The URL can be used to link to this page

PC 2002 06 04CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING JUNE 4, 2002 Vice Chair Sidney called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: LuAnn Sidney, Steve Lillehaug, Craig Claybaugh, Uli Sacchet, Bruce Feik and Rich Slagle MEMBERS ABSENT: Alison Blackowiak STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director and Sharmin A1-Jaff, Senior Planner PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR A 7 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR EXPANSION OF A GARAGE ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 3920 LESLEE CURVE (PAUL & LIBBY SCHEELE), KNIGHT CONSTRUCTION. Public Present: Name Address Libby & Paul Scheele Dave Harrison Leonard & Selma Hein 3920 Leslee Curve Knight Construction, 2989 Watertower Place 3930 Leslee Curve Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item. Sidney: Questions of staff anyone? Lillehaug: I do have one quick question. You indicate you have a, it's just a little over 4 foot is the existing distance between the property line and would that be the edge of the house or would that be the actual eave? Aanenson: No. That would be the actual edge of the garage. The eave actually extends into that, and we've modified that ordinance because the way the setback is interpreted is that you don't have to count an architectural feature, but we thought in the past when we've given relief on variances, sometimes that's used to the benefit. For example, a bay window or something like that where expectation is they're going to meet the 4 foot but the bay window goes in so what we've amended the code to say is when you're giving a variance, that architectural feature can't protrude into that and with this case, the 18 inches goes beyond that. And just one other point of clarification. This 4 ½ feet at this point, if you can see. It's moving this lot line swings out so the worst point is down at this as far as the closest to the property line. As far as compliance and as it's moving this way it gets past the 5 foot. So you're at like 4.18, 4.57 and it's moving further away. Not more than a foot though but. Sidney: Any other questions of staff'? Okay. This is a public hearing. Oh excuse me, I guess the applicant, if you'd like to make a presentation. Please come forward and state your name and address please. Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 Dave Harrison: I'm Dave Harrison with Knight Construction. Okay, do I need an address for that? Sidney: Sure. Dave Harrison: Yeah, I office at 2989 Watertower Place. That's in Chanhassen. We understand the side lot setback but the reason, a lot of the reason for this addition is actually to put a first floor laundry room into this home. Right now the laundry room is in the basement and the Sheele's travel 2-3 times a year with up to 3 weeks at a time and when they travel, Libby's parents come and stay. Using the basement laundry is very inconvenient. That's the main reason, or actually part of the reason for the addition of the garage. Why they're going out because we'd be adding a laundry room in the rear of the garage. The setback issue, I mean we understand what everybody's saying but it's kind of like this was the first house built in the subdivision so it's kind of dictated by where it is and they're kind of, they're kind of stuck the way it is. That's why we're asking for the variance because of the pre-existing condition. I know it's stated in here. I guess that's why we're in asking for the variance. I guess I don't, more than that I really don't have much more to say other than there is a hardship issue with the basement laundry. Bringing it upstairs would definitely make it a lot more functional. Okay? Questions? Libby Scheele: Hi. My name is Libby Scheele and I live at 3920 Leslee Curve as stated, and I appreciate the commission setting rules to... As you can see we're very close to the lot line here. Our foundation was the very first foundation dug in 1957 and when they dug it, it was a giant field. Then they put the roads in afterwards. So the house to the east of us, that you see in this picture, was one of the last houses built and they are close to us. Our foundation was built first. Their's was second and as you can see there's a row of trees here and the garage would still be setback from their garage by about, I don't know, by about 15 feet. There are no windows on that side of their garage for their house so it wouldn't block any view and as you can see in this survey, we're set back from everyone else. So what we're asking for is 14 feet that would allow me to put a mud room in the back and my mother has had 2 knees replaced and she hates doing laundry at my house so I request that we do this for my mom. Thank you. Sidney: Any questions for the applicant? Slagle: I've got a couple. Is the, if you put a mud room in the back, would the new extension be your garage? Libby Scheele: Correct. Correct. What you see here is, it's about 20 feet deep, the garage so by bringing the garage out 14 feet, that gives us 10 feet in the back of the garage for the mud room. We could not put a mud room in with it as it is now. It isn't deep enough. It's just 2 cars. Now we're not making it a 3 car garage. We're keeping it a 2 car garage so it will be real consistent with everything on this street. Slagle: Let me ask this. I visited the site yesterday, so if you saw a car just sitting out I apologize. But it didn't seem to me that you were using the garage for the cars. Libby Scheele: The reason that we are doing that is because 20 days ago they began preparation for the remodeling in our kitchen so what you see in that garage right now is the old kitchen cabinets so we haven't been able to get in there because they're storing things there. And we are moving the existing vehicles around the side of the house at another time, and our kids are home from college also. Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 Slagle: So you would use the garage though for the cars? Libby Scheele: Absolutely. Can't wait to use it again. Yeah. Slagle: Okay. That's all. Sacchet: I have a question too. Libby Scheele: Yes. Sacchet: How difficult would it be to put a laundry room in a different spot? Libby Scheele: It's possible, and not as convenient. We thought that if we were to do it in this new section, then we could vent the dryer directly outside. And in the other places we'd have to vent either up through the roof or, I don't know how we would do it. And the further you are from the outside of the vent and the dryer, the less efficient it is and in newer construction they're often having it right next to the outside so I thought this would be the best way to vent out also. Sacchet: But there would be alternatives basically. Libby Scheele: I can't think of anyplace right now. I can't imagine where we would put it. The laundry room is a pretty good sized room for a family of 5 so, I can't imagine where it would go. Paul Scheele: We're talking first floor. Libby Scheele: Yeah. We're trying to make it first floor living. We're getting older. We'd like to retire here. His parents, my parents, they love to come here except they hate the laundry in the basement. Sidney: Any other questions? Okay, thank you. Libby Scheele: You're welcome. Sidney: Now it's time for public, oh. Would you like? Libby Scheele: Our neighbors would like to speak. Sidney: Oh, yeah now we have an opportunity for that during a public hearing and I'll open it up for a public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on this topic, please come forward. Paul Scheele: Yeah, I'm Paul Scheele. I wanted to speak in support of the question that was asked. Is there another place to do it? If I could have the architectural plan up on the board again please. Aanenson: The site plan or the architectural? Paul Scheele: The architectural plan drawing. As you can see in this end of the, this is the kitchen where we come out of the house. All the rest of the first floor living is completely filled, it's a 2 bedroom. 3 bedrooms up. Master bedroom is attached to the back so really in terms of looking at options for extending the first floor to accommodate for a laundry room/mud room, this is what was proposed. This is the best we could imagine. Now of course here's the existing Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 line of the property right now. The front of the garage is at this point, so we'd be taking a little better than half of the back of the existing garage and just adding that plus a foot or two in the front. But I would like to say something else. In comment to the choice to do this work at this time. We've lived in the property 12 years, and we have had the good graces of my in-laws and my parents taking care of the kids in the years that we've been there, but the condition of the garage floor and the foundation due to settling, due to water running in, all of that garage floor really does need to be replaced as well as terribly cracked, heaved. It heaves every winter and so on, so there is an advantage of doing several things at once that we were hoping to do. The other thing that we were concerned about is with the addition, to show that this prow roof which does extend considerably beyond the current wall of the garage is going to be in excess to what we're proposing at this time. The roof line. It's not going to come out as far as the existing prow that's there right now. And I know that's, it may be moot to what we're talking about in terms of the regulations that are there. I just wanted to point that out. Sidney: Anyone else wishing to address? Leonard Hein: I'd just like to say. Sidney: Please come up to the podium. State your name and address for the record please. Leonard Hein: Yes. My name is Leonard Hein. We live on 3930 Leslee Curve, next door to the Sheele's. They're just wonderful neighbors. They've done so much to improve their property and if they want to keep on improving their property so they can live a life that they like to live at their home, I say let them do what their plans show. They're just wonderful people and they're improving on the property all the time. Always and almost every day so keep that in mind. Sidney: Okay. Slagle: Don't go so quick sir. I have a question. Are you on the east side or the west side of their property? Leonard Hein: We're on the west side. Slagle: So you're the one that has. Leonard Hein: It doesn't interfere with us. Slagle: So you've got the luxury that there's a lot of green space between your house and their house? Leonard Hein: Yes we do. Slagle: Okay. I just want to make sure that you're not the one who's right there on the property. Leonard Hein: No, but... I know the neighbor on the other side hasn't objected to it at all. He said it was just fine .... cut the cinnamon rolls and call it square. Slagle: Okay...where you get those. Sidney: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the commission? If not, I'll close the public hearing. Commissioners, comments. Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 Feik: I have a couple of comments. I very much like the look of the renovation. I think it updates the front faCade a lot with the addition, but still I'm having a hard time getting my arms around the undue hardship. There seemed to be a significant amount of buildable land around the property that could be used to construct a mud room, a laundry room versus annexing part of the garage and moving the garage forward so I'm having a hard, help me out on the panel here, but I'm having a hard time with the undue hardship criteria here so that's my concern. Slagle: I've got just one thought and ifI can Madam Chair, ifI can ask the applicants one more question. I apologize for not asking this. If I'm looking at your diagram of your house if you will, for lack of a better example. Have you considered this back corner? I don't know what's in that, in your house at that point. Libby Scheele: In that back comer that is where I work. That's my studio. I'm an artist and I work at home, and part of the mud room was so that I would have a sink for my business also. But that's not hardship. I can wash my brushes out elsewhere. Slagle: I guess I'm asking if you've got this comer section of your house that's left if you will, why couldn't. Libby Scheele: Oh in there? I can't put it there because that would be close to the lot line again in the back. Slagle: Well I understand that. Libby Scheele: That would be the same as out the front, wouldn't it? Slagle: Understand but if I look at a picture and I remember your house, it's fairly protected from an aesthetic standpoint. I mean you've got brushes and trees and what not going back there. I guess I just wondered why you hadn't considered finishing that section off and making that perhaps, I'm just throwing this out as an idea. It'd be less visible to the general public. Libby Scheele: I think that's about maybe, how many, 5 feet by 8 feet. And I don't think you could put a washer and dryer. Slagle: 9 by 14. Libby Scheele: 9 by 14, that'd be pretty. Paul Scheele: On the property it was originally designed as a ranch style home. And the two bumped out on the back are additions to the house. Libby Scheele: And I don't know how you'd put a mud room in there. Paul Scheele: How you would access it from the front of the house. Libby Scheele: Yeah. We were hoping to keep the, where you would come in. Okay. It would make the most sense on this house because the other side of the house is the bedroom wing and a mud room wouldn't be as appropriate entering from a person's bedroom because there's no doorway to that side of the house. Slagle: Okay. Just trying to think of possible. Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 Libby Scheele: Yeah. Paul Scheele: The bedrooms are all on that other end of the house. It would be lovely to put the garage next to the kitchen. Slagle: On the west end. Paul Scheele: Exactly. It would be lovely and it's configured completely wrong for that. Libby Scheele: Yeah. And my neighbor on the east side just had a baby yesterday. He said I'd be there but they're at the hospital but he's totally fine with us doing this. Boy, I don't know. To prove hardship. I know that we're aging. My mother has had 2 knees replaced. I don't know what's in my future either. I want to plan ahead and we're trying to make the best investment with our money and we thought we'd put it into the house so we looked at the house and tried to figure out the best way to make use of the land and the house. And I don't know, it seems to be the most logical place to put it. I know it would mean a lot to me. Slagle: Personally ifI can speak, I'm hoping you can tell me why you can't use that back. Libby Scheele: That back area? Slagle: Yeah. I mean personally. Maybe your construction guy has a thought. Dave Harrison: Can I have that. Aanenson: It doesn't show. The simple answer is, you're coming into a bedroom. The way it's configured now, you're coming into the back hallway, but it doesn't show up. Dave Harrison: Right. Slagle: Can you say that again Kate. Dave Harrison: You're talking about that back comer, right? You're talking this area right here? Slagle: Yeah. So is that a bedroom? Dave Harrison: Now right here is where you're talking about? Aanenson: Coming into a bedroom as opposed to. Slagle: But isn't that her studio, didn't she say? Her work place. Dave Harrison: Right. Slagle: Bedroom work place. Dave Harrison: And this area here is actually Leslie's studio. You're coming in through a studio. This is garage here. I'm trying to configure a mud room and a laundry area back in this room. It's kind of like, you might as well put it next door. It's not even part of the house anymore. Going through the studio, there's a fireplace that sits in this comer. There's really not access to accommodate that mud room area. Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 Slagle: Fair enough. I just didn't know what was in the house. Dave Harrison: Right. Libby Scheele: There's no crawl space here so the plumbing would have to go outside. Dave Harrison: Right, we get into plumbing issues and things like that. Slagle: Fair enough. That answers what I was looking for. Sidney: Okay? Sacchet: Well I really sympathize with you guys, the applicants. I mean it's making your parents happy is definitely a hardship in it's own right, if it's not in place. However, the framework that we have to look at this from the Planning Commission. Our task is basically to interpret whether the rules are being applied in a reasonable way and the rules are pretty clear that when we grant a variance in a case like that, there has to be a balancing factor like a decrease of the non-conformity. Now in your case you really don't decrease or just very slightly decrease the non-conformity if you don't have that roof sticking out. So even though I would like to let you do what you want to do, I think from the task that we've given as planning commissioners, we have to apply the rules, otherwise there's no point in having the rules. And on that basis I have to agree with the staff report. But I would encourage you to pursue this issue further with City Council to see whether they can give you more leeway with that. Or alternatively a route that I could see how I would like to go with this is, I feel you haven't really sufficiently explored alternatives. Now we looked at one alternative that Commissioner Slagle touched on and that didn't seem like necessarily something that works, but I feel personally, I'm not sure about that. That alternatives could be looked at a little further and if that's the route we would want to go, I would suggest that we table the variance so you wouldn't have to apply for it again and alternatives could be looked at a little further. That's where I stand. Sidney: Craig. Claybaugh: There is no dimensions on the plans here that I have with respect to the mud room size but it seems like a fairly spacious mud room. Again, I agree with my fellow commissioner here with respect to the framework and what we're charged with. I think a combination of creativity and compromise could potentially go a long ways towards mitigating the problem that you have. Obviously we're not here to design it but one thing that strikes out at me would be to potentially turn that mud room 90 degrees and extend the west side of that single stall out. That would be one alternative that might be worth pursuing. To that end I would agree with a commissioner that you may want to look at tabling this item and coming at it from a different direction under the framework as we stated that we're charged with, though we empathize with you, don't feel that we can support it. Thanks. Lillehaug: I strongly support proposals and improvements to existing houses. It's a good way to update and revitalize older neighborhoods in our community. City ordinances and guidelines I think are pretty clear with non-conforming lots, but I do believe that a fair amount of latitude should be given to encourage home improvements. Although this proposal seems to be the most logical expansion, there are other options. They're not very easy options, but there are other options. I do not support this option however because allowing an expansion on this garage, it does increase the negative impact to the adjacent property so therefore I don't support this. I do Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 encourage the applicant to explore other options which wouldn't increase the negative impacts to that adjacent property lot. And for those reasons I don't support approval of this variance. Sidney: Okay, thank you. I think my comments are not too much different from my fellow commissioners. In terms of hardship, I do have concerns that we really don't have undue hardship demonstrated here. Usually what we talk about is something having to do with the topography or shape of the lot. Something on that order, and in this case I don't believe that is the case. I do agree with the staff's finding that approving this variance will increase the non- conformity and there do appear to be other options available for this addition. However I do recognize that one of the findings as stated in the staff report does address the fact that the home was constructed prior to the city being incorporated which is a potential mitigating factor so, I guess I do have a question for the applicant if I can go ahead with that. Would you feel comfortable coming back a second time so that if we table it then you would have that option. Dave Harrison: Sure. Sidney: Okay, and I'll see what the commissioners have to say then. Could I have a motion please. Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair. I make a motion that we table the request for a 7 foot side yard setback variance with the intent that alternatives be considered that may lessen or not require a variance. And if they do require a variance, that it could be submitted under the same application. Sidney: Could I have a second? Claybaugh: Second. Sacchet moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission table Variance #2002-4 for a 7 foot side yard setback variance for the expansion of a garage. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Slagle: Can I ask staff of one thing? Can we get a, at best a diagram of what the house looks like, just for my own? Okay. Dave Harrison: Could I add one? Slagle: Sure. I'm sorry. Dave Harrison: Minimum side yard setback, okay what would be the minimum side yard setback we could comfortably go and get? Aanenson: That's something we'd be happy to meet with them on. Sidney: Yeah, that's something the staff... Slagle: They're the experts. Sidney: Yep. So anyway that item has been tabled. You'll have another chance to come before us again with your proposal. Okay, thanks. Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ON A NON-CONFORMING LOT OF RECORD ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 3628 HICKORY ROAD~ STEPHEN GUNTHER. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Sidney: Questions of staff. Feik: I have one. In the findings, first finding regarding undue hardship again, I read the finding 3 times and I did not see where you have addressed whether it is or is not a hardship. A1-Jaff: The structure that they have right now is minimal in size. Two car garage is a reasonable use. Feik: I understand the applicant already has a 2 car garage attached to the house. Is that not correct? Is it a tuck under? Steve Gunther: That's correct. A1-Jaff: They are, there is an existing situation. They're improving the situation. Feik: I understand that. I'm specifically speaking to the hardship issue. My understanding is, as it relates to a non-conforming use, they are not to be able to re-build, reconstruct and in continuing a non-conforming use by approval as... designed initially, other than it essentially continued that for the duration at least of the next structure that's going to stand. A1-Jaff: They're improving a non-conforming situation. Feik: Technically the last applicant was improving a non-conforming situation because that side lot was getting larger as it approached the street. Kate spoke very eloquently I believe at the last one regarding the non-conformance or the hardship in the non-conformance and I don't see where this ties together. Aanenson: That's a position certainly. Feik: I also.., and I have more items I would prefer to save for the staff, or... discussion. Thank you. Sidney: Okay. Questions? Sacchet: Yeah, I do have a few comments. Obviously I'm concerned about the tree. I guess you gathered that from Sharmin's comments and I want to thank you for having researched that as thoroughly as you did. I do not necessarily agree with you Bruce in terms of the hardship. I agree that it doesn't, the hardship doesn't apply, and that's the thing we need to discuss with our city attorney to get a better understanding because there are two schools of thought. One is that it needs a hardship and the other part of the balance is that it has to be a reasonable request. And it seems a little bit, what kind of land use attorney you talk to, you get slightly different interpretation where the balance is between those two things. Now I don't think we want to argue whether this request is reasonable. I think it's clearly a reasonable request. It does away with a Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 pretty run down shed and wants to put there a nice garage. However, what's significant is in terms of the non-conformity, it's still needing a variance but the variance is much less. So that the non-conformance is significantly decreased and that's significantly different from the previous case we looked at. In the previous case the non-conformance was not decreased. In this case the non-conformance is significantly decreased. I don't know what it is, about to half or what or even less. Plus in addition there's a safety concern. Currently that shed is in the view line of this crossing and by moving it away from that crossing, we're significantly improving the safety of that intersection there. So on that basis I definitely support giving this variance. I would support also giving the additional 5 feet into the side yard setback based on Sharmin's explanation that it doesn't just increase a non-conformance. It actually also decreases a non- conformance a little bit towards Red Cedar. Feik: Uli, I apologize. IfI might interrupt Madam Chair. Sacchet: Please, go ahead. Feik: I would like to carry this conversation on but I believe we might be getting a little ahead of ourselves. We haven't heard from the applicant... Sacchet: Oh we haven't, okay. You're right. I'm way at the end already. I'm ready to put this to bed and be done with it. I rest my case. Slagle: Madam Chair, I'd like to add is, as being between these two gentlemen, I can see both sides. I just want to let you know that. Sidney: Very good. Sacchet: You sit in the right spot. Sidney: Okay. Any other comments? Claybaugh: Yeah I have some comments. Sidney: Questions for staffI guess is where we're at. Claybaugh: Yeah like Bruce I struggle with the hardship issue. What struck me was the public safety issue on the comer there and the, for my part, Uli struck on it was addressing that and lessening the condition. The adjacent garage on the adjacent property, what is the distance off'? That isn't a dimension on our plan here. On the survey. They're showing the edge of a garage right now. Steve Gunther: My neighbor's garage? Claybaugh: Yes. Steve Gunther: According to my surveyor, it's 4 feet from the property line. Claybaugh: 4 feet from the property line. Slagle: How about elevation? 10 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 Sacchet: Same almost. Steve Gunther: It's on the side, it's kind of a shallow sloping hill. Sidney: Let's wait for the applicant to come up here. Yeah, we'll have you come up. Claybaugh: That's all the questions I have right now. Lillehaug: I do have a question in regards to the sight distance and safety of that intersection. Does the city currently have any records of any existing accidents at that intersection? I mean is there a problem? Aanenson: I don't know if we have any records on that. I can check. Lillehaug: Okay. And one more question. We discussed this earlier. Currently that tree could, the owner can just go cut it down and legally the city would have nothing, let him cut it down correct? Aanenson: Yeah. It's not a tree preservation area. Lillehaug: Okay, thank you. Sidney: Any other questions of staff? Okay applicant, if you'd like to come forward please. Please state your name and address for the record again. Steve Gunther: Good evening. I'm Steve Gunther, 3628 Hickory Road in Chanhassen/Excelsior. I think Sharmin did a nice job describing the situation. Maybe just to expand on it just a bit if I might. What I'm proposing to do is build a 2 car garage, as you know, and I understand that I do have a 2 car garage on the existing lot across the street. I do have 2 teenage boys, 16 and 14. The 16 year old is driving to work, etc. Volunteer work, sports, etc. So with my wife working and myself working and my son needing a car. Feik: That would be a hardship in itself. Steve Gunther: Well he's actually a very good boy so I wouldn't call that a hardship by any means but we need 3 cars and to have a 2 car garage for 3 cars is just, you know it wouldn't, it doesn't work very well. The second piece is, we do live on a lake and we do own boats. I have a small Larson speed boat and a laser sailboat and kayak and we're very avid boaters. We're also avid cross country skiers. That's why we live on the lake. Bikers, etc so ifI added the need to have at least 3 cars, plus storage for boats, 2 boats or you know, a kayak and plus I work on my own bicycles. I need to have a shop to do bicycle repair and maintenance and stuff. It adds up that I need some additional space from the 2 cars I've currently got so ideally I'd have an additional 2 car garage, so I could have 1 stall for the storage of my motorboat in the wintertime, and 1 stall for the storage of my sailboat and bicycles, cross country ski gear and all that stuff so that's why I'm asking for a 2 car garage. If you look at the sheet I've got on the table here, maybe you can zoom in on that a little bit but, Hickory Road is the road right here. And by the way, the photograph of the situation. This is Hickory Road coming down in this direction. This is Red Cedar Point. This is the structure that I'm going to, I would like to demolish and you can see proximity to the road in both cases plus the sight distance issue. If I were to follow the existing lot requirements, and demolish this garage here. This would be the triangle because of the odd shape or triangular shape of the lot. This would be the triangle that I'd have to build my 11 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 structure in and it's just, and the best I could figure, I could put like maybe a 10 by 13 structure in there and if any of you guys have driven a car recently, it's not big enough, let's put it that way. And so that's why I'm looking for variance help of some sort to allow me to build the 2 car garage I had in mind. So this is the structure as Sharmin showed you before, and what we talked about was moving it this way so it'd be further away from the tree that's sitting basically in the center of the lot so to save the tree I'd definitely be willing to move the garage structure 3, or 5 feet towards my neighbor's property. Here's their garage. There's the lot line so you can see there's 4 feet. You can't read it on here but on my survey you'll see it says 4 feet separation between the garage and the lot line there so, I think I'm improving the situation. I'm thinking I'm getting rid of a structure, while it served me well to store my sailboat in it, it's actually pretty ugly and obviously created a safety concern in this area here and I think it's reasonable use of the land to put this kind of structure here. As far as hardship, you know it's hard for me to say that you need more than a 2 car garage but these days, especially living on a lake I need to have additional storage space and I have no alternative but to try to take advantage of the land I've got across the street. And by the way as was mentioned, there are, if you go up the street, here's another view of the existing shed. This is my neighbor's shed up here. Or garage, sorry. This is the oak tree that we're talking about. And this is a closer view of my neighbor's garage so it's a 2 car garage right off of the property line. It's roughly 12 feet from the road. I think I requested 13 feet setback .... request is to be consistent with a line that they're set back. When I was measuring today, or yesterday I guess, it was I'm not sure how we actually measure the official distance from the road because apparently the road encroaches on our property a little bit so. And then here's the next structure up the street, another 2 car garage so it would be consistent with what other people have. So I guess I'm not sure ifI can address the hardship issue any more than I have so. Okay? And I would respectfully request approval. Sidney: Okay, any questions for the applicant? Feik: I have one quick. Could you live with a one stall, double deep, 1 ½ times deep. Maintain the 10 foot setback between yourself and the lot line to the, I guess that's west, in trying to stay away from the tree a little bit and get your shop in the back and still get your third stall. Steve Gunther: Yeah we looked at that. It's tough to tell from this photo but basically the lot, let me see ifI can find another one. The lot falls off at the back so I went 28 feet back from the, you know proposed a 28 foot garage. From that point 28 feet back, it just drops down a gully or down a hill so I couldn't extend the garage or I wouldn't want to extend the garage into that area. That'd add significant expense and is not what I'd like to do so I don't think for my point of view it would serve the purpose that I need to have 2 spaces and so. Feik: Alright, thank you. Sidney: Any other questions? Claybaugh: One. Would you happen to know when the neighbor's garage was built up Hickory Road? That looks like a newer structure compared to the rest. Steve Gunther: Well the neighborhood, my house started as a cabin in 1913 so. Claybaugh: Right. That's the one that struck me when I drove up the road. That's the only one that looked like it was like post 60's. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 Steve Gunther: Yeah. I'm not exactly sure when those were built but I could only hazard a guess so. Any other questions? Alright, thanks very much. Sidney: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come forward. Since I see no one, I'll close the public hearing. Commissioners, and I keep looking left. I'll look right this time. Lillehaug: I have some comments. It does increase the sight distance and it does create a safer intersection. That is, there's no doubt in my mind there. This does reduce non-conformance of that, of the garage. It significantly reduces it. The undue hardship, it can be very subjective as far as what's an undue hardship and I'm not totally sold on an undue hardship. I have a comment on the tree also. Depending on where you put that, where you put the garage, you could increase it from 2 to maybe 8 feet away from the tree. I don't think that would save the trees. It's an oak tree and they're very susceptible to any root damage and probably by putting that garage there, it's most likely that that oak tree is going to be damaged and it may likely die. So as far as moving the garage over any further beyond that 10 feet, I wouldn't support that. I do have concerns with your driveway. The garage to the west, the driveway is, it's warped and it's tough to blend in with the profile of the roadway in front of it. It's a pretty steep grade. It's doable but I'd encourage you to explore that you don't have a drainage issue and that water's running in your garage and make sure the grades are away from, and not into the garage. Other than that I generally support this because it does significantly reduce the non-conformance. Claybaugh: My comments fall along the same line. I agree that it reduces the non-conformity of what's, the existing structure that's there. It goes a long ways towards increasing visibility and thereby the public safety. Again, difficult to get our arms around the hardship issue and I'm interested in what my fellow commissioners have to say. Sacchet: Well you heard my spiel. Two things that I'd like to add to that. What I said before. When I talked with the applicant when I went out there and the applicant actually showed me where the garage would be and so forth, and you were talking about not needing a foundation dock all around, and it appears like it's possible to make this a slab on, I think that's what it called. Claybaugh: Slab on grade. Sacchet: So that you wouldn't have to dig down and damage the root system basically. Claybaugh: No that'd be, I'm sorry. I'll let the applicant speak to it. Sacchet: Well you're the builder. I am looking to you. Claybaugh: I don't see a section cut here for it but I'm anticipating doing slab on grade with maybe thicken perimeter footings. And depending on what elevation was established for the garage, up towards the oak tree it could go anywhere towards.., slab or be built on a sand pad and not necessarily encroach anything beyond the existing topsoil. Sacchet: So that is a viable approach? Claybaugh: It is. Again you'd want to consult the city forester and take a look at the elevation for that pad would have a bearing on that. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 Sacchet: Because in addition you have to be filled up a little bit so. Steve Gunther: Right, the lot actually slopes down so I would take dirt from the top and back fill it towards, on the oak side. Claybaugh: I mean it may be a condition if the forester came forth and said there's a chance to save the tree provided that the pad goes in at this elevation. Typically if you strip off the topsoil up towards the oak tree and built a pad up down where the slope falls away, where in reality it might work out that that pad needs to be at a higher elevation to accomplish that and try and preserve that oak. But that's a question for the forester. Sacchet: Did you want to add something to that? Steve Gunther: No, I thought you were going to ask me a question. That's why I stood up. Sacchet: I think he pretty much, but I'm correctly representing that you were actually thinking to have it slab on? Steve Gunther: Yeah, I'm a tree lover. I'm not looking to mow down the trees and ifI can save it, I'd like to save it so. I frankly am applying for the variance first before I can go into a lot of detail discussion with builders and getting bids and stuff because if I can't get a variance I'm wasting their time and mine so, but if it's just general conversation I've had with a couple concrete guys or builders who said, suggested that, you know slab approach. Sacchet: Thank you. Well, I know where I stand. I think this is reasonable and based on the reasonableness I think this can be, this can stand. I would like to, I mean I don't think it would be right to hold the applicant hostage to that oak because we established that he could cut it down. I mean there's nothing that prevents him from cutting it down, and I think the fact that he's willing to make an effort to preserve that tree is very commendable and I would be in favor of granting that 5 foot additional variance to move the garage away from the trees and if the garage is 2 feet from the trunk, that's pretty iffy whether the tree makes it. If it's 5 or 10, between 5 and 10 feet, it's considerably bigger and then I would additionally put a condition on it that it should be a slab on another foundation built on that site towards the tree. That probably something like applicant work with staff to make that happen. So that's where I stand with this. Feik: I cannot support it as drawn, or as presented. I could understand the hardship issue to some degree. The gentleman obviously did not build the house and the garage. He has a reasonable expectation that he can replace the existing one stall garage. It's in suspect, it's not the best garage. I'll agree with the applicant wholeheartedly. I could definitely agree with going with replacing the existing garage. Something basically an even replacement of the existing structure that's going to be more in conformance with the setback. I could go along with replacing the existing garage with additional space to the rear of the garage, building into the site line triangle. I could support replacing the existing garage with an additional slab to allow for boat storage and other things. I'm having a real hard time supporting going with a full two car garage here. I just don't see a hardship. Sidney: Okay. Now for... Slagle: Since I've now heard both of my neighbors. Countries, that's right. You know I'm going to have to side with Bruce on this, and the reason is, is that we just participated in a previous case where the non-conformity to take that garage forward on the front actually 14 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 improved it slightly. Less than a foot, from 4 feet to 5 feet. And we asked to table it. And here we're, because of an oak, and I love trees too. We are like almost ready to jump on, oh just give him a 5 foot setback on the side because we can protect the tree. And I think that the hardship is hard to prove and I do agree that the idea of building a similar situation, but obviously better in the conformance portion. Extending the depth, even if that includes bringing some fill in. And so forth. I think that's a fairer approach in this situation than just recommending approval... I think it's improving the site but I don't know where to balance the hardship and the improvement so right now I would be open to supporting some changes to this proposal, but I would not approve it as it is. Sacchet: Are you saying tabling? Slagle: Tabling if they choose, sure. I'd be open to a table. Sidney: That seems to be the way we're going. Slagle: And I want to make sure that my fellow commissioners understand that I'm open to tabling, and realizing that there are time lines to things but if an applicant really wants to work with the city, they will be open to tabling. And if they choose not to, they choose not to. Sidney: Okay. Yes please. Claybaugh: I'd like to address some of Rich's comments. Granted the petitioner that came before Mr. Gunther here had a non-conformance, as this is a non-conformance. They were adding, not detracting at all from the non-conformity. Everything was an additional non- conformance that they were proposing. This here the applicant is not adding to it. He's removing it. It's going backwards. It's mitigating the problem. It's not eliminating it but it is going a long ways towards mitigating that. That being said, I agree with Commissioner Slagle with respect to looking at a second variance for the tree for the 10 yard, or the 10 foot side yard setback. I would much rather see some compromise on the applicant's part with respect to the size of the overall garage. I think with respect to the tree, the piece that's missing would be some feedback from the city forester telling us what would be a probable distance that would have a success rate and kind of working backwards from that. Seeing what was left. Sacchet: IfI may add to that. From a forester's viewpoint the rule is you don't build in the drip line of the tree. Now if we do that we probably couldn't even build on the neighboring yard much because of the big tree. Lillehaug: One quick comment. Sidney: Sure. Lillehaug: I agree with fellow Commissioner Claybaugh, but I do want to make one more comment. If we decrease the 5 yard setback, that does not reduce the non-conformance and that's why I wouldn't support that because I do support maintaining the 10 foot side setback on that side but if we reduce it to 5 foot, then it doesn't reduce the non-conformance and I wouldn't support that. Sacchet: Well there are really several items here. I mean we're reducing the non-conformance from 2 sides but not from the third side, so yeah we are cutting into the amount of decrease of 15 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 non-conformance, that's for sure. I'm willing to do that for the tree because I love the tree but I understand your position. Lillehaug: Okay. Feik: Madam Chair, if I might respond in general. I understand where the other commissioners are coming from but that doesn't answer the question regarding hardship. And we have a standard that we've had to uphold in the past regarding what is and isn't a reasonable hardship and I certainly agree that the applicant should be able to replace his garage. And to allow, to reconstruct and further be in violation of the variance setbacks in the process of building something larger when there are alternatives, I don't see how we can support that. Go ahead, I'm sorry. Sidney: Okay. I guess it's my mm finally. Actually I was going to jump in earlier. A lot of good discussion here and I'd first like to address the concern about hardship and I believe there is hardship here because if we were looking at the applicant and if they were going to completely destroy the existing garage and rebuild, we're seeing the existing buildable area as a triangle which is minimal which is not going to be usable as a garage. So I believe there is hardship in terms of meeting all the setbacks. It also potentially with topography we're talking about for other options. The overall thing that I see as a concern with this application is that we do have a problem with the sight distance triangle on that comer, and I think staff would be advised to maybe put in more discussion about that. I don't know what that might be but to emphasize the public safety aspect of what we're trying to do here, or the applicant is trying to do. And indeed by changing the location on the lot of this garage, I think this doesn't sound too great, we are lessening the non-conformity, and I believe that's, not a compelling reason but close to compelling reason to look at this application and to consider granting it. I do have some feelings that we're trying to do too much engineering on the commission tonight, and I would feel like I'd like to see this come back again so I would be actually in favor of tabling it so that we could have staff's comments about, especially the side setback issue. If we want to approach it to that any further. And also if there are any drainage issues or, and I think just more of a discussion about the