CC Minutes 12-10-2012Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2012
TH
720 WEST 96 STREET VARIANCE: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FROM SECTION 20-904
OF THE CHANHASSEN City Code TO ALLOW AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN EXCESS
OF 1,000 SQUARE FEET ON PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DISTRICT
(A2); APPLICANT/OWNER: GREG & TAMMY FALCONER.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. This item is a resubmit of an
th
application that is located on West 96 Street for a reconstruction of a non-conforming structure. So
again the expansion of the non-conforming structure and then a variance to expand the non-conformity by
th
520 square feet from the original 1,280 square feet for a non-conforming shed. On September 18 this
item went to the Planning Commission. It was denied a variance. The Planning Commission, acting as
the Board of Adjustments, rather than appealing that decision the applicant chose to revise the plan
reducing the structure to 37 feet wide and an 8 foot overhang. This item did appear before the November
th
20 Planning Commission acting as the Board of Adjustment and they voted 4 to 2 to deny. Because they
had less than 75% majority then, that issue is then sent to you for your review. So again the applicable
regulations on this application is the non-conforming, excuse me, the ordinance regarding expansion of
non-conforming uses that allow for, you can continue the non-conformity as long as you keep the same
square footage. The staff did meet on site and gave some recommendations on that as we understand the
drainage was one of the big factors on the frost heave and then the second one was the ordinance
regarding limitations to detached accessory structures. So again the original shed is shown here in
yellow. This is what the applicant wanted to expand for the 520 square feet. And in 2000 an additional
building was added in the back but what we were talking then about is this non-conforming structure so
there was a total square footage for both structures. Again this is the aerial view of the roof that was
collapsed on the one structure. Again city ordinance does allow, you can rebuild a non-conforming
structure. The issue came in then was the expansion portion. So this is the area the applicant intended to
expand to to this line. And then the staff had recommended a couple proposals too so this would be the
applicant’s proposal on this side and then the staff was looking at, in order to, if the issue was the
drainage to provide that matching roof line for the frost heave appeared to be on this side of the building
to change the, so you stay within that same square footage so you would meet the intent of just rebuilding
at the non-conforming without the expansion or in addition there was another alternative that was
proposed. The applicant still wanted to pursue their request for the additional square footage so the
Planning Commission, as stated in the staff report, 4 to 2 voted so the staff had recommended that the
City Council also deny the expansion to the 520 square feet for the non-conforming structure and adopt
the Findings of Fact and with that I’d be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for the staff at this time? Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Kate, and you go back to the, right there. Explain to me what’s happening
with that middle slide. Are you making them take square footage off of the building in order to expand
the roof?
Kate Aanenson: No, what we’re trying to stay within the same square footage of the entire building and if
the issue, as explained to us by the applicant, was that the frost heave and water movement along this side
of the building so the goal was to get the roof to extend to match the newer building so we felt this stayed
within the same square footage but also met the goal of trying to keep the rooflines matching so there
wouldn’t be the frost heave or the water problem.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And then bear with me when I ask you to explain the third alternative also.
7
Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2012
Kate Aanenson: Yeah. So it would just be a little bit different so the eaves would be a little bit longer so
the building wouldn’t be, there would actually be eaves on the building. The code does allow 2 1/2 foot
overhang on the eaves so that’s what this accomplished.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And the applicant was not.
Kate Aanenson: They still wanted to increase the size of that.
Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff at this time? Councilman Laufenburger.
Councilman Laufenburger: Kate, can you go back a couple slides to show the, one more. Right there.
The larger building there to, I’m assuming that’s actually, is that to the south? Well that larger building,
when was that building built? Do you have that information?
Kate Aanenson: Yeah it’s in the staff report, I’m sorry.
Councilman Laufenburger: Yeah, it was built before the change in the code, is that correct?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. When we capped it to 1,000 square feet which was in…
Councilman Laufenburger: So the larger building is a legal non-conforming.
Kate Aanenson: Both buildings are, right. Now the city ordinance is the 1,000 cap. Right.
Councilman Laufenburger: So what we’re saying is, you can have your legally non-conforming
buildings. They just can’t be any bigger in size than they were before.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct. That was the staff’s position.
Councilman Laufenburger: So, and what you’re doing, the two alternatives that the staff is offering is the
same size of the building structure, whatever that 1,280 feet. In one case no eaves. In the other case 2 1/2
foot eaves, right?
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Councilman Laufenburger: And both of those were rejected by the applicant.
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Councilman Laufenburger: So help me understand. If we deny this then what can the applicant build?
Kate Aanenson: The applicant can still build the non-conforming, back to the same square footage that
they had before.
Councilman Laufenburger: 1,280.
Kate Aanenson: Correct. So they can still pursue that. They wanted the, to try to get the extra square
footage with it.
Councilman Laufenburger: Can you also, Could they also choose to build either option number 2 or 3 as
offered by staff?
8
Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2012
Kate Aanenson: That’s correct.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Thank you Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions for staff at this time? Is the applicant here?
Greg Falconer: Yes.
Kate Aanenson: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: If you’d like to address council on anything.
th
Greg Falconer: I’m Greg Falconer. This is my wife Tammy. We live at 720 West 96 Street in
Chanhassen. This area here in Chanhassen is more or less 4.77 acres across the whole end here. Most
everybody here has a pole barn such as ourselves and the neighbors up here actually have about 25,000
square feet of buildings which is just two doors down from us. We didn’t really reject the proposals of
the city. The problem that Bob Generous and a city engineer came out and we looked at this area. If
you’ll notice in this picture I have a retaining wall that comes around here and all the way over and you
can see it in the pictures that Kate had originally showed you. By moving the structure back it leaves me
with a 13 foot gap between this retaining wall. This building is lower than the retaining wall because
when I moved in in 1996 the water used to come down my neighbor’s property and go right through the
center of the building and out the other side. And this building was built in I think ’65 and it has received
substantial damage from the water coming in so when I moved in in ’96, built this retaining wall. The
water comes down here and around over here. I still have quite a bit of movement on the building. This
building side right here goes up by 4 to 5 inches from the frost heave and the reason being is because it
doesn’t receive a lot of snow but I also have to pull my snow off of the roof in order for that not to happen
in the first place. I knew I was going to have to rebuild this building and we did have plans in 2005
before the ordinance was passed. We did not know the ordinance had passed, nor did anybody on our
street know that an ordinance had passed and I did have people come in and voice their opinion about that
at the original planning, so we had original plans to build the building. We didn’t have the funds to do it
so when I submitted by plans we were rejected and I was well surprised and so were the other people that
didn’t realize the ordinance had passed. So it was a factor. The thing that I really need to stress here and
it seems what we’re having the biggest problem with and you asked the question is, well why don’t they
just accept the other proposals? I would have to remove this retaining wall or do something different to
here. This retaining wall already goes down 4 feet into the ground. It’s going to cost me probably about
$4,000 to $5,000 to relocate everything and re-landscape this in front and it’s something that I already did
so I’m really not interested in paying more money when obviously what I’m really proposing here is just
to extend the roof line over and the majority of the building itself, if you can see here, would be an open
air space right here. There is 5 feet of extension of the original building. The original building comes
right down into here. This is all open air right here so it would just be an overhang roof of 8 foot.
Enough to get my water and snow to a manageable area out on my sidewalk out here and another reason
why I want to get that out is this door right here gets blocked off. Basically the ice forms here and the
door’s completely iced in at that point. So what I’m really just trying to do is add an extension over so I
can manage the area and you know I just think that there’s a different of opinion on how that can be as far
as the money that they would like me to spend to re-landscape around the whole thing and what I don’t
want to spend is more money. I do have the right to rebuild this building as it is right now, as Kate said,
and we would like to do it correctly. If we put a metal roof on this, metal roof sheds snow very, very fast.
If I put a, if I leave it the way it is I’m going to have a bigger snow problem here than I already did as you
can see in that picture because this was an asphalt roof right here. So I’m really just asking for a 13 foot
extension of a roof over to here. We have over 200,000 square feet of property on our zoned Ag land and
9
Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2012
we’re just having a hard time coming up with why we can’t do something like that to alleviate issues with
the building. I’m just trying to protect my buildings. One other thing I would like to mention, you know
in the ordinance, when it was originally discussed, and I don’t know if anybody has read this whole thing
and I don’t know if you really want me to but you can use your building for horticultural purposes.
Livestock, whatever. Tammy and I, Tammy comes from a farm in Wisconsin and she would like to have
a garden again. She would like to, I’ve already tilled up some land back here. About a half acre and if
you’re willing we would like to use this area as an overhang where she can put some tables out and put
her produce on there and she can, on the inside she can do her canning again out in that area and maybe at
that point nobody has a problem with anything because as it is right now I don’t know what I’m going to
do with it. I just wanted to get rid of my issue. But I, you know that sounds like a reasonable option to
us. If we could use it for horticultural purposes, Tammy can keep all her tools there and stuff and do her
gardening and process her food there so.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. Any questions for the applicant? Councilman Laufenburger.
Councilman Laufenburger: Yeah, just to clarify, Greg is that right?
Greg Falconer: Yes.
Councilman Laufenburger: Could you show that, well let’s leave that one up there for a second. That
retaining wall, just point to that, if you wouldn’t mind. Okay. Would you leave that retaining wall in
place all the way back to the larger building?
Greg Falconer: The reason why this retaining wall is here, right now it’s a free standing one. I used to
have a drainage trough inside of here with draintile to catch all the water off the roof and the draintile
exited out the other side of the building over here so I had it sloped at an angle where it would catch.
There was a rubber membrane in here and I got the water to move to the other side of the building
because this is where we’re having all our issues.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. You said that the neighbor, the water coming from your neighbors is
actually coming around the front of this retaining wall and depositing right there where you’ve got the big
frost heave, right?
Greg Falconer: Yeah, it’s very difficult without showing the property but this is the low side. This is the
high side.
Councilman Laufenburger: So you’re directing water, off the roof you’re directing it over to the high
side?
Greg Falconer: In this case that’s what I had to do because we had such an incredible ice issue over here.
I was grabbing all the water off of this side and bringing it around over here. Of course you can’t catch it
all and that’s why you know we have this area here. It does get super saturated. We’re in clay soil. I
know that there’s footings on this building. This is a pole building. The footings are down there but I’m
still getting frost heave by 4 to 5 inches and that might be one of the reasons why I had problems with the
roof collapsing like it did because structures aren’t supposed to move around.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. And if in fact you do build an overhang to extend the snow past that,
the entrance door, where’s that water going to go?
Greg Falconer: This all drains, I wish I had a better picture here.
10
Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2012
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. But it does go that way.
Greg Falconer: Yes. Yeah, at a favorable rate. You can see in that picture right there that Kate put up, at
a favorable rate. Right now this is more or less a stagnant area right here and you know I hadn’t touched
this. The only land that I touched was out here in the beginning. This retaining wall like I said is buried
almost 3 to 4 feet down. That’s how much we had to raise the level just to get the water to move away
from the buildings.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. Thank you Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant? Councilwoman Ernst, then
Councilman McDonald.
Councilwoman Ernst: I’m just curious. So you’re saying you want to extend the roof 13 feet?
Greg Falconer: Correct.
Councilwoman Ernst: And this is to avoid load and runoff, right?
Greg Falconer: Yes. To get to a, get the snow and water to a manageable area over here instead of it all
collecting in this area here where it’s obviously doing some damage to my building and like I said we
can’t get in this door sometimes. Yeah.
Mayor Furlong: Can you put the table back up?
Kate Aanenson: I’m sorry.
Mayor Furlong: No, you’re fine. I’m sorry, could you respond to that again. You were pointing to the
picture and we couldn’t see it.
Greg Falconer: Oh, okay. Yes the, we would like to get the snow out to a manageable area out here so
we don’t have the ice and water problems that we’re having right here. You know even in the
summertime, I shouldn’t just talk about the ice. In the summertime when this area gets saturated and we
go into a frost/freeze, that’s when you really have issues and there’s been many times where at this door
has not functioned all together just because of the frost heaving. So if I can just dry out the area, I’d just
like to build a weather shed to get the snow and ice and water away from the buildings all together and
dry it out.
Councilwoman Ernst: So just curious if you do that, are you sure you’re not creating another problem
there?
Greg Falconer: Absolutely positive. I had an engineer, HavTek, it should be in your notes there too,
spoke favorably of my building design and when the City had offered up the two options to Tammy and I
we didn’t get the two options until I think Saturday before our hearing, which was on Tuesday, so it
didn’t give us any time whatsoever to get back to an engineer and have him discuss it because that was
asked of us and that’s when one of the members decided to change their mind because we weren’t even, I
mean it was just given to us. Now Bob did come out and talk to me about maybe some suggestions but
when I asked the City Engineer what she thought, she said I have no opinion. And I don’t know what no
opinion means when you’re a city engineer. Can you either tell me if that’s going to work or not work,
she said basically she wasn’t going to give an opinion and I’m not sure why.
11
Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2012
Councilwoman Ernst: So from what I heard you say there are basically 3 different options. One is, well
4. Including the one that staff recommended. One is to extend about 13 feet. One is to make the
building, serve as horticultural purposes.
Greg Falconer: Yes.
Councilwoman Ernst: Or rebuild the building and then what staff was recommending, is that?
Greg Falconer: Yep. Yeah and like you know, for horticultural purposes we can use this side over here
for horticultural purposes, that would give Tammy enough area to do her, what she needs to do and you
know I already purpose for this building over here for what I’ve always used it for and storage and
whatever so I guess for horticultural purposes, it does say in the original proposal for the 2007 ordinance
that if it’s used for a legitimate use, that would be okay. I guess we see that as a legitimate use.
Councilwoman Ernst: Okay, thank you.
Councilman Laufenburger: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Furlong: Mr. McDonald first and then Mr. Laufenburger.
Councilman McDonald: On the City’s proposals, explain to me why they won’t work because it looks
like what they’re saying is, that you can extend that roof. That would get you over the door and now you
would be able to again move the snow and water into the area you want to go to.
Greg Falconer: Yeah, Kate if you could put up that other one, that overhead deal? How about the other
one that comes down a little closer because you really can’t see the retaining wall. Not that one. There
was another one that you had on there. No. There was one that we were looking at earlier there.
Kate Aanenson: This shows the retaining wall in here. Right here. This is where the retaining wall is.
Greg Falconer: Yeah, see that’s just a free standing retaining wall. It doesn’t really do, it didn’t do
anything except grab water and pull it around the other side. That retaining wall that’s on the north side
of the building there.
Kate Aanenson: This retaining wall.
Greg Falconer: Yes. With the City’s proposal there’s going to be a gap between the retaining wall and
the building of 13 feet, which creates about a 5,000 gallon bathtub and Bob said well you could use it as a
patio out there and I said well a patio’s still going to fill up with water because there is no drainage on.
The retaining wall is here and the floor of that building is down 3 feet so somehow something has to be
done with that area. 13 feet by 30, it’s 30 something feet wide. Actually 40 feet wide. Something has to
be done with that to a large expense.
Mayor Furlong: Just a quick question. Is there a gap between the building and the retaining wall now?
Greg Falconer: There’s a gap of I think it’s 2 feet right now and I had that filled with the rubber
membrane, the drainage rock and the draintile.
Councilman Laufenburger: Which directs the water to the high point of the property around on the other
side.
12
Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2012
Greg Falconer: Yes, exactly. And then it exits out a hole in the retaining wall and then flows down the
east side of the building, which has worked pretty good in the summertime. In the wintertime obviously
things start to get icy again and whatever and you have issues at that point. But you know unfortunately
the City’s plan is going to cost me a lot more money than just putting on a 13 foot extension onto the
building.
Councilman McDonald: Okay. On the retaining wall, I guess I’m trying to understand that first of all.
So that kind of goes around the north side of the building. That’s the one that goes down 3 feet. The one
that’s permanently in there.
Greg Falconer: Yes.
Councilman McDonald: Inbetween that wall and the building is where you’ve got the rubber membrane
and the tiles to drain everything to the east of that building.
Greg Falconer: Correct.
Councilman McDonald: Okay. And what you’re wanting to do on the footprint, okay you would build
the same footprint but now you want to do the first drawing which will get us, and you say all that’s going
to be used for is strictly, it would be open space but you would just be extending the roof by that distance.
Greg Falconer: Yeah, there is a 5 foot expansion of the building on there as well. Originally when I had
proposed that, which I didn’t realize that there was an issue with the ordinance because I didn’t know
there was an ordinance, I only had about, I think it was, if you could put that back up. I think originally I
had my building to here and then I added on another 3 feet for 8 foot to see if that would satisfy the
Planning Commission.
Councilman McDonald: Okay.
Greg Falconer: So right now I’m adding 5 feet of interior space which would be 200 square feet onto the
building. The rest of it would all be open air.
Councilman McDonald: And is part of the reason for that 5 feet, I mean I notice the peak moves. Is that
for structural purposes because now you need to move out?
Greg Falconer: When I designed the building, and like I said I did not know that this was going to be an
issue. You were absolutely correct. In the center of the building there are footings right here along,
they’re pole footings that come through the center of the structure and with the wall getting closer and
closer to that there’s an impedance issue with the, with the poles coming down in the center of the
building. It’s not an open air building inside. It actually has pole structure in it so.
Councilman McDonald: Okay. Now then, let me ask you about the City’s proposal. The main reason
why that’s not going to work is because of the retaining wall, is that?
Greg Falconer: Significant re-landscaping.
Councilman McDonald: And when you say significant, give me a figure.
Greg Falconer: About $5,000.
13
Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2012
Councilman McDonald: Okay. That’s all the questions I’ve got for right now. Yield back to Mr.
Laufenburger.
Mayor Furlong: Councilman Laufenburger, questions.
Councilman Laufenburger: So Greg it sounds like what you’re saying is, that the, if I’m doing right on
these numbers, 1,280 square feet is the existing structure.
Greg Falconer: Correct.
Councilman Laufenburger: You want to add 200 feet to that to the interior dimensions.
Greg Falconer: Correct.
Councilman Laufenburger: Keeping the north and the south walls essentially where they are.
Greg Falconer: Yes.
Councilman Laufenburger: That means you’re going to have to take out a little bit of that retaining wall.
The retaining wall that runs north/south.
Greg Falconer: On the?
Councilman Laufenburger: On the east. Excuse me, on the west side.
Greg Falconer: Yeah, like I said this one’s just free standing right now. All the drainage rock is out of
here and stuff and I can just put that right on a pallet and…
Councilman Laufenburger: And then by raising the roof, raising the roof structure you’re going to get the
angle of the roof is going to take it past that entrance.
Greg Falconer: Yes, past this over here. Exactly. Keeping this area dry and weather free basically.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay.
Greg Falconer: One more thing I would like to mention to you. I do have in this corner right here,
coming out of the ground is my electrical access from the house which is buried and comes up through
the floor there too. It was one issue, another issue that I had there.
Councilman Laufenburger: So right now it comes up through the floor inside the building?
Greg Falconer: Just on this corner right here, exactly.
Councilman Laufenburger: Inside the building, okay.
Greg Falconer: Yep.
Councilman Laufenburger: When did you move into the property?
Greg Falconer: In 1996.
14
Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2012
Councilman Laufenburger: And this 1,280 square foot building was already in place, is that correct?
Greg Falconer: Correct. In fact that’s the original color of the building. The reason why we never
painted it during then was because, well at least I knew before I married my wife that I was going to, I
was going to redo the building.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. And the bigger building, the, call it 5,000 whatever that thing is.
Greg Falconer: It’s 45 by 90.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. A 45 by 90 building.
Greg Falconer: They have 46 by 90 but every foot for 100 makes a big difference.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. You built that.
Greg Falconer: Yes, in 2000.
Councilman Laufenburger: Before the ordinance.
Greg Falconer: Before the ordinance.
Councilman Laufenburger: Any reason why you chose to build that and not extend it and tear down this
building of 1965? Does it have historical value do you think Greg?
Greg Falconer: Yes. I have a windmill that I actually have on the property just to the west of there too so
I’m trying to keep a theme. There’s horses on the right side of me. There’s horses on the left side.
Tammy would like a horse. We’re still in debate of that.
Councilman Laufenburger: You’ll have to take that up somewhere other than here.
Mayor Furlong: Stay focused on the issue.
Greg Falconer: You know and another reason why they said the ordinance was imposed was because
people were starting businesses on their property. Carol Dunsmore who works at the City, along side
staff here and stuff can verify that we do not run a business out of this area. I originally did have a
conditional use permit to run a business out of that. I don’t have that business since 2004. This is not a
money making adventure for us.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. What if you didn’t get that additional 200 feet? Would you still build
the extension of the roof?
Greg Falconer: Yes, I would.
Councilman Laufenburger: Just to get the snow going over there.
Greg Falconer: I would.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Mr. Mayor.
15
Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2012
Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: This is probably for Kate. Sorry Kate. You know how I’ve kind of always
ruled on the side of common sense and so I mean I understand that there’s an ordinance and that it’s
important that we follow ordinances so we have some structure in our city but besides the fact that this
ordinance is in place, what are the, what are some other impacts? Negative impacts because to me this
doesn’t seem like it’s such a huge negative impact to this property or the city.
Kate Aanenson: Sure. What I don’t have for you is looking at the, all the accessory structures in that area
and we kind of took it, looked at those in that neighborhood when we did another application over there
th
on West 96 Street. As the applicant has stated that they did have a commercial business there and some
of these uses are used for commercial which means there’s commercial activity going down a residential
street and the like and that’s why the ordinance was changed in that timeframe. This particular building,
when that came in and we didn’t have the tools in place to say we already had 2,000. Now we’re going to
add another you know 4,000 to 5,000 on there. You know what’s the tipping point for that type of use.
Now clearly the applicant has stated that they’re not going to, and we’ve talked about that. What happens
with the next buyer and that sort of thing. Yes, there’s horses on there. Yes, there are places for
agricultural but not everybody’s using it in an agricultural way. Whether it ends up being, and I’m not
saying that this person is doing that but cabinet shops, those are some of the things that we spend
enforcement time trying to resolve so that’s why the ordinance was put in place. And we said if someone
was coming in for a variance because they had horses or agricultural type use, that would be some you
know findings that the council and the Planning Commission would say made sense if it was for
agricultural purposes. I know Bob and Alyson did go out on the site and they felt this was reasonable. I
can’t go either way on the drainage issue. There’s drainage issues you know no matter what’s going to
happen water’s going back and forth across different properties. I’m not sure this is going to keep it away
from the door. I’m not sure it’s going to solve the long term problem or frost heaves and water on the
property. It’s going to constantly fluctuate so I’m not sure that’s solving the problem. So again our
position is to not increase that non-conforming but is the 200 square feet.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And that’s where I’m wrestling.
Kate Aanenson: Right, understood. Understood.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And then one more question for the applicant, and I don’t mean to be naïve
but you were talking about your neighbor has water flowing and so you built that retaining wall to redirect
that water. So if you expand the building, where does that water go?
Greg Falconer: If I expand this over here? I have a favorable flowage over on this side. My parking lot
has about a, I think it’s about a 5 percent grade on it right now. So once the water gets right to here, it
travels very fast. The water right here is pretty much stagnant at that point and unfortunately I can’t dig
that out right there because if you dig this out or add to it one way or another you’re going to create
another problem pushing it against the building or what have you. I understand that not everybody, you
know you can’t just look at something and say I think this will work or wouldn’t work but the fact of the
matter is, I’ll probably completely dry this area up completely. Right now there’s actual moss growing in
the corner in the summertime because it never sees any sunlight and what have you but the frost heaving
has really been an issue.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: And then to clarify one more thing because you had mentioned that your wife
would like to garden and can and have tables out for that. That wouldn’t be the start of like a mini
farmers market or anything like that?
16
Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2012
Greg Falconer: No.
Tammy Falconer: No. We don’t allow strangers on our property.
Greg Falconer: It’s somewhat true. We had a pretty bad theft there 3 years ago.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any other questions? I have just a couple follow up questions. With your
proposal, the red building that we’re looking at here, you’d be taking that one down and building a new
one, is that correct?
Greg Falconer: It’s actually down already. The insurance company came out and said, take the building
down.
Mayor Furlong: So it’s down?
Greg Falconer: Yes.
Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright. And then did you have a chance to have your engineer’s review the
alternatives of the City?
Greg Falconer: No, I did not get a chance to on the last City Council meeting, or City Planning
Commission and.
Mayor Furlong: Right, you had said you got that a few days before but that was a few weeks ago now.
Greg Falconer: Yeah, exactly.
Mayor Furlong: Have you had a chance since then to take a look at those?
Greg Falconer: No, in fact I have not been in town. I’ve actually been down in Florida looking for some
work down there.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Greg Falconer: I have a traveling business type of deal.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, and that’s fine. And I guess the other question then is with regard to the current
gap between the building, or what was the building and that retaining wall. You said there’s a couple feet
there. You’ve got some drainage tile and you put down some other materials to run water away.
Greg Falconer: Yes. What I would do with the new structure, which wouldn’t be wood. This is a wood
structure. The next structure would be made out of metal. We would band around the whole bottom side
with a rubber membrane and put draintile in the bottom and do it you know right so that whole building
stays dry in that area.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess my question is, if you went with one of the city alternatives, why couldn’t
you keep the existing drainage that you have there now and just with landscaping run the water if you
added that additional 11 feet.
17
Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2012
Greg Falconer: The building is 3 feet lower than the top of the retaining wall. My grass is right about
here so when you see this retaining wall coming into view, you have to remember right here the grass is
right up near the top and then that’s how low the building was. The building probably shouldn’t have
been built there in the first place but I wasn’t around.
Mayor Furlong: You didn’t do that one.
Greg Falconer: Exactly and so if we bring the building back we’re, you know we’re creating a very large
space behind here. Now I’ve just created a bathtub that I have to do something with and that’s where
you’ve got to decide do you take the whole retaining wall down or you try to fill that in. What you try to
do. You’re looking at a sizeable amount of money to make it work without having another issue
happening.
Mayor Furlong: And I guess what I’m trying to understand is there’s already water, rain water going
between the building and the retaining wall, correct?
Greg Falconer: Which I was able to get to with the draintile and the rubber membrane in there. Yeah, it’s
a very small area. We’re only talking a trough this big and so I was able to put drainage rock and
draintile in there with a rubber membrane and I got that to completely exit out the other side of the
building over here. Not this side. This side.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, and the engineers say that you couldn’t cover the 13 feet with that, or you don’t
think you can cover the 13 feet?
Greg Falconer: It would be, it would be very expensive because we’re talking not, without being there,
there is an extensive amount of soil and drainage rock and stuff that would have to be done to that front
area to make this work.
Mayor Furlong: Okay.
Greg Falconer: There’s one thing, I just want to say one thing. My two neighbors were here last time and
they said I don’t know if people can picture what exactly what, because those same questions were asked
by a couple of the planning commission people and it was quite clear that it’s just hard to really see you
know because it does seem like a logical thing. Oh we’ll just bring the building back and then just
landscape that and whatever but there’s a lot, this is 40 feet from here over to the other side and every foot
you go back you’re going to have to add something and up and up and up to get that to drain properly
towards the, away from the building and stuff.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Any other questions, follow up questions? Mr. McDonald.
Councilman McDonald: I’ve got just one. So what this is coming down to is what you’re asking us to do
is basically keep the same footprint for the building. You need to move the peak over structurally and
that’s going to require 5 additional feet on that western side and then the rest of it is just an overhang in
order to get the water out to your driveway.
Greg Falconer: Yes. Yes.
Councilman McDonald: Okay.
Mayor Furlong: Alright, any other questions at this time? Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much.
18
Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2012
Greg Falconer: Thank you.
Tammy Falconer: Thank you.
Mayor Furlong: Any follow up questions for staff?
Councilman McDonald: Well I have one.
Mayor Furlong: Mr. McDonald.
Councilman McDonald: Has anybody complained about this in the neighborhood?
Kate Aanenson: No.
Councilwoman Ernst: I have one.
Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Ernst.
Councilwoman Ernst: Kate, they talked about using this for horticultural purposes. Is there a problem
with that?
Kate Aanenson: No. The property is zoned A2. I think the reason we put that definition in there is, this
is a contractor’s yard used to be permitted in this area so we’ve eliminated contractor’s yards from home
occupations so this did have an active home occupation, contractor’s yard as stated as recently as 2004
because it had the continuing in the non-conformity so this building had the continuation of the non-
conformity. This existing building so that was one of our recommendations too if you were to go forward
that we eliminate the conditional use, the non-conformity of the contractor’s yard, and that was one of the
reasons why it was put in place. Not all of these were used for agricultural purposes. Some of them were
for contractor’s yards and that was why we moved away from that cap. If it’s for agricultural purpose and
it meets the criteria for, whether it’s animals, you have to apply to the City to get your stable permit and
that sort of thing but certainly if they wanted to do that, that’s permitted.
Councilwoman Ernst: Okay, thanks.
Mayor Furlong: Okay, thoughts and comments from council. Councilman Laufenburger. Or I’m sorry,
Mr. McDonald.
Councilman McDonald: I guess I’ll start while everybody else thinks. Yeah, I remember the other
property coming and we did assess what’s been done down in this area as far as out buildings and those
types of things. Out buildings seem to fit within this neighborhood and that seems to be something that
all the neighbors have accommodated and are very much in favor of doing and they’ve allowed people to
use this land as they kind of wish as long as it stays within the ordinances for contractors yards, and even
back then I remember the people that did come forward said that there was none of that activity going on
by any of the property owners. I realize that what staff has proposed on it’s face seems very logical and
very easy to do but you know looking at the overheads and understanding what the applicant is talking
about, why would we continue to add on costs to something. I’m having a problem with that part of it
because we all seem to agree that if he wants to expand the building out a little bit there’s no problems
with that. What we seem to be arguing over a little bit is the, is the blueprints and the plans. I would not
have a problem with him going back to the original plan and putting in there what he has originally
proposed.
19
Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2012
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other comments.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I can go next.
Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I want to start by saying that I appreciate staff and all the work that you do put
into planning and this once again, I think you did a very nice job with it but you know I know we also
have to respect the ordinances that we have in this city so we don’t have chickens running around and
lord knows what else. You can have chickens here so that’s a good thing but it really does come down for
me to be, what’s common sense. Does it make sense for this family to deal with the same problems just
in a different way or does it make sense for them just to do it right the first time and have a usage of the
building that they can enjoy for the duration that they stay there so I certainly would be in favor of them,
with the original plan also.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other comments?
Councilwoman Ernst: I’ll make a comment Mayor.
Mayor Furlong: Councilwoman Ernst.
Councilwoman Ernst: So I would assume that when we talk about going back to the original plan that it
was the 13 feet on the roof? Adding the 13 feet to the roof. So, and I agree. I would support that as well.
I think that, I mean I don’t see where it really has any disadvantages and if they build it to it’s original
state and I don’t see any issues with that.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Mr. Laufenburger.
Councilman Laufenburger: Well just to clarify Councilwoman Ernst, they don’t want to rebuild to the
original state.
Councilwoman Ernst: They want to add 13 feet onto the roof, from what I understood.
Councilman Laufenburger: Well they want to go from 40 by 32 to 40 by 37 with an additional 8 feet of
roof that gives Tammy her gardening tables. So what they want to do is they want to expand the 1,280
internal dimensions to 1,480 and then add this roof, all for the purpose of getting the snow away from the
frost heave.
Councilwoman Ernst: Right.
Councilman Laufenburger: Okay. So I would call that the applicant’s proposal and I think
Councilwoman Tjornhom said it the best. I think it makes common sense. I would support the
applicant’s proposal.
Mayor Furlong: And that’s fine. I’m comfortable with what’s been discussed here. If there’s no other
comments would somebody like to make a motion? Councilwoman Tjornhom.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: I’ll make a motion. I’d like to make a motion that the City Council approves
a variance to expand a 520 square feet of existing non-conforming accessory structure and adopt the
attached Findings of Fact and Decision. But that’s not going to work.
20
Chanhassen City Council – December 10, 2012
Kate Aanenson: Right, we need to come back with Findings.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Yep. The Findings of Fact aren’t going to be applicable to this so.
Mayor Furlong: So direct staff to prepare Findings of Fact?
Roger Knutson: For the next meeting.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Direct staff to prepare Findings of Fact for the next meeting.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second?
Councilman McDonald: Second.
Mayor Furlong: Motion’s been made and seconded. Any further discussion?
Councilwoman Tjornhom moved, Councilman McDonald seconded that the City Council approves
a variance to expand a 520 square feet of existing non-conforming accessory structure and directs
staff to prepare Findings of Fact for the next council meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Mayor Furlong: Thank you very much. Thank you everyone.
Councilwoman Tjornhom: Enjoy your chickens.
CHANHASSEN APARTMENTS, LOCATED AT 7750 GALPIN BOULEVARD (NORTHWEST
CORNER OF HIGHWAY 5 AND GALPIN BOULEVARD); REQUEST FOR CONCEPT
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) FOR A 224 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING ON 8.08
ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURAL ESTATE (A2); APPLICANT: OPPIDAN,
INC./OWNER: AMERICANA COMMUNITY BANK.
Mayor Furlong: Let’s start with a staff report and again just for format here. We’ll start with the staff
report. Any questions might come from that. The applicant will be invited to come up and provide his
presentation. We will take public comments and then we’ll, when that period is over we’ll bring it back
to council for questions and comments as well. So let’s start with staff report, Ms. Aanenson.
Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of the City Council. Again the applicant is requesting a
th
concept PUD for 224 apartments. Again the Planning Commission heard this on their December 4
meeting. Included in your updated cover memo to your staff report it’s kind of a summary of their points
as it came forward. Again the application under the PUD concept is to, if it was to go forward would
have to have a land use amendment from office and residential low density to high density residential
PUD. And from, rezoned from the A2 District and would also require site plan approval. So what I’d
like to do then is go through the staff report. I’m going to try to weave in some of the questions that were
answered and then while I’m on a slide I think, instead of me trying to go back and forth on slides, if you
have questions while I’m on that slide that would be helpful. So again the subject site shown in black is,
th
there’s office land use designation that is 8 acres. Across the street on West 78 is 6 acres that’s guided
for low density, and just to clarify, I’ve been asked this question, and I’m not sure that we can get it out
definitively. When it’s designated land use of low density there is several different zoning applications
that can apply so when you look at the zoning right now it’s A2. That’s typical when there’s no
development on the site. It keeps it in a low tax area until it comes in for development. The zoning then,
21