Loading...
Agenda and PacketAGENDA  CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, AUGUST 18, 2020, 7:00 PM CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD A.WORK SESSION B.CALL TO ORDER C.PUBLIC HEARINGS 1.Consider an Appeal of the City's Denial of an Encroachment Agreement for Retaining Walls and Variances from the City's Prohibition on Locating Structures within Drainage and Utility Easements located at 6893 Highover Drive 2.Consider an Appeal of the Bluff Creek Overlay District Boundary Determination Made by a City Administrative Officer for Property located at the Southeast Corner of Highway 212 and Powers Boulevard D.APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1.Approval of Planning Commission Minutes dated July 7, 2020 E.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS 1.City Council Action Update F.ADJOURNMENT G.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, August 18, 2020 Subject Consider an Appeal of the City's Denial of an Encroachment Agreement for Retaining Walls and Variances from the City's Prohibition on Locating Structures within Drainage and Utility Easements located at 6893 Highover Drive Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.1. Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, Associate Planner File No:  PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments affirms City Engineer Howley’s partial denial of the encroachment agreement and denies the variance request to allow retaining walls to be located within the drainage and utility easement, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.” SUMMARY OF REQUEST On October 4, 2016, the city issued a grading permit for the construction of a berm and installation of drain tile at 6893 Highover Drive. During subsequent inspections during 2017, staff determined that retaining walls had been built on the property without the proper permits and that the grading done on the property was not consistent with the issued grading permit. In 2018, the city initiated litigation to seek compliance with the issued grading permit and the provisions of the Chanhassen City Code. As part of the legal process, the applicant wishes to exhaust all administrative appeals before trial. The applicant applied for building and zoning permits for the walls in February of 2020. City Engineer Howley subsequently denied the applicant’s request to include two of the retaining walls in an encroachment agreement. These two retained walls are located within the drainage and utilities easement. City Engineer Howley requested that they be removed, and the property be regraded in a manner consistent with the approved grading permit. The applicant has not complied with this request. The applicant is appealing this denial. The applicant indicated that the denial is unreasonable and unfair. The applicant asserts that the wall was built in its location by a third­party contractor, that the walls do not interfere with the use or intent of the drainage and utility easements, and that requiring their removal the grading of the property would create an unreasonable and unnecessary hardship for the homeowner. Staff’s position is that City Engineer Howley’s denial of the requested encroachment agreement is necessitated by the fact that the retaining walls in question have altered the property’s drainage in a manner inconsistent with the approved grading plan to the detriment of neighboring properties. Staff notes that despite informing the homeowner in 2016 and 2017 that permits would be required to relocate or install new retaining walls, the applicant did not file any permits until after the walls were completed and legal action was initiated. Since the applicant knowingly had walls installed without the required permits, the hardship is self­inflicted, and staff recommends that the Planning Commission affirm the City PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, August 18, 2020SubjectConsider an Appeal of the City's Denial of an Encroachment Agreement for Retaining Walls andVariances from the City's Prohibition on Locating Structures within Drainage and UtilityEasements located at 6893 Highover DriveSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: PROPOSED MOTION:“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments affirms City Engineer Howley’s partial denial of theencroachment agreement and denies the variance request to allow retaining walls to be located within the drainageand utility easement, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.”SUMMARY OF REQUESTOn October 4, 2016, the city issued a grading permit for the construction of a berm and installation of drain tile at 6893Highover Drive. During subsequent inspections during 2017, staff determined that retaining walls had been built on theproperty without the proper permits and that the grading done on the property was not consistent with the issuedgrading permit. In 2018, the city initiated litigation to seek compliance with the issued grading permit and the provisionsof the Chanhassen City Code. As part of the legal process, the applicant wishes to exhaust all administrative appealsbefore trial. The applicant applied for building and zoning permits for the walls in February of 2020. City EngineerHowley subsequently denied the applicant’s request to include two of the retaining walls in an encroachment agreement.These two retained walls are located within the drainage and utilities easement. City Engineer Howley requested thatthey be removed, and the property be regraded in a manner consistent with the approved grading permit. The applicanthas not complied with this request.The applicant is appealing this denial. The applicant indicated that the denial is unreasonable and unfair. The applicantasserts that the wall was built in its location by a third­party contractor, that the walls do not interfere with the use orintent of the drainage and utility easements, and that requiring their removal the grading of the property would create anunreasonable and unnecessary hardship for the homeowner.Staff’s position is that City Engineer Howley’s denial of the requested encroachment agreement is necessitated by thefact that the retaining walls in question have altered the property’s drainage in a manner inconsistent with the approvedgrading plan to the detriment of neighboring properties. Staff notes that despite informing the homeowner in 2016 and2017 that permits would be required to relocate or install new retaining walls, the applicant did not file any permits until after the walls were completed and legal action was initiated. Since the applicant knowingly had walls installed without the required permits, the hardship is self­inflicted, and staff recommends that the Planning Commission affirm the City Engineer’s decision and deny the requested variance request. A full discussion can be found in the attached staff report. APPLICANT Larry D and Mary J Synstelien 6893 Highover Drive Chanhassen. MN 55317 SITE INFORMATION PRESENT ZONING:  “RSF” – Single Family Residential District LAND USE:Residential Low Density ACREAGE:  .52 acres  DENSITY:  NA  APPLICATION REGULATIONS Chapter 7, Article III, Excavating, Mining, Filling and Grading Chapter 20, Article II, Division 1, Generally Section 20­28.­ Board of appeals and adjustments Chapter 20, Article II, Division 1, Generally Section 20­29.­ Board of appeals and adjustments variance and appeal procedures Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3, Variances Chapter 20, Article II, Division 4, Non­conforming Uses Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single­Family Residential District Section 20­615, Lot Requirements and Setbacks. Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 1, Generally Section 20­908, Yard regulations Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 5, Fences and Walls Section 20­1019, Location Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 5, Fences and Walls Section 20­1025, Retaining Walls BACKGROUND Staff started working with the appellant on their grading project in August of 2016 after neighborhood complaints brought the situation to staff’s attention. Early on in the process, the applicant was made aware that relocating existing walls or building new walls would require permits from the city. In an email exchange with staff, the applicant was also made aware of the existence and location of their property’s drainage and utilities easements and that retaining walls could not be placed in that areas. The applicant then modified the proposed grading plan to minimize the encroachment of drain tile into the drainage and utilities easement and submitted a plan showing all retaining walls clear of the drainage and utilities easement. Subsequent inspections throughout 2017 found that the property had not been graded to plan and that numerous retaining walls not shown on the grading plan had been constructed, some within the city’s drainage and utilities easements. In November of 2017, staff requested a survey to verify the location and extent of encroachment into the city’s drainage and utilities easements. In 2019, after multiple requests and the initiation of legal action, the applicant provided the city with a survey showing retaining walls encroaching into the city’s drainage and utilities easements in seven places. Four of these walls were new walls for which no permit had been applied, despite the applicant being informed and acknowledging that all new or relocated retaining walls would require a permit. In April of 2019, the applicant first applied for an after­the­fact zoning permit and encroachment agreement for the retaining walls. Staff requested additional information and on February 12, 2020, determined that two of the seven retaining walls, walls “F” and “I” interfered with the function of the city’s drainage and utilities easement and would need PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, August 18, 2020SubjectConsider an Appeal of the City's Denial of an Encroachment Agreement for Retaining Walls andVariances from the City's Prohibition on Locating Structures within Drainage and UtilityEasements located at 6893 Highover DriveSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: PROPOSED MOTION:“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments affirms City Engineer Howley’s partial denial of theencroachment agreement and denies the variance request to allow retaining walls to be located within the drainageand utility easement, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.”SUMMARY OF REQUESTOn October 4, 2016, the city issued a grading permit for the construction of a berm and installation of drain tile at 6893Highover Drive. During subsequent inspections during 2017, staff determined that retaining walls had been built on theproperty without the proper permits and that the grading done on the property was not consistent with the issuedgrading permit. In 2018, the city initiated litigation to seek compliance with the issued grading permit and the provisionsof the Chanhassen City Code. As part of the legal process, the applicant wishes to exhaust all administrative appealsbefore trial. The applicant applied for building and zoning permits for the walls in February of 2020. City EngineerHowley subsequently denied the applicant’s request to include two of the retaining walls in an encroachment agreement.These two retained walls are located within the drainage and utilities easement. City Engineer Howley requested thatthey be removed, and the property be regraded in a manner consistent with the approved grading permit. The applicanthas not complied with this request.The applicant is appealing this denial. The applicant indicated that the denial is unreasonable and unfair. The applicantasserts that the wall was built in its location by a third­party contractor, that the walls do not interfere with the use orintent of the drainage and utility easements, and that requiring their removal the grading of the property would create anunreasonable and unnecessary hardship for the homeowner.Staff’s position is that City Engineer Howley’s denial of the requested encroachment agreement is necessitated by thefact that the retaining walls in question have altered the property’s drainage in a manner inconsistent with the approvedgrading plan to the detriment of neighboring properties. Staff notes that despite informing the homeowner in 2016 and2017 that permits would be required to relocate or install new retaining walls, the applicant did not file any permits untilafter the walls were completed and legal action was initiated. Since the applicant knowingly had walls installed withoutthe required permits, the hardship is self­inflicted, and staff recommends that the Planning Commission affirm the CityEngineer’s decision and deny the requested variance request.A full discussion can be found in the attached staff report.APPLICANTLarry D and Mary J Synstelien 6893 Highover Drive Chanhassen. MN 55317SITE INFORMATIONPRESENT ZONING:  “RSF” – Single Family Residential DistrictLAND USE:Residential Low DensityACREAGE:  .52 acres DENSITY:  NA APPLICATION REGULATIONSChapter 7, Article III, Excavating, Mining, Filling and GradingChapter 20, Article II, Division 1, GenerallySection 20­28.­ Board of appeals and adjustmentsChapter 20, Article II, Division 1, GenerallySection 20­29.­ Board of appeals and adjustments variance and appeal proceduresChapter 20, Article II, Division 3, VariancesChapter 20, Article II, Division 4, Non­conforming UsesChapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single­Family Residential DistrictSection 20­615, Lot Requirements and Setbacks.Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 1, GenerallySection 20­908, Yard regulationsChapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 5, Fences and WallsSection 20­1019, LocationChapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 5, Fences and WallsSection 20­1025, Retaining WallsBACKGROUNDStaff started working with the appellant on their grading project in August of 2016 after neighborhood complaintsbrought the situation to staff’s attention. Early on in the process, the applicant was made aware that relocating existingwalls or building new walls would require permits from the city. In an email exchange with staff, the applicant was alsomade aware of the existence and location of their property’s drainage and utilities easements and that retaining wallscould not be placed in that areas. The applicant then modified the proposed grading plan to minimize the encroachmentof drain tile into the drainage and utilities easement and submitted a plan showing all retaining walls clear of the drainageand utilities easement.Subsequent inspections throughout 2017 found that the property had not been graded to plan and that numerousretaining walls not shown on the grading plan had been constructed, some within the city’s drainage and utilitieseasements. In November of 2017, staff requested a survey to verify the location and extent of encroachment into thecity’s drainage and utilities easements. In 2019, after multiple requests and the initiation of legal action, the applicantprovided the city with a survey showing retaining walls encroaching into the city’s drainage and utilities easements inseven places. Four of these walls were new walls for which no permit had been applied, despite the applicant beinginformed and acknowledging that all new or relocated retaining walls would require a permit.In April of 2019, the applicant first applied for an after­the­fact zoning permit and encroachment agreement for the retaining walls. Staff requested additional information and on February 12, 2020, determined that two of the seven retaining walls, walls “F” and “I” interfered with the function of the city’s drainage and utilities easement and would need to be removed. Subsequent zoning and building permits submitted for the walls on February 18, 2020, were denied due the presence of these walls within the easements. On July 17, 2020, the homeowner filed an appeal of the city’s decision to deny the encroachment agreement and requested a variance from the provision of the City Code that prohibits the location of structures within the drainage and utilities easement. A complete timeline can be found in the attached staff report. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, affirm City Engineer Howley’s partial denial of the encroachment agreement and deny the variance request to allow the retaining walls to be located within the drainage and utilities easement, and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report Findings of Fact and Decision (Denial) Development Review Application Appeal Letter Appeal Narrative Lot Survey Subdivision Grading Building Department Memo Engineering Memo Oct­Sept Grading Permit Email Approved Grading Permit Affidavit of Mailing CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: August 18, 2020 CC DATE: September 14, 2020 REVIEW DEADLINE: September 15, 2020 CASE #: PC 2020-15 BY: MYW, EH, ET, SF SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is appealing the administrative decision to partially deny a requested encroachment agreement by City Engineer Howley and requesting a variance to allow the retaining walls in question to be located within the city’s drainage and utilities easement. LOCATION: 6893 Highover Drive APPLICANT: Larry and Mary Synstelien 6893 Highover Drive Chanhassen. MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: “RSF” – Single Family Residential District 2040 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density ACREAGE: .52 acres DENSITY: NA LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: When deciding an appeal, the city has the discretion to determine whether or not an error was made in any order, requirement, decision, or determination by city staff in the enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance. The city has a very high level of discretion with an appeal because the appellant is alleging an error occurred. This is a quasi-judicial decision. The city’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The city has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY On October 4, 2016, the city issued a grading permit for the construction of a berm and installation of drain tile at 6893 Highover Drive. During subsequent inspections during 2017, PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments affirms City Engineer Howley’s partial denial of the encroachment agreement and denies the variance request to allow the retaining walls to be located within the drainage and utilities easement, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.” 6893 Highover Drive August 18, 2020 Page 2 staff determined that retaining walls had been built on the property without the proper permits and that the grading done on the property was not consistent with the issued grading permit. In 2018, the city initiated litigation to seek compliance with the issued grading permit and the provisions of the Chanhassen City Code. As part of the legal process, the applicant wishes to exhaust all administrative appeals before trial. The applicant applied for building and zoning permits for the walls in February of 2020. City Engineer Howley subsequently denied the applicant’s request to include two of the retaining walls in an encroachment agreement. These two retained walls are located within the drainage and utilities easement. City Engineer Howley requested that they be removed, and the property be regraded in a manner consistent with the approved grading permit. The applicant has not complied with this request. The applicant is appealing this denial. The applicant indicated that the denial is unreasonable and unfair. The applicant asserts that the wall was built in its location by a third-party contractor, that the walls do not interfere with the use or intent of the drainage and utilities easements, and that requiring there removal the grading of the property would create an unreasonable and unnecessary hardship for the homeowner. Staff’s position is that City Engineer Howley’s denial of the requested encroachment agreement is necessitated by the fact that the retaining walls in question have altered the propert y’s drainage in a manner inconsistent with the approved grading plan to the detriment of neighboring properties. Staff notes that despite informing the homeowner in 2016 and 2017 that permits would be required to relocate or install new retaining walls, the applicant did not file any permits until after the walls were completed and legal action was initiated. Since the applicant knowingly had walls installed without the required permits, the hardship is self-inflicted, and staff recommends that the Planning Commission affirm the City Engineer’s decision and deny the requested variance request. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 7, Article III, Excavating, Mining, Filling and Grading Chapter 20, Article II, Division 1, Generally Section 20-28.- Board of appeals and adjustments Chapter 20, Article II, Division 1, Generally Section 20-29.- Board of appeals and adjustments variance and appeal procedures Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3, Variances Chapter 20, Article II, Division 4, Non-conforming Uses Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single-Family Residential District Section 20-615, Lot Requirements and Setbacks. Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 1, Generally Section 20-908, Yard regulations Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 5, Fences and Walls Section 20-1019, Location Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 5, Fences and Walls Section 20-1025, Retaining Walls 6893 Highover Drive August 18, 2020 Page 3 BACKGROUND General In July of 1999, the city issued a permit to construct a house on the property. Abbreviated Case History On August 15, 2016, staff received a complaint about grading work being done on the property without erosion controls. On August 16, 2016, staff inspected the property and determined that grading in excess of 50 cubic yards was being conducted without a grading permit or any form of erosion control. On August 17, 2016, staff sent homeowners a letter informing them of the city’s permit requirements and requiring them to cease work and apply for the required permits. This letter specifically noted that the construction of retaining walls required a permit. On August 19, 2016, homeowner called staff in response to the August 17, 2016 letter. The homeowner explained the scope of work and landscaping. Since no new walls were proposed staff informed him that he needed a grading permit. On August 22, 2016, homeowner called staff to discuss lot cover and a potential patio. Staff confirmed that given the proposed scope of work only a grading permit would be required. From August 23 to September 12, 2016, staff received numerous complaints about the property. Staff attempted to contact the homeowner by phone and three letters to address lack of erosion control and grading permit. The third letter sent September 12th gave the homeowner until September 16th to establish erosion control, noting that after this date the situation would be referred to the City Attorney. On September 13, 2016, the homeowner contacted staff and expressed an intent to comply with ordinances. Email dated September 13, 2016, from MacKenzie W. informing other staff members of the details of his conversation with the homeowner notes “That his current scope of work would not trigger a zoning permit (arguably his “repairs” on the retaining walls might, but we can figure out what he is doing there from the grading permit and I wanted to focus him on the above items). He is not currently planning on installing a patio or other structures and says the walls will be the exact same as they were, just repaired.” On September 15, 2016, erosion control was established on the site. On September 26, 2016, a draft grading plan was submitted. On September 26, 2016, staff spoke with the homeowner and explained what would be required for a zoning permit. In an email dated September 26, 2016, the homeowner acknowledged that 6893 Highover Drive August 18, 2020 Page 4 he would apply for a zoning permit for a patio and boulder wall repairs and relocation once the grading permit was finalized. On September 27, 2016, staff sent the homeowner notes on the proposed grading plan stating that the proposed retaining walls could not extend into the drainage and utility easement. On October 3, 2016, the final version of the grading permit was submitted. On October 4, 2016, staff informed the homeowner that the grading permit was ready to be issued pending their signature and payment of fees. On October 7, 2016, the homeowner signed the permit. On November 9, 2016, staff emailed the homeowner to inquire about status of zoning permit. Note that despite the fact that a grading permit had been issued, a zoning permit would be required if the property hardcover changed or if the location of any retaining wall was changed. On November 10, 2016, the applicant stated that he would call in the next day or two to discuss zoning permits. From November to 11, 2016 to April 9, 2017, staff sent multiple emails requesting a zoning permit be submitted and noting that at the very least, a permit would be needed for the new retaining wall location. During this period, staff received multiple complaints about the state of the property, performed several inspections, and notified the homeowner of various violations. The grading permit was found to have expired and was subsequently extend to June 15, 2017. On April 10, 2017, the contractor hired by homeowner contacted staff to let the city know they would be starting work to finish the remaining grading activities. On May 17, 2017, staff finished their review of a proposed deck. No retaining walls were shown or approved as part of the deck plan. From June 23 to July 25, 2017, staff received multiple complaints about the site and contacted the applicant to ensure he was aware of his obligation to keep the debris off the street during construction. Additionally, the homeowner was informed that the grading permit had expired. On July 26, 2017, the homeowner requested that grading permit be extended as a new egress door and deck were being constructed with valid permits. None of these permits showed retaining walls. On September 18, 2017, the city issued a stop work order due to an enclosure being built under the deck and presence of stairs not indicated on the deck plan. On September 25, 2017, staff sent a notice of noncompliance for erosion control requiring the area be restored by September 29, 2017. 6893 Highover Drive August 18, 2020 Page 5 On September 27, 2017, staff discussed the enclosure under the deck with the contractor and indicated that since it would interfere with lateral movement of water, it would be considered lot cover, and a permit would not be issued. On October 4, 2017, staff sent a second notice of noncompliance for erosion control requiring deficiencies to be addressed by October 8, 2017. On October 24, 2017, staff performed a final inspection of the property to verify compliance with the grading permit. Numerous elements were observed not to comply with the approved grading plan and a meeting was subsequently scheduled to discuss these issues. On October 25, 2017, staff met with homeowner and gave a deadline of November 6, 2017 for the homeowner to provide a survey showing all improvements and elevations on the property. During the meeting, it was noted that based on field inspections, retaining walls had been built without permits and grading did not appear to match plans. From November 9, 2017, to January 23, 2018, staff attempted to obtain a survey of the property from the homeowner. On January 24, 2018, staff referred the case to the city attorney for enforcement. From January 25, 2018, to February 3, 2019, the respective attorney’s and city staff exchanged numerous correspondences regarding the facts of the case and the city’s requirements. On February 4, 2019, the homeowner’s attorney provided staff with a survey of the property. On February 6, 2019, staff met with the homeowner’s attorney to discuss needed revisions for the provided survey. Of particular concern was the height of the retaining walls shown on the survey. On March 19, 2019, staff received a revised copy of the survey. On April 2, 2019, the homeowner’s attorney applied for an encroachment agreement, grading permit, and zoning permit. Staff determined there was insufficient information to evaluate a zoning permit and encroachment agreement and subsequently requested additional information. Regarding the grading permit, staff indicated that a new grading permit was not required and that the owner needed to resolve the outstanding issues with the existing grading permit. On April 15, 2019, the city attorney made the homeowner’s attorney aware that the property had outstanding grading issues, that several retaining walls would need to be removed, that engineered designs were required for walls exceeding 4 feet in height, and that zoning permits were required for walls under 4 feet in height, and that several sections of sidewalk damaged during construction needed to be repaired. 6893 Highover Drive August 18, 2020 Page 6 From April 16, 2019, to February 11, 2020, the respective attorneys and city staff exchanged numerous correspondences regarding the facts of the case the city’s requirements. On February 12, 2020, the City Engineer partially denied the requested encroachment agreement. On February 18, 2020, the homeowner’s attorney applied for zoning permits for the retaining walls under 4 feet in height and building permits for the retaining walls over 4 feet in height. On February 19, 2020, staff denied the zoning and building permits due to the presence of retaining walls within the city’s drainage and utilities easements. On March 3, 2020, staff sent the homeowner’s attorney the materials necessary to appeal the city’s denial of the encroachment agreement. On March 19, 2020, the homeowner’s attorney requested a delay to the appeal due to Covid-19. The city assented with the condition that the appeal would take place within 30 days of the end of the state of emergency. On May 21, 2020, the homeowner’s attorney indicated that they would like to file the appeal. On July 8, 2020, the city attorney informed the homeowner’s attorney that if an appeal were not filed by July 31, 2020, the homeowner would forfeit their right to appeal. On July 17, 2020 the homeowner’s attorney filed the appeal. SITE CONSTRAINTS Zoning Overview The property is a corner lot zoned Single-Family Residential District and is partially located within the 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. Corner lots are required to meet the required 30-foot front yard setback along all street frontages, but the remaining lot lines are subject to side yard setbacks. Residential structures are limited to 35 feet in height. The lot is 22,744 square feet and has 5,895 square feet (25.92 percent lot cover). Staff believes the lot cover to be pre-existing. Three pre-existing non-conforming retaining walls encroach into the city’s north and west drainage and utilities easements. Four new retaining walls were constructed without permits within the city’s eastern, southern, and western drainage and utility easements. The deck was built in 2017 encroaching 1 foot into the city’s eastern drainage and utility easement. The driveway has a pre-existing non-conforming width of 26 feet at the property line. The house and other features appear to meet all other requirements of the City Code. 6893 Highover Drive August 18, 2020 Page 7 Bluff Creek Corridor The property is not encumbered by the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Bluff Protection There are not bluffs on the property. Floodplain Overlay This property is not within a floodplain. Shoreland Management The property is located within a Shoreland Protection District; however, the property is not riparian so the only impact is that the property is limited to 25 percent lot cover and is not entitled to use pervious pavement systems to increase its lot cover by 5 percent. Wetland Protection There is not a wetland located in the development site. NEIGHBORHOOD Highover The plat for this area was recorded in January of 1998. Most elements of the city’s current zoning code were in place and in their current form at that time, with the largest change being the requirement for zoning permits for impervious surfaces, small accessory structures, and retaining walls under four feet in height which were added between 2004 and 2007. Due to the lack of zoning permit requirements during the subdivision’s early years, some properties have non-conforming lot cover and/or retaining walls; however, the majority of properties appear to comply with current zoning standards. Variances within 500 feet: There are no known variances within 500 feet of the subject property. ANALYSIS 6893 Highover Drive August 18, 2020 Page 8 Historic Overview Staff started working with the appellant on their grading project in August of 2016 after neighborhood complaints brought the situation to staff’s attention. Early on in the process, the applicant was made aware that relocating existing walls or building new walls would require permits from the City. In an email exchange with staff, the applicant was also made aware of the existence and location of their property’s drainage and utilities easements and that retaining walls could not be placed in that areas. The applicant then modified the proposed grading plan to minimize the encroachment of drain tile into the drainage and utilities easement and submitted a plan showing all retaining walls clear of the drainage and utilities easement. Subsequent inspections throughout 2017 found that the property had not been graded to plan and that numerous retaining walls not shown on the grading plan had been constructed, some within the city’s drainage and utilities easements. In November of 2017, staff requested a survey to verify the location and extent of encroachment into the city’s drainage and utilities easements. In 2019, after multiple requests and the initiation of legal action, the applicant provided the city with a survey showing retaining walls encroaching into the city’s drainage and utilities easements in seven places. Four of these walls were new walls for which no permit had been applied, despite the applicant being informed and acknowledging that all new or relocated retaining walls would require a permit. 6893 Highover Drive August 18, 2020 Page 9 In April of 2019, the applicant first applied for an after-the-fact zoning permit and encroachment agreement for the retaining walls. Staff requested additional information and on February 12, 2020, determined that two of the seven retaining walls, walls “F” and “I”, interfered with the function of the city’s drainage and utility easement and would need to be removed. Subsequent zoning and building permits submitted for the walls on February 18, 2020, were denied due the presence of these walls within the easements. On July 17, 2020, the homeowner filed an appeal of the city’s decision to deny the encroachment agreement and requested a variance from the provision of the city code that prohibits the location of structures within the drainage and utilities easement. Appeal The placement of retaining walls within drainage and utilities easements are regulated by two sections of the City Code. The relevant sections read as follows: Section 20-908(6). - Yard regulations: (6) The placement of any structure within easements is prohibited, except for those structures specified herein. Fences, retaining walls, nonstructural fire pits, sidewalks, pathways, and patios not integral to the principal structure (the first ten feet adjacent to the principal structure shall be considered integral), and other encroachments may be allowed within an easement with an encroachment agreement if they do not alter the intended use of the easement and at the discretion of the community development director or designee. A driveway or sidewalk from the street to the house crossing drainage and utility easements at the front of the property are exempt from this requirement. Section 20-1019(a). - Location: “Generally. All fences and retaining walls shall be located entirely upon the property of the fence or retaining wall owner unless the owner of the adjoining property agrees, in writing, that said fence or retaining wall may be erected on the property line of the respective properties. Such agreement shall be submitted at the time of building permit application. Encroachment into a city easement shall require an encroachment agreement between the property owner and the city. Fences shall not be placed within the public right-of-way.” 6893 Highover Drive August 18, 2020 Page 10 The applicant applied for an encroachment agreement to legitimize the placement of six retaining walls within the drainage and utilities easement, two of these walls were pre-existing and four were newly constructed. The applicant had neither applied for nor received permits for the four newly constructed walls, one of which encroaches into the easement in two places. Staff reviewed the location of the proposed wall and their impact on the drainage and utilities easement and denied the requested encroachment agreement for one wall and a section of another wall, both of which interfered with the easement’s drainage function. The encroachment agreement also requested the city approve a section of deck encroaching approximately 1 foot into the drainage and utility easement and a future fence. Staff approved the deck encroachment, but denied the fence as it is not city policy to issue blanket encroachment agreements for future projects. The homeowner believes that the City Engineer’s determination that the walls interfere with the function of the easement is incorrect and is appealing the denial of the encroachment agreement for walls “F” and “I”. Section 20-28(b)(1) of the City Code empowers that the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments: “To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by a city administrative office in the enforcement of this chapter.” The homeowner’s appeal states that the City Engineer did not provide a rational for denying the requested encroachment agreement and outline reasons why they feel the denial was in error. For wall “F”, their stated reasons for believing the determination to be in error are: 1. That there are no utilities within the drainage and utilities easement; 2. Since the wall only encroaches one foot into the easement, the city has a sufficient amount of unobstructed drainage and utility easement to serve its function; 3. That potential conflicts between the wall and use of the easement can be resolved through an encroachment agreement; 4. That the wall is essential the functionality and serviceability of the newly installed walkout door, an emergency exit door, and deck; 5. And, that the City Code does not require the demolition of the wall. 6893 Highover Drive August 18, 2020 Page 11 For wall “I”, their stated reasons for believing the determination to be in error are: 1. Water previously drained onto the property to the east, and this is not a new condition created by the appellant; and, 2. The installed French drain system does not adversely impact adjacent properties because it prevents the water from being diverted onto adjacent properties, instead conveying it to the street. Staff will respond to each of the points above individually; however, it should be noted that under Section 20-908(6), city staff is not required to grant an encroachment agreement. The section merely allows for the possibility of structures encroaching into the drainage and utility easement if staff determines that they do not interfere with the intended function of the easement. The section explicitly grants staff discretion in granting or denying encroachment agreements. Permits are required for structures that could impact the drainage and utility easements precisely to allow staff to evaluate a structure’s potential impact before it is built and to prevent the construction of features for which an encroachment agreement should not be granted. Despite the lack of permits and structures, i.e. the deck not being constructed in the location stipulated by their building permit, staff performed a good-faith evaluation of the walls and granted six of nine requested structural encroachments and noted that additional information would be required to evaluate the proposed fence. Regarding the applicant’s contention that the denials of two sections of wall was in error, a summary of staff’s response is provided below each point in italics. A more full discussion can be found in the attached memos from the city’s Engineering and Building Departments. For wall “F”, their stated reasons for believing the determination to be in error are: 1. That there are no utilities within the drainage and utility easement; Drainage and utilities easements exist both to provide a location for the installation of utilities and to facilitate drainage. The presence or absence of utilities is not the sole determiner of the function of the easement; thus, when staff reviews the location of proposed structures within drainage and utility easements the review includes how drainage will be impacted. In this case, the easement does not have utilities but does serve an important drainage function. Wall “F’s” encroachment into the drainage and utilities easement alters the area’s drainage and diverts water onto the adjunct property. Staff’s decision to deny the encroachment agreement for wall “F” was based on its interference with easements drainage function, not its utilities function. It should also be noted that this drainage and utility easement does contain utilities for Mediacom, CenturyLink, and Xcel Energy, and that during the unpermitted grading on the property, a communication line for neighboring property was severed. Staff notes this as a factual correction to the above statement. 6893 Highover Drive August 18, 2020 Page 12 2. Since the wall only encroaches one foot into the easement, the city has a sufficient amount of unobstructed drainage and utilities easement to serve its function; At its maximum extent, wall “F” encroaches two feet five inches into the drainage and utilities easement, as shown on the survey provided by the applicant to city staff. This encroachment combined with the grading changes associated with its placement and construction alters the easements drainage pattern in manner that diverts drainage to the neighboring property. This alteration of the intended function of the drainage and utility easement is one of the reasons staff denied the requested encroachment agreement. 3. That potential conflicts between the wall and use of the easement can be resolved through an encroachment agreement; An encroachment agreement would not alter wall “F’s” impact on the drainage and utility easement. Wall “F” currently has a detrimental effect on the functionality of the drainage and utility easement, and the existence of an encroachment agreement would not correct that. Additionally, the City Code does not allow encroachment agreements to be issued for structures that interfere with the function of a drainage and utility easement. Since the wall interferes with the drainage function of this easement, an encroachment agreement cannot be issued. 4. That the wall is essential the functionality and serviceability of the newly installed walkout door, an emergency exit door, and deck; The east walkout door is not an emergency exit zone as the only required egress door for the property is the front door to the house. The east walk out door could have been installed without the retaining wall by grading the yard to accommodate its placement. Had the wall been included on the submitted building permit application, staff would have required it to be relocated to be clear of the easement. While relocating the wall to be clear of the easement will necessitate regrading, it will not negate functionality and serviceability of the door. 5. And, that the City Code does not require the demolition of the wall. As noted above, the City Code does not permit the city to issue encroachment agreements that interfere with the function of drainage and utility easements. As the city has determined this wall interferes with the drainage function of the easement, an encroachment agreement cannot be issued. Since an encroachment agreement cannot be issued, the wall cannot remain in the easement and must be relocated to comply with City Code. For wall “I”, their stated reasons for believing the determination to be in error are: 1. Water previously drained onto the property to the east and this is not a new condition created by the appellant; and, 6893 Highover Drive August 18, 2020 Page 13 Due to work in the property commencing without a permit, no existing conditions survey is available. Staff used the Highover Subdivision’s grading plan to determine the drainage pattern and intended function of the drainage and utility easement. Based on this information, staff determined that the grades did in fact allow for drainage to be conveyed by the drainage and utility easements. As built, wall “I” extends the width of the drainage and utility easement, fully blocking and obstructing the overland flow of drainage and intensifying the amount of drainage being routed to adjacent properties. It should also be noted, that the approved grading permit, which was not followed, shows the intended conveyance of drainage via the drainage and utility easement. Due to its interference with the intended and approved function of the drainage and utility easement, staff was required by City Code to deny the encroachment agreement. 2. The installed French drain system does not adversely impact adjacent properties because it prevents the water from being diverted onto adjacent properties, instead conveying it to the street. During optimal conditions, the French drain system and drain tile can effectively convey water directly to the street and prevent it from being diverted onto adjacent properties; however, it will not prevent all overland water flow from entering adjacent properties since the approved grading plan was not followed. Furthermore, during the winter, these systems and the ground around them freeze. This freezing prevents the underground conveyance of water and requires a viable overland drainage route. As was discussed above, wall “I” cuts off the overland route that the drainage and utilities easement is intended to create and preserve. Similarly, French drain systems can become plugged over time and shallow underground drainage pipes can be crushed. Both of these circumstances can prevent the French drain system from functioning as designed. For the reasons both overland drainage needs to be provided for and the presence of the French drain system does not mitigate wall “I” impact on the function of the drainage and utilities easement. 6893 Highover Drive August 18, 2020 Page 14 Variance The applicant is also requesting a variance from the City Code’s prohibition on locating structures within drainage and utilities easements. Staff understands this request to mean that if the Planning Commission determines that the City Engineer did not make an error in denying the encroachment agreement, the applicant would like to receive a variance to permit the walls to remain within the drainage and utility easement. The applicant states that the variance should be granted for the following reasons: 1. The retaining walls facilitate the location of a sidewalk and landscaping, both elements are reasonable uses for a residential property. The retaining walls do not negatively impact adjacent properties. 2. The applicant is not responsible for the location of the retaining wall. It was placed in the drainage and utilities easement by their contractor without the applicant realizing there would be an issue. 3. The retaining walls are not highly visible from the street and do not change the essential character of the area. Section 20-58 outlines six criteria that all must be met for the city to issue a variance. Staff has listed the criteria below and stated in italics staff’s application of the criteria to the case. (1) 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. The intent of prohibiting retaining walls from being located within the drainage and utilities easement is to insure that the easements can serve their function and that structures are not placed near property lines that will redirect water onto adjacent properties. The function of these easements is both to facilitate the installation of utilities and to manage stormwater drainage. The location of the two retaining walls within the drainage and utility easements in question prevent the drainage and utilities easements from serving their drainage function and redirect surface water onto neighboring properties. Permitting the retaining walls to remain within the drainage and utilities easement would violate the intent of Section 20-908(6) of the City Code. Additionally, this section of the City Code states encroachment agreements should only be granted when they do not interfere with the intended function of the drainage and utilities easement. Allowing the encroachment of a structure that the City Engineer has determined to interfere with the intended function of the drainage and utilities easement would violate the intent of Section 20-908(6). (2) 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. 6893 Highover Drive August 18, 2020 Page 15 Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. The applicant had received an approved grading permit for a grading plan that effectively managed the property’s stormwater without locating new retaining walls within the drainage and utilities easement. Furthermore, plans for both the deck and walkout level door were approved without any retaining walls shown within the drainage and utilities easement. The applicant’s difficulty in complying with zoning code is not the result of the code not permitting reasonable use of the property (lower level door, walkway, landscaping, etc.) but rather it is the result of improvements not shown on any plans being constructed without permits in locations where they are not permitted. If the applicant had followed the approved grading and building permits, the property would have similar amenities and comply with the City Code. (3) That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. The applicant cites the expense involved in regarding the property to comply with the approved grading permit as a reason why the variance should be granted. This economic consideration does not justify the granting of the requested variances. (4) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The plight of the landowner is entirely the result of work on the property being done without permits; there is no inherent circumstance unique to the property that would prevent it and its improvements from complying with the City’s Zoning Code. The landowner started a grading project with no permit. The landowner worked directly with staff to develop a grading plan, upon which a subsequent grading permit was based and approved. During these discussions, the landowner was made aware of the location of the drainage and utilities easements, the restrictions on what could be placed within them, and on the need for permits for new and/or relocated retaining walls. In response to this information, the landowner revised elements of their grading plan to minimize the placement of drain tile and other elements within the drainage and utilities easement and assured staff retaining walls would not be located within it. The grading and construction activities that were subsequently conducted on the property are significantly different from what was approved and feature numerous walls located within the drainage and utilities easement. The applicant has stated that all of these improvements were located and installed by their contractor without the landowner understanding that there would be an issue; therefore, the plight was not created by the landowner. Given that city staff had numerous conversations with the landowner and developed the approved grading plan by working directly with the landowner, staff disputes that the landowner was unaware of what the property’s grading was supposed to be or the approximate locations of the property’s drainage and utilities easements. The landowner hired contractors to install improvements on the property and is 6893 Highover Drive August 18, 2020 Page 16 ultimately responsible for the improvement installed at their request. If the landowner provided the contractor with the approved grading plan and the contractor took it upon themselves install improvements beyond the scope of that plan or failed to obtain the required permits as specified in their contract, the proper remedy is civil action between the homeowner and contractor. A variance should not be issued to legitimize improvements installed in violation of City Code at the landowner’s request. (5) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Staff agrees that the presence of retaining walls and the associated landscaping does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Numerous properties in subdivision have broadly similar retaining walls and landscaping features. These features are not aesthetically incompatible with the area. (6) Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 14, when in harmony with this chapter. This does not apply to this request. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, affirm City Engineer Howley’s partial denial of the encroachment agreement and deny the variance request to allow the retaining walls to be located within the drainage and utility easements, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Decision 2. Development Review Application 3. Appeal Letter 4. Appeal Narrative 5. Survey 6. Subdivision Grading 7. Building Department Memo 8. Engineering Department Memo 9. Oct-Sept Grading Permit Email 10. Approved Grading Permit 11. Affidavit of Mailing of Public Hearing Notice g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-15 6893 highover drive var\staff report_6893 highover drive_pc_revised.docx 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (Denial) Larry and Mary Synstelien are appealing an administrative decision to partially deny a requested encroachment agreement by City Engineer Howley and applying for a variance to allow the retaining walls in question to be located within the city’s drainage and utilities easement on a property zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF) - Planning Case 2020-15. Due to the fact that city staff interacted with Mr. Larry Synstelien regarding this matter, the Findings of Fact and Decision will refer to him as the “applicant” or the “landowner” interchangeably throughout. On August 18, 2020, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the appeal and variance request. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the appeal and proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 3, Block 3, Highover 4. Appeal Findings: City Engineer Howley’s assessment that the retaining walls interfere with the intended drainage function of the drainage and utilities easement is correct. Since the retaining walls interfere with the intended function of the drainage and utilities easement, City Engineer Howley was correct in denying the encroachment agreement and in requiring the relocation of the retaining walls. 5. 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 prohibiting retaining walls from being located within the drainage and utilities easement is to insure that the easements can serve their function and that structures are not placed near property lines that will redirect water onto adjacent properties. The function of these easements is both to facilitate the installation 2 of utilities and to manage stormwater drainage. The location of the two retaining walls in question within the drainage and utility easements prevents the drainage and utilities easements from serving their drainage function and redirects surface water onto neighboring properties. Permitting the retaining walls to remain within the drainage and utilities easement would violate the intent of Section 20-908(6) of the City Code. Additionally, this section of the City Code states encroachment agreements should only be granted when they do not interfere with the intended function of the drainage and utilities easement. Allowing the encroachment of a structure that the City Engineer has determined to interfere with the intended function of the drainage and utilities easement would violate the intent of Section 20-908(6). b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties", as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: The applicant had received an approved grading permit for a grading plan that effectively managed the property’s stormwater without necessitating the placement of new retaining walls within the drainage and utilities easement. Furthermore, plans for both the deck and walkout level door were approved without any retaining walls shown on the plans within the drainage and utilities easement. The applicant’s difficulty in complying with zoning code is not the result of the City Code not permitting reasonable use of the property (lower level door, walkway, landscaping, etc.), but rather it is the result of improvements not shown on any plans and being constructed without permits in locations where they are not permitted. If the applicant had followed the approved grading and building permits, the property would have similar amenities and would comply with the City Code. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The applicant cites the expense involved in regrading the property to comply with the approved grading permit as a reason why the variance should be granted. This economic consideration does not justify the granting of the requested variances. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The plight of the landowner is entirely the result of work on the property being done without permits; there is no inherent circumstance unique to the property that would prevent it and its improvements from complying with the city’s Zoning Code. The landowner started a grading project with no permit. The landowner worked directly with staff to develop a grading plan, upon which a subsequent grading permit 3 was based and approved. During these discussions, city staff made the landowner aware of the location of the drainage and utilities easements, the restrictions on what could be placed within them, and of the need for permits for new and/or relocated retaining walls. In response to this information, the landowner revised elements of the grading plan to minimize the placement of drain tile and other elements within the drainage and utilities easement and assured city staff retaining walls would not be located within it. The grading and construction activities that were subsequently conducted on the property are significantly different from what was approved and feature numerous walls located within the drainage and utilities easement. The applicant has stated that all of these improvements were located and installed by his contractor without the landowner understanding that there would be an issue; therefore, he claims that the plight was not created by the landowner. Given that city staff had numerous conversations with the landowner and developed the approved grading plan by working directly with the landowner, the city disputes that the landowner was unaware of what the property’s grading was supposed to be or the approximate locations of the property’s drainage and utilities easements. The landowner hired contractors to install improvements on the property and is ultimately responsible for the improvement installed at their request. If the landowner provided the contractor with the approved grading plan and the contractor took it upon themselves to install improvements beyond the scope of that plan or failed to obtain the required permits as specified in their contract, the proper remedy is civil action between the homeowner and contractor. A variance should not be issued to retroactively authorize improvements installed in violation of City Code at the landowner’s request. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The presence of retaining walls and the associated landscaping does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Numerous properties in the subdivision have broadly similar retaining walls and landscaping features. These features are not aesthetically incompatible with the area. f. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 6. The planning report #2020-15, dated August 18, 2020, prepared by MacKenzie Young- Walters, et al. is incorporated herein. 4 DECISION The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments affirms City Engineer Howley’s partial denial of the encroachment agreement and denies the variance request to allow the retaining walls to be located within the drainage and utilities easement. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 18th day of August, 2020. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Steven Weick, Chairman g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-15 6893 highover drive var\findings of fact and decision 6893 highover drive (denial)_revised.doc cofxlril?Y DEITE OPnEil? EprFflEln Phnnlng [}vu€n - 77(n llE kd Boalarsrd Mdline Ad !.r -p.o. Box t,l7, chnrhllton, Mt{ 5s}17 PhonB: (9Sl) 22?-1400 i Fsx: (952) 227. i t r 0 fftT0rcfiAilHrx$[fl APPUCANOI FOR DEYELOPUET{T REVIEIi/1ln I slz>*o."8!3[e-."*fu]&I rslaa n,*,t b tr }#,WEA Ap#,du, Crt,ddrt tb.,tc,id clbafr frffi5t; 76,r w*Atnf lN WdD qomeld|.rlrlvs Pfrl tuncodrnod........,.,..............U tlf,no. HJSA trn. tr {at&le o&.t .of,r!..... I Cond$on:{ Us p.nnh (c{JP) Raidooe D tnbrtm tka Pumh (lUP)EtnEal *th Slnd+Fenly Rrrldence., t800 $1m tB25 t42t t325 0/.2t fl *E*c(REzlU PbnnEd Unlt DaaloEr.{a (pt,E) _.,.........-...tl fnnor Afirmdilffi !o dns PUD-..--.... . ..,.I ett orrxs....... . ...........,.....:....... -.... .....,....... u v.1€ion Aelanracnpm<r+iny (VAC)........ $m(.ffi '! rllt rf,Srrt8750tls t500 tr Sign Plrfi Rarkr .....-........... tiSO [] Seb Pbn Roybqr (sPR)oo Adnlnbft[n. Cdrurr{eiaut,1&ritrhl D6tIr!. g10o ll8o fi! vrtnor{vrn...-.............,........................ O Wethnu llrrdon Perrnft (WAP) Rooidonce 3150 ,215 BJ zonrre rppcet,. D Zontq OrOtnenot ArclrrtrrGrt eOA) .,,..... ........ $5OO !!SB rh?q*or9PE ,- -tE- Gt.l.lrr.rr tta rrPls.h b rll- h.irr..t td dr +caanD.\ ,....3$ p.. rddIm doalmanl Prrmit o H Alcrdiun Pcrrnl TOTALFEE: $673.P0 - Pir tto F 1,000 Em ttorlulrfrB rs:C- ltErerd tsrar!$it)aldd3flrnr srlb|E $laaqFE - 'tralll ar'rlr d ru tilttr:i nmua oom-I,,-... ...,.,....-.:--.- 'uA;Plrll ?3 p( dildhe tn[ (- unt8] E r{*u 8fi{qrilils, ts ftsady Omor!' Lld$filn EoO (crtblrrrtr,rtFr-Hc$r6{t............-. m Eacrg{rt tor Recording Oocrtm.dr (chact a[ E0 Coldftonsl U!3 Porrnit VacBli{x1 Vli€fbtd Daedsthb & Bouldr sub.ltvbloo (3 rb...)( r.l.lrrlnB) DcrcrlNon of Propolal: Proparty Addrolr or Loc{lon:6893 Elohover Dri va Par6lt 253490r 20 l€g D.rcn ion:Lot 3, Slock 3r Elghover Iot l Arrrgrra2rT@-5q.JEL wsrr6. Pr!..nr o Yc. B r,b PEssnl Zonkq:Scbcr Ou tS1 RGqu6bd Zoring:Sctacl Otr! Xgp Prsreirt Lrnd Ui! D@muon:Selccl Onr BSP R.qu!.r.d L.nd Utc Drshnltlon: Exirtng Ula ol SF Slngl,B fanll 320o ' Elchd( bor( u r0erc. mtr*,. h sthdr.d. v Resldent1al Sg&d Ons $HblOrlu tr Sit€ Alr th.t 5i.,:1;}i: l. qatl i.r,a..l lrrlr,r.'r1r. ri c.rtrol T-ir:eir. r I l!irccl.,.,ll ilr.rt rl),)l Namcr Adt ra53' C[Y/sh/zb: Enril: Cont ct Phone: Ceo: Frxsbn{urc: - o!b: FROPERfY O-yXEli !n :S{nC thE rppthrtion, t, as Eoparty oryner, haw tt I bgel cspEdty ro, end he8by do,authodro thc ,i{ng. ot s$s rpprcalbn. I lP?rsqfd ltot 9-dftoos or.pprova, &I' onaini roi :gjrc. ra ua ti".,a oy oorcfe.qqtl.sf.l mly 6uie{t{& lsdc{ht h..(bg*ordtt.tqe tr..F.t pcdodi.l rrfl l6+rnpa[ rnh,'rl|d d tha dcadlllEs lor .lomi$ion d m.b.ir! rnd hc progrG of thr epptcatioi. I tu;the. unddslrnd fiar ;dm*rar fa" mey b€ $8t9od lor consultt{ ba6, ftatbilty !tudb., eta wtth sn e3Iim.E prbr to sny euthori2irion to praceod u/ah lhestudy. I clrtty that the inbrmdiofl ed e)6bts sub.Diftld alB trrc and core<r Nsrn€: Joan Synstel i.e-n/f,arry Synstellen Addrcss 6893 Etgbover Drive ctty/SldZip:Chanhas sen, l,lN 553 17 Ernar: Co rct: Pioo.: _ Cat q 32-01 1-o6?q . Fer - Noo€ Oale: contsct - PllelE:_ 06x: - Fer: 1 Ttt appHon mua Dc oo.np&d h fu[ ard nIJ{ ba scconTrolrd by aI i&.lr&t &d plons rquirld bf .pplbible City frh.rca provblof:3. Bdon fl[U thts 8pptcaton. r.hr to h! Tproprt ts Apdb8tion Ch6&ist and cofitsr wih th. PbnnrB OoF.rtoant to (rat8frine th€ !p.cl0c ordinrnc. and appllcsbb proccduat Gquilurcnts 8nd fses. A detominston ol corplston.se ol fte Eppucathn sht[ bo mrdo wlhh 'l S bwlri66s dr],s of applcation eubmttrl. A vnittan no0c. d @Xssdon dddqndca drol bs maltrd b lhc applcrnt wihin I 5 budnrs dalB ot qpp&ceIoh . SEnatuIa: PRoTEC? E IG0{EER (if eppllcebh} 1tVt- Urho should rloctt't coplar ot ltrrf rDport?oltrffiIfrnDdbn: lur}lc ..._.-.--- Addllor:Cry/fuZlp:.-- Enul: --.- UtrtrD E Dtr :.Jtrtrtr Enuil Em.il Emsil Emall tllabd Prpar Copy Mailcd Papcr Copy Maibd P.Fcr Copy Malled Faper Copy : Comphts a8 neoesssry 6orm tLts3, lh€n sel6d SAVE. FORlrl to saw a aopy to tout to clty slong wi& rcquir€d documonts rnd payncrn. SUB IT FORiI to send a dtgltal INSTRUCT|o T TO AFPLICA'{T devEe. PRIXT FOA *'rd de0Ycr copy lo th8 city tor prcc€s3lr€,sAvE troftta tirxt toftr SUBTIIT FORi ApplicalltSecti()l) 3: IJ nlrdOu, r rer lntoruatlon APPLICAI{T oTltER IH I PRoPEf,IY-otry E8: ln sEning thb appticatirn, t, as sppfc nt, repraeont to haye obt8ir.dauthorizsuoi fmm rh. proporty ouner to fie tha ap,g{ixuon. iagrea io Oe OwnO Uy ,ii,Oiti""i .iq;;;,'il,i,g"a onry O'.hc right to obJod st liB hsr,1gB on 68 aDpricadon or during t-* apncal pctud. rihb sFpltcdron fiii nJ bui "En"O Uythe p.ororry orrE , r ha,e alhdrcd s.pente &qrrEfibtio;ot tuif 6gr ;+rdty to rn [i" qppijdi*.'ii,h [pri""rr-silouid ba procesrcd h my naflro .lE I 8rn $. parv rhom th€ cry lEodd contia cgaroia'iny ,r,"t1o, prr ,irg to ttruepplbdros. r r,ilroep nlEdirbrrEd o{ $', oedftcs rq rubrn[rftn or meoria afr ti ir"gie""-iiiic- ilpqorun. rturther undcrsBnd thel addidoflEr tu s rTny b: chipo-d q consu&n9i!c!, ibcsbuty srudll,iic. ;th ,, "ii,[ao p.io, roany autlrorizalion tD proc.ed rfi&| tic atudy. t Ertily thst Uts lnfwmition and txtriUitir rulmitica aro tui "nO ,r*"r. t{<lc; AaErBsr Cilyrgrtczs; E nail: .-.-_- Soction 4: Notrricatior nlcrl,luatio|r PrqpsrU O{r!, \iir:Applc.nt \fa: Eflginorr . Vis:oltlcr' ME: KelI-v Lew Orncps Ettablished 1 E 7975 STONE CREEK DRIVE, SUTTE T2l} CH.ANH]{SSEN. MINNESOTA 553T7 MARK W. KELLY WILLIAM F. KELLY ( 1922.1995> 1952t 171-5977 FAX 471-9575 kellyl.wof lic.s@.io.coE July 17,2O2O Todd Gerhardt City Manager City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re Larry Synstelien, Appeal to the Board ofAppeals and Adjustments City of Chanhassen, Minnesota Re: 6893 Highover Drive, Chanhassen, Minnesota Encroachment Agreement Dear Mr. Gerhardt: I represent Joarr and Larry Synstelien. Enclosed please find Appeal to the Board of Appeals and Adiustments by Joan and Larry Synstelien. Synsteliens Appeal the February 12,2O2O decision of Chanhassen Administrative Officer Charles J. Howley denying, in part, issuance of an Encroachment Asreement. The Synsteliens also hereby make Application for Variance, as needed, if needed, to permit an Encroachment Agreement in conjunction herewith. Please advise any errors or omissions, and we will address them Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to your advice on when the hearing will be held. Sincerely, .4 M W. Ke1l-v MWK/tas Enclosure cc: Synstelien APPEAL TO T}M BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADJUSTMENTS CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA RE: 6893 HighoverDrive, Chanhassal MN 55317 Encroachment A$eement Partial Denial APPELLANTS: Joan and Larry Synstelieru owners of 6893 Highover Drive, Chanhassen, Minnesota 553 17, (hereinafter "Synselien Family".) COMES NOW, Appellants Joan and Larry Synstelien acting pusuant to Mn. Stat. 5462.157, SuM. 6, which provides for appeal to the city of Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments by a person affected by compliance with conditions imposed by the Municipal Zoning Ordinance. ADMIMSTRATIVE DECISIONS IN ERROR HEREBY APPEALED: Administrative Decision APPealed: Decision by City of Chanhassen Administrative Officer Charles J. Howley, PE' LEED AP' Director of Public Works/City Engineering, by letter of February 12,2020 ke: 6893 Highover Drive Encroachment Agreement for various areas of 6893 Highover Drive. Therein, the Synselien Family's Application for m Encroashment Aseement was approved in part and denied in part. Specificalty, the following items in Synstelien's Encroachment Aqreement Application were'denied: #1. Item "F'(Block Wa[)' and #2. Item "I" @ortion of Block Wall Wirhin Easement Area), (Modular Block Garden Wall) (See Exhibit "A".) 1 #l - Item "F' Glock Wall'l Mr. Howley's 02llA2O20 denial of an Enuoachment Ageement for Item "F" (Block Wall) does not state a reason for the denial. The city,s 02119/2020 Residential Permit/Survev Routine Form, Engineering sectiorl prepared in relation to this wall states as follows: "Wall in D + U ESMT. Needs to be moved out of D + U ESMT. Label top + bottom of walls including all elevation changes. Design does not address walls over 4' or staged walls nearby. Design is vizual only Bot Eng. Certificate of wall construction or operation."* @mPhasis added.) (See Exhibit "B".) * [The foregoing refertnce to walls over 4' and their construction fails to acknowledge that any issue related thereto berween the city and Applicants Synstelien was resolved last November after submission ofa civil Engineer's report veriling that the on-site walls over 4' were built to code, and that this no longer an issue.l "I" (Po on of Bl Wall Easement Area Mr. Howley's 02 tl2l2o2} denial of an Encroachment Agreement for ltem "I" (Portion of Btock watl) does no, state a reason for the denid. It only states: 'tall will need to be removed." The city's 02119/2020 Residential Permit/Survey Routine Form. Engineering section, prepared in relation to this wall states as follows: ..wall must be removed from D + U ESMT. @ Area regraded to keep overland flow in D + U easement on Foperty. will need encroachment for all walls atlowed to remain inD+uESMTareas. (See Exhibit "C".) SCOPE OF REVIEW The Chanhassen Board of Appeals aod Adjustnents has the power: (l)Tohearanddecideappealswhereitisallegedt}ratthereisanerrorinany 2 order, requirement, decision, ol determination made by an Administrative Offrcer in the enforcement ofthe Zoning Ordinance; and (2) To hear requests for variances from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance including restrictions placed on non-conformities. REOUES TED RELIEF and VARIANCE The Synstelien Family appeals the above decisions of the Director of Public works/city Engineer Howley, and requests the chanhassen Board ofAppeals and Adjustnents: (l) ovemrle the above-described Administrator decisions as an error, and/or (2) grant, as needed, variances to applicable code to permit the walls at issue to remain in place, as built, and suppo( inclusion of said walls in the Appellants' requested Encroachment Agrcement. DISCUS SION - Item "F" (B lock Wall) Item "F" (Block WaIt) is a retaining wall, built of common sand colored landscaping blocks' used throughout the synstelien property and neighborhood, holding back the soil on the East sideoftheAppellants'home.Itwasbuilt,bycontractor,inconjunctionwithanexcavation oftheeastsideyardtoaddabasementwalkoutingressandegressdoor'anddeckbuilt under approved Building Permit. The Block wall, immediately east of the eastelly footings of the new deck, encroaches approximately l foot into the City,s l0-foot deep Drainage (9 footfromthepropertyline)andUtilityEasement.Thelocationofthewallwasdetermined by the third- party contractor, and not the Synstelien Family' Theneighborhoodisfullydeveloped.Allneededutilityservicesareinplace.Sewerand water service are in the street. There are no utilities located in the east Drainage and Utility Easement, or impacted, or obstructed in the construction of the Block Wall ' When the l0-foot Drainage and Utility Easernent upon the residential property to the East is takenintoconsideration,intotalthecityhasatleastlgfeetofunobstructedeasement 3 between these homes. In the remote possibility that the Block Wall might, at a future date' become an obstruction, the Synstelien's understand the wall is subject to removal by the city, which is reasonable and acceptable to the Synstelien Family. This Block Wall is essential to the functionality and serviceability of the newly installed East walkout door, an emergency exit mne, along with the newly built deck and should not be required to be demolished. The wall shields visual site line ofthe underdeck from view, hence, increasing visual appeal and security. The present demand that the Block Wall be demolished and removed from the easement, when an encroachment agreement providing for future removal - as needed, if needed - can resolve the issue, is per se unreasonable. Demolition of the wall is not dictated by city code, especially when code provides for encroachment agreements. Any conflict with city code can be answered by the grant of a variance. Failure to over-rule the administrative decision at issue, and grant the needed variance, will unjustifiably and unduly penalize the synstelien Family and adversely impact the surrounding neigbbors through the need for heavy equipment, lawn removal, side walk impedimurt,andnoise-terribleinconvenienceanddisruptionoftheirreasonable enjoyment oftheir property and incursion of considerable, needless expense WhentheSynstelienfamilyrelieduponitscontractortoplanandexecutetheeastsideyard walkorx improvement, they never knew or understood the Block Wall would be improperly located by the third-party contractor in the city easement' Nor did he know that an EncroachmentAgleement,toanswerstaffobjectionsastoitsplacement,wouldbearbitrarily denied. The final location of the encroaching Block Wall was made by the Applicant Synsteliens' contractor, not the Synstelien Family' TheCityinspectedtheDeckandGradingseveraltimesduringtheconstructionprocessandat notimeissuedastopworkorderonthewallduetoitspositioning.onlyseveralmonthsafter theendoftheconstructionandcompletionoftheprojectwasanissueraisedoftheneedfora possibleencroachmentagreement.TheCityapprovedtheencroachmentofthedraintile. The wall makes less of an impact to the easement than the drain tile' TheSynstelienFamilyrespectfi:llysubmitsthattheAdministrativeofficer'sdecisioninthat Item "F" (Block WalI) must be removed' and it cannot be ganted permission to remain in placeunderanEncroachmentAgreement.CityCodeSection20-908YardRezu]ations, 4 paragraph (6) provides: ,.... retaining wall... and other encroachments may be allowed within an easement with an Encroachment Agreement if they do not alter the intended use of the easement and at the discretion of the community development director or designee. The Administrative officer's decision denying an Encroachment Agreement for Item "F" (Block Wall) rureasonable. The Board of Adjusments should determine that the determination was unreasonable in that an Encroachment Agreernent for the synstelien Family property should include Item "F". Variances are permitted under the practical diffrculty standard of M'S' 5462.357 , Subd. 6. The Synsteliens meet that standard hereon' Manner of Use Appellants Synsteliens' planned manner ofuse ofhis residential property - a sidewalk out employing the retaining wall as located (above described) - is a reasonable manner ofuse of a residential property in the applicable residential zone. Item "F" Block wall is below the easement gmde. With only l-2 feet visible fiom the Synstelien house under the Synstelien's deck, it makes no noticeable visual prcsence and does not adversely impact the quiet and peaceful use and enjoyment of adjacent residential properties. In fact, it enhances the neighborsviewbyshieldingtheareabelowdeckfromview'Thisalsoprovidesenhance securitytothepropertybyshieldingviewoftheegressdoor.Thewall'slocation9feetback ftomthelotline,and2gfeetWestofresidencetotheEast'makesnoimpactontheadjacent property. Pliqht of the ADpellants TheplightofAppellantssynstelienwascreatdbytheirthird-partycontractor.TheAppellants didnotknow,approve,orrequestthewallwouldbebuiltonefootintothecityeasement'Mr' and Mrs. Synstelien have no training or experience as builder or surveyor. Their plight is not oftheirownmaking.Rather,itistheproductofdesignandconstructiondecisionsbya third.partycontractorreliedupontodesigil,locate,andconstructtheEastbasementwalk.out and overlying deck. I ofN Thevarianceifgranted,willnotchangetheessentialcharacterofthelocality.Thisis because,asnote4theBlockWallisbelowgradeandnotvisiblefromthestreet.Thewall 5 sits parallel and b€low the new deck. Consequently, the wall is subordinate thereto and does not appear as a separate stnrch[e and blends even with the grass line. . Lastly, built of standard landscaping blocks, commonly in use, and matching blocks used elsewhere upon the Synselien property, the wall blends in, and is not of an objectional character. DISCUSSION - Item "I'' (Portion of Block Wall Within Easement Area) (Modular Block Wall) Item 'f' (Ponion of Block Wall Within Easement Area) is a modular block garden wall built of common sand-colored landscaping block which defines the line between sod and gardens on the south portion of the Appellant's lot. This wall was built by a contractor in coqjunction with a regrading of the Synstelien yard and the installation of an in-ground French drain. The most southerly tip of the modular block garden wall incidentally encroaches upon the City's Drainage and Utility Easement along the south line of the Synstelien lot. This encroachment was not objected to by the Administrative Offrcer and will be permitted under the requested Encroachment Agreement. The most easterly tip ofthe modular block garden wall encroaches on the easterly Drainage and Utility Easement. The newly installed French drain, in the Easterly Drainage and Utility Easement, collects water which inundates the Synstelien property on a rcgular basis from water draining from the north. The French drain directs the water rmderground to a soft connect in the public street. Prior to the regrading of the lot water reaching the Synstelien lot drained orito the property to the east. This was an existing condition not created by synstelien. (See Exhibit "D"). with the regrading of the Lot and new French Drain, watel reaching the Synstelien property from the south - originally destined for the property to the East - is now drained rmderground to the street and is greatly reduced and is not significant' The synstelien,s request to include the Easterly terminus of the modular block garden wall under Encroachment Agreement, is necessary to avoid demolition and regrading of the Synstelien lot one more time. The Synstelien family relied upon a conmctor for grading and install of the garden wall and wasnotaware,didnotrequest,orapprovedtheinstallationofthewallwithintheeast Drainage and utility Easement. The synstelien family respectfirlly submits that the 6 Administrative Officer's decision that Item "I" (Portion of Block Wall Within Easement Area) be removed and not granted permission to remain in place under an Encroachment Agrcement is unreasonable and unnecessarily punitive to the Synsteliens and to surrounding neighbors who would unnecessarily have endure construction vehicles, noise and sod removal and replacement. . The City Code allows Encroachment Agreements for retaining walls that do not alter the intended use of the City Drainage and Utility Easement (20-908(6)). The easterly garden wall terminus does not alter the use ofthe City's easement. The denial ofan Encroachment Agreement her€on was arbitrary, capricious and punitive. An Encroachment Agreement is reasonable under the circurnstances and should be granted. The Synstelien family requests the City Board of Appeals and Adjustments ovemrle the Administrative Officer's decision regarding Item "I" (Portion of Block Wall Within Easement Area) and, as needed, grant Applicant Synstelien a variance. Variances are permitted under the practical diffrculty standard of M.S. $462.357, Subd. 6 Reasonable Manner of Use Appellants Synsteliens' planned manner ofuse ofhis residential property - a decorative garden wall as located (above described) - is a reasonable manner ofuse ofa residential propefiy in the applicable residential zone. The Block Wall is no more than 14" above grade, decreasing to no more than 6" above grade on the easterly tip. With minimal block wall visible above grade, and primarily visible ftom the Synstelien's backyard porch it makes no noticeable visual presence and does not adversely impact the quiet and peaceful use and enjoyment of adjacent residential properties. ln light ofthe new French drain, the wall's easterly terminus, as buil! makes no measurable adverse impact on the property to the East. Plieht of Aooellants The plight ofAppellants Synstelien was created by his third-party contfactor. The Appellants did not know the wall would be built in the City Drainage and Utility Easement. Mr. and Mrs. Synstelien have no training or experience as builder or surveyor. Their plight is not of their oun making. Rather, it is the product of design and construction decisions by a third- party contractor relied upon to desigrr, locate, in the consauction of the garden wall. of the Area 7 No Imoact on Essential Character No Imnaat ooEgsiotial Cttrtctsr of ths Arsa Tbc vaiuca if granls4 uiin nd changp thc e*seotial clrsacter of the locality. This is bocauoc il is a corrnou lmdscaping anrnity,largely below grade md notvisible whcre tbc gnde drops ald more u$ll blocks 8rc e)Qolad- Thc gard€o$l8il is subordioate to all oher lot struc$rcs. Buill of stmdardlardscrying blocks, comuonly iruse asd matching blooks usod else*hore upontte Syt#ticnproperly, tbevrall bleodsiq ondismt of an obitcticnal 8lchiEctural chEsstsr. cortcl.r.rsloN Aprpellonts Syustelio ralrests &at fre City 's Bmxt of AAcak ao'd Adjustoents rccopize rha tbe $ouine pnaoticaL diffiarlrieg bciog imposd upoe the Synstelien family by the rmreasonable aod unfrir dcrnad tr6 they now dencolkh thr aa ecfuting Item 'f" Bbck \tralt atd ltqn *I" fb ca*edy tenninug of tre gflrden uall and thd 6c &mily sbould not bear the bwdcn associs&d $ith rcbuildiqg a rtainirg walls md rc.ladscapirg thc bac.k yrd. The dcrnand trar thc walls be ikmolishcd is unresollablc as it daies thc Syn elien Furily tre reasonable use of thsh propcrty and imposes urduc expenses tbd ae punitive in ndr:rc' The city can eccom$odslc ib nceds md rccomruodatc &e $ynstdiem Funlly by simply agreebg o inckde tlc two walb io t* requestad ErstscMent Ag$@q!ot. tn thc unlikcty avciltat$c city svertss *eod to ms ftc Draina6o mdtlility a8tcm8tt, aodlqnovs same, it do so laudrlly. .rl AP?ELLANTS SYNSTEI,II,N ( For reference a copy of the 09/07/18-.Synstelien Lot survey is attached as Exhibit "E". R Dusd: CITY OT CIIAI,IHASSXI{ Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tornonow February 12,2020 Larry Synstelien 6893 Higbover Drive Chanhassen,MN 55317 RE: We have intemally reviewed thc submitted plan requesting encroachment agreements for various areas at 6893 Ilighover Drive. Dear Mr. Synstelien: After reviewing the survey dated 3/19119 that was submitted as part of your request to have multiple improvements on your property be allowed to stay in-place, t-e will support granting encroachments for the improvements in the areas labeled *A, B, C, D, G, H & .P'' We would like to note that these areas were constructed without permits and do encroach in drainage and utility easement areas. Item *E ' (the future fence) which has not been constructed will require a building fence permit and separate encroachment agreement showing the location on a fi:ll size survey meeting all the requirements for fences in Chanhassen. Item "F" (block wall) is denied and will need to be rcmoved' Item .T" (portion of block wall within the easement area) is denied and will need b be removed. This area wlfl also necd to te gradtng to direct drainage witrin tbe msement and not onto &e neighboring proPertY. The drainage inlets and drain tile located along the southerly lot line needs more information ,no*n oo ,i" survey showing piping runs and sizes. The area wilhin the easement will need to be regraded to not adversely shed water onto the neighboriug property' '-Z/ Charles J. Howley,E, LEED AP Director of Public Works/City Engineer c: Stwe Ferraro, Corstrrction Managcr, Enginecr Tcd IV Steve Lenz, Engineering Technician III PH 952.2fr.1 I O0 . www.ci.chanhass€n.mn.us' FX 952.227.111 0 *qlili A _ 700 MARKET B0ULEVARD 'P0 BOX 147'CHANHASSEN 'HINNES0TA 55317 Address:lrt Legal: Permil for: Home Other RESIDEN TIAL T/SURVEYROUTING FORM La h3 Dare Receivea ) Addition Detached Structure t)0>0 Explain:, Route permi*/Survevs r.ngin eering wlll order in the fotlowhrg order. nole eny charges you require and forward to next departmenr.new s*rvcys as requested ard route for approvak ir rcyerse ortrer. egal descri ptiop,building footpriut,building lype matehes survey (walhouq lookoug etct t', t Approved @lN Dare.ra1r:Lbe_ By,,T Required corrcctions: Revi sed suwey/plans approved Y/N Date:_ By:--.-- Setbacks,trce presewation, wetlaads,zone heigbt,area, bluff setbacls. Appoved y,@ Dde Required comctions: By: h..A,^ or-- z*./ EA lecJct f. at* 'l a*R i,t. d.tt;"ap u.l uulttye$enr4- By: ?'tl-tt-za Elevation, building typq grading/drairuge easemerts. By: "tri,Y,i;ffi #f, *Iivi#tffi #$r##trN*xm S,ttT r^al/s' "U*q, Erosion Coatol Appoved lvrN Date: ',' ,)'j'1" L,'By: ExHrBrr.:.B- ttt/ Deck eareilyo.N'oo 7)'1 surface I Revised sruvey/pians approyed Y /N Date: Approved YIN Date;_ Bf...- Approved Y/@ D*a-bfi:ltl By:-ll!l3=-_ , ,, Revised survey/plans approved Y/N Date:- Reguired cdrcc{ions; irla)^fdnbarEodra t rf-f,*f .t -*r,f F t \ E t \ It {i! 1 fj.5 s\ i F t !( I I X. +.i a I :"ar,& MEMORANDUM TO: MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner FROM: Eric Tessman, Building Official DATE: July 28, 2020 SUBJ: Appeal of city’s denial of an Encroachment Agreement for retaining walls within Drainage and Utility Easements and variances from the city’s prohibition on locating structures within Drainage and Utility Easements for a property located at 6893 Highover Drive. Zone Single-Family Residential District (RSF) Planning Case: 2020-15 I have reviewed the request for the above appeal/variance and have the following comments (my comments are specifically concerning discussion item F): 1. The claim that the block wall is essential to the functionality and serviceability of the newly installed East walkout door is simply not true. There are three reasons for this: a. The east walkout door is not an emergency exit zone, the only required egress door for this property is the front door to the house. The need to have a walkout door in the basement is not required by code, it is simply there for convenience. b. the east walkout door could have been installed without the need to build a retaining wall, the yard could have been just simply regraded to make this occur c. had the property owner indicated that he was intending to locate a retaining wall within the easement on his permit for the east walkout door, we would have informed him the the wall encroached into the easement and advised him to relocate the wall out of the easement. 2. The building inspection department conducts inspections at the request of either the contractor or the homeowner. The building department did multiple inspections of the deck located on the property at the request of the deck contractor. When we conduct our inspections of the deck, we are only looking at building code requirements related to the deck. At no point did the property owner request that the building department conduct an inspection on a retaining wall, as there was no building permit obtained for retaining walls until well after the retaining walls were constructed. The building inspectors assumed that the walls were under four feet and were being constructed under a zoning permit, which is not subject to inspections by the building department. Memorandum To: MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner From: Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer CC: Charles Howley, PE, City Public Works Director/City Engineer George Bender, PE, City Assistant City Engineer Steve Ferraro, Construction Manager Date: 8/6/2020 Re: Appeal to Denial of Encroachment Agreement for Retaining Walls within D&U at 6893 Highover Drive – Planning Case 2020-15 The Engineering Department has reviewed the submitted appeal of the city’s denial of Encroachment Agreements for retaining walls within Drainage and Utility Easements (D&U) for the property located at 6893 Highover Drive (Planning Case 2020-15). The appellants are requesting that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments overrule the decisions of the Director of Public Works/City Engineer which denied the issuance of Encroachment Agreements for unpermitted, newly constructed and in-place retaining walls within the D&U and required their removals and the regrading associated with the removals. Furthermore, the appellants are seeking variances, as needed, to City Code to permit the retaining walls remain in place. It is the conclusion of the Engineering Department that the retaining walls and the alterations to surrounding grades altered the intended use of the D&U in regards to drainage and should not be allowed. As built, the retaining walls have altered drainage patterns to route water outside of the D&U and onto adjacent properties. One of the intended uses of a drainage and utility easement is to provide a path between properties for stormwater drainage, and the erection of structures such as retaining walls can create impediments to this purpose while adversely altering drainage patterns. While seven other unpermitted, yet newly constructed and in-place, encroachments in the D&U were approved, the two unpermitted, in-place retaining walls were denied (Item “F” and Item “I” found in the 2/12/2020 denial letter) based on the justification above. The following comments are responses directly related to the appellant’s assertions regarding wall “F” and “I”: For wall “F” their stated reasons for believing the determination to be in error are: 1. That there are no utilities within the drainage and utility easements. Response: A Drainage and Utility easement’s intended use is not limited to the installation of utilities. Drainage is also a factor on how the easement is used. Thus, when staff reviews for the approval of structures or other objects to be placed within D&U’s, the review includes how drainage and overland water flow during rain events will be impacted through the D&U. An example is when fences are placed within the D&U, it is standard to have the following language in the Encroachment Agreement: “The fence must allow water to pass under it, so as not to impede overland water flow during rain events.” Wall “F”, as built, alters drainage by encroaching into the D&U and diverting drainage onto adjacent property. Furthermore, there are small utilities that utilize the D&U abutting the appellant’s property. Small utility pedestals belonging to Mediacom, CenturyLink, and Xcel Energy are all located within the appellant’s D&Us. Also, during the course of the unpermitted grading, a communication line for a neighboring property was severed in the D&U. Therefore, staff believes its determination to deny an Encroachment Agreement for wall “F” as it altered the intended use of the D&U is correct. 2. Since the wall only encroaches one foot into the easement, the city has a sufficient amount of unobstructed drainage and utilities easement to serve its function. Response: Wall “F” encroaches up to two feet five inches into the D&U based on the provided boundary topographic survey dated 3/19/19 by Rory L. Synstelien (License No. 44565) of CivilSite Group. Wall “F”’s encroachment, coupled with the grade changes associated with its construction, alters the drainage pattern to divert drainage to the neighboring property. This alters the intended use of the D&U which is to convey overland water flow during rain events between property lines. Therefore, staff believes its determination to deny an Encroachment Agreement for wall “F” as it altered the intended use of the D&U is correct. 3. That potential conflicts between the wall and use of the easement can be resolved through an encroachment agreement. Response: Staff does not believe that an Encroachment Agreement would correct wall “F”’s impact to the D&U, specifically as it relates to the alteration of the drainage pattern. While it would allow the City to remove the wall and regrade the area to restore the D&U to its intended use at the owner’s expense, an Encroachment Agreement in and of itself does not correct the alteration of the drainage. Therefore, staff believes its determination to deny an Encroachment Agreement for wall “F” as it would not correct the alteration of the intended use of the D&U is correct. 4. That the wall is essential to the functionality and serviceability of the newly installed walkout door, an emergency exit door, and deck. Response: Engineering has no comment to this assertion as staff does not conduct reviews of buildings. 5. That the City Code does not require the demolition of the wall. Response: Chanhassen City Code § 20.908(6) specifically prohibits the placement of any structure within an easement. Nevertheless, the property owner constructed a retaining wall in the easement. The City Code does not need to specify that any unauthorized structure must be demolished or removed. Since the placement of the retaining wall is prohibited by the City Code, it must be removed from that location. The City Code is clear that the structure is prohibited without an encroachment agreement, and that encroachment agreements can only be issued for a structure that “does not alter the intended use of the easement and at the discretion of the community development director or designee.” Chanhassen City Code § 20.908(6). As previously outlined, the unpermitted wall “F” alters the intended use of the D&U by diverting the drainage pattern and changing the grading of the property. Therefore, staff determined that it is not appropriate to issue an Encroachment Agreement. Since the wall has already been constructed without permit or authorization from the City, staff believes its determination to deny an Encroachment Agreement for wall “F”, as it altered the intended use of the D&U, and to seek the removal of the wall is correct. For wall “I” their stated reasons for believing the determination to be in error are: 1. Water previously drained onto the property to the east, and this is not a new condition created by the appellant. Response: Since the work was not permitted, the property owner did not provide an existing condition survey to the City prior to earthwork or alterations to the property for staff to review. When staff received multiple complaints about the property and work being done, the City conducted an on-site visit. The on-site visit showed the grade at that time was unobstructed and was not diverting drainage to the east (see photos below). However, staff also reviewed the Highover Subdivision’s grading plan to determine the drainage pattern and the intended use of the D&U. Based on this review, staff determined that the grades did in fact allow for drainage to pass between both property lines (the appellant’s east property line). Furthermore, wall “I” as built, fully blocks and obstructs overland flows by extending the full width of the D&U to the east property line, which only intensifies the amount of drainage being routed to adjacent properties. Lastly, the approved grading permit has not been closed out due to the grading not being performed as per the approved plan. This approved grading permit illustrates that the intended use was to route drainage between the appellant’s eastern property line. Therefore, staff believes its determination to deny an Encroachment Agreement for wall “I” as it altered the intended use of the D&U is correct. 2. The installed French drain system prevents the water from being diverted onto adjacent properties, instead conveying it to the street. Response: While the French drain system and draintile does aide in diverting some stormwater from rain events, it will not prevent all overland water flow from entering adjacent properties as the approved grading plan (Permit #16-12) was not followed (intended to route drainage between properties). Additional considerations and concerns staff had regarding the ability of the private drainage system to accommodate all overland water flow were: a) the drainage systems inlets become plugged, or covered with lawn debris & leaves b) the shallow underground drainage pipes are crushed c) during frozen conditions the entire draintile system would be plugged, which is entirely installed within the frost zone (less than 3.5 foot depth) d) the drainage system is connected via a “soft” connection to the city owned draintile at the back of curb along Highover Trail, and if that connection becomes inundated with sediment, roots or other obstructions the system would be plugged Since the French drain system will not adequately route drainage in all circumstances, and it alters the intended use of the D&U, staff believes its determination to deny an Encroachment Agreement for wall “I” is correct. 1 Walters, MacKenzie From:Ferraro, Steve Sent:Tuesday, October 4, 2016 11:17 AM To:larry synstelien Cc:Joan synstelien; Walters, MacKenzie Subject:RE: 6893 Highover Drive Earthwork Permit and Proposed Elevations Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Larry, This looks good now. You can stop in anytime to sign the written permits and submit payment for application fee of $50 and submit escrow of $500. All paperwork is ready and waiting at the engineering desk. I will be out the rest of the week attending classes. Thank you, Steve Ferraro Construction Manager Engineering Tech IV City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Office # 952-227-1166 Mobile # 763-286-1623 From: larry synstelien [mailto:larry.synstelien@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 03, 2016 1:18 PM To: Ferraro, Steve <SFerraro@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Cc: Joan synstelien <joan.synstelien@gmail.com> Subject: Re: 6893 Highover Drive Earthwork Permit and Proposed Elevations Steve, Thanks for the feedback. Attached is the updated plan and below are responses to your comments. Thanks again for your help. Larry & Joan On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Ferraro, Steve <SFerraro@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> wrote: Larry, 2 Looking better and better. I have a couple things for you and then I think we are good. >> Thank you for the help and input to improve the plan.  I have attached a survey of your property in pdf form for you to mark up where the boulder retaining wall are going in. The thing to note here is they cannot extend into the drainage and utility e asement. You will need this marked up for your zoning permit as well. Boulder walls are usually drawn as a series of small circles representing the boulders. >> Layer added with lot survey and boulder retaining walls.  Note that while you are allowed to put draintile in the drainage and utility easement, it is still that and may be disrupted in the future. It would be best to keep the draintile nearer the edge or outside of it if possible. >> Adjusted drain tile as much as practical to avoid encroachment onto utility easement.  Also with the draintile. A suggestion: combine some of your draintile runs as a 4” pipe will carry a lot of water. You do not need individual draintile runs for everything. If it were me I would combine two downspouts per 4” run of non- perforated. Then combine all the perforated into one run and just TEE or WYE into the main 4” run. See the attached marked up sheet. Again this is just a suggestion and you can put draintile as you have shown if you like. >> Thank your for the suggestion. Combined perforated drain tile using WYE or TEE. Kept individual 4" non=perforated drain tile for each drain spout due to run length, slope, roof area and drain spout size  Add two draintile yard boxes for yard drainage pick-up and they double as cleanouts. You can then run a garden hose or whatever through it to make sure it’s clean or to unclog if it ever becomes plugged. We had discussed the one on the other side of the plantings. Looking at the survey the is less than 0.5% of grade on that side and will be needed. >> Added to yard boxes to drain tile layer Right now I will start writing up the actual grading permit and should be able to have it done tomorrow. Make these corrections and resend them back over. Then we would just need you or Joan to come in and pay the application fee and security escrow. >> Great! Thanks for getting the paperwork process started. Let us know the status and amount. We can stop by anytime. Looking forward to the next rendition. Regards, Steve Ferraro 3 Construction Manager Engineering Tech IV City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Office # 952-227-1166 Mobile # 763-286-1623 From: larry synstelien [mailto:larry.synstelien@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 11:19 AM To: Ferraro, Steve <SFerraro@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Cc: Joan synstelien <joan.synstelien@gmail.com> Subject: Re: 6893 Highover Drive Earthwork Permit and Proposed Elevations Steve, Thanks for the feedback. The updated files are attached and responses are below. Additional changes: 1) patio area material changed to similar gravel/rock as fire pit area 2) proposed elevations file contains separate layers (erosion control, grading elevations, rock areas, boulder walls, drain tile routes, etc) Please review and let us know of any additional changes you would like to see. Thanks for your help. 4 Larry & Joan On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 10:52 AM, Ferraro, Steve <SFerraro@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> wrote: Larry, Thank you for the submittal. I do see some things that need to be corrected. I will list those below:  Remove the city to repair sidewalk in both places. I have contacted our street dept and they will be looking into getting those fixed. >> Updated proposed elevation file contains separated layers  The retaining wall lengths are not accurate. Measure those out and put in correct measurements. Also from the rocks you had onsite they measured roughly 18” and that will be used for the width. There will have to be a hardcover calculation done for the patio and the retaining walls will have to be taken into account for that. >> Measurements updated  Draw lines showing the location of 4” perforated draintile and any yard drain boxes and where it will daylight. >> Added drain tile route layer  Remove the soft connection to storm drain from sheet as this is the grading plan and that connection will require a different work in right of way permit, plus we are 100% sure that the storm drain draintile goes that far to even make this connection possible. >> Added daylight to soft connection segment  Modify the description of work to be done on the permit form to include installing 4” draintile lines, river rock fire pit area, and pervious paver patio. And remove the excavating for egress window and basement window. >> updated application text  You will need to apply for a zoning permit for the patio and boulder wall repairs and relocation. Along with that would be the hardcover worksheet. >>if the proposed earthwork permit looks ok we'll proceed with the zoning permit. I will discuss with Mackenzie and show him where you are at with things, but you should call him and get the zoning stuff squared away and permits in. 5 >> Thanks for your help Email over again after you have made the changes. Thanks, Steve Ferraro Construction Manager Engineering Tech IV City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Office # 952-227-1166 Mobile # 763-286-1623 From: larry synstelien [mailto:larry.synstelien@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 9:55 AM To: Ferraro, Steve <SFerraro@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Cc: Joan synstelien <joan.synstelien@gmail.com> Subject: 6893 Highover Drive Earthwork Permit and Proposed Elevations Steve, Thank you for stopping by last week to go over our landscaping project. Based on our discussion, please review the attached application for earthwork and proposed elevations. Let me know if you would like any additional information and/or changes. 6 Again thanks for your help with the project and were eager to get the go ahead to complete the work. Thanks, Larry & Joan CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ( ss. COLTNTY OF CARVER ) I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on August 6,2020, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk ofthe City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy ofthe attached notice ofa Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal ofthe City's denial ofan Encroachment Agreement for Retaining Watls within Drainage and Utility Easements and Variances from the City's Prohibition on Locating Structures within Drainage and Utility Easements at 6893 Highover Drive, Zoned Single-Family Residential, Planning Case File No. 2020-15 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy ofsaid notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records ofthe County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Kim T M ssen, Depu JEAI{Jf,d M SIECKLINGhgo.nr,eo Subscribed and srxom to before me thislrX^ day of {L-u^z,l ,2020.0 Notary Public llmrEt fr fi, rma Subject Ar6a Dltchlrnar This map b nether a legally reco.ded map nor a suNey and is not inten(bd to be w€d as one. This rmp is a compihiion of reco.&, intormation and data located in vaious cjty. counly. state and fede6l ofices and olher sources regalding the area shorm, and is to be us€d br relereoce purposes only. Th€ City does not wanant that the Geooraphic lnfomatton System (GlS) Data used lo pepare this map are eror tee. and the City doe-s not lepreaent that the GIS Data can be used fo( navigational. ttlddno o, any olher porpose rBquidng exactng moasuemeot of dBtance or direclion or p.ec6aon in the def*aion of oeographic Eatures. The pecedino disdaimer b p@vid6d puBuant to irinnBota StaMes 5.{66-03, Subd. 21 (2000). and $e user of tlis map aarnofll€dg€s tlat the City shall not be liable for any damag6, and erpr$3ly traives all daims, and ag.ees to debnal, indemnify. and hold harmless the city iorn any and all daim3 b.ouoht by U3er, its employe€ or aoentg, oa third pades wttich a69e out of the use/s acaeag or use ol datra provided. ITAX_NAMET tTAX_ADD_Lll <TAX ADD L2tr rNext RecordrrTAX_NAMET rTAX_ADD_Lir ITAX ADD L2r DLcLlntat This map B rcither a legally aecoaded map .lor a qrNey and is not intended to be Used as one. This map b a compilation of rEcards, info.matio.l and daia locat€d in various city, county, siale and federal olice3 end other sources re96.dirE the area thown. and is to be us€d for rehlence purpoces only. The CiV doss not wara that the Geooraphic lnionnation SyrErn (GlS) Data u3cd to prepaE tri3 map are ero. fr6e, and the City doea not epfesent thal the Gls oeta aan be used fo. navigational, Fdatang or any other purpoGe Equirino exactn9 n€asuremenl of distrnce or direction or pfec$ion in the dedclion of geogEphic ,eature5. The p.rceding disdaimer E provt ed puBuanl to Minn6ota St t.ttes 5468.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user ot this map acknowledg€s that $e City shall not be liaue tor any alama0e6. a.d exprBsly waiws all daim3, and agrees to d€lbM, indemniry. and hold harml€as the City ttom any and all daims broughl by User. its employe6 o. agenls, or third padie3 wttiah ali3e oul ot the u8ef8 accass or use of data povided Subiect Arga a t ( E)i -I t. LI i. L-l"/ rG 9o 6ErD .:_ cd, ci: OoOor F-i (u lr)o&(\o Oic! :' odE EPo)- <bjs $=E' Or.fg E' 6 o CI oot-f.- !; o -o Eo-co c =o oI =^E -a- = >, >. E a O= = (!:,J".=o E cs FBX c E :,.d c6 9l .EE !E E6E c O-= o) 99a3=9PE5E .EFb3d, E E,r p6 € ESEE: El9 b-LUE cNBcFo;o(!'-c=o.+Oo:'i;gEH #ESB,tr c .qE a o oJc .9 0) c @ c6o o9'--o6 o:>ts crc =oa3 @-(o< oi o ll g, q)'6.< o- lD : Eo- 6or: a8;eE C! -c -o Eo-l: 3l e'i E6.EEi=E 6 .lP 6PE>rrq)O)hd,>(,i :=AH€ g 6tor'].oorE h E'9 eEE E; =;EEE g EeEEa(/)F()CE -6i..it -or-C€;s_ rD.= Ji:E€ Eo-..x.E 9_Eg=!- ;Bg'eac>Y;Eo5 EE qH -c- Y oqEo< E (E -9 .9 AE: Err3fll-'= O'O.! =(l)o;* s (EiO-o-E o= 6 (5 E EE: 5:^-E EoHE-= (,, EEfE*' rirc (, a) E 9o = v'E (d-tlE e E l€6it. g EIEE;EIE Ei;EIEi!iE t EIfrEIEfi E:EE *IgHE; E !: r"EElBtlsgEEi EecI;E,ieBtE i5i|E$HIEEi o.lf E,9 o o E Ec ac Ecq) (5 -cc([ Eq'6 >; ' lt(, E o)o,ooroc{'-o(l)rn Eg 6E;g 9-a6> (Evo{)iE -c Pe XE ;E !=c):s cao6 OE,> '= 8ppb eEo= JCcEotL @P =9![ illsffiilliiiiii LEEiiiiEEEiiiiEEi l#sEisEEiitesaiEEE t a E a ! ag 3 a iti E F o. o Go o l!(,oJ ::t!oo CIg o- ij(, 'o oo.o o- (! 6 I ii) o-.= *Ef,=ao =5 c6 ..o9ccoo o=OE =ooo Btr G'o =EEDO -=4:.e.,ErE .9oEo,EDo- .E oE O.!.9E OEza oo c(!to EI' Eoo E EtcEO Ll,t! rt(, .=IEoE=o€odes.Lotr .EE6iza 6 IAo .c,Et!Eo Eo s= ocd) o-c Oooo, l'* E(! ()oSNO Re coE <bj6(!=E' O)r .:) g 6 d){o =ooNF. oi 0,! EoEo cJo o-3o 3E5aE. ?.=b g;; E p,e EC c69l .EEo - E !!=!5 s6!!2-Oc.Y E O-= (D o661>e9.IjE e {'3 E.F .= k 6 r-9 EE# PHI3aE? ;UJP FN o(!'-c=o"s o o h ap EE E EESE# c tl) o) c U) (EJ c .o6 c o Eoo o o I o B o9>='=-o6g; (rc =oro*o6 (o< =P frO -n n+tE g' : EcEs E *" 8.=:a ^E A--c.o E^ !+:'cD o- = =Il L.= f ! c O--Yo c 5 9 :o o-':6cl5 E9c-P EE qg !'eEEt= X.P I Hts EEEE EiHE3#:r Pi€ EHgEE: E HEE g f $:-E eEf;.EEE tr5Eo;-.id+ .ats.c(BeE ?6!f; so ;l. =.9 EEE*EYOE^E - CE O Ege*:3 i; EEP = etr 9'E 5E sEE s H.EE co,E E OE HEEP9 Ev)\)--6 : e.g 6'E 3A:Es ni or.9'E Pc) c o> f - O I o-C NE€lEa H g+E; E o ,EE9E :9 i9ai !xao- .cw cle SEEl e aEste orEEl $ EIgB P fr :IE EI -E or !l.9El * * EIEEI g AflE E E $gHi s$ ilEi olf E .9t o o E =oc )c Ec o) ([ coEq'5 i;i (t,EE 0)o,(5 oroce EoEsi 6E Eg2oEr6oo(Di= -cqo .!iHg; b8 =scroc)'6o b8 O.tE.>= o=E6 eEo=a?!cE or) L 24>Y IU:zii EtEtsEEilEEsii:i IiEEEHiiEiiHii 6 B E E] 6 ! t l 8 a 8 t a I ! (, E F .a o (lo o o(,oJ :,;!!oo CII o- (,c 'o toeo o >Eto(, '!o..!eto-J I ii) @.= +'EeOr!E =r E .9 l!(,oJ Eo CL e o- .6..o9CEoo 6=!,E:ooo Jr>r zz zf f f f f f f r F f - E t""88 5 5 5 5 5 E 5 5 6=68 b b E 5 UG, t G, E G, d, A, G, E C, d, G, d. E d, E s. E G. A. t G, t G, e, G, d. E c. E t A. G,uJ uJ ul uJ ul LlJ uJ l! uJ uJ LlJ lrJ a, lrJ lf/ trJ uJ trJ L! u, uJ l! El uJ uJ tfl tfJ t! rJJ Et t! Et uJoooooooooooo<oooooooooooooooooooo- ----- ----- -!4 -- I- I -I -- --- E-I- IE --o(,(,9(99(9(,e(,9(,9i9(,gggg(,g(,ggggg(9(Jg(,g(,or---:E-I-tI-IL)I-----II-I------IIr-3 o co o av) tl N m ,o m ro o o .-r o r-r =l oo .i N (o..t 6 m o m !n u) € ro r\ st rn rr = N €aO Cn O Fl (\ rn <f sf l'n ln .Yl .! .-l .-J .-l N S lr1F.6(n O OO !i -,1 N.\.l.n.n sl = lr) rn lr) ro <t t t <t <l tt t t N o ao o oo 6 6 @ @ 6 o ot d\ dt o ol o! ot or or €llr/) N N a! N N N (\ N N (\ t\l 6r (O rO r.o (o (l) (l) ll, (O (!l rcl (O \O |€| (c| (cl (O (O (O @ r.O (ct <t Ol t sl t rn <l.O <l t t oOO COd O€ 6€cO 6 F t\ l\ l\ N Fl Fl N li r-l<rtts FF,NF,F.F.NN (o (l, (o (o (o (.o (o (o € (l) (r) (o O rO (.o N F. () (!, NN t\ N u1 rA rA la t rA rA rn l.,) l^ |J) rn tJ,) ra rn rn ul !n !,1 ta o ul La rn ln ul sl !n$ <t sl F. N t. I\ F N N N F. N t\ F- F I\ F N F. F F- F ta t. t. F. F N N F. N |\ F T\ N N N F N N F F. OI T\ F T. F F N T\ F. F F I\ F. F N N N F F. F. F.r.l r< t-l r.l -l -l ..1 t-l Fl Fl Fl Fl O r{ .i .l Fi ..1 !.1 -l Fl Fl .t ri i.l ..1 ..1 Ft Ft Ft Ft ri r-td) an ln (n ln an an ln an ft1 m m Fi mln an d) an ln m .rtm dl d) an ln ln anm maY) rn d)rau)tarnLarnu1 .a l,l1 ln rn rn N t tn ur s.,t t.ll u) rn La !a l.,.) !n !n g) !n u) Ln !n !n t, !nlr1 rJl !n r.t1 r, rJ1 rJ1 r,) r.a ln !a ta ob !n rJ1 l, t ul ln !n rn rr1 u.t lJ) tJl t) u1 u) Ln u) La t rr1Z ZZ ZZ ZZZ ZZZZ.1 ZZZZ ZZ ZZ ZZZZZZZZzZZZ ^2 2 i i i i i i i i i i2 i i i i ; i i i i i i i i i i i ii i ij LrJ lrl l! lll lrl lrl lrl l! lrl uJ l! uJ - uJ uJ lrJ lrl LrJ r! lrJ uJ uJ EJ uJ trJ !r,t tfJ trJ t! uJ gJ lrJ t !J-| q't vt vl vl vl qt vl vl v| vt q't vt t ul vt t t ttt an tn v| v1 vl ta t4 ..rt vt r^ tn vl tll .!l vt t t ^ Ul V\ V'l Vl Ul ul V) Vl U) V1 Ul l./'t - ul t^ th tn t^ tA t^ ta Vl V\ Vt ah t^ th ti t/\ th tt\ t't tt =------I-I---->------tII------:EI-I--tz z z z z z z z z z z z 6 z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z. z z z <-I--I-I-I---I-------I-II------I--F () (,)U (JQ (J QU QU (J (,,) 9 (J (J (JU (JU (JU (J (J (J L,}U (J(J (J (J (J (J (J -'-i-, zz zrf -.rrrrf r F - F 3 5 t t E E 5 E 5 E 5 5 =EEb b 5 E bc. d, d. d. &. G, G,E G, G. A. d. d,t G. G. G. c, G, G. A, d, C.n d.E ca c, cz cc G, EIr.' l/J lrJ lrJ trl lrl lrJ IfJ lrl lrJ lrl lr.J lr./ lrJ trJ tJJ u.l IJJ uJ trJ lfJ ul tfJ lrJ uJ uJ !./ uJ t.l. t! uJ trJ:i o oo o oo ooo oo o : oo ooo oo oo oo o oo oo oo o o^r r - r - r !:E E t - t - r; - r - - - - - - r E E r r - - - - - - t9i (, (,(, (, I (, (J (, (9 (99 (, ; (, (9 (,(,(9 (,(, (,(9 (,(,19 (,(9 (, (, (,(,(9 (, ===i==iiiiiiiF=======iiiiii======i-l o rr} € dr ai i\r m (D m |o O 6 { O -r st o Fr N (cr N 6 an c| rn ra u1 6 (o r\ <r !n riX N 6€(,1 O FrN ln sl t rn rn N Fl Fl F{ Fl (\ <l !n F 6CrtOO O-r Fr ^l N rn.l1 <t< (n m .n ?tr t tl <t tt \t <t <i rt o o 6 o 6 € 6 6 oo o @ ot ot ot ('t or ot ol or ol otF 6l N (\l r\ N .\l N 11 i\ N a\l N (O (O (O r.o (.o (.o (O (() (l) (I) t.c, (o (o (o rO r.o lo r.o (o € (l) -= EEEEEE=gl;#E =;lE=;*===E=E;#EEEi oQooQoe)QoQooQoooQooooooooooooooooN @ Fr ql O o\ O 0O .{ (O O F O N * Fl O rtr Or aO F r.o N U) (n -{ S + Fr N .n |..1 lnO O a O n O < Q n O n a @ lJ.,) O lJ,) l,) o tt <t <l t Fl sl .'r .i F{ <' (\ N <f .r ^roooooooQoooooooooooooooooooooooooF F. F- F F Or Ol Or qr qr Ot qr I or cD cD ot or ot ol ot ('r c,t (D ot r\ 6 dr 6 0t clr ot otFr Fi Fr -r Fr <t <t t <t <t <i <l e) <l <t <t tt <t st t <l <t <t <i + -i { t + + n + + - sl <t sl <l $ m m ln m m rn m o .n l!,r m (n .n m .n m m m tn ln s d) m d) m d) .r1 l'a rn rn rJ') ul rJ''t rn rJl rr1 ul rJl ut u) ra l. ra Lr1 rrl tn Lrl tn g) u) tn rn ln l.l.) |.() u1 u) t4 ta l'o ulE ..r N ..1 N .\l (\r N 6r (\r N .\l N r\l 6t at N N a\l 6t N N ^t N N N (\i l\i ..i - N N rt - NN)N'NJI\'NA,,NN(, ur vr l, l, (,t ur gl ur5 UJ irJ iJJ lr) (rJ (,J u) ('P55S55855{(o(otoroc)(ll(o(oooooooooorJN,,5llIJNP519Nu'rPro{5(nPoooPoooo(,o -?1v?:{!Z=E=68!335rY<=4,^---L!F=;F;Eq!'-2OrZ>D<t4(12ic.,?t4=Q ='!i0i==d 06=b=s z= =- ttr iz!!- ^l rn-r<{vCttI \l ot ot cn cr\ or or (tr (n(,rl(oror.o(o(lllcl|o(o{{orcD(,rultr(Jr5urPoralourPoot<-------- >66)6)6)6)6.}6)6)E------I-<oooooooo -lErrl1mmmmrnm(1 'VV UVV ' V;oo(1o11ggo--l7t--a7t-l:,.7t-.t2ZZZ ooo()r)r)11r)()-----I---z2zzzzz2z--r------ tlt t t alhattlnlav\vtvtv,v\lnlnl lmmmml?lmmmlnzzzzzzzzz<<<3<<3<<zzzzzzzzz(rt lJ1 (, lJr vt ur (,/,r (Jl ultrurulururqln(rutt, (, ur (! (! (1, (, (, u, PPPIJPPPPF'{{\t{{\r{{{ { \,1 {l't ur ur{ (,1 \JlJ\JP ct! ctr ot 01 or or or or o!(o(o(o(oro(o(ll(c,(oP {(,1 cn ul(,l, !n 5rJlPotS(ourPOor ---------6666666ctd----r-r--ooooooooo rnmmmrnmmlnm,7VVVVVzV =q9q9qgB9z2zz PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, August 18, 2020 Subject Consider an Appeal of the Bluff Creek Overlay District Boundary Determination Made by a City Administrative Officer for Property located at the Southeast Corner of Highway 212 and Powers Boulevard Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.2. Prepared By Bob Generous, Senior Planner File No: Planning Case No. 2020­13 PROPOSED MOTION: The Chanhassen Planning Commission , acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, affirms the staff delineation of the Bluff Creek Primary Zone Boundary, And Adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision. SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant requested an adjustment in the Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD) Primary Zone boundary.  Staff denied the boundary adjustment and the applicant is appealing that decision. APPLICANT Timothy A. & Dawne M. Erhart 9611 Meadowlark Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 SITE INFORMATION PRESENT ZONING:  Agricultural Estate District, A­2 LAND USE:Office ACREAGE:  3 acres of a total site of 114.5 acres  DENSITY:  NA  APPLICATION REGULATIONS Chapter 20, Article II, Sec. 20­28. ­ Board of appeals and adjustments Chapter 20, Article XXXI, Bluff Creek Overlay District BACKGROUND PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, August 18, 2020SubjectConsider an Appeal of the Bluff Creek Overlay District Boundary Determination Made by a CityAdministrative Officer for Property located at the Southeast Corner of Highway 212 and PowersBoulevardSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.2.Prepared By Bob Generous, Senior Planner File No: Planning Case No. 2020­13PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Planning Commission , acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, affirms the staffdelineation of the Bluff Creek Primary Zone Boundary,And Adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant requested an adjustment in the Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD) Primary Zone boundary.  Staffdenied the boundary adjustment and the applicant is appealing that decision.APPLICANTTimothy A. & Dawne M. Erhart 9611 Meadowlark Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317SITE INFORMATIONPRESENT ZONING:  Agricultural Estate District, A­2LAND USE:OfficeACREAGE:  3 acres of a total site of 114.5 acres DENSITY:  NA APPLICATION REGULATIONSChapter 20, Article II, Sec. 20­28. ­ Board of appeals and adjustmentsChapter 20, Article XXXI, Bluff Creek Overlay District BACKGROUND The Planning Commission as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals may hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by a city administrative officer in the enforcement of the zoning ordinance. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, affirm staff’s Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary Zone boundary determination. ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report Findings of Fact and Decision Development Review Application Applicant's Narrative Existing Conditions Map Hydric Rating Map Letter to Tim Erhart dated February 5, 2020 regarding Bluff Creek Primary Zone Boundary Email from Jerry Reugemer Affidavit of Mailing CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: August 18, 2020 CC DATE: September 14, 2020 (if necessary) REVIEW DEADLINE: September 14, 2020 CASE #: 2020-13 BY: RG, EH, MU SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is appealing staff determination that the Bluff Creek Primary Zone boundary remain in its current location. LOCATION: Southeast Corner of Highway 212 and Powers Boulevard APPLICANT: Timothy A. & Dawne M. Erhart 9611 Meadowlark Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: Agricultural Estate District, A-2 2020 LAND USE PLAN: ACREAGE: Three Acres on Parcel of 114.5 Acres DENSITY: NA LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by a city administrative officer in the enforcement of the zoning ordinance. The board shall be empowered to decide appeals when the decision of the board is by an affirmative vote of three-fourths of the members present. A vote of less than three-fourths of the members present shall serve only as a recommendation to the City Council, who shall then make the final determination on the appeal. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant requested an adjustment in the Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD) Primary Zone boundary. Staff denied the boundary adjustment and the applicant is appealing that decision. The Planning Commission as the Board of Adjustments and Appeals may make a decision on the appeal. PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, affirms the staff delineation of the Bluff Creek Primary Zone Boundary.” Planning Commission Bluff Creek Primary Zone Boundary August 18, 2020 Page 2 g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-13 bluff creek overlay district appeal - erhart\staff report bcod appeal.doc APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 20, Article II, Sec. 20-28. - Board of appeals and adjustments. Chapter 20, Article XXXI, Bluff Creek Overlay District https://library.municode.com/mn/chanhassen/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=CICO_CH20ZO_A RTXXXIBLCROVDI BACKGROUND On February 10, 2020, the City Council adopted the 2040 City of Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan, which guided an additional three acres of the site for office use, which corresponds to the area being requested to move out of the Bluff Creek Primary Zone. On May 26, 2009, the Chanhassen City Council approved (Planning Case #2009-06) the following: A. “Rezoning of Lot 1, Block 1, from Agricultural Estate District, A2, to Office & Institutional District, OI.” Please note that the rezoning of the parcel is only effective with the final platting of the subdivision; Planning Commission Bluff Creek Primary Zone Boundary August 18, 2020 Page 3 g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-13 bluff creek overlay district appeal - erhart\staff report bcod appeal.doc B. “Conditional Use Permit with Variances to encroach into the Primary Zone and required buffer for development in the Bluff Creek Corridor; C. “Subdivision (Preliminary Plat) creating one lot, two outlots and dedication of public right- of-way, plans prepared by Westwood Professional Services, Inc., dated April 1, 2009; D. “Site Plan with Variances (Powers Crossing Professional Building) for building height and Bluff Creek Primary Zone setbacks for a two-phase, three-story, 160,000 square-foot professional office building, and up to a 731-stall, five-level parking ramp on Lot 1, Block 1 of the development, plans prepared by Pope Associates, Inc. and Westwood Professional Services, Inc., dated April 1, 2009; and E. “A sign size Variance request to permit an eight (8) foot tall sign with up to 64 square feet of sign display area. (This project never went forward for development.) Fairview Chanhassen Medical Center (Planning Case #2008-16) As part of the city’s review of the Medical Center, a two-phase, three-story, 160,000 square-foot medical center, and a 731-stall, five-level parking ramp, and signage, the city proposed granting significant relief from the zoning regulations. • The city revised the Primary Zone boundary to remove that portion impacted by grading north of the pond and that portion impacted by the construction of TH 212. • Allowed encroachment into the Primary Zone, a Conditional Use Permit with a Variance, which made the site more developable. • Approved a setback variance from the Primary Zone boundary as part of the site plan review. • Used the green space within the Primary Zone to meet the majority of the pervious surface for the office development. • Prior to the development, the city approved a land use map amendment to the area encompassing Lot 1, including the proposed right-of-way turn back area, from Residential Low Density to Office (total area 10 acres). While the Primary Zone must be retained as permanent open space, it may be used to meet a development’s required green space. Additionally, for residential purposes, this area may be included in calculating permitted density, provided it is not excluded by being undevelopable due to wetland or bluff. (This project became Planning Case #2009-06) On October 23, 2006, the Chanhassen City Council approved the Wetland Alteration Permit #06-32 for the construction of an access and stormwater pond. Planning Commission Bluff Creek Primary Zone Boundary August 18, 2020 Page 4 g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-13 bluff creek overlay district appeal - erhart\staff report bcod appeal.doc The Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD). This district was created in 1998 based upon the findings and recommendations of the 1996 Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources and Management Plan. SITE CONSTRAINTS Bluff Creek Corridor This parcel is encumbered by the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The City of Chanhassen established the Bluff Creek Overlay District by ordinance in 1998 to protect the Bluff Creek Corridor, wetlands, bluffs and significant stands of mature trees through the use of careful site design and other low-impact practices. Section 20-1255 of the Chanhassen City Code requires a conditional use permit for all development within the Bluff Creek Corridor. The Bluff Creek Corridor Primary Zone is located on the property. The Primary Zone is designated open space. All structures must meet a 40-foot structural setback from the Primary Zone boundary as required by Chanhassen City Code. In addition, no grading is allowed within the first 20 feet of the Primary Zone. Bluff Protection There are bluffs on the property. Floodplain Overlay This property is not within a floodplain. Shoreland Management The property is not located within a Shoreland Protection District. Wetland Protection There is a wetland located in the development site. At this time, no development proposal has been submitted. BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT The Bluff Creek Overlay District was created in conjunction with the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan in December 1996 to provide protection for Bluff Creek from the deleterious effects of urbanization through the promotion of “innovative development techniques such as cluster development...to measurably reduce the amount of impervious cover compared to traditional development...” Another primary plan goal was the provision of educational Planning Commission Bluff Creek Primary Zone Boundary August 18, 2020 Page 5 g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-13 bluff creek overlay district appeal - erhart\staff report bcod appeal.doc opportunities for the students of Bluff Creek Elementary School and others. The Bluff Creek Natural Resources Management Plan identifies the preservation of a continuous greenway from Minnewashta Regional Park to the Minnesota River to provide a continuous corridor from Minnewashta to the Minnesota River providing habitat, a greenway corridor and recreational opportunities as a goal. The preservation of a greenway will also protect Bluff Creek from the effects of increased runoff volume and rates. Lastly, the preservation of a greenway will help meet the requirements of the Total Maximum Daily Load Implementation. The City of Chanhassen established the Bluff Creek Overlay District, BCO, by ordinance in 1998 to protect the Bluff Creek Corridor, wetlands, bluffs and significant stands of mature trees through the use of careful site design and other low-impact practices. This parcel is partially encumbered by the Bluff Creek Overlay District. A conditional use permit shall be issued by the city for all subdivisions, site plans, and prior to the erection or alteration of any building or land within the BCO. The Primary Zone is designated open space. All structures must meet a 40-foot structural setback from the Primary Zone boundary as required by Chanhassen City Code. The first 20 feet of the setback are required to remain buffer. ANALYSIS The site is located within the Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD). This district was created in 1998 based upon the findings and recommendations of the 1996 Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources and Management Plan. The District was intended to have several functions. The primary function of the District is to protect the geomorphology and hydrology of Bluff Creek, a 303d listed impaired water, and to preserve the natural corridor from the Minnesota River Valley to Lake Minnewashta Regional Park for aesthetic, recreational and wildlife benefits. Planning Commission Bluff Creek Primary Zone Boundary August 18, 2020 Page 6 g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-13 bluff creek overlay district appeal - erhart\staff report bcod appeal.doc Bluff Creek Primary Zone The Primary Zone includes the forested area of the site and the wetlands contained therein, which included the wetland that was filled as part of the approved wetland alteration permit in 2006. The Bluff Creek Primary Zone does not only include land adjacent to Bluff Creek but also all those areas within the Bluff Creek Watershed which drains to the creek and contain significant natural areas. The corridor extends to the northeast from Erhart’s property to Highway 101. Bluff Creek itself is truncated by many four-lane roadways along its path including Galpin Boulevard (CSAH 117), Highway 5, Coulter Boulevard, Lyman Boulevard (CSAH 18), Pioneer Trail (CSAH 14), Highway 101 and Flying Cloud Drive (CSAH 61). The drainage map for this portion of the Bluff Creek Watershed is shown below: Planning Commission Bluff Creek Primary Zone Boundary August 18, 2020 Page 7 g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-13 bluff creek overlay district appeal - erhart\staff report bcod appeal.doc As can be seen, this area contributes to Bluff Creek. At one time, this area drained overland to Bluff Creek. With urban development, the drainage has been confined in certain areas to pipes and culverts. The drainage pattern on top of the bluff takes local drainage and directs it west towards Powers Boulevard. It also serves as the EOF for the large water body immediately east of the wooded area. Lastly, there is a mitigation area located northerly on the property. Planning Commission Bluff Creek Primary Zone Boundary August 18, 2020 Page 8 g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-13 bluff creek overlay district appeal - erhart\staff report bcod appeal.doc Part of the discussion should be about the effects of urbanization on channel characteristics and flow hydraulics. As the area tributary to Bluff Creek is converted from prairie and woodland conditions to urbanized conditions, the following occurs: 1. Base flow is decreased which leads to a failure to support aquatic vertebrates. 2. The flashiness of the flows increase as water is directed to the creek faster than under natural conditions. 3. The duration of the elevated flows is increased. Even with the installation of detention ponds, it still leads to a longer duration of peak flows even if the peak flow is decreased from an urbanized condition without ponds. 4. All of this leads to increased scouring, head cutting, escarpment formation and sediment loading and deposition. 5. This increased sediment load falls out of suspension downstream and leads to an embedded condition meaning there is a diminished fish habitat as the small riffles formed in the cobbled substrate disappear. This also leads to an increase in water temperature and a decrease in transitivity of light and reduced plant and plankton production. It is for this reason that we look at the entire watershed and not just that which is immediately adjacent to Bluff Creek. To facilitate the preservation of the natural resources on this property, the city proposed as part of Planning Case #2009-06 the dedication of a conservation easement over the Primary Zone north of the proposed access road and east of the office building. Planning Commission Bluff Creek Primary Zone Boundary August 18, 2020 Page 9 g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-13 bluff creek overlay district appeal - erhart\staff report bcod appeal.doc City Code specifies how the Primary Zone boundary is determined: Section 20-1555 (b) Boundaries; maps. The primary and secondary zones include land that is generally defined in this ordinance and in the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan. Boundaries as established by officially adopted city maps shall be prima facie evidence of the location and type of watershed zone. The official maps shall be developed and maintained by the planning department. The applicant shall provide appropriate technical information, including but not limited to a topographical survey, flora and fauna survey and soil data deemed necessary for the city to determine the exact watershed zone boundary. The community development director shall make a determination to maintain the officially designated watershed zone boundary or if the boundaries need to be corrected on city plans and maps based upon the data that is supplied. Data for watershed zone delineation shall be generated and provided by a qualified professional specializing in watershed management, environmental science or other related profession. The applicant may appeal the community development director's determination of the watershed zone boundary and type to the city council. (Emphasis added) Per Sec. 20-1555 of the City Code, in order to make an accurate boundary determination for the Bluff Creek Overlay district, “the applicant shall provide appropriate technical information, including but not limited to a topographical survey, flora and fauna survey and soil data deemed necessary for the city to determine the exact watershed zone boundary.” While the applicant provided both a topographic survey and a tree survey, none of these materials sufficiently show that Planning Commission Bluff Creek Primary Zone Boundary August 18, 2020 Page 10 g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-13 bluff creek overlay district appeal - erhart\staff report bcod appeal.doc the boundary should be amended. The topographic survey shows a number of areas on the site with slopes greater than 25%, and a review of the Web Soil Survey shows that highly erodible soils exist on site. These are key factors when considering areas for boundary revision as both can more easily result in drainage and erosion issues that would ultimately lead to Bluff Creek. In addition, the tree survey shows that many native, mature trees exist on the site, including red oak, bur oak, aspen, basswood, eastern red cedar, and elm. Along with the trees, there are grasses and prairie habitat in this area. This combination of native trees and grasses provides valuable habitat that serves to limit erosion, promote infiltration, and decrease runoff on that landscape that eventually leads to Bluff Creek. In their most recent submittal dated June 18, 2020, the applicant states that because the factors listed above (native trees, steep slopes, etc.) exist in other parts of the city that might be developable, that they also should be allowed to be developable. While it is true that these factors exist throughout Chanhassen, each time they are reviewed for proposed development, they should be evaluated and considered on an individual basis. This is especially true when within an environmentally sensitive corridor such as the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The area in appeal has a quality mix of native tree species including oaks, basswood, maples, aspen, elm and more. A tree survey was completed in 2019 and shows that the parcel contains a range of sizes and species indicating a healthy, regenerating native woodland. A number of large oaks exist on the parcel indicating a historically wooded environment. This significant stand of mature trees is the type of cover specifically intended for protection by the BCOD. The area is also separated by a natural topographic break from the adjacent property that received an adjustment of the BCOD line. The area currently within the boundary contains a steep knoll and adjacent low area that are naturally occurring topographic features of the site. Like the existing vegetation, these significant topographic features meet the criteria for inclusion within the overlay district and remain protected. In conclusion, given that the applicant did not provide sufficient data as to why this specific area should be excluded from the Bluff Creek Overlay District, staff recommends that the proposed boundary revisions should be denied. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, affirm staff’s Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary Zone boundary determination. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Decision 2. Development Review Application 3. Narrative 4. Existing Conditions Map 5. Hydric Rating Map 6. Letter to Tim Erhart dated February 5, 2020 regarding Bluff Creek Primary Zone Boundary 7. Email from Jerry Ruegemer to Bob Generous dated August 7, 2020 8. Affidavit of Mailing of Public Hearing Notice 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION IN RE: Application of Timothy A. & Dawne M. Erhart appealing staff’s determination of the Bluff Creek Primary Zone boundary on property zoned Agricultural Estate District, A-2 – Planning Case #2020-13. On August 18, 2020, 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 appeal preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District, A-2. 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Office Use. 3. The legal description of the property is Outlot A, Butternut Ridge Addition, Carver County, Minnesota. 4. The City of Chanhassen established the Bluff Creek Overlay District by ordinance in 1998 to protect the Bluff Creek Corridor, wetlands, bluffs and significant stands of mature trees through the use of careful site design and other low-impact practices. 5. The Primary Zone boundary is located on the subject property. 6. The Primary Zone includes the forested area of the site and the wetlands contained therein. 7. The Bluff Creek Primary Zone does not only include land adjacent to Bluff Creek, but also all those areas within the Bluff Creek Watershed which drain to the creek and contain significant natural areas. 8. Boundaries as established by officially adopted city maps shall be prima facie evidence of the location and type of watershed zone. The official maps shall be developed and maintained by the planning department. 9. The applicant shall provide appropriate technical information, including but not limited to a topographical survey, flora and fauna survey and soil data deemed necessary for the city to determine the exact watershed zone boundary. 2 10. The community development director shall make a determination to maintain the officially designated watershed zone boundary or if the boundaries need to be corrected on city plans and maps based upon the data that is supplied. 11. The information provided by the applicant does not show that the boundary should be amended. 12. The planning report #2020-13, dated August 18, 2020, prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is incorporated herein. DECISION The Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary Zone boundary appeal and affirms staff’s boundary determination. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments this 18th day of August, 2020. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Steve Weick, Chairman g:\plan\2020 planning cases\20-13 bluff creek overlay district appeal - erhart\findings of fact and decision - appeal.doc Phone (952) 937-5150 12701 Whitewater Drive, Suite #300 Fax (952) 937-5822 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 Phone (952) 937-5150 12701 Whitewater Drive, Suite #300 Fax (952) 937-5822 Minnetonka, MN 55343 Toll Free (888) 937-5150 TREE TAG SPECIES SIZE (DBH)NOTES TREE TAG SPECIES SIZE (DBH)NOTES TREE TAG SPECIES SIZE (DBH)NOTES TREE TAG SPECIES SIZE (DBH)NOTES 5001 Bur Oak 25 Dead 5002 Bur Oak 38 Dead 5003 Red Oak 12 Biologically Damaged 5004 Colorado Spruce 10 5005 Colorado Spruce 11 5006 Colorado Spruce 10 5007 Colorado Spruce 11 5008 Colorado Spruce 13 5009 Colorado Spruce 10 5010 Colorado Spruce 11 5011 Colorado Spruce 10 5012 Colorado Spruce 10 5013 Colorado Spruce 10 5014 Colorado Spruce 12 Biologically Damaged 5015 Colorado Spruce 13 Biologically Damaged 5016 Colorado Spruce 10 5017 Colorado Spruce 11 5018 Colorado Spruce 10 5019 Colorado Spruce 12 5020 Colorado Spruce 10 5021 Colorado Spruce 10 5022 Eastern Red Cedar 12 5023 White Pine 17 5024 Red Pine 12 5025 Red Pine 13 5026 Red Pine 11 5027 Red Pine 13 5028 Colorado Spruce 10 Biologically Damaged 5029 Red Pine 11 Biologically Damaged 5030 Colorado Spruce 12 5031 American Elm 10 Physically Damaged 5032 Bur Oak 10 5033 Eastern Red Cedar 16 5034 Eastern Red Cedar 12 5035 Eastern Red Cedar 10 5036 Eastern Red Cedar 11 Biologically Damaged 5037 Eastern Red Cedar 11 5038 Colorado Spruce 10 5039 Colorado Spruce 11 5040 Colorado Spruce 10 5041 Colorado Spruce 12 5042 Boxelder 14 5043 Siberian Elm 20 5044 Siberian Elm 10 Dead 5045 Eastern Red Cedar 15 5046 Eastern Red Cedar 11 5047 Eastern Red Cedar 11 5048 Eastern Red Cedar 14 5049 Black Cherry 11 5050 Eastern Red Cedar 13 5051 American Elm 14 5052 Basswood 12 5053 Basswood 14 5054 Ironwood 15 5055 Basswood 15 5056 Basswood 16 5057 Hackberry 11 5058 Eastern Red Cedar 16 5059 Bur Oak 10 5060 Black Cherry 10 Dead 5061 Eastern Red Cedar 15 5062 Bur Oak 12 5063 Black Cherry 11 5064 Basswood 16 5065 Hackberry 12 5066 Basswood 13 5067 American Elm 14 Dead 5068 Basswood 36 5069 Bur Oak 32 5070 Basswood 12 5071 Basswood 13 5072 Basswood 10 5073 Basswood 13 5074 Red Oak 15 5075 Basswood 13 5076 American Elm 10 Dead 5077 Bur Oak 20 Dead 5078 American Elm 11 5079 Basswood 10 5080 Basswood 11 5081 Paper Birch 10 5082 Eastern Red Cedar 15 Biologically Damaged 5083 Eastern Red Cedar 16 Biologically Damaged 5084 Red Oak 12 5085 Paper Birch 10 5086 Basswood 10 5087 Ironwood 17 5088 Ironwood 10 5089 Ironwood 10 5090 Basswood 11 5091 Basswood 12 5092 Basswood 11 5093 Basswood 11 5094 Siberian Elm 10 5095 Bur Oak 30 5096 Bur Oak 32 5097 Bur Oak 24 5098 Bur Oak 30 5099 Basswood 11 5100 Basswood 10 5101 Basswood 11 5102 Eastern Red Cedar 11 Biologically Damaged 5103 Eastern Red Cedar 13 5104 Basswood 11 5105 Basswood 10 5106 Aspen 11 5107 Aspen 10 5108 Aspen 12 5109 Aspen 10 5110 Aspen 10 5111 Ash 10 5112 Bur Oak 18 5113 Black Cherry 10 5114 American Elm 10 5115 American Elm 10 5116 American Elm 12 5117 Bur Oak 33 Dead 5118 Bur Oak 44 5119 Yellow Birch 10 5120 Ash 10 5121 Aspen 10 5122 Aspen 12 5123 Aspen 12 5124 Aspen 12 5125 Aspen 10 5126 Aspen 10 5127 Aspen 11 5128 Aspen 10 5129 Eastern Red Cedar 10 5130 Aspen 10 5131 Aspen 12 5132 Aspen 10 5133 Aspen 10 5134 Aspen 12 5135 Aspen 12 5136 Aspen 11 5137 Aspen 10 5139 Aspen 10 5140 Eastern Red Cedar 9 5141 Red Oak 13 5142 Aspen 12 5143 American Elm 13 Dead 5144 Aspen 10 5145 Basswood 11 5146 Basswood 10 5147 Basswood 11 5148 Basswood 11 5149 Basswood 12 5150 Basswood 16 5151 Bur Oak 26 Dead 5152 Red Oak 11 5153 Red Oak 13 5154 Red Oak 12 5155 Bur Oak 23 5156 Sugar Maple 30 5157 Bur Oak 29 5158 Bur Oak 20 5159 Bur Oak 26 5160 Bur Oak 36 5161 Red Oak 11 5162 Bur Oak 26 5163 Bur Oak 39 5164 Bur Oak 20 5165 Bur Oak 25 5166 Eastern Red Cedar 11 5167 Bur Oak 32 Dead 5168 Red Oak 10 5169 Eastern Red Cedar 10 5170 Eastern Red Cedar 11 5171 Bur Oak 39 5172 Bur Oak 27 5173 Bur Oak 29 5174 Bur Oak 30 5175 Basswood 15 5176 Basswood 10 5177 Bur Oak 34 5178 Bur Oak 26 5179 Eastern Red Cedar 17 5180 Eastern Red Cedar 19 5181 Siberian Elm 16 5182 Eastern Red Cedar 17 5183 Bur Oak 30 5184 Bur Oak 26 5185 Bur Oak 29 5186 Bur Oak 30 5187 Bur Oak 24 5188 Bur Oak 31 5189 Bur Oak 32 5190 American Elm 12 Dead 5191 Basswood 16 5192 Bur Oak 40 5193 American Elm 10 Dead 5194 Bur Oak 28 5195 Black Cherry 11 5196 Bur Oak 30 5197 Bur Oak 28 5198 Sugar Maple 10 5199 Bur Oak 25 5200 American Elm 13 5201 Bur Oak 28 5202 Bur Oak 31 5203 Siberian Elm 12 5204 Red Oak 12 5205 Red Oak 13 5206 Hackberry 12 5207 Hackberry 12 5208 Bitternut Hickory 10 5209 Black Cherry 13 5210 American Elm 13 Dead 5211 Eastern Red Cedar 15 5212 Red Oak 14 5213 Red Oak 12 5214 Red Oak 12 5215 Red Oak 17 5216 White Pine 15 5217 Eastern Red Cedar 15 5218 Eastern Red Cedar 11 5219 Eastern Red Cedar 10 5220 Red Pine 11 5222 Red Pine 14 5223 Eastern Red Cedar 14 5224 Black Walnut 10 5225 Red Pine 15 5226 Black Cherry 10 5227 Black Cherry 10 5228 Black Cherry 10 5229 Black Walnut 13 5230 Basswood 10 5231 Bur Oak 24 5232 Eastern Red Cedar 11 5233 Red Oak 11 5234 Red Oak 11 5235 Bur Oak 28 5236 Eastern Red Cedar 19 Biologically Damaged 5237 Sugar Maple 10 5238 Eastern Red Cedar 13 Biologically Damaged 5239 Sugar Maple 15 5240 Bur Oak 32 5241 Ironwood 12 5242 Bur Oak 19 5243 Bur Oak 29 5244 Bur Oak 20 5245 Bur Oak 29 5246 American Elm 10 5247 Bur Oak 21 5248 Bur Oak 24 5249 Bur Oak 25 5250 Bur Oak 18 5251 Ironwood 10 5252 Ash 10 5253 Ash 10 Dead 5254 Bur Oak 32 5255 Aspen 14 5256 Aspen 15 5257 Aspen 14 5258 Aspen 12 5259 Aspen 15 5260 Bur Oak 32 5261 Bur Oak 30 5262 Bur Oak 26 Dead 5264 Bur Oak 31 5265 American Elm 13 5266 Ironwood 13 5267 Bur Oak 29 5268 Black Cherry 12 5269 Basswood 13 5270 Ironwood 10 5271 Bur Oak 23 5272 Bur Oak 20 5273 Bur Oak 14 5274 Bur Oak 36 5275 Eastern Red Cedar 10 Biologically Damaged 5276 Bur Oak 18 5277 Eastern Red Cedar 10 5278 Bur Oak 17 5279 Bur Oak 21 5280 Bur Oak 20 5281 Bur Oak 31 5282 Red Oak 10 5283 Bur Oak 26 5284 Bur Oak 27 5285 Bur Oak 29 5286 Bur Oak 23 Dead 5287 Bur Oak 12 5288 Bur Oak 26 5289 Bur Oak 27 5290 Bur Oak 16 5291 Bur Oak 24 5292 Bur Oak 21 5293 Bur Oak 61 5294 Eastern Red Cedar 10 Biologically Damaged 5295 Bur Oak 17 5296 Bur Oak 17 5297 Bur Oak 16 5298 Bur Oak 18 5299 Bur Oak 13 5300 Bur Oak 20 TREE TAG SPECIES SIZE (DBH)NOTES TREE TAG SPECIES SIZE (DBH)NOTES Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Carver County, Minnesota Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/28/2019 Page 1 of 5496414049642104964280496435049644204964490496456049646304964700496414049642104964280496435049644204964490496456049646304964700456350456420456490456560456630456700456770 456350 456420 456490 456560 456630 456700 456770 44° 50' 4'' N 93° 33' 9'' W44° 50' 4'' N93° 32' 48'' W44° 49' 44'' N 93° 33' 9'' W44° 49' 44'' N 93° 32' 48'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 15N WGS84 0 100 200 400 600 Feet 0 40 80 160 240 Meters Map Scale: 1:2,960 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons Hydric (100%) Hydric (66 to 99%) Hydric (33 to 65%) Hydric (1 to 32%) Not Hydric (0%) Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines Hydric (100%) Hydric (66 to 99%) Hydric (33 to 65%) Hydric (1 to 32%) Not Hydric (0%) Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points Hydric (100%) Hydric (66 to 99%) Hydric (33 to 65%) Hydric (1 to 32%) Not Hydric (0%) Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:12,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Carver County, Minnesota Survey Area Data: Version 15, Sep 13, 2018 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Sep 12, 2010—Aug 2, 2016 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Carver County, Minnesota Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/28/2019 Page 2 of 5 Hydric Rating by Map Unit Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI GL Glencoe clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 100 0.8 1.7% HM Hamel loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes 90 10.2 22.1% KB Kilkenny-Lester loams, 2 to 6 percent slopes 0 3.3 7.2% KB2 Lester-Kilkenny loams, 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded 0 2.5 5.3% KC Lester-Kilkenny loams, 6 to 12 percent slopes 0 7.2 15.6% KC2 Lester-Kilkenny complex, 6 to 10 percent slopes, moderately eroded 5 4.0 8.7% KD2 Lester-Kilkenny complex, 10 to 16 percent slopes, moderately eroded 5 3.6 7.9% KE2 Lester-Kilkenny complex, 16 to 22 percent slopes 5 8.8 19.0% KF Lester-Kilkenny complex, 22 to 40 percent slopes 0 0.5 1.0% MK Muskego and Houghton soils, 0 to 1 percent slopes 100 3.3 7.2% TB Terril loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes 8 2.0 4.2% Totals for Area of Interest 46.3 100.0% Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Carver County, Minnesota Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/28/2019 Page 3 of 5 Description This rating indicates the percentage of map units that meets the criteria for hydric soils. Map units are composed of one or more map unit components or soil types, each of which is rated as hydric soil or not hydric. Map units that are made up dominantly of hydric soils may have small areas of minor nonhydric components in the higher positions on the landform, and map units that are made up dominantly of nonhydric soils may have small areas of minor hydric components in the lower positions on the landform. Each map unit is rated based on its respective components and the percentage of each component within the map unit. The thematic map is color coded based on the composition of hydric components. The five color classes are separated as 100 percent hydric components, 66 to 99 percent hydric components, 33 to 65 percent hydric components, 1 to 32 percent hydric components, and less than one percent hydric components. In Web Soil Survey, the Summary by Map Unit table that is displayed below the map pane contains a column named 'Rating'. In this column the percentage of each map unit that is classified as hydric is displayed. Hydric soils are defined by the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS) as soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (Federal Register, 1994). Under natural conditions, these soils are either saturated or inundated long enough during the growing season to support the growth and reproduction of hydrophytic vegetation. The NTCHS definition identifies general soil properties that are associated with wetness. In order to determine whether a specific soil is a hydric soil or nonhydric soil, however, more specific information, such as information about the depth and duration of the water table, is needed. Thus, criteria that identify those estimated soil properties unique to hydric soils have been established (Federal Register, 2002). These criteria are used to identify map unit components that normally are associated with wetlands. The criteria used are selected estimated soil properties that are described in "Soil Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 1999) and "Keys to Soil Taxonomy" (Soil Survey Staff, 2006) and in the "Soil Survey Manual" (Soil Survey Division Staff, 1993). If soils are wet enough for a long enough period of time to be considered hydric, they should exhibit certain properties that can be easily observed in the field. These visible properties are indicators of hydric soils. The indicators used to make onsite determinations of hydric soils are specified in "Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States" (Hurt and Vasilas, 2006). References: Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States. Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Carver County, Minnesota Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/28/2019 Page 4 of 5 Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States. Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. Soil Survey Staff. 2006. Keys to soil taxonomy. 10th edition. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. Rating Options Aggregation Method: Percent Present Component Percent Cutoff: None Specified Tie-break Rule: Lower Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Carver County, Minnesota Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 5/28/2019 Page 5 of 5 CITY OT CHAI'IHASSXN Chanhassen is a Community for Life - providing for Today and Planning for Tomonow February 5, 2020 Mr. Tim Erhart 961 I Meadowlark Lane Chanhassen, MN 553 I 7-8695 Re: BluffCreek Primary Zone Boundary Dear Mr. Erhart I am writing to respond to your request to modifl the BluffCreek Overlay District primary zone boundary map as it relates to your property east ofPowers Boulevard (PID 251550022\. The city hired WSB to review your property to determine ifa primary zone boundary adjustment was appropriate. Based on their review ofthe information you supplied, City Code, applicant request, and city and Riley Purgatory BluffCreek Watershed District documents, and rules regarding the definition and determination for a bluffoverlay district and available GIS mapping and information, the consultant recommended that a small portion ofthe site be removed from the primary zone from the east side ofthe primary zone, but the westem boundary not be modified. (See attached Memorandum from WSB dated December 10, 2019.) This recommendation is consistent with the city's review dated May 19,2016 (attached). Ifyou do not agree with this interpretation, then you may appeal this decision to the Board ofAppeals and Adjusments pursuant to Section 20-29 ofthe Chanhassen City Code. A development review application and $ 100.00 appeal fee must be submifted for an appeal. Ifyou have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (952) 227 -1139 or kaanenson{7 c i.chanhassen.mn. us. Si v Kate AICP Community Development Director Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Bob Generous, Senior Planner Charlie Howley, City Engineer/Public Works Director Matt Unmacht, Water Resources Coordinator Andi Moffatt, WSB The city will implement the revision of the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone boundary removing the area shown in green and correcting the map to show the area shown in blue, which is within the subwatershed zone draining west ofthe ridge top, on the attached Map 3, Potential Exclusion Area. Enclosures PH 952.227.1 I 00 . www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us . FX 952.227.1110 3lblro\bluff.re.k\.rlwt btdff cr..l primrry roo. r.tporE. btt.r:dod 77OO MARKET BOULEVARD .PO BOX I47. CHANHASSEN .MINNESOTA 55JI7 E.*WSbo g:\pl.n\bluff creet\erhan bluff cr.€l primary lone response lett€r.door r It,d Ef *rr*r ErrnoE -acr- or.rE tr6 !euat"rl-cEtoctt 116 !a1r':sEr*ri-Bla-rrac- { u r ri, t$ ,, 4 -/7 E ;rr .)t) )I a / rEe i:r I t T 'l s ( iii I.p s - Potd t l Erotura.rn &!. t tn trEL Ct d Ch.rtEl. ir i WSb Memorandum To: Fron: Date: Re:Review of BCOD br Erhart Property \rtBB Project No. 15183-{D0 On behalf of the Gity of Chanhassen, please see the review and determination of the Erhart Property adiustment requesl as it pertains to the City's Blufi Creek Overlay District ordinance d. Foster the creation of a greenway conn€c{ing Lake Minnewashta Regional park and the Minnesota River Valley. The greenway will serve as an unintenupted pedestrian hail, bikeway system, and wildlib conidor afioding opporhrnities for recreation, education, physical fitness and nonmotorized transportation. Bob Generous, Cig of Chanhassen Oecember 10, 2019 =oo oz lrl @ = ! z =6 o o- u,z2 = UJF IUDz ul s2 u, Background lnformrtio0 The Citfs Blufi Creek Overlay Disfict (BCOD) was developed in March 1997 as the end product of the Blufi Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management plan. The purpo€e of the BCOD is to: Protecl the Blufi Creek Conirlor, weflands, bluffs, and significant stands of mature fees through the use of careful site design, probctive @venants, sensitive alignment and desbn of roadways and utilities, incorporation of natural batures, landscaping, techniques outlined in the cit/s surface mter management plan, and the praciices delineated in the civs surhce water managemer plan. b. Encourage a development patbm that allows peopb and nature to mix spanning multiple ecosystems. Development in the coridor should be ecologir=lly desened and built around natural featurE suct as fees, wethnds, and blufrs. SEnificant natural batures should impac-t devslopment ralher han development impac{ing significant nafural Eahlr€s. The natural qualilies of the conidor should be preserved to ensure suffcient habitat area br wildlib. c. Promote innovative developrn€nt tecfiniqu€s sudl as duster development and open space subdivisions to measurably reduce the arnount of impervious cover compared to traditional de\relopment practices resulting in s(rnificant portions of a site being retained as pemanent, protecied open spsce. a e ,. lmphment the polft:ies and recommenddions bund in the Blufr Creek Watershed Nafural Resources Management Plan. Encourage cost efiective site development. Op€n space design practices can reduce infrastructure engineering and construction costs because of lot configurations, shortened strBets, and reduced utility runs. Long term cost savings can also be realized by the City of Chanhassen associated with infrastructure maintenance costs. Kr015183& .ffiDoc.tr/Euo - 120a19 - BCOO R4i(!* Coiduadt .doc( tuidi Mofiatt, WSB lratt Unmac-ht, WSB December 10, 2019 Page 2 3. ThemapoftheBcoDiscurren0ymaintainedbythecityasa.Glslayer.Alandownerdeveloper, ;,ty ;t;;il"&", or offrer may present eviden-ce as.to why the boundary should be placed in a specifi; bcation. This argument must consider the following: l.Drainageboundaries-ifthesitedoesnotdrainintotheBluffCreekthenitshouldnotbe inciuOel in he BCOD. Drainage does not need to be a direc't connection but must simpty have a hydraulic nerus _ cuMert, ditch, overland, sheet llotv or other @nveyance. Existence of natiye communities - does the area have a unque or potected nafural ,"*rra"t"ta"t"stomeettheobiec{ivesoffreBlufrCreekNaturalResourc6 Management Plan?'-'-'a."-wenanos provide surface wdar dstention, watef quality, fiood abatement habitat and educdional opPorhinities O. Wooatanos provid absbaction and decreas€ runofi to Blufi Creek They limit- "noi* ""0'p.t*e infibaton whidl can bonefit bas€ iox's within the deek' They abo provue habitat and a€!fiGtic velue' c. Praiirle and meadow areas also prornote infilffiion thereby decreasing runofi'- td;, ;."i.", and llashiness within the ctannel and other beneffis sucfi as bse flor within Blufi Creek. Topography - are blufrs, sGep slop€s defned as areas with av-erage slopes exceeding ZS'pe-dnt, or o$er hnd mat'are iuscedible to erosion and mass soil movernent presenO 2 Findlngs Drainage boundaries: The City's subwabrshed mapping is attacfied in X'p {' This ;hil"tt-p",1i"" ort," pat"ir rt"t It within thG Blufi Creok vrdershed, Bc-As' 12 iru;".riii. it e topolraprry uased on LiDAR datBd 2012 h6 et o been reviewed and [-Jt,i" "" tr.p i. rfis-subv;tgrshcd appea]s b drain to l co .nstuded pond adjacent to Fowers Boulevard and then overllow t6 the south, wtri*r then b direc'ted under a curveri unoer ure rcao b ur€st. Ther€fore, th€re is a hydrologic connection to Blufi creek. i;;;;;;ih". t a srnal .edion within 6,€ BCOD th;t does not drain to Blufi Creek and 166r"i O.iinjto ne east to Lake Rilsy, and is within the Riley Creek Subqratershed. This small area that drains east is highlighted on th€ f.P 3' The findings br the drainage boundary-a]e thet the P9OP and the portion of.this parcel n&J in Ol ACOO do€s dAin to Btuftoro€k, except br the small erea that drains to Lake Riley. Thb area could be removed from the BCOD' Native communitbs:---'". -w"una": Based on National Wotlind lnventory, city mapdng' and aif .plgtog'- t "r" i.i r.rg" wefland on the east of the efea in quGtion within the PlD, but ttra ls not w#rin tre Blufi Cre€k drainage area' There appeas to be a storm . ffid ulat;;-a*at"d imrnadiately a-diacent to Porcrs Boulevard - this area b h& consltered yr€[anO. There Oo-not Lppsar to be any other wetlands within the abr Creek suhmte|Ehed within Orb piriet. Aas€d on $is infomatbn' here do naappeartoUeweUandswithinslbper6l'ssubu'atershedthatprovUebenefit to Blui Cteek, so this land cover is not apPlicable' 1 2 K\015183{00\AdminEocs\tulEMo-'l2O41S-BCODReviewConclusionsdocx December 10, 2019 Page 3 b. Woodlands: Air photos show various areas of wooded areas or scattered trees. The landowner provided a tee inventory dabd August 2, 2019. Based on the hee inventory within the existing blufr overhy disfbt there are difiering tree specbs within the parcel. Th6e trees primarily include red oak, bur oak, aspen, basswood, easEm r6d cedar, and elm. Thes€ are native species to Minnesota. Based on the inbrmation proviled in the tee survey, it appears there is suffcient native rvoodlands that would provide valuable habitrat wilhin the Blufi Creek watershed. c. Grasslands: Ba6€d on a review of aerbl phob6, there arc grasslands in the BCOD arBa. These areas promote infiltration and reduce runofi creating benefits within the BCOD. The findings fur the presenoe d native mmmunitbs are that the area within Ore BCOD does contain native woodhnd phnt communiti€s, as well as grassland areas hat provide ben€fits to fl€ BCOD. 3. Topography: The ordinance states that slopes exceeding 25 percent shall be preseNed in a nafural state. map 2 shows arEas that have slopes greater than 25olo Addibonally, soils that are erosive in nature should be consirered. rp 4 shou6 the soils categorized based on their erodibility. There are erodible soils and steep slopes within the BCOD area within the parcel. Scils infumation uas also reviersd from the County Soil Surwy. Th€ soils wihin the exbting BCOD are a8 bllow5: . HM - Hamel Loam. KB - Kilkenny-L€sbr loems The findings regarding topography and eoils show that there are highly erodible or pobntially highly erodible soils and sGep slopes within the BCOD area wihin the parcel. Protecning and defining tfi6e areas wihin the BCOD b appropriate per the BCOD ordinance. Goncluslona The property in questbn was revieryed wih respect to tle above criterie. The PID contains a numb€r areas that uould qualiry it to b€ indud€d in the Blufi Creek Overlay Disfict. The majority of the aree in question drains to Blufi Cre€k. Of th€se ar€as, the majodty contain ether excessively steep slopes, erodible soils, or u/oodland or grasshnd habitat. There is one small area that is within the parcel but not within the Bluff Creek Suhratershed, and topography shows this area would not drain to Blufi Creek. As su€fi, thb area can be consUered for exclusion ftom the BCOD. The remaining areas appear to qualify to remain in the BCOD. lf you have any questions, please call fiE al76!287-7196 or email me al amo fat@ 6beno.corn. K1015183-000\Admin\Docs\t\rEMO - 12U19 - BCOD Review Conclusions.docx tapl -PrclectLocatlon E{h.ft PmPCttY Clty dCh.nhet, tlt{ t N A 0I 1 ind /IRflOA/ [M8,00 [ffifl [na8p trlG-,l&C2 BSflA{@il60ts+83 B0c"\a00 &M&3B&tua!{ [Rfl84 -Z L-.utdgffi&€rB @dE@ &*tuftrd&B@4ei8 &130 B@45,(7 @.AA{0 BCd5.{3 m46,{5 ftinEastEs E@4e{84 //,,l _//ru I % a3 I \ @ \ ,//,'# -@ @ @ 856 I' @@ @ e8c €@.--,----- ) €FT , 7/ -@- ,.@ @ 8S EBBS ID ) .c9d \"*- - \,'-@ --€@ n 7/ Z @sBm l I a j a,'r;l @r ,/---=-J --- - \l'----: t.-. - ', ) . EP d3.H'/p \t/ / @ I I "(9.-. i. I BBB / ili ,,i 1 {V===_-_-tl ----=----,--------- Z \ti \ll @ llt>I [nilg{ ) "o g"" Z %,ri 928, str' il't a' eo" $s6 A. i. 89?, a-:, I sp 886 ,2,./t , /:ni/ \\\\F"* @ sN@ @ q @ @ @ ,7-- 856 % @ '2 ..f,O w --r-{I €03@ SEBE z II @ '/ :.= ',;i'$1Y I tl @ 67 I7/ lt- ,-- May 19, 2016 Mr. Tim Erhart RE: Bluff Creek Overlay District Dear Mr. Earhart, This letter is meant to be illustrative of the purpose and delineation of the Bluff creek overlay District' especially as it pertains to your property located east of Powers Boulevard and north of Pioneer Trail' The Bluff creek overlay District first came into existence in March of 1997 as the end product of the Bluff Creek Watershed Natural Resources Management Plan. The plan identified five primary goals and these goals were further resolved based upon a variety of factors' They are as follows: 1. protection, restoration and enhancement of natural resources. This goal sought to divide the watershed into regions and set management goals and techniques for these regions to protect habitat and water quality. 2. Acquire and develop a continuous greenway corridor for aesthetics, recreation, water quality protection and wildlife habitat preservation' 3. Minimize and/or avoid the impacts of development pressures' 4. Provide educational opportunities for all ages' 5. Development of a Natural Resources Management Plan that spans multiple jurisdictions' These realizations were supported and/or expounded upon in the 1997 Bluff Creek Corridor Feasibility study and then again in the 2oo9 Bluff creek TMDL BioloSical stressor ldentification Report, the 2013 Bluff creek watershed Total Maximum Daily Load Report: Turbidity and Fish Bioassessment lmpairments and lmplementation Plan. Allthese reports supported the basic underlying premise that the cause for the degradation of Bluff creek is the urbanization of the contributing watershed and subsequent alterations to the flow regime. The last identified The map currently maintained by the city as a Gls layer as well as contained within the Bluff creek Natural Resources Management Plan is prima facie evidence but is not considered the definitive boundary.Alandowner,developer,cityrepresentativeorothermaypresentevidenceastowhythe boundary should be placed in a specific location. This arSument must consider the following: 1. Drainage boundaries. lf the site does not drain into the Bluff creek than it should not be included in the BcoD. Drainage does not need to be a direct connection but must simply have a hydraulic nexus - culvert, ditch, overland sheet flow or other conveyance' 2. Existence of native communities. Does the area have a unique or protected natural resource that serves to meet the objectives of the Bluff creek Natural Resources Management Plan? a.Wetlandsprovidesurfacewaterdetention,waterquality,floodabatement,habitatand educational oPPortunities. b. Woodlands provide abstraction and decrease runoff to BluffCreek. They limit erosion and promote infiltration which can benefit base flows within the creek' They also provide habitat and aesthetic value' c. Prairie and meadow areas also promote infiltration thereby decreasing runoff, scour, erosion, flashiness within the channel and other benefits such as base flow within Bluff Creek. 3. Topography. Are bluffs, steep slopes or other land that are susceptible to erosion and mass soil movement present? 4. Connectivity. Will this site serve continuation of the green corridor, a trail corridor or other recreational or educational purpose? With the original 1996 plan, the BCOD was approximately as show in red in Figure 1. The shaded green shows the current BCOD per the proposed Fairview limits. These boundaries are overlaid upon the 1991 aerial photoSraph showing the conditions that existed at the time the BcoD was created. Figure 7. Site conditions io 1997 with cufient BCOD oreo in green, oiginalwestem limit oI BCOD in red ond proposed boundory lrom Westwood exhibit in yellow. Figure 2. Site conditions in 2014 with curreot BCOD oreo in gteen, originol westem limit ol BCOD in red ond prcWed boundory lrom westwood exhibit in yellow. Given the criteria set forth for establishing the boundary, I do not see the justification for moving the western boundary as shown. A i'\Si flID [ir.9, / J -t7 s\d \J \c -qd ,L. oJ ,o I t lht+zl,,r- 4c e1r o -)"'f F\ c,ll ItrI/'o 2 '*,..J arvi tcFl) City of Ghanhassen 4 o i t Bluff Creek Overlay District I ol C3 Pdmary Corrtoor I so' eurer secondary corddor rr,- Bluff cre6k f,, g,..rr# { \u, 4 February 27 ,2012 (cB Oqt rr+rg -_Jl)LiL,()! - r__-__-____--tF11rE +l--{- Lffi --trt-r ==r+ffiI UL-I LIE-' I t ,g EsdI iPaiIo ru t a "*- ?FAIRVIEW M ED ICAL CENTER REVIEED BCOD 20O8 AERIAL 7 i ffi ',\ --tt^r o . .":- J- '9'_ r r, -#:..,-,OA'18 Ll i I I t: I '-*t"- " 'b=tr ) 'l i & \ .2.- 1 F.{.tq#*t F \ J If;E +r L *.*I Approximate Area of Conservatlorr Easement grJ sld lv,.tlrft ) I dfirr? A aittER:luT t*\lrl,.tt',\ F! ,gL* \ -.tllt Aa i {-lE f IITJt i E I x ttl, 3J0 .J" Pt n A: Com.ct d Bhnftqqtycm,SLPbE Cr, d C!riel'. I{ ftlnt E E H-l !ItI z-- -x I l -/1 Preservcd Land a,/ l 7/ 7 qlail :':t " :.1 t N IITTITI --I-Ir-ll Minor Arteaial Mirlo Collec6. Sfeet Co.Yr€<tio.r Trdil Vr6Y Conidot N Mlnor Arta.ial Minoa Collector Prir.ata Stect T.all Yre Co.ridor ffi" Pb B: Conn cbdffi4dtu:.rrEfti Prqqly Ccr.?td Sft Hdrs A N IIIIIII -t----rr F$n 2 l N o 3d 60(y PlJl A: hd.parxhfit Eltt Prqrtc@tc Sr! PbsClrcri !,rffi III tI 4 : I tIIIE ,J tandPrer+rved t.-1\ { / IIt l" ,]f- 7 l A-- \ \ Zr f.r, t..Iv\. t' 1 - ?' I ! It tl Mirb. Arterhl Minc CdL<tor Privfie Sreet Trail vl6, Corrido. IIIIIII r-r----I Fei,l I Iz"*,-!9PGO() ru'E= o+rU I9,Q> IdoA,qt e.! mgfl6 tIEi'IiiiEUr!II,i : I 'I e t1 \ trl I r t!l r!\. _- .\:. 'ii:'. r- It t d :r:l r, f' I I) r, ll '; €l J-iJL l*I { I \ It v#. \ ) I it )J \-I i'i!l EIiIPooo y'E =; o, I,, .:YXLOOL5g3aeasE08> : Lo: o 9c'rriO *"z !; 59 tz"8TE ix ,i E! :! 5 $ a P II ts T <€ €EgE P 6 b,L \fr ..t .1 ( I ,,i I n --E:En POITEPS BLVO' -- -.t'-&' --'€:)t ST {z I t 7 : I I :a I -t a k_ .? \ ;i r :t \\ ::!"\ L L. i L 4 I7\ aE-. CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ( ss. COUNTYOFCARVER ) I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on August 6,2020, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk ofthe City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy ofthe attached notice of a Public hearing to consider a boundary appeal of the Bluff Creek Overlay District boundery determination made by a city administrative officer for property located at the southwest corner of Highw ay 212 end Powers Boulevard; Tnned Agriculture (A2)' Planning Case File No.2020-13 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy ofsaid notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage firlly prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records ofthe County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Kim . Meuwissen, D eputy Subscribed and s m to befo nle (Seal) JEAII I'SIECKLING t{oaary Hflodl,h.to8da thisLff dayof ,2020 No tary Public 90#t Er.5a,z}2 ut Ae*' Subiect Area Otschl.|Er This map is neither a legally re@rded map no. a survey and is not intended to te used as one. This map is a compilation of records, informalion and data located in various city, county, gtate and federal ofices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be osed for reierence purF,oses only. The City does not warant that the Geographic lnlomatjon System (GlS) Data us€d to prepare this map are enor free, and the Cfty does not rcpresent thal the Gls Data can be used for navigational. tracking or any other purpose aequiring exactng measurement oI dBtance ol directlon or precrsiofl in the depiclion of geogEphic features. The p.eceding disdaimer is Povided pursuant to Minnesota StaMes y66.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the Crty shall not be liable for any alamages. and expressly waives all daims. and agaees to delbnd. indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and alldaims b.ought by User. its employees or agents, or third padies whidr adse out of the usefs acaess or use of data provided. Dilcbim€r This map is neither a legally €coded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one This map is a @mpilation of recods. inlormatiofl and data located in various city. county, state and federal ofrces and othea sources regarding the area shown. and is lo be used lor refeEnce puDoses only. The City does not wanant that the Geographic lnformation System (GlS) Data used to prepare thas map are enor free, and the Cfty does not repres€nt that the Gls oata can be used for navigatronal. Itacling or any other pupose requ'ring exacting measu€menl oI clistance or direction or preosion in the deprction of gpographic Ieatures. The precedang dasdaamer is provided pu6uant to Minnesota StaMes 5{66.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map actnowledges hat the Crty shall not be liable for any alamaO6. and epressly waiv* all daams, and agrees to deiend, jndemnify, and hold harmless the city from any and all daims brought by User, its employees or agents, or thid partles which arise out of lhe usefs a@ess or use of data provrded. Subject Area \" .. d) x* = 4 I ll -+-scmo- I i I ,_. <TAX_NAMET ITAX_ADD_L1> tTAX_ADD_L2> (Next RecordxTAX_NAMET tTAX_ADD_L't r tTAX_ADD_L2r il hrl GGffiI u -v* r .$ = ' :.:.:a i ' , ,. ! B e f f ee g i8i P; Eis =Ea#iEE3E sEHE*f*E asEliflEgslrE ;it|E$if,EEEE gEiIE;*EpEEF c{d 65 qo) c!:Oooa,FE (E (l)oB NE, .oE or-5.=<bjso=E' O.ef(! ! .>dl o (! =ooF.F. u; o.) -o Eo-co oc:, o (E- (.) t, 0)c.'q! >iEE9I EEE-ofos8 g EETqi;7, bi5.Eo >EQ(!E-E {n.cE>.p6E.E .Y (E(!(I)-(l)oa i tl a, .CE IBId eai s 6SEiE EPO C f :(EEf;sE 3E O- at c,F oE<f t(s E ul Etr 2(D oio(L ! odN.9 FE ;= :o olicdl 6e>9 -u, Io9 66!g9oOl! oL 9"9tL< -(l,r-c€ -*p 6 i:e= -ge E E€ee I re Ec'=-- O--C -O tr':4P6, 9::6i IE E 3:P:gfi; -8, ; E-E; EE BE AEES:HE; EEHTn g*Ei ;=EAT EIEE iHEiE5l-E E Ee 3€ 3o =-c .= o0DFO(LE.r'- CDd ofEP6#;ni..i+ a; ID (! ,/;opcoo)o o) (, q, E dr; =6 TE (tr-ooo)E =a9lna'>cE 6.99o.ro >oo 63E 1tr;o E it€ iD O.Qqr5i>o!8E! oIBo.i F 66-.c6aa_ooaE; uJ .= izE, lEilEEilsEEsiisi EiiiEiiEgiEEiEEE x;eE3q:llE;E:EEiC ;EEE$EEi;iEgflfiEI t 6 d g 3 E ; 3 g o.g o. ? ,98-E; <o Eo t! oJ {, CI eo- 9 ii,o:9E F* -O!!.t =; 06 .,o9trEoo o=itEfogo o .EF 06 o llto o GooJ ::ooo EL eA Eg a,o =g 9r.o.:o EErE9oEo =tDo- .E oEo(!.98 OEz3 6G Eoso EDc oo =EEL(0(Ea6o=IEoE=o€ (.)dp OE EE6ize 6o !E .CEt! (, loE,g :a e.EEc 3E 6EbE: q9' ,!) Ete-e E 3e E'= dor9 *s€ E9.c.=S X c 6.Qo c 5 or To orv;Ec' = E25E EEaE :gEE €E [i E EEEna3:i ;;H 1s Ei;9sBEEE; EEEi-3=HEE4 +$etj =##5ie: lI, = (l)=tr5EEg-o.i..j+ 2l=- e * -IlE=eB*: E EI: E B= E:E = tl8 ;e.9 e EollE X; o 6(l aHii;EeEoElrl R c;t P I :EilEEEEE€ 9.6 Et',t e E EEEE,T*E =s83Cfi5EEE =., oNoN o ? E ootttt!E t! .l (, ]i 3 o) o -go- cic =o(l) E IIJs.. E6.P o)EP -69-o 39otI-c (., EOl,o- 9_a!:5h6ao =EO_= ='t E o E .9.i Jo For6g EOci: Oo9PF-€ OQodN! NE' -f asor- <bj-s(!= EC O)! .t! !2dl 0) o oOFt- U; o-o Eo.c oE:o oI a ErurE.Yo ciE-o=ooPo EEEqi;6 bi5 Eo >EQ (oo -E 6.99>. Po6'E -y (! E EaaIo oS EE E e:6 E.? EEEE tst E€i (B Ero*tD h tt)o o.:g E< oiD oF rszrN tsoE uJ Ei: oi -o a; :o cr4 N; '€!a c>bEOo oa 9o 6! 95 "!5< Y2&co c,..o9EEoo o=OEfooo o;o a; o =-J-o= '6 .gr €9 eP EE 8Eo,q oE *E62 PE l; E' U; o Go, ,/;o!q q)otG .E oo E oE =co G.q oc o) o !c(0 o Eo o .=o E o o. tn ;ul2 E a a d t , tu .EF c6 (l, t!6 o ll'(., oJ i; Gtto.Lo A ij ,o CIo o-> .9a4 o GooJ ioo.o o. o 6 I ii)o.= -sEIO E=EO =5 zzzzzJJJJJoo600J<<<<<EUJUJUJUJUJIFFFFF"tn th v1 t, u1 uJtlJ l.J LlJ El trJ>=>>>=oooooo!2o--II-o-{ .-r ,r -r -r .r .r!!r,!(oN@orN I Ft Fl .i d .'{ lY)(a r.t F.l !.1 i-.1 r-{ -l rYt rYl tn tn tn Lr1 -l -i ..{ H -{ Ch(o(o(o(o(og-1 (lt0909o9o909H 09 NFFt\F.ooiF. anm(tmdt3@mLa r.6 r,t Ln rn r: F.t U.!!nlJ)LaLn.nfl'J!|.n ZZ.Z.ZZ6qZ>>>=Ezf;Er - r - -s ul-.z2zzz4-zj rrJ r,u uJ ur u, ,.i = Lrlttt 0t tt tt tl\ - > A ^'t^ th t^ th ah = - tn =<<<<<a-'<-,zzzzz=<2.)<'< < < < < !2 4 <<f---I.(F-F(J(JU(J(JGi,U z GF Fl(n(oo_>111111 d a ;;;;; "*EUEEe>t= -tqlrtinLoLa<!9Ort!uJtrJuJuJrE/-a ^l ===>2==<Hooooo iga--I--,.O4lF{ Fl Fl Fi t-l 1/! - Fl)<U)(ONAOIGIIJ'lFl< rt .r d !i r-{ d) Crl (D F Fl F{ r.l !i Fl N (l) (rl i ai,* =u.Ja(E=. a =[-f8 ? >eQr3 ; r;i=u c, .o=lZi E f3E= -r H=i*Zd!2-o=d==d3;EEE:5iI<-d>sra<OI r=;gE=E;EooooOOo..r(oN@oroo6tNFr !-r r-r r-{ N (D (o oooooooooooooo(o(oLnr.{ !.{ F{ Fl r< N a! lJ1 -(O(O(O\O(OOO-lz ir t\ gr r.t1 (,t !n La Ln da.lNc.lNNN(!l\l PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, August 18, 2020 Subject Approval of Planning Commission Minutes dated July 7, 2020 Section APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No: D.1. Prepared By Nann Opheim, City Recorder File No:  PROPOSED MOTION: The City of Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the minutes from its July 7, 2020 meeting. ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Summary Minutes dated July 7, 2020 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated July 7, 2020 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES JULY 7, 2020 Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Weick, Mark Randall, Doug Reeder, Laura Skistad, Eric Noyes, and Mark Von Oven MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael McGonagill STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; MacKenzie Walters, Associate Planner; Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer; Richard Rice, IT Manager; Matt Kerr, IT Support Specialist; and Jean Steckling, Senior Admin Support PUBLIC PRESENT: Phil Johnson 9116 34th Avenue, New Hope Dan Burke 225 West 77th Street Charles Levine 8420 County Road 10E PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) FOR FOOD PROCESSING AND OUTDOOR STORAE FOR SIX SILOS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2100 STOUGHTON AVENUE (HEMP ACRES). Bob Generous and Erik Henricksen presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Weick asked for clarification on the height of the existing building in relation to the proposed height of the silos. Commissioner Reeder asked that the applicant comment on ownership of the silos, if there are any other similar operations in the area and if there are any hazards associated with this operation. Commissioner Skistad asked if water service is adequate and asked for clarification on the amount of discharge. The applicant, Charles Levine, owner, founder and chief operator of Hemp Acres answered questions raised by commission members regarding the silos, other similar operations in the area, hazards, and discharge before explaining and showing samples of the products he will be producing. After questions from commissioners Chairman Weick opened the public hearing. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. Reeder moved, Randall seconded that the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit to allow Hemp Acres to process food products from hemp seeds and allow the construction of six 35-foot tall silos based on the plans prepared by Phillip D. Johnson, Architect, dated April 4, 2020, subject to the following conditions: Planning Commission Summary – July 7, 2020 2 Building: 1) A building permit will be required for unit improvements, silo installation, and unit remodeling. Engineering: 1) If an intensification or increase in use or an expansion is requested for the site, a traffic analysis will be required to determine the volume of traffic the new site will generate. 2) Any future intensification of the site usage shall investigate the use of the driveway access to Audubon Road. Natural Resources: 1) The applicant shall work with city staff to finalize a planting plan. 2) The applicant shall incorporate a landscape buffer along the north side of the building, which includes Autumn Blaze maple, Siouxland poplar, Black Hills spruce and Amur maples. 3) The front planting areas shall have wood mulch as a ground cover. 4) All proposed parking lot landscape islands and peninsulas shall comply with City Code. Planning: 1) When the site is redeveloped or the usage intensifies, the existing pickle tanks shall be removed from the property unless they are used as part of the building tenant operation. Water Resources: 1) Updated plans illustrating the total land disturbance activities associated with all site improvements shall be submitted for review and approval by the city. And adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A SETBACK VARIANCE AT 7701 FRONTIER TRAIL. MacKenzie Walters presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Noyes asked about the level of difficulty in changing the width of the eaves. The applicant, Dan Burke, 225 West 77th Street explained how he would like to have a one foot overhang on the porch to match the rest of the house that was built in 1896. Chairman Weick opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Summary – July 7, 2020 3 MacKenzie Walters summarized an email received from Jack and Paula Atkins in favor of this variance request. Chairman Weick closed the public hearing. Noyes moved, Von Oven seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approve a 40 foot front setback variance for the construction of an open porch subject to the conditions of approval as amended and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decisions. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE CHAPARRAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) ORDINANCE TO CORRECT A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Chairman Weick called the public hearing to order. No one spoke and the public hearing was closed. Von Oven moved, Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends City Council approve the amendment to the Chaparral Planned Unit Development-Residential zoning to correct the internal inconsistency and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Skistad noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 16, 2020 as presented. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Bob Generous notified the commission members that the next two Planning Commission meetings have been cancelled due to no applications. Reeder moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JULY 7, 2020 Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:15 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Weick, Mark Randall, Doug Reeder, Laura Skistad, Eric Noyes, and Mark Von Oven MEMBERS ABSENT: Michael McGonagill STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; MacKenzie Walters, Associate Planner; Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer; Richard Rice, IT Manager; Matt Kerr, IT Support Specialist; and Jean Steckling, Senior Admin Support PUBLIC PRESENT: Phil Johnson 9116 34th Avenue, New Hope Dan Burke 225 West 77th Street Charles Levine 8420 County Road 10E Weick: Thank you for obliging us with that. As you have noticed this is a little different meeting format for us. We’ve done it for the past couple of meetings but please be patient as we work through any audio or video difficulties this evening. Again I would remind all commissioners please don’t hold any chats, discussions or text messages on the side through the Zoom application. All of our discussions need to be public and on the record. Tonight we have 3 public hearing items on the agenda. Staff will begin with the presentation of the item. At that time we will have time for comments or questions from the Planning Commission. Then the applicant will be able to make a presentation. After the applicant makes a presentation we can ask questions of the applicant or get clarifications on the project directly from them. At that time we will have a public hearing. In the public hearing we will summarize any emails we’ve received. For the record anyone here present in the chambers may come up to the podium. State their name and address for the record and make a comment on the item. And we will also have the opportunity for telephone calls. The telephone number will be prompted at the bottom of the screen at the appropriate time. You may call in and make a comment as well if you so desire. Once everyone has had a chance to be heard through one of those 3 methods we will close the public hearing. The commission will then again have time for comments and discussion amongst themselves and then we can take a vote on the item. We’ll do that for all 3 items this evening. Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2020 2 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP) FOR FOOD PROCESSING AND OUTDOOR STORAE FOR SIX SILOS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2100 STOUGHTON AVENUE (HEMP ACRES). Weick: The first item on our agenda is item number 2020-09 and will be in front of City Council on July 27th. It is a request for a conditional use permit for food processing and outdoor storage located at 2100 Stoughton Avenue and the name is Hemp Acres. And is that Mr. Generous, yes. We’ll turn it over to you Bob. Generous: Chairman Weick and commissioners. I was hoping that our presentation would come up on my PC. There we go, thank you. As you stated Planning Case 2020-09 is a conditional use permit request for food processing operation to process industrial hemp seeds into hemp oil and protein powders. This, the other part of the conditional use is for the outdoor storage of they propose to have 6 silos on the back of the building and so we wanted to address that upfront so people know that that would be coming. The applicant is Hemp Acres, LLC. The owner is Capstone Investors LLC. As you stated the public hearing is tonight and it goes to City Council on the 27th. The property is located at 2100 Stoughton Avenue. It’s surrounded on 3 sides by the city of Chaska. However it is in the city of Chanhassen. In 1958 Gedney Pickles consolidated their pickle operation at this site. Since then they were in continuous operation until 2019. Then they shut down their operation and the building has been vacant until earlier this year and then we have the easterly tenant moved in on approximately 40,000 square feet and they store Bradley Army vehicles in that building and then this is the westerly 50,000 square feet and they’re going to create the Hemp Acres processing facility. The legal description is quite convoluted and it includes land down on the Minnesota River valley. If you look at the, oh I should have. These sites used to be ponds for the treatment of the brine from the pickle operation so all the manufacturing waste or water were sent down there for treatment. The City of Chaska provides some treatment for the office portion of the building and so there is limited capacity that they provided. The applicant and the property owner need to contact the City of Chaska regarding all that and we’ve had Hemp Acres has had their SAC determination through the Met Council and they owe approximately one SAC unit which will be paid to the City of Chanhassen and then we will forward it to Chaska so. Again the request is for a conditional use permit for food processing and outside storage with the six silos on the westerly 50,000 square feet of the building. The River Valley Business Center is approximately 180,000 square foot building. This would be the second unit that’s occupied. There are approximately 90,000 square feet in the middle two additional units that would, would be able to be occupied for office industrial warehouse uses. However the limitation on those uses would be the ability of sanitary sewer services. The site does have it’s own well so that’s where all their water comes from. There is a potential if Chaska does not have sufficient capacity that they could create an onsite subsurface treatment system and that would be determined as future development comes in place. The property is zoned, is guided for office industrial uses in the City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan. It’s zoned industrial office park and food processing and outside storage are conditional uses in the IOP district. Basically the 50,000 square foot unit is on the west end. Previously there was Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2020 3 an open covered dock area that has been removed from the site so it’s no longer there. In the future they’re looking at providing a parking opportunities on the west side of the building. When they propose to do that we will require that they come in with the plan and show us how they’re going to comply with city ordinance for landscaping and parking stall depth and drive aisle width. Access to the site is off of Stoughton Avenue. There’s a chain link fence that has an opening gate that they’ll come in through. The south portion of the building would be for sending out their, what they’re manufacturing. The north side and the silos would be on the northwest corner of the building and that’s where they’ll bring the raw hemp seed, industrial hemp seed into the property. I’ll have the applicant give you more discussion on their operation when they come for their presentation. Again this easterly run is where the armor vehicles are stored and then these two units are vacant right now. And this is a schematic aerial view. They’re proposing some changes to the entrance here to put in the handicap ramp and the addition of the silos on the northwest corner of the building. Their operation would be, the seeds would come in from the northwest corner and go through their conveyance system to the different processing operation. Lots of storage and warehouse in here. Here’s a distribution area that the trucks would take the stuff out. They have a small office portion of the development. We have calculated to see that they comply with city ordinance for parking and they have more than they need for this operation even if it was full capacity. And then Erik is going to discuss the site access, the road system and a little bit on the utilities so he’s on Zoom. Henricksen: Yeah, thanks Bob. Mr. Chair and commissioners, good to see everybody again. Just want to ask everybody hear me okay? This is a new laptop so I just want to make sure I’m coming in fine. Okay, good. So the review of this conditional use permit was unique in the city’s engineering and public works departments due to the site’s location and the surrounding public facilities. As Bob mentioned the site sewer is serviced by the City of Chaska. Water is had from a private well and there is no Chanhassen right-of-way abutting the property. As seen from this slide, the site’s primary access is on Chaska’s portion of Stoughton Avenue even though Chanhassen’s city limits encompass the site. The only right-of-way, the immediate area that is the City’s is a short section of Stoughton. It’s highlighted there in purple. And that section connects to Chaska’s section of Stoughton which then connects Carver County’s Flying Cloud Drive so it’s kind of a pass through right-of-way there. With that in essence there are no direct Chanhassen public services that the site utilizes even though it is fully within the city limit. With this unique situation engineering and public works staff reviewed the conditional use permit based mainly on the intent of Section 20-232 regarding transportation and traffic requirements of conditional use permits. This section essentially limits conditional uses that will create excessive traffic. Based on the proposed use the site does not appear to meet the threshold of excessive. If the site, if the site’s used as either 100 or more vehicle trip ends in any one hour or 750 trips per day a traffic impact study or some traffic analysis will need to be performed to further assess the impacts of the surrounding road network and to determine if the site was generating excessive traffic. As it is the judgment of staff and based on the proposed use there will not be nearly that amount of vehicular traffic. Staff has recommended that the CUP be conditioned that if an intensification of use of the site or expansion of the site is ever proposed then the applicant would be or should be required to provide such a traffic study. This is also in Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2020 4 align with the County’s review memo provided in your packet. Short and sweet but with that I will turn it back over to Bob. Generous: The one other thing about utility accessibility is the City did in 2015 look at a potential for City of Chanhassen providing services and the study determined that it would be feasible for the City to do it. However this is at the end of the line and it would take at least 3 lift stations to make this work so the timing on this operation is indeterminate right now but just to know that the City does have a potential as this is, if in the future to serve this with city services. Additionally as part of that look at, we’re looking at the potential for extending Engel Boulevard down to the northeast corner of this site to service this whole area. The utility extension would serve all the properties in Chanhassen, not just this one so there are other properties to the east that could connect to it and that as part of the 2015 study we did up guide several of the parcels in the area so they could develop at a more intensive and suburban type use so. With that staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permits for the food processing operation with outside storage of the six silos subject to the conditions of approval in the staff report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendations. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Weick: Thank you Mr. Generous. That was a good presentation. I have one quick question and then I’ll turn it over to the planning commissioners. Do you know the even relative height of the existing building that’s there? Even if it’s an estimate. Generous: I believe it is approximately 30 feet. Weick: Oh it is. Okay. So these silos are going to be roughly the same. Generous: Yeah a little bit higher. Weick: Okay. Generous: That one elevation sort of showed you the relative appearance of the units. Weick: Okay, that’s all I had. I will, I’ll just let our planning commissioners jump in right now if you do have questions for city staff. Reeder: Mr. Chairman? Weick: Yes, thank you. Reeder: Are these, who will own these tanks that we’re going to build? Generous: The applicant. Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2020 5 Reeder: The applicant but do they own the, are they buying the land? Generous: No they’re leasing it is my understanding. Reeder: So they’ll lease the building or…something that they’re leasing. Generous: Yes and they. Reeder: If they can maybe talk about that a little bit in their presentation. Weick: Other questions for staff? Reeder: All of this variances for outdoor storage is there any outdoor storage allowed? Over this one? Generous: That’s not part of their request. If they were to do additional storage they would have to come in for a separate conditional use permit. Reeder: Okay so just the tanks. Generous: Just the tanks and then of course their semi trailers will be on site but that’s part of their normal operation. Reeder: And if they could cover in their presentation whether there is any kind of an operation like this anywhere else. Just give me… Weick: Thank you Commissioner Reeder. Other comments for staff? Questions? Reeder: I guess I’ve got one more Mr. Chairman. Weick: Yeah please. Absolutely. Generous: The Fire Marshal has been intermittently involved with this so they’re looking at, they’ve already submitted the building permit application so we could get that review going and the Fire Marshal’s involved with that and the building official so and we’ve also had communications with the City of Chaska so. Reeder: Okay maybe they could cover that in their presentation too. Whether there’s any hazard to this operation. I’m really done now. Weick: Alright, fair enough. Any other questions for city staff from the Planning Commissioners? Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2020 6 Skistad: I guess I have a question. Weick: Yeah, sure. Skistad: Bob how do the wells work? I mean how much water does a well service? I mean I’m assuming it’s, it served Gedney so it probably will be more than adequate. Generous: I believe yes it’s more than adequate. They will not use as much water as the Gedney operation did so. The exact numbers I’d have to ask the building officials. Skistad: And then the holding pond would hold the 250 gallons of discharge? I read somewhere the process discharge was 250 gallons per day. Maybe that’s a question for. Generous: That would be for the applicant. Because they didn’t have any discharge from the manufacturing of the Gedney site but they’re also receiving less sewage to this operation so that’s part of the discussion they need to have with the City of Chaska. Skistad: Chaska, okay. Generous: Because their questions are where is it coming from? What are the connections and. Skistad: Okay. Generous: Which we don’t have, there’s no data like that available in our file so, because everything’s been done through them. Since 1963 they’ve had this agreement in place so. Skistad: Okay. Weick: Thank you Commissioner Skistad. We are open for other comments or questions for city staff at this time. And hearing none at this time I will invite the applicant to come forward. I will summarize, I’m sure you cover some of this in your presentation but I captured four kind of questions. One was is there anything similar in the area. Any type of similar operation. Could you clarify the silos that are being built on leased land. Is there any significant hazard to the operation? And then is there discharge and if so what is the gallon per day and where does that go. Charles Levine: Thanks for having me. My name’s Charles Levine, owner of Hemp Acres. Founder and Chief Operator. So we’re currently located in Waconia on our farm operating a 1,600 square foot facility. So to answer the question about the bins, they are pre-assembled. Meridian Bins is what we’d most likely be using but they’re steel, smooth wall hopper bins that come on a semi trailer and erected in place so it’s not something that’s built. We can physically take them on and off the site. And of other operations, I’m the only one in Minnesota for sure. There’s one operation in Carrington, North Dakota that specializes in flax seed oil that has now Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2020 7 started doing hemp but this is a brand new crop. Brand new industry and yeah I’m the first one to stick my neck out I guess. Weick: Fair enough. Charles Levine: And sorry was. Weick: Hazards and the. Charles Levine: Oh the only thing would be the milling of the hemp cake which is what we turn into protein powder and that’s all closed controlled systems with dust collectors so. Weick: Okay. Charles Levine: Yeah they’re all enclosed. Weick: And is there any type of water discharge as a result of the operation? Charles Levine: No this is all dry processing so the only use of water is for sanitation, cleaning of the equipment after we’re done using it so our water usage is quite minimal especially compared to what Gedney was doing. I think they were going through like a million gallons a week. Something like that. Weick: Okay. And then just anything you want to tell us about the operation and just kind of what you’re doing and. Charles Levine: Yeah so I brought a few samples. So this is hemp seed. You guys are welcomed to take a look at it but basically the industrial hemp plant is produces one of the most nutritious grains on the planet and through our process we take, it’s a very high oil content seed so we use a cold screw press. Use as really low temperatures to preserve all of the omegas in the oil and we take that through filtering and refining and then we bottle up our own retail, 12 foot ounce bottles all the way up to 55 gallon drums and 250 gallon totes and hopefully tankers as we expand. And so it has a really wide diverse range of applications. Everything from industrial lubricants to like nutripheuticals, cosmetics, salad dressings, hair products so that’s the oil. And then the cake is what is the by product of when you squeeze the oil from the seed which is rich in protein and fiber and so we take that, really similar to like a soy bean operation where we take that. Mill it. Pulverize it. Sift it and then we grade out certain different levels of protein which are food grade proteins that vegans, vegetarian plant based options. It’s like whey protein but all from seed. And then there’s also the de-hulling of the seed where you’re breaking off the outer shell which is the inner heart. That can go straight into bags. You can also take that and make milk out of it too. And you can take the whole seed and roast it. Add different flavors just like sunflower seeds so these are all the applications that we would be using with the hemp grain and contracting to start we’ll be doing 5,000 to 10,000 acres of local growers in the area to grow Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2020 8 industrial grain for us and bring it to us. Process and turn it into food and all sorts of different applications. Weick: Awesome. Can you, are you able to take some questions? I assume there might be some from the commission. I will kick it off and I’ll give people a chance to maybe collect their thoughts with a couple of questions, and I think you answered this but are you farming anywhere or no? Charles Levine: Yes. Weick: You are? Charles Levine: On our farm in Waconia. Weick: Okay. Charles Levine: We’ve set up, I’ve been growing since 2016 and I first got into this learning how to properly grow it and process it so we do, we also do CBD production on the farm and all of our cannabinoid production will stay on the farm. The grain side of the operations will be leaving the farm. Weick: And then you’ll also contract with other farmers? Charles Levine: Yes, yep. Yeah I won’t be supplying the grain for our process. Weick: Oh okay. Charles Levine: We’re looking to contract with a number of different farmers. Weick: Okay, got it. So that answers a couple questions there. And then do you do like aerate or, and I’m thinking more from like anything motorized like drying or aeration within your silos in order to keep that seed from mildewing or anything? Charles Levine: No, so that’s all done on the farm. Weick: Okay. Charles Levine: I would treat it just like any other commodity. Weick: Okay. Charles Levine: A farmer would harvest it. Put it in their bin. Dry it down to 9 percent moisture so we only accept grain at 9 percent. Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2020 9 Weick: Okay. Charles Levine: And then at that it’s stable. We don’t have to do any further drying and the rate at which we’re processing, we’re emptying one bin. Filling another bin. Emptying that bin and processing it so it never, it’s very rare that it’s sitting there stagnant. Weick: Okay, perfect. With that maybe I’ve given a chance for the commissioners to collect their thoughts and we’ll certainly open it up for questions at this time. Just go ahead and jump in if you have a question. Skistad: My question originally was on odors. Some of the staff mentioned that they did travel to look at the facilities and that that sounds like with only 9 percent moisture in there that really isn’t going to be an issue. Charles Levine: No. The odor portion of the process would come from like CBD production which is very similar to marijuana so that skunky aroma is really prevalent in those types of biomass processes but with the grain it’s really there’s no scent. No odor. No taste really. It’s a very bland product. You can smell that bag. It doesn’t really smell like anything. Skistad: Yeah. Thank you for bringing the samples in. Reeder: Mr. Chairman? Weick: Yes. Reeder: Is there a by product? Is everything you, is there anything left over after you… Charles Levine: Everything is used. Nothing goes to waste. Reeder: So there’s no? Charles Levine: No, in fact there. Reeder: Anything going to the dump. Charles Levine: No, no. In fact if the cake, if we can’t turn all of it into protein powder it’s an incredible source for livestock feed so any excess would be going to feed lots, yeah. Reeder: That’s pretty nice to be able to use it for other things. Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2020 10 Charles Levine: The only waste from the process is the filter aid which are minerals that we add to the oil to do the filtering and even that has been shown to have re-uses and applications either as like a fertilizer or feed. Reeder: And if you couldn’t find a place for that what would you do with it? Charles Levine: I would haul it to my farm and spread it on my field. As fertilizer. But mostly it’s, everything has an end use. Reeder: I did have a question earlier. Was there any other outside storage that you’ll need? You’re not asking for anything. Charles Levine: No. No not at this time. Just grain bins. Reeder: Okay. Maybe a question for staff. If we did have an odor problem how do we deal with that? Generous: If we discovered an odor problem we would work with the manufacturer to address that either through a filtration system, whatever. That’s where that, what our CUP is talking about. What are their plans for mitigating any odors in there so. And again we don’t anticipate that this processing would create anything that we would need to address. Reeder: It’s got to be better than pickles. Generous: Definitely. Weick: Thank you Commissioner Reeder. Any other questions for our applicant from any other commissioners in the Zoom meeting at this time? Von Oven: Commissioner Von Oven here. If we’re going to cover sight through the height of the silos and odor through the comparison to pickles we should probably cover sound so can you just make some comments on whether or not we would expect any greater noise in the area for the people that are living around? Is it all self contained within the building or is it literally just the sound of trucks coming in and out bringing hemp seed? Charles Levine: Yeah so the loudest piece of equipment would be our air handlers which would sit out by the bins and I provided Bob with noise data sheet from our equipment manufacturer. It’s about 90 decibels. We can enclose that in a little hut basically. Many farms do that. They have air handlers on their farm and they just build a shed around to, it will cut the sound down by half at least. So we can do that. We’ll probably do it anyway for our own peace of mind. Generous: That’s the information I found out too based on what they provided. They meet OSHA requirements but if they can cut it down and…says that I calculated that the noise level at Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2020 11 the property line should be about 66 decibels which is conversational so. Well right next to the equipment it would be about 85 to 90 decibels. That’s still within the guidelines so. Charles Levine: It’s a loud electric motor. A 75 horsepower motor so it draws some power but again very easily contained. Von Oven: Great, thank you. Weick: Thanks Commissioner Von Oven. Any other questions for our applicant at this time? Thank you everyone and hearing no questions, thank you for obliging us with, teaching us a little bit about your operation and what you’re going to do on the property. I think it’s a neat business so thank you. Charles Levine: Thank you. Weick: And thank you for showing us the samples as well. For those of you that weren’t in the room there’s samples of the cake and the seed and some of the oil final products that are sold. With that we will open the public hearing portion of tonight’s item. I don’t believe we received any email correspondence on this item. Generous: No. Weick: No. Anyone present in the chambers who would like to come forward and make a comment is free to do so at this time. Generous: We didn’t even receive a phone call on this one except for the City of Chaska. Weick: Okay fair enough. Seeing nobody come forward and having nobody on the phone lines, in front of you there Mr. Generous? Okay. I will close the public hearing portion of tonight’s item and open it for commissioner discussion. Comments. Motions. I will open the floor. While you might be collecting your thoughts I guess I will say that again that you know based on that this processing really has no, you know no leftovers to it really. They’re using everything that they can. A great opportunity I think. You know I don’t know a whole lot about the business but it certainly sounds like a strong business plan and certainly a market that is growing. I mean I think it’s nice to have someone using that location. That old location for a new purpose. And you know all the questions were answered. I think we talked about, potentially I was, Commissioner Von Oven I was also thinking when I was talking about like aeration or drying of those outside silos I was thinking like will there have to be motors or noise or things running so it doesn’t sound like that’s going to be an issue for us. So it certainly checks a lot of boxes for me. Other comments from commissioners? Reeder: Mr. Chair I do have one more question which I forgot to ask. Is Minnesota a great place to grow this stuff? I mean do you think you’ll have an ample supply? Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2020 12 Charles Levine: Absolutely. So little history of hemp. There was the largest hemp processing facility in the world was located in Hutchinson and if you talk to any old timers around here they’ll say oh yeah my dad grew hemp for the war. And you know back then there was, cannabis has a really interesting history but specifically for the war they re-legalized it. Subsidized it heavily and Hutchinson was the largest facility. It was called War Hemp Industries and farmers all across the state grew it and brought their hemp there and to another couple hemp mills in the state but now it’s 3M’s facility in Hutchinson. And so yeah I mean the history of hemp, the Declaration is written on hemp paper. The old 10 dollar bills that showed hemp. Yeah there’s a lot of history and it grows really well. Invite you to my farm. You can see how well it grows so yeah. Oh and one other thing I’d like to mention too. The stalks, that’s what you hear hemp is good for rope but that’s where it comes from is from the stalks and we have anticipations of later down the road to be developing processes for the fiber stalks to turn into batteries, concrete, plastics and composites. You can make batteries that are 20 percent more efficient than with the mien with hemp fiber. So it’s a totally different way of looking at agricultural crops. We can be growing batteries and houses and plastic so. Weick: That’s really cool, thank you. Thank you Commissioner Reeder. Other comments from you? Reeder: I’m done. Weick: Any other discussion for the meeting or I can certainly entertain a motion. Reeder: Mr. Chairman I would move that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit for food processing operation with outdoor storage for six 35 foot silos subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Weick: Thank you Commissioner Reeder. We have a valid motion. Do we have a second? Randall: Second. Weick: We have a second from Commissioner Randall. Before we vote any final comments on the item? Hearing none we’ll go ahead and have a roll call vote. I’ll call your name and indicate either aye or nay. Reeder moved, Randall seconded that the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit to allow Hemp Acres to process food products from hemp seeds and allow the construction of six 35-foot tall silos based on the plans prepared by Phillip D. Johnson, Architect, dated April 4, 2020, subject to the following conditions: Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2020 13 Building: 1) A building permit will be required for unit improvements, silo installation, and unit remodeling. Engineering: 1) If an intensification or increase in use or an expansion is requested for the site, a traffic analysis will be required to determine the volume of traffic the new site will generate. 2) Any future intensification of the site usage shall investigate the use of the driveway access to Audubon Road. Natural Resources: 1) The applicant shall work with city staff to finalize a planting plan. 2) The applicant shall incorporate a landscape buffer along the north side of the building, which includes Autumn Blaze maple, Siouxland poplar, Black Hills spruce and Amur maples. 3) The front planting areas shall have wood mulch as a ground cover. 4) All proposed parking lot landscape islands and peninsulas shall comply with City Code. Planning: 1) When the site is redeveloped or the usage intensifies, the existing pickle tanks shall be removed from the property unless they are used as part of the building tenant operation. Water Resources: 1) Updated plans illustrating the total land disturbance activities associated with all site improvements shall be submitted for review and approval by the city. And adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Weick: That motion carries unanimously 6-0. And we with that, thank you again to everybody for presentation. Staff as well as the applicant and good questions on behalf of the commissioners. I’m looking forward to seeing that business prosper for Chanhassen. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A SETBACK VARIANCE AT 7701 FRONTIER TRAIL. Weick: MacKenzie. Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2020 14 Walters: And just to note this item if appealed would appear on the July 27th City Council meeting. As mentioned this is a variance to construct an open porch with a zero foot lot line setback at 7701 Frontier Trail. So this is located in the oldest part of the city. It’s zoned Residential Single Family. The lot in question is a corner lot. Modern zoning standards would require a 15,000 square foot lot, 30 foot setbacks from both street frontage, 10 foot side yard setbacks for the non-street lot lines and limited to 25 percent lot cover. The parcel in question is just under 10,000 square feet. Has about 16 percent lot cover. It has a non-conforming zero foot front yard setbacks along both the north and the west lot lines. Portion of the home and eaves encroach into the city right-of-way. The detached garage has a non-conforming 4 ½ foot front yard setback but it does appear to meet the other aspects of the city zoning code. So the applicant is proposing to reorient the main entrance of the house which currently exits directly into the right-of-way. They are proposing to shift it south and then construct an 8 by 25 ½ foot open porch to maintain, which would maintain the home’s existing setback along the lot line. The moved reoriented entryway will increase safety. The porch will provide protection from elements and improve the façade of the home. The setback they’re requesting they believe is necessitated by the existing placement of the home on the lot. The porch being further back from the intersection will not in any way negatively impact sight lines. Because it is open style it’s not expected to significantly increase the visual mass of the home. The porch has been designed to be architecturally compatible with the existing structure. Staff looked over the area. We noted that of 6 houses along the two block stretch of Frontier Road 4 have zero foot setbacks. Again this is one of the oldest parts of the city. Stuff was built where it was built. Staff agrees that reorienting the entrance will improve the property. We believe the existing placement of the home justifies the requested setback and is reasonable relief for a non-conforming property. Staff is concerned about allowing the porches eaves to encroach 4 feet into the right-of-way. Several of the neighborhoods throughout the city that also have homes built right up to lot lines where road right-of-ways are much smaller. Much more constricted and staff is concerned about establishing that precedent of allowing encroachments into the public right-of-way. Engineering staff has noted that in the future they will be conducting a street project in this area and they are eager to minimize any encumbrances with the right-of-way. That being said staff is recommending approval of the requested variance with the condition that the porch be redesigned so the eaves do not encroach into the right-of-way. And I’d be happy to take any questions at this time. I know I went through that pretty quick. Weick: Nope that’s probably fine. Thank you MacKenzie. I will open it up for our commissioners. Any questions for MacKenzie regarding this variance? Noyes: Commissioner Noyes here. Is the redesign of the eaves to satisfy the requirements here? Is that easily done or is that kind of a difficult or burdensome change that would need to be made? Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2020 15 Walters: I would defer that to the applicant. They’d be in a better position to discuss the architectural implications. Staff’s belief is that it is a viable change but again I think they are the best party to address that question. Noyes: Okay thank you. Walters: Yep. Reeder: Mr. Chairman? Weick: Yes sir. Reeder: Is the overhang just on the end of the porch? Show me where it overhangs. Walters: Yep so if you look at this picture right here, the lot line would go. Reeder: We don’t have it. Walters: Oh could we get the power point up please? Reeder: There you go. Walters: If you look at the edge of the house the lot line basically runs parallel with the wall so the overhang is that kind of 4 foot there. Off the edge of the house that would go into the street. The existing house has approximately a 2 foot eave that would run you know there that’s not shown on this drawing. Here’s a good example. Again keep in mind the foundation of the house is basically paralleling the lot line. Reeder: So that’s why I thought it was just the end piece that’s going to have to be redesigned. Walters: That’s the recommendation yes. Reeder: Right. Weick: Thank you Commissioner Reeder. Other questions or a need for clarification of MacKenzie. Okay hearing none thank you MacKenzie. I would invite the applicant if present to come forward. Just state your name and address for the record and tell us about the project and certainly if you can address the eaves question that’d be great. Dan Burke: Sure, that’s the main issue. My name’s Dan Burke. I live at 225 West 77th Street. Lived there for 36 years and this has been my neighbor. I bought my neighbor’s house when he moved. And in the neighborhood, I don’t know if any of you know the house but I’m kind of the hero in the neighborhood at this point for it’s been cleaned up considerably at this point. I get a Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2020 16 lot of people walking by and giving me thanks for fixing the neighborhood. And the only thing I can say about the overhang is, the existing and if you go back to that one picture of the drawing. Or not of the drawing, of the rendition there. The overhangs on the existing house are about a foot. Not two feet. About a one foot overhang and I would happily reduce the overhang from 4 feet but I’ve requested I make it down to the existing overhangs of the above part because that would allow me to put a kind of a gable end on the end of that porch versus the hip roof design that it has now and that really I think would fit in with the other overhangs and the other lines of the house. And other than that I really, the house was built in 1896. I think it’s the second oldest standing house in the city right now. The oldest one I believe is on West 78th Street and it was built a year earlier. And the third oldest house is about 2 houses down so it’s an old neighborhood and we have a lot of issues with the old houses and I want to maintain it. I don’t want to, I mean my alternative would be to just tear it down and I don’t want to do that so, and having looked at it for the last 36 years I think a porch would genuinely improve the looks of the house on the south side. And moving the entrance will greatly improve just the appeal of the house and the safety of walking out onto the main street of, on Frontier Trail so that’s why if you have any questions I’ll gladly answer them but I would like to have the one foot just to be able to really match the character of the rest of the house and with that. Weick: Great, yes. And I think I echo your neighbors in saying thank you as well. You’re brave. Dan Burke: Oh you don’t know the least of it. This is the least part of it. Weick: I can only imagine. Dan Burke: But I don’t know where you live but so I think you’ve driven by the house once or twice. Weick: I run by there. Dan Burke: Oh okay. Weick: It’s great back in there it’s fun so. Dan Burke: Yeah it’s a great run. It’s a great neighborhood. Weick: Yeah. Dan Burke: And the neighborhood’s changing with all the other houses and there’s so few that are left from the original that it’s nice to have somebody crazy enough to try to save one. Weick: I say brave. Not crazy. Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2020 17 Dan Burke: …That’s my presentation. I’d just like to have a one foot overhang. Any other questions I’ll be happy to answer. Weick: Yeah and certainly would open it up to our commissioners with any questions for the applicant. Or comments. Von Oven: Yes so, Commissioner Von Oven here. Just I guess a clarification on that last piece. I’m not sure how exactly to do this but you know I’m looking at the staff report and on page 6 of the staff report there’s the rendering that we’ve been using. Dan Burke: Right. Von Oven: The proposed and then the existing. Is what you’re saying in the existing picture the roof line that I’m seeing come out. Dan Burke: What I would call a shed roof line that’s directly to the house, the main roof along the whole thing. I would envision that, that part of it coming to the edge of the house and then at, and then one foot beyond that have a gabled roof like a triangle at the end of that to have a slight overhang over the stairways coming up and so I can, because that’s now the main entrance to the house. Give me a little protection for somebody coming up the steps. The basically triangle gable roof right there right on the very end of that I think would fit in with the architecture of the other dormers and everything else on the house so. That’s what I’m looking at doing is moving that little part that’s going up to the house. Moving that all the way to the end but then the overhang itself only being a one foot overhang which matches the rest of the house so that’s what I’m looking at doing. Weick: Got it. Von Oven: And then as a follow up staff went through their findings. They recommended zero based on a desire not to have any overhang. Did you come back to staff with exactly what you’re proposing or is this, would this be the first time they’re hearing that part of the proposal? Dan Burke: Well yes I did. I came back to them. They were already writing this report and MacKenzie told me that if I came back to the meeting and asked for this same protrusion over the lot line that the staff would support that. Now MacKenzie’s here he can argue with me but that’s what he told me on the phone. Walters: I will absolutely confirm that. The report had already been published at that juncture. We did discuss it with the City Engineer and engineering staff. They agreed that given the existing encroachment, as long as it was kept to existing they were comfortable granting the encroachment agreement so staff would wholeheartedly support the proposal. Von Oven: So that’s helpful, thank you so much. That’s all I have for now. Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2020 18 Weick: Thanks for that clarification Commissioner Von Oven. Reeder: So Mr. Chairman MacKenzie the overhang on the top of the roof is that a foot too? Is that what we’re saying that we’ll have it the same? Walters: Yes that is my intent. Dan Burke: The overhang on the main roof up above is a foot. So it’s just going to match it. Looks like it had been there. Reeder: I think that’s for staff consideration for the future things that we consider we’re matching existing things that were done, yeah. I’m comfortable with that. Weick: Other questions for our applicant? All very good so far. Okay hearing none thank you very much. Dan Burke: Thank you. Weick: Again we appreciate what you’re doing in the neighborhood. At this time I will open the public hearing portion of this item. Anyone present wishing to come forward and provide comment on this item may do so now. The call in number is on the screen. We’ll keep an eye on the phone and see if we get a caller and we did receive an email. It was in favor MacKenzie I believe of this variance. Walters: I will summarize it while we wait to see if we get any calls. This email is from Paula and Jack Atkins, 220 West 78th Street, Chanhassen. They support the variance request by Dan Burke for the house at 7701. They say he’s made great efforts to improve the quality and attractiveness of the neighborhood’s housing stock. They think the plan upgrades are tasteful and well thought out and they think these small lots and extraordinary setback requirements in this area are a hardship in and of themselves. Weick: Thanks MacKenzie and again that email will be summarized, or included in it’s entirety in the record as this item moves forward. Things are quiet I believe. Mr. Generous there’s no calls so with that and seeing no one come forward I will close the public hearing portion of this item and open it for commissioner discussion and/or a motion. I would just say based on what I’ve heard so far, I think what we would add to the motion is that we would, or a possible motion would read that we would allow the applicant to match the existing overhang. I think there’s, whether it’s a foot or 13 inches or whatever it is. I think in the spirit of this if we so desire the motion could be to match the existing architecture of the overhang with the porch. It sounds like that would be acceptable to city staff as well as the applicant. Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2020 19 Walters: Staff has directed a sample language where the commission would direct, would approve it subject to conditions of approval as amended. So maybe to direct staff to so amend it. We would alter the variance document and that would be able to go forward. Weick: That’d be even easier. Thank you. But before we jump to that, I don’t want to jump the gun if there’s any other comments or discussions. If not I certainly would accept a motion. Noyes: Commissioner Noyes here. I would propose a motion. The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approve a 40 foot front setback variance for the construction of an open porch subject to the conditions of approval as amended and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decisions. Weick: Thank you Commissioner Noyes. We have a valid motion. Do we have a second? Von Oven: Second. Weick: We have a second I believe from Commissioner Von Oven. Von Oven: Correct. Weick: Yes. Wonderful, thank you and with that we will open for any final comment or discussion for the record on the item. Hearing none we will have a roll call vote. Noyes moved, Von Oven seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approve a 40 foot front setback variance for the construction of an open porch subject to the conditions of approval as amended and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decisions. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Weick: I am also in favor which is a unanimous 6-0 decision in favor of the variance. Thank you to everyone involved. City staff as well as the applicant. Good luck. And look forward to seeing your improvements in the neighborhood. Thank you very much. With that we will move to the third and final item on tonight’s agenda. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO THE CHAPARRAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) ORDINANCE TO CORRECT A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR. Generous: Planning Commissioners, Planning Case 2020-10 is for an amendment to the Chaparral Planned Unit Development. Tonight’s the public hearing. It goes to City Council on July 27th. The City’s correcting this. We’ve had discussion with a property owner who would like to subdivide their land within part of Chaparral. However when you look at the ordinance we discovered that the intent portion of the ordinance and the permitted uses in the ordinance did not match and so we’re here to correct that. Chaparral subdivision is located east of Powers Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2020 20 Boulevard, south of Carver Beach, west of Kerber and Nez Perce. It’s a mixed use development. It has single family detached housing, twin homes and fourplexes within the development. It’s zoned planned unit development residential. It’s guided for residential low density and residential medium density in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. This property started in the 80’s and it was approved for development. At the time they approved planned unit developments through development contracts rather than through zoning ordinances in establishing all the setbacks and height and coverage requirements. In 2012 the City went through the process of amending 43 residential planned unit developments to codify them to incorporate all the design standards that were in there. When we did this we picked up the intent portion which was the first and second phases had 95 and 74 single family homes but when we codified the permitted uses they only put the 74 homes from the 2nd Addition. This amendment will correct that. We’ll make a total of 169 single family homes permitted. Additionally the City approved addendums in 1988 and 1999 to govern the construction of decks and porches within the development. However that was not incorporated in the ordinance and so we want to bring that, put it all in one place so people know exactly what zoning, what the requirements are under their PUD. Those are the two corrections to the ordinance that we’re proposing. It doesn’t change any other intent or purposes. Any lot size. All of that would remain the same. We’ve had numerous calls regarding this ordinance. Once I found out what the correction was they had no issues. There was a question about existing non-conforming structures out there. Decks didn’t comply with those, with the addendum. What would happen. The City would treat those as legal non- conforming and so they would be able to maintain it. We would have all future development would have to comply if anyone wants to put in a new deck but anything that’s there could stay and be maintained including taking it out and replacing it with new material so everything would stay as it is. Again there’s two sections of the ordinance and it’s Permitted Uses B. We strike out the 74 single family homes and replace that with 169. And then we add the deck requirements so that’s what we’re proposing. We’re recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the amendment to the Chaparral Planned Unit Development zoning to correct the internal inconsistencies and adopt the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. With that I’d be happy to answer any questions. Weick: And we’ll go ahead and open it right up to commissioners. Questions for Mr. Generous. Von Oven: I apologize if I’m sort of just repeating what you just said but just to clarify, by correcting this it will be as if the error was never made meaning all rules would stay the same. Anything that’s already happened has happened. Everyone’s good right? Generous: That’s correct. All the rules would be as it was originally approved so. Von Oven: Yeah, thank you. Weick: Great. Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2020 21 Reeder: Mr. Chairman I have no problem with this as long as the perpetrators of this drastic mistake have been…admonished for that. Weick: We will certainly attempt to do that now that it’s on the record. Any other concerns or comments or questions? Hearing none and with the City as the applicant, we’ve already heard from the applicant correct so we will open up the public hearing portion of this item. Anyone wishing to come forward and comment on this item may do so at this time. We are also displaying the call in number if you are watching from Zoom or from home. I don’t believe we had any email comment on this item, although you did mention we had some phone calls but you summarized that, yeah. I have delayed enough. Seeing no one come forward here in chambers and with nobody calling in on the telephone I will close the public hearing portion of this item and open for commissioner comments and/or a motion. If we could put that motion up. There we go. Skistad: I guess my only question is we didn’t catch anyone, I mean the decks or with how the decks are, we wouldn’t expect anyone to have built a different kind of deck so we should be, you know unless they came in with a variance right? Generous: Right. Skistad: Okay. Weick: Thank you. Any other comments, questions. I would also accept a motion. Von Oven: I’ll make a motion. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends City Council approve the amendment to the Chaparral Planned Unit Development-Residential zoning to correct the internal inconsistency and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. Weick: Thank you we have a valid. Oops what? We have a valid motion from Commissioner Von Oven. Do we have a second? Randall: I’ll second that. Weick: Sorry for jumping the gun there Commissioner Randall. Randall: That’s alright. Weick: We have a motion and a second. Any final comment for the record? And hearing none we will commence a roll call vote. Von Oven moved, Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends City Council approve the amendment to the Chaparral Planned Unit Development-Residential zoning to correct the internal inconsistency and adopts the Chanhassen Planning Commission – July 7, 2020 22 Findings of Fact and Recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Weick: This item passes unanimously. Six ayes, zero nays. Thank you Mr. Generous. I’m sure future Planning Commissions will be happy we got this corrected for them. It will solve many problems. That is our final item this evening. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Skistad noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated June 16, 2020 as presented. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Weick: Any administrative updates? Generous: We haven’t been sending much to the City Council so I don’t have anything to add. I do have some bad news. There’s no meeting on the next meeting in July and the first meeting in August. We didn’t have any applications. We anticipate a couple for the second meeting in August so, but they still have another week and a half. Walters: July 17 th I believe. Generous: Is for submittals. Weick: Okay. Generous: We’ll let you know. Weick: We will stay on notice. Thank you. Generous: And then if anyone’s going to be gone on the August 18th meeting if they could let us know early so. Weick: Okay. We will do that. So check your calendars. We have a little bit of time but let Kate know if you won’t be able to make August 18th. Any presentations from the commissioners? Comments. Certainly want to give everyone a chance to be heard. With that I would accept a motion for adjournment. Reeder moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, August 18, 2020 Subject City Council Action Update Section ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS Item No: E.1. Prepared By Jean Steckling, Senior Admin. Support Specialist File No:  ATTACHMENTS: City Council Action Update City Council Action Update MONDAY, JULY 13, 2020 Approve Revised Preliminary Plat and Amendment to the Avienda PUD - Approved Approve a Request for Variances to Permit Construction of a Building on an Outlot and from the Standards Governing Water-Oriented Structures at 3920 White Oak Lane – Approved MONDAY, JULY 27, 2020 Amendment to the Development Contract for Boylan Shores – Approved Approve Metes and Bounds Subdivision at 901 Carver Beach Road – Approved Approve an Amendment to the Chaparral Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance to Correct a Typographical Error – Approved Approve a Request for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Food Processing and Outdoor Storage for Six Silos on Property Located at 2100 Stoughton Avenue (Hemp Acres) – Approved MONDAY, AUGUST 10, 2020 No items. 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