engineering of how the garage could be built and save that tree because I do think the tree is, and I love oaks. Sacchet: It's a beauty. Sidney: You know is an important aspect for this whole thing so we might as well try to do it right. I guess that's my comment. Any further comments? I think we exhausted them all. I'd like a motion please. Feik: Do you want to ask the applicant whether you're willing to have this tabled or would you like us to vote on it tonight? Steve Gunther: I'm not really sure of the process here so I'm not sure if it's majority rules or if there's a vote. I'm not anxious to table it frankly because, I mean I will do that if that's the way we go here but I'd prefer to just try to get to a decision in a sense and know where I stand. I'm not sure if we, ifI object to tabling, do I then take it to the City Council or something? That's the next step or what, but the way I see it, I mean the lot as I've got it today, working within the requirements of the city, it allows me to build nothing on this lot. It's totally useless to me. And so there's a real hardship in there from my point of view. Yeah I can, you know I could, ifI had my preference, you know I would like to just take an unsafe situation with this ugly shed built in whatever, 1902, sitting on the corner of an intersection, coming down a hill. You know in the 16 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 winter time people are sliding down that hill all the time because it's a steep hill. You know down Hickory Road here. I'm looking to improve the safety of the situation. I'm looking to improve the visual beauty of the neighborhood by taking down a pretty old, dilapidated shed and replace it with something attractive. So I mean from my point of view I'm making things better. I'm willing to work with you on the oak tree. I'm not really sure how to prove hardship other than show you the lot as drawn today, it just doesn't allow me to do anything with the lot. With existing lines. So I would be open to shrinking the depth of the garage so I reduce one variance in the back here, because I would prefer to leave it. It doesn't really matter, but the preference would to leave it 10 feet but I would work with you on that but I'm not sure how to prove hardship and that's where we're stuck on. So I would need some guidance from somebody as to what entails hardship. I mean maybe staff or whatever but, are there any comments you can make for me tonight so. Sidney: Yeah, I think what I said and maybe staffcan comment about that is, if you were to you know, remove the existing garage and then build a new garage, or structure, you don't really have a buildable area there, which is a hardship so in some respects you need to have some variances. How many would be in existence I can't. Steve Gunther: There's no doubt to me the hardship as I described it is, I can't build on the lot with the existing setback requirements. Claybaugh: I think where some of us are getting stuck, we're a long ways between it being a unbuildable site to a 24 by 28 garage pad. Then when you throw in the oak tree in there and that becomes a concern, then we're looking at focusing on trying to save the oak. So we're trying to fit in that 24 by 28 garage, save the oak tree and trying to minimize the non-conformity of it, and I think bottom line the reason that we're talking about trying to table it is that something in there needs to give. There needs to be some compromise in there somewhere. Steve Gunther: I understand. Where would we compromise? Claybaugh: Well like I said, starting from having a one car garage. I understand that you can't build anything of any substance on that lot the way it is without getting some degree of variance. At least from my perspective, I look at it in terms of degrees. It's a long ways from having something from a single stall to 24 by 28 foot pad. That's all I'm saying is, and that's why I'm looking for the compromise with respect, from my perspective, if we come up with something size wise that would on some level give some relief to the oak tree and give it, and I understand the forester, their first comment is going to be the drip line, but hopefully they've got a follow-up comment that's a little more substantive. Steve Gunther: I think the oak tree's going to die. IfI move it 5 feet further, from what I understand the folks... Claybaugh: And maybe that's the decision that gets it off the bubble tonight is you say that, you know if it's the oak tree or if it's this, then I stand behind taking the oak tree down because they feel it's going to die and this is... Steve Gunther: I mean I'm not a forester but I've got, from my perspective from the people I've talked to, it's an opinion. And it isn't until we break ground and wait a year or two that we know whether the oak tree's going to survive or not. Claybaugh: Right. 17 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 Steve Gunther: So I would say worst case, let's assume the oak tree dies. Then how would you approach it? Claybaugh: Well then we certainly will want to do the 5 foot yard setback. The tree's going to die. Steve Gunther: So I'd be willing to shrink the size of the garage, I mean to 24 by 24. Claybaugh: I think in some terms of granting the variance with that oak tree being there and being as substantial as it is, that some of the commissioners are looking for something in return. Now if we can grant the variance, would that be accurate on some level? That yeah, we're willing to look at this. We're willing to grant this. We realize that it's mitigating a public safety issue. It has merit. We've gone through all that. We're in agreement on most of that. It's just a function of assigning different weights to different aspects of it. And the public safety aspect weighs heavy. The oak tree weighs heavier with some rather than others, but it still comes down that it's a 24 by 28 pad. That's a big pad. I think in terms of reducing that pad size might get it to a vote. Steve Gunther: Yeah, I'd be willing to reduce the depth of the pad. Was that sufficient, instead of 24. I'd still keep it 24 feet wide but make it 24 feet deep rather than 28. I mean I lose part of my work bench area but that takes you know. Sidney: It sounds like we may be moving toward tabling this tonight. And I guess that would be my suggestion that we do that because we could vote on what's before us and potentially could be denied. Steve Gunther: Right, I understand but my next approach would be City Council either way so. Sidney: City Council, that's your option and I guess my suggestion would be to table it because like I said, I feel like we're doing a lot of engineering up here and maybe there's a solution with staff you can come up with that will satisfy us. Steve Gunther: I was looking for some guidance on what are you looking for? If you're looking for reducing depth, I can do that tonight. If you're looking for reducing width, I have to go back and reassess that. Sidney: I think what I heard and maybe just a few comments. I am concerned about that side yard setback. I don't like to encroach into that because it is a public safety issue in itself. You know not decrease those setbacks or vehicles or whatever might need to get back there. And then we talked about the oak tree as maybe being another consideration, which is weighed heavily. And then decreasing, actually decreasing the sight line, sight distance triangle problem.., put there first. So in my book that side setback and the oak consideration. Sacchet: Yeah, I really don't think we have all the information to make a clear decision tonight. And I totally agree with Commissioner Sidney that we're kind of fishing in areas where we're not expert. I think that needs to be a little more worked on in all these areas. Steve Gunther: Okay. Sidney: Any other comments? How about a motion? 18 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 Slagle: I'll make a motion. I'd move that the Planning Commission table the variance request for 2002-5, 13 foot setback from Hickory Lane as it reads on our page 5, and I would also ask that as a part of that tabling that we request a written opinion from the City Forester as to that oak tree. Sidney: Okay, is there? Claybaugh: Second it. Slagle moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission table Variance #2002-5, a 13 foot setback from Hickory Lane and a 13 foot setback from Red Cedar Road, and direct staffto obtain a written opinion from the City Forester regarding the oak tree. All voted in favor, except Lillehaug who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Sidney: It's 5-1 in favor of tabling. Lillehaug: And I'd like to make a comment as to why. Sidney: Yes please. Lillehaug: I support the current variance here and I would approve it as it lies. Sidney: Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 27~405 SQUARE FEET INTO TWO LOTS WITH VARIANCES~ ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY~ LOCATED AT 185 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD~ CARL MCNUTT. Public Present: Name Address Carl McNutt 185 Pleasant View Road Brian Grundhofer 195 Pleasant View Road A1 Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Boulevard Carrie Bickford 9184 West 126th Street, Savage. Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item. Sidney: Okay we're going to have staff questions first and then we'll get to the applicant. Okay, questions of staff. Slagle: I just have one. Sidney: Okay. Slagle: Has the applicant given you a reason Sharmin, as to why they have not provided you with that complete subdivision plans? I'll also ask the applicant but I'm curious as to your thoughts. 19 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 A1-Jaff: This application has been submitted in the past. This is the third time we're going to see this. We wanted some direction from the Planning Commission before we went into the engineering of the plans. Slagle: Have they provided any time before in history complete subdivision plan? A1-Jaff: Complete that included drainage, grading, no. Slagle: Okay. That's all. Feik: I can wait. Sidney: Go ahead. Sacchet: You just mentioned Sharmin, this was the third time this is being submitted. Is it pretty much identical? A1-Jaff: Yes. Sacchet: Pretty much identical, okay. A1-Jaff: Exactly identical. Sacchet: Exactly identical, okay. And then I wonder whether you can give us a little more an idea of how this right-of-way, you touch on the right-of-way issue in the staff report. I'm a little fuzzy about what exactly the status is of that right-of-way. I mean right-of-way's right-of-way. That's public property. A1-Jaff: It is public property. Sacchet: And part of it is being used by the roadway currently. A1-Jaff: Correct. Sacchet: And then there's a little more where we need it for snowplowing and all that. A1-Jaff: Correct. There is a gas main within that right-of-way. There is overhead electric poles. Lillehaug: Can I ask a question to help clarify this one? You indicated that per city records there is a property description for this parcel. A1-Jaff: Yes. Lillehaug: Does this clearly show, definitively where his north property line is? A1-Jaff: Absolutely and this legal description was provided by the applicant and it does not include the right-of-way. It is the 87 feet by 315 feet only. Sacchet: Then one last question quickly. If this were subdivided, the access to the newly created lot, where would that be accessed