The URL can be used to link to this page

11-16-21 Agenda and Packet A.7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER B.PUBLIC HEARINGS B.1 Consider a Request for Lot Cover, Setback (Front, Side, and Shoreland), and other Variances for the Construction of a Single-Family Home on Property located at 3703 South Cedar Drive C.APPROVAL OF MINUTES C.1 Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated October 19, 2021 D.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS D.1 City Council Action Update D.2 Discuss Fringe Business District Reclassifying Conditional Uses as Interim Uses E.ADJOURNMENT AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2021 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m. as outlined in the official by-laws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not appear to be possible, the Chairperson will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. If a constituent or resident sends an email to staff or the Planning Commission, it must be made part of the public record based on State Statute. If a constituent or resident sends an email to the Mayor and City Council, it is up to each individual City Council member and Mayor if they want it to be made part of the public record or not. There is no State Statute that forces the Mayor or City Council to share that information with the public or be made part of the public record. Under State Statute, staff cannot remove comments or letters provided as part of the public input process. 1 Planning Commission Item November 16, 2021 Item Consider a Request for Lot Cover, Setback (Front, Side, and Shoreland), and other Variances for the Construction of a Single-Family Home on Property located at 3703 South Cedar Drive File No.Planning Case No. 2021-25 Item No: B.1 Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Prepared By MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner Applicant Greg Dattilo Present Zoning Single Family Residential District (RSF) Land Use Residential Low Density Acerage 0.13 Density NA Applicable Regulations Chapter 1, Section 1-2, Rules of Construction and Definitions Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3. Variances Chapter 20, Article II, Division 4. Nonconforming Uses Chapter 20, Article VII. Shoreland Management District Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single Family Residential Districts Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Section 20-905. Single-Family Dwellings SUGGESTED ACTION SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing cabin and construct a single-family home. Due to the lot’s substandard size they are requesting variances from the City’s front yard, side yard and shoreland setbacks as well a lot cover variance to allow for the proposed home placement and design. BACKGROUND 2 County records indicate that the house was built in 1900. On September 29, 2021, the applicant met with staff to discuss a proposed demolition/rebuild on the site. DISCUSSION The applicant is proposing to demolish their existing cabin and replacing it with a new single-family home. They are requesting 1.3-foot front yard setback, 3-foot east and west yard setback, 34.2-foot shoreland setback, and 20 percent lot cover variances to accommodate the proposed home’s foot print. The have stated that the intent of these variances is to allow them to construct a single-family home similar to what is present on their neighbors’ property, and note that their neighbor received variances similar to what they are requesting. The applicant has indicated that the requested variances are needed due to the substandard size of their lot, which does not even allow for the construction of a home meeting the City’s minimum size and garage requirements without a variance. The applicant feels that their existing cabin is not consistent with the neighborhood’s character and that their proposed home would meet the aesthetics created by the neighboring homes. The applicant has stated that their proposed home maintains the property’s existing nonconforming shoreland setback and reduces the property’s nonconforming lot cover by 142 square feet, 2.4 percent, primarily by removing nonconforming patio areas from within the shoreland setback. The proposal would also remove a shed with nonconforming 6-foot front yard and 3.5-foot side yard setbacks from the property. Finally, the applicant has stated that they are willing to install a vegetated buffer along the shoreline to help mitigate the impacts of the property’s lot cover. Staff agrees that the substandard size of the applicant’s lot creates a practical difficulty in constructing a modern single-family home. While the applicant is requesting multiple variances, including substantial deviations from the City Code’s lot cover and shoreland setback requirements, the property also has multiple significant nonconformities, including nonconforming lot cover and shoreland setback. The extent of these nonconformities as well as the number of nonconformities that are being reduced or eliminated as part of the applicant’s proposal provides a rationale for the extent of the requested variances. Additionally, the requested variances are broadly speaking in line with what has been requested and granted for similar properties within the neighborhood. For these reasons, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the requested variances, with the conditions that pervious pavers, replacement of two trees, and a vegetative buffer be required to help mitigate the impact of the proposed lot cover on the lake. A full discussion can be found in the attached staff report. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approve 34.2-foot shoreland setback, 3- foot east and west side yard setback, 1.3-foot front yard setback, and 20 percent lot cover variances, subject to the Conditions of Approval and adopt the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. 1. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site. 2. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that the proposed building meets all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code; additional comments or requirements may be 3 required after plan review. 3. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction. 4. Retaining walls (if present) more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction. 5. The applicant shall supply updated construction plans that utilize to the maximum extent possible pervious paver systems in accordance with Sec. 20-921 of City Ordinances. Areas such as the driveway, sidewalk, and patios must be considered in the design of these systems, and the use of impervious surfaces in these areas must be approved by the City. 6. A permanent 20’ native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using species native to the ecotype with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plans must be approved by the Water Resources Administrator/Engineer. 7. The installation of any improvements on the site shall meet all applicable jurisdictional requirements, including but not limited to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and all applicable permits shall be obtained prior to any site improvements. 8. Total lot cover shall not exceed 2,656 square feet. 9. The principle structure’s eaves may encroach up to 2.5 feet into the required front, side, and shoreland setbacks. 10. The applicant shall plant two overstory shade trees, minimum size 2.5” diameter. One of the trees is required in the front yard. 11. Tree protection fencing shall be installed around existing trees to be preserved prior to demolition and maintained throughout construction. ATTACHMENTS Staff Report Findings of Fact and Decision (Approval) Variance Document 21-25 Development Review Application Narrative Justification Certificate of Survey (Existing) Certificate of Survey (Proposed) Revised Survey House Plans Landscape and Tree Preservation Memo ENG/WRC Memo Affidavit of Mailing Email - Gunther 4 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: November 16,2021 CC DATE: December 13, 2021 REVIEW DEADLINE: December 14, 2021 CASE #: PC 2021-25 BY: MYW SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing cabin and construct a single-family home. Due to the lot’s substandard size they are requesting variances from the City’s front yard, side yard and shoreland setbacks as well a lot cover variance to allow for the proposed home placement and design. LOCATION:3703 South Cedar Drive APPLICANT:Greg Dattilo 12248 Sussex Street Fort Myers, FL 33913 PRESENT ZONING: “RSF” –Single-Family Residential District 2040 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density ACREAGE:.13 acres DENSITY: NA LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing demolishing their existing cabin and replacing it with a new single- family home. They are requesting 1.3-foot front yard setback, 3-foot east and west yard setback, 34.2-foot shoreland setback, and 20 percent lot cover variances to accommodate the proposed home’s footprint. They have stated that the intent of these variances is to allow them to construct a single-family home similar to what is present on their neighbor’s property, and noted that their neighbor received variances similar to what they are requesting. PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves 34.2-foot shoreland setback, 3- foot east and west side yard setback, 1.3-foot front yard setback, and 20 percent lot cover variances, subject to the Conditions of Approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.” 5 3703 South Cedar Drive November 16, 2021 Page 2 The applicant has indicated that the requested variances are needed due to the substandard size of their lot, which does not even allow for the construction of a home meeting the City’s minimum size and garage requirements without a variance. The applicant feels that their existing cabin is not consistent with the neighborhood’s character and that their proposed home would match the aesthetics created by the neighboring homes. The applicant has stated that their proposed home maintains the property’s existing nonconforming shoreland setback and reduces the property’s nonconforming lot cover by 142 square feet, 2.4 percent, primarily by removing nonconforming patio areas from within the shoreland setback. The proposal would also remove a shed with nonconforming 6-foot front yard and 3.5-foot side yard setbacks from the property. Finally, the applicant has stated that they are willing to install a vegetated buffer along the shoreline to help mitigate the impacts of the property’s lot cover. Staff agrees that the substandard size of the applicant’s lot creates a practical difficulty in constructing a modern single-family home. While the applicant is requesting multiple variances, including substantial deviations from the City Code’s lot cover and shoreland setback requirements, the property also has multiple significant nonconformities, including nonconforming lot cover and shoreland setback. The extent of these nonconformities as well as the number of nonconformities that are being reduced or eliminated as part of the applicant’s proposal provides a rationale for the extent of the requested variances. Additionally, the requested variances are broadly speaking in line with what has been requested and granted for similar properties within the neighborhood. For these reasons, staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the requested variances, with the conditions that pervious pavers and a vegetative buffer be required to help mitigate the impact of the proposed lot cover on the lake. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 1, Section 1-2, Rules of Construction and Definitions Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3. Variances Chapter 20, Article II, Division 4. Nonconforming Uses Chapter 20, Article VII. Shoreland Management District. Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single Family Residential Districts. Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Section 20-905. Single-Family Dwellings BACKGROUND County records indicate that the house was built in 1900. On September 29, 2021, the applicant met with staff to discuss a proposed demolition/rebuild on the site. SITE CONSTRAINTS Zoning Overview 6 3703 South Cedar Drive November 16, 2021 Page 3 The property is zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF) and is located within the Shoreland Management District. This zoning classification requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet, 30-foot front and rear yard setbacks, 10-foot side yard setbacks, 75-foot shoreland setback from the ordinary high water level (OHWL), and limits parcels to a maximum of 20 percent lot cover. Residential structures are limited to 35 feet in height and are allowed one water-oriented structure (WOAS) within the required 75-foot shoreland setback so long as it is setback 10 feet from the OHWL, under 250 square feet in size, and under 10 feet in height. Additionally, the southernmost tip of the parcel below the 945.9 contour is located within the AE Flood Zone. The lot is a nonconforming 5,899 square feet with 2,798 square feet of lot cover resulting in 47.4 percent lot cover. The existing principle structure meets the required 30-foot front yard setback and 10-foot west side yard setback, and has a nonconforming 7.2-foot east side yard setback and 40.8-foot shoreland setback. The property has an existing shed with a nonconforming 3.5-foot east side yard setback and 6-foot front yard setback. The existing driveway has a nonconforming 38-foot width. The property has 1,111 square feet of paver patios and walkways, the majority of which is located within the 75-foot shoreland setback. The closest section of paver patio has a nonconforming 13-foot setback from the OHWL. Bluff Creek Corridor The parcel is not encumbered by the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Bluff Protection There is not a bluff present on the property. Floodplain Overlay A small section of the property located below the 945.9 contour is located within the AE Flood Zone (1% annual chance); however, no portion of the project is proposed near or within that area. Shoreland Management The property is located within a Shoreland Protection District. This District requires a 75-foot structure setback from the lake’s OHWL and limits the property to a maximum impervious surface coverage of 25 percent. The shoreland ordinance permits one WOAS to be located within the 75-foot shoreland setback, provided that it is at least 10 feet from the OHWL, no larger than 250 square feet, and has a maximum height of 10 feet. Vegetative clearing is also restricted with the 37.5-foot shoreland impact zone, save limited clearing to for a view, access, and allowed facilities. This is limited to a section 30 percent the width of the lot or 30 feet wide, whichever is less. Wetland Protection 7 3703 South Cedar Drive November 16, 2021 Page 4 There are no wetlands located on the property. NEIGHBORHOOD Red Cedar Point at Lake Minnewashta The plat for this area was recorded in August of 1913. Over the subsequent century, the City of Chanhassen was formed, a Zoning Code was passed, the Zoning Code was amended numerous times, and buildings were built, demolished, and rebuilt to meet the standards and needs of the existing ordinances. Additionally, the neighborhood’s roads were not always constructed within their designated right of way. In some areas, this has led to portions of buildings being located in the right of way and portions of these roads being located within residents’ property lines. Very few properties in the area meet the requirements of the City’s Zoning Code, and most properties either have nonconforming structures or are operating under a variance. Variances within 500 feet: 3613 Red Cedar Point Rd.: 1976-11: Approved – 10’ lot frontage (house) 1979-02: Approved – Sub 20,000 sq. ft. lot area, 20’ and 12’ front setbacks (house) 1983-09: Approved – 12’ front, 2’ side, and 7’ lake setbacks (house) 3616 Red Cedar Point Rd.:2021-01: Approved – 18’ E front and 13’ lake setbacks (deck) 3617 Red Cedar Point Rd.:2018-01: Approved – 11.5’ front and 22.1’ lakeshore setbacks, and 11% lot cover (house) 2019-03: Approved – 8.5’ front and 25.1’ shore setbacks, and 10.4% lot cover (house) 3618 Red Cedar Point Rd.:1993-06: Approved – 8’ side and 15’ lake setbacks (deck and porch) 8 3703 South Cedar Drive November 16, 2021 Page 5 3622 Red Cedar Point Rd.:2017-09: Approved – Intensify nonconformity by raising garage in side yard setback (garage) 3624 Red Cedar Point Rd.:1985-20: Approved – 1.2’ front and 4.8 side setbacks (detached garage) 3625 Red Cedar Point Rd.:2009-15: Approved – 15.5’ front, 6.5’ E side, 9’ driveway, and 18.5’ lake setbacks, 12.3% lot cover, and 1 car garage (house) 3627 Red Cedar Point Rd.:2016-11: Approved – 13.6’ lake setback and 4.8% lot cover (house and patio) 3628 Hickory Rd.:2002-05: Approved – 13’ N front, 2’ S front, and 5’ side setbacks (detached garage) 3629 Red Cedar Point Rd.:1980-08: Approved – 12’ front and 3’ side +1.5’ for fire setbacks 30’ lot width, 40’ lot frontage, and sub 20,000- sq. ft. lot area (house) 1987-13: Approved – 12’ front and 3’ side setbacks (house) 3633 South Cedar Drive:2006-04: Approved – 22.5’ and 15.8’ front setbacks, and 2.39% lot cover (garage) 3637 South Cedar Drive:1978-07: Approved – 19’ front setback (detached garage) 2004-07: Approved – 19.5 front and 4’ lake setbacks, 15% lot cover (addition) 2008-04: Approved – 20.2’ front and 8’ side setbacks (house) 3701 South Cedar Drive:1980-04: Approved – 14’ front and 25’ shore setbacks, sub 20,000- sq. ft. lot area (house) 1985-27: Approved – 5’ front and 35’ lake setbacks (house) 2015-07: Approved – Intensify nonconformity by enclosing deck within lake setback (addition) 3705 South Cedar Drive:1996-04: Approved – 3’ E and W side and 31’ lake setbacks, and 25% lot cover (house) 3707 South Cedar Drive:1984-18: Approved – 20’ front setback (detached garage) 3711 South Cedar Drive:1977-11: Approved – 10’ lot frontage (house) 1977-18: Approved – Intensify nonconformity by raising house height (house) 9 3703 South Cedar Drive November 16, 2021 Page 6 3713 South Cedar Drive:1985-26: Approved – 15’ front setback (detached garage) 2019-11: Approved – 5’ front setback and 1.83% lot cover (garage) 3715 South Cedar Drive: 1975-01: Approved – 20’ front setback (garage) 3725 South Cedar Drive:1984-17: Approved – 4.53’ side setback (addition) 1987-15: Approved – 4.53’ side setback (addition) Nineteen (19) of the 33 properties within 500’ of the applicant’s parcel have received at least one variance. A total of 30 variances have been issued to these properties. ANALYSIS Setbacks The applicant’s lot is approximately 40 feet wide by 135 feet long. Once the required 30- foot front, 75-foot shoreland, and 10-foot side yard setbacks are applied to the parcel there is a 20.3-foot wide by 29.5-foot long buildable area which could accommodate a structure with a 598.9 square foot footprint. The City Code would also allow the applicant to build a new structure within the building envelope, i.e. same length, width, and height, of the existing nonconforming structure, an area 766 square feet in size. There is a small amount of overlap between the buildable area permitted by the property’s setbacks and the area covered by the nonconforming structure, approximately 61 square feet, which means that without a setback variance the applicant could build a house with a 1,304-square foot footprint. The applicant is requesting front, side and shoreland setback variances to accommodate a structure with a proposed 1,716-square foot footprint. The applicant has indicated that their proposed footprint is needed to allow for a reasonably sized garage and home, and that the proposed footprint is identical to what their neighbor was granted a variance to construct on a similarly sized lot. They have also stated that their proposal maintains a consistent front building line with their western neighbor’s property 10 3703 South Cedar Drive November 16, 2021 Page 7 and maintains the existing nonconforming lake setback and a consistent lakeside building line with their western neighbor’s property. In evaluating setback variance requests, the City takes into account the presence of existing nonconformities and the extent to which they are being reduced, the buildable area needed to allow reasonable use of a parcel, and neighborhood characteristics, i.e. previous variances granted and observed nonconforming setbacks. Regarding the existing nonconforming setbacks, the applicant is proposing to remove a 96-square foot shed located six feet from the front lot line and 3.5 feet from the side lot line and an approximately 626-square foot patio system setback between 13 feet and 40.8 feet from the OHWL. The applicant is proposing to maintain the existing home’s nonconforming 40.8-foot shoreland setback to decrease the existing east side yard’s nonconforming setback from 7.2 feet to 7 feet. Since the shed is being removed from its location within the required front yard setback, it is reasonable to consider the home’s proposed 28.7-foot front yard setback as an improvement to the property’s nonconforming front yard. Similarly, the applicant’s removal of the rear patio would be considered an improvement to the property’s nonconforming shoreland area that offsets the proposed increase in building width within the 75-foot shoreland setback, especially since no portion of the applicant’s proposed home is located closer to the lake than the existing home’s setback. In evaluating the requested side yard setback variances, one of which expands a nonconformity and the other of which is a new encroachment, the primary factor for consideration is if the applicant’s proposed building width is reasonable. The lot’s 40-foot width means that a home meeting the required 10-foot side yard setbacks would have a maximum width of 20 feet. The applicant’s requested 7-foot side yard setbacks would allow for a 26-foot wide home. While it is theoretically possible to meet the City’s two-car garage requirement with a 20-foot wide garage, the resulting garage would be atypically narrow and may not provide adequate space to open the doors of wider vehicles. Additionally, a garage this narrow would not accommodate any on-site storage. The proposed 26-foot garage width is fairly typical for a two-car garage with additional storage space and is reasonable for a property without the potential to add a shed. The proposed 7-foot side yard setbacks also conform to the City’s general policy of requiring a minimum side yard setback of five feet. The 1,716-square foot structure footprint created by the requested variances, is larger than the minimum footprint required to meet City Code, and is 412 square feet larger than buildable area that would be permitted by the property’s setbacks and existing nonconformities. The City has never taken the position of property’s requesting variances should be limited to the minimum footprint permitted by City Code, and the 11 3703 South Cedar Drive November 16, 2021 Page 8 applicant’s proposed footprint is significantly smaller than the footprint of mostly newly constructed detached single-family homes in Chanhassen; however, the lot is also significantly smaller than the lots most other newly constructed homes are being sited on. The majority of the homes along South Cedar Drive have larger footprints, although many of those homes are also sited on larger lots. Finally, as the applicant has noted, the neighboring house to the west has the same footprint and is located on a very similarly sized lot. In general, the area within 500 feet of the applicant’s home has many substandard lots and many of the homes have received variances or have nonconforming setbacks. The applicant’s proposed setbacks would keep it in line with the house to the west and would place it slightly further back from the road than the house to the east, which received a variance allowing for a 25-foot front yard setback. Examining the setback variances issued to property’s within 500 feet, only the applicant’s requested shoreland setback is on the higher end; however, it is not unprecedented and it is in line with the City’s general practice of allowing riparian property owners to maintain their nonconforming shoreland setback when rebuilding. Considering the existing nonconformities present on the property, especially the proposed improvements to the front and shoreland areas, the constraints posed by the substandard width of the lot, and the prevailing development patterns of the areas, staff believes the requested setback variances are reasonable. For these reasons, staff recommends approval of the requested setback variances. Lot Cover The applicant is requesting a 20 percent lot cover variance. While this is less than the 25 percent lot cover variance the City granted the property to west, it would, if approved, be the second largest lot cover percentage variance granted in the area within 500 feet of the property. However, it should be noted that due to the lot’s small size, the 20 percent lot cover variance is the result of adding 1,180 square feet of lot cover to the 1,475 square feet allowed by the City Code. The resulting 2,656 square feet of proposed lot cover is less than is present on most other properties in the area, though the applicant’s parcel is also smaller than most other parcels in the area. 12 3703 South Cedar Drive November 16, 2021 Page 9 Significantly substandard parcels, such as the applicant’s 5,899.1-square foot lot, often request significant lot cover variances due the fact that even a home meeting the City’s minimum standards requires 1,900 square feet of lot cover (960-square foot living area, 400-square foot garage, and 540 square feet of driveway). As was noted in the previous discussion on setbacks, the City acknowledges that a home meeting the bare minimum standards allowed by the Zoning Code with no amenities such as patios or sidewalks may not provide reasonable use. In determining what constitutes a reasonable amount of lot cover, the City looks at nonconforming lot cover, what is being done to offset the impact of the proposed lot cover, and the size and number of structures and amenities that are being proposed. In this case, the property has 2,798 square feet, 47.43 percent, of lot cover and under the City’s nonconforming use statute the applicant would be able to replace it in its current configuration without a variance. According to the applicant’s survey, 1,111 square feet of this is a long paver walkway and a network of rear yard paver patios. In some situations, the City considers pavers to constitute pervious lot cover; however, this system would not meet the City’s criteria for an engineered paver system and within the shoreland overlay district all pavers are considered lot cover. The applicant is proposing to remove this paver patio and walkway as well as some of the existing asphalt driveway to offset the proposed increase in house footprint. All told, the proposal reduces the property’s nonconforming lot cover by 142 square feet, 2.41 percent, and shifts the location of the property’s lot cover from near the lake towards the street. Though the two-story walkout design results in a large amount of living space, the design also keeps the house to a 1,609-square foot footprint. The applicant is proposing a patio with a second level deck and a sidewalk; however, the deck and patio are located within the 26-foot by 66-foot building pad that the applicant is proposing. No WOAS is being proposed. While the house’s living area is on the higher end of the spectrum, the requested footprint and proposed amenities are not excessively large. 13 3703 South Cedar Drive November 16, 2021 Page 10 Additionally, as has been noted, the proposed building footprint is the same as what was allowed on the neighboring parcel and the requested lot cover variance is smaller. The applicant has indicated that they are willing to replace the existing beach area by the lake with a vegetated buffer consisting of native plants. Replacing sand with vegetation would improve the property’s stormwater management. Similarly, replacing approximately 626 square feet of the lakeside paver system with vegetation would also help reduce the amount of stormwater that reaches the lake. Though both of the above measures help mitigate the lot cover’s impact on the lake, the applicant is proposing removing two mature trees within the shoreland setback to accommodate the proposed building site. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to plant two overstory shade trees, minimum size of 2.5 inches in diameter, to offset the canopy cover and water quality benefits lost by removing two of the existing trees. Finally, staff is proposing that the applicant be required to utilize a pervious paver system meeting the City’s design standards for the driveway, sidewalk, and rear patio areas. As proposed, this condition would require the applicant to receive permission from the City to utilize impervious surfaces within these areas. Ordinarily, staff would not support this large of a lot cover variance; however, the applicant is reducing an existing nonconformity, shifting the location of the lot cover away from the lake, installing a vegetative buffer of native plants, and adding other vegetation between the lot cover and the lake. These factors combined with staff’s requirement that pervious pavers be used wherever viable will result in the property having improved stormwater management over what would be present if the applicant simply replaced the existing lot cover as allowed by ordinance. For these reasons, staff is recommending approval of the requested lot cover variance. Impact on Neighborhood The houses along the lakeside of South Cedar Drive are a mix of older homes and newer rebuilds with the applicant’s house being one of two remaining structures from the early 1900s. The applicant’s proposed replacement of the existing home would be in keeping with size and scale of the new construction along South Cedar Drive. The proposed tuck under configuration is consistent with what is currently present within the neighborhood as the existing homes are roughly evenly split between side loading garages and tuck under garages. The proposed home is very similar to the neighbor’s in size, scale, and configuration, and maintains approximately the same front yard, side yard, and shoreland setbacks as the neighboring structure. There is no reason to believe that the proposed home would be out of character with or negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approve 34.2-foot shoreland setback, 3-foot east and west side yard setback, 1.3-foot front yard setback, and 20 percent lot cover variances, subject to the Conditions of Approval and adopt the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. 14 3703 South Cedar Drive November 16, 2021 Page 11 1.Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site. 2. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that proposed building meets all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code; additional comments or requirements may be required after plan review. 3. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction. 4. Retaining walls (if present) more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction. 5. The applicant shall supply updated construction plans that utilize to the maximum extent possible pervious paver systems in accordance with Sec. 20-921 of City Ordinances. Areas such as the driveway, sidewalk, and patios must be considered in the design of these systems, and the use of impervious surfaces in these areas must be approved by the City. 6. A permanent 20’ native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using species native to the ecotype with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plans must be approved by the Water Resources Administrator/Engineer. 7. The installation of any improvements on the site shall meet all applicable jurisdictional requirements, including but not limited to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and all applicable permits shall be obtained prior to any site improvements. 8. Total lot cover shall not exceed 2,656 square feet. 9. The principle structure’s eaves may encroach up to 2.5 feet into the required front, side, and shoreland setbacks. 10. The applicant shall plant two overstory shade trees, minimum size 2.5” diameter. One of the trees is required in the front yard. 11. Tree protection fencing shall be installed around existing trees to be preserved prior to demolition and maintained throughout construction. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Decision (Approval) 2. Variance Document (Approval) 3. Development Review Application 4. Variance Request Narrative 5. Variance Request Justification 6. Survey (Pre-existing) 7. Survey (Proposed) 8. Revised Survey 9. Proposed House Plans 10. Landscaping and Tree Preservation Memo 11. ENG/WRC Memo 12. Affidavit of Mailing g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-25 3703 south cedar var\staff report - final.docx 15 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (APPROVAL) IN RE: Application of Greg Dattilo for variances from the lot cover limit and front yard, side yard, and shoreland setbacks to facilitate constructing a single-family home on a property zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF) – Planning Case 2021-25. On November 16, 2021, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. Lot 21, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta 3. Variance Findings – Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Finding:The lot cover variance is a reduction to the property’s nonconforming lot cover and BMPs are being required to further mitigate the impact of the proposed lot cover. The shoreland setback variance maintains the property’s existing nonconforming shoreland setback and removes nonconforming patios from the shoreland area. The front yard setback variance replaces a nonconforming shed located six feet from the front property line and entirely within the required front yard setback with a 1.3 foot encroachment of the principle structure. The side yard setback variances are new or expanded encroachments into the required side yards; however, the proposed setbacks maintain adequate separation between the home and neighboring structures. The net result of all of these variances is a reduction of the property’s existing nonconformities. It is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code to allow for nonconforming structures to be replaced in a manner that brings the property closer to compliance with the City Code. b.When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties" as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. 16 2 Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding:The proposed footprint of the home is reasonable and comparable to what is present on nearby similarly sized lots. The applicant does not have the ability to construct a reasonably sized home on the parcel without setback and lot cover variances. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding:The plight of the landowner is due to the property’s substandard 40-foot lot width and substandard 5,899-square foot lot size. This substandard nature of the parcel is the result of it having been plated in 1913, before the creation of the City and the adoption of a municipal Zoning Code. e. The variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The houses along the lakeside of South Cedar Drive are a mix of older homes and newer rebuilds with the applicant’s house being one of two remaining structures from the early 1900s. The applicant’s proposed replacement of the existing home would be in keeping with size and scale of the new construction along South Cedar Drive. The proposed tuck under configuration is consistent with what is currently present within the neighborhood as the existing homes are roughly evenly split between side loading garages and tuck under garages. The proposed home is very similar to the neighbor’s in size, scale, and configuration, and maintains approximately the same front yard, side yard, and shoreland setbacks as the neighboring structure. There is no reason to believe that the proposed home would be out of character with or negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood. f. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2021-25, dated November 16, 2021, prepared by MacKenzie Young- Walters is incorporated herein. DECISION The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves 34.2-foot shoreland setback, 3-foot east and west side yard setback, 1.3-foot front yard setback, and 20 percent lot cover variances, subject to the Conditions of Approval. 1. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site. 17 3 2. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that proposed building meets all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code; additional comments or requirements may be required after plan review. 3. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction. 4. Retaining walls (if present) more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction. 5. The applicant shall supply updated construction plans that utilize to the maximum extent possible pervious paver systems in accordance with Sec. 20-921 of City Ordinances. Areas such as the driveway, sidewalk, and patios must be considered in the design of these systems, and the use of impervious surfaces in these areas must be approved by the City. 6. A permanent 20-foot native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using species native to the ecotype with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plans must be approved by the Water Resources Administrator/Engineer. 7. The installation of any improvements on the site shall meet all applicable jurisdictional requirements, including but not limited to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and all applicable permits shall be obtained prior to any site improvements. 8. Total lot cover shall not exceed 2,656 square feet. 9. The principle structure’s eaves may encroach up to 2.5 feet into the required front, side, and shoreland setbacks. 10. The applicant shall plant two overstory shade trees, minimum size 2.5” diameter. One of the trees is required in the front yard. 11. Tree protection fencing shall be installed around existing trees to be preserved prior to demolition and maintained throughout construction. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 16th day of November, 2021. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Steven Weick, Chairman g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-25 3703 south cedar var\findings of fact and decision (approval).docx 18 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 2021-25 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves 34.2-foot shoreland setback, 3-foot east and west side yard setback, 1.3-foot front yard setback, and 20 percent lot cover variances, subject to the Conditions of Approval. 2. Property. The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as Lot 21, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta. 3. Conditions.The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site. 2. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that proposed building meets all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code; additional comments or requirements may be required after plan review. 3. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction. 4. Retaining walls (if present) more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction. 5. The applicant shall supply updated construction plans that utilize to the maximum extent possible pervious paver systems in accordance with Sec. 20-921 of City Ordinances. Areas such as the driveway, sidewalk, and patios must be considered in the design of these systems, and the use of impervious surfaces in these areas must be approved by the City. 6. A permanent 20-foot native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using species native to the ecotype with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced 19 2 professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plans must be approved by the Water Resources Administrator/Engineer. 7. The installation of any improvements on the site shall meet all applicable jurisdictional requirements, including but not limited to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and all applicable permits shall be obtained prior to any site improvements. 8. Total lot cover shall not exceed 2,656 square feet. 9. The principle structure’s eaves may encroach up to 2.5 feet into the required front, side, and shoreland setbacks. 10. The applicant shall plant two overstory shade trees, minimum size 2.5” diameter. One of the trees is required in the front yard. 11. Tree protection fencing shall be installed around existing trees to be preserved prior to demolition and maintained throughout construction. 4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. 20 3 Dated: November 16, 2021 CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: (SEAL)Elise Ryan, Mayor AND: Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2021 by Elise Ryan, Mayor, and Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-25 3703 south cedar var\variance document 21-25.docx 21 CITT OT CIIAI{HASSII{ 60-Oay Revierv Oate:h-t4'4 * APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW subminarDare: t0 'l( '21 ec oa., lofuit ll'16[[1o","2-B-7-l Application Type (check all that apply) (Refet to tle qptwiatc Applicaton checklid fot Equi,cd subfii at inl natbr. tt'E,t fiud &qnpany dtis awic',rron) E Comprehensive Plan Amendment................-........ $600! Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers..... $'tOO E Conditional Use Permit (CUP) n Single-Family Residence.............-.................. $325E All orhers....... .................... $425 E lnterim Use Permit (lUP) E ln conjunction with Single-Family Residence.. $325D A OrheIs....... ..........-......... $425 ( lots)Ll Metes & Bounds (2 lots)...........n Consolidate Lots. ... . . ... . ... .. .. . . ..E Lot Line Adjustment..................fl Final Plat........ (lncludes $450 escrow for attomey cosls). 'Addilional escrolv may be reqdred for other apdicatio.ls through the d€r€lopment contracl. E Vacation of Easements/Right<f-way (VAC)........ g300 (Addattmal recordiru ,ee3 rlay appty) E Variance (VAR)..............,............................. ....... $2OO E Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) I Single-Family Residence............................... $150E A[ Others....... .................. $275 ! Zoning Appea|.............................-........................ $iO0 n Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA)................. $500 !!OTE: l$ren muldplo lppllcetions.rc procased cqtcu.trltty, Oro approprlate iee sidl be chlrgcd lor esch .pDllcdlon, E SuUOivision (SUB) D!Create 3 lots or less Create over 3 lots... E Rezonins (REz) E Planned Unit Development (PUD) ...,.............. g75O E Minor Amendment lo existing PUD................. $1OOn Ar Others....... .................... $5OO ! Sign Plan Review................................................... $150 ! Site Plan Review (SPR) n Administrative ........- .......... $1OOE Commercial/lndustrial Dislricts'...................... $5OO Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area:( thousand square feet) 'lndude rumber of g&iE!!g employees: 'lndude nunber of ltry emplo)€es:n Residential Districts......................................... $5OO Plus $5 per dwelling unil ( units) E Notilication Sign (city to insral snd.emove) .......................... @ Property Owners' LiEt within 500' (city to gerErate aier preepptication meetind .............:............................ -....... $3 per address( 32 addresses)I Escrow for Recording Documents (check all that apply)......................... . ..... .-..............-..-......_.. $SO per document- tr Conoitlon"r u""F"-it - --"ift"rilui"i"-it ! i'idi;hAsreem€nr! Vacation @ Variance I WahnO eteration permit ! Metes & Bounds SuMivision (3 docs.) E Easements ( easements) E OeeOs' rout reE: $546.00 Description of Proposal: Applying for variances ,if granted it will alleviate the practical diffculties that are due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by me, the land owner. 3703 South Cedar Drive, Chanhassen MN, 55317 $200 Section 2: Required lnformation Property Address or Location Parcel #:lot 21 block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta Total Acreage: Present Zoning 0.14 Wetlands Present?!ves []to Single-Family Residential Districl (RSF)Requested Zoning Not Applicable Present Land Use Desag n"1;on. Residential Low Density Requested Land Use Desig nation. Not Applicabte Existing Use of Property:Lake Cabin three season @Check box if separate narrative is attached COMTUN]TY DEVELOPMENT OEPARTMENT Planning Division - 7700 Market Boulevard Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 553i7 Phone: (952) 227-1100 / Fax: (952) 227-1110 Section 't: ..$600 + $15 per lot $300 $150 $1s0 $700 Legal Description: 22 Section 3: Properly Owner and Applicant lnformation APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, l, as appticant, represent to have obtained authorization from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to the righl to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. lf this application has not been signedby the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application. This appliLtion ' should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any maner pertaining to thisapplication. I will keep mysef informed of the deadlines for submission of materiat anO ttre progiess of tnS apptidtion. I furlher understand that additional fees may be charged lor consulting tees, feasibitity studies, elc. with an estimate prior toany authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and conecl. Name Contact: Phone:Address City/Statdzip Email: Contact Phone: Cell: Fax: Date Cell: Fax: Date Cell Fax Signature PROPERTY OVIINER: ln signing this application, l. as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do, aulhorize the filing of this application. I understand thal conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those conditions, subject only to the right to objecl at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will kiep myself infomed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility sludies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with thestudy. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. ciry/state/zip Email: Signature PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable) Name: Fort Myers, FL. 33913 (612) 868-1066 1il 202 ( Address Contact Phone: City/Stat€/Zip Email: This application must be completed in full-andmust be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, refer to the appropriate Application Checj(fist and confer with the Planning DePartmenl to determine the specific ordinance and applicabE p;ocedural req uirernents and fees. A determination of completeness of lhe application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittat written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 busindss days of application. A Section 4: Notifi cation lnformation Who should receive copies of staff reports?'Other Contact lnlormation: Name: Dave GestachE Property Owner Via: E Email! Applicant Via: E EmaitD Engineer Via: ! Email! otner Via: ! Emait I UaiteO Paper Copy E Mailed Paper Copy n Maited Paper Copy U Mailed Paper Copy Address City/Statezip Email:dave@ aulson-com INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT device. PRINT FORM and deliver copy to the city for processing. : Complete all necessary form fields, then select SAVE FORM to save a copy to to city along with required documents and payment. SUBMTT FORM to send a d your igital SAVE FORM PRINT FORM SUBMIT FORM Name:Greg Dattilo Address: 12248 Sussex St. 23 To the city of Chanhassen, Planning Commission and City Council, l'm asking for your approval of allowing my property to receive several variances. I can be reached at 612.868.1065 or email herbie@usfamily,net. My property is one of the smallest square foot areas (5,899 sq ft) of all properties on Red Cedar Point. Comparing to minimum lot size today of 15,000 square feet my property is 39% of today's requirement. The area was plotted back in 1907 with the standard 40'xLzO' lot size. Under current setbacks and codes, I would be able to build a home the size of 20.5' x 3.5'that equals 72'square feet, the size of a walk-in closet. This includes a two-car garage 20'x25' that equals 520 sq ft. that is also mandated as a requirement under sec 20-905. This defines my "practical difficulties". Currently my property does not fit the essential character of the neighborhood. My current building (cabin) was the normal size back in 1928 when the cabin was constructed. The adjacent property to the west (3705) was a twin cabin to the one I own. This cabin (3705) was torn down in 1996 and replaced with a home that now fits the charter of the neighborhood which is quite different then it was in 1928. What l'm proposing is variances that will fit today's character of Red Cedar Point much more than it currently does today. My neighbors have been gracious for more than 20 years. My understanding is my cabin does NOT have the essential character of the loca lity To bring my property into the essential character of the neighborhood it must be replaced as my neighbor did in 1995. l'm asking for the lakeside of the new home to be the same distance it currently is today from the lake. This will need to have a variance approved (same distance as my neighbor 3705) our homes currently line up and I would like this to continue. Description of variance request 24 The width of the new home would be 25' the same as my neighbor, except I will not cantilever an additional 2'on each side and front of my new home as my neighbor has done. This variance would be 3' on each side compared to my neighbor who received 5' variances on each side. The home would start at the current distance from lake, extend 56'same as neighbor. A 5' variance from South Cedar Road to front of garage would be necessary same as my neighbor. Currently hard cover is at 50%. My proposal is to improve green space by eliminating the current paver surfaces of 1,110 square feet. I will be adding 934 square feet of living space. This is a net gain of 176 square feet of green space or additional 6%. I believe I have come to you in good faith and have shown that if the variances are granted it will alleviate the practical difficulties that are due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by me, the land owner. Sincerely Greg Dattilo 3703 S Cedar Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 herbie@ usfamily.net 25 I I , v71 ld r ,;lI I r,.-'i ,Il7 r H h .t. I I -I F,\fr h -b ' a-.! L /r L:- ! }ZI! I 26 Greg Dattilo 3703 S Cedar Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 herbie@usfamily.net Justification of the Variance Request A. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony, with the general purposes and intent of this chapter and are consistent with the comprehensive plan. By replacing my three season cabin built in 1928 with my new lake home, it will justi! this requirernent that will bring harmony and consistency with the neighborhood. B. The second justification is when there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. I propose that the property is to be used in a reasonable manner not permitted by this chapter due to practical difficulties as stated above. l. My property size 5899 sq. ft. which is only 39Vo of today's minimum lot requirement of 15,000sq.ft. 2. With current setbacks and codes I would only be able to build a home of less than 100sq.ft, with a requirement ofa two car garage at 20x26. C. The third qualification to meet the justification ofthe variance is that the variance or variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. D. The fourth justification to qualifo for a variance is due to the circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner. As stated above I have one ofthe smallest lots ofall lots on Red Cedar point. This lot size restricts any normal size homes being built today to be built without being granted variances. E. The fifth justification to qualifu for a variance is that it will not alter the central character of the locality. The current three season cabin today does not fit the essential character of the locality and this is why variances should be granted so the new home will fit the essential character of the locality. 27 28 29 PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com 30 4 C)I -.,1 qo !oz 6 l rrt 6 _--toz t ! EEm E ! ! I = I T 289F1 AUTUNN DES/GN DATTILO l, 4 qo !oz r-T:::-T---1---:l 31 : E a I - 9 =a o I AUTUNN DESIGN (-;] 249F1 DATIlLO IE-IE-II- - I 6 J I -\ ! l oo4 -o z 32 I q o- -o z 3ESi9i?, I o o : : = ,. -----,I:i rg ? . E AUTUNN DESIGN 2895- r DATTILO IE-rr-E- I l o +r II I I 33 MEMORANDUM TO:MacKenzie Walters, Planner I, AICP FROM:Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Specialist DATE:November 16, 2021 SUBJ:Variance for lot cover, 3703 South Cedar Drive The applicant has a valuable bur oak as well as a mature ash on the property that will be impacted by the construction of a new home. The trees are within the shoreland setback and provide water quality benefits to Lake Minnewashta. The applicant is proposing to remove these trees for construction. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to replace two trees on the property for no net loss of canopy cover. The applicant is proposing to preserve the two other trees on the lot, between the home and the lake. These trees will be required to be protected with tree preservation fencing prior to demolition and throughout the construction process. Of the two trees required to be planted, one shall be located in the front yard. Recommendations: 1. The applicant shall plant two overstory shade trees, minimum size 2.5” diameter. One of the trees is required in the front yard. 2. Tree protection fencing shall be installed around existing trees to be preserved prior to demolition and maintained throughout construction. 34 Memorandum To: MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner From: Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer CC: Charles Howley, Public Works Director/City Engineer George Bender, Assistant City Engineer Date: 10/25/2021 Re: Variance Review at 3703 South Cedar Drive – Planning Case #2021-25 The Engineering Department has reviewed the variance submittal for 3703 South Cedar Drive. These comments are divided into two categories: general comments and proposed conditions. General comments are informational points to guide the applicant in the proper planning of public works infrastructure for this project, to inform the applicant of possible extraordinary issues and/or to provide the basis for findings. Proposed conditions are requirements that Engineering recommends be formally imposed on the application in the final order. Note that references to the “City Standards” herein refer to the City of Chanhassen Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. General Comments/Findings 1. Any and all utility and transportation plans submitted with this application have been reviewed only for the purpose of determining the feasibility of providing utility and transportation facilities for the project. A recommendation of variance approval does not constitute final approval of details, including but not limited to alignments, materials and points of access, utility connections or discharge, that are depicted or suggested in the application. The applicant is required to submit detailed construction drawings for the project, as applicable. The City of Chanhassen Engineering and Public Works Departments will review plans, in detail, when they are submitted and approve, reject or require modifications to the plans or drawings based upon conformance with City Standards, the Chanhassen Code of Ordinances and the professional engineering judgment of the City Engineer. 35 2. It is the opinion of the Engineering Department that the proposed variance can be developed in near accordance with the requirements of the Chanhassen Code of Ordinances (as it pertains to Engineering and Public Works requirements) and City Standards, provided it fully addresses the comments and conditions contained herein, and can be approved. 3. The applicant is requesting a number of variances to facilitate the construction of a single family home at 3703 South Cedar Drive (Site). These include lot cover, front yard setback, side yard setback, and shoreland setback variances. Engineering and Public Works has no comment regarding the front yard and side yard setback variances. There are no public drainage and utility easements currently on the property and none are being requested by staff in concert with the variance requests. 4. The applicant is proposing a lot coverage variance. The Site currently has 2,948 SF of hardcover on the 5,899 SF property, or 50% lot coverage of the Site. The proposed change to the Site’s total hardcover based on the provided submittals would provide a reduction of 2.4%, or 137 SF , for a total proposed lot cover of 2,811 SF, or 47.6%. Even though there is a reduction of total hard cover the Site is still above the allowable lot coverage (25%) under Ordinance and would require a variance. The proposed reduction of lot coverage by 137 SF alone would not result in a measurable water quality benefit to the riparian Site, which is directly adjacent to Lake Minnewashta. Additional measures must be taken to improve stormwater management, reduce impervious surfaces on the Site, and to mitigate the amount of stormwater runoff being diverted into Lake Minnewashta. While it may not be possible to achieve a total of 25% lot coverage on the Site, the applicant shall submit updated plans that illustrate the use of pervious paver systems, in accordance with Ordinances (Sec. 20-921), to the maximum extent possible. The use of pervious paver systems will help reestablish a more natural hydrologic balance, reduce runoff volume associated with impervious surfaces, all while providing water quality treatment by reducing the concentration of po llutants. Areas such as the driveway, sidewalk, and patios should be constructed with pervious paver systems (an approximate 1046 SF reduction of the proposed impervious surfaces). Additionally, a permanent 20’ native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline. The native vegetated buffer will provide additional water quality protections through filtering pollutants, nutrients and sediments while helping to improve ecosystem health and function. See proposed conditions 1 and 2. 5. The applicant is proposing a shoreland setback variance. The proposed variance request is to maintain the existing 40.8 foot structure setback from the ordinary high water level of Lake Minnewashta. The required setback per Ordinance from the ordinary high water level in the Shoreland Management District is 75 feet. The applicant justifies that if there were no variance approved for the shoreland setback that the buildable home area would equate to about a 75 square foot home, which staff agrees would be a 36 constrained area. As many of the lots in the surrounding neighborhood have similar constraints, the City has granted shoreland setback variances to allow for a more reasonable use of the property. As such, staff recommends approval of the proposed 40.8 foot structure setback as long as proposed conditions 1 and 2 are adhered to in order to mitigate stormwater runoff being diverted into Lake Minnewashta while improving the overall health of the ecosystem and function. Lastly, while Engineering and Public Works is recommending approval of the discussed variances in association with the proposed conditions, any and all improvements on the Site must meet applicable jurisdictional requirements. See proposed condition 3. Proposed Conditions 1. The applicant shall supply updated construction plans that utilize to the maximum extent possible the use of pervious paver systems in accordance with Sec. 20-921 of City Ordinances. Areas such as the driveway, sidewalk, and patios must be considered in the design of these systems. 2. A permanent 20’ native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using species native to the ecotype with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plans must be approved by the Water Resources Administrator/Engineer. 3. The installation of any improvements on the Site shall meet all applicable jurisdictional requirements, including but not limited to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and all applicable permits shall be obtained prior to any site improvements. 37 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTYOFCARVER ) \L.-'. Kim T eu ty Cl Subscribed and s thisl$ day of wo to before me JEAII t{oaary Notary Public ,2021. ttOrrffor att.hrr ,*a I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on November 4,2021, the duly qualified and acting City Clerk ofthe City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing to consider a request for lot cover, setback (front, side, and shoreland), and other variances for construction of a single-family home on property located at 3703 South Cedar Drive, Planning case No. 2021a5. Applicanu Property owner: Greg Datillo. Zoned single' Family Residential (RSF") to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses ofsuch owners were those appearing as such by the records ofthe County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota and by other appropriate records. 38 Disclaim€r This map is nerther a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a @mpilaiion of records, information and data located in various c,ty, county, state and federal offces and other sour@s regarding lhe area shown and is to be us€d for reference purposes only The Cily does not wanant that the Geo96phic lnformatjon System (GlS) Data used lo prepare this map are enor free, and the Caty does not represent tiat the GIS Data can be used for navigatlonal, tracking or any other purpose requidng exacting measurement of distance or darection or precision an lhe depiction of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuanl to Minnesota Statutes 5466.03, Subd. 21 (2000). and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defencl, indemnify, and hold hamless the City from any and all claims bought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties Mich arise out of the us€/s access or use of data provided. Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, infomation and data loceted io various clty' county, state and federal offces and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used foa reference purposes only The City does nol wanant that the Geographic lniormation System (GlS) Data used to prepare this map are enor free, and the City cloes not aepresent thai the GIS Data can be used lor navigatlonal, tracking or any other purpose requidng exacting measurcment of distance or directlon or precjsion in the depiction of geographic features. The precediog disclaimer is provided pu6uant to Minnesota Statutes 5466.03. Subd. 21 (2OOO). and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to deiend, indemnify, and hold hamless the City kom any and all daims brought by User its employees or agents, or thid paflies which anse out of lhe useis access or use of data provided. (TAX_NAMED (TAX_ADD_LI D <TAX ADD L2r (Next RecordxTAX_NAI ED (TAX_ADD_L1D (TAX ADD L2D Subject Parcel Subiect Parcel \ \ ,'\ \\i. :. \,, il LLt --t {rl )\J.*A\,'l ! l- t ;Y! a1 $ J ri 39 o t,: =t,oo9zir 3Bfo ='ir@_9o;O=3o=-=,oo!rO- 9,8 =oo* GI otD5 t,o8z,o!6'!ro?o5'rGttoEo6'3- a'E 9. ='oGl =oo ET GI aai€egE*;igEfFf;gE t:ceaaEst;s€E?eais EiiEEiEEllEiEEEi EiiiEiEiiiiiiiEE ;agB=e iBiis g:g q d f 3 I zm =a(o =co o 6o a. o o3I o)fo o ox foe o)-ol €Jo =3oo*.Jto o)(oo)o, o)I E IDo oI = =c o o)fo- o-oo 0, oc! o- o)o-oo o =o e. {oo <,, !D o o =c {€IIoJ o)a 0) o? 3 =c 3o o o *= t!r =ttol: ='ote. 6 t-! 8Aa,t4:ooa =< !>a= 95'*0,\<=o<{ o ! at,oo * roo!, o 6oofqt I"E d;'ooo+t, d 8.8 ^Col E9 E_ 5aDo= aeotqo !-orl(oooo(!) ='"(o 9o[l o t2. I Ps{ e *8 e=AqgEd 1g d 8 a=eegg=e+tse .ddgHP EtE.afre3 gaia If,E&iEEspf<aF?=l5F =+i:EEE E 5Eg ilHa E rl3qlilrgai*E' odliil)l(,, +Jc o-!) _o !, 3!,tooo N N !,l =oct f 0) o =.o o Jo-o dff ='(o oo3f 6' :Ioo lto A(rNr@r]r0r--l' F+(t,6f E:gl-=g5; E 7 n='--- ts e.E 3j or 3 5 +E= l FE;; E}[gadE<. =Euorf og o o: o f ssga:Eqg =*f + + _ =.totggt dYEr B F =€ '.-d i: = -:8 +f 5 d' q "tsE +d*Ed sEd=B q6=-=o >(,--{ BatAaYO 9or,O cS {e <(D a I o o 4 a o- o o, 3 Jof !D No)oo- a =(o E-n 0) ao of*. !L na_rt qolo Aq.q3 vO,-sa ).0l.Lc 9EJ*qo" <l 6ofoo<oo ^(,=ooatoo,lo c=gqo= ='.- =oo-O 9. o) () o- 6- -..t -.Joo 0) o @ o- - 9L ooca f 0,3oo o =it loo =' ; +co o 0)5zo o 3uo _o, NoN ID :!oopl -.1 3 t>:t !l o6'4tr<f Oe{ o:! t o oo + roo!, o ot o F -{ o r!o :'i !,t4(Do;l=< E{ =!ro+ ;eo-= ='.Dc6 ooOtr:o =ooof=6o"F o 1ado 0, o -oco o oo o oo 0)o of Jo adao-Y 0)-o- o =o o, =.!,foo o oof <,, co 6', o 0) t2. l(oit o)l Jo 3 !D Nofoo, q. a I(n -Tl o 'Tl 0,l. 7o 9..o-of-,t!, o- -o o,Jo- o -!L o ca 9. o=0) 3oo -{ -.1oo !, o (! o- nrcao =o)d:<6- +o93!.v 6;o lF o) I r..roOoN)ar3o) lo oP ef =o' 9f o a 9-.Lo o J o 6' ao ! o 0, = o--lJo !c roo o o J Itocq 6' Jo 0) )(o 6' o ='o 3 =c 0)ooc a(rN)f qt a't f 0,djoo'rr I}) (o :a1,O-l(,U)=r6'39 dd = 8E *as= sef ,3$?r Ere6; =r E -0, $1eE qE ftSgee ,EP= =15 + *rrf'gqE: P 5EdE:6 @_d +f .' J _atr =o o ==a59u9 d(o= s t=' *Ae= ;+o z+.I = <lI X =r (o6 + (o-to=6oa =o q oc o =o o zm =a(o f E o ooo ='o o3I 0) =o- o o fo =o o)-.ol ! o oI l.f,c o oao s.o_o o) dc9o 0) oo o =o a. €oq 9.. !D o o {{€ aoJ o, =f 0) o P 3 ?c )o 3o o =c €5oa 3oo-.-(o o)(oo-o, s) lh ^{ =.o{ ! ooo o-ooc 3of goo o =o 3oo-.=I E 5o E d!o oo-oo q-o! 3ol €og ! ID(oo o) lrtof tbo o 0)qoc Jd'p p.oo !it!) ooo:, 0)o IDoxof N,o I Ps{ S == f e€ q,al^f =itati9d9 El de .dB9 ri6f-iliS .> I qp. '1,E9=E\d: =9 L lEEq3 =qB3=i=8eP E=qE8+ E:i;E # F1"";f.o) Y r ooSjq,3 66 .< o6 o oc J o 0r_ o co NoN N sn = cf(o =0) o o o 3 9_ 0) 3{q) o {{{ ?,-'o 0, oooo oJ 0)fJ o) o 3 o o) o s. 9.. =.o o =o 1l !,) =3 o 3l 9..of 3oo-.f -tJc BEig[gEgEEEEiFeirE iAeggaE:EaeiliEiE* eiEggiEgaigEE:ig i3:EE;*e**E;E AFa ;EEeaElBAiigieia EgEEFiEiEiiEEgEa ?iiiEiEiiigil€Ee i[;iiiE*Eigii leg iEsE'E[ EiAei Fs ! a 9 o!, o FIj !q ooOE =o=oJ4oo3fiio"F o dio E 0, =6' o 6.oE o foo o oo -{o(, Choc 5 ooo- 0) o =,o 40 ReRRsS3e3333R38e3R33e3BEEBEEEqEq3i-; Hij ij iyi b.n d ('i 6 m iD m m $ o < !^ .f + Ln < N.! <r N N o o sr r{ !T6 i5 i5 6 5 6 5 6 o q E I 8 B B g E B I I 8 8 8 8 8 8 88 8 88 8 8R B 3 B B B I 3 33. -(o .o (o(o .o.o rq (sq 6 66 6 66 6 6@@ @ 6 - ii 6 6 6 6 6 6 !o @ to 6 6 6 !o @ to ro to to ro t9 !o io (o \o l.o @ lo (o (o ro (o .c' z fi 6'; 6 ri rn ra rn Ln lrr 6 6 6 6 L^ tn ta !^ r^ tn La tn L^ Ln La !^ rn lrt !n r^ t'l Lrt !^ = Fj ii ii ii ii lj Aj ^i ^i F.j 6i ^ir.'j ^i c'i t.'i N N (\ ^r '\J r-\r '{ '\ N N '! N '{ N N ^r oooooaoo o o o oo QEA.AA&.AI.t t e d et Eiiiir>22 2 txxxt EzEEEE2EE22 2roooooooo o iiiic. e.9e.e ddodd99 9d - ^,,r ., u u ., > ., d ., - J U E E E E E; X I -:EEEEEEEEESS=EEEE0EqEEEEUEEqqgqiEE SEEEEEEEgYCYAdAdAYdEAAAAEAAEE9EA==<t .-r m c- cO .! Ln (O F cO O'r C, .{ rn F- r{ (n lO F. O !r rY) Ln CD O O rn O !/l r'{ <l (nO'{ HH IiiiH H HHH HH H g H H BB ff 8 * HS il il HH ilH il H HH N F 33 . !-r cr .r r{ \o ro \o Loc.co@@ 09 90 o9 t99 pIE*"r*il s E rB Xg EH$EB $ E$ $$ B*s$B9 i * i j .r .r J .r .r.< j .r .t; .t; i i; r{.r.{ r{ '{ H '{ '{ L^ i e{ 'r '{ut iyi ;ri (n ia m ro rri iti in ro o rn d, m rrl d, m rn (o m (n 'n 'i rn !^ rn (n m m =BBBssssBBBsBssBEEEqSssSSqEE==fi EB2 fi lri .ri lri lri rn Ln ri'i rri !.i tri Lri ri Lri Ln ur r^ r^ r/r L., Ln ra rn L^ > > !^ r^ r^ n: z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z 2 z z z z .-' -'zzz i6- ^ -| 4 t d d. E d t e e a. c' oa oa oa oa oa oa oe oa oi c-- ci oi d d c e d P ^ c' E do'D 5 6 6 6 o o o 6 o o o o o 6 o 6 o o o o o o o o o o o t H o I I ? 4 - E 4 4 4 44a 444-! a 4 4 4 4 4 a 19 4, 4 t. 2 v v ?? ? ;'E H 9 H U H H H H H H H H H H x H H H * H H H H H 8 H H = = H 8 HE (, in in in ilj Li uJ i! iri 'JJ t! ur r! ur ur o660o0o o o o oqA.EAA.aGI e c d nG t-FFFFI-F I d d.d.d e. \ e. a. e. e. I e e | |zzzzzzz z A 666 o=66aaaa6==PFFEFPP F^E ttt^TPTT{EPEE3PE x E x i x x x * I x E 35 E 33 E e x E 3 I E E 3 BE E 7=3 -',t..< O ts ii E E E g iN E.r E.r - r = r.I,J - - E E U E T U U E E E E EJ 6t tt t, (r (r (r (r (r u u v 5 a 5 5 5 Y 5 x 5 5 5 5;5 5;;=E== =o' o o o o o o o o i oee p.p ppt-*e i e ; e ; e s e = e u e e d a E d a g E 3 3 i i =*r$ - ". - "r o n F. @ or o !'r.n l.-.r !n !o F o ''r 'n 6 6 o o !^o tn o 'r '{ o H x r^ r.r ..r rr 6t N N N N r\ 6 iYi inb ci o o.{.r.{ J; - .\l '! !^ rn '\ o o 'r '{ 3 H H H HH tsBs s HFis HB 5 55 5h h h Bh s H h s hs s r R R 3t zd.<F>5FE'd"G o>E r oz c HE 1^ ECZ 6 q = X e .f6 - Z. I E^E = .8lfri g E =2 6E=leez uEE;:==5_ e=iz gE ?AE=_tr9 -oz = Ey :EE;EEeE=EE;;egIEel=EEEeEiqEaEcEEE 41 Walters, MacKenzie From: Sent: To: Cc: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Subject: Steve Gunther < stgunther@gmail.com> Tuesday, November 16,2021 1 1:53 AM Walters, MacKenzie Greg and Joan Dattilo 3703 South Cedar Drive variance requests Follow up Flagged Mackenzie. I am writing this email in support ofthe Variance Requests for 3703 South Cedar Drive in Chanhasssn. I am quite familiar with the property and the homes on and around it, the size of the lot and the tiny home that could be built if the current zoning were applied. What has been requested is reasonable and consistent with the neighborhood. As the president ofthe Lake Milnewashta Preservation Association, I appreciate the reduction in hardcover of the proposed plan and support the County's recommendations to place a 20 foot native vegetation buffer on the lakeside to mitigate stormwater runoff. The LMPA offers technical and financial assistance to residents in our lakeshed for this purpose. LMPA board member Kevin Zahler is a trained Master Water Steward and offers his services without charge to residents to help explain and plan this kind of action. He can be reached at 612-61 8- 9817 or via email at kizahler(dhotmail.com. Thank you stgunther@lsnail.com 612-859-3729 Citizen I lnvestor I Multisports Enthusiast CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. 1 42 Planning Commission Item November 16, 2021 Item Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated October 19, 2021 File No.Item No: C.1 Agenda Section APPROVAL OF MINUTES Prepared By Jean Steckling, Sr. Admin Support Specialist Applicant Present Zoning Land Use Acerage Density Applicable Regulations SUGGESTED ACTION Approve Planning Commission meeting minutes dated October 19, 2021. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION 43 ATTACHMENTS Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated October 19, 2021 44 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 19, 2021 CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chair von Oven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Eric Noyes, Mark von Oven, Erik Johnson, Doug Reeder, and Kelsey Alto MEMBERS ABSENT: Steven Weick, Laura Skistad STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner; Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer; George Bender, Assistant City Engineer; Matt Unmacht, Assistant City Manager (former Water Resources Coordinator) PUBLIC PRESENT: Sharon Gatto 9631 Foxford Road Dan Blake Black Cherry LLC, 14500 Martin Drive, Suite 3000, Eden Prairie Jeff and Deb Papke 6180 Cardinal Drive, Shorewood Vice Chair von Oven noted there are four items on the agenda for this evening, however, the applicant for Item B3 has requested that the item be tabled. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT (IUP) FOR GRADING IN EXCESS OF 1,000 CUBIC YARDS FOR THE CREATION OF A BERM ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9631 FOXFORD ROAD Project Engineer Henricksen gave a presentation on Planning Case 2021-24. The location is abutting Pioneer Trail and is zoned Rural Residential. The applicant has provided an existing condition survey as the line of trees shown on the property are diseased with rhizosphaera needle cast which is killing the trees. Eventually those trees will be removed which will eliminate the privacy or buffer to Pioneer Trail. There is an existing septic system on site which must be protected during grading operations. The intent is to bring in approximately 5,000 cubic yards of material in order to grade the privacy berm. Commissioner Reeder asked the proposed height of the berm. Mr. Henricksen believes it will be about eight feet from the existing grade and conforms with City Ordinance. 45 Planning Commission Minutes – October 19, 2021 2 Sharon Gatto, applicant, has lived on the property for 30 years and planted 300-400 bushes and trees and with the disease they are losing their privacy. She stated they are hoping to take the berm to the street level and put in trees and plantings to make a beautiful corner. Vice Chair von Oven opened the public hearing. Vice Chair von Oven closed the public hearing. Commissioner Alto moved, Commissioner Reeder seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Interim Use Permit (IUP) to allow site gradings at 9631 Foxford Road subject to Conditions of Approval and Findings of Fact and Decision recommendations. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO INTERIM USE PERMIT (IUP) 2021-03 TO AMEND THE COMPLETION DEADLINE, HAUL ROUTE AND STORAGE AREA, BLACK CHERRY DEVELOPMENT, LLC (ERHART) Project Engineer Henricksen gave a presentation on Planning Case 2021-03. The location of the wetland dredging project is west of Great Plains Boulevard and east of Eagle Ridge Road. This is an IUP that was previous approved by Planning Commission and City Council. The property is zoned Agricultural Estate A-2 and has been approved for Preliminary Plat. He noted Wetland 2 is being proposed for the amendment and it is the same ultimate grading plan proposing 21,200 cubic yards of material to be excavated which needs to be completed in the winter months. Due to weather conditions the previous year it was not completed which is why the applicant is requesting an extension of the IUP. There is an amended haul route and stockpile location. Commissioner Noyes asked why there is a change in haul route and stockpile location. Mr. Henricksen replied it is because the Erhart Farms subdivision is going through the process of final platting, construction plans, and build-out so they cannot put the stockpile there. Dan Blake, Black Cherry Development, noted they began work the previous winter. It is about three weeks of work and they got a week-and-a-half of work done and then the weather turned warm. They were at risk of losing trucks in the marsh so they had to stop. He noted this will include two weeks of work in the winter and it will happen pretty quickly. Vice Chair von Oven opened the public hearing. Vice Chair von Oven closed the public hearing. 46 Planning Commission Minutes – October 19, 2021 3 Commissioner Noyes noted they are really just extending the date with the relocation of the haul route and stockpile location. It is pretty straightforward in his opinion. Commissioner Johnson moved, Commissioner Alto seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the amendment to the Interim Use Permit (IUP) to allow site grading by extending the completion deadline to one (1) year from City Council approval, and the haul route and stockpile location subject to the Conditions of Approval and adoption of Findings of Fact and Recommendation. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR SETBACK MAXIMUM SIZE VARIANCES FOR A WATER-ORIENTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (WOAS) AND A HEIGHT VARIANCE TO ALLOW A SIX-FOOT, SIX-INCH HIGH OPAQUE FENCE WITH THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD AND SHORELAND SETBACKS ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6609 HORSESHOE CURVE Commissioner Noyes moved, Commissioner Johnson seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission table this item: Request for Variances at 6609 Horseshoe Curve. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR WETLAND BUFFER AVERAGING, WETLAND SETBACK VARIANCES, YARD SETBACK VARIANCES, AND OTHER VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME, SEPTIC SYSTEM, AND DRIVEWAY, PID 25.0080200 Associate Planner MacKenzie Young-Walters gave a presentation on Planning Case 2021-20. He clarified that if the Planning Commission approves or denies by less than a ¾ majority vote it automatically goes to the City Council on November 8, 2021. Alternatively, the decision can be appealed within a 4-day window where an appeal received in writing will refer this item to the City Council on November 8, 2021. This is a peninsula on Lake Minnewashta and the variances are from the minimum wetland buffer requirements and from the principal and accessory structure wetland setback to facilitate the construction of a single-family home on the lot. The parcel is zoned Rural Residential, is within the 1,000-foot Shoreland Overlay zone, is riparian, and the zoning district requires a 2.5-acre minimum lot area. Mr. Young-Walters shared the setbacks for Rural Residential and noted the widening of Highway 5 may alter the property’s access; access may be removed or converted to right-in, right-out. Highway 5 is not a City road, therefore MnDOT has jurisdiction over the access. The applicant is aware of all of these elements and development is at their own risk (noise, access, traffic, etcetera). The lot is 2.12 acres in size and the proposal is to extend the driveway and construct a home with porches, a patio, and a septic system. Mr. Young-Walters spoke about buffer averaging through the 47 Planning Commission Minutes – October 19, 2021 4 Watershed to shift the building pad 20 feet south. Buffer averaging is a practice allowed by the Watershed to vary the width of the buffer so long as the total square footage protected does not change. The City does not treat buffers like that but requires a flat minimum buffer width of 40 feet in this case. In order to allow the applicant to use buffer averaging with the Watershed, the City would have to grant a variance from the minimum buffer width standards. Mr. Young- Walters noted six residents have emailed the City expressing opposition to the requested variance; five residents have called (two requesting information and three in opposition). Staff’s assessment is that the applicant has the right to reasonable use of the property and a single-family home is a reasonable use. Staff feels most of the requested variances are due to the proposed home design occupying the entire buildable area. Staff recommends approval of the driveway wetland accessory structure buffer setback and denial of the minimum wetland buffer width and wetland primary structure buffer setbacks. Commissioner Alto asked when the City decided this lot would be acceptable for a single-family home; was that width a consideration with the Highway 5 revitalization. Mr. Young-Walters stated the parcel has been guided for single-family use going back to at least the 2020 land use plan. He does not believe it has been zoned anything other than RR. The City did not amend the land use as part of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Vice Chair von Oven asked if Carver County builds a bridge are they required to provide access to this property. Assistant City Engineer George Bender replied the access would go away and the property would need to be acquired because they would be denying the access to the property that is already established. He clarified if the access needed to be constructed to the bridge because the building was on the site and was not acquired, he expects the bridge would change elevations of the roadway bringing it up so that the connectivity of the wetlands would be established. There would have to be additional funds expended to create a different access to the property. MnDOT has stated it would be a right-in, right-out. Commissioner Alto asked if they approve this application and give them access from Highway 5, could that affect the actual final decision for whether or not they build the bridge for Highway 5 and do the revitalization of the wetland to connect through to the Arboretum. Mr. Young-Walters replied the applicant already has existing and legal access to Highway 5. The City is not granting any new access or any expansion to the existing access. Mr. Bender does not believe it would impact the Highway 5 project. Commissioner Johnson asked regarding the wetland buffer, the septic site is outside of that and asked if that is a viable spot to construct the septic. 48 Planning Commission Minutes – October 19, 2021 5 Mr. Young-Walters replied that the City Code allows for septics to be located within wetland buffers, and there are design standards that would need to be met. Matt Unmacht, former Water Resources Coordinator for the City, performed part of the wetland and natural resources review on this project. He clarified that staff is recommending approval of the driveway variance and not the buffer averaging variances because there is really no way to construct the driveway without the need for a variance at all. It is about what was feasible on the lot. Jeff and Deb Papke, Applicants, stated the driveway would not impact the wetland. Mr. Papke noted the buffer would allow the mound system to leave room to get in the garage. It also allows the distance from the driveway to the house to be shorter and gives an additional septic drain field area on the north side of the house. During the technical review, they found a piece of wetland on the adjacent neighbor’s property that stuck out quite a bit, forcing a bisection of the building location and with the buffers does not allow for a straight line for the house on the east border. Regarding the size of the house, 3,200 square feet is relatively modest and the garage and storage areas are sized for boats, vehicles, and an RV to be stored inside rather than in the yard. He spoke about other properties in the area and about a neighbor who had a variance approved which is a precedent for the Papke’s asking for a large garage on the footprint. Mr. Young-Walters reminded the Commissioners that the variance was approved on the condition that an otherwise theoretically buildable lot was combined to an existing parcel and lost building rights. Mr. Papke noted they submitted the same request to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) and the request was approved. He noted 3-4 of the requests that came from staff are now being suggested for denial by staff. He asked the Commissioners to review and approve the variances as they have been waiting 10 weeks and have lost time in the construction season this year. Vice Chair von Oven asked if the applicants were surprised that the three variances were denied and when did they find out. Mr. Papke replied they found out on October 14th. He spoke with staff about the reasons for denial and they cited the house was big enough and they could do it without having the size of a house they planned for. The Commissioners and the applicant spoke about septic locations. Mr. Young-Walters’ understanding from the Building Official is for a lot of record only one septic site is required. Commissioner Reeder asked if the septic location can be moved. 49 Planning Commission Minutes – October 19, 2021 6 Mr. Young-Walters replied that is out of his expertise but his understanding is that the soils on the site are very constrained and there are quite a few locations restrictions with setbacks, distance from the well, and from the proposed structure. Vice Chair von Oven opened the public hearing. Vice Chair von Oven closed the public hearing. Vice Chair von Oven noted that Commissioner Noyes has recused himself from this discussion for personal reasons. Commissioner Reeder does not see the reason to grant the extra variances. He thinks the Commissioners should grant the variance for the road. Commissioner Johnson is torn; he is on the fence. Vice Chair von Oven said in reading this multiple times, he always agrees that the applicant has reasonable use of the property. This one becomes tough because he stated when one settles on a house they want, that is what they want. Now it is in a place that is going to break a lot of the City rules; however, the Watershed does not have those rules. He is struggling a bit as he does not want to set more precedents for people coming with boatloads of variances. He thinks a reasonable use of a property can be accomplished without the other variances, excluding the driveway variance. Commissioner Alto moved, Commissioner Reeder seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission amend the Conditions of Approval and Findings of Facts and Decision by adding Condition 11: A survey showing the extent of the floodplain musts be provided. If portions of the septic system are within the floodplain, the applicant’s septic design must meet the requirements for septic systems within a floodplain, and if fill is to be added within the floodplain, the applicant must apply for and receive the required permits from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and a Conditional Use Permit from the City of Chanhassen. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Commissioner Noyes abstained. Commissioner Reeder moved, Commissioner Alto seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a wetland accessory structure buffer setback variance for the extension of a driveway, subject to the amended Conditions of Approval, and denies the requested wetland minimum buffer width and wetland principal structure setback variances, and adopts the amended Findings of Facts and Decision. 50 Planning Commission Minutes – October 19, 2021 7 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0. Commissioner Noyes abstained. Mr. Young-Walters clarified if staff receives an appeal in writing by any party, whether the applicant, a resident, or any other participant before 4:30 p.m. on Monday, this would go before the City Council on November 8, 2021. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED OCTOBER 5, 2021 Commissioner Noyes noted the summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 5, 2021 as presented. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE Mr. Young-Walters shared that the City Council had a work session discussion October 11, 2021 regarding the Westwood Church property. Mr. Generous shared that the City Council requested that the developer hold a neighborhood meeting to get input from residents. The City Council also discussed conditional uses versus interim uses in the fringe business district off Flying Cloud Drive. Staff recommended amending all of the conditional uses to interim uses so eventually they will go away when sewer and water come down to that area. City Council requested additional information on it and then will bring it back for further discussion at a work session. Mr. Generous noted the Council approved the Lakeshore Equipment outdoor storage CUP. Finally, there will not be a Planning Commission meeting on November 2, 2021 as that is Election Day. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Alto moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Jean M. Steckling 51 Planning Commission Item November 16, 2021 Item City Council Action Update File No.Item No: D.1 Agenda Section ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS Prepared By Jean Steckling, Sr. Admin Support Specialist Applicant Present Zoning Land Use Acerage Density Applicable Regulations SUGGESTED ACTION SUMMARY BACKGROUND DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION ATTACHMENTS 52 City Council Action Update 53 City Council Action Update MONDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2021 Consider a Request for Preliminary Plat Approval for Avienda Townhomes – Approved Approve a Request for an Amendment to Interim Use Permit (IUP) to Amend the Completion Deadline, Haul Route and Storage Area as Part of the Wetland Modification for Black Cherry Development – Approved Fringe Business District Reclassifying Conditional Uses as Interim Uses Next Steps - Discussion MONDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2021 Approve a Request for an Interim Use Permit (IUP) for Grading in Excess of 1,000 Cubic Yards for the Creation of a Berm on Property Located at 9631 Foxford Road – Approved Minutes for these meetings can be viewed and downloaded from the city’s website at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us, and click on “Agendas and Minutes” from the left-side links. 54 Planning Commission Item November 16, 2021 Item Discuss Fringe Business District Reclassifying Conditional Uses as Interim Uses File No.Item No: D.2 Agenda Section ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS Prepared By MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner Applicant Present Zoning Land Use Acerage Density Applicable Regulations SUGGESTED ACTION SUMMARY BACKGROUND DISCUSSION The City is contemplating amending the Fringe Business (BF) District to reclassify a permitted use and several conditional uses as interim uses. Owners of the impacted properties have been invited to an open house on November 10, 2021 to provide feedback on the proposed change. Staff will relay any and all received comments to the City Council and if the City Council directs staff to proceed, will bring 55 this item before the Planning Commission for a formal public hearing. All relevant background material is provided as attachments. RECOMMENDATION ATTACHMENTS Issue Paper for 10-11-21 CC BF Parcels and Uses Map and Key Land Use Map Zoning Map Next Steps Memo CR 61 Corridor Study 56 CITY OT CHAI'IIIASSII'I Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomonow MEMORANDUM City Council FROM: MacKenzieYoung-Walters,AssociatePlanner DATE: October 11,2021 SUBJ: Fringe Business (BF) District Uses To facilitate the highest and best use of this region, the City may wish to reclassifu certain permitted and conditional uses as interim uses. The City's BF District was initially created 1986 with the stated intent to "accommodate limited commercial uses without urban services" with all potential uses being listed as either conditional or accessory uses. In 1990, the City created interim use permits (lUP) and began classifuing uses that it desired to be temporary in nature as interim uses. In 1994, the City amended the BF District's intent statemenl to state: "The intent of the 'BF' District is to accommodate limited commercial uses temporary in nature without urban services, while maintaining the integrity, minimizing impact, and protecting the natural environment. When urban services are available, land use may change to a higher and improved use ofthe property." Most business uses, with the exception of wholesale nursery/green houses with no retail which is a permitted use, are classified as conditional uses within the District; however, some uses, such as churches and outdoor storage, are classified as interim uses, PH 952.227.1100. www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us. FX 952.227.1110 TO: Issue: This item was discussed at a City Council work session April 23.2018. At that lime, the Council chose not to modifi the District. Now that Highway 101 is nearing completion and properties are for sale along CASH 61, there is more interest in developing. This area is the southem gateway to the City. The uses in the BF District conflict with the land use guiding of properties. By allowing conditional uses that conflict with the City's long-term vision for the area, these may not develop at the highest and best uses. Background: I/OO MARKET BOULEVARD. PO BOX I47. CHANHASSEN' I4INNESOTA 55517 57 City Council Fringe Business (BF) District Uses October 11,2021 Page 2 The City's 2040 Land Use plan guides the parcels currently zoned BF for office industrial, mixed use, residential medium density, and residential high density land uses. The Highway 101/61 study commissioned by the City in 2014 envisions many ofthese parcels as being part ofthe City's southem gateway. As the reconstruction of Flying Cloud Drive and Highway 101 nears completion, the City has begun receiving inquires about the possibility of reactivating, expanding, and/or repurposing existing businesses along Flying Cloud Drive. While any business may continue to operate under the terms ofexisting conditional use permits in perpetuity, the City is concemed that applications for new or expanded conditional use permits (CUP) may come in. Since the express intent ofthe District is to accommodate temporary commercial uses until urban services are extended, it may be appropriate to classiff the area's allowed commercial uses as interim rather than conditional uses. Doing so will help to convey the City's expectation that these uses will be discontinued and the parcels redeveloped once municipal services are extended, and will also provide the City with an additional tool to help insure that the area develops at the highest and best use. Analvsis: Conditional use permits govem uses which are generally not allowed in a district, but may be suitable in specific circumstances. The City classifies uses that have a high potential to substantially impact adjacent parcels as conditional uses. Applicants wishing to receive a CUP must demonstrate that the use will not unduly impact adjacent parcels or the community and that it will be consistent with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance. The City's Zoning Code lists general and specific requirements for most conditional uses. Ifan applicant can demonstrate that they meet all ofthe conditional use requirements, the City must issue a CUP; however, the City can place reasonable andjustifiable conditions on the permit in order to mitigate anticipated adverse impacts associated with proposed use. This permit is recorded against property and allows that use to continue in perpetuity so long as the conditions of approval are not violated, the property is not subdivided, and the use is not discontinued for a period of six months or longer. Relevant Citv Code: Chapter 20 - Zoning, Article IV. - Conditional Uses: This article details general criteria, conditions, and procedures for granting and revoking CUPs and IUPs. Other divisions address specific criteria for various conditional uses by district. Chapter 20 - Zoning, Article ){X. - "BF" Fringe Business District, Sec. 20-771, -773, and -775: These sections respectively list the Districts permiued, conditional, and interim uses. Issue 1 : Conditional Use Permits (CUP) v. Interim Use Permits (lUP) 58 City Council Fringe Business (BF) District Uses October 11,2021 Page 3 Interim use permits (IUP) are very similar to conditional use permits, with the applicant needing to demonstrate that they meet the zoning ordinances requirement for the use and the City having the authority to impose conditions necessary to mitigate the anticipated impact ofthe use' The key difference is that interim uses are uses that the City believes are currently appropriate for an area but will not be suitable in future. In otder to ensure that these uses are temporary, the City Code requires that an IUP has an identified date or event that will terminate the use and also stipulates that the use will terminate upon any change in the City's zoning regulations which renders the use nonconforming. IUPs can also be terminated for the same reasons as CUPs. Uses should be classified as conditional when they represent an activity that will remain suitable as an area develops. For example, drive-through facilities are conditional uses due to their potential traffic impacts and presence ofan on-site speaker/intercom system; however, once it is demonstrated that these concerns have been mitigated, it is not envisioned that changes to the surrounding parcels will make the drive-tkough an unsuitable use. Uses should be classified as interim when they represent an activity that will become unsuitable as an area develops. For example, commercial kennels and stables are classified as interim uses in Agricultural Estate (A2) Districts because while their impacts can be mitigated within the context of multi-acre residential lots, these impacts are much less mitigatable within the context of a residential subdivision with 15,000-square foot lots. Automotiye Dealer/Rentals: Reclassifo from conditional use to interim use. There is a valid CUP for this use within this district. While this use is suitable within the area's current context, it would not be desirable in the context of mixed residential and commercial uses and high density residential districts. Commercial Kennels: Reclassifu from conditional use to interim use. There is a valid CUP for this use within this district. While this use is suitable within the area's current context, it would not be desirable in the context of mixed residential and commercial uses and high density residential districts. Commercial Sta6les: Reclassifu from conditional use to interim use. Reclassifr from conditional use to interim use. There is a valid CUP for this use within this district. While this use is suitable within the area's current context, it would not be desirable in the context of mixed residential and commercial uses and high density residential districts. Issue 2: Proposed Chanees lI/holesale Nursery/Green House/No Rerail: Reclassiff from permitted use to interim use. Currently no parcel zoned BF is being used as wholesale nursery/green house. While this use is suitable within the area's current context, it would not be desirable in the context of mixed residential and commercial uses and high density residential districts. This use is already listed as interim use in the nearby A2 districts. 59 City Council Fringe Business (BF) District Uses October 11,2021 Page 4 Iharehousing and Cold Storage: Reclassify from conditional use to interim use. There is a valid CUP for this use within this District. While this use is suitable within the area's current context, it would not be desirable in the context of mixed residential and commercial uses and high density residential districts. Motor Fuel Station without Car ll/ash: Reclassifu from conditional use to interim use. There is a valid CUP for this use within this district. While this use is suitable within the area's current context, it would not be desirable in the context of mixed residential and commercial uses and high density residential districts. Miniature Golf Course: Reclassifr from conditional use to interim use. There is a valid CUP for this use within this district. While this use is suitable within the area's current context, it would not be desirable in the context of mixed residential and commercial uses and high density residential districts. Recommendation: Staffrecommends reclassifring commercial uses within the BF District as interim uses and correct the codification enor. This will better convey the City's intent that these uses are temporary in nature, and will allow the City to terminate IUPs upon rezoning. ARTICLE XX..'BF" FRINGE BUSINESS DISTRICT Sec.20-771. - Intent. The intent of the "BF" district is to accommodate limiled commercial uses temporary in nature without urban services, while maintaining the integrity, minimizing impact, and protecting the natural environment. When urban services are available, land use may change to a higher and improved use of the property. (Ord. No. 80, tut. V, $ l4(5-14-l), I2-15-86; Ord. No. 220, $ l, 9-12-94) Sec.20-771.1. - Permitted uses. The following are permitted uses in a "BF" district: ( I ) Agriculture. (2) Antennas as regulated by Article XXX ofthis chapter. (3) Private and public park/open space. (4) Single-family dwelling (one unit per ten acres). 60 City Council Fringe Business (BF) District Uses October 11,2021 Page 5 (Ord. No. 220, S 1,9-12-94; Ord. No. 259, $ 23,11-12-96; Ord. No. 377, $ 103, 5-24-04) Sec. 20-772. - Permitted accessory uses. The following are permitted accessory uses in a "BF" district: (l) Parking lots. (2) Signs. (3) Temporary outdoor sales and events (subject to the requirements of section 20-964). (Ord. No.80, ArL V, $ l4(5-14-3), l2-15-86; Ord. No.243, $ 11,2-13-95; Ord.No.377,5104, 5-24-04; Ord. No.619, $ 12,2-27-17) Sec. 20-773. - Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses in a "BF" district: @ @ine €)---eemraereial+en*ets $)---eemmercial+ta*s" (7) Towers as regulated by article )O(X ofthis chapter (8) Utility services. (Ord. No. 80, tut. V, $ 14(5-14-2), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 80-D, $ 1, 1-11-88; Ord. No. 103, $ 1,5- 22-89; Ord. No. I 16, S 9, l-22-90; Ord. No. 120, $ 4(1 l), 2-12-90; Ord. No. 220, $ 2,9-12-94; Ord. No. 247,$ l,3-11-96; Ord. No. 259,524,11-12-96; Ord. No. 377, $ 105, 5-24-04) State Law reference- Conditional uses, M.S. $ 462.3595.5 Sec.20-774. - Lot requirements and setbacks. The following minimum requirements shall be observed in a "BF" district subject to additional requirements, exceptions and modifications set forth in this chapter: (1) The minimum lot area is 20,000 square feet. (2) The minimum lot frontage is 100 feet, except that lots fronting on a cul-de-sac shall have a minimum front footage of 60 feet in all districts. 61 City Council Fringe Business (BF) District Uses October 11,2021 Page 6 (3) (4) (s) The minimum lot depth is 150 feet. The maximum lot coverage is 40 percent. Off-street parking shall comply with district setback requirements except: a. There is no minimum setback when it abuts a railroad right-of-way, except as provided in chapter 20, article XXV, division 3, pertaining to landscaping requirements. b. There is no minimum setback when it abuts, without being separated by a street, another off-sEeet Parking area. c. The minimum setback is 50 feet when it abuts a residential district without being separated from the residential district by a street or railroad right-of-way. d. The minimum setback is 25 feet for side sheet side yards. e. Parking setbacks along public rights-of-way may be reduced to a minimum often feet if the applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction ofthe city that l00-percent screening is provided at least five feet above the adjacent parking lot. The intent of this section is that the city is willing to trade a reduced setback for additional landscaping that is both an effective screen and ofhigh quality aesthetically. Acceptable screening is to be comprised of berming and landscaping. Screening through the use offencing is not permitted. The maximum height is as follows: a. For the principal structure, one story. b. For accessory structures, one story. Minimum setback requirements: a. For front yards,25 feet. b. For rear yards, 20 feet. c. For side yards, ten feet. d. The minimum setback is 50 feet when it abuts a residential district without being separated from the residential district by a street or railroad right-of-way' e. Buffer yards. The City Comprehensive Plan establishes a requirement for buffer yards. Buffer yards are to be established in areas indicated on the plan where higher intensity uses interface with low density uses and shall comply with chapter 20, article XXV, of the Chanhassen City Code. The buffer yard is not an additional setback requirement. The full obligation to provide the buffer yard shall be placed on the parcel containing the higher intensity use. (6) (7) 62 City Council Fringe Business (BF) District Uses October 11,2021 Page 1 The buffer yard is intended to provide physical separation and screening for the higher intensity use. As such, they will be required to be provided with a combination of berming, landscaping and/or tree preservation to maximize the buffering potential. To the extent deemed feasible by the city, new plantings shall be designed to require the minimum of maintenance, however, such maintenance as may be required to maintain consistency with the approved plan, shall be the obligation of the property owner. (Ord. No. 80, ArL V, $ 14(15-144), 12-15-86; Ord. No. 94, $$ 1,5,7-25-88; Ord. No. 136, $$ 1A, lB, l-28-91; Ord. No.45l, $ 6, 5-29-07; Ord. No.474, $ 13, l0-13-08) Sec. 20-775. - Interim uses. The following are interim uses in the "BF" district: (l) Churches. (2) Outdoor storage. (3) Rese*e*Automotivedealers/rental. (4) Commercialkennels. (5) Commercialstables. (6) Wholesale nursery/green house/no retail (subject to compliance with section 20- 268\. (7) Cold storage and warehousing. (8) Miniature golf course (pursuant to section 20-259). (9) Motor fuel stations without car washes. (Ord. No. 120, $ 3, 2-12-90; Ord. No. 164, $ l, 2-24-92; Ord. No. 243,5 12,2-13-95; Ord. No. 377, $ 106, 5-24-04) Secs. 20-77 6---20-790. - Reserved. Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Lard Use Map 3. Highway 101/61 Map g:\plan\mw\issue papers and repons (drafu)U-shelved\bf cu to iu\bfcu to iu issue paper.docx 63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 64 Map # PID Address Owner Mailing Address Current Use 2040 Land Use1 250340111 1900 Stoughton TKG III Chaska LLC215 N Stadium Blvd, STE 207 Columbia, MO 65205Warehousing/Outdoor Storage (CUP/IUP) Office Industrial2 250030600 1930 Stoughton Ave Richard Wermerskirchen1930 Stoughton Ave, Chaska, MN 55318Single Family Res. (Permited) Office Industrial3 250030400 1910 Stoughton Ave Dale Schultz1910 Stoughton Ave, Chaska, MN 55318Single Family Res. (Permited) Office Industrial4 250340300 1805 Stoughton Ave Carlton Solberg 1805 Stoughton Ave, Chaska, MN Single Family Res. (Permited) Office Industrial5 250351310 None State of MN‐DNR*500 Lafayette RD, St Paul, MN 55155Open Space Mixed6 250351300 780 Flying Cloud Drive Skip S. Cook15506 Village Woods Drive, Eden Prairie, MN 55347Motel (Legal Non‐Conformity) Mixed7 256010010 10500 Great Plains Blvd PCH Development LLCPO Box 94 Shakoppe, MN 55379 Vacant (Formerly Commerical Kennel CUP)Mixed7 256010020 10520 Great Plains Blvd PCH Development LLCPO Box 94 Shakoppe, MN 55379 Vacant (Formerly Commerical Kennel CUP)Mixed8 250362700 None Larry Hopfenspirger2720 Quaker Ln N, Plymouth, MN 55441Automotive dealers CUPAgriculture8 250363700 615 Flying Cloud Drive 615 Flying Cloud Drive LLC2025 Nicollet Ave #203 Minneapolis, MN 55404Automotive dealers (CUP)Park and Open Space9 250361300 608 Flying Cloud Drive 608 Flying Cloud LLC608 Flying Cloud Drive, Chaska, MN 55318Automotive dealers (CUP) Residential High Density10 257980010 550 Flying Cloud Drive P R Kelly Properties LLC13991 Kensington Ave NE, Prior Lake, MN 55372Warehousing/Outdoor Storage (CUP) Residential High Density11 250361000 None State of MN‐DNR**500 Lafayette RD, St Paul, MN 55155Open Space Residential High Density12 250362800 470 Flying Cloud Drive Michael Spiess470 Flying Cloud Drive, Chaska, MN 55318Single Family Res. (Permited) Residential High Density13 250363100 460 Flying Cloud Drive Alvin Lebens460 Flying Cloud Drive, Chaska, MN 55318Single Family Res. (Permited) Residential High Density14 250360710 450 Flying Colud Drive Daniel Thiessen450 Flying Cloud Drive, Chaska, MN 55318Single Family Res. (Permited) Residential High Density15 250360700 220 Flying Cloud Drive Beatrice I Zwiers IRREV TRUST11111 Deuce Rd, Elko, MN 55020Open Space Residential High Density16 250360500 None City of ChanhassenPO Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317Open Space Residential High Density***List of Properties Zoned Fringe Business DistrictLower rectanglear portion will be County ROW, upper trinagle section will likely go to City.Is now County ROW, GIS is has not yet been updated to reflect that.65 2040 Land Use 66 Zoning Map 67 CITY OT CIIANIIASSII'I Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow TO MEMORANDUM FROM: DATE: SUBJ: City Council MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner October 25,2021 Fringe Business (BF) District Update During the October 11,2021 City Council work session. staff recommended that the City Council consider amending the BF district to reclassift many ofthe listed conditional uses as interim uses. The goal of this change would be to ensure that parcels in this area have minimal barriers to redeveloping at their highest and best use once sewer and water becomes available. The City Council instructed staff to provide additional inlormation on which parcels would be impacted, what uses are present in the area, and to develop an outreach plan to discuss the proposed amendment with area stakeholders. Staffhas attached a map along with a spreadsheet showing which parcels are located within the BF district and listing the current use (to the best of staffs knowledge) ofeach parcel. Of the l8* parcels, l5 are in private ownership. Of those 15, six are smaller parcels, less than one acre in size, currently being used for single-family homes. Of the remaining nine parcels, four are businesses operating under an existing conditional use permit (CUP) or continuing a nonconforming use, four were formally used for a business but are currently not in commercial use, and one parcel is undeveloped. Staff anticipares that the proposed changes would have minimal to no impact on the single-family home owners or current operating businesses, and that it would have the strongest impact on the vacant business sites and undeveloped parcel. Note: The map identifies 16 areas rather than 1 8; the two parcels labeled collectively as 7 and the two labeled collectively as 8 were formerly a commercial kennel and automotive dealer, respectively. In order to inform the property owners ofthe proposed change and solicit feedback, City staff will contact them by mail to inform them ofthe proposed change and invite them to an open PH 952.227.1100. www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us. FX 952.227.1110 77OO MARKET BOULIVARD .PO BOX ]4T.CHANHASSEN .MINNESOTA 55317 Background Impacted Parcels Proposed Outreach 68 house to review the proposed change and long-term plans for the area. Staff will relay the results of this meeting to City Council and assuming the City Council directs staff to move forward with the proposed amendment, staffwould subsequently notiff all property owners by mail of the date and time of the public hearing. Attachments 1. Map 2. BF Parcels and Uses glplan\mw\issue papers and repons (drafu)\bf cu to iu\bfcu to iu next sleps.docx 69 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014 July 14, 2014City Council Work Session 70 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014 »Inform and seek guidance on utility service scenarios PURPOSE OF PRESENTATION 1 71 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014 »Develop guidance for future land use o with city services scenario o without city services scenario »Incorporate land use guidance into next Comprehensive Plan update STUDY PURPOSE AND INTENT 2 72 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014 PROJECT SCHEDULE/PROCESS »OPEN HOUSE II: August 6, 2014 4-6 pm 3 73 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014 PROJECT AREA 4 74 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014 RELATED STUDIES UTILITY SERVICE STUDY HIGHWAY 101 BRIDGE RECONSTRUCTION COUNTY ROAD 61 RECONSTRUCTION 5 75 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE 15 76 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014 2030 SEWER DISTRICT + SUBDISTRICTS 16 77 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014 WASTE WATER FLOW CONVEYANCE RECOMMENDATION 17 78 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014 WATER SERVICE DEVELOPMENT 18 79 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014 CITY SERVICE CONSIDERATIONS »Timing/Phasing »Land Use/Density »Cost and Financing 19 80 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014 CURRENT LAND USE GUIDING 20 81 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014 CURRENT ZONING 21 82 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014 DEVELOPMENT AREA CONSTRAINTS »Steep Slopes »Park/Open Space »Water Features •Wetlands/Fen •Creeks/Rivers •Lake 22 83 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014 POTENTIAL LAND USES: CITY SERVICES PROVIDED Option A 23 84 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014 POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS (with city services) 1. ASSUMPTION CREEK AREA 2. GATEWAY AREA 3. MOON VALLEY AREA 24 85 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014 ASSUMPTION CREEK: AREA 1 HKGI graphic –Assumption Creek Area 25 86 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014 ASSUMPTION CREEK: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL CONCEPT HKGI graphic –Assumption Creek Area 26 87 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014 ASSUMPTION CREEK: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL YIELD HKGI graphic –Assumption Creek Area 27 88 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014 ASSUMPTION CREEK: DENSITY TRANSFER CONCEPT HKGI graphic –Assumption Creek Area 28 89 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014 ASSUMPTION CREEK: DENSITY TRANSFER -TOWNHOUSES HKGI graphic –Assumption Creek Area 29 90 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014 GATEWAY: AREA 2 HKGI graphic –Assumption Creek Area 30 91 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014 GATEWAY: MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL CONCEPT HKGI graphic –Assumption Creek Area 31 92 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014 GATEWAY: MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL YIELD HKGI graphic –Assumption Creek Area 32 93 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014 MOON VALLEY: AREA 3 HKGI graphic –Assumption Creek Area 33 94 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014 MOON VALLEY: HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL CONCEPT HKGI graphic –Assumption Creek Area 34 95 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014 MOON VALLEY: HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL YIELD HKGI graphic –Assumption Creek Area 35 96 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014 MOON VALLEY: SENIOR HOUSING CONCEPT HKGI graphic –Assumption Creek Area 36 97 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014 MOON VALLEY: SENIOR HOUSING YIELD HKGI graphic –Assumption Creek Area 37 98 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014 POTENTIAL UTILITY ASSESSMENTS City of Chanhassen Estimated Project Costs from SEH CR 61 Corridor Study Comparison to Hook-up Fee Revenue 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Project Cost $9,868,000 $10,262,720 $10,673,229 $11,100,158 $11,544,164 $12,005,931 $12,486,168 Inflation Rate 4%4%4%4%4%4%4% (Note: SEH assumed a 3.5% inflation rate on construction costs. Rate study used 4%.) NPV of Water Connection Fees $4,941,008 NPV of Sewer Connection Fees $1,322,479 Total $6,263,487 % of Project Costs in 2020 50% *Assessing $6,263,487 of project costs divided by 200 acres of developable land = $31,317 in assessments per acre *It should be noted that this work could not occur until Bluff Creek Golf Course develops and Highway 101 going up the bluff is constructed. 38 99 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014 »Realignment of Highway 101 (North of County Rd 61) »Development timing and phasing »Parcel assembly »Property owners desires/long-term intent VARIABLES THAT AFFECT LAND USE TRANSITION 39 100 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014 POTENTIAL LAND USES: CITY SERVICES NOT PROVIDED Option B 40 101 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014 CITY VISION With the last update of the comprehensive plan, there was a great deal of consideration of the opportunity Chanhassen has as a regional draw. This appeal includes cultural, retail and employment opportunities. We learned through the “Retail Market Analysis” that the city has a strong north -south connection. In the past the perception was the east -west was predominant economic connection. The completion of the 101 Bridge will further enhance this north – south connection. In addition the upgrade of the County Road 61 will provide opportunities to further capitalize on the regional draw. The city has the opportunity to assess their vision by reviewing land use recommendations and evaluating the development opportunities and constraints. 41 102 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION JULY 14, 2014 »Utility Service Approach »Land Use Approach »Incorporate Recommendations into Comprehensive Plan Update »Community Engagement –August 6, 2014 NEXT STEPS FOR DECISION MAKING 42 103