CC 2005 11 14
CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 14, 2005
Mayor Furlong called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.. The meeting was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mayor Furlong, Councilwoman Tjornhom, Councilman
Labatt, Councilman Peterson and Councilman Lundquist
STAFF PRESENT:
Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Justin Miller, Paul Oehme, Todd
Hoffman, and Kate Aanenson
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
Rick Dorsey 1551 Lyman Boulevard
Jeffrey Fox 5270 Howards Point Road
Ken Wencl 8412 Great Plains Boulevard
Mark Undestad Planning Commission
Julianne Ortman 8698 Chanhassen Hills Drive North
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS:
None.
CONSENT AGENDA:
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to
approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager’s recommendations:
a. Approval of Minutes:
-City Council Work Session Minutes dated October 24, 2005
-City Council Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated October 24, 2005
Receive Commission Minutes:
-Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated October 18, 2005
-Planning Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated November 1, 2005
-Park and Recreation Commission Verbatim & Summary Minutes dated October 25,
2005
b. Dave Huffman Race Committee: Accept $500 Donation for Eagle Scout Projects.
c. Ice Skating/Hockey Rinks: Approval of 2005-06 Rink Policy.
f. Lake Harrison Development: Approve Expenditure of Funds for Trunk Watermain
Improvements, Project 05-13.
g. TH 212: Approve Work Orders for Betterments, Project 03-09.
City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005
h. Environmental Excellence Awards: Approval of Recommendations.
i. Environmental Commission: Appointment to Fill Vacancy.
th
j. Troy & Virginia Kakacek: Request for Hard Surface Cover Variance, 380 West 86
Street, Planning Case 05-18.
l. City’s Health Insurance Provider: Approval of Joint Powers Agreement with the
Appletree Institute.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS:
Mayor Furlong: We do have tonight Senator Julianne Ortman is here. Good evening Senator.
Julianne Ortman: Hello Mr. Mayor, members of the council. Always a pleasure to be back in
the City Council. I’m really here as a citizen. I’m happy to be here. I’m excited about what’s
going to be happening at the State Capitol over the next year. I’m probably the first one to say
that to you, but one of the issues that we are talking about at the State Capitol are issues that
you’re talking about here in the city and I wanted to begin the dialogue tonight which would
involve…Kelo case. Kelo versus New London…and it talks about eminent domain and under
what circumstances the city may condemn property for uses within the city, and these are very
controversial issues to be sure. The City of Watertown actually has already adopted a resolution
heading off circumstances under which they would take property from residents. Things they
would not do so despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision, unless there were a public purpose
that were clearly enunciated. At the State Capitol there surely are many discussions going on
about where we go as a State with this. I think there were a lot of people in Minnesota that were
very surprised by that decision and I think you’ll see quite a bit of, a number of proposals,
including one that I’m looking at myself working on. And so I wanted to come to the council
and ask you for your help. We shouldn’t be passing legislation or the possibility of a
Constitutional amendment without discussing these issues with our cities and so I ask you to
please keep me in mind when you have discussions about these things and if we couldn’t perhaps
put together a work session or something so that we can talk about it on a bigger level than I
normally get to talk about these issues. We talk about them at the State Capitol but I’d surely
like to have some bigger discussions with members of the community, with members of the
council. Perhaps some kind of task force is in order that would help advise me about how best to
serve the city and my district when I go back to the Capitol and work on this very important
issue. It will come up on the next legislative session so we’ve got about 3 months to get better
informed and plan our strategy for what’s coming up. And I think that there is no more
fundamental issue when it comes to government than talking about the rights of private property
owners and here in Chanhassen I know that’s a critical issue. People buy property here so that
they can enjoy and use that property and government shouldn’t interfere with that unless they are
very clearly articulated reasons, in my opinion. I think most Minnesotans, most residents in
Chanhassen would agree with that premise. Secondly, I want to announce that on Thursday at
2
City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005
7:00 at the American Legion in Chanhassen we will be hosting the Veteran’s Affairs Department
and we sent out invitations and placed ads in all the newspapers, including the Chan Villager to
invite all veterans, all active duty military personnel to please come to the Legion at 7:00 on
Thursday night. The Department of Veteran’s Affairs from the State of Minnesota will be there
to make a presentation about recent changes in the law, the current law, benefits and to answer
questions that veterans and active duty military personnel might have. So I invite all of those
folks and any other folks that might be interested in those issues to please come to the Legion on
Thursday night at 7:00. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Thank you members of the council.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to address the council this
evening under visitor presentations? No? Okay. We offer this opportunity each meeting.
Everyone is welcome.
D. PINEHURST: APPROVE AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT,
PROJECT 05-03.
Councilman Lundquist: Issue here Mr. Mayor was understand they’re looking for an extension
on their contract time line with all of the crazy weather we had this fall. My issue is with the
extension of a year that some of the things that happened out there, because of the weather had
consequences on some of the existing neighborhoods and although the developers, Plowshares
guys did a yeomen’s job and really did a nice job of cleaning it up, I’d like to push to get that
done a little sooner so members of staff I believe have contacted the developer and they’re
amenable to a 6 month extension rather than a year so I would propose the amendment read to
extend it 6 months rather than 12 months.
st
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, if we could put July 1 on there as the date on your resolution. Which
th
would be the last paragraph on the resolution where it says November 15. If we make that July
st
1, 2006. That’s amenable.
Councilman Lundquist: That way we also ensure that we get a lot of those things done before
the rainy season again in the fall so that the members of Longacres won’t get their retaining
walls washed out again.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. So you’re, Councilman Lundquist then you’ll propose the motion
included in the staff report amended to July 1, ’06.
Councilman Lundquist: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Peterson: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none, we’ll proceed.
3
City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Peterson seconded to approve a 6 month
extension to July 1, 2006 as an addendum to the Development Contract for Pinehurst,
Project 05-03. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
TH 212/312 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 03-09, 04-05, & 04-06, ADOPTION OF
ASSESSMENT ROLL.
Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor, City Council members. At this time we’d like to just continue
with discussion of adoption of the assessment roll for the 312/212 improvements. At the last
meeting Jon Horn from Kimley-Horn and Associates gave a presentation on the assessment roll
and the project and I’d ask at this time that Jon just finish up with that discussion and update us
on new information that we’ve received.
Jon Horn: Good evening Mayor and council. As Paul said my name’s Jon Horn. I’m with
Kimley-Horn and Associates. Just an update on the assessment information for the Trunk
Highway 312/212 project. Specifically these are improvements that the City requested to be
th
built as a part of the MnDot project. The assessment hearing was held on October 24. At that
time assessment objections were filed by four properties that are being assessed for the proposed
project. Those four properties are the G & M Laurent Family Partnership property, the Arthur B.
Johnson property, the Jeffrey and Terry Fox property and then the Fox Properties LLP property.
We’ve gathered additional information on the Laurent family property and the Arthur Johnson
property in terms of the amount of their properties that have been acquired by MnDot. As a
result of that it’s resulted in a decrease in the assessment amounts for those two properties of
basically about $9,000 for each property. In terms of the Fox properties, property owners of
those properties are undergoing some concept planning at this time. They have a number of
concerns and issues regarding the long term vision of the MUSA improvements in terms of
what’s going to happen with the roadway and they’ve raised a number of issues that we’re
working with them on. Do not have all those issues resolved yet but we’ll continue to work with
the property owners on those property issues here over the next couple of weeks. In response to
the changes on the Laurent property and Arthur B. Johnson property, we’ve prepared a revised
assessment roll. That revised assessment roll was included in your council packet. The overall
financing summary for the project, total project cost is a little over $2.632 million dollars. The
assessable component of that is a little over $1.679 million dollars with a city cost of $953 plus
or minus thousand dollars. With that staff recommends approval of the assessment roll for the
Trunk Highway 312/212 improvements.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff? No?
