PC 2009 01 06
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 6, 2009
Chairman Papke called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Kurt Papke, Debbie Larson, Mark Undestad, and Denny
Laufenburger
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Kevin Dillon, Dan Keefe, and Kathleen Thomas
STAFF PRESENT:
Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior
Planner; Paul Oehme, City Engineer/Public Works Director; Alyson Fauske, Assistant City
Engineer; and Terry Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator
PUBLIC HEARING:
PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY: REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW WITH
VARIANCES AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN 82,500 SQUARE FOOT
PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING ON PROPERTY ZONED INDUSTRIAL OFFICE PARK
(IOP) LOCATED ON LOTS 5 & 6, BLOCK 1, CHANHASSEN LAKES BUSINESS
TH
PARK 5 ADDITION (7901 PARK PLACE). APPLICANT/OWNER: CITY OF
CHANHASSEN, PLANNING CASE 08-25.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Papke: Alright, Debbie.
Larson: The only question I have, and I think it’s probably self explanatory based on what
you’ve told me but on the landscaping on page 7, we’re showing that there’s a required 70 trees.
We’re proposing to put up 22. Is that because there’s a lot of natural stuff already up there? A
lot of trees that we’re just not touching.
Generous: Correct.
Larson: So we don’t need to do that.
Aanenson: Yeah, I think it was hard to tell from the picture. The original one that we showed,
maybe you can go to that one first. The first picture shows the entire site. The two parcels that
were included in the site. The project itself is sitting to the interior so those are all the trees that
we’re preserving, and that kind of goes into that first why we looked at the variances. Trying to
preserve those trees and create that buffer on Audubon itself, so that’s part of that tree
preservation there and those trees are counted towards that, so not all of that’s being disturbed.
Larson: Okay. That’s all I have.
Generous: Or very little.
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
Aanenson: Very little of it, correct. Yeah, provides that, so when you’re driving down Audubon
you don’t see that. Whereas now when you go by the public works building, some of that is very
visible. That was one of the goals that we tried to accomplish too. And then when we get a
chance the architect, there’s a lot of interesting energy applications that are being used in this
building and site design that the architect’s here to talk a little bit about too and I think that plays
into some of the features that we were looking at too. The lighting. The roof tops. Some of
those things so when we get to that portion I’ll let him speak a little bit more about the
uniqueness of the building.
Laufenburger: Good job Bob and staff. Just a couple questions. This is a new facility. Is this
providing the consolidation of public works facilities in various stages around the city or, can
somebody speak to that?
Aanenson: Yeah, maybe let the City Engineer address that question.
Oehme: Thank you Chair, commission members. Yeah, that does, the new facility does
consolidate a lot of equipment into this one facility. That’s one of our problems we have right
now is we have material and equipment spread all throughout the city and parks. We have a
bunch of materials, our equipment stored in water towers and other areas around town. It’s just
hard to properly maintain and keep track of a lot of that. A lot of those equipment…so that’s
what a lot of cities have been going to is trying to consolidate. Try to keep a lot of this
equipment under one roof so it’s really more accessible and usable.
Laufenburger: And will this facility be the only public works facility for the city of Chanhassen?
Oehme: Yes. It will be the only facility. So our existing facility that we’re currently using.
Laufenburger: Right.
Oehme: Actually we’re working that facility right now.
Laufenburger: Okay, so that will be vacated and this will occupy.
Oehme: Yep. We’re definitely going to try to sell that.
Laufenburger: And I don’t recall seeing this. What are your plans for when, assuming all the
approvals are received, when do you anticipate occupancy of this?
Oehme: Well we’re anticipating the first half of 2010. January-February timeframe.
Laufenburger: So about a year.
Oehme: Year plus.
2
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
Laufenburger: Thank you. And then one other question. I think you asked it regarding the
meandering creek. Is that Riley Creek that is to the east?
Generous: Yes.
Laufenburger: Is that correct? Do you have any evidence that that meandering will change in
high water times or anything?
Jeffery: If I may Chair Papke, Commissioner Laufenburger. The creek itself, I mean you’ve got
to remember, this area where the public works facility is being proposed has been used as what’s
called the bone yard for city staff and it was used prior to any of our shoreland rules going into
effect so, so the long way getting to answer your question, there has been considerable
degradation along the top bank area within the channel itself.
Laufenburger: That would be just to the west of the channel of Riley Creek, right?
Jeffery: Correct. Resulting in conditions that are prone to erosion throughout there, so I think as
part of the restoration within that area, part of the mitigation, the stabilization outlet channel will
be a priority concern within there. Any natural channel will change it’s course over time and
there’s nothing we can do to stop that entirely, but areas where you know the actions that we’ve
got or water that’s being discharged where it’s creating what I’ll say hazardous conditions, for
lack of a better word, we can act to mitigate those to minimize the chances of that channel
changing course.
Laufenburger: Okay.
Jeffery: And I also think it’s important to note, a lot of the storm water features that are being
put on the site will actually improve the hydraulics of that area and lessen the opportunity for
erosion within that channel. Everything from the establishment of the vegetation along that
shoreline, where now in many cases vegetation is absent to the treatment and detention of storm
water behind the building taking the roof runoff behind the building. Bringing it to the wetland
and then taking everything from the drive on the south side of the building and bringing it to
what will amount to an engineered wetland. You’re actually putting it into the wetland and then
the parking area will actually be diverted to a pond that was constructed when this entire
development went in in ’85-86 to the east. So that should actually help mitigate any problems
within that channel.
Laufenburger: That’s the pond that you’re referring to right there.
Jeffery: Yes, thank you.
Laufenburger: Thank you. That answered my question.
Undestad: Just one quick one too. On, can you bring that slide up that had the shaded areas of
where the impacts are. Yeah. The question on there was just going around that tree with the
driveway, we’re not, the shaded areas is inside of the setback buffer area, is that right? It’s not
3
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
that. So the shaded area’s actually within the setback buffer area, not the actual wetland in
there?
Aanenson: That’s correct.
Undestad: Okay.
Papke: Okay, just a couple here. The oak tree that we’re going to great lengths to save. Quite
often in the construction set like this, despite our best efforts, sometimes these things don’t work.
The City Forester, what’s the assessment of the probability of that oak tree actually surviving?
Generous: She was very positive. They’re doing everything that we require for people to
mitigate and protect it. Before they go forward they’re putting up the tree protection fencing.
They’re using a retaining wall so they don’t change the elevation at the drip line so her prognosis
is good as long as it’s followed through.
Papke: I’d hate to go through all that effort and then end up with a big pile of firewood. Will
there be salt storage facility? One of the things that kind of strikes me is if we’re storing salt
here with the possibility of runoff from a pile of salt and then we’re also, you know encroaching
into the Riley Creek watershed. I’m having kind of difficulty coming to grips with those two.
