6 Approval of MinutesCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SUMMARY MINUTES
APRIL 15, 2003
Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Steve Lillehaug, Rich Slagle, Alison Blackowiak, Bruce
Feik and Craig Claybaugh
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Matt Saam, Assistant
City Engineer; Sharmeen A1-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Angie Auseth, Planner
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
Jerry & Janet Paulsen 7305 Laredo Drive
Kurt Papke 1131 Homestead Lane
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A HARD SURFACE COVERAGE VARIANCE ON
PROPERTY ZONED PUDI PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, LOCATED AT 8632
FLAMINGO DRIVEl KENNETH KURTH.
Angie Auseth presented the staff report on this item. Commissioners had discussions regarding
timeline of permit approvals and building inspections, the process by which the city approves
building permits, and storm water runoff issues. The applicant presented their case outlining the
timeline and sketches of the property.
Blackowiak moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission approve Variance g2003-6
with the following conditions:
1. That the applicant will work with the City Forester and staff to determine best placement
for additional trees and/or shrubs.
2. No conversions of this space in the future would be allowable except to revert back to
green space.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A LAKESHOREI SIDE YARD~ LOT AREAl LOT
WIDTH~ AND HARD SURFACE COVERAGE VARIANCES ON PROPERTY ZONED
RSFI RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY~ LOCATED AT 9221 LAKE RILEY
BOULEVARDI TOM AND SUE SUTER.
Angie Auseth presented the staff report on this item. Commissioners had concerns regarding the
legality of the non-conforming status of the lot, the footprint size and impervious coverage.
Alison Blackowiak brought up the issue of lakescaping and Uli Sacchet questioned the setback
from the lake. The applicant presented his reasons for the need of variances and the house
design on the lot and answered concerns brought up by the commission and staff. Jerry Paulsen
Planning Commission Summary Minutes -April 15, 2003
and Debbie Lloyd spoke at the public hearing. Their concerns were related to saving the trees,
the number of variances being asked for, and reasonable use of the property. Mrs. Lloyd felt that
what is currently on the lot should be considered reasonable use. The Planning Commission's
most important issue was the amount of hard surface coverage, and not wanting to increase that
amount, but recognized the fact that there was benefit from the applicant moving the house pad
away from the lakeshore.
Slagle moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission table the Variance
g2003-7 and direct staff to work with the applicant to redesign the project to maintain the
current percentage of hard surface coverage. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Commissioner Lillehaug asked staff to look at reducing the increase and the intensity of the 4.4
feet on the southwest side of the lot in addition to maintain the 34.9 percent of hard coverage.
Commissioner Claybaugh's position was that by moving the house structure back from the
lakeshore high water mark is a positive. He was willing to entertain the side yard and other
associated variances, but not willing to take those in conjunction with the intensity of the hard
cover surface. Whether the applicant addresses the square footage on the house or looks at more
organic materials for pads and patios, that's the applicant's call. Commissioner Slagle asked
staff to double check the roof overhangs in relation to the setback. Commissioner Sacchet asked
that when staff and the applicant work on the idea of the lakeshore landscaping, they take into
consideration the trees.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION OF 1.56 ACRES INTO 2 SINGLE
FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL AND VACATION OF A PORTION OF SANTA FE TRAIL, LOCATED
AT 7551 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD, ERNEST PIVEC, LA HAYE ADDITION.
Public Present:
Name Address ·
Charles Stinson
Bart Blinstrup
Nancy Manara
Gladys Hanna
David Krunk
Tom Manarin
Wyck Linder
Steve & Nancy Rogers
4723 Eastwood Road, Minnetonka
18736 The Pines, Eden Prairie
7552 Great Plains Boulevard
400 Santa Fe Trail
7561 Great Plains Boulevard
7552 Great Plains Boulevard
7550 Great Plains Boulevard
7520 Great Plains Boulevard
Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Commissioner Feik asked for clarification on the abandonment of the road, that would be
abandoned equally to the properties north and south, and for other ways to divide the property
without variances. Commissioner Blackowiak asked staff to clarify the wording as it related to
connection and assessment charges. Commissioners had a lengthy discussion over the dedication
of right-of-way for driveway access and vacation request. Commissioner Sacchet was concerned
with the preservation of trees on the site, canopy coverage, and grading. Ernie Pivec, the
applicant was available to answer questions. In the public hearing Charles Stinson, a developer
Planning Commission Summary Minutes -April 15, 2003
of an adjacent neighborhood, asked staff to consider burying utilities. He also suggested that the
property could be subdivided another way which would preserve more trees. Tom Manarin
talked about the cul-de-sac right-of-way, trees and drainage. Gladys Hanna was concerned about
the placement of the cul-de-sac and preservation of the f'n:e hydrant and mailboxes. Wyck Linder
was concerned about notification, and the fact that this was the first he had heard of this
subdivision. He also agreed with comments made by previous neighbors. David Krunk talked
about tree preservation. Debbie Lloyd asked about private streets. After the public heating, the
commission commented they were generally in favor of staff's recommendation and made the
following motion.
Lillehaug moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision g03-3 for LaHaye Addition for 2 lots and a
variance to allow two driveways on a single residential lot as shown on the plans dated
Received March 14, 2003, subject to the following conditions:
1. Install sod in all of the pavement removal areas.
.
If grading material will need to be imported or exported to construct the lots and street,
the applicant and/or contractor must supply the City Engineer with a detailed haul route
for review and approval prior to site grading.
,
The new cul-de-sac on Great Plains Boulevard shall be constructed to current City design
standard, a 45 foot radius, with B-618 curb and gutter.
.
A minimum 30 foot wide drainage and utility easement is required over the public
sanitary sewer line on Lots 1 and 2.
o
Remove any existing pavement within the cul-de-sac right-of-way so the existing
driveways have a maximum width of 24 feet, as per City Code.
.
Any grading or utility work outside of the property limits or right-of-way will require a
temporary easement.
A maximum slope of 3:1 is allowed without a retaining wall. Revise the grading plan to
comply.
8. A private easement is required for the driveway of Lot 2 which crosses over Lot 1.
9. Revise the grading plan as follows:
a.
d.
Show the proposed neck radius for the cul-de-sac.
Show the proposed grades for the private street and cul-de-sac upgrades.
Add a benchmark and legend to the plan. The legend should def'me all of the
different line types, easements, silt fences, etc.
Move the building pad of Lot 2 out of the public easement for the sanitary sewer
line.
Show all existing and proposed easements on the plans.
10. Revise the utility plan as follows:
a. Show the existing sanitary sewer line in Great Plains Boulevard.
Planning Commission Summary Minutes - April 15, 2003
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
bo
Show the existing watermain in Great Plains Boulevard and Frontier Trail.
Add a legend to the plan.
Label the existing size and type of pipe for both the sanitary and watermains.
Add a catch basin at the low point in the cul-de-sac with a storm sewer line that
discharges just east of the proposed driveway for Lot 2.
The water service for Lot 2 will have to be obtained from the existing main in Frontier
Trail.
The proposed private street upgrades should include a vehicle turnaround area, acceptable
to the City's Fire Marshall, and a copy of the private easement dedicated to the benefiting
property owners. In order to save the two existing oak trees on each side of the private
street, the existing street width may be maintained in this area.
Lot 2 cannot use the same driveway access off of Great Plains Boulevard as the private
street. The two driveway accesses shall be separated by a minimum of five feet.
Detailed street construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest
edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates, including approved pavement
design, will be required for review and approval by the City Council at the time of final
plat consideration. Since the street improvements will become owned and maintained by
the City, the applicant must enter into a development contract with the City and provide
financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee construction
of the public improvements. Permits from the regulatory agency will be required,
including but not limited to Watershed District, MPCA, etc.
The site will be subject to one sanitary sewer and water connection charge for the new lot.
The 2003 connection charges for both sanitary and water are $4,513. The property is also
subject to sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges for the new lot. The 2003 trunk
utility hook-up charges are $1,440 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,876 per unit for
water. The 2003 SAC charge is $1,275 per unit. These charges are collected prior to the
building permit issuance.
Building Official conditions:
ao
bo
Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division
before building permits will be issued.
Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services.
Retaining walls over 4 feet high require a permit and must be designed by an
engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota.
ao
bo
Because of the setbacks of the proposed new house, additional address numbers
will be required at the driveway entrance. Address numbers must comply with
Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding premise identification pursuant to
Policy No. 29-1992 (copy enclosed).
Submit new proposed driveway dimensions to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire
Marshal. This is to ensure that fire apparatus can safely negotiate the driveway to
the new proposed single family dwelling.
The bluff impact zone should be shown on the grading plan.
Planning Commission Summary Minutes -April 15, 2003
20. Based on the proposed developed area of 1.57 acres, the water quality fees associated
with this project are estimated at $1,490 and the water quantity fees associated with this
project are estimated at $3,686. The applicant will not be assessed for areas that are
dedicated outlots. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. At this time, the
estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of final plat recording is
$5,176.
21. Approval of the subdivision is contingent upon the City Council approving the vacation
of the right-of-way.
22. Environmental Resource Specialist conditions:
a. Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to
any construction.
b. Access to Lot 2 should be from Great Plains Boulevard to increase tree
preservation.
23. Full park and trail fees will be collected in lieu of land dedication for the newly created
lot in the amount of $2,400.
24. Access to Lot 2 shall be prohibited off of Frontier Trail.
25. Show the proposed house elevation for Lot 1 and address the runoff to the west and
north.
26. Show final proposed driveway locations.
27. Work with staff and f'malize the plat and include the necessary information to
include drainage and utility easement, etc.
28. Include the tree grove on the northwest corner of Lot I and the 2 big trees on the
south side of Lot 2 inside the tree protection fencing.
29. Lot number 2 will be custom graded and the house pad moved northwest as
required.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Commissioners felt that the conditions they added, highlighted in bold, conveyed their concerns
with the subdivision.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Alison Blackowiak noted the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated April 1, 2003 as submitted.
Chairman Sacchet adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 10:05 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
VERBATIM MINUTES
APRIL 15, 2003
Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Steve Lillehaug, Rich Slagle, Alison Blackowiak, Bruce
Feik and Craig Claybaugh
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Matt Saam, Assistant
City Engineer; Sharmeen A1-Jaff, Senior Planner; and Angie Auseth, Planner
PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS:
Debbie Lloyd
Jerry & Janet Paulsen
Kurt Papke
7302 Laredo Drive
7305 Laredo Drive
1131 Homestead Lane
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A HARD SURFACE COVERAGE VARIANCE ON
PROPERTY ZONED PUD~ PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT~ LOCATED AT 8632
FLAMINGO DRIVEl KENNETH KURTH.
Angie Auseth presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thank you. Questions from staff. Commissioners. Rich, want to start?
Slagle: Just a simple one. When the pool and the pool decking applications were submitted and
had the survey shown the basketball court, in your opinion, would it have been just a simple
rejection of the proposed pool and pool deck or would you, would staff have, how would you
have tried to work it out?
Auseth: The applicant would have had to go through a variance process to get the pool because
they would have been over already by a percentage. So the process would have been, would have
had to take place.
Slagle: Okay.
Sacchet: Bruce, any questions?
Feik: Nothing for staff at this time?
Sacchet: Alison? Questions?
Claybaugh: Just so I'm clear. There wasn't anything on the part of the applicant's conduct
pursuing this, this application through any of the correspondence that wasn't consistent with just
trying to move forward in a diligent manner and seek the proper information? Do you feel like
they went through the mechanics trying to obtain the proper information from the city and this is
just an unfortunate side effect?
Planning Commission Meeting- April 15, 2003
Auseth: I believe so.
Claybaugh: Okay. That's all the questions I had.
Lillehaug: I have a few questions. I'd like to clarify the first time city staff received this sketch.
Was it October 11th as the applicant indicated? Was that the first time? Or was it presented with
the initial inspection or permit application? To your knowledge.
Auseth: That I'm not aware.
Lillehaug: Maybe, typically when would it be given to the city for review?
A1-Jaff: The portion that, we're talking about the pool portion.
Lillehaug: Right.
A1-Jaff: That was, typically it is submitted when a building permit is requested.
Lillehaug: At the request.
A1-Jaff: Correct. So basically you're applying for a building permit. That is accompanied with a
survey that shows whatever they're requesting.
Lillehaug: So do we know what, was the sketch of the swimming pool submitted at the time of
the application for the permit? Does that make sense?
A1-Jaff: The swimming pool, the sketch of the swimming pool.
Lillehaug: Added to the survey that the city has on record. Was that given to the city before the
swimming pool was dug?
A1-Jaff: Yes. Yes it was. No, they went through the proper channels as far as submitting their
application for a pool permit before they actually started working on the pool.
Lillehaug: Okay. So does the city send someone out there to verify this survey? Is it a
requirement? Do they ever? As far as to verify is it accurate. And who's responsibility is it to
verify that it indeed is accurate with what's reflected on that survey?
AI-Jaff: Typically the building inspectors would take a copy of the survey with them when there
is, you ask for a building permit and then inspection when you have footings dug.
Lillehaug: So there are intermediate inspections.
A1-Jaff: Correct.
Lillehaug: And it doesn't just happen at the very end of the pool.
A1-Jaff: That's correct.
Lillehaug: So is it safe to say that we did have inspectors out there throughout the duration of the
construction period for intermediate inspections?
Planning Commission Meeting- April 15, 2003
A1-Jaff: Yes but when they went out there to look at the pool, is my understanding when they
discovered that there was actually a tennis court on the site.
Lillehaug: Do you know when that was? I mean we've got a big timeframe here.
A1-Jaff: I'm sorry, basketball court.
Lillehaug: The basketball court. I mean we have a big timeframe here and I'd like to get it in
chronological order because it is important.
Sacchet: Do we know the chronology?
Lillehaug: So what I specifically really am asking is when did the city staff realize that this
basketball court did not meet, the basketball court and the pool, when did the city realize that this
did not meet the standards?
Aanenson: I'm not sure we know the exact timeframe. After they came in for the permit,
someone did physically, when it was an inspector, noted that there was additional impervious
surface on the site.
Saam: There's a date listed in the staff report. October 3ra when we went out there, somebody
did, Jason and Dan I think went out there.
Lillehaug: Okay, so pool construction began July 16th so, so city staff, I mean we, isn't there a set
of.
Saam: I guess, I know what you're getting at but keep in mind the building inspectors aren't
there to survey the whole site and check, they're there to do the pool, get out of there and get to
another inspection so things can get missed there. However when we went out in October, that's
when we caught it. Some other people went out for other things and so.
Lillehaug: And that leads into my next question here. And this is posed to anyone here. Could
you discus the requirements by the city as far as using the city recorded survey? Who's
responsibility is it to ensure that all the necessary items are on there? And when does the city
check this? If they do check in.
Saam: We require the survey to be done by an RLS, Licensed Surveyor and they have to sign it.
An original copy. By that they're stating that everything shown on there is accurate. So I would
say we don't go out there and check every survey the second we get it to make, you know looking
for every little thing.
Lillehaug: That would be pretty extensive to do so.
Saam: Yeah. However in this case, as it points out, it probably would have been good to go out
there and look at it before we approved the pool permit, but I guess our, what we fall back on is
the surveyor, his license. He signed it saying this is what's out there.
Lillehaug: So this is a 10 year old survey, plus or minus. I mean who's responsible.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
Aanenson: Correct. Let me just clarify what he's saying. The original survey is done. Okay,
people come in over time. Add that with their own dimension drawings. As Matt indicated,
when the inspector goes out they check those drawings for the footings. Measure them. They're
looking at that specific measurement. They're not checking whatever else is out there that may
be, sometimes they will catch something or not. So if someone's doing an addition, do we allow
them to draw it on there too per plan that we measured? Yes. If they're using the original RLS,
Registered Land Survey.
Saam: And that's to save the applicant money. I mean obviously we don't want to make them go
out and get a $1,000 survey for a 10 by 20 room addition so.
Lillehaug: So who's responsibility would it be to ensure that the basketball court is reflected on
that survey?
Aanenson: The applicant's.
Lillehaug: Okay.
Claybaugh: Follow-up question.
Sacchet: Are you done Steve?
Lillehaug: I have one more question here.
Sacchet: Okay, go ahead.
Lillehaug: Current and past requirements for a basketball court in the back yard, is there a current
requirement that requires a permit? And was there in the past? I don't think there was one taken
for this.
Aanenson: No.
Lillehaug: Isn't it considered the same as a driveway?
Aanenson: If you were to pour a patio, you don't necessarily get a permit for a poured patio
because it's not considered a structure when it's not above a certain elevation. So the only
requirement would be the impervious.
Lillehaug: So you don't distinguish between a basketball court and an asphalt driveway?
Aanenson: Or a concrete patio, no.
Lillehaug: So you don't need a permit to put your driveway in, or to widen your driveway?
Aanenson: No.
Saam: If you're coming off the street you do, but if you're within your property, not in our
easements, no you don't. Like Kate said, the only thing we'd be concerned with is the hard
surface coverage percentage.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
Aanenson: If you wanted to do it next to your garage and you're staying within, not on the city
easement, you don't have to get a permit for that.
Lillehaug: Okay, that's all I have. Thanks.
Sacchet: Craig.
Claybaugh: Is it fair to say that the city tries to make the process as citizen friendly as possible?
I think that this falls under the no good deed goes unpunished category.
Aanenson: Correct.
Claybaugh: Okay. The fail safe or the drop dead measure that's supposed to catch this is that
certified survey.
Aanenson: Correct.
Claybaugh: That's where you have the accountable professional person that signs off that the
survey is accurate. That triggers another series of reviews from city staff. By circumventing that
process in the attempt to be citizen friendly and accommodate the applicant, that's where it slips
through the cracks, is that fair?