Councilman Lundquist: Quick question. Or hopefully quick Paul and Kate, as the Dorsey’s and
Fox’s have come in and work on their proposals, and minor shifts to the road or other things that
may or may not occur in the next 3 to 6 months as they go through their design process, do you
see that having much of an impact on total cost of the project that would kind of sway the
assessments noticeably?
Todd Gerhardt: I’ll handle that one Paul. Right now Phase I of the 2005 MUSA improvements
take into account the sewer and the water line construction and those improvements made along
4
City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005
312. We will be back in front of the City Council probably in February of 2006 to go through
these assessment hearings one more time on the, what we call the east/west collector road and
over the next 4 months we’ll be meeting with Mr. Dorsey and Mr. Fox’s planners and looking at
their concepts and see how they can be incorporated into the road design.
Councilman Lundquist: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: And just for clarification, just so I’m not lost here. The item we’re considering
right now are specifically related to the 212/312 improvements that we’re working in
conjunction with MnDot and then that construction, correct? I think we’re going to hit the
Phase, okay. Okay. So I think these have already been ordered, if I’m not mistaken.
Councilman Lundquist: …last person to say ditto.
Mayor Furlong: You could say ditto. You can say ditto and we’ll be fine. Any other questions
on clarification to make sure we understand what we’re doing here? Okay. Alright. Very good.
With that I’ll bring it back to council and see if there’s any discussion. Is there a motion to
approve staff’s recommendation?
Councilman Peterson: So moved.
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion?
Resolution#2005-93: Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to adopt
the assessment roll for the TH 212/312 Improvement Project Nos. 03-09, 04-05, and 04-06.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
2005 MUSA IMPROVEMENTS, PHASE I, PROJECT 04-05:
A. ADOPTION OF ASSESSMENT ROLL.
B. AWARD OF CONTRACT.
C. APPROVE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION CONTRACT.
Paul Oehme: At this time I’d like to have Jon Horn just give a brief presentation on new
information on the MUSA assessment rolls. Just a little background on that project.
Jon Horn: Mayor, council, this is going to sound a little bit like a broken record. Very similar to
the last process.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay, just say ditto.
Jon Horn: This is specifically Bid Package 1 and just to refresh your memory, the question was
asked regarding what was included as a part of this project. This project is only Bid Package 1
which is just the utilities from Lyman Boulevard down to the east/west collector roadway. At
5
City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005
this location it does not include the actual construction of the roadway or the utilities in the road.
That is part of Bid Package 2. Assessment hearing for these improvements were held also on
th
October 24. At that time assessment objections were raised by the Fox Properties, the two Fox
properties and again similar to the last objections, they have a number of issues regarding what
the roadway’s going to look like and how that roadway works within their properties and that is
again issues that we will continue to work with the Fox’s on over here over the next couple
weeks or couple of months. Final assessment roll’s been included in your package and we are
basically at this time requesting that the council approve the assessment roll for the Bid Package
1 of the 2005 MUSA improvements.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff? I guess one point of clarification too. It
was in the staff report as subsequent to last meeting we did receive as a city the necessary
construction easements as well for this project so, appreciate the property owners for their
cooperation and working with the city and staff for getting that done as well. Any other
discussion? Questions at this point. I’ll bring it to discussion then. Any discussion on this item?
Paul Oehme: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Furlong: Yes.
Paul Oehme: We would, the next two items are also related to the 2005 MUSA area.
Mayor Furlong: Do you want to talk about (b) and (c) at the same time?
Paul Oehme: …just have one vote on it.
Mayor Furlong: Yep.
Paul Oehme: At this time maybe Jon can just give an update on the bids that we received for this
project.
Jon Horn: Sure. This item is for the approval of the award of contract for the improvements for
the construction of the Bid Package 1. The bids were open for the project on Friday, October
th
14. Five bids were received. The lower bidder of Veit & Company, Inc.. Total bid amount of
$1,615,113.00. That is less than the engineer’s estimate of $1.76 million dollars. About 8% less.
We’ve been, I’ve had conversations with Veit here over the past couple of weeks. They’re still
interested in proceeding with the project and are ready to go upon award of contract with the
council. At this time we’re just recommending that the contract be awarded to Veit & Company,
Inc. in a total bid amount of $1,615,113.00.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions? One quick one, in the report it speaks about the
Veit & Company having worked with the consulting engineer firm. Is that your firm?
Jon Horn: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: So you have worked with them on projects of a similar nature?
6
City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005
Jon Horn: Correct.
Mayor Furlong: And how have they performed?
Jon Horn: They performed acceptable.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Acceptable, is that a high rating? Is that hard for an engineer to say
that?
Jon Horn: Sometimes it is, yes but certainly the work that they’ve worked on has been fine.
We’ve had no problems with them.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Very good. Any other questions with regard to item 3(b) or
any discussion at this point on that item? Thank you. Item 3(c) then which is consideration of
approval of construction inspection contract. Staff report.
Paul Oehme: Thank you Mayor. This item is for the construction, administrative services for
the 2005 MUSA improvements Phase I. We, the staff recommend that Kimley-Horn and
Associates be awarded this contract. They have worked with the city on the MUSA
improvements. Have completed the construction contracts and the bidding of this project and to
be consistent and to have good clarity and continuity we recommend that the construction
services be awarded to Kimley-Horn and Associates in the amount of $187,000.00. And this
also does include soil inspection services for testing agencies as well.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for staff?
Councilman Peterson: Is your inference there that they’re acceptable then?
Paul Oehme: That’s correct.
Councilman Peterson: No questions.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions?
Councilman Lundquist: I’m sure we’re getting a discount since we don’t have to get them up to
the learning curve.
Todd Gerhardt: Mayor I’d just like to note that those services will be assessed back to benefiting
properties too.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any discussion on this item? Very good. Then is there any
general overall discussion with regard to the 2005 MUSA improvements Phase I? This project.
Either with regard to adopting the assessment roll, awarding the contract or approval of the
construction inspections contract.
7
City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005
Councilman Lundquist: We’ve got the issues with right-of-way and all that, or easements taken
care of? Across the Degler property and all that.
Todd Gerhardt: For this portion of the project. Phase II we’re still working on a couple of
easements there.
Councilman Lundquist: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions on this? If not, without objection we certainly can handle
all three of these items with a single motion. If there is a motion consistent so is there a motion
to adopt staff’s recommendation and the assessment roll on each of the items?
Councilman Lundquist: Motion to approve staff’s recommendation in the packet.
Mayor Furlong: For each, 3 (a), (b) and (c).
Councilman Lundquist: 3(a), (b) and (c).
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Is there any discussion? Again hearing none we’ll
proceed with the vote.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to approve the
following items for the 2005 MUSA Improvements, Phase I, Project 04-05:
a. Resolution#2005-94: Adoption of the Assessment Roll.
b. Resolution#2005-95: Award of Contract to Veit & Company, Inc., in the amount of
$1,615,113.00.
c. Approve Consultant Work Order with Kimley-Horn and Associates in the amount
of $187,000 for construction phase services for Phase I of the 2005 MUSA
improvements.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
REQUEST FOR AFTER THE FACT HARD SURFACE COVERAGE AND SIDE YARD
SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A SPORT COURT, 8491 MISSION HILLS CIRCLE,
PLANNING CASE 05-32.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you. The subject site is located off of Mission Hills Circle in the Marsh
Glenn subdivision. This subdivision was built, or approved in approximately the year of 2000
and this home was built without the survey showing a sport court on the site. It’s an after the
fact variance request. It did not go through any approval process. The variance is for hard
th
surface coverage and side yard setbacks. It did go to the Planning Commission on October 18.