They seem to be kind of fighting each other. Can you speak to that at all? You mentioned we’re
going to extra efforts to mitigate any storm water runoff. Have we taken the salt, I assume we’ve
taken the salt storage into account but I’d just like to make sure we vocalize that.
Jeffery: Yeah, Chairman Papke, yes we have. In fact it was a large discussion that we had at
that point to make sure that wasn’t going to produce runoff into the creek itself. First of all the
salt container, and Mr. Oehme correct me if I’m wrong but the salt containment area itself will
be of solid construction, which in itself will reduce the leeching out of that area. And then
drainage within the parking area will actually be connected to the storm sewer system which
divert the water to the pond and away from the creek so it should not pose a hazard to the, to
Riley Creek itself. Or the wetland to the south.
Aanenson: Just to be clear, there is a current structure on the existing public works building,
enclosure, that you can see and that same structure will be moved but again measures will be
taken. Actually we did have a discussion about where the best location was. It has been moved
to accommodate that concern so it was moved a couple places to find the best spot to mitigate
that. The staff had the same concern internally.
Papke: Okay. Applicant presentation. Hear from the architect or.
Jeff Oertel: Good evening Mr. Chair, commission members. For the record my name is Jeff
Oertel and I reside and work out of St. Paul. It’s a pleasure to be here tonight. A few comments
first of all to add onto the salt storage. The orientation of that storage building is pretty much
ideal in relative terms with these buildings you basically have an open end almost all the time
and then you have three enclosed sides and the structure is oriented, if I recall, south, southeast
and it avoids a lot of the winter, you know those strong winter winds and that sort of thing. And
4
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
we will do what we can to I think even out, level or even dip the inside of this structure so that
any watery, salt, whatever is contained in that and not run off. I don’t know if we have, or if we
can throw a few pictures up on the wall. Just to orient you a little bit more within the building.
Alright I’ll start on the outside of the building. This, I apologize. This shot’s pretty hard to see.
There’s a lot of detail. One thing that wasn’t mentioned is that even though this facility’s for all
of public works operations, there is a community component to this that the entry that you see in
the illustration there is also the public entry. The main public entry and it’s anticipated that this
building will be used for voting purposes, and internally the facility was designed for the
stacking of people to come in. Move through what is the multi-purpose lunch room, training
room and that’s the room with the little set of it looks like about 16 tables and chairs. So even
though that will be where the public works staff get training. Have their meals and breaks, that
area will be used for the public perhaps for more than just voting purposes, but certainly for that
in particular, and we do have a waiting area. A fairly large waiting area just off the main entry
for that purpose as well. Otherwise, within the building I know your main focus is on the
exterior but within the building we have offices which would be at the bottom of the sheet that
we’re looking at, which looked to the west. And then internally within that office sector of the
building, we have the typical restrooms and locker rooms and support areas of the building.
Now that whole corner which will be the most visible part of the building has the more
expensive material. It has the brick and it has quite a lot of glass for viewing. But within the rest
of the building what we’re doing with day lighting is trying to get day lighting from up above
and you can see off to the right in this shot, where the vehicle maintenance area is, there’s a clear
story unit and we’ve actually, in our facilities, designed quite a few buildings like this where
there’s a clear story right at the roof edge and daylight just seems to love to follow that ceiling
pattern, and it works very well for bringing in daylight. And we’re also adding quite a bit of
clear story glass at the office area to bring in daylight within that area. And partly because we’re
trying to walk a fine line between the budget that the city has and not exceeding that budget,
we’ve come up with an idea to bring in daylight within that big vehicle area. That big bay that
you saw on the plans. And since it’s counter productive to put in a lot of glass at the knee level
or at the viewing level, because that’s where all the vehicles are stored and equipment put up
against the wall. We’re adding the glass units up high to bring in the daylight up high at a more
modest cost. Otherwise as mentioned earlier, we have quite a few devices within the building
and systems to try to conserve energy. These buildings do use a lot of energy because the
exhaust gases have to be removed from the building, both for health reasons, for code reasons,
and so we’re adding quite a bit of mechanical, special mechanical systems to try to lower energy.
We’re looking into geothermal heat which I believe will be considered as an alternate for the
council to consider, depending on how the price comes in. And we’re looking at quite a few
lighting devices and sensors to avoid lights being turned on and staying on all day and so there
are quite a few systems within the building to help keep the energy costs down. Just a few last
notes. On the exterior we’re going with a fairly, what would be an inexpensive pre-cast wall
panel. I’m sure the commissioners are familiar with that, but rather than going with the typical
no-brainer panel, we are trying to break up the skin of it with some horizontal pieces randomly
placed to try to break up the wall, because it is a sizable wall. Fortunate in our favor, as a part of
the planning, the big, long, what did we say it was 300 some foot wall, long wall will be facing
the woods and almost not visible to the public whatsoever. That was a brief visit through it and
if you have any questions I’d be happy to answer.
5
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
Larson: I was just wondering, can you show us where, it’s hard to see within these pictures
where this building is going to be for the salt.
Jeff Oertel: Sure. It’s on the.
Larson: It looks like it’s removed or over somewhere else.
Generous: On the north side.
Jeff Oertel: It’s dashed in. There’s the salt.
Oehme: By the northeast corner.
Jeff Oertel: And it’s not the prettiest of structures of course. It’s got a kind of a hoop top to it
and a concrete base and the open end is facing oh, it’s facing southeast but there you go. Thank
you. And so one of the dilemmas that we have, my firm has designed I don’t know, 20 or 25 of
these buildings but the dilemma is that we as the community need salt on the roads and the
municipalities need to buy it in bulk. And even right now, I don’t know if Paul’s had this
experience but some operations are being cut off and if they haven’t pre-ordered a fairly large
quantity over that tough period at the end of the year, some communities are running out of salt
and had to just pick up small batches so the salt buildings tend to want to be big because of the
need to buy in bulk and it’s just that unfortunate, tough component. It’s never the prettiest of
structures.
Larson: I don’t care if it’s pretty or not.
Jeff Oertel: I do.
Laufenburger: If there’s anybody concerned about pretty…
Larson: Touché. That’s all.
Papke: Thank you very much. Any other presentation from the City? Any other issues? Okay.
With that I’ll open the public hearing. If anybody from the public would like to get up and make
any comments on this matter before us, please step up to the podium and let us know what you
think. No movement. With that, I close the public hearing and bring it back to the
commissioners for discussion and debate and Mark we’ll start with you then.
Undestad: I didn’t really have any issues, no. I mean the size of the site and the coverage
they’re on there, we know we don’t have a hard surface coverage problem there. And the way
things lay out here, you’re going around all the, saving all the trees and things. I think it was
well thought out. It looks nice.
Laufenburger: I concur. I, just visually I like the building. It’s kind of hidden. People who
want to see what good architecture is in place in Chanhassen. We might have to put up green
signs that says you know public works facility here. No, I think it’s, I like it.
