Loading...
01-19-21-pc - Verbatim OnlyCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 19, 2021 Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Weick, Mark Randall, Laura Skistad, Eric Noyes, Mark von Oven, Michael McGonagill, Doug Reeder MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; MacKenzie Young- Walters, Associate Planner; Matt Kerr, IT Support Specialist; Alison Vance, Admin. Support Specialist PUBLIC PRESENT: Michael & (Maria) Juliana Sylvia 9607 Sky Lane, Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Brian, Elise, Seagland (sp???) Bruner 6609 Horseshoe Curve, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Weick: Good evening, everybody, calling to order this evening’s Planning Commission meeting. Tonight is Tuesday, January 19, 2021 and we have two items on tonight’s agenda. I’ll begin the meeting with a quick roll call to make sure we have a quorum. Commissioner von Oven? von Oven: Here. Weick: Gotcha. Commissioner Noyes? Noyes: Here. Weick: Commissioner Skistad? Skistad: Here. Weick: Commissioner McGonagill? McGonagill: Here. Weick: Great. Commissioner Reeder? Reeder: Here. Weick: Good evening. Commissioner Randall? Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2021 2 Randall: [No answer]. Weick: Not sure we have Mark tonight. OK. And I am here so we have six and that is a quorum. Weick: Quickly review the guidelines for the meeting this evening. It is a Zoom meeting as it has been for several months so please be patient with us as we work through our process. I also ask that Commission members not hold chats or side discussions or text messages that are not public. All of our discussions this evening need to be in the public record. As I mentioned, tonight we have two public hearings on the agenda. First, staff will present the item. When staff is finished, we have a time for open questions from the Planning Commission for staff. When that’s complete, the applicant can make a presentation or answer any questions that have come up during the staff report and also be open for questions from Planning Commission members. At the conclusion of the applicant’s address, we will have a public hearing in which we will summarize any emails we’ve received for the record, we will open up the telephone line for telephone calls as appropriate and anyone present can come forward and offer a comment on any of the item. We’ll then close the public hearing once we’ve have a change to hear from everybody in every format. Commission member can then discuss the item amongst themselves, consider a motion, and as appropriate, have a vote. So with that, I will introduce the first item on tonight’s agenda. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT WITHIN A PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 10029 TRAILS END ROAD Young-Walters: Thank you. This is Planning Case 2021-06. Just a reminder, if this is not approved or denied by a ¾ vote, it will automatically go to the City Council on February 8, 2021. In addition, any citizen or resident aggrieved of this decision can appeal it. There are four business days to do that and if appealed it will also go to the City Council. That being said, this is a variance to use a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. The location is 10029 Trails End Road. This lot is zone Residential Single Family. This zoning district has a minimum 15,000 square foot lot area, requires 30-foot front and rear setbacks, 10-foot side yard setbacks. This district is limited to a maximum of 30% total lot cover of which at most, 25% can be impervious. Buildings are limited to 35 feet in height. It is a single-family district so under the Code, it is only allowed single-family residences. Duplexes would not normally be permitted. There is a large drainage and utility easement running across the rear of the property. The applicant is proposing to construct a new home of this site. The proposal would leave them with 23¼ percent lot cover but the home’s footprint that has been proposed meets all aspects of City Code. So they are not requesting any variance from any setbacks or lot cover ordinance. I put up the elevations here just so you can see. So what the applicant is proposing is they are proposing adding an apartment above the three-car garage. It will be attached to the home. The apartment will have a kitchen, bedroom, laundry area and bathroom. This would constitute separate dwelling unit because it is separated from the rest of the upper level by walls here so there is no free flow between. They have stated that they need this apartment to facilitate the in-home care of aging Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2021 3 parents. The father has a Parkinson’s diagnoses which necessitates this arrangement. They have stated that the house will have the external appearance of a single-family home and that they are not proposing separate utility service. So, we did get some calls from the neighbors. We had one phone call just asking what was going on with the lot. Once we clarified that the proposed accessory dwelling unit would be an attached unit and not a separate building, they indicated they had no concerns with it. We did also get one email in support of the proposal which was forwarded to the Planning Commission. This is a bit of a unique variance. Typically the City Code does not allow for variances for uses. So, for instance, we couldn’t give a variance for allow and