8
City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005
A public hearing. At that time the Planning Commission recommended 5-0 to deny the request
for the 5.4 hard surface coverage. In summary I’ll point out how this house sits on the lot and
then go through and show you some pictures. But this is the existing home and this is the sport
court. It was recommended here, that’s shown in pink is the elimination to reduce some of the
hard surface coverage. You can see on the pictures here where the property line is and the
retaining wall going into a portion of that. One of the recommendations was to pull out some of
the hard surface coverage and one of them being the patio in the back. Staff has some concerns
about that. We have requests all the time that people would recommend taking out their front
sidewalk. We believe there’s some reasonable use of property and a sidewalk and sometimes
patios coming out of a door like that makes some sense. Some sort of hard surface there when
it’s being used as a doorway. Again this came to the city staff via a neighbor’s complaint
regarding the size and the location of the sport court, so the applicants again are proposing to
remove some of the hard surface but it still would require the variance for total square footage.
If you look on the staff report on page 5 of the staff report it goes through the actual square
footage of all the area and the, that could be removed including the concrete slab of 120 square
feet. Go back to the survey here. The area outside the sport court, and then removing some of
the sport court itself to get, but it would still be over but it would meet all the setback
requirements and they’re going to remove the boulder wall. You can see there’s a boulder wall
on the property line and one extending over which would go into the Mission Hills. Their
common area. This property just to the south of that. So discussing with the Planning
Commission, they had some concerns about again that size of the patio. One of the issues that
we also put in the staff report was regarding drainage and I just wanted to go over that with you
briefly. This may be a little hard to read but this is the lot itself. Everything shown in pink
drains to that pond. This was the original pond with Mission Hills. It was made larger to
accommodate the development of this area but this is a large area that drains into this pond. The
homes along the back have the minimum 3 foot from the lowest level. The homes in Mission
Hills actually have a greater separation. There’s more bounce on that pond, but this is one of the
things that we look at when we have, as we discussed earlier today, the larger rain events. When
we were, not only the velocity but the, how fast it’s coming down and the ability for it to actually
percolate into the soil when there’s that much hard surface, and those are some of the things that
I think was on the Planning Commission’s mind. Looking at that. While this may not be in, by
itself so egregious but if you accommodate that all the way around. One of the other questions
that was asked to me was, has there been other variances in this immediate area and there hasn’t
been in this particular subdivision itself. So with that the Planning Commission did recommend
denial. We do have another motion in here for you too if you did choose to approve and that
would include eliminating some of the additional square footage. Again one of the concerns that
we have is that we have some sort of patio or a landing space coming outside of the, this sliding
glass doors out to the back. Any questions?
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Ms. Aanenson, in the storms that we had both
Labor Day weekend and early October, were there any issues in this area with the pond?
Kate Aanenson: No. Not that we received.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And the drainage from here basically runs across the property to the
west, is that correct?
9
City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005
Kate Aanenson: Yes. It would go to the west and actually goes along 101. Then it’s piped
underneath 101 and that’s the direction it goes.
Mayor Furlong: Eventually down to Lake Susan or down to Bluff Creek?
Kate Aanenson: Yep. Down to the creek, correct.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions for staff at this time?
Councilman Peterson: Kate, in your discussions with them, are they opposed. I know we’ll hear
from them in a few minutes but are they opposed to your proposed hard surface cover
calculations, the new ones that get you down 27% or not?
Kate Aanenson: No, I think they’ve agreed to those. Correct. It’s still over but they’ve agreed
to that.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for staff? If not, I know the Hurt’s are
here. If you’d like to come forward. Can’t wait to talk to the council.
Jennifer Hurt: Yeah, I can’t wait to talk. It’s been several months so I’m just, I’m kind of ready
to be done with this. Jennifer Hurt, my husband Clint Hurt. Council members, thank you. I
want to thank you of course for the time and listening to our request for a variance. We want
you to know, and obviously we’re in a little bit of a bind. We hired a licensed contractor back in
March of 2005. He assured us that he would take care of everything. Checking in with the City
to make sure that we were in compliance with the City. We felt very confident that paying the
amount of money that we paid him to build our sport court, and the fact that he was a licensed
contractor, that he would get the job done according, in accordance with the City. However we
were very let down and we want you to know that first of all we would never build a sport court
this large had we known that it would violate city code. We are not looking to be sneaky at all.
That was never our intent. But now we have to deal with the fact that our sport court is too big
and that is why we are applying for this variance. So at this point what we are requesting is a
2.7% hard surface coverage variance. Our original plan was to remove 8 feet off the south side
of the sport court, which is 320 square feet. Removing the concrete slab, which is 120 square
feet and removing 128 ½ total square feet of retaining wall. The Planning Commission did not
approve of our variance at the October meeting but encouraged us to come with you with our
request. After the meeting we sat down with Josh Metzer again and discussed some options and
we decided that we, one of the options that he presented to us is that we could remove our patio
on the lower level to decrease the amount of square footage but in hearing that, that’s maybe not
a great option and after thinking about it, I’m not so sure I want to remove my patio either. We
also decided that we definitely could afford the extra 5 foot, or 5 feet of square footage on the
west side of the sport court saving us another 260 square feet. If we are not going to be
removing a patio we would be very willing to remove the equivalence of the patio surface
coverage from our sport court. We are really trying to bring down our hard surface coverage
with the above mentioned items so that we can still keep as much of our sport court as possible.
We live in a very unique neighborhood. There are 8 houses in our development that are directly
10
City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005
on the marshland. They are well aware of the fact that when they built their houses they were
not allowed to cut down or build anything on that marshland, and we noticed that that is part of
the drainage system that drains with our pond. So we feel that maybe our variance could
somewhat balance their property. Those neighbors support our variance. Also we know that our
drainage flows to an existing pond near us and that this pond can accommodate the additional
runoff. We have 16 letters from neighbors who…neighborhood have already used our sport
court and we take comfort in knowing that our children are in our back yard rather than a mile
away playing in a park. While the parks are very fun to visit, the closest park to us is Rice Marsh
Lake which is accessible via walking trail but approximately a mile away. And Lake Susan
Park, which we must cross over Highway 1 and in the near future we know is not going to be a
safe thing to do. So you see our intent of installing a sport court was not to increase the value of
our home but rather provide a safe place for children to play close to home. We’ve also tried to
gain support from the townhome owners to the south of us and in talking with some of the
townhome neighbors, there were several people that spoke. One woman said to leave it all. I
don’t have a problem with it. Another woman said there’s nothing better than to hear children
laughing. And yet another comment was, it’s nice to see the kids playing off the streets. This is
exactly how we feel. We absolutely love our court. In taking the 8 feet off of the south end we
can no longer have a short court tennis court, which is one of the things I love. To comply with
ordinance requirements you are asking us to cut our sport court from 2,437 square feet to 1,210
square feet. This is less than half. So we’re asking you, how do you play safely in a court that
size with more than 3 or 4 people? So the advantage of our sport court being the size that it is, is
that many people can benefit from it all at once. We have lots of different things that we have
done on the sport court and obviously because of it’s size we’re all able to enjoy it at once. We
realize that you’ve had a number of hard surface coverage requests for variances within the past
months. We hope that you will consider our request as an individual case. We would like for
you to come out and see our sport court before you make your decision so we’re asking that if
you aren’t going to approve our variance tonight, that you table it. Thank you.
Clint Hurt: The other thing I’d like to bring up, I know that we have pictures of our sport court,
is the fact that.
Mayor Furlong: If you could speak into the microphone so the people at home.
Clint Hurt: Is a fact of a lot of these pictures are taken, our sport court is not totally complete.
These rock walls would totally be moved off of the lot line and back onto our property, really
butting up to what would be the sport court so the only problem is that we did have the retaining
wall in this back side, which we would have removed that anyway so, but with this variance we
are going to be taking on all of this back side and the side side of the rocks, and pretty much
whatever we can do to kind of be in compliance with the city here. But we would like to keep as
much of the sport court as possible and hopefully we’d…and maybe see what else we could do…
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Any questions for the Hurt’s at this point?