6
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
Larson: Yeah, I like it too. No issues.
Papke: Okay. I had some issues coming into the meeting. You know I’m always nervous when
the city asks for variances and then doesn’t necessarily grant them to the public but I think we’ve
shown good justification for this one and I think all the concerns I had have been… So with that
I’ll entertain a motion.
Laufenburger: Mr. Chair. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City
Council approve the Site Plan for Planning Case #08-25 for an 82,500 square foot, one story
office/warehouse building with a mezzanine storage area with a Conditional Use Permit for
outdoor storage and setback variances from the creek and wetland for the parking lot area, plans
prepared by Oertel Architects and the City of Chanhassen dated December 5, 2008, subject to the
conditions of the staff report and findings.
Papke: Is there a second?
Larson: I’ll second that.
Laufenburger moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends the
City Council approve the Site Plan for Planning Case #08-25 for an 82,500 square foot, one
story office/warehouse building with a mezzanine storage area with a Conditional Use
Permit for outdoor storage and setback variances from the creek and wetland for the
parking lot area, plans prepared by Oertel Architects and the City of Chanhassen dated
December 5, 2008, subject to the following conditions:
1.The developer shall provide exterior benches and/or tables.
2.Signage shall require a separate sign permit review to determine compliance with City
ordinance.
3.The applicant shall mitigate for the lost functions and values of any buffer variance by replacing
an equivalent area of buffer in a location which will provide the maximum water quality benefit.
Preliminary review indicates that area to be northeast of the wetland.
4.The applicant shall restore the stream channel as well as the top of bank and flood plain for
Riley Creek including the removal of any construction and other debris in the area.
5.The applicant shall prepare a vegetation management plan for Riley Creek. This
management plan shall be created in conjunction with the landscaping plan and the
Environmental Resources Specialist and Water Resources Coordinator should be consulted in
the creation of this plan.
6.The applicant will modify the existing NPDES permit to identify the construction manager
for the project.
7
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
7.The applicant will provide adequate treatment for drainage directed to the wetland.
8.The applicant should look for ways to promote infiltration and incorporate alternative
stormwater management best management practices into the site design and build. One such
measure is the construction of a bio-infiltration feature at the outlet from the drive aisle
northeast of the wetland. Other features to investigate include pervious pavement systems,
cisterns, biofiltration trenches, preservation or re-establishment of vegetation, etc.
9.The final 200 feet of the swale located west of the proposed facility needs to be protected
with Category 2, Wood Fiber 1S Erosion Control Blanket.
10.Those areas to be planted in BWSR seed mix U7 should be seeded at a rate of 15LBS
PLS/acre where PLS means “Pure Live Seed”.
11.The buildings are required to have automatic fire extinguishing systems.
12.Building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the State of
Minnesota.
13.Retaining walls over four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a permit
must be obtained prior to construction.
14.The 51-inch and 45-inch oaks located near the northwest and southeast corners of the
building shall be protected by fencing throughout construction.
15.The site plan must show the dimensions of the lots.
16.The northern access must be revised so that the maximum width does not exceed 36 feet.
17.An encroachment agreement is required for the portion of the parking area that lies within the
public right-of-way.
18.If feasible, the runoff from the cold storage area access should be conveyed to the existing
storm sewer.
19.Revised drainage calculations and storm sewer sizing must be submitted to ensure that the
existing downstream infrastructure can accommodate the proposed runoff.
20.An encroachment agreement is required to construct the northern retaining wall within the
drainage and utility easement.
21.The proposed top and bottom of wall elevations must be shown.
22.The drainage and utility easement over the abandoned portion of the sanitary sewer must be
vacated.
8
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
23.The existing drainage and utility easements and abandoned utilities must be labeled on the
plan sheet.
24.The utility plan must include a note regarding the connection to the existing storm sewer.”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
Laufenburger moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission recommends that
the City Council approves a conditional use permit for outdoor storage, subject to the
following condition:
1.The proposed development must comply with the approved site plan, plans prepared by
Oertel Architects and the City of Chanhassen, dated 12/05/08.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
BECK VARIANCE: REQUEST FOR VARIANCES FROM THE BLUFF SETBACK,
SIZE LIMITATION OF A WATER ORIENTED STRUCTURE, AND SIZE
LIMITATION FOR DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE(S) FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SHED AND DECK ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL (RSF), LOCATED AT 6250 RIDGE ROAD. APPLICANT/OWNER:
CHRISTOPHE AND NADINE BECK, PLANNING CASE 08-23.
Public Present:
Name Address
Nadine Beck 6250 Ridge Road
Jens Midthun 6225 Ridge Road
Tara and Deana Wetzel 6260 Ridge Road
Angie Auseth presented the staff report on this item.
Papke: Mark, we’ll start with you.
Undestad: I just have one. You say when somebody went out there in October and issued the
stop work and they elected to finish the deck and things that were out there now and apply for
the variance?
Auseth: The deck and the shed are as is when we went out there.
Laufenburger: Thank you staff. Could you just go into a little further explanation about the 30%
coverage removal and why, if they chose to remove a tree, that would be in violation. Can you
just explain that a little bit more for me please.
9
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
Auseth: I’ll defer that over to Terry Jeffery.
Laufenburger: Okay. You understand my question?
Jeffery: Yeah. As Ms. Auseth pointed out earlier, yeah actually that slide that you have is
probably more… At some point, and in all likelihood prior to the Beck’s assuming ownership of
this property, this area that you see on the slide was cleared. Which is already over the 30%
allowed by code.
Laufenburger: So more is cleared than is allowed by code?
Jeffery: Correct.
Laufenburger: Okay.
Jeffery: So really what you’d be doing is extending, you’d be further increasing that which is
already in violation.
Laufenburger: Which is already over 30% which is allowed. Okay. So the presence of the tree
actually is a good thing?
Jeffery: Yes.
Laufenburger: It provides vegetation and cover.
Jeffery: Very much so, and as Ms. Auseth pointed out, and Ms. Beck had mentioned to me in
the past, it was her desire to save that tree.
Laufenburger: Okay. As far as you know, is that still her desire?
Jeffery: To the best of my knowledge, yes. That was the conversation that she had today.
Laufenburger: That was my only question. Thanks.
Larson: I’ve got a question in regard to, if you could go back a couple slides. This one, okay.
Where this encroachment is on the neighbor’s yard. Is this an existing building already? Or is
this.
Auseth: A different neighbor had called about this structure being built outlined in red.
Larson: Right.
Auseth: So when they called it was over the property line.
Larson: But it’s not currently there now? It is there?
10
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
Auseth: It is until after this meeting and then.
Larson: Okay. So what you guys are proposing, or they are proposing is to move that structure
over to where it’s you know. Okay, so where the slash marks are is where it is now and the
proposed is to move it.
Auseth: Correct.
Larson: Okay. That was really my only question.
