Loading...
12-01-20-pc - Verbatim Only-No SummaryCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 1, 2020 Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Weick, Mark Randall, Doug Reeder, Laura Skistad, Eric Noyes, Michael McGonagill, and Mark Von Oven MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Robert Generous, Senior Planner; Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer; and Matt Kerr, IT Support Specialist PUBLIC PRESENT: Bala Chintaginjala 8982 Southwest Village Loop Roger Frerichs 6648 Lake Lucy Drive Ken Ashfeld 6480 Yosemite Duke Zurek 9451 Foxford Road John Wicka 2547 Bridle Creek Trail Weick: Before we begin I would like to just call a quick roll call to make sure we do have a quorum. When I announce your name, just say here for the commissioners on the Zoom call. Commissioner Randall? Randall: Here. Weick: Good. Commissioner Reeder? Reeder: Here. Weick: Commissioner McGonagill? McGonagill: Here. Weick: Commissioner Skistad? Skistad: Here. Weick: Yes, thank you. Commissioner Noyes? Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020 2 Noyes: Here. Weick: And Commissioner Von Oven? Von Oven: Here. Weick: So we have a full house, seven commissioners tonight, and a quorum. Thank you for that. Just quickly reviewing the guidelines for this evening’s meeting. This is a Zoom meeting. Please be patient with us as we work through that and make sure that everyone is heard that wants to be heard. Also, for the commission members please don’t hold side chats or text messages discussions. We just need to make sure that all of our discussions are public and for the public record. Again, there are three items on tonight’s agenda. The items are presented as follows: Staff will present the item. We will then have a moment for clarifying questions from the Planning Commission. I did want to just take a moment to clarify the process. I would ask that the Commission members consider the type of discussion we have following the staff presentation and limit that conversation to clarifying questions only. By that I mean, I actually grabbed an example that I had in our previous meeting from the transcript where I asked for clarification about the number of recreational vehicles that were allowed on the property, which was great and I got the answer to that and then I went on to sort of give an opinion about that, about what I thought about the number and what I thought that would do to the amendment. That’s really not the appropriate time to have that type of debate or opinion. We really just want to ask clarifying questions of staff. The reason for this is twofold. First and foremost, it’s our responsibility to allow staff, the applicant, and all of the public participants to be heard through an unbiased ear. We’ve all done a lot of research, we’ve looked at these items in a lot of detail and preparation, and the time for us to discuss is really after we’ve heard from all of the parties that are present tonight. Second, it will help expedite the process ultimately by limiting repeated discussion that might be had throughout the evening. So you’re not getting graded, you’re not getting corrected, and you certainly won’t get interrupted, but just keep that in mind as we work through the process. We want an opportunity to ask each group questions and then at the end bring all of that information together and then have our discussion about the item. After staff’s presentation and clarifying questions, the applicant can make a presentation and we can ask clarifying questions of the applicant as well, I will then open the public hearing. It is a little bit different in today’s world. We have received emails, those will be summarized for the record and noted for the record. Anyone here in person who would like to make a comment about an item may come forward and be heard. We are practicing social distancing within the chambers and we are taking telephone calls so if you are listening the phone number will appear on the screen and you may call in and be heard for the record as well. Once we’ve heard from everybody we will close the public hearing and then the Planning Commission can discuss, clarify things with staff and then work on a motion and a vote. Thank you for hearing me out on that. With that, I will present our first item. Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020 3 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE CHANHASSEN GATEWAY PUD, MODIFICATION TO PUD-SPECIFIC DESIGN FEATURES, AND AMENDMENT TO CROSSROADS OF CHANHASSEN SITE PLAN WITH VARIANCES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 5,100 SQUARE-FOOT AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SHOP LOCATED AT 8941 CROSSROADS BOULEVARD. Weick: I will give it to Sharmeen. Al-Jaff: Thank you Chairman and members of the Planning Commission. The application before you is for a site plan to allow an automotive repair shop within the Crossroads Development. The site is located southwest of Crossroads Boulevard. It has an area of .79 acres and is zoned Planned Unit Development. Just a brief background on this. The 2030 Land Use Plan guided the site mixed-use. The area surrounding 212/101 intersection has been guided mixed use. These are the types of designations for uses that will meet the daily needs of the surrounding area. They also will accommodate high-density residential developments. In 2005 the City approved a concept plan for this area overall location and basically the area located north of Highway 212 was guided residential. The southern portions was a combination of commercial as well as office spaces. Again with the intent that these are neighborhood types of commercial uses that will meet the daily needs within this vicinity. We began working with Christian Bros. approximately six or seven months ago. This is an auto repair facility. Auto repair shops are not a permitted use within the Crossroads Development. As part of the work that we asked of them we needed a complete design that they submitted. The request is for a 5,100 square-foot building. Because this is a Planned Unit Development the overall site coverage is calculated as not to exceed 70%. In this case the total hard surface coverage within this entire development is 43.8%. The architecture of the building and design is attractive. All four elevations of the proposed building have received equal attention. Materials used on the building are of high quality. It is proposed to include brick, block, EFIS, as well as metal. The garage doors (there will be nine of them) are proposed to be made of glass and metal. They are fully screened. The overall design of the building is compatible and harmonious with existing buildings as well as future proposed buildings. This is accomplished through using compatible materials, complementary design elements including parapet walls, pronounced entryway, use of canopies over the windows, awnings over the windows, and glass windows throughout this development. Parking for this building is buffered from views through evergreens and landscaping. The total required parking for this development (there is a shared parking agreement for all of the buildings) and the total should be 247 and this entire development is proposing 278 parking spaces. Signage is proposed to include two wall-mounted signs facing northwest and southeast. Signage is in compliance with the ordinance. They do need to apply for a building permit but these are individual letters, backlit. There is one monument sign proposed along the northwest corner of the site and it may not exceed 24 square feet. Trails and sidewalks are intended to allow for connection between the subject site and the surrounding area and it will separate pedestrian from vehicular traffic. The landscaping plan is in compliance with ordinance. The shrubs along the east side of the site will fully screen the parking lot as well as the garage doors on this side. The applicant is proposing to Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020 4 have a bench at the entrance in the southeast corner of the building. Lighting plan is in compliance with ordinance. What you see along the right side of the screen is existing light fixtures. What the applicant is proposing is very compatible with this development. This development was permitted a maximum number of 71,500 square feet of total building area. With this building the total number is going add up to 67,271 square feet. As I mentioned earlier, the current standards for the planned unit development do not list auto repair shops as a permitted use. Staff has prepared ordinances that regulate the automotive repair shop. The site plan cannot be approved without approval of this planned unit development amendment. We are recommending approval of the application with conditions. I’ll be happy to answer any questions. Weick: Thank you, Sharmeen. Very thorough as was the staff report. At this time I would open it up for commission questions. You can go ahead and just speak up if you have them. McGonagill: Sharmeen, the question I have go back to the site plan. Walk me through, I have two areas of curiosity. One is how the effluent will be handled inside the bays. What are they doing to wash down the bays, clean up, because there is oil and stuff leaking every day? How will that be handled inside the facility itself environmentally? Does it go to our stormwater? Does it go to sewage? Where is it going? The second one is out in the parking lot, the slope of the parking lot. Which way does it go? For example, if someone brings in a car and its leaking oil as they do and they are bringing it there for maintenance in rain, snow, whatever, which way will it go? Will it go to the stormwater pond that you have there? I’m just curious about that. To keep the contamination as I would call it on that site? Aanenson: Sharmeen, do you want to let the applicant answer that question? If that’s all right, Commissioner McGonagill? Al-Jaff: Sure. McGonagill: Sure, that’s fine. Or we can wait until the applicant presents. Aanenson: I think they are probably more technically… McGonagill: We can do that. What about the overall site grade? Do you know that? Henricksen: Sharmeen, I can butt in here if you guys can hear me. This is Erik Henricksen. I’m with the Engineering Department. I’m the Project Engineer. I did review of these plans. To kind of go back to your previous question, if I recall in the plans, and I would leave this up to Kimley- Horn too, but I believe they have a coalescing oil water separator. It’s a system that is pretreatment prior to discharge into the sanitary sewer system. I believe I did see that on the site plan. As far as slopes or grades it is relatively a flat lot. When the PUD was built out as mass graded, this lot was a part of that mass grading so it is relatively flat. As far as the parking lot itself, it does grade and drainage does go to the storm that’s going to be collected there so it Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020 5 would be routed to catch basins in the parking lot. As far as the issue when cars are leaking in a repair area there is really no pretreatment on the storm that it goes directly to but the main focus again is how you deal with the pits and the drainage inside, which again is that pretreatment. It did appear adequate from our review. Again, I think Kimley-Horn knows more about the ins and outs of the, or the minutiae of that part. McGonagill: Thank you. That’s what I was expecting was some sort of a water coalescer. Usually that’s what you will see. Thanks. Wakefield: This is Jonathan Wakefield. I’m the property procurement director for Christian Bros. Automotive. I’m more than happy to answer the first part of the question regarding how we handle the internal cleanliness of the shop. We are not a wash-down shop at all. Modern EPA standards wouldn’t allow that and we’ve been compliant since we started operating in 1982. The way that we operate we have a Zamboni-style machine. It looks like something you would see on a small-scale hockey rink. It is a daily clean and scrub of the particulate matter that drops from the cars. That includes snow melt, so on and so forth. There are trench drains within the shop to take snow melt, rain, and so forth. That’s carried to the 750 gallon sand and oil separator that the Engineering folks alluded to earlier. I can go into a deep dive of our environmental compliance but we literally have a three-level containment system that more than exceeds state and federal containment requirements. Again, if you want me to go deeper into detail I certainly can, but we are as above and beyond as can possibly be imagined. McGonagill: Thank you. That’s all I have. Weick: Thank you. Great. Other questions from the commission or clarifying points? Von Oven: This is Commissioner Von Oven. On the staff report pages 13 and 14 is where you’ve got the PUD amendment and there you indicated staff had some concerns. In the bullet points below that, two bullet points I wanted to call out and just understand if they are somehow related or if they are not at all related. Bullet 2: All repair, assembly, disassembly… shall occur within a closed building. The second to the last bullet point is all service garage doors shall be screened. Is a garage door with a screen on it considered a closed building? Al-Jaff: No. The screening of the garage door is through landscape purposes. Von Oven: So we’re not talking about screens that allow noise through. We are talking about like blackout? Al-Jaff: No. Visual screen. Weick: Like the trees. Al-Jaff: So the trees along this… Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020 6 Von Oven: Thank you. No further questions. Al-Jaff: Thank you. Aanenson: If I may, Chairman, I think that was one of the things that we contemplated when we looked at the orientation of the building for noise. This is adjacent to kind of the frontage road adjacent to 212 and so looking at that orientation the bays internally, but then that screening, the landscaping screening provides an additional visual impact and the noise attenuation. So that’s, it was kind of a twofold thing. We’ve had other auto repairs that there was conditions put on that the doors had to down the whole time. That is really onerous. For one, staff to try and enforce, and then seasonal times of the year that there may be some ambient noise. We have confidence that the way this operation is going to go that it would fit in. Again, we know there’s a demand fr this type of service in the community, and this seems like a good site. Kind of a transition when you are behind the existing gas station with that Kwik Trip and working on that orientation. Weick: Thanks, Kate. Reeder: I’m Mr. Reeder. Does what we’re doing here is a repair business and not a collision repair business? Does our ordinance distinguish between those? Al-Jaff: Yes, it does. What you have here is basically the equivalent of changing tires, oil. It’s not a body shop. It is actually engines and the running of… Reeder: So you would not expect to have a car that’s missing a front end or a … or whatever sitting in this parking lot? Al-Jaff: Well it depends on what type of damage has… Aanenson: Let’s let the applicant answer that. Wakefield: Again, this is Jonathan Wakefield. We don’t do anything to the exterior of a vehicle at all whatsoever. We don’t even do touch-up paint to a bumper. No window replacement. None of that. We are strictly internal and with a modern vehicle, a very high percentage of the work that we do is electronic and electronic diagnostic. Most vehicles have 32 on-board computers and/or sensors and that’s the vast majority of what you fix anymore. The mechanical aspect is still very important but our technicians are really accomplished at working with both a wrench and a laptop. So, all the work happens within the bays and happens to vehicles that, they are not there to have any kind of body work at all whatsoever, they’re just there to be repaired and put back on the road. Does that answer your question? Reeder: It does for you. My question for staff is whether or not the subsequent owner of this building would be restricted to that kind of repair? Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020 7 Al-Jaff: Yes, they would be. Reeder: How? Al-Jaff: The city code defines auto repair shops and differentiates it from body shops. What the applicant is requesting is an auto repair shop, not a body shop. Reeder: So if somebody wanted to put a body shop in this building, they would have to go through an amendment to the PUD? Al-Jaff: That is correct. Reeder: In this current proposal are there any regulations on how many cars they can have sitting in their lot waiting for repair? Al-Jaff: No, there isn’t. There’s a limit on the number of parking spaces, there’s a limit on the square footage and how many bays there are so I’m assuming that if they reach capacity as far as vehicles that need to be fixed, they just will let their clients know that their appointment would have to wait to a later date or time. Wakefield: If I may I can elaborate on that as well. So there’s also is a stipulation in the restrictions that we have accepted with staff and those restrictions require that any vehicles that are in our parking lot, especially for overnight, must be operable. In other words, they can drive under their own power. If they can’t, they are in the bays overnight. They also have to be licensed. That keeps derelict vehicles from staying for extended periods of time. We don’t want that. A, it’s a bad look. This is a high-end neighborhood. We want to look like our neighbors and be attractive to them. That’s Item 1 and the other, somewhat self-serving here, when the cars leave, that’s usually when we get paid. So there is no incentive for a vehicle to stay long term, overnight occasionally as maybe somebody has to work late and they can’t pick up their vehicle until the next morning and so it forces a courtesy. The first nine vehicles we have go in the bays overnight, and if there happen to be some stragglers, we’ll put them in a lighted part of the parking lot and they will be picked up or worked on the next day. Aanenson: Chairman, if I may? Weick: Yes. Aanenson: That’s condition number 9 of the PUD and that’s what regulates it and that’s what Ms. Al-Jaff was talking about. We do differentiate it in the code but it is further spelled out in the PUD ordinance what was specific to this zoning district. Weick: Thank you. Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020 8 Reeder: Mr. Chairman, I’m not sure if I heard all of that but everything he says sounds super to me. Is that our requirement or the decision of the company that’s coming into this building at this time? Aanenson: It’s our requirement in the PUD. It says no vehicles that are inoperable can be parked there and that also they have to be licensed. That’s pretty much universal throughout the zoning district in the city. All other places that would do repairs. Reeder: Super. Weick: Great questions. Do you have more, Commissioner Reeder? Reeder: I think I’m good. I’m just looking for the trash receptacle. I assume it’s on the end of the building, is that correct? Al-Jaff: That is correct. It is along the north, right here. Weick: Which is towards Kwik Trip I think, right? Reeder: Super. Thank you. Al-Jaff: Northeast. Weick: Great. Other commissioners with questions? Hearing none, I would ask the applicant to rejoin us and if there is something to add. I know we’ve heard from you a couple of times already and we certainly appreciate that. That is very helpful. But we’d give you an opportunity to speak about the project and the neighborhood if you would like. Wakefield: Absolutely. So again, my name is Jonathan Wakefield. I’m the Property Procurement Director for Christian Bros. Automotive. I also have representation from Kimley-Horn. Christian was kind enough to give up an evening to back me up if you ask anything too terribly technical. Our Chief Development Officer is also on the call so you’ve got a Director and a CDO. That hasn’t happened before and hopefully that speaks to how important this project is to us and how taking root in your community is something that we dearly want to have happen. Also, a representative from the current owner of the property is here. We are in the process of buying it, developing it, and it is our goal to bring it to fruition. In looking at the history of this site, the lot that we are occupying was original designed for a bank. There are some things about Christian Bros. Automotive that I want to get into; some advantages that may not be too apparent. One of them is that our traffic count is extraordinarily low. As compared to a bank, we will reduce the traffic that it would have generated by 60-80%. So, at worst 60%. At best, 80%. The McDonald’s that’s already there and operating, we do less business by volume from a traffic standpoint all day than they do in 30 minutes. It’s stunning. There’s a value add in having a very low traffic generator. That’s really speaking to the transactional side of Christian Bros. coming in Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020 9 and becoming part of this development. From a noise standpoint, that wasn’t brought up here in this particular forum, but it was brought up by staff. It was a detracting letter that was sent in an email. Somebody gave their voice and had a concern I wanted to address that as well. As staff alluded to our building orientation places the bays facing inboard and away from the street. The only people who might hear anything out of us might be the Kwik Trip, at worst. We’ve done two acoustic studies in other locales for other municipalities and we know, without any shadow of a doubt, that by the time the sound reaches our property line and crosses into somebody else, our loudest noise, which is the air hammer which takes the nuts off of a tire, is 74 decibels at the door and is attenuated out to somewhere between 40 and 50 decibels at the street. For reference, my speaking voice, I’m told, is somewhere between 50 and 55 decibels. I can talk all day as my staff will tell you, but we’re not running an air hammer all day. We work on about 17 cars a day, and that’s it. We are a true repair shop. We are not a tire and lube shop. That’s not our bit. We don’t need 200 cars a day to come through to have a viable business. That’s not what we’re there for. We see some real advantages. There was a line in the staff report that I really enjoyed and it was talking about neighborhood commercial uses: “Those uses that meet the daily needs of the residents.” That’s exactly what we do. A gas station does that. Having a childcare facility there does that. Across the street, although not part of this development necessarily, the Park and Ride does that. McDonald’s does that. Businesses that may or may not be liked in what they do but have a strong and positive impact on the community in the way that they serve it. Christian Bros. Automotive certainly does that. There were some environmental questions. I think I answered those. Lighting has been talked about. Again, that’s the transactional part of our presentation but I also want to move into the relational aspect of Christian Bros. and who we are and why we do what we do. We’ve been in operation since 1982. We have over 230 stores across the nation approaching 30 states. We may have 30 states. I’ve actually lost count in the 10 years I’ve been with the company. This is not our first rodeo by any stretch of the imagination and it’s not our first store in this particular area or your state. We are also in places you may have heard of: Maple Grove where incidentally we are part of, we are actually in their parking lot, for Parnassus Preparatory Charter School, so we play very well with others, even educational facilities like Primrose who is directly adjacent to us. Also in the Maple Grove facility, there is a Tender Time childcare facility as well and our Lakeville location we are one lot over from a KinderCare and actually we are directly adjacent to a KinderCare in Clive, Iowa. We’ve got another location coming up in Inver Grove. Two more in development: one in Woodbury and one in Savage. Actually a couple more that are too early to talk about. I say all that to say this: We are a highly professional company. Extremely reputable. Incredibly clean. I would challenge anyone and we offered this to staff as well, at least I told Christian to offer it to staff. Feel free to drive and look at any of our other facilities, the way they are operated, way we handle cars, the way we treat our customers, the shuttle vehicles that we have and then we take them to work and back, which helps reduce the car count. We are excited about the Park and Ride, that somebody could conceivably drop their vehicle off and before they hop on that mass transit vehicle, drop it off with us. We will fix your care while you are at work and come pick you up at the parking lot and take care of you. That’s a service that very few can offer. Again, I can’t stress enough how deeply embedded we are in the communities that we serve and service. We don’t look at our customers as customers or clients. They are friends. I know that sounds a little bit salesy but we Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020 10 are a faith-based company and we are very proud of that and we feel that if we’re allowed to be a part of this community, a part of this development, we will have a lasting impact. I don’t know if I said it or not but since 1982 we have not closed a single location. Our business model is sound. Automotive repair is an essential business and during this time of COVID where we are all coping and doing strange things like having meetings in your home office, we have continued to shine. We had one down month and then it picked up immediately. Actually, the month after our down month was the best month we’ve ever had. We’re survivors and we’ll do well here and are very much looking forward to being part of what you already have and possess here: a great community. Again, I’m open for any questions. I’ve been with Christian Bros. for 10 years. There’s not a whole lot that hasn’t been thrown at me before and I can take it. Weick: Well, thank you very much. It’s a great presentation. You answered quite a few questions of mine. In that presentation, and I will certainly turn it over to our commission members if there are any clarifying questions they need to ask you or your team. We’ll give everyone a second to gather their thoughts if they would like. Wakefield: This is usually the part where I say I’ve flown in from Houston, Texas and my time is your time, but obviously we are not doing that right now. So I’m actually going to get to have dinner after this with my family so that’s kind of cool. Weick: That is a good side of it, yes. Wakefield: Anything you’ve got. We’re an open book. Very transparent. Weick: Are you working on something over there, Commissioner McGonagill? Okay. I wasn’t sure if you were turning or not. Okay. McGonagill: I’m good. Weick: I can see you. I can’t see everybody else. It doesn’t sound like, it sounds like you’ve touch on everything and you’ve certainly answered a few questions, throughout the staff presentation as well, so thank you very much. I appreciate the detail you provided and it certainly left our Commission members speechless so it must have been thorough. I will now open the public hearing portion of this matter. I will say that we did receive a couple of emails, or at least two and those are in the record. I think one was in favor and one was opposed to the building of the item. Al-Jaff: Correct. Staff has received phone calls. Weick: Okay. Al-Jaff: Mainly inquiries about what is the development and we just were able to answer all of their questions and ensure that if they had any comments or any concerns to let us know. Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020 11 Weick: Okay. Great. Anyone here present this evening who would like to come forward and speak an opinion on this item may do so at this time. Just please state your name and talk as loud as you can because the microphone is covered with plastic. Thank you for coming this evening. Chintaginjala: Good evening. May name is Bala Chintaginjala. My address is 8982 Southwest Village Loop. That is a townhome. From my home this proposed project is 800 feet away. By the way, I spoke to Sharmeen earlier today about this project. She tried to explain. Actually, I went through this project last weekend. It was very good. I am also a civil engineer. I worked for 10 years in the construction field but for the last 20 years I’ve been working in IT. I want to thank the applicant for investing in our city. He created jobs and also he will fulfill the needs of neighborhood residents. My request is, as long as we can keep the noise levels low as for the allowable limits, as for the core, and pollution is under control as for the limits. I don’t have any problem. I welcome this project and I want to vote yes for this project. Thank you very much. Gentlemen, thank you. Excellent job. Weick: Thank you so much and thank you for coming this evening and offering your views on this project. Very important. Anyone else present who would like to come forward on this item? We also have the call-in number on the screen. Is it lighting up over there? Al-Jaff: Nothing is happening. Weick: All right. So I mentioned the emails have been noted and are in the record and thank you this evening for speaking. Your opinion on the item as well. We’re just checking the phones. We’re just making sure anyone who wants to call in, can. I know it’s weird. We’ve done this a couple of times but it still is a challenge to get used to the new way of doing things but we will perfect it, I’m sure. With that, I will close the public hearing portion of this item. We’ve heard from staff, our applicant, as well as members of the community in person and via email, and telephone calls earlier. So thank you to everyone who has expressed their views and opinions on this item. At this time the item is open for the Planning Commission to discuss the item amongst ourselves, voice any opinion, concerns, and certainly would be open to a motion and a second as appropriate. Yes, Commissioner Skistad. Skistad: I am Commissioner Skistad and I appreciate all the work that went into this proposal and I’m excited about having it. I do think it’s something we need for the community and it’s very well done and very well thought out. The building is beautiful, so this would be something that I would definitely support. I appreciate all of the parties that worked so hard on this project. Weick: Awesome. Thank you. I concur. Some things that were touched on that I had written down. Certainly people had mentioned noise a lot and one thing that I had sort of, I know Commissioner Reeder had mentioned it, is it like, could it be a body shop and it’s not like that. My big question was, is it like one of those quick-change oil places where you got like you mentioned. They make money by turning cars. Turn and burn. Turn and burn and that’s where I Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020 12 think you can start to get into unsightly potentially traffic patterns, noise patterns. They’re not as concerned with limiting those things, right? They need to get in and out. That’s clearly not what’s going on here and so I think that’s great. In fact, having seen that area and, I don’t think it’s the number one probably noise unsightly or detractor, if you will, in that area. That Kwik Trip is packed and like there’s cars everywhere, and people pumping gas and going in and out of the store and running through the car wash. All this stuff. I just think it’s a good use of the land and I think it will be a, I honestly believe it will be a good neighbor for the area. McGonagill: Mr. Chairman, I would agree with you and I think the thing that I think about with their effect is true. I mean a third of the price of your car these days is electronics. Weick: Right. McGonagill: And you’re not, everybody guarantees their drive trains for 100,000 miles but the electronics are the ones you’re working on so I think it’s good. I appreciate the way they thought it out. I do also appreciate staff’s conditions that you put in there on the fact of it has to be drivable, things like that have to be kept sitting out there and there are some conditions to try and keep it up as nice as possible and I think it would be a good add. These kind of facilities, if you think about it, it will probably hire 12-15 people that will be good, permanent jobs by the time you go through it all, not counting the suppliers, not counting anything else that goes through there. It’s a nice extension so I’m in favor of it, Mr. Chairman. Weick: Awesome. We would certainly entertain a motion if there weren’t… Reeder: Mr. Chairman? I’m prepared to make that motion. I think it’s a good project in a good place. I’m pleased with the operation suggestions that they have so I would make the motion. Reeder moved, Noyes seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve the Site Plan consisting of a 5,100 square-foot automotive repair shop and Planned Unit Development amendment for Chanhassen Gateway allowing automotive repair shops with standards, Planning Case 2020-21 as shown in plans dated received October 30, 2020, including the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation, subject to conditions. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Weick: The motion passes unanimously 7-0. Again, thank you for all your hard work Sharmeen. I know this has been a long one and detailed and it’s very important any time we are amending PUD and adding a new neighbor. We want to make sure that its right for the neighborhood and this feels like a good one. Thank you for your hard work. Thank you to representatives from Christian Bros. as well. Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020 13 Aanenson: I would just like to make a reminder Chairman that this item does go to the City Council so for anybody that’s following along, that will be scheduled for the December 14th City Council meeting for final action. Weick: Thank you and thank you for coming and speaking this evening as well. Appreciate that. We do have a couple other items on the agenda this evening. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONING OF PROPERTY AND SUBDIVISION OF A FOUR-LOT SUBDIVISION (DEER HAVEN) WITH VARIANCES LOCATED AT 6480 YOSEMITE AVENUE. Weick: With that I will turn it over to Mr. Generous? Yes. Generous: Thank you Chairman Weick. Commissioners… Randall: Chairman? I’m going to recuse myself from this… Weick: Okay. Just for the record Commissioner Randall has recuse himself from this item and this item only which means he will not offer opinion or vote on the item. Thank you, Commissioner Randall. Generous: Thank you Chairman and Commissioners. Planning Case 2020-22, Deer Haven Addition. Tonight’s the public hearing. This goes to City Council on January 11, 2021. The applicant is Kenneth and Barbara Ashfeld. I just noticed that my title, it’s a rezoning as well as a subdivision approval with variances for the 33-foot right-of-way, 24-foot street, and a private street for a four-lot single-family residential development. The property is located at 6480 Yosemite Avenue. This is north of Lake Lucy Road about halfway between there and 63rd Street. It’s on the easterly edge of the Pheasant Hills development. The right-of-way for Wood Duck Lane runs to the north of this property but the road stops a little bit to the west of this property. There is a small right-of-way access onto Yosemite that was dedicated with previous plats, 16.5 feet each time that they platted something. There’s only 33 feet of right-of-way. On page 5 I see there is a typo in the report that says 31 feet but it should be 33 feet. The property is currently zoned Rural Residential District. It’s guided for Residential-Low Density development which permits densities of 1.2 to 4 units per acre. Part of my PowerPoint, I didn’t go into the rezoning a lot but Rural Residential District is not consistent with the Land Use designation for the property; however, our Comprehensive Plan allows that zoning to stay in place until a development proposal comes forward. At that time the rezoning must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Under the Residential-Low Density land use designation there are four consistent zoning categories: RSF which is single-family residential, R-4 which is mixed-low density residential, RLM which is residential low and medium density, and PUD-R. The property to the west is a Planned Unit Development-Residential. It has smaller lots and smaller setback requirements. On the northeast and south sides of this development are properties that are zoned Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020 14 RSF which is single-family residential. They’re requesting rezoning to single-family residential which would be consistent with the three sides of this property plus they are smaller than the minimum criteria for PUD-R zoning, so the most appropriate zoning and what we are requesting approval of is the RSF rezoning of the property. The existing site is approximately 2.8 acres with access via a private driveway that uses city right-of-way to get out to Yosemite and then the driveway down to the home. The site is partially wooded. There’s one single-family home on it. It’s served with sewer and water service that runs to the northwest between two of the homes in the Pheasant Hills development. The proposed subdivision request if for 4 single-family lots. Access would be via our public street, that doesn’t show up here, out to Yosemite and then direct access to the individual lots would be via a private street. Within the development public sewer and water would be extended and they’re going to provide stormwater treatment. They’re currently in for preliminary plat approval so we don’t have any of the final construction plans. Erik will actually go into those a little bit later. As part of this development there is currently approximately 59% tree cover. Ordinance allows 30% to remain after development. They estimate currently under their preliminary plans that they would meet that 30% tree preservation. The tree preservation shows up as these cross-hatched areas on this map. With the final plat we want them to verify that they are in fact meeting those tree preservation requirements and that they install appropriate tree preservation fencing. With this, Erik will actually take over. Hendricksen: Thanks, Bob. Thank you Mr. Chair and Commissioners for the opportunity to present Engineering staff’s review of the proposed preliminary plat for the Deer Haven subdivision. It will be a little bit of what Bob kind of went into but try to get into some of the minor minutia beginning with the grading for the subdivision. It has been proposed to be accomplished over two phases which is common when the goal would be to have custom-graded lots. The first phase of which the extents are highlighted in purple, would accommodate the installation of public utilities such as water and sanitary sewer. It would also accommodate the buildout of the stormwater BMPs along with public road and a private street The second phase highlighted in yellow, would be the individual lots which will be custom graded and would ultimately be reviewed during building permit submittal. The provided grading plan and stormwater narrative appear to be feasible. While both illustrate how surface water requirements and subdivision ordinances would be met such as erosion control measures or drainage being routed away from buildings and routed to stormwater BMPs for treatment. Ultimately, the applicant will be required to provide a geotechnical report and updated plans when the final plat and final construction plans are submitted for review. Sanitary sewer and water main will be extended from the existing public utilities adjacent to the proposed subdivision. Sanitary sewer will be extended roughly 550 feet from an existing manhole located at the end of Wood Duck Lane and water service will be extended from an existing main abutting the subdivision. Based on the existing topography and the existing pipe invert elevations at the manhole within Wood Duck Lane, a gravity sanitary sewer system is being proposed and while the water main will be extended resulting in a dead-end main, the applicant is proposing to connect the existing home’s water service to the newly extended main. Currently it’s had from a different water main to the east. With that proposal it will promote a higher level of water quality for the future of the property owners of the subdivision. Lastly, the applicant is proposing an 8-inch water main to be Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020 15 extended while the minimum diameter of water main that the city will allow per our standards is 6 inches. If feasible, based on fire flows and pressure, the city will require a 6-inch line be installed instead. A 6-inch water main would promote lower maintenance costs in the future along with the additional water quality benefits as the volume of the water in the dead-line would be less. It would cycle out or refresh more often. Access to the subdivision is being proposed off Yosemite Avenue via a newly extended public street with individual lot access being had from the extensions of the private street as Bob indicated. The image shown illustrates this combination of public and private street extensions with the green arrow being the portion of the public street, and the yellow arrow being the portion of the private street. Because the current right-of-way extending from Yosemite Avenue does not meet the 60-foot wide standard set forth in Chapter 18, the applicant is requesting a variance for both right-of-way width and public street width. After much review by City staff of the multiple options of providing access to the proposed subdivision, staff finds this request to be the most reasonable and prudent approach. If the applicant were to extend the existing Wood Duck Lane cul-de-sac, which is illustrated by the red arrow, it would further exacerbate a non-conforming cul-de-sac, which is already 1,100 feet long as illustrated in the orange. Additionally, the City cannot grant approval of a private street through public right-of-way with the extension from Yosemite being a private street all the way into the subdivision is not feasible. As such, staff believes that the proposed 24-foot wide public street located within a 33-foot wide right-of-way will adequately serve the subdivision of the 4 lots. However, the applicant will be required to secure additional right-of-way from the property to the north in order to construct the street which was highlighted in the staff report for this agenda item. The applicant has already engaged that property owner and is working towards the grant of easement which will be a condition to be recorded currently with the recording of the final plat. With that, Bob, I turn it back over to you. Generous: Thanks Erik. The provision of private streets and right-of-way and street width variances are covered under the subdivision ordinance. Private streets may be permitted if they meet the criteria in Section 18-22 of the Subdivision ordinance. The applicant is proposing to use existing right-of-way to provide the public street connection; however, that right-of-way is only 33 feet wide. Our current standard is 60 feet. However, all of that is off site from this development and their existing right-of-way so we are allowing them to use that. Additionally, new street design requires a 31-foot street back to back and they’re proposing a 24-foot street back to back which would fit within that 33 feet of right-of-way and give us enough space on either side for snow storage and stormwater attenuation. As Erik said, we believe that it meets all the criteria variance findings for Section 18-22. Use of the private street provides additional potential benefit, reduces the amount of impervious surface that will be in that development as well as potential for additional grading. Additionally, they’re going within existing right-of-way that’s off the property and that’s the variance for the substandard street width and right-of-way width. The hardship is due to the existing circumstances within this area. There’s only 33 feet of right-of-way existing for a public street and there is not a need to access the other properties with the service private street into the development going to the south off of Wood Duck Lane. However, Wood Duck Lane would be public within the Stoddardt development if they wanted to develop an additional lot off the south end which is north of Wood Duck Lane. There is a Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020 16 potential for doing that onto a public street. This site is very unique in the community. As Erik pointed out they can’t go Wood Duck Lane to the west and extend that right-of-way because we have an overly long cul-de-sac. This provides a cul-de-sac that is shorter and it won’t be detrimental to the public welfare because the public access off of Yosemite would be a public street and it’s just the four lots within this development that will have direct access onto the private street. Staff believes they meet all the criteria and findings for a variance under the subdivision ordinance. With that, staff is recommending approval of the rezoning from Rural Residential to Single-Family Residential, approval of the four-lot subdivision and this is for preliminary plat approval with a variance for the use of the private street as well as the 33-foot right-of-way for the public street and a 24-foot wide street design, and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. With that, I would be happy to answer any questions. Weick: Thank you. I appreciate it. Great report and great presentation. While our Commission gathers their thoughts and questions, I did have couple. It relates to the grading and I was out there and there’s like a road there. I was afraid to drive it because I thought it looked like a private drive so I didn’t want to drive back there and look at it. I went up on that (63rd) and you can kind of peer in between the house and you can see the property. It’s a pretty significant hill, I call them hills, the grade is fairly significant and it sounds like that is going to be graded down. I guess my question would be when that gets graded down does that create any type of like a bowl situation with the homeowners that are on Yosemite and then maybe the homeowners to the west. You know what I mean? When the purple area and yellow area get graded out to the east and the west then does that create an area that’s significantly lower than the areas to the east and the west? I call it a bowl, right? Like everything comes down into that development. I’m just curious if it creates that situation. Hendricksen: From the proposed grading plan the… on the west side, they’re going to have to tie in to the existing grades at their property line. What the custom-graded lots and this preliminary grading plan showed was essentially kind of backyard swales that would pick up any kind of drainage and direct it north to right where your cursor is, Bob, is where the stormwater BMP is. So that’s kind of a stormwater basin essentially. Conversely, on the west side it’s kind of more or less sheet flowing with the private drive and the front yards directing all the drainage to that stormwater. I don’t know if that adequately answers the question but I don’t anticipate. Stormwater from what we saw in the preliminary grading plans was being accounted for and routed appropriately. There will have to be some refined design with the public street section as that was conditioned. It’s definitely feasible. We have stormwater infrastructure off Yosemite that this can be tied into because this will be public stormwater and public drainage but I, that’s kind of the general overall grading. Weick: I think that answers it. I didn’t know if we were creating some kind of a weird sort of backyard situation. Henricksen: Right. With preliminary and final plat, especially with custom-graded lots we definitely ensure that the original proposal is feasible. The purple section is what would be Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020 17 graded first to get all the infrastructure and everything teed up and then I don’t know the actual ins and outs if the lots will be sold individually or how that will be done, but when a builder comes in for custom-graded lots, we ensure that whatever lot is sold that the grading plan that they’re proposing because they can alter a little bit where the house pad is, how they’re building out the lot, we ensure that the drainage, that’s one of the main things to look for on these building permits on the grading plan, is consistent with the overall plan of the subdivision. It’s not lost along the way. Weick: Cool. Okay. Then I have one other quick question I think I know the answer to but the straight city street that comes into the private then joins at the bend to the private, we (the City) maintains it. Plows it up to the bend? Okay Henriksen: Currently with what’s being proposed there’s not really adequate space for a full cul- de-sac so what we are anticipating seeing and what was kind of shown on the preliminary plan would be kind of that modified hammerhead approach and that’s again for snow storage. That kind of shows it. When get more refined plans we’ll probably condition that to maybe move. We’ll talk to our Street Superintendent to see what the best kind of plowing operations would be but that would be owned and maintained a city, a public street. Weick: Okay. Thank you. That’s the only other question I had. I would open it up to other commissioners. Skistad: I have a follow-up question to Commissioner Weick’s question. When we did that custom grading I’m just reminded of that other project that we looked at where they had a serious problem with the drainage, which is I’m sure what the other Commissioner is speaking about as well. How do they ensure that they are following that custom grading plan? Do they have like a before and after review of some kind? Henriksen: That’s a really good question. When the preliminary and final plat get approved by that time we get the final construction plans which shows the overall intent of the grading plan. When a builder comes in for a building permit they also have to provide a survey with proposed grades in which we review to make sure that the drainage is adequately being accounted for and relatively reflects what the overall drainage intent was with the subdivision. Once a building permit is issued the builder will go out and grade, and by the time the lot is built out they have to do what is called an as-built grading survey and that will go to our building permit specialist and they’ll kind of take a look at it… They’ll look at what the proposed plan was from what the as- built is showing, see if it jives. If it doesn’t, obviously they have to do follow up and then inquire with the surveyor but then we’ll actually go out on site and do a visual inspection to make sure it’s graded as, generally as the intent of the building permit. So throughout the process there is a lot of checks that are involved. That the Engineering Department and Water Resources will even be looking at erosion control and go through to ensure that the buildout is per the permit. Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020 18 Skistad: Okay. That makes sense. So there’s a couple of different survey requirements that happen through the process? Henricksen: Correct. Reeder: Two questions. One, I’m not a proponent of private roads. I would like to hear a little bit more of why we’re not proposing a public road all the way down. And secondly, what happens to the ownership of the outlot? Who will own and maintain the outlot? Generous: The primary reason for not going with a full public street for the private street section was the additional hard cover that would be created on site and the additional stormwater improvements that would have to be put in place as well. There’s addition maintenance requirements for the City. Public streets are generally intended to connect multiple properties. This is going into one property so it doesn’t make a lot of sense to continue a public street down there. We looked at the opportunity. They could put in a public street but then we would get an additional 11 feet of pavement within the roadway section and additional grading to the side property lines. That’s the primary impact between the public and private street. The maintenance of the private street goes with the benefitting properties. It’s either through an access and maintenance agreement or in the staff report we recommend that they establish a homeowners association to address the maintenance and long-term care for that private street. Reeder: What about the outlot? Generous: The outlot could be association ownership or it could be an individual ownership but they would. On top of that it’s the easement and access agreement that would cover the maintenance of the street itself. It may also address the maintenance of any landscaping that is installed within there and the mowing of the property. The applicant may be better able to express his intent with the outlot itself. Reeder: Okay. That’s a good question because it seems like somebody needs to be in charge of that outlot for the future is somebody stores a junk car or something. Weick: Fair enough. We’ll leave that for the applicant to answer when they present. Thank you, Commissioner Reeder. Any follow up that you have on that or are you okay? Reeder: I’m good. Weick: Okay. Commissioner McGonagill? McGonagill: Bob, I’ve got two areas of questions. The private street, looking on page 10 of the staff report… My first question on a private street and this is something we’ve seen private streets before by I don’t recall one that was this long with this many homes on it. This has got four homes and I noticed that the fire hydrant is at the bottom of that street so you get a fire truck Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020 19 down in there what’s he going to do? He can’t get out. He can’t get around. I mean the hydrant’s right about where cursor is. We try to be pretty rigorous about having conforming cul-de-sacs or a way a fire truck can get in and out and we can still have access. There is four homes along her now and that’s one area of concern that I have. How does the private road allow it to be that way? Where the other way we’re always in there trying to be sure we have fire truck access and turnaround access. Henricksen: So the fire hydrant was something we noticed and Public Works kind of looked at it through the lens of well someone’s going to have to plow that and they’re probably going to push that snow all the way down that private road and it’s going to hit that hydrant and that’s going to be a nuisance to maintain and the like. So we, on the construction plan review which we provided to the applicant and their engineer commented on the possibility of relocating that hydrant. When it comes to access for emergency services and fire, the Fire Department, the Chief, they do review of placement of hydrants. At this time there wasn’t necessarily a comment or condition because that’s something they will assess and review in greater detail on a final plat and final construction submittal. At this point we’re kind of looking mainly for feasibility. Function over the form of it right now but to your point, with private roads there are details within the fire code that show placement of let’s say a hydrant where is says Outlot A on this exhibit here which would require a little bump out and maybe a little more clearance for the Fire Department. With this being a dead-end too they take a lot of that into consideration. Where the hose runs. Access for vehicles going in and out during an emergency situation. I hope that answers the question but essentially that is something that staff, both Public Works/Engineering and the Fire Department do those types of reviews. That was also caught by fire comment here. McGongaill: I understand but we’re now, I realize you’ll do that perhaps when they go through and plat it but you’re going through the process now I believe of approving whether you have a private road or not and that’s one of the concerns I have, particularly able to have access to turn around. The second thing with that is those four houses that are in there, I know what’s going to happen. The garbage trucks are going to go down there and he’s going to have to back all the way back out again. He’s not going to be able to turn around. Same thing if it would snow or winter. Again, it’s the whole issue of being able to access it. I understand your comments about not wanting to widen the right-of-way to make the public road with the amount of time it would take up, but that solution for this many houses down in there does concern me. Generous: If I may, Commissioner? The ordinance does provide for the provision of a hammerhead turnaround which is what this area would be and I believe it’s 70 feet but I’m not, 60 feet in length. McGonagill: I never hear that one. Henricksen: It’s a 20-foot radius which again was assessed for feasibility to meet the turnaround. That’s again for a dead-end fire apparatus road. That would ensure something as large as a fire truck would have the ability to turn around rather than backing up all the way. Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020 20 Generous: Which would also accommodate a garbage truck. McGonagill: Next question areas is tree cover, on the map on the tree cover, I think it was purple almost, where all the trees were left. Yeah. That one. Basically, what’s happening, they’re having to clear cut and grade the whole thing except for that bottom right-hand corner? Generous: Any place that shows hatches preserve canopy area. As Jill has pointed out, we think that they may be to provide additional preservation and we want them to verify that. Under the preliminary plan they complied with ordinance. We always push them when we do the final review to see if we can additional preservation. McGonagill: When I was looking at the staff report, let me see if I can find it here. It talked about the fact that it wasn’t going to be planned. There were going to try to maintain, get within the plan, by working with them, but we were concerned trees being damaged by construction… Here it is. It’s on page 14. Generous: In the back of Lot 3? McGonagill: Yes, we’re talking about the back of Lot 3 which is going to take out all those. Then again it’s, we spend a lot of time trying to preserve tree cover here. I realize it’s one lot that they’re going, one big area we’re going for 30% but I kind of go back to the fact of that it’s a private drive/streets, would be wanting to look at almost the 30% per lot, but that’s just my opinion. It is not a clarifying comment. I apologize. Weick: So, in answer to your question is, yes, most of the trees will go out. Generous: Unless they can revise the plan to show additional preservation. McGonagill: Thank you. That’s all I had, Mr. Chairman. Weick: Thank you. Skistad: I have one more question. When you were talking about, I’m sorry I can’t remember who, but the, actually I think Bob it was you, was they wanted an 8-inch PVC water main versus the 6-inch. Why would they want an 8-inch versus a 6-inch? What would be the purpose of that? Hendricksen: That was me who had addressed that. Typically it’s to provide more flow. My assumption, and I won’t speak for them I guess, my assumption would be that in some cities that may be the minimum so they were just, when they doing the design they were thinking that 8- inch might be minimum size… In the City of Chanhassen we do 6-inch C900 PVC, the plastic stuff, and I think we’ve checked the static pressures in the area here so it should have adequate, the fire flows and pressure with the 6-inch main. What I was alluding to with the water quality is Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020 21 because you have a smaller pipe. On a dead-end main, you’re dependent on the people drawing the water and kind of flushing the system for you. Granted, it is a public main and we would flush it, that hydrant yearly. With a smaller volume of water and people drawing from it you’re going to have some higher quality of water than the 8-inch. There are no commercial or industrial facilities here that might require that higher fire suppressions or sprinkler systems or anything like that. But I digress, I would I guess let their engineers let us know why they want this. Skistad: Okay. Thank you. Weick: Thank you, Commissioner Skistad. Other questions? Those were great. Hearing no more, thank you Bob, and I will invite the applicant to make a presentation. Thank you. I repeat, just be sure you speak loudly into that plastic-covered microphone. Thank you. Kenneth Ashfeld: Thank you Mr. Chair and the rest of the Commission. Thank you for allowing me to approach you this evening with this application. Firstly, I would like to thank your staff for doing a very thorough review and providing any guidance on what is truly a pretty property. I have an opportunity to work with very great guidance from him. I say this tongue in cheek that I may live there but I think your staff, as many years as Kate and Sharmeen and Bob have worked on this project, they probably know it better than I do. I am here to answer any questions that you may have. There was a few raised that I think I can address. Mr. Chair and the rest of the Commissioners, feel free to dive in at any time. Weick: Okay. Thank you. Ashfeld: I invite you to do that. It’s a very unique piece of property but a very nice setting in through there. I made note of at least three questions that came up. Commissioner Reeder asked about the ownership of that outlot and it would be intent to create an HOA of the four of us. Not a large HOA. And put covenants on the properties for the maintenance of the roadway and maintenance of the stormwater BMPs as well the mowing. The entire property has been mowed all these years. It’s been mowed like a park and at the end of the day, that’s what I would still like it to be. I’m going to continue to live there. Related to the tree cover, I was very fortunate to have the opportunity for the City Forester to come out and visit with me on some of the trees. Actually, some of the trees that we were really thinking of saving, after she had a chance to look at it and advise me, she felt that they should go. They’re damaged over the years. They’re sickly. There’s a couple of pine trees that they’re dead all the way up to the very tops so there like a, I can’t remember what a tree in Florida is, but. So she was advising that those trees go. Weick: Okay. Ashfeld: When we, our first step was to come through with a preliminary plan just to get your opinion, your feedback on whether this is all going to work and then on the final plat bring all the details back together. Like I say, Erik and Bob have been very thorough in providing us guidance Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020 22 on that. On the 8-inch water, I do work for a municipality, the City of Maple Grove, and 8-inch is our minimum so that’s we were assuming, but to Erik’s point, and it’s a very good point, that for water quality purposes it would be better to work with the 6-inch. We would make that change. With that, that’s all I have really to say and I would stand for any questions that the Commission may have of me. Weick: Thank you, and I’ll open it, Commissioner Members can just jump in if you do have any further questions for the applicant. We’ll give folks a chance to collect their notes. Hearing none, thank you. Thanks for bringing this project forward and being able to answer our questions. We have heard from staff and the applicant. At this time I will open the public hearing. The phone number is on the screen. 952-227-1630 if anyone is present and would like to speak about this item may come forward at this time. I don’t believe we received emails. Generous: I haven’t… Weick: I didn’t see anything in the packet either. I’m mumbling a little bit but there were no emails submitted on this item. There is no on present coming forward, and unless the phone is rattling off the hook over there, I will close the public hearing portion of this item. With that, Commission Members may comment, offer some opinions, some concerns, and anecdotes? Anything you would like. We certainly would consider a motion as well as appropriate. I guess I’ll kick off if people are sort of gathering thoughts. I try and compartmentalize things and the thing that kind of went unsaid in all of this I think, if I read this the correctly, the homes themselves meet all of the RSF codes. There’s no variances on the lots themselves and the homes which to me is nice. Now, there is significant consideration around how you access the homes so I get that. But I don’t want to lose sight that the homes themselves meet all the lot setbacks and lot coverage. Having looked at the property it’s a nice little carving of land in there. I think it looks attractive. But again to your point, Commissioner McGonagill, I think access is the biggest thing in making sure that it’s safe, first and foremost, for the folks that choose to live there. McGonagill: Mr. Chairman, I agree with you. That’s my concerns. I realize too that people…the property now…but after we do the grading and take out the trees. I know that those are over trees and they will go…to recycle them but it change that whole look down through there. I do appreciate the fact the homes meet the code. That’s all the same thing…they’re not doing something crazy here. But I do question because…the density qualification for three homes. It was two and worked something else out I would probably be, that way I would more room for a road and cul-de-sac. I sit here long enough that I really come to try to be pretty rigorous about being sure that we always really good access to places…school buses, cars, fire trucks, and ambulances. All that. They’re on a narrow private drive even though it does have a hammerhead, I think about in the wintertime. People plowing snow where we know…that access problems will be a problem. I don’t have a solution for that, obviously. It’s an area of concern, I guess. Tree cover loss, grading and the access for utility and commercial vehicles. Three areas I’m having trouble getting over and not seeing a solution for. I thought of that…cut through, if you connect, if it’s a cul-de-sac to the south, you can cut through it versus cutting through the owners’ Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020 23 property for that, come straight through that way. There’s not an easy solution for this. There’s right-of-way. There is owners to the south. Difficult… Weick: Thank you. Skistad: I have a comment. When I first looked at it I thought it looked, just looking on the plat, it looked too small have all of these homes on it but then you calculate the acres out. There all .35, .35 acres, .41 and 1.1 acres so they are not on the smaller sizes. They are actually on the larger sizes, even with the road there. So there’s more space there than it appears when you are looking at the drawings, for instance. Weick: I would have been interested to hear from affected neighbors. Having not heard opinion one way or another I can only assume these people are okay. I give folks the benefit of the doubt so I like to think that they sense that this fits and is okay. Other thoughts out there? I know Commissioner McGonagill raised some very good questions and concerns. Any other opinions on that? Von Oven: I think mine comes actually as a combination of those two. I’m not terribly crazy about the combination of things that Commissioner McGonagill brought up. At the same time, if I try to put on my prediction hat, those things are more likely to pose problems for the future residents of that private street then they are of the existing residents who are in the vicinity of it and did not offer comment or any kind of reason for this not to happen. I think, had we received a bunch of comments from the surrounding property saying why this private road would be a bad idea, I might be more inclined to push back, but given the fact that this seems to be the best solution to a tough-to-solve problem, I actually do not see any reason to deny it. So, I am in favor of what we are doing here. Weick: You said that a lot better than I did. Thank you. Which isn’t hard to do. Believe me. Reeder: Mr. Chairman, I think there is a practical solution to this piece of property and complete the development in this area and I think the private road is fine. There is no sense in building asphalt that is not needed which would be the public right. So I’m happy with the way this is presented. Weick: Great. Maybe you could put the motion up. I’m not pushing anyone in this direction but I certainly invite other comments or a motion. Skistad: Can I just ask one more question before we go? I look at the road. It’s 24 feet and I know we heard all the presentation for this but there’s no. I prefer a little bit wider roads in general also, but there isn’t anything in the City that allows you to move a little bit more into that outlot and make it a little bit greater, at least along the trunk of that line? Could the owner decide to do that if they chose to have it a little bit wider? I can see that there is no parking or anything Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020 24 along that, I mean there won’t be parking on the road because they can’t. Because they have to have room for the emergency vehicles or the garbage or whatever. Henricksen: Is it okay for me to speak up to the Commission? So, for private streets or private roads, they are signed no parking. That’s a fire code or a fire requirement. There is no parking on private roads. For the portion of the public right-of-way that would be installed at the proposed 24 feet, speaking with Fire, we would sign that for no parking on one side at a minimum. Whenever a road is installed or has kind of that sub par or a little less wide than our 31-foot back-to-back, that’s typically the case when we sign it for no parking and that would be a potential condition on the final plat. That’s still, obviously, that has to be passed by Council, no parking ordinances like that. It would be something that would be assessed once we get the actual plans to look at what the cross-sections... Skistad: Okay. So the answer is really no. That’s what this area allows based on what you’ve looked at and 24 feet, and then you just have to deal with the 24 feet. Okay. McGonagill: Mr. Chairman, I guess as I continue to go through this, someone said it and I think they expressed my opinions pretty well. There are several issues I have with it that when I look at them in total I can’t get over it. I must be honest. I’ll be voting against it. That’s not to say the product shouldn’t be developed, but…I just don’t have a solution here where I can say it’s palatable to me. I worry, I think about the houses to the east and houses to the west, but also just the access in there and how traffic patterns are going to be and I just don’t like it. That’s the best way to describe it. I just don’t. Sorry, but that’s where I’m at. Weick: You do not have to apologize. I want to be respectful of your need to consider and that’s why I’m sort of allowing some moments here to reflect and think on this item, but certainly speak up if you have other questions or comments or if Commissioner McGonagill sparked something in your mind. Reeder: Mr. Chairman? I am prepared to make a motion. Commissioner Reeder moved, Commissioner Von Oven seconded to recommend approval of 1) Rezoning from Rural Residential District (RR) to Single Family Residential (RSF); and 2) Subdivision approval to create four lots and one outlot with a variance for the use of a private street to provide direct access to the four lots and a variance to use the 33-foot right-of-way and 24-foot street section subject to the conditions of approval in the staff report; and 3) Adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. The motion passed with a vote of 5-1. Commissioner McGonagill voted against the motion and Commissioner Randall recused himself and did not vote. Weick: This item will go January 11 in front of City Council if you are following. Again, all comments, all notes are in the record for City Council and they will consider certainly all of our Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020 25 questions and concerns. Thank you to everyone who prepared for this item. We have one more item on tonight’s agenda. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1601 LAKE LUCY ROAD FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT-RESIDENTIAL (LOW DENSITY). Weick: With that I will turn it over to Sharmeen. Thank you, Sharmeen. Al-Jaff: Chairman and members of the Planning Commission, the application before you is a request to rezone from rural residential to planned unit development. Briefly, the site is located south of Lake Lucy Road. It is surrounded by Lake Lucy in its entirety. The site has an area of approximately 9.03 acres. It is currently zoned rural residential. Access to the site is gained via Lake Lucy Road. The 2040 Land Use Plan guides the subject site for low density residential. Within a low density you can have 1.2 units per acre but no more than 4 units per acres. This category can be either zoned into single-family residential, R-4 which is a mix of low density, residential low and medium density, or planned unit development-residential. Rezoning this property into any of those categories would allow the site to be consistent with the 2040 Land Use Plan. Brief background. Back in 1993 the owners of the island at the time came in for a wetland alteration permit for the purpose of constructing a bridge and a driveway to access the driveway. There were multiple extensions granted to this. The work was completed on the bridge as well as the driveway in 1999. Some of the things that have taken place that we also need to point out is that since 2018 staff has been working with the applicant very closely. This site is truly unique. It is the only island that has building rights within the City of Chanhassen. The applicant’s goal is to build a single-family home for their family and an accessory dwelling unit for his mother. The site contains bluffs and wetlands. It is located within the shoreland overlay district of Lake Lucy and it has 100% tree canopy cover. The access driveway off of Lake Lucy Road connects the island to Lake Lucy Road via a bridge. The length of this driveway is approximately 1,600 feet and this is just the distance between Lake Lucy Road and the bridge right here. Looking at the different options, we know that this is a lot of record, it is entitled to the building of a single-family home. The applicant’s request was to have a principle structure with an accessory dwelling unit. This can either be achieved via subdivision or rezoning the site to planned unit development. We looked at the impact of subdividing the site versus rezoning it to planned unit development. With a subdivision, you will be able to accomplish the additional home; however, you will have to widen the driveway to 20 feet. There is additional grading, tree removal, hard surface, potential for two additional home sites rather than the two that the applicant is requesting. Also, there is more potential for grading with the extension of public utilities. Through a planned unit development, the applicant would be able to use the existing driveway. There is a septic system that is proposed on the site as well as a well. We are able through the planned unit development regulations to cap the size of the accessory dwelling unit. We can require the use of a single internal driveway and the planned unit development governing the site would establish additional limitations on the site. The applicant selected to move forward Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020 26 with a planned unit development approach. With that, staff directed the applicant to put together a concept, bring it before the city to allow us to evaluate the request, and bring it before you. It is important that we point out this is a concept. It was intended to give us an idea of what it is the owner of the property’s intentions were and how to write proper ordinances that address concerns, improve potential development of the site, add regulations and improve the quality of development. Some of the things that we’re able to accomplish is that the total permitted site coverage is 20%. What the applicant is proposing is going to be below 15%, 14.5% with this concept. We sent this concept to multiple agencies including the watershed, the DNR, and staff at the city, and there was one reoccurring theme that was pointed out by the different agencies and different staff members and that had to do with the amount of grading and what can be done to reduce the grading. So we had a discussion with the property owner and the initial proposal basically looked at serving the main home via one driveway. At the southern portion of the island the driveway would split to serve the accessory dwelling unit. We recommended that the applicant unify those driveways and share access, basically eliminating everything that you see in the hatched red and the applicant can talk about that further but he did agree to this request and understood that this was a concern to many different departments and different staff members. What some of the other elements that this planned unit development will regulate is the fact that you can have one single-family home and one accessory dwelling unit. The ownership of those two homes; they cannot be sold separately. These will remain under single ownership. There is no short-term lease and with short term we are defining it as less than three months. We are limiting the size of the accessory dwelling unit. There are measures in place to ensure fire prevention. We are requesting that the driveways be combined. The applicant was directed to continue working with staff to promote preservation of natural features of the site. We are limiting the size of the accessory structures which also include water-oriented structures for the island. We are also regulating dock rights within this development. Staff is recommending approval of this application of this request because I had mentioned earlier, yes it can be subdivided but this is a mechanism for the city to regulate the future development of this site. This is the type of development when basically a one-size-fits-all ordinance was difficult to implement on a parcel such as this one. We are recommending approval with comments in the staff report and as an adoption of the attached ordinance. One thing I do need to point out is that staff received three emails in addition to the emails included in your staff report. They were from Gregory Fast, Kathryn Randall (also goes by Betsy), and Kim and Tom McReavy. The emails basically included comments requesting minimizing grading, concerns with potential light pollution on the island, impact to surrounding habitat. Other comments involved support of the project, commending the applicant for removing buckthorn from the island. With that, we will make sure that these are incorporated as part of the public record when this items appears before the city council. I’ll be happy to answer any questions. Weick: Great. Thank you. I will open it up for commissioners to ask questions. McGonagill: I have the same questions I had before on the previous item and it’s about fire. They’re going to have a well and other fire suppression sprinklers inside the structures? Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020 27 Al-Jaff: Correct. McGonagill: So there’s not a hydrant or anything down there? There’s no sewage down there? They have their own septic system? Al-Jaff: Correct. And there was a rather lengthy meeting that took place between the fire chief and the applicant. They walked the site and they agreed upon a consultant that specializes in fire suppression. The applicant would be able to speak to this matter further. McGonagill: In the conversations with the fire chief is it his intention, as I just sit here looking at the bridge, will the bridge take a fire truck? Al-Jaff: Yes, actually it would. McGonagill: So they could get equipment down there. Al-Jaff: Correct. So what we are waiting for is official certification that the bridge will be able to handle the truck. Preliminary investigations tell us that yes, it will be able to handle it. McGonagill: Under the conditions of the PUD can you put in a requirement that the bridge always be able to handle a truck? Bridges age. To meet that. I don’t know if there is a code for that but I just want the ability to get an ambulance down there. At least to get one small piece of equipment in there. If there was an emergency, that’s whose going to respond and I don’t want to see the fire truck go blasting down through there no knowing if the bridge won’t take it and it ends up in the lake. Aanenson: I’m not sure you mentioned this Sharmeen but the house will be fire sprinkled. McGonagill: Yes, she said that. But they respond. Like a 9-1-1 call, somebody calls and has a heart attack or something and the fire guys, they respond. What I’m looking for is can in the PUD you put requirements similar to commercial bridges. That it’s maintained at a certain standard to allow fire equipment access. Al-Jaff: Specifically from a safety standpoint and emergency management, that will be the intent. Staff will check with the city attorney to ensure that…It is staff’s intent to ensure that this requirement is part of the planned unit development. We will check with legal counsel. McGonagill: The second question is similar to that. Is access for other commercial vehicles, garbage trucks, etc., they will have the same? Aanenson: Can I just clarify that, too? I think oftentimes in situations like that you have to bring your garbage up to the street. That’s actually a private driveway so typically you take your trash up to the end of the driveway, but we can clarify that. Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020 28 McGonagill: Okay. Very good. Because it’s, I just think about natural activities, landscaping, and construction. People are going to always be doing something down there. There’s going to be a weight requirement on that bridge? Aanenson: Yes, when they are constructing the house for sure. McGonagill: For sure and then as you go down the road it will be there too. I just want to ensure that it’s maintained safely. I realize it’s a private drive. It’s not our responsibility. But with a PUD it is. I mean we could put that in the PUD if that’s the way we want it to be done and just ensure that it’s safe. Okay. That’s all the questions I have. Weick: Great. Thank you. Other questions? Noyes: I have a little bit of a follow up question to kind of the previous one and it’s related to that private road and the maintenance of it. I would imagine the property owner is responsible for the plowing of that road in the winter? The plowing of the snow? Are there any restrictions related to use of road chemicals on that road given that this is a bridge over a lake. Al-Jaff: So back in 1993 when the wetland alteration permit was approved for the construction of the driveway one of the conditions was limiting chemicals used on the driveway. Noyes: Thank you. Skistad: I’m going to assume that flooding is not really an issue. It is an issue? Al-Jaff: It is…the island sits over 30 feet above the ordinary high water mark of Lake Lucy so it’s fine. It will be okay. Skistad: Okay. The other question I had was the accessory dwelling unit. It says it has a maximum of two bedrooms and it may not exceed 1600 square feet. I’m just wondering why we are limiting it to two bedrooms because like a typical apartment would be 1200 to 1300 square feet for a three-bedroom and this would be 1600 so it seems like…I was just curious about that. Why we would be limiting it specifically to two bedrooms with 1600 feet? Al-Jaff: So the 1600 feet was requested by the applicant. Number of bedrooms within the structure, a couple of things came into play. The first one was the capacity of the septic system that is proposed out there. This site will take in the sewage from the main house as well as the accessory dwelling unit. The intent is to provide a place for mom to live as well as a potential caregiver. So these are the two reasons why we limited the number of bedrooms, directly relating to the septic system that’s going to serve this site. Also, we needed to ensure that this was not a full-fledged detached single-family home but rather truly an accessory dwelling unit and it was reasonable to limit the size. Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020 29 Skistad: Thank you. McGonagill: Follow up on Commissioner Skistad’s septic system question, has any sort of percolating test been done on the island to know if the septic system will work out there? Aanenson: Just a second. Can you make sure you are speaking into your microphone? McGonagill: Sure. I’m sorry. I’ll just repeat the question. Follow up on Commissioner Skistad’s question on the septic system. Has any sort of percolating test been done on the island to give a high degree of certainty that a septic system will work and not effluent go into the lake? Aanenson: The Building Official looked at that, just cursory soil types, and they believe there is a couple different types of systems but they are confident that one of those would work. McGonagill: Okay. Thank you. Von Oven: We’ve been very specific about this accessory dwelling unit so as not to make it a sellable total home. I guess, given my unfamiliarity with those things, is there anything about an accessory dwelling unit that makes it less safe than the requirements on a normal single-family home? Aanenson: No. It would still have to go through the building permit process. Be inspected like a regular one. Again, the goal was, there’s no limit to the square footage of a home so you can have one large home. In this circumstance they have identified a home and want to have an ancillary one instead of saying you are going to get two lots. We want to cap those so it doesn’t become two separate lots as Ms. Al-Jaff indicated. But it has to go through the same rigorous. It would have to meet as Sharmeen indicated there would have to be sewer and water which would be through the well and septic and in addition, all of the building codes. Von Oven: I understand that it was the request of the applicant to make that accessory dwelling unit a maximum of 1600 feet. I’m still confused on the max of two bedrooms. Sharmeen, I know you said part of the reason for this was to ensure that it doesn’t turn into a single-family home. Given that that’s covered in other areas, I’m going to make the assumption that the actual single- family home to be built can has as many bedrooms as it wants, right? Al-Jaff: That’s correct. As long as the number of bedrooms can be served via public or private utilities. Von Oven: Okay. I guess then my question ends up being this: Between these two structures, is there a maximum number of bedrooms that the proposed sewage system will be able to handle, and is that governed through some sort of inspection process? Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020 30 Aanenson: Correct. It is. They have to demonstrate that and it’s actually based on bedroom space to your septic and well. Let’s just go back to the two separate dwellings again. If you have enough to make it two complete homes then you have different traffic patterns, different use of the property. So when it’s intended to be ancillary and regulated by the homeowner, it’s a different feel than two separate homes with cars coming and going, two sets of trash being hauled up to the end of the driveway, that sort of thing. We are looking, it says one structure with something ancillary that is related to that principal structure. Von Oven: Thank you. Skistad: I guess I’m just going to ask a future question then. So if, let’s say that someone in the future, a new person has purchased the property. Perhaps they will probably have to install a new septic system so they won’t be able to increase the bedroom. The land won’t be able to have a three-bedroom instead of a two-bedroom unit unless they come back to us and ask for a variance? Aanenson: Yes. Or amend the PUD. Typically, if you add additional bedrooms, you have to demonstrate that you have sewer capacity. Could they oversize it to begin with? That’s potential. I’m not sure. That is something that would have to be looked at at the time when they are putting together the system. Any changes to the plan as laid out would have to come back. Any modifications, which would have to come back as a PUD amendment. That’s why the PUD was put together. To regulate all that’s being used. Skistad: I understand what you are doing. I understand what you are saying, but let’s say that they have an office and it just naturally becomes a bedroom at some point. I don’t know if there is a better way to write that. Because the goal is to just make sure obviously that we don’t overcome the sewage capacity because we don’t obviously want to spill anything into Lake Lucy. Weick: There is a septic field sizing attachment which is really long actually. They specify, and there’s two different options. They specify seven bedrooms and then they sort of explain how they can. It really comes down to the bedrooms. They explain how they can appropriately fit one or two mounds or septic systems to support the seven bedrooms where they can build one for the main house and one for the accessory structure. But there’s only so much space to be able to have the runout fields and all that kind of stuff. I think what they are saying is it sounds like they want that primary structure to be five bedrooms and honestly, I think all that’s left is just size. Aanenson: Capacity. Weick: Thank you. That’s a better word. Capacity. Is two bedroom. I think they are fully limited by septic and nothing else. Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020 31 Aanenson: So if one of the bedrooms in the accessory building was being used as an office, that’s fine. It wouldn’t affect. Weick: Right. Skistad: Okay. Weick: Great. These are great questions. It’s awesome. It’s really important. Reeder: Under normal regulations, is it possible for this accessory dwelling unit to be rented out or would that be illegal? How would be control that? Al-Jaff: They can rent it out but it cannot be a short-term lease. It has to be three months or more. Reeder: So we essentially have two residences on one lot? Al-Jaff: Correct. Which is permitted under a planned unit development. Aanenson: It was proposed, it was originally intended to be an accessory structure for a grandparent. Could it be used for something else? We always as planners try to anticipate something in the future. So if you’re doing a weekly rental, you have a different capacity whether there is two bedrooms. How it’s being used is different that someone who might rent it for the summer or something like that. That’s how we looked at that it. Looking at having a three-month as opposed to renting it out by the week. Reeder: So there’s no requirement that the accessory building, the person that lives in that building, be related to the main building? It can be anybody? It seems like we had one of these accessory buildings I think about two years ago that we approved and I can’t remember what the requirements were. Aanenson: Right now we have a variance requirement that you can finish your basement off and have someone living with you but that has to be related to you. It’s a different requirement. It is certainly a requirement that you could put on this property. That’s certainly under the PUD. You could say that the person living there has to be related. That’s an option. We gave a different option. Reeder: What is the intent of the proposed property owner? Aanenson: I would have to ask the applicant to speak to that. Skistad: I’m just going to look at this from a lease perspective again. I’m just going to assume that, let’s just say it sold and they want to lease this secondary area. I’m going to assume that you Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020 32 could do a typical lease which runs 12 months and then possibly it turns into a month-to-month lease but that wouldn’t cause any problems here because they would have met the minimum. Aanenson: Yes. Skistad: Okay. Weick: Great. More thoughts or questions on this one for Sharmeen? Just holler if I’m rushing you as commission members. If you need some more time to read or think, just holler at me. I don’t want to push anybody. Von Oven: Hey, Commissioner Weick! Weick: Yes. Von Oven: I’m hollering at you. I’ve been sitting here trying to figure out how to ask this question so it’s not going to come out right. At the very beginning, Commissioner McGonagill talked about the bridge and it was very clear to me that an existing bullet, there is not an existing bullet in the PUD that says, “Hey, this bridge has to be safe.” So I think my question is more procedural. For us as a Planning Commission tonight, moving forward with this. If there are those of us who would like to see a bullet point in that PUD, is that be an amendment possibly? Is that a motion? Is that something that can be done after the fact? How does that work? Aanenson: I would recommend that you make it, if someone wanted that in the conditions, that you make that an amendment to the motion, that that be added. Von Oven: Okay. McGonagill: Following up to his question procedurally, does that happen after the first motion or can you make an amendment before then? Aanenson: You can make it as part of your original motion. Weick: As part of the motion. Aanenson: So what we’re checking on is the legality. It is a lot of record so they could build on that lot without going through this process and you would have the same jurisdiction. But we’ll follow up on that and have that answer if you want to amend that motion and get that clarified when it goes up to city council. McGonagill: Very good. Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020 33 Von Oven: Got it. Okay, sorry. I’m going to repeat what you just said to make sure I understood it. If the applicant was just going to build a single-family home, they could just do that in its current state? Aanenson: Yes. Von Oven: The reason why our concerns about the bridge holding an ambulance could be met is because they are asking for this variance. I’m sorry, this rezoning, in which case we have the ability to amend what is being proposed right now as the PUD? Aanenson: That is correct. Von Oven: I think I’m getting this thing down. Thank you. Weick: You’re killing it. But a motion is premature at this point because we have not heard from the applicant or the public hearing. So unless there are other… I will move at this point to, and we certainly have an opportunity to follow up with staff as questions come up. I would invite the applicant if they are on the Zoom call to make any comments or a presentation. Wicka: I am and thank you very much. Weick: Welcome! Wicka: Thank you. And thank you to all the members of the Planning Commission for considering this rezoning request. My name is John Wicka. I live at 2547 Bridle Creek Trail in Chanhassen with my wife and five daughters. We’ve been, I don’t know if this qualifies, in Chanhassen as long-time residents but we’ve been here is this house for 17 years. At least we’re not newcomers. I thank you for the opportunity to speak to you all and offer you a little additional information and commentary for your consideration as you consider this rezoning request. The first time my wife and I experienced the island was in June of 2018, just over two years ago and it was just recently put up for sale by Al and Mary Weingart who live on the adjacent property and still do. It was their dream to build a home out on the island. They’re the ones that oversaw the building of the bridge so I’ll come back around and talk more about that and I will be happy to answer any questions pertaining to the bridge. I understand there is a lot of concern in and around that. When we first experienced the island in June of 2018 I think our first reaction was I guess we couldn’t believe it was available. It’s sizeable. It has some acreage to it. It’s unique. It’s an island but it’s even better than an island. It’s an island with a pre-existing, very capable bridge that is intended to support fire trucks and construction trucks and so forth. It was really an ideal find for us. If you’ve had a chance to consider the topography map there, the top graphic map, it’s very interesting topography. It’s flat around many of the edges but it has this elevation in the center of the island and there are bluffs there. There are bluff setbacks there. There are wetland setbacks so there is a lot of dynamic things happening on the island but it is indisputably breathtakingly beautiful. We were excited about the opportunity because of the size Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020 34 of the property and it had been our desire for several years to build a home for my mother who is now 86 years old near us. My dad died 21 years ago so this has been kind of something that we’ve been thinking of considering and planning for some time now. My mother is fiercely independent but she is 86 years old. She now really relishes or welcomes or is excited about the opportunity to maintain her independence but still have us just a moment’s notice away. So this was one of the big motivations for us to purchase the island because we thought it gave us the elbow room, if you will, to build a separate structure for her. Just two months later we purchased the island and at that time the first order of business was to eradicate the buckthorn. I think about it as kind of freeing the island because the buckthorn had a choke hold on the island. I think it was a neighbor’s comment that Sharmeen referenced a few moments ago that they were glad that we took out the buckthorn. I worked with Jill Sinclair. Walked the island with her over two years ago. She made some recommendations on some experts that could remove the buckthorn and treat it. It transformed the island back to its natural state. So it was very important for us to get the balance back to the island, and it doesn’t surprise me that the neighbors were in favor or positively affected by that because they all look at the island. It makes the view of the island so much more interesting because you get depth. It looked like an overgrown bush. You couldn’t see into it. You couldn’t penetrate it. Frankly, when you were on the island you couldn’t see the water from the interior of the island. So that was important to us. I don’t know what your experience is with buckthorn but I didn’t realize they grew into trees. Sizeable, 14-inch diameter type size trees. So it was not a small undertaking. At the same time in August of 2018 when we undertook the eradication of the buckthorn, we ran off full speed with an architect to build our dream home and with an attached, if you will, living structure for my mother. We intended to do that via connecting it by a skyway or a tunnel so that we met all of the city requirements. But, the things that make the island beautiful and unique and magical also make it a very challenging piece of property to build on. Again, there are bluffs. There are bluff setbacks. There are wetland setbacks. There was only one sensible place to put the septic system. There is a lot of elevation in the interior of the island so getting the grading right to get up that high is tricky business. Sadly, about five months later after spending a fair amount of money in architectural fees, we bagged it. We were demoralized. We couldn’t get it right. It was like putting together a puzzle and we couldn’t seem to kind of crack the code to make it work, so we stopped. We let several months go by. I did reach out to city staff and I had all sorts’ questions about variances and every time we turned around we hit another complication and we just couldn’t get it to work. But after kind of a cooling off period we took a second attempt at it but we stopped again because it just was overwhelming. It was an emotionally overwhelming, and I know you may be thinking how can it be so hard when there is that much space to work with? But again, all of the complexities layered on top of each other make it a very challenging task. So I circled back with city staff another time looking for more out-of-the-box solutions, if you will, and that’s when I discovered that single-family residential was an option. So, we started looking at that and we realized that that was a really big undertaking. As Sharmeen, the road coming down that services the island from Lake Lucy Road would have to be widened considerably. There were, I think, nine or more agencies that were involved in the original construction of the road and bridge in 1998-1999 and so to bring sewer and water down, the only way we could get our head around that would be to involve a developer and go through the whole subdividing of the island and that’s not what we Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020 35 had in mind for the island. We were enamored with natural beauty of it and this felt like we would have to get very creative and create lots and the size of the roads and the cul-de-sacs and the infrastructure just made this a very undesirable option. That led us to the option to consider the PUD which, the way I understand it, is it provides some flexibility in creating exceptions that we are talking about here today but also requires, if you will, something in return, meeting the higher standards, sprinklers, or the turnarounds for the fire trucks, the higher building standards. We intend to build a green, being environmentally green with solar and geothermal and high building standards, and high-quality windows, and recapturing rainwater for reuse, that type of thing. So we intend to meet the higher standards in the conditions put upon the PUD request. This seemed to be a much more sensible solution, not only for what we were trying to accomplish, but really for all parties involved. The impact on the island is much lower than going for single-family residential. It’s better for the community, for the neighborhood, for the island, and so it seemed to be much more sensible and while I suppose the single-family residential is an option, it’s not a very good option. We would like to preserve the integrity of the island, not only now but into the future and we think this is a way to do that. I only have a few more comments if you can bear with me for just a few more moments. I did have a chance to meet with the city and county experts on some of the challenges that the island offers. I was able to walk the island with Fire Chief Don Johnson… (coughing). I just got over COVID so pardon the cough here. Weick: Thanks. Wicka: I’m in the clear now but I can tell it is still affecting my throat. I was able to walk the island with Fire Chief Don Johnson and he understandably had some concerns, some of them that you stated. That’s why we had gone through, I went back to the bridge builder and designers and it is and always was designed to carry not only construction trucks, but emergency vehicles and fire trucks. I’ll come back and be happy to answer questions about that. We also incorporated turnarounds for the fire trucks. I heard some of that commentary and concerns in the previous PUD that you were discussing. So we have accounted for that. I also was able to have a Zoom meeting with Terry Jeffery, Watershed Planning Manager with Bluff Creek. I also learned quite a lot in my conversation with Terry and was very pleased because I know this is high on everybody’s list, keeping the integrity of the water and the cleanliness of the lake. That’s certainly a concern of ours. I was very pleased in that conversation with Terry. He was very matter of fact. He knew exactly which five concerns he had that we needed to meet and we went through them together. I won’t put words in his mouth because I’m sure he’s commented on his own, but by the end of the conversation I think we, I think I can say both agreed that the island actually handled all of these requirements very well, actually. We didn’t have any concerns there. I’ll trust that he gave his own report and that it’s consistent with what I’m saying. The driveway, the purpose for that driveway that runs further to the south that forks off was to service the accessory dwelling unit. The reason for that, and I have a little bit of heartburn giving that up I’ll be honest with you, but I’m willing to make that a condition is because it’s flat. If you can see those topographic lines there it doesn’t climb the elevated area of the island. It runs along the south side and is largely flat. That was intended to make it easier for my aging mother to be able to go out and walk and get outside, frankly, and enjoy the island. But, as I said, we have agreed Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020 36 to make it a condition. There were multiple comments on that assuming that’s still desirable we have agreed to have the one driveway service both dwelling units. My final comment is I did initiate some outreach to the Lake Lucy Homeowners Association and that consisted of all lot owners on Lake Lucy and they are the ones most impacted by any development that we do on the island, whatsoever. So I did initiate some outreach there. Because of COVID we weren’t able to organize any in-person meeting, but I did encourage them all to bring any questions or concerns with me. I did hear from three of the parties. I was able to answer their questions. Most of them were curiosities and clarification. I believe I have all of their support, at least I’m not aware of anyone that doesn’t support it. I was able to provide them with clearer maps than were available on the city website so they could get a better understand of what we were after. So, I feel pretty good about engaging the neighborhood and as I said I heard from some of them but I think it was all positive interaction and I hope and I believe that I have their support. Again, I would like to thank you all for your consideration here and I’m happy to take any questions you might have. Weick: Wow. Thank you so much. That offers a lot of color and clarity on what you’re trying to do and thank you for hanging in there with your cough and giving us that. That’s really helpful. I will open it up though. I know there were several questions that commission members had raised that I know would have been properly answered by you. I don’t know if those have already been answered but we’ll open it up to the commission members to either ask follow ups on those questions or ask new questions. McGonagill: Thank you for a very good presentation and walking us through this. You walked with the Fire Chief so I would assume, talk to us about the bridge that there is a certain design standard the bridge has been designed to and it was for construction equipment and for fire equipment and it is your intention to maintain that standard in the bridge going forward? Wicka: Yes it is Commissioner and thank you for the opportunity to come back around and address the concerns around the bridge. Fire Chief Johnson was, we had quite a lot of back and forth via email after our meeting and he was able to provide me with the specifications on the two, I believe they are the two largest trucks, but they are also the two primary trucks that would service the island in case of a fire. I did share that with the company that built the bridge. They went to their engineers and shared with me that the bridge was designed and built to support trucks of that size. That answers I think the question in terms of when it was originally built. I think your question is a fair one in terms of ongoing upkeep and maintenance and as long as it’s a reasonable interval so that, because I am sure there are cost implications that come with this, but as long as there is a reasonable interval to recertify it with an engineering firm that it is still capable or operating as designed, still capable of supporting those trucks, I would be happy to incorporate that. McGonagill: Thank you. I appreciate that because just like you I’ve got some elderly parents and when I call emergency services I want them to be able to get to them, and it’s very true to you, too. On the design, one of the questions I have for you is, I didn’t see it. I may have missed it Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020 37 because I just probably missed it. There’s a two-story guest house and there is also an accessory structure at the end of the first driveway. Is that a garage? Wicka: I think it’s ultimately going to be a multi-purpose structure. It’s put there because as someone was pointing out earlier we’re going to be responsible for a lot of private driveway here. So I’m envisioning a plow in there and probably other utility-type tools and needs for the island. We put it there so it was kind of closer to the access point of the island and also a little bit out of the way although we intend to design it such that it’s equally attractive to the rest of the structures on the island. McGonagill: Thank you. That’s all I had Mr. Chairman. Weick: Great. Thank you. Any other questions for our applicant? Skistad: I don’t have a question I just have a, I guess a statement. My goal, my questions about the limitations of the bedrooms was just to make sure we weren’t putting a limitation over the property unnecessarily. That was the only goal with that. I think it sounds like a great project so I’m for it so that was the reason for reason for those questions. Weick: Great. Thank you. Wicka: And thank you Commissioner for that thought. I appreciate it. When it was suggested that it be limited we were agreeable to it because as previously stated the concept is just a space for my mother and perhaps a caregiver. So thank you. Aanenson: Mr. Chair, if you want to open the public hearing. Weick: I will. I was just giving people a second in case they wanted to speak. I always feel like I’m talking over somebody. Thank you Commission members and thank you for, again, a really thorough and honest appraisal of how you are going to use that beautiful piece of property so thank you very much for joining us. At this time I will open the public hearing portion. If anyone would like to come forward and speak and opinion on this matter may do so now. Sharmeen, you already. I might be mixing my cases but I think you already summarized the emails for us, right? Al-Jaff: I did. Weick: Yes. Thank you. And those will be in the record and the telephone number has been up on the screen for a little bit. Would you like to? Yeah, absolutely. So we have someone joining us here in chambers. Again, as you’ve heard, just please speak very loudly into the microphone. Frerichs: Thank you very much. I’m Roger Frerichs and we are neighbors on Lakeway Drive, the street right over next to it. I didn’t come here with any particular speech in mind but I came with less knowledge and so after hearing the discussion of the owner, it sounds like he’s trying to Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020 38 maintain the beauty that that island has and that’s why I think it should be something that we should favor. Weick: Thank you so much. I’m happy to agree. I do think it’sa , considering the alternatives, I think it’s certainly a good use. Any phone calls? Al-Jaff: I haven’t heard so far. None. Weick: None. With that and with no one else here in chambers I will close the public hearing portion of tonight’s matter and open to commissioner comment, discussion, and motion. And I pre-empted a little bit there. It is getting late, I have to admit and I’m maybe getting a little dreary. I offered my opinion there a little bit too soon but I am certainly in favor of this PUD. I imagine that if there is concern from neighbors or public like myself, I was envisioning a typical development that we look at where they come in and they grade it down, they clear out the trees, they build four houses and four docks. You know what I mean? That option I think would be disappointing at least to me and I imagine for some of the local residents as well. I would imagine once seeing and hearing these plans it puts to rest those concerns of dramatically changing the view of that island which I just don’t think will happen. I am certainly strongly in favor of the PUD in this instance, and if things want to be added to it, we can certainly do that as part of the motion. McGonagill: Mr. Chairman, I agree with you to stick with the other, just to the small amendment we talked about on the bridge just for emergency access. I’m also there with you because, let’s face it. This is privately owned. It’s property that someone has owned and purposed. They have the constitutional right to develop it and they worked through the process and I think it’s about as nice as one could imagine if he carries out the plans that he’s talking about it would be great. So, yes I think it’s a good use of the property for a very unusual one. Weick: Yeah. Sure. McGonagill: It will add a lot to look of the lake in many ways. But I will be proposing the, some amendment on the, just so the bridge remains within a certain level of usability by fire, by emergency equipment. I’ll say it that way. And I’ll let staff sort out what it needs to look like. Weick: Fair enough. How do the rest of you feel? Von Oven: And therein lies the experience of Commissioner McGonagill because I’m sitting here racking my brain trying to figure out how we amend this thing on the fly and get that all in and he knows he can just rely on staff to do that. I’m in the same boat. It’s funny. One, what a fantastic project both from the standpoint of I’m super jealous of what you are doing. This is beautiful and what a great project. Two, it’s probably the first project that’s come through where as a commissioner I have zero fear of us setting some sort of a precedent here because we’re never going to see another property like this so, variance away here. It’s great. The third part is Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020 39 that I’m not at all worried about the applicant and his any lack of letting that bridge deteriorate. He will have every reason in the world to ensure that emergency personnel can access that property. The reason that I will support, however Commissioner McGonagill gets this done, is for the next owner. For that owner down the road who might be renting the property out, which I am also in favor of for long term and I’m glad that provision was put it there, to just ensure that we don’t end up with a situation many, many years from now where someone is renting out the property to someone else and they’re letting the bridge deteriorate. I do not want to put any undue burden on Mr. Wicka for yearly engineering reviews of the bridge. I just don’t know how that works. But finding a way where we ensure that for the long term that very unique structure maintains safety standards without putting the undue burden on Mr. Wicka is what I would be in favor of. McGonagill: I support you in that regard. Five daughters, he’ll have 15 grandchildren pretty soon and he will want emergency personnel in there. Weick: Great. Those are great thoughts and great viewpoints. Go ahead. McGonagill: Are you ready for a recommendation? Weick: Sure. McGonagill moved, Skistad seconded for the Planning Commission to recommend approval of rezoning of the property located at 1601 Lake Lucy Road with an approximate area of 9.03 acres from Rural Residential to Planned Unit Development-Residential incorporating the attached standards and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Decision recommendation, including an amendment that staff will work with the property owner to develop appropriate safety standards for the continued maintenance of the bridge. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. Weick: Thank you, Commissioner McGonagill. We have a valid motion. Do we have a second? Skistad: I’ll second that. Weick: Thank you Commissioner Skistad. We have a motion and a second. Any last minute comment? Hearing none we will have a roll call vote and I will start with Commissioner Randall, if he returned. Weick: Again, thank you to everyone who prepared and good luck with the property and I think this item does go to City Council. Aanenson: Correct. Actually it goes on the 14th. Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 1, 2020 40 Weick: December 14th. If you are following this item at home, December 14th in front of City Council. Again, thank you to everybody and that is our final public hearing for this evening. Would someone please note the Commission minutes from November 17th. Our last meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Skistad noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated November 17, 2020 as presented. Weick: Thank you, Commissioner Skistad. Kate, are there any administrative presentations? Aanenson: No. We did not have any City Council updates but I just wanted to apprise you of something. I did receive an email from someone on 63rd Street, Mr. Meyer, who said he wasn’t able to, he didn’t see the number flash across the screen. That was on the second item. So he gave me his phone number and I will contact him tomorrow and get his concerns because that item goes on the January City Council meeting. We’ll make sure that those concerns are addressed and he may have an opportunity to speak so I’ll follow up on that. I appreciate the fact that he emailed me right away and could catch it. I just wanted to let you know that this is our last meeting of the year so we will be gathering January 4th and actually, we have four items that will be in for sure. We have some other ones contemplating be we try to hold back once we get to four just because it ends up being a long meeting. These were very different items, all of them, and had a lot of complex issues. I appreciate your due diligence on that. So yes we will have a meeting on January 4th. With that, that’s all I had Mr. Chair. Weick: All right. I don’t have anything other than to say I thoroughly enjoy, I was going to say love, but maybe that’s too strong. But I thoroughly enjoy working with this Planning Commission. You guys are a lot of fun and make a very difficult Zoom-meeting effort very pleasurable so thank you all of the Commission members. You guys are prepared and funny and it’s awesome, so thank you. With that I would entertain a motion to adjourn, Skistad moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Kim Meuwissen