Councilman Peterson: Either Kate or you guys. Feel free to respond but if you take out the
retaining wall, is the setback issue mitigated or is it still there?
11
City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005
Jennifer Hurt: No, we are taking an additional 5 feet off of what we had originally planned and
so there is not a setback issue at all. We are complying with city easements. We’re complying
with side setback. The only thing that we’re not in compliance with is the amount of hard
surface coverage.
Kate Aanenson: On this side there’s a 5 foot drainage utility easement so that wall’s currently on
the property in the easement so there’s a 5 foot easement. So if they were to remove this, just to
be clear, then they would be in compliance but it would have to be removed to meet the 10 foot
setback.
Councilman Peterson: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: When you say remove, the pink shadow there?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: The sport court and then move the rock wall in.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct, yes. Then you get compliance to get the 10 foot.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. And that’s what you’re proposing?
Clint Hurt: That we would do, correct.
Mayor Furlong: To do as part of the.
Clint Hurt: Yeah, we would take everything away in pink on here.
Mayor Furlong: And move the wall back to the outside that side yard setback or that utility
easement?
Clint Hurt: No, because this back wall here, we’d actually remove it. That whole back wall
along the, or that 8 feet. We’d actually move the sport court on the west. The retaining wall on
the west. The retaining wall on the south and then up to 10 feet back on the east side of that.
Mayor Furlong: Those walls would come out and not be replaced?
Clint Hurt: Correct. We would remove it all. Take the rock away.
Kate Aanenson: Let me just try to clarify it. There’s a couple things we’re talking about. One is
setbacks. In order to meet the setbacks the area in pink would have to be removed. Then the
second issue is impervious surface, which even if they removed everything in pink they would
still be over. I guess the position’s is on the patio coming out of the porch. We need to make a
house inferior. We believe that may not be the best thing to select to take out.
12
City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005
Jennifer Hurt: But again we’re trying to be, we’re trying to cooperate with the city because that
was one of the recommendations that was given to us. From Josh Metzer, so we’re trying to
comply and that’s one of the things we’re sacrificing.
Mayor Furlong: But what I heard you say tonight too is if you kept that you would take.
Jennifer Hurt: Well it sounds like they probably maybe don’t want us to do that.
Kate Aanenson: I’m not saying that. That’s the council’s decision. I’m just saying as a staff, as
it would be if you were going to take out your front sidewalk, I’d just don’t think that’s a good
solution to solving a problem.
Jennifer Hurt: And honestly I would like to keep my patio. So I would, I mean we would be
willing to take the equivalence of that off of this, the west side of our sport court.
Mayor Furlong: Additionally?
Jennifer Hurt: Yes. So that would be approximately another 2 feet off of this side.
Councilman Peterson: Had you contemplated or pursued acquiring additional property so you
wouldn’t have to take out the?
Clint Hurt: Ah yes we have.
Jennifer Hurt: Yes we have. And that wasn’t an option.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: But you do have I think an unusual driveway shape too. Is that
correct?
Jennifer Hurt: Yes we do and that was another option Josh Metzer gave to us was that to take off
some of the driveway. Unfortunately we have this kind of odd driveway and it curves around
and it is rather large, and maybe someone could come and draw sidewalk chalk out there for us
to tell us where we could take some. It’s another option for us but the way that our driveway
goes, I mean we are driving on our grass all the time anyways. No one can drive out of our
driveway backwards the way it is because it’s so curvy. So if someone has a recommendation
for us as to where the best place might be to take off of our driveway, we certainly would
consider that as well.
Councilman Lundquist: Have you had any discussions with that contractor that you hired about
responsibility for removing and things?
Jennifer Hurt: Yes we have. As far as monetary dissolutions, I guess we haven’t gotten to that
point. We were kind of waiting to hear how the variance process went and go from there. He is
well aware of the fact that it is his responsibility. He did not check in with the city as he was
told, he claims he has never had a problem with the City of Chanhassen. He knew that he did not
need a permit and that was one of the things that at the Planning Commission meeting it was
13
City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005
mentioned that a lot of builders, contractors, people who are doing their own work, kind of stop
there at the permit because they know they don’t need a permit, and then they kind of stop and
so, and I’m not saying that that’s the fault by all means but it is one of the things that it kind of
stops there so.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions?
Councilman Labatt: So a point of clarification?
Mayor Furlong: Certainly.
Councilman Labatt: So they take out all the pink stuff, then they’re asking for 2. whatever
percent.
Jennifer Hurt: It’s approximately 2.7%.
Councilman Labatt: Right?
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Councilman Lundquist: That’s about half. The pink is about, removes it or cuts it in about half.
Mayor Furlong: Of what’s over on the hard surface but it also eliminates the need for a side yard
setback.
Councilman Lundquist: And the easement and all that good stuff.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, any other questions at this time? Okay, thank you. Appreciate
it. Any follow-up questions for staff? If not we’ll bring it back to council for discussion.
Thoughts on this one.
Councilman Lundquist: I actually took a drive out there this afternoon. You can see it pretty
good from the Mission Hills area. There you get pretty close to it. I guess overall I’m
sympathetic with the Hurt’s because of the, you hire a contractor. You think that they’re going
to do all the stuff they’re supposed to do. However, I know they’ve got signatures and all of that
but I’ve also had some contacts from some of your neighbors that aren’t overly impressed with it
either. So I think it’s a difficult one. Appreciate all of the work that’s gone in so far and your
ability, or your willingness to cooperate and do that things. Wouldn’t support, I wouldn’t
support taking the patio out. You’re not going to walk in and out of the mud to get in and out of
your house so that’s just going to go back someday so that’s not going to really do anything. But
I don’t, this isn’t really one tonight that I’m ready to say yes to even with the pink stuff taken
out. I just think this is a use that is, I mean the Hurt’s raise a lot of good points about the kids
playing in the back yard and keeping them close to home and off of the streets and safe and all of
those things are excellent points and there’s a lot of truth to that. But the rules are the rules as
well and I’m not sure that I’m compelled to say that this is one I’m willing to go on. You know
we have hard surface variance issues where people build garages and other things that are bigger
14
City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005
and different things so I think I would like to see a little more work done to see what else we can
do to try to get down as low as possible. If there’s some other solutions or look at a picture of
the sport court of what it would be to get at the 25% extra stuff taken out. I know the numbers
are in the staff report but a picture’s worth a thousand words right so. I guess the overall I’d like
maybe take a couple of more weeks, take a look at it. Continue to have the Hurt’s work with
staff and see where they’re at and try to get a little bit lower on that if we can closer to that 25.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. Appreciate your comments. Other comments or discussion.
Councilman Peterson: I would agree with Councilman Lundquist. I mean we were successful
earlier tonight with the Kakacek’s and letting staff work their magic. Although I think this is a
bit more of a challenge, I certainly wouldn’t disagree with giving the ball back to staff and letting
them be creative.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I totally also agree. I think that if they’re, the Hurt’s are going to
make a sacrifice, to try to preserve what they have in their yard now, certainly I don’t know why
we wouldn’t give them more time to try. To try to work something out somehow. And make
everyone happy maybe.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Labatt.
Councilman Labatt: Well, for this one I disagree with my fellow councilors. I think they’ve
come up with a solution here with removing the, we’ll call it the shaded area according to their
drawings in the pink and when you look at that and the fact that their contractor put them in this
position, granted you know, ultimately it’s the homeowner’s responsibility but I think that you
know 2% is about what, 100 and some square feet? I can live with that so I would support the
variance.
Mayor Furlong: And that’s fine. I think point of clarification, I think it’s closer to 400 or 500,
isn’t it?
Councilman Lundquist: 6 something. 620.