Papke: Thank you. I just have one question, and it’s probably for Mr. Jeffery. Could you just
refresh all of our memories why it’s so important to stay away from the toe of the bluff. What is
the justification for that? The lake frontage is there. Everybody knows you’ve got to stay away
from the lake but why is it so important to stay away from the bottom of the bluff?
Jeffery: Chairman Papke, we actually a discussion of this in-house and, choose my words
carefully. Under the, if you want to call it the sonar rules, Department of Natural Resources
Shoreland Rules. They are the ones that set the bluff setbacks from the side, top and toe of slope.
And it is just set to be 30 feet either way. The justification with the toe of slope, as best I can
figure is to prevent that person who is doing activities at the toe of slope from undermining that
slope, thereby creating an unstable toe of that slope.
Papke: So would that be exacerbated by the loss of vegetation at the bottom of the slope there as
well or is that compounding the situation?
Jeffery: That would be a fair assumption, yes. That would compound the situation, because you
lose that which is creating the stability of that slope area. You know in fairness it, 30 feet could
be seen as being a little more than is necessary but at the same time that is what the state rules
are. That’s what the state guidelines are and our shoreland ordinances are approved by the
state…
Papke: Very good. Thank you. Okay. We have no more questions from staff. Do we have an
applicant? Step up to the podium and state your name and address for the record.
Nadine Beck: Good evening. My name is Nadine Beck. I’m coming from Switzerland. Raised
and born in Switzerland. We bought the house at Ridge Road, 6250 in April, 2007. When we
came for a visit for one week from Switzerland to find our new home, our new life here in
Chanhassen. By the time then we didn’t know what a wonderful property we were about to
acquire. We are all very sports orientated. We love water skiing. We love swimming and we
love the life on the lake. When we bought the house it was in a very good shape. Only the lake
area was in kind of a desperate situation, exactly there where we now build that shed and deck.
There were lots of waste like an old deck. An old door. Glass bottles. Just lots of waste. Piles
of waste. Nobody seemed to mind. Nobody complained that. As I wanted to have the property
in a nice, as I wanted the property to be nice and tidy as the properties left and right and all
around Christmas Lake. I started to clear the area and what was left was kind of a waste area.
There were no plants. There were no trees. Well no, there were big trees but no vegetation
11
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
whatsoever so I waited and just wanted to see what would happen to the open space and all that
grew were like weeds and blackberries and just, we couldn’t use the area anymore. So I started
to pull and I started to take away these plants. Trying to sow grass. Unfortunately I was very
unlucky with the project. So we looked around the lake and we saw a lot of different
possibilities. What other owners did to their lakeshore property and we did talk to a landscaper
what he would suggest to do. Unfortunately he didn’t come up with a like reasonable solution
and so we thought best idea would be a deck and a shed so we could at least walk on the
property, or on a part of the property and make use of it. Well, it is a funny situation to be here
to saying not knowing is an excuse. It is not. We assumed that a removable and, removable
shed and deck would be allowed to build without allowance of the city. We did talk to several
people around the lake and that was the information we got, and it does correspond with the law
in Switzerland so it did make sense to me and when I talked to the builder we decided to make a
floating, removable deck and shed so the vegetation would not be, how I say, well it could still
grow and you would not harm the land. Saying to that the deck and shed are too close to the
neighbor. Of course when we found out that we did not respect the 10 feet, we agreed to move.
There is a fence between two properties. It is a green plastic fence, and talking to the neighbors
I’ve asked who’s fence it was and kind, they said it was the pre-owners fence because he wanted
the dogs to walk between the two properties and we assumed it was the property line because I
could not see why the pre-owners would set up a fence in the neighbor’s property. And this was
the mistake that was done by not respecting the distance to the neighbor’s property. We did try
to respect the 10 feet to the water, but we measured to the water and not to the high water level
line, and we did not know about the bluff. That you had to respect the bluff. Well, that’s about
all I have to say. And so when a project goes amiss, I think everything goes amiss. I think Mr.
Jeffery and I had quite a couple of good talks together.
Papke: Okay. Questions.
Larson: So you’re okay with moving this over?
Nadine Beck: Of course. I would not build on the neighbor’s property. I mean.
Larson: Right. Now that you know I would be mortified myself. So have you taken into
consideration the smaller deck that the city has proposed? Is that something that, I understand
you want to be able to use as much of the area as possible.
Nadine Beck: Of course you want to use as much of the area as possible. Talking to Mr. Jeffery
and Ms. Aanenson, we wanted to go for the bigger deck if it would be possible because it just
gives you the possibility to like have a chair and sit down with friends and have a nice evening
and maybe have, grill whereas the smaller deck, there’s nothing you can do with it. I mean you
can have it but it doesn’t add anything to your outdoor life.
Larson: Right. Does the property, or the house up above, does it have some sort of a deck or
area where you can?
Nadine Beck: We have a porch.
12
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
Larson: A porch?
Nadine Beck: A porch. That is like narrow and it’s too small to put out a table on.
Larson: Okay. And then this building, does it have any, is it just an empty building? Does it
have?
Nadine Beck: The small building?
Larson: Yes.
Nadine Beck: The shed?
Larson: The shed.
Nadine Beck: The shed is just empty for toys and water.
Larson: So it’s just a storage shed?
Nadine Beck: It’s just storage and we actually wanted to like rebuild the main house just in the
same style. It’s not finished now so you can’t see.
Larson: Oh okay. Alright, very good. That’s all I have. Thank you.
Laufenburger: I have no questions.
Undestad: Just on what the city proposed there for the smaller deck. Can you, I mean is there
room to expand that a little bit in a couple directions and still get the clearances on there?
Nadine Beck: Well what we also could do, what I heard today first time is the thing about the
30%. That there are not enough trees and we could around we can plant trees so there are more
trees. Again to, I don’t mind. I don’t mind trees. I mean I just wanted to be able to use the area
so if it helps we can also plant a couple trees around the deck, or going to block whatever…
Undestad: What is, can you tell Terry, what is the brown circle up on the bluff line there just
north of the deck, or just above the deck? Is that a tree on there?
Jeffery: That’s a great question for Angie. This thing?
Auseth: It’s another tree.
Undestad: That is another tree? Okay.
Nadine Beck: Well there are many other trees there. They’re not the two only trees.
Papke: Anything else Mark?
13
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
Undestad: No.
Papke: Okay, thank you. Denny?
Laufenburger: Ms. Beck, welcome to the United States.
Nadine Beck: Oh, thank you.
Laufenburger: We’re happy to have you here.
Nadine Beck: Well yeah, you can say what… I just wanted to say I can see you’re all European
some time ago.
Laufenburger: Yeah, Black Forest area for me. Ms. Beck, did you build the home and the?
Nadine Beck: No. We bought the home as it was.
Laufenburger: Okay.
Nadine Beck: And really the only thing that was not like beautiful and perfect was that lake area
and so we just tried to adapt the lake area to the rest of the property.
