Loading...
PC Minutes 1-6-09Planning 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