but if there are direct access that that be minimized so
with this application part of the driveway then will be eliminated. As you can see the driveway
comes like this so a portion of that driveway will be eliminated so we’ll be removing again the
second driveway and the existing garage is in disrepair and must be replaced so this, the
configuration of the existing home makes it feasible to expand the garage and work it onto the
site without the variance. So the existing 19 foot garage is well below the minimum so this is
our assessment and there’s no practical way to expand without the variance and again due to the
constraints of the lot they can’t add a shed or anything down below and to provide the access so
the neighbor’s garage is a side loaded as you can see over on this side is a side loaded garage and
it’s 27.8 feet from the applicant’s lot line so the expansion area while this is where the variance
would be coming in, there’s still quite a bit of separation between the neighbor’s garage and the
applicant’s garage. So looking at that we felt it wouldn’t negatively impact that and then you can
see again that they would remove the, a portion of that driveway allowing them to back up and
not have to back out onto Minnewashta Parkway, a minor collector. So again the proposal
reduces the non-conforming lot coverage but it creates another variance and that would be to
expand on the side variance. So with that the staff is recommending approval. Again staff
member MacKenzie Walters spent a lot of time with the applicant trying to get the best design
and reduce the non-conformities as best the applicant could and we can do working with the, so
we are recommending approval of the 6 foot side yard variance and a 3 percent lot coverage
variance for the expansion of the attached garage subject to the conditions of approval and
adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. So with that I’d be happy to answer any
questions.
Weick: Thank you Kate. I’d certainly open it up. Anyone can speak up.
Skistad: It’s pretty straight forward.
McGonagill: Always got a question.
Weick: Let’s do it.
McGonagill: So Kate on stuff, again it’s education on my part. Do we have a standard width
garages that we want to try and go people to like two cars?
Aanenson: Yes two car garage is standard.
McGonagill: The reason I ask that, okay but 2 cars how wide because we just had one that we
talked at that was 21. This one’s going to be 24 and so I’m kind of like going.
Aanenson: I would say 21 is pretty narrow. You know a standard garage is really closer to 24.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 3, 2019
31
McGonagill: Right.
Aanenson: Yeah because that’s your outside perimeter. Then you put the garage door on there.
You want to get at least you know a wider garage door that you can get in and out and most
people would prefer to have the garage your waste and stuff inside your garage so if you had that
kind of thing it allows for those sort of things to put your recycling and the trash container inside
your garage which is a desirable.
McGonagill: And I’m not trying to revisit the previous decision.
Aanenson: No.
McGonagill: But that was a question I had.
Aanenson: No they wanted to go wider but it would have required a lot more variances and so
we try to stay within because that was even a smaller lot you know.
McGonagill: Yeah correct.
Aanenson: Again it comes back to proportionality you know.
McGonagill: Right so it’s.
Aanenson: If this was a brand new lot I could tell you what the standard is going to be pretty
much a 3 car garage.
McGonagill: Right or like you said a 24.
Aanenson: 24 at a minimum yep.
McGonagill: This is, on this chart here, and this is the other question I had. When I look, again
I’m thinking about this going you’ve got an expansion. When I looked at the fall line of the
expansion of the roof line it’s going to be dumping water off the top probably. I’m sure there’ll
be gutters to the left end of that expansion. I’m looking at the expansion between the two lots. It
will dump water on the left side. It will dump water on the right side of that expansion. You
have a driveway there. I’m curious, I’m wondering why or should we ask for like a French drain
to run between the property lines to go down that, to dump the water off because one of the
bigger issues when you’re this close is one property owner dumping water on the other property
owner and they play, I had to deal with that in my own subdivision right now so that was a
question I had.
Aanenson: Yep that’s a great question and actually we spent some time on that. We actually
had, we call it the double dip rule where we’ve given variances for 5 feet and so the building
structure goes out and they actually extended the eaves over further.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 3, 2019
32
McGonagill: The eaves right.
Aanenson: Correct.
McGonagill: Pushing the water out.
Aanenson: Yep so MacKenzie and I did spend some time talking about this. So we actually
added a condition that they have to put gutters on there. If they have to oversize so that’d be part
of the building permit. Making sure they’re controlling some of that water on that property.
They would put substantial gutters on that.
McGonagill: Well that was my point. The gutters come off the end on each end of the
expansion. It’s going to could it not move across the lot?
Aanenson: No based on the grades. We looked at the grades on that too so I think we’re in good
shape on that so we did look at the grades. What would be the best way to manage it so we
thought that the gutters would probably be, that they not be orientated to the south and that they
manage it so looking at the grades that’s the way we came up with that.
McGonagill: Okay.
Aanenson: So that’s a good question but we did look at that because that does sometimes
happen to your point.
McGonagill: Oh it happens a lot when you get close.
Aanenson: Yep, yep.
Bender: The other thing that might be helpful if you have the staff report handy, looking at the
rendering on page 6 of 7.
McGonagill: Okay hold on.
Bender: Looking at the street.
McGonagill: Okay. Okay.
Bender: Just showing that it’s, the most of the peaking is heading to the street side.
Aanenson: Correct.
Bender: There is the dormer on the front but that doesn’t go all the way across.
McGonagill: So you mean it would come to the front and go down the driveway.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 3, 2019
33
Aanenson: Yeah that’s typically what we like to see have happen. Run going towards the street
where it’s getting into the stormwater pond, yeah. As opposed to running it back way towards
the lake yeah.
McGonagill: Okay. Thank you.
Aanenson: Good question. Yep.
Randall: Is there any issues with snow pile up for snowing?
Aanenson: No we looked at that too but that’s because the setback on the neighbors, that
driveway there, somewhere in the staff report it’s at least 10 feet plus so they should be fine.
Randall: Okay.
Aanenson: That’s another good question yep.
McGonagill: Well I’m glad they’re going to remove the driveway. That will help.
Aanenson: Yeah. I think engineering likes that too.
Bender: I do. We like it a lot.
Weick: Good items. Any other questions for Kate? Hearing none I would invite the applicant
to come forward and tell us about your project if you would like.
Jim Way: Yeah I’m Jim Way. We bought the property about 25 years ago. It was kind of like
buying a nice lake front lot that included a house and we really rebuilt that house. We gut it out.
We put new siding. New windows. We put an addition in the back. Never did anything to the
garage so now is the time. We have to replace that garage. It is coming apart. Wasn’t really
built very well to begin with in ’62 and you’ve got a swale in the roof and the back, and the
spancrete has got a dip and it looks like it could fall through so we’re anxious to get that and we
have to replace it anyway. Secondly it’s such a small garage. 19 feet on the inside. It’s very
difficult to work with. I have to leave my wife outside. You can’t drive into that garage with
any passengers. That’s just the way it is and we’ve got to watch you know when you open the
doors you don’t hit the other car. We do that quite a bit anyway. We try not to but it’s been a
struggle so we’re looking forward to having a nice garage.
Weick: Well that’s great.
Jim Way: So that’s about it. Thank you very much.
Weick: Does anyone have any questions for the applicant? No, thank you. Thank you very
much. Thanks for sharing. With that I would open up the public hearing portion. Anyone
wishing to come forward. Seeing nobody come forward I will close the public hearing portion
and open for commissioner comment or motion. I will say I had the exact same thought on the
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 3, 2019
34
width. You know it’s fine now but like what if someone else moves in next door and then they
want to do something close to the lot line and all of a sudden we’re, you know we’re bumping up
against each other so I, but seeing the pictures and kind of understanding a little more about the
project I think it makes sense. But I shared your thoughts there. It seems to work for everybody
including the neighbors. That’s always nice.
Randall: I know that drive through, your drive through lot would be nice but at least you still
have a turn around spot there to back up.
Jim Way: …it’s worth it…and give up that turnaround. It’s nice having the turnaround but we
can live without it.
Weick: Yeah, fair enough.
McGonagill: Is this your last project?
Jim Way: Is it what?
McGonagill: Is this your last project on the house?
Jim Way: I hope so.
Weick: I would certainly entertain a motion.
Randall: I’ll make a motion. The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 6
foot side yard setback variance and a 3 percent lot coverage variance, cover variance for the
expansion of the attached garage subject to the conditions of approval and adoption, and adopts
the attached Findings of Fact and Decision.
Weick: We have a valid motion from Commissioner Randall. Do we have a second?
Skistad: I’ll second that one.
Weick: We have a second from Commissioner Skistad. Any comment for the record before we
vote?
Randall moved, Skistad seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments
approve a 6-foot side yard setback variance and 3 percent lot cover variance, subject to the
following 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.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 3, 2019
35
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.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Weick: The item passes 5 to 0 unanimously. Thank you for coming tonight.
Jim Way: Thank you very much.
Weick: And waiting us out. Thanks. Is there any new business to bring forward tonight?
Aanenson: Not tonight.
Weick: Not tonight.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Skistad noted the verbatim and summary Minutes
of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 20, 2019 as presented.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE.
Weick: Kate how about City Council update?
Aanenson: Yep I’ve got some updates.
Weick: Great.
Aanenson: So you looked at the Life Time parking lot. The City Council did approve that so
they’ll get working on the parking lot. Glendale Homes was approved for the final.
McGonagill: I have a question on the parking lot.
Aanenson: Yeah.
McGonagill: Have they actually started work on that before they?
Generous: They have the Class V all in.
McGonagill: Yeah.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 3, 2019
36
Aanenson: They put the Class V in, yeah.
Generous: Now they have to pull it out and put in the…
Aanenson: The park in there, yeah. Glendale Homes, that was one up on, off of Minnewashta
Parkway. The 5 homes. Finally got the stormwater figured out. Approved the development
contract. I do believe they need to make some tweaks on the development contract so that will
go back onto the City Council at the next meeting. Just in that same area, those two lots south.
One of those lots is going to come in for a, they were kind of assembling the two lots. Now
we’re back to two separate but they’re going to split one of the lots. They were going to bring
that before you just, we haven’t done it for a while but under our, on our agenda we have open
discussion and that’s an opportunity where we notice the public but we just internally talk.
We’re not on tape and it’s just an opportunity for someone to present an idea to you. We kind of
give our perspective. They give their perspective and just, you can ruminate on it and give us,
give them both parties some direction. But I think right now because they’ve kind of agreed to
just do a two lot split it’s really less complicated so that probably wouldn’t be on your next
agenda but there are some other, those properties are still being worked through so stay tuned on
that one. Control Concept, the City Council approved that driveway easement when we talked
about realigning that intersection so it moves to the north across our property. They have to
move a hydrant or electrical box.
Generous: Electrical box.
Aanenson: So that’s been approved so that permit’s been issued so we should be seeing that
moving along. And then also something that you probably weren’t aware of but the last 7 years
I’ve been working on with the Flying Cloud Joint Zoning Board so that’s controlled by
Metropolitan Airports Commission so the City of Eden Prairie wanted to work through their
zoning issues and that had to be approved through the Metropolitan Airports Commission and
MnDOT. We were close to getting an agreement. We probably worked on it for 3 or 4 years.
Had all the public hearings and then it got way laid and so they brought it all back the last year
and a half. Councilman McDonald’s been also on that board so really the only part that has
jurisdiction in the fly way for the city of Chanhassen is really over a portion of Lake Riley and
that that area is all zoned low density residential which is only 35 feet so it really doesn’t impact
us but we are in the fly way zone so what it does is it restricts types of uses within the zoning
district so this, the cities that were involved in that, it’s an indemnification clause that we’re all
part of that if something happens so the City Attorney had, Metropolitan Council put that out to
us. The joint zoning board. City Attorney reviewed that so that was adopted by the council.
You will be seeing that. We have a litany of things we want to bring back to you. I mean one of
the things could be the gravel pit standards. Some of those sort of things but we have a lot of
other things we want to bring back too. I think right now we’d like to let the council kind of
know the direction we go before we have the public hearing and then we find out that’s not the
direction they wanted to go so but we’re going to try to do those this fall and then so you have an
opportunity to look at those so, but that’s all I had. We do have one item on your next agenda
and that is a variance for a septic system. Is that the one that’s on? Oh Carver Beach.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 3, 2019
37
Generous: Yeah and then we have a small subdivision. Two lot subdivision.
Aanenson: Two lot subdivision so we’re trying to get this one on subdivision, septic, those tend
to be a bit of a challenge and so we’re kind of racing them against the clock because they need to
get resolution or they’ll have to be forced to pump so we’re trying to find a resolution. I’m not
sure all parties are agreeing. The County would be Carver County on that too so but you will
have, for sure have a meeting in 2 weeks for sure and I think we have a couple other small things
coming forward so.
Generous: That’s when the open discussion was supposed to go.
Aanenson: Yeah but we won’t have that done but that’s it so.
Weick: Okay.
Skistad: I’d like to ask a question.
Aanenson: Absolutely.
Skistad: I’ve seen a helicopter several times now where it’s actually like over by Stone Creek
area, like down Galpin and actually one time it, when I was driving down there it actually was
close enough and flying crazily up and down like this where it knocked a rock into my
windshield and I’ve seen that same helicopter over again on Galpin but farther up.
Aanenson: It’s not the mosquito control district?
Skistad: I highly doubt it. Hopefully they wouldn’t be flying that recklessly.
Aanenson: Call the sheriff’s office.
Skistad: But I’m wondering yeah. I mean how do you.
Aanenson: There’s a non-emergency number.
Skistad: I mean I had.
Aanenson: You can call that non-emergency number at the sheriff’s office.
Randall: Yeah it’s usually the mosquito control people that are doing that but yeah.
Aanenson: Yeah we haven’t had any other calls but they might be going over there too.
Skistad: It’s usually so quick that you know it’s like it just happened to be, I was at the stop light
the last time. It wasn’t that long ago. It shouldn’t have been the mosquito control. I would
thing…
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 3, 2019
38
Aanenson: Yeah I don’t know. I haven’t had anybody else talk to us about it at the city that I’m
aware of.
Skistad: Because it was just one of those things that like you mentioned Flying Cloud and I’m
like oh yeah, that’s something I was going to ask on.
Aanenson: We can check on that. Maybe you can too Mark.
Randall: Yeah. I know we get a lot of calls for mosquito control.
Skistad: Because I mean my concern and maybe okay.
Aanenson: Safety.
Skistad: I mean yeah, well what if it hits residential areas.
Aanenson: Yeah.
Skistad: I mean that’s, there’s a lot of people’s houses right through there you know. And it’s
usually in the middle of the day. It’s not like.
Randall: Yeah it’s the mosquito.
Aanenson: We can check on it. That’s all I had.
Weick: Okay. Unless there’s other business I would entertain a motion to adjourn.
Randall: Move to adjourn.
Weick: All in favor signify with aye.
Randall: Doesn’t there need to be a second?
McGonagill: It has to be seconded. We second it and say aye. You’re good.
Weick: Is there a second?
McGonagill: Yes there is a second.
Randall moved, McGonagill seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was
adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim