Loading...
2019 10 01-pcCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 1, 2019 Acting Chairman Randall called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Undestad, Mark Randall, Michael McGonagill, Doug Reeder, and Laura Skistad MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Weick and John Tietz STAFF PRESENT: MacKenzie Walters, Associate Planner; and Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner PUBLIC PRESENT: Brian Timm 6860 Lotus Trail Randy Rutledge 680 Carver Beach Road PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR LOT COVER AND FRONT YARD SETBACK TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AT 690 CARVER BEACH ROAD. Randall: MacKenzie do you want to tell us about it? Walters: Yep absolutely. So this is Planning Case 2019-14. This will be going, this will be handled here tonight. If appealed it would go to the City Council on October 28, 2019 for a final determination. The applicant is requesting a 5 foot front yard setback variance and a 9 percent lot cover variance to facilitate the construction of a single family home at 690 Carver Beach Road. So the area is zoned Residential Single Family. It’s located in the shoreland overlay district. What this means is the lot, the minimum lot size for this district is typically 15,000 square feet. It has a 30 foot front and rear setback. 10 foot side yard setback and is limited to 25 percent impervious surface coverage. The parcel in question is a sub-standard lot with only 6,000 square feet of lot area. It currently has 21 percent lot cover based on a survey submitted by the applicant. It has a non-conforming 6.7 foot side yard setback here. Front yard setback is currently a non-conforming 15.3 feet and then there’s currently a garage that is about 1 foot over the neighbor’s property line to the south. It does meet the required 30 foot rear setback however. This graphic here shows where the buildable area would be if all setbacks were met and the area in red is the existing structures. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing home and construct a new single family home. The footprint of that home is shown here in green. I have the porch in blue and then walkway and driveway in gray. As mentioned to do this they would need a 5 foot front yard setback variance and then they’d be going to about 34 percent lot cover Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 1, 2019 2 so they’d need a 9 percent lot cover variance. The main justification for this is the small size of the lot. At 6,000 square feet it is not actually possible to construct a new home that meets the minimum requirements of the city code without a lot cover variance. Because they recognize that 9 percent lot cover is substantially above 25 they are proposing a rain garden to help mitigate some of the impervious surface and they do know that this project would bring the side yards into compliance as well as reduce the existing non-conformity of the front yard by increasing the front yard setback by 10 feet. They also noted that a very similar variance was approved for the property immediately behind this property. In 2001 the City granted that property a 5 ½ foot front setback variance, a 7 foot side yard variance and an 11 foot lot cover variance so, and that was also for a 6,000 square foot lot. So they noted that it was consistent with what had previously been granted in the area. We have been contacted by 2 residents. One in favor sent an email which I believe we, you have in front of you. They stated that the property in it’s current state is an eye sore and they feel that a new home would be a huge improvement for the area. We did have a resident contact us with concerns. They were particularly concerned with the impact of the trees on the neighboring properties. They noted that the construction activities would likely cause some damage to the root structure of the trees that are on the neighboring properties and that likely trimming would need to be done which could damage the trees and the branches for the overhangs. They felt the building was too massive and that two stories would be out of place next to the neighboring one story houses. They had concerns about the amount of lot cover proposed and also concerns about grading and elevations. We had the Environmental Resources Coordinator look over the trees, and I actually went out to the site with her. She believes that with good pruning, professionally done and effective tree preservation there isn’t a serious risk to the neighboring trees. Her memo’s included in your staff report as well as the conditions she would like to place on the variance in order to protect those trees. Regarding the building’s height, it is under the maximum height permitted by the zoning code so it is a by rights in regards to the height. The absolutely amount of proposed lot cover, while staff acknowledges 34 percent is quite a bit larger than 29 percent. In absolute terms you’re looking at about 2,000 square feet of lot cover which is a pretty small footprint for a home and garage and we do note that a rain garden will hopefully help mitigate some of that runoff. Regarding the grading, the final grading and elevations are something we’ll review as part of the building permit process if the variance is granted and that’s when engineering will scrutinize and that will be expected to be at final level. Right now this is to be considered to be preliminary. So I mostly touched on these points in my previous comments but staff’s assessment of the request is that it’s not possible to construct a single family home on this property without a variance. Therefore the question is what is a reasonable variance. Staff looked it over. Proposed house size is about a 2,000 square foot living area. Average house size in the U.S. is about 2,600 square feet so it’s certainly not an excessively sized home. Code requires a minimum 2 car garage as well as minimum footprints. Again this isn’t significantly beyond those minimums. One of the reasons why the applicant proposed reducing the front yard by 5 feet was because that cuts about 1 ½ percent off the impervious coverage. It’s a little bit of a balancing act. The further you push the house back on the property the more lot cover you end up with. Staff feels this does a good job of balancing setback and lot cover. Staff does appreciate that one non- conforming setback is being reduced and that two have been removed and brought into Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 1, 2019 3 compliance with code and staff notes this less extensive than the variance that was granted to the neighboring property for the construction of a new home. For these reasons staff recommends approval and I’ll be happy to take any questions you have at this time. McGonagill: MacKenzie I have one question on the drawing. Where’s the rain garden going? Walters: Yep so it’s not on the survey there. I believe the proposed location is in this quadrant where we have the water moving along the side to hopefully capture that before it hits the road. The design and final location of the rain garden would be subject to approval by the City’s Water Resources Coordinator and engineering department but I believe that’s the location we discussed with the applicant. McGonagill: And the applicant’s talking about a professionally designed rain garden. Something that would be adequately designed with the drainage. French drains, etcetera to bring the water in there and try to retain it long enough. Walters: The requirement for the condition of the variance as staff has written is that it be designed and approved by the engineering department so it would have to meet our standards and we’d have to believe it would work as intended for it to meet the condition. McGonagill: So just one final question on that rain garden MacKenzie. Do you happen to have a general square foot rain garden? I’m just, I’m trying to put it in context with some that I’ve worked around and been around. Walters: Yep to be honest I don’t believe that’s been determined. It was something the applicant expressed a willingness to do. We placed it as a condition. I don’t believe they’ve met with the Water Resources Coordinator to discuss size or actual details of construction. McGonagill: Okay. And there’s going to be a retaining wall on that bottom, what I call the bottom of the lot. Is that what that is? Walters: Yeah there’d be a retaining wall here on the south as well as a retaining wall here on the north with a gap. To facilitate the stairs and walkway. McGonagill: Okay so the driveway would actually be down and the retaining wall would be, okay. Got it. Thank you MacKenzie. Randall: Any further questions for staff? Alright I guess we’ll move onto the applicant. The applicant want to come forward? Adam Loken’s Dad: Good evening. Thank you council members. I am Adam’s dad. He’s on his honeymoon in Italy. We want to get this project going because you know what comes next. So I’m willing to answer any questions. I’m pretty familiar with the property and can answer Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 1, 2019 4 any questions you might have. His goal today is to for sure get the variance so he can start his demolition permit before frost and get his basement in. McGonagill: Why don’t you just take us through why you ended up with the design that he did? Adam Loken’s Dad: I’m sorry. McGonagill: Could you just take us through quickly why he ended up with the design he did. His thought process for the house. Adam Loken’s Dad: Well he wanted to remodel about 1927 cabin and I, we had to have hazmat suits to get in there and I just convinced him all you’re going to have is a remodeled 1927 cabin so he wanted to move forward and went through a pretty extensive design process with a couple different draftsmen and architects to find something that fit. Kind of like your Lake Minnetonka 50 foot lots. You want to do something stacked and tucked under and that’s what his process was to try to come up with a design. McGonagill: So he, basically what he did in order to make it conforming he brought it, made it narrow but that forced him to go up. Adam Loken’s Dad: Yeah. The garage he pretty much had to eliminate that because it was on the neighbor’s property and then to get anything of value to match the neighborhood he needed to do something of a nicer design with a two story tuck under and I think he’s put that together. McGonagill: Okay, thank you sir. Adam Loken’s Dad: I think it will be a nice addition to the neighborhood and certainly a better tax advantage for the City. Reeder: What happens to the, there’s a…in front of the house now. Is that gone? Adam Loken’s Dad: That would have to be cut away for the tuck under garage. Reeder: And the trees are gone too? Adam Loken’s Dad: Yes. Reeder: Alright. Adam Loken’s Dad: And they are beautiful. I just went there. They’re beautiful maples but to try to get a drive that comes off of the road that works it’s got to be cut down. Reeder: So the driveway come in at street level then pretty much? Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 1, 2019 5 Adam Loken’s Dad: Yes. Yes. Reeder: Okay. Randall: Any other questions? Alright seeing none sir, we’ll have the public come up and speak. Adam Loken’s Dad: Okay great, thank you. Randall: Thank you. Adam Loken’s Dad: Mike did you just work at Superior Plating? McGonagill: No sir. Adam Loken’s Dad: Okay. There was a Mike McGonagill that was part owner there. McGonagill: Probably better looking. Randall: Alright, we’ll open this up for the public hearing. You’re welcomed to approach and state your name and your address and any comments that you have regarding the proposed variance. Good evening sir. Randy Rutledge: Good evening. My name is Randy Rutledge. I’m the property owner at 680 Carver Beach Road. I’m the property adjacent to the south side of the proposed project. I had some, well concerns I guess over this, over the proposed project one of which was obviously the trees. I did make a call to staff. I believe I spoke to in regards to that and after reading the, Jill Sinclair’s memo, totally agree with the concerns that she put forth. You know the heavy equipment driving on the roots. All of the compaction. The fill. The cutting of the roots and then if we don’t manage to kill the tree on the underside then we’re looking at arborist costs to then trim the trees literally straight up. Both the north and the south side trees will be extremely affected both of which are well over 100 year old trees. That’s a major concern of I guess myself causing an undue hardship long term here because most of those trees are not going to show any damage or immediate response to the damage caused by the construction for at least 2 years and I’ve been told somewhere between 2 and 5 by most arborists I spoke to and really what I guess I you know am concerned about is the water retention/rain garden being not shown. Grading plans not submitted how he’s going to handle all the water on the property. That’s going to be a tough one when he’s trying to stick it behind a retaining wall. I’m not quite sure how he’s going to do that and the major one for me is the long term care and maintenance of these trees and possibly removal. Rich to the north and myself would be both impacted and have an undue hardship on the basis of financial removal of these trees and from the impact of the construction. And I guess I’m looking, you know I’m not opposed to obviously a new house going in there but I guess I’d Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 1, 2019 6 you know to say that the tree is going to be fine for the limited access to the rear of the property as you can see I don’t know how he plans on getting all of the said rain garden, said materials, back fill equipment through that 10 foot without driving you know directly over the root structure. Now Jill Sinclair also mentioned in her memorandum that she proposed a protection ring and such around the trees. Generally that would encompass that 10 foot section that adjacent to the house to the property line. I’m not exactly sure how that’s going to be handled. That would be a major concern if that’s maintained as well as the erosion control during the course of the construction which you did mention in your recommendations. The other one, so I’m basically requesting that a maintenance plan be put in place of some sort of a 5 year or something of that nature to maintain those trees, both north and south side. If I had something like that I guess I would feel a little bit more secure in the fact that the property and the construction would be at least, you know there would be a cost to cover the removal of the tree obviously if he kills it. Both on the north and south because the north side he’s going to be putting window wells and such into that side of the property as well. Digging into the impact of that tree as well so those are my two major points of concern and I don’t know if you can impose that 5 year maintenance plan to cover all those trees long term. If that’s even possible but that’s kind of what I’m looking for because I can, I don’t know exactly how he plans on doing it or how that logistically could take place to accomplish the grading that would need to be done to establish that rain garden or said rain garden, which we don’t know where it’s at or how it’s going to be constructed or how it’s going to handle that amount of water. Now in this area, been there for quite a few years you know and it handles a lot of water coming down through those, those neighborhoods as I’m sure you guys are well aware so. I guess those are my only requests or only considerations I guess I would ask the council to, the commission to take into. McGonagill: Before you sit down Mr. Chairman may I ask a question? Randall: Sure, go ahead. McGonagill: Can you show me on the drawing where the tree’s he’s talking about are? Walters: Sorry that mic was off. My recollection was that the one was right around here was a large honey locust and I believe the red oak was there but I could be off because they are not shown on the survey. McGonagill: I think they could show it on the overhead. Randy Rutledge: Can you do that? Walters: Oh yeah we got a document camera. McGonagill: On paper yes. Walters: Put it on there sir. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 1, 2019 7 McGonagill: Very good, thank you. So my question is these trees, I’m trying to figure out who’s property they’re on to start with so why don’t you. Randy Rutledge: Rich is to the north and they’re. McGonagill: Rich is Mr. Who? Randy Rutledge: I don’t, I can’t remember Rich’s last name. McGonagill: Okay. Randy Rutledge: It’s right, that tree right up here. McGonagill: Okay and your property is to the south? Randy Rutledge: This is the red oak. McGonagill: And you’re mister? Randy Rutledge: Randy Rutledge. McGonagill: Mr. Rutledge, okay thank you Mr. Rutledge. Reeder: Is that a retaining wall in front of that tree? The height differentiation there of 2-3 feet isn’t there? Randy Rutledge: No it’s about one foot. Reeder: Okay. Randall: So do you have issues with water coming into your yard now because I see the street photo of it and it looks like there’s like a downward slope down to where your house is. Randy Rutledge: Actually there was a, well it’s kind of gotten troughed. Randall: Yep. Randy Rutledge: So we troughed it right down the property line. Randall: Okay. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 1, 2019 8 Randy Rutledge: So that’s currently where the water flow is going and it’s basically directly down from the rear all the way down. Randall: Okay. McGonagill: And so you’ve had, if I may. If the garage was actually on your property if I recall right from the original drawing to the south. Randy Rutledge: Correct. McGonagill: And so it was dumping I guess looking at the slope of the garage it was probably dumping water on your as well right? Randy Rutledge: Correct. McGonagill: So getting that out of the way should help the water. Randy Rutledge: The water situation yes. I’m just kind of curious as to how he plans on using a retaining wall at the garage side while maintaining a rain garden. Those two usually don’t go together too well but it can be done. But I guess my more, the biggest concern is the tree, or trees. Mine in particular because if he’s got to run that equipment I don’t know how he’s going to get to the back yard conceivably within the, because you know they’ll resize the foundation to accommodate the foundation installation and you’re still going to need equipment around the facility, or around the house. Reeder: How far off your property line is your tree? Randy Rutledge: About 3 ½ feet. Maybe 4. McGonagill: And the two trees in the front will have to come out MacKenzie said? Randy Rutledge: Yeah those would be gone. Those are the two there, which are really nice trees so I’m trying to I guess put forth a concern I guess of trying to maintain at least some of the old growth trees in the neighborhood. Adam Loken’s Dad: Randy if I might interrupt. What kind of tree is that? Is that a maple? Randy Rutledge: Red oak. Adam Loken’s Dad: Oak so. So they have a 10 foot root base in that wouldn’t affect it if it doesn’t work good. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 1, 2019 9 Randy Rutledge: No. According to Jill Sinclair, I don’t know if you read that memorandum that she put out, no the root structure does not do well under equipment. Adam Loken’s Dad: And knowing that the south setback is in conformity. I’m just trying, I’m trying to think of the construction. I’m a contractor and I’m trying to think of the construction starting on the northeast and coming around and minimalizing less effect you know. Randy Rutledge: The compaction. Adam Loken’s Dad: The root damage and I’m sure Adam would be more than willing to put a 30 foot fence around that root ball or root barrier. I think 30 foot is protective of that? Randy Rutledge: It would be but you don’t have that from the edge of the construction. The corner of the construction of the building to the base of the. Adam Loken’s Dad: It’s only 10 feet. Randy Rutledge: It’s 10 feet. So that’s my major concern and that’s why I’m asking for the insurance policy basically on the tree as long as, as well as maintenance because the odds of taking this thing out and it’s probably a $3,000 tree if the construction goes and kills it. Adam Loken’s Dad: Another question would be could an arborist provide any documentation and/or research study where if you took off the branches along the north side of the tree it would minimalize the root damage? Randall: Sir, we just have this public forum. You’ve already had your chance to speak. I’m not trying to, the trees. One of the things we’re dealing with is the setback variance and I understand the trees are a concern right now. Randy Rutledge: Yes. Randall: But we’re really focused on the variances right now. Randy Rutledge: Yes. Randall: The issue of the trees is there and I think it’s been raised as a concern. Randy Rutledge: Correct. Randall: Do you have any concerns about the setback or anything like that with the variance or? Randy Rutledge: Yes. There was a concern on the front street setback. There’s multiple different ways to get to the hard cover. I know that the recommendation was to have the Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 1, 2019 10 consistency of the houses that was approved across the way, there was a reasoning for that because he was forced up by the swamp and the wetlands