from? 20 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 A1-Jaff: Off of Pleasant View Road. Sacchet: It would be off of Pleasant View Road? A1-Jaff: Yes. Sacchet: Okay. Okay, that's my questions. Thank you. Claybaugh: No questions. Sidney: Okay. The applicant? Feik: Oh I have a question first. I thought you'd come back. Sidney: Okay. Feik: Speaking of the right-of-way briefly again, when was the right-of-way established by the city? A1-Jaff: I want to say sometime in 1950's. Late 1950's based upon some research that I did. Feik: Okay. You said part of the right-of-way is certain for the road bed and drainage. Part of the right-of-way is also for utilities? Is that correct? A1-Jaff: Correct. That's what's shown on the plan submitted by the applicant. Feik: Could the utilities be served adequately by an easement versus a right-of-way? A1-Jaff: Yes they could. Feik: Was this applicant to your knowledge owner when the right-of-way was taken? A1-Jaff: I'm not aware of that. I can't answer that question. I don't know. Feik: Okay. A1-Jaff: But even vacating a portion of the right-of-way will not fix that problem. Feik: I understand. Not totally. Okay, thank you. Sidney: I think the applicant would like to make a few comments. Carl McNutt: Yes, I'm Carl McNutt. Curly they call me. I got out of the Navy in '45. Moved to Chanhassen in '46. Bought the property on Pleasant View Road when it was still a township in 1952. At that time it was a gravel road. The township had to get another rod of road from us in order to blacktop it across there they said. I disagree with your assessment of the size of my lot because some of the literature you sent me, on page 2 it says. Under state statute it can be, if the city or county or whoever maintains a street for 6 years, plows it and takes care of it, the city owns it by adverse possession. I don't know what that means. Antagonistic possession. But they only own the traveled portion, plus the shoulders necessary to maintain it. After 6 years. The thing's been there since late 50's. As far as the gas lines and all that, we don't disturb them and 21 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 they can get to them all the time. All I do is mow over them. All I do is mow and rake lawns and that last half, my neighbors Brian can attest to the fact that I spend at least 3 hours every 4 days mowing that half and raking leaves in the fall. And it serves no use to me anymore. The kids, when my kids were young they used to play ball, and the neighbors kids on the back property. No use to me at all any more and it's not detrimental to the area. If this thing, if this legal thing means anything, then I have in Lot 1, I would have. Okay, the roadway, the blacktop takes up 25 feet. My half is 12 ½ feet. We'll make it 13 feet to make it even. My lawn is 52 feet and there's 5 feet of bank that I mow all the time for the city. In other words a 57 foot front yard rather than 27. If we were to use what the city is not using anymore, all they're entitled to is what they're using the road for to plow and stuff. They can pile snow on my yard, I don't care about that. But if, I would use that, what's really available there. Lot 1 would be 107 by 160 feet or 17,120 square feet and that's way over your minimum. The Lot 2, which is my house on, would be 16,585 square feet. The only variance that I can see I really need is about 107 from 125 is 18 feet. And I have the daughter and husband of my former neighbor want to build there. It would not be detrimental to the city of Chanhassen. It'd be in conformity of all the houses toward Highway 101. I'm 78 years old. I don't know how long I'm going to live there, but I want to stay there as long as I can but I can't afford to unless I sell the property. That's all I have to say. Sidney: Any questions for the applicant? Sacchet: Yeah, Mr. McNutt I do have a few questions for you if you may. This is third time you're bringing this application, identically apparently. What makes you think that this time it will go through. Carl McNutt: This is the first time I've seen that statute of this, from the state statute. That no longer belongs to you. That property no longer belongs to the city. It's only a 4 rod road. That's another thing that irked me. It's only a 4 rod road on that straight stretch. Around the comer, there's 2 rods and all the way around the lake is 2 rods. Why did they need a 4 rod road on that straight section just past me? Sacchet: Can you translate please? A1-Jaff: May I? Sidney: Yes. A1-Jaff: I need to make a clarification regarding the City Attorney's comments. And this was taken from 1998. 1989 when this application first appeared. What was in question at the time was, does the City own the right-of-way or don't they? And the City Attorney said if, his exact words were, it can be established in many ways. The City Council at the time asked the City Attorney how can right-of-way be established. His answer was, it can be established in many ways. One is by use. Under a state statute if the city or county or whoever maintains a street for 6 years, plows it and takes care of it, the city owns it by adverse possession. But they only own the traveled portion plus the shoulders necessary to maintain it. In this case there is a legal description submitted by the applicant that clearly indicates the right-of-way is owned by the city and I believe everyone on the commission maintains the boulevard that is owned by the city in front of their property. You mow it, but it's owned by the city. So I just wanted to make that clarification. Sacchet: So Mr. McNutt, if you may clarify. Are you trying to make a statement that you should have use of that right-of-way for the sake of your? 22 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 Carl McNutt: I've used it since 1959 probably. I've mowed the lawn. My lawn extends right out to that almost the edge of the blacktop, and all of this other property, I mow it all the time. The City has not touched it. Sacchet: And another question. You answered that question for me. Thank you. Another question. The neighbor's lot next to you, I guess that would be to the south. Carl McNutt: Pardon me? Sacchet: To the south. Is a similar shape. It's also one of those long, narrow things. Has there been any consideration that with combining, working together with the neighbor you have two narrow lots and between taking the space, the extra space of the... Carl McNutt: ...discussed this with him and he's turned it over to his daughter. He's the administrator. He's discussing it. If you won't okay this 107 foot depth, which I think I'm entitled to, then I will buy some from him. I think he'll be. Sacchet: So there is a possibility in that direction, okay. And then finally last question. When I drove by and looked at your land there, it seemed like it's a little bit of a dip. Is it actually, is there, is it wet there or how does that? Carl McNutt: It's wet on the far 20 feet on the eastern end. Sacchet: On the eastern end. Carl McNutt: But a little fill would take of it. Sacchet: Okay. It's not significant enough that it's an issue then? Carl McNutt: No. Sacchet: Okay, that answers my question. Thank you sir. Feik: No questions of the applicant. Sidney: Okay. Claybaugh: No questions. Sidney: Thank you very much. Okay, this is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, and I see Mr. Klingelhutz approaching the podium. Please state your name and address for the record please. A1 Klingelhutz: I'm A1 Klingelhutz. I live on 8600 Great Plains Boulevard in Chanhassen. It was just last week, I've known Curly for all the years he's been in Chanhassen. He was a strong supporter of me when I was mayor and the City Council, and I went down, he asked me to come down and look at his property to see what I thought about getting a variance for it. Looked at his house and his yard. Excellent shape. I think some of you probably were down there and looked at it. Looked at the neighboring houses. I drove around back in there. I looked at the plats and most of the plats in there, and where houses are setting on weren't much larger than what Curly is 23 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 asking for here. I know it's not a lot that you can build a 3 ½ million dollar mansion on it or 4 million, but a nice 30 foot rambler with 3 bedrooms I think would work very well on that lot. And it would be a good addition in the neighborhood.., for the city. You talk about a hardship. You saw Curly walk up here. I think he's in pretty near as bad a shape as I am. He walks rather slow and his wife is in bad shape. The day I was down there, Curly had taken her to the hospital because she had a long nose bleed that morning and when I was there, when I was there she was bleeding.., again. I didn't even get through talking to Curly and he had to run her back to the hospital because it was a pretty bad deal. I can understand why Curly is having a hard time taking care of that large piece of land. People, I'm just a year older than Curly and I hope to stay at my place for many years. I hope as long as I live. But there's a time, I'm kind of fortunate myself. I've got...and he said ifI can park my trailer in your shed, we'll keep your grass cut. ... orders I'm not even supposed to cut it but... I'd have to come in for a subdivision on my property too. Then you always, most of the lots in that area are virtually the same size as the lots he's planning to subdivide... I think Curly does have a point. If the City didn't buy the 66 feet there, if only it was a 2 rod in the first place, there's a statute that says that if he maintains that for a period of 6 years, that it actually reverts back to the property owner or the original owners. I'm not sure if that's the way the lot was laid out originally. He hasn't got too big.., maintaining the.., but I sure feel it would be proper to give him a variance. If it was any other neighborhood that had all 15,000 or 20,000 foot lots I'd say no way, but if the neighborhood in the area is almost identical to this lot, I can't see too much wrong with it. Thank you. Sidney: Thanks. Anyone else wishing to address the commission? Please come forward. State your name and address. Carrie Bickford: I'm Carrie Bickford. I live at 9184 West 126th Street in Savage. And I'm the one who wants to build on it. I grew up on 195 Pleasant View Road. Curly was my neighbor, and I guess I don't understand much of this. I just want to put a house there. I have noticed when I grew up there you know it was woods, everywhere was woods and I've noticed now that they have these houses with no back yards and no side yards, so I was, I'm not on TV am I? I would have done my hair. But I noticed that even the house I grew up in, all of a sudden our lot is smaller. I don't know, maybe I, well I probably got bigger but, so I was just, I guess the way I look at the lot it seems big enough compared to the people that live behind. You know like they have yards that are pretty small and I guess that's the thing now. People don't want to really maintain yards so they go for little ones. And I'm just babbling on because I really don't know what to say. I just am the one who wants to build there. We could take care of Curly and Marge, and I guess that's it. You know I have all my animals buried there, so... And I guess that's just it. Slagle: I have to ask you a couple questions. First, will you promise to come back every 2 weeks. And secondly, more seriously, would you be open, upon one of the commissioner's question as to the lot to the south, if that was to open up and be joined as a lot, would that be satisfactory to you to build on? Carrie Bickford: He's talking about Arnie and Dottie, right? Carl McNutt: It's still, it's big enough the way it is. It wouldn't make any difference really. Carrie Bickford: Yeah. I guess that's, I'm not smart enough for this. I guess that's up to Arnie and Dottie and Curly. I mean you're saying if we were to buy some of Arnie and Dottie's to make it longer? 24 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 Slagle: See what we're trying to do obviously is we're trying to come up with a compromise that allows a lot that we don't have to approve a lot of variances, if any, to build a lot. Where right now if we just go on Mr. McNutt's remaining part of his property, we have to grant variances to do that. And as you've just witnessed in the last hour, granting variances requires some understanding and agreement or compromise regarding ordinances. And it's tough because if we grant lots of variances, then people who we don't grant variances to always wonder why they didn't get it. So we're just wondering if there's a compromise. If there is indeed a desire to purchase part of that land or work together to sell that land, that might be a good idea. I don't know enough about it yet to say whether or not it's a good idea but it might be and so I'm just wondering. Yeah, you wouldn't need all of it either as Commissioner Feik says. Carrie Bickford: Well. Slagle: So I'm just wondering your opinion and that's more for us to discuss as to whether we grant the one in front of us. That's sort of a hypothetical but I'm just interested. I don't know, I'm fishing too. Carrie Bickford: I don't know because I know where his lot stops, and I'm not sure how Arnie and Dottie's works. Lillehaug: I think one of the underlying things here is it would cost more for you to obtain some of that additional property from the other property owners and would that be something that you would consider doing? Carrie Bickford: Well, I guess so. It all depends on money because I've been trying to move to Chanhassen for 7 years now. My whole family lives here. My mom's in Minnetonka. My sister's on Nez Perce and my other sister's in Excelsior, and we can't afford to get here. I mean it's insane and then Curly was like hummm. Maybe you could build a house there and you know he, I'm sure he'd be nice to us selling it to us but, so this was really our in. I got you know really excited. Otherwise you know it's $100,000 for a third of an acre and I don't have that money you know. I live in Savage in a little house so I guess it would all depend on price. IfAmie and Dottie would come up and say we want $50,000 for that little spot I'd be like, oh okay. I'm living in Savage then but otherwise I guess it's all, he's working on it with them I think. I don't know. Slagle: Do you guys ever rehearse this stuff? Carl McNutt: If he decides that he wants to make a jog with his land and sell it...I would pay for that extra land. Carrie wouldn't have to pay for it. Carrie Bickford: Well, that just makes it all different... You know for me I'm all for even more land you know. I'd love to buy it all but it's all money. I'm really trying not to look at the screen. What channel are we on? So I guess that's all I have to say. I don't know, I'd just like to move to Chan. Be by my family. By my dead animals. The woods. I'd like to stay by the woods but you guys have, not you guys, it's gone. The woods are gone where I used to play. Slagle: You know if you do move here you could apply for the Chanhassen Planning Commission. Carrie Bickford: I'd sit there and go I don't know. And I did have a question about that oak tree. That other guy. How old was that? Is that an old oak tree? Is that why it's? 25 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 Sacchet: Oh, it's over 100 years old. Sidney: What is the dimension on it? Sacchet: It's this big. Claybaugh: It's about a 36 inch trunk. A1 Klingelhutz: That's the hardship. Carrie Bickford: So that's the whole thing that is stopping his variance is this oak tree? Claybaugh: No, it's complicated. Sacchet: We can't stop it. We're trying to help it. Feik: It depends on which one of us you ask. Carrie Bickford: I mean I'm all for saving the oak tree but I understand woods, but I'm not here to talk about that so, I think that, any questions? Okay. Sidney: Thank you very much. Anyone else? We've got another person coming up to the podium. Please state your name and address please. Brian Grundhofer: My name's Brian Grundhofer. I live at 195 Pleasant View and Curly, he's obviously out there a lot working on his yard and I know it's quite a big spot and it's a lot of upkeep. I realize that. My concern with this subdivide is, is there's a considerable amount of big trees in the front of the property and I was just kind of curious if you have a plan that those would stay because there's about 6 trees probably in question that kind of line the boulevard there and that's kind of our screen from the road because Pleasant View's been, is very busy. Especially on that comer and people drive very quickly on that road, as you know. We've had the council of the area go there and kind of monitor people because they do speed excessively especially around that comer. So I guess that, and I do have an issue or feeling about drainage of that property because there is kind of a culvert in the back end of that property and my garage is also about 2 feet from the line that would be right in the comer of that. So that would be just my other concern I guess so if he has you know, plans for that, I'd like to at least see if the trees and other things would be, that would change the drainage of mine because my garage is on a low spot already and I have no concrete in my garage floor anymore because it's too much water. It's gone. It's literally gone and so, and I have a huge puddle in the front of my yard like every spring that just doesn't go away so there's no lawn that can really grow there because it's just so wet. I mean I could re-grade but then I'd cause problems for other people so it's just, I'm just kind of questioning these things I guess so that's all I have. Sidney: Thank you. Anyone else? Carrie Bickford: Well the trees were actually. Sidney: Would you like to come up to the podium please. You can be on television again. Carrie Bickford: The trees was an attraction to me and my husband because we built in Savage and we have 1 maple tree and 1 red maple. And we love the trees. I would love to be able to 26 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 work around that. I've actually thought about, ifI lived there how I'd put a line of pine trees in. You know, we're all in for that privacy thing so I would want to save the trees. As with the flooding and stuff, I mean I remember when I was a kid, I used to swim in it. I don't think it floods like that anymore because you don't swim in there, and but I don't think it floods like that anymore. I drove by it tonight after the rain today and I saw a duck in there and I went hummm. But he wasn't swimming. He was eating so, but yeah. As for the trees we would love them and we'd like to add more so. Sidney: Thank you. Anyone else? If not, I'll close the public hearing. We have plenty of information here. Plenty of information. I'll look this way instead for comments from the commissioners. Lillehaug: Comments. First thing I'd like to comment is on that property line. I think it's an established property line and the city does have documentation and if the city doesn't have it, the county probably would. To move forward with approving anything, I guess I would have to see that an increase to the rear yard depth. The codes say they want 25, or 125 feet. If we look at the current property line and the depth, we need a 38 foot rear yard variance. And that's pretty significant. I guess I'd would suggest the applicant contact the. Carl McNutt made a comment from the audience that was not picked up on tape. Lillehaug: I'm not going to say that but if you are contesting that property line, I think that would be something that would have to be legally contested. With what I have in front of me, and I did go out and look at it and I met with you and I know this is, this is really important to you but the way I view it, that that property line is a legal property line. If you can contest it and prove to the city that that property line is inaccurate, then I would reconsider my position on this variance. Claybaugh: Let's see, where to start. Again the rear yard setback I agree with my fellow commissioner that in addition to other things, that's the greatest struggle to get beyond here. Again I understand and I can empathize with your frustration with contesting the lot line, but what we have in front of us tonight is too weigh a deviation from 87 to 125 feet for me to be supportive of. And if there's any way to address that, either with the city or county or otherwise, try and get that information rectified if in fact you are correct, then that would put it in a much more favorable light. That's all. Sacchet: This question about the property, the right-of-way property. We're not the instance. We're not the body to deal with that. We're way out of our league with that. If there is a question about whether that part of that right-of-way should be the applicant's based on having maintained and all that, that's not an issue that we can deal with as the Planning Commission. I'm not quite sure who would be the right authority to deal with that, but I'm very sure it's not us. So we're stuck looking at this based on information as presented to us, which is based on a legal description of the property, and 38 feet variance out of 100 something is a huge variance. I mean we spent the early part of the evening squabbling over a couple of feet. Now here we're talking about almost 40 feet, which is a huge proportion difference. And unfortunately, if that is the framework. I say if that is the framework, because you question whether that's the framework and we have some statements from our one time mayor that indicate that indeed that would be a worthwhile thing to research, but if that is the case, getting 10 feet from the neighbor's lot is not going to solve the issue. What would solve the issue is if you take the whole slice of the neighbor's yard, because you have two narrow yards. You put the two narrow lots together and you get one that is big enough, so that could work. I want to be clear about that because I think, just thinking to get 10 feet is not solving the issue in this context right now. Then I have an issue 27 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 also, which is secondary. I mean the access. I don't know how ideal it is to have another access from Pleasant View, so there are some concerns. But I think on the basis of what's in front of us, as the Planning Commission, we can't support that much variance. Carl McNutt: Apparently that description means nothing. I mean I'm not a lawyer. I wish I was. I wouldn't have to be living in a 2 bedroom house, but I could, how much do you think my neighbor would charge me to buy his whole parallel lot there? I'll bet $50,000. Sacchet: It's possible. Carl McNutt: And he might go with a 10 or 15 foot jog in it, but not... Sacchet: I mean it's not up to us to comment to this but if they already have a narrow lot, why would they make it more narrow? I mean I'd be concerned about that. Carl McNutt: Well then we're back to the legal thing, whether I own that property or not and I guess I'll have to get a lawyer. Sacchet: I would encourage you to pursue that avenue. Carl McNutt: Okay. Sidney: Well, the other country? Slagle: No, no. Just a quick question. IfI can staff. Isn't the attorney's comments that are listed on page 3, was that recent? Aanenson: Yes. Sidney: 1989. Slagle: Or was that from '87? A1-Jaff: When the right-of-way was discussed. Slagle: At what point was that again? Sidney: 1989. A1-Jaff: '89. Slagle: Okay. Have we asked the attorney if he has a same opinion? Different opinion today than he did then? A1-Jaff: No. Slagle: Just curious. Okay. Lillehaug: Is that a specific statement to this specific property? A1-Jaff: Yes. 28 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 Lillehaug: Or is that just a general statement? A1-Jaff: Verbatim from minutes dealing with the right-of-way of this property. Lillehaug: But is he saying that is how, that this was obtained? A1-Jaff: No. Lillehaug: This is just an example of typically how it may be obtained? A1-Jaff: The question that was posed, how is right-of-way obtained. There was a question raised by Mr. McNutt saying that the city does not own this right-of-way, and that was the city attorney's opinion. Slagle: Okay. I guess my last thought is, I would certainly encourage the applicant to, and maybe there's not a need for an attorney. Maybe it's just going down to the county, who knows. And having a meeting with city manager, I don't know, but it just seems like that's such a crucial part of this that I would make a pretty good effort to define whether that is indeed your land or indeed the city's. And if it's the city's, then you know what possible options are. And if it's your's, then hopefully you'll be back here fairly soon with an application similar to what you have and we'll see what happens. That's I guess the way I would go. Feik: I have another question for Sharmin. Sharmin? Over here. Question for you. Not to beat a dead horse up but I'm trying to understand this right-of-way a little bit deeper. Is it your understanding that this right-of-way was taken by the city via adverse possession? Is that your understanding? A1-Jaff: No. Looking at a legal description. Feik: I understand the legal description. I'm understanding how we got to the legal description. A1-Jaff: It's never been determined. Feik: I think quite frankly that that needs to be determined. If it was taken by adverse possession, it is, there's very, very specific case law in the State of Minnesota regarding what you can take and what you can't take. A1-Jaff: Correct. Feik: And my advice to the applicant would be similar to the rest of staff, and my advice to staff as well is to research that. If the applicant did indeed own this parcel prior to that road being improved, prior to the right-of-way taken, then that survey that was provided to the county for filing was coming from the city. And my concern is that the city did indeed provide the proper information that was relevant for the filing and that we didn't take too much, because if we took too much and this is inconsistent with the rest of the properties up and down the street, or we took it in anticipation of this being a wider road which it's not going to be, or we took it in anticipation of something else, and there's also statute regarding, we need to give it back. A1-Jaff: Assuming that, let's assume that a portion of the right-of-way does go back to Mr. McNutt, there is still a depth variance. 29 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 Feik: Understand that but that's a different issue. Then we can address whether or not we want to address a different pad size and whether that's adequate based upon the young lady who wants to build a house, and that she is comfortable with that and that we can reasonably determine that that is a livable standard house. Claybaugh: Yeah, it may go a long ways towards mitigating the degree of the variance. Sidney: Other questions? Feik: No that's it, thank you. Sidney: Okay. Sacchet: IfI may ask one more question. Do we know how wide the next door lot is? The lot to the south? Because looking at the plat it seems to be slightly wider than Mr. McNutt's. Now we know Mr. McNutt's according to the description is 87, but since they're the same length, it'd be an interesting reference point to have. A1-Jaff: You're referring to the property to the south? Sacchet: To the south, yes. Which has the same east/west stretch. A1-Jaff: I will need to. Sacchet: Okay. Understand. This wasn't part of. Feik: Uli, I'm going to guess that's 33 feet wider. The distance of the taking. Sacchet: Well looking at the plat it doesn't seem to be that much wider. It seems just slightly wider. A1-Jaff: I believe it's 100 feet. Sacchet: It's 100 feet? A1-Jaff: Yes. Sacchet: That would be about proportionate with how it's written, yeah. A1-Jaff: It is 100 feet. Sacchet: 100. So it's 13, okay. Okay, thank you. Sidney: Okay, any more comments? I guess I'll throw in my two cents here. I would just love to grant this, the variances for these two lots. However I guess I still, you know I'm really concerned that, like in the staff report on what has been explained on previous discussions about this applications, that we're creating a non-conforming lot. And somehow if we can get closer to, well I want to just say a few feet variance on some of these setbacks, I would feel a lot better. The 38 foot yard, rear yard setback for the rear yard I think is excessive and somehow that has to be worked out. And I guess where I'm leading is that I would like to take a vote on this tonight, 30 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 although it seems like we've been tabling everything so far, and move it forward. I think one thing that would strengthen the application, this is directed to Curly, the applicant, that it would be important to understand ifa smaller variance were granted, let's say for the rear yard setback, that that might help save some trees. Might mitigate some of the drainage problems. We're looking for something that would improve the overall lot appearance. Something. Carrie Bickford: Well that would be me. Sacchet: Of course. Sidney: So discussion about those aspects and access for the second lot, how that would be addressed might be helpful as well, so a bit more information would be useful. But at this point I guess I would not be in favor of granting variances based on the fact that we're deficient in all the dimensions except lot width. So anyway I'd like a motion please. Feik: Madam Chair, prior to making a motion I'd like to, I know we've tabled two others tonight, but my concern is that we treat the applicant fairly and that we do what's in the best interest...to unfortunately table it and do more research on exactly how that right-of-way was established and was it established properly. Sacchet: And if I may add, look into whether the claim of ownership of part of that right-of-way based on having maintained it. Whether that actually is something that stands. Feik: Well, and as well as compensation. If it was taken without compensation, that is another issue that the applicant needs to address. Sidney: And at this point we should ask the applicant, would you be willing to have some more time if we would table this to investigate those points? Carl McNutt: ...table it until I find out ifI own the property or not? I have a question though. Slagle: Curly, hold on one sec. Just point of clarification though Madam Chair. The request of whether or not an applicant would be in favor of tabling or not tabling is more of a courtesy. We can choose to table it whether they agree or not. Sidney: Yes. Slagle: Okay, I want to make sure. Carl McNutt: All I want to say is if the county or whoever decides that I do own that property, could I get the 12 ½ foot, could I get the 18 foot variance as is or would I still have to buy some property from the neighbor? Sacchet: We don't know yet. Feik: We'd need to address that at that time. Sidney: Yeah, that's a point where it would go back to staff for more discussion. Yep. Okay, motion please. 31 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 Feik: I'll make a motion. I will make a motion that the Planning Commission table Variance #2002... A1 Klingelhutz: I'd like to say a few words here. Sidney: It's closed, I'm sorry. A1 Klingelhutz: ... sitting up there and here.., too young to remember even when the township was. Sidney: Mr. Klingelhutz. A1 Klingelhutz: When that land down there was part of Chanhassen township, all the township roads at one time were 2 rods wide. 16 ½ feet on each side of the road. And if this wasn't changed until 1989, I can't quite understand if Curly ever got any compensation for.., land that they took on his side, I would say he should still be owning it. Because it actually was a taking and if you take a piece of land away from somebody, you should have to pay for it. Sidney: I think that's where we're at in trying to understand that so we're right in the middle of a motion and we'll, let's see if we can't finish that. A1 Klingelhutz: Well I...I know there were some roads in the county that...were only 16 ½ feet wide. But they were... 101 from Chanhassen down to below the hill for 2 horses and a trailer. Sidney: Thank you. Okay. Feik: I will begin again. Madam Chair, I move that we table Variance Request #2002-6 for lot area and depth variance as shown in the attachment. Sidney: Okay. Claybaugh: I second it. Sacchet: I know if it's a tabling we can't really make a friendly amendments but I would want to be real clear of the intent. Sidney: Direction for staff? Sacchet: Direction for staff, because we can't really get, yeah if you want to. Yeah, why don't you give that a shot please. Feik: I would direct staff to research the taking of the right-of-way and be able to provide both City Council and Planning Commission the method, the time, the nature of compensation. Aanenson: I don't want to belabor this point but in 1989 it came to light that the city has possession of that property. We don't know if we can find that information out, and I don't believe it's our obligation. Feik: I understand we own it based upon the survey. Aanenson: Right. What we're going to. 32 Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002 Feik: I'm wondering whether or not we took it legally. Aanenson: I don't know if we can find that information out. Feik: I think that's up to us to try though. Aanenson: We tried in the past. What we're going to back up is ask the city attorneys if it's our property. If it's our property then I'll have to ask him who's burden of proof it is. Feik: That's fine. You understand... Sacchet: That's fine. Aanenson: That's what I want to make clear on that. Feik: Okay. Feik moved, Claybaugh seconded to table Variance Request/12002-6 for lot area and depth variances. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. Sidney: That concludes the public hearings for tonight, my goodness. Sacchet: That took a while. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Uli Sacchet noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated May 21, 2002 as presented. Acting Chair Sidney adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 33