Laufenburger: The other question I had, you said that you consulted with some landscape people
had made some recommendations. Did they at any time suggest that you talk with the city of
Chanhassen to see if there was any code?
Nadine Beck: No. No. And we had some, Mr. Jeffery’s already explained, we had plans from
the pre-owners and there were like major constructions on there so I didn’t know whether they
run out of money and didn’t do it or it was just a plan or whether they had the allowance to it. I
had no idea. I didn’t ask.
Laufenburger: Okay.
Papke: Okay, I just have one question for you. So the city has proposed the plan we see on the
right up here, which moves the shed and the deck into the very small area you have between the
OHW setback and the bluff setback. Is your main objection to what the city is proposing, is it
simply the size of the deck because your proposal also shows the shed back in the bluff setback
here. Do you have any issues with moving the shed out to where the city is proposing?
Nadine Beck: No. No, not at all.
Papke: Okay. So the major issue for you is the size of the deck and that’s it?
Nadine Beck: Yeah. It would just be a nice size deck where you can have, that you can use.
14
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
Papke: Okay. I just wanted to make sure I understand what your major issue is.
Nadine Beck: We said I could become like engineer or something after drawing all these things.
I’m getting there.
Papke: Any other questions for the applicant? Okay, thank you very much.
Nadine Beck: Thank you.
Papke: Okay, at this time we’ll open up the hearing to the public so if anybody sitting in the
audience today would like to comment on this case, if you’d step up to the podium and give us
your name and address and tell us what you think. We’d like to hear from you.
Jens Midthun: Hello everyone and thank you very much for having me. My name is Jens
Midthun. I live at 6225 Ridge Road, which is the property on the shoreline directly to the north
of the Beck property. As well as kind of encompasses the Beck property to the east property as
well, and I’ve been a long time resident of Chanhassen, along with my family and I’m speaking
on behalf of my family when we say that the only issue we ever had was with the 10 foot
setback, and as long as that rule is followed, we’re strongly in support of the granting of all
variances requested by the Beck’s. Just knowing how this property is. It’s very similar to our’s
except our’s is thinner and the bluff comes right down and then you’ve got the lakeshore and it’s
a long walk up and down. Some of our neighbors have put in trams to bring them up and down
and you know if you want to play in the water, you know the Beck’s have two small children.
They’ve a very active water sports family. You know I’m 1 of 4. We’re a very active family.
You want to hang out by the lake. You want to be by the lake. You want to have friends over
and have some chairs. Now I know we can sit in this room and say hey look, all we have to do is
make the deck smaller and then we’ve easily followed all the rules, but you know we’re talking
about a deck that to the Beck family is a very big deal. You know that extra space is going to be
space they use for a long time, and really to anybody else, and I’m speaking as the person or
group that would be most affected by this, we will be affected nothing. And the neighbors to the
south, now that it’s 10 feet back, will be affected none, and none of the other neighbors will be
affected at all so you know I just wanted to come and say I, myself and my family are strongly in
support of the granting of these variances.
Papke: Okay. Thank you very much. Just to comment on some of the things you said there.
Just so you’re aware that these, the setbacks for the bluff and the lake are not to protect the
neighbors. It’s to protect the lake.
Jens Midthun: Right, and.
Papke: So I understand your concern.
Jens Midthun: I’m just speaking on behalf of the neighbors.
Papke: Sure.
15
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
Jens Midthun: And you know, I can’t say for certain but I can speculate that the reason this was
filed in the first place was a sort of neighbor thing by a neighbor who would not be affected at all
so on the neighborhood side of it.
Papke: Thank you for speaking up. I appreciate it. Anybody else like to come up to the
podium. I see a couple more people in the audience here. Anybody else? There we go.
Tara Wetzel: Hi. My name is Tara Wetzel.
Dena Wetzel: And I’m Dena Wetzel and we’re the neighbors on the south. Our parents actually
are the neighbors on the south and they’re very old and my dad’s recovering from treatment for
prostate cancer and they just couldn’t really make it here tonight so they asked us to come in.
And we weren’t even really going to say anything because we’re just you know happy that the
setback on the side is going to be honored and that definitely was very important to us.
Tara Wetzel: But we also wanted to say that we are neighbors in that area as well and we know
that Jens spoke for his family and we also wanted to get up and just mention that you know we
obviously feel that for them we would never want to you know have them not ever have that
space down there. I mean we have one. My father’s lived at Christmas Lake now for.
Dena Wetzel: Over 55 years he’s been on that property. And my sister’s going to live there after
that.
Tara Wetzel: Hopefully.
Dena Wetzel: We’re hoping to span a whole hundred years.
Tara Wetzel: We don’t quite make the, whatever, but.
Dena Wetzel: So we’d like to work out the property tax part.
Tara Wetzel: So we’d like to stay there and keep that, and you know and I think that looking
back on it, you know the Beck’s really came into a situation where the prior owners clear cut the
whole hill. They clear cut the whole lakeshore and that was a huge issue for my parents because
it wasn’t being addressed by the City Council and it got to the point where it really became an
issue for our family because my mother stressed a lot about it. And so I think their biggest thing
is they really want to feel that they’re being justified in the sense that it’s following the code and
that people are being respectful of that, and we do appreciate that you know it is moved back. I
mean they didn’t know. The green fence was our’s. It was a dog. It’s just a green little thing
that I bought at Home Depot to keep our dogs off of their property, and going into their, they
have a lawn and sand and the dogs like to go over there so we kept that up because the Brabeck’s
were not interested in having dogs over there. And so.
Laufenburger: That was the previous owners, is that correct?
16
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
Tara Wetzel: Correct. And so we kept that up and that was our’s, and I even said that I would
take it down because it is ugly but it was serving it’s purpose, you know.
Dena Wetzel: The other neighbor hated dogs.
Tara Wetzel: So.
Dena Wetzel: And they like dogs and they’re great neighbors because they don’t, you know
they’re, we’re all very tolerate. More tolerate…
Tara Wetzel: And my children and their children play all the time. They have a great sandy
beach and I mean we are welcome over there and their children are welcome over to our dock as
well and so, but just we wanted to get up and just let you know that we are involved in this and
we do feel that it’s important and you know that they need to have a space down there too. It is
beautiful space. I can understand why they want somewhere to put their things because we fill
our’s up with a lot of plastic things that our kids now tend to use, but we just wanted to let you
know that it’s, you know our parents wanted us to come and just be a present and let you know
that they are there. They may not be here but they are concerned about it and they really feel that
you know my dad spent years watering all the trees on Ridge Road during the droughts and he’s
been invested in that area for a long time and he really feels that we do need to make sure that we
are holding to, so that the area, and as I said before, that the area I guess is kept in a natural state
but you know the Beck’s did come into a situation that had been clear cutted and I don’t know
the erosion part coming down the hill I’m sure is also an issue for them but you know it’s just,
where’s the fine line? You know we don’t want any ill feelings because we do enjoy spending
time with them and so we just wanted to.
Dena Wetzel: We trust you guys to make the right decision. You know we.
Tara Wetzel: And I think obviously you’re talking and I think that’s what my parents would like
to know that there is a discussion between them and you and something will be resolved.
Dena Wetzel: Thanks.
Tara Wetzel: Thank you.
Papke: Thank you very much. Appreciate you coming tonight. Anybody else? Going once.
Going twice. Before I close the public hearing I’d just like to make note that the city did receive
several items of correspondence from some of the other neighbors in the area, and they were not
as supportive as the folks who came to the meeting tonight. But just so, for the record here, we
do take into account not only what’s said during the public hearing but also the correspondence
that we receive before the meeting, so we take that all into consideration. With that, if there’s no
one else who’d like to step up, I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission
for discussion. We’ll start with you.
Aanenson: Mr. Chairman if I could just make one point. Just something for you to think about
through this process, which I think caused some consternation up there and that was the clear
17
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
cutting of that lot. Obviously I think that created some feelings out there for some of the
neighbors on the lake and so whatever you’re thinking about tonight for mitigation, I think that
should be something that you may want to take into consideration. The re-vegetation. It sounds
like Mrs. Beck is willing to do that. That might be something to take into consideration.
Larson: Well, gosh I tell you, after reading all this and then having it all in person I’m getting a
whole different perspective of what I got before I walked in here. The fact of the matter is, it
was an accidental, and they’re trying to make it right and I think one of the questions I think
Mark was trying to get through, is there any possibility that they could go any larger on the deck
around this thing or if this is the actual maximum that we could do.
Aanenson: Yeah, you’d have to grant a variance if you want to go bigger than that, and that’s
what I’m saying. If you’re going that way, then I would certainly recommend mitigation for that
would be some revegetation.
Larson: Say that again.
Aanenson: They’re at the maximum for the deck that we’re showing on here. I think it was 4, 3
feet. 4 additional feet.
Larson: So mitigation.
Aanenson: Compensation would be to allow the deck to go bigger you would recommend that
they plant additional trees. Or whatever vegetation is recommended to help stabilize the slope
for one, and I think that was some of the issues that some of the neighbors on the lake had
concern with when that got clear cut.
Larson: Well I would propose a friendly amendment then to see if the city would consider that,
or you guys. If they were to plant, you know maybe you guys could set a certain amount of trees
or a type of trees or whatever. I mean if, honestly I’ve got a deck that’s the size that they’re
proposing and it’s where we spend all of our summer. I love it. It’s my favorite place. Every
morning I go out and have my coffee. It’s great. To knock that down to one half just really you
know certainly would cut down on the enjoyment of it I think, and if the city would be willing to
even consider that, I wish that had been written in here because.
Aanenson: We can’t consider that. That’s you have the ability to grant the variance and that
would be your decision, if you chose to recommend a variance. To go larger than Angie had
shown on staff’s recommendation. And if you wanted to grant a variance, so the only variance,
you’d be granting one to go into the bluff setback and increasing the hard coverage. Just in the
bluff. Just the accessory structure. You remember that was already a two story, I mean, excuse
me. A separate garage.
Laufenburger: The attached.
18
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
Aanenson: That was attached, so that’s what was putting them towards the top so they’ve
maximized the lot, so there’s an issue that they only have so much square footage available. I’ll
let Angie speak to that.
Auseth: According to code they can go up to 250 square feet for a water oriented accessory
structure. Due to the detached garage they’re limited to 190 square feet because they would go
over that 1,000 square feet, so that would be the variance that you would be recommending.
Aanenson: So looking at that language just to be clear again, the language would be for the
variance for an accessory structure, you’re allowing great than that and would it impact the bluff
setback also?
Undestad: Can I clarify? My comment on there was can they expand it and stay within the
boundaries without going into the bluff.
Aanenson: If they went longer. If they went longer instead of deeper.
Undestad: Right.
Aanenson: Correct.
Laufenburger: But in order to do that the combined square footage of, I’ll use the term detached,
and it’s the combined, the detached garage that’s already in place, and like I said, they’re not
going to cut off any of that.
Aanenson: No.
Laufenburger: So that’s going to remain in place. So the only amount that they can add is
essentially about 190 square feet.
Auseth: Right.
Laufenburger: And whether it’s a shed which goes vertical or a deck, it’s, what you’re looking
at is how many square feet if you were looking down.
Auseth: Correct.
Aanenson: That’s correct.
Laufenburger: Okay. So I think if, I don’t want to interpret this but I think what you were
looking at is, could that orange area get bigger? It could. It would remain within the ordinary
high water and the bluffs, those two setbacks. So that could get bigger and perhaps in exchange
we could say okay, we would allow you to increase that by maybe another 100 square feet or 150
square feet in exchange for doing something to replace, or revegetate that which was clear
cutted, which was done by apparently the previous owners.
19
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
Jeffery: Mr. Chairman, if I may. I think it’s also important to note though that if we go over the
250 square foot allowed for an accessory water structure, now we’re just entered into another
variance so I think I would caution you to go beyond the 250 square feet that would be allowed
for a water accessory structure.
Laufenburger: So are you saying the shed and the deck is defined as the accessory water
structure?
Jeffery: Correct. And right now what is shown is 190 square feet. So they could go an
additional 60 square feet. Just looking at that one portion of it. To answer, yeah. They could
build it entirely within that allowed zoning. It would not encroach into the shoreland setback nor
would it encroach in the bluff setback. It would become a much more linear feature than it is.
But then we get back to the other variance which is total detached structures allowed on a
property, and they only have 4 square feet. So you could, depending on how you want to go, you
could say alright, we can give them a water accessory structure within the 250 square feet. No
variance needed. We can get it outside the bluff setback. No variance needed. Outside
shoreline, no variance needed. But no matter what you will need a variance for the total allowed,
or not attached accessory structures.
Auseth: 56 square feet.
Undestad: And how big of an area do we say we had clear cut on there?
Jeffery: Oh, yeah. It’s substantial. I mean that would be, to work with the Beck’s to come up
with a mitigation plan that would not be an undue hardship to them for reforestation plan, but
would still offer a definite benefit, I think that could easily be worked out. Yeah, it’s a
substantial area.
Undestad: So if I, the understanding is, the deck, you could only add 60 square feet onto that
existing orange area right now.
Jeffery: Correct.
Undestad: And what that does is put them 56 square feet over the total package of detached
structures.
Auseth: Correct.
Jeffery: Well said.
Undestad: So is that 56…
Larson: Is that a different meeting to get that variance?
Aanenson: No. No, we can… There’s a lot of rules in play here. But you have…all the
variances requested so whatever you know, we’re trying to steer you in the direction to
20
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
minimize, I think what Mr. Jeffery is saying is that, we don’t want to increase the accessory
structure of the lake. It appears if you want to go that way, you’re going to increase the square
footage for accessory structures, but we don’t want to increase it just for the water oriented. The
250. We want to keep that capped. Does that make sense?
Undestad: So if we let them add the 60 feet on there, then we’re talking about do we allow them
56 square foot overage on the detached and is that worth the trade off on some trees and.
Aanenson: Correct. Exactly. That’s kind of where we’re at, yeah.
Laufenburger: Then in that case, the only variance would be the variance on the detached.
Square footage.
Aanenson: That’s correct.
Papke: Mr. Jeffery, what is the best thing for Christmas Lake? Assuming these people are, you
know they’re going to have barbeques down there. Okay. Are we better off with them
barbequing on a deck or barbequing on the ground? What’s the best thing for the lake?
Jeffery: Chairman Papke, that’s a loaded question.
Papke: I thought it was a pretty simple one actually.
Jeffery: It is. It’s a good question. It’s one I’ve struggled with because a deck by definition is
not hard cover. It’s not impervious surface, but clearly it changes the drainage pattern in an area.
It changes the way the rainfall falls. It changes the way it runs off. It changes the time it takes to
get to the lake. So whenever you can minimize that hard surface, it’s always got to be the
preferred thing to do. Having said that, by definition a deck is not hard cover. We don’t by our
code call it a hard surface. And I think decks can be designed such that they will not, you know
design it so it doesn’t drain directly towards the lake. Put screening around it. If, to go back
though then there’s another thing. So if we had an open pit fire along the lake and we throw rock
around it and we’ve now denuded all the vegetation in the area because we’re walking around on
that area, we’re packing it down as we walk. We’ve burnt off all the vegetation. Is that a good
desirable thing? No. Absolutely not. So in the sense that having a deck actually steers people to
an area where they’re no longer walking around the bluff area. They’re no longer trampling
vegetation. Yeah, I think it actually is in this case an environmentally sound thing to do. You
know within limitations.
Papke: Thank you. That’s what I was looking for. From my perspective, my big concern here
is, when we break, when we start precedent.
Laufenburger: Are we in closed?
Papke: No, we’re still just chatting here amongst friends.
Laufenburger: Alright.
21
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
Papke: My concern with this one is the triple jeopardy that we’re kind of stepping into with
breaking three different precedents here. And as we all know lakeshore property in Chanhassen
is notorious for people asking for such things, and this is one of the few variances for a lake front
I’ve seen in a while where the applicant didn’t say well, there’s 5 other houses right up the lake
that all had it. Why can’t I have it?
Nadine Beck: I could.
Papke: So from that perspective I am, it makes me nervous to think that we’re going to create
more precedent for future such events, so I’d like the commissioners to take that into account
when we deliberate on that. With that said, I want to do what’s right for Christmas Lake. This is
one of the jewels of Chanhassen and we should do what’s right for the lake as well and for the
homeowners. I certainly think the homeowner in play here, you know I had some concerns
coming into the meeting that things were done in somewhat of a cavalier fashion and from what
I’ve heard tonight I think it’s simply a case of someone who’s coming into a new culture and
simply didn’t understand the myriad of rules and regulations that unfortunately living on the lake
entails in the United States. So, what do we want to do here? I will entertain a motion.
Whatever that motion might be.
Laufenburger: So are we closed now? Is this?
Papke: Sure. Unless you want to say something else.
Laufenburger: Well I’d like to express my views. I think that, like you, water property in
Chanhassen, like Christmas Lake, that is, we have to protect that. And the big picture is
protected by making lots of small picture decisions so I consider this a, this is a big decision for
the backs of those neighbors. Even though it’s a small one, it still is a, you know we can start
this protection with this one good step. I’m inclined to allow the variance on the detached by
giving the property owner an opportunity to increase by 60 square feet on the deck. Remain
within the area between the ordinary high water and the bluff setback in exchange for what the
city would consider acceptable revegetation. Whether that’s grass. Shrubbery. And I don’t
know where that should go. If you should go at the toe of the slope or if it should go closer to
the water line but I would be inclined to do something like that. That’s my inclination.
Papke: If you’re so inclined, then I suggest you make a motion to that effect.
Laufenburger: So moved.
Papke: Would you like to state formally for the record what you’re proposing.
Laufenburger: Mr. Chairman.
Papke: Could you state which of the variances you’d like to allow and which ones you’d like to
deny. Maybe if we start with them.
22
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
Laufenburger: Let me just do a little bit of checking before I do that. Perhaps you want to get
comments from others first.
Undestad: I guess I’d just like to throw a comment in there.
Papke: Sure, go ahead.
Undestad: What we’re looking at is 60 square feet. We’re going to give up, you get another 1
1/2, 2 lawn chairs or something on there. You know I don’t think that’s going to get the Beck’s
what they’re looking for on there. What that does though by us doing that then also opens up the
variance and starts that, you know what about the next one and the next one. I think if it was
more you know, and add 60 square feet onto the end of that deck out there, you know how much
landscaping, how much revegetation can we say, alright. You need to put in, you know it
doesn’t make sense to make them spend $5,000 in trees for a 60 square foot deck.
Aanenson: Well it’s actually 250 total of surface coverage.
Undestad: Of surface. But we’re only giving them another 60 feet onto that deck. Down by the
lake and that’s what I understand what they’re trying to accomplish there so. So I’m not sure
we’re really doing any good with that all.
Papke: So are you saying you’re in a mood to deny all of the variances, that would be your
preference?
Undestad: Yes.
Papke: Debbie, you had some thoughts?
Larson: Well you know you guys are talking about setting precedence. This is kind of a unique
place, in my opinion. We’re talking a property that was clear cut before they moved in. And the
fact that they want to, you know revegetate or she’s tried. She’s put in an effort to do things and
it just hasn’t worked. And then the fact that if they want to do any kind of barbequing or having
entertainment of people down there, basically saying that it would be better to have a deck there
rather than having open space and people you know lighting fires on the grass and whatever. I
am more inclined to allow a larger deck area even, you know so then we would go into the, what
are we calling it? The accessory structure.
Laufenburger: That would be the water.
Aanenson: Water oriented. Let me just talk about that for a minute because Shorewood doesn’t
allow water oriented structures so those are some of the things that causes the consternation. The
clear cutting aside really isn’t affecting this. This side of the lake is very steep. As the neighbors
have indicated, there are people that have lifts. You know it is steep. We recognize that. That’s
the choice on some of those lots to get that view up on top. So if we go above the 250, that
becomes an issue for some of the people on the other side of the lake too because Shorewood
doesn’t allow the accessory structures. That’s a DNR requirement which we’ve adopted. We do
23
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
allow that but that was some of the angst that you saw in some of the other letters too. So that
was our concern in going above that for the 250. That could cause some issues so I’m just
throwing that out to you so you understand the background of that, however you feel on that.