Mayor Furlong: The 2.76.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilman Labatt: It’s 568.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, well I appreciate the comments. I want to commend the Hurt’s
for coming back with some proposal other than just saying we need it all. I think that’s
admirable that they’re looking to work, and it sounds even tonight they’re willing to be flexible
there. While I’m not willing to say, I’m certainly not willing to say no either. That there isn’t
something that might work out so I too would certainly support council’s action if that was to
15
City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005
give it some more time. There’s not going to be much tennis playing in the next couple months
here, especially if the forecast is right so I think we’ve got a little bit of time to work on this one
before anything has to happen anyway so let’s take advantage of the time we have and let’s, you
know work with staff. …and come back when we come up with a plan that’s workable, but
better than the one we have, and that’s what I’m hearing from my council members as well. So.
Roger Knutson: Mayor?
Mayor Furlong: Sir. Is there a deadline?
Roger Knutson: Mayor, there is a deadline. What we’d need from them is to agree on an
th
extension and I’ve picked the date, January 15. Since you only have one meeting in December.
I have written…
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Would that be acceptable? We need to get that, if you could come up
and agree to this? Then we’ll proceed with the motion to table, I think that’s where we’re going
and then, at this point. Is there any further discussion on this or is there a motion to also
consider?
Councilman Lundquist: I would move that we table item 4…the agreement.
Mayor Furlong: So we’re tabling item 4. Bring back at a future meeting. Thank you. Is there a
second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Motion to table’s been made and seconded.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to table the request for
an after the fact hard surface coverage and side yard setback variances for a Sport Court
at 8491 Mission Hills Circle, Planning Case 05-32. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
MIKE & CINDY KOENIG: REQUEST FOR A HARD SURFACE COVERAGE
VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE AND A FOUR SEASON PORCH, 8005 CHEYENNE
AVENUE.
Kate Aanenson: This is located in the Chan Estates neighborhood. Again this is an after the fact
st
variance. It did go to the Planning Commission on November 1 and the Planning Commission
voted 6 to 1 to deny the variance. Again there was some additions put onto the house that were
not permitted. Did not go through any building permit approval process so it was discovered
when someone was actually looking at purchasing the house. They did some research that,
noticed there were some additions put on, so that was one issue. And then the, trying to remove
the hard surface coverage which was over. So what we’re trying to eliminate is everything, the
applicant’s, everything that they could besides taking out the existing building portion. So
there’s a couple of new differences between this one and the one we just saw. This is a lot that
16
City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005
was created in, the subdivision was created in 1966. At that time we had different zoning
standards. Actually most of the lots in this area, Chan Estates are averaging around 12,000-
13,000 and some are actually smaller than that. Homes on either side are actually a little smaller
than that so this was rezoned to RSF, which is a residential single family zone which has a
minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. Because this lot is only 12,800 square feet, it’s already
impacted by the 25% impervious so it restricts the…of the lot, which wasn’t discovered
obviously when, because it was not, did not come in for the permit. So the applicants in good
faith have worked hard to try to resolve these issues based on the fact that it was already over
and it would be difficult to remove the existing additions to the house to try to get that. So they
worked to actually buy, acquire property from the adjacent property owners, so you can see the
existing lot lines on here. And you can see the new lot line. This is the old lot line and new lot
lines. So lots were acquired on either side of the property to add additional square footage.
Which we actually haven’t seen too many people use that approach which we always suggest so
we were actually pleasantly surprised that they were able to work through that issue. They have
removed, I’ll get to the pictures here real quick.
Councilman Lundquist: Kate, is that property, has it been purchased or they have it?
Kate Aanenson: One of the conditions is they do have the legal description and in here it’s an
administrative subdivision because they’re not creating a new lot. They’re just adding a lot to
another so we have the titles in here and one of the conditions is that before we’d record it, that
those be executed. Certainly we wouldn’t want to give a variance and then not have it executed.
Councilman Lundquist: So they’ve written the check or they haven’t written the check?
Kate Aanenson: The descriptions are all written up. They’re in the file. They haven’t been
recorded yet, until, if you give approval with the condition before, we would record it that they
would have to execute. It’d probably have the attorney’s office simultaneously do all that but
they would actually have the administrative subdivision executed first. Signed by the County.
Us and the County, then they would record.
Councilman Lundquist: So they wrote the check or they didn’t write the check?
Kate Aanenson: For us?
Councilman Lundquist: No, to the.
Kate Aanenson: For the property owners?
Councilman Lundquist: The property owners.
Kate Aanenson: I don’t know. We have the descriptions here. So I don’t know what, I didn’t
ask what the financial transactions were. We have the descriptions here so.
Councilman Lundquist: Fair enough.
17
City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005
Kate Aanenson: So there’s a driveway pad that was removed that’s right here to also eliminate
some of the hard surface. In looking at the house and where you could eliminate again, similar
with the last one is really, it’s a difficult thing when you try to move some hard surface and still
make it a viable, a pleasant house too. You don’t want to degrade it and make it an inferior lot
so looking at some of the patio because some additional sidewalk be removed, what does that do
to the impact of the house? So there’s a patio between the two additions. You can see back here.
You could eliminate that. I’m not sure as far as reducing that size, you can look at the back of
that lot, what that does. I do have a picture showing what they added, but you saw that before…
And then like I said, there’s an additional sidewalk that could be removed. That goes to an arbor
on the side. That sidewalk that goes around. You can see they have removed and this was the
paver, you saw the other picture that has been removed and already sodded over. So again, and
they’ve really done, what they believe as much as they can short of, getting to this arbor,
removing and it’s a small percentage. So again because of the Planning Commission taking the
hard and fast line that the variance was self created, because they did not seek building permit
approvals and the like, again and in working with the staff, they in our opinion have done as
much as they can based on the fact that it’s an undersized lot. And I want to point out, at this
point if it was a 15,000 square foot lot they would meet it. That standard. Another interesting
point too, we do PUD’s on some of those smaller 11,000 square foot lots. They get the 30% so if
it was even given a different zoning, they would maybe be closer to that, so we did put
recommendations for approval and for denial as we did for the Planning Commission. Again I
just want to clarify too that separate from this they’re still working through all their building
permit issues, which is a conditional use. Want to make sure that gets carried through here too.
They’re working on getting all those inspections completed and recorded factually and that they
also have to put new easements in place because the old easements have to be vacated. So there
is still some work, and then you can see that it would not be recorded, condition number 3, until
the other administrative subdivisions are executed. So with that I’d be happy to answer any
questions that you have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Couple that you mentioned, just for my
understanding. You said if it was a PUD, our PUD’s go with a 30%.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Mayor Furlong: Which this would fit in. Why isn’t it a PUD?
Kate Aanenson: That was rezoned before my time here and I’m not sure what the rationale was
to get it to be RSF. I’m not sure if we even had that PUD zone in place. Okay, Todd’s saying
we probably didn’t have that PUD zone in place.
Mayor Furlong: So that wasn’t.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, it wasn’t even a factor so yeah. But if it would have been given
something else, yeah. In looking at it in hindsight, you know they were already under sized lots.
It’s pretty punitive to put that 25%.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
18
City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005
Kate Aanenson: And just to be, there hasn’t been a lot of variances right in this immediate area
either so I think that question.
Mayor Furlong: There have not been?
Kate Aanenson: There have not been in this immediate area.
Mayor Furlong: Alright. And you said the building permit would, is it fair to say that had they
gone through the building permit process when the porch and the garage was added.
Kate Aanenson: No, they did not.
Mayor Furlong: That these would have been caught?
Kate Aanenson: Oh absolutely. Yes we would have…
Mayor Furlong: Is that a standard process of use in terms of…
Kate Aanenson: Correct. They’re routed through each department to make sure they’re not in
an easement or engineering, any issues there and then planning would check impervious surface
and setbacks. So we’ve eliminated the setback issues, which was one of them. So again, this
was one, there’s two issues. The impervious and the setback so we’ve eliminated one issue
which was the setbacks.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: So Kate go over for me, what can they do to bring this?
Kate Aanenson: Well you know, you’re talking about a minimal amount here by removing the
sidewalk, and I guess I always try to temper that, livability of the house. If you get somebody
else in there and then they come back and say this really isn’t, on taking the patio out.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: So what else can they do then?
Kate Aanenson: That’s about it. I don’t know if it’s reasonable to say take down the addition.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well that’s what I’m saying.
Kate Aanenson: Right. Exactly, right. I guess that was our opinion too at the time. They’ve
done this much as they could and at this point, sort of taking that out if you feel strongly about
that.
Councilman Labatt: So, quick question. So a lot of the stuff, if I understand your staff report,
was the Koenig’s bought the house in May of ’91. Right?
19
City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005
Kate Aanenson: Correct.
Councilman Labatt: And a lot of this stuff was done by the previous owner to them?
Kate Aanenson: No. They did the additions. The part that was no fault of their’s was the
original zoning and the changing of the zoning to the 25%. It may have been caught but they
wouldn’t have been able to get those additions when they came through in 2000 to get those
additions but.
Mayor Furlong: The fence line was pre-existing.
Kate Aanenson: Yeah, the fence line was up.
Mayor Furlong: It was 1980.
Kate Aanenson: Yes. The fence was outside the property line’s prior to there so, we did fix
some other issues. The fence not on the property line so.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I still go back to what other options then.
Kate Aanenson: Right. That’s why we recommended approval as one of the options. To
recommend approval with those conditions. That’s in place and then get those other things
executed.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff at this point? If not, are Mr. and Mrs. Koenig here
this evening? Mrs. Would you like to address the council on any matters? Please.
Cindy Koenig: Thank you. I’m Cindy Koenig, 8005 Cheyenne Avenue.
Mayor Furlong: Good evening.
Cindy Koenig: We have tried to work with Josh a lot to try to fix the things that we caused.
Trying to make amends. We’ve spent about a little less than $15,000 to try to fix these issues.
We have wrote the checks to our neighbors and they have been cashed so you know we’ve
completed that and when we all moved in those fence lines were that way so it was easy for us to
all agree because it was property that nobody knew the other person had. We’re in the middle of
moving to Arkansas and so trying to get to my family down there and I’m here trying to fix
whatever I can fix to get this to work.
Mayor Furlong: Good, thank you. Any questions? No? Okay, thank you. Bring it back to
council for discussion. Councilwoman Tjornhom, you’ve asked the question a couple times.
What more can they do?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I don’t know what is there to say. There’s definitely no options so I
don’t know what there is to really even discuss. They’re kind of in a tough spot and I’m
20
City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005
certainly not going to vote that we deny this and have her tear her garage down. That doesn’t
make any sense at all, so I don’t think there’s much to discuss as far as I’m concerned.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Others may want to discuss something.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well maybe they would.
Mayor Furlong: I’ve got to give them a chance.
Councilman Peterson: Well the dilemma is obviously if you, how do you compare a garage to a
sport court? So is a sport court any less important to a homeowner than a garage expansion? So
I think certainly we have to ask ourselves that question but I think I would have a tendency to
agree with staff’s recommendation and move ahead with this.
Mayor Furlong: Other comments, discussion.
Councilman Lundquist: I think I would echo Councilman Peterson’s comments about interesting
that these two came up on the same night I guess. Time will tell what happens with the sport
court and this issue specifically. You know Kate I think you made some good points in the staff
report about you know between 1960 and now and the changes that were made and this would fit
that and all of the things and again as with the previous would commend the Koenig’s for
working, buying extra property. Tearing out the driveway. Put the sod down. They’re
obviously motivated to comply. Always struggle a little with it when they’re after the facts and
some of those types of things, but I think in this case that I’m compelled to grant the variance
and mostly because there’s been some effort there. A considerable amount of effort there and we
really don’t have a lot of the other, of other options without some significant detriment to the
property.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Labatt, questions?
Councilman Labatt: No. I agree with you guys and you know, they’ve done, they’ve clearly
done all they can do and you know, this one’s 2% more than the other one… I support it. I mean
you know, I supported the other one too.
Councilman Peterson: But Steve you supported taking 560 square feet off of the sport court.
Councilman Labatt: No. I supported the tabling of that motion. I still, I think we did the right
thing by not denying it but I supported the tabling but I still think we should have approved it but
I support this one.
Mayor Furlong: I think to raise questions. We’re dealing with each of these individually. You
know in this case they have acquired property which is one of the questions that we always ask
and here they did it. And you’re right, that usually doesn’t happen. What I was also impressed
with is part of the property that they acquired put one of those property owners into a, over their
hard surface coverage as well and that property owner took steps to remove hard surface
coverage to get themselves back into compliance so they weren’t in the same situation. What
21
City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005
created this was following through and getting permits you know, building permits on these but I
agree. I think they’ve worked it down as far as they reasonably can. I think there are differences
between these two. This lot is 12,000 square feet. The other was a half acre. Garage, you can
talk about how big a garage people need but a garage to me is a little bit more from a utilitarian
standpoint, a requirement especially in Minnesota than a sport court. Does that mean that we
shouldn’t let people have sport courts? Absolutely not. I mean that’s an amenity. We want to
have people improve their property within the ordinances. So I think there might be some, there
are some differences in the two. I think here, at this point, they’ve gotten it as good as they can.
Short of you know, before we take a few feet off a sport court. Now we’re talking about taking a
few feet off the garage. I don’t know how you do that. So I think in this case they’ve worked
and finally got it the best they could. There are different circumstances here and I agree with
staff, we need to go forward. I think we do need to make sure we have those conditions in there,
specifically one with regard to the permits. Make sure that the additions are properly inspected
so that those can be done. And we’re comfortable that they were constructed properly. With
that being said I think we should move forward at this point with this one. Any other discussion?
Councilman Labatt: We call it a shed then right when you take a few feet off your garage?
You’ve got a shed.
Mayor Furlong: You have a shed. Okay. Is there a, I think the motions are on page 7 of the
staff report. Would someone like to make a motion?
Councilman Labatt: Mayor, I’d move that we approve the variance 05-34 for a 4.06 hard surface
coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage
addition and four season porch on a lot zoned single family residence, RSF subject to conditions
1 through 3 in the staff report.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion? Hearing none, we’ll
proceed with the vote.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council
approves Variance #05-34 for a 4.06% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum
25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition and a four season porch on a
lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF), with the following conditions:
1. Building permits, plans and necessary inspections for the additions shall be required in
accordance with the Minnesota State Building Code.
2. Property owners shall vacate existing drainage and utility easements and shall dedicate
new drainage and utility easements adjacent to new property lines.
22
City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005
3. Variance #05-34 shall not be recorded until after the two administrative subdivisions
conveying property to Lot 3, Block 3 Chanhassen Estates have been recorded with Carver
County.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: That motion prevails. Good luck with the move.
Cindy Koenig: Thank you.
1(k). SPALON MONTAGE: REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT TO
PLACE A WALL SIGN OUTSIDE FO THE APPROVED SIGN BAND AREA, 600
MARKET STREET, KRAUS-ANDERSON REALTY COMPANY, PLANNING
CASE NO. 05-33.
Councilman Lundquist: Issue with this one Mr. Mayor, wasn’t more than a couple of weeks ago
we had a sign variance request for the same building. Understand it was different. That they
already had some signage on the second, or higher elevations let’s call it. Couple of questions I
guess I was looking at either when we went through that one and in the staff report on this one as
well, staff talked about being careful with where we’re putting signs and we do it once and then
the next one and the next one and the next one and the next one and pretty soon you know,
they’ll be flashing bright neon lights like the movie theater sign did in the beginning so I want to
be cautious about what those signs are. Where they are. Do they really have to have it there? Is
there another spot for it that would serve purposes, you know understand that the building was
set up for offices at the beginning on that second story. Now things change and that’s fine, but
as a, I wasn’t comfortable as a consent agenda item to have that out there so just like to have
some staff input on that sign and any other like it in the city or in the area. Do we have any other
second story sign kind of things and some discussion.
