Loading...
Agenda and PacketAGENDA  CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2019, 7:00 PM CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD A.CALL TO ORDER B.PUBLIC HEARINGS 1.Consider a Request for a Variance for Lot Cover and Front Yard Setback to Construct a Single­Family Home at 690 Carver Beach Road C.APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1.Approve Planning Commission Minutes dated September 17, 2019 D.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS 1.City Council Action Update E.ADJOURNMENT F.OPEN DISCUSSION NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m. as outlined in the official by­laws.  We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda.  If, however, this does not appear to be possible, the Chairperson will notify those present and offer rescheduling options.  Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. If a constituent or resident sends an email to staff or the Planning Commission, it must be made part of the public record based on State Statute. If a constituent or resident sends an email to the Mayor and City Council, it is up to each individual City Council member and Mayor if they want it to be made part of the public record or not. There is no State Statute that forces the Mayor or City Council to share that information with the public or be made part of the public record. Under State Statute, staff cannot remove comments or letters provided as part of the public input process. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, October 1, 2019 Subject Consider a Request for a Variance for Lot Cover and Front Yard Setback to Construct a Single­ Family Home at 690 Carver Beach Road Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.1. Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, Associate Planner File No: Planning Case 2019­14 PROPOSED MOTION: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 5­foot front yard setback variance and a 9 percent lot cover variance for the construction of single­family home, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is proposing to replace an existing house and detached one­stall garage with a new single­family home. The home is in a state of disrepair and is of substandard size with an 865 square­foot footprint, and the existing garage is partially located on the neighbor’s property. The proposed project would replace these structures with a new single­ family home meeting the city’s minimum size and two­stall garage requirements. The proposed home would require a 5­ foot front yard setback variance and 9 percent lot cover variance. The applicant has proposed a project that replaces a derelict and substandard structure with an appropriately scaled new home. The proposed home meets the city’s minimum requirements for single­family housing, and increases the existing front yard setback and brings the property’s side yard setbacks into compliance with the city’s zoning code. While the requested lot cover variance is significant, it is in line with previously granted variances for similarly sized properties and the applicant is proposing a rain garden to offset some of its impact. Staff believes that the applicant’s proposal represents a reasonably sized and configured home for the parcel in question. A full breakdown and analysis of the variance request can be found in the attached staff report. APPLICANT Adam Loken 9950 10th Avenue Plymouth, MN 55441 SITE INFORMATION PRESENT ZONING:  Single­Family Residential (RSF) LAND USE:Residential Low Density PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, October 1, 2019SubjectConsider a Request for a Variance for Lot Cover and Front Yard Setback to Construct a Single­Family Home at 690 Carver Beach RoadSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case 2019­14PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 5­foot front yard setback variance and a 9 percentlot cover variance for the construction of single­family home, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopts theattached Findings of Facts and Decision.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is proposing to replace an existing house and detached one­stall garage with a new single­family home.The home is in a state of disrepair and is of substandard size with an 865 square­foot footprint, and the existing garageis partially located on the neighbor’s property. The proposed project would replace these structures with a new single­family home meeting the city’s minimum size and two­stall garage requirements. The proposed home would require a 5­foot front yard setback variance and 9 percent lot cover variance.The applicant has proposed a project that replaces a derelict and substandard structure with an appropriately scalednew home. The proposed home meets the city’s minimum requirements for single­family housing, and increases theexisting front yard setback and brings the property’s side yard setbacks into compliance with the city’s zoning code.While the requested lot cover variance is significant, it is in line with previously granted variances for similarly sizedproperties and the applicant is proposing a rain garden to offset some of its impact. Staff believes that the applicant’sproposal represents a reasonably sized and configured home for the parcel in question.A full breakdown and analysis of the variance request can be found in the attached staff report.APPLICANTAdam Loken 9950 10th Avenue Plymouth, MN 55441SITE INFORMATIONPRESENT ZONING:  Single­Family Residential (RSF) LAND USE:Residential Low Density ACREAGE:  .13 acres  DENSITY:  NA  BACKGROUND County records indicate that the house was built in 1927. Several permits for interior and roof work are on file with the city; however, no permits associated with building or locating the structures on the property are present. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the 5­foot front yard setback variance and a 9 percent lot cover variance, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopt the attached Findings of Facts and Decision: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. The applicant must apply for and receive a demolition permit prior to removing the existing structures. 3. The applicant must apply for and receive all necessary permits from the Watershed District. 4. Construction traffic and parking cannot block emergency response road access. 5. The applicant must install a rain garden. The rain garden’s design and location must be approved by the city’s Engineering Department. 6. Eaves may encroach up to an additional 24 inches into the required front yard setback, as shown on the submitted plan. 7. The applicant shall resubmit the site plan which indicates the height of the retaining wall (top of wall and bottom of wall elevations). Retaining walls shall be designed in accordance with City Code of Ordinances Sec. 20­ 1025. ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report Findings of Fact (Approval) Findings of Fact (Denial) Variance Document Development Review Application Narrative Survey Redlined Survey House Plan Sheets Engineering Comments Tree Preservation and Landscaping Comments CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: October 1, 2019 CC DATE: October 28, 2019 REVIEW DEADLINE: October 29, 2019 CASE #: 2019-14 BY: MW SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is proposing to replace an existing house and detached one stall garage with a new single-family home. The home is in a state of disrepair and is of substandard size with an 865 square foot footprint and the existing garage is partially located on the neighbor’s property. The proposed project would replace these structures with a new single-family home meeting the city’s minimum size and two-stall garage requirements. The proposed home would require a 5-foot front yard setback variance and 9 percent lot cover variance. LOCATION: 690 Carver Beach Road (PID 251602220) OWNER: Adam Loken 9950 10th Avenue Plymouth, MN 55441 PRESENT ZONING: RSF 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density ACREAGE: .13 acres DENSITY: NA LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The city’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The city has a relatively high PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 5-foot front yard setback variance and a 9 percent lot cover variance for the construction of single-family home, subject to the Conditions of Approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions.” (Note: A motion for denial and appropriate Findings of Fact are also included at the end of the report.) Planning Commission 690 Carver Beach Road – Planning Case No. 19-14 October 1, 2019 Page 2 of 9 level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The existing home was built in 1927 with a 15.3-foot front yard setback and 6.7-foot side yard setback. The property also has a detached garage that extends approximately 1 foot across the side property line onto the neighboring property. The property currently has 1,258 square feet of lot cover resulting in 21 percent lot cover. The home has been on the market for several years and is currently in a state of significant disrepair, making rehabilitation of the existing structure impractical. Additionally, the existing home and garage do not meet the city’s minimum home and garage size standards for single-family housing. The current owner bought the property in March of 2019 and is proposing removing the existing structures and replacing them with a new single-family home. The applicant is proposing a new home and garage with a combined 1,400 square foot footprint that would meet the property’s side and rear setbacks but require a 5-foot front yard setback variance and 9 percent lot cover variance. The applicant is aware that stormwater management and lot cover are significant concerns within the Carver Beach neighborhood and is proposing to install a rain garden in the southern portion of the property to help offset the requested lot cover variance. The applicant has stated that the requested variances are necessary due to the lot’s substandard 6,000 square foot lot size. The applicant has noted that it would be impossible to construct a home meeting both the requirements for a new single-family housing and the requirements of the Single-Family Residential (RSF) district on this lot. That being said, the applicant’s proposal does increase the property’s front yard setback by nearly 10 feet and brings both of the side yard setbacks into compliance. The applicant has observed that a similar variance was granted for new construction on a neighboring property, and believes that his proposal is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Planning Commission 690 Carver Beach Road – Planning Case No. 19-14 October 1, 2019 Page 3 of 9 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 1, General Provisions Section 1-2, Rules of Construction and Definitions Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3, Variances Chapter 20, Article II, Division 4, Non-conforming Uses Chapter 20, Article VII, Shoreland Management District Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single-Family Residential District Section 20-615, Lot Requirements and Setbacks. Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 1, Generally Section 20-905, Single-Family Dwellings BACKGROUND County records indicate that the house was built in 1927. Several permits for interior and roof work are on file with the city; however, no permits associated with building or locating the structures on the property are present. SITE CONDITIONS The property is zoned Single-Family Residential District and is located within the city’s Shoreland Management District. This zoning classification requires lots to be a minimum of 15,000 square feet, have front and rear yard setbacks of 30 feet, side yard setbacks of 10 feet, and limits parcels to a maximum of 25 percent lot cover. Residential structures are limited to 35 feet in height. The lot is 6,000 square feet, and has 1,258 square feet (21 percent) lot cover. The existing house has a non-conforming 6.7-foot side yard setback and a non-conforming 15.3-foot front yard setback. The property also as a detached one-stall garage located partially on the neighboring property. The existing structures meet the required rear yard setback. NEIGHBORHOOD Carver Beach The plat for this area was recorded in July of 1927 and divided the land up into a large number of small 20-foot wide by 100-foot deep lots. Over the following decades, many of these lots were combined to create larger lots; however, many of the resulting lots are still substandard or have atypical shapes. The plat and many of its lot combinations Planning Commission 690 Carver Beach Road – Planning Case No. 19-14 October 1, 2019 Page 4 of 9 predate the City of Chanhassen and since their creation, a zoning code was passed, the zoning code was amended numerous times, and buildings were built, demolished, and rebuilt to meet the standards and needs of the existing ordinances. The result of this is that many properties in the area do not meet one or more of the requirements of the city’s zoning code, and a significant number of properties are either non-conforming uses or are operating under a variance. Variances within 500 feet: 1983-08 651 Broken Arrow: Approved - 6’ side (addition) 1986-08 620 Fox Hill Drive: Withdrawn - 5’ side setback (garage) 1988-06 6901 Yuma Drive: Approved - 7,000 sq. ft. lot size (house) 1989-5 600 Fox Hill Drive: Denied - 12’ front (deck) 1989-16 620 Fox Hill Drive: Denied - 1’1” rear setback (shed) 1991-10 685 Carver Beach Road: Approved - 15’ wetland (deck) 1993-01 6880 Lotus Trail: Approved - 10’ front Lotus and Navajo (addition) 1997-02 600 Fox Hill Drive: Approved - 3’ front setback (deck) 1998-01 6880 Lotus Trail: Withdrawn - 23’ front (porch) 2001-10 6890 Navajo Drive: Approved - 5.5’ front, 7’ side, 11% lot cover 2016-17 691 Carver Beach Road: Approved-5’ front, 18” eave (house) ANALYSIS Front Yard Setback The property’s existing home is currently 15.3 feet from the front lot line. The applicant is proposing replacing this structure with a home setback 25 from the front property line, with eaves encroaching an addition 24”. There is currently a deteriorated gravel driveway leading to the exiting one stall garage. The city establishes front yard setbacks in order to prevent neighborhoods from feeling crowded due to structures being located excessively close to the road, provide a consistent neighborhood aesthetic, to ensure the presence of greenspace, and to provide sufficient driveway length to accommodate off street parking. The proposed project would increase the property’s front yard setback by nearly 10 feet and replace an unpaved 10-foot wide driveway with a paved 22-foot wide Planning Commission 690 Carver Beach Road – Planning Case No. 19-14 October 1, 2019 Page 5 of 9 driveway. This combined with bringing the property’s side yard setbacks into compliance with the City Code will create an aesthetic more consistent with the intent of the RSF district. In theory, the applicant could shift the house back an additional five feet in order to meet the required 30-foot front yard setback; however, doing so would increase the required lot cover variance by an additional 1.5 percent and reduce the maximum potential depth of a rear deck from approximately 15 feet down to 10 feet. Since the property is located within the Shoreland Management Overlay district in an area with known stormwater issues, staff believes that reducing the property’s lot cover is a higher priority than requiring the applicant to meet the full front yard setback. In order to determine if the proposed 25-foot front yard setback is reasonable, staff examined other properties in the immediate vicinity. Looking at the six properties that share a block with 690 Carver Beach Road and the four properties directly across the street, staff found that variances have been given for a 24.5-foot front yard setback and a 25-foot front yard setback. Using the city’s GIS system staff also estimate front yard setbacks of 0, 10, 20, and 27 feet for four of the other properties. Since six of the ten closest properties have front yard setbacks under the required 30 feet, the applicant’s proposed 25-foot setback would not be out of character or atypical for the area. For these reasons staff supports the proposed 5-foot front yard setback variance. Lot Coverage The city requires a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet within the RSF and Shoreland Management Overlay district and limits these properties to 25 percent lot coverage. The applicant’s lot is substandard with a lot area of 6,000 square feet. The property currently has a lot coverage of 21 percent or 1,258 square feet. The applicant’s proposal would increase the lot coverage to 2,017 square feet or 33.6 percent. By comparison, a property meeting the city’s 15,000 square foot minimum lot size would be entitled to 3,750 square feet of impervious surface. Generally, staff is reluctant to support lot cover variances, especially within the Shoreland Management Overlay district; however, the size of the applicant’s parcel makes it impossible to construct a home meeting the city’s minimum standards for single-family housing without a lot cover variance. The following table provides estimates of the minimum required lot cover for several different configurations of homes meeting minimum city standards. Planning Commission 690 Carver Beach Road – Planning Case No. 19-14 October 1, 2019 Page 6 of 9 Minimum Lot Cover For a Single-Family Home (in square feet) House Style House foot print Garage foot print* Driveway** Total Percentage Rambler 960 400 540 1900 31.67% Split level 575 400 540 1515 25.25% Split foyer/two-story 600 400 540 1540 25.67% *20’x20’ is generally considered the minimum size for a 2-car garage. **18’x30’ would be the typical dimensions of a driveway meeting the 30’ RSF setback and serving a 20’ wide garage. It should be noted that the table shows the absolute minimum lot cover required to build a single- family home in Chanhassen, and does not include any of the typical amenities such as a walkway connecting the driveway and entrance or concrete pads for deck/service door landings. When evaluating variance requests for such constrained parcels, the city must determine what represents a reasonable intensity of use for the property. In order to make a determination of reasonableness, the requirements of the City Code, usability, character of the neighborhood, and general housing trends should all be considered. The proposed home has a combined garage and house footprint of 1,400 square feet and approximately 2,000 square feet of living area. This less than the 2,687 square foot average home size reported by the U.S. Census Bureau in 2015, and significantly less than the 3,000 plus square foot size routinely seen for new construction within Chanhassen. Staff believes that the proposed house size represents a reasonable attempt to work within the constraints of the parcel. While the 22-foot-by-26-foot garage is larger than the theoretical minimum, it is of comparable size to a 24-foot-by-24-foot garage, which is the most common two-car garage size. Since no shed is proposed as part of the project and the property’s lot cover limit will not accommodate the construction of any accessory storage structure, the garage will need to accommodate both vehicles and other on-site storage. Additionally, the applicant is proposing a tuck under configuration to minimize the property’s building footprint. Staff believes that the proposed garage size is reasonable. Other features of the proposal contributing to the property’s lot cover, such as a 22-foot wide driveway, 108-square foot covered front porch, and 63-square feet of lot cover for stairs and walkways are all features commonly associated with homes and are of reasonable dimensions and configurations. In an effort to minimize lot cover, the applicant is proposing a rear deck in lieu of a Planning Commission 690 Carver Beach Road – Planning Case No. 19-14 October 1, 2019 Page 7 of 9 patio area. Furthermore, a rain garden is also being proposed to help mitigate the runoff generated by the project’s impervious surface. Staff also examined other variances granted within the Carver Beach neighborhood in an attempt to determine the reasonableness of the request. Staff found that in 2001, the city approved a 5.5-foot front yard setback, a 7-foot side yard setback, and 11 percent lot cover variance to construct a home on the 6,000 square foot lot at 6890 Navajo Drive. Since 6890 Navajo Drive is the rear neighbor of 690 Carver Beach Road and has the exact same lot dimensions, it provides a good comparison for what the city has historically considered reasonable within the neighborhood. For these reasons staff supports the requested 9 percent lot cover variance. Impact on Neighborhood Carver Beach is one of the oldest neighborhoods in the city. Many of its properties are non- conforming uses, and 11 variances have been given to the 43 properties within 500 feet of 690 Carver Beach Road. Since 2000, two variances have been given allowing for 25 front yard setbacks, and the applicant’s requested variance is very similar to the variance approved for a neighboring property in 2001. The proposal would replace an unusable deteriorating home with a new home similar in scale and configuration to other newer homes in the neighborhood. Existing Proposed SUMMARY The applicant has proposed a project that replaces a derelict and substandard structure with an appropriately scaled new home. The proposed home meets the city’s minimum requirements for single-family housing, and increases the existing front yard setback and brings the property’s side yard setbacks into compliance with the city’s zoning code. While the requested lot cover variance is significant, it is in line with previously granted variances for similarly sized properties and the applicant is proposing a raingarden to offset some of its impact. Staff believes Planning Commission 690 Carver Beach Road – Planning Case No. 19-14 October 1, 2019 Page 8 of 9 that the applicant’s proposal represents a reasonably sized and configured home for the parcel in question. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the 5-foot front yard setback variance and a 9 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 a demolition permit prior to removing the existing structures. 3. The applicant must apply for and receive all necessary permits from the Watershed District. 4. Construction traffic and parking cannot block emergency response road access. 5. The applicant must install a rain garden. The rain garden’s design and location must be approved by the city’s Engineering Department. 6. Eaves may encroach up to an additional 24 inches into the required front yard setback, as shown on the submitted plan. 7. The applicant shall resubmit the site plan which indicates the height of the retaining wall (top of wall and bottom of wall elevations). Retaining walls shall be design in accordance with City Code of Ordinances Sec. 20-1025. 8. The applicant shall include all trees 6” dbh and larger on the building permit survey and note tree(s) to be removed or preserved. All preserved trees in the rear yard must be protected by fencing during construction. 9. One tree will be required to be planted in the front yard if no tree in the front yard is present at the end of construction. 10. The applicant shall install tree protection fencing at 690 Carver Beach Road around the neighboring oak to the south 11. Tree branches from neighboring trees shall be properly pruned by a certified arborist before demolition activities begin. Should the Planning Commission deny the variance request, it is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion and attached Finding of Fact and Decision: “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the 5-foot front yard setback variance and the 9 percent lot cover variance for the construction of single-family home, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.” ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Decision (Approval) 2. Findings of Fact and Decision (Denial) Planning Commission 690 Carver Beach Road – Planning Case No. 19-14 October 1, 2019 Page 9 of 9 3. Variance Document 4. Development Review Application and Narrative 5. Survey 6. Redlined Survey 7. House Plan Sheets 8. Engineering Memo 9. ERS Report G:\PLAN\2019 Planning Cases\19-14 690 Carver Beach Road VAR\Staff Report-690 Carver Beach_PC.doc 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (APPROVAL) IN RE: Application of Adam Loken for a 5-foot front yard setback and a 9 percent lot coverage variance on a property zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF) - Planning Case 2019-14. On October 1, 2019, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lots 3078, 3079, and 3080, Carver Beach 4. Variance Findings – Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The intent of the city’s shoreland management ordinance is to protect the city’s aquatic resources by establishing a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet and a maximum lot coverage of 25 percent. These two requirements are designed to work together to allow property owners sufficient lot cover to construct a reasonably sized house and accessory structures while preventing excessive development that could generate unnecessary runoff capable of degrading the lake. In this case, the applicant’s small lot size means the 25 percent lot cover standard does not allow enough lot cover to construct a reasonably sized single family home. The proposed house has a modest footprint that results in a relatively small absolute amount of lot cover, approximately 2,000 square feet, compared to the 3,750 square feet properties meeting the minimum lot size are allowed. The proposal also features a rain garden to mitigate the impact of increased lot cover percentage. Given that the property is 2 zoned for single-family residential use, the proposed modestly sized house featuring a stormwater best management practice is in line with the intent of the intent of the Chapter. The city’s zoning code requires a minimum front yard setback of 30 feet in order to prevent neighborhoods from feeling crowded due to structures being located excessively close to the road, to ensure the presence of greenspace, and to provide sufficient driveway length to accommodate off street parking. The applicant’s proposal would increase the property’s front yard setback from 15.3 feet to 25 feet and would bring the side yard setbacks into compliance with City Code. The proposed front yard setback represents a significant reduction to the existing non-conformity and is consistent with the intent of the Chapter. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: Constructing a single-family home with a two-car garage on a lot zoned for single-family residential use is a reasonable use of the property. The proposed home is reasonably sized, and it would not be possible to construct a home meeting the standards of the City’s zoning code without a variance. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The lot is substandard with a lot area of only 6,000 square feet. It would not be possible to construct a house meeting the City’s minimum standards on this property without a variance. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The property is located in one of the city’s oldest subdivisions. Many properties within 500 feet of the parcel either have received variances or are non- conforming uses. The applicant’s proposal is very similar to a variance granted for a similarly sized neighboring property. The proposal would replace an unusable deteriorating home with a new home similar in scale and configuration to other newer homes in the neighborhood. f. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. 3 Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2019-14, dated October 1, 2019, prepared by MacKenzie Young- Walters, is incorporated herein. DECISION “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 5-foot front yard setback variance and a 9 percent lot cover variance for the construction of single-family home, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. The applicant must apply for and receive a demolition permit prior to removing the existing structures. 3. The applicant must apply for and receive all necessary permits from the Watershed District. 4. Construction traffic and parking cannot block emergency response road access. 5. The applicant must install a rain garden. The rain garden’s design and location must be approved by the city’s Engineering Department. 6. Eaves may encroach up to an additional 24 inches into the required front yard setback, as shown on the submitted plan. 7. The applicant shall resubmit the site plan which indicates the height of the retaining wall (top of wall and bottom of wall elevations). Retaining walls shall be designed in accordance with City Code of Ordinances Sec. 20-1025. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 1st day of October, 2019. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Steven Weick, Chairman g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-14 690 carver beach road var\findings of fact and decision 690 carver beach road (approval).doc 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (DENIAL) IN RE: Application of Adam Loken for a 5-foot front yard setback and a 9 percent lot coverage variance on a property zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF) - Planning Case 2019-14. On October 1, 2019, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lots 3078, 3079, and 3080, Carver Beach 4. Variance Findings – Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The zoning code’s shoreland overlay district was enacted to protect the city’s aquatic resources. Allowing the applicant to exceed the district’s 25 percent lot coverage limit by 9 percent increases the amount of runoff generated and is contrary to the intent of the ordinance. While it is true that a lot cover variance is needed to construct a single- family home on this property, additional steps such as converting the porch from a covered to uncovered design, narrowing the driveway, and reducing the home’s footprint could reduce the extent of the lot cover variance required. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. 2 Finding: Constructing a single-family home with a two-car garage on a lot zoned for single-family residential use is a reasonable use of the property; however, the applicant could propose an alternative home configuration that would provide similar use and lessen variances required. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The lot is substandard with a lot area of only 6,000 square feet. It would not be possible to construct a house meeting the city’s minimum standards on this property without a variance. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The property is located in one of the city’s oldest subdivisions. Many properties within 500 feet of the parcel either have received variances or are non- conforming uses. The applicant’s proposal is very similar to a variance granted for a similarly sized neighboring property. The proposal would replace an unusable deteriorating home with a new home similar in scale and configuration to other newer homes in the neighborhood. f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2019-14, dated October 1, 2019, prepared by MacKenzie Young- Walters, is incorporated herein. 3 DECISION “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the 5-foot front yard setback variance and the 9 percent lot cover variance.” ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 1st day of October, 2019. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Steven Weick, Chairman g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-14 690 carver beach road var\findings of fact and decision 690 carver beach rd (denied).doc 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 2019-14 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 5-foot front yard setback variance and a 9 percent lot coverage variance. 2. Property. The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as Lots 3078, 3079, and 3080, Carver Beach. 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. The applicant must apply for and receive a demolition permit prior to removing the existing structures. 3. The applicant must apply for and receive all necessary permits from the Watershed District. 4. Construction traffic and parking cannot block emergency response road access. 5. The applicant must install a rain garden. The rain garden’s design and location must be approved by the city’s Engineering Department. 6. Eaves may encroach up to an additional 24 inches into the required front yard setback, as shown on the submitted plan. 7. The applicant shall resubmit the site plan which indicates the height of the retaining wall (top of wall and bottom of wall elevations). Retaining walls shall be designed in accordance with City Code of Ordinances Sec. 20-1025. 8. The applicant shall include all trees 6” dbh and larger on the building permit survey and note tree(s) to be removed or preserved. All preserved trees in the rear yard must be protected by fencing during construction. 2 9. One tree will be required to be planted in the front yard if no tree in the front yard is present at the end of construction. 10. The applicant shall install tree protection fencing at 690 Carver Beach Road around the neighboring oak to the south 11. Tree branches from neighboring trees shall be properly pruned by a certified arborist before demolition activities begin. 4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. Dated: October 1, 2019 CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: (SEAL) Elise Ryan, Mayor AND: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2019 by Elise Ryan, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-14 690 carver beach road var\variance document 19-14.doc I am applying for a variance to hardcover and front setback requirements. I am applying because of the practical difficulties in complying with current zoning make the property unusable/unworkable in relation to neighboring properties. This is the case mainly because it is one of the smallest buildable lots in Chanhassen. 60ft by 100ft. The main issue is the hard cover. I would like to place the house closer to the street to eat up some unnecessary driveway space and reduce the hard cover. I plan to provide a rain garden on the south side of the property to mitigate the runoff from multiple lots to the north and east, as well as the added runoff from the added hardcover on my lot. The removal of the existing home and detached garage will bring the lot into current zoning compliance on the front and side setbacks. The current detached garage encroaches the neighbor’s property by about one foot. The existing house setbacks are nonconforming at 15 feet to the street and 5 feet to the north side. These issues will all be corrected. I am requesting the ability to build a usable average to small family home on a uniquely tiny lot while working within as many zoning ordinances as feasibly possible. Variance request for: 25 foot setback from front, and hardcover at 35%. a. I believe this plan takes the intent of the zoning seriously, only asking for small variations that allow the lot to function as originally intended while aligning with the city’s comprehensive plan b. I am applying because of the practical difficulties in complying with current zoning make the property unusable/unworkable in relation to neighboring properties. This is the case mainly because it is one of the smallest buildable lots in Chanhassen. 60ft by 100ft. c. Usability and increasing curb appeal compared to existing structure d. Lot is extremely small. e. Almost all neighbors’ lots do not conform to zoning. I assume most newer remodel/builds have had variance approvals in the past. The home design takes the areas character into deep consideration. I want it to look like it fits the location not only in size but also architecture. f. N/A PLAN NOTE: There will be a 12x20 deck on the back, off the rear sliding door. It will be within the buildable area with pervious surface below (not hardcover) this is still in design phase and has not been drawn as I do not have it finished cpmcp x 9 U ' o as_ ° Aga I co C Qa. i fag a Pa co a 1): 1.. t 1LS 111. n 9s ' 6- 61\ M- 9., L } x 1, 0. 99E, 9 • 9. 5"-'' sd93S,,``' 11 y. o6P3r / s" I. r / simo ato\ Z- u wri; F! 8 1 v o 11 x IIS ti a° co n\. CD Snv . 9, 5 rn 9s¢ s a,0v 4 I` 6 ',,-) IIOr' a- l( 5 9y6Jt3` c 96 4 Z' F m w 40' 16 s\ 1 ( 96 -- p b __" 1 i:, 0' 84,' - ,• \ J O k ( n 6) 4 S: 0 . ( 7 G 011\. VI 0- 00 v' i' 4° Ca a, 9 4. 0 . 1 M p' 1q mo' u, a,= ot, No Ottm 0 q0G a m r'° o 0': 0,- d v o t q + 963x r _ CO r) f 9 co I o o 4- 0OICOItr.( 21 c4 . . -- 6. k C• 0 m b ab 4 iv 0 o Q o q: 9, , i I—.( 0•£ 6) 1 0 o t 2s C rq 1 e v'_-' ( 0 1g6' ` k D O 0 Q L 1 11 96i 1- B A. g- cT` 1 k s. s L' O X79 ' r1 ' o D 4, tp 959. , ms mos W w A.\ A 440 o c4 a W O ' 1 • 6 k a i k gym 11 Os 1 1 g Ca. Ns\ CI It.. 0 ' 5'0 M% w c maga 5 Ot 0% 96so 1 s 00. Q9 ir . LIN Q I 1£ _" J) oo 1 t mss t J 1 0 • h r' $ Z 9.. y. , r', 1 ? fs7 • r ' $ ate 3 F' Y oa I 6 s 60, I X\\\ A- 014 CO 1- Legend • Found Iron Monument X 000.0 Existing Elevation (000.0) Proposed Elevation Manhole Plan Prepared for: Adam Loken 690 Carver Beach Rd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Existing l-lardcover (sq. ft.) House 865 Garage 267 Steps 52 Pavers 94 1.258 Lot Area = 6,000 Total l-lardcover = 21.0 % Proposed Hardcover fsq. ft.): House 1400 Driveway 554 Porch Steps 16 Walkway Sc steps 47 Retaining Walls 41 Total 2.058 Lot Area = 6.000 Total Hardcover = 34.3% Boundary Description (supplied by client) Lots 3078, 3079 and 3080. CARVER BEACH, according to the recorded plat thereof, Carver County, Minnesota. Subject to any and all easements of record. Bearings based on assumed datum. i SCHOBORG LAND SERVICES INC. 763-972-3221 www.SchoborgLand.com 8997 Co. Rd. 13 SE Delano. MN 55328 I hereby certify that this certificate of survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. elly L. Brouwer Date: _. /ht/j/ 30. Zo/t Registration No. 48328 Job Number: 8844 Book/Page: LL Survey Date: 4/24/19 Drawing Name: loken.dwg Drawn by: DMS Revisions: 5/14/19 (add bidq. setbacks) 8/30/19 (Site Plan) 1 inch = 20 feet First Floor 966' - 7" Attic Floor 977' - 2 1/8" Roof 975' - 8 1/8" Basement 957' - 0" T.O. Footing 956' - 8" B.O. Footing 956' - 0" Foundation 965' - 1" 16 12 16 12 6/12 6/12 RETAINING WALL GRADE @963' GRADE @960' METAL ROOF METAL ROOF ARCHITECTURAL SHINGLE ScaleProject numberDateDrawn byChecked by612-483-4593K.D.S. 1/4" = 1'-0"8/7/2019 9:16:17 AMA1ElevationsProject NumberLOKEN690 CARVER BEACH RD08/07/2019SWKChecker 1/4" = 1'-0"1 South First Floor 966' - 7" Attic Floor 977' - 2 1/8" Roof 975' - 8 1/8" Basement 957' - 0" T.O. Footing 956' - 8" B.O. Footing 956' - 0" Foundation 965' - 1" 14 12 6 12 GRADE @963' GRADE @960' LINE OF GARAGE FOOTING AND FOUNDATION DRIVEWAY @956'-8" 16 12 GRADE @963'GRADE @960' First Floor 966' - 7" Attic Floor 977' - 2 1/8" Roof 975' - 8 1/8" Basement 957' - 0" T.O. Footing 956' - 8"B.O. Footing 956' - 0" Foundation 965' - 1" 14 12 12 6 GRADE @960' LINE OF GARAGE FOUNDATION AND FOOTING LINE OF HOUSE FOUNDATION AND FOOTING ScaleProject numberDateDrawn byChecked by612-483-4593K.D.S. 1/8" = 1'-0"8/7/2019 9:15:50 AMA2ElevationsProject NumberLOKEN690 CARVER BEACH RD08/07/2019SWKChecker 1/8" = 1'-0"1 East 1/8" = 1'-0"2 North 1/8" = 1'-0"3 West 3'-0"1 HR. DOOR2'-8" 3'-0" 1 HR. DOOR GARAGE 485 SQ. FT. BEDROOM 1 95 SQ. FT. MECH. 16'-0" X 7'-0" OVERHEAD GARAGE DOOR36" X 48" CSMT.36" X 48" CSMT.0' - 2"39' - 8"0' - 2" 40' - 0"0' - 2"6' - 0 1/2"14' - 9 1/2"5' - 10"0' - 2"27' - 0"6' - 0"33' - 0"0' - 2"17' - 10"0' - 2"10' - 11"10' - 11" 18' - 0"22' - 0" 40' - 0"0' - 2"6' - 10"26' - 0"33' - 0"9' - 11 1/4"3' - 8 1/2"3' - 8 1/2"20' - 11 3/4"9' - 8"15' - 8"9' - 9 1/2"2' - 4 1/2"4' - 4 1/2"1' - 2 1/4"20' - 9 1/4"6' - 3"3' - 5"4' - 7"11' - 1"8" POURED CONCRETE FOUNDATION 2" RIGID INSULATION 2'-4"26' - 3 1/4"5' - 10 3/4" 8' - 2 1/2" CEILING HEIGHT BATH 49 SQ. FT. LIVING SPACE 190 SQ. FT. 2'-6"2'-6" SD SD/ CM ScaleProject numberDateDrawn byChecked by612-483-4593K.D.S. 1/4" = 1'-0"8/7/2019 9:15:24 AMA3Basement PlanProject NumberLOKEN690 CARVER BEACH RD08/07/2019SWKChecker 1/4" = 1'-0"1 Basement DN UP DN RF DWWD 2'-8" BATH 33 SQ. FT. LAUNDRY 65 SQ. FT. KITCHEN 208 SQ. FT. LIVING ROOM 361 SQ. FT. DINING 61 SQ. FT.GAS F.P.6'-0" 3'-0" X 6'-8"W/(2)15" SIDELITES 6'-0" X 6'-8" SLIDING PATIO DOOR 36" X 72" CSMT. @7'-8"3' - 5"4' - 4"6' - 9"9' - 10"10' - 1"5' - 7" 40' - 0"17' - 2 1/4"4' - 8"8' - 6 1/2"2' - 7 1/4"33' - 0"3' - 4 3/4"4' - 10"9' - 9 1/4"4' - 6"6' - 6"6' - 6"4' - 6" 14' - 8 1/2"3' - 3 1/2"22' - 0" 40' - 0"2' - 7 3/4"2' - 7 3/4"2' - 7 3/4"9' - 11 1/2"9' - 1 1/4"6' - 0"27' - 0"33' - 0"13' - 3"13' - 9"13' - 3"5' - 11 1/4"8' - 0"3' - 3"2' - 0"5' - 11 1/4"4' - 10"3' - 8 1/2"3' - 9 3/4"12' - 3 3/4"0' - 10"2' - 0"4' - 0"2' - 0"2'-6"2'-4"(3) 22" LVL ABOVE (4) 18" LVL ABOVE7' - 2 1/4"6' - 8 1/4"2' - 4 1/2"10' - 9"11' - 3"7' - 3 3/4"19' - 8 3/4"1' - 8 1/2" OFFICE 104 SQ. FT. VAULTED CEILING 17' - 10 1/2" TO PEAK 9' CEILING HEIGHT 3' - 3 1/4"2' - 8 3/4"48" X 72" (2) CSMT. @7'-8"24" X 18" FXD. @8-0"24" X 18" FXD. @8-0"24" X 18" FXD. @8-0"48" X 72" (2) CSMT. @7'-8" 48" X 72" (2) CSMT. @7'-8" 48" X 76" (2) CSMT. @8'-0" 48" X 72" (2) CSMT. @7'-8"48" X 72" (2) CSMT. @8'-0"36" X 48" CSMT. @7'-8"36" X 72" CSMT. @7'-8"36" X 24" FXD.SD SD/ CM SD 36" X 36" CSMT. @7'-8"36" X 72" CSMT. @7'-8"36" X 48" CSMT. @7'-8" 36" X 36" CSMT. @7'-8"ScaleProject numberDateDrawn byChecked by612-483-4593K.D.S. 1/4" = 1'-0"8/7/2019 9:15:05 AMA4First Floor PlanProject NumberLOKEN690 CARVER BEACH RD08/07/2019SWKChecker 1/4" = 1'-0"1 First Floor 9' CEILING MASTER SUITE 207 SQ. FT. W.I.C. 26 SQ. FT. BATH 39 SQ. FT.2'-6"2'-6"LINE OF 8' CEILING 30" X 48" CSMT. 72" X 48"(2) CSMT.24" X 36" CSMT.24" X 36" CSMT.8' - 9"5' - 8 3/4"3' - 8 3/4"21' - 9 1/2"6' - 6"8' - 9 1/4"5' - 7 3/4"6' - 1"6' - 10"6' - 10"6' - 1"13' - 8"13' - 3"33' - 0"3' - 6"7' - 11"3' - 0"6' - 1"14' - 5"6' - 6"27' - 0"6' - 6 1/2"6' - 6 1/2" 22' - 5 1/2"13' - 1"4' - 5 1/2" 40' - 0" 4' - 0"5' - 2"5' - 1 1/2"3' - 8 1/2" 40' - 0"5'-0" X 2'-10" SHWR2'-8" VAN. 2'-4" 2'-4" 2'-4"2'-4"PKT.2'-6" FREE STANDING TUB 6'-0" X 3'-0" 2'-4" BUILT INS SLOPESTORAGE W.I.S. MSTR. BATH 90 SQ. FT. SD SD/ CM SD W.I.C. 31 SQ. FT. BEDROOM 2 170 SQ. FT. DN 18' - 0"22' - 0"11' - 7 3/4"8' - 1 1/4"6' - 8 1/2"3' - 6"5' - 9 1/2"3' - 9"4' - 10 15/16"2' - 6 5/16"6' - 0"ScaleProject numberDateDrawn byChecked by612-483-4593K.D.S. 1/4" = 1'-0"8/7/2019 9:14:29 AMA5Attic PlanProject NumberLOKEN690 CARVER BEACH RD08/07/2019SWKChecker 1/4" = 1'-0"1 Attic Floor 2' - 0"25' - 0"8' - 0"19' - 11"20' - 1 1/4"3' - 0"26' - 5 3/4"10' - 6 1/4"19' - 0"24' - 0" 14/12 14/12 16/1216/1216/1216/126/12 6/12 16/1216/1212' - 3 1/2" 9' - 3 3/4" 16' - 3 1/2" 42' - 0"9' - 3 1/2"ScaleProject numberDateDrawn byChecked by612-483-4593K.D.S. 1/4" = 1'-0"8/7/2019 9:13:52 AMA6Roof PlanProject NumberLOKEN690 CARVER BEACH RD08/07/2019SWKChecker 1/4" = 1'-0"1 Roof Plan Memorandum To: Bob Generous, Senior Planner From: Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer CC: Jason Wedel, Public Works Director/City Engineer Kevin Crooks, Utility Superintendent Ryan Pinkalla, Water Resources Technician Date: 9/19/2019 Re: Front Yard Setback and Hard Cover Variance at 690 Carver Beach Road – Planning Case 2019-14 The Engineering Department has reviewed the Variance submittal for 690 Carver Beach Road. These comments are divided into two categories: general comments and proposed conditions. General comments are informational points to guide the applicant in the proper planning of public works infrastructure for this project, to inform the applicant of possible extraordinary issues and/or to provide the basis for findings. Proposed conditions are requirements that Engineering recommends be formally imposed on the developer in the final order. Note that references to the “City Standards” herein refer to the Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. General Comments/Findings 1. Any and all utility and transportation plans submitted with this application have been reviewed for the purpose of determining the feasibility of providing utility and transportation facilities for the project in accordance with City Standards. This recommendation of variance approval does not constitute final approval of details, including but not limited to alignments, materials and points of access, connection or discharge, that are depicted or suggested in the application. The applicant is required to submit detailed construction drawings and/or plat drawings for the project, as applicable. The City of Chanhassen Engineering and Public Works Department will review plans, in detail, when they are submitted and approve, reject or require modifications to the plans or drawings based upon conformance with City Standards, the Chanhassen Code of Ordinances and the professional engineering judgment of the City Engineer. 2. It is the opinion of the Engineering Department that the proposed variance at 690 Carver Beach Road can be developed in accordance with the requirements of the Chanhassen Code of Ordinances (as it pertains to Engineering and Public Works requirements) and City Standards, provided it fully addresses the comments and conditions contained herein, and can be approved. 3. The property currently has access via Carver Beach Road. The applicant’s proposed driveway appears to adhere to City Ordinance Sec. 20-1122. The proposed driveway will have to be constructed in accordance with City Standards (city detail #5209). 4. The property currently is served by water and sanitary sewer services in Carver Beach Road via an 8” ductile iron pipe and an 8” PVC pipe, respectively. 5. The existing garage proposed to be demolished encroaches over the southern property line into the property to the south (680 Carver Beach Road). The applicant shall obtain permission from the owner of 680 Carver Beach Road to perform construction operations related to the removal of the garage along with an agreement for restoration of any disturbed area on 680 Carver Beach Road. 6. The applicant is proposing to construct retaining walls to accommodate a below grade garage, all retaining walls over 4 feet in height require professionally engineered designs. See condition 1. Proposed Conditions 1. The applicant shall resubmit the site plan which indicates the height of the retaining wall (top of wall and bottom of wall elevations). Retaining walls shall be design in accordance with City Code of Ordinances Sec. 20-1025. MEMORANDUM TO: MacKenzie Walters, Planner I FROM: Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Specialist DATE: September 19, 2019 SUBJ: Variance for lot cover and front yard setback, 690 Carver Beach Road The submitted plans did not show existing trees on the property, which includes red oaks, sugar maples, and small evergreens. It is unknown as to which, if any, trees are proposed for preservation, however according to city code clear cutting of a lot is not allowed, therefore the sugar maples in the rear yard shall be preserved. Staff recommends that the applicant meet ordinance requirement when applying for the building permit and show all trees 6” in diameter and larger on the survey. Any trees scheduled to be preserved will be required to be protected with tree preservation fencing. One tree will be required to be planted in the front yard if no tree in the front yard is present at the end of construction. The neighboring properties on the north and south have mature shade trees within a few feet of the property lines. To the north, there is a large honeylocust and to the south is a significant red oak. The trees will be adjacent to the proposed construction area and therefore have the potential to be detrimentally impacted by the construction. It’s unknown how much of the trees’ root area is on the property at 690 Carver Beach Road, but roots are opportunistic and will take advantage of available space. For this reason, it is assumed that there are enough roots on the applicant’s property to merit caution and protection of the neighbor’s oak and honeylocust. According to research by the University of Minnesota, red oaks are tolerant of root severance but sensitive to both compaction and fill within their root zones. Honeylocust are also tolerant to root severance and intermediate to compaction and fill. According to the proposed plan, the grade will be matched on both sides of the property, so the main concern will be the effects of compaction to the root areas of the trees. The applicant will need to install tree protection fence around the oak in order to minimize damage to the root system. The honeylocust is behind a wooden fence and will also have erosion control measures installed between the tree and the construction area. While the below ground impacts will have the most effect on the trees, above ground each tree has branches that reach over the property and will be within the construction area. Staff recommends that the tree’s owners schedule an arborist to properly prune their trees out of the way before construction starts or to work with the applicant to see that the work is done properly. The pruning should be done before any demolition or construction work starts in order to avoid irreparable branch damage from equipment. Recommendations: 1. The applicant shall include all trees 6” dbh and larger on the building permit survey and note tree(s) to be removed or preserved. All preserved trees in the rear yard must be protected by fencing during construction. 2. One tree will be required to be planted in the front yard if no tree in the front yard is present at the end of construction. 3. The applicant shall install tree protection fencing at 690 Carver Beach Road around the neighboring oak to the south 4. Tree branches from neighboring trees shall be properly pruned by a certified arborist before demolition activities begin. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, October 1, 2019 Subject Approve Planning Commission Minutes dated September 17, 2019 Section APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No: C.1. Prepared By Nann Opheim, City Recorder File No:  PROPOSED MOTION: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the minutes from their September 17, 2019 meeting. ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated September 17, 2019 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated September 17, 2019 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES SEPTEMBER 17, 2019 Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Weick, Mark Undestad, Mark Randall, Michael McGonagill, Doug Reeder, and Laura Skistad MEMBERS ABSENT: John Tietz STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO REPLACE AND MOVE A SEPTIC SYSTEM TO THE BOTTOM OF THE BLUFF AT 1181 HOMESTEAD LANE. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Weick clarified that this variance request was not specific to a septic system. That it would be a variance for any structure. Commissioner McGonagill asked for clarification on the definition of the Bluff Creek Primary Zone. Commissioner Skistad asked for clarification on the distance between Powers Boulevard and Bluff Creek. The applicant John Jensen explained the location of the current septic system and where they would like to locate the replacement mound system. Dale Denn, owner/operator of Homestead Septic Systems discussed the mechanics of locating a septic system on this site. Commissioner McGonagill asked about the height of the mound systems. Commissioner Undestad asked about the location of the perc tests. Commissioner Skistad asked for clarification of the currently failing septic system. Chairman Weick opened the public hearing. Tim Bloudek, 1107 Homestead Lane provided historical information pertaining to the contractors yard that was located on this property before voicing support for this variance request. Chairman Weick closed the public hearing. After discussion among commission members the following motion was made. Undestad moved, Skistad seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the bluff setback variance and encroachment into the Bluff Creek primary zone for the construction of a septic system as shown in the plans shown on the Certificate of Survey by SISU Land Surveying dated 8/19/19, subject to the following conditions, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision: 1. The applicant is required to submit detailed construction drawings and/or plat drawings for the project, as applicable. An engineer-designed plan is required to divert the existing drainage ravine that would be impacted by the proposed SSTS. Planning Commission Summary – September 17, 2019 2 2. The applicant shall apply for a septic permit for the septic system. 3. The applicant shall provide further justification of the impracticability of such a location for a SSTS (e.g. a geotechnical report or perk test if the concern is fill/disturbed soil). 4. An erosion control plan shall be submitted for review and approval. 5. The applicant shall submit a tree survey showing the system located as to minimize tree removal should be required. All trees 6” and larger in and around the construction area shall be shown. Replacement planting will be required in areas cleared outside of the septic fields. Plans and quantities shall be approved by the city. 6. Tree protection fencing shall be installed to protect trees and vegetation outside of the construction area. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner McGonagill noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 3, 2019 as presented. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATION. CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE. Bob Generous provided an update on action taken by the City Council at their meeting on September 9, 2019. Undestad moved, Reeder seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 17, 2019 Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Weick, Mark Undestad, Mark Randall, Michael McGonagill, Doug Reeder, and Laura Skistad MEMBERS ABSENT: John Tietz STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner Weick: Welcome to everybody here and watching. For the record we do have a quorum this evening with Commissioners Undestad, McGonagill, Skistad, Reeder and Randall. Thank you for coming this evening. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO REPLACE AND MOVE A SEPTIC SYSTEM TO THE BOTTOM OF THE BLUFF AT 1181 HOMESTEAD LANE. Weick: Tonight we do have a single case. I do not have the number in front of me so Bob I’ll let you say that when you introduce the item and with that I will turn it over to Mr. Generous. Generous: Thank you Chairman, commissioners. Planning Case 2019-12 is a variance request for a bluff setback and encroachment into the Bluff Creek primary zone. There’s a secondary variance that you’re not reviewing is from Chapter 19 of the City Ordinance. It’s a sub-surface sewage treatment system ordinance which requires setbacks from bluffs also. The property is located at 1181 Homestead Lane. The property backs up to Powers Boulevard and accessed via Homestead Lane. There’s a significant hill on the back of this property. It’s zoned Rural Residential. Minimum lot sizes are 2 ½ acres. 50 foot front and rear setbacks and 10 foot side yard setbacks. This property has 2 ½ acre on it so it is fairly large. Part of the issues with the property is that there’s a bluff on the property. The rear of the property is located within the Bluff Creek primary zone and there’s a drainage swale on the south side of this property that runs down the hill that staff was concerned about. This is the area of the bluff on the property. The applicant is proposing to replace a failing septic system which is located back here I believe and run the line down and have some tanks and then some drain fields. However this whole area on the, from the top of the slope down is in the primary zone. Another constraint on the property is the right-of-way for Powers Boulevard is 75 feet into the property so all this is actually road right-of-way. The drain field sites are here and here and the tanks are there. The Bluff Creek primary zone requires that the area be preserved as permanent open space and so no development is supposed to take place in that. Again the applicant is proposing to put their septic system within the primary zone. Be approximately here on the property. And also the drain fields Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 17, 2019 2 would be right at the bottom of the toe of the slope. Under our ordinance there’s a 40 foot structure setback. Under Chapter 19 requirements there’s a 20 foot for the drain field and 50 feet for the tanks themselves. Again the applicant is proposing to place a septic system within the Bluff Creek primary zone and within the bluff setback. Their existing system is failing. They need to replace it. Again they have the easement on the bottom. And this gets into what staff is proposing that we do believe there are alternatives but they say that it would be problematic and it's not enough workable space to install the system in the front yard. They’ve noted several homes along Homestead Lane have septic systems at the bottom of the bluff. I checked the city records. I couldn’t find any on, that back up to Powers Boulevard. There are some on Pioneer Trail that have some but they have a larger landing area. A flat area at the bottom of the hill so all the other ones that I found are within 50 or 60 feet of the house so at the top of the bluff. Staff’s assessment is based on the required separations from the structures and the well that there is an area within the front yard of the property up on top of the bluff outside of the primary zone that they could potentially put in a septic system. It meets the 10 foot structure setback on this side and it’s out of the primary zone and out of the bluff area so staff believes that they could do it. If their concern is about the compaction of the soil there are additional Type 3 systems that can be used to provide septic treatment and so we believe absent of them providing additional information that they can comply with city ordinance. Therefore staff is recommending denial of the variance request and adoption of the Findings of Fact and direct the applicant to submit plans in conformance with the city code requirements. I should note that I did provide an email that we received from Commissioner Tietz. He concurs with staff’s recommendation. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Weick: I will open kind of questions are over or points of clarification. The issue with putting the septic system in a proposed location is that because it’s in the bluff zone you’re not supposed to put any type of structure in that area? It’s not because it’s specific to a septic system right? Generous: Correct. It would be any structure would need to be out of the primary zone and 40 feet away from the, any the toe of the bluff. Weick: So if it were a shed or anything. Generous: Or a house or anything else. A garage. Weick: I just wanted to be sure that it wasn’t something specific to a septic code or anything like that. Generous: No, well they have their own design requirements that this is a variance from but it’s not, we’re looking from the zoning standpoint about permitting it in an area that’s supposed to remain permanent open space. Weick: That was my question. Commissioners can certainly just jump in. Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 17, 2019 3 McGonagill: One clarification Bob just so myself and people listening, back up what is the primary zone so people know. We use that term. It’s defined. It’s application. Why it’s there. Maybe go to the map and kind of talk through it and say this is what it’s there for just so we kind of know. Thank you. Generous: I don’t have a good map on it. The primary zone is any lands that contribute to the watershed of the Bluff Creek creek. Bluff Creek. And it’s lands that any development or alteration may have a detrimental impact to the water quality going in that and so the City has adopted an ordinance to preserve that whole corridor as permanent open space to help improve as, for habitat. For water quality issues. And as a community amenity. It runs two-thirds of the length of the city from 41, north of Highway 5 all the way down to the Minnesota River Valley and so it’s an amenity in our community that we want to preserve and protect. McGonagill: And that corridor, the primary zone was designated by the City and not so much by Minnesota water quality or another state agency? Generous: No it was a study that the City did in the early 90’s and then we adopted an ordinance to protect it and implement that study and the preservation. We’re trying to create a link system so eventually we will see a trail system that goes from the headwaters of Bluff Creek all the way down to the Minnesota River valley. McGonagill: Okay thanks Bob. I don’t have no more questions. Undestad: I’ve got a question for you. The proposed septic down at the bottom I noticed that was a drain field. Or is that a mound, two mound system or is that a drain, just drain fields? Generous: Those would be I believe they are mound type structures. Undestad: Are they? And is that what the staff looked at for up by the house? The mound structure. Generous: Yes. That would be the Type 3 system that they’d have to do because, well their contention I believe is that it’s compacted up there and had been altered and so they can’t meet the minimum requirements for the septic system. Undestad: Okay. Skistad: The creek is on the other side of Powers, is that correct? Generous: Correct. Skistad: So what do we do about the runoff on Powers? Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 17, 2019 4 Generous: That is treated in the stormwater systems before it goes into that. That’s the one thing we exempt from our ordinance is public facilities because we have to provide transportation for the community. Skistad: So how far is the distance, what’s the distance between Powers and the creek? Generous: Well it’s, there’s wetlands adjacent to the, just across Powers Boulevard. As a matter when they were building Powers Boulevard they had to surcharge this area because the road sank. Or the underlayment of the road sank because of the wetlands that were contingent, or next to that. Skistad: And so to answer my question though how far is it from Powers? Generous: To the creek? Skistad: To the creek, yeah. Generous: It’s a couple hundred feet maybe. Skistad: Okay, thank you. Generous: It runs, I wish I would have brought a bigger map. It runs diagonally across the land, across the street and it’s about at the corner of Powers and Pioneer where it goes underneath Pioneer and continues to the south. Weick: Any follow up? Skistad: I guess my other question would be if you move, if you have it in a septic near the well I mean to me that would be a concern as a homeowner. I wouldn’t want my septic right next to my well. Generous: And under Minnesota Chapter 7080 is the standard that they have. That’s the minimum separation between your well and your septic drain fields. McGonagill: So it’d meet that code? Generous: Yes. That’s what they tried to show here. The well is located on the east side of the house and so they did a radius out from that. McGonagill: Let me ask, the 50 foot radius so it’s beyond that. Generous: So it would be beyond that. It would be this area that would comply with the standard. Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 17, 2019 5 McGonagill: Okay thank you. If you kept going beyond the other side of the garage Bob, could that? There. Can that be done? Used? Generous: Theoretically yes. It’s a longer system. McGonagill: Right but it could be used. Generous: I would think so yeah, if it meets. You’d have a 10 foot setback from the structure but then this area becomes usable. McGonagill: Okay thanks. So there’s options. Right or left of the driveway. Or even yes it’s a farther line. You have gravity feed at the south but, okay I understand now thank you. Skistad: Can I ask one more question? What is that green dotted line that goes into the, yeah right there. Generous: Well this is a drainage area. Swale. A ravine that runs down the hill and I believe this is what, a 25 percent slope edge and this is a 20 or it could be vice versa. That’s a 20 and that’s 25 percent. But this is one thing that the Carver County pointed out to us. There was concern about this running down the hill and washing out those drain systems at the bottom. McGonagill: Yeah. Skistad: And then the red line, the red dotted line that’s the? Generous: That’s again it’s a slope designation. It shows where the, I believe it’s a 25 percent. Skistad: That’s just the, okay that’s just the grade. Okay. Dale Denn: If I can chime in. I believe the yellow was the 25 which is your bluff and then the other one’s a 20. Generous: 20 yeah. Dale Denn: I think the ordinance here we can’t site a drain field on that much of a grade. Generous: Or within 20 feet of it or something like that. 50 feet of it. Skistad: So is there only one, like the first, the first mound or whatever that is, is that the only one that’s an issue essentially? Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 17, 2019 6 Generous: Well both of these are. They don’t meet, well one they’re both, all this is within the Bluff Creek primary zone and this doesn’t meet the standard for the septic drain fields. So they’re requesting a variance from the setback from the bottom of that slope, whether it’s 20 percent or 25 percent. McGonagill: Bob can you go back to the larger. Point out where the existing field is just so I know. Generous: I believe it’s right behind the house. Dale Denn: Yeah the existing is the trenches. There’s like 4 or 5 of them and they’re banged right in the bluff below the house. Weick: Let’s just, if we could hold that thought yeah because you’re not at the microphone. It’s real hard to get you on the record but we will get you on the record. So if you have questions. That’s okay. McGonagill: Thank you, that’s all I have. Weick: Anything else for the City? On this. Okay, thank you Mr. Generous. Then I’d be glad to invite the applicant to join us and give a presentation. John Jensen: I’m in. I’m John Jensen. Weick: Welcome. John Jensen: So what we could do, what I would like to is actually start by going back to the diagram that we have with the well. McGonagill: That one? John Jensen: Yes. And so when I provided this document I provided the original survey to the surveyor and what wasn’t realized that there had been an addition after the original survey and so even though it shows that right under the house, which is where it is essentially, it’s actually 10 feet further in the direction towards the garage. So yeah it’s out that way an additional 10 feet so that does take up more of that space and also I have some other things I’m going to show you that relate to this whole area and why it would be a problem and then we can talk about you know too why it’s good down in the other area. So another thing is you mentioned on the other side of the garage. Towards the street. Generous: I switched it to your’s. It might be easier for you to work off of. Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 17, 2019 7 John Jensen: Oh no that’s not mine. Can you make it bigger? Okay I’ve got to move things. Okay there we go. Alright there’s a hill here. Pretty substantial hill. You know so you definitely would have difficulty putting it in that area because of the hill. So, and also another thing that I will get to in a minute too is water. I have a lot of water that comes, I don’t know if it comes off the street or where it comes from but I get a lot of water in this area and it actually comes along the garage and goes back and goes down into this ravine. So and in fact I think right now I have a couple puddles sitting there right now. They usually go away in a little while but all the rain lately it’s kind of made it a little more difficult. And also this is another area that I just want to make sure we were in consideration. This is where an old driveway was and it’s just really dug up and would really be a problematic area, plus it is also a very hilly area. And then also in this area I didn’t designate any trees but there are a lot of substantial trees in that area so I know my neighbor would not be happy about me taking out any of these trees because in fact he even said to me because of the old driveway he’s like I’m happy that that old driveway’s not there because it affords me more privacy so I know he would not be happy taking out trees. So what I do want to go back to is, I drew a line here and this is not exact but it does give you a better idea of where approximately that well line would be and then also I have a big blue line. This is my neighbor’s yard and he has a septic system in the front of his yard and he, his house is a little bit higher than mine and the septic system actually creates like a valley in his yard so all the water when it rains hard comes towards my yard. And so what happens here is I really have a drain area. I mean I cannot do pretty much anything at this point except for just, I don’t know if you can see this but this is running all the way across my yard. All this area. It’s like a thick stream running across the yard and that would, if we were to put a mound up there it’s going to exacerbate the situation, possibly make it even worst and I don’t know what kind of issue that would create with the mound since they’re saying that you know water going into it would not be good but this is a lot more than you get at the hill because it absorbs in the hill but this is just, like I said it’s a lot. So one last thing. I’m not sure how relevant this is but there is an electrical cable line running from the house that does run under this area also. And I think, and so that’s pretty much why you know all my indications as to why we shouldn’t put it at the top because there’s just, there’s no room and anything that’s you know anywhere it’s going to go it’s going to create problems. They did do some measurements as to how much space it would take up and they came up with 1,600 feet and I think that was just the sand and rock. Yeah it doesn’t include the additional 3 structures which is approximately another thousand square feet so we would have to figure out where those would go too up at the top because they couldn’t go right there so they would have to be moved somewhere else. As far as the bottom, why is it a good area? It’s a good area because it is a natural undisturbed soil that will absorb easily. Also another thing that the City mentioned, they’re like okay well what about big trees. There are no big trees in the proposed area. All the big trees are outside of that area and then on the side of Powers Street the only thing that’s pretty much there is buckthorn and we would be getting a lot of rid of a lot of that invasive buckthorn when we’re doing this because that is you know not something that helps anything. Also one other thing I’d like to point out that there is a sewer line down below. I don’t know if you can see this but you can see that there’s a sewer line. Unfortunately that sewer line is not currently connected to the city otherwise I’d be like okay let’s just connect there but it’s not connected but it’s there for future use. So and one last item I would like to mention is Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 17, 2019 8 that the City opposes this, or the Planning Commission opposes this but they, the City is also building a road just on the other side of my neighbor’s property. And that will be very close to the Bluff Creek zone too so I’m not sure why they’re opposed to mine but they’re okay with a road so with that I would like to give it to the guy who would like to put the septic system, unless you guys have questions of me. Weick: They might. John Jensen: I can come back. Weick: Yeah let’s just listen all the way through. John Jensen: Okay. Weick: If that’s okay. Okay. Dale Denn: My name’s Dale Denn with the Homestead Septic. I’m the owner/operator. 1108 Goldenrod Lane, Shakopee. Weick: Welcome. Dale Denn: Thanks. So I’ve been, this is my second time out on this property. Actually about 3 years ago with the current owner. Previous owner. I was out here working with them a little bit also trying to get a system put in so I think some of my point of view in the general, and if I step over here I can still here. Can this turn? Weick: Sure. Dale Denn: So I sent in, I didn’t bring them but I took some aerial photos too a couple, 2-3 years. Maybe 3 years ago when this previous homeowner was there and he was a contractor and I don’t, do you have a copy John? John Jensen: No I don’t. Dale Denn: But if you, so first off this regards soil and siting. One of the reasons why I’m staying away from this area, if we looked at an aerial photo from 3 years ago it shows a contractor yard. He had a lot of stuff out here and when I was out there when he was there a lot of this was, I mean I can’t remember what it was. The aerial photo shows a whole lot of stuff but I think a lot of this was cut with some Class V. There was stuff here. There was a whole bunch of stuff here. Pallets. Weick: Can you pull that into the, I think you’re referencing an area that we can’t quite see. Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 17, 2019 9 Dale Denn: Oh okay. Weick: It just really helps. Yeah yeah yeah. So you’re talking about the City’s proposed area for the septic? Dale Denn: Yeah. Weick: Okay. Dale Denn: Right. So all around this garage, this is all contractor stuff. And if you look at the aerial you see it’s kind of white and hazy too which from my understanding of an aerial photo shows some kind of harder surface. So that’s the first issue there when we come out as designer looking at a general area to go to. And so these soils would be considered compacted. Cut. Fill soils. And then the State Code always directs us to try to find the best soils for longevity of the system which is Type 1 soils. Now and I do beg to differ a little bit on the square footage. So John has a 5 bedroom home and so this is a mound septic system and the reason there’s two zones down below is because I couldn’t get it set on a contour so I have to split the mound into two components so it’s basically two little mini mounds with a common feed inbetween because mounds are pressurized also. And so one other thing, speaking of that, so if this mound is up here you have to bear in mind that a 2 inch pump line has to come up to pressurize the mound or whatever type of system it is because it’s higher than the tanks which come out the back so his tanks right now are actually right here. That is the approximate area of the existing septic tank and now his gravity’s down the hill and feeds all the trenches. So if we were looking at coming up here, well this is where the sewer come out so then we’d have new septic tanks which number one are impossible to get back there so they would actually, so this is some more design parameters. They would have to be a poly type plastic tank which if we absolutely have to use them we do but there’s a lot of issues with the poly tank when you pump them out. If you’ve got ground water they tend to want to come out of the ground. They collapse. It’s a product and it’s registered but the uses are not what we usually want to try to use. But then pump tanks would have to be out here as well and so then a pump line is going to have to come somewhere all the way up to this, if it was a mound up here someplace. So you have to bear that in mind so that would be a 2 inch line that’s going to have to come. There’s hardly any room over here but a 2 inch pump line’s going to have to come all the way up to charge up whatever type of septic system it is. So that’s something to also consider. So now back to the square footage. So he has a 5 bedroom house. The rock bed for a mound is 10 by 63 feet. That’s just the rock bed area. So if this was all one mound where it says rock these dimensions would be 10 by 63 and that’s where your lateral’s go and that’s where we have to run the pump line to to charge that area. Now the absorption area is another, at a minimum 16 to 20 feet below the rock and that’s just the absorption area so the absorption area, I did some math here, is almost 2,400 square feet. Just for the absorption area. Now the mound is going to have the wings, the dikes we call them, which are about 15 feet on the sides and then we have to finish a mound at a 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 finish so the down slope dike generally on a slope would carry another 10 feet past the absorption area so the short of that is, the footprint for this mound is almost 50 by 100. So if I needed an area to Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 17, 2019 10 finish it down to grade, all the side slopes for a 5 bedroom on somewhat of a, say a 5-6 percent slope, it’s going to be just about 50 by 100. Because we don’t want to build them real steep on the sides so we have to finish them off at a 3 to 1or 4 to 1. So you’re pushing really easily 4,000- 4,500 square feet. I can tell you that on a 12 percent slope the dike carries over 50 feet just to catch up on that 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 finish. So down here below the hill is what we would call a toe slope. It’s a very dramatic bluff to a toe. The slopes down here I believe are only about 8 percent where these are sited right now. So that’s just a nice number. That’s pretty common so that’s a generous slope. Very workable. Again the reason it’s split into is because, and here’s another issue up here. The whole length of the rock bed has to be set on the contour at the same elevation from end to end so it can’t twist against the contours and so we have to, with our laser we have to ride contours fairly tight. And to be honest with you I think a lot of this area was cut because it’s pretty level. I don’t even think these contours represent what this past homeowner did because it’s pretty flat and then just, so and another thing this slope here is concaved. This is called a swale. It’s very difficult for us to, the code actually has restrictions on, there’s some math involved that it’s not a good idea to set a mound in a swale like this because the water tends to want to run together and so it’s not going linear down to absorb like it should so that’s another design issue. Honestly I think that berm actually was probably, I think it is a berm. I think some of that might even be man made up there now I’m not sure but that is a pretty dramatic berm. But keeping in mind if we were to scale that out we’d have to have about a 50 by 100 box that is outside of the easements yet so that’s a pretty good area to site a 5 bedroom mound. And as far as the environmental aspect it is a mound septic you know and the research on them is they’re like the best thing going as far as treating the effluent and recycling it and you know putting it back into the water system so there’s really no environmental threat whatsoever from the mound just to make mention of that. And again the State Code would push us as a designer to find the most suitable soils on the property. Generally even if we, a homeowner wanted to take me and say I want my system over here and it’s bad soils and we have some virgin soils down here, the County’s not going to let me appease the homeowner and say we can just bang in a Type 3 over here. A Type 3 system is your non-standard system for compacted soils. Cut and fill. What those are, those are very high risk systems and there is a place for them when there’s absolutely no other options to install a standard septic so we always lean on the side of standard because the first soils, if we were to do something in fill soil most of the time we’d have to add the pre- treatment component to clean it up and that’s an aerobic type of system that’s on the front end of a system so it’s a lot more bells and whistles. It takes management and bacteria checks and monitoring and that goes on for the life of the system so these ain’t something that we as a designer just try to go and sell because it’s, there’s a lot of associated costs with them and they’re pretty high risk. What you have to keep in mind is in that footprint of the mound in the absorption area, if it’s a 5 bedroom house that’s 750 gallons per day per potential use. If we do the math on that over a year’s time just to give you some idea, that’s a column of water almost I think roughly about 18 feet deep that has to go through every square foot of that area so we’re putting a lot of, and that’s dirty water so that’s putting a lot of water through that footprint. That’s why we like to have our best soils for structure and for the perc test and everything going through. And also treatment. Whenever you remove the topsoil you’re taking the biological component out of the treatment and then it’s just trying to pressure it through without any Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 17, 2019 11 biological treatment and that’s usually why we’re going to add the pre-treatment is to kill off some of the bacteria ahead of time. So that’s another drawback. We can say yes there’s soils there but soils to us is the organic component and then your nice viable sub-soils. Not just cut and fill soils. So going down below from an install point of view, from a designer’s point of view there are good soils. The water tables are down over 3 feet. I could actually do a different design but for sake of room and stuff like that the mound is the best option down there so, but what that is, that is a split mound that will just be built as one unit and then there’s a pump line that’s going to go over and still has to pressurize those so our take, everything with gravity down piece of cake. And then we’d have our tanks and it is true that the swale does come down but if you were to walk out here and look it really delta’s out down there so it’s not the ravine like it is up here. It’s just kind of a flat area with a little bit of a, you can kind of see where the water’s going but that’s next to the mound but it’s, it’s really not a threat in my opinion. I’ve been at this quite a while because it’s, the water there is kind of feathering out and losing it’s force and there probably is some pretty easy ways to modify that a little bit with some rip rap and some fabric to even improve that area and catch some of the sediment that is coming down the hill. But as far as erosion and impacting the mound I just really don’t see that happening from my experience and that could be modified and pushed over a little bit because it’s just simply discharging out into the ditch there so that could be moved. There’s no trees that would come out. It’s just a little bit of forcing it to go mostly straight west. It kind of turns and it goes a little bit northwest when it wraps around, when it wraps around the tank. It’s kind of going just about like that. So that could be almost just pushed straight down. I think I covered most of my, oh. I guess one more point. So constructability, it’s true that it does butt right up to the bluff and it’s pretty dramatic where it goes up so keep in mind after we actually would put this mound in I, in my opinion it’s actually going to stabilize the bluff because if you try to visualize this being the bluff, it’s pretty sharp and then the mound is right here. The mound’s going to be up and on the top side of the mound, which ordinarily would go down, that can literally be filled in with some additional sand and so from the crest of the mound, which we usually would go down and then there would be a swale, on the up slope side we don’t get any credit for absorption so we can literally fill that in so from the peak of the mound it would just go right uphill on an angle and then just blend right into the bluff. As a matter of fact there’s a lot of times on new construction, when it’s on some steeper slopes I will park the mound at the minimum 20 feet to a house and they always ask me why is, you know why do you want to put that thing right next to my house for and then I explain to them the same situation. They’re going to be coming down a slope. We put the mound in which would have the valley but we fill it and it just plateaus right off the lawn and then goes down on the 4 to 1 and you can’t even tell it’s there. And that would be the same situation down here. Not that it’s, not that we’re concerned about aesthetics but that’s just going to blend up against the hill and all that mound sand and the soil and everything is really just going to, instead of having it a real sharp demarcation it’s just going to be more gradual as it goes over the mound. Yeah that’s just kind of my general overview from a design standpoint. And again if I had the aerial photos here though you would see that this was a pretty busy contractor yard so to be honest with you I didn’t even do soils here but when I was out there 3 years ago it’s like no this just, I mean it was, it was a construction yard. Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 17, 2019 12 John Jensen: …do you have your picture of the lot? Dale Denn: Going back to the 2000. John Jensen: The one that you were using. I think that one’s a little bit older one. Dale Denn: 16. Generous: I believe Mr. Chairman there is an attempt…and it should be in your’s too. It’s one of the attachments. Dale Denn: It would be nice to take a peak at that if somebody has it and I apologize for not bringing it. I assumed it was in a packet. Weick: Thanks Bob. Dale Denn: So yeah it’s still a little small but you can see the lighter area, all this stuff. Stuff was over here. Weick: So we’re looking at the garage there? Dale Denn: Yeah around the garage. Weick: Okay. Dale Denn: Yep. McGonagill: Put that picture up so we can see the bottom of the slope. Dale Denn: Up this way? McGonagill: Yes that’s correct. Keep going. Thank you. Shows where your mounds are going. Dale Denn: That’s not the oldest one though because that road, because the one I have the driveway still goes, the driveway goes through here and I can tell you the one I have is a lot busier than this one. I think he started down sizing here at this point. But I truly I have another one that, where the road goes straight and it’s a lot busier than this one here. McGonagill: Can I ask a quick question? Weick: Do you have any other, anything else to your statement? If not we can certainly open it up for questions if that’s okay. Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 17, 2019 13 Dale Denn: I don’t think I do. I think I covered most of my. Weick: Okay Commissioner McGonagill, please. McGonagill: Thank you. At the bottom of where you’re proposing to put the two mounds, and if you, okay slide it to the right where I can see. The other way. I’m sorry to my right. This way. There you go. Sorry. When I look at the gradient there at the, so right below the yellow area where the sand and rock is you’re right at like 170 contour. Just for example. The height of the mound off that contour, how much higher than that contour would the mound be? If you did what you were talking about. Dale Denn: Yeah. In the center of the rock bed would be the highest point of the mound from grade starting with 12 inches of sand in that slope. It would be up about 3 ½ feet. McGonagill: And the same for the other one? Same for the other one? Dale Denn: Yeah. Yeah the slopes are pretty much the same. McGonagill: Thank you. Dale Denn: Sure. McGonagill: It just gave me an idea of mass. Weick: Lots to process here and I know we are not, well some of us aren’t septic experts. Undestad: I’ve got a question. John Jensen: I have one more comment if you don’t mind. Real quick. Weick: Yeah. John Jensen: So I had a whole bunch of notes before and I didn’t look at them while I was talking up here and I did want to bring up a couple things and one, both of them actually are related the area up above where the City was talking about putting the septic system. So this ravine is pretty steep and it’s been wearing away and at some point I’m going to need to reinforce it. I’m going to need to do something and if there’s a mound system in there it’s going to be incredibly difficult to get stuff in there and reinforce it or take care of it because it, you know it just, I won’t be able to get by the mound system because you can’t drive on it once it’s there. So that’s one option. And the other thing I did want to bring up something that Laura brought up, and I thought about too is that while 50 feet is the minimum for the septic system it would still be practically right on top of the well. I mean that would be close if you put it right up there. And I don’t think any of my neighbors have their’s that close. Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 17, 2019 14 Weick: Okay thank you. John Jensen: Yep. Undestad: Question for you so you did perc tests down on the lower side. Did you do any perc tests anywhere else? Dale Denn: Yeah. Initially I was on the bluff trying to site something where the old drain fields were which is an almost impossible for a mound build. It’s almost impossible to get materials in on that top part of the bluff because he has no room along the side of the house. It’s just wide enough for a Bobcat. That’s another, but I was on the bluff and Erick was actually out. We did soils but it’s a tough area to work. Undestad: I was just going to ask, would you be able to locate the existing drain field now? Dale Denn: I can pretty much. So they’re coming down, they’re probably, they’re on the, they’re relatively on these contours so right now they are on these right and they go all the way over. There’s about 4 runs. They’re trenches so they’ll follow the contour pretty close so they’re, I’d say they’re just on the shoulder so I’d say they’re right, right in this area. So they go into the yellow. They’re pretty long. They actually start about 10 feet from this very sharp ravine right now. The trenches and obviously there hasn’t been any impact either. Erosion but these trenches are failing. It technically it shouldn’t be trenches because there is a seasonal water table there and right now there’s, they’re having some issues as far as performance and they don’t meet the soil separation there for trenches. So if I was to work there, and I’ve been through a couple different proposals. But it’s dramatic. It would be trying to do an above ground system there. Another option is an at grade system. It’s we start on top of the soil but we don’t have to have the sand but it’s just very difficult getting materials in to that, apart from coming up the hill. And I mean I was trying to pull the rabbit out of the hat and if that was our last spot to go we could come up with something but it was getting to be unfeasible with the soils and the workability. And plus it’s, I think it’s right in the bluff. It’s still a bluff, some of it. Undestad: But if you looked at, if you were able to put one between, where the old drain field is and then up towards the house, then you’d kind of be building a better back yard for them too wouldn’t you with your? Dale Denn: Yeah the only thing though that’s the slopes there, well see there’s some limits on the mounds. I think we’re limited to 18 percent slope to build them on per code. Trenches we can go up to 25 but, for a mound I believe the limit’s 18. And at grade I was, I was exploring an at grade. Laying out an at grade and at grade I can go up to 25 percent but the slopes there, they always look better on this map but they’re kind of, see on the back side of the house the slopes here start working against me so if I was to try to lay out an at grade, an at grade, a single at grade for this house would have to be 180 feet long. They’re only 10 feet wide but they’re long Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 17, 2019 15 so I would still be splitting it in half but it would be, the problem was the old trenches were in and if we had other soils then we, we’re not, we’re supposed to stay off the trenches because that’s disturbed soil again. Plus the trenches would probably have to be dug out because if you’ve got 3, 2-3 feet of rock in the trenches and one foot of cover materials say for example, we don’t get any credit for the rock so we technically don’t meet the soil separation so that, all the trenches would have to be dug out and probably just filled in with some mound sand before we could even contemplate doing a new system. And then right away that’s going to push us into a Type 3 type of system. But I did because I had the luxury of the slope being like right there, almost 25, 23, 24. What I was trying to lay out in that grade but I just couldn’t dodge the trenches just because of how they were configured. So that really kind of fell apart as far as the design. I was ascertaining anything I could think of to see what we could come up with. Like I say this, I’ve been out there 3-4 years ago already. I’ve been out there quite a bit on this site. So I guess the short answer is it’s still a very difficult area and the old trenches are in there and it would push into a Type 3 and it’s very hard getting materials in, and the big trees are in that area. Undestad: So just to correct me, when you’re looking at the mount up on top you said for a 5 bedroom house with the slopes and everything if you went up top it would cover a 50 by 100 area? Dale Denn: Pretty close. The rock bed itself is 63 feet. Undestad: Okay so by 100 would be the same. Dale Denn: Oh definitely it’d be yeah. Oh yeah it’d be the same all over. Yeah because down below a hill there those rock beds are 26 feet so it’s cut in half. Undestad: Okay. Dale Denn: I’m sorry it’s 160. Undestad: 160 or 180 feet. Dale Denn: 30 something yeah. So they still equal their. McGonagill: …could go behind the house. Okay. Dale Denn: And I’m still getting cheated down there just a little bit by virtue of that 75 foot setback but the soils are pretty nice soils. They’re a nice loam soil. So you can see they’re kind of diagonal. The sand bed and the sand bed is essentially are absorption area. And to keep it within that 75 feet it’s crunching me a little bit but I’m a little wider on the other side. I’m a little narrower on the one side but from a design standpoint they are a nice, light loamy soil so they perc out really good so I probably don’t even have to have technically quite that big but as Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 17, 2019 16 designers if we, we always make the sand extra because that extra absorption area for the long haul is pretty cheap insurance. Skistad: When you say it’s failing is it failing, thank you. When it’s failing, when you say it’s failing is it leaking at this point? Dale Denn: I’m not so sure about leaking but it had a compliance inspection so it fails from the 36 inch soil separation rule that’s in the State Code so it’s too close to a seasonal water table. So right now the trenches, so they’re more of an environmental threat than anything because they’re too close to that seasonal water table. Skistad: Okay. Weick: How we doing down there? Questions? Randall: I don’t have any. Reeder: Is there no way to fix the existing system to make it work so it does meet this requirement? Dale Denn: Yeah not conveniently because it’s, it’s less than 3 feet of separation. On occasion if that was the only existing system, and this would be up to the local unit of government, there’s times where we would take the trenches. Design the Type 3. Put in an aerobic treatment unit that has three classes of design, A, B, C. The short of that is Class C, we need a minimum of 2 feet of separation so we can design and install at less than 3 feet for Type 3 generally with no other options so the short answer is yes there is designs that would probably be able to come back and utilize a trench. I’ve done a few. If it’s 18 inches of separation or less then we’re into a Class B type of pre-treatment which is trying to kill more bacteria. More bells and whistles. Higher risk and we can go down, just to be honest, we can go within 12 inches of the water table. Super high risk. As a designer I can say I can, I have the technology to design at 12 inches and at the end of 12 inches there wont’ be any E.coli bacteria but then of course I have to put in, implement the monitoring and the maintenance to prove that that design is going to perform to those standards so I’ve never done A. I’ve done a few C’s because I’m working with 2 feet but that still is basically pre-treatment bacteria. Lab tests. Monitoring. Maintenance. The units need to be cleaned and serviced every year so I don’t ever sell them. There is a place for them where they’re absolutely needed but I probably sold maybe 6 in my lifetime because they, when they start failing the bottom layering those aerobic unit just turns into a big, just sludge because this bio-mat layer will start forming. See what’s going on with the drain field is the effluent comes in. There’s food in there. There’s bacteria that, and that’s the other thing about the biological component of the soil being gone. The bacteria, so you’ve got to keep in mind the septic system is not a mechanical treatment. It’s really a biological treatment so the bio-mat layer essentially is just a bunch of good bacteria that are acting on all the nutrients. Utilizing Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 17, 2019 17 them. Taking some of the nitrates and things out so with the bio-mat layer gone up here the risk of it working environmentally is a lot less. Just to reiterate that. Reeder: So the answer is yes but you wouldn’t recommend that solution? Is that? Dale Denn: Yeah. It’s a high risk for us designers. We already, our bonds are up to $25,000 so we always got to stand behind our work and to be honest with you, John probably would not be able to hire me to do a system up here. It’s a high risk type of situation. To get 18 feet of water to go through the soil every year so number one, the water has to get into the soil and disappear. So there’s two major breakdowns in a mound. Does it take the water? Maybe there’s a water table under it or something. And I’ve got one or two of them in my 30 years and they’re a pain in the butt because they, they bleed out the toe of your mound a little bit and they’re just a pain to fix. That’s the one breakdown is it doesn’t take all the water that you give it, and there’s things we can do there. We can put timers in and regulate the flow but the other side is the environmental treatment. Is it killing off the bacteria? Is it reducing some of the nitrates and that’s where that natural soil that has some organic matter and it does the best job and it’s really a biological treatment system. Reeder: So clearly the best system you think is the one you have proposed? Dale Denn: Yeah based on those soils. As far as treating the effluent and constructability is not a, is in my eyes a piece of cake. That to me as a designer is the best for treatment because it has the best soils. And for longevity of the water going in. Keeping in mind again about 18 feet has to go through. Reeder: So is staff not agreeing with that? I mean are you saying that there is a workable, that possibly they could bring in a workable solution that you guys would approve? Generous: That’s what, we think they can. We didn’t have enough information to make that determination though so. If you look we also made an alternate motion within the packet. Reeder: I see it but I’ve learned more about sewers than I ever wanted to know. Generous: With this I’m learning a lot myself. Skistad: I have one more question. Weick: Sure, please. Skistad: So if we look at where you’re putting it up eventually, I mean it looks to me like if it goes down there maybe the next upgrade would be to go right into the city sewer system that’s plotted down there. Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 17, 2019 18 Dale Denn: Ah yeah. I mean definitely whether or not that’s a point of debate or not but obviously the pipe is down there and he can hook up that pipe right here and just simply continue right in. Skistad: So that would be, so for me for longevity that also makes sense where you could once the city has septic that you’re already set up to feed into it. Dale Denn: That’s the part of my whole plan too. The pipe’s already in. The tanks can just be abandoned and then sure. Reeder: Is that ever something we’re going to look at? Generous: It is shown in the City’s Comprehensive Sewer Plan to provide that. We need a lift station just to the north of this area by, well there’s some office land available. I don’t know what is it, maybe a quarter mile to the north so as part of the Powers Boulevard project we did put sewer line in so we didn’t have to tear up the road again. So it’s a gravity system there. And then that lift station will serve all of southern Chanhassen actually. McGonagill: And that’s pushing it all away. Generous: Yeah and. Reeder: So that’s a lift station that we probably will build. Generous: Yes. We will build it. It’s development driven though so timing is the question. Dale Denn: And you know if that’s the case and these mounds are built, again I’m trying to get you to just visualize the finish look of the mound you know. It’s top soil. It just comes from the slope. It just kind of up and then just go up again. I mean really looking at them in this situation like I do it on the houses, you can’t even tell it’s a mound. And all that soil and everything is really going to be kind of pushing up against the bluff. I mean it’s true that we have to finish up into the bluff a little bit. I think I talked with Erick about that just to get the grade so that we you know shed a little water over the mound. But aesthetically you look from the road it’s just going to look like a little natural feature. And John is correct about the trees. We take that in mind too as designers of course. That’s the issue with down on the bluff down here. I was doing everything I could to dodge all of this, these big trees and that was getting difficult. That was another challenge I had as a designer. Down here surprisingly for some reason they’re just, they’re all just small. I don’t think there’s anything over 6 inches diameter DBH down there do, and a lot of brush and buckthorn but no major, no major trees. And we don’t, and when we come to a mound, just so you know if there was a big tree there or something we don’t dig out the stumps so we just essentially, we but them within 6 inches of grade and we just leave them intact because if we dig them out we’re disturbing the soil so it ain’t like a major construction project down there. It’s just we cut all the trees off and at that site we’re being protective of the Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 17, 2019 19 soils and stuff but that’s all pretty small stuff and it doesn’t take mechanical or big equipment to come in there because we always have a concern once we identify a site and you have to do some clean up, is they can’t be in there with rubber tired Bobcats and ripping and turning so that, a lot of that stuff was small so that’s pretty much going to have to come out by hand. So that’s another advantage of that area. Undestad: But all the material you’re bringing in will just come off of Powers Boulevard then? Dale Denn: Yeah. Yeah. We’ll have a little bit of a temporary road through the ditch there at the, some of the highest points but yeah we definitely got to bring some truckloads of materials in. And the tree line, there’ll still be a tree line there as far as visually from the road because where the sand is, well is this still on? Do this mound, this is the center of the rock is the high point. 3 ½-4 feet and it tapers all the way down so it’s going to finish off right at the easement and there’s some trees along here yet that don’t have to come out so I’ve got an idea over here, there’s two oaks. Actually it’s the spot where I would want to alter the swale a little bit between two large oaks is where I would come in with the trucks because I have to build most of the stuff from the top side of the mount so that I’m not driving over the absorption area with 500 passes on the skid loader. So I mean to be honest I have to have a little bit of a lane just to Bobcat width. Just getting into the bluff here a little bit so I can drive level and then place my materials from the up slope side but that’s already rolled through my mind. But again that little bit of cutting I do when the mound is finished the top soil’s going to come back over that so that’s our restoration plan and I think we had two grasses and whatever. That’s no problem either. But my thoughts would be to change the swale just a little bit. It takes about 1, 1 ½ to 2 feet of cutting at the most to just make that swale go straight. Straight east into the ditch and that would be my temporary road anyway and I’d, I probably would flatten that out because I have, to give you some idea for this system it’s pushing about 30 truckloads of product that have to come in here. And that’s the problem with trying to construct it in the back. This, he’s got a propane tank over here. There’s, I can barely get a skid loader in over here. And there’s no room to come around here because this is, this is a walkout area and I think you have a deck over here too. It’s impossible to get in. So access wise, apart from up here of course you know, this is very doable. Weick: Go ahead yeah. Skistad: Well I can understand, thank you. I can understand the City’s point of view before you came in just to speak about it but I think overall I think you’ve done your due diligence and that you want to, you want to protect that ground water table which is high on the other end which is why you want it down below where the grade is less and I think it also leads into eventually to what the City’s sewer system is going to be anyway so to me this, I think this is a very due diligence and I appreciate all of the effort that you’ve put into it to make sure that we’re protecting really our creek and our bluff by doing this. Weick: Thank you commissioner. Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 17, 2019 20 Dale Denn: And just for the record I happen to be a soil scientist too, whether that makes any difference. That’s what my degree is in so I am kind of a tree hugger so. And I used to be in the tree business also and yes I adore trees. Big ones. Weick: Any other questions for the applicant or the applicant’s contractor? Seeing none thank you. It’s very informational. At this time I would open the public hearing portion of this item. Anyone wishing to come forward and share an opinion please do so. Welcome. Tim Bloudek: Hi thanks. My name’s Tim Bloudek. I’m at 1107 Homestead Lane, right next door to the south of the property. Weick: Okay. Tim Bloudek: I’ve lived in that property for 33 years and when they were talking about the construction site, it pretty much looked like that. Where they were describing the area to the east of the current, additional garage space the aerials may have shown, when they put Powers through behind us they took out a number of our trees as part of the project. We knew that was coming way back in the 80’s. My former neighbor was able to somehow work with the crew and they deposited lots of large trees and they drove on it a lot. There was heavy equipment up there so the comments about the construction site, it looked like that for more than 20 years so I believe when they were talking about the compaction issue up in the front area there was concern even without doing the soil testing so. That was just one of the observations as I listened to this. The other thing I learned today was this, the zoning along the backs of our properties. I’m sorry I forget. Weick: Primary bluff. Tim Bloudek: Primary yeah. Anyway I live there but I was unaware that that went through. It’s a good idea and yet I think some things need to be adjusted when a good plan is brought forward. It was interesting, I appeared before this, the council I think it was back in 1985 when I built my home. I had to get a variance because of the setbacks. It was a 10 foot side and 100 foot side and I remember a comment from Ursula Dimler who was on the council at the time, she said my house wouldn’t fit on your property. We have to be practical about this and with that being said they said, she said I move we approve and it was just, it was something that was just practical so even though we have this primary area, and it’s definitely worth protecting I think we need to be somewhat practical in our decisions. I don’t think the variance is dramatic. It makes sense. The plan that was, that I listened to. This is the first time I heard it by the way. The plan I heard sounded good. I’m not an expert. I do digital stuff. I don’t do soil stuff but it sounded good so I would just lend my support to my neighbor and thank you for listening to me. Weick: Thank you. Anyone else would like to come forward? Seeing no one else come forward I will close the public hearing portion and open this item up for commissioner discussion. Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 17, 2019 21 Undestad: Well I’ll pipe in. Weick: Yeah please, thank you. Undestad: I did look at all the aerial history of that and it was seriously covered with just about anything at any time up there so I’m sure that would be a soils issue for the perc test. Not to say that a Type 3 system won’t go up there but a regular you know would not work up there. The location at the bottom you know I kind of, I get that too. I mean it does make the most sense down there and I think our bluff, that’s the hard part is trying to figure out the bluff protection side on there and I’m trying to look at what is, what is that going to do to the bottom of the bluff down to that toe of the heel and I don’t really see, you know I’ve seen a lot of mound systems and they just blend in and it is sod. You look at the grass when you’re all done and, so you know I guess, and there may be room right behind the house to do the same type of thing but you know I just, I don’t know if we have to go through a lot, jump through more hoops to see if will this work. Will that work and it looks like they’ve done a lot of research on the whole thing as it is but, that’s all. But I know what it looks totally different than it does in this picture for the last 15 years anyway. McGonagill: I do think the homeowner and the neighbors coming in and all the work that’s done on that, you’ve done a lot of optionality. I will say that the, you’ve come in with the best logical solution for your, for the homeowner which is what I would have done as well. My issue is, is the fact that it is in the primary zone. My other issue is the fact is yeah you are cutting in the toe of the hill and I never want to touch a toe of a hill when I used to do geotechnical work you know because that’s what gets, it’s being stabilized naturally and when you start destabilizing it with the vegetation and the rest of it yes you can put a mound in and try to bank it back but I worry about that particularly with the amount of geotechnical drop that occurs right on top of those mounds. I’m going to sit here and look at this going the amount of water that would come through it. So it, you’re messing with the toe. It is in the primary zone and our job on the commission, yes we’re here to be practical but we also are charged stewardship at a very high level of a lot of quality of life issues in the city and, which is something I take pretty seriously. I’m not a tree hugger. I build big construction projects but at the same time trees are very important. I’ve got a lot of them in my yard as well so, you know I think, I’m not a sewer expert either but I look at the room in front of the house. Yes it’s compacted. I keep asking myself the question about mounds. Mound systems up there. I understand the problem of pumping up there. I get that but while it is a difficult problem of the property that the homeowner owns, from a City standpoint I come back and say there’s a primary zone here that we’re charged to protect and I look at that as my first duty and I don’t compromise that frankly. I also look at the swale coming down off of the ravine. It will move. You know it is going to move as we know. They all do. We spent a lot of time coming through it so I wish I could, I’m not a sewer expert. I wish I could in my own mind come up with a solution here. I don’t see one but I don’t like where it’s at at the bottom of the hill. That’s just basically where I land. I think that I would, I would, I’m challenging the homeowner and the firm to say okay you’ve got, what’s the solution that’s higher Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 17, 2019 22 up on the hill. I don’t think anything around the bluff or in front of the house because I don’t want to mess with the primary zone. Weick: Thank you. Other thoughts. Randall: I’ll go after you. Reeder: I think he’s, they’ve convinced me that they’ve looked at a lot of options to try to solve the problem and it’s knowing nothing about sewer systems it convinced me that the system they’ve designed may be the best environmental system to take care of the treatment from this house. It’s unfortunate that it’s in the area that we’re trying to protect but he’s also convinced me that the other area has larger trees and would not be beneficial to the neighborhood or that property either so I’m pretty much convinced that we should go with the staff’s second motion that gives them certain criteria that we need to have them to prove that he’s going to do it correctly but I would go with that. Weick: You next. Randall: I feel the same way. However I think, not that I have no idea when the sewer connection’s going to happen but that might be a removal of this system when it gets hooked up and eventually we know in the future that will happen so I was convinced by it too. I just think that, especially when you brought up the point about the primary, the bluff primary area, it’s only, it’s for structures. It’s not septic only and that was kind of my thought on it too once you said that. That’s why I’m going to vote in favor of the second option with those conditions in place. Skistad: I feel like I said my piece. Weick: Okay. I will say this is, for me this is very difficult because I, you know similar to you Commissioner Reeder I don’t, I don’t have any knowledge of these systems and so I struggle to make a decision maybe because it doesn’t, you know whether it’s on a hill or are hills good or bad or we could put a Type 3 but not, you know and is that like cost prohibitive and that’s what I come back to. So I’ll take myself out of the technical discussions and I’ll say in my mind this is not, this is not a structure that’s a nice to have. Right? We’re not talking about a deck or a shed or something that someone wants to impose on a bluff area as a, what I would consider a nice to have. To me this is a must have. The current system is, needs to be replaced. To your point you know I’m convinced of that and are we burdening the homeowner with something that’s really cost prohibitive? That’s what I’m trying to weigh in my mind. I’m with you the primary bluff you know being a sacred area and I struggle with that but then I also, I’m really struggling with the burden that we would potentially be putting on the homeowner from a cost perspective. And I’m just, I don’t know what the costs are but I’m imaging that the things he was describing would be significantly, I think at some point he even said I’m not even sure he could hire me. Right? Because I’m assuming that means because of the cost that it would take to monitor the Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 17, 2019 23 material and to put in a Type 3 above, whatever it is. Like all that kind of stuff. I am, that’s what I’m leaning on and so I would be willing to you know, I’d be willing to vote I think in favor of a variance to assist the homeowner in this way. That’s where my head’s at. Skistad: I think the risk of failure is too with that water table being so high on the upper part. Weick: Right. Skistad: You know if that sludge goes in there that’s really a big problem. Weick: Sludge is bad right? Skistad: That’s your number two okay. Weick: Okay I gotch ya. McGonagill: Can you see, can you put up the second…? Generous: I don’t have that. It’s on the back of the staff report. McGonagill: Those are good comments commissioners and. Weick: It would be this and I don’t know if you want me to read it or not. McGonagill: No I’m just wondering I, Commissioner Randall’s suggestion I think is a good one. Weick: There’s several conditions obviously. McGonagill: I’m talking about the removal of it after it. Weick: Oh oh oh oh oh. Generous: Connection to city service. Reeder: When we put a pipe like that in would we normally require a connection within a certain amount of time or not? Generous: Commissioner Reeder it’s, the ordinance says if your structure is within 150 feet you have to connect so. Weick: The structure is the house? Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 17, 2019 24 Generous: The house so they wouldn’t by ordinance be required to do that. They may want to from a practical standpoint connect to it. Weick: So it doesn’t sound like we could add a condition but we could, it’s certainly in the record that we would prefer if we were to approve the variance that at the time that the city sewer became available we would certainly encourage the homeowner to connect, connect into that city sewer line. Randall: Can I ask a question? Weick: Sure. Randall: I know we’ve been educated a lot about septic systems but we never learned what the life of a septic system is. I mean is that something that this thing will in 25 years it will need to be replaced by that time? If sewer’s available will they have to connect? Weick: Could you re, yeah engage? Randall: Because that might solve the problem right there. I mean if it’s got a 25 year life by that time we’ll have to connect. Dale Denn: Yeah I’m glad I get to come back up here. The main reason why as a designer I wouldn’t design in those soils, they’re really high risk because it’s a lot of water that has to get in and I have one or two that have been leaking and they’re just a big headache and then we’re out on some farm soils and so they have a whole nother set of problems. So the longevity, it’s quite a range. I’ve been at it over 30 years. I have mounds going for over 30 years because again they’re operating on a biological principle. The thing that kills a mound is the deep pumping is important every 3 years to take out what’s called the total suspended soils so that’s the component of the sewage that doesn’t break down. Excuse me. That doesn’t break down and those are small particles so long story short they will continue to migrate into the soil and those are the physical little things that don’t break down so they start plugging up the soil pores so the most of the time when a system is starting to come up it can’t go down because all the pores and that all goes back to the soil structure and that’s why up here in this area there’s no soil structure. Structure’s like a pallet of bricks, a whole bunch of bricks sitting on a pallet that between the bricks are your pores you know so when that’s gone it’s really hard to get the water to go through that’s clean water. Now keep in mind the little bacteria which builds this dark little black bio-mat layer where the soil, where the effluent first hits the soil, that’s called bio-mat. Within that one inch or two inch, excuse me again. Properly developer bio-mat layer, most of the treatment is within 3 or 4 inches in that little layer and so if that layer’s not there the treatment disappears. But if it’s already a bad soil and it’s perking at say 50-60 minutes per inch which is slow, and then the bio-mat layer gets in there, that actually slows the water down but it slows it down for the purpose so that there’s time to treat it and to act upon it. So that water starts going slow with the bio-mat layer. That’s why we’ve got to have the soil structure intact Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 17, 2019 25 because if that’s gone being a soil scientist, it’s just a high risk design. So my question is then if we did do something up here and it fails you know an environmental health threat. You have a public health threat because now you have E.coli bacteria on the surface coming out of the toe of the mound because it doesn’t want to go down and I had meant to just instill that into the whole thinking process. It’s a high risk system and if it fails he’s got big issues. McGonagill: Go to the bottom and it fails. What, how will you protect the mound from being washed out from the bluff? Because you’re going to cut into the bluff. Dale Denn: Yeah that’s a good question but I don’t see on the, on that bluff itself that’s basic sheet flow, being a soil scientist, those soils are stabilized by the vegetation but they’re also, it’s a loamy soil. There’s a lot of water soaking into the bluff. You can go out there after a snow melt or heavy rain and you don’t really see channeling reversion. McGonagill: I understand you’re saying that it won’t do it but how will you protect the bluff? That’s my question. Or not the bluff, the mounds from starting to leak or wash out or. Dale Denn: Oh oh, well we can go right into straw blankets. We can seed it and put down the doubled sided straw blankets which pops that grass right up within a week it’s getting green. Towards the end of the year. McGonagill: But I saw the drawing. You have block walls and stuff, I don’t know are you building rock behind it to hold that toe? There was some rock on the, or maybe that was natural rock. Dale Denn: Oh in the drawing? McGonagill: Yes. Dale Denn: Well that rock is, that’s internal. That’s embedded within the mound. McGonagill: But this, no right here. This, back over to the other way. I’ll have to look at the contour map. I seen it on one of the maps. Undestad: And just a note that systems are inspected by the City every 3 years or required for? Generous: We require that they be inspected and pumped out. Dale Denn: Yeah that the tanks be pumped, yeah. But not inspected. Generous: Not the mounds per se. Dale Denn: Just pumped. Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 17, 2019 26 McGonagill: So you just basically lay it in there. You’re not going to put, there’s no sort of reinforcement to it per se? Dale Denn: If I could just take a minute I could do a little cross section which really helps, not to insult anybody’s intelligence. McGonagill: No…get an exam on sewage systems we might as well get the whole 9 yards. Weick: While he’s doing that I would say in response to your question also there’s no guarantee that these homeowners will be here you know whenever. You know they can certainly sell the house and new owners. Randall: Yeah well that’s another concern too. If like right now based on their system that they have now I don’t know if they could sell their home because it has to be up to county code in order to sell so. Weick: Oh, oh yeah yeah yeah I get it. Randall: So now they’re kind of locked in. They have to do something you know. Weick: I’m with you. Randall: So yeah. McGonagill: So from the City standpoint you talk about, I’m looking at the motion. Weick: For approval. McGonagill: Yeah. When you talk about, you said you’ve asked for, you would want an erosion control plan. You want them to protect the ravine. I’m looking at point 1. To protect the ravine and then you talk about point 4, erosion control plan. What particularly are you looking to see from them in order to say yeah this is good to go? Generous: Chairman, Commissioner McGonagill, it would be like a standard erosion control plan. Where are they going to put this blanket or rows. How are they going to revegetate any slopes to show all that as part of their submittal to us. Additionally we were looking at how that ravine system will be redirected which is something you’ve already been talking about as part of your construction. You would just have to show it on a plan what you’re proposing for that. Dale Denn: And so we definitely can address all those points. Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 17, 2019 27 McGonagill: Is there anything that they could do as part of that erosion control plan at the toe of that ravine? Because I think about this going okay if that’s the area of concern is there something new on the toe itself to help stabilize even further? Like down at the bottom of the ravine and you know what I’m thinking about because you do that sometimes. You can build a toe out. Weick: Well isn’t he going to build into it? Skistad: He’s going to. McGonagill: He’s going to cut, he’s going to cut onto the slope. I’m thinking back in here. Weick: Oh that way. McGonagill: That way. Undestad: No he won’t be back in. McGonagill: Well he’s coming through here is what he’s saying he’s going to come this way and that’s where he’s going to redirect so is that okay what, he’s going to shed the water that way. Generous: And that could be part of his design that they submit what they’re going to do to help, either slow it down or redirect. McGonagill: Or stabilize it yeah. Okay. Generous: And then yeah, our engineering staff and our surface water management people would look at it. And of course he’s been working with our building official on the whole design issue so. McGonagill: Okay. You got a drawing for me? Dale Denn: Yeah. McGonagill: Can you turn it the other way? Thank you. Dale Denn: Okay. So, so here’s the bluff and this demarcation here is pretty dramatic so the rock bed’s a few feet back. This is the absorption area. So if you look down you have rock and then you have the sand. So this is the sand so a typical mound to finish off and have this, have this valley right. But when you have such a steep slope this can all be good top soil and this can be just, just blended right in like this and then down and away it goes. And that’s almost going to happen automatically there because that bluff comes down so steep and by the time I take my Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 17, 2019 28 crown of the mound and come back the 10 feet I need it’s just right there. I mean there’s hardly any back slope because it’s just boom right there. McGonagill: As long as that fill is maintained you’ve protected the crown. On your drawing. Dale Denn: Yeah. McGonagill: Don’t move your drawing. Go the other way. You moved it out of, there you go. As long as you protect what you filled in then. Dale Denn: Yeah this cutting is just, it’s just a little bit. McGonagill: I understand that but when you fill it up to level it as long as you keep that in there you’ve protected the crown. Dale Denn: Yeah, we would take straw blankets and then we would this, we could put straw blankets over all this and staple them down with a prairie vegetation. We have a lot of choices you know vegetation. It could be a prairie mix. Something that’s going to have to grow in the shade there. So again it’s probably good that I still do that because that’s what it’s going to look like and then if you’re down in on the street and you’re looking up, this is all going to green up and natural weeds and stuff will grow. Brush and trees will not grow on it because it’s droughty so that rock bed is, it’s inside the mound and this is all, this is all 6 inches of black soil minimum has to be placed over the mound and blended in with the original landscape. So it’s topsoil. So it’s going to green up. It’s going to grow grass. Weeds. Some people plant flowers. I mean it could be hostas. It can be, I’ve seen all kinds of creative stuff done to both protect the mound and green it up. So lots of ideas there. And then the swale, again that is a flat area. It delta’s out. We can move it a little bit and we could put some rip rap down with some fabric and break the force of the water. Some nice lime stone that looks pretty good. Kind of make it where the delta is. We could easily draft something up like that. We’ve already talked about doing that. McGonagill: Okay. Weick: Thank you again. Reeder: Mr. Chairman one more question. Weick: Sure. Reeder: How difficult would it be to hook this whole system up into the sanitary sewer pipe once we put it in? Dale Denn: Oh to hook up? Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 17, 2019 29 Reeder: Yeah. Dale Denn: Oh they got, wherever the curb stop is, it’s real simple just taking the pipe. This will be a 4 inch schedule 40. Reeder: But I mean so it would flow from the house by gravity down to that thing with no problem without reconstructing everything? Dale Denn: No, just taking. Reeder: So is there something we could do to make that connection easier in the future in your design now? McGonagill: You can stub, have a stub at the end couldn’t you? Dale Denn: Yeah, number one the tank up here is going to be gone I think. We have a choice. We could leave extra septic or it can be taken out. But down here then most likely these tanks would come out of the picture and then the digging would just have to start from right here. This is a pump tank so this has to be lower than my system so I can’t configure that too much different to make it any more practical but it’s pretty practical right now because it’s a straight shot right out to wherever the curb stop is. Reeder: So you just remove those tanks and put a pipe through and you’re down? Dale Denn: Yep. Yeah. Reeder: Okay. Dale Denn: And there’s going to be clean out’s on this pipe every 100 feet already also and so you’ll be able to see where that pipe is and it will have the clean out’s. Weick: Good. McGonagill: I think you all have made some pretty good convincing arguments that why you can do that. Why you should do it. It’s good resulting dialogue. Weick: It is. I’m glad we talked it through. McGonagill: Okay need a motion? Weick: We do. I cannot do it. That’s the only rule that I know of. Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 17, 2019 30 Undestad: Alright I will make a motion. The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a variance for the bluff setback and encroachment into the Bluff Creek primary zone for the construction of a septic system subject to the conditions 1 through 6. Weick: Thank you. We have a valid motion. Do we have a second? Skistad: I will second it. We have a motion and a second. Any comments before we vote? Generous: Mr. Chairman? Weick: Yes. Generous: Does that also include adoption of the Findings of Fact for approval? Weick: Yes. Undestad: Yes. McGonagill: Yes it does. I would suggest it does Mr. Chair. Weick: Yes it does. So we will note that as well. Again I will, the thanks both to the applicant, your contractor as well as the Planning Commission and the City. Tonight’s discussion was, it was good. I mean there’s a lot of us admittedly that you know don’t have a lot of experience in this area so we’re really trying to do our best to you know weigh the, you know all of the mitigating factors that go into this and so I appreciate your expertise to my left as well as your’s. It was very helpful. So with that any other comment? None. Undestad moved, Skistad seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the bluff setback variance and encroachment into the Bluff Creek primary zone for the construction of a septic system as shown in the plans shown on the Certificate of Survey by SISU Land Surveying dated 8/19/19, subject to the following conditions, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision: 1. The applicant is required to submit detailed construction drawings and/or plat drawings for the project, as applicable. An engineer-designed plan is required to divert the existing drainage ravine that would be impacted by the proposed SSTS. 2. The applicant shall apply for a septic permit for the septic system. 3. The applicant shall provide further justification of the impracticability of such a location for a SSTS (e.g. a geotechnical report or perk test if the concern is fill/disturbed soil). 4. An erosion control plan shall be submitted for review and approval. Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 17, 2019 31 5. The applicant shall submit a tree survey showing the system located as to minimize tree removal should be required. All trees 6” and larger in and around the construction area shall be shown. Replacement planting will be required in areas cleared outside of the septic fields. Plans and quantities shall be approved by the city. 6. Tree protection fencing shall be installed to protect trees and vegetation outside of the construction area. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Weick: The motion passes 6 to 0. Generous: Do you have a second? Weick: We did. Commissioner Skistad. Yes. Generous: Thank you. Weick: So with that, I did not print an agenda in front of me but I believe the next item would be the Minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner McGonagill noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 3, 2019 as presented. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATION. CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE. Weick: Any presentations from the City? Generous: Council items. The Tequila Butcher was approved with the variance so to go forward. And they amended the development contract for Glendale Homes. The one on Glendale and Minnewashta Parkway. They have a new developer name. that was the only change that they had with that. Weick: Okay. Generous: We do have one item at our next Planning Commission meeting. It’s a variance. Not quite as involved as that and so at this meeting we were supposed to have a second hearing for a subdivision but the applicant withdrew that application. He's revising his plat and he hopes to come back yet this year so. Weick: Okay. McGonagill: Question? Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 17, 2019 32 Weick: Yes. McGonagill: Bob I wasn’t, I didn’t get a chance to listen to City Council. Did they talk much about the whole issue of that sidewalk and the fence that we got into? Generous: No I don’t think they had any discussion on that. I know as part of our design for the parking lot we’re going to have a fence on that side of it. McGonagill: Right, right. Generous: So it will be. McGonagill: So it’s just the sidewalk’s still going to dump right out into the middle? Generous: It will stop at the sidewalk and then you will go to the right. McGonagill: Okay thanks. Skistad: Now you know why there’s sidewalks to nowhere right? I always wondered about those. Generous: I believe the intent was more employee parking than the customers and that’s one of the reasons we supported the variance so they didn’t take up the parking on site. Skistad: Right. Weick: Other news for us Bob? Generous: No. That 690 Carver Beach, a variance next time and then you have one for the meeting after that. We’re hoping to get some code amendments to bring forward but we need to get them on council first before we can schedule them on the Planning Commission agendas. Weick: Okay. Well thank you. Are there any Planning Commissioner presentations this evening? I expect one from Commissioner Randall. Randall: Next one, okay. Weick: Yeah. Randall: Do I have a time limit on how long it has to be? Weick: No more than 30 minutes. Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 17, 2019 33 Randall: No more than 30 but no less than? Weick: 25. Randall: Okay. Weick: Okay thank you. I will entertain a motion for adjournment. Undestad moved, Reeder seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, October 1, 2019 Subject City Council Action Update Section ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS Item No: D.1. Prepared By Jean Steckling, Senior Admin. Support Specialist File No:  ATTACHMENTS: City Council Action Update City Council Action Update MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2019 Consider Interim Use Permit for Moon Valley Gravel Pit - Approved Consider a Request for a Variance to Replace and Move a Septic System to the Bottom of the Bluff at 1181 Homestead Lane - Approved Minutes for these meetings can be viewed and downloaded from the city’s website at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us, and click on “Agendas and Minutes” from the left-side links. g:\plan\forms\development forms\city council action update.docx