Aanenson: I don't want to selectively say this one but we do that on all additions. I mean if it's a
minor addition, right. Not just this applicant but correct.
Claybaugh: But for this particular instance that'd be a fair analysis in your mind?
Aanenson: This would be similar to other processes, correct.
Claybaugh: Right, but in terms of how you got to this point or at this juncture.
Aanenson: Right.
Claybaugh: That's all the questions I have.
Sacchet: A few more questions. Just to be clear. Initially mistakenly was given a 30 percent
figure as impervious limit, correct?
Auseth: Correct.
Sacchet: And however it's currently at 37 percent. It's over the 30 as well.
Auseth: Right.
Sacchet: And was the basketball court built before or after the pool? Do we know that? Well I
can ask the applicant if you don't know.
Auseth: Yes, that'd be good.
Planning Commission Meeting- April 15, 2003
Sacchet: And in the findings, you make a comment that the conditions upon which this variance
is based are not applicable to all properties in the PUD-R zoning district. Why are they not
applicable to other properties in the PUD zoning district?
Aanenson: Why is this one 25 percent?
Sacchet: Well it says the conditions upon which this variance is based are not applicable to all
properties in the PUD-R zoning district. I fail to see why this would not be applicable. I mean
this would be applicable to other properties in that district, wouldn't it? It's condition, or I mean
finding B in the staff report. I was just curious whether I'm missing something or whether this is
stated correctly.
Aanenson: Correct. It is applicable.
Sacchet: It is applicable, right?
Aanenson: Correct.
Sacchet: Okay. The not is wrong, okay.
Aanenson: Correct.
Sacchet: Thank you. And last question, in the writing that was given out, I don't know whether
it's from staff or from the applicant. It's from the applicant. The applicant makes a case that the
construction of this project has clearly resulted in improved storm water runoff drainage in this
neighborhood. Staff does not agree with that position on the basis of the finding that says that
this will be detrimental to public welfare and injurious to land or improvements of the
neighborhood based on the runoff.
Auseth: It increases the storm water runoff.
Sacchet: So there's disagreement between the applicant and staff.
Auseth: Correct.
Sacchet: Okay, that's all my questions. Thank you. If the applicant or representative want to
make, come forward. Make a presentation. State your name and address please for the record.
Kent Kurth: My name is Kent Kurth, 8632 Flamingo Drive.
Lynn Kurth: And I'm Lynn Kurth, same address.
Kent Kurth: And I'd like to start by saying a lot of the questions that I've heard so far really do
kind of have to do with establishing a time line when we got information, when we submitted
information, etc so that's kind of where I'd like to almost start so we're all at least on the same
page. And I'd like to start by saying, we've lived in that particular development now for almost
15 years. Well 10 in this house but 15 in that development. We moved 5 years ago 2 blocks
away because we liked the neighborhood. We actually had the opportunity to hand pick our
neighbors so we had 5-6 different families that made the move together so we know the
neighborhood and we're very comfortable and we've enjoyed living there. One of the things that
really were important to us in picking that particular lot was the fact that it's a real flat lot because
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
we had some
point number
everything in
neighborhood
personal family goals that we really wanted to accomplish, and I outlined that in
1. We just wanted to establish a home front where we could have recreation and
our property. Know where our kids are. Make it an envkonment for other
kids to be in as well. And I'm partial to basketball, hence a basketball court. As
far as getting approval for that, again it was new construction so one of the things I obviously
knew is I had to get approval for that before I built the house and I wanted to do it obviously
before we had sod and sprinkler or anything like that so I did contact the City. Was told at the
time that there wasn't any type of permit needed for that type of construction. I actually went
around to the city parks in the area and I liked the fixtures that they had, and I found out that
Todd Hoffman was actually in charge of parks and rec at that time and he was nice enough to
give me the vendor that you guys used and a phone number, and that's how I got my fixtures for
it so I definitely went through the city in that respect tTying to do the right things. Craig, I think
that's the point that you were getting at. Fast forward ahead to 1993, or excuse me, when we
purchased the home. Yeah, it was done with the new construction.
Sacchet: You built it in the beginning.
Kent Kurth: In 1993. Yeah, I mean it's heavy equipment obviously to lay a slab that big. Fast
forward ahead to June of 2002, when the pool permit was issued and actually the fence permit
was issued at the same time. I think somebody asked the question as to when, I think maybe you
made a statement when the fence permit was issued it was noted that there was a basketball court.
I don't know of any evidence to that effect. I've never heard that, and I guess if in fact there was
a basketball court I would have assumed that maybe a stop or a flag would have gone up at that
point in time, so that's complete news to me. Maybe I misheard what was said here. We then
obviously did our, one step back. In the pool and the fence application, I think that goes to
Craig's point. They do a good job of making it as user friendly to the consumer as possible, and I
appreciate that. I went in 2 weeks ago obviously and I said hey, I've got a home. I want to build
a pool. What do I have to do? And again, they're very courteous. They tell you exactly what
you have to do. They supply you with the survey of your property, and they say you have to
sketch in dimensions of your pool. Put where your fence is going to be, and the dimensions of
your pool. Very courteous. I appreciate as a homeowner. That's what a customer wants to hear.
No mention of hard pack or I guess maybe a plethora of other ordinances that evidently are out
there that could be loop hole or...point so it's what I wanted to hear. That's what we did. Fast
forward to October 4th. That's when we got the first notification. Actually it was in October 3rd
dated. I received it obviously the 4th, stating from Jason that we had exceeded this hard cover rule
or ordinance, whatever you want to call it. What they required from me was a sketch sketching in
the basketball court in that survey they had originally submitted for the pool, which I did.
Interestingly enough, Jason responded back to me with a phone call indicating that that sketch
wasn't accurate enough, and that it was going to require a quote, a real survey, and obviously
phone conversations I determined what was a real survey and it had to be a true survey. So I
went through the yellow pages. Investigated what a true survey costs and it's in the
neighborhood of $1,500 to $2,000. Wasn't excited about that. Contacted the City again and said
what's the rational? Why do I need an exact survey? Is this punitive? Where's this coming from
and I was told that we just had to get the exact true measurements, so in an effort to reduce my
costs again I asked them to supply me with the company that did the original survey. It turns out
it was Brandt Engineering. Contacted them thinking all they'd have to do was do a survey of my
basketball court and pool area. They said no, it has to be done from scratch to the tune of $1,500
to $2,000. So at that point basically our communication with the city ceased. I said hey, I'm not
happy with it and it sat. Until late February, again I've got a sprinkler system and sod and things
obviously there's some work in the park that has to be done to complete it so I called the city and
I said where is my case at? What's the status of my case and I learned that of course Jason's gone
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
from your department and talked to Bob and Bob indicated that we do not need a real survey
now. That a sketch will do. I resubmitted a sketch. Accurate as I could be, and obviously they
looked at it. They told me basically you're going to have to go through a variance process. I was
given the variance paperwork to do it. I filled it out right there at the time, and that's led us to be
basically where we're at right now in this particular meeting. So that's kind of the sequence of
events. If you guys have any question on the time line.
Feik: I have a quick one.
Sacchet: Go ahead Bruce.
Feik: Thank you. Permits were issued in June and full construction began in July. October 4th is
the date that you received notice that you were in violation of hard cover. How much of the pool
construction had been completed at that point? Kind of where you were in the process when that
notice came out.
Kent Kurth: Done deal. Pool's done. Concrete's done.
Feik: Everything's done?
Kent Kurth: Everything's done.
Feik: Winterized. Put to bed.
Kent Kurth: Oh no. Oh no. We had, I mean first year. We took her into end of October, early
November. Heck...
Feik: Alright, thank you.
Kent Kurth: Any other questions?
Sacchet: Questions from the applicant? No? I have one question Mr. Kurth. Part of the
misunderstanding was that staff quoted you 30 percent impervious originally?
Kent Kurth: No. That had nothing to do with it. Again I, the 30 percent, and I made a note in
my stuff when you mentioned that before. 30 percent came up on March...
Sacchet: ...so that was recent.
Kent Kurth: Right. And again that was verbal and I think Bob acknowledged that it was a
miscommunication but to me it didn't mean anything to me, 25-30 percent. I knew I was over.
Sacchet: So when you actually went through the pool permit, building pool, there was never even
a discussion of impervious surface.
Kent Kurth: None whatsoever.
Sacchet: And the basketball court was build with the house originally.
Kent Kurth: Correct.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
Sacchet: Okay. Now one last question. We have opposite points of opinion between staff and
then your statement. You're stating that this set-up is clearly improving the storm water runoff.
Could you explain a little bit why, where you're coming from making that statement please.
Kent Kurth: Sure, sure. I'll actually, okay. The colors don't show up that well but you've got
the basic sketch and again our lots are basically relatively flat. In fact I'm probably one of the
flattest, that's why I wanted it for the basketball court, but yet they're all crowned which means
the water's designed to drain right down the property lines, down into the storm pond, which is
logical. We haven't had any problem with the basketball court for the last 10 years as far as
that's concerned. When we added the pool, obviously I didn't want any water building up behind
the pool, or you deal with the frost heave and everything else on the concrete. So on the points
here you've got a surface basin drain. You've got another surface basin drain there that catches
the water as it comes down the side hills. Okay? On the yellow dots here, those are where my
drains come down from the roof. The gutters. Those are all done underground. Tied into the
drain tile, which evacuates down into the storm pond. And in fact Dan Remer, who' s a part of the
staff, was actually contacted prior to us digging to determine exactly where he wanted that drain
tile to drain. Obviously I' ve only got permission to leave the drain tile at the end of my property.
And I said I've got the big equipment out here. It's at my cost. I'm more than happy to put it
wherever you guys want it because at the bottom end of my property, way down here, it opens
into a park. And the equipment for the lawnmowers and stuff to mow and maintain that park
have to have, actually travel along that corridor. So a lot of the neighbors have had to go in and
retroactively and dig it under ground, put rock in or whatever so that equipment can get over.
Knowing that that was going to be a problem I contacted him. Dan came out to the property with
the park personnel. I don't know the gentleman's name, and actually determined specifically
exactly where they wanted that to go. And it was actually substantially into the park property,
probably 50 feet. 40 feet. Again, that's fine with me. I've got the equipment coming in. We'll
do it so I think with that in mind, because we're evacuating all the water from the roof, we're
evacuating the water from the concrete associated with the pool, it is a better setup than it was
before.
Sacchet: Okay. Good answer, thank you. Thank you, do you have anything else from your end?
Kent Kurth: Yeah I did. I actually wanted to address those points that were in the proposal in
terms of, I wanted to address those points. The r~ommendations. I guess they call it the
findings. Undue hardship. Again, can we live in that house? Absolutely. Do we need a
basketball court or a pool? There's no question. I guess hardship has to do with the fact that it's
more emotional and financial I guess to try to tear that particular basketball court out, and I guess
we'll come back to that. And the finding B was satisfied. You were satisfied with finding C.
The hardship, whether or not it was created or not and again I think that's really the root of this
because if I would have known that there was a hard pack variance in, we could have made a
conscience decision either to tear up the blacktop at that time, not do the pool, do concrete
different, something. In my mind knowing what the limit was, it would eliminated having to do
the pool. But did we know anything at that point in time? No we didn't. Were we notified any
time that the fence or the pool permit application of any type of hard cover? No we were not.
The last one obviously we addressed was the surface water runoff but that's just kind of the
documentation to support that. And the lastly, again my recommendations were to basically
accept the variance, or approve it I should say, and again I don't know why as a homeowner that
I'm penalized when again I contacted the city. Did everything in good faith and yet I'm faced
with a dilemma.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
Sacchet: Alright. Thank you very much. This is a public hearing so I open the hearing. If
anybody wants to comment to this case, please come forward. State your name and address for
the record. Is there anybody who would like to comment about this variance application? Seeing
nobody, I close the public hearing. It's discussion of commissioners. Do you want to start Rich?
Slagle: I have one quick question Mr. Chair, to the applicant again. You just brought up a point,
and I guess I'm just interested in your thought. What would you have done had the court been
noted and you were then faced with the decision on how to proceed.
Kent Kurth: It was a family vote. There were 3 pools, 1 no pool and I was looking for any
excuse not to do the pool and I think that would have been significant enough that we'd be using
the community pool. That's a real honest.
Claybaugh: So you're trying to recover damages?
Kent Kurth: No, but I mean in reality that's the answer. I don't think we would have gone
forward with it period.
Sacchet: Thank you. Well comments from commissioners. Do you just want to make your
comment since you're at it.
Slagle: Sure. I think having been out on the site, and having discussion with Mr. Kurth, I
certainly think that he has followed just about everything he should have in the process obviously
with the exception of diagramed the basketball court on his city supplied survey. You know one
can question whether or not he was aware of the need to. I tend to believe the applicant that he
probably wasn't because, and logic would say there'd be no reason to omit it because someone's
going to be out there at some point to see it, and it is not a small thing. It's quite large, so I would
tend to say that I would grant the variance in this situation.
Sacchet: Thanks Rich. Bruce.
Feik: I'm not sure as a homeowner going through this timeline of events that a different scenario
would have been reached. Given the rules that we have implied or imposed... Certainly we had
city staff out there a number of times probably before October the 4t~. So I have a hard time
understanding how we could not have, or how you would not have gotten to this point based upon
the history. I think there's a, just for clarification purposes, I think there's a difference in
definition on, what is improved stormwater runoff. I think your view of improved stormwater
runoff is how quickly you can evacuate the water from the lot. The city's view is how little water
has to leave the lot. So I think there's a little def'mition difference there and so I'm sure the city
staff would have a difference of opinion based upon some goals. But again I don't know how we
wouldn't end up here given the sequence of events. I would approve the variance.
Sacchet: Thanks Bruce. Alison.
Blackowiak: Yep and I agree with my fellow commissioners. Going through the timeline, it
makes sense that things were done as they should have been done and I feel like there's some
surprise here in terms of the basketball court on both sides. That the applicant didn't know that it
was required to be shown, and the city didn't pick up on it earlier in the process. One thing that I
would suggestion, just in terms of the city is maybe at the time that the Certificate of Survey is
given back to the homeowner, ask the question. Have there been any significant changes made to
this survey since it was drawn because I think the survey was drawn again in good faith and at the
10
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
time it was accurate, but I think that's the kind of a question that might be able to head off any
potential problem like this in the future because I'm sure that there are other courts and sheds and
things like that that would affect a hard surface coverage number that people just wouldn't know
about. I mean unless you're on a Planning Commission and can read all kinds of fun city codes,
it's not something that you really want to be too well versed in I don't think. I feel that the
applicant did a nice job in responding to city findings, and I would recommend approval of the
variance with the conditions that the city staff had regarding the two trees. I think they were two
overstory deciduous trees, and I don't know where they're going to go but I think that would be a
good kind of a compromise to get a little something else out of this to kind of offset the basketball
court, and also I think that the idea that he had the city staff out there to deal with the drain tile
issue and there were a lot of opportunities for somebody to question the basketball court, if that
was a real issue so I think the applicant did a good job and didn't do anything wrong by going
forward.
Sacchet: Thanks Alison. Steve.
Lillehaug: I guess the moral of the story is, is everyone needs to read all the city codes. You
know that's not going to happen so I would like to reiterate what Alison said, and I think that one
key step is maybe for staff just to reinforce and question the applicants when they get their survey
to ensure, to put it on them to ensure that their survey is correct, so it doesn't fall on city staff.
And I want to clarify finding E, and this would be the runoff. There's one word that's missing on
this finding and it's runoff rate. The runoff rate is increased, and that's what happens here. To
understand the importance of this 25 percent maximum impervious area, you look at it, when
areas are paved over reducing the amount of impervious area, the runoff rate increases. This
means that the time of concentration is reduced and the water gets to the pond quicker. If
everyone paved their back yards and exceeded that 25 percent, our storm water ponds are going
to be undersized. This would, we would have water quality, water quantity problems. And all of
these are regulated by the DNR, by the MPCA, by the Army Corps. So the city has to maintain
these standards so the one key thing is it's runoff rate. It's not the runoff. So this is an important
standard set by our community to, for the governed regulations so I just want to clarify that. And
likewise I agree with fellow commissioners. Due to the timeline I agree with the hardship.
Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Craig.
Claybaugh: I'd like to reiterate what Commissioner Lillehaug said and that it is an important
issue for the reasons that he just stated very well. I pulled an example from my files. This one
happens to be from St. Louis Park. It's a survey of record that I had gone in to pull for another
project and they stamp on there is for information only. May not be accurate. Not for use with
permit application. They've been burned, whether in similar situations like this. This is an
example where city staff is trying to accommodate a citizen request and once they deviate from
standard process, it opens up the whole process to these miscommunications. Misunderstandings.
I feel that the applicant can't know what they don't know, and I don't feel that it's fair to hold
them responsible for something that they don't have ample opportunity to understand. I think,
let's see here. I think that the requirement of the city in the future makes the determination that
they are willing to relax the standards with requests to requiting surveys or any other similar
process where you deviate from the standards, that they need to go to great lengths to make sure
the applicant understands their new responsibilities. So if they forego requiring a certified
survey, you should be bearing the responsibility for that, that you need to be amply notified of
what your new responsibilities are if you want to take advantage of that. So whether it' s surveys
or any other element that the city relaxes on, I think they need to look at that in a little greater
detail. I think additionally that certainly under these circumstances would be a good application
11
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
for as-built surveys. So after all the work is done that, whether you hire a surveyor or you go out
and do it yourself, that you go out and detail and as-built survey. Marking it up and basically
signing it and dating it, thereby certifying it so it's an updated record. I do support it. I
recommend the approval. I recommend the condition. I would add the condition that if it is
passed that in the future that the space in question be only for the basketball court. That if a
subsequent owner purchases it, that it wasn't, doesn't evolve into something else, that it could
only revert back to green space so that's the extent of my comments.
Sacchet: Thanks Craig. I don't have too much to add. Based on hearing the chronology of the
events I believe that it is a reasonable request and the hardship would actually be to have to tear it
out. If you turn it that way. I do believe the applicant acted in good faith, and therefore I support
the passing of that variance with the condition as stated so.
Kent Kurth: ...conditions?
Feik: Before we vote can I say?
Sacchet: Yeah. Hang on.
Feik: Alison mentioned something about the trees.
Blackowiak: That's a condition.
Feik: Right, and I definitely saw a large eyebrow raised over here that the applicant would like to
I think comment briefly I'm thinking regarding that issue.
Sacchet: Okay, go ahead. Thanks Bruce.
Kent Kurth: And I'm more than happy to put in trees. Again I think the issue you raised is where
do you put them in. If you look at my property surrounded by my neighbors, the blue dots
represent trees in my neighbor's yard. And I've got 25 trees in the back yards on the left and the
right of me. 12 of which are within 10 feet of my property line. 11 of which are within 5 feet of
my property line. And I'm more than happy to put trees in but if I'm encapsulated by trees, what
would you like me to do? Compete with the neighbor or put one in front of the park, which
disrupts my view of the lovely park. I didn't realize again that there was any code. I think the
part of that recommendation had to deal with me to get up to a 25 percent canopy cover. Is that
something that's in existence?
Sacchet: Can we maybe ask staff to clarify, I guess it was the city forester element.
Aanenson: He's correct...
Sacchet: So what are we trying to accomplish with the additional 2 trees? If you could give us a
little bit of an idea.
Aanenson: Mitigate the impact of the additional runoff and that requirement. Rate of runoff.
That's why we're looking at the south end of the lot, just as he's indicated, and that's where it
sounds like his concern is the view that he's losing.
Kent Kurth: And if I may add, we'd be more than happy to put in shrubbery, low ground
coverage to help stop that surface water flow. But whatever you think is best but I mean there's
12
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
still landscaping that we intend to do that hasn't been done yet because we put the brakes on in
October but I think we'll probably address that so we'd be more than happy to work with Dan or
any other staff out to see that the city's satisfied on any type of shrubbery and stuff like that to
help reduce any water in that runoff.
Sacchet: I think we understand your position on that, thank you for adding that. Any additional
comments from commissioners at this point? I'm looking to get a motion then. Anybody want
to do a motion please.
Blackowiak: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission approve Variance 4/2003-6 with
the following condition. That the applicant will work with the City Forester and staff to
determine best placement for additional trees and/or shrubs.
Sacchet: Okay. Is there a second?
Feik: Second.
Claybaugh: Friendly amendment?
Sacchet: Amendments, yes.
Claybaugh: I'd just like to add the verbiage that no conversions of this space in the future would
be allowable except to revert back to green space.
Sacchet: Is that acceptable?
Blackowiak: Accepted.
Blackowiak moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission approve Variance 4/2003-6
with the following conditions:
1. That the applicant will work with the City Forester and staff to determine best placement
for additional trees and/or shrubs.
2. No conversions of this space in the future would be allowable except to revert back to
green space.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A LAKESHORE, SIDE YARD, LOT AREA, LOT
WIDTH, AND HARD SURFACE COVERAGE VARIANCES ON PROPERTY ZONED
RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY, LOCATED AT
BOULEVARD, TOM AND SUE SUTER.
Angie Auseth presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Thank you. Questions from staff. You want to start Steve?
9221 LAKE RILEY
13
Planning Commission Meeting -April 15, 2003
Lillehaug: I can start. I'm looking at the variances here and I don't see why we are approving
variances or needing to approve variances for existing lot sizes. I don't think we need really to
include variances for substandard conditions that really wouldn't be reflected in anything they did
on their lot. Would staff agree with that, or is there a reason that we're doing this?
Auseth: After talking to the city attorney, he suggested that we do that. With those variances to
make the lot legal.
Lillehaug: To make it legal?
A1-Jaff: When you demolish a structure you lose your non-conformity status. So we're just
going through the process of.
Lillehaug: Okay. Okay, I might not agree with that but. Speaking of non-conformances. It's not
the intent of us to reduce all the non-conformances on this lot. So would you agree that the intent
of the ordinances when we' re speaking of non-conformances specifically on the west side, is not
to, right now it's limited to the garage being non-conforming to 4 ½ feet. Now would you agree
that increasing the distance, I mean the whole length of the house, isn't that the opposite of what
the intent of increasing their non-conformance is because you are increasing the intensity. If you
increase the length of the non-conformance, in my mind, in my interpretation you're increasing
the intensity of that non-conformance. Would that be, would staff agree with that or would you
not agree with that?
Sacchet: Kate, do you want to address that?
Aanenson: Yeah. It's complex, but as indicated before, if you have an existing lot of record and
you take down the structure, the goal is to try to meet all the setbacks. Obviously this lot doesn't,
it makes it difficult to try to accomplish that. So what you do then is try to in a good faith effort,
what's reasonable to try to get it to as close as you can. That's what's before you tonight. Their
request to try to make the most reasonable application of the rules and still get what they want. A
desirable house on the lot. So what your job is to say, is that reasonable or not. If your
justification is, that wasn't where it was before. That seems to make some sense. Then that's a
rational basis. Does that make sense?
Lillehaug: Sure.
Aanenson: Okay.
Lillehaug: And then I have one more question. This will be easier. On sheet, I've got to find it
here. We listed the variances for this property and it's not jumping out at me but I recall 7
percent variance on the, yeah 7 percent hard cover. Hard surface coverage variance that was
granted back in 1992. So that would relate to 32 percent, correct?
Auseth: Correct.
Lillehaug: And then in your table on page 6 it says the existing is 36.5 percent. So from 1992
until the date they increased an additional 4.5 percent? Is that a correct interpretation I guess?
Aanenson: Page what? I'm sorry.
Sacchet: Page 6.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
Lillehaug: On page 5 it indicates it's a 7 percent hard surface coverage. There was a variance
granted so that would put it to 32 percent impervious area. And now on page 6 in the chart, for
that property it says the existing hard surface coverage is 36.5 percent. Should have that not been
32 percent? Or the variances granted in some other improvements were done and additional
impervious area was created. It's, we're talking 4 V2 percent difference here. Is it significant?
Sacchet: Well actually on the table in the attachment it says 34.9 percent so we have another
number once more so I guess the math is a little fuzzy here.
Lillehaug: Do we know which, is this existing, regardless of what the variance is, is the existing
36.5 percent? That would be, I think that would be relevant if we can definitely determine which
number is the existing hard surface coverage. So there's a table in there.
Sacchet: It's about halfway through the attachments. It's a landscape format table.
Auseth: That table, staff and the applicant went through and came up with these numbers so
these numbers are the correct numbers.
Sacchet: So the ones in the attachment?
Auseth: In the attachment. And I apologize.
Lillehaug: So it should be 34.91 percent is the existing hard surface coverage?
Auseth: Correct.
Lillehaug: Okay, thank you.
Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Craig, how about you?
Claybaugh: Let's see here. I'll start on page number 3. It looks like paragraph number 5 and 6.
Let's see here. The site is zoned RSF. A single family home with a 2 car garage can legally be
constructed on the site. This is under the heading of permitted use. Second paragraph under that
heading, the standards for a single family residential district requires a minimum of 960 square
feet of living area for one story rambler, 1,050 square feet for a living area for a split level and a
minimum of 600 square feet for a fa:st floor living area for 2 story design. The regulation also
states a 2 car garage must be provided with a single family structure. Given that standard under
permitted use with the 2 story structure that they're proposing, what would be the anticipated
square footage? Not what they're proposing but what would you identify as the square footage
relevant to the reasonable use?
Aanenson: What's the average that we get for the city?
Claybaugh: Well if you were to look at that and turn it around and say, rather than what the
applicant is showing and what they're applying for, if you came in and said where does that
threshold start? Are you understanding the question Kate? Under permitted use they're setting
minimum standards.
Aanenson: Yeah I understand that question.
15
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
Claybaugh: Okay. I'm asking where's the threshold where those minimum standards are met for
a 2 story home and the 2 car garage.
Aanenson: That is the threshold. Your question is what do we typically get?
Claybaugh: For them, what I'm trying to get to is for them to have reasonable use of that
particular lot, given these requirements under the permitted use, how big a home could they
expect? Where would that square footage for the home start at? I'm looking on the table on the
back, and they've got a footprint of 1,200 square feet on the 2 story footprint. What they're
identifying under the standards is a minimum of 600 square feet, okay for the fkst floor.
Aanenson: Correct.
Claybaugh: The regulation also stated 2 car garage so I was just looking for you to confirm what
they're looking for, is that a 20 by 20? Is that 400 square feet or was that 1,000 square feet?
Aanenson: Well yeah because they're asking for 1,200. That's correct.
Claybaugh: Okay. So what I'm trying to get at is for them, where the threshold starts for the
interpretation of reasonable use starts there. Is that correct? If I came to you, I could come on
that lot and I could propose a house that's 1,000 square feet or 5,000 square feet. One would be
over the top, the other one might be under sized. What I'm asking is, at the definition where
reasonable use is met, okay. Am I interpreting that correctly that that starts around 1,000 square
feet?
Aanenson: Right. I guess I would turn it around and say staff's opinion is, based on this
application and what's in the neighborhood, we believe in this situation, we recommended
approval that this was reasonable use.
Claybaugh: Okay, do you think it's anything above and beyond what could be considered
reasonable use?
Aanenson: I'll stand by the recommendation we have in the staff report based on this
neighborhood and that's how we do our reviews, based on what's standard for this area.
Claybaugh: Alright, understood.
Aanenson: Each variance would be to them.
Claybaugh: All I'm trying to get at is typically on a variance we try to, or I try to ascertain if it's
a little over the top or if it' s right in where you feel it should be.
Aanenson: Well...neighborhood standard and that's why Angie put those other variances that are
in there. It is a lakeshore lot...little bit bigger so again that's the standard that we used.
Claybaugh: Second question I had was looking on the survey, and on the table that was included
in our packet, it identified 1,200 square feet on the walkway to the lake. And that was not
identified what material was being there. I'm assuming that's going into the hard surface
calculation, is that correct?
Auseth: Correct.
16
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
Claybaugh: Okay. What material is that?
Auseth: That's still to be determined.
Claybaugh: Okay.
Aanenson: So we just counted it as impervious so it's into the calculation. Whether it's
pavement or.
Claybaugh: Okay. I was trying to limit the hard surface coverage, would it be reasonable to try
and request or require that something be put in for a walkway that's chipped or whatever. Is it
impervious with respect to the hard surface coverage? Okay. And the patio, the 266 square feet,
I saw the terrace identified on my survey. I'm assuming that's just over the first floor. But it's
identified as patio on the table. Is there a separate patio that's 266 square feet above and beyond
the house footprint?
Auseth: That's just dealing with that terrace area.
Claybaugh: Okay, now when I look at, what I was wondering, when I look at the sketch that's
included in the packet, this terrace area to me looks like it's a walkout area above the first floor.
And it's identified as a terrace in one area and a patio in the other. If it was in fact that second
floor terrace, I wouldn't think it would be in the hard surface calculations. Am I correct?
Pardon? What I'm asking, do they have a separate patio at grade that's taking up additional hard
surface?
Aanenson: (Yes.)
Claybaugh: Okay. Isn't it reasonable to take a look at that in an effort to try and limit the hard
surface coverage?
Aanenson: Sure.
Claybaugh: Okay. Did they identify what material they were using there for the patio?
Auseth: No.
Claybaugh: Okay. That's all the questions I have right now.
Sacchet: Thank you Craig. Alison, do you want to jump in?
Blackowiak: I don't have any questions right now.
Sacchet: Okay. Bruce.
Feik: Yes I have a question regarding what mitigation efforts were applied during the application
process to try to limit the amount of variances necessary for this to go forward.
Auseth: Staff worked with the applicant to reduce the hard cover surface. We lessened the
terrace area, which is the ground level area, to try, so that wasn't as large and bring back the
shoreland setback.
17
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
Feik: From the existing?
Auseth: Yes.
Feik: Right. What is most typical on the lake side setback in that neighborhood, particularly for
those narrower lots which are adjacent to the, is that south and west? Yeah, south and west.
Aanenson: Shoreland setback?
Feik: Yes.
Aanenson: Did you want us to average those quickly? They're listed.
Feik: No, is that in the report? I missed it.
Aanenson: Last column.
Feik: Last column in which table?
A1-Jaff: Page 5.
Feik: Oh, I'm sorry. The label's on the front page. I didn't bring it back. Okay, thank you.
That's it.
Sacchet: Okay. Rich, no questions?
Slagle: No questions.
Sacchet: Alison?
Blackowiak: Yeah I do have one question. Regarding the shoreland. Has there been any thought
into like lakescaping or something to mitigate increased hard surface coverage?
Auseth: Not, we haven't discussed that.
Blackowiak: Okay. That's it, thank you.
Sacchet: That's it? Real quick a few questions. Saving trees on the, is that the south side? They
should all be savable based on staffs?
Auseth: The applicant will address that.
Sacchet: The applicant will? I'll ask that of the applicant. In this case the finding was that, even
though they're increasing the impervious surface it should not be detrimental...could you maybe
point out why this one is not detrimental and the previous one staff thought would be detrimental?
In terms of the runoff rate.
Aanenson: Well existing condition.
Sacchet: Existing condition, okay.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
Aanenson: You know they're moving the house further back from the lakeshore giving us, what
we were talking about before, the rate. Giving it more time to percolate before it gets to the lake.
Let me just address Alison's question too on lakescapes. I think that's an important question.
Sacchet: Okay, go ahead.
Aanenson: We had made that a condition before. I think the applicant did go back and have the
council release them from that condition. I think if you want to add that as a condition we'll work
with, in the past, that hasn't always been supported but certainly that's another way to reduce
what's happening as the rate and volume are going towards the lake to try to reduce that. So
that's always a mitigation application too.
Sacchet: Good answer. And in condition number 3 it says there will be no grading within 37.5
feet of the ordinary water, high water level elevation. 37.5, because it's half of 75 or where does
it come from?
Aanenson: That' s the current setback of the house to?
Sacchet: That's the current, because according to the drawing it's not. It's actually the house is
closer according to the drawing, but it may be it's measured differently. According to the
drawing it's plus/minus 28.
Auseth: That was determined by the Water Resource Coordinator.
Sacchet: Okay, so that's measuring it differently basically. Okay, that answers that question
pretty well. That's all my questions. Thank you for your presentations. If the applicant would
want to come forward, make a presentation. State your name and address please for the record.
Tom Suter: Tom Suter, 9221 Lake Riley Boulevard. How do you like my opportunity lot? Let
me try to address some of the questions that you've raised because we've gone through this time
and time again. In fact when we first bought the home 4 years ago our intention was not to do
anything other than to treat it as a lake home. Small lake home, and situations change where we
want to make it our permanent residence. Our other home is up for sale in Eden Prairie and so
when we looked at the challenges that the previous owner had with looking at trying to move the
home and do some renovations to it, we determined the only way that we reasonably could come
up with a house that we could live in, as well as try to minimize the variances was to work with a
reputable architect in the Twin Cities by the name of SALA Architects, and Dale Mulfinger is the
gentleman we're working with. What we set out to do was try to get a high density interior home
with the smallest amount of exterior footprint. And if you're familiar with a building technique
called a not so big house which Sara Susank has written about. Sara and Dale are partners and
we're applying a lot of their techniques and issues in the design of the home. So just from a
general background. The one question was, I think Craig you asked the question about the 34
percent or 36 percent and how my hard cover numbers varied from what Angie and I eventually
came up with. Mine were rough calculations. They were layered on top of the registered
surveyor's document and the reason he didn't come up with some of the numbers is the lot was
snow covered at the time and wasn't able to get the patio areas. From the original variance on the
7 percent on the garage to where it is today, the previous, two previous homeowners I believe put
in a patio walkway from the garage to the house. The woman who had it originally was an
elderly woman and it was for safety reasons. She had to come down quite a flight of stairs, then
across the yard and that's where the additional yard cover came in, which you'd think is
19
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
reasonable. I think one of the other questions that came up was total square footage of the house
on the lot. I'm not exactly sure what the question there was. We tried to minimize again the
square footage of the lowest level, which is the walkout which is going to be a couple of
bedrooms and a family room type area and, not a mud room but a laundry. The main level, which
is really dictating a large percentage of the footprint is the living room, the dining room and the
kitchen and that dictates that the floorplan has to be so big. And then everything else is scaled off
of that. Third story is tucked under the roof so that we can effectively try to keep the scale of the
home proportional with it so it doesn't look like a bunch of shoe boxes stacked up on top of each
other, which we have in the neighborhood a little bit of. And so again we tried to scale it. One of
the questions was on the walkout and was there going to be a walkout and a deck. Let me try to
clarify that. This here is the drawing of the middle level. As you can tell the garage, this deck
area here is over a lower level floor, roof already. The deck that was in that drawing that you
have which is the lake view, that deck has been removed. It was the architect's original thought
to put a deck. We did not want decks on the home. We wanted all the space to be on the ground
level, so we then go to this sketch. This was the original sketch of the ground level. This
walkway, the surface we're looking at is, we're looking at using potentially like a flag stone. A
very loosely fit together flag stone with grass and moss inbetween it, which is what we've done in
our current home, and it was a compromise. We didn't want to go to a solid hard cover concrete
or paver stones. We intend to work with a landscape architect to come up with the correct type of
materials to tie in. This was the original architect's sketch of what the terrace could look like. It
has been, with discussions with Angie and the rest of the staff, we've scaled it back so it doesn't
protrude any further out than the front edge of the house to the lake. So that's where it is today
and that's what the staff has in the report. The patio material there is still up for discussion as
well and that will be done with a landscape architect. I think Alison you asked the question about
lakescaping. We intend to work with somebody to try to incorporate as much of that into it. Our
current home has extensive landscaping to it, and we intend to employ a very high quality
landscape architect and arborist in this project to salvage the trees and as much of the lot, natural
terrain as we can. Let's see here. Setbacks of others. I think one of the questions that was raised
was what are some of the other homes on the lake near us set back. We go to the east, the
Baker's. They're set back at least to the 75 foot mark. If we go to the west it's a new home.
They actually acquired both lots, 9223 and 9225 and constructed a single home on both of those.
They're back of the 75 foot mark. Then when you go the next two down, the Yetzen's and the
Pothoff's, as well as I think the Olson's which is one further down, they're all within 30 feet of
the lake. And in fact if you're ever in those back yards you'll look, I mean they appear right on
the water. Part of our reason for bringing the house back was convenience of a garage and a
house connected. Second issue was we wanted to improve the sight lines for our neighbors. If
you look at the sketch that I think Angie had in the report, our sight lines dramatically improve
the neighbor's, if you will, with us moving the house back. Their sight lines improve
considerably. In fact the Hamilton's who just moved into the west of us from their living room
will now be able to not look at the side of our blue barn, but can actually look all the way to the
east end of the lake, and be able to look you know without obstruction of the home. So from our
perspective we were trying to improve the sight lines for the neighbors. We were trying to
improve it from a safety perspective, if you have to come down those stairs in the winter. The
icing on that gets to be treacherous. We have elderly parents who do have extended stays with us.
That makes it very inconvenient for them to use that. The one question about the 4 foot setback
on the west side. We've tried to minimize the variance requirements as much as we could. That
one we looked at very hard, but it made it very difficult to get a usable middle floor with trying to
get a kitchen and a dining room side by side, which is all we really could do, and have the third
story be sizable enough to be able to get the rooms under the roof to allow us to have it be
meaningful and useful up there. Again this is the, that would be the view looking at it from the,
our east neighbors. This is not accurate. This stairway is not in there. The architect took a
20
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
liberty with a hot tub, which we're not doing. There's no deck out here. And this actually,
through further discussions with staff, as well as our neighbors to the east which are the Baker's,
they currently have a runoff problem which actually, because of the slope runs through our back
yard and parks itself in our neighbors to the west back yard which leaves them a soft, wet spot.
And with the home going in and some landscape terracing that we're going to have to do up in
this area, this actually will not be a walk bridge. It will be, our intent would be to have that solid
surface and do a retaining wall, and that would allow us to divert the water so it doesn't go at our
home but go down the yard. Today, because of the neighbors to the east, the Baker's have a very
large number of oak trees and having a lot of shade, the grass won't grow. Nothing will grow in
there. We' ve worked on a plan with them and got their approval. In fact Denny would have been
here tonight but he got an opportunity to go hunting and so he said he'd write a letter, but I said I
don't know that we'll need that yet. And our intent is to landscape that with some natural
wooded products that will retain the water and collect that so it just doesn't run right into the lake.
So we have met with 5 of our neighbors. The Hastings, which are 2 to the east. The Baker's,
immediately to the east. The Hamilton's which are immediately to the west. The Yetzen's and
the Pothoff' s, and all 5 of them are in agreement with what we're trying to do and are in support
and we intend to work with both the Hamilton's and the Baker's on landscaping strategies that are
complimentary to what they want and what we need in the process.
Sacchet: Thank you. Any questions from the applicant? Questions from the applicant?
Claybaugh: Yeah. With respect to the walkway to the lake and the terrace material. Were those
going to be the same material? I know you commented about the terrace or patio material.
Tom Suter: We're not sure if the terrace is going to be the same. Ideally what we'd like to have
is have that be a loosely fit flag stone material so we can get grass' and moss, whatever we can get
to grow in there so it just isn't a solid surface. That's not what we're interested in. We're
looking for something with a little bit more of a natural feel to it. And as I think the staff report
indicated we'll be happy to submit our landscaping plans once we get to that point for, you know
their input and recommendations as well.
Claybaugh: Okay. I know it's a stretch but in that could you inquire with your landscape
designer what the absorption rate is for how that...comes together.
Tom Suter: Absolutely, if that's what we need to do, I mean that's not a big issue for us to do
that.
Claybaugh: Okay. My biggest concern is the runoff.
Tom Suter: Oh absolutely and we've, I mean for us right now we're collecting water from both
sides because we're not capped the way the lots are created there like the previous group had, so
we have to deal with the water runoff issue and the drainage, otherwise I'm going to have a wet
lower level.
Claybaugh: Okay. And I understand what your family's needs are and that's how you go into
designing the footprint, style home and the space that you need. It sounds like you've given it a
lot of consideration and had that in the forefront in designing the home. My concern is at the end
of the day the lot is only 6465 square feet.
Tom Suter: Right.
21
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
Claybaugh: Granted that the property's up and down the line may be comparable in size in
square footage, but they range in lot size, the nearest one to your's is 8121 and they go up to
42,000 square feet. You said you've met with all your neighbors.
Tom Suter: Yeah we have.
Claybaugh: And have solid supportive conversations.
Tom Suter: Yeah...with any of them. In fact we had them over, we walked through the plans
with them. In fact some of them gave some suggestions like you know if we could do this with
the roof line so it presents them a little bit better look and stuff, that's fine.
Claybaugh: That's all the questions I have.
Sacchet: Any more questions? Just one quick question. Those trees on your south side, or you
might call it east.
Tom Suter: You mean the west side? The ones that are noted in the report?
Sacchet: Yes.
Tom Suter: There's about 7 of them on the, it'd be the west side of the lot. It's between the
Hamilton's and our home.
Sacchet: Yeah, it's kind of south actually the way I remember it. Sort of. Maybe I was
disoriented.
Tom Suter: Let me point out. Where they are today is fight in this area.
Sacchet: Yes, on that side. Right.
Tom Suter: Because of where their home is in relationship to those trees, several of the trees
have had to actually to work their way totally into our yard because they're searching for light, as
well as they're being encroached on by the other trees. In fact I met with Jim this afternoon. We
talked about it. They, along with us, we're going to contract with an arborist and a tree
maintenance service to work with us to try to see what we can do to salvage those trees. At
minimum we see possibly 2 having to come out because they don't want them rubbing against
their stucco. They've got an issue pending with one of them already, is what he highlighted to
me, but the rest, our intent is try to salvage those, not lose them, and we'll work with an arborist
on that.
Sacchet: Okay. Yeah, that was my observation too. There were two trees that would have to be
trimmed quite significantly but I don't hope they need to be cut all the way but certainly trimmed.
Tom Suter: We're going to find out. Yeah. I mean and also just to clarify on this side there's a
poplar that is 50-75 feet tall or more. There's one large branch on that that's overhanging, and
right now it' s an issue. If it were to break off, and every year branches of that poplar are breaking
off. I've talked to Denny about it. While there's no home in that area and nothing to worry
about, we're going to take that branch out, which won't have a material impact on the tree, but it
will prevent the issue of it breaking off when the home is there. Even without our additions to the
22
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
current home, if it came off, it's going to take out part of my garage as it is today so we're going
to eliminate that in this process when they can get a bucket up in there.
Sacchet: Sounds good. Thank you very much.
Lillehaug: Can I ask one?
Sacchet: Yeah. Steve.
Lillehaug: With the hard surface coverage, your option indicates a 41.65 percent. That would be
your proposal.
Tom Suter: Yep.
Lillehaug: After you're done landscaping, finishing the patio, would you anticipate that being
larger than 41.65 percent?
Tom Suter: No. That is, Angie and I spent, along with Bob and I think with Laura, we spent an
afternoon working through these numbers trying to get it all figured out because it is a very
complex set of numbers to get the hard cover calculated. And we believe that that is the £mished
number, if not a bigger number than we're going to need. So I mean the intent there is not to go
beyond that number, and it will really come down to what we end up with from the landscaper's
perspective. If we can convert this, and have it not be a safety issue.
Lillehaug: To convert what?
Tom Suter: This walkway.
Lillehaug: Okay.
Tom Suter: If we can convert that to something else we'll do it but I'd like to hold off on making
any commitments to that until we work through it with the landscape architect. But if we can
shrink it, we clearly understand the runoff issue. We live in a marsh today and we understand
that issue and don't want to create that any worst than it is.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. One more?
Lillehaug: Yeah. So when you're saying, I mean you're including, can you put that back up on
the screen there please. The area to the south. The large area there. You're including that in
your calculations are you saying?
Tom Suter: Yeah. That's in your, that's in the calculations.
Lillehaug: So you're saying that's an impervious area that whole area right there.
Tom Suter: Well it becomes difficult, I mean you can take it to the definition that it's stone. It's
impervious. If you, part of our thinking is if, even though it may be stone, if they're loosely and
very loosely laid in so they make more like a distant walk path, you now can get into a bunch of
calculus kind of calculations. Determine how much of it is impervious and how much of it isn't.
So it may be half, this may be half impervious as a tightly knit paver or a concrete slab.
23
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
Lillehaug: So you're not including that area in your impervious calculations?
Tom Suter: It is included.
Sacchet: Currently it's included.
Tom Suter: Excuse me, not impervious.
Sacchet: Yeah, and what I hear you say is that you're willing to, in your answer to Craig that
you're willing to consider, how would you call that, a partially pervious.
Tom Suter: Yeah, if that' s an okay way to describe it.
Claybaugh: Modified impervious surface. And you're forwarding with a worst case scenario too.
Tom Suter: We're submitting worst case scenario. Part of what drove us to this, and part of the
reason we don't have all the answers on the landscaping portion of it and so forth is, the
architecture fees are not inexpensive to work through and if this was going to be a road block for
Chan, then I wasn't going to spend the rest of the money doing the architecture work. And now,
if we're granted the variance then we're going to go through the rest of the expense of finishing
the architecture, both inside and outside.
Sacchet: Excellent. Is that it? Thank you very much. This is a public heating so if anybody
wants to come forward and make comments, this is your time. I open the hearing at this point.
Please come forward. State your name and address for the record.
Jerry Paulsen: Good evening. Jerry Paulsen, 7305 Laredo Drive.
Sacchet: Good evening Jerry.
Jerry Paulsen: Page 3 of the staff report. Site characteristics, second paragraph. There is the row
of trees along the western, I think that's the southwestern. The property line in close proximity to
the proposed structure. As part of the proposed plan the trees are to be saved. 4.4 feet. The trees
are to be saved. Good luck. Other than that these are multiple variances and I think you should
take them very seriously, especially on lakeshore or shoreland district properties. The fact that
their neighbors confmn this, they're in the same boat. They have undersized property and they're
sympathetic to the applicant I think in that respect because they've seen variances go by on their
property and maybe they're going to apply for variances in the future also so that's
understandable I think. Thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you.
Slagle: Actually I have a question.
Sacchet: Go ahead Rich.
Slagle: What are your thoughts on, just curious, to the improvement if you will of the wetland
setback?
Jerry Paulsen: Well certainly it's an improvement. It's supposed to be 75 feet. They're
supposed to have 90 feet lakeshore which they don't have, and a lot of properties don't. They're
24
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
supposed to have 90 feet at the ordinary high water line, and at the front building setback line
which neither of that is true. This property or a couple other properties along here. They are
backing off from the high water line so that's an improvement, but they're increasing impervious
surface I think is maybe not a good trade-off.
Slagle: Okay, thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you. Anybody else want to comment on this? Please come forward.
Debbie Lloyd: Hello. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. I don't know all the legal aspects of
this but, and I didn't have an opportunity to look at the report in advance. It looks to me like a
real can of worms. I mean there's so many variances and I know the city has had a propensity
lately to approve variances, but I think you as a Planning Commission need to be steadfast about
what is the purpose of a variance. And really in this case what is reasonable use of this property?
Reasonable use is what they currently have. I have friends who had to rebuild a home on Lake
Minnetonka. They could not increase their impervious surface. They had to stay with the exact
footprint of the home they had. To increase the impervious surface in this case to change the
setbacks, all that, why? I say reasonable use is an 838 whatever square foot home built on the
footprint it has. Granted I don't like being, the home being that close to the lake with the 75 foot
setbacks is the standard of the State but, and that brings another issue. If we scratch everything
that's been on this lot and basically say go ahead and build this new home, the State has to be
advised I would think that this home is being built within 55 feet of the lakeshore. Because the
standard is 75 feet. It's not, there's code related to non-conforming use. You cannot increase the
non-conformity of an existing structure. Read the code. Read the preface to that statement and I
think you really have an answer unless there's something legal I don't know, which I'm sure
there's been a lot of debate about, but I'd say they have reasonable use. Thank you. And I'm just
concerned about the lake. Thank you.
Sacchet: Yeah, go ahead. Anybody else want to come forward. Yeah let's hear first. Does
anybody else want to comment on this? Otherwise I'll close the heating. Close the hearing.
Nobody else come forward. I'd like to ask staff to comment about the Debbie Lloyd's concern,
whether there is a State involvement since this is closer than the 75 foot from the shoreline.
That' s what I understand her, one of her main points was.
Aanenson: Sure. The report was sent to the State but they're moving it further back from the
shoreline. It's a non-conforming lot.
Sacchet: And we're weighing the setback.
Aanenson: Right, so we'll stand by our report.
Sacchet: Yeah, but is there a State element that needs to be brought into this? Not for us, but for
the applicant.
Aanenson: No.
Sacchet: No. Not that we know of.
Aanenson: The State was, they were given a referral. They have every right to comment but it's
our jurisdiction.
25
Planning Commission Meeting -April 15, 2003
Sacchet: Alright.
Slagle: Have they commented?
Aanenson: Not to date.
Sacchet: So we're to commissioners comments. Anybody feel like starting with this one.
Lillehaug: I can begin I guess here. I agree with some of the statements that were just made. I
don't support increasing the hard surface coverage for a trade-off of moving the house back away
from the lakeshore. I just don't agree with that. Which is right, right is wrong. I just simply
don't agree with it. I think the existing hard surface coverage should be maintained. I think that
non-conformance should not be increased. One of the other non-conformances would be, the
earlier one I mentioned. The south or west lot line. I agree that this is intensifying that non-
conformance. I don't agree with that. It may be better in the City's interest to move the house
back but I don't think it's in the best interest of the adjacent property owner. Maybe the property
owner today agrees with it but in the future a new one may not so I think intensifying this non-
conformance, and that's how I would interpret it, is-not a good trade-off. So therefore I do not
support those two variances. Reasonable use, right now the existing house area is a little under
850 square feet and I think that that includes a garage. Does staff concur with that? Or that does
not include the garage? So does the 1,200 feet, does that include the garage then?
Auseth: No.
Lillehaug: Okay. So is 1,200 feet a reasonable use or is something lesser than that a reasonable
use? I would think the existing square footage is reasonable use. So likewise by increasing the
square footage of that house directly increases the hard surface coverage and directly increases
the intensity of the non-conformance so I guess at this point I do not support those items. The lot
was, under finding D it indicated that the lot was platted in 1951 prior to the ordinance so the
hardship is not self-created. I disagree with that. Once again the existing non-conformances can
be maintained by increasing them. Increasing the intensity that is self created. I think that would
be all. One other comment I want to make. It is comparing non-lakeshore property to probably a
majority of property in Chanhassen. I think they really should be held to the same standards. Yes
it's good to increase the water quality of the lake, but by increasing the runoff I don't think that's
what, I don't think that goal's being met. So that ends my comments, thanks.
Sacchet: Thanks Steve. Do you want to go next Craig?
Claybaugh: Yeah. I do believe a hardship does exist but I don't believe it exists to the extent
stated on page 3 in the paragraph that I had spoke to earlier under permitted uses. I don't
necessarily agree with staff' s position that that particular square footage is justified for a lot that's
6,400 and some odd square feet. I understand that the surrounding properties may be comparable
in size, but like I said at the end of the day that has substantially less square footage on that lot.
With respect to the hard cover surface, I believe that, with respect to the walkway to the lake and
with the terrace or patio area, that the applicant has some wherewithal to reduce that square
footage. To address some of the comments during the public hearing. A comment was made
regarding Lake Minnetonka. I've seen countless properties around Lake Minnetonka where a
homeowner will go in, tear down a series of walls to maintain and grandfather in a variance. And
they'll put the property back together piecemeal, and it looks like it's been done just like that.
I'm certainly not in favor of that. I'm not against granting the variances to the extent of the
setbacks. You get the property in place. Move the property back but I would not support the
26
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
proliferation or the increase in hard cover square footage and I sincerely believe that the applicant
has control to address that in another way with some of the square footages that I see in the chart
attached so, that's the extent of my comments.
Sacchet: Thanks Craig.
Blackowiak: Sure, I'll go next. I just want to start off by saying that I do hate non-conforming
lots. I just never liked them. They always just give us fits because we have a lot. Legally the
applicant is able to build on a non-conforming lot and we've got to make...and I think that's our
job here tonight. There's some definite positives about this plan. I love the design of the house.
It looks nice. I think it would definitely be a big improvement. I think pulling the home back
from the lake is a huge improvement. I mean there are some really good things happening. The
fact that the side, the setbacks on the side are comparable is good. Again I agree with fellow
commissioners that the hard surface coverage is an issue, and that's why I have a question
regarding lakescaping and if there's some type of way that we can mitigate that because that's a
big jump. I mean when you're talking about having existing water problems and runoff
problems, drainage problems, that kind of scares me and I think as a homeowner you're probably
a little concerned about that as well. I certainly would be because if you increase that impervious,
you've just increased the potential for problems on your property and your neighbors, and I
certainly am sure you don't want to do that either. At this point I still am up in the air about the
hard surface variance. What I would like to say, whoever makes the motion, I'd like to have
something in there about landscaping and lakescaping plans submitted to staff for input, should
the applicant continue to go forward with this because I think that's just going to be such a huge
part of it and we need to address that issue regardless of the final size of the house. But I know
that before it hasn't been necessarily followed through with on the council level and I guess that's
their choice but we can always suggest. So I would hope that we could add that condition on
should it go forward. Those are my comments.
Sacchet: Bruce.
Feik: First off let me say I think it's a beautiful project. I'd love to live there. I do have to agree
with much of what Steve mentioned earlier. I'm very troubled with the amount of setbacks in
particular. I'm very troubled with the amount or the intensity of the structure and the hard cover.
I'm wondering quite frankly if we use the reasonable use clause and reasonable use seems to
move over time to include bigger and better stuff. It now includes 2 car garages and lots of other
things, and not every lot is going to conform with, call it the modern day use of reasonable use.
It's a small lot. It's unfortunate but it is. I guess I could support this potentially if there was no
hard cover outside the foundation of the structure. Without that, I'm really troubled. I'm not sure
I could support the variances.
Sacchet: Thank you. Rich.
Slagle: Just a couple thoughts. First, on a personal note Tom, your neighbors the Hamilton's are
just excellent people. You will enjoy them tremendously. But back to this. You know I think
what I would throw out for consideration is this to my fellow commissioners. The times that we
have had people in front of us requesting variances that could be as simple as a deck. It could be
as simple as a four season porch, what have you and if memory serves me right we have on
occasion declined those with respect to just a couple feet. And that was just one variance, and
now we have a series of variances, some of which are perhaps I agree with improvements over
the current situation but simply put is this. I would like to see us table this. I would like to see us
table it and ask the applicant, along with staff and staff would be a more robust involvement by
27
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
Jill in this lot. The City Forester, but I would ask the applicant to work with staff on perhaps a
smaller plan. And I say that because of the hard surface coverage. I think there is a way, perhaps
it's not the dream home but it might be the semi dream home. Certainly an improvement over
what's there today, but I think that if someone came to me and said hey, here is the presentation.
It's smaller in scale, but it's still a highly build, you know quality house, I think I would tend to
support it so my thoughts are that we table it and just ask him to come back.
Sacchet: Thank you. My comments, well first of all I think it' s very important the comment that
was made by the resident about what's the purpose of a variance. The purpose of a variance is to
allow something that would be a hardship, that does not apply to other properties. But that all
goes out the window with a non-conforming lot. As Alison pointed out, that's a real issue in
cases like this. It's hard to hold something to rules that were not in place when it was created.
You can have a little more than a tent there if you would go by all the rules. There is a lot of
mitigating issues. We're looking at, when I first saw the 7 variances I thought my god, there's no
way. But then I started looking at what the variances are and the way they're presented, it's
really that the side yard setbacks are basically maintained as they were given for the garage. Now
given applying them for the whole house, which is going to be 2-3 times the length in addition to
what the garage, it's definitely an intensification. The most important one is the lakeshore
setback, which is greatly improved, and right now there's a dead space between the garage and
the house which is absolutely useless. Not just is it useless, in fact ugly and I think an issue with
drainage and environment. So taking that house back is worth an awful lot. But does it weigh up
the hard surface coverage intensification and the intensification of the side yards? That's a bit
tricky one to pin down, and I really don't agree with staff's comment on top of page 7 that if the
lot were a conforming lot with the standard 20,000 square foot lot area, the proposed hard surface
coverage would only occupy 17 percent of the lot, well below the minimum. Now if we start
looking at it that way we're very, you're toast. Because everybody, I'm sorry, my lot would be
20,000 then I could have whatever. I think you get my point there.
Aanenson: Let me just clarify that. That's a standard lakeshore lot. That was the only purpose
of that...
Sacchet: Right, but we can't make reference to something that is not existence. I mean we're
wading into way deep water with that type of thinking. I do like the applicant's willingness to
consider partial impervious for the walkway, for the patio. The walkway to the lake. I think that
should definitely be a condition to do some landscaping. Lakeshore landscaping I should say I
think is a very reasonable way to balance this, and what I'm not sure is if we do have this patio
and walkway partially pervious, how close we would get. What limits is pervious that we
wouldn't intensify it basically. Looking at the table we've come down about 300400 square feet.
Patio and the walkway, yeah.
Blackowiak: You'd only come down 262 and then half, I'd say half of that at best.
Sacchet: Yeah, if you calculate half, that'd be pretty generous. So it would be not really a huge
difference.
Blackowiak: Well, as I look at it. We're like 440 feet difference roughly in your hard surface,
between existing and proposed. So I mean that's what I was running calculations in my head as
well trying to figure out where you know, can you make some of this up and you know if you
give the walkway 50 percent, that's only going to get you 131.
Sacchet: Well anyway.
28
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
Blackowiak: For what it's worth.
Claybaugh: I was thinking they'd have to go with an organic surface. Either trade off the square
footage on the house to allow for a semi-pervious surface or go with an organic surface that has,
that allows 100 percent rate absorption. That's a trade off that I feel that the applicant has some
control over. They can either go back and try and redesign it and maintain that element of
flagstone and such, or explore organic option and keep the footprint that he has, in my mind.
Sacchet: Yeah I could support that. That'd be a balance point. Alright, are we ready for a
motion? Does anybody want to dare make a motion please. Rich?
Slagle: I'll make my motion. That we, that the Planning Commission table the current
application and ask that staff work with the applicant to reduce the amount of hard surface
coverage. I' m not sure how to word it, whether that translates into square footage of house.
Claybaugh: What I was thinking was maintaining the existing hard cover surface or less. How
the applicant achieves that, whether he reduces the footprint design or goes to organic materials in
lieu of an impervious surface for walkways and such, that puts the control back in the applicant's
hands. He can make that decision. Work with staff. Come back with something that falls within
the existing hard surface coverage.
Slagle: So point of clarification, the square footage current would be the garage plus the current
house?
Claybaugh: As it's stated in the report, it said 25 percent hard surface coverage here. They're
increasing it 16.65 percent to 41.65.
Blackowiak: No Craig, they're not currently at 25. They're currently at 34.91.
Sacchet: At 35.
Claybaugh: Where is the.
Blackowiak: It's on the table at the very back.
Claybaugh: Okay, I'm looking at a different table again.
Sacchet: 35 current and they're asking to go closer to 42.
Blackowiak: 25 is.
Claybaugh: Point of clarification with staff then. In the recommendation on page 8, it identifies
a 16.65 percent variance from the 25 percent, okay I understand. Sorry.
Blackowiak: It's a math thing.
Claybaugh: I guess that ends up being the question is if the fellow commissioners feel that the
existing hard coverage, if we don't proliferate or intensify the hard cover surface, is that a
reasonable position to direct them to go forward with. Give them a platform to work from.
29
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
Slagle: What I would throw out is, I think that the applicant's willingness to move the property
back has value and is worth whatever.
Claybaugh: And there's 6 other variances that that addresses.
Slagle: Exactly.
Claybaugh: The hard cover is of the greatest concern to me personally.
Slagle: And same to me. So I'm just saying I think with the current number, asking them to
bring it back. Connecting to the garage, which I agree makes sense, it saves where it is today. I
mean that's my thinking.
Sacchet: So were you making a motion to table?
Slagle: Yes.
Sacchet: He made a motion to table. Anybody want to second that?
Slagle: I suppose I don't have to def'me how I want it.
Blackowiak: No, but I think it's only fair to the applicant that we give some direction so I think
that' s important.
Sacchet: Yeah, we can comment more about.
Claybaugh: I'll second the motion.
Slagle moved, Claybaugh seconded that the Planning Commission table the Variance
//2003-7 and direct staff to work with the applicant to redesign the project to maintain the
current percentage of hard surface coverage. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Sacchet: Do we want to give more comments?
Lillehaug: I would like to yeah.
Slagle: Absolutely.
Sacchet: Well do you want to start since you were the one making the motion?
Slagle: No, go ahead Steve.
Lillehaug: I would like to just add also to try to reduce the increase and the intensity of that 4,
was it 4.4 feet on the southwest side of the lot. I think that's something in addition to maintain
34.9 percent of hard coverage. I think that is something that should also be addressed. I'm not in
support how that currently sits by increasing that intensity there on the southwest corner. Thanks.
Claybaugh: My current position would be that by moving the house structure back from the
lakeshore high water mark is a great positive. I'm willing to entertain the side yard and other
associated variances, but I'm not willing to take those in conjunction with the intensity of the
30
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
hard cover surface so what my intention in tabling this is, is to make it clear to you that you are in
control of that. Whether you address the square footage on the house or you look at more organic
materials for pads and patios, that's in your court.
Blackowiak: I have nothing additional to add.
Sacchet: Bruce, anything?
Feik: Nothing to add.
Slagle: I'll just add one thing for staff that double check on the roof, the overhangs. On that
setback. I don't know if it was sort of hard to understand from the sketch where those fell.
Sacchet: And we work on, when staff and applicant work on their idea of the landscaping, the
lakeshore landscaping, that also maybe have some consideration of those trees that are currently
very close. When I was out there, 2 of them would have to be cut pretty severely but I don't
know with the height of the house what extent that is realistic. Maybe have some consideration
for that also. Excellent, thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR SUBDIVISION OF 1.56 ACRES INTO 2 SINGLE
FAMILY LOTS WITH VARIANCES ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF~ SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL AND VACATION OF A PORTION OF SANTA FE TRAIL~ LOCATED
AT 7551 GREAT PLAINS BOULEVARD~ ERNEST PIVEC~ LA HAYE ADDITION.
Public Present:
Name Address
Charles Stinson
Bart Blinstrup
Nancy Manara
Gladys Hanna
David Krunk
Tom Manarin
Wyck Linder
Steve & Nancy Rogers
4723 Eastwood Road, Minnetonka
18736 The Pines, Eden Prairie
7552 Great Plains Boulevard
400 Santa Fe Trail
7561 Great Plains Boulevard
7552 Great Plains Boulevard
7550 Great Plains Boulevard
7520 Great Plains Boulevard
Sharmeen AI-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Sacchet: Questions from staff?. Bruce.
Feik: I've just got 2 of them. In the abandonment of the road, the area to the south, that would be
abandoned equally to the properties north and south?
A1-Jaff: That's correct.
Feik: As it relates to the additional drive that would cross Lot 1, which would serve Lot 2, could
that not be accommodated without a variance by moving some lot lines? So a variance wouldn't
be needed.
31
Planning Commission Meeting- April 15, 2003
A1-Jaff: What you can do is, one of the things that we looked at was to actually create a flag lot.
Feik: I know it'd be a flag lot.
A1-Jaff: But then you still need a variance for that. But yes, that's definitely an option.
Feik: So it's either a flag lot or it's a cross easement?
A1-Jaff: Correct.
Feik: Those are our only two reasonable options?
A1-Jaff: (Yes)
Feik: Okay, thank you.
Sacchet: Any other questions?
Slagle: I just had a quick one. On page 2 Sharmeen, you note in bold the vacation of the right-
of-way requires City Council action only. And then you say approval of the subdivision will be
contingent upon the approval of the vacation.
A1-Jaff: That's correct.
Slagle: So we would not act upon the vacation.
A1-Jaff: No.
Slagle: But we have to in order to vote. Maybe I'm missing this but we're to act upon the
subdivision, we need to know that the vacation's been approved or will we do it sort of
hypothetically?
Al~Jaff: It's contingent upon.
Slagle: Okay.
A1-Jaff: So if the council denies the vacation, the subdivision is moot.
Slagle: Okay. And then one, just a more of a eco question. On closing the driveway entrance on
the existing house, is that due to traffic?
Al-Jaff: Are we talking about this one?
Slagle: Yes.
AI-Jaff: The applicant, while working with the applicant we realized that we've got a non-
conforming situation here and we talked to them regarding closing off this driveway and they
were willing to do this. There is more but it was one of the agreements that we reached.
Slagle: Okay. Fair enough.
32
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
Blackowiak: I just have one quick question. In the staff report I was unclear on top of page 5
about the connection charges. And then there's one sentence that just doesn't read fight to me
and I can't for the life of me make heads or tails of it. It says the site will be subject, this is the
second sentence. The site will be subject to one sanitary sewer and water connection charge.
However, for the benefit of the lateral mains to the new lot. What's missing?
Saam: Yeah, that maybe could have been worded better but you go back to the first sentence and
read it in the context of that. According to the finance department of records, there are no
assessments due for the existing lot. Then the site will be subject to connection charges however.
Blackowiak: The new site.
Saam: So we probably should have said, however the site will still be, you know there's no
assessments however the site will be subject to connection charges. That was the point we were
trying to say. Do you follow that?
Blackowiak: I think so. So the new, okay. Are we talking the new site?
Saam: Yes, the new lot that's being created.
Blackowiak: The new lot will be subject to one sanitary and one water connection charge. And
then what's that last little phrase? However for the benefit, what does that mean?
Saam: It's just saying why they're being charged these connection charges. Basically...
Blackowiak: Okay. You know what.
Saam: ...being assessed for the sewer and water.
Blackowiak: If there was a comma after water connection charges comma, however. Yeah,
okay. I know, I know but with a comma it makes so much more sense. I just didn't understand.
Saam: Maybe I'll correct that before it goes to council.
Blackowiak: I'm sure they'd be thankful.
Claybaugh: We'd really appreciate it Matt.
Blackowiak: They'd never know. Okay.
Sacchet: Any other questions?
Blackowiak: No, that was it. I just wanted to clarify that.
Sacchet: Steve, do you have something?
Lillehaug: Sharmeen, on the bottom of page 2. It says the applicant will not be assessed for areas
that are dedicated outlots. Do we have any dedicated outlots?
A1-Jaff: Bottom of page 2.
33
Planning Commission Meeting- April 15, 2003
Lillehaug: Page 3, sorry. The applicant will not be assessed for any areas that are dedicated
outlots. Simply my question is, is there any dedicated outlots?
A1-Jaff: No there are none.
Lillehaug: So then that, I had a problem with the plat here. We have a, who's dedicating this
property for the cul-de-sac?
A1-Jaff: The applicant is in ownership of, or has worked on this piece and will be able to give us
the right-of-way.
Lillehaug: Okay.
Saam: Commissioner Lillehaug, that might not, if I could just clarify. That might not be actually
in the plat. It might be a separate document, like a right-of-way. Grant a right-of-way.
Lillehaug: So that's what I was getting at. Is that, that can be combined into this plat?
Saam: No, not unless he has fee ownership or they sign off on the plat, whoever owns that
existing house.
Lillehaug: Okay. So this plat that we're looking at is only Lots 1 and Lot 2?
A1-Jaff: Correct.
Saam: However with that though we're getting that right-of-way and correcting the cul-de-sac so
that's the nexus. That's why we think it's a key issue. We're getting something out of this we
feel.
Lillehaug: Okay. So getting from Lot 2 and Lot 1 to that dedicated right-of-way, there still needs
to be a cross easement in there which probably exists now to maintain it? Is that correct?
Saam: Are you speaking to the driveway now for Lot 2?
Lillehaug: Yep. You've got to get from Lot 1 to that dedicated right-of-way for that cul-de-sac.
How do we get there? Through the existing?
Saam: The right-of-way's only going to be vacated, the way I understand it, along the south. The
south property line of the current parcel. So to the west of that Lot 1, that west lot line on Lot 1,
to the west of that, that' s still going to remain right-of-way. Do you follow that?
Lillehaug: So you're not dedicating it all the way out?
Saam: No. The dedicated right-of-way will be from that existing house. Along the northern
portion of the cul-de-sac bubble. Maybe if I come up to the microphone.
Feik: So both lots will access via the private drive? Technically.
Saam: No, that's another issue. We're recommending that this driveway for this lot and the
private driveway, the existing private drive, those two be separated. Because there's a code
requirement that says only 4 homes can access off a private drive. And there's currently 1, 2, 3
34
Planning Commission Meeting- April 15, 2003
and this one has potential for development. So we're saying to leave this. To get, to not say they
can't develop. To not pigeon hole them we're going to separate these two driveways down here
so this one will be independent of the private drive.
Lillehaug: So if you could, from the south, from the southwest comer of Lot 1. If you go up
about 30 feet, right there, and then that line directly to the west. Is that city right-of-way?
A1-Jaff: No.
Lillehaug: It's not?
Saam: Yeah, this is all right-of-way right here.
A1-Jaff: This portion?
Lillehaug: Yep. So that is city right-of-way. That portion is. So there's going to be a private
street, private driveway on the city right-of-way.
Saam: Yes, just like your's is, mine is. I mean that's the way we're looking at this. Let's go back
to this cul-de-sac here where we're going to get this dedicated right-of-way. This is a private
driveway. It's within the city right-of-way where it connects with the street. Do you follow that?
We're going to do the same thing over here.
Lillehaug: It just needs to be cleaner on this plat then.
Saam: Yeah, I think we know what needs to be done but yeah, I agree. It's got to be cleared up
on the drawing, and we' 11 work with them on that.
Feik: I'm missing something. Can I beat this to death for you?
Lillehaug: Sure. Keep beating it.
Feik: The right-of-way is the dashed line which surrounds the cul-de-sac, correct?
Saam: Yes.
Feik: How do you get from the southwest comer of Lot 1 to the dashed line?
Saam: To this?
Feik: Yeah, do you span that?
Saam: This line right here? That's right-of-way also.
Feik: That's right-of-way too, okay.
Claybaugh: That's the portion that you're not vacating correct?
Saam: Correct. That's going to remain right-of-way. What I was under the assumption we were
vacating, and maybe Sharmeen will have to correct me, was just this area within the property
that's being platted into a lot. Basically the north half of the 60 foot right-of-way.
35
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
Lillehaug: But it's to maintain as...easement though.
Saam: Yes, because we have a sewer main that we're going to require that we get a drainage and
utility.
Feik: Why not vacate to the south as well?
Saam: You want to address that?
A1-Jaff: If we get signatures from the, we haven't advertised the vacation as it appears before the
City Council. If we get the signatures of the property owners to the south we can definitely do
that. There' s still plenty of time.
Lillehaug: Okay.
Sacchet: Alright, any other questions here?
Lillehaug: ! think that's all I have for staff, yeah.
Sacchet: Craig.
Claybaugh: I think the few issues with this plat have been sufficiently beaten. On page 6 I just
wanted to come back to something you said in your opening comments. In the second paragraph
it says as condition of the subdivision the applicant is requesting that the city vacate the north half
of the right-of-way and deed the land back to the applicant. As part of your opening comments I
think you indicated that we in fact did not hold the deed. It was just, is that a contradiction or did
I misunderstand you?
A1-Jaff: I think you misunder, you said.
Claybaugh: When you said we're going to vacate the road.
A1-Jaff: Correct.
Claybaugh: Okay. I think at that time you commented that we didn't waive the right-of-way but
then have the deed.
A1-Jaff: No. No, I said we did not need it. Sorry about that.
Claybaugh: There you go. Thanks.
Sacchet: That's it?
Claybaugh: Yep.
Sacchet: Okay, I still have a few questions. As we are on the driveway thing, before we get
away from that. The private street, and I can't f'md in the staff report but I seem to recall
somewhere it said that the private street getting into the cul-de-sac should be 5 feet away from
where the driveway comes in or something like that. Is that, do I remember that correctly? Now
how would that work because right now they kind of merge in the drawing.
36
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
A1-Jaff: Well they would need to separate them.
Sacchet: Okay, so they would still, the private road would still be going through those 2 oak
trees, then in the cul-de-sac and the other driveway would have to be sufficiently away from it?
A1-Jaff: Yeah, this portion would not change. It's this area right here.
Sacchet: That would have to be separated into two.
A1-Jaff: That would have to be separated.
Sacchet: And there is enough room to do that? Okay. Now my big thing, those of you that know
me should not be surprised, the trees. Trees. I have definite tree questions. I appreciate the
comment here that the applicant's trying to preserve them but then I look at there's obviously
some trees being cut, correct?
A1-Jaff: Correct.
Sacchet: And then I look at the table on page 6 and we have a baseline canopy of 65 percent,
1.01 acre and we have the proposed tree preservation of 65 percent in 1.01 acres, so there doesn't
seem to be anything cut. What happened?
A1-Jaff: One of the things that we asked the applicant to do is to show us the 60 by 60 house pad.
And they repeatedly said that's not what they're going to build. They really want to build homes
that would preserve the trees. We explained to them that the.
Sacchet: All of them.
A1-Jaff: If you look at, Nann could you please zoom into this. I'll just read it. It says house pads
are to be adjusted to miss major trees by 15 feet.
Sacchet: Okay.
A1-Jaff: And that's how they base their canopy coverage.
Sacchet: So then my question is, why would tree preservation fence and silt fence not be on the
outside of those trees if you're trying to preserve? They are the two big trees on the southeast
comer you might say. That 44 inch white oak and the other oak up there. And then also the trees
in, on Lot 1 on the northwest comer are not protected. So in other words we could possibly, I'll
ask that of the applicant. Whether they're willing to put fence around it, but based on what he's
saying, that would be the logical thing to do, and I would solve a lot of my tree concerns. I have
one technical question, real quick. Lot 1, the 60 by 60 pad. On the north and on the east of it are
some weird lines, I cannot figure out what they are. On the north it's straight at just a little angle.
Short little lines, and on the east it has those curved lines with elevation numbers that don't
compute the way I see them. Am I missing something?
A1-Jaff: Which sheet is this on?
Sacchet: It's on the one that is entitled grading. The grading plan. That's why I'm concerned
about those lines because the black lines are supposed to be grading lines and those lines are fat.
Can you address that Matt please?
37
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
Saam: Sure. They've got some work to do there. I believe they're contour lines. I've red line a
little something in here so I believe they're contour lines. They're not showing elevations but
they're drawing incorrectly. At least some of them are.
Sacchet: They don't make sense.
Saam: Yeah.
Sacchet: Alright, so okay. So we agree on that. That's all my questions. Thank you. With that,
would the applicant want to come forward and make a presentation? State your name and address
for the record please.
Ernie Pivec: Ernie Pivec from 5060 Meadville, Greenwood, Minnesota. I don't think there's a
hard cover issue here or anything like that. What you've been working at with the other two
applicants. My bride of 56 years had a spinal fusion 2 years ago this coming May, so I've
become a caregiver, doing the cooking, shopping and so forth. So I hired my nephew to work
with Sharmeen and they I think did a diligent job trying to make this a nice lot division as
possible. So I couldn't be in on all of this so I can't answer many of the questions so you might
approach me because I wasn't there. I was shopping or cooking. So Sharmeen worked with my
nephew who I paid to do this, and this is where we are.
Slagle: And your nephew is who?
Emie Pivec: Pardon?
Slagle: Your nephew is who?
Ernie Pivec: Tracy Weathers. We named the plat to honor his wife who's my wife's niece, to
honor her father who died of bladder cancer. And his name was LaHaye.
Sacchet: Unless you have more to add, does anybody have questions from the applicant?
Gladys Hanna: Can I ask?
Sacchet: We'll have the public heating following this so if you could just hold it for a moment, I
appreciate that. Any questions from commissioners for the applicant?
Lillehaug: I have one. With the vacation of.
Sacchet: You'll get your turn.
Lillehaug: With the vacation of the right-of-way and dedicating it to yourself, I'm fumbling
through my pages here, but it increases the lot area of Lot number 1 to 31,400 square feet. The
minimum lot area is 15,000 square feet. Do you have any intentions on splitting this lot since it's
possible you could in the future?
Ernie Pivec: No. We'd keep it the same as it is. I am the fee owner on this. I'm the fee owner
on the existing house and there's a contract for deed on it against...vacation of that parcel.
Aanenson: Can I just add to that too? When this subdivision, Sharmeen's worked on this
subdivision for quite a few months and we've worked really well with the property owners here.
38
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
It originally came in with 4 to 5 lots when it originally came in. We've worked hard to get it to 2
to try to preserve and due to the diligence of the applicant here, we've got it down to 2 and we
believe respective of the property. Again because he knows the property and that was the
complication Sharmeen indicated. Part of the right-of-way, and I'm not sure Matt clarified that.
Part of that bubble goes outside of the right-of-way but because he was the deed owner and he's
the developer, he's going to reconcile that cul-de-sac because he owns the property and fixing
that driveway so we're solving a couple problems that are down there in that area. Again trying
to maintain how many homes on a private street, so that's where we felt the variance on that,
instead of coming off of Frontier, making the grade change, the slopes, the tree loss, we got it
down to 2 homes so we felt comfortable giving that variance. I just wanted to make that clear.
Slagle: Question Kate. So you're saying that the lot that's stated...that Ernie is the owner?
Aanenson: This is the right-of-way line. I think that was some of the confusion. The right-of-
way line actually they're talking about his driveway is right here, so the cul-de-sac bubble comes
outside of that right-of-way.
Lillehaug: How about on the south end, where's the right-of-way?
Aanenson: Yeah, correct. This is all right-of-way to the south. It's just the north is the problem
and since he has the contract for deed, he can reconcile and get that bubble put in, correct.
Lillehaug: That whole area going to the south?
Aanenson: Yes, is right-of-way.
Lillehaug: Is right-of-way? I mean continuing on out?
Aanenson: Yes.
Lillehaug: Is city right-of-way?
Aanenson: Correct.
Lillehaug: Okay.
Aanenson: So that's because you've got...it goes beyond the right-of-way and I think that wasn't
quite clear when Matt was stating that.
Lillehaug: That'd be it, thanks.
Ernie Pivec: And I think Steve's question about dividing that. This is a unique parcel because it
has access or an outlot on Lotus Lake. It's a nice, quiet neighborhood and that would really be a
nice location for 2 real nice houses.
Sacchet: Any other questions for Mr. Pivec?
Slagle: Yes. Ernie you were, I think if I can ask, you've been with your duties helping your wife.
Is it your passion, is it your goal, and are you behind the idea of saving as many trees as we can?
Ernie Pivec: Oh certainly. Certainly.
39
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
Slagle: Okay, great. And I just want to share with you that sometime what we mn into is, we see
proposals in front of us with a desire, stated desire to do that, and then unfortunately reality says
when the piece is developed, it's not quite what we had seen or hoped for so I'm just glad to hear
from you that you're committed to that.
Ernie Pivec: Well I was, someone proposed to me on this Lot 1 to approach the fire chief and see
if they would consider burning it down, and I said no because look at that oak tree. It' s right next
to the house. You can't do that and ruin that tree. A tree that size is priceless you know.
Sacchet: Any other questions? I have a quick question. In the interest of preserving those trees,
the way on the grading plan the tree preservation fence is drawn, it does not include the 2 real big
trees on your southeast side. Actually the biggest one there, that 44 inch oak, white oak and then
the next biggest one. Do you know which ones I'm talking about Sharmeen? The southeast, the
south area. The big oak and then just slightly west from it is another big oak. Little smaller. And
those 2 are not inside the, if you look where the protection fence goes, it goes on the outside of
those. Is there any reason why you could not include that in the protected area? And ask it to be
custom graded. I mean I guess we have to add that into the picture.
A1-Jaff: We can definitely do that part of. One of the reasons why it is outside the fenced, the
tree fenced area is because we asked for a 60 by 60 house paid and then a 15 foot around that area
to ensure that it meets the ordinance requirement. That's what the ordinance.
Slagle: Could the house move further north a bit?
Sacchet: A little bit isn't it?
A1-Jaff: A little. There is buildable area. Yes it could.
Sacchet: And this pad doesn't mean it has to cut the trees. Right, right. If you make it custom
graded, would that address that concern in some sense? Okay. Now the same question for those
trees on the northwest corner of Lot 1. There's that whole bunch of trees there. Pretty close to
the existing house that are also not included in the protection fencing. Do you know which ones
I'm talking about Sharmeen?
A1-Jaff: Right here?
Sacchet: Yep.
Ernie Pivec: That's the ones I was concerned about burning down the house.
Sacchet: Right. So would it be possible to put them inside the protection fencing as well? Okay,
that's my questions I believe. Thank you very much. This is a public hearing so I'll open the
public hearing. If you want to come forward. Make your comments. State your name and
address please for the record.
Charles Stinson: Yes, my name is Charles Stinson. I live at 4733 Eastwood Road in
Minnetonka. I'm here on two different reasons. One is, if I may. Do you have the small site
plan?
Sacchet: So do you want to show us where you are?
4O
Planning Commission Meeting- April 15, 2003
Charles Stinson: Yes. Well I live in Minnetonka. I own the property directly north and also I'm
the architect/land planner and kind of co-developer and tonight the speaker for this neighborhood
of Frontier, the 9 lots just directly east of here. So one question I have directly, we on our
property, there happens to be an overhead line that's not on the easement and just going across
our property connecting to the house just to the north and the existing house that is being
demolished. We're wondering while they're doing this if they could put those utilities
underground. We're preparing to start construction on this house and we've tried to contact,
we're not sure who to contact to get those utilities moved because there is an overhead for them.
So maybe you could help us with that or we could do a follow-up on that but I happened to talk to
the developer Emie and he thought maybe they could go underground up here. The other reason
I'm here in response to the neighborhood. The Frontier neighborhood has been like a 10 year
labor of love. We spent, we started 10 years ago with the Delancey's who, Ted when his young
boy drove the bus for his mother's...and when they hired, got me involved to do the land
planning, they had seen a Parade house I did and it saves all the trees and he said the developer
was looking at us thinking of putting in 28 lots so we got involved and worked closely with the
city and proposed that we have 9 lots so 9 acres, 9 lots. And the idea is to keep the houses small.
Keep as many trees as we can, and try to preserve the, and respect the .natural qualifies of the
neighborhood. So tonight I'm here on a couple reasons and one is concern about the, you know
all the beautiful vegetation on the eastern side of the site, I'm concerned that the other houses
coming across here, for all the other houses this is their front yard. Here and the other houses
going here. In this case this will be like a back yard or a side yard, so it's going to be much closer
to Frontier Trail than the existing houses that are there now and the beautiful trees and obviously
this is the bluff line over here which is unbuildable. But all these beautiful trees are going to be
gone. And my question, if there are going to be 2 lots here, could the property line be turned the
other way going east and west so this, so the first house could be built in the same location as the
existing one, and another house be built here, thus saving all the trees and reducing the runoff.
Right now 2 of the houses, the second one under construction right across the street from here,
are actually below the level of the street and there is no curb so any extra runoff coming down
that long driveway, etc will go onto Frontier Trail and we'd like engineering to look at it to make
sure it won't come down one of those driveways and to those homes. The other thing is just
trying to save the trees and be sensitive. And I guess the last thing that I can think of is that these
houses, being in land planning and I know presentations, etc. These houses are drawn at 3,600
square feet pad. The 60 by 60. Could there be something that restricts it to actually to be that
square footage and not this being a schematic that the house is quite a bit bigger? Because there
are variances and all the other houses along here, including our neighborhood, are one story
walkouts and more of the low profile, not to compete with the trees, that perhaps this could be,
because they are walkout sites, that maybe they could be considered to be a one story walkout and
not a two story walkout because Frontier Trail they could be you know, really appear to be 3 V2
stories tall if they had a steep roof. And I think that's about it. Thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you.
Claybaugh: I had a question sir.
Sacchet: He has a question. Mr. Stinson?
Claybaugh: I had a question for you. You made two points. One was specifically with Lot
number 2. Obviously you're interested in maximizing the preservation of trees. And then the
next comment you advocated going from a two story footprint, which is smaller, to a rambler
footprint.
41
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
Charles Stinson: Well, yeah. I mean the idea is not, with the footprint they have they could still
be building, just going through the numbers real quickly. At 3,600 square feet they could be
building a 3 car garage and have 2,736 square feet on the main level, which down below, because
of pre-cast they could have basically over a 5,000 square foot house. So if they kept this footprint
they could still have a 3 car garage and 5,000 square feet without going to three level.
Sacchet: So you're saying walkout with one story instead of two walkout.
Charles Stinson: Yeah, because I think it's more in keeping with the scale of the hill as opposed
to being a huge object. Any questions about the piece west or could I get a response why the lots
weren't turned the other way and moved up here as opposed to having them just...
Sacchet: Could you address that Kate please.
Aanenson: Sure. Again Sharmeen spent several months on this. It came in with 4 lots. Legally
they have a right to the additional lots if they came off Frontier Trail. We worked really hard.
Sacchet: 4.
Aanenson: Correct, 4 lots. Well no, if they would come off Frontier Trail, which we believe is
not the best way. They have a right to come off of Frontier Trail. Legally it could be subdivided
into more lots. Again, looking at the grading we believe, we are creating a buffer on that side.
We believe this is the best application of the property, again looking at all the, and there were
numerous iterations that we looked at. Trying to work with the land form and.
Sacchet: Since you're on point of clarifying, since you're at it Kate. It's my understanding that
the way currently the building would be on Lot 2, it wouldn't really get into trees. Actually it's a
question for you Sharmeen. When I went out there, I mean it is an opening in the trees and with
the thing that I discussed just before with the applicant, we would actually most likely not have to
cut trees at all.
Aanenson: That's the goal. That's the goal.
Sacchet: That's the goal, okay.
Charles Stinson: How about the fact that, I mean where the house print is going now there's
about 20 feet of grade change as opposed to, just question, why wasn't it just moved up farther?
Aanenson: It could move up farther. I mean they meet the setbacks. That's for approval to show
they can get a 60 by 60 pad within that, outside the conservation area. What we're saying is more
than likely it won't be a 60 by 60. If people come in with, whoever buys it has a desire to do
what they want to do.
Charles Stinson: Okay.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. I know there's somebody else who wants to make a comment.
Go ahead please. State your name.
Tom Manarin: Tom Manarin, 7552 Great Plains Boulevard. I've worked with Sharmeen and
Tracy on this deal too but I apologize. I was out of town. I just got back in so I didn't get a
chance to run by a few things with her. It might help to.
42
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
Lillehaug: Could you point out where you live quickly? If possible. I know you're right in the
neighborhood.
Slagle: You're the potential development, right?
Tom Manarin: No I'm not. I'm the owner of, I'm the potential yeah. Exactly. Just to help,
maybe it will help clarify what this is because this is an issue that I have, is why we're ending up
with this approximately 90 feet of no man's land in here. I basically, Wyck and I own the private
road going back in here. I was not accepting to give any land away. That is why, there was
plotted in another building plot here that I would not go along with losing my right to some day
maybe subdivide my lot. Therefore the vacation is ending right at our property, which is creating
this no man's land again. And yes, I know that it's right-of-way but from this point, this point
and this point to this point, as far as I'm concerned it's back into no man's land. I don't
understand why it wasn't, you know there could be various reasons but instead of taking this
property over here, dedicating this over, moving mailboxes. There are some trees over here that
may be in jeopardy. There is a catch basin down in here. There is a catch basin down in here
which I'm not sure where this 3 to 1 slope, if it's going to get filled over, that water would
eventually come in my back yard. The catch basin's aren't on this thing. They're...years and
years ago that... Why this would come down this way... Sharmeen I know why we're doing this
to create a point for the safety vehicles and that to come into. We already have a roadway here.
All Emie would be losing is the same amount of space here as he is over here on this property. It
eliminates your variance. It eliminates, which I don't understand why you go from an easement
in Lot 1 to granting an easement to get to Lot 2. That doesn't make any sense to me. Why we
would want to do that but if it's all different perspectives on what's going on. There are those
questions and then going back to the trees and that, this 22 inch. There is a question that I have.
According to this tope, they're raising the grade right next to that oak by 4 or 5 feet. I can't quite
make out what this contour line is out here. But it ends up being a 4 to 5 foot fall around an oak.
It will never survive. So if you extend this out, you're not going to lose that oak. That oak is on
your property anyways. It doesn't make any difference if you extend that road out. That oak is
going to get lost either way. It just is. It won't withstand 4 to 5 feet of fill.
Sacchet: Just to clarify. You're talking about the one, that's actually marked as a linden on?
Tom Manarin: No, no. On the private drive, there's 2 oaks...
Aanenson: What he wants to do is move that cul-de-sac over. Okay, now let's go back to where
we have right-of-way. Let's go back to this map. Can you zoom in on this real quick. Our right-
of-way includes this wider area, which Steve asked before, which is this area. So if we stayed
within the right-of-way, because the developer also has this lot. We can keep the cul-de-sac but
within the right-of-way. By pushing it over here, you still have a private drive serving these
properties. All you've done is taken out more trees. You're still servicing the same thing. This
private drive isn't going to move so those trees on either side would still stay there. Can you
zoom in on that please. These two trees are still saved. The only driveway that we're swinging
down, and this is the right-of-way that's not being vacated. It's not really no man's land. It's still
serving the right-of-way.
Tom Manarin: Right, okay. Who' s going to take care of it?
Aanenson: The same way it's happening now. We're taking the easement over that.
43
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
Tom Manarin: Okay.
Aanenson: So I'm not sure.
Tom Manarin: I guess I'm in agreement with Kate but I'm not because plow trucks, I mean the
plow trucks come right to the end of this right now. I mean this is where.
Aanenson: Right, and there's no drainage right now. Just asphalt.
Tom Manarin: The snow all ends up fight here anyway. I mean the city trucks and that come, the
city maintains all that as far as you've been sweeping up to that point and everything else. But
now you're saying from there to there it goes into.
Aanenson: Our position is we're using existing right-of-way. We're minimizing the tree loss.
That's our position.
Sacchet: And just to clarify, I mean that stretch that we may call no man's land is really like the
no man's land of every house. This driveway when it goes across the easement before it hits the
property owner's land, right?
Aanenson: Absolutely.
Sacchet: So it just...
Aanenson: We don't understand what we're gaining by pushing the cul-de-sac over. It's not
improving anybody's driveway access.
Slagle: Let me just ask, what would we be gaining in your opinion?
Tom Manarin: In my opinion you would be gaining the fact that you don't have any variance to
grant. You have the potential of eliminating an easement to this house by coming off of the cul-
de-sac.
Aanenson: We still have a variance. We still have a driveway variance.
Tom Manarin: The cul-de-sac comes down in, you can put the cul-de-sac down in here to touch
this property. You don't have a variance.
Lillehaug: Would we have to get additional right-of-way from David and Leslie Kronk?
Aanenson: Correct.
Tom Manarin: No you wouldn't.
Aanenson: Well if you push it all on his property there's a trade-off.
Tom Manarin: ...but it does show. This yellow line is what you own now. What I'm saying is
you can come in here and do the same thing as what you're doing out here. This is the same cul-
de-sac that you have here?
Aanenson: So we're increasing the length of the street. Taking out trees.
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
Tom Manarin: No, you aren't taking out any trees. There's no trees taken out.
Aanenson: But you will when you put the house pads in though because now you've taken out
where you were going to put the houses where there's no trees.
Tom Manarin: The house pad moves. The house pads haven't moved. The distance, the right-
of-way distance is the same.
Saam: The oak on the side of the private street would come out though.
Tom Manarin: It's going to be coming out according to the grading plan anyways. It's going to
be lost because you' ve got 4 to 5 feet of fill going around it. The only tree that you are losing is
this scrubby old basswood, which will probably fall over this summer anyway.
Sacchet: Yeah, that doesn't look very good. But that one comes out either way.
Tom Manarin: No it doesn't. Right now that basswood would not come out.
Aanenson: Did you check the grades on that cul-de-sac because we don't believe.
Tom Manarin: On which one?
Aanenson: To extend the cul-de-sac, did you check to see if that meets our.
Tom Manarin: Alright, I did not check the grades.
Aanenson: Okay, we did and we believe that that didn't work with that length. It does create a
lot of extra fill too.
A1-Jaff: That's one of the reasons why that road was abandoned in the first place. Because of the
way it drops.
Tom Manarin: A grade of 8 percent.
A1-Jaff: 7.
Tom Manarin: 7? Okay. Well like I said, I did not check the grade from the manhole covers on
the back of this cul-de-sac, no I did not.
Aanenson: That's why the street was never built.
Sacchet: Interesting thought. Definitely creative.
Tom Manarin: You're going from a 70 to a 90. You've got 10 feet of...over 100 feet so that
could be adjusted. That's from...
Claybaugh: So the road could be built?
Tom Manarin: Yeah. And all I'm saying is that's proposed grading, and obviously we could
adjust that..
45
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
Gladys Hanna: The fire hydrant is right, isn't he right by the cul-de-sac will be by the fire
hydrant right there. Is that right? Anybody look at the fire hydrant?
Tom Manarin: Anything else?
Slagle: Thank you.
Sacchet: I think we got your idea. Do you have a question about this?
Claybaugh: Yeah, if you could just, from your perspective. An individual perspective, what is it
that you' re trying to accomplish or preserve.
Tom Manarin: Well I think the only thing that I'm trying to accomplish and preserve is what is
out there now? I guess I don't see what creating another cul-de-sac is going to do when we
already have something there that works. I have concerns for in the future, and that would be
something that I should have asked for too is some sort of commitment back from the city or
something that that property would never be deemed as the fourth driveway coming out to
landlock our property in the back. That no man's land just seems really messy to me. Quite
honestly. If you look at the plot, you have a lot of that going already and I don't know why you
want to create more of that.
Claybaugh: If I understand you, it's potentially counter productive to what your potential future
plans may be somewhere down the line? Is that?
Tom Manarin: I would say that would be a way of explaining it, yeah.
Claybaugh: Okay, that's one. Certainly one of the elements.
Slagle: That's what I was trying to get at too earlier. Understanding where you're coming from
on this.
Tom Manarin: You know I'm just trying to make it fit in there to make it look better. I mean I
just don't understand where that 90 feet, it's just going to look, if you've got a curb and gutter
and everything, and then you've got 90 feet of what.
Aanenson: Driveway.
Tom Manarin: But, you've got 2 driveways because you said they have to be 5 feet apart so
that' s where.
Sacchet: Yeah, I think we understand your concern. Just to clarify, the way I remember the staff
report pointing out the situation of the private road in the context of your property. Your
property, are you envisioning could be split into more than 2 lots?
Tom Manarin: There's that possibility.
Sacchet: And that's your concern then ultimately because if we have this private road and we
have the maximum of 4 accesses, and we've already used up 3, now I understand. Staff made an
effort to take one of those accesses off so they that there would be an additional possibility to
have access should you choose to subdivide at some point. But your concern, as I see, seems to
be that if you limit it to not be able to subdivide into more than 2, is that part of your concern?
46
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
A1-Jaff: He can't subdivide more than.
Sacchet: He cannot do more than 2.9
Tom Manarin: No.
A1-Jaff: No.
Sacchet: Okay.
A1-Jaff: And even the 2 is doubtful.
Sacchet: Even that is not sure, okay. So in other words it wouldn't be a limiting factor for this
case7
A1-Jaff: With everything that we did when we looked at the layout of LaHaye Addition was to
protect his rights...
Tom Manarin: Yeah, there's no doubt about that.
Sacchet: So you would not be limited. Is that your understanding?
Tom Manarin: Understanding what.9
Sacchet: You would not be limited by this set-up, is that your understanding?
Tom Manarin: No, it is not limited at this point in time.
Sacchet: Okay, thank you very much. Appreciate your creativity.
Tom Manarin: Like I say, and there again Sharmeen I, the other questions there too is, in your
staff report it says that there's going to be another cul-de-sac made up, the way I'm understanding
it, is up in front of our house then? A mm around area.
Sacchet: No I don't think there's.
A1-Jaff: No.
Aanenson: It's a private street.
Tom Manarin: Okay. I thought I read that, that there was going to be a 30 foot tum around.
Sacchet: Something about a turn around.
Tom Manarin: Yeah, that's what I read.
A1-Jaff: We talked to the fire marshal regarding the mm around, and the existing driveways will
work just fine for a turn around purposes.
Sacchet: So we would be alright then. Okay.
47
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
Tom Manarin: Okay. And then on the grading issues, is that, should we worry about that later or
do you want to take that up now? The issue that I have, that I'm concerned with and we touched
on it before. This line here is at 892. The driveway, the proposed driveway is coming out this
way. The garage floor has been proposed at 893. I can't handle any more water coming this way
because it all comes right down through there. Every year it all washes out anyways. We need to
touch base on that because you know one of the proposals was that this was all coming out
anyways. We were going to be able to lower it at that time. My concern is if this house is going
at 893 and this water is coming this way, which is going to dump down in here, can you lower
this or do something different so that I don't you know take on any more water than I already am.
Aanenson: What's the existing house at, do you know?
Tom Manarin: I know it's lower than the street here in the private drive. I would say by at least
2 ¥2 feet. The garage over here at this end is, the water, some of it tips and dumps back out into
the water. Some of it tips...
Sacchet: Alright, I don't know where we got into this detail at this point but it's de£mitely an
aspect that needs to be addressed so I appreciate you bring it up, thank you.
Tom Manarin: Okay.
Sacchet: Now, who else wants to make a comment? I know there was, it's your turn right?
Alright. Why don't you come up. State your name and address for the record please, and please
speak in the microphone so we can all hear.
Gladys Hanna: My name is Gladys Hanna and I live at 400 Santa Fe Trail. I'd just like to know
where my house, help me. I'm right on the comer where the hydrant is. On this chart. I want to
know where I am .... it must be right there.
Tom Manarin: You are, here's your driveway right here. There's the hydrant.
Gladys Hanna: Right here is the fire hydrant.
Tom Manarin: That's your house right there.
Gladys Hanna: Right here. Okay. Now, okay so now that the cul-de-sac is going to be where?
Right here? Right by my driveway. How many feet is this?
Saam: Be about 30 feet.
Sacchet: 30.
Gladys Hanna: ...This is my driveway.
A1-Jaff: Looks about 35.
Gladys Hanna: I'd say about 8 feet.
Aanenson: I scale off about 32. We can verify that for her.
Gladys Hanna: From the cul-de-sac?
48
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
Aanenson: From your driveway.
Gladys Hanna: If this is where my house is?
A1-Jaff: This is her driveway. This is the house.
Sacchet: Sharmeen, show her where the street starts. You're looking at the easement line.
A1-Jaff: Okay. This is where the pavement is right here. The proposed pavement. What you see
in dark blue is the existing road. This is the house that was remodeled.
Gladys Hanna: Okay.
A1-Jaff: And this is you, and here is the driveway...about 30 feet where the new pavement is
going to be. So really nothing is going to change by your house.
Gladys Hanna: Okay. So the hydrant is where now?
A1-Jaff: Right here. That's the hydrant.
Gladys Hanna: That will be in it or?
A1-Jaff: It will be in the right-of-way, but no pavement is going to affect the hydrant.
Gladys Hanna: Okay.
Sacchet: See there is a right-of-way beyond the street because snow plowing and all this space to
pile up the snow.
Gladys Hanna: Right. Yeah, you've got to have that. Okay.
Sacchet: Absolutely.
Slagle: But we won't plow over the fire hydrant.
Gladys Hanna: Oh, and where will the mailboxes be?
Claybaugh: Where would you like them?
Gladys Hanna: Well I'll tell you. I don't know, they're going to have to move them.
Aanenson: Generally the Post Office checks on that. We'll check with the Post Office.
Gladys Hanna: I don't want to...get my mail though.
Sacchet: Oh you will have a mailbox.
Aanenson: I don't think your's may not move but that's a post office...
Gladys Hanna: There will be more people added to it.
49
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
Aanenson: Just one additional. One additional house. One for you, one replaced and one more.
We can check on that.
Gladys Hanna: I'd like to know where...
A1-Jaff: We'll let you know.
Gladys Hanna: Thank you.
Sacchet: Alright. Any other comments? Please come forward. State your name and address for
the record please.
Wyck Linder: Hi. My name is Wyck Linder. I live at 7550 Great Plains Boulevard. My family
and I've lived there for about 18 years. And I just had a couple of comments. I guess one of my
biggest disappointments is that nobody has ever contacted me, called me, sent me a letter or
anything about this, and as a property owner with property on, adjacencies to two sides of this
development I wasn't expecting a fruit basket but you know I was hoping somebody would
contact me.
Sacchet: How close do you live from this?
Claybaugh: Just to the north.
Sacchet: Just to the north. Your name is actually on the mailing list. You did not receive any
mailings?
Wyck Linder: No. And I tried to call. I got a number off of that board over there and I tried to
call but I could never get through to anybody so. I live right here. So never heard a word about it
and so I was kind of disappointed by that.
Sacchet: Your address is 7550 Great Plains Boulevard?
Wyck Linder: Yeah.
Sacchet: That's the address that apparently this was sent to.
Wyck Linder: Was it on the mailing list?
Aanenson: Yes.
Wyck Linder: Okay.
Sacchet: Did you receive notice for this meeting?
Wyck Linder: Yes, I got this.
Sacchet: Oh, that's probably the only thing then.
Gladys Hanna: That's all I had.
Wyck Linder: Was that all you had?
50
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
Sacchet: That's all that went out.
Wyck Linder: Okay. I've worked with, okay. I worked with other planning commissions and I
thought there might be a neighborhood meeting or something to seemingly answer out a lot of
these questions before they got this far but.
Sacchet: At times we do that, but it looks like in this case there was no such meeting.
Wyck Linder: Okay. Well I' 11 quit whining about that so you know.
Slagle: This is the first we're seeing it too.
Wyck Linder: Okay. Not trying to stop any development or anything. That isn't certainly the
intention, but then the other comment was that I think that Mr. Manarin and Mr. Stinson and
others have some pretty good questions that would require some pretty detailed crisp answers,
and you'll probably hear more questions come up regarding elevations, and access. Property
lines. Adjacencies. That type of thing. That would require a good crisp answers so I just hope
you'll agree with me and make sure that those answers are gotten. Thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Anybody else want to make comments? Please come forward.
David Krunk: Next neighbor. I'm David Krunk, 7561 Great Plains. My family is right here, just
to the south of the property. I just have a couple comments. First I want it on the record that I
know they' re talking about vacating this property in the middle and.
Sacchet: Just a portion of it.
David Krunk: ...was just looking for my half back. So, no big concern but I'm mowing it so I
figure I earned it. And I see that the way the cul-de-sac they're proposing does protect these trees
right here. The 3 very large trees right on this circle and I want to make sure those aren't lost
because those are huge. And I do appreciate that you guys are addressing the trees because
basically when you drive into this neighborhood, and one of the reasons why we bought this
property, when you're driving in there it looks like you're driving into a park. It's all wooded.
All of this back here is wooded. Mr. Stinson has done a great job back here keeping that, and so I
just want to make sure that we don't lose that whole look, so any trees that are lost, it would be
nice if they're replaced.
Sacchet: May I just clarify with staff. Those trees he's pointing out next to the cul-de-sac, just
south of the cul-de-sac, they would not be impacted?
Aanenson: Yep, they're outside. That's the right-of-way line, not the pavement line you're
looking at so actually the pavement circle's in even further.
Sacchet: Okay.
David Krunk: This is the pavement?
Aanenson: Yep, you've got it.
51
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
David Krunk: Good. Now they say that they're not taking out any big trees down here. There's
a lot of scrub. There's some dead trees and low bushes, and basically this whole area looks like
forest. Okay, there may not be any legitimate large trees on that square, but it is all woods. Back
woods. It's bushes.
Sacchet: Actually there is a canopy line, that wavy line, that actually shows where the canopy
cover is.
David Krunk: So that is, so you know, but just stating that there are no big trees coming out is a
little bit of a misnomer because that is going to really change the look of that park. And then the
only other concern I had was, this is going to change my curb lines quite a bit. I assume that's all
paid for by the developer and stuff?. And the mailboxes, that kind of stuff. We don't, cost the
property owners that are affected by this don't have costs related to this. I assume.
Aanenson: No, that's the intent.
David Krunk: Okay.
Sacchet: Thanks Kate.
Slagle: So intent would be a yes?
Aanenson: Yes. Right, and then we have a pre-construction meeting. We meet with the property
owners... Again here's the specific concerns, those mailboxes. During construction issues, those
kind of things.
David Krunk: That's all I had.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Anybody else want to come forward? Make any comments?
Please, this is your turn.
Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive. Just a question about private streets. What
steps does the City take to ensure that private streets are built to the specifications of code?
Sacchet: Do you want to address that briefly?
Aanenson: No, Matt can do that.
Saam: Yeah, we inspect those now. That's a new thing we've added to our repertoire of
inspection because of problems in the past so.
Sacchet: It's my recollection from reading the staff report that one of the conditions is that the
private street will be made conforming with all requirements, with the exception of where it goes
past those two oak trees.
Saam: Yes. We're going to...
Aanenson: There's no private street.
Lillehaug: We don't have a private street here.
52
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
Aanenson: We're cul-de-sacing the public right-of-way and there will be a driveway. Existing
private street is in place.
Sacchet: We don't change anything about the existing private street?
Aanenson: There's one home that comes off it. It will continue to come off it. That's not being
altered.
Debbie Lloyd: But you addressed the private street in your staff report about it meeting
specifications of code, and the fire marshal turnaround and stuff.
Aanenson: This is the existing one. This is not, there is a driveway that comes off it now. But
that's not going to change. This existing driveway so it's not going to be...additional access and
this will be a regular driveway. So it's not a private street...
Debbie Lloyd: Because it mentioned a private street in the planning...in the first paragraph...
Thank you.
Sacchet: Thank you.
Claybaugh: Point of clarification.
Sacchet: Point of clarification.
Claybaugh: Just in general terms. Going back to the private driveway. I know it doesn't apply
in this one but it was my understanding last time we've been through this that we were going to
require that the developer engage an independent testing company that would certify the
installation that was done per standards so that was to circumvent...
Saam: Yep.
Sacchet: Anybody else want to address the Planning Commission? Please come forward.
Charles Stinson: Charles Stinson again. The reason I'm coming up again, I had a chance to look
at the topo and this is the first time I had the chance to look at it and this is what I do every day is
try to blend houses into sites, etc. So I guess what I would wish that could happen is that perhaps
the architect and land planner, architect, landscape architect maybe meet with the city and just
look at the possibility. I think the site is fine for development but it seems so much more natural
to make that division this way and work with the existing grade, saving all the trees and build the
other house right here because you have a natural one story walkout on that site. If you go here
you have 2 stories of grade change that you have to make and there's no way in the world that
you could save all those trees. I mean 15 feet is £me if you have a flat lot, but making a street in
the, if there' s 20 feet of grade change you can do a half of it with a house. The other half has to
be done by retaining walls, landscaping, etc. And it just seems to natural to put it up here and
then you can leave everything at the bottom, so those are my comments.
Sacchet: Thank you very much. Appreciate your expertise with that. Anybody else want to
comment to this proposal? If not, I will close the public heating and bring it back to
commissioners. Comments. Want to start?
53
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
Slagle: I can start. I think all and all I would support the findings. I would support staff's
position on this. I do think there's some interesting questions that have been raised, but I think I
have heard answers from staff that satisfy the questions I might have. With the exception of this
last comment, and I don't need to hear an answer but I guess I just wonder out loud what that
would be like if that came in using that kind of a dividing line between the lots. So for fight now
I am leaning towards approval but there might be some more things brought up.
Sacchet: Thanks Rich. Bruce, you want to go next.9
Feik: I'm leaning towards approval as well. I think it would have been easier if the lot would
have come in flipped the other direction. Matt, could you tell me in the recommendations
specifically where we're talking about splitting that, those driveways with the 5 foot separation?
I' ve been through this a couple of times. Is it in the report? Are you waiting to have it on the
revised plan? Is it in the conditions?
Saam: Yeah, there's a condition that speaks to that too.
Feik: Should I come back to that?
Saam: Well I've got it here.
Feik: Okay, good.
Saam: In the report it' s under, well at the bottom of page 5 going into page 6.
Feik: I found that.
Saam: Okay.
Feik: I'm wondering where that is in the conditions for approval though. It's not specified I
don't believe. It is?
A1-Jaff: Actually if you look at condition 14.
Feik: Thank you. Alright, thank you. Generally I support the application. I certainly would
prefer to have 2 lots split this direction than 4 lots and some of the other things that could happen
in the development that the property owner would have the right to do. And could certainly do a
much more intensive development. I think it's generally consistent with what's going on in the
neighborhood. Whether it's a one story, two story on that Lot 2 is certainly going to be up to
whoever moves in or whoever decides to build on that and I don't see where we can put any
limitations on that at this time so I support the application.
Sacchet: Alison.
Blackowiak: Thank you. Yeah I agree with what's been said so far. I certainly prefer two lots to
the potential for more than two. And the fact that so many of the trees are proposed to be saved is
really a plus for me. I'm trying to envision the houses in slightly different positions because I
know that we have to prescribe the 60 by 60 pad but I'm hoping that there will be a little
movement and especially on Lot 2. I'd like to see that pushed a lot farther to the west, but that's
again it's personal preference and I have on control over that but I'll just say my piece and we'll
see what happens. I think it's a gorgeous area and I just hope that the contractors and the earth
54
Planning Commission Meeting -April 15, 2003
movers and everybody can really just do a great job because it's an area that's really worthy of
some nice homes and some real care taken to putting those homes in.
Sacchet: Thank you. Craig.
Claybaugh: I support staff's position in their findings. I believe that development certainly could
be more intensive. Would like to address, or just make light of the custom grading opportunities
I'll say and see that they're followed through on or addressed. With being in development,
Charles I'm sure you're also familiar with zero impact statements, and that is basically zero
impact on anything that you're doing. We do it consistently with corps engineers but from that
point all the way through what an applicant comes in with, once you satisfy the different codes
and ordinances, and he stays within that building envelope and comes forward with a reasonable
application, he has a certain amount of latitude in there. It isn't necessarily a question for us to
decide if it can be done slightly better or not, and I'm not saying that the things that you're
proposing wouldn't improve it, but that isn't necessarily, once it hits a certain threshold that isn't
for us to decide. So that being said I can support it as it's set forth. One thing that was brought
up was just the coordination for the underground utilities. I don't know if there's.
Aanenson: This is a private drive so I'm not sure how much, you know because we don't have...
Claybaugh: Is there anything that.
Aanenson: We can certainly check with.
Claybaugh: Is there anything the City can do to just help try and coordinate it and maybe
facilitate the meeting...
Aanenson: They're the underlying property owners that would have to consent...
Claybaugh: So there's no city involvement.
Aanenson: We could.
Claybaugh: That's all I'm asking.
Aanenson: Right, but you need underlying consent, correct.
Claybaugh: Right, I understand it's not a city decision or unilateral decision. Just what you can
do to help facilitate it. That's all the comments I have.
Sacchet: Steve.
Lillehaug: I would like to get a little specific here. I would like to, from the package that goes to
City Council I'd like to remove alternate 2 from the packet. We did not discuss that. I don't
think it should proceed and go to the council. On the grading and erosion control plan for
alternate 1, when you refer to possible in quite a few locations. Get rid of the word possible.
This is a final, final plat here. Existing house on number 1, I think we need to show a proposed
floor elevation, not the existing. Show the proposed elevation. Again, possible watermain.
Show the location as proposed. As staff indicated, the plat needs to be cleared of, we need to
show the items that need to be on the plat on the plat and address that clear with the drainage
utility easements. I'm not sure if we want to show the proposed right-of-way for the cul-de-sac in
55
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
this plat. It's not part of it. And the house on pad number 2, I think that can be a walkout and I
think grading can be accomplished. And then specifically, I'm in support of this. I would like on
the condition number 20, does that area include the vacated property? I would assume it does I
guess. When we're calculating the fees.
Aanenson: I can double check on that.
Lillehaug: Yeah, we should double check that. I'd like to, because I think it should be because I
could use some extra property to put a garage on. But anyway, I think we need to include a
standard in there .... added in there, either 7 or 9 ton, whatever standard for the city. That'd be it,
thank you.
Sacchet: Alright, I don't have too much to add, except in terms of conditions I would want to be
very specific that Lot number 2 should be custom graded. That the building pad on Lot number 2
should be moved north and west as much as possible to get it away from those trees. I would like
to include those 2 big trees that are currently on the south of that building pad number 2. I would
like to have the fence, the tree protection fence on the other side of those trees, so those trees are
on the protected side. The same, I'd like to extend the tree protection fence in the northwest
comer of Lot 1 to include those, that grove of trees in that comer. I appreciate Mr. Stinson's
suggestions. I think they're very well taken. I don't know whether it would make sense to have a
statement that the applicant would work with staff to consider the possibility of splitting the lot
the other way. What the merits of that would be before it goes to council. I don't think that's a
reason to hold it up at this point. And the same with the underground utility. I think that would
be a great improvement for the city to put these utilities underground, if that would be possible if
the applicant could work with staff to consider that possibility before it goes to council. That' s all
my comments. With that, I'd be happy to take a motion.
Feik: Well I have a question.
Sacchet: Go ahead.
Feik: If you want staff to really look at splitting this lot the other direction, I think you're starting
over. I think you're starting over on this whole thing. I think that' s, I hate to say I think that's an
unreasonable request.
Sacchet: It'd be too much. It'd be too much to request from staff. Okay.
Aanenson: We did evaluate that.
Sacchet: Yeah, the reasonable thing would be to table it if you want to go that route.
Feik: It would be.
Sacchet: We'll accept it as it is.
Feik: Because it's going to be very difficult.
Sacchet: Yeah, I think you're right about that Brace. Appreciate that you're bringing that up. I
don't think it's a reason to hold it up as I stated. So with that I'd like to have a motion.
Feik: Steve had the most comments.
56
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
Blackowiak: That means it's your's.
Lillehaug: I make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Preliminary
Plat for Subdivision//03-3 for LaHaye Addition for 2 lots and a variance to allow 2 driveways on
a single residential lot as shown on the plans received March 14, 2003 subject to the following
conditions, 1 through 24. And I would like to add to number 3 to include a 45 foot radius as staff
has indicated. To number 15 I would like to include having an approved pavement design. And
then I would like to add several other conditions. Number 25. To remove the word possible
where, let me back up here. I've got to be more specific here. I'm not sure how to address my nit
picky items here. Any help?
Sacchet: Well you don't like the word possible. You want the driveway to be where it's shown.
Lillehaug: Right. I mean they just need to f'malize this. I mean to me it's looking like it's
possible, possible.
Feik: Yeah, that you could put the garage on the other side in which case the driveway's going to
be 40 feet shorter. Odds are the garage is going to go on the south side anyway because you're
not.
Aanenson: Right, it works real well.
Feik: Okay so.
Lillehaug: Okay. Condition number 25. Show the proposed house elevation for Lot 1.
Condition number 26. Show final proposed driveway locations. How do you like that?
Sacchet: Sure.
Claybaugh: Outstanding.
Lillehaug: Number 27. Work with staff and f'malize the plat and include the necessary
information to include drainage and utility easement, etc.
Blackowiak: I'll second that.
Sacchet: I can make friendly amendments, can I? Friendly amendment. Condition number 28.
Include the tree grove on the northwest comer of Lot 1 and the 2 big trees on the south side of Lot
2 inside the tree protection fencing.
Lillehaug: Yes.
Sacchet: Number 29. Lot number 2 will be custom graded and the house pad moved northwest
as possible.
Claybaugh: As required.
Sacchet: As required. Yeah, at least with that tree fencing. That would be somewhat correlated.
And number 30. Applicant shall work with staff to consider moving utilities underground. We
say which ones we mean. That's a sticky one.
57
Planning Commission Meeting -April 15, 2003
Blackowiak: That's a separate issue.
Claybaugh: Yeah.
Sacchet: Yeah, that's not on this property so we can't make it a condition.
Aanenson: That was my point. We will certainly make a contact but.
Sacchet: Yeah, we can't put it in as a condition because it's unrelated to this particular property
specifically. Alright, that's my.
Lillehaug: So 1 through 29 as stated.
Feik: Additional amendment?
Sacchet: Alright.
Feik: Adding to your number 26. I think that's the one where you stated the elevation of the
house on Lot 1. That the plan should address any runoff to the west of that lot.
Aanenson: That's actually 25. Lot elevation. You want the drainage.
Feik: Yeah, 25. The resident brought up a concern regarding slope and grade.
Sacchet: That's to the north, isn't it?
Feik: To the west.
Blackowiak: North and west.
Sacchet: Northwest, alright. Okay. Is that it?
Lillehaug moved, Blackowiak seconded that the Planning Commission recommends
approval of the preliminary plat for Subdivision g03-3 for LaHaye Addition for 2 lots and a
variance to allow two driveways on a single residential lot as shown on the plans dated
Received March 14, 2003, subject to the following conditions:
1. Install sod in all of the pavement removal areas.
2. If grading material will need to be imported or exported to construct the lots and street,
the applicant and/or contractor must supply the City Engineer with a detailed haul route
for review and approval prior to site grading.
The new cul-de-sac on Great Plains Boulevard shall be constructed to current City design
standard, a 45 foot radius, with B-618 curb and gutter.
A minimum 30 foot wide drainage and utility easement is required over the public
sanitary sewer line on Lots 1 and 2.
Remove any existing pavement within the cul-de-sac right-of-way so the existing
driveways have a maximum width of 24 feet, as per City Code.
o
.
o
58
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
,
,
.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Any grading or utility work outside of the property limits or right-of-way will require a
temporary easement.
A maximum slope of 3:1 is allowed without a retaining wall. Revise the grading plan to
comply.
A private easement is required for the driveway of Lot 2 which crosses over Lot 1.
Revise the grading plan as follows:
a.
d,
Show the proposed neck radius for the cul-de-sac.
Show the proposed grades for the private street and cul-de-sac upgrades.
Add a benchmark and legend to the plan. The legend should define all of the
different line types, easements, silt fences, etc.
Move the building pad of Lot 2 out of the public easement for the sanitary sewer
line.
Show all existing and proposed easements on the plans.
Revise the utility plan as follows:
a.
Show the existing sanitary sewer line in Great Plains Boulevard.
Show the existing watermain in Great Plains Boulevard and Frontier Trail.
Add a legend to the plan.
Label the existing size and type of pipe for both the sanitary and watermains.
Add a catch basin at the low point in the cul-de-sac with a storm sewer line that
discharges just east of the proposed driveway for Lot 2.
The water service for Lot 2 will have to be obtained from the existing main in Frontier
Trail.
The proposed private street upgrades should include a vehicle turnaround area, acceptable
to the City's Fire Marshall, and a copy of the private easement dedicated to the benefiting
property owners. In order to save the two existing oak trees on each side of the private
street, the existing street width may be maintained in this area.
Lot 2 cannot use the same driveway access off of Great Plains Boulevard as the private
street. The two driveway accesses shall be separated by a minimum of five feet.
Detailed street construction plans and specifications in accordance with the City's latest
edition of Standard Specifications and Detail Plates, including approved pavement
design, will be required for review and approval by the City Council at the time of final
plat consideration. Since the street improvements will become owned and maintained by
the City, the applicant must enter into a development contract with the City and provide
financial security in the form of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee construction
of the public improvements. Permits from the regulatory agency will be required,
including but not limited to Watershed District, MPCA, etc.
The site will be subject to one sanitary sewer and water connection charge for the new lot.
The 2003 connection charges for both sanitary and water are $4,513. The property is also
59
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
subject to sanitary sewer and water hook-up charges for the new lot. The 2003 trunk
utility hook-up charges are $1,440 per unit for sanitary sewer and $1,876 per unit for
water. The 2003 SAC charge is $1,275 per unit. These charges are collected prior to the
building permit issuance.
Building Official conditions:
b.
Final grading plans and soil reports must be submitted to the Inspections Division
before building permits will be issued.
Each lot must be provided with separate sewer and water services.
Retaining walls over 4 feet high require a permit and must be designed by an
engineer licensed in the State of Minnesota.
ao
bo
Because of the setbacks of the proposed new house, additional address numbers
will be required at the driveway entrance. Address numbers must comply with
Chanhassen Fire Department Policy regarding premise identification pursuant to
Policy No. 29-1992 (copy enclosed).
Submit new proposed driveway dimensions to City Engineer and Chanhassen Fire
Marshal. This is to ensure that fire apparatus can safely negotiate the driveway to
the new proposed single family dwelling.
The bluff impact zone should be shown on the grading plan.
Based on the proposed developed area of 1.57 acres, the water quality fees associated
with this project are estimated at $1,490 and the water quantity fees associated with this
project are estimated at $3,686. The applicant will not be assessed for areas that are
dedicated outlots. No credit will be given for temporary pond areas. At this time, the
estimated total SWMP fee, due payable to the City at the time of f'mal plat recording is
$5,176.
Approval of the subdivision is contingent upon the City Council approving the vacation
of the right-of-way.
Environmental Resource Specialist conditions:
b°
Tree preservation fence shall be installed at the edge of the grading limits prior to
any construction.
Access to Lot 2 should be from Great Plains Boulevard to increase tree
preservation.
Full park and trail fees will be collected in lieu of land dedication for the newly created
lot in the amount of $2,400.
Access to Lot 2 shall be prohibited off of Frontier Trail.
Show the proposed house elevation for Lot 1 and address the runoff to the west and
north.
Show final proposed driveway locations.
60
Planning Commission Meeting - April 15, 2003
27.
Work with staff and f'malize the plat and include the necessary information to
include drainage and utility easement, etc.
28.
Include the tree grove on the northwest corner of Lot 1 and the 2 big trees on the
south side of Lot 2 inside the tree protection fencing.
29.
Lot number 2 will be custom graded and the house pad moved northwest as
required.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0.
Sacchet: Any comments any want to highlight for council before we forget where we were with
this? Do the conditions sufficiently reflect our concerns?
Blackowiak: I think so. I'm just maybe note that for the audience members.
Sacchet: Yes, for those of you here, this will go to City Council on the 12th of May, and the City
Council will make the final decision. This is merely a recommendation that we recommend to
the City Council for action at this point so thank you all very much for coming for this.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Alison Blackowiak noted the Minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting dated April 1, 2003 as submitted.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS.
Slagle: Oh one more thing.
Sacchet: Rich.
Slagle: For the commission, on the very first applicant with respect to the sport court or
basketball court. How we do not require a permit for that. Similar to what staff said, analogous
to patio. My question, and maybe I should have said it earlier to staff is busy, when it comes to
lighting. You know Sport Courts have lights.
Sacchet: There is no lighting in this.
Slagle: Not in this one but my question is, is there a permit required for lighting? I would think
SO.
Blackowiak: Nobody's listening to us so we'll just have to ask later.
Chairman Sacchet adjourn the Planning Commission meeting at 10:05 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
61