Kate Aanenson: You bring up some good points Councilman Lundquist and that every project
that comes in, a multi tenant one like this, we try to approve a site plan. In this instance they’re
asked for us, actually an amendment to the sign package that we approved. They could have
asked for a variance. They chose not to. The variance would have been to put it over the front
door, which they didn’t want to put one over the front door. This is the space that Spalon is
going into, so they wanted a sign over the top to get visibility over that use, but it’s, internally in
staff we were having a lot of issues regarding that because if you put it over this, it almost leads
you to believe you go into this door. That’s a single tenant. It’s not the multi tenant. But our
rules say if it’s a multi tenant, you shouldn’t have a single sign over that, but you still could have
got, they could have applied for a variance from that rule as opposed to the sign amendment
allowing the sign on the top. Again we’ve been careful about how we place those. I just wanted
to take a minute and kind of go through. Actually this was put together for the Planning
Commission and it’s a series of photos that are put together so it’s not quite, you can see there’s
some chop lines in there. When it originally came in they knew the bank was going to be a
tenant so they fully disclosed it was their intent to put the bank sign up on the top, so that was
approved right on the outset. In the instance of the Spalon, like you indicated, that was intended,
we intended or they envisioned that they may be offices, so we didn’t really contemplate that
23
City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005
type of signage on the top. So those areas that are shaded were the ones that were approved.
There’s the possibility that there’s two other peaks you know that could come in for a site plan
amendment which goes back to your points. This would be the one that’s coming in now. This
peak and there are other peaks. The one that came in for the bank on the canopy was again a
variance because we don’t allow signs on canopies. We have a lot of other banks in town and we
don’t allow them on gas stations either. Just that’s the ordinance so they came in under a
variance request on that. So a little different than the site plan or the sign amendment that
they’re going for here tonight. But you’re right, they could always come back and ask for some
on the other peaks. But we internally trying to discuss other ways to give us some other options
but there was another option and that was to go over the center door and that would have
requested a variance on that door but I think they felt, because the Spalon was on the second
floor that they wanted the visibility. But there is some maybe some miscuing too that people
have to figure out that that’s not the door you go into to get into the Spalon.
Councilman Peterson: I think there’s going to be a lot of miscuing.
Kate Aanenson: I think so too. We had a lot of internal discussions regarding that. Whether
they chose to go for the site plan amendment. That was their request. Obviously the staff, you
have to process the application but there would be another approach and that would be to get the
variance and their recommendation is they wouldn’t allow it. But I guess that’s kind of partially
your decision too if you chose not on that site.
Councilman Lundquist: It’d be great if that store had the same type of clientele as the Spalon.
While you’re here.
Kate Aanenson: And the Planning Commission did vote to approve it, the amendment 5 to 0
when they held their hearing.
Mayor Furlong: Question for you. The picture that you held up there with the red, that one
there. The peak to the right of that picture. Yeah. Is there a sign there?
Kate Aanenson: No. Those are showing potential other peaks that someone could ask for.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, they could ask for but right now on the site plan those are not included?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. They’d have to come back for another amendment. So you
have that control.
Mayor Furlong: One of the things that I saw in their application, which if I can find it here.
Councilman Labatt: Page 356.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. At the end it says the owner is willing to provide any assurance
necessary that there would be no more, no additional requests for second floor signage.
Councilman Lundquist, perhaps this speaks to your issue and if that’s not in the site plan right
now, is that something.
24
City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005
Kate Aanenson: I don’t know how you can get that.
Councilman Lundquist: Yeah, they’ll provide assurance until the next time they have a tenant
that wants to come in and do it.
Mayor Furlong: Well unless it’s a condition of approval.
Kate Aanenson: I would ask, I don’t think you can.
Roger Knutson: This is not a conditional use permit we’re dealing with. This is site plan review
to determine whether what they’re asking for, is it consistent with our ordinance requirements.
So the question for us is, do they meet the sign ordinance requirements. If they do, they, and the
ordinance would say, allow it. And if it doesn’t, then the answer is no. But it’s really difficult, I
mean you can incorporate if you will, into his statement that he’s assured us that he won’t do it,
and that would just be kind of a like a moral promise.
Mayor Furlong: Which is what most promises are.
Councilman Peterson: Some of them have to enforce a law.
Mayor Furlong: That’s true. That’s true.
Kate Aanenson: Or if it got sold and somebody else came in and requested. But again, because
it’s a site plan amendment, we do allow signs on a second story. It’s just that we had approved a
specific sign package for this use and say this is what we believe makes sense and is
architecturally, you know the only way we would allow to go up higher is the bank and that
was…
Mayor Furlong: And what changed here was the tenant mix.
Kate Aanenson: Exactly.
Mayor Furlong: That they were anticipating at the time.
Kate Aanenson: Exactly. Something.
Mayor Furlong: The bank was anticipated, which was, we dealt with earlier.
Kate Aanenson: Right, and that was originally approved but then it was going and they wanted
the visibility for that type of use.
Councilman Lundquist: Kate, how about other, like you said like the Chanhassen Lawn and
Sports thing over there across the street, right. Is that sign still up high?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah.
25
City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005
Councilman Lundquist: What other locations do we have in kind of the central downtown that
have second story?
Kate Aanenson: Actually if you look at the Klein Bank. I think there’s some higher on that, that
have some of the other firms that are in there. I’m not sure on Byerly’s.
Councilman Labatt: Isn’t there one on the west side of Byerly’s?
Kate Aanenson: On the west side of Byerly’s, yeah. There’s some office space up there that has
some too.
Councilman Labatt: On the west wall. West elevation there’s some.
Councilman Lundquist: Is this a lighted sign? I can’t remember.
Kate Aanenson: Yes it is. It’s illuminated. Yes.
Mayor Furlong: But it’s back lit. It’s not neon.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. We do check lumens now. Yeah, so again it’s one of those
things where you want to restrict it so you’ve got some control when you’re looking at it but in
this circumstance we were pretty restrictive and hadn’t anticipated the change in mix.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Any other questions? Or discussion. On this. If there’s none, is there a
motion?
Councilman Lundquist: Any other discussion?
Councilman Peterson: I feel your pain. I agree with it.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Yes.
Cindy McDonald: I know you typically don’t…
Mayor Furlong: Certainly, please come forward.
Cindy McDonald: Cindy McDonald, Kraus-Anderson Realty representing the owner and the
manager. For the Spalon sign, again we really don’t want any additional signs up on the second
level. We’re pretty particular on the signage that we approve for our tenants. But we did not
have any vision that Spalon would come to our property when they did and said that they would
lease 8,000 square feet. It was a great opportunity for the property, and signage for them is very
important. They’re wrapping up their construction and they’re going to be opening in a few
days. The sign that is in your packet, it’s white. It’s very tastefully done. It looks great on the
building and on those other peaks, you know we really have no vision of putting any additional
sign. The reason that it would not look right over those three doors is that is the office entry. If
26
City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005
it is positioned in the place that we proposed, you’ll see that they’re up on the second level.
Once they go in that main office entry atrium, there’s a directory signage right there that says
Suite 270. You go up the stairs and they’ll see that Spalon is up there, so we feel that that
doesn’t confuse the customer on how to get there and where they’re located. If we would put
Spalon sign on that first area, the sign band, right now Bebi’s sign is in production and is going
to go there so we actually have a tenant right at that first area where they’re proposing to put a
sign. That would be confusing because it would look like there’s two tenants there and there’s
actually one tenant on the first level and then Spalon up on the second level.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you. Any other questions?
Councilman Lundquist: Since you had volunteered to go up there, say that again. Kate, do you
have that picture of the building?
Kate Aanenson: We understood that there’s a tenant here…
Cindy McDonald: Right. This is Bebi.
Councilman Lundquist: Right.
Kate Aanenson: Right, but our recommendation was…
Cindy McDonald: Right, and that’s the office entry.
Councilman Lundquist: Right, but that’s where you’ve got to go in to get up there, right?
Cindy McDonald: Correct.
Councilman Lundquist: So you’ve got to go in that door to see the sign that says Suite 270. You
go up the stairs and it’s over there. If you put it above the other one, they’re going to walk right
through that door and go, how do I get to Spalon Montage? I mean I’m just, I’m not following
where, if you put it over the center door that you have to go in to get to the place, why that’s
going to be confusing to people when they put it above the space if they go through that door
directly below where the sign is. That’s not the place you go.
Cindy McDonald: Yeah, we feel that they’re coming down Market Boulevard, that they will see
that sign. They’ll get there and they’ll be able to figure out how to go upstairs. Right now we
have our building address sign in that area. Right above the three doors.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Won’t there be something on the door as they walk in that says
Spalon Montage?
Cindy McDonald: Yes, there will be. Inside.
Councilman Lundquist: The Bebi thing that says Spalon Montage that way.
27
City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005
Councilman Peterson: But the same number of people are going to go to that main entrance
looking for another office complex in there will be dissuaded from going into that entrance to
Spalon Montage so…
Mayor Furlong: That’s the thing for all the tenants that use that common entrance.
Cindy McDonald: Yeah, it looks like you’re walking right into Spalon Montage, and when you
walk into that office entry, you’re able to figure out what’s going on. We have CJ’s. It’s a very
open environment and the directory we do feel will assist. And once you walk up the stairs and
they have a big presence. They have a great looking store.
Councilman Lundquist: Thank you.
Cindy McDonald: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions or discussion? Hearing none, is there a motion?
Councilman Peterson: Motion to approve.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on the motion?
Councilman Lundquist: Let the floodgates open.
Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve
the request from Spalon Montage for a site plan amendment to place a wall sign outside of
the approved sign band area, 600 Market Street, Kraus-Anderson Realty Company,
Planning Case 05-33. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of
5 to 0.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS:
Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor, I know you’ve been waiting months and months and
months for an update on the 41 river crossing.
Mayor Furlong: It’s almost 3 years.
Councilman Lundquist: Be careful what you ask for. Should have one of these brochures.
Attended a meeting last week, I think it was Tuesday or Wednesday night with MnDot and all of
the other affected municipality representatives of that elected representatives of those
municipalities so, really what’s going on is MnDot has 6 options for a new bridge to cross the
river. And the intention is to connect new 212 with 169 in Shakopee. So in this brochure there’s
a map with all the alignments and all of that good stuff. This is a project that MnDot is in an
28
City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005
environmental impact phase and a lot of work going on. We’ve got some really of those 6 there
isn’t a good one. There isn’t an easy one. Environmental issues all over the map. Existing
neighborhoods. Nature preserves. You’ve got DNR. You’ve got the fen. You have Social of
Justice groups and you’ve got all this is going to be lots and lots of fun. So in response to that,
MnDot has done something that they don’t usually do, is put together this flyer to kind of lay out
all of the things, and this was actually mailed to I think over 10,000 households in kind of all
along these affected routes and things like that so, there’s a big open house coming up in
December sometime that this really refers to. So had some discussions with Mr. Gerhardt as
well. I think my recommendation would be that sometime after the first of the year that we
invite Lisa Freese and Lynn Clarkowski from MnDot to come in and talk to us. Obviously
we’ve got some pretty, our alignments that we’re concerned with, Chanhassen affected by is E-1,
E-1A and E-2. So you’ve got you know, you’ve got Bluff Creek and Hesse Farms and the fen
and existing neighborhoods and some other access and connection issues on 212 so there’s a lot
of stuff going on but to try to kind of get specific information to Chanhassen to get the MnDot
reps in and really the big thing we’re pushing for is, in the winter of 2006, which is less than, or
right about a year from now, MnDot hopes to identify their preferred corridor and preferred
alternatives. This project’s not funded on the 20 year plan but once that corridor gets picked,
you know then it’s here we go. So we want to make sure that we get all the information and get
our opinions out before that comes about too, so again my recommendation would be we try to
get them in shortly after the new year and have a discussion or work session regarding this. And
I will attend the open house.
Mayor Furlong: Very good. Thank you and we can certainly do that. Take that on a work
session after the first of the year.
Todd Gerhardt: That’s one of our first 2006 goals for the year and staff will be meeting with
MnDot I believe next Tuesday.
nd
Councilman Lundquist: 22.
Todd Gerhardt: Yep, so be interesting how the open house goes and giving you the input on that.
Councilman Lundquist: The interesting thing, editorial comment is that of all the municipalities,
Chaska, Chanhassen, Carver, Hollywood Township, Shakopee, the two counties, the only one
that wants this is Shakopee. Everybody else is you know, go that way or this way. Shakopee is
yeah, we’ll take any one so. So it will be interesting.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Thank you. Any other council presentations? Just to share a note. I had
an opportunity last Friday was Veterans Day and I was invited to attend two Veteran’s Day
celebrations at local schools. One at Chaska Middle School West and the other at Chapel Hill
Academy here in Chanhassen and both of them were just great events. It was interesting to see
how the children really appreciate the veterans. At the Middle School they had probably about
30 or 40 veterans and to see the entire middle school population stand up on their own and give
them a standing ovation was just moving. To see at Chapel Hill, a K through 8 school but there
again even the young children which were listening intently to stories of past wars and conflicts
and to see the veterans there, their grand parents and aunts and uncles and parents there as
29
City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005
veterans and to appreciate them was really great so it was fun to be a part of those, both of those
events and it’s good to see that they’re taking place here in our city and in our schools.
Councilman Lundquist: The Chapel Hill one also had the Distinguished Veteran Congressman
Kline.
Mayor Furlong: They did, thank you. I had that down and forgot to mention it. Yes,
Representative Kline was there and he gave the keynote address and did a very good job so, it
was, and he was impressed that we’re doing that. He specifically said it was, that not enough
schools are doing it and so I was pleased to be able to tell him that our Chaska Middle School
West had just done it earlier in the morning and he was pleased to hear that as well.
Councilman Lundquist: I had breakfast with him that morning that he was late to and then cut us
off so he could make sure he got to the Chapel Hill…
Mayor Furlong: Good. Very good.
Todd Gerhardt: Got his priorities right.
Councilman Lundquist: Go see the kids.
Mayor Furlong: I thought it was to be with the Mayor.
Councilman Lundquist: Oh yeah, that.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, Mr. Gerhardt. Administrative presentations.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS:
Todd Gerhardt: Got one item. Want to get the word out that you may have read in the papers, so
the word is out, also I think we were on either Channel 5 or Channel 9 on break in’s at
Summerwood Apartments and Lake Susan Apartments. Our Crime Prevention Officer Beth
Hoiseth had met with the property managers in both cases and gave them information on crime
prevention measures that they could implement, and also we have additional patrol in that area so
anybody out there listening, watch out. We have patrolmen in the area and so, we take these
things seriously and have given extra patrol. Other than that, we will continue our work session
and review administrative budgets and finance and after the regular council meeting.
Mayor Furlong: Very good, thank you. Any questions for Mr. Gerhardt or staff? If there are
none, is there any discussion on the correspondence packet?
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION:
None.
Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to adjourn the City
Council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at
8:30 p.m..
30
City Council Meeting – November 14, 2005
Prepared by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
31