industrial use to go in a residential neighborhood. There is one exemption in the Code which is allowing a single-family house to be used for a two-family dwelling if four conditions are met. They has to be a demonstrated need based on disability, age or financial hardship; the dwelling has to maintain the exterior appearance of a single-family dwelling; it cannot have separate utility services; and the variance cannot be deemed to negatively impact the surrounding properties or neighborhood. In looking over the applicant’s proposal, staff believes this meets all four of these criteria. The city has issued three similar variances in the last 20 years. We have yet to receive any complaints engendered by having this type of above-garage arrangement for caring for elderly parents. So for that reason, staff believes that this….is recommending approval on this variance. Staff is recommending conditions to prevent it from being rented out in the future and those will be recorded against the property. With that, if there are any questions, I’d be happy to answer them. Weick: Thank you, MacKenzie. I will open it up for any Commissioner questions. Hearing… von Oven: You said there’s only been three or four of these in the last 20 years, but did you mean specific to this type of variance? Are there other variances where folks have built a separate dwelling on the same property and been issued a variance? Young-Walters: Nope. We have issued since 2020, the city has received variance requests to use a lot zoned for single-family as a two-family dwelling and in all three cases, it’s been an apartment above the garage. Pretty much with some size differences, identical to this. von Oven: Got it. And then in the “may not be rented” clause, what would actually stop a family from down the road doing an Airbnb. Young-Walters: Ya, so it would be one of those where were staff to receive a complaint, we would then have leverage because the document recorded. But as you indicated, it’s not like we would be able to do a regular inspection or monitor the site to guarantee to it was never listed. There is something of an honor system. von Oven: Got it. OK, thank you. Weick: Thanks, Mark. Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2021 4 Noyes: Chairman, it’s Commissioner Noyes. I have a question about the future. If this property is sold, I know staff has mentioned that there are ways to tie this variance into the property going forward. Can you explain that a little bit to, in case there are new owners in the future how they would be held to the same standards as the current owners? Young-Walters: Yep, so the main things is variances are recorded with the county against a property so when you do a title search, that variance and what’s recorded again it is going to pop up. It would also need to be done as part of a seller’s disclosure so anyone buying this would know that that restriction is in place. There would also be copies of the variance in the property file for public inspection and then, again, it would just, again, being kind of on that expecting people to follow the rules but then the city would have a clear enforcement mechanism were it violated because we could very easily go to a judge and say, this is explicitly recorded against a property and is not being followed. Noyes: Thank you. Reeder: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Reeder. When I look at this for a Parkinson’s, a person who has that disease, is there any way that they’re anticipating being able to augment the stairway for some person that has a physical problem? Young-Walters: I would defer that question to the applicant. Weick: And we’ll hold that for the applicant’s presentation. Did you have any other questions, Commissioner Reeder? Reeder: No, that’s fine. Just seems like there should be some provision there. Weick: OK. Other comments or questions of MacKenzie? Cool. Hearing none, I will invite the applicant to join us and either answer the specific question about the stairwell and please talk to use about this project. Michael Sylvia: Hi, hopefully everybody can hear me OK. My name is Mike Sylvia. This is my wife Juliana Sylvia. Juliana Sylvia: My first name is Maria as you probably saw on the documents but I go by my middle name, Juliana. Michael Sylvia: And these are my parents. This is my dad and this my mom on the left. I’ll at least, I’ll answer the questions specifically, initially, and then we can discuss other stuff. The staircase that goes to the apartment above the garage is wide enough to accommodate a chair lift, the once you see on TV. That was something that was planned. We also, the bathroom that they have there, the shower is handicap accessible and it’s curb less, kind of forward planning for that purpose. But as far as the, our builder is on, Steve, but our plan is if the rendering of the home, with or without the in-law is the same so it’s not going to, it wouldn’t change, it’s going to look Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2021 5 the same as a single-family, it’s just that additional space would be…My parents currently live in…we’re currently renting a home and they live in the basement and they’ve been living there for the last 16 months and my father’s condition is deteriorating and it’s just not…we had never envisioned him living in the basement of the rest of his life so this is something that would be an opportunity for him to live in the same home with us. They have three grandchildren and they are ours and their lives revolve around them. So that’s kind of the, it was always kind of their dream and our to kind of have something where we had separate spaces, not living in a basement, something with light, their own bathroom, their own kitchen. So, this was an opportunity…we love the street, we love the neighborhood, we were hoping to hopefully be there for the 20 years. Weick: Great. Thank you very much. I appreciate the perspective and the information about your project. Commissioner Reeder, I would open it back up to you if it answers your question or you had any follow up question. Reeder: Mr. Chairman, that answers my question. I assume they anticipated that, I just wanted to make sure we’re all aware of how they’re going to handle that. Weick: OK, great. Any other questions for the applicant from Commission members, at this time? OK. Not hearing any, thank you very much for making yourselves available this evening and sharing with us about your project. I appreciate that. Michael Sylvia: Thank you, you guys. Weick: Ya, you bet. Absolutely. Thank you. At this time, we’ll open up the public hearing portion of this item. As MacKenzie mentioned, we did receive… Young-Walters: Yep, we did receive one phone call where they’d asked what was being proposed and then once they were informed that it was an attached accessory dwelling, they expressed they were comfortable with it. And then we received an email that they very much liked the appearance of the house, that they wanted to welcome the new family to the neighborhood and they thought it was wonderful they were looking to take care of their aging relatives. Weick: Great. Thank you. And we have opened the phone line. It is 952-227-1630. I will pause awkwardly while we wait for anyone to call in at this time. There is no one in Chambers for in- person comment at that time. Seeing no calls come in, I will close the public hearing portion of this item and open for Planning Commission comments, motions and vote and I would just open up by saying that looking at the plans for the project, it’s a beautiful and I think the intent also beautiful and you know, I think it’s a wonderful addition to that neighborhood in my opinion. Certainly open it up for other Planning Commission comments or motions. McGonagill: Mr. Chairman, this is Commissioner McGonagill. I just wanted to compliment the applicant for following the process of the city and doing, you know, they went through and did everything they could to meet the Code and variance request. I agree with everything you said, Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2021 6 Mr. Chairman, and….You know, they could have made it…Well you know, we’ve seen some of these where they’ve made it difficult and the applicant’s make it difficult but clearly the Sylvia’s have not. I appreciate them working with staff on this for us. That’s all I have to say. Weick: Thank you. von Oven: I also want to commend Mr. & Mrs. Sylvia. We should all be as fortunate and good to take care of our parents the way that you all are proposing to. It’s also odd for me, I guess, I’m somewhat of a, I guess I’m not new anymore. As these things come to the Planning Commission, I actually do question, there’s probably a day coming where this isn’t necessarily a variance. I think more and more people are going to need to be doing this and we should be doing this. It’ll be interesting to see how that works. I’m very surprised that there’ve only been three or four in the last 20 years. So I’m not nervous about setting a precedence, I’m more nervous about that more and more of us are going to need to do exactly what you are doing and the less loophole, or hoops that people have to jump through to do it I think will be good. So, I commend what you’re doing. I’m fully in support. Weick: Thank you, Commissioner von Oven. Randall: I have a few comments on it. Weick: Shoot. Randall: A couple things. One, just full disclosure. My house is somewhat set up like this. I enjoy having my parents stay with me. A couple of caveats that were in that presentation that I thought are interesting to note. It’s to have a separate entrance. Typically, I would assume if you had a rental unit you’d want to have a separate entrance where they wouldn’t have to walk through the house and that type of thing. I thought was important. It’s a good, I’m glad that they, I’ll echo that they went through the city to do that. I think it’s going to be very commonplace coming into the future. Weick: Thanks. Good perspective. Randall: With that, I can make a motion if you’d like. Weick: Sure thing. Young-Walters: Alison, can we get the motion up, please? Randall: The Chanhassen Board of Appeal and Adjustments approves the variance request for the use of a single-family swelling as a two-family dwelling, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Discussion. Weick: We have a valid motion from Commissioner Randall. Do we have second? Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2021 7 von Oven: Second. Weick: Second from Commissioner von Oven. von Oven: Correct. Weick: Any final comment before we vote. I think we’ve all expressed our favorable opinions of this project. With that I will commence a roll call vote. Commissioner Skistad? Skistad: Aye. Weick: In favor. Commissioner Noyes? Noyes: Aye. Weick: In favor. Commissioner von Oven? von Oven: Aye. Weick: Thank you, in favor. Commissioner McGonagill? McGonagill: Aye. Weick: In favor. Commissioner Reeder? Reeder: Aye. Weick: Commissioner Randall? Randall: Aye. Weick: In favor and I also vote in favor. The item passes 7 in favor, 0 against which meets the ¾ approval requirement as well. Thank you again, MacKenzie, for your report as well as the applicant for being available this evening and we wish you luck with your project. Thank you very much. Sylvia’s: Thank you. Thank you very much. Randall moved, von Oven seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a Variance to allow construction of an accessory dwelling unit within a proposed single-family residence located at 10029 Trails End Road and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision. The motion passes unanimously with a vote of 7-0. Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2021 8 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO REPLACE/REBUILD RETAINING WALLS, ADD WALKOUT TERRACE, ADD STAIRWAY TO LAKE, AND RECONFIGURE LAKESIDE DECK/PATIO LOCATED AT 6609 HORSESHOE CURVE Young-Walters: This is Planning…. von Oven: Actually Commissioner Weick, sorry before you jump in there, I just need to let everyone know that I need to recuse myself from this one. It’s just a few houses away from me and I know these fine, upstanding citizen. Weick: Fair enough. Thank you for letting us know. So for the record, we have six Commissioners which is still a quorum. Young-Walters: So this is Planning Case 2021-07. The applicant is…Again, I’ll just reiterate that if passed by a ¾ majority vote of denied by a ¾ majority vote, the decision is final. If not, it will advance to the City Council on February 8. In addition, any resident aggrieved of the decision has four business days to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission at which point it would go to the Council as well. That being said, this is a variance request to place an at- grade deck and retaining walls within the bluff setback and bluff impact zone. So the location of the property is 6609 Horseshow Curve. This property is zoned Residential Single-Family. It is a riparian lot and there is a bluff present. This zoning district requires a minimum 20,000 square foot lot area. Has 30-foot front and rear setbacks, 10-foot side yard setbacks, a 30-foot bluff setback, a 20-foot bluff impact zone setback, a 75-foot shoreland setback, and a 25 percent lot cover limit. The property is also allowed one water-oriented accessory structure (WOAS) within 10 feet, I’m sorry, that 75-foot shoreland setback although it needs to be 10 feet from the Ordinary High Water (OHW) level and is limited to 250 square feet in size. So this house has quite a few existing nonconformities. The lot is 27,878 square feet with around 23 percent lot cover. The house has a nonconforming 5-foot bluff setback. The porch actually encroaches over into the bluff. The southern retaining wall has a nonconforming encroachment into the bluff as well. This red line here is the top of the bluff and the west retaining wall is a 0-foot bluff setback, essentially running right along the top of the bluff. The WOAS has a nonconforming 3-foot bluff setback, 5-foot side yard setback, 7-foot shoreland setback, and a nonconforming 304-square foot size and it also located over a city sanitary sewer easement. One thing I will mention, is this property is a little unique as nonconformings go. In that, when the house was built in 1999, there was not a bluff present on the property. The construction of this retaining wall here, flattened out the grade and pushed the grade change down enough that it actually flipped the property over the edge of the bluff ordinance and created the bluff that then created all of the nonconformities that are the result of the, that are not resulting in a variance being needed. So, while we did consult with the city attorney and a bluff is a bluff whether it was preexisting or created, it is something that staff kept in mind as we evaluated this variance request. So, the applicant is proposing to install an at-grade deck and drainage system within the bluff impact zone so that’s the first 20 feet from the bluff. They are proposing to place he south retaining wall with a living wall system located within the bluff, and the west retaining wall with a concrete wall within the bluff impact Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2021 9 zone. They are proposing to reconfigure the existing nonconforming WOAS. Because they are reconfiguring it in a way that reduces its size and the existing of the nonconforming setbacks, it does not actually require a variance but we are including it in request just to formalize the nonconforming dimensions. And then they are also proposing to install stairs down to the lake. This is permitted by Code and does not need a variance. It’s just mentioned here for the sake of completeness. So the justification is, in 2018, they conducted an extensive remodel on the property and they actually removed several pretty significant encroachments from the bluff. An impervious patio, an 8-foot bump out, and an above-grade deck that was located across the top of the bluff. The result of removing those elements has left the area behind the house as weed and dirt and the feel a wood deck is a reasonable amenity to having to give some cleaner access to that area. The retaining walls are failing. They noted that during a rain event last year, property damage occurred as boulders came loose and rolled down the property as well as some erosion associated with that failure. They believe that the living walls is an environmentally sensitive way to stabilize the slope. As a note, they could replace the existing retaining walls in their existing configuration placement without a variance and what they’re proposing appears to be less environmentally impactful than what they could do without a variance. Again, the WOAS is being redesigned to work with the stairway and is resulting in a smaller structure and removal of impervious surface near the lake. And again, this could have been replaced with the existing size and composition without a variance. As staff looked this over, one thing we wanted to mention is just, this applicant worked extensively with staff. They’ve met with us about a half dozen times over the last half year and have been very receptive to our feedback and concerns so I do just want to mention that. They are utilizing a pretty robust drainage system, living wall technology, pervious decking and fescues to try to manage stormwater and minimize any impacts to the bluff and the lake. I did mention the unique situation in how this bluff came to be. With that, staff does recommend approval. Looking at the balance of the project, it leave the property in a better situation than what they could do if they just replaced stuff without requesting a variance. I’d be happy to take any questions at this time. Weick: Thanks, MacKenzie. I will open up with a couple questions to get things started as I find my notes. Does the, does the, does the new deck add anything to the hardcover? Young-Walters: Nope. So because decks are not considered to be lot cover and they’re doing a wood deck with gaps and then if you look at their plans, they’re actually running I believe aggregate and draintile base to manage the stormwater as well which is, to be honest, more engineering than they would need to do to meet the pervious definition for decking. So they went above and beyond in that respect. Weick: Cool. Thanks for the clarification. And then, looking at the shape of the deck that they’re adding, I’m assuming that the city didn’t have any, you know, the corners right up to the edge of the bluff line. I’m assuming you didn’t have any issues with that. Young-Walters: Ya, you know, what we looked at a lot was the depth of the deck. It’s a 12-foot deep deck. The placement and configuration make design sense in terms of providing access from the patio door to the connected step system. Especially when we look at the fact that it’s not Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2021 10 lot cover that they’re replacing that failing retaining wall, that they have the drainage system, that they pulled out 350 square feet of impervious surface. Again, on the balance, we didn’t feel this was a threat to the bluff. Weick: OK. I appreciate that. Those were my two questions for MacKenzie. Any other, any questions from Commission members? And by the way, I can see you all now, this time. Just for the, I see you Commissioner von Oven. Well hearing and seeing no imminent questions here, I will go ahead and invite the applicant to make a presentation or respond to any of the questions they’ve heard already this evening. Welcome. Elise Bruner: Thank you. Hi, this is Elise Bruner. I’m here with my husband, Brian, our daughter, Seagland (sp???), and thank you for taking the time to review our variance request. We’ve been working with Travis Van Liere and his landscape architects to try to present an environmentally-friendly as well as aesthetically pleasing design for our property to provide more access for our family and to try to just utilize the full enjoyment of the property that, that we live on. I think that MacKenzie’s done a great job in terms of summarizing the main points of concern, and this has been kind of an on-going dialogue and we appreciate all the excess and….activity that we’ve received from the Planning division in terms of making this property as livable and enjoyable as possible. It is a unique property in that it’s located on a slope and so there are two basic areas where we can convene and be outside, either down by the lake or right outside the front of our house off of the slider downstairs. And so, we’re just trying to make sure that we have the opportunity to create those spaces for our family. I’m willing to answer any other questions. Just by way of background, I grew up at 6611 Horseshoe Curve and then my parents built the original house in 1999 and the in 2016, my husband and I purchased the property from them and remodeled it. So I actually grew up in this neighborhood so it’s pretty exciting to be able to see this through to its completion. So we thank you for your consideration. Weick: Thanks, that’s fantastic to hear about the history behind that, and also a pretty cool project and thank you for including all of the pictures. It’s really helpful especially, this time of year, even if we were able to get out and look at property, which this would be a difficult one to look at. Um, Elise Bruner: Well, you’d have to, you’d have to bring your sled. Weick: That’s right. It’d be difficult to get around. So, thank you for the thoroughness of the report, that was really, it was helpful. It was nice to see how this will all fit together and it looks like a good project for you. Any questions for our applicant from Commission members? McGonagill: Mr. Chairman, this is Mr. McGonagill. Weick: Yes. Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2021 11 McGonagill: Could you? I’m fascinated with the living wall, I think that’s pretty cool. I’ve done a lot of geotechnical work in a previous life and so I’m curious how you came with this and how this will work on the slope and, you know, I’m just, more curiosity than…..just interested in it. Elise Bruner: Thank you. You know, I don’t like to consider myself an expert in anything but when I started looking at options and I consulted with Travis and Danielle, our landscape architects, about this option of kind of getting rid of the tradition boulder, and my husband wanted concrete and that wasn’t going to happen and so I was like looking for something that had a low impact but that kind of, just kind of blended into the environment and didn’t, I don’t know, stick out as much and reviewed some of the really unique engineering where by, you basically put in kind of a webbing that goes into the property and then you kind of, you do the plantings and basically it all kind of gels together with the fescue and so we’re hoping that that kind of just creates a more natural looking environment and, I guess Travis and Danielle could speak to that engineering component if, I think they’re on the phone as well. McGonagill: I’m just curious about…on the slope, the degree of slope that this things going on. I’m trying to imaging the slope it’s on. Maybe MacKenzie can answer it but where it’s supposed to go, what kind of slope is on that. Weick: If the applicant’s architect is on, I would defer to them for a design discussion on it. Travis Van Liere: Ya, I’m on. Travis Van Liere. Can you guys here me OK? Others: Yes. Travis Van Liere: So to answer your question, it’s a product that we’ve used previously and it comes from kind of a company that we work with that’s out of Colorado. They use if for kind of mountain homes or hillside homes. The product that we are referencing, it’s called Slopeteam (sp??), actually, and it’s a geosynthetic that kind of gets laid over the surface and so it allows you to do engineered slopes up to, almost up to a 60% slope. We’re going to do that here but you can do a 1:1 slope pretty easily which is a 45 degree angle and that’s kind of what we’re proposing to do here in lieu of the retaining wall system, which was already kind of, it was battered but the wall was installed 20 plus years ago when the original house was built and some of the boulders that were installed weren’t properly sized accordingly so as you know construction happened over the remodel process and everything else and just time, they’ve just slowly degraded and kind of washed out and fallen down the hillside. So this is a product that we’ve used steep slopes. We’ve used it on various, different conditions, but ya, it’s a nice product. It’s fairly new and not too many people use it for retainage per se, but for managing kind of steep slopes and this is kind of the perfect application with what we’re using it for. Our main purpose we to, as Elise said, minimize the impact from the lake so that you didn’t see this large retaining wall system kind of up again the house and make it a more natural aesthetic. McGonagill: Are you going to have to do much regrading, a grade plan, in order to install this? Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2021 12 Travis Van Liere: Yep, so there was a grading plan was included in our packet and you’ll notice there’s kind of a hatched area that indicates the extents and it kind of looks like a trapezoid. So, where the old retaining was, you’ll see kind of a 1:1 slope and it goes around primarily around the corner where the old retaining wall would be on the southeast corner of that new deck that we’re proposing. McGonagill: So, ya, you will have some re… but that’s part of the application that you’re working with staff on. Travis Van Liere: Yep, yep. McGonagill: OK, well thank you very much. It’s helpful. I’ve used this stuff in applications in mountains so I’m familiar with something similar and it, once it, I’ve never done it in cold climates like this but once it gets in, it will hold. So, Travis Van Liere: Yep, yep it’s really nice. McGonagill: That’s all I have Mr. Chairman. Weick: Great. Thank you. Any other questions? Well I thank the applicant and architect for sharing information about your project. It’s very helpful for us to get your perspective and answers as well. With that, I will open the public hearing portion of this item. I believe we received an email. Young-Walters: We did not an email on this one. Weick: We did not. Young-Walters: I had one call from a neighbor just kind of wanted to know what was going. Didn’t express any concern with the project. Weick: OK. I was mistaken, I apologize. The number is on the screen, 952-227-1630. There is no one in Chamber for in-person public comment and give it a moment if anyone is dialing. Nothing coming in? I’m going to go ahead and close the public hearing portion of this item and open for Planning Commission member comments and/or a motion. I think when I first read this one, I thought, oh my goodness, there’s so much, there’s so much going on here, but when you really peel back the onion a little bit, everything makes sense, to me anyway, on the property and certain doesn’t seem to, it’s used to help the property across the board as opposed to anything that would limit, or be an imposition on the property. Noyes: Chairman, it’s Commission Noyes. I would propose a motion. Weick: Wonderful. Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2021 13 Noyes: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 19-foot bluff impact zone and 29-foot bluff setback variance for the construction of a deck, a bluff impact zone and bluff setback variance for the construction of retaining walls within the bluff, and a 25-foot bluff, 5-foot side yard, and 3-foot shoreland setback variance for a water-oriented accessory structure (WOAS), subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. Weick: Thank you. We have a valid motion from Commissioner Noyes. Do we have a second? McGonagill: I’ll second it. Commissioner McGonagill. Weick: A second from Commissioner McGonagill. Before we vote, any final comments on the project? Hearing none, we will commence with a roll call vote. Commissioner Randall? Randall: Aye. Weick: In favor. Commissioner Reeder? Reeder: Aye. Weick: Thank you. Commissioner McGonagill? McGonagill: Aye. Weick: Thank you. Commissioner Skistad? Skistad: Aye. Weick: Thank you. In favor. Commissioner Noyes? Noyes: Aye. Weick: In favor, and I also vote in favor. The item passes 6 in favor, 0 against which is also over the ¾ requirement so the item passes unanimously. Thank you to MacKenzie. Wonderful report. Thank you, I’m sure, for the very long hours from the applicant trying to put this together. It’s much appreciated and it looks like a beautiful project and certainly good luck in implementing it and, enjoy, when the summer comes around, for sure. Elise Bruner: Thank you, guys, all very much. Other: Thank you. Noyes moved, McGonagill seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustment approves a Variance to replace/rebuild retaining walls, add walkout terrace, Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2021 14 add stairway to lake, and reconfigure lakeside deck/patio located at 6609 Horseshoe Curve. The motion passes unanimously with a vote of 6-0 with Commissioner von Oven recusing himself. Weick: With that, that is the final item on tonight’s agenda. Would someone please note our minutes from our last meeting which was dated January 5, 2021. Skistad: So noted. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Skistad so noted the Verbatim Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated January 5, 2021. Weick: Oh, thank you, Commissioner Skistad. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Weick: With that, I will turn it over to Kate a City Council update. Aanenson: So on January 11, 2021, McGonagill: Can’t hear, Kate. Can’t hear, Kate. Aanenson: Yep, I just realized that. On the January 11th City Council meeting, they reviewed the Deer Haven subdivision which you saw. That one had some variances for the private street and also the variance for the width of the public portion of that street. So there was good discussion of that at the City Council and that was approved. That was the only action we had. At the next Council meeting, next Monday night, we do, we’ll be following up on the apartment project, the wetland, and then we have the Golf Zone on Consent. The other two were variances that there was no appeal on. Young-Walters: I believe Golf Zone got pulled off Consent, right? Aanenson: Ya but it’s on the agenda. Young-Walters: Oh, ya, sorry. Aanenson: So that’s it. You do have meeting in two weeks. We have a variance and MacKenzie’s got that one and then, we’re anticipating having our annual report done. So as of right now, we do not have applications that came for the second meeting in February so right now, pencil that as a potential free night. I’ll keep you informed on that and it something comes up but right now we don’t anticipate anything on for that meeting. That’s all I had, Chair. Weick: All right. I’ll certainly miss everybody the 3rd Tuesday in February. Wonderful. Any questions for Kate? Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 19, 2021 15 Aanenson: We’ll see everybody in two weeks. von Oven: Just one quick one. I know that we had a, as a Planning Commission, had approved the, I forget exactly the name of it, but had to do with boat parking in the driveway, and then City Council tabled that. Is there a schedule for that to come back to City Council? Aanenson: Correct. No there’s not. I think, because we’ve got new Council people on board, I think there’s some time that they want to kind of, some other pressing items. MacKenzie gave you an update, but for every positive “let’s do a boat storage” there’s a negative “let’s not do boat storage”. So I think there’s just some heavy lifting here right now. We’re looking for appointing a new City Manager, looking for a new Finance Director, and we have two new City Council members so I think everybody’s just trying to get their feet underneath them and then they’ll probably reconsider putting that back on the agenda but we’ll keep you posted on that. von Oven: Great, thank you. Weick: Any other questions for Kate? Weick: All right. I would entertain a motion to adjourn then. From anybody. von Oven: So moved. Weick: All those in favor please signify with Aye? All: Aye. Weick: All right. We are adjourned. Thank you. Von Oven: Good night. Skistad: Thanks, Steve. Von Oven 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 7:50 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Jean Steckling