area. In this particular case I don’t see that being a really big concern and I think because of the 35, it’s basically a 35 though it wasn’t clearly called out on the plans, foot he is within the height requirements of the city but this thing’s going to look like a sheer wall when you drive down the street. It’s going to go straight up and now we’re moving it closer to the road so aesthetically that’s going to be even harder to kind of you know look at if you want to call it that. It’s not, there’s nothing soft about it. It’s literally a 35 foot straight up in the air sheer wall so that was another concern that I had. That was and as far as affecting the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Randall: Okay. Randy Rutledge: Now there’s other ways to get to the hard cover. Saying that he leaves his house the same size just moves it back, you know pervious pavers. There’s all kinds of different aspects you could address there to accommodate the hard cover. As well as there was one other aspect that was not included. It said it was going to be presented at some point is this rear deck that is not on any of the prints that was provided by the city or provided by you guys or provided by him and that would encroach onto the rear setback currently so that would have to be also something else dealt with on that one if the house were to move back so that’s another thought. But I guess the big one is the front yard hard cover because obviously it would affect the trees and more so with the larger size house. I know he’s within the setbacks but odds are that if the hard cover was observed the house would shrink most likely leaving more room for the tree but I guess that’s kind of where I’m at at the moment. Randall: Alright, thank you. Anyone else from who wishes to speak? Anyone? Alright. Alright we’ll move onto our discussion about that. Walters: Would the Chair like to close the hearing please? Randall: Yes we’ll close the hearing now. We’ll close the public hearing and move onto discussion. Go ahead. I can tell you want to talk. Undestad: Well I mean again looking at the plan it looks like they’ve done a lot of work to clean up a lot of issues that are already existing on there. You know it sounded like the main concern was the trees on here. I think that the trees were old. Obviously they’re old trees but looking at where the garage to the north sits in relation to that tree and the garage to the south in relation to that tree, I’m sure those structures were built around those trees and they’re still doing well today and my guess is if they follow Jill’s recommendations and minimize the impact around there, I just don’t know how we could put a, put anything on the homeowner to say you know if something happens to that tree you’re going to do something about it. Randall: Yep. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 1, 2019 11 Undestad: If something happened to that tree that has nothing to do with the homeowner so I don’t really know we could put any restrictions on that. Aside from that I think that there’s been a, for that small of a lot I think they did an outstanding job of trying to make something look nice on there and minimize the impacts that they could have done so. McGonagill: I concur with that. That you know they’ve narrowed it down. Tried to take care of all the non-conformities. Gotten a structure off of a neighbor’s property which is always a good thing to clean it up. Rain gardens do work. I have one. I have a large one and I was surprised how good it works so I’m a real supporter of those if they, they do a nice job if they’re put in professional and I’m sure they will. And you know the trees are a concern but I just, there’s no, you can’t protect everything with this and so I think it’s an improvement to the neighborhood. Reeder: I happen to live in the neighborhood about a block from this house and I think that what they’re proposing is exactly what makes sense. The point of one story houses as you know there’s one story and there’s two and three stories all over this area and they’ve been, a lot of one stories have been replaced but I think what he’s proposed here makes a lot of sense. It fits on that little lot. I think he has the right to have a house on that lot. We can’t make the lot any bigger and I think that what the proposal is fits in. It’s too bad to lose those trees in their front yard. I feel bad about that. I don’t think we can do anything as far as protecting trees on anybody else’s lot except there are requirements during construction we try to do the kind of thing he suggested. Put as much a barrier and keeping trucks off of the root area. The drip line of that tree as much as possible and I think we can require that as part of the staff approval and I think that’s all we can do. We certainly, I don’t, I’m not aware if ever required one neighbor to insure the other guy’s tree so I don’t think that’s something I’d be interested. I think it’s a wonderful addition to the neighborhood. Skistad: And I would concur with all of you on everything that you said. I just have a point of order question which I don’t really need to ask. I’ll ask afterwards but I think it makes sense as well. Randall: Alright. I guess I’ll do mine. I appreciate everyone’s input on it. My thoughts on it, you know the variance, you know in these neighborhoods especially where these back in 1927 these were all small cabin lots at one time. Chanhassen’s changed since then. If people are trying to add homes that they can actually live in at the time. I would assume with your son being in Italy that he’s going to want to make the neighbors happy and try to preserve those trees as much as possible. Now that you guys know about that, that can be an issue with the contractor to try to save those trees at the time. As far as the aesthetics go, I understand that concern from people but you know it’s private property and if people want to build a house that looks like a star they can do it. To me it looks like the house is going to fit into the neighborhood and eventually there’s going to be a lot of turnover in that neighborhood where homes will come up to that standard and it’s one of those neighborhoods too which makes Chanhassen unique. That you can have a variation of houses in that neighborhood of all Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 1, 2019 12 different generations and they all fit in together. I’ll be in favor of the variance if someone would like to make a motion. McGonagill: Before we do that. Randall: Yeah. McGonagill: I applaud the neighbors for coming and talking openly and honestly to each other here tonight. This is the proper forum for doing that. I think you all handled, each of you all handled yourself very well and we appreciate that and I do hope as babies do come, and I hope they do to the neighborhood, that everyone will be welcomed there and so thank you all for that response for coming here tonight. I’ll make the motion sir. Randall: Go ahead. McGonagill: 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 a single family home subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. Randall: Do we have a second? Undestad: Second. Randall: Alright I have a second. All in favor of the proposed motion. McGonagill: Any further discussion? Randall: Any further discussion? Alright. So my parliamentary procedure is off a little bit alright. We’ll take a vote on it. McGonagill moved, Undestad seconded that 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 a single family home, subject to the following conditions and adopts the attached Findings of Fact 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. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 1, 2019 13 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. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Randall: The motion passes for the variance. Reeder: You want to tell him when it’s going to come to the council? Randall: Well it will be coming to the council, what’s the date for that MacKenzie? Walters: So if appealed, and for the record any individual aggrieved by this decision has the right to submit an appeal in writing. There’s a 4 business day window to do that. If appealed this variance would go before the City Council on October 28th. If an appeal is not received within 4 days this would be a permanent decision and the variance would go into effect. Adam Loken’s Dad: Is that 4 days from today or before that meeting? Walters: Four days from today so if I do not receive an appeal by 4:30 Monday then it would, then a letter of approval will be sent out to the applicant. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Undestad noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 17, 2019 as presented. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE. Randall: MacKenzie can we get a City Council update? Walters: You can indeed. At the Monday, September 23rd meeting the council approved the Interim Use Permit for Moon Valley that had, came before you previously and they also upheld the requested variance to replace and move a septic system for the property at 1181 Homestead Lane. So those were the two items that went before the City Council. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 1, 2019 14 Randall: Can you shut that door real quick? Thank you ma’am for doing that for us. Walters: Sorry, would you like me to repeat that or did it come through? Randall: Oh why don’t you go ahead and repeat it. Walters: Alright, so the first item was the Interim Use Permit for the Moon Valley gravel pit. The council approved that and then also the bluff setback variance for the septic system at 1181 Homestead Lane was also approved so those were the two action items that went before the council. Randall: Okay. Alright anything more that you need to add about that or anything coming up that we need to know about? Walters: Yep in terms of stuff coming up, next meeting there will be a rear yard setback variance request for 832 Woodhill to discuss putting a screen porch, 6 foot encroachment into the rear setback so you’ll be getting that staff report oh in a week or so. Randall: Okay. Walters: And then on November 19th there will be a bunch of code amendments so I would recommend you caffeinate yourselves because I’ve got about 14 of them in the works and it could go long. So that’s what I know of that’s coming up. Randall: Alright. Do we have any presentations at all by members of the commission? Point of order that you wanted to talk about? Skistad: I’ll ask afterwards. Randall: Okay. Alright, does anyone have anything further to add? Commissioner Undestad moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0 The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:37 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim