1e Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 10, 2002
Mayor Jansen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting Was opened with the
Pledge to the Flag.
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Jansen, Councilman Ayotte, and Councilman
Labatt
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Councilman Boyle and Councilman Peterson
STAFF PRESENT: Todd Gerhardt, Roger Knutson, Teresa Burgess, Todd Hoffman, Bob
Generous, and Jill Sinclair
Mayor Jansen: Good evening, thank you for joining us. As you can see we're a little light of
council members this evening. We have two members that are traveling so it is just the 3 of us
here this evening. We will start with our public announcements.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENTS: PRESENTATION FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL
COMMISSION TO THE LIBRARY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOOK PURCHASES,
Mayor Jansen: We did ask the Environmental Commission to come this evening in order to do
this presentation, since it was such a significant effort on all of your parts. And if you'd go ahead
and maybe come to the front of the room so that we can have this broadcast and we have Kathy
Pershman here representing the Library to accept the donation. We have Dotti Shay representing
the Environmental Commission. If you'll go ahead and do the introductions into the microphone,
that'd be great.
Dotti Shay: We have Deb Yunger from the commission. Steve Nalefski and Kim Hankins and
we're here to present the books to the library. This has been about a 2 year effort and one of the
things that's really great about being on the Environmental Commission is I think of all the
commissions we get to have the most fun. And this was a lot of fun for me, near and dear to my
heart because I went to the library a few years ago looking for environmental books and didn't
find a lot, and then with the announcement that we were going to have a new library, it seemed
like a very worth while thing for us to get involved with. So I have something here that Jill put
together for us. Our administrative person from the city that works with the commission. Almost
2 years ago members of the Environmental Commission recognized that the Chanhassen Library
was in need of contemporary books that would provide technical and non-technical information
about a wide variety of environmental issues and topics. The commission asked the library to
recommend books to purchase and used this list as a spring board to compile a list of our own
approximately 60 books. To cover the cost of purchase we solicited donations. The Chanhassen
American Legion generously donated $500 to be used toward the purchase of, and the Mall of
America Barnes and Noble actually donated 5 books from their shelves. The City of Chanhassen
sponsored the remainder of the purchase. The result is that 107 new environmental books will be
available in our library. I'd like to thank the following for their contributions to the project. The
Chanhassen American Legion, the Mall of America Barnes and Noble, Kathy Pershman from the
Chanhassen Library, the Environmental Commission, particularly Kim Hankins and Deborah
Yunger and the City Council. The Environmental Commission is pleased and honored to present
the Chanhassen Library with these books. May they reflect the dedication of this community to
City Council Meeting - June 10, 2002
it's natural resources and to serve to educate and entertain Chanhassen's residents. Thank you
very much.
Mayor Jansen: Wonderful, thank you.
Kathy Pershman: So if anyone wants to check any out...
Mayor Jansen: Wonderful, and thanks to all of you for your efforts and the work that you've put
in to pulling all of this together. It's much appreciated.
Dotti Shay: It was a lot of fun. Thank you.
CONSENT AGENDA: Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Labatt seconded to
approve the following consent agenda items pursuant to the City Manager's
recommendations:
a. Approve Settlement Agreement with Lundgren Brothers & Jay Dolejsi, Project 00-01.
b. Approve Temporary On-Sale Beer License, Chanhassen Rotary Club, July 3.
C.
Approval of Request for a Fireworks Display Permit, Lake Minnewashta Homeowners
Association.
Accept Donation from General Mills for Safety Camp.
Resolution g2002-52: Authorize Transfer from the Utility Fund to the General Fund,
Wrase Property.
f. Approval of Bills.
g.
Approval of Minutes:
· City Council Work Session Minutes dated May 28, 2002
· City Council Minutes dated May 28, 2002
· Continuation of May 28, 2002 Meeting Minutes dated May 31, 2002
Receive Commission Minutes:
· Planning Commission Minutes dated May 21, 2002
· Park and Recreation Commission Minutes dated April 23, 2002
h. Approve Modification to Construction Hours for the Library Project.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS: None.
City Council Meeting- June 10, 2002
US BANK~ SOUTHWEST CORNER OF CENTURY BOULEVARD & TH 5; ROTH
DEVELOPMENT:
A.
Be
PRELIMINARY PLAT TO CREATE 3 LOTS AND 20UTLOTS~ ARBORETUM
BUSINESS PARK 4TM ADDITION.
SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A 3~066 SQ. FT. COMMERCIAL BANK BUILDING
ON 1.07 ACRES.
Bob Generous: Thank you Madam Mayor, Councilors. The applicant is requesting a preliminary
plat approval for the southwest corner of Highway 5 and 41. As part of the original PUD, this
one block was to be subdivided as one lot. However, in the interim they decided that market
forces would better accept 3 lots, so that's what the subdivision is. The Outlot A in ~he
subdivision is to be reserved for a corporate headquarters site. The subdivision itself is rather
straight forward. It complies with all the design guidelines and the zoning requirements. The
only issue we have with this is the need for access into the property off of Century Boulevard.
We do have a condition in our staff report that it be fight-in/right-out. The applicant has hired a
consultant, a traffic engineer to look at this issue and come up with their best estimate of the
operation of this intersection. I believe that the city is willing to look at an alternative as part of
the final plat as long as we can be assured that we're maintaining an acceptable level of service.
Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat subject to the conditions in our staff
report. The second part of the proposal is site plan approval for one of the lots and that very plat.
It would be in the northeast corner. It's a 1.07 acres site. It's for US Bank. They have a drive
thru located on the west side of the building, and it's one story. The only issue we have with this,
there's some additional landscaping they're to provide. We did call out some architectural
detailing, additional windows and more brick and the applicant has agreed to those changes and
so they' 11 revise that for their building permit. We are recommending approval of the site plan
subject to the conditions in the staff report. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. Council, questions for staff?.
Councilman Ayotte: With respect to the traffic study where the applicant would in fact hire the
consultant, how do we counter that in terms of making sure that there's an honest broker
assessment as to what the consultant finds?
Teresa Burgess: If I could clarify. That condition has actually been removed because the
applicant has already hired that consultant and the city has received the first draft of that traffic
report. We have requested some additional language be added to the report after meeting with the
consultant and with the developer and discuss our concerns. The city engineering department has
reviewed the information and is comfortable with what is being proposed, with the caveat that we
are requiring that some language be added to the development contract. That if in the future there
is a problem, that it will be the property owners responsibility to pay for all of the costs for public
improvements, or private improvements necessary to correct the issues that are caused by this
driveway.
Councilman Ayotte: The question still holds, and the honest broker assessment is city staff?
Teresa Burgess: City staff is confident that they have been able to review that and.
Councilman Ayotte: And how long does the arrangement live in terms of they being liable to
respond to any problems associated with traffic?
City Council Meeting - June 10, 2002
Teresa Burgess: Since it will go into the development contract, it will go with the property and
unless the City Council decides to void that contract or condition, it will stay on the property for
perpetuity. As long as the property exists.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay, thank you.
Mayor Jansen: And we will see that change then when we see the final plat, is that correct?
Teresa Burgess: Correct. That would be a condition in the development contract.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Okay, any other questions for staff at this time?
Councilman Ayotte: With respect to the fact that we have a 2(a) and a 2(b), is our response to
staff recommendation on two separate motions?
Mayor Jansen: Yes. Councilman Labatt, any questions for staff at this time?
Councilman Labatt: No. Just to clarify that issue about the potential problem in the future of
traffic. Is that at our determination as a city? And is there a, if we say there's a problem here and
they say well no there isn't, who has the final say?
Teresa Burgess: At this time we're still working with the developer to come up with a
quantifiable answer that when we hit this level of service it will automatically trigger a response
on the city's part. Looking at it, if you remember our discussions on Highway 101, a level of
service. We would like to tie it to something in those standards for the city's end of things. If the
property owner was to come to us and say they want improvements, we review those at any time
because they are a petitioned project at that point and they would be paid for by the property
owner. But at the same time the property owner wants some consideration of when is the city
going to be able to force that issue. So by saying it hits a certain level of service, that way when
we go in and analyze and we find that there's a problem, we can go in and analyze it and say the
problem is this. It meets this level of service. There is no question on whether it should be done
or not. It's been clear cut and it's in the agreement. We' re still working out what that level of
service should be. We also want to take into account accidents, and so how to word that. But I'm
confident we can work that out without any problem having met with the developer.
Councih-nan Labatt: So was that going to be Steiner Development or US Bank?
Teresa Burgess: We will sign an agreement with the current property owner at the time of final
plat. It will be recorded against the property. If US Bank buys the property from Steiner
Developn~tent, they will then take on the responsibility of the development contract. It travels with
the property.
Councilman Ayotte: And that's all understood across the board?
Todd Gerhardt: The development agreement runs with the property until the council decides to
void the development contract. You'd have to make a formal request to have that removed.
Councilman Labatt: Okay, I'm fine with that.
Mayor Jansen: That's it? Okay. If we have any additional comments or any new issues from the
Planning Commission, if the developer would like to come forward and address the council, you
City Council Meeting - June 10, 2002
certainly may at this time. Though we won't go fully back through the whole development. Just
any new issues that may exist.
Fred Richter: Fred Richter, Steiner Development. Just take a moment to say that we appreciate
working with staff. We've added the windows on the drawing. We've added the soldier course
to the drivit issue, and we appreciate working with the city engineering department and feel
comfortable. What we' ve tried to do is, we think work out the best solution for all parties and
that is maximizing access. Getting traffic not to go through the Kindercare site, back onto
Century which we think in the near term is... And then we've got details in the future, if traffic
gets out of hand to some of that so we're quite comfortable it will work out just fine.
Mayor Jansen: Great, thank you. Okay, if there's anyone in the audience. Mr. Hoffman?
Todd Hoffman: Just a clarification. Steiner did pay full, or was credited full park fees as a part
of this development. There' s no mention of the collection of their remaining trail fees. Just want
to add that as a clarification on conditions of approval that those trail fees are collected as a part
of this.
Bob Generous: Condition number 2.
Todd Hoffman: Is it on there? 2? Okay, thanks Bob.
Bob Generous: I take care of you.
Todd Hoffman: Alright.
Mayor Jansen: Thank you. If there is anyone in the audience who would like to comment on this
plan you can certainly come forward at this time. Okay, seeing no one, I'll bring this back to
council. Council comments.
Councilman Labatt: None.
Mayor Jansen: Councilman Ayotte.
Councilman Ayotte: No, I'm fine.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Then if I could have a motion please.
Councilman Ayotte: I' 11 so move that the City Council approves the preliminary plat for 92-6
PUD File 8, Arboretum Business Park 4th Addition creating 3 lots, one outlot and right-of-way for
a public street as shown in the plans prepared by Schoell and Madsen Incorporated dated
Received 12 April, 2002 subject to the conditions outlined 1 through 10.
Councilman Labatt: 18.
Mayor Jansen: 1 through 187
Councilman Ayotte: 1 through 187
Councihnan Labatt: There's two pages.
City Council Meeting- June 10, 2002
Councilman Ayotte: Whoops, 1 through 18.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. And a second please.
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approves
the preliminary plat for 92-6 PUD File 8, Arboretum Business Park 4th Addition creating
three lots, one outlot and right-of-way for a public street as shown on plans prepared by
Schoell & Madsen, Inc., dated received April 12, 2002, subject to the following conditions:
The development shall comply with the Arboretum Business Park Development Design
Standards.
2. The developer shall pay trail fees pursuant to city ordinance.
Prior to final plat approval, a professional civil engineer registered in the State of
Minnesota must sign all plans.
4. Revise the easterly side, full access to a right-in/right-out access of Century Boulevard.
.
The applicant will be required to meet the existing site runoff rates for the 10 year and
100 year, 24 hour storm events. Drainage and utility easements shall be dedicated on the
final plat over the public storm drainage system. The minimum easement width shall be
20 feet wide.
.
Type II silt fence shall be used. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading
will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. Silt fence shall be
promptly removed upon completion of construction.
.
Installation of the private utilities for the site will require permits and inspections through
the City's Building Department.
.
Each newly created lot will be subject to City sanitary sewer and water hookup charges at
the time of building permit issuance. The 2002 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,383
per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,082 per unit for water.
,
Public utility improvements will be required to be constructed in accordance with the
City's latest edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. Detailed construction
plans and specifications will be required at the time of final platting. The applicant will
also be required to enter into a development contract with the City and supply the
necessary financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee
installation of the improvements and the conditions of final plat approval. Permits from
the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained, including but not limited to the
MPCA, Department of Health, Watershed District, Carver County, etc.
I0.
On the utility plan: · Show all the existing and proposed utility easements.
· Revise sheet title to "Preliminary Utility Plan".
City Council Meeting- June 10, 2002
· Eliminate the proposed storm sewer north of Lot 1; any stormwater must be
treated before discharging into a wetland or pond.
· Add 6" gave valve on the watermain going to Lots 2 and 3.
· Revise the sanitary sewer along the east side of Lots 1 and 2 to be within the lot
property limits.
11. On the grading plan:
· Add a note, "All sanitary services shall be 6" PVC SDR 26."
· Show the benchmark used for the site survey.
· Revise Sheet Title to "Preliminary Grading, Drainage & Erosion Control Plan".
· Remove the abandoned portion of the existing RCP 36 inch storm sewer.
12.
Cross-access easements for the shared driveway access must be obtained and recorded
against the lots.
13.
Dedicate Outlot B to the public right-of-way including a cul-de-sac bubble and build the
street according to City standards and specifications.
14.
Additional fire hydrants will be required. Contact Chanhassen Fire Marshal for exact
location.
15.
A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees,
bushes, shrubs, Qwest, Xcel Energy, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by fkefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
16.
"No Parking Fire Lane" signs will be determined by the Fire Marshal upon a site plan
review of new proposed buildings.
17.
When fire protection, including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire
protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made
serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1997 Minnesota
Uniform Fire Code Section 901-3.
18.
The total SWMP fees are $47,433.00 and are due payable to the City at the time of final
plat recording.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0.
Mayor Jansen: If I could have another motion please. For the site plan.
Councilman Ayotte: The City Council approves site plan #2002-4, plans prepared by Steiner
Development Incorporated dated 4/12/02 subject to the conditions 1 through 25.
Councilman Labatt: Second.
Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approves
Site Plan g2002-4, plans prepared by Steiner Development, Inc., dated 4/12/02, subject to
the following conditions:
City Council Meeting - June 10, 2002
,
o
,
,
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
The applicant shall enter into a site plan agreement with the City and provide the
necessary security to guarantee erosion control, site restoration and landscaping.
The lot must be final platted into a Lot and Block prior to the issuance of the building
permit.
The northern elevation requires an additional seven (7) feet of windows. The eastern
elevation requires an additional fourteen (14) feet of windows.
Monuments must be set back a minimum of V2 the required building setback, 15 feet from
Century Boulevard and 35 feet from Highway 5.
Wall signage shall be permitted on only the north and east building elevations.
All signs shall require a separate sign permit.
The applicant shall fully screen parking lots from adjacent roadways through the use of
berms.
Submit utility plans for review and approval.
A 10 foot clear space must be maintained around fire hydrants, i.e. street lamps, trees,
bushes, shrubs, Qwest, Xcel Energy, cable TV and transformer boxes. This is to ensure
that fire hydrants can be quickly located and safely operated by firefighters. Pursuant to
Chanhassen City Ordinance #9-1.
When fire protection, including fire apparatus access roads and water supplies for fire
protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made
serviceable prior to and during the time of construction. Pursuant to 1997 Minnesota
Uniform Fire Code Section 901-3.
A PIV (post indicator valve) is required. Indicate on utility plans upon submittal.
Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention division regarding
premise identification. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention
Division Policy #29-1992. Copy enclosed.
Comply with water service installation policy for con~nercial and industrial buildings.
Pursuant to Inspection Division Water Service Installation Policy #34-1993. Copy
enclosed.
Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding
maximum allowed size of domestic water on a combination/fire sprinkler supply line.
Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention ?Division Policy #36-1994.
Comply with the Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention Division regarding notes
to be included on all site plans. Pursuant to Chanhassen Fire Department/Fire Prevention
Division Policy #4-1991.
City Council Meeting - June 10, 2002
16. Type II silt fence shall be used. The applicant should be aware that any off-site grading
will require an easement from the appropriate property owner. Silt fence shall be
promptly removed upon completion of construction.
17. Each newly created lot will be subject to city sanitary sewer and water hookup charges at
the time of building permit issuance. The 2002 trunk utility hookup charges are $1,383
per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,802 per unit for water.
18. The building plans must be prepared and signed by design professionals licensed in the
State of Minnesota.
19. The owner and/or their representatives shall meet with the Inspections Division as soon
as possible to discuss plan review and permit procedures.
20. All drive aisles must meet a minimum width of 26 feet.
21. The EFIS accent band shall be modified to conform with the Highway 5 Design Criteria.
22. Approval is contingent upon approval of Arboretum Business Park 4t~ Addition.
23. A cross access agreement between parcels shall be recorded.
24. The sidewalk shall be extended to the south to connect to a future east-west sidewalk on
the property to the south.
25. The developer shall provide areas for bicycle parking and storage.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 3 to 0.
Mayor Jansen: Congratulations. Glad to see more construction happening out on your site.
Thanks for being here this evening.
COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: COUNCIL/COMMISSION LIAISON UPDATE.
Mayor Jansen: Why don't I start. On Friday we had our Carver County Community Leaders
meeting, which was hosted in the City of Carver, and probably the most significant issue of
discussion was around the joint fiscal reporting that we're trying to pull together. And what that
is is an effort of all of the communities and the county as well as the school district to pull
together all of our capital improvement plans, being as squishy as it is once you get out a few
years, so 5 years or so. Just so that we have an understanding of all of the impacts that will be
occurring to our residents. Be it school referendums or something going on with the county as far
as funding, and projects and then of course our own projects, so we do have a concerted effort
around trying to make sure that we're all cognizant of what is happening within the county. So
that project is underway and our city administrator is very involved in helping pull that
information together and cooperating with the other entities to be sure that we've got that
information out there. Anything else significant to add from that meeting Todd?
Todd Gerhardt: I know we talked about the PGA tournament coming up in August and.
Mayor Jansen: Big public safety effort around that project.
City Council Meeting- June 10, 2002
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, talked about some of the road construction projects going on. There will
be a time in Chanhassen when Highway 5 and 7 will be down to add the additional shoulders and
traffic signals down at the Arboretum entrance west of 41. And that was some concern amongst
the other communities and wondering if there was any other way of trying to do that work and not
taking both 5 and 7 down, but at this time there doesn't look to be another option. We have a
very short construction season here in Minnesota so we've got to take advantage of it.
Mayor Jansen: And then you'll warn all of us what week that is, correct?
Todd Gerhardt: Yes. Matt had a meeting today and they were to clarify the specific date of that
and he didn't get back to me this afternoon but it will be in your next packet.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. That would be good information to have out there for people so they don't
just stumble into it that week. Possibly avoid it. Any other liaison updates?
Councilman Ayotte: Well I'd like to bring focus to the fact that on this coming Wednesday, 12
June we have the Environmental Commission meeting and there will be, and as Dotti always
leads it very, very well. I think it's a significant discussion point on the water quality awareness
program that we're heading up, and I'm hoping that possibly we can get input and status on the
water treatment activities as a prelude to that discussion which may influence the way they
structure the program. So if we could possibly get some support for the commission. The
comn-fission did make a request for some status of water treatment and it might be time to do it in
conjunction with this discussion point.
Mayor Jansen: So that's specifically around the water treatment facility project.
Councilman Ayotte: Yes ma'am.
Mayor Jansen: Are you comfortable having then the representative for the council with that
project on giving an update as to where that project stands?
Councilman Ayotte: No. I want more data from staff. That's why I'm asking the question.
Mayor Jansen: So more data than you even have as a group as you're working on the planning
for this?
Councilman Ayotte: I just want a status as to where we stand at this point because we haven't
had a lot of cormnunication up to this point. After the selection of contractor for the water
treatment activity.
Mayor Jansen: So you're looking for a time line? I'm trying to get more specific as to what
information you're looking for. You're looking for a time line on that project?
Councilman Ayotte: I want to know what activity has occurred since the award of the contractor
to this point in time to make a determination as to whether or not anything has'occurred, which
would influence the Environmental Commission's efforts on their water quality awareness
program.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Councihnan Ayotte: Which could be timeline or it could be.
10
City Council Meeting- June 10, 2002
Todd Gerhardt: I can have Teresa prepare something or attend that meeting. She's been
negotiating right now with the engineer is why that hasn't been moving ahead. They're trying to
finalize a contract and before you can move ahead with any portion of the project you have to
finalize the contract. Roger, do you know, are you working on the Black and Beach contract?
The engineer contract for the water treatment facility.
Roger Knutson: We worked on the study. On the contract for the study. Yeah, we did that, that
was done a couple weeks ago. Yes.
Todd Gerhardt: And I know Teresa was planning on putting a schedule together for the
committee on what their next steps are too so I' 11 make sure you can give an update on that.
Councilman Ayotte: Well it might be enough just for the study. We don't want to have her hurry
up to just to respond to this timeline, but it may be helpful to know what the study consists of
with respect to the scope for the water awareness program.
Todd Gerhardt: Yep.
Councilman Ayotte: Thank you.
Mayor Jansen: Very good. Thank you.
Councilman Ayotte: That's it.
Mayor Jansen: Okay, great. Steve anything?
Councilman Labatt: No.
Mayor Jansen: I unfortunately was unable to get feedback from Councilman Peterson before he
went out of town for I believe it' s a week, on replacing you on the Southwest Metro Transit
Commission so we'll probably have to take care of that in the next meeting as far as the conflict
that you now have with those meetings, so we'll wait until we have a fuller council here to do
that. Okay.
Councihnan Labatt: Sure.
Mayor Jansen: So that takes care of agenda item number 4. We will push that off to the next
meeting. Or we could appoint him since he's not here.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: PRESENTATION OF PLANNING OUTLINE~
COMMUNITY CENTER REQUEST FOR INFORMATION, PARK & RECREATION
DIRECTOR.
Todd Hoffman: Thank you Mayor Jansen, members of the City Council. In response to the City
Council's directive that the Park and Recreation Commission develop a request for information.
A charge statement was prepared for the commission. I'll highlight just the top two in the
statement. The goal. What is the purpose of the group? The Park and Recreation Commission is
charged with the duty of preparing a request for information packet to deliver to private and
public recreation service providers. The desired results from this charge is to ascertain a level of
interest that private and public recreation service providers have in joining a partnership with the
city and building a community recreation facility in our city. With that in mind, a draft or an
11
City Council Meeting- June 10, 2002
outline RFI was prepared. It follows up on the pages after the charge statement. Again
highlighting just a few of these items. Item C. The facility components I think is important for
the council to be aware. That the commission identified the following components. Obviously
additional components could be added at any time with some of these components could be
dropped depending on the interest of perspective partners. Those components are an outdoor
pool, an indoor pool, gymnasiums, a running or walking track, performing arts theater, exercise
facilities, daycare facilities, locker rooms, climbing wall and a banquet and meeting space. The
most notable exception to that is ice, or a sheet of ice. A hockey arena, and with the success of
the arenas in our surrounding communities, Eden Prairie with 2 rinks looking to build 3.
Shakopee with 1 rink looking to build 2. Victoria looking to build their first rink and then
Minnetonka with their rinks. The commission is somewhat hesitant to propose additional ice,
although for the local community that would be a nice amenity, but in general ice is.pretty well
built out across the metropolitan area and we're actually starting to see a downturn in the pricing
and affordability or ability of cities to afford to continue building and operating rinks. Item D is
also an important disclosure for everyone to be aware of. It's a financing disclosure. It states that
the City of Chanhassen proposes to deliver a general obligation and/or use revenue bonds to fund
it's portion of the financing for the project. In failure of any referendum that City Council would
propose would prevent the city from moving forward with the project. We believe that's
important for any potential funders or potential partners to be aware of. And then the last item on
the list is important as well and that's the organizations that the commission has identified that
could be perspective partners and there's a long list there, both school districts, the local athletic
associations, Lifetime Fitness, the Y, Northwest, Flagship, Ridgeview Medical, St. Francis
Medical, Park Nicollet, a variety of other sport and fitness clubs. There's some interested private
investors that will talk to the city and then a variety of other local organizations. And then I think
there's other organizations that we have not identified at present. The timeline for the RFI Would
include, if the council continues to believe in this process and give staff approval this evening.
We will move forward and finalize the RFI with the Park and Recreation Commission at their 25th
meeting of June and then bring you back a final copy of this document at your next available
meeting, the City Council meeting in July.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Great. So I'll open this up to council. If you care to start with comments
or any questions.
Councilman Ayotte: Both. We had a discussion, and quite fran~y it's just simply a fact and I
don't recollect the results of the discussion. If we were going to have another survey or an
extension of the survey that we aid conduct to gather more information from the community at
large. Whatever happened to that? I really don't recall. Do you remember when we had that
discussion?
Mayor Jansen: We did not have a conversation about doing another survey. The conversation
was more around the public process that we could implement in order to gain more feedback from
the public, whether it's involving other organizations. But we did not talk about doing another
survey. It would be more involving the public in be it open houses and soliciting information.
Councilman Ayotte: Which would be after the request for information and solidification of what
we out.
Mayor Jansen: Yep.
Councilman Ayotte: A couple of questions. With respect to the cycle time for this whole thing,
the turn time. Do we have an idea as to when we wanted to construct the RF. You said that the
12
City Council Meeting- June 10, 2002
RFI would be in draft form for the council 25 June. Did you state the target for sending out the
request for information?
Todd Hoffman: We stated the target for a return in the form of responses be a written letter
returned by August 25~ to the city.
Councilman Ayotte: Okay. Was there any discussion by the commission or interest on the part
of staff to format the RFI so we'd have some measure of standardization with responses? Or is it
the view of the commission and/or staff it would be better to be open ended to allow whatever to
occur to occur and kind of have a potpourri of responses? What was?
Todd Hoffman: Staff and the commission both read an RFI as being more loose than an RFP and
we read that as a signal from the council that you wanted just to be open. If we start to box
people in this early we may not identify all the potential funding mechanisms or partnerships that
we might see. It's a very open ended, but just the start of the initial conversation, a one page
letter to say yes. We' ve been thinking about that type of facility in Chanhassen. We would be
interested in sitting down with you and.
Councilman Ayotte: But you're not limiting them so if they give you tons, that's okay too?
Todd Hoffman: You bet.
Todd Gerhardt: I agree with Todd and the Park and Recreation Commission on that. You just go
through the organizations that they've listed here. You may combine some of these. They're all
going to have different angles or ideas towards this proposal so I think that's a good idea.
Councilman Ayotte: One last question. When we receive the information, how's it going to be
assessed? Is it going to be a function of staff and commission and/or commission? Has there
been any thought as to how we take this data, formulate it into information that can be shared
with council and public? Any thoughts on that line?
Mayor Jansen: That's direction that we would need to give at this point, and I think my
assumption would be that the information would be coming back to council for consideration and
at that point we could determine if, what the next step in the process needs to be as we see what
level of interest there is.
Councilman Ayotte: I'm talking, how do we format it so that it's discernable to a council or the
public? That's just something I would suggest that we may want to think about so that it becomes
an easier tool to assess and deal with. Just food for thought.
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, I would think we'd kind of do an inventory of each of the responders
based on the information that we're requesting and see who's coming or who's...the different
type of activities. The facility components and we can put a spread sheet together highlighting
yes, no. On how each individual may respond to the different facility components. Have a
section in there on how they might want to go about financing or their financial needs or what
their needs from the city might be and other information that they may request as a part of the
proposal.
Todd Hoffman: The volume of this response should be manageable. You know we're talking
maybe a half a dozen. Little more and the volume of the information should be manageable I
think.
13
City Council Meeting - June 10, 2002
Mayor Jansen: Okay. I have a couple of things. Under objective. The what, the line that reads
the level of funding responsibility you may be willing to assume. I think at this point we'd like to
make the assumption that they' re stepping forward funding whatever it is that they in fact intend
to participate in. I don't know that we want to put out there in our request for information that
we're looking for them to provide anything other than the 100 percent. I don't know that that's a
good starting place. And which led me down to the disclosure of proposed city financing in that
we have not had a conversation around, for one what level of funding we would even look to put
into this project since we don't know how expensive it would be. But if we did have a private
party come in to do the facility, we would have to have a more lengthy...and there would be. I
think right now we're in that preliminary stage of just trying to find out, is there a fitness center
out there, a private fitness center that would like to come into Chanhassen and would the school
district like to be a part of a collaboration? You know we're talking about a collaboration but I
don't know that we're necessarily saying, and here's our checkbook because we're stepping to
the table and we're wanting to fund a part of that. There's definitely a mixed reaction on
council's part as to what level we may or may not go to and specifically in regards to any
discussion around a referendum. So I wouldn't want to suggest that right up front would be my
hesitation, and that maybe that becomes more a part of the conversation with the parties as to
what's possible and what sites may in fact trigger that level of participation that may need to be
had on our part. Does that make sense?
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. They're going to ask you, you know it's going to be into a negotiated
point. They' re going to ask you to bond for it in their request. That's going to be their
expectations, and then we will respond to what level we feel comfortable with. I've had other
individuals come in and ask us and we said no, so I don't have a problem taking that section out.
If you just, you know Roger made a point when you do revenue bonds you don't need a
referendum. Just general obligation bonds need a referendum. We can do a lease revenue bond
or just a plain revenue bond but.
Mayor Jansen: So all of that can become part of that conversation in a negotiation versus it
needing to be maybe verbalized here.
Todd Gerhardt: Sure.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Todd Hoffman: What led me to include it was, you talk about a partnership and people always
like your checkbook to come along with partnerships so I thought well, we'd better talk about it.
So perhaps you even want to lessen that part of the just simple a certain, you use partnership or
partner a lot and perhaps we just weaken that link and we're looking for people with a desire to
provide that.
Mayor Jansen: I don't know that you necessarily need to lessen that message. I think there are
other things that we too can do to participate in pulling this whole venture together. And again it,
to me it says we're willing to pay for this right up front, the way that it's worded, whereas if you
say partnership, we're willing to work with them in order to be able to make the project happen.
Councilman Ayotte: Let me ask a question, again when you're talking towards the issue of
partnering and so on. Would it be an appropriate thing or positive thing where you send a request
for information out, and this is not a leading question. I really don't know. Should we list all the
14
City Council Meeting- June 10, 2002
addressees so they can see who's we're talking to so that Bally Total Fitness sees that we've also
corresponded with Northwest Athletic Club?
Mayor Jansen: Do you have an opinion on that?
Todd Hoffman: I'm going to make the assumption that they probably.
Todd Gerhardt: They probably assume that.
Councilman Ayotte: So you say don't list them? What if someone oesn t reahze that that we
d ' ·
are approaching school districts?
Todd Gerhardt: I think if you list them then you may get individuals that won't submit, if they
see somebody out there, Bally sees Northwest out there. Well we're not going to do, we don't do
those things or.
Councilman Ayotte: Don't let anyone out there on the TV know that we just.
Todd Hoffman: In a cover letter we would simply allude to the fact that we have sent this to a
variety of interested.
Councilman Ayotte: And maybe address the fact that it's private and public concerns. Non-
profit and profit. Just so that they understand that consortium is a potential.
Todd Hoffman: We can do that in a cover letter.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. The other thing that I was going to suggest is maybe under the facility
components, we are of course going to be sending this out to a couple of medical organizations
and maybe to note under that, a medical or what do you call those facilities when they come in?
What does Ridgeview call their's that's in Chaska?
Todd Hoffman: Health and wellness or physical, what do they call it? Sports medicine.
Mayor Jansen: There you go.
Todd Gerhardt: Business health. That's what draws those people in.
Mayor Jansen: And there is some interest in that already. Councilman Labatt, do you want to
take any issue with what's not under the facility components? Because we all know it's coming.
Should I bring it up? Where's the ice arena?
Councilman Labatt: There we go. Well I hate to eliminate it right now. You know what's the
harm of leaving it in here?
Todd Hoffman: There isn't one.
Mayor Jansen: I would agree.
Councilman Labatt: And I would hate to not include it now and then, I mean I think that they're,
in looking at what's up at Lifetime and even down at the Dakota facility down at Mystic Lake,
when you say your indoor pool/outdoor pool, is that inclusive of the kiddie pool or wading pool
15
City Council Meeting - June 10, 2002
too? Similar to what Maple Grove has, so when you say that, can we assume that that is what is
understood underneath here or do we need to be listed as a separate category under the
indoor/outdoor pool, a wading pool?
Todd Hoffman: I think your assumption is safe that that would include all the spas and wading
pools and the zero depth and everything that's possible. You don't want to build something that's
not the state of the art. That' s not the place to start.
Mayor Jansen: Is a water park included in that general description or would that be a separate
type of facility?
Todd Hoffman: In general outdoor pools are more of a water park or family aquatic center today.
Councilman Labatt: Similar to St. Louis Park?
Todd Hoffman: Well similar to Eagan. St. Louis Park where you have the slides and the...water
toys.
Councilman Ayotte: What'd you call it again? It was a what?
Todd Hoffman: Family aquatic center or a water park.
Councihnan Ayotte: Family aquatic center.
Mayor Jansen: You like that I gather. Okay.
Councihnan Labatt: So this goes to the Park and Recreation Commission on?
Todd Hoffman: June 25a~.
Councilman Labatt: And if interested parties want to come and comment, is it available on that
night too?
Todd Hoffman: Sure.
Councilman Labatt: I' m just thinking that you know.
Todd Hoffman: Get your ice people there.
Councilman Labatt: I'm not going to twist any arms to get them there but.
Mayor Jansen: Well actually one of my questions was going to be, does this necessarily have to
go back to the commission as far as expediting this rather than delaying it? If what you're
Ioo 'king to us for is our feedback on ~vhat they've forwarded, and I'm not hearing a lot of changes
to this. It then just requires a cover letter and we're good to go. Could that not come back to us
at our next council meeting?
Todd Hoffman: I don't see why not. I don't see any reason.
Councihnan Ayotte: Because you had referenced the 25th and our council's the 24th so you're
talking about the 24m? To have it on the agenda.
16
City Council Meeting- June 10, 2002
Mayor Jansen: And the 25th was the Park and Recreation Commission meeting.
Councilman Ayotte: Yeah, but that's where he said he would have, so approval on the 24th by us
and then it would go forward on the 25th?
Mayor Jansen: But they don't necessarily need to see it. We have their draft at this point, with
just a few changes. So then if we have the final back with the cover letter on the 24th, it could
then be mailed out and maybe we can move up this August 25th response date I guess is what I'm
trying to get to.
Councilman Labatt: You could almost move it up 2 weeks to the first.
Mayor Jansen: Make it like the end of July?
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah, we could do that by July.
Todd Hoffman: You could almost get a month.
Mayor Jansen: That'd be a month for them to respond with just a simple letter since it's not a full
blown RFP. Yes, we're interested. No, we're not.
Todd Gerhardt: Todd, do you want to explain why the Park and Recreation Commission wanted
to review it? They wanted to see some of the changes the council might make or?
Todd Hoffman: Well the Park Commission brought this out of their meeting but this is a staff
representation of the information that they put together that evening so they haven't seen this in a
final form as well. So this is the first time the council has seen it. This would be the first time,
with your modifications that they would see it, but I don't think that they're going to have any
problem with moving the time line up.
Mayor Jansen: Have you sent them a copy of the draft as of yet?
Todd Hoffman: No.
Mayor Jansen: Maybe it would be advisable to at least provide them with a copy so that if you do
end up with them giving comments back, that they feel that they wanted something else in here
that's not included, you could get those from them individually from that meeting. And make
sure that we do have those included or at least that we can have a conversation around them at our
next meeting. How does that sound?
Todd Hoffman: E-mail...
Mayor Jansen: Yeah, exactly. Exactly, you've got to love technology these days. But if we're
adding the ice arena Steve, shouldn't we add Kevin McShane under the proposed recipients of the
RFI?
Todd Hoffman: Chan Bank.
Councihnan Labatt: Maybe for the Zamboni.
17
City Council Meeting -June 10, 2002
Mayor Jansen: There you go. Anything else7 Steve?
Councilman Labatt: No. I think it's exciting. I mean you see stuff on paper and progression on
this. I mean how long has this been an issue? The city's been wanting this for so long and finally
we get a group of people that are going to move it along. It's nice that things don't get stalled.
Mayor Jansen: Okay.
Councilman Labatt: Do we need a motion then? Motion to accept this or what?
Todd Gerhardt: We'll have it on your consent agenda at the next council meeting for your
approval.
Mayor Jansen: Any other comments Councilman Ayotte?
Councilman Ayotte: Nice job.
Councilman Labatt: Yes, very nice job Todd. And the commission too.
Mayor Jansen: And our thanks to the commission for helping to pull this together and doing it so
expeditiously. We didn't talk about this too long ago and you're already bringing this back so
that's great. Do you need anything else from us then? Okay.
Councilman Labatt: Just seems like yesterday we went on that bus tour of all these facilities.
Todd and I sitting in the back.
Mayor Jansen: Then it's more, how do we get this done? Okay. Anything else under
administrative presentations Mr. Gerhardt?
Todd Gerhardt: No. Got a, next work session is going to be full. Going to lay out a guide plan
for you regarding taxation. Met with Mark Ruff from Ehlers Associates. That's our next
segment of our strategic plan and we're going to have a series of 4 meeti.ngs in creating a
financial foundation for taxation. I think you're going to really enjoy that. And another big issue
that we're going to have to deal with is to have a formal request coming from Rosemount. They'd
like to subdivide their property and they need some direction from the council regarding that.
They have one remnant piece just to the east of the church, the Lutheran church there. That large.
Councilman Labatt: That little triangle there in the comer?
Todd Gerhardt: Yeah. They'd like to put that on the market. Subdivide that off from their main
piece. When we put the private redevelopment agreement together on that, I made it a condition
that it be in one sole ownership and so they need our blessing for them to subdivide that property.
And also should be compensation back to the city for that so those are things we're going to talk
about. Is that something you want to see developed and two, what kind of level of compensation
do you want to demand as a part of that? So those are going to be two of the big ones on your
work session.
Mayor Jansen: Great. Update on the library construction, now that we see that the fences are
going up.
18
City Council Meeting- June 10, 2002
Todd Gerhardt: The fences are going up. The trees are coming down and we're going to start
moving dirt on Wednesday so we're dealing with a couple of little issues out there. We missed
our fiber phone line into this building. Did not show up on the civil drawings so you will see a
change order for that to relocate that line. So give you the. heads up now on that. And then we're
dealing with a little storm water issue. Got all the utilities in one area so we might need to reroute
a storm water pipe to try to accommodate for the utilities that are going on out there. Civil's re-
looking that so. Big project. Lot of utilities in the area so, but we're excited to see the dirt
moving. Unfortunately some of the trees have to come down, so if anybody asks you why they
cut the trees down along West 78th Street. Those trees were planted on top of a lot of utilities.
There's a major, major fiber line from Sprint that goes through downtown, so if we were to try to
spade that out and hit that, they call it a million dollar cut so we did not take the effort of trying to
spade those trees out. And around City Hall too you can see some utilities in the area there that
we did not spade out trees so that's why.
Mayor Jansen: And we' 11 be adding a lot of trees with the library project as well as the park
project so at least we' 11 have some numerous replacements going in for them. Not that you can
make up the size of what's there but, they will be replaced.
Todd Gerhardt: Yep. We will have a comprehensive landscape plan when we do the park and
around the library so it will all blend together and look fresh and new.
Mayor Jansen: Great.
Todd Gerhardt: That's it.
Mayor Jansen: Okay. Anything under the correspondence section? Okay, this was short and
sweet. If I could have a motion to adjourn.
Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted
in favor and the motion carried. The City Council meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
Submitted by Todd Gerhardt
City Manager
Prepared by Nann Opheim
19
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 4, 2002
Vice Chair Sidney called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: LuAnn Sidney, Steve Lillehaug, Craig Claybaugh, Uli Sacchet, Bruce
Feik and Rich Slagle
MEMBERS ABSENT: Alison Blackowiak
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director and Sharmin A1-Jaff,
Senior Planner
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR A 7 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR
EXPANSION OF A GARAGE ADDITION ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAl,
la.
SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 3920 LESLEE CURVE (PAUL & LIBBY
SCHEELE)~ KNIGHT CONSTRUCTION.
Public Present:
Name Address
Libby & Paul Scheele
Dave Harrison
Leonard & Selma Hein
3920 Leslee Curve
Knight Construction, 2989 Watertower Place
3930 Leslee Curve
Kate Aanenson presented the staff report on this item.
Sidney: Questions of staff anyone?
Lillehaug: I do have one quick question. You indicate you have a, it's just a little over 4 foot is
the existing distance between the property line and would that be the edge of the house or would
that be the actual eave?
Aanenson: No. That would be the actual edge of the garage. The eave actually extends into that,
and we've modified that ordinance because the way the setback is interpreted is that you don't
have to count an architectural feature, but we thought in the past when we've given relief on
variances, sometimes that's used to the benefit. For example, a bay window or something like
that where expectation is they're going to meet the 4 foot but the bay window goes in so what
we' ve amended the code to say is when you're giving a variance, that architectural feature can't
protrude into that and with this case, the 18 inches goes beyond that. And just one other point of
clarification. This 4 ¥2 feet at this point, if you can see. It's moving this lot line swings out so the
worst point is down at this as far as the closest to the property line. As far as compliance and as
it's moving this way it gets past the 5 foot. So you're at like 4.18, 4.57 and it's moving further
away. Not more than a foot though but.
Sidney: Any other questions of staff?. Okay. This is a public hearing. Oh excuse me, I guess the
applicant, if you'd like to make a presentation. Please come forward and state your name and
address please.
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002
Dave Harrison: I'm Dave Harrison with Knight Construction. Okay, do I need an address for
that?
Sidney: Sure.
Dave Harrison: Yeah, I office at 2989 Watertower Place. That's in Chanhassen. We understand
the side lot setback but the reason, a lot of the reason for this addition is actually to put a first
floor laundry room into this home. Right now the laundry room is in the basement and the
Sheele's travel 2-3 times a year with up to 3 weeks at a time and when they travel, Libby's
parents come and stay. Using the basement laundry is very inconvenient. That's the main
reason, or actually part of the reason for the addition of the garage. Why they're going out
because we'd be adding a laundry room in the rear of the garage. The setback issue, I mean we
understand what everybody's saying but it's kind of like this was the first house built in the
subdivision so it's kind of dictated by where it is and they're kind of, they're kind of stuck the
way it is. That's why we're asking for the variance because of the pre-existing condition. I know
it's stated in here. I guess that's why we're in asking for the variance. I guess I don't, more than
that I really don't have much more to say other than there i.s a hardship issue with the basement
laundry. Bringing it upstairs would definitely make it a lot more functional. Okay? Questions?
Libby Scheele: Hi. My name is Libby Scheele and I live at 3920 Leslee Curve as stated, and I
appreciate the commission setting rules to... As you can see we're very close to the lot line here.
Our foundation was the very first foundation dug in 1957 and when they dug it, it was a giant
field. Then they put the roads in afterwards. So the house to the east of us, that you see in this
picture, was one of the last houses built and they are close to us. Our foundation was built first.
Their's was second and as you can see there's a row of trees here and the garage would still be
setback from their garage by about, I don't know, by about 15 feet. There are no windows on that
side of their garage for their house so it wouldn't block any view and as you can see in this
survey, we're set back from everyone else. So what we're asking for is 14 feet that would allow
me to put a mud room in the back and my mother has had 2 knees replaced and she hates doing
laundry at my house so I request that we do this for my mom. Thank you.
Sidney: Any questions for the applicant?
Slagle: I've got a couple. Is the, if you put a mud room in the back, would the new extension be
your garage?
Libby Scheele: Correct. Correct. What you see here is, it's about 20 feet deep, the garage so by
bringing the garage out 14 feet, that gives us 10 feet in the back of the garage for the mud room.
We could not put a mud room in with it as it is now. It isn't deep enough. It's just 2 cars. Now
we're not making it a 3 car garage. We're keeping it a 2 car garage so it will be real consistent
with everything on this street.
Slagle: Let me ask this. I visited the site yesterday, so if you saw a car just sitting out I
apologize. But it didn't seem to me that you were using the garage for the cars.
Libby Scheele: The reason that we are doing that is because 20 days ago they began preparation
for the remodeling in our kitchen so what you see in that garage right now is the old kitchen
cabinets so we haven't been able to get in there because they're storing things there. And we are
moving the existing vehicles around the side of the house at another time, and our kids are home
from college also.
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002
Slagle: So you would use the garage though for the cars?
Libby Scheele: Absolutely. Can't wait to use it again. Yeah.
Slagle: Okay. That's all.
Sacchet: I have a question too.
Libby Scheele: Yes.
Sacchet: How difficult would it be to put a laundry room in a different spot?
Libby Scheele: It's possible, and not as convenient. We thought that if we were to do it in this
new section, then we could vent the dryer directly outside. And in the other places we'd have to
vent either up through the roof or, I don't know how we would do it. And the further you are
from the outside of the vent and the dryer, the less efficient it is and in newer construction they're
often having it right next to the outside so I thought this would be the best way to vent out also.
Sacchet: But there would be alternatives basically.
Libby Scheele: I can't think of anyplace right now. I can't imagine where we would put it. The
laundry room is a pretty good sized room for a family of 5 so, I can't imagine where it would go.
Paul Scheele: We're talking first floor.
Libby Scheele: Yeah. We're trying to make it first floor living. We're getting older. We'd like
to retire here. His parents, my parents, they love to come here except they hate the laundry in the
basement.
Sidney: Any other questions? Okay, thank you.
Libby Scheele: You're welcome.
Sidney: Now it's time for public, oh. Would you like? /
Libby Scheele: Our neighbors would like to speak.
Sidney: Oh, yeah now we have an opportunity for that during a public hearing and I'll open it up
for a public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on this topic, please come forward.
Paul Scheele: Yeah, I' m Paul Scheele. I wanted to speak in support of the question that was
asked. Is there another place to do it? If I could have the architectural plan up on the board again
please.
Aanenson: The site plan or the architectural?
Paul Scheele: The architectural plan drawing. As you can see in this end of the, this is the
kitchen where we come out of the house. All the rest of the first floor living is completely filled,
it's a 2 bedroom. 3 bedrooms up. Master bedroom is attached to the back so really in terms of
looking at options for extending the first floor to accommodate for a laundry room/mud room,
this is what was proposed. This is the best we could imagine. Now of course here's the existing
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002
line of the property right now. The front of the garage is at this point, so we'd be taking a little
better than half of the back of the existing garage and just adding that plus a foot or two in the
front. But I would like to say something else. In comment to the choice to do this work at this
time. We've lived in the property 12 years, and we have had the good graces of my in-laws and
my parents taking care of the kids in the years that we've been there, but the condition of the
garage floor and the foundation due to settling, due to water running in, all of that garage floor
really does need to be replaced as well as terribly cracked, heaved. It heaves every winter and so
on, so there is an advantage of doing several things at once that we were hoping to do. The other
thing that we were concerned about is with the addition, to show that this prow roof which does
extend considerably beyond the current wall of the garage is going to be in excess to what we're
proposing at this time. The roof line. It' s not going to come out as far as the existing prow that's
there right now. And I know that' s, it may be moot to what we're talking about in terms of the
regulations that are there. I just wanted to point that out.
Sidney: Anyone else wishing to address?
Leonard Hein: I'd just like to say.
Sidney: Please come up to the podium. State your name and address for the record please.
Leonard Hein: Yes. My name is Leonard Hein. We live on 3930 Leslee Curve, next door to the
Sheele's. They're just wonderful neighbors. They've done so much to improve their property
and if they want to keep on improving their property so they can live a life that they like to live at
their home, I say let them do what their plans show. They're just wonderful people and they're
improving on the property all the time. Always and almost every day so keep that in mind.
Sidney': Okay.
Slagle: Don't go so quick sir. I have a question. Are you on the east side or the west side of
their property?
Leonard Hein: We're on the west side.
Slagle: So you're the one that has.
Leonard Hein: It doesn't interfere with us.
Slagle: So you've got the luxury that there's a lot of green space between your house and their
house?
Leonard Hein: Yes we do.
Stagle: Okay. I just want to make sure that you're not the one who's right there on the property.
Leonard Hein: No, but...I know the neighbor on the other side hasn't objected to it at all. He
said it was just fine .... cut the cinnamon rolls and call it square.
Slagle: Okay...where you get those.
Sidney: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the commission? If not, I'll close the public
hearing. Con',missioners, comments.
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002
Feik: I have a couple of comments. I very much like the look of the renovation. I think it
updates the front fasade a lot with the addition, but still I'm having a hard time getting my arms
around the undue hardship. There seemed to be a significant amount of buildable land around the
property that could be used to construct a mud room, a laundry room versus annexing part of the
garage and moving the garage forward so I'm having a hard, help me out on the panel here, but
I'm having a hard time with the undue hardship criteria here so that's my concern.
Slagle: I've got just one thought and if I can Madam Chair, if I can ask the applicants one more
question. I apologize for not asking this. If I'm looking at your diagram of your house if you
will, for lack of a better example. Have you considered this back comer? I don't know what's in
that, in your house at that point.
Libby Scheele: In that back comer that is where I work. That's my studio. I'm an artist and I
work at home, and part of the mud room was so that I would have a sink for my business also.
But that's not hardship. I can wash my brushes out elsewhere.
Slagle: I guess I'm asking if you've got this comer section of your house that's left if you will,
why couldn't.
Libby Scheele: Oh in there? I can't put it there because that would be close to the lot line again
in the back.
Slagle: Well I understand that.
Libby Scheele: That would be the same as out the front, wouldn't it?
Slagle: Understand but if I look at a picture and I remember your house, it's fairly protected from
an aesthetic standpoint. I mean you've got brushes and trees and what not going back there.
I guess I just wondered why you hadn't considered finishing that section off and making that
perhaps, I'm just throwing this out as an idea. It'd be less visible to the general public.
Libby Scheele: I think that's about maybe, how many, 5 feet by 8 feet. And I don't think you
could put a washer and dryer.
Slagle: 9 by 14.
Libby Scheele: 9 by 14, that'd be pretty.
Paul Scheele: On the property it was originally designed as a ranch style home. And the two
bumped out on the back are additions to the house.
Libby Scheele: And I don't know how you'd put a mud room in there.
Paul Scheele: How you would access it from the front of the house.
Libby Scheele: Yeah. We were hoping to keep the, where you would come in. Okay. It would
make the most sense on this house because the other side of the house is the bedroom wing and a
mud room wouldn't be as appropriate entering from a person's bedroom because there's no
doorway to that side of the house.
Slagle: Okay. Just trying to think of possible.
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002
Libby Scheele: Yeah.
Paul Scheele: The bedrooms are all on that other end of the house. It would be lovely to put the
garage next to the kitchen.
Slagle: On the west end.
Paul Scheele: Exactly. It would be lovely and it's configured completely wrong for that.
Libby Scheele: Yeah. And my neighbor on the east side just had a baby yesterday. He said I'd
be there but they're at the hospital but he's totally fine with us doing this. Boy, I don't know. To
prove hardship. I know that we're aging. My mother has had 2 knees replaced. I don't know
what's in my future either. I want to plan ahead and we're trying to make the best investment
with our money and we thought we'd put it into the house so we looked at the house and tried to
figure out the best way to make use of the land and the house. And I don't know, it seems to be
the most logical place to put it. I know it would mean a tot to me.
Slagle: Personally if I can speak, I'm hoping you can tell me why you can't use that back.
Libby Scheele: That back area?
Slagle: Yeah. I mean personally. Maybe your construction guy has a thought.
Dave Harrison: Can I have that.
Aanenson: It doesn't show. The simple answer is, you're coming into a bedroom. The way it's
configured now, you're coming into the back hallway, but it doesn't show up.
Dave Harrison: Right.
Slagle: Can you say that again Kate.
Dave Harrison: You're talking about that back corner, right? You're talking this area right here?
Slagle: Yeah. So is that a bedroom?
Dave Han'ison: Now right here is where you're talking about?
Aanenson: Coming into a bedroom as opposed to.
Slagle: But isn't that her studio, didn't she say? Her work place.
Dave Harrison: Right.
Slagle: Bedroom work place.
Dave Harrison: And this area here is actually Leslie's studio. You're coming in through a studio.
This is garage here. I'm trying to configure a mud room and a laundry area back in this room.
It' s ~nd of like, you might as well put it next door. It's not even part of the house anymore.
Going through the studio, there's a fireplace that sits in this corner. There's really not access to
accommodate that mud room area.
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002
Slagle: Fair enough. I just didn't know what was in the house.
Dave Harrison: Right.
Libby Scheele: There's no crawl space here so the plumbing would have to go outside.
Dave Harrison: Right, we get into plumbing issues and things like that.
Slagle: Fair enough. That answers what I was looking for.
Sidney: Okay?
Sacchet: Well I really sympathize with you guys, the applicants. I mean it's making your
parents happy is definitely a hardship in it's own right, if it's not in place. However, the
framework that we have to look at this from the Planning Commission. Our task is basically to
interpret whether the rules are being applied in a reasonable way and the rules are pretty clear that
when we grant a variance in a case like that, there has to be a balancing factor like a decrease of
the non-conformity. Now in your case you really don't decrease or just very slightly decrease the
non-conformity if you don't have that roof sticking out. So even though I would like to let you
do what you want to do, I think from the task that we've given as planning commissioners, we
have to apply the rules, otherwise there's no point in having the rules. And on that basis I have
to agree with the staff report. But I would encourage you to pursue this issue further with City
Council to see whether they can give you more leeway with that. Or alternatively a route that I
could see how I would like to go with this is, I feel you haven't really sufficiently explored
alternatives. Now we looked at one alternative that Commissioner Slagle touched on and that
didn't seem like necessarily something that works, but I feel personally, I'm not sure about that.
That alternatives could be looked at a little further and if that's the route we would want to go, I
would suggest that we table the variance so you wouldn't have to apply for it again and
alternatives could be looked at a little further. That's where I stand.
Sidney: Craig.
Claybaugh: There is no dimensions on the plans here that I have with respect to the mud room
size but it seems like a fairly spacious mud room. Again, I agree with my fellow commissioner
here with respect to the framework and what we're charged with. I think a combination of
creativity and compromise could potentially go a long ways towards mitigating the problem that
you have. Obviously we're not here to design it but one thing that strikes out at me would be to
potentially turn that mud room 90 degrees and extend the west side of that single stall out. That
would be one alternative that might be worth pursuing. To that end I would agree with a
commissioner that you may want to look at tabling this item and coming at it from a different
direction under the framework as we stated that we're charged with, though we empathize with
you, don't feel that we can support it. Thanks.
Lillehaug: I strongly support proposals and improvements to existing houses. It's a good way to
update and revitalize older neighborhoods in our community. City ordinances and guidelines I
think are pretty clear with non-conforming lots, but I do believe that a fair amount of latitude
should be given to encourage home improvements. Although this proposal seems to be the most
logical expansion, there are other options. They're not very easy options, but there are other
options. I do not support this option however because allowing an expansion on this garage, it
does increase the negative impact to the adjacent property so therefore I don't support this. I do
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002
encourage the applicant to explore other options which wouldn't increase the negative impacts to
that adjacent property lot. And for those reasons I don't support approval of this variance.
Sidney: Okay, thank you. I think my comments are not too much different from my fellow
commissioners. In terms of hardship, I do have concerns that we really don't have undue
hardship demonstrated here. Usually what we talk about is something having to do with the
topography or shape of the lot. Something on that order, and in this case I don't believe that is
the case. I do agree with the staff' s finding that approving this variance will increase the non-
conformity and there do appear to be other options available for this addition. However I do
recognize that one of the findings as stated in the staff report does address the fact that the home
was constructed prior to the city being incorporated which is a potential mitigating factor so, I
guess I do have a question for the applicant if I can go ahead with that. Would you feel
comfortable coming back a second time so that if we table it then you would have that option.
Dave Harrison: Sure.
Sidney: Okay, and I'll see what the commissioners have to say then. Could I have a motion
please.
Sacchet: Yeah Madam Chair. I make a motion that we table the request for a 7 foot side yard
setback variance with the intent that alternatives be considered that may lessen or not require a
variance. And if they do require a variance, that it could be submitted under the same application.
Sidney: Could I have a second?
Claybaugh: Second.
Sacchet moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission table Variance #2002-4
for a 7 foot side yard setback variance for the expansion of a garage. All voted in favor and
the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Slagle: Can I ask staff of one thing? Can we get a, at best a diagram of what the house looks
like, just for my own? Okay.
Dave Harrison: Could I add one?
Slagle: Sure. I'm sorry.
Dave Harrison: Minimum side yard setback, okay what would be the minimum side yard setback
we could comfortably go and get?
Aanenson: That's something we'd be happy to meet with them on.
Sidney: Yeah, that's something the staff...
Slagle: They're the experts.
Sidney: Yep. So anyway that item has been tabled. You'll have another chance to come before
us again with your proposal. Okay, thanks.
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR A SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE
RECONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE ON A NON-CONFORMING LOT OF RECORD
ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 3628 HICKORY ROAD~
STEPHEN GUNTHER.
Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Sidney: Questions of staff.
Feik: I have one. In the findings, first finding regarding undue hardship again, I read the finding
3 times and I did not see where you have addressed whether it is or is not a hardship.
A1-Jaff: The structure that they have right now is minimal in size. Two car garage is a
reasonable use.
Feik: I understand the applicant already has a 2 car garage attached to the house. Is that not
correct? Is it a tuck under?
Steve Gunther: That's correct.
AI-Jaff: They are, there is an existing situation. They're improving the situation.
Feik: I understand that. I'm specifically speaking to the hardship issue. My understanding is, as
it relates to a non-conforming use, they are not to be able to re-build, reconstruct and in
continuing a non-conforming use by approval as...designed initially, other than it essentially
continued that for the duration at least of the next structure that' s going to stand.
A1-Jaff: They're improving a non-conforming situation.
Feik: Technically the last applicant was improving a non-conforming situation because that side
lot was getting larger as it approached the street. Kate spoke very eloquently I believe at the last
one regarding the non-conformance or the hardship in the non-conformance and I don't see where
this ties together.
Aanenson: That's a position certainly.
Feik: I also...and I have more items I would prefer to save for the staff, or...discussion. Thank
you.
Sidney: Okay. Questions?
Sacchet: Yeah, I do have a few comments. Obviously I'm concerned about the tree. I guess you
gathered that from Sharmin's comments and I want to thank you for having researched that as
thoroughly as you did. I do not necessarily agree with you Bruce in terms of the hardship. I
agree that it doesn't, the hardship doesn't apply, and that's the thing we need to discuss with our
city attorney to get a better understanding because there are two schools of thought. One is that it
needs a hardship and the other part of the balance is that it has to be a reasonable request. And it
seems a little bit, what kind of land use attorney you talk to, you get slightly different
interpretation where the balance is between those two things. Now I don't think we want to argue
whether this request is reasonable. I think it's clearly a reasonable request. It does away with a
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002
pretty run down shed and wants to put there a nice garage. However, what's significant is in
terms of the non-conformity, it's still needing a variance but the variance is much less. So that
the non-conformance is significantly decreased and that's significantly different from the
previous case we looked at. In the previous case the non-conformance was not decreased. In this
case the non-conformance is significantly decreased. I don't know what it is, about to half or
what or even less. Plus in addition there's a safety concern. Currently that shed is in the view
line of this crossing and by moving it away from that crossing, we're significantly improving the
safety of that intersection there. So on that basis I definitely support giving this variance. I
would support also giving the additional 5 feet into the side yard setback based on Sharmin's
explanation that it doesn't just increase a non-conformance. It actually also decreases a non-
conformance a little bit towards Red Cedar.
Feik: Uli, I apologize. If I might interrupt Madam Chair.
Sacchet: Please, go ahead.
Feik: I would like to carry this conversation on but I believe we might be getting a little ahead of
ourselves. We haven't heard from the applicant...
Sacchet: Oh we haven't, okay. You're right. I'm way at the end already. I'm ready to put this
to bed and be done with it. I rest my case.
Slagle: Madam Chair, I'd like to add is, as being between these two gentlemen, I can see both
sides. I just want to let you know that.
Sidney: Very good.
Sacchet: You sit in the right spot.
Sidney: Okay. Any other comments?
Claybaugh: Yeah I have some comments.
Sidney: Questions for staff I guess is where we're at.
Claybaugh: Yeah like Bruce I struggle with the hardship issue. What struck me was the public
safety issue on the corner there and the, for my part, Uli struck on it was addressing that and
lessening the condition. The adjacent garage on the adjacent property, what is the distance off?
That isn't a dimension on our plan here. On the survey. They're showing the edge of a garage
right now.
Steve Gunther: My neighbor's garage?
Claybaugh: Yes.
Steve Gunther: According to my surveyor, it's 4 feet from the property line.
Claybaugh: 4 feet from the property line.
Slagle: How about elevation?
10
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002
Sacchet: Same almost.
Steve Gunther: It's on the side, it's kind of a shallow sloping hill.
Sidney: Let's wait for the applicant to come up here. Yeah, we'll have you come up.
Claybaugh: That's all the questions I have right now.
Lillehaug: I do have a question in regards to the sight distance and safety of that intersection.
Does the city currently have any records of any existing accidents at that intersection? I mean is
there a problem?
Aanenson: I don't know if we have any records on that. I can check.
Lillehaug: Okay. And one more question. We discussed this earlier. Currently that tree could,
the owner can just go cut it down and legally the city would have nothing, let him cut it down
correct?
Aanenson: Yeah. It's not a tree preservation area.
Lillehaug: Okay, thank you.
Sidney: Any other questions of staff?. Okay applicant, if you'd like to come forward please.
Please state your name and address for the record again.
Steve Gunther: Good evening. I'm Steve Gunther, 3628 Hickory Road in Chanhassen/Excelsior.
I think Sharmin did a nice job describing the situation. Maybe just to expand on it just a bit if I
might. What I'm proposing to do is build a 2 car garage, as you know, and I understand that I do
have a 2 car garage on the existing lot across the street. I do have 2 teenage boys, 16 and 14. The
16 year old is driving to work, etc. Volunteer work, sports, etc. So with my wife working and
myself working and my son needing a car.
Feik: That would be a hardship in itself.
Steve Gunther: Well he's actually a very good boy so I wouldn't call that a hardship by any
means but we need 3 cars and to have a 2 car garage for 3 cars is just, you know it wouldn't, it
doesn't work very well. The second piece is, we do live on a lake and we do own boats. I have a
small Larson speed boat and a laser sailboat and kayak and we're very avid boaters. We're also
avid cross country skiers. That's why we live on the lake. Bikers, etc so if I added the need to
have at least 3 cars, plus storage for boats, 2 boats or you know, a kayak and plus I work on my
own bicycles. I need to have a shop to do bicycle repair and maintenance and stuff. It adds up
that I need some additional space from the 2 cars I've currently got so ideally I'd have an
additional 2 car garage, so I could have 1 stall for the storage of my motorboat in the wintertime,
and 1 stall for the storage of my sailboat and bicycles, cross country ski gear and all that stuff so
that's why I'm asking for a 2 car garage. If you look at the sheet I've got on the table here,
maybe you can zoom in on that a little bit but, Hickory Road is the road fight here. And by the
way, the photograph of the situation. This is Hickory Road coming down in this direction. This
is Red Cedar Point. This is the structure that I'm going to, I would like to demolish and you can
see proximity to the road in both cases plus the sight distance issue. If I were to follow the
existing lot requirements, and demolish this garage here. This would be the triangle because of
the odd shape or triangular shape of the lot. This would be the triangle that I'd have to build my
11
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002
structure in and it's just, and the best I could figure, I could put like maybe a 10 by 13 structure in
there and if any of you guys have driven a car recently, it's not big enough, let's put it that way.
And so that's why I'm looking for variance help of some sort to allow me to build the 2 car
garage I had in mind. So this is the structure as Sharmin showed you before, and what we talked
about was moving it this way so it'd be further away from the tree that's sitting basically in the
center of the lot so to save the tree I'd definitely be willing to move the garage structure 3, or 5
feet towards my neighbor's property. Here's their garage. There's the lot line so you can see
there's 4 feet. You can't read it on here but on my survey you'll see it says 4 feet separation
between the garage and the lot line there so, I think I'm improving the situation. I'm thinking I'm
getting rid of a structure, while it served me well to store my sailboat in it, it' s actually pretty ugly
and obviously created a safety concern in this area here and I think it' s reasonable use of the land
to put this kind of structure here. As far as hardship, you know it's hard for me to say that you
need more than a 2 car garage but these days, especially living on a lake I need to have additional
storage space and I have no alternative but to try to take advantage of the land I've got across the
street. And by the way as was mentioned, there are, if you go up the street, here's another view
of the existing shed. This is my neighbor's shed up here. Or garage, sorry. This is the oak tree
that we're talking about. And this is a closer view of my neighbor's garage so it's a 2 car garage
right off of the property line. It's roughly 12 feet from the road. I think I requested 13 feet
setback .... request is to be consistent with a line that they're set back. When I was measuring
today, or yesterday I guess, it was I'm not sure how we actually measure the official distance
from the road because apparently the road encroaches on our property a little bit so. And then
here's the next structure up the street, another 2 car garage so it would be consistent with what
other people have. So I guess I'm not sure if I can address the hardship issue any more than I
have so. Okay? And I would respectfully request approval.
Sidney: Okay, any questions for the applicant?
Feik: I have one quick. Could you live with a one stall, double deep, 1 1/2 times deep. Maintain
the 10 foot setback between yourself and the lot line to the, I guess that's west, in trying to stay
away from the tree a little bit and get your shop in the back and still get your third stall.
Steve Gunther: Yeah we looked at that. It's tough to tell from this photo but basically the lot, let
me see if I can find another one. The lot falls off at the back so I went 28 feet back from the, you
know proposed a 28 foot garage. From that point 28 feet back, it just drops down a gully or down
a hill so I couldn't extend the garage or I wouldn't want to extend the garage into that area.
That'd add significant expense and is not what I'd like to do so I don't think for my point of view
it would serve the purpose that I need to have 2 spaces and so.
Feik: Alright, thank you.
Sidney: Any other questions?
Claybaugh: One. Would you happen to know when the neighbor's garage was built up Hickory
Road? That looks like a newer structure compared to the rest.
Steve Gunther: Well the neighborhood, my house started as a cabin in 1913 so.
Claybaugh: Right. That's the one that struck me when I drove up the road. That's the only one
that looked like it was like post 60's.
12
Planning Commission Meeting -June 4, 2002
Steve Gunther: Yeah. I'm not exactly sure when those were built but I could only hazard a guess
so. Any other questions? Alright, thanks very much.
Sidney: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come
forward. Since I see no one, I'll close the public heating. Commissioners, and I keep looking
left. I'll look right this time.
Lillehaug: I have some comments. It does increase the sight distance and it does create a safer
intersection. That is, there's no doubt in my mind there. This does reduce non-conformance of
that, of the garage. It significantly reduces it. The undue hardship, it can be very subjective as
far as what's an undue hardship and I'm not totally sold on an undue hardship. I have a comment
on the tree also. Depending on where you put that, where you put the garage, you could increase
it from 2 to maybe 8 feet away from the tree. I don't think that would save the trees. It's an oak
tree and they're very susceptible to any root damage and probably by putting that garage there,
it's most likely that that oak tree is going to be damaged and it may likely die. So as far as
moving the garage over any further beyond that 10 feet, I wouldn't support that. I do have
concerns with your driveway. The garage to the west, the driveway is, it's warped and it's tough
to blend in with the profile of the roadway in front of it. It' s a pretty steep grade. It' s doable but
I'd encourage you to explore that you don't have a drainage issue and that water's running in
your garage and make sure the grades are away from, and not into the garage. Other than that I
generally support this because it does significantly reduce the non-conformance.
Claybaugh: My comments fall along the same line. I agree that it reduces the non-conformity of
what's, the existing structure that's there. It goes a long ways towards increasing visibility and
thereby the public safety. Again, difficult to get our arms around the hardship issue and I'm
interested in what my fellow commissioners have to say.
Sacchet: Well you heard my spiel. Two things that I'd like to add to that. What I said before.
When I talked with the applicant when I went out there and the applicant actually showed me
where the garage would be and so forth, and you were talking about not needing a foundation
dock all around, and it appears like it's possible to make this a slab on, I think that's what it
called.
Claybaugh: Slab on grade.
Sacchet: So that you wouldn't have to dig down and damage the root system basically.
Claybaugh: No that'd be, I'm sorry. I'll let the applicant speak to it.
Sacchet: Well you're the builder. I am looking to you.
Claybaugh: I don't see a section cut here for it but I'm anticipating doing slab on grade with
maybe thicken perimeter footings. And depending on what elevation was established for the
garage, up towards the oak tree it could go anywhere towards...slab or be built on a sand pad and
not necessarily encroach anything beyond the existing topsoil.
Sacchet: So that is a viable approach?
Claybaugh: It is. Again you'd want to consult the city forester and take a look at the elevation
for that pad would have a bearing on that.
13
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002
Sacchet: Because in addition you have to be filled up a little bit so.
Steve Gunther: Right, the lot actually slopes down so I would take dirt from the top and back fill
it towards, on the oak side.
Claybaugh: I mean it may be a condition if the forester came forth and said there's a chance to
save the tree provided that the pad goes in at this elevation. Typically if you strip off the topsoil
up towards the oak tree and built a pad up down where the slope falls away, where in reality it
might work out that that pad needs to be at a higher elevation to accomplish that and try and
preserve that oak. But that's a question for the forester.
Sacchet: Did you want to add something to that?
Steve Gunther: No, I thought you were going to ask me a question. That's why I stood up.
Sacchet: I think he pretty much, but I'm correctly representing that you were actually thinking to
have it slab on?
Steve Gunther: Yeah, I'm a tree lover. I'm not looking to mow down the trees and if I can save
it, I'd like to save it so. I frankly am applying for the variance first before I can go into a lot of
detail discussion with builders and getting bids and stuff because if I can't get a variance I'm
wasting their time and mine so, but if it's just general conversation I've had with a couple
concrete guys or builders who said, suggested that, you know slab approach.
Sacchet: Thank you. Well, I know where I stand. I think this is reasonable and based on the
reasonableness I think this can be, this can stand. I would like to, I mean I don't think it would be
right to hold the applicant hostage to that oak because we established that he could cut it down. I
mean there's nothing that prevents him from cutting it down, and I think the fact that he's willing
to make an effort to preserve that tree is very commendable and I would be in favor of granting
that 5 foot additional variance to move the garage away from the trees and if the garage is 2 feet
from the trunk, that's pretty iffy whether the tree makes it. If it's 5 or 10, between 5 and 10 feet,
it's considerably bigger and then I would additionally put a condition on it that it should be a slab
on another foundation built on that site towards the tree. That probably something like applicant
work with staff to make that happen. So that's where I stand with this.
Feik: I cannot support it as drawn, or as presented. I could understand the hardship issue to some
degree. The gentleman obviously did not build the house and the garage. He has a reasonable
expectation that he can replace the existing one stall garage. It's in suspect, it's not the best
garage. I'I1 agree with the applicant wholeheartedly. I could definitely agree with going with
replacing the existing garage. Something basically an even replacement of the existing structure
that's going to be more in conformance with the setback. I could go along with replacing the
existing garage with additional space to the rear of the garage, building into the site line triangle.
I could support replacing the existing garage with an additional slab to allow for boat storage and
other things. I'm having a real hard time supporting going with a full two car garage here. I just
don't see a hardship.
Sidney: Okay. Now for...
Slagle: Since I've noxv heard both of my neighbors. Countries, that's right. You know I'm
going to have to side with Bruce on this, and the reason is, is that we just participated in a
previous case where the non-conformity to take that garage forward on the front actually
14
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002
improved it slightly. Less than a foot, from 4 feet to 5 feet. And we asked to table it. And here
we're, because of an oak, and I love trees too. We are like almost ready to jump on, oh just give
him a 5 foot setback on the side because we can protect the tree. And I think that the hardship is
hard to prove and I do agree that the idea of building a similar situation, but obviously better in
the conformance portion. Extending the depth, even if that includes bringing some fill in. And so
forth. I think that's a fairer approach in this situation than just recommending approval... I think
it's improving the site but I don't know where to balance the hardship and the improvement so
right now I would be open to supporting some changes to this proposal, but I would not approve
it as it is.
Sacchet: Are you saying tabling?
Slagle: Tabling if they choose, sure. I'd be open to a table.
Sidney: That seems to be the way we're going.
Slagle: And I want to make sure that my fellow commissioners understand that I'm open to
tabling, and realizing that there are time lines to things but if an applicant really wants to work
with the city, they will be open to tabling. And if they choose not to, they choose not to.
Sidney: Okay. Yes please.
Claybaugh: I'd like to address some of Rich's comments. Granted the petitioner that came
before Mr. Gunther here had a non-conformance, as this is a non-conformance. They were
adding, not detracting at all from the non-conformity. Everything was an additional non-
conformance that they were proposing. This here the applicant is not adding to it. He's removing
it. It's going backwards. It's mitigating the problem. It's not eliminating it but it is going a long
ways towards mitigating that. That being said, I agree with Commissioner Slagle with respect to
looking at a second variance for the tree for the 10 yard, or the 10 foot side yard setback. I would
much rather see some compromise on the applicant's part with respect to the size of the overall
garage. I think with respect to the tree, the piece that's mi'ssing would be some feedback from the
city forester telling us what would be a probable distance that would have a success rate and kind
of working backwards from that. Seeing what was left.
Sacchet: If I may add to that. From a forester's viewpoint the rule is you don't build in the drip
line of the tree. Now if we do that we probably couldn't even build on the neighboring yard
much because of the big tree.
Lillehaug: One quick comment.
Sidney: Sure.
Lillehaug: I agree with fellow Commissioner Claybaugh, but I do want to make one more
comment. If we decrease the 5 yard setback, that does not reduce the non-conformance and that's
why I wouldn't support that because I do support maintaining the 10 foot side setback on that side
but if we reduce it to 5 foot, then it doesn't reduce the non-conformance and I wouldn't support
that.
Sacchet: Well there are really several items here. I mean we're reducing the non-conformance
from 2 sides but not from the third side, so yeah we are cutting into the amount of decrease of
15
Planning Con2n/ssion Meeting - June 4, 2002
non-conformance, that's for sure. I'm willing to do that for the tree because I love the tree but I
understand your position.
Lillehaug: Okay.
Feik: Madam Chair, if I might respond in general. I understand where the other commissioners
are corning from but that doesn't answer the question regarding hardship. And we have a
standard that we've had to uphold in the past regarding what is and isn't a reasonable hardship
and I certainly agree that the applicant should be able to replace his garage. And to allow, to
reconstruct and further be in violation of the variance setbacks in the process of building
something larger when there are alternatives, I don't see how we can support that. Go ahead, I'm
sorry.
Sidney: Okay. I guess it's my turn finally. Actually I was going to jump in earlier. A lot of
good discussion here and I'd first like to address the concern about hardship and I believe there is
hardship here because if we were looking at the applicant and if they were going to completely
destroy the existing garage and rebuild, we're seeing the existing buildable area as a triangle
which is minimal which is not going to be usable as a garage. So I believe there is hardship in
terms of meeting all the setbacks. It also potentially with topography we're talking about for
other options. The overall thing that I see as a concern with this application is that we do have a
problem with the sight distance triangle on that corner, and I think staff would be advised to
maybe put in more discussion about that. I don't know what that might be but to emphasize the
public safety aspect of what we're trying to do here, or the applicant is trying to do. And indeed
by changing the location on the lot of this garage, I think this doesn't sound too great, we are
lessening the non-conformity, and I believe that's, not a compelling reason but close to
compelling reason to look at this application and to consider granting it. I do have some feelings
that we're trying to do too much engineering on the commission tonight, and I would feel like I'd
like to see this come back again so I would be actually in favor of tabling it so that we could have
staff's conm-tents about, especially the side setback issue. If we want to approach it to that any
further. And also if there are any drainage issues or, and I think just more of a discussion about
the engineering of how the garage could be built and save that tree because I do think the tree is,
and I love oaks.
Sacchet: It's a beauty.
Sidney: You know is an important aspect for this whole thing so we might as well try to do it
right. I guess that's my comment. Any further comments? I think we exhausted them all. I'd
like a motion please.
Feik: Do you want to ask the applicant whether you're willing to have this tabled or would you
like us to vote on it tonight?
Steve Gunther: I'm not really sure of the process here so I'm not sure if it's majority rules or if
there's a vote. I'm not anxious to table it frankly because, I mean I will do that if that's the way
we go here but I'd prefer to just try to get to a decision in a sense and know where I stand. I'm
not sure if we, if I object to tabling, do I then take it to the City Council or something? That's the
next step or what, but the way I see it, I mean the lot as I' ve got it today, working within the
requirements of the city, it allows me to build nothing on this lot. It's totally useless to me. And
so there's a real hardship in there from my point of view. Yeah I can, you know I could, if I had
my preference, you 'know I would like to just take an unsafe situation with this ugly shed built in
whatever, 1902, sitting on the corner of an intersection, coming down a hill. You know in the
16
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002
winter time people are sliding down that hill all the time because it's a steep hill. You know
down Hickory Road here. I'm looking to improve the safety of the situation. I'm looking to
improve the visual beauty of the neighborhood by taking down a pretty old, dilapidated shed and
replace it with something attractive. So I mean from my point of view I'm making things better.
I'm willing to work with you on the oak tree. I'm not really sure how to prove hardship other
than show you the lot as drawn today, it just doesn't allow me to do anything with the lot. With
existing lines. So I would be open to shrinking the depth of the garage so I reduce one variance
in the back here, because I would prefer to leave it. It doesn't really matter, but the preference
would to leave it 10 feet but I would work with you on that but I'm not sure how to prove
hardship and that's where we're stuck on. So I would need some guidance from somebody as to
what entails hardship. I mean maybe staff or whatever but, are there any comments you can
make for me tonight so.
Sidney: Yeah, I think what I said and maybe staff can comment about that is, if you were to you
know, remove the existing garage and then build a new garage, or structure, you don't really have
a buildable area there, which is a hardship so in some respects you need to have some variances.
How many would be in existence I can't.
Steve Gunther: There's no doubt to me the hardship as I described it is, I can't build on the lot
with the existing setback requirements.
Claybaugh: I think where some of us are getting stuck, we're a long ways between it being a
unbuildable site to a 24 by 28 garage pad. Then when you throw in the oak tree in there and that
becomes a concern, then we're looking at focusing on trying to save the oak. So we're trying to
fit in that 24 by 28 garage, save the oak tree and trying to minimize the non-conformity of it, and
I think bottom line the reason that we're talking about trying to table it is that something in there
needs to give. There needs to be some compromise in there somewhere.
Steve Gunther: I understand. Where would we compromise?
Claybaugh: Well like I said, starting from having a one car garage. I understand that you can't
build anything of any substance on that lot the way it is without getting some degree of variance.
At least from my perspective, I look at it in terms of degrees. It' s a long ways from having
something from a single stall to 24 by 28 foot pad. That's all I'm saying is, and that's why I'm
looking for the compromise with respect, from my perspective, if we come up with something
size wise that would on some level give some relief to the oak tree and give it, and I understand
the forester, their first comment is going to be the drip line, but hopefully they've got a follow-up
comment that's a little more substantive.
Steve Gunther: I think the oak tree' s going to die. If I move it 5 feet further, from what I
understand the folks...
Claybaugh: And maybe that's the decision that gets it off the bubble tonight is you say that, you
know if it' s the oak tree or if it' s this, then I stand behind taking the oak tree down because they
feel it's going to die and this is...
Steve Gunther: I mean I'm not a forester but I've got, from my perspective from the people I've
talked to, it's an opinion. And it isn't until we break ground and wait a year or two that we know
whether the oak tree's going to survive or not.
Claybaugh: Right.
17
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002
Steve Gunther: So I would say worst case, let's assume the oak tree dies. Then how would you
approach it?
Claybaugh: Well then we certainly will want to do the 5 foot yard setback. The tree's going to
die.
Steve Gunther: So I'd be willing to shrink the size of the garage, I mean to 24 by 24.
Claybaugh: I think in some terms of granting the variance with that oak tree being there and
being as substantial as it is, that some of the commissioners are looking for something in return.
Now if we can grant the variance, would that be accurate on some level? That yeah, we're
willing to look at this. We're willing to grant this. We realize that it's mitigating a public safety
issue. It has merit. We've gone through all that. We're in agreement on most of that. It's just a
function of assigning different weights to different aspects of it. And the public safety aspect
weighs heavy. The oak tree weighs heavier with some rather than others, but it still comes down
that it's a 24 by 28 pad. That's a big pad. I think in terms of reducing that pad size might get it to
a vote.
Steve Gunther: Yeah, I'd be willing to reduce the depth of the pad. Was that sufficient, instead
of 24. I'd still keep it 24 feet wide but make it 24 feet deep rather than 28. I mean I lose part of
my work bench area but that takes you know.
Sidney: It sounds like we may be moving toward tabling this tonight. And I guess that would be
my suggestion that we do that because we could vote on what's before us and potentially could be
denied.
Steve Gunther: Right, I understand but my next approach would be City Council either way so.
Sidney: City Council, that's your option and I guess my suggestion would be to table it because
like I said, I feel like we're doing a lot of engineering up here and maybe there's a solution with
staff you can come up with that will satisfy us.
Steve Gunther: I was looking for some guidance on what are you looking for? If you're looking
for reducing depth, I can do that tonight. If you're looking for reducing width, I have to go back
and reassess that.
Sidney: I think what I heard and maybe just a few cormnents. I am concerned about that side
yard setback. I don't like to encroach into that because it is a public safety issue in itself. You
know not decrease those setbacks or vehicles or whatever might need to get back there. And then
we talked about the oak tree as maybe being another consideration, which is weighed heavily.
And then decreasing, actually decreasing the sight line, sight distance triangle problem...put there
first. So in my book that side setback and the oak consideration.
Sacchet: Yeah, I really don't think we have all the information to make a clear decision tonight.
And I totally agree with Commissioner Sidney that we're kind of fishing in areas where we're not
expert. I think that needs to be a little more worked on in all these areas.
Steve Gunther: Okay.
Sidney: Any other con-u-nents? How about a motion?
18
Planning Commission Meeting -June 4, 2002
Slagle: I'll make a motion. I'd move that the Planning Commission table the variance request for
2002-5, 13 foot setback from Hickory Lane as it reads on our page 5, and I would also ask that as
a part of that tabling that we request a written opinion from the City Forester as to that oak tree.
Sidney: Okay, is there?
Claybaugh: Second it.
Slagle moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission table Variance//2002-5, a
13 foot setback from Hickory Lane and a 13 foot setback from Red Cedar Road, and direct
staff to obtain a written opinion from the City Forester regarding the oak tree. All voted in
favor, except Lillehaug who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1.
Sidney: It's 5-1 in favor of tabling.
Lillehaug: And I'd like to make a comment as to why.
Sidney: Yes please.
Lillehaug: I support the current variance here and I would approve it as it lies.
Sidney: Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER THE REQUEST FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 27~405 SQUARE FEET INTO
TWO LOTS WITH VARIANCES~ ON PROPERTY ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE
FAMILY~ LOCATED AT 185 PLEASANT VIEW ROAD~ CARL MCNUTT.
Public Present:
Name Address
Carl McNutt 185 Pleasant View Road
Brian Grundhofer 195 Pleasant View Road
A1 Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Boulevard
Carrie Bickford 9184 West 126th Street, Savage.
Sharmin AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Sidney: Okay we're going to have staff questions first and then we'll get to the applicant. Okay,
questions of staff.
Slagle: I just have one.
Sidney: Okay.
Slagle: Has the applicant given you a reason Sharmin, as to why they have not provided you with
that complete subdivision plans? I'll also ask the applicant but I'm curious as to your thoughts.
19
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002
AI-Jaff: This application has been submitted in the past. This is the third time we're going to see
this. We wanted some direction from the Planning Commission before we went into the
engineering of the plans.
Slagle: Have they provided any time before in history complete subdivision plan?
A1-Jaff: Complete that included drainage, grading, no.
Slagle: Okay. That's all.
Feik: I can wait.
Sidney: Go ahead.
Sacchet: You just mentioned Sharmin, this was the third time this is being submitted. Is it pretty
much identical?
A1-Jaff: Yes.
Sacchet: Pretty much identical, okay.
A1-Jaff: Exactly identical.
Sacchet: Exactly identical, okay. And then I wonder whether you can give us a little more an
idea of how this right-of-way, you touch on the right-of-way issue in the staff report. I'm a little
fuzzy about what exactly the status is of that right-of-way. I mean right-of-way's right-of-way.
That's public property.
A1-Jaff: It is public property.
Sacchet: And part of it is being used by the roadway currently.
Al-Jarl: Correct.
Sacchet: And then there's a little more where we need it for snowplowing and all that.
A1-Jaff: Correct. There is a gas main within that right-of-way. There is overhead electric poles.
Lillehaug: Can I ask a question to help clarify this one? You indicated that per city records there
is a property description for this parcel.
A1-Jaff: Yes.
Lillehaug: Does this clearly show, definitively where his north property line is?
Al-Jarl: Absolutely and this legal description was provided by the applicant and it does not
include the right-of-way. It is the 87 feet by 315 feet only.
Sacchet: Then one last question quickly. If this were subdivided, the access to the newly created
lot, where would that be accessed from?
2O
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002
A1-Jaff: Off of Pleasant View Road.
Sacchet: It would be off of Pleasant View Road?
AI-Jaff: Yes.
Sacchet: Okay. Okay, that's my questions. Thank you.
Claybaugh: No questions.
Sidney: Okay. The applicant?
Feik: Oh I have a question first. I thought you'd come back.
Sidney: Okay.
Feik: Speaking of the right-of-way briefly again, when was the fight-of-way established by the
city?
A1-Jaff: I want to say sometime in 1950's. Late 1950's based upon some research that Idid.
Feik: Okay. You said part of the fight-of-way is certain for the road bed and drainage. Part of
the right-of-way is also for utilities? Is that correct?
A1-Jaff: Correct. That's what's shown on the plan submitted by the applicant.
Feik: Could the utilities be served adequately by an easement versus a right-of-way?
A1-Jaff: Yes they could.
Feik: Was this applicant to your knowledge owner when the fight-of-way was taken?
A1-Jaff: I'm not aware of that. I can't answer that question. I don't know.
Feik: Okay.
AI-Jaff: But even vacating a portion of the right-of-way will not fix that problem.
Feik: I understand. Not totally. Okay, thank you.
Sidney: I think the applicant would like to make a few comments.
Carl McNutt: Yes, I'm Carl McNutt. Curly they call me. I got out of the Navy in '45. Moved to
Chanhassen in '46. Bought the property on Pleasant View Road when it was still a township in
1952. At that time it was a gravel road. The township had to get another rod of road from us in
order to blacktop it across there they said. I disagree with your assessment of the size of my lot
because some of the literature you sent me, on page 2 it says. Under state statute it can be, if the
city or county or whoever maintains a street for 6 years, plows it and takes care of it, the city
owns it by adverse possession. I don't know what that means. Antagonistic possession. But they
only own the traveled portion, plus the shoulders necessary to maintain it. After 6 years. The
thing's been there since late 50's. As far as the gas lines and all that, we don't disturb them and
21
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002
they can get to them all the time. All I do is mow over them. All I do is mow and rake lawns and
that last half, my neighbors Brian can attest to the fact that I spend at least 3 hours every 4 days
mowing that half and raking leaves in the fall. And it serves no use to me anymore. The kids,
when my kids were young they used to play ball, and the neighbors kids on the back property.
No use to me at all any more and it's not detrimental to the area. If this thing, if this legal thing
means anything, then I have in Lot 1, I would have. Okay, the roadway, the blacktop takes up 25
feet. My half is 12 1/2 feet. We'll make it 13 feet to make it even. My lawn is 52 feet and there's
5 feet of bank that I mow all the time for the city. In other words a 57 foot front yard rather than
27. If we were to use what the city is not using anymore, all they're entitled to is what they're
using the road for to plow and stuff. They can pile snow on my yard, I don't care about that. But
if, I would use that, what's really available there. Lot 1 would be 107 by 160 feet or 17,120
square feet and that's way over your minimum. The Lot 2, which is my house on, would be
16,585 square feet. The only variance that I can see I really need is about 107 from'125 is 18
feet. And I have the daughter and husband of my former neighbor want to build there. It would
not be detrimental to the city of Chanhassen. It'd be in conformity of all the houses toward
Highway 101. I'm 78 years old. I don't know how long I'm going to live there, but I want to
stay there as long as I can but I can't afford to unless I sell the property. That's all I have to say.
Sidney: Any questions for the applicant?
Sacchet: Yeah, Mr. McNutt I do have a few questions for you if you may. This is third time
you' re bringing this application, identically apparently. What makes you think that this time it
will go through.
Carl McNutt: This is the first time I' ye seen that statute of this, from the state statute. That no
longer belongs to you. That property no longer belongs to the city. It's only a 4 rod road. That's
another thing that irked me. It's only a 4 rod road on that straight stretch. Around the corner,
there's 2 rods and all the way around the lake is 2 rods. Why did they need a 4 rod road on that
straight section just past me?
Sacchet: Can you translate please?
A1-Jaff: May I?
Sidney: Yes.
A1-Jaff: I need to make a clarification regarding the City Attorney's comments. And this was
taken from 1998. 1989 when this application first appeared. What was in question at the time
was, does the City own the right-of-way or don't they? And the City Attorney said if, his exact
words were, it can be established in many ways. The City Council at the time asked the City
Attorney how can right-of-way be established. His answer was, it can be established in many
ways. One is by use. Under a state statute if the city or county or whoever maintains a street for
6 years, plows it and takes care of it, the city owns it by adverse possession. But they only own
the traveled portion plus the shoulders necessary to maintain it. In this case there is a legal
description submitted by the applicant that clearly indicates the right-of-way is owned by the city
and I believe everyone on the commission maintains the boulevard that is owned by the city in
front of their property. You mow it, but it's owned by the city. So I just wanted to make that
clarification.
Sacchet: So Mr. McNutt, if you may clarify. Are you trying to make a statement that you should
have use of that right-of-way for the sake of your?
22
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002
Carl McNutt: I've used it since 1959 probably. I've mowed the lawn. My lawn extends right
out to that almost the edge of the blacktop, and all of this other property, I mow it all the time.
The City has not touched it.
Sacchet: And another question. You answered that question for me. Thank you. Another
question. The neighbor's lot next to you, I guess that would be to the south.
Carl McNutt: Pardon me?
Sacchet: To the south. Is a similar shape. It's also one of those long, narrow things. Has there
been any consideration that with combining, working together with the neighbor you have two
narrow lots and between taking the space, the extra space of the...
Carl McNutt: ...discussed this with him and he's turned it over to his daughter. He's the
administrator. He's discussing it. If you won't okay this 107 foot depth, which I think I'm
entitled to, then I will buy some from him. I think he'll be.
Sacchet: So there is a possibility in that direction, okay. And then finally last question. When I
drove by and looked at your land there, it seemed like it' s a little bit of a dip. Is it actually, is
there, is it wet there or how does that?
Carl McNutt: It's wet on the far 20 feet on the eastern end.
Sacchet: On the eastern end.
Carl McNutt: But a little fill would take of it.
Sacchet: Okay. It's not significant enough that it's an issue then?
Carl McNutt: No.
Sacchet: Okay, that answers my question. Thank you sir.
Feik: No questions of the applicant.
Sidney: Okay.
Claybaugh: No questions.
Sidney: Thank you very much. Okay, this is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the
commission, and I see Mr. Klingelhutz approaching the podium. Please state your name and
address for the record please.
A1 Klingelhutz: I'm Al Klingelhutz. I live on 8600 Great Plains Boulevard in Chanhassen. It
was just last week, I've known Curly for all the years he's been in Chanhassen. He was a strong
supporter of me when I was mayor and the City Council, and I went down, he asked me to come
down and look at his property to see what I thought about getting a variance for it. Looked at his
house and his yard. Excellent shape. I think some of you probably were down there and looked
at it. Looked at the neighboring houses. I drove around back in there. I looked at the plats and
most of the plats in there, and where houses are setting on weren't much larger than what Curly is
23
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002
asking for here. I know it's not a lot that you can build a 3 V2 million dollar mansion on it or 4
million, but a nice 30 foot rambler with 3 bedrooms I think would work very well on that lot.
And it would be a good addition in the neighborhood...for the city. You talk about a hardship.
You saw Curly walk up here. I think he's in pretty near as bad a shape as I am. He walks rather
slow and his wife is in bad shape. The day I was down there, Curly had taken her to the hospital
because she had a long nose bleed that morning and when I was there, when I was there she was
bleeding...again. I didn't even get through talking to Curly and he had to run her back to the
hospital because it was a pretty bad deal. I can understand why Curly is having a hard time
taking care of that large piece of land. People, I'm just a year older than Curly and I hope to stay
at my place for many years. I hope as long as I live. But there's a time, I'm kind of fortunate
myself. I've got...and he said if I can park my trailer in your shed, we'll keep your grass cut.
...orders I'm not even supposed to cut it but...I'd have to come in for a subdivision on my
property too. Then you always, most of the lots in that area are virtually the same size as the lots
he's planning to subdivide... I think Curly does have a point. If the City didn't buy the 66 feet
there, if only it was a 2 rod in the first place, there's a statute that says that if he maintains that for
a period of 6 years, that it actually reverts back to the property owner or the original owners. I'm
not sure if that's the way the lot was laid out originally. He hasn't got too big...maintaining
the...but I sure feel it would be proper to give him a variance. If it was any other neighborhood
that had all 15,000 or 20,000 foot lots I'd say no way, but if the neighborhood in the area is
almost identical to this lot, I can't see too much wrong with it. Thank you.
Sidney: Thanks. Anyone else wishing to address the commission? Please come forward. State
your name and address.
Carrie Bickford: I'm Carrie Bickford. I live at 9184 West 126th Street in Savage. And I'm the
one who wants to build on it. I grew up on 195 Pleasant View Road. Curly was my neighbor,
and I guess I don't understand much of this. I just want to put a house there. I have noticed when
I grew up there you know it was woods, everywhere was woods and I' ve noticed now that they
have these houses with no back yards and no side yards, so I was, I'm not on TV am I? I would
have done my hair. But I noticed that even the house I grew up in, all of a sudden our lot is
smaller. I don't know, maybe I, well I probably got bigger but, so I was just, I guess the way I
look at the lot it seems big enough compared to the people that live behind. You know like they
have yards that are pretty small and I guess that's the thing now. People don't want to really
maintain yards so they go for little ones. And I'm just babbling on because I really don't know
what to say. I just am the one who wants to build there. We could take care of Curly and Marge,
and I guess that's it. You know I have all my animals buried there, so... And I guess that's just it.
Slagle: I have to ask you a couple questions. First, will you promise to come back every 2
weeks. And secondly, more seriously, would you be open, upon one of the commissioner's
question as to the lot to the south, if that was to open up and be joined as a lot, would that be
satisfactory to you to build on?
Can'ie Bickford: He's talking about Arnie and Dottie, right?
Carl McNutt: It's still, it's big enough the way it is. It wouldn't make any difference really.
Carrie Bickford: Yeah. I guess that's, I'm not smart enough for this. I guess that's up to Arnie
and Dottie and Curly. I mean you're saying if we were to buy some of Arnie and Dottie's to
make it longer?
24
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002
Slagle: See what we're trying to do obviously is we're trying to come up with a compromise that
allows a lot that we don't have to approve a lot of variances, if any, to build a lot. Where right
now if we just go on Mr. McNutt's remaining part of his property, we have to grant variances to
do that. And as you've just witnessed in the last hour, granting variances requires some
understanding and agreement or compromise regarding ordinances. And it' s tough because if we
grant lots of variances, then people who we don't grant variances to always wonder why they
didn't get it. So we're just wondering if there's a compromise. If there is indeed a desire to
purchase part of that land or work together to sell that land, that might be a good idea. I don't
know enough about it yet to say whether or not it's a good idea but it might be and so I'm just
wondering. Yeah, you wouldn't need all of it either as Commissioner Feik says.
Carrie Bickford: Well.
Slagle: So I'm just wondering your opinion and that's more for us to discuss as to whether we
grant the one in front of us. That's sort of a hypothetical but I'm just interested. I don't know,
I'm fishing too.
Carrie Bickford: I don't know because I know where his lot stops, and I'm not sure how Arnie
and Dottie's works.
Lillehaug: I think one of the underlying things here is it would cost more for you to obtain some
of that additional property from the other property owners and would that be something that you
would consider doing?
Carrie Bickford: Well, I guess so. It all depends on money because I've been trying to move to
Chanhassen for 7 years now. My whole family lives here. My mom's in Minnetonka. My
sister's on Nez Perce and my other sister's in Excelsior, and we can't afford to get here. I mean
it's insane and then Curly was like hummm. Maybe you could build a house there and you know
he, I'm sure he'd be nice to us selling it to us but, so this was really our in. I got you know really
excited. Otherwise you know it's $100,000 for a third of an acre and I don't have that money you
know. I live in Savage in a little house so I guess it would all depend on price. If Arnie and
Dottie would come up and say we want $50,000 for that little spot I'd be like, oh okay. I'm
living in Savage then but otherwise I guess it's all, he's working on it with them I think. I don't
know.
Slagle: Do you guys ever rehearse this stuff?.
Carl McNutt: If he decides that he wants to make a jog with his land and sell it...I would pay for
that extra land. Carrie wouldn't have to pay for it.
Carrie Bickford: Well, that just makes it all different... You know for me I'm all for even more
land you know. I'd love to buy it all but it's all money. I'm really trying not to look at the
screen. What channel are we on? So I guess that's all I have to say. I don't know, I'd just like to
move to Chan. Be by my family. By my dead animals. The woods. I'd like to stay by the
woods but you guys have, not you guys, it's gone. The woods are gone where I used to play.
Slagle: You know if you do move here you could apply for the Chanhassen Planning
Commission.
Carrie Bickford: I'd sit there and go I don't know. And I did have a question about that oak tree.
That other guy. How old was that? Is that an old oak tree? Is that why it's?
25
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002
Sacchet: Oh, it's over 100 years old.
Sidney: What is the dimension on it?
Sacchet: It's this big.
Claybaugh: It's about a 36 inch trunk.
A1 Klingelhutz: That's the hardship.
Carrie Bickford: So that's the whole thing that is stopping his variance is this oak tree?
Claybaugh: No, it's complicated.
Sacchet: We can't stop it. We're trying to help it.
Feik: It depends on which one of us you ask.
Carrie Bickford: I mean I'm all for saving the oak tree but I understand woods, but I'm not here
to talk about that so, I think that, any questions? Okay.
Sidney: Thank you very much. Anyone else? We've got another person coming up to the
podium. Please state your name and address please.
Brian Grundhofer: My name's Brian Grundhofer. I live at 195 Pleasant View and Curly, he's
obviously out there a lot working on his yard and I know it's quite a big spot and it's a lot of
upkeep. I realize that. My concern with this subdivide is, is there's a considerable amount of big
trees in the front of the property and I was just kind of curious if you have a plan that those would
stay because there's about 6 trees probably in question that kind of line the boulevard there and
that's kind of our screen from the road because Pleasant View's been, is very busy. Especially on
that corner and people drive very quickly on that road, as you know. We've had the council of
the area go there and kind of monitor people because they do speed excessively especially around
that corner. So I guess that, and I do have an issue or feeling about drainage of that property
because there is kind of a culvert in the back end of that property and my garage is also about 2
feet from the line that would be right in the corner of that. So that would be just my other
concern I guess so if he has you know, plans for that, I'd like to at least see if the trees and other
things would be, that would change the drainage of n'tine because my garage is on a low spot
already and I have no concrete in my garage floor anymore because it's too much water. It's
gone. It's literally gone and so, and I have a huge puddle in the front of my yard like every spring
that just doesn't go away so there's no lawn that can really grow there because it's just so wet. I
mean I could re-grade but then I'd cause problems for other people so it's just, I'm just kind of
questioning these things I guess so that's all I have.
Sidney: Thank you. Anyone else?
Carrie Bickford: Well the trees were actually.
Sidney: Would you like to come up to the podium please. You can be on television again.
Carrie Bickford: The trees was an attraction to me and my husband because we built in Savage
and we have 1 maple tree and 1 red maple. And we love the trees. I would love to be able to
26
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002
work around that. I've actually thought about, if I lived there how I'd put a line of pine trees in.
You know, we're all in for that privacy thing so I would want to save the trees. As with the
flooding and stuff, I mean I remember when I was a kid, I used to swim in it. I don't think it
floods like that anymore because you don't swim in there, and but I don't think it floods like that
anymore. I drove by it tonight after the rain today and I saw a duck in there and I went hummm.
But he wasn't swimming. He was eating so, but yeah. As for the trees we would love them and
we'd like to add more so.
Sidney: Thank you. Anyone else? If not, I'll close the public hearing. We have plenty of
information here. Plenty of information. I'll look this way instead for comments from the
commissioners.
Lillehaug: Comments. First thing I'd like to comment is on that property line. I think it's an
established property line and the city does have documentation and if the city doesn't have it, the
county probably would. To move forward with approving anything, I guess I would have to see
that an increase to the rear yard depth. The codes say they want 25, or 125 feet. If we look at the
current property line and the depth, we need a 38 foot rear yard variance. And that's pretty
significant. I guess I'd would suggest the applicant contact the.
Carl McNutt made a comment from the audience that was not picked up on tape.
Lillehaug: I'm not going to say that but if you are contesting that property line, I think that would
be something that would have to be legally contested. With what I have in front of me, and I did
go out and look at it and I met with you and I know this is, this is really important to you but the
way I view it, that that property line is a legal property line. If you can contest it and prove to the
city that that property line is inaccurate, then I would reconsider my position on this variance.
Claybaugh: Let's see, where to start. Again the rear yard setback I agree with my fellow
commissioner that in addition to other things, that's the greatest struggle to get beyond here.
Again I understand and I can empathize with your frustration with contesting the lot line, but
what we have in front of us tonight is too weigh a deviation from 87 to 125 feet for me to be
supportive of. And if there' s any way to address that, either with the city or county or otherwise,
try and get that information rectified if in fact you are correct, then that would put it in a much
more favorable light. That's all.
Sacchet: This question about the property, the right-of-way property. We're not the instance.
We're not the body to deal with that. We're way out of our league with that. If there is a
question about whether that part of that fight-of-way should be the applicant's based on having
maintained and all that, that's not an issue that we can deal with as the Planning Commission.
I'm not quite sure who would be the right authority to deal with that, but I'm very sure it's not us.
So we're stuck looking at this based on information as presented to us, which is based on a legal
description of the property, and 38 feet variance out of 100 something is a huge variance. I mean
we spent the early part of the evening squabbling over a couple of feet. Now here we're talking
about ahnost 40 feet, which is a huge proportion difference. And unfortunate!y, if that is the
framework. I say if that is the framework, because you question whether that s the framework
and we have some statements from our one time mayor that indicate that indeed that would be a
worthwhile thing to research, but if that is the case, getting 10 feet from the neighbor's lot is not
going to solve the issue. What would solve the issue is if you take the whole slice of the
neighbor's yard, because you have two narrow yards. You put the two narrow lots together and
you get one that is big enough, so that could work. I want to be clear about that because I think,
just thinking to get 10 feet is not solving the issue in this context right now. Then I have an issue
27
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002
also, which is secondary. I mean the access. I don't know how ideal it is to have another access
from Pleasant View, so there are some concerns. But I think on the basis of what's in front of us,
as the Planning Commission, we can't support that much variance.
Carl McNutt: Apparently that description means nothing. I mean I'm not a lawyer. I wish I was.
I wouldn't have to be living in a 2 bedroom house, but I could, how much do you think my
neighbor would charge me to buy his whole parallel lot there7 I'll bet $50,000.
Sacchet: It's possible.
Carl McNutt: And he might go with a 10 or 15 foot jog in it, but not...
Sacchet: I mean it's not up to us to con-nnent to this but if they already have a narrow lot, why
would they make it more narrow2 I mean I'd be concerned about that.
Carl McNutt: Well then we're back to the legal thing, whether I own that property or not and I
guess I'll have to get a lawyer.
Sacchet: I would encourage you to pursue that avenue.
Carl McNutt: Okay.
Sidney: Well, the other country2
Slagle: No, no. Just a quick question. If I can staff. Isn't the attorney's comments that are listed
on page 3, was that recent?
Aanenson: Yes.
Sidney: 1989.
Slagle: Or was that from'87?
A1-Jaff: When the right-of-way was discussed.
Slagle: At what point was that again?
Sidney: 1989.
A1-Jaff: ' 89.
Slagle: Okay. Have we asked the attorney if he has a same opinion2 Different opinion today
than he did then?
A1-Jaff: No.
Slagle: Just curious. Okay.
Lillehaug: Is that a specific statement to this specific property?
A1-Jaff: Yes.
28
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002
Lillehaug: Or is that just a general statement?
A1-Jaff: Verbatim from minutes dealing with the right-of-way of this property.
Lillehaug: But is he saying that is how, that this was obtained?
A1-Jaff: No.
Lillehaug: This is just an example of typically how it may be obtained?
AI-Jaff: The question that was posed, how is fight-of-way obtained. There was a question raised
by Mr. McNutt saying that the city does not own this right-of-way, and that was the'city
attorney' s opinion.
Slagle: Okay. I guess my last thought is, I would certainly encourage the applicant to, and
maybe there's not a need for an attorney. Maybe it's just going down to the county, who knows.
And having a meeting with city manager, I don't know, but it just seems like that's such a crucial
part of this that I would make a pretty good effort to define whether that is indeed your land or
indeed the city's. And if it's the city's, then you know what possible opti'ons are. And if it's
your's, then hopefully you'll be back here fairly soon with an application similar to what you
have and we'll see what happens. That's I guess the way I would go.
Feik: I have another question for Sharmin. Sharmin? Over here. Question for you. Not to beat
a dead horse up but I'm trying to understand this fight-of-way a little bit deeper. Is it your
understanding that this right-of-way was taken by the city via adverse possession? Is that your
understanding?
A1-Jaff: No. Looking at a legal description.
Feik: I understand the legal description. I'm understanding how we got to the legal description.
Al-Jaff: It's never been determined.
Feik: I think quite frankly that that needs to be determined. If it was taken by adverse
possession, it is, there's very, very specific case law in the State of Minnesota regarding what you
can take and what you can't take.
AI-Jaff: Correct.
Feik: And my advice to the applicant would be similar to the rest of staff, and my advice to staff
as well is to research that. If the applicant did indeed own this parcel prior to that road being
improved, prior to the right-of-way taken, then that survey that was provided to the county for
filing was coming from the city. And my concern is that the city did indeed provide the proper
information that was relevant for the filing and that we didn't take too much, because if we took
too much and this is inconsistent with the rest of the properties up and down the street, or we took
it in anticipation of this being a wider road which it's not going to be, or we took it in anticipation
of something else, and there's also statute regarding, we need to give it back.
A1-Jaff: Assuming that, let's assume that a portion of the fight-of-way does go back to Mr.
McNutt, there is still a depth variance.
29
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002
Feik: Understand that but that's a different issue. Then we can address whether or not we want
to address a different pad size and whether that's adequate based upon the young lady who wants
to build a house, and that she is comfortable with that and that we can reasonably determine that
that is a livable standard house.
Claybaugh: Yeah, it may go a long ways towards mitigating the degree of the variance.
Sidney: Other questions?
Feik: No that's it, thank you.
Sidney: Okay.
Sacchet: If I may ask one more question. Do we know how wide the next door lot is? The lot to
the south? Because looking at the plat it seems to be slightly wider than Mr. McNutt's. Now we
know Mr. McNutt's according to the description is 87, but since they're the same length, it'd be
an interesting reference point to have.
A1-Jaff: You're referring-to the property to the south?
Sacchet: To the south, yes. Which has the same east/west stretch.
A1-Jaff: I will need to.
Sacchet: Okay. Understand. This wasn't partof.
Feik: Uli, I'm going to guess that's 33 feet wider. The distance of the taking.
Sacchet: Well looking at the plat it doesn't seem to be that much wider. It seems just slightly
wider.
A1-Jaff: I believe it's 100 feet.
Sacchet: It's 100 feet?
A1-Jaff: Yes.
Sacchet: That would be about proportionate with how it's written, yeah.
A1-Jaff: It is 100 feet.
Sacchet: 100. So it's 13, okay. Okay, thank you.
Sidney: Okay, any more connnents? I guess I'll throw in my two cents here. I would just love to
grant this, the variances for these two lots. However I guess I still, you know I'm really
concerned that, tike in the staff report on what has been explained on previous discussions about
this applications, that we're creating a non-conforming lot. And somehow if we can get closer to,
xvell I want to just say a few feet variance on some of these setbacks, I would feel a lot better.
The 38 foot yard, rear yard setback for the rear yard I think is excessive and somehow that has to
be worked out. And I guess where I'm leading is that I would like to take a vote on this tonight,
30
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002
although it seems like we' ve been tabling everything so far, and move it forward. I think one
thing that would strengthen the application, this is directed to Curly, the applicant, that it would
be important to understand if a smaller variance were granted, let' s say for the rear yard setback,
that that might help save some trees. Might mitigate some of the drainage problems. We're
looking for something that would improve the overall lot appearance. Something.
Carrie Bickford: Well that would be me.
Sacchet: Of course.
Sidney: So discussion about those aspects and access for the second lot, how that would be
addressed might be helpful as well, so a bit more information would be useful. But at this point I
guess I would not be in favor of granting variances based on the fact that we're deficient in all the
dimensions except lot width. So anyway I'd like a motion please.
Feik: Madam Chair, prior to making a motion I'd like to, I know we've tabled two others tonight,
but my concern is that we treat the applicant fairly and that we do what's in the best interest...to
unfortunately table it and do more research on exactly how that right-of-way was established and
was it established properly.
Sacchet: And if I may add, look into whether the claim of ownership of part of that right-of-way
based on having maintained it. Whether that actually is something that stands.
Feik: Well, and as well as compensation. If it was taken without compensation, that is another
issue that the applicant needs to address.
Sidney: And at this point we should ask the applicant, would you be willing to have some more
time if we would table this to investigate those points?
Carl McNutt: ...table it until I find out if I own the property or not? I have a question though.
Slagle: Curly, hold on one sec. Just point of clarification though Madam Chair. The request of
whether or not an applicant would be in favor of tabling or not tabling is more of a courtesy. We
can choose to table it whether they agree or not.
Sidney: Yes.
Slagle: Okay, I want to make sure.
Carl McNutt: All I want to say is if the county or whoever decides that I do own that property,
could I get the 12 V2 foot, could I get the 18 foot variance as is or would I still have to buy some
property from the neighbor?
Sacchet: We don't know yet.
Feik: We'd need to address that at that time.
Sidney: Yeah, that's a point where it would go back to staff for more discussion. Yep. Okay,
motion please.
31
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002
Feik: I'll make a motion. I will make a motion that the Planning Commission table Variance
#2002...
A1 Klingelhutz: I'd like to say a few words here.
Sidney: It's closed, I'm sorry.
A1 Klingelhutz: ...sitting up there and here...too young to remember even when the township
was.
Sidney: Mr. Klingelhutz.
A1 Klingelhutz: When that land down there was part of Chanhassen township, all the township
roads at one time were 2 rods wide. 16 1/2 feet on each side of the road. And if this wasn't
changed until 1989, I can't quite understand if Curly ever got any compensation for...land that
they took on his side, I would say he should still be owning it. Because it actually was a taking
and if you take a piece of land away from somebody, you should have to pay for it.
Sidney: I think that's where we're at in trying to understand that so we're right in the middle of a
motion and we'll, let's see if we can't finish that.
A1 Klingelhutz: Well I...I know there were some roads in the county that...were only 16 V2 feet
wide. But they were... 101 from Chanhassen down to below the hill for 2 horses and a trailer.
Sidney: Thank you. Okay.
Feik: I will begin again. Madam Chair, I move that we table Variance Request #2002-6 for lot
area and depth variance as shown in the attachment.
Sidney: Okay.
Claybaugh: I second it.
Sacchet: I know if it's a tabling we can't really make a friendly amendments but I would want to
be real clear of the intent.
Sidney: Direction for staff?
Sacchet: Direction for staff, because we can't really get, yeah if you want to. Yeah, why don't
you give that a shot please.
Feik: I would direct staff to research the taking of the right-of-way and be able to provide both
City Council and Planning Commission the method, the time, the nature of compensation.
Aanenson: I don't want to belabor this point but in 1989 it came to light that the city has
possession of that property. We don't 'know if we can find that information out, and I don't
believe it's Our obligation.
Feik: I understand we own it based upon the survey.
Aanenson: Right. What we're going to.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - June 4, 2002
Feik: I'm wondering whether or not we took it legally.
Aanenson: I don't know if we can find that information out.
Feik: I think that's up to us to try though. '
Aanenson: We tried in the past. What we're going to back up is ask the city attorneys if it's our
property. If it' s our property then I'll have to ask him who' s burden of proof it is.
Feik: That's fine. You understand...
Sacchet: That's fine.
Aanenson: That's what I want to make clear on that.
Feik: Okay.
Feik moved, Claybaugh seconded to table Variance Request g2002-6 for lot area and depth
variances. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Sidney: That concludes the public hearings for tonight, my goodness.
Sacchet: That took a while.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Uli Sacchet noted the Minutes of the Planning Commission
meeting dated May 21, 2002 as presented.
Acting Chair Sidney adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
33