Larson: Well you know when you say that will cause issues with another city.
Aanenson: No, with other people on the lake. That’s at 250. We don’t have people that are
above that 250 you know so you’re giving somebody down there, because they’re all in that
situation with lifts going down there, to go above that. So I’m saying the clear cutting wasn’t the
issue with it. It’s the square footage.
Larson: Right. No, I understand that but you were talking about the mitigation with the adding
of the trees and.
Aanenson: Yeah, I don’t know. That’s if you choose to do that or not choose to do that, that’s
fine.
Laufenburger: Are you saying that the city of Chanhassen has no regulations regarding clear
cutting of land?
Aanenson: No. That’s not what I’m saying.
Laufenburger: Do we have regulations regarding clear cutting of the land?
Aanenson: Yes.
Laufenburger: Okay.
Papke: But we’re not, we’re not granting a variance for performing that action tonight.
Larson: Right.
Laufenburger: And clearly had the previous owners come to us and say we want to clear cut
this.
Aanenson: Or if somebody would have called us, we would have stopped it. Clear cutting
happens and we’re not always informed and aware of it until somebody calls.
Laufenburger: To the comment earlier about the City Council not doing anything about it, we
can only act on that which we know about.
Aanenson: That’s correct.
Laufenburger: Yeah, okay.
24
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
Papke: So for the purposes of our discussion tonight, the vegetation is a non-issue other than the
fact that this area is more sensitive as a result of that clear cutting because of the increased
propensity for erosion.
Aanenson: That’s correct.
Papke: Okay.
Larson: Do we know what this path is made of? Or is it just a dirt path?
Auseth: The steps?
Aanenson: We can go back to this.
Larson: Is it steps?
Laufenburger: It’s rock steps.
Larson: Does that count towards the hard surface coverage?
Auseth: It counts towards the hard surface coverage but it’s not counted towards the detached
accessory structure.
Larson: Which is our issue. Alright. Okay.
Undestad: So one more question for staff. If we deny this, the way it sits, can they come back
and talk to Terry and you and.
Aanenson: Yes.
Undestad: Possibly talk about doing some trading for some landscaping and revegetation.
Aanenson: Sure. Sure, and the first approach would be they have the right to appeal. Anybody
aggrieved of this decision has a right to appeal it so it would go to City Council, if that’s the
case. And so between then and now, whatever you recommend, if they still want to offer up
some other solutions between when it goes to City Council, between your recommendation,
when it goes to City Council, that something else can be offered up, which has happened before.
Or the council could table it and ask them to work on it, or you could table it and ask them to
work on some things. You have several choices.
Papke: I would prefer not to table this one tonight. I think we have plenty of information right
here, I think to make a decision. Are you ready to make a motion Denny, or would anyone else
like to jump the gun and go ahead and make one? Ready to roll?
Laufenburger: I think I can in just a moment.
25
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
Larson: Okay, we’ll chit chat some more.
Laufenburger: Go ahead Debbie.
Larson: I really don’t have anything else to say.
Jeffery: I would like to emphasize I think that many of the neighbors had pointed out tonight, I
think it is really key when they said what we do on this micro scale affects the macro scale of
this lake. Christmas Lake is unique in a number of ways but more than anything else in that it is
considered within the seven county metro area to be one of, if not the nicest lakes in terms of
water quality. Water clarity. Vegetative diversity. Plants species diversity so any small impact
made on one lot that down the road affects down the lakeshore, then we end up with no longer
having that phenomenal water body that we have.
Papke: Which is why I asked you what was the right thing to do for the lake. That did not lead
to a clear choice…
Larson: Well if they hadn’t had the accessory garage on the top of the hill, they could have done
the whole thing how they would like to do it, correct?
Papke: 250 accessory structure. Water accessory structure.
Larson: Oh. Oh, oh.
Papke: That’s why we have the triple jeopardy problem. We have three variances that all have
to be broken…
Larson: So why isn’t that part of an accessory structure? I’m just killing time here while he’s
writing.
Auseth: It’s defined in the code as part of the water oriented accessory structure.
Larson: Okay.
Jeffery: A structure that…we’ve got a lake down there and we want to be by it and use it.
Papke: This is going to be a heck of a motion, I can see it coming.
Aanenson: Just to be clear Commissioner Laufenburger, you don’t have to recommend denial.
If you’re just going to recommend approval on one issue, you only have to recommend that.
You don’t have to, and just say denial of the other requests. You don’t have to be that specific
on those if you don’t.
Laufenburger: Yeah, okay.
Aanenson: If you’re trying to do the math, that’s all I was trying to say. Okay.
26
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
Laufenburger: Yeah, okay. Mr. Chairman, I recommend the Chanhassen Planning Commission
approve Planning Case #08-23 with variance for detached accessory structure variance for the
construction of a 250 square foot water oriented structure located at 6250 Ridge Road with
conditions 1 and 2 on page 9 of the staff report. Condition number 1 modified to read 250 square
feet. And adoption of the attached Findings of Fact and action, plus. Or conditioned upon
applicant providing revegetation of the clear cut area to meet approval of city planning
department.
Papke: So just to be clear what your motion contains here. We are denying the bluff variance.
Laufenburger: Correct.
Papke: We are denying the water oriented accessory structure variance but we are allowing a
variance on the detached accessory structure in amount of 60 feet.
Laufenburger: 56 feet. We’re exceeding the detached structure variance by 56 feet.
Papke: Okay, I got it. Okay, is that clear to everyone? What we’re proposing.
Aanenson: Clarification on the motion, if does go forward, that we would reflect those changes
also in the Findings of Fact.
Papke: Yes. Is there a second for this motion?
Larson: I’ll second it.
Papke: Does anybody have any amendments they’d like to propose? If not I will hear a vote.
Laufenburger moved, Larson seconded that the Planning Commission approves Planning
Case #08-23 for a 56 square foot detached accessory structure variance for the construction
of a 250 square-foot water-oriented structure and denies the bluff setback and water
oriented accessory structure size limitation variance requests on property, 6250 Ridge
Road, and adoption of the Findings of Fact with the following conditions:
1.The combined square footage of the water-oriented accessory structure (shed/deck) may not
exceed 250 square feet;
2.A building or zoning permit must be applied for and approved prior to completion of the water -
oriented structure to ensure compliance with City Code.
3.The applicant and staff will work out a re-vegetation plan for the clear cut area to meet the
approval of staff. ”
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 4 to 0.
27
Planning Commission - January 6, 2009
Papke: Thank you very much. That was a difficult deliberation and a difficult motion and I
think we carried it out with great dispatch. Thank you Denny for a difficult assignment. With
that, that’s the end of our public hearing items.
APPROVE OF MINUTES: Commissioner Larson noted the verbatim and summary
minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated December 2, 2008 as presented.
Chairman Papke adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 8:20 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
28