PC Minutes 9-3-19Chanhassen 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