Loading...
10-06-20-pcCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 6, 2020 Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steve Weick, Eric Noyes, Michael McGonagill, Mark Randall and Douglas Reeder MEMBERS ABSENT: Laura Skistad and Mark Von Oven STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; MacKenzie Walters, Associate Planner; Matt Unmacht, Water Resources Coordinator; and Matt Kerr, IT Support Specialist PUBLIC PRESENT: Peter Eskuche Deephaven Todd & Kari Carstensen Chanhassen Weick: So for the record we do have a quorum for tonight’s meeting. Just briefly I would like to review the guidelines for this evening’s meeting. We are getting good at this but it is a Zoom meeting so please be patient. I would ask all of our commission members not to hold any chats, discussions or text messages on the side. Everything needs to be public and through the Zoom application. All of our discussions need to be public and for the record. As I mentioned we have one hearing on tonight’s agenda and we will present it as follows. Staff will present the item. It will then be opened for commission questions and comments of staff. Then the applicant may make a presentation if they would like and at that time we would also, they would be available for questions from the Planning Commission as well. We’ll also have a public hearing portion of tonight’s item. Anyone present may come forward and speak regarding this item. We will also and have also summarized the emails and we did receive at least one email that will be in the record and we will publish a phone number and you may call in at the appropriate time if you are listening and would like to provide your comment. When everybody has had a chance to be heard we’ll close the public hearing. There’ll be another opportunity for comments from the Planning Commission members and we can have a motion and a vote as appropriate. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER REQUEST FOR BLUFF, SHORELAND, ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SIZE, AND OTHER VARIANCES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME AND DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6915 HIGHOVER LANE. Weick: With that I will turn it over to MacKenzie. Thank you MacKenzie. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 6, 2020 2 Walters: Thank you Chair. So this is a variance request for bluff setback variance, bluff impact zone variance, shoreland setback and accessory structure side variance to construct a home, driveway and accessory structures on the property at 6915 Highover Lane. If this is approved or denied by a three-fourths majority vote that decision is final unless appealed. Anyone aggrieved of the decision has four business days to appeal the decision in writing to the City. If it is appealed it would appear on the City Council agenda on October 26th. Were the motion to be carried by less than a three-fourths vote it would automatically go to the City Council so with that out of the way I will get into it. The property is located at 6915 Highover Lane. This property is zoned residential single family district. It is riparian lot. That means it has a 4,000 square foot lot area minimum. Requires 30 foot front and rear setbacks. 10 foot side yard setbacks. The property is encumbered by a bluff which has a 30 foot bluff setback, 20 foot bluff impact zone, 150 foot shoreland setback. The City has a global 1,000 square foot accessory structure size limit. That’s a cumulative limit for all detached accessory structures on a property. The property has a 30 foot utility easement for the benefit of I believe Xcel Energy and their power lines that run across the west lot line and there is a Manage 2 wetland on the east side of the property. Although that wetland is well clear of any proposed construction activities and I mention it just for completeness. Little bit of history on this subdivision. 6915 Highover Lane is part of the Lake Harrison subdivision. This was created in 2005. At that time the City’s current bluff ordinance was in full effect. The setbacks and definition of a bluff have no changed since 1991 when they were first created. When this lot was originally proposed during the subdivision process the developer had requested a 20 foot bluff setback and 20 foot bluff impact zone variance for this lot to allow for a larger home. The Planning Commission and City Council denied that requested variance due to concern about sensitive environmental features, namely the bluff, the trees and wetland complex that would be downstream of that. The Planning Commission had recommended at the time that the lot not be created unless the developer showed it could be built without a variance. The developer provided this exhibit here showing that a house could be placed on the lot without requiring a variance. Because that was shown the City Council approved the lot with the stipulation that the bluff and trees not be disturbed and here I put in red and blue the sewer and water stubs approximate location that were extended into the lot. Some abbreviated background on this site. Starting in November 17th staff was made aware that grading and vegetative removal had occurred on this property within the bluff impact zone and that the property was being used to store equipment associated with a contractor’s yard. Over the next year staff worked with the applicant to address these issues. Remove the items being stored. Restore portions of the bluff. At this time staff explained the site constraints of the property owner and recommended that any future construction occur in the approved building pad. August of 2020 we received a pre-submittal showing the home located within the bluff. Staff sent the approved home site to the applicant and recommended that the house be designed to utilize the approved building pad. On September, 2020 we received a complete application showing the home, driveway, and accessory structure within the bluff that is before you today. On September of 2020 staff was informed that grading and vegetation removal had again occurred and that the property was again being used to store equipment and materials. What the applicant is requesting is that they be allowed to construct a house, driveway and accessory structures within the required bluff setback and bluff impact zone. The accessory structures are Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 6, 2020 3 also located partially within the 150 shoreland setback from Lake Harrison and the cumulative size of the accessory structures is 1,418 square feet. The application has provided justifications for this request in noting that most of the lot is encumbered by bluff setbacks. They feel there is inadequate buildable area to accommodate a modern home. That the property lacks a private yard area due to the walking trail that is along the west lot line and the presence of the 30 foot electrical easement along the west lot line also constrains the building area. Just to explain this graphic, the red line represents the top of the bluff. The yellow line the 20 foot bluff impact zone. And the blue line is the 30 foot bluff setback. As you can see the vast majority of the proposed impervious surface, lot cover and structures are located entirely within the bluff setback. Staff did receive one email. This was attached to the staff report. The individual submitting the email stated concern that the property would be used as a contractor’s yard and that proposed attached buildings likely violate the subdivision’s neighborhood covenants. Staff does not enforce neighborhood covenants but we also don’t like to put ourselves in a position where we are approving stuff that is forbidden by them either. Staff looked at this primarily through the lens of the potential impact to the bluff. Existing vegetation and it’s root structure play a critical role in protecting and reinforcing slopes and soils on bluffs. That’s why the city code strictly regulates and in most cases prohibits the removal of vegetation within 20 feet of the top of the bluff and within the bluff itself. That’s the bluff impact zone as defined by city code. Removing that vegetation and it’s root structure increases erodability of slopes which has the potential to increase sediment load in wetlands and lakes. Right here you can see the area that was cut out of the slope of the bluff to create a driveway. You can see a little bit of under cutting already occurring here where the root structure’s been disturbed as well as soil that looks like it’s been transported. This right here is the area that was approved by the City Council for tree removal to accommodate a building pad. For reference the applicant’s proposed house would be approximately here and the driveway is that this picture is from is approximately here. The other major lens staff looked at is the impact on the wetlands and lakes. Risk of negatively impacting wetlands and lake significantly increases when an adjacent development is proposed on steep, erodible slopes. The setbacks are designed to minimize the disturbance of soil and vegetation near lakes and prevent the creation of lot cover. Engineering and water resources departments believe that the proposal would likely cause significant sediment runoff into the wetland. Increased sediment load has the potential to degrade wetland and water quality. The DNR submitted a letter that is included in your packet where they have recommended denial of this variance request due to the potential to impact the water quality. So staff’s assessment of the variance request is that due to environmental concerns the City has historically acted to preserve steep slopes especially those near lakes and wetlands. One of the policies in our comprehensive plan is actually to protect steep slopes whenever possible as well as to protect wooded areas whenever possible. Variances should always be granted in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. We believe this proposal has significant risk of creating erosive conditions. The DNR has recommended denial due to their concerns about the environmental impact of the proposed variance. Staff believes a usable building area for both houses and a detached accessory structure exists on the lot. This right here is a very rough footprint staff drew and measured out that meets all of the bluff setbacks indicated by the applicant’s surveyor. It provides a 3,600 square foot footprint that would accommodate a 3 car garage as well as quite a bit of living space Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 6, 2020 4 especially is a second story or basement were constructed. Staff feels this does represents a reasonable use of the lot. A detached accessory structure could be built in the northwest corner here. Staff sketched it out at about 800 square feet again without requiring any variances. When looking at the surrounding neighborhoods there are no comparably sized accessory structures present. The design of the detached garage is not what staff typically sees on residential single family lots. Staff would also note that in 2005 significantly less extensive variances were denied for this lot due to environmental concerns. Staff searched all variances issued by the City and cannot find any comparable that have been granted. We’re very concerned with the precedent of allowing new construction to occur directly within the bluff. Staff believes alternative designs are possible that would allow comparable use of the property without the issuance of a variance and for these reasons staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the requested variances. If you have any questions I’d happily answer them at this time. Weick: Thank you MacKenzie and with that I will open to commission members for questions of MacKenzie. You can just go ahead and chime in. Hearing nothing from our commissioners I would invite the applicant to come forward and either onto MacKenzie’s presentation or make your own presentation. I would ask that you speak nice and loud. The microphone up there is covered by plastic so it is hard for the folks on the TV to hear you. And welcome, thank you for coming. Peter Eskuche: Thank you. Thank you MacKenzie for presenting that well. Can everyone hear me okay? I know you can but. Weick: Can you guys hear okay on the phone? McGonagill: Yes. Weick: Okay. Thanks. Peter Eskuche: My name’s Peter Eskuche. My office is in Deephaven. I’m a local architect and I was hired by Todd and Kari Carstensen, the property owners who are here tonight and I believe they may want to just say something super brief. I believe it wouldn’t be a bad time to just say something quick right now. Because there’s nothing about detail. It’s more about what their intent is. Weick: That’d be great. I think that’d be useful presentation. Thank you and welcome. Kari Carstensen: Hi there. Todd Carstensen: Yes my name’s Todd Carstensen. I guess the history of this is, when this came on the market I actually bought it that day which was about 7 years ago because we were so in love with all the trees and how it looks and how private it really is and I didn’t realize about Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 6, 2020 5 this bluff issue when I bought it. But the privacy of it was what we really liked. We’ve lived in this town since we’ve been married. Kari Carstensen: 2004 we bought the house. Todd Carstensen: Yeah quite a few years ago and we’ve raised two kids and we want to keep it as our forever house really so we like the town and we certainly hope we can build something there so thank you. Weick: Okay thanks. Peter Eskuche: So they hired me to do a design for the home. I think the first thing that I did was just I pulled out a book of about 170 different homes that we’ve done in the last on really in only the last like 12 years. I haven’t really documented all of them in 27 years but, and I found only one home that actually fit in that footprint of the allowable area but it’s like a 1,200 square foot house that doesn’t really have, it has about a 3 car garage. I see strange stares so I’ll just prove it. Weick: We may be able to show the overhead. Peter Eskuche: Sure so what I did. Walters: Can you push the document cam please? Weick: Just give us one second. Peter Eskuche: Yeah sure. Perfect. So you can see this has a garage. 3 car garage but I would say a pretty tight 3 car garage. Foyer, stairway, really small. This powder room, family, kitchen and kind of a dinette. So it’s a really a little butter muffin rush so it actually fits but it’s I don’t think it even meets the development minimums. So the first thing they started doing was expanding on how we would build in this area but it became pretty quickly evident that it was going to be descending quite a bit of hill, meaning that they wouldn’t really have much of any yard. The only yard potentially would be the trail system which I’m sure you’ve been on the trails lately. There’s quite a bit of people throwing dog poop including in their yard so they didn’t necessarily think that was a suitable area safe for kids. And so we pretty quickly, you know the whole point that they bought the property was so they could build a tree within the woods and really just have a tree in the house so you can see the contours are very minimal for the extent of house. This whole wing of the house is actually doesn’t have any foundation other than piles so we tried to minimize again the impact on the site and try to preserve as many trees as possible. Keep it a very natural environment. That being said you know we can move the house around it’s just, it’s really not, you can see that this house really just wouldn’t fit in this area so I think the main point of the application is that there’s certainly things that we could do to make erosion better. You could in the front yard put a filtration area that could potentially carry Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 6, 2020 6 all of the roof water and put it in the filtration area. If you look at how the grading is impacting the site it’s almost not impacting the site very, it’s very little impact on the site. If you look at the tree, there’s a tree inventory site as well. There’s really about 4 or 5 trees impacted here and about 2 here. And because it’s minimal foundation we thought that that would do a pretty good job of just staying within the trees. Preserving what they love about the site. You know of course they don’t want any erosion either. That house then feeds out into this kind of open area where they talked about doing a detached garage. McGonagill: Can you speak in the microphone please sir. As you move around we can’t hear you. Peter Eskuche: Sorry about that. And so the house would basically kind of open up to what’s still kind a bit of grade drop too but the area that’s open. This is that open kind of grassy area and they propose to put this garage there. The site plan that we had didn’t show 150 setback. I think that’s an adjustment that could be made in the locating of that. We talked about that today. What we basically are trying to do is minimal impacting as possible while creating a safe environment for their family to enjoy and really finding that this area is just really not large enough. I know you show a 3,600 foot footprint. You know it’s just two rectangles basically but when you try to apply all the rooms and garage doors and access and circulation you know that’s when the problems started to arise so, and we’re trying to be as compliant in every other aspect. Obviously we weren’t aware of the 150 foot setback which we could adjust but I’m here to answer any other questions you might have and thank you for your consideration. Weick: Yeah thank you. While maybe some of the commission members gather their thoughts or if they do have questions I guess I would ask if, and you know I’m going to expose myself as really not knowing anything about building houses right but if that house shifted over exactly like it was onto the area so it just shifted onto the area that was identified as buildable. Peter Eskuche: Yep. Weick: Are we getting into a steep grade there that makes it difficult to do that? Peter Eskuche: It would be slightly less steep actually. Weick: It’d be less steep…if you just shifted that over. Peter Eskuche: Yeah. In all honesty if you move this, this way say. Weick: Yeah. Peter Eskuche: So like this basically rectangle corner would be like here. Weick: Right. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 6, 2020 7 Peter Eskuche: You could do that so I think the main reason we didn’t do that was because these are all really significant maples. Weick: So it’s the tree cover. Peter Eskuche: Yeah and these are kind of wispy, a lot of basswoods. Some, a few maples. Some elm that were kind of light and airy and it was a little easier to put the house in these trees where these are pretty significant maples so we’re just trying to be a little less impactful on trees. However of course you know as we know with elm, ash, oak wilt, you know it doesn’t seem to really matter what kind of tree they are anymore. They seem to all get some sort of disease now but unfortunately, but there’s a little bit of a struggle there with erosion versus trees. Weick: Okay. Peter Eskuche: But we could make a move. I think to some degree it gets very close to, and I don’t know if any of the commissioners have been to the site. Weick: I’ve seen it. I won’t speak for everybody but yeah. Peter Eskuche: But you know you have the high power line tower as you’re getting closer this way. You’re closer to the tower. You’re closer to the open area. You know right now there’s just tons of people on the trail so it’s just a little bit more desirable to be more private there and safe for their family. For their kids. And right under the power tower. Weick: Okay. Peter Eskuche: But good question, thank you. Weick: Okay. That’s all I have. If there are other questions please speak up from the commission. Commissioner Noyes. Noyes: Is there a garage… McGonagill: Commissioner Noyes could you speak up please? We can’t hear you sir. Noyes: Can you hear me now? McGonagill: Yes. Noyes: Okay. The secondary garage that you’re planning, what are the dimensions of that and what is the primary use of that building? Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 6, 2020 8 Peter Eskuche: So the primary use of that building was just to store extra vehicles. They do have a lot of miscellaneous shaped size vehicles so I don’t have my drawings handy. I don’t know if MacKenzie can help me at all. I’ll grab my scale and see if I can just scale it off of this drawing. Walters: It’s 1,188 square foot structure. It has a lower level of vehicle storage and then an upper level of vehicle storage and then the third level I believe has two rooms and a closet would be off the top of my head but it’s more of a kind of open use area than store area I would characterize it as. Peter Eskuche: Yeah I guess the drawings are in the packet. There’s a lower garage, a main garage, and then they just threw some storage above the garage. So there’s like I guess you could call it a second, if this is called a walkout structure that would be like the second floor. If the lowest level be at main level then you call it the third floor. You know it really depends. Walters: Page 12 of your packet has the footprint. Peter Eskuche: Basically is 45 by 26. Noyes: Just a quick follow up question. Is the use of that building 100 percent residential use or will it be used at all for any kind of commercial contracting related type of usage. Todd Carstensen: I had a skid loader that I use. Weick: Can you come up to the microphone I’m sorry. It’s just so the folks on the phone can hear you. Todd Carstensen: I have a skid loader and some attachments that I use just like to plow my driveway and stuff because, especially this one that’s quite a long driveway and I couldn’t wait for maybe a plow guy to come to get out you know so I’ve always had one. I have snowmobiles and four wheelers and boats and plan on getting a camper so. Noyes: Okay thank you. Aanenson: Can I just clarify that too. I think that was one of the concerns that was raised by the staff so I did do this subdivision so I have some history with this and we had a lot of interest in it over the years but one of the concerns we have with a space this size was why we recommend against this is they often turn into contractor’s yards. I’m not saying they’re going to do that but that’s what happens and then there’s a lot of extra traffic on the road that’s unanticipated in a residential street and then it becomes a staff’s problem to try to resolve that so we just want to be transparent and say you cannot run a business in an accessory structure. Even if it’s construction, snowplowing, gardening, landscaping, that sort of thing. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 6, 2020 9 Weick: Okay thank you. McGonagill: Kate I do have a follow up question for you if I may. This is Commissioner McGonagill. When this subdivision was platted before the applicant purchased it would it not show this lot size and building site? Aanenson: Anybody that inquired about it they were given that information. The buildable area and the lot size. McGonagill: So the developer or someone had to do that. Second question, Lake Harrison. I’m real familiar with this area. Around here and around that trail quite a bit. I’ve walked it quite a bit. In fact I was down, went down it this week again. Lake Harrison if I remember right is a really closed lake. In other words there’s not a whole of outlet for it. It’s not like it can, it flows well. I know when the Harrison subdivision was built particularly those houses off of Galpin there was an awful lot of sensitivity to filtration into the, filtration into Lake Harrison, is that correct? Walters: I’ll defer to our Water Resources Coordinator for that question. Unmacht: Thank you. Can you repeat that one more time? McGonagill: I can’t hear you. Unmacht: I’m sorry can you repeat that question commissioner. McGonagill: Okay in the Lake Harrison I believe is a closed lake. What I mean by that it doesn’t have a really good outlet. It’s not like it’s flowing like you would see in some other places. It does have a sensitivity I know to sedimentation as well as just plant growth. I mean I see a lot because I go by it a lot and when the Harrison subdivision was built and the houses were around it I know there was a lot of sensitivity to that. You know the setbacks and putting them back particularly on Harrison Hill which is on the other side of the power lines to that to keep those people out of, you know to keep construction out of the zones and I know there were stakes and everything through there to keep it looking at those. You know keep out the bluff. Is that not correct? Unmacht: Yeah I do believe that’s correct and that’s one of the other kind of concerns that I had myself is that Harrison Lake is considered a natural environmental lake in this city. Not a recreational development lake and what kind of ends up getting defined as can be kind of unclear at times but it’s kind of more or less our code more or less goes by the DNR’s definitions but Harrison Lake is not listed on the MPCA’s website for any impairments meaning sediment, nutrient loads, mercury in fish tissue, etcetera but one of the concerns with a site like this is that excessive erosion into the wetland which is immediately adjacent to the lake would potentially down the road cause an impairment and it could be listed by the MPCA. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 6, 2020 10 McGonagill: Okay thank you. Mr. Chairman I do have a question for the applicant. Can I ask that? Weick: Yes please. McGonagill: Okay Mr. Carstensen, this is Commissioner McGonagill. The question I have for you, I understand looking at your website you’re a contractor. You build houses. You do that. You do roofing. When you bought the lot being that kind of experience you had, I mean I agree it’s a beautiful lot by the way. Beautiful trees. It’s really gorgeous now with all the colors changing. Todd Carstensen: Yes. McGonagill: I would agree with you. So did you just think you could get a house in there or what was your thought process…knowing your background in construction. Todd Carstensen: Yeah I thought I could put a house in there. I mean I’ve been all over the state not to mention the city and I’ve seen a lot of houses that are I guess considered by right by the bluff. I mean I’m kind of surprised about this actually so. McGonagill: Okay so you, and to your, you bought it from the developer but you didn’t really, what I hear you say you didn’t go through and look at the City what you could do or not do. You just assumed what you could do. Todd Carstensen: Correct. McGonagill: Okay. And on the, I guess another question I have, knowing your background as a developer and knowing what it takes for permits I’m a little curious why you cut a road through there knowing that stuff. Todd Carstensen: I didn’t really. I didn’t understand about the bluff thing initially. I haven’t built a house for over 30 years so I’m not, I wouldn’t be considered a builder really. McGonagill: Okay, so because I know that I’ve seen your skid’s still there for a couple years honestly. Todd Carstensen: Yeah. McGonagill: I walk by it a lot. Your roofing material is piled there. The other stuff’s there. The only aspect of that being the logic of using that as a storage facility or not facility, as a storage spot, did they talk to you about that. Again the logic, tell me your logic of doing that. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 6, 2020 11 Todd Carstensen: I’ve just been super swamped. I just haven’t had, I’ve just been trying to make money. McGonagill: Okay. Todd Carstensen: I don’t have another spot for that stuff right now and I usually bring it back… McGonagill: So if you would build this house you don’t have another spot where would you propose to put that stuff? Todd Carstensen: I’m not planning on working much longer actually. McGonagill: Okay. Alright thank you sir. Todd Carstensen: Yep. Weick: Thank you Commissioner McGonagill. Did you want to circle back or you okay? Kari Carstensen: No I think it was talked about. Weick: Okay. Anything else, I didn’t mean to cut you off Commissioner McGonagill if you had more questions. I’m sorry. McGonagill: No I don’t think I do. I thought staff’s report was pretty complete and like you Chairman I went and actually walked that site down both the private drive as well as the power line. MacKenzie one thing you could, there’s one question I have for you. It’s a little bit different situation but could you put up the overhead picture of where the private drive comes through showing the lot size. Okay. Yeah now it shows, it’s the one that shows the private, yeah that private drive coming through. There is a, when you look at the way that lot is laid out, if I go off to the left, off this lot. You had it in the packet where it showed all the lots layout. Let me see if I can find it here for you MacKenzie. It’s on page. Walters: I may not have it in the power point I’m afraid. McGonagill: It’s on page 7. I would direct the commissioners to that page 7 of the packet. In that there is a, if you go down the private drive or go down the power line there is a house there located right down from that house on Lot 11 I guess it’s called which it’s orientation and it’s sensitivity to the bluff I would say is a fairly similar situation. Would you agree with that MacKenzie? Walters: Yeah both Lot 11 and Lot 12 were, if memory serves me right, subject to variance requests by the builder and the exhibit you’re showing, you’re referring to the Lot 11 and 12 Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 6, 2020 12 detail were the proof of concept the developer gave showing that homes could be sited on these lots without negatively impacting the bluff. McGonagill: Right. And on Lot 12 that house, or Lot 11 that house is there. Walters: Yes it is and it was built in accordance with the city code. McGonagill: And what was the, the question I have now that they’re looking at it, to the left of the house on Lot 11 there’s another little stub driveway in there. Do you know what they originally intended to do with that? Walters: I believe that is a turn around Commissioner McGonagill. McGonagill: That was a turn around? Walters: Yeah. McGonagill: Because I was like okay I was…street going to go through there. So ideally when the developer laid it out he did have similar lots on 11 and 12 that were shown to be buildable. Is that correct? Walters: Correct. McGonagill: Okay. And I do understand that the house on Lot 12 is closer to the front, i.e. closer to the trail and to the power line but that’s just the way it lays in there so I just thought that was interesting. I just wanted to be sure I, that the other commissioners were aware of that. That there is a house right down from it that kind of meets the code. Thank you, Walters: Just so the folks at home can see if you can switch to the document cam of, zoom in. Sorry about that. Unfortunately I think the colors are going to be a little dark on the document cam. McGonagill: That’s pretty close. You can point it out and just kind of, you can see it. It’s fuzzy but you can see it MacKenzie. So that point out what I’m talking about here. The house down the way and then where the proposed house would be if you would with a pencil MacKenzie. Walters: Yeah so this would be the house on Lot 11 that Commissioner McGonagill was talking about. This is the driveway turn around. McGonagill: That’s existing. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 6, 2020 13 Walters: That’s the existing house correct and then this was the Lot 12 is the lot that the variances in question for and this footprint was the developer’s proposed home site and configuration. McGonagill: Thank you MacKenzie. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Weick: Okay. Other questions from the commissioners for the applicant or the architect? Hearing none thank you very much. It’s useful information and it’s nice to hear your perspective on how, what your hopes are anyway for, you know for building a home and living there so that is useful information and thank you for coming and presenting that. With that I will open the public hearing portion of tonight’s item. The phone number is on the screen. If you’re listening 952-227-1630. While we give it a few minutes for that we did receive as MacKenzie mentioned we received one email and they specifically requested that it be part of the record and again we will confirm that that email is part of the record and has been recorded. If anyone is present and wants to come forward to speak about this item may do so at this time. And we do not have anyone here. I can ramble for a few more minutes and I don’t think the phone’s ringing is it? No. Okay with that I will close the public hearing portion of tonight’s item and open this for commissioner discussion. And a motion as appropriate if desired. Beautiful piece of property. Would love to putting myself in the homeowner’s or the landowner’s shoes, it would be wonderful to see a home built there. It’s a nice property. But obviously has a lot of challenges. Yeah go ahead please. McGonagill: This is Commissioner McGonagill Mr. Chairman. Yeah it is a beautiful piece of property and it’s a piece of property that I don’t blame him at all for the family wanting to enjoy and they should be allowed to enjoy it. For sure. And the, because they own it and I do believe you know in property rights to some degree. However that being said we do have a responsibility to protect the environment both of Lake Harrison and the neighbor’s properties around there. I guess I would say a home and garage can be built. I think there’s a couple of different ways to go at it. I think it can be built on the pads that are there. As you’ve suggested Mr. Chairman taking that house down, maybe switching it. Spinning it a little bit. Maybe reducing the footprint maybe is a way to work that in. I don’t like that all the garage cutting in through the bluff and going all the way down because I just think that goes against everything we try to uphold environmentally with our water quality in the city. And similarly with the house itself so I guess…what this is, there’s a way to build a house. Maybe not the dream house that the applicant would want. There is a way to build a house there. There’s a way to build a garage there and there’s a way to build a house and live there and enjoy the property. And at the end of the day that is the objective. The other point is that the developer, etcetera they had the plats. It was there. I don’t know the history of whether the applicant got that from the developer or not but still it’s a known fact that’s there so I’m, I look at it and say the existing site can be built on as is therefore there’s no need for a variance. And I would agree with staff’s position on denying the setback. Denying the request for shoreland variance and the structure variance as well. And the applicant it may not be the dream home but they can still enjoy the lot. Does that, do you follow me Mr. Chairman? Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 6, 2020 14 Weick: I do. Question for you. Do you have if, and I’m not proposing a solution in any way. I’m just asking a question. If we weren’t discussing the accessory structure garage type accessory structure that sort of sticks out into the bluff there more significantly, you know if we were just talking about the home, does that change anything or is it? McGonagill: Not really. I understand they’re putting the road element with pilings but they’re still going to have to work through that bluff quite a bit and that’s just something that as a commission and as City Council and environmentally we never really allow because we’re so rigorous about maintaining the bluffs and the structures. What really makes me nervous too is the water quality of Lake Harrison itself. It is, it’s fragile. I mean they were successfully built all the homes around it but they were extremely careful with them and the setbacks. I can go over and over because I saw them all go in. You follow me Mr. Chairman? Weick: I am yeah. McGonagill: So I would, I would say perhaps closer to your idea of move the house over on the site that was approved. Maybe you could put some variances in there a little bit to make it a little bit more workable but not so onerous but not all the way down the bluff into the flat area. I just think that’s just, that’s just not according to our code. It’s not according to the philosophy we’ve been rigorously trying to maintain. Kari Carstensen: Can I ask a question? Weick: Not really. Sorry. Kari Carstensen: Okay Commissioner McGonagill. McGonagill: Well that’s you know thank you for your question. Weick: You look like you want to say something. Randall: Yeah I do. Weick: I want to hear it. Randall: The home design is amazing. It’s creative for that location. You came up with some really great ideas. Unfortunately I just think it’s going to be, it has to be closer to that set location and I think you’re already doing a lot of creative work. I think you could probably get it closer to that hopefully. I love the home design. I understand the garage thing. I’ve got a 6 car garage and you can ask my wife they’re already full now and she’s upset about that so you can never replace garage space but that being said I, it’s too much of a variance in my opinion and I think that’s where we’re kind of alluding to before. If the variance was closer to that original Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 6, 2020 15 pad area I think we can work with it. That outside garage down in the bluff area I don’t see how that’s going to go through at all but the home design being able to utilize the bluff and I’m just picturing looking over that in the morning how great that would be and the amount of light you’re going to get coming in from in the morning and that type of thing. Kari Carstensen: Is there any way when…because I really don’t like the idea of building near power lines. I mean that’s never been talked that that was okay…so I just wonder if there’s something you can do to change that. McGonagill: Mr. Chairman we can’t hear her. Weick: I’ll repeat it. I’ll repeat it for you. McGonagill: Thank you very much. Weick: Are you finished? Yeah and I’ll just summarize what was asked. I guess and it was stated earlier but the big issue with the proposed, the City proposed building lot is the presence of the overhead power lines and there’s some concern and I would, I can’t speak to that certainly but that might be something that could be, I just, I’m not even going to guess. Randall: No and I wouldn’t know how to go about that too but I understand her concern. Weick: Yeah. Randall: And we deal with this a lot. People might get a lake lot and it’s limited on setbacks and what they need to get in their lot space and we try to work with them to try to come up with a creative solution on it. I think you’ve guys have already worked a lot on that for just this property alone but it needs to be closer to that existing print. Maybe figure out what to do with the power lines. I don’t know how that’s going to work but that’s my two cents. Weick: Thank you. Kari Carstensen: Then I have a question then…or how do we go further on that? Weick: Yeah Kate thanks. Aanenson: So there’s two options that you can do right now. Weick: Thank you. Aanenson: If you want to give them some direction then that would be to table it. They’d have to agree to a tabling and a certain timeframe. Waive their 60 days but I think it’s good that you Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 6, 2020 16 set clear expectations of what the tabling is to give them direction. We do have power lines that run along the backs of all those lots so the power line’s not going to move. McGonagill: And those power lines go all the way through Longacres. They go through Highover. They go through all those houses. Aanenson: Correct, that’s correct. McGonagill: They’re in close proximity to many houses. Aanenson: Yeah but if the applicant wants to table it the Planning Commission could table it. If it’s agreeable with them and a certain timeframe and then they, and again set clear expectations of kind of what you’re going to be looking at so we don’t go through the same proposal again if that makes sense. McGonagill: No that’s very valuable Kate. Aanenson: Otherwise the other choice would be to take the recommendation, whatever that is. It could be appealed or forwarded onto City Council so but certainly willing to work with them and see if we can, if that’s your desire. Weick: Okay. Kari Carstensen: Can I get clarification on that? Weick: If so can you come up to the microphone, yeah. Kari Carstensen: The clarification for me would just be that that still for us too working with an architect because it’s expensive for us to go through these things. The clarification if we table it will it be that you as a city are coming to us and giving us an option to help us not get you know the same kind of result like giving us parameters and such. Aanenson: It’s my understanding that MacKenzie did try to give you some parameters and you had your first choice. That’s fine but what we’re saying now is that you know if we can try to work together to get closer to what the objectives, whatever the council directs here and that’s what we’re saying is we’ll work with their direction is. Kari Carstensen: Gotch ya. McGonagill: And if I may offer something to the applicant ma’am. I have found city staff to be very workable to try to work with you to, they understand what you’re trying to do. Kari Carstensen: Yeah. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 6, 2020 17 McGonagill: They gave you good advice. They know at least my personal opinion and others that we want to protect the wetlands and protect the bluffs. I don’t speak for the rest of the commission but I know how we feel about that. Then they can tell you from their own experience, Kate and MacKenzie are very well versed on what they think is doable. The problem may be that it may not be what you want to hear but that it will be the truth and they’ve gone through this enough and I would trust them. I would encourage you to trust them to say yeah this is workable or if it’s not jump the gun another way. Does that make sense ma’am? Kari Carstensen: I understand. McGonagill: They’re very good. We trust them so. Noyes: You know the one thing that I would add, you know your request is, the variances are extensive and per Commissioner Randall’s commentary, yeah I kind of agree with what he has said. I always look at these and I think past what we’re talking about today. Whatever we do today sets a precedent right and so one of my biggest concerns is that we’re issuing variances related to bluffs. Related to wetlands. The minute we do that we have a lot more people in here presenting variances that say hey, look at Case Number 2020-20 and they were granted something so we also have to look further beyond kind of what we’re talking about today and that like I said per Commissioner Randall’s thing I think the more we move it towards the original approved site the better opportunity you’re going to have to achieve what you’re wanting to do. Weick: And that said I also in, as much as we can to Kate’s point and also to the request of the applicant if we have opinions and beliefs about what is acceptable and is not acceptable it would be, I mean there is money involved right with talking with architects so I guess I would ask, and this might be not conventional but you know, I know I mentioned earlier moving the house over. If we pretend that that wasn’t going to be a problem with the power lines or whatever it would still stick over the, not only over the setbacks but it would still stick into the bluff right and I guess my question to the commissioners would be, if you sat that would you be okay? Because I think we want to give some direction both to city staff as well as the applicant that you know we do not, you know we’re okay with encroaching on what’s the yellow line on slide. Walters: The yellow line is the bluff setback. Weick: Right. Walters: And the blue line is the, and I’ll go to the slide in question. Weick: Yeah that’s what I was looking at. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 6, 2020 18 Walters: The blue line here is the 30 foot structure setback. The yellow line is the 20 foot bluff impact zone setback where the regulations because much more stringent to protect the top of the bluff. And then the red line is the top line of the bluff itself. Weick: Okay. And so you know for instance the house on Lot 11, I mean hugs that yellow line. I believe. Walters: The house on Lot 11, if I had drawn the same line would hug the blue line. It does not encroach into the 30 foot bluff setback. Weick: Okay. So I guess as I say that you know if we could give some opinion on the level of encroachment and I’m not holding anyone to anything. I’m just asking for opinions here. And also then on the accessory structure as well. You know to me I, Commissioner Randall said it really well. The accessory structure I’m speaking of is the large garage I would call it. You know being out in the flatter area I think poses, to me I don’t have an issue with the use. I don’t think it’s for us to you know make a decision based on what a projected use may or may not be of that but I think we absolutely have the right to talk about the size of the structure and location on the property and I think we should speak to that as well. So any thoughts? I guess I’ll start. Maybe that will help. I would say if there’s going to be a reworking of this I’m not comfortable with that accessory garage being located out where it is. And I would, I’d be comfortable in my opinion going to the yellow line. So over that blue line but to the yellow line. I would have, I’d have to think more about if something extended past that yellow line. That’s just my opinion. Would love some other thoughts. Noyes: I would put myself in the same camp you’re in. I think the accessory structure is a really difficult thing for me to process right now just because of the level of variance required for it. I do think there’s ability to relocate that house and like I said I think the closer you get to the blue and yellow line the more likely I think I would be to say yeah they’re doing whatever they can to make sure they’re protecting the environment. They’re following the regulations and if we’ve got to give a variance for you know a small change I think I’d be up for that. Weick: I appreciate that, thank you. Randall: And I would concur that also. Weick: That was Commissioner Randall speaking. Anyone on the phone or on the Zoom, Commissioner Reeder or Commissioner McGonagill? And as you’re maybe thinking or maybe not I would, I’m not discouraging a motion either if anyone feels strongly to also propose a motion as presented by city staff. We absolutely can entertain that as well. McGonagill: I guess Mr. Chairman I, when I look at it and I’m more of the opinion of keeping to the blue line if at all possible. If they want to encroach a little bit out of that, okay what does that look like but it should be minor. I mean the accessory structure is not even a starter. I’m not Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 6, 2020 19 even going to talk about that because it is what the other commissioners talked about it, it takes so many variances. So my, I’ll reserve the right to vote when I see it and what the DNR says and what our water quality people say. What our engineers say and I, that always is important to me to see what the experts are telling us but I agree with you. It’s got to stay within the, to me the blue line. If it exceeded over a little bit to the yellow line okay but those exceeds and variances should not, should be minor. It shouldn’t take for example okay they said we go out to the yellow line. But their neighbor will push it a little bit beyond the yellow line to the red line. No. That’d be a non-starter for me. I mean I’m really nervous about as Commissioner, one of the commissioners said starting down the slipper slope quite literally here giving a variance to lots and wetlands and stuff like that with bluffs and what it can mean for water quality effect on others. That being said I’d love to see a house in there because it’s a beautiful setting and so I don’t know if I’m making myself clear on that but. Weick: I think so and you know there certainly is enough, to me there’s enough disagreement. You know I, maybe it’s better just to. McGonagill: I’ll be more direct. I think if they’re across the red line it’d be a non-starter to me. Weick: For sure. McGonagill: Going across the yellow line’s almost a non-starter, would be a non-starter to me. Playing around with it in there perhaps because we know how those lines are but I’d want to see those to be minor excursions. I mean that’s just the way I look at them because I’m trying to protect Lake Harrison. Aanenson: So Mr. Chair I think. McGonagill: I think that’s enough said. Aanenson: I think we’ve gathered quite a bit of your feelings. I don’t think you want to pre- judge but I think you’ve given them direction of what you’d like to see if that makes sense so you can either like I say make a motion to table if they’re willing to accept that and I’m not sure we’ve got for the. Walters: The motion I have is a motion for denial. Aanenson: No I’m asking about the 120 days. Walters: Oh apologies. I believe the 60 day ticks in just after the October 26th date so we’d need that waived or we could take our executive 60 day extension. Aanenson: Yeah or we could just have them write something out right now which would be my preference if I can grab a piece of paper. If they wanted to do that that’s one option. And then I Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 6, 2020 20 think what you could say, based on the input that was given tonight as part of the testimony, if you were to table. I’m not trying to, I’m just, if you were to recommend tabling it then that would be kind of the information that you provided tonight because we do have verbatim Minutes then we would use that as the direction to work with the applicant. And you know where it falls on that line you can judge that but I think you’ve given them direction on what you’re thinking. Weick: And then the other option is obviously to vote on, or to have a motion. Aanenson: That’s correct. You can ask for that too. Weick: And then, and depending on how that came out then the applicant could, they could certainly refile? Aanenson: Yeah but. Walters: Yes they could reapply… Weick: What’s the difference between that and a tabling? Aanenson: Because then they have to reapply. Weick: And that costs. There’s fees associated. Aanenson: Correct, correct and so if you feel like there’s room to move on both sides then it probably would be you know, it would be okay to table it. Again if that’s what you’re thinking. McGonagill: Well Kate I think it’s, if the applicant’s willing to do it I think it’s a good idea because I think we have enough of a voted understanding among us that we would probably deny the variances just the way they’re written by staff. At least I think that’s the, I don’t want to speak for the rest of the commissioners but it seems to be strongly to that, particularly on the accessory structure and some of the other stuff. And I think that if they were to table it and work very closely with staff to come up with a solution so they could use that property and come back to us I think it would be, that would be welcomed by the commission. Would you agree Mr. Chairman? Weick: I think so and I just want to, just be clear that to me it didn’t feel like we had, when we talk about where the house could be in relationship to the setbacks I don’t think there was a unanimous opinion about you know how, what type of encroachment if any is acceptable on behalf of the, even the commissioners so I just wanted to be clear on that, that we aren’t… McGonagill: That is a good point Mr. Chairman. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 6, 2020 21 Aanenson: That’s why I was trying to say not to prejudge it too far because I think they’re going go through it and working with us to say you know it may have to go here but for the following reasons so we want to give that opportunity to evaluate that. Weick: Just to be very blunt there were some commissioners who felt okay with some encroachment and there were some commissioners who did not feel okay with encroachment. Aanenson: Correct. Weick: And so I don’t want to give you the impression that you know, if you build it to a certain point it’s, yeah because I don’t feel like, and that’s why I’m struggling with this because there wasn’t agreement amongst us on that. Aanenson: Right. That’s why I’m, I think they alluded to the possibility of tabling it so I’m saying that is an option so that’s why I’m saying it’s up to them if they wanted to take the motion. Whatever you choose tonight and go forward or if they want to take their time and table it, I’m just saying that’s an option you could offer up. Weick: And I mean have you had a moment to think about it? Peter Eskuche: Yeah I think speaking for the applicant we would prefer to certainly be working with the City and if we could be tabled I think you know in good faith we really do want to protect the property so. Weick: Okay. McGonagill: And Mr. Chairman I think you summarize it being… Weick: So we do need a motion then and I don’t know if we want to get, do we need something in writing? Okay. And it will just, oh for sure. McGonagill: So should we go on with the rest of the business and then… Walters: This item needs to be resolved. Weick: Yeah we need to resolve it before we go forward. And so what’s happening right now, I know you can’t see or hear, there you go. We’re just talking about the conditions of the length of days to table the item before it needs to be brought back in front of the commission. So they’re going to sign that and then we’ll have that in writing and then I think we will need a motion. Walters: You will need a, yeah you would move to table Planning Case 2020-20 to be resumed within and then I think Kate will have the timeline for you to use in one second. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 6, 2020 22 Aanenson: It would be 90 days. Walters: Yep so the motion the motion would be moving to table Planning Case 2020-20 to be heard again within 90 days. McGonagill: Does that give the applicant enough time to do what they need to do MacKenzie? Walters: They have consented to the 90 days so. McGonagill: Sounds good. Weick: We do have that in writing Commissioner McGonagill. It’s signed. So I would accept a motion. Noyes: I will propose the motion that we table Case 2020-20 for 90 days. Aanenson: I would also say and direct the applicant to work with the staff based on the comments that was given. Friendly amendment. Noyes: And direct the applicant to work with the staff based on the comments that have been provided. Weick: Thank you Commissioner Noyes. We have a valid motion. Do we have a second? Randall: Second. Weick: We have a second from Commissioner Randall. I will pause. Anyone who would like to make final comment on this item. Again I think a special thank you to MacKenzie and to Kate for helping us through this one. We will take a vote now. We’ll do a roll call vote I’m sorry. I was, I’ve been away for a little bit. So we do a roll call vote. Noyes moved, Randall seconded that the Planning Commission table Planning Case 2020- 20 for 90 days and direct the applicant to work with city staff based on the comments provided. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Weick: So the motion to table this item for 90 days passes unanimously 5 to 0. Thank you. Thank you. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Noyes noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 15, 2020 as presented. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 6, 2020 23 Weick: And do we have any City Council updates? Aanenson: Yes we do Chairman. Yes so on Monday, September 14th the Bluff s at Lake Lucy, the final plat was approved. So you see the preliminary plat so just to kind of refresh everybody. The first three phases of The Park were being developed by Lennar. They had the option on the upper portion and that property was bought by Gonyea Homes from the development. More than likely it will be their homes but it could be some others too so those were the 15,000 square foot lots and there is I want to say 32 just off my head. And those, working right now to get the grading going on those lots and…were out staking for the tree preservation area and I know Jill be walking it this week and they’ll have a precon maybe next working to get watershed approval. They’ve been to watershed 3 times and the County land records had their plat permit but they’re ready to go. And then there was, I think we talked about the Highover one was tabled. The other Highover one with the grading so they have…with MacKenzie on that. They do have a permit in. Walters: It is currently being reviewed for the engineers. By the engineering department to determine whether or not it would address the drainage issues or not. Aanenson: And then the Bluff Creek Overlay District boundary line was approved by the City Council. And then on September 28th they did the code amendments that you saw or had the public hearings for. The mylar requirement, the IOP codification and then there was a partial release of Development Contract for Chan East Business Park. I also would note to go through the next, we had two items that were, one was tabled so that was, and one was withdrawn completely so the one on Dakota will not go forward. The one on, it was an amendment to the zoning district to allow for auto repair. Sharmeen worked really hard on that. It’s a very busy intersection. People coming through so we had some concerns. I really kind of recommended tabling. The applicant also agreed to table that too. We just want to work through some issues so everybody puts their best foot forward on that project so you may see that. I’m not sure how quickly they’ll turn it around but we do have some other things in the on deck circle and we do have a 3 lot subdivision that will be on your, on Frontier Trail and that will be on your agenda for the 20th. So if the Crossroads Auto comes back, and I’m not sure this one can turn around that quickly either to put this back on, that we just saw tonight so we do have a couple other things that are kind of floating out there. We just have, there’s no meeting on the 3rd so we really just have two more meetings. Or excuse me, three more meetings left so I know Matt has got a couple code amendments. I’d say significant ones for proposed storm water management in Chapters 18 and 20 that are, those are the ones that go before the Planning Commission. Those are the subdivision and zoning ordinance. We do have a subdivision potentially for Yosemite. That is Mr. Ashfeld who was here before so I think he will be submitting an application for that too. There’s a couple other things that are floating out there but are not always coming together. And then just on a side note we are busy doing roofing permits so we think we’ve roofed, I think MacKenzie’s giving decks and fences to everybody else that didn’t get a roof so we’ve seen a lot of permits this year. So we’ve also had a couple people that came through that did lot splits that Chanhassen Planning Commission – October 6, 2020 24 you may have seen and some of those people have chosen not to go forward. There’s a huge lumber issue right now so prices are kind of jumping up and kind of hard to get supplies and so some people are just kind of going to wait it out maybe so. So that is all I had Chair. If you had anything else for staff? Weick: You know what anyone on the commission? Hearing none I would accept a motion to adjourn. Randall moved, McGonagill seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim